• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
OuterWorldVoice said:
But listening to Hannity's phoned in eulogy, which was, naturally full of lies and horsehit, made me gag.
Click to expand...
You could cut out the "phoned in eulogy" part of this and post it every day for years.

And I like Brietbart when he was off attention politics.
ToxicAdam said:
Mitt's going to spend double the money he did in Michigan and close that gap.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't necessarily bet you for that Mitt money at this point.
 
T

ToxicAdam

Member
My only experience with Breitbart was listening to him a few times on the Adam Carrola podcast (back when that was in my rotation). He's an okay guy in that venue, because he's not pushing an agenda.
 
S

Stinkles

Clothed, sober, cooperative
benjipwns said:
You could cut out the "phoned in eulogy" part of this and post it every day for years.

And I like Brietbart when he was off attention politics.

I wouldn't necessarily bet you for that Mitt money at this point.
Click to expand...

btw, Hannity literally phoned in that eulogy. He was on vacation I think.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
ToxicAdam said:
My only experience with Breitbart was listening to him a few times on the Adam Carrola podcast (back when that was in my rotation). He's an okay guy in that venue, because he's not pushing an agenda.
Click to expand...
Guy was great on Red Eye and a few other places, unless he was talking his attention politics, then he sucked.

And that's what everyone else, like that fucker Hannity ever wanted to talk to him about.

If he was off that, he was a libertarian-conservative type with a great sense of humor.

There's just no fame in that. (See also: Drudge.)
 
T

Tim-E

Member
Reposting from the Breitbart thread in the OT:

cenkonb.jpg
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
ToxicAdam said:
Mitt's going to spend double the money he did in Michigan and close that gap. Plus, over half the voters in Ohio are still undecided.
Click to expand...

Sanatorum's saving grace might be that eArly voting won't be as big of an issue as it was in Michigan. Also can Romney win many other states on Tuesday without flooding the market with ads? I figure he'll focus on Ohio
 
M

markatisu

Member
PhoenixDark said:
Sanatorum's saving grace might be that eArly voting won't be as big of an issue as it was in Michigan. Also can Romney win many other states on Tuesday without flooding the market with ads? I figure he'll focus on Ohio
Click to expand...

Yeah and I am not sure an ad blitz will do much, if Romney makes anymore gaffes like he did with his mocking NASCAR fans it won't play very well

I mean Ohio is not Michigan, its just as bad off financially and has a lot more rural areas which is prime Santorum area

I am the rich guy who will tell you what you want to hear might not play as well
 
M

Miletius

Member
Bulbo Urethral Baggins said:
I had the feeling over the last month the something wasn't quite right with Breitbart. He seemed really tense or strung out.
Kosmo? I see him around. You guys ran him off. The place isn't the same without him, don't you agree?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I saw him yesterday in some thread.... forgot which one exactly. It's probably just harder to remember that this thread is here since it's in community.
 
M

Mortrialus

Banned
Bulbo Urethral Baggins said:
I had the feeling over the last month the something wasn't quite right with Breitbart. He seemed really tense or strung out.
Kosmo? I see him around. You guys ran him off. The place isn't the same without him, don't you agree?
Click to expand...

I don't think he's ever posted in the community thread. Is he even aware were got stuck in here?
 
D

Dr. Pangloss

Member
For those making fun of Romney's spending levels, take a look at what was in this morning's Wonkbook:

-Through Jan. 31, the Obama campaign’s payroll spending was more than twice the total for the four remaining Republican candidates combined. With the general election still more than eight months away, Obama’s re-election committee has spent $66 million overall, almost 20 percent more than the $56 million outlay by the best-financed Republican, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.

-Obama devoted $17.1 million to payroll, almost four times the $4.6 million that Romney spent through Jan. 31.

-In New Hampshire, a swing state in November’s balloting, Obama had set up seven offices in January while Romney, who won the Republican primary, had one.

-A pro-Romney political action committee, Restore Our Future, raised $6.6 million in January. American Crossroads, the PAC advised by Karl Rove, who was chief political adviser to President George W. Bush, raised $5.1 million. Their combined total of $11.7 million is almost 200 times more than the pro-Obama super-PAC, Priorities USA Action, which raised $58,816 in the same period.

-The official campaign organizations for Obama and Romney have each spent about $12 million to pay for their campaigns’ fundraising efforts, including direct mail and telemarketing. For Obama, those expenditures have helped bring in $140 million for his campaign; Romney has raised almost $64 million.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-01/obama-tops-in-primary-spending-even-without-democratic-opponent.html
Click to expand...

Also, I would also make the claim that SuperPACs have benefited Santorum and Newt more than Romney. Without the support of Sheldon Adelson (Newt) and Foster Friess (Santorum), they would have been out of this contest by now. Romney would have been able to draw upon his personal fortune like in 2008 to beat them if SuperPACs did not exist.
 
T

thatbox

Banned
Unsurprising.

It’s Worse Than That, Paul
Feb 29, 2012

Paul K’s got a fine post up showing the debt implications of different budget plans as scored by the CRFB. But he made his graphic before any of the budget crunchers could incorporate new numbers from the Tax Policy Center on the impact of Gov Romney’s plan to further cut personal tax rates by 20% and repeal the AMT, all of which adds about $3 trillion to the cumulative deficit by 2021. And all of this, of course, is on top of the permanent extension of all the Bush tax cuts (that’s already reflected in Paul K’s graph).

Anyway, Paul cites the CFRB number to show that Gov Romney’s debt-to-GDP ratio would be 86% in 2021, compared to the President’s budget which has that ratio at 77% that year. But if you add in the TPC’s impact of these new cuts, Romney goes up to 99%.

Unless you want to invoke the magic of “dynamic scoring” (as in: “my tax cuts will unleash scads of growth that’s just waiting to happen!”) or the vagaries of “unspecified spending cuts and the closing of tax breaks to be named later,” there’s just no other way to shuffle this deck. We cannot both massively cut tax revenues and achieve a sustainable budget outlook.

rom_obam.png

​
 
C

ClovingWestbrook

Banned
Senate Republicans voted overwhelmingly Thursday in favor of a measure that would permit any employer to deny services in their health plan, such as birth control, that they deem morally objectionable. The amendment offered by Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) was struck down 51-48 in a motion to table, thanks to virulent opposition by Democrats and one GOP holdout. Democrats are eager to hang to vote around the GOP’s neck in the upcoming elections.
Click to expand...

lol wow.
 
M

markatisu

Member
Dr. Pangloss said:
For those making fun of Romney's spending levels, take a look at what was in this morning's Wonkbook:
Click to expand...

Are you implying there is something humorous to Obama making sure his organization and ground game are in full ready while Romney wastes his money to defeat his lackluster competitors?
 
D

Dr. Pangloss

Member
markatisu said:
Are you implying there is something humorous to Obama making sure his organization and ground game are in full ready while Romney wastes his money to defeat his lackluster competitors?
Click to expand...

My view on money in today's politics is that it is there, and the candidate should use it as he sees fit. If people want to give Romney or whoever money, then let them. And if he needs to spend it to win his party's nomination, then he better spend it. If he withheld money and lost the nomination, then he would be an idiot.

I guess I am saying that for politicians the ends justify the means. If Romney wants to win, then he needs to spend the money. If that puts him at a disadvantage in the fall, then that is another problem he has to overcome. Same thing with Obama. He wants to win in November, so he is spending money now to achieve that. Same reason why he has allowed SuperPACs. The ends justify the means. Never forget that the overriding concern for both is to win the election. And both are willing to cut legitimate corners if necessary. Only when it comes to conflicts of interest, do I become concern about money.
 
D

Dr. Pangloss

Member
benjipwns said:
And that's irrelevant, since their position alone is a conflict of interest.

Your avatar greatly amuses me.
Click to expand...

I don't really give the executive that much concern when it comes to conflicts of interest. Congress has better control over how and where the money is spent. Also, both parties are aware about not causing a scandal and making sure all the Ts are crossed and Is dotted. No one wants egg on their face. Also, there are various oversight boards to raise red flags if something happens. It all comes out eventually. Like Jack Abramoff, and I guess you can included Solyndra if you want to (Even though this company had both support from Bush Republicans and Obama. Also nothing really was wrong with the loan guarantee. Mountains out of molehills and all that.). As the saying goes, "There are no secrets in Washington."
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
Dr. Pangloss said:
I don't really give the executive that much concern when it comes to conflicts of interest.
Click to expand...
Captain, I detect a flaw in your logic.

*puff*

EDIT: I'm being a dick today and I don't mean to be.

Basically think of it like this.

We need to regulate BP's Gulf Oil drilling, so who knows it? BP people, so we hire them to regulate. Oh, we're out of power, and they go back to BP to get through the regulations. Hey, we're back in power, hey BP folks COME ON IN THE WATERS FINE. BOOO out of power, back to BP you go so they can get through the regs. So we dick along trading coke and sex. WTF OIL ALL OVER THE GULF. BUT YOU. BUT US? BUT ONLY YOU KNEW? BUT WE? Oh fuck it, BUSH!!!
 
T

ToxicAdam

Member
A SuperPAC that funnels money to strong challengers to defeat incumbents (or those with greater power).


The Super PAC has raised $1.8 million to aid challengers in contested primaries where incumbents hold an advantage because of seniority and backing from special interests and Washington lobbyists.

Ellis said the PAC is helping strong challengers against incumbents by leveling the playing field and dilute the power of special interests.

“It’s not about party, it’s about process,” Ellis said. “We want the people of Congress to fear Main Street, not K Street.

“The insiders, the lobbyists, give the incumbents the advantage. We want to equalize that,” Ellis said.

But Texas Democrats said the PAC is being used as a tool for wealthy conservative donors to influence the upcoming primary election.
Click to expand...

Interestingly, they gave money to Dennis Kucinich over Marcy Kaptur.
 
D

Dr. Pangloss

Member
benjipwns said:
Captain, I detect a flaw in your logic.

*puff*
Click to expand...

I guess you hold the President to a higher standard than I. What I was trying to get at was that members of Congress and the Senate should be held to more scrutiny than him because they can more easily and directly send funds to groups in their states. The President can have his hands tied behind his back when it comes to the budget. He can lay out specific things that he likes, but they might get rejected. Congress is the one that decides who gets paid and all that.

The only thing that the executive could conceivably do on his own comes through the enforcement of laws. He can choose to go easy on groups like bankers when it comes to crimes of fraud. Or he can scale back tax audits on wealthy individuals and shrink the civil rights division at the Justice Department. He could also hamper the EPA, by putting their regulations into indefinite review. The executive can commit conflicts of interest more easily through the prosecution of the law, than through the spending of money. Congress controls the purse ultimately.

Edit:
We need to regulate BP's Gulf Oil drilling, so who knows it? BP people, so we hire them to regulate. Oh, we're out of power, and they go back to BP to get through the regulations. Hey, we're back in power, hey BP folks COME ON IN THE WATERS FINE. BOOO out of power, back to BP you go so they can get through the regs. So we dick along trading coke and sex. WTF OIL ALL OVER THE GULF. BUT YOU. BUT US? BUT ONLY YOU KNEW? BUT WE? Oh fuck it, BUSH!!!
Click to expand...

Sure the Dept. of Interior was miss manged when it came to the regulations, and some even took kickbacks in drugs and money. But that was primarily a failure of the executive to put responsible people in charge. Same with FEMA during Katrina. Bush was a horrible executive. He did not look out for the best interest of the people as a whole. A good executive would allow both BP and environmentalists to have a say and not let BP right whatever rules they wanted.

Obama has also been guilty of this too. Case in point our ambassador to the Bahamas: http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/02/23/another_obama_fundraiser_turns_out_to_be_a_bad_ambassador
 
T

thatbox

Banned
Good David Brooks op-ed today.

The wingers call their Republican opponents RINOs, or Republican In Name Only. But that’s an insult to the rhino, which is a tough, noble beast. If RINOs were like rhinos, they’d stand up to those who seek to destroy them. Actually, what the country needs is some real Rhino Republicans. But the professional Republicans never do that. They’re not rhinos. They’re Opossum Republicans. They tremble for a few seconds then slip into an involuntary coma every time they’re challenged aggressively from the right.

Without real opposition, the wingers go from strength to strength. Under their influence, we’ve had a primary campaign that isn’t really an argument about issues. It’s a series of heresy trials in which each of the candidates accuse the others of tribal impurity. Two kinds of candidates emerge from this process: first, those who are forceful but outside the mainstream; second, those who started out mainstream but look weak and unprincipled because they have spent so much time genuflecting before those who despise them.
Click to expand...
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
OMG. Mittens is fucking awesome. Here he is defending his comments on the ponchos people were wearing the other day:

O'REILLY: You know whenever you make a joke like you did at the NASCAR race and you said you saw some people in these cheap little rain coats and you go way to spend the big bucks. And you know you're always going to be portrayed as a rich guy who is out of touch with the folks, condescending to the folks. Am I correct? I mean that's the way you're going to be portrayed no matter what you do?

ROMNEY: Yes, you're probably right. I mean, the narrative that the - - that the Obama people want to push and that members of the mainstream media are very anxious to do for them is that anything I do, the joking around and having fun that somehow that fits their narrative.

O'REILLY: Yes, you're going to be a snob and this, that, and the other thing. So is it worth it for you even to say those things?

ROMNEY: Well you know, it's hard to imagine all the things they're going to try and turn into attacks. I mean, that -- that's the first time you've -- I've heard the one you've mentioned. Look I have worn a garbage bag for rain gear myself. And we're out there in the rain. And the rain was getting us soaked. I didn't -- I didn't have a rain coat myself. I would have liked one of those.
Click to expand...

:lol :lol
 
M

Manmademan

Member
Effect said:
Manchin and Nelson I get and expect. Casey!?
Click to expand...

Casey has always been pro-life, and is up for re-election this year so he gets a pass.

I could see a situation here where Reid gets the votes he needs to keep it from passing, and lets the "vulnerable" senators (like casey) safely vote against it.

edit: I realize this isn't an abortion issue per se, but it's being framed very similarly in the media- with religious groups "for" and "pro women's groups" against.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
Poligaf 2017 |OT| It Almost Isn't Fair
9
4K
Bonen no Max'd replied
Top Bottom