• 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.
R

Rocket Scientist

Member
PhoenixDark said:
Most people don't even like the law, I doubt they'll be particularly upset if it is overruled. In terms of running against the SC and pointing out how awesome the law was...eh. Good luck with that.

If the law was popular I think it would be more likely for the SC to uphold it.
Click to expand...
The mandate might not be popular, but the individual parts of the ACA are pretty popular, no? If the SC decides to strike down the mandate and thereby also striking down the whole bill, that would kill all of the popular elements too. People would not be happy and Democrats could run on the SC and conservatives killing these ''good'' parts.
Chichikov said:
People hated pre-existing conditions. We all kinda forgot about that, but if it comes back, it will haunt the GOP in the fall, you'll just see an endless march of medical misery, and no one want to campaign against the cancer patient.
Click to expand...
Yup.
ChoklitReign said:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...o-wield-more-influence-in-election-season.ars

You don't suppose they're pro-MPAA/SOPA?
Click to expand...
Not sure, but ''Hollywood'' is pretty much trying to kill Netflix, no? And given that net neutrality is in their best interest, I think they can't afford to support SOPA or similar ventures.
Al-ibn Kermit said:
Well that's totally what they did in 2010.
Click to expand...
Two very different situations. Dem majority and Dems not communicating that something might go wrong, versus basically a republican majority/control and dems pointing at all the things they killed/stalled etc.
 
I

Incognito

Troll
quadriplegicjon said:
Maybe she is hoping you'd reciprocate because she is worried about what you guys possibly uncovered? :/ I dunno. Odd.
Click to expand...

that's what i was thinking. the night before, a local judge texted our treasurer (which was forwarded to me) saying he had a thick book of oppo against our opponent and he was willing to part with it. for some background, our opponent is a lawyer and the judges in the courthouse really dislike her because of her efforts in 2010 to unseat an incumbent judge.

we passed on the book for now (we already have our own and have a good idea what is in it) and instead told the judge to relay the information to our 3rd opponent, who has no scruples about unloading the information. in a 3 person primary, going negative early is a double-suicide.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
Chichikov said:
The GOP really went all in on the notion that nothing the government can't do anything right.
Also, you can't go against St. Reagan, he was right about everything.
http://i.imgur.com/S3JWa.jpg

It's a dogma at this point.
Click to expand...

But they do all the time. He raised taxes when the evidence showed they were too low. He supported gay teachers. He did an amnesty program. He negotiated with terrorists.

They have just created a Reagan myth to replace the real Reagan.
 
A

Averon

Member
speculawyer said:
But they do all the time. He raised taxes when the evidence showed they were too low. He supported gay teachers. He did an amnesty program. He negotiated with terrorists.

They have just created a Reagan myth to replace the real Reagan.
Click to expand...

Wasn't there a CBS interview where Cantor was adamant that Reagan never raised taxes?
 
C

Chichikov

Member
speculawyer said:
But they do all the time. He raised taxes when the evidence showed they were too low. He supported gay teachers. He did an amnesty program. He negotiated with terrorists.

They have just created a Reagan myth to replace the real Reagan.
Click to expand...
Indeed, and that's the point.
A real person is never as dogmatic and ideologically pure as the historic image we create.
 
R

Rocket Scientist

Member
If you listen to the soundclip it's pretty clear they're both aware of the sexual inuendo. If I recall correctly she first laughs for a bit and then says the unzip line. Then they laugh some more. They were both very much aware of and steering it into the sexual joke territory.
 
C

Chichikov

Member
Rocket Scientist said:
If you listen to the soundclip it's pretty clear they're both aware of the sexual inuendo. If I recall correctly she first laughs for a bit and then says the unzip line. Then they laugh some more. They were both very much aware of and steering it into the sexual joke territory.
Click to expand...
I don't know.
Even godless liberal women don't make "my husband is a limp dick" jokes all that often.
 
L

Lucky Forward

Member
Cloudy said:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rick-war...big-sticking-points-with-some-mormon-beliefs/

But Obama's gonna attack Romney's Mormon faith!
Click to expand...

Tapper asked Warren if he considers Mormons to be Christians. Warren did not give a yes or no answer, but he did acknowledge some issues he and many Christians have with the Mormon church.
Click to expand...

I saw that this morning, he was let off the hook--a better interviewer would followed up with, "Yes or no, are Mormons Christians?"

By the way, Warren also said he can't accept gays because the Bible doesn't. Asked if dogs get into heaven, he said he can't imagine God not letting them in. Asked if cats get into heaven, he said, "Sure, why not?"

So...gays don't get into heaven, but dogs and cats do. Softball interview all the way.

speculawyer said:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/ann-romney-unzip-him-let-real-mitt-romney-170357495.html

Did she just make a blatant sex joke?
Click to expand...

John Stewart had that on his show last week and got a good chuckle out of it.
 
C

cartoon_soldier

Member
Looks like Romney and Bibi are all buddy-buddy

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/08/u...y-and-benjamin-netanyahu-are-old-friends.html

In a telling exchange during a debate in December, Mr. Romney criticized Mr. Gingrich for making a disparaging remark about Palestinians, declaring: “Before I made a statement of that nature, I’d get on the phone to my friend Bibi Netanyahu and say: ‘Would it help if I say this? What would you like me to do?’ “

Martin S. Indyk, a United States ambassador to Israel in the Clinton administration, said that whether intentional or not, Mr. Romney’s statement implied that he would “subcontract Middle East policy to Israel.”
Click to expand...

Just fucking great
 
S

speculawyer

Member
Mr. Romney criticized Mr. Gingrich for making a disparaging remark about Palestinians, declaring: “Before I made a statement of that nature, I’d get on the phone to my friend Bibi Netanyahu and say: ‘Would it help if I say this? What would you like me to do?’ “
Click to expand...
What kind of subservient lapdog shit is that? Amazing.
 
J

Jason's Ultimatum

Member
jp_zer0 said:
Poligaf, I have had a question on my mind about economics

Does demand create supply or does supply create demand?
Click to expand...

Supply can't create demand if there isn't any demand, and vice versa, but I'm sure no matter what the economy is like, there will always be demand and a need for supply for something.
 
P

Puddles

Banned
jp_zer0 said:
Poligaf, I have had a question on my mind about economics

Does demand create supply or does supply create demand?
Click to expand...

Short answer: it depends.

For some things, like food, there will always be a demand. Demand creates supply.

For other things, like iPads, people don't even know they want something like that until someone invents it. Then they see how cool it is and want one. Supply creates demand.

But in the latter case, the supply will stop if demand isn't there, and if demand is there, it will create more supply.

Thus we can generally say that demand creates supply, and that demand-side economics are the way to go.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Kosmo said:
To what end? You think Obama wants to relive his "I have to deal with him more often than you" comment? It's not a winner for the Obama campaign to bring up.
Click to expand...
The idea that Romney is cozy with the leader of Iran is an unsettling one, not just to me but probably to a lot of people. Obama doesn't have to mention this, the third party ads can.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Only thing worth taking from the Romney/Bibi stuff is that Romney seems perfectly fine with allowing Israel to do whatever they want, which certainly appeals to their government. I'd imagine they would certainly want Romney as president instead of Obama, and they just might meddle with the election (IE attack Iran) to get what they want
 
S

speculawyer

Member
PhoenixDark said:
Only thing worth taking from the Romney/Bibi stuff is that Romney seems perfectly fine with allowing Israel to do whatever they want, which certainly appeals to their government. I'd imagine they would certainly want Romney as president instead of Obama, and they just might meddle with the election (IE attack Iran) to get what they want
Click to expand...
If they attack Iran then Obama could back them and become Mr. War president hero guy and win the election. Of course, it would all end in tears eventually but he'd probably win the election.

I think I'd much rather go with the guy who calls Bibi a pain-in-the-ass (which he is) rather than the softy guy who will ask him for permission.
 
C

Clevinger

Member
Mr. Romney criticized Mr. Gingrich for making a disparaging remark about Palestinians, declaring: “Before I made a statement of that nature, I’d get on the phone to my friend Bibi Netanyahu and say: ‘Would it help if I say this? What would you like me to do?’
Click to expand...

The funny thing about that quote is how the first line goes, "Mr. Romney criticized Mr. Gingrich for making a disparaging remark about Palestinians." I was like, oh hey, Romney's being a half decent human being. Then the next line is like, nope, he's just being the ultimate pandering sleazebag we all know and love.
 
C

cartoon_soldier

Member
PhoenixDark said:
Only thing worth taking from the Romney/Bibi stuff is that Romney seems perfectly fine with allowing Israel to do whatever they want, which certainly appeals to their government. I'd imagine they would certainly want Romney as president instead of Obama, and they just might meddle with the election (IE attack Iran) to get what they want
Click to expand...

It's worse than that. Allowing Israel to do whatever they want would just mean, we don't care what they do anymore. Romney (and most of current GOP party leaders) would allow Israel to dictate completely US foreign policy when it comes to that region.

US already has an issue with everything it does seen through the prism of Israel, Romney with that statement is basically surrendering US middle east foreign policy to Israel.

Now, of course, that would not happen in reality if Romney became President. But just the fact that the GOP nominee is saying that should frighten Americans (but it won't)
 
M

Measley

Junior Member
Mr. Romney criticized Mr. Gingrich for making a disparaging remark about Palestinians, declaring: “Before I made a statement of that nature, I’d get on the phone to my friend Bibi Netanyahu and say: ‘Would it help if I say this? What would you like me to do?’
Click to expand...

Wow, that takes butt kissing to a whole new level.
 
K

Kusagari

Member
I find it hilarious how much that Romney statement is exactly the kind of shit they hound Obama for.

That's the very definition of bending over to the rest of the world; or just Israel in this case.
 
A

Averon

Member
Kusagari said:
I find it hilarious how much that Romney statement is exactly the kind of shit they hound Obama for.

That's the very definition of bending over to the rest of the world; or just Israel in this case.
Click to expand...

For some reason bending over and taking it from Israel is the exception.
 
A

Al-ibn Kermit

Junior Member
http://m.apnews.mobi/ap/db_6776/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=Q8xO1hFb

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE83808A20120409?irpc=932

Iran's nuclear talks are coming up this week. Long story short:
*Iran insists on no preconditions.
*Iran is apparently proposing that nrichment will continue at 20% until a sufficient amount is stockpiled for medical/research uses. Then enrichment will be winded down back to 3.5%.
*The US wants them to also shut down the underground facilities at Qom.

I personally expected a compromise to be reached before the summer so now I guess we'll see if that engine turns over.

For Obama, he just needs to find a compromise that can't be used against him in debates. I don't think you can effectively mud sling on something as complicated as middle east policy in a campaign ad but a debate is a good place for Romney to have false bravado about how he would have handled the situation.
 
E

ElectricThunder

Member
Romney's subservience doesn't surprise me in the least given that general sort of thinking runs amok through the GOP especially----he was perhaps just the first guy to articulate loudly what most of them are thinking anyways.

Of course, that such a person who WOULD say this loudly and proudly is this close to the running for presidency of the United States is but another incredibly depressing reason to heap on the pile.
 
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