Manmademan
Member
There's been no point in Gingrich or Paul continuing their campaigns for months now.
Doesn't mean they're dropping out!
-
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
- Thread starter AlteredBeast
- Start date
- Status
There's been no point in Gingrich or Paul continuing their campaigns for months now.
Doesn't mean they're dropping out!
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
true, but at least then, he was picking up endorsements and finally got a SuperPAC behind him. Now he is running out of money and has gained zero new support. Romney is still picking up endorsements and money, and steam. Santorum would be smart to get out after Super Tuesday. Sadly, ego is the biggest part of the reason people run for election anyway, and it is the same thing that will probably prevent him from dropping out.
speculawyer
Member
The situation is too complex for that. But I tell you, I sure wouldn't mind if some smart bombs took out some tanks shelling civilian area. The thought of a military's heavy armor being used against its own (mostly unarmed) people always horrifies me.
Manmademan
Member
well, Santorum is probably going to continue to campaign as long as it helps his "brand".
Even if there's no realistic shot of being the nominee (much less president) he'll be raking it in with book deals, speaking fees, and the occasional spot on fox news for years.
See: Huckabee, Palin, Buchanan...
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
Like I said, you are always a reasonable guy.
The positions are never black and white, especially what we receive from the media. Look at the OT, too. Wasnt there just a thread about someone proclaiming how great it was that the military retook Homs?
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
I've decided for my show that there is going to be reoccuring set guests. Instead of the previous show where I asked random people to come on. So who wants to be a reoccuring guests? I only need two more. I already got one.
So:
Title: Grounded in Reality
Format: 60 minutes total, with 40 minutes of conversation, 10 minutes of just me talking, 8 minutes of music, and 2 minutes of PSAs. 2 to 4 reoccurring guests.
Time: Pre-recorded we can plan anytime. Noon at monday or 9am would be preferable.
So:
Title: Grounded in Reality
Format: 60 minutes total, with 40 minutes of conversation, 10 minutes of just me talking, 8 minutes of music, and 2 minutes of PSAs. 2 to 4 reoccurring guests.
Time: Pre-recorded we can plan anytime. Noon at monday or 9am would be preferable.
gutter_trash
Banned
IMO, Texas in early April will be the nail in the coffin for Santorum and Newt if Mitt wins Texas.. it's over go home
I think Texas is getting pushed back to late May/June because of redistricting issues.
Tentative date: May 29
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/29/us/final-texas-redistricting-maps-approved.html
Tentative date: May 29
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/29/us/final-texas-redistricting-maps-approved.html
Hobbestetrician
Member
I see Ann Romney is trending on Twitter for some reason so I click on it to see what she said and apparently it was "We can be poor in spirit (laughs)...and I don't even consider myself wealthy, which is an interesting thing, it could be here today and gone tomorrow."
Looks like the last name isn't the only thing she got from Mitt.
Looks like the last name isn't the only thing she got from Mitt.
PhoenixDark
Banned
If Obama has his way all that money will disappear!
Not into focusing on things spouses say but that's just ridiculous
Invisible_Insane
Member
The capital gains tax increase in PPACA is an existential threat to the Rmoney way of life.
speculawyer
Member
Love the title. I really think the facts are paramount. You should have some buzzer that people can hit if they think someone is really stepping over the line on facts. I can't stand people abusing the facts whether it is Saddam links to 9/11 on the right or vaccine links to autism on the left.
I guess a tough situation is projections for the future since they are fuzzy by definition. But I think we can look to the past and see facts like Bush's tax-cuts not ultimately raising revenues on a sustainable basis. (BigSiciliy's pointless couple-month jump is irrelevant.)
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
For the same reason Ron Paul will continue his run for the nom....
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
He is. But wow dat quote!
I'm curious if people like Jeb Bush are going to be successful in toning down the GOP's anti-Latino rhetoric over the next four years.
PhoenixDark
Banned
I think Jeb can. He's popular within the community, as was W Bush to a certain degree. And I don't get the impression Jeb is dying to be president (like say, Romney), so he'll have no problem challenging the nationalism and xenophobia whether it's in a primary debate or at a rally. And if it doesn't work, it doesn't work; he loses to some fool, and gets to go home and chill. Seems like the only person who really really wants Jeb to be president is HW.
Ghost_Protocol
Member
How capable is Israel's military? Are they at all capable to taking on Iran alone? In the slightest? If not, that B.S. Netanyahu said today about being a sovereign nation with the right to defend ourselves means "we have the right to drag our stronger military allies into whatever we want".
Of course Israel can "take on" Iran on its own. Israel could militarily annex most of the middle east sans Saudia Arabia if it wanted to. Not to mention they have enough nukes to turn the entire region into glass. That's why this whole idea of Iran being a "threat" to them is insane. Iran is a threat to Israel in the same way a gnat is a threat to you or I.
However, taking out all of Irans nuke sites with convential air power (ie. not nukes) would be a long, expensive , and potentially bloody affair for Israel. It may also be politically damaging to their leaders if it doesn't go perfectly. That's why they want us to do it.
However, taking out all of Irans nuke sites with convential air power (ie. not nukes) would be a long, expensive , and potentially bloody affair for Israel. It may also be politically damaging to their leaders if it doesn't go perfectly. That's why they want us to do it.
Dr. Pangloss
Member
Israel has always operated on the idea of a preemptive first strike. But they have also always conducted operations on their own without US involvement, and I believe their military prefers it that way. If we did get involve, then Israel interests and forces would take a back seat role to our own. Their political and military organization will not like that because then we set the terms, and they would lose power.
But if something happens to Israel where the actual state lost to another power, then I don't know how the US would react. We would probably go in to bail them out in all likelihood. But Israel military is not stupid. You don't take on missions that have a high failure rate unless you absolutely have to. They have to know any attempt by them to stop Iran will fail and lead to reprisals against themselves that are not worth the costs. I believe this is just saber rallying because there is nothing they really can do. Also, the right has to make appearances that it can project strength.
But if something happens to Israel where the actual state lost to another power, then I don't know how the US would react. We would probably go in to bail them out in all likelihood. But Israel military is not stupid. You don't take on missions that have a high failure rate unless you absolutely have to. They have to know any attempt by them to stop Iran will fail and lead to reprisals against themselves that are not worth the costs. I believe this is just saber rallying because there is nothing they really can do. Also, the right has to make appearances that it can project strength.
adamsappel
Member
It's great you have a show, but relying on GAF for guests will become a problem. You should try and get someone local, particularly to riff off in the same studio, but also plan to carry the entire show yourself if need be.
TPM said:I’m certainly not the first person to note that the public discussion about Iran and its nuclear intentions has taken on a markedly different tone in the United States in recent weeks. The prospect of war over those intentions — unclear though they remain — is increasingly discussed and reported less in matters of “if”, but of “when.”
That certainly doesn’t mean we’re on our way, but those who remember 2003 well, and worry that we’ve perhaps not learned its lessons have been given good cause to wonder.
As to those lessons, take a quick look at this screen-shot from CNN’s Situation Room this afternoon.
“A Military Strike On Iran’s Nukes?” it asks. Not even a question anymore - Iran has nukes. Period.
Now, having spent the better part of my career in television news I know this is much less a matter of intent, than it is of speed, laziness, and quick uncritical thinking.
But when it comes to matters of war and peace, laziness is easily as dangerous as intent.
And that’s the problem.
.
An Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear program is likely to fail if it's exclusively done via airstrikes. Iran isn't stupid. They've have years to hide and fortify their crucial nuclear sites from airstrikes. The only way to get assurance that Iran's nuclear program is taken out is through a thorough ground invasion, which no one is willing to do for obvious reasons. An airstrike will only delay the inevitable and inflame the ME. The US and Israel will have to deal with the fact that Iran will likely be a nuclear power relatively soon. Or barring that, have the ability to rapidly build a nuclear weapon if they so choose to.
RustyNails
Member
Pretty bold statements about a country that was ground to a stalemate by a bunch of rag tag militias in 2006 (Israel-Lebenon/Hezbollah conflict). Yes Israel is the most powerful nation in the region when it comes to swinging dicks, but let's not get carried away.
speculawyer
Member
The whole Iran situation is such a mindfuck. One never knows the full extent of their program. One never knows their true intentions with the program. We do know they are gung ho on having a full civilian nuclear program for reactors to generate electricity . . . and that puts them pretty far along the path towards a weapon.
But do they really want a weapon? (That would officially violate the non proliferation treaty that they signed.) Do they just want to be close enough such that they could put one together quickly?
And then tied into this is the price of oil. The more unstable the situation, the more money they make on the oil they sell. So they have a financial incentive to keep the situation confusing. Confusion & drama is profitable for them.
And that sucks . . . it makes it such that there is no resolution. It seems their best situation is an ambiguous one where you have no proof they have (or are close to) a nuke, but enough worries that they are close such that there are constant talks of an attack.
But do they really want a weapon? (That would officially violate the non proliferation treaty that they signed.) Do they just want to be close enough such that they could put one together quickly?
And then tied into this is the price of oil. The more unstable the situation, the more money they make on the oil they sell. So they have a financial incentive to keep the situation confusing. Confusion & drama is profitable for them.
And that sucks . . . it makes it such that there is no resolution. It seems their best situation is an ambiguous one where you have no proof they have (or are close to) a nuke, but enough worries that they are close such that there are constant talks of an attack.
cartoon_soldier
Member
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
Is that rolleyes smiley back? Let me see if I can find one big enough
Why would you do this and not use actual quotes from people running? Now it just elicits an eye roll. You could probably make it sound just as bad and a whole lot more legitimate with real quotes.
cartoon_soldier
Member
I didn't make it, found on the net.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
I meant it in the literal sense.
VOTE DEMOCRAT 2012
VOTE DEMOCRAT 2012
speculawyer
Member
Yeah, many of those twist the meaning of the quotes they are based on. That harms the intent of the piece. For example, Santorum called Obama a snob, not college students.
Right. The twist makes it stupid and eye-roll worthy. Some of the original quotes are fine by themselves. The quotes obviously won't be quite as stupid, but the fact that they'd be real would make up for that.
Black Republican
Member
forget Rubio, why not Gov. Martinez for VP ticket?
Edit
r even Brian Sandoval?
Edit
r even Brian Sandoval?PhoenixDark
Banned
Will any Latino want to get on Romney's self deportation ticket..? I really doubt Rubio will given his recent comments in Time magazine (basically he argued the current republican party's rhetoric is outrageous and doesn't look at the human aspect of illegal immigration).
Martinez would be interesting, as it would be a direct attempt to bust down Obama's south west firewall. But I'm just not sure it would work given Romney's rhetoric.
Aaron Strife
Banned
http://gop12.thehill.com/2012/03/obama-holds-massive-lead-with-latinos.html
Obama leads Romney with Latinos 40-38.
And by Latinos I mean Latinos who voted for John McCain.
Obama leads Romney with Latinos 40-38.
And by Latinos I mean Latinos who voted for John McCain.
gutter_trash
Banned
Marco Rubio won't help gain Latino votes besides trying to hand Florida to Romney.
Cuban-Americans who are staunchly anti-Castro are the most Republican of all Latinos in the US.
Marco Rubio won't make a dent in the Mexican-American vote.
...........
Jeb Bush (probably 2016) is the only current Republican that can bring back the Latino vote to George W. Bush numbers again
Cuban-Americans who are staunchly anti-Castro are the most Republican of all Latinos in the US.
Marco Rubio won't make a dent in the Mexican-American vote.
...........
Jeb Bush (probably 2016) is the only current Republican that can bring back the Latino vote to George W. Bush numbers again
PhoenixDark
Banned
That poll showed 25% of republicans would be more likely to vote for a republican ticket if Rubio was on it, and 40% in Florida. That's impressive for a politician who's not particularly accomplished/popular per se.
Rubio would deliver Florida, which means he can deliver the presidency.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
They would be more likely to vote for Romney if he toned down his xenophobicness too, unless the question was asked another way all we know is it would be a good thing, not the degree of change.
this post got me with the punchline. I was like that isn't crazy... OH! lol
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
Yeah I wanted a title that's more mature but not too "old sounding" if that makes sense.
And a buzzer sounds interesting but potentially abusive.
Also what's with the left's hate on vaccines?
I like to have variety. And some Gaf posters I have expereince with are very good. Most notably speculawyer,, Roninchaos, an Jaydubya.
adamsappel
Member
I'm not saying they weren't good guests, but they are random folks from the Internet, and if schedules conflict, your show is probably a lower priority. You've had to beg and postpone your podcast a few times for just that reason. Nothing wrong with bringing them on when available (I think GAF is a great source for intelligent liberal and conservative views), but I wouldn't plan my show around them.
Anyway, best of luck!
SouthernDragon
Member
This irritates me slightly.
Rubio would get more votes from an already solid bloc; Cubans who are staunchly Republican. Very few Latinos who are not Cuban will look to Rubio as an inspiration, and we Latinos are notoriously sectarian in some ways.
Let me put it this way.
If Rubio is chosen, I will most definitely volunteer against him and Romney (presumably). Not only because of the Republican Party's current, odious platform, but just to show folk that Florida's Latino population is simply more than "old Republican Cubans" and that other flavors (non-Mexican) of Latinos exist and vote, too.
I'm a Georgia native. It sucks that we're the biggest prize tomorrow but our contest won't matter much unless Gingrich wins by like +20. Oh well, who knows, maybe it's Gingrich's time to rise again if Santorum loses Ohio and Tennessee tomorrow.
Bob McDonnell holding Virginia would be a better pick.
Florida's not a tipping point state though. Nate Silver was very good at this in 2008, at telling us which state will be the State that gives the candidate 270 and which are just gravy afterwards. If Republicans can't win Florida this year they might as well hang it up. Virginia, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico... those are the most likely tipping point states. If the popular vote in the fall was 50/50 in the fall then Florida would probably be in the Republican column by a few points.
Bob McDonnell holding Virginia would be a better pick.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
The Super Tuesday thread is up:
http://neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=465594
Get your primary/caucus discussion in there and maybe we will see some surprises tomorrow.
http://neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=465594
Get your primary/caucus discussion in there and maybe we will see some surprises tomorrow.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked