Support NeoGAF

[thatbox]

The Ron Paul for President thread has taken a Birther turn, with even a mention of impending Race War.

Oh my.

 

[jamesinclair]

I only got into one of the schools I applied to so it was a no brainer.

That said there is a high likely hood I may not go because of changes this school is making to out of state tuition policies. Trying to get a non resident fee waiver but it's probably a non starter.

What state? Talk to current students about tips on getting in state tuition asap

 

[jp_zer0]

Haters all around me

 

[sc0la]

What state? Talk to current students about tips on getting in state tuition asap

Washington. They used to waive out of state tuition for all grad students after the first year (regardless of residency actually). Now not only do they require you establish residency (which I don't have a problem with) they require above and beyond that that you demonstrate your presence in Washington is more than just educational by working at least 30 hours a week. For a year, while maintaing over half time equiv in your studies.

I had some one suggest I move up there and get a job (in this economy) this year then apply again next year and hope they accept me again. lol not going to happen

I should add I have zero problem doing some sort of TA/RA arrangement to get a fee waiver. But if they can't assure me a position moving there is a recipe for disaster with their new tuition policy.

 

[Averon]

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/obama-campaign-raised-over-53-million-in-march

Obama Campaign Raised Over $53 Million In March

The Obama campaign raised over $53 million in March. The campaign released the numbers Monday in a video of grassroots donors. The video touts 190,000 first time donors for over 567,000 total donors in March. That total includes Obama for America, the Obama Victory Fund, and the DNC numbers together. The average donation was $50.78.

 

[Krauser Kat]

wow thats pretty decent. I will donate again once i see how the race is playing out.

 

[gcubed]

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/obama-campaign-raised-over-53-million-in-march

Obama Campaign Raised Over $53 Million In March

where is romney's report? "Romney has raised over 50 million dollars in march from 7 donors."

 

[Wilsongt]

So, is the secret service stuff going to be the "scandal" that causes Romney to win the election?

 

[LilZippa]

So, is the secret service stuff going to be the "scandal" that causes Romney to win the election?

nope dead already

 

[Hawkian]

So, is the secret service stuff going to be the "scandal" that causes Romney to win the election?

Even if it had legs, it's too early out for that.

 

[PhoenixDark]

So, is the secret service stuff going to be the "scandal" that causes Romney to win the election?

Nope unless the agents were actually securing the hotel for Obama to make a visit...

 

[gcubed]

Nope unless the agents were actually securing the hotel for Obama to make a visit...

i'm not sure how there are lines connected in the case.

 

[Tim-E]

Nope unless the agents were actually securing the hotel for Obama to make a visit...

drudgesiren.gif

 

[Plumbob]

A secret voice recording will emerge, with Obama recorded saying: "You boys have been working hard, why don't you have yourselves a nice time tonight?" followed by a bunch of shuffling noises as he hands over a lump of cash.

 

[markatisu]

where is romney's report? "Romney has raised over 50 million dollars in march from 7 donors."

Followed by the footnote that it was all spent in one set of ads that did absolutely nothing for him

Also to put the Obama numbers in context

Team Obama rakes in $53 million-plus in March: In a video, the Obama campaign announced this morning that it raised more than $53 million in March -- the campaign, DNC, and other committees. It added that 567,000 contributed to the campaign last month, and the average donation was $51. We won't know until April 20 -- the filing deadline for March -- how much of that $53 million was from the campaign, DNC, etc. But for February, the campaign announced raising $45 million, and the split was $21.3 million for the campaign and $24 million for the other committees. To put these new Obama numbers into perspective, for March of 2004, the Bush-Cheney campaign raised $26.2 million, and the RNC brought in $18.8 million. That's a total of $45 million. To date now, the Obama campaign and DNC have raked in nearly $370 million this campaign cycle.

 

[Measley]

So my wife is watching the View, and I am sitting here on the computer listening to it.

All I have to say is that Elizabeth Hassleback is a pretty dumb broad.

 

[AndyD]

So my wife is watching the View, and I am sitting here on the computer listening to it.

All I have to say is that Elizabeth Hassleback is a pretty dumb broad.

Most of them are. Whoopi is the only one who occasionally keeps them in check.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Followed by the footnote that it was all spent in one set of ads that did absolutely nothing for him

Also to put the Obama numbers in context

Obama's numbers have been good but nothing like the fundraising juggernaut people expected it to be. Hope is with the GOP nominee set, things will kick into overdrive.

Also, just read that Priorities USA will be going up with ads targeting Romney on taxes (assuming tax returns) in Ohio

 

[RustyNails]

TRENDING: Romney gets 'fat cat' treatment

(CNN) – The liberal MoveOn.org took on Mitt Romney's opposition to the "Buffett Rule" through a play off the Lolcats meme in a new ad released Monday, according to the group.

The 30-second spot, set to run on cat-themed Animal Planet programming, accuses Romney of letting "fat cats rig the system" through a series of images that show large felines on a private jet and swimming in money, among other rich-themed scenarios.

Here's the Ad

 

[LilZippa]

Hope is with the GOP nominee set, things will kick into overdrive.

I can't imagine this will change anything for them. Those that have and will donate are doing so to get rid of Obama. There seems to be zero excitement behind Romney. Even my Fox news echoing brother thinks that Obama is guaranteed to win this, but I know it will be a closer fight than he does.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Here's the Ad

Heh.

Also, Romney's hot mic fun at a fund raiser last night:

“I’m going to take a lot of departments in Washington, and agencies, and combine them. Some eliminate, but I’m probably not going to lay out just exactly which ones are going to go,” Romney said. “Things like Housing and Urban Development, which my dad was head of, that might not be around later. But I’m not going to actually go through these one by one. What I can tell you is, we’ve got far too many bureaucrats. I will send a lot of what happens in Washington back to the states.”​

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...mmediately-rolls-back-specificity.php?ref=fpa

His plan is to run on huge cuts in government, and then not specify which until he's in office. It's really just a reiteration of what he's said before. Would be neat if some enterprising reporter actually asked him about it.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

Here's the Ad

They need to grow up.
The Buffett rule was a sorry ass stunt to begin with.

 

[Plinko]

Here's the Ad

In related news, Obama now beating Romney among 0-8 year old children 99 to 1.

 

[Officerrob]

They need to grow up.
The Buffett rule was a sorry ass stunt to begin with.

While it is a stunt, it is good for two reasons:

1) It's actually true and cuts the deficit (even just a little) when the Republicans are crying about the deficit and proposing a budget that actually increases it

2) Most importantly, it's easy for the average american to understand

 

[Particle Physicist]

Heh.

Also, Romney's hot mic fun at a fund raiser last night:

“I’m going to take a lot of departments in Washington, and agencies, and combine them. Some eliminate, but I’m probably not going to lay out just exactly which ones are going to go,” Romney said. “Things like Housing and Urban Development, which my dad was head of, that might not be around later. But I’m not going to actually go through these one by one. What I can tell you is, we’ve got far too many bureaucrats. I will send a lot of what happens in Washington back to the states.”​

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...mmediately-rolls-back-specificity.php?ref=fpa

His plan is to run on huge cuts in government, and then not specify which until he's in office. It's really just a reiteration of what he's said before. Would be neat if some enterprising reporter actually asked him about it.

Don't you think Obama would directly bring that up in a debate? I guess he just plans to talk around it if it comes up.

 

[markatisu]

Heh.

Also, Romney's hot mic fun at a fund raiser last night:

“I’m going to take a lot of departments in Washington, and agencies, and combine them. Some eliminate, but I’m probably not going to lay out just exactly which ones are going to go,” Romney said. “Things like Housing and Urban Development, which my dad was head of, that might not be around later. But I’m not going to actually go through these one by one. What I can tell you is, we’ve got far too many bureaucrats. I will send a lot of what happens in Washington back to the states.”​

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...mmediately-rolls-back-specificity.php?ref=fpa

His plan is to run on huge cuts in government, and then not specify which until he's in office. It's really just a reiteration of what he's said before. Would be neat if some enterprising reporter actually asked him about it.

I also like him basically letting all the GOP know he wants a Dream Act to woo Latino's. I bet that will go over GREAT with some of the ones in the SW

 

[Black Republican]

Mitt Romney has chosen longtime aide Beth Myers to head his vice presidential search team, the presumed Republican nominee said in an interview with ABC this morning.

Ms. Myers was Mr. Romney’s chief of staff while he was Massachusetts governor and the manager of his unsuccessful 2008 White House bid. Her selection suggests Mr. Romney wants to keep the decision-making process among close confidants even as his campaign expands for the general election.

In an interview with ABC, Mr. Romney gave no details on when he’d pick his running mate.

“It would certainly be by the time of the convention,” Mr. Romney said. “I don’t think we’ve chosen the time we’d actually make an announcement.”

His wife, Ann Romney, added, “You know it’s been interesting this weekend was the first time we seriously really talked about it and there are some wonderful people out there.”

Mr. Romney has also given few hints on whom he’d like as vice president, though that hasn’t prevented speculation here in Washington. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio holds a spot on most lists, along with House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and Sen. Rob Portman, from the perennial swing state of Ohio. Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell has been mentioned as well.

“I think it’s way too early to begin narrowing down who the potential vice presidential
nominees might be,” Mr. Romney told ABC. “But we’re beginning that process.”

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/...search-for-running-mate/?mod=google_news_blog

wonder how early we'll know compared to 08

 

[Baraka in the White House]

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/...search-for-running-mate/?mod=google_news_blog

wonder how early we'll know compared to 08

It probably won't take as long this time. I doubt they'll be worrying over a "game changer" for their VP pick again.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

It probably won't take as long this time. I doubt they'll be worrying over a "game changer" for their VP pick again.

We all know it's going to be Susana Martinez (oops. I didn't realize she has firmly said she doesn't want it). Maybe it will be Rubio after all.

 

[Chichikov]

They need to grow up.
The Buffett rule was a sorry ass stunt to begin with.

The Buffett rule is an improvement over the current tax code.
It's not the end all be all, but that's not a reason to oppose it (especially as it doesn't further complicate the tax code).

But the important thing about the the Buffett rule is that it brings into light just how retarded is Norquist's pledge, and ideally, it will teach congresspeople that there are consequences to signing something so fucking stupid.

 

[AlteredBeast]

The Buffett rule is an improvement over the current tax code.
It's not the end all be all, but that's not a reason to oppose it (especially as it doesn't further complicate the tax code).

But the important thing about the the Buffett rule is that it brings into light just how retarded is Norquist's pledge, and ideally, it will teach congresspeople that there are consequences to signing something so fucking stupid.

It is an improvement, but it is also just a way that the Obama admin can attack his opponent and get his base riled up. If it were really about improving the tax code, millions of people would have their taxes raised, not merely thousands.

 

[Tim-E]

Mitt's at it again. From his book:

In some quarters, however, the American work ethic is waning. Some people devote themselves to find ways not to work. Some seem to take a perverse kind of pride in being slipshod or lackadaisical. In many cases, where our work culture has deteriorated, shortsighted government policies share a good part of the blame.
Welfare without work erodes the spirit and the sense of self-worth of the recipient. And it conditions the children of nonworking parents to an indolent and unproductive life. Hardworking parents raise hardworking kids; we should recognize that the opposite is also true. The influence of the work habits of our parents and other adults around us as we grow up has lasting impact.

LOL

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...-parents-raise-indolent-and-unproductive-kids

 

[gcubed]

Mitt's at it again. From his book:



LOL

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...-parents-raise-indolent-and-unproductive-kids

its a turning point though!

 

[AlteredBeast]

Mitt's at it again. From his book:



LOL

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...-parents-raise-indolent-and-unproductive-kids

I don't think he believes that stay-at-home moms = laziness. He probably believes, as has been said before, that if the breadwinner of the house makes enough dough, the mom is fine staying at home baking bread.

but, people who are poor should go out and find jobs. Being a single parent doesn't give anyone a free pass to hold their hand out, they should work hard to ensure their family is taken care of.

Besides, what he says is exactly true. parents that work hard engender kids who work hard. The opposite is very true as well.

 

[Vahagn]

My family had welfare when I was a kid, I now own my own business


Many kids from successful parents are spoiled, bratty, and feel entitled.


These types of stereotypes that Mitt Romney and the right perpetrate further show that he's out of touch. If he actually personally knew anyone who came up on welfare or is currently on welfare he would

A) have some empathy

B) See that the children of people on welfare work as well...often times those kids have to work jobs before most of their peers in school.

 

[Tim-E]

I don't think he believes that stay-at-home moms = laziness. He probably believes, as has been said before, that if the breadwinner of the house makes enough dough, the mom is fine staying at home baking bread.

but, people who are poor should go out and find jobs. Being a single parent doesn't give anyone a free pass to hold their hand out, they should work hard to ensure their family is taken care of.

Besides, what he says is exactly true. parents that work hard engender kids who work hard. The opposite is very true as well.

I agree somewhat, but I've seen examples in my life of hardworking parents with spoiled brat kids who ultimately do nothing but live off of daddy's income.

I'm mostly just having fun with the inconsistency in his words. It just seems like he can't speak publically without contradicting some statement he's made in the past.

 

[empty vessel]

I don't think he believes that stay-at-home moms = laziness. He probably believes, as has been said before, that if the breadwinner of the house makes enough dough, the mom is fine staying at home baking bread.

but, people who are poor should go out and find jobs. Being a single parent doesn't give anyone a free pass to hold their hand out, they should work hard to ensure their family is taken care of.

Besides, what he says is exactly true. parents that work hard engender kids who work hard. The opposite is very true as well.

So Mitt's wife is an undignified welfare queen. She just gets her welfare to support her indolent and unproductive lifestyle from the private sector (Mitt) rather than the public sector.

What Mitt is saying is good class war rhetoric. But for people who care about reality, the only difference between Mitt's stay-at-home wife and a mother on welfare is that Mitt's wife married Mitt. I don't think that single life choice makes Mitt's wife dignified and the non-working single mother undignified and indolent.

 

[Chumly]

I don't think he believes that stay-at-home moms = laziness. He probably believes, as has been said before, that if the breadwinner of the house makes enough dough, the mom is fine staying at home baking bread.

but, people who are poor should go out and find jobs. Being a single parent doesn't give anyone a free pass to hold their hand out, they should work hard to ensure their family is taken care of.

Besides, what he says is exactly true. parents that work hard engender kids who work hard. The opposite is very true as well.

Frankly the most lazy kids I've seen are the ones that grow up as spoiled rich brats. People who are poor are often working (earning dignity) by the time they are 16

 

[Dude Abides]

I don't think he believes that stay-at-home moms = laziness. He probably believes, as has been said before, that if the breadwinner of the house makes enough dough, the mom is fine staying at home baking bread.

but, people who are poor should go out and find jobs. Being a single parent doesn't give anyone a free pass to hold their hand out, they should work hard to ensure their family is taken care of.

Besides, what he says is exactly true. parents that work hard engender kids who work hard. The opposite is very true as well.

Why is it undignified for a welfare mother not to work for a wage but not undignified for Ann Romney not to work for a wage?

 

[gcubed]

Why is it undignified for a welfare mother not to work for a wage but not undignified for Ann Romney not to work for a wage?

as EV stated, its only undignified if the hand out is from the government.

 

[Chumly]

The GOP are the masters at class warfare. They like to harp on class warfare just because people want to tax the rich and turn around and complain how the poor are all lazy and their kids are lazy.

 

[Black Republican]

Obviously doesnt mean much now considering its spring, but still interesting:

First Gallup General Election daily poll shows Romney 47% & Obama 45% with national registered voters. Independents Romney 45 Obama 39:

PRINCETON, NJ -- Mitt Romney is supported by 47% of national registered voters and Barack Obama by 45% in the inaugural Gallup Daily tracking results from April 11-15. Both Obama and Romney are supported by 90% of their respective partisans.

These results are the first from Gallup Daily tracking of registered voters' general election preferences, which began on April 11 and will be reported daily on Gallup.com on the basis of continuous five-day rolling averages. This initial report is based on interviews with 2,265 registered voters, and highlights the potential closeness of this year's race, with Romney and Obama essentially in a statistical tie. Gallup's previous general election trial heat, from a national poll conducted March 25-26, showed Obama with a slight 49% to 45% lead over Romney.

Gallup began tracking the general election on Wednesday, April 11, after Rick Santorum suspended his campaign for the Republican nomination, making Romney the all-but-assured GOP nominee.

The race breaks down into the expected patterns by party, with 90% of Democrats supporting Obama, and 90% of Republicans supporting Romney. The Republican results show that despite the rancor and divisiveness of the Republican campaign, the vast majority of Republicans are backing Romney in the head-to-head battle with Obama, as they have in ballot tests earlier this year.

The crucial voting bloc of independents breaks toward Romney by 45% to 39%, giving the GOP challenger his slight overall edge.

Republicans and Democrats Have Similar Certain to Vote Scores

In any close presidential election, motivation and turnout are keys. Gallup will report the projected vote based on the smaller segment of likely voters as the election nears next fall, but in the current tracking has included one "likely voter" question that provides a rough indicator of turnout potential -- asking registered voters to self-report their certainty of voting in the November election.

More here:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/153902/R...com&utm_campaign=sharing#.T4xkaQidRkI.twitter

 

[DasRaven]

We all know it's going to be Susana Martinez (oops. I didn't realize she has firmly said she doesn't want it). Maybe it will be Rubio after all.

A Susana Martinez selection would be seen as the most blatant super-pander since Sarah Palin.
Romney: "I'm weak with Latinos and women, go get me one of each for VP vetting!"
Myers: "How about a double threat?"

Although, it would make for one hilarious defeat when they both lost the states they governed.

 

[thatbox]

Mitt's at it again. From his book:

In some quarters, however, the American work ethic is waning. Some people devote themselves to find ways not to work. Some seem to take a perverse kind of pride in being slipshod or lackadaisical. In many cases, where our work culture has deteriorated, shortsighted government policies share a good part of the blame.
Welfare without work erodes the spirit and the sense of self-worth of the recipient. And it conditions the children of nonworking parents to an indolent and unproductive life. Hardworking parents raise hardworking kids; we should recognize that the opposite is also true. The influence of the work habits of our parents and other adults around us as we grow up has lasting impact.

LOL

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...-parents-raise-indolent-and-unproductive-kids

Personally, I'd have bolded the first part (like so) and make a joke about Romney living off of capital gains.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

The Buffett rule is an improvement over the current tax code.
It's not the end all be all, but that's not a reason to oppose it (especially as it doesn't further complicate the tax code).

But the important thing about the the Buffett rule is that it brings into light just how retarded is Norquist's pledge, and ideally, it will teach congresspeople that there are consequences to signing something so fucking stupid.

The problem is that, as I understand it, it is Obama's plan to replace the alternative minimum tax with the Buffet plan tax. So, it will actually cause a loss of revenue. Because of that, it's going nowhere. I think I recently read that on CNN. I'll try to find a link.

Obviously doesnt mean much now considering its spring, but still interesting:

First Gallup General Election daily poll shows Romney 47% & Obama 45% with national registered voters. Independents Romney 45 Obama 39:

Gonna be a tight race.

 

[Officerrob]

Obviously doesnt mean much now considering its spring, but still interesting:

First Gallup General Election daily poll shows Romney 47% & Obama 45% with national registered voters. Independents Romney 45 Obama 39:




More here:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/153902/R...com&utm_campaign=sharing#.T4xkaQidRkI.twitter

I have no idea why anyone even bother's with national polls anymore. Until something drastic changess, polls of a handful of states are all that truly matter

 

[thezerofire]

So does that czk guy in the RP thread just have no experience with American policies or life at all?

 

[DasRaven]

The problem is that, as I understand it, it is Obama's plan to replace the alternative minimum tax with the Buffet plan tax. So, it will actually cause a huge loss of revenue. Because of that, it's going nowhere. I think I recently read that on CNN. I'll try to find a link.

That was a statement in the White House budget outline from February. It stated that the Buffett rule "could" be seen as a replacement for the current AMT+annual AMT boondoggle in a comprehensive tax reform plan.

However, nowhere else in that budget did they outline or demand the repeal of the current AMT. The only places I've seen that line of criticism used is on righty blogs where they take it as a given that it will fully replace the AMT and then bash the loss of revenue even though they purport to want lower taxes on the apocryphal "job creators."

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

That was a statement in the White House budget outline from February. It stated that the Buffett rule "could" be seen as a replacement for the current AMT+annual AMT boondoggle in a comprehensive tax reform plan.

However, nowhere else in that budget did they outline or demand the repeal of the current AMT. The only places I've seen that line of criticism used is on righty blogs where they take it as a given that it will fully replace the AMT and then bash the loss of revenue.

Well, do you agree that was a foolish statement considering how little tax money this will bring in? And from any estimate I've seen, it does little to address the deficit. It's political stunt 101 level nonsense.

 

[Effect]

I have no idea why anyone even bother's with national polls anymore. Until something drastic changess, polls of a handful of states are all that truly matter

This. Seeing how the economy is affecting states differently, the overreaching of republicans in certain states, the political make up of states differing (more dems in one now compared to last time around, etc) I don't see how national polls are a good thing to go by. Especially since there is no way to know where the sample size was collected from, what counties did they randomly select people from, etc.