adamsappel
Member
Why are you acting like APF then? Someone who actually believes these conservative tropes will voice them soon enough. You just wait for the climate-change signal.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
US PoliGAF 2012 | The Romney VeepStakes: Waiting for Chris Christie to Sing
- Thread starter Invisible_Insane
- Start date
- Status
Why are you acting like APF then? Someone who actually believes these conservative tropes will voice them soon enough. You just wait for the climate-change signal.
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
I wonder if this holds true for federal income taxes? I know there was a right-winger poster in this thread a month or two ago arguing about the marginal tax rate having no effect in relation to revenue/GDP or something along the lines of that.
It was a pic from http://www.freakingnews.com/ that some blog used for a story about Newt's "can't handle a Jaguar" quote. Basically it puts Newt's face on a shirtless man that's behind three shirtless women, with one of their faces replaced with what I'm guessing is his current wife (for now, at least).
I admit that the thought of Newt shirtless would give me nightmares, it kind of fits. I posted the actual image in my post (after resizing it, since the image was FREAKING HUGE when I posted it at first), but I guess it was too disturbing to force people to have to scroll through, so I made it a link (and with a warning to click at your own risk).
It doesn't matter that Newt was a adulterer (who cares really), it just matters that he was an adulterer while helping to prosecute the far right agenda about family values. Having discussions about the sanctimony of marriage versus the pure HORROR of letting homosexuals get married. When you're a hypocrite, then it matters. I think it was right the question was raised, I just wish it was raised in the appropriate way. Such as "Given your stance on the 'sanctimony of marriage' vis-à-vis gay marriage, do you think you're a good spokesman for the family values you support given your history?" Something approximating this would have been better political fodder.
I heard about this on NPR on the way into work. Microsoft (alongside a number of other Washington-based companies and organizations) are supporting the effort in the legislature to legalize gay marriage. It's a moral issue, but they also frame it in pragmatic business terms that I hadn't considered - not allowing it when some other states do places them at a competetive disadvantage when it comes to recruiting talent.
Today, Microsoft is joining other Northwest employers Concur, Group Health, Nike, RealNetworks and Vulcan Inc. in support of Washington State legislation recognizing marriage equality for same-sex couples. We believe that passing this bill would be good for our business and good for the state’s economy. I wanted to take a few moments to explain why.
At Microsoft, we pride ourselves on our products and services, our brand, and our global reach. But unquestionably, our employees are our greatest asset.
To be successful, it’s critical that we have a workforce that is as diverse as our customers. Every day, the national and global economies are becoming more diverse. The lifeblood of a business is its ability to understand and connect with its customers. We’re no exception. Now more than ever, the most effective workforce is a diverse workforce.
*snip*
As other states recognize marriage equality, Washington’s employers are at a disadvantage if we cannot offer a similar, inclusive environment to our talented employees, our top recruits and their families. Employers in the technology sector face an unprecedented national and global competition for top talent. Despite progress made in recent years with domestic partnership rights, same-sex couples in Washington still hold a different status from their neighbors. Marriage equality in Washington would put employers here on an equal footing with employers in the six other states that already recognize the committed relationships of same-sex couples – Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and Vermont. This in turn will help us continue to compete for talent.
I'm not sure what the prospects for the bill are, but I'm glad to see this, and how other states passage of such laws can put presure on other states to follow suit.At Microsoft, we pride ourselves on our products and services, our brand, and our global reach. But unquestionably, our employees are our greatest asset.
To be successful, it’s critical that we have a workforce that is as diverse as our customers. Every day, the national and global economies are becoming more diverse. The lifeblood of a business is its ability to understand and connect with its customers. We’re no exception. Now more than ever, the most effective workforce is a diverse workforce.
*snip*
As other states recognize marriage equality, Washington’s employers are at a disadvantage if we cannot offer a similar, inclusive environment to our talented employees, our top recruits and their families. Employers in the technology sector face an unprecedented national and global competition for top talent. Despite progress made in recent years with domestic partnership rights, same-sex couples in Washington still hold a different status from their neighbors. Marriage equality in Washington would put employers here on an equal footing with employers in the six other states that already recognize the committed relationships of same-sex couples – Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and Vermont. This in turn will help us continue to compete for talent.
I fully expect some outrage by some Blazers fans over that one, lulz.
From what I heard, it's a really small group (like one or two people) holding it up, so it sounds like the prospects are good.
Byakuya769
Member
He was pretty clear from the onset that he was merely explaining why other people feel that.
The Librarian
Banned
Yup. It's pretty much guaranteed he's going to win.
PhoenixDark
Banned
I had to look up who the "Blazers" were.
You're probably correct -- sports fans tend to be more conservative and more religious than the general population.
That's crazy. If Romney lets the nomination slip away from him I will be shocked. It seems like the pressure is getting to him.
A long drawn out primary process may actually benefit the potential Republican nominee. Endless more vetting, means attacks might seem 'old' when used against them in the general election. Means less surprises. Means a more complete campaign infrastructure country wide; it helped Obama too to have a drawn out process.
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
That just leaves more time to focus on the GOP's resume the past few years.
Can work against them, too. Not everyone can do it as well as Obama and Hilary did it back in 2008. Hilary went right after Obama and didn't let up, getting somewhat nasty about it. We haven't really seen that out of the GOP field. Yeah, the vetting and that is there, but there's more of the consensus of "we don't care who wins as long as it isn't that Obama guy" going on.
If the Republican wins, this painful, drawn out process will show that he earned his gritty war stripes doing the primary as you suggest; if Obama wins, it will show how the primary was the Republican's undoing, how the nominee came out of the primary bruised and battered and could never recover.
Much like in actual sports, analysts will build the narrative around whatever happens and spin it as professional insight.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
Now, I know I'm getting ahead of myself but lets assume that the Unemployment rate is below 8% by election day. That jobs are continually being added and the people feel the economy is on the right path. Whether the candidate is Mitt or Newt, I just can't see them pulling it off. The fact that PD has claimed Bams is a one term President is really all the evidence that I need to support my claim that Bams will walk easily to the victory.
Can't remember if Santorum was ousted in 06 or 08. If 08, he would've JUST made that cut.
Pretty sure he was defeated in 06, so...
PhoenixDark
Banned
It also will force Romney to spend money he would have used against Obama in the general, while Obama gets to save his millions. And more importantly a prolonged race will further drive Romney's negatives up, as he's forced to move further right well into the year.
The worst thing is that when Romney wins we'll have to hear about how this proves he's a great candidate, how he won such a "tough" primary, it's just like Obama beating Hillary, etc. None of which is true, as all this proves is that Romney can barely beat a horrible field. What would have happened if Daniels and Christie were in this field?
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
Santorum ended his political career back in 07.
Wiki says he was in office until January 3rd, 2007. So, yeah.
Three of the four leading candidates haven't held office in 5+ years.
It's 2012, baby!
Man I dunno things have got pretty nasty between them.
That's true. I do think however there is real merit in the idea that the drawn out primary process for Obama greatly improved his chances in the general, because state by state they were able to build vital infrastructure for the general election and just create an immensely superior ground game to McCain, who sat back and saw them slug it out for months. To me that's more important even than the idea that they'd be better vetted, because there's also the possibility in that vetting you might permanently associate a candidate with some negative feature (like say how they're trying to paint Romney as out-of-touch with the lower incomes, considering his recent insensitive commentary).
PhoenixDark said:
With the advent of SuperPACs, it becomes considerably easy for Romney to keep going while simultaneously wasting less of his own money.
BotoxAgent
Member
Mitt "could" become President, but right now, it's really a BAD political climate for a guy of his corporatist affluent background to have a good chance of winning. Maybe, at a different election cycle, but probably not now.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
How anyone could vote for Newt Gingrich is beyond me. The stupidity of partisan voters and the effectiveness of pathos is astounding.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
Except in sports, it's actually does make sense when a team beats an unbeaten before a championship game/series to help them refocus. Mitt and Newt are not championship tier contenders.
Opiate, you probably don't know this but the Portland Trailblazers challenged Dallas and can be argued helped them refocus greatly in the first round last season. The Patriots in their near perfect season would've been helped had they been challenged and lost in the regular season, IMO.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Whatever happened to APF
Well, its that, and the fact that the man changes positions like the wind. I've never seen a professional politician waffle as much as Mitt Romney has in this election. He just comes off as a person who will do and say anything to get elected.
I mean, I didn't like Bush, but at least I knew what Bush stood for.
I don't think that generalization is true at all, especially in regards to media outlets like ESPN. But that's a different topic not suite for this thread.
Could've fooled me after what I saw last night. Not a single person on that stage, save for King, was ready to vet Newt about his mistresses. I would've expected Santorum to bring up the fact that SC is home to many evangelicals and social conservatives, and that story coming out about him would make them question his moral values going forward. Since Santorum is known as Mr. Man On Dog, I was thinking maybe he might've been the one to bring up how the public could perceive it and for him to stop attacking the media.
Of course, King could've brought up the whole "Food Stamp President" line (not sure about the minority count in SC, so), and he didn't, so that was just two steps back after the step forward there.
Dude Abides
Banned
Supremes tossed out the federal court's Congressional district map for Texas.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71725.html
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71725.html
Invisible_Insane
Member
BotoxAgent
Member
yeah, Mitt is like Kerry x100. Kerry flopped on basically one issue, voting for the Iraq war, and the Republicans managed to blow that one singular issue into a mantra. Mitt just seems to change positions on a regular basis as naturally as breathing. And like Kerry, Mitt is already being defined as such way before the GE even started...and it will most like stick hard.
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
Well, you did say "within", and 7+5=12. Plus, you used, "+", as in more than 5 years. =\
I meant 5+ as 5 or more.
Then, in that case...ALL of them have held office at some point in that spectrum!
You should feel bad, copyright is a tool to grant a limited time monopoly to the content creator in exchange for the natural rights of humans to transmit an element of their culture. To extend these monopolies longer than what is reasonable, longer than what a culture deems justifiable is villainous. The extension of copyright should be brought to popular vote.
While not a Blazers fan per se - I don't quite get the joke.
Is that why his favorability ratings have gone down the more people talk about it?
Vulcan, Inc is Paul Allen's company. They are the parent company of all his sports franchises.
And Blazers fans are a bit... crazy, to be mild.
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
I'm too tired for your circular logic.
BotoxAgent
Member
the Rmoney train was working til about a few weeks ago
What logic?
Ah. I didn't realize there were that many Portlanders against gay marriage, but I don't really associate with Blazers fans, so perhaps they are a bit more red than the average Portlander.
- Status