• 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.
M

Miletius

Member
All of them are just dehumanizing tactics. I've been known to call Romney "Mittens" from time to time so it's not like I haven't participated. I kind of like the nickname Barry actually, since it sounds friendly and all. Willard will never sound friendly, no matter what the context.
 
G

gcubed

Member
speculawyer said:
But it doesn't happen like that. If they have $100K in equity, you just sell the house, pay off the loan, and keep the equity.

The only way they are going to foreclose is if you haven't paid in a while. Thus, the bank will want those missed payments . . . that is the equity slipping away.
Click to expand...

Banks would change loans to paying interest only up front. So you get 0 equity for the first x years
 
R

RustyNails

Member
Miletius said:
All of them are just dehumanizing tactics. I've been known to call Romney "Mittens" from time to time so it's not like I haven't participated. I kind of like the nickname Barry actually, since it sounds friendly and all. Willard will never sound friendly, no matter what the context.
Click to expand...

But Mittens is such an endearing name :3

Barry isn't, neither is Willard when spoken in reference to those individuals. It's all about the intent behind using nicknames, not the nicknames themselves. Closest to Mittens like nickname for Obama is Bams.
 
I

Invisible_Insane

Member
Miletius said:
All of them are just dehumanizing tactics. I've been known to call Romney "Mittens" from time to time so it's not like I haven't participated. I kind of like the nickname Barry actually, since it sounds friendly and all. Willard will never sound friendly, no matter what the context.
Click to expand...
Calling someone by a name other than the name they prefer is "dehumanizing?" Come on, now.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
RustyNails said:
But Mittens is such an endearing name :3

Barry isn't, neither is Willard when spoken in reference to those individuals. It's all about the intent behind using nicknames, not the nicknames themselves. Closest to Mittens like nickname for Obama is Bams.
Click to expand...
I like Bams.

My favored nickname for Romney is R-Money. Who let the dogs out.
 
W

watershed

Banned
I was just reading an article on Politico about more republicans wanting Chris Christie to jump in. He's already a prominent Romney supporter, if he's tapped to be Romney's VP would that be a game changer for Romney's perception within his own party?
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
How come it's not racist to call Mitt "Willard" but it IS racist to mention Obama's middle name. Hussein. /wrists

speaking of willard

How Romney could fail to get enough delegates

Just to provide a sense of how this could happen, I spent some time playing around with CNN’s delegate calculator feature and divided the states up two categories. Obviously, this is pretty rough. We don’t have much polling data for these states, and the fact that Santorum could win Colorado means that Romney may not as strong in the mountain west as everybody once thought. Furthermore, there’s also the possibility that both Santorum and Gingrich could fade before contests in other states take place.

With that said, here are the states that are probably solid or lean Romney states: Alaska, Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, California, Utah, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, New Mexico, Michigan, Maine, Vermont, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia (where Santorum and Gingrich aren’t on the ballot), and Indiana (where Santorum isn’t on the ballot).

Here are the states that it’s easier to see Santorum or Gingrich winning: Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, North Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, Louisiana, Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Wisconsin, Illinois, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas.

Because most states in 2012 are allocated proportionally rather than winner-take-all, it’s really difficult to predict how the delegates would be awarded. Romney’s opponents will win delegates in states that he wins and he’ll get delegates in the states that he loses. But just for the sake of this exercise, if Romney were to win all of the delegates in all of the states that I identified above as solid or lean states, it would only get him to 1,008 delegates, according to the CNN calculator -- still short of the required 1,144.
Click to expand...
http://campaign2012.washingtonexami...romney-could-fail-get-enough-delegates/365281
 
J

Jackson50

Member
Aaron Strife said:
I.

Uh.

WHAT?

Wouldn't this be kind of bad for Republicans? Why would they sponsor this bill?
Click to expand...
It's not necessarily bad. Rather, it's a calculated risk. An LIV obviously diminishes their institutional power. Nevertheless, they gain a strategic advantage by ceding power to the president. By enhancing the president's power of recission, Congress shifts the burden of deficit reduction to the president. While the Congress is responsible for enacting appropriations, the president has the authority to eliminate pork. Thus, either the president eliminates the pork thereby providing the Congressperson with a prominent scapegoat, or the president fails to eliminate the pork and the Congressperson brings home the bacon. Essentially, Congress is trying to have its cake and eat it too.
artwalknoon said:
I was just reading an article on Politico about more republicans wanting Chris Christie to jump in. He's already a prominent Romney supporter, if he's tapped to be Romney's VP would that be a game changer for Romney's perception within his own party?
Click to expand...
No. Aside from running mates rarely proving consequential, Christie would not compensate for Romney's purported weaknesses. He's mistrusted by social conservatives/Evangelicals. Christie would not change that calculus.
 
T

ToxicAdam

Member
Re: Contraceptive issue


You know the economy is bouncing back when stupid-ass social issues become the big news for the day.

--- /// ---


Here's a link to save. An amazing resource of charts concerning employment and past recessions (and the most recent one).
 
I

Invisible_Insane

Member
David Brooks said:
How come it's not racist to call Mitt "Willard" but it IS racist to mention Obama's middle name. Hussein. /wrists
Click to expand...

Jackson50 said:
It's not necessarily bad. Rather, it's a calculated risk. An LIV obviously diminishes their institutional power. Nevertheless, they gain a strategic advantage by ceding power to the president. By enhancing the president's power of recission, Congress shifts the burden of deficit reduction to the president. While the Congress is responsible for enacting appropriations, the president has the authority to eliminate pork. Thus, either the president eliminates the pork thereby providing the Congressperson with a prominent scapegoat, or the president fails to eliminate the pork and the Congressperson brings home the bacon. Essentially, Congress is trying to have its cake and eat it too.
Click to expand...
I'm inclined to think the people who were deeply upset about "pork" to begin with will still end up taking exception with the people including it in the legislation, rather than the president for signing off on it. But maybe I have that wrong. It just seems like a particularly short-sighted move on the part of the House, even if it does eliminate the threat of the ridiculousness we've seen in the last couple of years.
 
J

Jackson50

Member
ToxicAdam said:
Re: Contraceptive issue


You know the economy is bouncing back when stupid-ass social issues become the big news for the day.
Click to expand...
The past week was a perfect storm to inflame social conservative paranoia. Obama escalated his war on religion. The Ninth Circuit affirmed that Prop 8 is unconstitutional.
Invisible_Insane said:
I'm inclined to think the people who were deeply upset about "pork" to begin with will still end up taking exception with the people including it in the legislation, rather than the president for signing off on it. But maybe I have that wrong. It just seems like a particularly short-sighted move on the part of the House, even if it does eliminate the threat of the ridiculousness we've seen in the last couple of years.
Click to expand...
Congress will still receive scrutiny, sure. But the president is the preeminent political figure in the U.S. Expanding their role in the process would only amplify the inordinate coverage they already receive. It's analogous to other issues where Congress cedes power to deflect culpability; Congress delegating power to the president on trade policy, for example. Andrew Rudalevige has a good primer on the argument. Although, I agree it's shortsighted. An LIV is a prime opportunity for presidential excess. Moreover, it doesn't appreciably reduce deficits. Mandatory spending is exempt. It doesn't solve a goddamn thing.
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
As if we needed more proof that Scarlett Johansson is currently the most wonderful woman in Hollywood:

Scarlett Johansson, star of last year’s We Bought a Zoo and this summer’s The Avengers, is apparently not a fan of Rick Santorum’s sweater vests. She told Us Weekly: “Oh gosh, so sad. My dad wore them, and, I mean, they’re charming for family photos I guess, and dinner with the grandparents. I think there’s an ironic way to wear a sweater vest but other than that I’m not sure!”
Click to expand...


<3
 
J

Jooney

Member
Sup Gaf. Long time lurker, first time poster.

I'm an Australian with a deep interest in world affairs and especially US politics. I find the whole arena both fascinating and maddening at the same time. Maddening in terms of the extreme polarities on both sides, and fascinating in terms of how much your poltiics goes back to "first principles" (e.g. the role of government) which, broadly speaking, is not a part of the discussion back home in Australia.

Anyway, I hope to contribute to the discussion as we roll along into the election.
 
The Chosen One

The Chosen One

Member
PhoenixDark said:
How come it's not racist to call Mitt "Willard" but it IS racist to mention Obama's middle name. Hussein. /wrists
Click to expand...

Came here to post that.

I'm sure Sharpton was all in a tizzy when rightys were calling Obama by his middle name, Hussein. But now he's pulling the exact same stunt with "Willard".

I regularly call Mitt, Mittens, on these forums. But a) I'm not a national TV host. b) I actually think "Mittens" sounds pretty cool for a nickname, so I don't necessarily have a disparaging intent (when I want to disparage Mitt, I'll use "Rmoney"). However if I were to go on TV or write a published political blog article, I'd give Romney the proper respect and refer to him by his common name/title. The reason the national political discourse is so putrid these days is because the public figures don't show the opposition even a base level of respect.
 
R

Rocket Scientist

Member
What the hell are you guys talking about? Both Willard and Hussein are stupid names to use, but if you honestly don't see the difference between using Hussein to make someone look un-American and appeal to people's hate and distrust for anything Arab or Muslim sounding and imply that they are bad and possibly terrorist, and using Willard, a dorky name, then there's something really wrong in your heads. I hope you're not being serious.
 
W

Wolfgunblood Garopa

Member
Rocket Scientist said:
What the hell are you guys talking about? Both Willard and Hussein are stupid names to use, but if you honestly don't see the difference between using Hussein to make someone look un-American and appeal to people's hate and distrust for anything Arab or Muslim sounding and imply that they are bad and possibly terrorist, and using Willard, a dorky name, then there's something really wrong in your heads. I hope you're not being serious.
Click to expand...

False equivalence once again. It is an interesting phenomenon.
 
M

Miletius

Member
Invisible_Insane said:
Calling someone by a name other than the name they prefer is "dehumanizing?" Come on, now.
Click to expand...

I guess dehumanizing is probably the wrong word. It's an "othering" tactic, designed to create distance between you and your reference. "Hussien" is probably the worst since it has racist implications. But at it's core it's designed to disparage and break down. Mittens is disparaging, at least when I use it. It implies weakness, inability to function, insulated (from the world). Things I associate with mittens, rather than their superior cousins (gloves). ;)

There are cool nice nicknames too. It depends a lot on the context.
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
lol, seems the Chairman caved on the contraception thing. Worst dictator ever.

edit: Goddamn it, Bulbo!
 
B

Byakuya769

Member
Rocket Scientist said:
What the hell are you guys talking about? Both Willard and Hussein are stupid names to use, but if you honestly don't see the difference between using Hussein to make someone look un-American and appeal to people's hate and distrust for anything Arab or Muslim sounding and imply that they are bad and possibly terrorist, and using Willard, a dorky name, then there's something really wrong in your heads. I hope you're not being serious.
Click to expand...

.

I think it's petty and disrespectful, but to somehow construe racism in it is a stretch beyond the best downward facing dog ever seen.
 
D

DasRaven

Member
Bulbo Urethral Baggins said:
It will be interesting to see what this compromise is. Wonder if Catholics will be satisfied?
Click to expand...

Catholics, in general, already support the current rule as is.
Even the Catholic clergy is basically split, publicly against, but fine with it in their non-church hiring (schools, hospitals, etc)

The GOP, on the other hand, will never be satisfied.
 
S

sc0la

Unconfirmed Member
Bulbo Urethral Baggins said:
It will be interesting to see what this compromise is. Wonder if Catholics will be satisfied?
Click to expand...

Catholics in general or the bishops? Because polling showed a majority of Catholics supported the original requirement.

The bishops clarified anything short of removing the mandate entirely was insufficient. They were not looking for a compromise.

But remember the church hierarchy are the ones who have vowed celibacy, so who needs birth control at all amirite?
 
C

codhand

Member
Jooney said:
Sup Gaf. Long time lurker, first time poster.

I'm an Australian with a deep interest in world affairs and especially US politics. I find the whole arena both fascinating and maddening at the same time. Maddening in terms of the extreme polarities on both sides, and fascinating in terms of how much your poltiics goes back to "first principles" (e.g. the role of government) which, broadly speaking, is not a part of the discussion back home in Australia.
Click to expand...


What is the discussion about back home? I heard we're "increasing out presence" in Australia, know anything about it? Also, any Aussie politicians into sweater vests?
 
I

Invisible_Insane

Member
Bulbo Urethral Baggins said:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/story/2...rol/53036006/1

Obama to change birth control rule.
WASHINGTON (AP) – A person familiar with the decision says President Obama will announce a plan to accommodate religious employers outraged by a rule that would require them to cover birth control for women free of charge.
Click to expand...
I swear to God the man has never heard of getting out in front of an issue.

Jooney said:
Sup Gaf. Long time lurker, first time poster.

I'm an Australian with a deep interest in world affairs and especially US politics. I find the whole arena both fascinating and maddening at the same time. Maddening in terms of the extreme polarities on both sides, and fascinating in terms of how much your poltiics goes back to "first principles" (e.g. the role of government) which, broadly speaking, is not a part of the discussion back home in Australia.

Anyway, I hope to contribute to the discussion as we roll along into the election.
Click to expand...
Yes, but which side are you on? That's all that matters. Just kidding, welcome.
 
W

Wolfgunblood Garopa

Member
Mike M said:
Never complained about his leadership or lack thereof, but fucking capitulating when he was outright WINNING the fight... WTF kind of move is that?
Click to expand...

He changed his mind in the interest of productivity. We all know the House GOP is very busy, and now this will free up all that precious time they would have spent defending America from the Democratic war on religious freedom.
 
Z

Zzoram

Member
Obama proves yet again his spine is made of jello.

WTF man, you give up even when you're winning?

Boy does that cartoon of Obama moving to the right, and the Republican smirking and moving further right fit so well right now.
 
C

Cheebo

Banned
Zzoram said:
Obama proves yet again his spine is made of jello.

WTF man, you give up even when you're winning?

Boy does that cartoon of Obama moving to the right, and the Republican smirking and moving further right fit so well right now.
Click to expand...

Honestly is the issue worth sticking to his guns on? Better to move on and focus on more important issues that Romney won't be able to blather about endlessly in the fall to rile up the base who otherwise is apathetic to his impending nomination.
 
J

Jooney

Member
codhand said:
What is the discussion about back home? I heard we're "increasing out presence" in Australia, know anything about it? Also, any Aussie politicians into sweater vests?
Click to expand...

If I understand you correctly, you're referring to an increased American military presence in Australia. Long story short: Obama's recent trip to Canberra came with the announcement that 2,500 Marines will be posted to Darwin to run training exercises and transfer knowledge to the local troops. It's another part of the continuous buildup and refocus on Asia. More info here: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...rn-airforce-base/story-fnb0o39u-1226197111255

Yes, but which side are you on? That's all that matters. Just kidding, welcome.
Click to expand...

Against sweater vests, naturally.
 
P

planar1280

Banned
This is the best decision that could be made.

Only religious nuts and left wing nuts will be outraged over this


On Twitter
BREAKING WH will have insurers offer contraception coverage directly to employees if employers cite religious objections
Click to expand...
 
M

Miletius

Member
Matthew Gallant said:
I don't have any problem with Obama letting religious employers enforce their dickery on their employees. Lay with dogs, you sign up for fleas.
Click to expand...

I don't think everybody has a choice, especially in this economy. I'm disappointed by the notion of compromise here but I think we have better things to worry about, so I guess that's how it's going to be.

Edit: Taken at face value the compromise seems pretty reasonable.
 
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