• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2012 |OT3| If it's not a legitimate OT the mods have ways to shut it down

Status
Not open for further replies.
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Sorry guys, I guess I'll save the trolling for all vicinities outside of poligaf.
 
B

Byakuya769

Member
Oblivion said:
Sorry guys, I guess I'll save the trolling for all vicinities outside of poligaf.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean to say, "stop." But it would definitely get more unknowing reactions in the OT threads.

I'm sure you would have gotten at least, "Hey dumbass, those were horrible points. Why do you agree with her???" from some non-poligaffers.
 
K

Kai Dracon

Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
Battersea Power Station said:
Hey, PoliGAF, I have a question. Please forgive my entering the circlejerk, preaching to the choir, etc., but I am genuinely curious.

We have two major parties in our political system and, for the sake of brevity, each can field a candidate for the office of President. If voter turnout was close to 100%, the Republicans would not be able to win a nationwide race, as the parties are currently defined. As such, their only hope of winning is for many, many people not to cast votes, i.e. not let their voices be heard.

To repeat, if we take "one man: one voice" of the whole country, it is not possible for the Republican candidate to win the Presidency. Their only chance to win is if people don't vote. They can only win if people are too busy, too lazy, too disinterested, too bitter, etc.

To me, that makes their policies and their platform incompatible with democracy. They're basically admitting, via voter suppression tactics, that if each person lets her/his voice be heard, they would not win.

What I don't get is how a person running under this strategy can be considered a legitimate candidate. By definition, such a person is not running in hopes of convincing the most people of his or her views, but is running in hopes that people don't care enough. That's anti-democratic to me, and against the spirit of the Constitution.

I'm curious as to why this is not more of a scandal, and why not many seem to care about it outside of blogs, satirical shows, and some pundits.
Click to expand...

To a degree, this situation seems to be what the observation "people deserve the democracy they get" is really about.

The thing about voting is that people are free to vote - and not to vote. People are free to be disinterested, selfish, or just plain ignorant.

If republicans, in this example, can only win by manipulating votes because of how many people choose not to vote, then in a certain light the country as a whole deserves to be inflicted with such machinations. Such a party could be crushed, but people as a group choose not to do so via their inaction. Just as many issues and problems facing society remain because of inaction and apathy.

Of course, there always seems to be a certain percentage of people who are completely ignorant of civics and do not have / have never been given any concept of why they actually are in this together with others - no matter how self centered they are. No matter how much they want to believe nothing and nobody else matters. Whether this percentage of the population is the result of a lack of civic education, or purely human nature, is up for debate I suppose.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
lol @ oblivion's link.

The press, even liberal commentators, admitted that Obama had bombed. Sure, there were bitter-enders who claimed all was fine, but the cable TV talking heads and the vast majority of columnists were brutally honest. MSNBC personalities were downright glum.
Click to expand...

hahaha, did she even watch msnbc?

10. Romney may get a bigger bump from the Democrats’ convention than the Republicans’ convention, especially with today’s putrid jobs figures.
Click to expand...

I's hilarious the bubble these people live in at times.

What a great find, oblivion.
 
S

Stinkles

Clothed, sober, cooperative
Kaijima said:
To a degree, this situation seems to be what the observation "people deserve the democracy they get" is really about.

The thing about voting is that people are free to vote - and not to vote. People are free to be disinterested, selfish, or just plain ignorant.

If republicans, in this example, can only win by manipulating votes because of how many people choose not to vote, then in a certain light the country as a whole deserves to be inflicted with such machinations. Such a party could be crushed, but people as a group choose not to do so via their inaction. Just as many issues and problems facing society remain because of inaction and apathy.

Of course, there always seems to be a certain percentage of people who are completely ignorant of civics and do not have / have never been given any concept of why they actually are in this together with others - no matter how self centered they are. No matter how much they want to believe nothing and nobody else matters. Whether this percentage of the population is the result of a lack of civic education, or purely human nature, is up for debate I suppose.
Click to expand...

But people are being outmaneuvered and outspent by wealthy interests at the top of the pyramid. They are not on an even democratic playing field with the corporations and politicians who, for the simplest example of all, have insisted that we vote on a work day by physically going to a location and standing in line.

Get rid of that and you solve the problem of proper democracy. let people vote online and the status quo, the military industrial complex and the venal state of politics would be solved overnight, or at least badly dented.
 
Battersea Power Station

Battersea Power Station

Member
Kaijima said:
To a degree, this situation seems to be what the observation "people deserve the democracy they get" is really about.

The thing about voting is that people are free to vote - and not to vote. People are free to be disinterested, selfish, or just plain ignorant.

If republicans, in this example, can only win by manipulating votes because of how many people choose not to vote, then in a certain light the country as a whole deserves to be inflicted with such machinations. Such a party could be crushed, but people as a group choose not to do so via their inaction. Just as many issues and problems facing society remain because of inaction and apathy.

Of course, there always seems to be a certain percentage of people who are completely ignorant of civics and do not have / have never been given any concept of why they actually are in this together with others - no matter how self centered they are. No matter how much they want to believe nothing and nobody else matters. Whether this percentage of the population is the result of a lack of civic education, or purely human nature, is up for debate I suppose.
Click to expand...
Damn. That's some cogent shit. Thanks for the reply.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Black Mamba said:
Wow, new polls put Obama at 80% on 538's model. 4:1 odds!



Not enough LOLs
Click to expand...

That is insane, no wonder Romney has been sounding the way he does. The man is absolutely fucked, some of the bounce will go away but not all of it. Not only that his bounce was almost nonexistant. Christ.
 
X

XMonkey

lacks enthusiasm.
Battersea Power Station said:
Hey, PoliGAF, I have a question. Please forgive my entering the circlejerk, preaching to the choir, etc., but I am genuinely curious.

We have two major parties in our political system and, for the sake of brevity, each can field a candidate for the office of President. If voter turnout was close to 100%, the Republicans would not be able to win a nationwide race, as the parties are currently defined. As such, their only hope of winning is for many, many people not to cast votes, i.e. not let their voices be heard.

To repeat, if we take "one man: one voice" of the whole country, it is not possible for the Republican candidate to win the Presidency. Their only chance to win is if people don't vote. They can only win if people are too busy, too lazy, too disinterested, too bitter, etc.

To me, that makes their policies and their platform incompatible with democracy. They're basically admitting, via voter suppression tactics, that if each person lets her/his voice be heard, they would not win.

What I don't get is how a person running under this strategy can be considered a legitimate candidate. By definition, such a person is not running in hopes of convincing the most people of his or her views, but is running in hopes that people don't care enough. That's anti-democratic to me, and against the spirit of the Constitution.

I'm curious as to why this is not more of a scandal, and why not many seem to care about it outside of blogs, satirical shows, and some pundits.
Click to expand...
To the first bolded part... I know it's obvious, but politics and political parties aren't just about a single Presidential race. Republican candidates win local and state elections all the time with their particular brand of crazy. I don't see the problem with them trying to use that brand of crazy to win a Presidential election. It's not like you give up everywhere else because you can't convince 50% of voters at the present time to vote for you in a single race.

To the second... I think it's a bit silly to assume Republicans are running on their platform knowing full well that they are not able to convince people to vote for them. You're giving them too much credit if you think they're all putting on a nationally-coordinated performance act. They do buy into what they're selling and do think it would be the best way to run this country.

Maybe I'm reading your post the wrong way, but the notion that you can't be a legitimate candidate if your views can't convince enough of the electorate to vote for you strikes me as a bit crazy. A good democracy should be a place where minority views can be expressed without being suppressed or deemed "illegitimate" because a simple majority of people don't agree with them.

Kaijima also made some good points (possibly better answering your post than mine)
 
G

gcubed

Member
B-Dubs said:
That is insane, no wonder Romney has been sounding the way he does. The man is absolutely fucked, some of the bounce will go away but not all of it. Not only that his bounce was almost nonexistant. Christ.
Click to expand...
Nates model accounts for a diminishing +4 bounce ... the numbers won't go too far down
 
Battersea Power Station

Battersea Power Station

Member
XMonkey said:
Maybe I'm reading your post the wrong way, but the notion that you can't be a legitimate candidate if your views can't convince enough of the electorate to vote for you strikes me as a bit crazy. A good democracy should be a place where minority views can be expressed without being suppressed or deemed "illegitimate" because a simple majority of people don't agree with them.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I don't mean to imply that unpopular views should be stifled. My dismay is more aimed at the people who seem to think it's not that big a deal.

I was disgusted at the Olympics when those badminton teams were throwing matches to get a better postion in the final draw. It was against the spirit of the games. Similarly, it seems against the spirit of Democracy to not be vying for people's votes, but for their disinterest. You know?

However, you make a good point that they have to run seriously in order to keep their brand up, which sells well in many local and state races.
 
S

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Frank the Great said:
tempted to sign up for intrade just to buy some shares of obama winning. currently selling for ~$5.72, that is a nice profit if i buy a bunch.
Click to expand...

My brother was telling me the original CEO died, and the new guy is kinda shady. Might want to look into it before giving the site any money.
 
G

giga

Member
Oblivion said:
I don't say this often, but here's a conservative columnist who really knows what she's talking about:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...e5-11e1-8b93-c4f4ab1c8d13_blog.html#pagebreak
Click to expand...

1. Clint Eastwood’s remarks were more memorable and more effective than President Obama’s. The empty-chair metaphor never seemed so apt as during the Obama drone-a-thon.

2. The press, even liberal commentators, admitted that Obama had bombed. Sure, there were bitter-enders who claimed all was fine, but the cable TV talking heads and the vast majority of columnists were brutally honest. MSNBC personalities were downright glum.

4. The gap between the GOP bench (including Gov. Chris Christie, Sen. Marco Rubio, Gov. Bob McDonnell and Artur Davis) and the Democratic bench is striking.

9. The Obama team waited until the last day to cancel the stadium event. No balloons, lots of bored reporters writing scathing accounts. For a campaign that ran so well in 2008, the 2012 Obama team is arguably the weaker of the two campaigns at this stage in the race.

10. Romney may get a bigger bump from the Democrats’ convention than the Republicans’ convention, especially with today’s putrid jobs figures.
Click to expand...
8V3o5.gif
 
D

Diablos

Member
LOL @ Romney giving props.

I love how the GOP tries to disassociate Bill from Obama, like they think if they say enough he will magically disown him and support Mitt. lmao

1. Clint Eastwood’s remarks were more memorable and more effective than President Obama’s. The empty-chair metaphor never seemed so apt as during the Obama drone-a-thon.
Click to expand...
Ahahahaha. What?
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Diablos said:
LOL @ Romney giving props.

I love how the GOP tries to disassociate Bill from Obama, like they think if they say enough he will magically disown him and support Mitt. lmao
Click to expand...
They probably really did expect Clinton to deliver a really snide speech shitting on Obama and building himself up, rather than the full-throat defense that he actually gave. And now it's too late to change playbooks.
 
D

Diablos

Member
​
Aaron Strife said:
They probably really did expect Clinton to deliver a really snide speech shitting on Obama and building himself up, rather than the full-throat defense that he actually gave. And now it's too late to change playbooks.
Click to expand...
Banking on revisionist history. Woo woo!
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
The GOP strategy of praising Bill is bizarre.

Hey guys, we love Bill. Sure, we tried to shut down the gov't and we impeached him for getting his dick sucked while on the job, but seriously, we really love him. And Obama is nowhere as awesome as Bill!
 
C

Cheebo

Banned
They think if they claim Clinton doesn't like Obama enough times it will be true. Their whole campaign is based on repeating lies enough times makes it becomes true.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Black Mamba said:
The GOP strategy of praising Bill is bizarre.

Hey guys, we love Bill. Sure, we tried to shut down the gov't and we impeached him for getting his dick sucked while on the job, but seriously, we really love him. And Obama is nowhere as awesome as Bill!
Click to expand...
My favorite was Sean Hannity calling him "Good ol' Bill."

There is no sense of irony.
 
A

Averon

Member
1. Clint Eastwood’s remarks were more memorable and more effective than President Obama’s. The empty-chair metaphor never seemed so apt as during the Obama drone-a-thon.
Click to expand...

I admit Eastwood's remarks were memorable--but for all the wrong reasons. This is a blatant example of trying to convince yourself a bad result was actually good.


10. Romney may get a bigger bump from the Democrats’ convention than the Republicans’ convention, especially with today’s putrid jobs figures.
Click to expand...

Gallup, PPP (if their twitter hints are any indication), Nate Silver, and Ipos all disagree.


These people built their own little alternate reality, and they're sticking to it.
 
D

Diablos

Member
Black Mamba said:
The GOP strategy of praising Bill is bizarre.

Hey guys, we love Bill. Sure, we tried to shut down the gov't and we impeached him for getting his dick sucked while on the job, but seriously, we really love him. And Obama is nowhere as awesome as Bill!
Click to expand...
I know, it's so funny. They IMPEACHED this man, yet now we have the party's nominee basically saying he'd be in deep shit if Clinton were constitutionally eligible for a third term and that he was a great President.

el-oh-el.

BTW, I think Presidents being term-limited is the dumbest shit ever. You should be able to run for President for as long as you want. You only get gifted politicians like FDR, Reagan, Clinton, and Obama so many times. If they prove to be a winning strategy for their party and the voting populace, it's dumb to handicap their successes with a term limit. If people don't like the President after 12 years or something, they can vote his or her ass out. Herpy McDerpy. Really, the idea of limiting a President's term is stupid. Again, voters decide every four years if they want that person to stay or go. Dictating that they absolutely must leave after eight years is ridiculous. For example, Dubya would have never been able to get a third term even if he were eligible. We had enough of him after about six. It's redundant to rely on an amendment to determine how long a President can keep his job. Let the people decide.
 
C

Cloudy

Banned
Black Mamba said:
The GOP strategy of praising Bill is bizarre.

Hey guys, we love Bill. Sure, we tried to shut down the gov't and we impeached him for getting his dick sucked while on the job, but seriously, we really love him. And Obama is nowhere as awesome as Bill!
Click to expand...

Well, they won't get anywhere by bashing a guy with a 70% favorability rating. I guess they could just ignore him lol
 
C

Cloudy

Banned
Diablos said:
BTW, I think Presidents being term-limited is the dumbest shit ever.
Click to expand...

I think limits are okay. You don't want an FDR kind of thing where a sick old guy keeps winning votes because everyone loves him.

However, I think Congress should get term limits also. That would make folks actually get things done
 
B

BuggyDClown

Member
Cloudy said:
I think limits are okay. You don't want an FDR kind of thing where a sick old guy keeps winning votes because everyone loves him.

However, I think Congress should get term limits also. That would make folks actually get things done
Click to expand...

It's insane that congress doesn't have limits, same goes for our damn supreme court lifetime terms.
 
C

Cheebo

Banned
More proof Biden is awesome.
"I shouldn't admit this on national television," Biden began. He and his fellow Blue Hens had come to Athens for a football game, he explained, and stayed around afterward. He met two "young women" who were heading back to their dorms.
"I said, 'Well I'll come with you.' And they said, 'okay,' and I walked into their dormitory," he said. "And was immediately accosted by a cop who arrested me, because back in those days men were not allowed in women's dormitories."
As the crowd, which included many students, laughed, he cautioned: "I promise you I never breached the first floor, and it was only a temporary detention. But that's what I most remember about Athens."
Click to expand...
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Oblivion said:
I don't say this often, but here's a conservative columnist who really knows what she's talking about:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...e5-11e1-8b93-c4f4ab1c8d13_blog.html#pagebreak
Click to expand...

Arthur Davis as an example of a deep bench? The GOP certainly has a deeper bench but this is hilarious

Funniest thing about the GOP's bench: not one of them compares to Obama as a politician, or Clinton. I thought Christie could be "that guy" but he kind of blew it with his speech.
 
E

ErasureAcer

Banned
Saw the clip of Romney on MTP in a bus with his wife by his side...WTF? Why is she there? Was expecting him sitting down at the table...not hiding behind his wife so David won't ask him tough questions bullshit.
 
B

Byakuya769

Member
The funniest thing about the conventions is how hard people are trying to make Granholm negate Clint Eastwood. Granholm had really weird delivery, but she got people off their feet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Eurogamer: Assassin's Creed boss discusses "devastating" impact of Shadows' diversity and inclusivity backlash
Drama 3 4 5 6 7
316
25K
EN250 replied
Trails through Daybreak II |OT| Caught up yet?
|OT| 2
64
2K
mèx replied
"We observed Nvidia and decided to wait" (Chief Architect of Gaming at AMD)
2
64
5K
Kataploom replied
[GI.biz] The future of storytelling with Ken Levine
32
2K
Mister Wolf replied
[GI.biz] Cheap money and bad bets: How the games industry turned pandemic success into disaster
2
75
5K
sharp weiner replied
Top Bottom