You're such a dork. lol
-
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
You're such a dork. lol
PhoenixDark
Banned
The economy was actually good in 1984; Obama doesn't have that advantage. Romney's likability won't matter if people continue believing the country is on the wrong track, continue trusting him more on the economy, etc
Yeah I'm not implying economy was the issue in 1984, but on "Issues" Mondale and Reagan were locked as you can see in the pic I posted. We can do an experiment; two lines of Republican voters, one line containing people who like Romney, and the other, people who hate Obama, we know which would be the longer, and we know that's not how to win elections, regardless of "wrong-track" "are you better off than 4 years ago" etc. Likeability would not matter, or matter much less if Romney could stay on message worth a shit.
Also part of the reason the economy was doing better in 84, was because Reagan raised taxes.
Beer Monkey
Member
Yeah, but what percent of their money was spent on helping people?
Where the hell do people live that there is no local foodbank? Where there is no local Red Cross?
If Christians stopped making tithes and offerings to churches and gave them straight to foodbanks, would we even NEED food stamps? Would love to see the math on that.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
tithes are different than traditional donations, they are done to keep the church in business.
Byakuya769
Member
Yep. Unfortunately truth for the bulk of them. Then you begin to look at those "missions".. -sigh-.
Hahaha. Quit putting up my Bat Signal.
I think the math says yes we would, although I don't have any articles or studies bookmarked or anything. Basically that charity could never feasibly replace foodstamps. Maybe somebody else knows more about that...
speculawyer
Member
Yeah, that's Eznark. Appearances matter more than actual work done. Bravo.
Beer Monkey
Member
Yep, churches are businesses, that's why we should tax them.
What they spend on food, money, clothing, medicine/treatment for the needy should be the only revenue that is tax-free.
If only people would buy more wristbands.
empty vessel
Member
Looks like he's right. It's been modified--although the cat is out of the bag as far as the end game is concerned--to basically use the ACA exchange mechanism (with the public option being Medicare). Still a ridiculously bad idea and an attack against American citizens. Apparently, Oregon Senator Wyden once joined with Ryan in a plan close to the modified one that passed the House. If I were in Oregon, that would be enough for me not to vote for him, ever.
Likability is immaterial one's performance as president, whereas "performing respectably" is a substantive evaluation of performance. Perhaps superficial was a misnomer, though. Likability could be important to some voters. Moreover, that's not a fact. Reagan won primarily on a strong economy. And Reagan's advantage depends on the measure. The NES data is a more thorough measurement of the concept.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.
I don't doubt it's not the most cost effective method to help the poor. Nevertheless, they still made a positive contribution.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
This charity discussion is interesting because nobody has mentioned that the places where giving is the highest correlates most strongly with widespread poverty, while it's the same exact people that don't believe a social safety net is required.
I should not have said "fact" but instead "a large part" of Reagan's victory. No one really disputes this, they just add in other factors. Likeability is more like a leading indicator to me, especially when that advantage is so pronounced.
empty vessel
Member
Charity is what happens when societies are dysfunctional. Functional societies don't require much in the way of charity. I, personally, do not find charitable giving admirable. I find people who are working to create societies that don't require charity admirable.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
I'm with this guy.
But I still put some coins in the red bucket around Christmas.
jamesinclair
Banned
I just don't even
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57499636-503544/romney-big-business-is-doing-fine/
Stop talking about abortion! Lets talk about offshore tax havens, thats what the common man wants to hear! Lets talk about how Obamas economy is great for business!
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57499636-503544/romney-big-business-is-doing-fine/
Stop talking about abortion! Lets talk about offshore tax havens, thats what the common man wants to hear! Lets talk about how Obamas economy is great for business!
You like charity, you just want the confiscation and distribution centralized. Welfare is just intermediated charity.
Ayn Rand likes societies that don't require charity too ;P
talisayNon
Member
I really hope it was taken out of context and Romney is standing up for Obama.
If not...
Fucking scumbag, hope you tank this election you unelectable piece of garbage.
jamesinclair
Banned
Because defeatists and the incompetent deserve their lot.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
Sometimes it's useful if a charity doesn't discriminate based on things, like race, creed, color, religion, gender, age, orientation, stuff like that. But hey, crazy liberalist leftist socialism speaking here.
I really don't see how it could be anything but a dog whistle to the fringes of his party. He might not think it matters that much but probably the same way he didn't think much about saying "Who let the dogs out" to a bunch of african american children. He has absolutely zero sensitivity for the racial tension that is in the air over politics.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
Which raises the obvious question: would you find charitable giving to someone working to create a society that didn't require charity admirable?
I'm pretty sure we just found the name of the official PoliGAF Charity:
The PoliGAF Charity Of Creating Societies That Don't Need Charities And Make Nerds Read Good Charity
Ok, point is you like charity.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
I like well-monitored and regulated charity.
So you were just trying to be a charity hipster or you just wanted EV to like you?
Gross, Panther.
TacticalFox88
Banned
Damn reality and it's damned liberal bias and shit.
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
TA already has a toadie.
Perhaps this is a unique cycle where personal evaluations are integral to the outcome. We've had too few elections to make a solid determination. I'll be interested to see the NES data when it's released.
I could see that. Perhaps that accounts for the disparity between the NES and data from other polling firms.
Why the vendetta?
It's been happening for weeks, you just didn't see the signs.
Pre-election anal constriction syndrome. Avoid the PACs people.
PhoenixDark
Banned
What does this say about Biden's morals? What he is doing may be legal, but can we really trust someone who makes so much but gives so little?
Why is WSJ going off message?
From reading that GiveWell link it seems like you should basically write a check to third world areas of Africa, because the other 99% of charities are all bunk.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Eh, find a better charity then the salvation army if you want to donate to a charity.
jamesinclair
Banned
Oh shit, Romney just purified himself in the waters of lake Minnetonka.
Also the link did help me find this:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_...h-fresco-ruined-by-good-intentions/?tag=strip
which is sad/hilarious
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Didn't Obama get criticized for a similar comment not long ago?
Well, I got a big ass face palm reading that line if that helps.
I think I get why Willard is so hated, he's the guy who always says the obvious like it's something fascinating to the embarrassment of his peers and then forcibly laughs at his own unfunny joke.
Dude's lucky he's born filthy rich since he'll be the guy everyone gives a wedgie if he wasn't.
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
Their financial reporting is fine, it's just their Op-Ed that's nutty.
Seems pretty consistent to me. He spoke specifically about big business "doing fine" because of their means to avoid taxes and regulations. It's the small and regional businesses he feels are being held back.
It was true when Obama said it and he didn't even mention sleazy tax gymnastics in a positive light.
speculawyer
Member
Too many gaffes to mock. That one got knocked off the radar but bigger ones.
MonkeyKing
Member
This mirrors my thoughts on the issue.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
I don't think EV is a particularly big fan of welfare, either, in the sense that he would prefer a form of welfare that existed to more equitably distribute money among the populace, rather than merely throwing out crumbs to the poorest individuals while those in the middle class continue to get fucked regularly.
Myself, I think charitable giving can be admirable, but at the same time, I can't help but feel that a charity will always be a less efficient use of money than, say, investing it in research, or new technologies, or anything that might contribute to society and the species in a long-term sense. Charity is always and necessarily a short-term solution.
- Status