Stupid Democratic Idea of the Day

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@Gyrate

Congratulations to Congressman Anthony Weiner for finally giving us a solid launching point for this thread.

Seriously, dude - all the previous recent sex scandals and topless photos and everything else, and you still thought tweeting a picture of your lunchbox was a good idea? I am so disappointed in you. You may have thought you’d heard all the weiner/wiener jokes before but the collected masses of the media and the internet are busily writing new ones right now.

Way to go, guy.

@An_Arky

I think that the stupid Democratic idea of the day was letting Weiner speak in public and it not being his resignation speech, and I’m a Democrat. They should have sat him down and said “listen here, moron, you resign right here right now, or we’ll run your ass through a fucking wood chipper, then post it on Twitter.”

@Little_Nemo

You’d think a guy who’s gone through life named Tony Weiner would have a better understanding of how public ridicule works.

Actually… I think he does. Think about it for a moment. If the pics are to be believed, the guy not only has a pretty big dick, but he’s also ripped. Now if I was a guy named Wiener trying to appeal to a usually non-voting demographic… Well, I couldn’t think of a better way to do it than show off that one is incredibly sexy. I’d suck that. Just sayin’.

[VinylTurnip]

So, your position is that Weiner intentionally sacrificed his existing base, gambling that he’d be swept back into office by a landslide of cock-crazed first-time voters?

[Kobal2]

Well, who else in the party can tap the cock-crazed vote ? Harry Reid ? I don’t think so.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@VinylTurnip

So, your position is that Weiner intentionally sacrificed his existing base, gambling that he’d be swept back into office by a landslide of cock-crazed first-time voters?

No, but it’s a hilarious (if moronic) idea.

But even then… Is he really losing his base?

[Maus_Magill]

@Chefguy

Nice fucking try. So the thread title should be: Hey! Let’s bring up old news and flog the dems with it? I thought this was for new and improved peccadillos.

Bricker already conceded that point.

Personally, I think the OP is okay here. While the Stupid Republican Idea thread is *supposed *to be about stupid Republican ideas, there are a lot of posts about Republicans being stupid.

I say, let’s give it to them Weiner’s wiener does count. I’ve seen short buses full of kids shaking their heads at the stupidity Weiner has shown in this entire affair.

Hopefully some posts about Stupid Policy Ideas will show up, too. I’m sure they’re out there.

[Mr.Moto]

President Obama uses badly misleading figures in his Chrysler speech.

With some of the economic indicators looking a bit dicey, President Obama traveled to Ohio last week to tout what the administration considers a good-news story: the rescue of the domestic automobile industry. In fact, he also made it the subject of his weekly radio address.

We take no view on whether the administration’s efforts on behalf of the automobile industry were a good or bad thing; that’s a matter for the editorial pages and eventually the historians. But we are interested in the facts the president cited to make his case.

What we found is one of the most misleading collections of assertions we have seen in a short presidential speech. Virtually every claim by the president regarding the auto industry needs an asterisk, just like the fine print in that too-good-to-be-true car loan.

[Evil_Captor]

Whatever you think of Wiener’s weiner, his claim that he could not say for sure whether or not the photo of the trouser snake in the shorts was of him or not was a MONUMENTAL piece of stupidity. We were left to believe he had taken so many pictures of his junk that he had kinda lost track. I was all disposed to believe Weiner as I like his rants in Congress so much, but even I had trouble with that one. WTF? The guy is normally so smart …

[heatmiserfl]

Sorry, but I think the OP’s title was wrong too even though I understand the intent to be ‘fair and balanced’

I looked at the other thread and at least on the first two pages (including the OP) and last page the topic really was Stupid Republican Ideas of the Day

OP = regulating the First Lady
GOP’s alternative budget #7
RNC poll on whether Americans like socialism #28
WWIII if Franken gets seat #53
Rationale for voting against hate crimes bill; Mathew Shepard murder a hoax #58
Want to end global warmining? Clear cut forests. #3053
GOP jobs creation picture book #3063
Sarah Palin’s brain fart on Paul Revere

Now, Sarah Palin’s brain fart is not really an idea but her short bus tour definitely is and she is considered a leading representative of the party whether people like it or not. Anyway, even if there are sexual scandals in that thread, it at least started out with stupid Republican ideas. Also, I agree with others here that Republican sex lives should be criticized more if their campaign platform includes the ‘family values’.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Mr.Moto

President Obama uses badly misleading figures in his Chrysler speech.

At first I thought somebody had finally come up with something appropriate for this thread other than the Weiner story. But then I read the blog, which is basically a bunch of nitpicking which is arguably quite misleading in itself.

For example:

The White House justifies saying that Chrysler will be in 100 percent “in private hands” because there will no longer be government ownership once Fiat completes its purchase of the U.S. stake. For the record, the United Auto Workers will own 46 percent of the company.

What the hell is this supposed to mean? Unions are private organizations, not government agencies.

“GM plans to hire back all of the workers they had to lay off during the recession.”

This is another impressive-sounding but misleading figure. In the five years since 2006, General Motors announced that it would reduce its workforce by nearly 68,000 hourly and salary workers, creating a much smaller company. Those are the figures that generated the headlines.

Obama is only talking about a sliver of workers — the 9,600 workers who were laid off in the fourth quarter of 2008. About 4,100 were sent home for a few weeks. Another 5,500 were put on indefinite leave, meaning there were no jobs at the time for them. All but 1,000 have returned to work, and the rest should be back at work by year’s end, according to GM spokesman Greg A. Martin.

Yes, that’s what he said. Would anyone have understood Obama’s statement to imply that GM was hiring workers it laid off in 2006, when we weren’t in a recession?

[bup]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

At first I thought somebody had finally come up with something appropriate for this thread other than the Weiner story. But then I read the blog, which is basically a bunch of nitpicking which is arguably quite misleading in itself.

For example:

What the hell is this supposed to mean? Unions are private organizations, not government agencies.
Yes, that’s what he said. Would anyone have understood Obama’s statement to imply that GM was hiring workers it laid off in 2006, when we weren’t in a recession?

I think the most damning thing is that he said Chrysler has paid back all of the money the government gave them, by just ignoring the money that was given to them by Bush’ administration.

**RNATB **- I think you’ve seen me around enough to know I’m a moderate liberal, so I’m not playing gotcha. Honestly, if a Republican president made such a claim, and it turned out he was ignoring money he didn’t like, would you think it was a nitpick?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Yeah, where are they pulling 2006 from? What the fuck does 2006 have to do with anything?

I assume Moto just read the headline and didn’t bother to read the actual blog. It doesn’t really back up the headline.

[Buck_Godot]

I think the key factor in this sort of thread is the outright absurdity of the situation, lack of judgement and entertainment value. Weiner definitely counts. Posting a picture of your member to your twitter account was a very dumb idea. In the same way that sending out pictures of horse porn did in the Republican thread. What doesn’t count is garden variety policy differences and scandals.

The Ryan budget: doesn’t count.
A 22 page document on the budget that contains more pictures than words: counts
Taking bribes from foreign nationals: doesn’t count
Keeping those bribes wrapped in tin foil in your freezer: counts.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@bup

I think the most damning thing is that he said Chrysler has paid back all of the money the government gave them, by just ignoring the money that was given to them by Bush’ administration.

He didn’t say that. He said:

[QUOTE=BHO]
Chrysler has repaid every dime and more of what it owes American taxpayers for their support during my presidency
[/QUOTE]

I agree with the blog writer that the “during my presidency” bit is kind of weaselly. It’s not a misleading statement, though; it’s quite literally true. Chrysler has not repaid the American taxpayers for their support during previous presidencies, but it’s repaid the second loan. The blog assumes that the two loans are being repaid simultaneously, and thus the repayments are essentially commingled. I highly doubt that, though; both loans would have separate repayment terms and be accounted separately. We’re not talking about a “put it on my tab” deal.

[bup]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

I agree with the blog writer that the “during my presidency” bit is kind of weaselly. It’s not a misleading statement, though; it’s quite literally true. Chrysler has not repaid the American taxpayers for their support during previous presidencies, but it’s repaid the second loan. The blog assumes that the two loans are being repaid simultaneously, and thus the repayments are essentially commingled. I highly doubt that, though; both loans would have separate repayment terms and be accounted separately. We’re not talking about a “put it on my tab” deal.

Wouldn’t the money on the oldest debt get paid first? Or the higher-interest debt get paid first (if Obama wanted to follow the spirit of his own credit card laws)?

I also think only counting the workers laid off during one quarter of one year as ‘the workers laid off during the recession’ is pretty deceptive.

I think the bailout was an ugly, but good, idea. I also think Obama really oversold it in his speech.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@bup

Wouldn’t the money on the oldest debt get paid first? Or the higher-interest debt get paid first (if Obama wanted to follow the spirit of his own credit card laws)?

Consumer credit laws are not really analogous to federal loans to commercial enterprises. That said, it would depend entirely on the loan terms. The Obama loan was essentially a “double down” to keep Chrysler solvent so that the Bush loan wouldn’t have to be written off. Given that, I think it’s quite probable that the second loan would be paid off first, but I’m not about to find out (and I’m not sure that information is public record anyway).

I also think only counting the workers laid off during one quarter of one year as ‘the workers laid off during the recession’ is pretty deceptive.

Those were the only workers who were laid off during the recession. I would agree that Obama’s own words are again weaselly, but they’re not misleading. They’re certainly no more misleading than suggesting that we should count back to 2006.

I think the bailout was an ugly, but good, idea. I also think Obama really oversold it in his speech.

I do think that throwing out all these qualified statements was itself a stupid idea. Touting the success of Chrysler isn’t going to win him any votes, as far as I can tell.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

The recession didn’t start in 2006. The blogger is blatantly moving the goal posts on every one of thse points.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

Awww! Only the second indicator for the thread offered, and already we have a fizzling dud! Too bad, Mr. Moto!

Here’s the fact checking of the fact checkers from the White House:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/06/07/fact-checking-fact-checker

Here’s an excerpt:

It is also true that the prior administration had invested $4 billion in the company prior to President Obama taking office. But let’s be clear: had President Obama not taken action, Chrysler would have liquidated and that money would have been gone. Instead of losing all $4 billion of those dollars, we have recovered more than 70% of them for taxpayers, in addition to all of the funds committed by President Obama.

Given those facts, it is not only factually accurate for President Obama to note the full recovery – and then some – of the funds he decided to commit to Chrysler, but it is an accurate description of the circumstance he faced and the decisions he made with respect to the company.

In muddying that fact, the author also misunderstands another, claiming that Chrysler will not “soon…be 100 percent in private hands.” For the record, the UAW, which is in fact a private entity, does not own Chrysler stock. The Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association (VEBA) which owns the stock is an independent trust, not controlled by the UAW, but by independent fiduciaries. The UAW has minority representation on the Trust governing body.

Oopsie! Swing and a miss. Not terribly unexpected, but still awkwardly embarrassing to witness.

[Clothahump]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

Awww! Only the second indicator for the thread offered, and already we have a fizzling dud! Too bad, Mr. Moto!

Here’s the fact checking of the fact checkers from the White House:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/06/07/fact-checking-fact-checker

Here’s an excerpt:

It is also true that the prior administration had invested $4 billion in the company prior to President Obama taking office. But let’s be clear: had President Obama not taken action, Chrysler would have liquidated and that money would have been gone. Instead of losing all $4 billion of those dollars, we have recovered more than 70% of them for taxpayers, in addition to all of the funds committed by President Obama.

Given those facts, it is not only factually accurate for President Obama to note the full recovery – and then some – of the funds he decided to commit to Chrysler, but it is an accurate description of the circumstance he faced and the decisions he made with respect to the company.

In muddying that fact, the author also misunderstands another, claiming that Chrysler will not “soon…be 100 percent in private hands.” For the record, the UAW, which is in fact a private entity, does not own Chrysler stock. The Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association (VEBA) which owns the stock is an independent trust, not controlled by the UAW, but by independent fiduciaries. The UAW has minority representation on the Trust governing body.

Oopsie! Swing and a miss. Not terribly unexpected, but still awkwardly embarrassing to witness.

Well, let’s not lose sight of the fact that GM has not repaid one friggin’ penny to the government. All they did was a shell game shuffle and paid off a loan from the government with TARP money from the government. And the taxpayers lost.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/02/business/02gret.html

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

Oopsie! Swing and a miss. Not terribly unexpected, but still awkwardly embarrassing to witness.

I would take issue with the administration’s rebuttal, too. It’s predicated on the assertion that Chrysler would have folded without the additional loan. That might be true, but it also might not be, and they didn’t show that it is.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

What does that have to do with the Democrats? TARP was passed by Bush.