• 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

ToxicAdam

Member
Yea, but what can be said that hasn't already been said about Obama? Outside of his 'you didn't build this', he hasn't given his opponents much material.
 
C

codhand

Member
ToxicAdam said:
Yea, but what can be said that hasn't already been said about Obama? Outside of his 'you didn't build this', he hasn't given his opponents much material.
Click to expand...

But he fund raised with Carmello Anthony and so-called "hero" Michael Jordan!! Outrage!!!


But, yeah I'm starting to think the load was blown in '08.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
eznark said:
1344.jpg


This image is what TocixAdam wants to say. Northeast white guilters and left coast do-nothing hand wringers are, in actuality, stingy as hell when compared to the evil flyover red meat and guns crowd.

I guess the giant, loving hearts of Obama and Ryan make up for the heartless selfish bastard New Englanders.
Click to expand...

Well, Ryan gave 1.2% to charity last year. Snarky cheesehead joke. Am I right?
 
F

Four_Chamber

Member
Shocking, Republicans are afraid of American Muslims. I'm just going to LOVE watching the Republican party fading into irrelevance in the next decade or so.

That's why its so amazing to have a guy like Chris Christie, a possible candidate for higher office, be the most ardent defender of Muslims in the GOP.

The results are split sharply along partisan lines. Overall, Republican voters hold strongly negative views of Muslims, with 57 percent saying they view them unfavorably and just 26 saying they view them favorably — more than double. The numbers are similar for Arabs, whom Republican respondents view negatively by a slightly smaller margin of 26 percent, 53 to 27 percent. When asked about “Muslim Americans” and “Arab Americans,” the numbers improved slightly, with a 12 and 15 percent net unfavorable rating, respectively.

By contrast, Democrats held favorable views of these groups by margins of at least 20-35 percent in all four cases. The view of Muslims and Arabs among Democrats was still less positive than other religious groups included in the survey, however, underscoring a resilient problem of post-9/11 America. Still, Democrats gave no group a net negative rating, while Republicans gave negative ratings to Muslims, Arabs, Muslim-Americans and Arab-Americans.

Of the 13 religious or ethnic groups included in the survey, only Sikhs had anywhere close to the negative ratings of Muslims and Arabs. Among all respondents, the religious group is viewed favorably 45-24, but Republicans are split 36-35, with almost a third unfamiliar. All other religious groups had strongly favorable views by margins of up to 60 percent in the cases of Presbyterians and Jews.

On the question of Muslims and Arabs in the government, the results were similar. While about twice as many Democrats said they were confident a Muslim-American could do his or her job and that ethnic loyalty would not interfere, the results were flipped among Republicans. A slim majority of 51 percent said ethnic loyalty would trump job responsibility, while 25 percent said they were confident Muslim-Americans in government could do their jobs.
Click to expand...

http://www.salon.com/2012/08/23/poll_republicans_really_dislike_muslims/
 
G

GhaleonEB

Member
eznark said:
1344.jpg


This image is what TocixAdam wants to say. Northeast white guilters and left coast do-nothing hand wringers are, in actuality, stingy as hell when compared to the evil flyover red meat and guns crowd.

I guess the giant, loving hearts of Obama and Ryan make up for the heartless selfish bastard New Englanders.
Click to expand...

As a native Iowan now living in Oregon, there's definitely a different value set at play. But I'd add that cost of living is also much higher on the coasts, which I think is also a big factor.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
Four_Chamber said:
Shocking, Republicans are afraid of American Muslims. I'm just going to LOVE watching the Republican party fading into irrelevance in the next decade or so.

That's why its so amazing to have a guy like Chris Christie, a possible candidate for higher office, be the most ardent defender of Muslims in the GOP.



http://www.salon.com/2012/08/23/poll_republicans_really_dislike_muslims/
Click to expand...

I wish they had included atheists in their polling but they probably excluded them because that would have stole their headline.
 
J

Jackson50

Member
Aaron Strife said:
TPM on Dems' Senate prospects since Akinocalypse - looking good.


If Democrats get off with only losing one seat (-NE/WI, +ME), that's still better than what anyone could realistically expect two years ago. And it's still possible for them to gain, although not by much.

It just depends on if this election turns into a wave on either side, or if it's relatively mundane like 1996 or 2004.
Click to expand...
That article is a bit misleading. Unless he has a secret repository of polls, the Democratic candidates are not leading in ND and MT; actually, there's been a decided paucity of polling on these contests, but the Republican candidates maintain a slight advantage in the polls conducted. And Virginia is a virtual tie. If they only have to flip those three and hold MA, they lose control of the Senate.
AlteredBeast said:
Pretty much, outside of pandering flip-flop-o-romney, this is the reason Obama will win. He is just a likeable, relatable guy.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but likability does not invariably correlate with electoral success.
Over all, in the 13 elections between 1952 and 2000, Republican candidates won four of the six in which they had higher personal ratings than the Democrats, while Democratic candidates lost four of the seven elections in which they had higher ratings than the Republicans. Not much evidence of a big likability effect here. In most elections, however, the electorate did not give a large personal edge to either candidate. In four elections they did.

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/07/youre-likable-enough-mitt/
Click to expand...

07cs-chart-blog480.jpg
 
C

Chichikov

Member
GhaleonEB said:
As a native Iowan now living in Oregon, there's definitely a different value set at play. But I'd add that cost of living is also much higher on the coasts, which I think is also a big factor.
Click to expand...
Still, charity is commendable, and this is definitely a point to flyover country.
 
G

GhaleonEB

Member
Wolfgunblood Garopa said:
How much of that flyover country charity is going to their churches, to build bigger churches with bigger parking lots?
Click to expand...

Some. But people also talk to each other more, are more neighborly, and more willing to give to help others. It's part of the value set, along with a strong work ethic, in the midwest where I grew up. Moving to Oregon from Iowa was like jumping into a bucket of ice water.
 
C

Chichikov

Member
Wolfgunblood Garopa said:
How much of that flyover country charity is going to their churches, to build bigger churches with bigger parking lots?
Click to expand...
It really depends on the charity, but generally speaking, religious charities have some of the lowest overhead in the business, and most do amazingly good things, in and outside the country.

I don't think there is a way you can slice the data that would make big coastal city residents more charitable than their flyover country brethren.

If you don't like that, I suggest you and your friends start doing more charity work.
I mean, if we are to have a blue state v. red state pissing contest, might as well be on who does more charity, might feed a couple of poor people that way.
 
T

thefro

Member
Religious charities are different than a straight donation to a church, where there's lots of expenses that don't fall under their "mission".

I was looking at my Church's budget a couple days ago (it was in the bulletin on Sunday) and only about 10% actually goes to missions & charities.
 
F

FyreWulff

Member
GhaleonEB said:
Some. But people also talk to each other more, are more neighborly, and more willing to give to help others. It's part of the value set, along with a strong work ethic, in the midwest where I grew up. Moving to Oregon from Iowa was like jumping into a bucket of ice water.
Click to expand...

This aptly describes me going from Nebraska to Vancouver. Especially the people not talking to each other thing.
 
Dude Abides

Dude Abides

Banned
GhaleonEB said:
Some. But people also talk to each other more, are more neighborly, and more willing to give to help others. It's part of the value set, along with a strong work ethic, in the midwest where I grew up. Moving to Oregon from Iowa was like jumping into a bucket of ice water.
Click to expand...

The neighborliness I'll buy, but certainly not the work ethic, having lived in Western PA, OH, SF, and NYC.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Chichikov said:
Still, charity is commendable, and this is definitely a point to flyover country.
Click to expand...

I mean, I think this is an important point to remember when you talk to a conservative flyover voter who believes that charity should be able to fill in for welfare -- they give more, and they probably see its effects more obviously in their areas, while us coastal types give less, partly because the cost of living is higher and partly because we're dubious about its effectiveness. Rural and urban citizens don't have different policy priorities because one side is dumb or lazy, but because both sides have wildly different needs and want government to fill those needs. Of course, in the long term, the urbanites are going to win just because of Malthus, so you can see why the rural people might get more and more frantic over time.

GhaleonEB said:
Some. But people also talk to each other more, are more neighborly, and more willing to give to help others. It's part of the value set, along with a strong work ethic, in the midwest where I grew up. Moving to Oregon from Iowa was like jumping into a bucket of ice water.
Click to expand...

I also question the work ethic idea, but the neighborliness is definitely a thing. At least I assume so -- I've lived in Hawaii or the Bay Area my whole life, and I've never spent any time with my neighbors. Even as a kid the people I hung out with weren't the people we lived close to. Sometimes I just figured that people don't really have neighbors any more.
 
E

eznark

Banned
Fucking churches and their helping poor people with shelter, soup kitchens and food pantry's.


Make me so mad!!


I was looking at my Church's budget a couple days ago (it was in the bulletin on Sunday) and only about 10% actually goes to missions & charities.
Click to expand...

That's as good if not better than many big charities.
 
C

Chichikov

Member
pigeon said:
I mean, I think this is an important point to remember when you talk to a conservative flyover voter who believes that charity should be able to fill in for welfare -- they give more, and they probably see its effects more obviously in their areas, while us coastal types give less, partly because the cost of living is higher and partly because we're dubious about its effectiveness. Rural and urban citizens don't have different policy priorities because one side is dumb or lazy, but because both sides have wildly different needs and want government to fill those needs. Of course, in the long term, the urbanites are going to win just because of Malthus, so you can see why the rural people might get more and more frantic over time.
Click to expand...
Come on now, don't paint it in such a broad brush, different people give to charity for different reasons, and generally, I don't think it even matter all that much.
And by the way, charities do a shit-ton of great work in cities too, for example, I can tell you for a fact, that in the liberal nest of wasps which is Seattle, charities (both religious and not) saves lives.
Straight up, people will die without it.

And I think people in urban areas come face to face with poverty and need as much if not more than rural America.
We just learned to ignore the homeless people and beggars.

pigeon said:
I also question the work ethic idea, but the neighborliness is definitely a thing. At least I assume so -- I've lived in Hawaii or the Bay Area my whole life, and I've never spent any time with my neighbors. Even as a kid the people I hung out with weren't the people we lived close to. Sometimes I just figured that people don't really have neighbors any more.
Click to expand...
There are lazy and hard working people everywhere.
I find that idea that your zipcode can tell something meaningful about your personality to be silly.
 
T

tranciful

Member
empty vessel said:
No, no, no, no, no. This is absolutely wrong. Medicare is a government-run insurance program. It has infrastructure and administration. Paul Ryan's plan literally eliminates it. The "as we know it" jargon is bullshit, because it is entirely too generous. Paul Ryan's proposal doesn't end Medicare "as we know it." It ends Medicare.

I can't believe even Democrats get brainwashed by Republican bullshit. Wake the fuck up, man, and use your brain.
Click to expand...

That was Ryan's original budget plan. I think it WAS completely valid for Dems to claim it ends medicare 'as we know it' but his revised plan keeps the traditional medicare, albeit with some changes in how costs are determined. I still think it'd be valid for dems to say "Ryan and the GOP planned to end medicare as we know it" because I think they can still be held accountable for their past positions, but the attack has less weight when directed at their most recent plan. With their most recent plan, the attacks should be directed at how it doesn't protect the costs to seniors from rising and that the private plans can potentially cherry pick the healthy seniors to keep costs artificially low, making it more expensive for medicare to keep running. And if you throw in Romney's vow to eliminate any savings in medicare costs, you can attack them on that, too.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
eznark said:
Fucking churches and their helping poor people with shelter, soup kitchens and food pantry's.


Make me so mad!!
Click to expand...
Clearly there is nothing wrong with that. But that is just a minor function of churches. Churches are churches, not charities.

Bill Maher's rant in spot on:
http://videos.mediaite.com/video/Bill-Maher-New-Rule-050412


eznark said:
That's as good if not better than many big charities.
Click to expand...

Now you are just being a dick.

Here, go learn something instead of just being a dick:
http://www.charitynavigator.org/

Our data shows that 7 out of 10 charities we've evaluated spend at least 75% of their budget on the programs and services they exist to provide. And 9 out of 10 spend at least 65%. We believe that those spending less than a third of their budget on program expenses are simply not living up to their missions. Charities demonstrating such gross inefficiency receive a 0-star rating for their Financial Health.
Click to expand...
 
J

Jackson50

Member
codhand said:
How many of these examples contain a 22 point margin?
Click to expand...
The margin is not correlated either. Rather, the evidence suggests if Obama wins, and he has maintained a moderate advantage throughout the campaign, it's because of positive evaluations of his job performance. It's a recurring argument to assign Obama's advantage to likability or other superficial reasons ignoring his performance. No, Obama's winning because he's performed respectably as president.
eznark said:
Fucking churches and their helping poor people with shelter, soup kitchens and food pantry's.


Make me so mad!!




That's as good if not better than many big charities.
Click to expand...
I'll admit I benefited from generous churchgoers as a youth. When I played drums on our worship team, they bought an incredible Tama kit with exceptional cymbals. Good times.
 
E

eznark

Banned
speculawyer said:
Clearly there is nothing wrong with that. But that is just a minor function of churches. Churches are churches, not charities.
Click to expand...

Jackson50 said:
The margin is not correlated either. Rather, the evidence suggests if Obama wins, and he has maintained a moderate advantage throughout the campaign, it's because of positive evaluations of his job performance. It's a recurring argument to assign Obama's advantage to likability or other superficial reasons ignoring his performance. No, Obama's winning because he's performed respectably as president.I'll admit I benefited from generous churchgoers as a youth. When I played drums on our worship team, they bought an incredible Tama kit with exceptional cymbals. Good times.
Click to expand...

Churches are generally the easiest way for people to give to a local charity that they can see making a difference. Personally I pretty much only give to the area VFD's.
 
W

Wolfgunblood Garopa

Member
Chichikov said:
It really depends on the charity, but generally speaking, religious charities have some of the lowest overhead in the business, and most do amazingly good things, in and outside the country.

I don't think there is a way you can slice the data that would make big coastal city residents more charitable than their flyover country brethren.

If you don't like that, I suggest you and your friends start doing more charity work.
I mean, if we are to have a blue state v. red state pissing contest, might as well be on who does more charity, might feed a couple of poor people that way.
Click to expand...

Whoa, lol. I was just thinking, that graphic shows such a huge disparity, there is likely more to it.

Cyan said:
I found it interesting enough for him to post. *shrug*
Click to expand...

I don't post that often, yet you consistently misunderstand me when you reply to me.
 
A

AlteredBeast

Fork 'em, Sparky!
speculawyer said:
Once again, my respect for the guy has drop. Clearly I was never going to vote for the guy but at least he seemed a stand-up guy. But a lot of the campaign decisions have left me questioning his intelligence. And this statement hits at his integrity. He has stooped to birther pandering. He should have just named Donald Trump to be his VP.
Click to expand...

Yep. Really sad, because I was dead set on voting for 2008 Romney. 2011-2012 Romney scares me. He really just seems like an idiot, isolated from reality and anyone outside of the silver spoon society. His campaign should be doing a better idea of controlling his speeches, off the cuff remarks, and appearances, but I presume that he has an ego that wouldn't allow that to happen. See: him firing his speech coach after handily winning that one debate.
 
R

RoninChaos

Member
Zeus Molecules said:
Ether

Peggy Noonan's face at the 1:58 mark was priceless
Click to expand...

I know I'm late to the party, but that's why this dude got voted in here in Atlanta. It's a shame he's in such a red state. Sometimes I really hate this backwards ass state. The outside of Atlanta folk are usually stupid as fuck.

The republican guy trying to argue with him was a fucking clown. "Did the other side do any of that?" Are you fucking stupid? Paul Ryan is running on being a deficit hawk but he voted for every single thing that INCREASED the deficit.

This is the shit I can't get over. I posted up something similar to this on my facebook page and had some republican friends just spout off bullshit about Obama. Is it so fucking difficult to admit that the guy is a fraud? What kind of ideological bullshit is complelling these people to ignore facts?
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Chichikov said:
Come on now, don't paint it in such a broad brush, different people give to charity for different reasons, and generally, I don't think it even matter all that much.
And by the way, charities do a shit-ton of great work in cities too, for example, I can tell you for a fact, that in the liberal nest of wasps which is Seattle, charities (both religious and not) saves lives.
Straight up, people will die without it.
Click to expand...

Of course they do -- I wasn't suggesting charities are less effective in urban areas, just less effective per capita. There are a lot more people in need, and in some ways they're more difficult to reach.

Chichikov said:
There are lazy and hard working people everywhere.
I find that idea that your zipcode can tell something meaningful about your personality to be silly.
Click to expand...

I think you're arguing with something I didn't say. I was explicitly saying I disagree with the suggestion that people in cities have less work ethic. The neighbor thing I don't think is personality so much as a learned response -- forming relationships with people takes social energy, and I see so many people in a day that it's draining. I remember being affected by this even more strongly when I visited New York, obviously a lot denser than the Bay -- it seemed like people are even less willing to engage with strangers, because there are so many more of them. In Oakland, if I happen to make eye contact with somebody, I smile and nod, and they often do the same. In New York people actively turned away.
 
J

Jackson50

Member
eznark said:
Churches are generally the easiest way for people to give to a local charity that they can see making a difference. Personally I pretty much only give to the area VFD's.
Click to expand...
Definitely. Our church maintained a generous benevolence fund and food pantry. And they participated in Habitat for Humanity. I now disfavor religion on the whole, but I'll not deny the positive attributes of some religious organizations.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
If people are constantly told something by the media, they'll believe it. Jay-Z is the greatest rapper, Avatar is a good movie, Paul Ryan is the greatest political mind of our time, etc
 
G

gcubed

Member
eznark said:
Churches are generally the easiest way for people to give to a local charity that they can see making a difference. Personally I pretty much only give to the area VFD's.
Click to expand...
What about that joint charity? It'll help calm people down, probably have to base it out of CA and start giving out medical cards.
 
C

codhand

Member
Jackson50 said:
It's a recurring argument to assign Obama's advantage to likability or other superficial reasons ignoring his performance. No, Obama's winning because he's performed respectably as president.
Click to expand...

How is likeability superficial, but "performing respectably" not? The fact is Reagan won in 84 on likeability and that was with a 16 point margin over his opponent.

DJ6vb.png
 
P

pigeon

Banned
codhand said:
How is likeability superficial, but "performing respectably" not? The fact is Reagan won in 84 on likeability and that was with a 16 point margin over his opponent.
Click to expand...

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Let's not pretend the only reason Reagan won was because he was more likable. We just had this discussion like two pages ago.
 
C

codhand

Member
pigeon said:
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Let's not pretend the only reason Reagan won was because he was more likable. We just had this discussion like two pages ago.
Click to expand...

Not the only, but a big one. Obama has several key polling advantages. Lots of similarities between 84 and now in terms of polling; both elections had candidates locked, even-steven, two months prior to the election. With the economy not being the supreme issue, likeability gains a greater significance, just like other "gut-check" polls as Chuck Todd mentioned on Sunday. This is a result of Romney camp failures, but I don't think likeability is superficial in this election.
 
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