Normal people don't really pay attention to politics till closer to the election, but a character narrative can last well beyond its starting point unless constrained. We won't see the affect of these 'attacks' for Obama or Romney till September or October when the conventions are done and debate season is in full swing.
-
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 Community Thread |OT2| This thread title is now under military control
- Thread starter AlteredBeast
- Start date
- Status
Normal people don't really pay attention to politics till closer to the election, but a character narrative can last well beyond its starting point unless constrained. We won't see the affect of these 'attacks' for Obama or Romney till September or October when the conventions are done and debate season is in full swing.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
None of this matters. Romney could conceivably get more votes than Obama (the average IQ, after all, hovers around 100), but there is almost zero chance he gets more EC votes... Don't let the media's desire to show a close horse race fool you.
I want to see a picture of a pro Mitt Romney bumper sticker, just one, then I will believe. "NObama" stickers don't count. Even among republican friends, I can't find one of them who will admit to liking Romney.
DeathbyVolcano
Banned
It won't matter because this is a state by state race, not a national race. Just playing the numbers game...Romney would have to take three lean Obama's states to make it close. He won't take Ohio, PA, Michigan, or Virginia.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
I liked him up until this election season began. He is now the opposite of likable. Moreso than basically any major candidate from a major party in my lifetime. 2008 Romney would probably win this election by 3 or 4% points, but that guy's software was gutted after the 2008 primaries and shopped out to the Uncanny Valley.
Yeah, you basically liked an entirely different person then. That was Moderate Mitt, he's no longer with us.
I realize it was in large part because I was an idiot back then, but I know that was part of the reason I voted against Kerry. There was such a staunch movement against the war and ending it immediately that I thought that would be a disaster. A large part of why I (again, as an 18 year old moron) voted for Bush was because it made more sense to back out slowly and correctly, and I thought the man that was there and knew and did everything already could do that better. Handing a project off to someone to quickly kill it seemed stupid at the time. Now, I don't remember that testimony ever being played or his poignancy ever getting to me at the time. That was a larger part of why I voted, not switching over during a time of war, but the other part is because Kerry couldn't convince me. To me he was a wet blanket. He was a bad candidate that didn't inspire any confidence or anything really. And that, I think was a problem. In hindsight he mustn't have been that good if he couldn't convince me, the moron, to vote for him. That was a transition time for me, too, so I wasn't as heavily invested in Bush.
But that's just what happened with me personally. My judgement on everyone else around me at the time is pretty clouded, because I was surrounded by conservatives (went to a religious college). So, I couldn't really tell you why anyone else around me may or may not have voted for him.
He definitely should. He knows how to explain things fairly well, and always has resources to back him up.
If you're looking for a blog similar to his thoughts, though, New Economic Perspectives is a good one.
BotoxAgent
Member
Thanks guys for the quick reality check. I know Romney is a terribad candidate. But sometimes I need words of encouragement once in a while. Election season is doing wonders for my anxiety.
Must have sucked to go through so much of my posting history to find proof of me continually using "hackjob blogs" as evidence only to come away with an obvious troll quote.
Quite an axe to grind from someone so relatively new ....
Black Mamba
Member
The problem is the economy is hurting the youth more than the middle-aged in the labor market. The youth, for one, don't vote that much. And for another, they aren't going to break for Romney. They will either vote Obama or not vote at all.
We can talk economy this, economy that, but what matters is how actual voters feel. And Romney's problem is that people who are more likely to vote for either candidate are less likely to be negatively affected by the economy right now.
Regular folks don't look at job reports and economic data. They look at their wallets.
Haha is this really the best ad the Romney camp can do?
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/obama-olympics-tv-ads-rnc.php?ref=fpnewsfeed
speculawyer
Member
Romney is way better than Bush. And if he actually still had his pro-choice position and was proud of his healthcare plan, he'd be a decent candidate. But no matter what Romney is like, he is dragged down by his anti-science war-mongering religious-fundamentalist political party.
makingmusic476
Member
I think Empty Vessel could do a great job diluting the ideas found on New Economic Perspectives and Billy Mitchell's blogs in a way that would make them fairly easy to understand for the common joe. I'd love to see a blog dedicated to that, and I've tried writing a few pieces myself for family and close friends.
Edit:
I started off conservative, but gradually became libertarian as I got into college. Then gaf and some personal events turned me into a socialist throughout my later years in college.
Edit:
I started off conservative, but gradually became libertarian as I got into college. Then gaf and some personal events turned me into a socialist throughout my later years in college.
ErasureAcer
Banned
Amazon donated 2.5 million dollars to group supporting same-sex marriage in Washington.
Yep, same here. I used to think Ron Paul was right about everything. Ugh.
makingmusic476
Member
What in the world.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
He isn't half the endearing bumbling fool that Bush was. Ignoring political viewpoints and affiliations, Bush was at least amicable. Romney's bumbling foolishness is disheartening, maddening and frustrating because he is supposed to be some sort of turnaround specialist and successful person in everything he has done. He is even wealthier than Bush and seemingly more arrogant about it.
Bush didn't let his party ALWAYS dictate his current positions, either. Romney can't help but kowtow to everyone in his stupid party.
A true leader would call out the insanity of Mitch McConnell and Bachmann for who they are.
Florida Republican: We wanted to suppress black votes
Interesting. Could be true, but as the story says he does have a vested interest in scorning his party.
A true leader with the courage and conviction in his believes. I really kind of doubt Romney even believed the shit he did before he believed the stuff he does now. It all comes off as just a political game. He wants power for the sake of it, for the title of it, and for the prestige. I don't think he wants to become president to change things or to run things well. He just wants to be president, because that's another accomplishment to add. Same with governor. The guy doesn't seem to me like he truly believes in anything.
Interesting. Could be true, but as the story says he does have a vested interest in scorning his party.
A true leader with the courage and conviction in his believes. I really kind of doubt Romney even believed the shit he did before he believed the stuff he does now. It all comes off as just a political game. He wants power for the sake of it, for the title of it, and for the prestige. I don't think he wants to become president to change things or to run things well. He just wants to be president, because that's another accomplishment to add. Same with governor. The guy doesn't seem to me like he truly believes in anything.
Holy....what in the...does this guy not understand that this...your just asking to get in trouble at this point.
Uh... read the story. He's already in trouble with felony corruption charges. So he could just be trying to take anyone down with him with this (true or not).
NullPointer
Member
Sign me up. For what its worth, you have my sword Empty Vessel.
makingmusic476
Member
An issue with healthcare reform popped up for me recently, and I'm wondering if any of you could shed some light on it.
My sister, who hates Obama and the ACA, told me yesterday that she was at the doctor's office and they told her she needed to see a number of specialists for various things. She asked if they'd set her up some appointments with these people, and they told her they can no longer do that. They said she'll have to call up each office herself, make the appointments, then call back her doctor's office and confirm with them that the appointments were made. When she asked why, they said it was because of "healthcare reform". So she called up my parents ranting and raving about how I can support the ACA.
Now, I know of no provision within the ACA that would lead to something like this, nor can I think of any reason why they'd bother to legislate something so silly into effect. It has no real purpose behind it, as far as I can tell, aside from saving that particular office the hassle of setting up such appointments for their patients. Is this actually in anyway caused by healthcare reform, or did her doctor's office just decide to start changing the way it operates and somebody along the way assumed it was because of the nebulous, vague "healthcare reform" monster most people don't really understand and usually fear?
My sister, who hates Obama and the ACA, told me yesterday that she was at the doctor's office and they told her she needed to see a number of specialists for various things. She asked if they'd set her up some appointments with these people, and they told her they can no longer do that. They said she'll have to call up each office herself, make the appointments, then call back her doctor's office and confirm with them that the appointments were made. When she asked why, they said it was because of "healthcare reform". So she called up my parents ranting and raving about how I can support the ACA.
Now, I know of no provision within the ACA that would lead to something like this, nor can I think of any reason why they'd bother to legislate something so silly into effect. It has no real purpose behind it, as far as I can tell, aside from saving that particular office the hassle of setting up such appointments for their patients. Is this actually in anyway caused by healthcare reform, or did her doctor's office just decide to start changing the way it operates and somebody along the way assumed it was because of the nebulous, vague "healthcare reform" monster most people don't really understand and usually fear?
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Yeah, not sure how much face value we can take this one at.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I have a co-worker I just talked to today who supports Romney because a.)he sees Obama as a leftist and Romney as a moderate and b.)he thinks that all of Romney's current antics are just to get votes and that the old Romney was the real Romney
I'm just saying that this can't possibly help his situation and may very well make it worse. It just makes no sense unless he is cutting some kind of deal.
Dr. Pangloss
Member
You gotta hand it to Fox News for consistency:
I know I'm late on this, but the logic of this picture doesn't make sense. Fox likes to bring up businesses that were self made and contributed to the overall GDP figure. In that sense, Obama has nothing to do with the number because he didn't control these business. But if he "built that 1.5% GDP growth," then we are led to believe that he has control over the businesses through government funds and didn't support them enough. Which is it?
Also, my faith for Obama's victory lies in the debate performance we will be getting. Romney proved this primary season that he isn't good at them with even mediocre challengers. Even Perry got him to make a 10,000 dollar bet. And even PD admits that Romney is more likely to fuck up from now to November:
Oh, if you want to see more voter suppression, then just watch this video of Pennsylvania's governor talking about keeping turnout down for Philly.
speculawyer
Member
Well, I don't really give a crap about the personality. I think that is important to help get someone elected but once in office, I don't care if they are a total anti-social stick-in-the-mud as long as their policies are good.
I agree that it is weird how Romney has kow-towed to everything his party pushes. At this point, I really have no idea who is "the real Mitt Romney". Was everything he said in Massachusetts just to get elected there? Is everything he is saying now just to keep his base energized? I thought he would shake up the etch-a-sketch (like they all do) and moderate a bit for the general but that really hasn't happened. Is he worried about losing the base if he does so?
Romney's a management consultant -- that's what he did in business. Management consultants conform themselves to their environment, because that's how consulting works -- you have to make the host believe you're part of them, while you change their management style. If you come in and say their policies are stupid and their business plan is bizarre, you're going to be out of a job really soon. You can see this exact process at work here: when he's governing Massachusetts, he was a moderate, shading towards liberal at all the points he had to, while creating a universal healthcare system along strong conservative lines. Now he's trying to lead the new Republican party, and conforming to that, with understandably disastrous results. So, in some sense, it doesn't necessarily matter what he's "really" like, because he's spent his adult life presenting himself as somebody other than himself in order to be successful.
I suspect that what Mitt Romney is really like is tied up heavily in the topic he really doesn't want to discuss -- the Church of Latter Day Saints. It's probably not accidental that the one accomplishment Romney is fine with people talking about took place in Salt Lake City.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
I think this might be so. The party wanted a crazy, energetic, charismatic born-again Christian. it got a 65-year old guy with grey in his hair Mormon. People are really, really, apathetic about him and that wouldn't change if he was Ronald Reagan or moderate mitt from MA.
DeathbyVolcano
Banned
I'm calling total bullshit. She needs to go to a better fucking doctor.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
That is the problem for me and a lot of non true-believer Mormons who find his predilection for distortion of the facts, outright lying, greed, and an apparent lack of caring for the poor as shocking. Those aren't the church's values and I find it very hard to reconcile the two, which is why I won't vote for him.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Yeah, its very weird, because I agree that his true personal identity is probably heavily tied up in the church but everything he does seems to go against the church's beliefs.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
^in reference to the Colorado shootings.
What exactly was Rick Warren trying to say here?
speculawyer
Member
Here is a question about Romney and his Bain experience.
Romney made a bunch of money our-sourcing jobs, reducing benefits, and firing people at Bain. Fine. Business is business. If you can reduce the cost structure so your product/service costs less then you make more profit. That is the game and he did well.
But being President, that is NOT the goal. The goal is to do the best for all the American people. So doing things like off-shoring work is generally not good for the American people. Yes, the remaining employed people will get some products cheaper but we are at a point where it is much more important to get people jobs than to buy widgets at 15% less.
So we want a president that could try to do the opposite of what Romney did. Now one can make the argument that Romney knows why & how they do the off-shoring and thus would be a good person to figure out how to stop it. Kinda like when you get an ex-criminal to work with the police to solve & prevent the type of crimes that he committed in the past.
But with an ex-criminal, they realize what they did was wrong and it is more beneficial for them to now fight the crime. What Romney did at Bain was not wrong or illegal . . . just not good for the greater USA. So why would he really try to change things? Romney would have sympathy for those doing what he did (including his pals still at Bain who are continuing to do it). So what exactly would he do to improve the employment situation? He's never given me a convincing answer. The things he mentions are just the same old policies of Bush years and the GOP in general for the last 30 years.
I don't think Obama has any magic solution either but he seems to be trying to put things into a Clinton era setting. I'll take the Clinton era setting over the Bush era setting. (Though I don't think things will be nearly as good as they were in the Clinton era which had cheap oil and the internet explosion.)
Romney made a bunch of money our-sourcing jobs, reducing benefits, and firing people at Bain. Fine. Business is business. If you can reduce the cost structure so your product/service costs less then you make more profit. That is the game and he did well.
But being President, that is NOT the goal. The goal is to do the best for all the American people. So doing things like off-shoring work is generally not good for the American people. Yes, the remaining employed people will get some products cheaper but we are at a point where it is much more important to get people jobs than to buy widgets at 15% less.
So we want a president that could try to do the opposite of what Romney did. Now one can make the argument that Romney knows why & how they do the off-shoring and thus would be a good person to figure out how to stop it. Kinda like when you get an ex-criminal to work with the police to solve & prevent the type of crimes that he committed in the past.
But with an ex-criminal, they realize what they did was wrong and it is more beneficial for them to now fight the crime. What Romney did at Bain was not wrong or illegal . . . just not good for the greater USA. So why would he really try to change things? Romney would have sympathy for those doing what he did (including his pals still at Bain who are continuing to do it). So what exactly would he do to improve the employment situation? He's never given me a convincing answer. The things he mentions are just the same old policies of Bush years and the GOP in general for the last 30 years.
I don't think Obama has any magic solution either but he seems to be trying to put things into a Clinton era setting. I'll take the Clinton era setting over the Bush era setting. (Though I don't think things will be nearly as good as they were in the Clinton era which had cheap oil and the internet explosion.)
ErasureAcer
Banned
The Koalas are packing heat.
SouthernDragon
Member
That's complete bullshit. My dad's been fighting cancer for the last year, and we've had to go to tons of different specialists. It's been nothing BUT easy. We've had little to no difficulties, and the hospital usually takes care of that sort of thing. Your sister's doctor is being an asshole.
I think you're spot on here.
NullPointer
Member
Evolution kills.
RustyNails
Member
I really like pigeon's posts. It's like really well thought out posts, but in the voice of John Boehner.
Yeah, that's the puzzle. For someone who might be very religious, he doesn't seem to show it much.
Evolution = people evolved from animals = people are just like animals = people should act like animals = people should shoot up movie theatres because that's totally what animals would do if they had opposable thumbs and gun shows.
makingmusic476
Member
This is what I'm thinking, but I know my family, and they'll have no problem believing the ACA is the cause until absolutely proven otherwise.
I need to get more details about the story, too. I heard it second hand through my father.
empty vessel
Member
Thanks for the shout outs, guys. I don't have enough time to run a blog; GAF gets all, or most of, my free internet time. And, yes, as RDreamer pointed out, New Economic Perspectives along with Bill Mitchell's blog are good reading for anybody interested in sound macroeconomic theory and the reality of modern monetary systems (which doesn't include the Eurozone!). Randall Wray has an older book I am currently reading, and he is coming out with a new book soon which I will be picking up.
makingmusic476
Member
Empty Vessel fo' prez.
thezerofire
Banned
basically, if you believe evolution you're more likely to shoot up a movie theater
speculawyer
Member
I admire this statement. I'm lapsed Lutheran mainly due to science but I could call myself a Christian-atheist in that I like much of the 'love thy enemy' and 'help the poor' teachings of Jesus. And I just can't understand how the message of Jesus is interpreted by many these days.
Who knows why John Roberts decided as he did on the healthcare reform supreme court case . . . but I would like to believe that the reason he did so is because as a Christian he felt it would be good to help poor sick people get healthcare. That gives me hope.
DeathbyVolcano
Banned
makingmusic, you heard a tall tale from members in your family who already have an ignorant stance on the healthcare bill.
makingmusic476
Member
Oh, I know. I'm not trying to debunk this for my own piece of mind, but rather to slowly, hopefully, try and bring them around to liking what seems to be a genuinely good piece of legislation that was written with their best interests in mind.
I've been in a political/religious tug-o-war with my family for a year or two now, and I ain't giving up.
speculawyer
Member
Yeah . . . someone needs to cite something specific in the bill as to why this is HCR's fault. Instead, you are stuck in the position of trying to prove a negative. How do you prove it is not in bill w/o forcing other people to read the entire bill?
I think the situation is just:
1) They are predisposed to not liking Obama.
2) Thus, they don't like his ACA.
3) So when something annoying related to healthcare happens, it is Obama's fault.
That's what they want to believe so they'll believe it.
Perhaps there was just a change in procedure for that particular private insurer . . . but that has nothing to do with the law.
DeathbyVolcano
Banned
How did Kosmo get banned?
- Status