Support NeoGAF

[cartoon_soldier]

Great. Let's talk about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2w7iXazNso&feature=player_embedded

Nobody is denying that Mitt Romney has been a successful businessman. As a part of his Bain years though, he has also profited from Companies that were driven into bankruptcy by Bain. Romney isn't talking about that part and that is all Obama is doing.

Every thing done at Bain is from the calculation of, can we make a profit out of it. That is not how a government is run or should be run.

 

[AlteredBeast]

Nah ... if you go back and read the demographic breakout, Perot drew about equally from all voters.

Clinton, much like Obama, won in similar manners. Huge youth turnout, overwhelming minority support and a convincing gender gap. Bush had a dispirited base and was going to lose no matter what.


http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_92.html

I was in no way implying the debate issues caused the election results, but for people who already dislike or are unsure of Romney, physical signs of anger and being upset would make the already existing disconnect grow even more.

yeah, not sure why this keeps getting repeated, but its not true.

Nope

LOL. Yeah...my bad. I was studying demographics so much, i assumed that since white people voted 20% for Perot, well above what blacks and hispanics did, that it would have tipped the scales. The political leaning demographic results showed it evenly split down the middle. My apologies!

 

[Tim-E]

Yeah that is why I said the argument only devolves into a political direction. Romney doesn't have to empathize with the middle class anyway. It just helps to get elected. He does have to deliver results. All politicians do. And to say his time at Bain gave him no experience in understanding markets and the forces in play there is ludicrous. Romney did his job at Bain and did it well. He insured his shareholders got a decent return for their money. Others lost out for that to happen. Competition is a bitch today in the global economy. I feel sorry for the workers, but nothing is forever.

Where did I say this?

 

[AsylumBlue]

Ron Paul didn't drop out; he's just not going to be spending money he doesn't have on the beauty contests in the remaining states. He's still going after delegates (all of which will be unbound in Tampa) to win the presidency. Leave it to the media to spin his email five minutes after it's posted, and completely ignore his delegate sweep in Oklahoma as well as his win in Arizona over the weekend.

 

[Black Mamba]

Ron Paul didn't drop out; he's just not going to be spending money he doesn't have on the beauty contests in the remaining states. He's still going after delegates (all of which will be unbound in Tampa) to win the presidency. Leave it to the media to spin his email five minutes after it's posted, and completely ignore his delegate sweep in Oklahoma as well as his win in Arizona over the weekend.

delegate sweep of Oklahoma when Romney is about to lock into the nomination is like winning the NIT in NCAAB.

 

[Tim-E]

Ron Paul didn't drop out; he's just not going to be spending money he doesn't have on the beauty contests in the remaining states. He's still going after delegates (all of which will be unbound in Tampa) to win the presidency. Leave it to the media to spin his email five minutes after it's posted, and completely ignore his delegate sweep in Oklahoma as well as his win in Arizona over the weekend.

Ron Paul is not going to be the republican nominee. Please do yourself a favor and start thinking this now so you don't have an emotional breakdown during the convention.

 

[Dr. Pangloss]

I think the critique is that Bain did this to more than just failing business, especially as the 90s went on.

I'm sure there were some companies that were needlessly taken over and squeezed for profit. Was that fair? Probably not. Wrong? Not necessarily so. Whatever caused the company to be considered to be taken over was due to an insubstantial business model making it uncompetitive. It would eventually close down later. Bain just sped up the inevitable results.

Well, considering plenty of immoral acts can be conducted through unregulated capitalism, I'm going to have to disagree with you.

Firing employees and closing a company is not morally wrong. I'm sure you can dig up some extreme example if you want to, but please don't bother.

 

[Al-ibn Kermit]

All Obama needs to ask Willard is "Mittens, how are your economic policies different than George W Bush's?" because we all know that no moderator has journalistic integrity to ask that question.

Well he opposed the auto bailouts didn't he?

 

[KtSlime]

Ron Paul didn't drop out; he's just not going to be spending money he doesn't have on the beauty contests in the remaining states. He's still going after delegates (all of which will be unbound in Tampa) to win the presidency. Leave it to the media to spin his email five minutes after it's posted, and completely ignore his delegate sweep in Oklahoma as well as his win in Arizona over the weekend.

Isn't deciding to stop spending money on a lost cause pretty much the same as dropping out?

That'd be like being in a marathon, being one of the last runners, telling everyone that you still plan on winning, but you are going to go down to the pub and have a few beers before you get back on the course and win it in the end.

He's done, and he knows it.

 

[AsylumBlue]

delegate sweep of Oklahoma when Romney is about to lock into the nomination is like winning the NIT in NCAAB.

Lock what? Read rule 38. This isn't over until all is said and done in Tampa.

Ron Paul is not going to be the republican nominee. Please do yourself a favor and start thinking this now so you don't have an emotional breakdown during the convention.

I'm very well aware that it's a bit of a long-shot. But I appreciate your concern.

Isn't deciding to stop spending money on a lost cause pretty much the same as dropping out?

That'd be like being in a marathon, being one of the last runners, telling everyone that you still plan on winning, but you are going to go down to the pub and have a few beers before you get back on the course and win it in the end.

He's done, and he knows it.

Read his email. He clearly states that he's going to continue his delegate strategy all the way to Tampa. Supporters are still doing money-bombs as well to help with spending at conventions to win delegates, and possibly lawyers. It's just pointless to spend money on the beauty contests which the media's ignoring him on anyway.

 

[RustyNails]

Why would he campaign anymore when he already has all of the delegates.

Too good.

 

[Tim-E]

lol It's going to be adorable watching these Paulites have a breakdown when the convention is over and Sir Dr. Paul Esq., MD/JD/MBA/MSW/BA isn't the nominee.

 

[Dr. Pangloss]

Where did I say this?

Sorry. You did not say that explicitly. I guess your argument is that his time at Bain does not provide the right experience in running a government. I would say that the two jobs have different priorities, but the knowledge to do both definitely overlaps.

 

[Tamanon]

Lock what? Read rule 38. This isn't over until all is said and done in Tampa.



I'm very well aware that it's a bit of a long-shot. But I appreciate your concern.



Read his email. He clearly states that he's going to continue his delegate strategy all the way to Tampa. Supporters are still doing money-bombs as well to help with spending at conventions to win delegates, and possibly lawyers. It's just pointless to spend money on the beauty contests which the media's ignoring him on anyway.

Also, because he keeps losing those "beauty contests" called elections.

 

[Tim-E]

Sorry. You did not say that explicitly. I guess your argument is that his time at Bain does not provide the right experience in running a government. I would say that the two jobs have different priorities, but the knowledge to do both definitely overlaps.

It certainly does. I do agree that it absolutely provides insight into how an economy works, I just don't feel that the government should or could be operated in the same fashion that a for profit company would be.

 

[Black Mamba]

Lock what? Read rule 38. This isn't over until all is said and done in Tampa.



I'm very well aware that it's a bit of a long-shot. But I appreciate your concern.



Read his email. He clearly states that he's going to continue his delegate strategy all the way to Tampa. Supporters are still doing money-bombs as well to help with spending at conventions to win delegates, and possibly lawyers. It's just pointless to spend money on the beauty contests which the media's ignoring him on anyway.

It's best to just accept his fate. And I say this as someone who would love ron paul to win only to see his ideology completely rejected at the national level.

 

[AsylumBlue]

Also, because he keeps losing those "beauty contests" called elections.

Yet he's winning a bunch of the conventions and all delegates will be unbound in Tampa.

It's best to just accept his fate. And I say this as someone who would love ron paul to win only to see his ideology completely rejected at the national level.

I understand your point of view, but his followers aren't defeatists (clearly, even comical). If there's even the slightest chance that he can pull an upset, they're going to keep pushing. If the bid for the presidency fails, they can still influence the platform.

 

[AlteredBeast]

Yet he's winning a bunch of the conventions and all delegates will be unbound in Tampa.

He is only winning delegates that are unbound. Romney is winning every other single pledged and bound delegate from here on out.

 

[Tim-E]

He is only winning delegates that are unbound. Romney is winning every other single pledged and bound delegate from here on out.

That's just what the fatcat media feeds you, man. I saw an article on infowars that told me Paul already had all the delegates, so your argument is invalid.

 

[Black Mamba]

Yet he's winning a bunch of the conventions and all delegates will be unbound in Tampa.



I understand your point of view, but his followers aren't defeatists (clearly, even comical). If there's even the slightest chance that he can pull an upset, they're going to keep pushing. If the bid for the presidency fails, they can still affect the platform.

If Ron Paul supporters would simply focus on this part, they probably wouldn't be laughed at as much. Arguing "ron paul keeps picking up delegates proving his support base will have some affect on the GOP platform" rather than "he can still win duuuuuuudes," it would be different.

 

[AsylumBlue]

He is only winning delegates that are unbound. Romney is winning every other single pledged and bound delegate from here on out.

Romney's delegates will be unbound as well. Look up Republican National Committee Rule Number 38.

If Ron Paul supporters would simply focus on this part, they probably wouldn't be laughed at as much. Arguing "ron paul keeps picking up delegates proving his support base will have some affect on the GOP platform" rather than "he can still win duuuuuuudes," it would be different.

I agree.

 

[Dr. Pangloss]

It certainly does. I do agree that it absolutely provides insight into how an economy works, I just don't feel that the government should or could be operated in the same fashion that a for profit company would be.

And the government isn't. The government doesn't operate any industries except education at the state level and the military. The rest is just regulators and statisticians. Everything else is outsourced. Only thing he can change is regulations and subsidies (the last with Congressional help). Not like he is going to go buy private companies and flip them for a profit.

 

[Black Mamba]

edit: see below

 

[Tamanon]

Romney's delegates will be unbound as well. Look up Republican National Committee Rule Number 38.



I agree.

I think you need to read rule number 38. Doesn't say anything about being unbound.

 

[Black Mamba]

Romney's delegates will be unbound as well. Look up Republican National Committee Rule Number 38.

Rule 38 says a state cannot force all delegates to vote for Romney if a majority of delegates support Romney.

it does not say they are unbound. They can be bounded based on primary vote or caucus vote.

For example, if the primary says each district gets two delegates based on district winner and that district votes romney, those 2 will vote romney. What the state cannot do is say Paul won the most state delegates so those 2 now have to vote Paul.

At least, that's how I understood it.

 

[AsylumBlue]

edit: see below

"...Rather, we explain that the RNC rules’ provision on the unit rule make it clear that delegates aren’t bound to vote according to how most delegates from their state are voting. In fact, delegates can vote according to their own judgment and conscience, and that this is most likely to take place in a state where a state party’s winner-take-all rule has allowed a candidate to win all delegates primarily due to a split in the majority vote, or due to votes cast by non-Republican voters participating in the contest.

To explain our case, we look to the language of Rule 38, which was adopted in its current form in 1964. The rule states: “no delegate shall be bound by any attempt of any state or Congressional district to impose the unit rule.” The unit rule does not prohibit a state from using a winner-take-all primary in the same way that Rule 15(b) prohibits most states from using a winner-take-all primary when holding a contest earlier than April 1st. However, the unit rule does prohibit binding delegates to vote according to how a majority of delegates from their state vote – again, a scenario most likely to occur in a state using the winner-take-all rule.

As set out in the Rules of the Republican Party, delegates have the ability to vote according to the delegates’ preference, even if that is contrary to the outcome of each state’s primary. According to one source, the legal counsel for the Republican National Convention in 2008 stated: “[The] RNC does not recognize a state’s binding of national delegates, but considers each delegate a free agent who can vote for whoever they choose.” Thus, if a delegate were to challenge his or her ability to vote as a free agent, he or she would have grounds under Rule 38."

http://www.fairvote.org/response-to...-party-rules-may-surprise-in-201#.T7FnwawmSHt

Edit: Also - http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=anWsU93fFsk

 

[Black Mamba]

Rather, we explain that the RNC rules’ provision on the unit rule make it clear that delegates aren’t bound to vote according to how most delegates from their state are voting. In fact, delegates can vote according to their own judgment and conscience, and that this is most likely to take place in a state where a state party’s winner-take-all rule has allowed a candidate to win all delegates primarily due to a split in the majority vote, or due to votes cast by non-Republican voters participating in the contest.

To explain our case, we look to the language of Rule 38, which was adopted in its current form in 1964. The rule states: “no delegate shall be bound by any attempt of any state or Congressional district to impose the unit rule.” The unit rule does not prohibit a state from using a winner-take-all primary in the same way that Rule 15(b) prohibits most states from using a winner-take-all primary when holding a contest earlier than April 1st. However, the unit rule does prohibit binding delegates to vote according to how a majority of delegates from their state vote – again, a scenario most likely to occur in a state using the winner-take-all rule.

As set out in the Rules of the Republican Party, delegates have the ability to vote according to the delegates’ preference, even if that is contrary to the outcome of each state’s primary. According to one source, the legal counsel for the Republican National Convention in 2008 stated: “[The] RNC does not recognize a state’s binding of national delegates, but considers each delegate a free agent who can vote for whoever they choose.” Thus, if a delegate were to challenge his or her ability to vote as a free agent, he or she would have grounds under Rule 38.

http://www.fairvote.org/response-to...-party-rules-may-surprise-in-201#.T7FnwawmSHt

Edit: Also - http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=anWsU93fFsk

I think their reading is wrong. My previous post is how, legally, I think it would be interpreted by a court/committee.

Not that it will matter as Romney picked those delegates and they won't change their minds.

 

[Tamanon]

"...Rather, we explain that the RNC rules’ provision on the unit rule make it clear that delegates aren’t bound to vote according to how most delegates from their state are voting. In fact, delegates can vote according to their own judgment and conscience, and that this is most likely to take place in a state where a state party’s winner-take-all rule has allowed a candidate to win all delegates primarily due to a split in the majority vote, or due to votes cast by non-Republican voters participating in the contest.

To explain our case, we look to the language of Rule 38, which was adopted in its current form in 1964. The rule states: “no delegate shall be bound by any attempt of any state or Congressional district to impose the unit rule.” The unit rule does not prohibit a state from using a winner-take-all primary in the same way that Rule 15(b) prohibits most states from using a winner-take-all primary when holding a contest earlier than April 1st. However, the unit rule does prohibit binding delegates to vote according to how a majority of delegates from their state vote – again, a scenario most likely to occur in a state using the winner-take-all rule.

As set out in the Rules of the Republican Party, delegates have the ability to vote according to the delegates’ preference, even if that is contrary to the outcome of each state’s primary. According to one source, the legal counsel for the Republican National Convention in 2008 stated: “[The] RNC does not recognize a state’s binding of national delegates, but considers each delegate a free agent who can vote for whoever they choose.” Thus, if a delegate were to challenge his or her ability to vote as a free agent, he or she would have grounds under Rule 38."

http://www.fairvote.org/response-to...-party-rules-may-surprise-in-201#.T7FnwawmSHt

Edit: Also - http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=anWsU93fFsk

So you're saying you support a personal interpretation of a document? Hmm....

 

[AsylumBlue]

I think their reading is wrong. My previous post is how, legally, I think it would be interpreted by a court/committee.

Not that it will matter as Romney picked those delegates and they won't change their minds.

I guess we'll find out for sure in Tampa. I think the whole "stealth delegates" thing is comical with the way it's used by most Paulites, but in this scenario, it would make things very interesting.

So you're saying you support a personal interpretation of a document? Hmm....

This isn't The Bible; the rule is very clear.

 

[Tim-E]

Paul is not going to win the nomination, but I do hope the Paulites in attendance at the convention cause some sort fuss for entertainment value alone.

 

[thefro]

I don't think there'a anything that a court can do legally that would be binding on the convention. I'm not sure how the rules are structured to where the Paulites could take control of the convention before a rules committee would rule, etc.

 

[jamesinclair]

Paul is not going to win the nomination, but I do hope the Paulites in attendance at the convention cause some sort fuss for entertainment value alone.

Why hasnt poligaf been keeping me informed of the lols?

Chaos erupted at the Oklahoma GOP convention on Saturday when supporters of Ron Paul and Mitt Romney came to blows, necessitating the intervention of the police.

...

What happened in Oklahoma made the brouhaha at the Arizona convention also held this weekend look tame, even though Mitt Romney’s son Josh was booed off the stage by Paul enthusiasts. Outside the convention hall at Grand Canyon University, Paul supporters could be heard chanting, “Romney is the white Obama.”

...

Not even speakers former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty or Oklahoma’s own Governor Mary Fallin could quell the crowd, getting heckled for their efforts instead.

...

In another incident, two women got into a hitting match over the vote. A video from Oklahoma City NBC affiliate KFOR showed what happened at the convention when emotions reached fever pitch.

The convention was then abruptly shut down when the dividers began to close and the lights were turned off, forcing everyone outside.

http://communities.washingtontimes....ul-and-mitt-romney-supporters-brawl-oklahoma/

 

[AlteredBeast]

Why hasnt poligaf been keeping me informed of the lols?


http://communities.washingtontimes....ul-and-mitt-romney-supporters-brawl-oklahoma/

Wow. Angry white people...

Ron Paul supporters are everything that is wrong AND right about American politics.

 

[Averon]

Serious questions: Can someone explain why Paul earned such devotion from his followers? Isn't there other Libertarian candidates Paul supporters can get behind?

 

[The Technomancer]

Serious questions: Can someone explain why Paul earned such devotion from his followers? Isn't there other Libertarian candidates Paul supports can get behind?

He supports legalizing weed.

Okay, that's more for the supporters I know in real life. The supporters I've met online...I've got no idea

 

[AlteredBeast]

Its all about the fed.

 

[GaimeGuy]

The problem with Romney's Republican challengers is that they could not go into full populist mode. Gingrich got hammered from the right for his Bain ads. Breaking the eleventh commandment and all that. Also they did not have as much money as Obama will have.

I also don't agree with the Bain ads. You have to assume that they were the only private equity firm in the 80s. If Romney did not do it, then someone else would have. Globalization was going to crush those companies regardless. But this is politics.

Nothing was forcing romney to do that.

My uncle used to work for Lucent as International Compensation & Benefits Vice President. After Lucent spent a lot of money relocating a few hundred employees and their families and children a few thousand miles, he was instructed from his higher ups that he had to lay off almost everyone off about 6 months later. These people left their friends and their extended families, changed their kids' schools, etc, to relocate, and they get sacked 6 months later.

My uncle ended up quitting shortly after, and that was a major reason why.


Being an executive means you have to make tough choices at times, but it doesn't mean you should be okay with blatantly ruining lives like that. My uncle worked hard to address the individual needs of each employee and his/her family, working 1 on 1 with each individual to tailor the transition to their personal needs and circumstances, make sure each family transitioned to a new home and was well-compensated for committing to move so far away and give up so much, and the people above him basically said "yeah, well, go shit on everything these families did for us, now."

Have some pride and dignity.

 

[Clevinger]

Serious questions: Can someone explain why Paul earned such devotion from his followers? Isn't there other Libertarian candidates Paul supports can get behind?

He first got really noticed in 08 when he was lined up next to a bunch of Republicans in the debates and he gave them some truth (sometimes) about the war on terror and 9/11 and such. He seemed like the only honest guy up there. He gained a small, but devoted group of followers. Then in this election he stood out even more because without a Democratic primary, he was basically the only candidate (except Gary Johnson) with anti-drug war, anti-war policy. And his supporters got weird and obsessive and acted like he was the messiah. It's like Obamamania 2008 x 100.

 

[AsylumBlue]

Why hasnt poligaf been keeping me informed of the lols?


http://communities.washingtontimes....ul-and-mitt-romney-supporters-brawl-oklahoma/

Holy shit, that article is full of hi-per-bowl. I watched the entire stream of the conventions on Saturday and Josh Romney was NOT "booed off the stage" at any point. He was booed for probably around 10 seconds after asking the crowd to get behind "the nominee," Mitt Romney.

The other speakers weren't incessantly booed, either. They were able to give their speeches with very little interruption. What got the Paul people to boo was the mention of Romney being the nominee and the pandering to the convention crowd.

Also, the fights mentioned were documented as having been started by 70-year-old Romney supporters. Just the image of this happening is hilarious. However, I think it's disingenuous that the author of the article makes it sound like there were full-on brawls.

 

[Black Mamba]

He first got really noticed in 08 when he was lined up next to a bunch of Republicans in the debates and he gave them some truth (sometimes) about the war on terror and 9/11 and such. He seemed like the only honest guy up there. He gained a small, but devoted group of followers. Then in this election he stood out even more because without a Democratic primary, he was basically the only candidate (except Gary Johnson) with anti-drug war, anti-war policy. And his supporters got weird and obsessive and acted like he was the messiah. It's like Obamamania 2008 x 100.

They were big in 2008 too. Also, you're missing the CTer angle.

 

[Clevinger]

They were big in 2008 too. Also, you're missing the CTer angle.

I don't remember there being a lot in 08, but I wasn't paying all that much attention to him. You're right about the latter though.

 

[Chumly]

I'm sure there were some companies that were needlessly taken over and squeezed for profit. Was that fair? Probably not. Wrong? Not necessarily so. Whatever caused the company to be considered to be taken over was due to an insubstantial business model making it uncompetitive. It would eventually close down later. Bain just sped up the inevitable results.

Firing employees and closing a company is not morally wrong. I'm sure you can dig up some extreme example if you want to, but please don't bother.

So now were in a world where corporate raiding is acceptable?

 

[AsylumBlue]

Serious questions: Can someone explain why Paul earned such devotion from his followers? Isn't there other Libertarian candidates Paul supports can get behind?

Gary Johnson for sure, who's going to run as the Libertarian candidate, by the way (if Paul doesn't get the nomination).

As for Paul supporters, I think it's mostly the anti-war message and his consistency. The misconception that he would legalize weed is probably what gets the frat kids in college and whatnot, but he would only decriminalize it. I mean, you'll find uninformed and bat-shit crazy supporters everywhere (Santorum for example), but Paul's backers are really... vocal.

 

[gcubed]

Gary Johnson is an infinitely better choice than Ron Paul.

 

[entremet]

Obama's motorcade just passed my building. People were cheering like crazy.

 

[Stinkles]

Gary Johnson is an infinitely better choice than Ron Paul.

Gary Johnson doesn't have the same cult of personality. I don't care much for his politics but he's way less ridiculous and compromised than Paul.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

So will Ron Paul fans shut the fuck up finally? I mean he won't run again.

But...oh no...no....NO!!!!!!!

The next generation.

 

[thatbox]

http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/dc-logic-on-social-security/

DC Logic on Social Security

May 14, 2012

I always feel like I’m falling into some sort of trap when I apply simple logic to conservative positions (which should not always be confused with solely Republican positions in the case of entitlements…some D’s get this wrong too). But the pull of common sense is just too strong!

Here’s the thing: it is logically indefensible to maintain the following two positions:

1) We can no longer afford Social Security.

2) We can afford—nay, we must afford—the permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts.

Over to CBPP’s own Kathy Ruffing:

The revenue loss over the next 75 years from making all of the Bush tax cuts permanent would be two times the entire Social Security shortfall over that period. (See figure.) Indeed, the revenue loss just from extending the tax cuts for upper-income people would be more than two-thirds as large as the Social Security shortfall over the 75-year period.

Now, to be clear, Social Security is funded not through the taxes which feed into general revenues but through the Social Security Trust Fund. There are many ways to achieve trust fund solvency, some of which call for higher payroll taxes, such as increasing the maximum taxable salary level (raising that threshold to once again cover 90% of earnings would close about 30% of the 75-year shortfall in the trust fund).

But that larger point here is that assertions of what we can and can’t afford need to be considered from the perspective of the “asserter,” the winners, and the losers. No such assertions should ever be taken at face value.

OK, I’ll now quietly slip back into the tupsy-turvy, through-the-looking-glass world of DC logic.​

 

[mckmas8808]

Does anyone really buy the story that Biden 'forced the hand' of Obama to make his announcement? Biden says off the cuff stuff all the time, usually about trivial stuff, but sometimes about important things like our role in Afghanistan.

I thought it was pretty clearly a trial balloon to gauge reaction.

Very late on this, but it's super obvious that the White House planned this the whole way. But of course since it's Biden, everybody in the media just goes "lol wtf Biden and his Bidenisms har har har!!!!!"

It was a trial balloon from the beginning.

 

[Clevinger]

CBS has a poll where apparently Romney has swung up big with independents and women, taking the lead. It's not out yet, but they're tweeting about it. It also has support for making same-sex marriage illegal at 51% to 42%, which seems in line with PPP's somewhat pessimistic opinion of gay marriage approval.