• 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

RustyNails

Member
Jason's Ultimatum said:
Contrary to what Limbaugh said about teachers not creating econonic growth, I would say teachers DO create economic growth by educating the population and earning higher income.
Click to expand...

Actually that sounds extremely similar to what Kosmo was arguing a few pages back: public sector employees don't create wealth. How surprising!
 
P

Piecake

Member
CHEEZMO™;38788774 said:
2 twats for the price of one?

What's he on about?
Click to expand...

I have to say, Im am more embarrassed that Pawlenty MN's Governor than Ventura. Pawlenty is like the definition of a republican tool. Not surprising that Romney and him seem somewhat buddy buddy
 
S

Skiptastic

Member
Amir0x said:
The surprising thing to me isn't that some in the media are letting Romney slide - most journalists (so that excludes anyone at Fox News, obviously) are absolutely petrified at being seen as having a dog in the race, even when that dog is blatantly lying his/her ass off - it's that the media is letting the fact that Romney has as yet failed to really detail any of his plans for fixing any of the things he claims are "broken." He has the vaguest, most broad-brushed bs. His sole strategy seems to be "distract peoples attention by tagging Obama to economy, maybe they'll ignore the fact that I haven't said a word about how I'd make anything better!" Say what you will about Obama, but he laid out many plans prior to his election.
Click to expand...
1. Media types don't want to have a blowout. That means less ratings. They want people glued to their TVs. Maybe that's me being cynical, but they'll let someone trailing have things slide. They're like the AI in NFL Blitz when you get up too high...

2. There have been Republican politicians who have called on Mitt to be more than just Anti Obama as it gets closer to the election. If he fails to do that, he will lose and deserve to do so. But I'm expecting him to save those ideas for the GOP convention. You can't have a good long speech just saying "Obama sucks, vote against him". He should use that platform to talk about how he plans to do things differently than Obama and what results that will achieve.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
Skiptastic said:
He should use that platform to talk about how he plans to do things differently than Obama and what results that will achieve.
Click to expand...
Cut taxes, ok keystone pipelines, get government out of the way end obamacare, club baby seals and repeal China so middle class can grow. Those are gonna be his big ideas in the nutshell.
 
B

Buddha Beam

Banned
Diablos said:
Are you a troll?

No, seriously.

Romney's "ball rolling" efforts with a GOP House and Senate would be, as Clinton said, Bush on steroids. And it's true. Get your head out of your ass...



And they're still basically tied for the GE. Don't celebrate just yet.

It's really amazing how they're giving Romney a free pass in the media. I guess they favor him. Dickless twits.
Click to expand...

I don't know if it's that they favor him so much as they need to constantly keep shoring him up to keep it close. If the media didn't want a horse race, the numbers would likely favor Obama by a huge large margin. Romney and his entire campaign are a walking gaffe machine.
 
A

Averon

Member
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/grover-norquist-jeb-bush-ronald-reagan-taxes.php?ref=fpa

Norquist Lashes Back At Jeb Bush On Reagan, Taxes

Jeb Bush’s remark that Ronald Reagan would be too moderate for today’s Republican Party earned an aggressive rebuke from the gatekeeper of the anti-tax orthodoxy that permeates the modern GOP.

“That’s foolish,” Grover Norquist, the architect of the bedrock never-raise-taxes pledge that nearly every Republican has signed, told TPM in an interview. “It’s stup—it’s bizarre.”

“There’s a guy who watched his father throw away his presidency on a 2:1 [ratio of spending cuts to tax increases] promise,” Norquist said of Bush. “And he thinks he’s sophisticated by saying that he’d take a 10:1 promise. He doesn’t understand — he’s just agreed to walk down the same alley his dad did with the same gang. And he thinks he’s smart. You walk down that alley, you don’t come out. You certainly don’t come out with 2:1 or 10:1.”

Bush told reporters at Bloomberg LP’s New York headquarters that “ack to my dad’s time and Ronald Reagan’s time — they got a lot of stuff done with a lot of bipartisan support.” Reagan “would be criticized for doing the things that he did,” the former Florida governor said, blaming both sides for partisan gridlock.

“Ronald Reagan would have, based on his record of finding accommodation, finding some degree of common ground, as would my dad — they would have a hard time if you define the Republican Party — and I don’t — as having an orthodoxy that doesn’t allow for disagreement, doesn’t allow for finding some common ground,” Bush said, as quoted Monday by Buzzfeed.
Click to expand...


Jeb's right.
 
P

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
1. Pretty sure I saw eznark get quoted/RT'd today or yesterday by Keith Olberman, or someone. That was neat.

2. Bobby Jindal is a political nobody and will remain a nobody until the end of time.

3. Jeb Bush is only partly right. He blamed Obama at the end of his little rant.

4. I already see the ending of this uproar about Obama's gaffe. So much for the using it all year. I pointed this out earlier, but the difference between him and the examples used to frame it are that the entirety of those examples come from non-incumbents. I'm guessing incumbents get more leeway to make gaffes, if only because they get more air to explain them, if not the assumption of authority while in office. See: everything GWB ever said.
 
D

Diablos

Member
RustyNails said:
I guess he really loves the smell in there.

Also, 50% approval doesn't mean much. Poppy was at 54% when he got clobbered by Slick Willy in 1992. But then again, you need the charisma of The Bill Clinton in order to make an incumbent's 54% approval rating meaningless.
Click to expand...
Well, Perot also trolled the conservative electorate and helped Bill win big. I think the election would have been much much closer if he was only in a couple states or none at all.

Code: 
United States presidential election, 1992
Bill Clinton/Al Gore (D) – 44,909,806 (43.0%) and 370 electoral votes (32 states and D.C. carried)
George H. W. Bush/Dan Quayle (R) (Inc.) – 39,104,550 (37.4%) and 168 electoral votes (18 states carried)
Ross Perot/James Stockdale (I) – 19,743,821 (18.9%) and 0 electoral votes
Andre Marrou/Nancy Lord (L) – 290,087 (0.3%) and 0 electoral votes
I doubt many of those 19 million votes would have gone to Bill Clinton.

Buddha Beam said:
I don't know if it's that they favor him so much as they need to constantly keep shoring him up to keep it close. If the media didn't want a horse race, the numbers would likely favor Obama by a huge large margin. Romney and his entire campaign are a walking gaffe machine.
Click to expand...
The media always wants a horse race, but at this point they're licking Romney's ass.

Averon said:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/grover-norquist-jeb-bush-ronald-reagan-taxes.php?ref=fpa

Norquist Lashes Back At Jeb Bush On Reagan, Taxes

Jeb's right.
Click to expand...
So many Republicans know this is the case but don't have the balls to speak up about it. Sad. I guess they don't mind being on the wrong side of history someday (even if it takes decades).
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Ultimately Norquist is just verbalizing what most conservative believe but won't say out loud. The entire point of Norquist's "no taxes ever" ideology is to shrink government: you continually cut taxes, raise spending*, and when the deficit starts imploding and the government starts "running out of money" you argue that cutting entitlements is the only way to fix the problem; preferably you start with something that can be demonized without threatening too many important people (welfare, medicaid, public unions...), then move on to the larger ones (SS, medicare, etc) as the alleged last resort. Ultimately that is the motive of the fiscal conservatism we've seen over the last 30-40 years. And as long as the Bush tax cuts remain on the books, we'll get closer and closer to fiscal implosion.

*What constitutes "spending" has been redefined. Apparently you can wage multiple wars and continually escalate military spending without it being a problem, whereas modest spending on domestic issues (infrastructure, health care, etc) is seen as outrageous. This is why Drudge and others spend so much time pointing out the loss or mis-management of relatively small amounts of government money or earmarks or foreign aid, while completely ignoring the spending and tax cuts that ultimately drive deficits up. The focus is entirely on wedge issues or scapegoats
 
R

Rocket Scientist

Member
Oblivion said:
This sounds like a big deal, doesn't it? Largest health insurer says they will preserve key parts of Obamacare regardless of the SC's ruling:

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/06/11/497085/unitedhealthcare-continue-obamacare-provisions/
Click to expand...
“The protections we are voluntarily extending are good for people’s health, promote broader access to quality care and contribute to helping control rising health care costs,” Stephen J. Hemsley, president and chief executive of UnitedHealth Group, said in a statement.
Click to expand...
During an appearance on Fox News Monday morning, Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) — one of the staunchest opponents of the law — also defended the insurer’s decision, noting, “to allow them to stay on that family plan, just helps the family until that person goes to school [and is] established in life.”
Click to expand...
Oh really. Seems like good news though.
 
D

Diablos

Member
It's genius because a lot of young people are supportive of the plan if only for this reason.

So it kind of shuts them up and keeps them less passionate about serious health care reform in the face of the SCOTUS beating the shit out of current law. gg health care industry.
 
G

gcubed

Member
Diablos said:
Well, Perot also trolled the conservative electorate and helped Bill win big. I think the election would have been much much closer if he was only in a couple states or none at all.

Code: 
United States presidential election, 1992
Bill Clinton/Al Gore (D) – 44,909,806 (43.0%) and 370 electoral votes (32 states and D.C. carried)
George H. W. Bush/Dan Quayle (R) (Inc.) – 39,104,550 (37.4%) and 168 electoral votes (18 states carried)
Ross Perot/James Stockdale (I) – 19,743,821 (18.9%) and 0 electoral votes
Andre Marrou/Nancy Lord (L) – 290,087 (0.3%) and 0 electoral votes
I doubt many of those 19 million votes would have gone to Bill Clinton.


The media always wants a horse race, but at this point they're licking Romney's ass.


So many Republicans know this is the case but don't have the balls to speak up about it. Sad. I guess they don't mind being on the wrong side of history someday (even if it takes decades).
Click to expand...

You would think after it being covered multiple times in these threads people would stop rolling out the Ross Perot is why Bill Clinton won line.
 
X

XMonkey

lacks enthusiasm.
Dax01 said:
One-year extension of Bush tax cuts for Jobs Act spending: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...chael-tomasky-s-foolproof-plan-for-obama.html

I'd take it.
Click to expand...
One year of all tax cuts extended for $45 billion in spending? No way, no how.

Obama should do what I thought he needed to do when he first extended the cuts: craft a new package that keeps the taxes the same for lower and middle-income Americans, while letting taxes for wealthy Americans go back to Clinton levels (which is still too low, but hey, let's start somewhere). Dare the Republicans to vote against it because it raises taxes on rich people and let's see where that gets them.

Throw the spending on top of it.
 
T

ToxicAdam

Member
A new Quinnipiac poll in Pennsylvania shows President Obama leading Mitt Romney by six points, 46% to 40%.

Said pollster Tim Malloy: "While almost four-fifths of voters, including 58% of Republicans, say the President is a likable person, where the rubber meets the road on the campaign trail - the economy - Romney has the lead
Click to expand...


--- /// ---

Matthew Yglesias said:
“Pundits looking for smart nonpartisan things to say about the U.S. presidential election have hit on the idea that the fate of the American economy, and perhaps therefore Barack Obama’s election, hinges on events in Europe. This is a very misleading way of looking at things. A country the size of the United States is overwhelmingly the author of its own destiny. The outside world does matter for the United States, but it matters in the sense that external events occur that require a policy response. Events in Europe will sink the American economy if and only if American policymakers react to those events in a substantively disastrous manner.] “Pundits looking for smart nonpartisan things to say about the U.S. presidential election have hit on the idea that the fate of the American economy, and perhaps therefore Barack Obama’s election, hinges on events in Europe. This is a very misleading way of looking at things. A country the size of the United States is overwhelmingly the author of its own destiny. The outside world does matter for the United States, but it matters in the sense that external events occur that require a policy response. Events in Europe will sink the American economy if and only if American policymakers react to those events in a substantively disastrous manner."
Click to expand...
 
I

Invisible_Insane

Member
ToxicAdam said:
--- /// ---
Click to expand...
That latter quote strikes me as the very same sort of hunting for smart non-partisan things to say. The EU is one of the US' largest trading partners; having a huge export market contract massively with what I imagine would be concurrent chaos in the financial sector would very obviously be a substantial headwind for the US.
 
E

eznark

Banned
Oblivion said:
This sounds like a big deal, doesn't it? Largest health insurer says they will preserve key parts of Obamacare regardless of the SC's ruling:

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/06/11/497085/unitedhealthcare-continue-obamacare-provisions/
Click to expand...

I think it's good news for Romney that insurers have publicly come out and said this (the 26 thing was a no brainer. Increased premiums just by adding people at the prime of their lives who would otherwise not be customers? Yes please!). It allays the fears of the deadbeat young. They can stay in their parents basements in November and let the adults vote knowing that mommy and daddy will still be able to take care of them.
 
C

cartoon_soldier

Member
eznark said:
I think it's good news for Romney that insurers have publicly come out and said this (the 26 thing was a no brainer. Increased premiums just by adding people at the prime of their lives who would otherwise not be customers? Yes please!). It allays the fears of the deadbeat young. They can stay in their parents basements in November and let the adults vote knowing that mommy and daddy will still be able to take care of them.
Click to expand...

Insurers wouldn't have done this if Obamacare was not in effect, they know it would be very bad for them if 6 million young people suddenly had to drop off because SC overturns HCR.

Even if SC overturns the law, Obamacare has had a positive effect already in the nation. Sucks that the country got swept up in the hysteria driven by tea party-GOP-media on it.

Yglesias is right. The US economy isn't as exposed in a European crisis as people like to think.
Click to expand...

The reason at least some people are saying that a disaster in Europe will affect is US is precisely because policymakers are not going to be able to do anything to combat the effect. GOP has already said they want the Fed to do LESS to help unemployment and are not going to consider any measures themselves in the House to help with unemployment. At this point, they know that an economic crash means a Romney presidency. Obama can't do anything by himself unfortunately.

One-year extension of Bush tax cuts for Jobs Act spending: http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...for-obama.html

I'd take it.
Click to expand...

I would want more than just the Jobs bill spending for full Bush cuts extension. But since I am sure even the GOP will oppose that kind of compromise, he might as well go ahead and propose it.
 
T

ToxicAdam

Member
Less spending, more revenue ... who'da thunk?

Total state tax revenue is forecast to rise 4.1% to $690.3 billion in the 2013 budget year, according to a twice-yearly survey by the National Governors Association and the National Association of State Budget Officers.

It's the third straight year of revenue growth and $10 billion more than the budget year that ended June 2008. The recession began in December 2007.

Total state spending would increase only 2.2% and remain below pre-recession levels, the report says.
Click to expand...

Arizona, Ohio and Michigan expect some of the biggest increases in tax revenue next year.
Click to expand...

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/story/2012-06-12/Tax-revenue-up/55546822/1
 
J

Jason's Ultimatum

Member
eznark said:
Deep thoughts
Click to expand...

What I said was true. Too bad I can't say the same thing for Limbaugh.

Actually that sounds extremely similar to what Kosmo was arguing a few pages back: public sector employees don't create wealth. How surprising!
Click to expand...

Hmm, I went back 10 pages and couldn't find his post(s). You sure you weren't confusing Eznark with Kosmo? The two are interchangeable. :)
 
H

Hop

That girl in the bunny hat
eznark said:
C'mon, Ross Perot was 100% original and awesome. Kosmo is as a generic Republican cardboard cutout as you're going to find.
Click to expand...

Plus Kosmo never has charts.


....Perot was the guy that went on primetime TV with a shitload of charts, right? It was before my time.
 
G

gcubed

Member
eznark said:
C'mon, Ross Perot was 100% original and awesome. Kosmo is as a generic Republican cardboard cutout as you're going to find.
Click to expand...

anyone who breaks out visual aids during a televised speech can't be ALL bad.

1vdDu.jpg
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Dax01 said:
One-year extension of Bush tax cuts for Jobs Act spending: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...chael-tomasky-s-foolproof-plan-for-obama.html

I'd take it.
Click to expand...

Why should republicans give democrats anything here? If they simply demand all the cuts are extended and democrats don't comply, taxes go up. Guess who will get the blame. It's a similar situation to the government shut downs and debt ceiling fights in the sense that one side might have more leverage.

Likewise, democrats have the leverage to let the tax cuts expire and then propose middle class tax relief - daring republicans to vote against it. A lot of that hinges on keeping the senate obviously
 
D

Diablos

Member
gcubed said:
You would think after it being covered multiple times in these threads people would stop rolling out the Ross Perot is why Bill Clinton won line.
Click to expand...
I didn't say he's the sole reason why nor did I say Bush would have absolutely won otherwise; I said the election would have probably been much closer. Learn how to read.
 
E

eznark

Banned
PhoenixDark said:
Why should republicans give democrats anything here? If they simply demand all the cuts are extended and democrats don't comply, taxes go up. Guess who will get the blame. It's a similar situation to the government shut downs and debt ceiling fights in the sense that one side might have more leverage.

Likewise, democrats have the leverage to let the tax cuts expire and then propose middle class tax relief - daring republicans to vote against it. A lot of that hinges on keeping the senate obviously
Click to expand...

Because they want to be able to support something called the Jobs Act. If they truly gave a fuck about spending, I'd agree with you, but we both know they don't.

This plan lets both parties do what they secretly want without enraging their base too too much.
 
G

gcubed

Member
Diablos said:
I didn't say he's the sole reason why nor did I say Bush would have absolutely won otherwise; I said the election would have probably been much closer. Learn how to read.
Click to expand...

he lost by 5 million votes, you said you doubted Clinton would get many of the 19 million votes. Sorry, i just assumed you didn't think they would go to the libertarian candidate instead. My bad.

but you're still wrong because the conversation has been covered plenty of times. Its ok

National exit polling showed Perot support split between Clinton and Bush.
 
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