I don't mean to speak for metal, but I think what he is inferring is that organizations directly related to banks such as PACs or employees are trying to influence politics by paying political candidates. You may notice from the above numbers that in the previous election cycle those organization strongly supported Obama, whereas they are now supporting Romney. Also BofA and Credit Suisse seem to like Romney more now than Obama in 2008.
Not that Obama has done anything to diminish the profit potential of large banks. They're still just as big.
Yep that's the jist of it. I found a few things interesting about the numbers. For example confirming all the military people who have given money to Ron Paul. Given RP's stance on severely limiting military occupation, that definitely says something.
For Obama, I think some of the financial companies which originally backed him, are not as happy this time around due to regulations like Dodd-Frank.
Bankers are going to back both parties. It's called investing in political influence. Any one who is trying to accomplish anything will do this at some level as it is the legal way to grease politicians hands, put in place by (wait for it...wait for it...)... dun dun dun
the politicians themselves!!!!
However, there comes a point in time where the banks will bet on the winner. What's the point of giving a bunch of money to the guy who is going to lose. There's no return on investment. Your money is gone and the guy in power sees that you backed the other guy. Hence Obama getting the majority of donations in 2008 and it looks like they are leaning towards Romney for 2012.
ok, these two things stand out for me and kind of bug me.
Mitt Romney last night said something to the effect of "I wish President Obama had succeeded" because that would be better for America or whatever. Where was he when Rush Limbaugh said "I hope he fails?" Is this a new direction for the Republican party? Is Paul Ryan on board with this? I think that if our politicians sincerely wanted what is best for the country it could go a long way in reducing the gridlock. Then again, I also think politicians who sincerely want what's best for our country are almost always democrats. I hope it wasn't just another campaign lie.
Also, between him and McCain (who I think spoke the day before), we are going to start a war with Iran, enter the Syrian conflict, expand and extend our presence in Afghanistan, and then pick a fight with Russia because that's apparently what an intelligent republican government does. How are we going to pay for that? Did we really forget what happened when we started unfunded wars after a tax cut? Is this really a good time to extend tax cuts on millionaires if we have to fund what is almost a unilateral world war? I"m pretty sure running a war is not the same as running Bain Capital.
Not much difference from BO. Same cabinet full of different banksters and corporate CEOs, same corrupt corporate controlled congress and court system, etc., etc.
Actually, the Supreme Court gave us 4 years of Bush by denying a recount, and Diebold Corporation and digital manipulation of votes (as well as a host of other things) gave us 4 more years of him.
i think this bill has been introduced 4 times, but somehow it can't get passed. there are people in congress who don't want politicians lying to the public (at least with regards to election dates and eligibility within 90 days of an election). Those people are called "democrats." there are other people who rely on lying and manipulating people, so such legislation could prove devastating to them. those people succeeding in passing voter ID laws in several states this year. they may not even need to rig voting machines or withhold resources in certain urban districts this time.
Sep 4, 12 1:18 pm ·
·
"For the record, that attitude is what gave us 8 years of George Bush."
And this attitude has resulted in what? Something like a hundred years of two party dominance and, even worse, a solid thirty years of rampant corporatism, hell bent on enslaving the world.
Where Americans continue to be hustled is that by endorsing either one of the "choices", they continue to endorse their entire corrupted, broken system.
Look, Handsom, we don't live in a parliamentary system. It isn't my attitude that produced 150 years of 2 party system, it's the US Constitution. This is what living in a democracy means. You vote for the people who will move the meter in the direction you want. It's hard, it's incremental, but it's real. Bitching and whining about corporatism and wallowing in conspiracies doesn't get you 50 votes in the senate. If you dont like that, when you've convinced half the country that a bloody revolution is a good idea, you can get back to me. Until then it's just ineffectual bullshit.
The U.S. constitution say almost nothing about how political parties or elections are organized— in fact, Article 2 clearly stated that the only way one could elect president was through representative vote; a republic in some sense that was later overturned by the Twelfth Amendment giving rise to a partial indirect democracy.
In either event, modern elections are on the verge of being unconstitutional and would be unconstitutional based on the pre-1804 constitution. There's nothing in the U.S. constitution that prohibits a parliamentary system from being enacted.
Sep 4, 12 4:53 pm ·
·
Ha ha ha, that's funny. As if a bloody revolution needs a 50% majority vote.
MIles, you're being lazy….there are tremendous differences between the Republican platform and the Democrat platform. As oe said, change is slow and incremental, but one party will push us in one direction and the other party in a very different one. I'm sure you can find it in yourself (assuming you're an American citizen) to pick which direction you like least and vote against it.
If you don't, you're being more than lazy, you're also being a jerk.
JJR, we have a directly elected head executive. That kind of precludes a parliamentary system. If you mean we could amend the constitution to get rid of presidential elections, then yes, that's possible. We could also amend the constitution to elect our head of state by cockroach race. Both are about equivalently likely.
The two party system is largely a product of our winner take all elections. Unlike systems with proportional representation, in the US the winner of say a local congressional district wins everything and the losing parties win essentially nothing. The same is true in presidential elections. Over time this squeezes out smaller parties, who left out in the cold are forced to either gather together to form a strong opposition capable of defeating the previous winner or slowly wane from relevance and eventually existence. I agree it's an annoyance, but again, barring a constitutional amendment about as likely as Cthulhu waking up, it's simply a reality we all have to deal with.
And Handsum. The trouble with your glorious revolution is that no one agrees with you. What are your grand plans? Blow up buildings? or bang on drums and dance around with paper mache puppets? In case 1 you will be arrested and in case 2 no one will give a fuck. Revolution over. In the mean time the grown ups will be trying to actually do something.
Well, I actually think thats too strong. There's definitely that strain in the minority, but the larger party does not feel that way, and more, knows playing at that publicly is political suicide. They're obviously way, way behind on the issues, but there are people like Jeb Bush who are trying to move the party into the 21st century, and I still applaud those efforts. I'm frankly less concerned with genuine racists who happen to vote republican than I am the insidious efforts to purge voter rolls and institute voter ID laws clearly intended to make it more difficult for democrats to vote, and the subtly race driven, (and obviously fabricated) attacks on Obama over welfare reform. Some people grow up in weird circumstances and feel the way they do about people who dont look like them. It's sad, but it's a free country and if people want to be colossally ignorant fuckheads, thats the way it is. Much worse to me are people who cynically manipulate people's worst instincts for political gain.
OE is totally right... while there are those out there drawn to policy which reinforce their xenophobia and fear, the inevitable demographic shift from a majority white country to a majority minority country will eventually render them relics of a by gone era. My hope is this crazy Tea Party stuff is a 'dead cat bounce' of sorts. A reactionary movement pushing against inevitable shifts in the way our country looks and operates...
Props to Elizabeth Warren! She is great! She would make a great president in 2016. She has the balls to speak the truth, and the heart to do right by people.
The only thing about the DNC that is really annoying me is the unemployment numbers and job numbers they keep throwing out there. 4.5 million jobs yaaay. Big mistake on their part. It will alienate people big time. Just admit how bad it is and present a plan to fix it rather than trying to sugar coat the issue with cherry picked statistics.
Romney is really the worst candidate I can think of. He is a fucking liar and a greedy slim ball. The Dems may not be perfect, but at least I know that they have good intentions. Just look at how passionate and genuine Warren, Michelle, Clinton all came across. They really believe in what they are doing. The GOP has a hidden agenda with ever thing they stand for. They are snake oil salesman. That agenda is usually all about making their buddies richer and the rest of us poorer.
Sep 6, 12 11:39 am ·
·
Wait a second, other than my crack at your inane comment above, when have I ever mentioned revolutions?
jla, the dems don't have much to stand on. the 4.5 million jobs is their way of addressing team romney's comments about "are you better off now compared to 4 years ago." they don't want to let any remaining undecided voters think about that too much. obama's policy position moving forward is going to be the same as it's been for the past couple of years. it's hard to say that 'more of the same' is going to improve our position when people want change, but realistically change is slow. of course obama's administration has been unable to do much due to the toxic environment of congress. so the choice for their campaign is:
a) blame congress and say the other guys are a worse choice, or
b) tell people that the current course is the right course. things are improving, just not very fast. if we keep working towards the goals we've already set things will get better.
choice a) is too negative. the dems will probably not be able to attract as many moderates or undecided voters if they focus on more partisan bickering and fighting. i think most people know that's the kind of crap that has prevented most reasonable legislation that could help the recovery along, and the candidate that looks a little more likely to get past that crap is more likely to attract those voters.
once they get that 'are you better off' question behind them, they will be able to focus on pushing team romney to answer 'how do you think bush era policy will fix the problems those policies created?' that's not a negative direction, it's just taking the offense and asking them to defend and possibly define their positions.
I agree. I just feel a little left out and I think others who have endured a horrible job market and unemployment/underemployment will as well. I know that it is not Obamas fault, and that he did help ease the problem. I know the facts and logic of it all on a mental level, but emotionally this kind of sugarcoating makes people feel forgotten, especially emotionally wrecked people like myself (which I would guess is everyone who has recently graduated or got layed off). But yeah you are right option b is a more logical move politically.
Handsum, Im saying if you dont like the two party system, at this point your only option is a revolution, because the two party system is a direct consequence of the constitution. Barring that, your options are to either vote for the people who represent your views best, even if they dont represent them completely, or spend your time whining and accomplishing exactly nothing.
Liz Warren is pretty great, but I actually think her speech was a little flat. She's behind in Massachusetts, which for a democrat is really bad, and she needed a huge boost out of this convention. Just having her there was good, and I think she did ok. Maybe it's unfair, but its real, where she faltered was on style and tone. Rather than resolute, she seemed incredulous, which just isn't the mood that best matches her work.
Dont get me wrong, I love her and will probably even be campaigning for her, but she really needed more.
On the 4.5 million jobs, obviously its a best-face statistic, but its not outrageous. It starts counting around the time Obama's policies actually took effect, which seems a reasonable time at which the responsibility became his. Even given that the number isn't huge. We're barely more than half way out of the hole republicans left us with, but given just how severe the economic collapse was, and all the continuing trouble in europe and elsewhere, it's actually still an impressive achievement. So yeah, I largely agree with Curtkram, obviously a bigger number would basically ensure his reelection, but it's the best foot to put forward they have.
Most Americans are impatient and come election day - sad to say, they will most likely react w/o thinking the whole thing through and go for Romney - and we will just go back down the tubes again - only this time it will be worse - everyone for themselves
Xenakis, unfortunatly I think you may be right. That is going to be compounded by the low youth voter turn out. I can't imagine in a million years that the same amount of young people will show up as they did in 08. It's not as exciting and historic the second time around and young people lose interest quickly. Not to mention that 50% of young people are either unemployed or underemployed....Their minds are elsewhere.
I think that there are many untapped markets out there. I don't think architecture is dead, but architecture as we know it is.
To tap these new markets we need to change the architect-client business model.
The 99% don't buy services they buy products.
We need to get out of the custom hot-rod business and start making toyota's....(well built affordable products)
We will make more money and have more power!
The business model needs to change and we need to broaden our market by becoming the developers, manufacturers, etc. We need to be the entrapenuers of our own ideas. We need to take over lost markets like suburban housing. There are developers (as I write) breaking ground on a new crap sub-division of 500 houses just down the street from me.
We need to become better anthropologists and sociologists and find out what people want and need.
And of course.....
We need Money to invest and fund projects! Without money we are at the mercy of the client.
If we take control over the money we may really see a sort of architectural revolution where we can start offering things that are just imposible to build with the traditional business model. Good design may become the norm rather than the exception.
We also need to push technology. Technology like robotics is going to be a big industry in the coming years. We need to apply it to building and pioneer the technology so that we can offer great design at a good price.
Then we need to warn the construction workers to train for new jobs or face long term unemployment - they need to take responsibility for their future or displacement - just like in the auto industry
What if Romney + Ryan win?
I don't mean to speak for metal, but I think what he is inferring is that organizations directly related to banks such as PACs or employees are trying to influence politics by paying political candidates. You may notice from the above numbers that in the previous election cycle those organization strongly supported Obama, whereas they are now supporting Romney. Also BofA and Credit Suisse seem to like Romney more now than Obama in 2008.
Not that Obama has done anything to diminish the profit potential of large banks. They're still just as big.
Yep that's the jist of it. I found a few things interesting about the numbers. For example confirming all the military people who have given money to Ron Paul. Given RP's stance on severely limiting military occupation, that definitely says something.
For Obama, I think some of the financial companies which originally backed him, are not as happy this time around due to regulations like Dodd-Frank.
Bankers are going to back both parties. It's called investing in political influence. Any one who is trying to accomplish anything will do this at some level as it is the legal way to grease politicians hands, put in place by (wait for it...wait for it...)... dun dun dun
the politicians themselves!!!!
However, there comes a point in time where the banks will bet on the winner. What's the point of giving a bunch of money to the guy who is going to lose. There's no return on investment. Your money is gone and the guy in power sees that you backed the other guy. Hence Obama getting the majority of donations in 2008 and it looks like they are leaning towards Romney for 2012.
ok, these two things stand out for me and kind of bug me.
Mitt Romney last night said something to the effect of "I wish President Obama had succeeded" because that would be better for America or whatever. Where was he when Rush Limbaugh said "I hope he fails?" Is this a new direction for the Republican party? Is Paul Ryan on board with this? I think that if our politicians sincerely wanted what is best for the country it could go a long way in reducing the gridlock. Then again, I also think politicians who sincerely want what's best for our country are almost always democrats. I hope it wasn't just another campaign lie.
Also, between him and McCain (who I think spoke the day before), we are going to start a war with Iran, enter the Syrian conflict, expand and extend our presence in Afghanistan, and then pick a fight with Russia because that's apparently what an intelligent republican government does. How are we going to pay for that? Did we really forget what happened when we started unfunded wars after a tax cut? Is this really a good time to extend tax cuts on millionaires if we have to fund what is almost a unilateral world war? I"m pretty sure running a war is not the same as running Bain Capital.
"I hope it wasn't just another campaign lie."
Haha!
Eastwooding, it's all the rave.
What if Romney + Ryan win?
Not much difference from BO. Same cabinet full of different banksters and corporate CEOs, same corrupt corporate controlled congress and court system, etc., etc.
For the record, that attitude is what gave us 8 years of George Bush.
Actually, the Supreme Court gave us 4 years of Bush by denying a recount, and Diebold Corporation and digital manipulation of votes (as well as a host of other things) gave us 4 more years of him.
i think this bill has been introduced 4 times, but somehow it can't get passed. there are people in congress who don't want politicians lying to the public (at least with regards to election dates and eligibility within 90 days of an election). Those people are called "democrats." there are other people who rely on lying and manipulating people, so such legislation could prove devastating to them. those people succeeding in passing voter ID laws in several states this year. they may not even need to rig voting machines or withhold resources in certain urban districts this time.
"For the record, that attitude is what gave us 8 years of George Bush."
And this attitude has resulted in what? Something like a hundred years of two party dominance and, even worse, a solid thirty years of rampant corporatism, hell bent on enslaving the world.
Where Americans continue to be hustled is that by endorsing either one of the "choices", they continue to endorse their entire corrupted, broken system.
Yo!
Look, Handsom, we don't live in a parliamentary system. It isn't my attitude that produced 150 years of 2 party system, it's the US Constitution. This is what living in a democracy means. You vote for the people who will move the meter in the direction you want. It's hard, it's incremental, but it's real. Bitching and whining about corporatism and wallowing in conspiracies doesn't get you 50 votes in the senate. If you dont like that, when you've convinced half the country that a bloody revolution is a good idea, you can get back to me. Until then it's just ineffectual bullshit.
The U.S. constitution say almost nothing about how political parties or elections are organized— in fact, Article 2 clearly stated that the only way one could elect president was through representative vote; a republic in some sense that was later overturned by the Twelfth Amendment giving rise to a partial indirect democracy.
In either event, modern elections are on the verge of being unconstitutional and would be unconstitutional based on the pre-1804 constitution. There's nothing in the U.S. constitution that prohibits a parliamentary system from being enacted.
Ha ha ha, that's funny. As if a bloody revolution needs a 50% majority vote.
Laughing-out-loud, yo!
MIles, you're being lazy….there are tremendous differences between the Republican platform and the Democrat platform. As oe said, change is slow and incremental, but one party will push us in one direction and the other party in a very different one. I'm sure you can find it in yourself (assuming you're an American citizen) to pick which direction you like least and vote against it.
If you don't, you're being more than lazy, you're also being a jerk.
JJR, we have a directly elected head executive. That kind of precludes a parliamentary system. If you mean we could amend the constitution to get rid of presidential elections, then yes, that's possible. We could also amend the constitution to elect our head of state by cockroach race. Both are about equivalently likely.
The two party system is largely a product of our winner take all elections. Unlike systems with proportional representation, in the US the winner of say a local congressional district wins everything and the losing parties win essentially nothing. The same is true in presidential elections. Over time this squeezes out smaller parties, who left out in the cold are forced to either gather together to form a strong opposition capable of defeating the previous winner or slowly wane from relevance and eventually existence. I agree it's an annoyance, but again, barring a constitutional amendment about as likely as Cthulhu waking up, it's simply a reality we all have to deal with.
And Handsum. The trouble with your glorious revolution is that no one agrees with you. What are your grand plans? Blow up buildings? or bang on drums and dance around with paper mache puppets? In case 1 you will be arrested and in case 2 no one will give a fuck. Revolution over. In the mean time the grown ups will be trying to actually do something.
Handsumcash, maybe you can be a survivalist
Only a goddamn idiot would vote for Romney+Ryan.
Just saying - no offense to any of you.
One party is a bigoted and racist bunch and the other is not. It's easy to know where my vote is going.
Well, I actually think thats too strong. There's definitely that strain in the minority, but the larger party does not feel that way, and more, knows playing at that publicly is political suicide. They're obviously way, way behind on the issues, but there are people like Jeb Bush who are trying to move the party into the 21st century, and I still applaud those efforts. I'm frankly less concerned with genuine racists who happen to vote republican than I am the insidious efforts to purge voter rolls and institute voter ID laws clearly intended to make it more difficult for democrats to vote, and the subtly race driven, (and obviously fabricated) attacks on Obama over welfare reform. Some people grow up in weird circumstances and feel the way they do about people who dont look like them. It's sad, but it's a free country and if people want to be colossally ignorant fuckheads, thats the way it is. Much worse to me are people who cynically manipulate people's worst instincts for political gain.
OE is totally right... while there are those out there drawn to policy which reinforce their xenophobia and fear, the inevitable demographic shift from a majority white country to a majority minority country will eventually render them relics of a by gone era. My hope is this crazy Tea Party stuff is a 'dead cat bounce' of sorts. A reactionary movement pushing against inevitable shifts in the way our country looks and operates...
Props to Elizabeth Warren! She is great! She would make a great president in 2016. She has the balls to speak the truth, and the heart to do right by people.
The only thing about the DNC that is really annoying me is the unemployment numbers and job numbers they keep throwing out there. 4.5 million jobs yaaay. Big mistake on their part. It will alienate people big time. Just admit how bad it is and present a plan to fix it rather than trying to sugar coat the issue with cherry picked statistics.
Romney is really the worst candidate I can think of. He is a fucking liar and a greedy slim ball. The Dems may not be perfect, but at least I know that they have good intentions. Just look at how passionate and genuine Warren, Michelle, Clinton all came across. They really believe in what they are doing. The GOP has a hidden agenda with ever thing they stand for. They are snake oil salesman. That agenda is usually all about making their buddies richer and the rest of us poorer.
Wait a second, other than my crack at your inane comment above, when have I ever mentioned revolutions?
Yo!
jla, the dems don't have much to stand on. the 4.5 million jobs is their way of addressing team romney's comments about "are you better off now compared to 4 years ago." they don't want to let any remaining undecided voters think about that too much. obama's policy position moving forward is going to be the same as it's been for the past couple of years. it's hard to say that 'more of the same' is going to improve our position when people want change, but realistically change is slow. of course obama's administration has been unable to do much due to the toxic environment of congress. so the choice for their campaign is:
a) blame congress and say the other guys are a worse choice, or
b) tell people that the current course is the right course. things are improving, just not very fast. if we keep working towards the goals we've already set things will get better.
choice a) is too negative. the dems will probably not be able to attract as many moderates or undecided voters if they focus on more partisan bickering and fighting. i think most people know that's the kind of crap that has prevented most reasonable legislation that could help the recovery along, and the candidate that looks a little more likely to get past that crap is more likely to attract those voters.
once they get that 'are you better off' question behind them, they will be able to focus on pushing team romney to answer 'how do you think bush era policy will fix the problems those policies created?' that's not a negative direction, it's just taking the offense and asking them to defend and possibly define their positions.
I agree. I just feel a little left out and I think others who have endured a horrible job market and unemployment/underemployment will as well. I know that it is not Obamas fault, and that he did help ease the problem. I know the facts and logic of it all on a mental level, but emotionally this kind of sugarcoating makes people feel forgotten, especially emotionally wrecked people like myself (which I would guess is everyone who has recently graduated or got layed off). But yeah you are right option b is a more logical move politically.
Handsum, Im saying if you dont like the two party system, at this point your only option is a revolution, because the two party system is a direct consequence of the constitution. Barring that, your options are to either vote for the people who represent your views best, even if they dont represent them completely, or spend your time whining and accomplishing exactly nothing.
Liz Warren is pretty great, but I actually think her speech was a little flat. She's behind in Massachusetts, which for a democrat is really bad, and she needed a huge boost out of this convention. Just having her there was good, and I think she did ok. Maybe it's unfair, but its real, where she faltered was on style and tone. Rather than resolute, she seemed incredulous, which just isn't the mood that best matches her work.
Dont get me wrong, I love her and will probably even be campaigning for her, but she really needed more.
On the 4.5 million jobs, obviously its a best-face statistic, but its not outrageous. It starts counting around the time Obama's policies actually took effect, which seems a reasonable time at which the responsibility became his. Even given that the number isn't huge. We're barely more than half way out of the hole republicans left us with, but given just how severe the economic collapse was, and all the continuing trouble in europe and elsewhere, it's actually still an impressive achievement. So yeah, I largely agree with Curtkram, obviously a bigger number would basically ensure his reelection, but it's the best foot to put forward they have.
Most Americans are impatient and come election day - sad to say, they will most likely react w/o thinking the whole thing through and go for Romney - and we will just go back down the tubes again - only this time it will be worse - everyone for themselves
Xenakis, unfortunatly I think you may be right. That is going to be compounded by the low youth voter turn out. I can't imagine in a million years that the same amount of young people will show up as they did in 08. It's not as exciting and historic the second time around and young people lose interest quickly. Not to mention that 50% of young people are either unemployed or underemployed....Their minds are elsewhere.
That being said - then what should we in architecture do?
some of us may need to consider other careers
some may need to step up their game just to stay in the game
what else?
I think that there are many untapped markets out there. I don't think architecture is dead, but architecture as we know it is.
To tap these new markets we need to change the architect-client business model.
The 99% don't buy services they buy products.
We need to get out of the custom hot-rod business and start making toyota's....(well built affordable products)
We will make more money and have more power!
The business model needs to change and we need to broaden our market by becoming the developers, manufacturers, etc. We need to be the entrapenuers of our own ideas. We need to take over lost markets like suburban housing. There are developers (as I write) breaking ground on a new crap sub-division of 500 houses just down the street from me.
We need to become better anthropologists and sociologists and find out what people want and need.
And of course.....
We need Money to invest and fund projects! Without money we are at the mercy of the client.
here's one possibility along these lines
http://www.projectfrog.com/
very cool! thanks for sharing that!
If we take control over the money we may really see a sort of architectural revolution where we can start offering things that are just imposible to build with the traditional business model. Good design may become the norm rather than the exception.
We also need to push technology. Technology like robotics is going to be a big industry in the coming years. We need to apply it to building and pioneer the technology so that we can offer great design at a good price.
Then we need to warn the construction workers to train for new jobs or face long term unemployment - they need to take responsibility for their future or displacement - just like in the auto industry
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-september-6-2012/hope-and-change-2---barack-obama--it-could-have-been-worse
Architecture is alive! but, those doing it, do not have time to spend on forum boards...I better get busy now, I am the boss.....!
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.