• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tim-E

Member
San Antonio Mayor to Give Keynote Speech at Democratic Convention

Julián Castro, the Democratic mayor of San Antonio, will deliver the keynote speech at his party’s national convention in September, reprising the role that vaulted Barack Obama to national prominence eight years ago.

Mr. Castro will become the first Hispanic American chosen for the high-profile speaking slot at a time when President Obama is counting on Latinos to help him win a second term in the White House.

The selection was announced by Mr. Castro himself in a video posted by convention organizers and reported on first by Univision.

“I know I’ve got some big shoes to fill,” Mr. Castro says in the three-minute video. “We’ve come so far over the past three and a half years under Obama’s leadership. And I know he’s not done yet. We got a lot more work to do.”

A co-chairman of Mr. Obama’s re-election campaign, Mr. Castro is a rising star in the Democratic Party who, at 37, has already been elected and re-elected to the top job in San Antonio.

Mr. Castro’s Mexican-American background will provide Mr. Obama and the Democrats an opportunity to highlight what they see as a stark contrast with the policies of Mitt Romney and the Republican Party when it comes to Latino issues.

And the speech could serve as a national introduction for Mr. Castro as he pursues a political career outside of Texas.

In the video released Tuesday morning, Mr. Castro previewed the kind of personal story that he will draw upon during his remarks at the convention in Charlotte, N.C. Recalling Mr. Obama’s 2004, keynote speech, Mr. Castro said he would be honored to do the same.

“I remember watching his speech in 2004 and being inspired,” Mr. Castro said. “When Obama talked about the audacity of hope, I thought back to my mother saying if you didn’t like the way things were, you could dare to change them. I thought, my mother would like this guy.”

Mr. Castro’s home state of Texas is not a political battleground in the presidential campaign and will almost certainly be firmly in Mr. Romney’s column in the fall.

But the two candidates are waging fierce fights in Colorado, Florida, Nevada and Virginia — states where the increasing numbers of Latino voters make them an important voting block.

Democrats have said for years that they believe the tough Republican position on illegal immigration will make it more difficult for national politicians like Mr. Romney to earn Latino votes. Picking Mr. Castro for the prominent speaking post is one way of highlighting that issue for voters in those swing states.

Mr. Romney has argued that the nation’s economic distress is affecting Latinos even more deeply than other Americans, and that many of them will turn toward Republicans after concluding that Mr. Obama’s policies have not worked.

In the video, Mr. Castro argues that Mr. Obama faced a deep economic crisis and has begun to turn things around for all Americans.

“He brought the economy back from the brink, rescued the auto industry while Mitt Romney argued that we should let Detroit go bankrupt, and he created 4.4 million private sector jobs,” Mr. Castro said.
Click to expand...

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/...give-keynote-speech-at-democratic-convention/

An eventual candidate to run in 2016-2020? Wouldn't be surprised if the party made an effort to try and re-create the 2008 Obama momentum with a Latino to take advantage of the growing Latino population when Republicans will also be trying to do the same thing eventually. Also a Latino democrat from Texas would help the state's inevitable switch to a swing state move along.
 
B

Black Republican

Member
if romney doesnt get a big bump after the gop convention you can call off the election

Wilsongt said:
http://news.yahoo.com/mitt-romney-s...polish-holy-110442318--abc-news-politics.html

Mitt Romney Spokesman Tells Reporters 'Kiss My ***' at Polish Holy Site



So not only is Romney a bumbling idiot, he also travels with bumbling idiots.

Keepin' it classy.
Click to expand...

i think its just frustration from the previous trips that built up and he finally snapped. If they went Poland first this probably wouldnt of happened
 
B

bananas

Banned
They're trying to recreate Obama's 2004 speech that help launched him. All the way down to sharing a name with an American enemy. :p
 
C

cartoon_soldier

Member
Campaigns withdraw advertising from PA

http://www.tnr.com/blog/105493/pennsylvania-obama-romney-voter-id

Last week, Romney allies withdrew advertisements from Pennsylvania, and the Obama campaign cut their buy in half. This week, the Obama campaign is going even further: withdrawing advertisements from the Keystone State altogether, making this the first week that Obama has gone without airing advertisements in Pennsylvania.
Click to expand...

Either way, the willingness of the campaigns to suspend advertising, even temporarily, is a telling indicator of the state’s competitiveness. Campaigns don’t go off the air if they’re serious about fighting for a state: The effects of advertising fade quickly once ads are withdrawn, so campaigns generally sustain uninterrupted ads from the first buy until November.
Click to expand...

I am sure Obama will continue with its organizing efforts in PA though that dwarf GOP anyway. But, surely a sign and pundits can stop calling PA a swing state.

Also, awesome anecdote in Playbook today

Jim Messina, … my campaign manager … was in some event, and this young couple who was there with their adorable four-year-old son, and I guess there was a picture of me somewhere, and so they were very excited. They said, ‘Sammy, who’s that?’ And he said, ‘That’s Barack Obama.’ ‘And what does Barack Obama do?’ And the boy thinks for a second and he says, ‘He approves this message.’
Click to expand...

lol
 
C

cartoon_soldier

Member
In economic news that Ghal talked about yesterday:

Good: Home Prices up 2.2%
http://money.cnn.com/2012/07/30/real_estate/home-prices/index.htm

Bad: Consumer spending unchanged
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-31/consumer-spending-in-u-s-was-unchanged-in-june.html

Later this week, the Labor Department may report payrolls advanced in July by 100,000 after rising 80,000 in June, according to the Bloomberg survey median. Unemployment probably held at 8.2 percent for a third month. The rate has exceeded 8 percent for more than three years.
Click to expand...

I hope numbers are better than that :(
 
M

Mike M

Nick N
Tim-E said:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/...give-keynote-speech-at-democratic-convention/

An eventual candidate to run in 2016-2020? Wouldn't be surprised if the party made an effort to try and re-create the 2008 Obama momentum with a Latino to take advantage of the growing Latino population when Republicans will also be trying to do the same thing eventually. Also a Latino democrat from Texas would help the state's inevitable switch to a swing state move along.
Click to expand...

His name is Castro. He's obviously a foreign-born communist sleeper agent hellbent on America's destruction.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
Poland shenanigans finally happen (although not by Romney). The Trifecta is complete.

Romney aide starts cursing press in Poland
Warsaw, Poland (CNN) - The traveling press secretary for Mitt Romney lost his cool and cursed at reporters who attempted to ask questions of the Republican presidential candidate in a public plaza near the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Warsaw Tuesday.

As Romney made his way to his vehicle, reporters attempted to shout questions to the candidate. The former Massachusetts governor, who has answered only three questions from his traveling press corps during a week-long overseas trip, ignored the queries. Romney did sit down for multiple interviews during his foreign swing, including with CNN's Piers Morgan and Wolf Blitzer.

When members of the press tried to ask Romney about some of the mishaps on his trip, his traveling press secretary Rick Gorka verbally dressed down reporters.

CNN: "Governor Romney are you concerned about some of the mishaps of your trip?

NYT: "Governor Romney do you have a statement for the Palestinians?

Washington Post: "What about your gaffes?

NYT: "Governor Romney do you feel that your gaffes have overshadowed your foreign trip?"

CNN: "Governor Romney just a few questions sir, you haven't taken but three questions on this trip from the press!

Gorka: "Show some respect"

NYT: "We haven't had another chance to ask a question..."

Gorka: "Kiss my ass. This is a Holy site for the Polish people. Show some respect."

Moments later, Gorka told Jonathan Martin, a reporter for Politico, to "shove it." About a half-hour later, the aide called reporters to apologize.

Gorka's comments to the media came just hours before Romney's foreign policy speech in Warsaw.
Click to expand...
 
C

codhand

Member
ToxicAdam said:
Slow news day, eh?
Click to expand...
I'll try to fill the hole kosmo has left us.



Here's a good one that had the email subject:

"And they want 12 years of Romney's tax returns?!"

ihJSM.jpg


I love that all Obama's stuff is in SS condition, must be worth a fortune, I hope he used acetate backs and not polymer for his records.
 
K

KingGondo

Banned
Mike M said:
His name is Castro. He's obviously a foreign-born communist sleeper agent hellbent on America's destruction.
Click to expand...
The conspiracy nuts will love this. First a guy named Barack Hussein Obama, then a Castro?

This guy came across really well when the Western Conference Finals were in SA, hope he can take the torch in 2016 after Obama's second term.
 
R

RDreamer

Member
Why do people who get angry at something extreme in politics not look it up? Usually if something surprises me to the point where I'm annoyed at it, I'll look into it and make sure if it's even true.

For example, today someone on my Facebook list (lol I know) posted one of those stupid pictures. Whatever. Anyway, in the comments I saw a friend of his going off on Obamacare, and then said that Congress is exempt from the whole law. Well, that seemed weird to me, since that's not exactly what I've heard. So I quickly checked and it turns out that's definitely not the case (as I knew beforehand), and also it turns out that Sean Hannity was the one stating as a matter of factly that was the case. Anyway, I set them straight with that.

Then I look at the picture again. It's one of those chain things that says the president and the congress make this huge salary every year FOR LIFE. Well, it seemed a bit strange to me, so I looked it up, and they don't make a salary for life. They get pensions, but the numbers on the image were completely and utterly wrong, and basically the whole thing was just misunderstood completely. Congress's pension system is determined by years served and is also capped at 80% of pay, but you'd have to have served for many many years to get near that. The president just gets whatever the current congress is getting too. Now, maybe you can be outraged about that, but it's far more reasonable than that image was making it out to be.

I just don't get why people take the effort not just to like those type of pictures (which I know isn't really an effort), but then to rant about it and other things, but don't take the time to do even a quick google search to see if the shit is even true.

Edit: Christ are you kidding me... I linked him a forbes article with the piece of the law right in it and this is what I get from this dude: "I've read the Forbes article, but there is more to it than that. I will have to dig all this up, but from what I understand, there was a Republican amendment that was specifically put into the law to make it so congress was not exempt, but Democrats removed it before final passage, and I remember reading a specific clause in the law that specifically exempted the president, congress, and their families. Perhaps the clause was taken out, but it's a 2k page monstrosity that Nancy Pelosi didn't even want us to read before it was passed, and for that reason alone, gives me pause." .... derp
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Dr. Pangloss said:
He wasn't that wealthy per say. It was all tied up in assets like land and slaves, so not very liquid.
Click to expand...

Adam Smith is rolling in his grave to hear you describe land and forced labor as not very much wealth. And probably Charlemagne, too.

cartoon_soldier said:
In economic news that Ghal talked about yesterday:

Good: Home Prices up 2.2%
http://money.cnn.com/2012/07/30/real_estate/home-prices/index.htm

Bad: Consumer spending unchanged
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-31/consumer-spending-in-u-s-was-unchanged-in-june.html

I hope numbers are better than that :(
Click to expand...

Yet another example of how our current financial straits are the result of enormous swathes of the economy switching from holding debt to holding cash. If we could figure out a way for people not to be scared of leverage any more, the entire crisis would disappear. Although you'd want to start with the banks.
 
B

Blergmeister

Member
RDreamer said:
Why do people who get angry at something extreme in politics not look it up? Usually if something surprises me to the point where I'm annoyed at it, I'll look into it and make sure if it's even true.

For example, today someone on my Facebook list (lol I know) posted one of those stupid pictures. Whatever. Anyway, in the comments I saw a friend of his going off on Obamacare, and then said that Congress is exempt from the whole law. Well, that seemed weird to me, since that's not exactly what I've heard. So I quickly checked and it turns out that's definitely not the case (as I knew beforehand), and also it turns out that Sean Hannity was the one stating as a matter of factly that was the case. Anyway, I set them straight with that.

Then I look at the picture again. It's one of those chain things that says the president and the congress make this huge salary every year FOR LIFE. Well, it seemed a bit strange to me, so I looked it up, and they don't make a salary for life. They get pensions, but the numbers on the image were completely and utterly wrong, and basically the whole thing was just misunderstood completely. Congress's pension system is determined by years served and is also capped at 80% of pay, but you'd have to have served for many many years to get near that. The president just gets whatever the current congress is getting too. Now, maybe you can be outraged about that, but it's far more reasonable than that image was making it out to be.

I just don't get why people take the effort not just to like those type of pictures (which I know isn't really an effort), but then to rant about it and other things, but don't take the time to do even a quick google search to see if the shit is even true.

Edit: Christ are you kidding me... I linked him a forbes article with the piece of the law right in it and this is what I get from this dude: "I've read the Forbes article, but there is more to it than that. I will have to dig all this up, but from what I understand, there was a Republican amendment that was specifically put into the law to make it so congress was not exempt, but Democrats removed it before final passage, and I remember reading a specific clause in the law that specifically exempted the president, congress, and their families. Perhaps the clause was taken out, but it's a 2k page monstrosity that Nancy Pelosi didn't even want us to read before it was passed, and for that reason alone, gives me pause." .... derp
Click to expand...

From what I understand of the law... what part would Congress be exempt from? The only things I can think of that a person would want to be exempt from is the penalty for not buying insurance? That seems like it wouldn't matter to most Congressmen. Maybe Congressional insurance plans don't have to meet whatever the minimum standard for insurance plans turn out to be, but that sounds dumb? I mean, the main thing that affects me specifically about the law is all the requirements that insruance companies now have to meet, I don't know why they would want to be exempt from that?
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Blergmeister said:
From what I understand of the law... what part would Congress be exempt from? The only things I can think of that a person would want to be exempt from is the penalty for not buying insurance? That seems like it wouldn't matter to most Congressmen. Maybe Congressional insurance plans don't have to meet whatever the minimum standard for insurance plans turn out to be, but that sounds dumb? I mean, the main thing that affects me specifically about the law is all the requirements that insruance companies now have to meet, I don't know why they would want to be exempt from that?
Click to expand...

Since the theory is that the law is terrible and has death panels, obviously Congress would want to be exempt from it, right? You have to remember that the people who actually know what the law does (a depressing minority) don't post these pictures.
 
B

Blergmeister

Member
pigeon said:
Since the theory is that the law is terrible and has death panels, obviously Congress would want to be exempt from it, right? You have to remember that the people who actually know what the law does (a depressing minority) don't post these pictures.
Click to expand...

Ha I was hoping this Congressional Exemption attack was based off of somthing in the law, just like "Death Panels" originates in the part of the law where Government mandates a minimum level for insurance plans that is then terribly mangeled into "this Death Panel won't let us get the maximum care and therefore die."
 
R

RDreamer

Member
Blergmeister said:
From what I understand of the law... what part would Congress be exempt from? The only things I can think of that a person would want to be exempt from is the penalty for not buying insurance? That seems like it wouldn't matter to most Congressmen. Maybe Congressional insurance plans don't have to meet whatever the minimum standard for insurance plans turn out to be, but that sounds dumb? I mean, the main thing that affects me specifically about the law is all the requirements that insruance companies now have to meet, I don't know why they would want to be exempt from that?
Click to expand...

I think they're trying to say congress gets to stay on their current plans, which are supposedly much much better than most Americans can get.

Also, where the hell does this Nancy Pelosi didn't want us to read the bill thing come from? And who gives a shit if it's a 2000 page monstrosity. Aren't a lot of bills rather large? I mean this thing is overhauling our entire health system. Of course it's going to be large. Who gives a shit.

Edit: Found the Pelosi quote. LOL that sounds like it was pulled so far out of context it's crazy... and people are still shouting about it now? jesus christ...
 
G

Ghost_Protocol

Member
If republicans don't win the presidency this time, does anyone feel like they're in danger of not winning it for a looooong time unless they make some drastic, fundamental changes to their philosophy?
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Ghost_Protocol said:
If republicans don't win the presidency this time, does anyone feel like they're in danger of not winning it for a looooong time unless they make some drastic, fundamental changes to their philosophy?
Click to expand...

Well, yea. That's why they are pushing so hard, they won't survive the way they are now. For all the shit everyone gave Bush he realized this and tried to make inroads with the Hispanic community, which were then shit on as soon as he left office. If you want to win an election in this country you need more than just old white guys and the super religious.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
Ghost_Protocol said:
If republicans don't win the presidency this time, does anyone feel like they're in danger of not winning it for a looooong time unless they make some drastic, fundamental changes to their philosophy?
Click to expand...
Thats what people said after 2008. Look what happened in 2010. Dont ever under estimate the stupidity of American people. Fox News and rightwing radio is here to stay for a long time and as long as they are there, people will keep voting against their interests.
 
S

Snaku

Banned
Tim-E said:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/...give-keynote-speech-at-democratic-convention/

An eventual candidate to run in 2016-2020? Wouldn't be surprised if the party made an effort to try and re-create the 2008 Obama momentum with a Latino to take advantage of the growing Latino population when Republicans will also be trying to do the same thing eventually. Also a Latino democrat from Texas would help the state's inevitable switch to a swing state move along.
Click to expand...

I don't think America is ready for a president named Castro.
 
R

RDreamer

Member
lol, this guy is hilarious. I literally pointed him to the actual bill and told him exactly where he can find that congress is not exempt and I get a "I dont base my opinions on the information contained in one magazine article. Fact checked or not, I find misinformation everywhere. I don't have time to research this any more than I have, and don't have time to argue with you about it."

Man, people are stupid sometimes. He's really clinging hard to his misinformation on what he characterizes as an "incredibly bleak law."
 
C

cartoon_soldier

Member
Continued economic news

Good: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...fidence-index-unexpectedly-rose-correct-.html

Confidence among U.S. consumers unexpectedly rose for the first time in five months as Americans became more upbeat about job prospects later this year.
The Conference Board’s index increased to 65.9 this month from 62.7 in June, figures from the New York-based private research group showed today. Economists projected a reading of 61.5, according to the median estimate in a Bloomberg News survey. The report showed a gain in the share of consumers anticipating better labor and economic conditions in six months.
Click to expand...
 
D

daedalius

Member
RDreamer said:
lol, this guy is hilarious. I literally pointed him to the actual bill and told him exactly where he can find that congress is not exempt and I get a "I dont base my opinions on the information contained in one magazine article. Fact checked or not, I find misinformation everywhere. I don't have time to research this any more than I have, and don't have time to argue with you about it."

Man, people are stupid sometimes. He's really clinging hard to his misinformation on what he characterizes as an "incredibly bleak law."
Click to expand...

Sounds like its time to click that un-friend button! Lots of people are good at clinging to misinformation.
 
R

RDreamer

Member
daedalius said:
Sounds like its time to click that un-friend button! Lots of people are good at clinging to misinformation.
Click to expand...

Nah, this wasn't my friend that's being the stubborn ass. This is just some dude that had already responded to the friend's misinformed picture. Though that "friend" is a pretty biased and stubborn republican and posts the stupidest of stuff. At least when discussing with him he's usually pretty nice about it.

Still, it feels weird to me that people don't look some of this stuff up sometime. I mean I know there's a lot of information out there, but at the same time we've got a lot of good information. You can find the text of the actual bill online. Everything's there at your fingertips. Why are you angry about something that you don't even know is true.
 
D

daedalius

Member
RDreamer said:
Nah, this wasn't my friend that's being the stubborn ass. This is just some dude that had already responded to the friend's misinformed picture. Though that "friend" is a pretty biased and stubborn republican and posts the stupidest of stuff. At least when discussing with him he's usually pretty nice about it.

Still, it feels weird to me that people don't look some of this stuff up sometime. I mean I know there's a lot of information out there, but at the same time we've got a lot of good information. You can find the text of the actual bill online. Everything's there at your fingertips. Why are you angry about something that you don't even know is true.
Click to expand...

I got into a Facebook argument with someone I recently removed from my list, but every time I would counter with information about the subject we were arguing about (healthcare something or another), she would find a way to perform more elaborate mental gymnastics to invalidate or ignore the point I made.

Having a reasonable conversation means both sides need to be open to new information, and a lot of the time, that doesn't seem to be the case; especially considering how intolerant and radicalized some people's views are becoming. Regardless of what you tell them, they aren't going to listen, or will find a way to tell you that you're wrong.
 
S

scorcho

testicles on a cold fall morning
Romney's foreign policy trip continues to fascinate me.

While the 'freedom' line isn't offensive in a vacuum, it seems awfully idiotic for a Presidential candidate with a realistic chance of winning to so directly stick a finger in Russia's eye. Yes, establishment Republicans hate Putin, but why have that now stand as the first line of a potential new presidency? Compound that with - even by US standards - slavish boot licking to Israeli foreign policy and 'cultural' superiority over Palestinians and, well...wow.

It's as if he's taken courses in the John Bolton School of International Diplomacy.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
RDreamer said:
Why do people who get angry at something extreme in politics not look it up? Usually if something surprises me to the point where I'm annoyed at it, I'll look into it and make sure if it's even true.

For example, today someone on my Facebook list (lol I know) posted one of those stupid pictures. Whatever. Anyway, in the comments I saw a friend of his going off on Obamacare, and then said that Congress is exempt from the whole law. Well, that seemed weird to me, since that's not exactly what I've heard. So I quickly checked and it turns out that's definitely not the case (as I knew beforehand), and also it turns out that Sean Hannity was the one stating as a matter of factly that was the case. Anyway, I set them straight with that.

Then I look at the picture again. It's one of those chain things that says the president and the congress make this huge salary every year FOR LIFE. Well, it seemed a bit strange to me, so I looked it up, and they don't make a salary for life. They get pensions, but the numbers on the image were completely and utterly wrong, and basically the whole thing was just misunderstood completely. Congress's pension system is determined by years served and is also capped at 80% of pay, but you'd have to have served for many many years to get near that. The president just gets whatever the current congress is getting too. Now, maybe you can be outraged about that, but it's far more reasonable than that image was making it out to be.

I just don't get why people take the effort not just to like those type of pictures (which I know isn't really an effort), but then to rant about it and other things, but don't take the time to do even a quick google search to see if the shit is even true.

Edit: Christ are you kidding me... I linked him a forbes article with the piece of the law right in it and this is what I get from this dude: "I've read the Forbes article, but there is more to it than that. I will have to dig all this up, but from what I understand, there was a Republican amendment that was specifically put into the law to make it so congress was not exempt, but Democrats removed it before final passage, and I remember reading a specific clause in the law that specifically exempted the president, congress, and their families. Perhaps the clause was taken out, but it's a 2k page monstrosity that Nancy Pelosi didn't even want us to read before it was passed, and for that reason alone, gives me pause." .... derp
Click to expand...
What boggles my mind is that even when you show such people that certain sources are lying to them over and over and over again . . . they continue to believe them.

There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — [pauses] — shame on you. Fool me — [pauses] — You can't get fooled again.
 
R

RDreamer

Member
daedalius said:
I got into a Facebook argument with someone I recently removed from my list, but every time I would counter with information about the subject we were arguing about (healthcare something or another), she would find a way to perform more elaborate mental gymnastics to invalidate or ignore the point I made.

Having a reasonable conversation means both sides need to be open to new information, and a lot of the time, that doesn't seem to be the case; especially considering how intolerant and radicalized some people's views are becoming. Regardless of what you tell them, they aren't going to listen, or will find a way to tell you that you're wrong.
Click to expand...


This guy isn't even having a reasonable conversation. He knows he's being proven wrong and he's just trying to shut down the conversation altogether. I just got this "you and I obviously differ on our priorities, and yes there is much in this law to be angry about for those with conservative opinions. I have done research on this, but again dont have time to go around in circles with you about it. If you love Obamacare, then thats your right, but I think its a huge step in the wrong direction and will end up sending our country down a slippery slope towards many unpleasant realities in the future."

We just differ because he's a conservative and has conservative opinions! Not sure what facts those are based on, but they're differing opinions, so conversation is ended.... I always hate that too when you back someone into a corner and they're just like "Well I just have a conservative opinion" or "Well, you're obviously liberal, so you wouldn't understand." Basically just boiling down actual factual discussion into "Well that's just like your opinion man."

When it comes to Obamacare I just don't get why people can hate it so much anymore anyway, if they actually read what it does. The only way I can see logically disliking it really, is if you're on the left of it, and want a single payer system. Otherwise there really isn't any logic behind disliking it. For fuck's sake, Mitt Romney just praised the same damned system in a place that we can definitely do it better than (with more funding). And he put into place the same law in Massachusetts. They're not dying in the streets there (anymore lol). I just don't get this whole boogie man thing the right has with this law.
 
C

ClassyPenguin

Banned
Because a large portion of the population view "beliefs" more important than facts. I try not to get into political and religious arguments with friends on facebook unless it's something way absurd.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
Ghost_Protocol said:
If republicans don't win the presidency this time, does anyone feel like they're in danger of not winning it for a looooong time unless they make some drastic, fundamental changes to their philosophy?
Click to expand...

Yeah, so many demographics are moving away from them.
-More Latinos
-more acceptance of gays
-More atheists/agnostics/nones
-more people living in cities than rural areas
-squeeze of middle class gives more support to healthcare reform


Not much moving in their direction except the aging population which seems to help them.


So they have to change or else they'll be toast. W worked hard on getting latinos but they pissed all his work away.
 
R

RDreamer

Member
doitlive said:
Because a large portion of the population view "beliefs" more important than facts. I try not to get into political and religious arguments with friends on facebook unless it's something way absurd.
Click to expand...

I try not to, but jesus 90% of those things are way absurd.

Personally I usually try to let stupid rhetoric go, but if someone passes itself off as a fact I'll try and correct it if I know that it's not true, as is the case here.
 
C

cartoon_soldier

Member
Ghost_Protocol said:
If republicans don't win the presidency this time, does anyone feel like they're in danger of not winning it for a looooong time unless they make some drastic, fundamental changes to their philosophy?
Click to expand...

It all depends on which way the party moves. Some feel they would realize their mistakes. I feel that the party will feel selecting a Mass. Liberal GOP nominee caused the defeat and go even further right.

But no party can hold power for too long. They will always have a shot at Presidency in 2024 again.
 
R

RDreamer

Member
Ghost_Protocol said:
If republicans don't win the presidency this time, does anyone feel like they're in danger of not winning it for a looooong time unless they make some drastic, fundamental changes to their philosophy?
Click to expand...

I'm kind of at a loss to what they could do. Any drastic, fundamental change to their philosophy right now would be met with their base crying like children and throwing a tantrum. Hell, I wonder if the tea party would actually break off the republican party if that were the case.
 
K

KingGondo

Banned
RDreamer said:
Nah, this wasn't my friend that's being the stubborn ass. This is just some dude that had already responded to the friend's misinformed picture. Though that "friend" is a pretty biased and stubborn republican and posts the stupidest of stuff. At least when discussing with him he's usually pretty nice about it.

Still, it feels weird to me that people don't look some of this stuff up sometime. I mean I know there's a lot of information out there, but at the same time we've got a lot of good information. You can find the text of the actual bill online. Everything's there at your fingertips. Why are you angry about something that you don't even know is true.
Click to expand...
Probably the scariest aspect of the American far right is its complete aversion to factchecked and mainstream sources of information.

Guys like Hannity, Limbaugh, and Beck have convinced a lot of these people that all information out there is tainted and inherently unreliable, unless it comes from a "trusted" source like Fox News or one of their shows.

Also, don't lose any sleep over a Facebook argument. Lots and lots of loonies all over the Internet.
 
T

Tamanon

Banned
RDreamer said:
I'm kind of at a loss to what they could do. Any drastic, fundamental change to their philosophy right now would be met with their base crying like children and throwing a tantrum. Hell, I wonder if the tea party would actually break off the republican party if that were the case.
Click to expand...
They're going to have to suffer a few bad elections as the base adjusts. It's the only way to survive a demographic change. Or just lay off the anti-immigrant shit and they'd discover how socially conservative Latinos can really be.
 
G

GhaleonEB

Member
empty vessel said:
Unfortunately, consumer confidence is a lagging indicator. This may only reflect the marginal recovery that already occurred, not the new stagnation (and possible decline) on the horizon.
Click to expand...

It's more of a coincident indicator; it's been quite responsive to economic developments and data. To the extent that it lags economic developments, that lag is usually about a month.

Looking at the details behind the report, it bounced this month based entirely on expectations for economic improvement in the near future. Should that not appear - if the jobs report disappoints again - then I expect it will drop down again.

To finish the round up of economic data:

Wages and income rose half a point last month, but consumer spending was flat.

Chicago PMI improved.

Home prices improved 0.9% last month.

Encouraging all around. I think consumer spending will pick back up should we have a decent employment report or two. Friday will be critical in terms of setting the direction heading into the fall. Hopefully we clear 100k and show continued marginal improvement.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
RDreamer said:
Why do people who get angry at something extreme in politics not look it up? Usually if something surprises me to the point where I'm annoyed at it, I'll look into it and make sure if it's even true.
Click to expand...
KingGondo said:
Probably the scariest aspect of the American far right is its complete aversion to factchecked and mainstream sources of information.
Click to expand...




"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." -Bertrand Russell
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Frostpunk 2 | Review Thread
Review
12
1K
geary replied
Has the internet regressed reporting of news?
Clickbait
30
2K
StueyDuck replied
Exposing German Hops
2 3
115
8K
Dr.Morris79 replied
Star Wars Outlaws | Review Thread
Analysis Review 8 9 10 11 12
571
40K
Gamer_By_Proxy replied
Reynatis (PS4, PS5, Switch, and PC) | Review Thread + Discussion thread
News Review 2
81
9K
drganon replied
Top Bottom