• 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 2011: Of Weiners, Boehners, Santorum, and Teabags

Status
Not open for further replies.

toro5741

Member
RatskyWatsky said:
I don't know if this is the place to ask, but I figure it's worth a shot. Do any of you guys know of a website or something that I could go to to learn about all of this political stuff? Preferably one that is easy to understand, and one that describes all of the lingo and policies. Basically politics for noobs. :) I vaguely know who the Michele Bachmann woman is, along with Ron Paul, but I don't know who any of these other people are. The upcoming presidential election will be the first that I participate in, and I would like to be informed on all of the potential candidates. I don't want to stay in the dark on political issues any more. I read the op, but there isn't any beginner friendly information in there, and the prospect of reading through this entire thread is daunting to say the least. Any help would be greatly appreciated, and if this isn't the right place to ask, then I'm sorry. ;p

While it wouldn't help with the current political figures, Safire's Political Dictionary is a great resource for a lot of the lingo...

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0195340612/?tag=neogaf0e-20
 
perfectchaos007 said:
Why are the talking heads thinking Ron Paul should have won the straw poll? Bachmann had homefield advantage
What pundits are you talking about? I think Ron Paul had a very impressive showing.
 
perfectchaos007 said:
Why are the talking heads thinking Ron Paul should have won the straw poll? Bachmann had homefield advantage
They're just trying to make their own fun. The straw poll is meaningless. McCain finished 10th in the 2007 poll. Pat friggin' Robertson won in 1987. But that's good news for Ron Paul-- he's almost as electable as Pat Robertson!
 
speculawyer said:
What pundits are you talking about? I think Ron Paul had a very impressive showing.

The pannel on Faux news were saying things like "Ron Paul is a high energy candidate and this environment is the best suited for him. And if he can't win here, he doesn't have a chance for the republican nomination."

1. He was only .9% from winning
2. Even though Bachmann only lived in Iowa for the first 13 years of her life, I'm sure she got many home field votes.
3. Bachmann bought 6000 tickets for the event.
 

Particle Physicist

between a quark and a baryon
perfectchaos007 said:
The pannel on Faux news were saying things like "Ron Paul is a high energy candidate and this environment is the best suited for him. And if he can't win here, he doesn't have a chance for the republican nomination."

1. He was only .9% from winning
2. Even though Bachmann only lived in Iowa for the first 13 years of her life, I'm sure she got many home field votes.
3. Bachmann bought 6000 tickets for the event.


Fox News always tries to denigrate him. Ignore them.
 
speculawyer said:
I think your answer is pretty much right there. Fox News does not like Ron Paul from what I can tell.
Yeah they don't like Ron Paul because he doesn't fit into their new Tea Party narrative. He was a very close second today but they barely mentioned him after the result and certainly did not interview him. FOX-friendly losers like Santorum however get plenty of airtime on Huckabee's post-result circle-jerk.
 
speculawyer said:
I think your answer is pretty much right there. Fox News does not like Ron Paul from what I can tell.

4 years ago it was really, really bad. One example was Paul was polling way ahead of Fred Thompson and Guilliani, yet Fox News wouldn't allow Paul to attend the Republican debate while they let Guilliani and Thompson in. After Obama was elected and the tea party movement started coming together, I thought they started to like him. Probably for the wrong reasons, but I guess now that there are other tea party candidates they are going back to hating on him
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/14/us/politics/14econ.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp

But there is little support for such an approach inside the administration. A series of departures has left few economists among Mr. Obama’s senior advisers. Several of his political advisers are skeptical about the merits of stimulus spending, and they are certain about the politics: voters do not like it.

“We don’t believe there’s an either-or choice between deficits and jobs,” said Dan Pfeiffer, the White House director of communications. “You have to be able to do both of them.”

“It would be political folly to make the argument that only government spending equals jobs,” Mr. Pfeiffer added.

Mr. Plouffe and Mr. Daley share the view that a focus on deficit reduction is an economic and political imperative, according to people who have spoken with them. Voters believe that paying down the debt will help the economy, and the White House agrees, although it wants to avoid cutting too much spending while the economy remains weak.
 
wol90.jpg
 
speculawyer said:
Yeah this. I'm neither Republican nor Democrat but I'm pretty much forced to lean Dem because the Republicans are just too far from rationality for me with the anti-evolution, anti-gay, anti-stem-cell, and other non-sense.

Same here.

But also the Republican party has become far too Xenophobic for my tastes. To base Republicans, every Mosque is a terrorist base camp. And the fear mongering isn't just aimed at our war "enemies". Domestically Republicans have demonized hispanic immigrants. They've demonized gays, single mothers, the poor and just about anyone who isn't a middle-aged hetero job-creating white male.

It's going to be very hard for me to support a party that supports so much division and scapegoating in our country even if they managed to get a couple of sensible presidential candidates. It's going to take a much larger party shift for me to get on board again. I was hoping once the GOP old-guard died out things might change, but Sarah Palin and her ilk are apostatizing their brand of crazy to a whole new generation of Republicans. Instead of leading them into the new era with fresh ideas and higher tolerance for the diverse culture we're becoming, the new Republican leaders are following the mob and taking the party back to the 1950s.

Even though the media is now much more widespread and prevalent, it's never been this weak and ineffective. They're only able to push tabloid issues. Everything else is watered-down lest they be accused of being partisan.

Politically, we're in the dark-ages right now.
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Averon said:
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/08/11/gop2012poll.pdf

CNN Pres poll


Obama 51%, Bachmann 45%
Obama 51%, Perry 46%
Obama 45%, Giuliani 51% (wtf?!!)
Obama 49%, Romney 48%

I'm not shocked. He'd be by far the most reasonable out of that entire pack if he entered and people love the guy.

I'd love to see him enter the race this time and rip on the other candidates during a debate.
 
The Chosen One said:
Same here.

But also the Republican party has become far too Xenophobic for my tastes. To base Republicans, every Mosque is a terrorist base camp. And the fear mongering isn't just aimed at our war "enemies". Domestically Republicans have demonized hispanic immigrants. They've demonized gays, single mothers, the poor and just about anyone who isn't a middle-aged hetero job-creating white male.
Speaking of demonization and cockery, look who was the sponsor of Rick Perry's prayer-a-thon:
This weekend, Gov. Rick Perry will host a mass Christian prayer rally in his home state of Texas. The principal sponsor of the rally, the American Family Association, has a truly vile record on immigration issues. The Association’s principal spokesperson on policy issues, Bryan Fischer, says that Muslims should be barred from becoming naturalized citizens because, he says, Islam requires Muslims to kill Christian Americans.

Fischer has hosted a number of Republican presidential hopefuls, including Mike Huckabee and Tim Pawlenty, on his powerful “policy” radio broadcast that is heard nationally. His tarring of all Muslims as destructive of America has not dissuaded Perry and others from seeking Fischer’s favor. For instance, this rant by Fischer was deemed beyond the pale by Republican leaders:

We allow unrestricted Muslim immigration into the United States. We are welcoming to our shores, welcoming to our borders, men who are determined to destroy us. They’ve said it themselves, it’s in their own writings, it’s in their own words; they’re out to eliminate and destroy western civilization. It’s just absolute folly to invite that kind of toxic cancer into our culture, but that’s what we’re doing every single day.

The most compassionate thing we can do for Muslims who have already immigrated here is to help repatriate them back to Muslim countries, where they can live in a culture which shares their values, a place where they can once again be at home, surrounded by people who cherish their deeply held ideals. Why force them to chafe against the freedom, liberty and civil rights we cherish in the West?

In other words, simple Judeo-Christian compassion dictates a restriction and repatriation policy with regard to Muslim immigration into the U.S.
More bile here. In other words, he not only wants to deport 10 million illegal residents, but also 2 million completely legal residents just based on their faith.
 
Incognito said:

Pathetic.

Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, David Plouffe, and his chief of staff, William M. Daley, want him to maintain a pragmatic strategy of appealing to independent voters by advocating ideas that can pass Congress, even if they may not have much economic impact. These include free trade agreements and improved patent protections for inventors. ...

The debate is being framed by the 2012 election. Administration officials, frustrated by the intransigence of House Republicans, have increasingly concluded that the best thing Mr. Obama can do for the economy may be winning a second term, with a mandate to advance his ideas on deficit reduction, entitlement changes, housing policy and other issues.

Note this is what he plans to do if he wins, not what he thinks is necessary to do to win. And then:

Mr. Obama’s political advisers are struggling to define a response, aware that their prospects may rest on persuading voters that the results of the first term matter less than the contrast between their vision for the next four years and the alternative economic ideas offered by Republicans.

What difference? Obama seems to be on the same page as Republicans to me.

As part of this appeal to centrist voters, the president intends to continue his push for a so-called grand bargain on deficit reduction — a deal with Republicans to make even larger spending cuts, including to the social safety net

Fucking tragic. This is what happens when we uncritically accept the premises of narratives. It spreads like a fucking disease. Fuck you and your grand bargain, Obama.
 

Clevinger

Member
Stupid. I could at least understand if doing it politically made sense, but it doesn't.

What a fucking useless admin. If the Supreme Court didn't exist, I doubt I'd vote for him.
 

Clevinger

Member
Black Republican said:
am i the only one who thought tpaw did alot better than expected in the straw poll?

Nope. He spent a shit load of money and still didn't do that well. He needs to pack it up and go home already.
 

Particle Physicist

between a quark and a baryon
speculawyer said:
Yeah, I was going to write some snark because that pic set off my gaydar but I don't know if it is just confirmation bias. Something about his smile and that wave.


It's the first thing that popped into my head as well. :/
 

Alcibiades

Member
I really wish some of the duplicates running would get out and help bring in some other voices (yes, even Rudy Guliani).

Ideally, for me, the field would look like this:

Mitt Romney
Rudy Guliani
Michelle Bachman
Ron Paul
Gary Johnson
Sarah Palin
Jon Huntsman

That is a wide field with diverse views and personalities that would actually allow for some substantive (or at least, some-more-honest differentiating in terms of viewpoints) debate.

I wish Cain, TPaw, Gingrich and Santorum would just pack it in now. Wasted space on stage with nothing to worthy to contribute.

EDIT: If you actually saw a wide range of the political spectrum in the debates, then the open primaries might actually draw in independents and Democrats to help influence the vote and make the primary race last longer. This would in turn actually bring up issues into the national discussion like marijuana legalization and gay marriage that otherwise probably won't be discussed much.
 

Alcibiades

Member
quadriplegicjon said:
No Huntsman on your list?

He really should have waited for the next cycle.
I stealth-edited him in before I read your post - yeah I knew I was forgetting someone.

edit:

and would anyone actually go for the 10-1 spending cut vs. tax increase hypothetical compromise? it sucks how rabidly anti-any-tax-at-all the Republican base seems... if you're getting 90% of the loaf why not consider it? or at least say you're against it in principle but would consider it depending on where those increases came? (though I guess it was a raise-your-hand question with no response - kind of dumb because depending on the details, I could see Romney or Huntsman going for it if they were actually elected)... I'm thinking Rudy might have potentially not raised his hand with that question...
 
If NATO and the rebels pull this off and can get the oil flowing again within a year, the GOPers complaining about Libya are going to end up being on the wrong side of history on this one. If they get this city, the pretty much have Quadaffi isolated to just holding Tripoli . . . with no way to get supplies, oil, reinforcements, mercenaries, etc.

Heavy clashes as Libyan rebels enter Zawiya

BY KARIN LAUB; ASSOCIATED PRESS

BIR SHAEB, Libya — Libyan rebels fought their way into the strategic city of Zawiya west of Tripoli on Saturday in their most significant advance in months, battling snipers on rooftops and heavy shelling from Moammar Gadhafi's forces holding the city.

Zawiya, 30 miles (50 kilometers) from the capital, is a key target for rebels waging a new offensive launched from the mountains in the far west of Libya, an attempt to break the deadlock in combat between the two sides that has held for months in the center and east of the country.

A credible threat from the rebels in the west could strain Gadhafi's troops, which have been hammered for months by NATO airstrikes. Defending Zawiya is key for the regime but could require bringing in better trained forces who are currently ensuring its hold over its Tripoli stronghold or fighting rebels on fronts further east.

A group of about 200 exuberant rebel fighters, advancing from the south, reached a bridge on Zawiya's southwestern outskirts, and some rebels pushed farther into the city's central main square. They tore down the green flag of Gadhafi's regime from a mosque minaret and put up two rebel flags. An Associated Press reporter traveling with the rebels saw hundreds of residents rush into the streets, greeting the fighters piled into the backs of pickup trucks with chants of "God is great."

Gadhafi's forces then counterattacked with a barrage of heavy weapons, and the loud crackle of gunfire could be heard as rebels and government troops battled.

Regime snipers were firing down from rooftops on the rebels, said one resident, Abdel-Basset Abu Riyak, who joined to fight alongside the rebels when they entered the city. He said Gadhafi's forces were holed up in several pockets in the city and that there were reports of reinforcements coming from Tripoli, though there was no sign of them yet.

Rebel spokesman Jumma Ibrahim claimed that the opposition's fighters controlled most of Zawiya by nightfall. "What remains are few pockets (of Gadhafi forces) in the city," he said. "The road is now open all the way from the western mountains to Zawiya, we can send them supply and reinforcement anytime."

Perhaps more importantly,the rebels now control the main highway linking Tripoli to the Tunisian boarder, according to Fadlallah Haroun, the head of the rebels' security council in Benghazi. The road passes through Zawiya.

Zawiya's residents rose up and threw off regime control when Libya's anti-Gadhafi revolt first began in February. But Gadhafi's forces retaliated and crushed opposition in the city in a long and bloody siege in March. Many of Zawiya's rebels fled into the mountains - and were among the lead forces advancing on the city Saturday - while others like Abu Riyak remained in the city, lying low.

Speaking to the AP by telephone, Abu Riyak said residents were now joining up with the rebels' assault, saying, "95 percent of Zawiya's people are with the revolution."

"There is shooting from all sides," said another rebel, 23-year-old Ibrahim Akram. "The people joined us. Fierce clashes are still ongoing, but thank God our numbers are great."

But Gadhafi is likely to fight hard to keep control of Zawiya. The city of about 200,000 people on the Mediterranean coast is key because it controls the main supply road to the capital from the Tunisian border and is the site of the sole remaining oil refineries in the west still under the regime's control.

The state of government forces after months of punishing NATO airstrikes is not known. The best armed and equipped units, led by Gadhafi's sons, have been involved in fighting at the main fronts - around the city of Misrata, east of Tripoli, and at the oil port of Brega in the center of the country.

Government spokeman Moussa Ibrahim dismissed reports of rebel advance on Zawiya as a "media game," dismissing it as the act of "remnants of armed gangs." He told state TV that "Tripoli is secure and safe. Even if there is advancement by the armed gangs, it's only temporary under the cover of NATO."

The rebel force has been advancing into the coastal plain for the past week from the Nafusa Mountains, an opposition stronghold about 60 miles (100 kilometers) to the south. Commanders have said the plan is to seize Zawiya and other nearby towns and then move on Tripoli itself, Gadhafi's stronghold.

Read more: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2011/...n-rebels-push-north-dozens.html#ixzz1UycDfVmb


And if they nail Gadhafi . . . well Obama got Bush's nemesis Osama and now maybe getting a Reagan's nemesis Gadhafi too? Pretty good for a Kenyan secret Muslim.
 

GhaleonEB

Member
I missed that article about the way the drain of economists from Obama's administration has enabled the political shop to develop policy.

Fucking tragic.

I wonder whether economists were fleeing the administration because the political idiots were empowered, or they became empowered because the economists fled the administration.
 

Stinkles

Clothed, sober, cooperative
speculawyer said:
Yeah, I was going to write some snark because that pic set off my gaydar but I don't know if it is just confirmation bias. Something about his smile and that wave.

Seriously. Try holding out your arms and tilting your wrist like that. Go on. I just did. I don't know if it's gay or not, but it is certainly fabulous. Ifeel pretty pumped now.
 
SlipperySlope said:
So on a scale of 1-10, how do you guys rate Obama?

I give him a 4. He got two points for killing Osama.

Its really difficult to judge Obama. On one hand he's quite possibly the most spineless, ineffective, and centrist Democratic president we've ever had. But on the other never before has a president in recent years faced so much opposition both political wise and well "background" wise. Clinton was a great president, but he didn't have to deal with the tea party, he didn't have to deal with tooth and nail republicans, he didn't have to deal with his skin color, and he didn't have to deal with a giant economic crisis.
 

Alcibiades

Member
my take on Obama is that he is really a strong progressive (of the capitalist sort) that is being super cautious while he is still in his first term... my guess is once he gets his second term can afford to go all out and "change" his mind on things like gay marriage, medical marijuana, etc...

I bet Romney, like Obama, probably doesn't give two sh*ts about gay marriage but he can't afford to be honest about it or he won't make it past the South Carolina primary...

thing is, I think Obama can come out in support of at least medical marijuana and gay marriage and still win in 2012 because those are generally favored at this point, except he is paranoid he'll get labeled soft on drugs if he supports MM or risks a 2004-level evangelical turnout if he supports gay marriage... to his credit, as much as he is pissing of liberals he is doing the smart thing politically...
 
If there is one thing all Americans hate it's a pussy. Get ready for a romney/huntsmen administration. Funny thing is there policies will probably be no different from obamas.
 
Alcibiades said:
my take on Obama is that he is really a strong progressive (of the capitalist sort) that is being super cautious while he is still in his first term... my guess is once he gets his second term can afford to go all out and "change" his mind on things like gay marriage, medical marijuana, etc...

I bet Romney, like Obama, probably doesn't give two sh*ts about gay marriage but he can't afford to be honest about it or he won't make it past the South Carolina primary...

thing is, I think Obama can come out in support of at least medical marijuana and gay marriage and still win in 2012 because those are generally favored at this point, except he is paranoid he'll get labeled soft on drugs if he supports MM or risks a 2004-level evangelical turnout if he supports gay marriage... to his credit, as much as he is pissing of liberals he is doing the smart thing politically...
I also think he genuinely believes all should be done to reach a compromise between the democrats and republicans, no matter how unreasonable one of them is. In his biography he mentions it time and time again how the "political process" of compromise and reaching over the isle is the most important aspect of good policy.

I'm sure he's frustrated by the unreasonable GOP, and that if he didn't need to get re-elected, he'd probably be more assertive. But his genuine and strong belief in the aforementioned probably also is responsible for him being a pussy, and that probably will also affect his potential second term.
 

quaere

Member
Flying_Phoenix said:
Its really difficult to judge Obama. On one hand he's quite possibly the most spineless, ineffective, and centrist Democratic president we've ever had. But on the other never before has a president in recent years faced so much opposition both political wise and well "background" wise. Clinton was a great president, but he didn't have to deal with the tea party, he didn't have to deal with tooth and nail republicans, he didn't have to deal with his skin color, and he didn't have to deal with a giant economic crisis.
What if this is because he has no spine?
 

threenote

Banned
speculawyer said:
What pundits are you talking about? I think Ron Paul had a very impressive showing.
Indeed. If he didn't have such radical views about some the FDA, DoE, and US Treasury, I'd be inclined to vote for him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom