• 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 |OT3| If it's not a legitimate OT the mods have ways to shut it down

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
RustyNails said:
Romney will bend over backwards and declare undivided Jerusalem as Israel's future capital, and balk at 1967 borders. Obama won't.

Edit: The more Ari Fleischer speaks, the more I want to punch his face. What a slimebag. Why is this guy on CNN payroll?
Click to expand...

Eh? Both parties agree that Jerusalem is the capitol on paper. And both parties agree with the 1967 borders (with land swaps). Romney is not going to magically give Israel everything they want - even Bush didn't do that. In fact, Bush rebuffed Bibi on Iran towards the end of his presidency. The US can't afford a war right now. Obviously if Iran undeniably provokes it, we'll be forced to tag along but clearly Israel is not in charge of US policy towards Iran.
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Saw this on Washington Monthly, from Peter Bergan:

The fact that the Bush team was strangely somnambulant about the al Qaeda threat is puzzling. It is not as if they were uninterested in national security, were ill-informed or inexperienced, or did not care about the safety of their countrymen; quite the contrary. Nor did they lack enough information to act; indeed, the Bush team likes to highlight the fact that the president was being constantly briefed about al Qaeda as evidence that he was engaged on the issue. Bush administration officials deny that they failed to take the threat urgently enough, but there is no debating the record that in their public utterances and private meetings, the al Qaeda threat barely registered. The real question then, is why, in the face of all this information about the threat, did the most experienced national security team in memory downgrade the problem?

The short answer is: They were in denial. Bush administration officials entered office believing that the great threats facing the country were a remilitarized China and a few, festering rogue states, especially Iraq—states that might try to challenge American hegemony with long-range missiles or, secondarily, by supporting terrorists. Al Qaeda not only didn’t fit into this worldview, it also posed a direct challenge to it. If a network of stateless terrorists using truck bombs and other low-tech weapons represented the top threat to America’s physical security, it would have been hard to argue that our chief security strategy should be to thwart states by building a missile defense—a goal to which Republican hawks had been committed for nearly two decades.

In other words, bin Laden and al Qaeda were politically and ideologically inconvenient and impossible to square with the Bush worldview—a textbook case of cognitive dissonance.
Click to expand...

Thought that was pretty interesting.
 
T

Tim-E

Member
"These voter ID laws are a disgrace to democracy! But your votes don't matter so I'm staying home lol"

This kind of thinking is the same as "lol both parties are the same." It shows that you don't really give a shit and you're just inelectually lazy and want to come off as being above everyone else because "lol politics"
 
R

RDreamer

Member
jamesinclair said:
In all seriousness, I am registered in three states. What mechanisms, if any, are in place to make sure I dont cast ballots in all three?
Click to expand...

High gas prices?

lol, but seriously, it's a dumbass crime to do. As far as I know if you get caught doing it the punishment is huge. What's the payoff for getting another vote? It's not going to make a huge difference at all. That's why no one does it.
 
S

Stinkles

Clothed, sober, cooperative
Tim-E said:
"These voter ID laws are a disgrace to democracy! But your votes don't matter so I'm staying home lol"

This kind of thinking is the same as "lol both parties are the same." It shows that you don't really give a shit and you're just inelectually lazy and want to come off as being above everyone else because "lol politics"
Click to expand...

Drives me insane. They are diametrically opposed.

RDreamer said:
High gas prices?

lol, but seriously, it's a dumbass crime to do. As far as I know if you get caught doing it the punishment is huge. What's the payoff for getting another vote? It's not going to make a huge difference at all. That's why no one does it.
Click to expand...

Except Acorn. They do it by the billions.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
RDreamer said:
High gas prices?

lol, but seriously, it's a dumbass crime to do. As far as I know if you get caught doing it the punishment is huge. What's the payoff for getting another vote? It's not going to make a huge difference at all. That's why no one does it.
Click to expand...

He's planning on flying to two different states in a single day just so he can perform his civic duty of casting 1 vote.
 
A

AlteredBeast

Fork 'em, Sparky!
Alright guys, I am contemplating creating a political blog and would like a few pointers and experience if anyone has it.

I have been writing op-eds for a while now, in a way compounding what I view as the destruction of the Republican Party from a Republican's viewpoint. I break down points on everything from tax cuts to immigration reform. I am sure like 50 people ever will read this site, but I would like to make it as professional looking as possible. To accomplish this, I figure I need 4 things:

1. a clever and memorable domain name. Any ideas?
2. A sleek interface free from clutter. I don't have the name of Realclearpolitics or drudgereport, so I can't afford to have a webpage that looks like a dictionary vomited all over it.
3. A way for people to interact. A Comments section at the end of each post? Do I manually moderate the comments, do I do a NeoGAF type of system where people must be approved before posting? I don't want every post to become the equivalent of a YouTube comments section. I will be speaking in provable facts, specific terms, and one bad apple continually steering discussion away from that will kill any sort of slight bit of effect it could have (in a one in a million shot, of course)
4. The ability for people to find me. Google a specific query about tax policy that I write about, it would be nice to see my page not be relegated to page 30 of Google (ie: the end of the internet)

as an aside, I would like to make revenue off of the site at some time in the future, if at all possible. Who is the best advertiser to go with that won't post off the wall nonsense? Barring that, is there any other way for a website to make revenue? What software should I use to create and maintain my site? I see a lot of WordPress sites out there, is that effective?

I would post this in the OT main forum, but since this is politics (and 99 times out 100, people in here are not the mouth-breathing My Little Pony fans of the OT) I figure I would dip my toes in this water for advice first. I realize that any sort of success that could come to my site would be at best a pie-in-the-sky dream and nothing more, so be it. I am doing this for myself and for my family/friends as much as I am for anyone else.
 
V

Vahagn

Member
AlteredBeast said:
Alright guys, I am contemplating creating a political blog and would like a few pointers and experience if anyone has it.

I have been writing op-eds for a while now, in a way compounding what I view as the destruction of the Republican Party from a Republican's viewpoint. I break down points on everything from tax cuts to immigration reform. I am sure like 50 people ever will read this site, but I would like to make it as professional looking as possible. To accomplish this, I figure I need 4 things:

1. a clever and memorable domain name. Any ideas?
2. A sleek interface free from clutter. I don't have the name of Realclearpolitics or drudgereport, so I can't afford to have a webpage that looks like a dictionary vomited all over it.
3. A way for people to interact. A Comments section at the end of each post? Do I manually moderate the comments, do I do a NeoGAF type of system where people must be approved before posting? I don't want every post to become the equivalent of a YouTube comments section. I will be speaking in provable facts, specific terms, and one bad apple continually steering discussion away from that will kill any sort of slight bit of effect it could have (in a one in a million shot, of course)
4. The ability for people to find me. Google a specific query about tax policy that I write about, it would be nice to see my page not be relegated to page 30 of Google (ie: the end of the internet)

as an aside, I would like to make revenue off of the site at some time in the future, if at all possible. Who is the best advertiser to go with that won't post off the wall nonsense? Barring that, is there any other way for a website to make revenue? What software should I use to create and maintain my site? I see a lot of WordPress sites out there, is that effective?

I would post this in the OT main forum, but since this is politics (and 99 times out 100, people in here are not the mouth-breathing My Little Pony fans of the OT) I figure I would dip my toes in this water for advice first. I realize that any sort of success that could come to my site would be at best a pie-in-the-sky dream and nothing more, so be it. I am doing this for myself and for my family/friends as much as I am for anyone else.
Click to expand...


I have no idea how to help you, but welcome Will McAvoy...


I wanted to have a blog where I outlined that 99% of Conservatives are un-principled bigots who's only consistent principle is an inherently selfish one where all events/legislation/actions were judged only on the scale of "whats in it for me" and this selfishness was cloaked behind pseudo principles that were discarded at will and only used when the issue at hand didn't want to be discussed...


i.e. "I don't have an issue with poor people getting help, I just think it increases our spending and as a result shouldn't be the role of govt"...which of course is total horseshit...but I have a feeling I would anger some people
 
J

jamesinclair

Banned
Dude Abides said:
Probably none, although some states kick you off the roll you haven't voted in the last few elections.
Click to expand...

2006 and 2008 in Boston, 2010 and (June) 2012 in California, now im in NJ

Also have IDs in all three states.


RDreamer said:
High gas prices?

lol, but seriously, it's a dumbass crime to do. As far as I know if you get caught doing it the punishment is huge. What's the payoff for getting another vote? It's not going to make a huge difference at all. That's why no one does it.
Click to expand...


Mail in ballots?

Im not saying Ill do it, Im just saying....its possible, right?


And what if I voted in California for the propositions....but say the presidential (and local) in NJ.

In no race would I be double voting. Is that illegal?

IE: Just one vote for president (NJ ballot), just one for for senator (Mass ballot), just one vote for local (california ballot), just one for propositions (california ballot)....

Wonder if theres any legal precedent?

Sounds like something Romney would do.
 
CHEEZMO™

CHEEZMO™

Obsidian fan
Vahagn said:
I have no idea how to help you, but welcome Will McAvoy...


I wanted to have a blog where I outlined that 99% of Conservatives are un-principled bigots who's only consistent principle is an inherently selfish one where all events/legislation/actions were judged only on the scale of "whats in it for me" and this selfishness was cloaked behind pseudo principles that were discarded at will and only used when the issue at hand didn't want to be discussed...


i.e. "I don't have an issue with poor people getting help, I just think it increases our spending and as a result shouldn't be the role of govt"...which of course is total horseshit...but I have a feeling I would anger some people
Click to expand...

Sounds like the inside of my head.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
AlteredBeast said:
Alright guys, I am contemplating creating a political blog and would like a few pointers and experience if anyone has it.

I have been writing op-eds for a while now, in a way compounding what I view as the destruction of the Republican Party from a Republican's viewpoint. I break down points on everything from tax cuts to immigration reform. I am sure like 50 people ever will read this site, but I would like to make it as professional looking as possible. To accomplish this, I figure I need 4 things:

1. a clever and memorable domain name. Any ideas?
2. A sleek interface free from clutter. I don't have the name of Realclearpolitics or drudgereport, so I can't afford to have a webpage that looks like a dictionary vomited all over it.
3. A way for people to interact. A Comments section at the end of each post? Do I manually moderate the comments, do I do a NeoGAF type of system where people must be approved before posting? I don't want every post to become the equivalent of a YouTube comments section. I will be speaking in provable facts, specific terms, and one bad apple continually steering discussion away from that will kill any sort of slight bit of effect it could have (in a one in a million shot, of course)
4. The ability for people to find me. Google a specific query about tax policy that I write about, it would be nice to see my page not be relegated to page 30 of Google (ie: the end of the internet)

as an aside, I would like to make revenue off of the site at some time in the future, if at all possible. Who is the best advertiser to go with that won't post off the wall nonsense? Barring that, is there any other way for a website to make revenue? What software should I use to create and maintain my site? I see a lot of WordPress sites out there, is that effective?

I would post this in the OT main forum, but since this is politics (and 99 times out 100, people in here are not the mouth-breathing My Little Pony fans of the OT) I figure I would dip my toes in this water for advice first. I realize that any sort of success that could come to my site would be at best a pie-in-the-sky dream and nothing more, so be it. I am doing this for myself and for my family/friends as much as I am for anyone else.
Click to expand...

If you want to get away from youtube comments you are probably going to need to force people to post using their real names. It won't stop the really dumb ones, but a lot of people wouldn't want a hate filled post to come up during a job interview.

You might want to look into something like google ads for the money part. As far as getting up the google search list I think that's based off of how many different places link to you (in part), there are obviously other factors but the more times your site gets linked too the better. You can also make money by instituting a paywall but frankly unless you are the NYTimes odds are you can't get away with it. There would also be the idea for a sort of subscription based newsletter thing, sort of like a daily or weekly e-mail round up of what's going on, but that might be outside your purview and would take a lot of work to put together (if you're going to do it you can't just link to other articles you'd have to have your own).
 
R

RDreamer

Member
Holy shit if this article is in any way true...

It was 2004, after the Supreme Judicial Court had cleared the way for same-sex couples to obtain marriage licenses in Massachusetts. Governor Mitt Romney remained a roadblock, endorsing a constitutional amendment that would ban it.

Julie Goodridge and other plaintiffs in the landmark case had written a letter to the governor, asking for a meeting. He ignored it, so they staged a press conference at his office to read the letter to the media. That, finally, got them through his door. Once inside, they were shocked.

For about 20 frustrating minutes, say those in attendance who Boston Spirit interviewed recently, they shared their stories, pled their case, and tried to explain how equal marriage would protect them and their families. Romney sat stone-faced and almost entirely silent.

“Is there anything else?” Romney asked when they finished. With that, the meeting was over.

“It was like talking to a robot. No expression, no feeling,” recalls David Wilson, one of the plaintiffs in the case who met with Romney that day. “People were sharing touching stories, stories where you’d expect recognition in the other person’s face that they at least hear what you’re saying — that there’s empathy. He didn’t even shake his head. He was completely blank.”

Occasionally Romney would say something.

“I didn’t know you had families,” remarked Romney to the group, according to Wilson.
The offhanded remark underscored that Romney, the governor of the first state prepared to grant same-sex marriage, hadn’t taken the time to look at what the landmark case was really about. By this point the plaintiff’s stories had been widely covered by national media — in particular, Julie Goodridge’s heartrending tale of how her then-partner, Hillary, was denied hospital visitation following the precarious birth of daughter Annie. It was the ignorance of these facts — and Romney’s inaccurate, insensitive answer to her parting question, that pushed Julie Goodridge to her breaking point.

“I looked him in the eye as we were leaving,” recalls Goodridge. “And I said, ‘Governor Romney, tell me — what would you suggest I say to my 8 year-old daughter about why her mommy and her ma can’t get married because you, the governor of her state, are going to block our marriage?’”

His response, according to Goodridge: “I don’t really care what you tell your adopted daughter. Why don’t you just tell her the same thing you’ve been telling her the last eight years.”

Romney’s retort enraged a speechless Goodridge; he didn’t care, and by referring to her biological daughter as “adopted,” it was clear he hadn’t even been listening. By the time she was back in the hallway, she was reduced to tears.

“I really kind of lost it,” says Goodridge. “I’ve never stood before someone who had no capacity for empathy. It went behind flat affect. It was a complete lack of ability or motivation to understand other people.”

While Goodridge cried, Romney brought the press into his office to give his take on the meeting.

He described it as, “Pleasant.”
Click to expand...

I hate Romney with a passion, but even I can't accept this is real.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
RDreamer said:
Holy shit if this article is in any way true...



I hate Romney with a passion, but even I can't accept this is real.
Click to expand...

OK, HOLY SHIT. I mean there is no way that's real, everyone has even a little bit of empathy. You'd have to be a freaking sociopath or something to just sit there stone faced.

EDIT: Seriously, this needs to be a thread. It's just one of those things that's blowing my mind and you know it won't be long before someone picks up on it and it's reported.
 
T

Tamanon

Banned
Eh, that can't be really what happened. The underlying message might be similar, but I can't imagine the delivery playing out like that.
 
F

Forever

Banned
RDreamer said:
I suppose I will. I was contemplating it, but quite honestly I'm so stunned by it that I still have a hard time believing it's even true. I can't even fathom a person being that awful...
Click to expand...

A title like "Mitt Romney is walking scum" would probably not be frowned upon.
 
A

AlteredBeast

Fork 'em, Sparky!
B-Dubs said:
If you want to get away from youtube comments you are probably going to need to force people to post using their real names. It won't stop the really dumb ones, but a lot of people wouldn't want a hate filled post to come up during a job interview.

You might want to look into something like google ads for the money part. As far as getting up the google search list I think that's based off of how many different places link to you (in part), there are obviously other factors but the more times your site gets linked too the better. You can also make money by instituting a paywall but frankly unless you are the NYTimes odds are you can't get away with it. There would also be the idea for a sort of subscription based newsletter thing, sort of like a daily or weekly e-mail round up of what's going on, but that might be outside your purview and would take a lot of work to put together (if you're going to do it you can't just link to other articles you'd have to have your own).
Click to expand...

Yeah, I definitely can appreciate the real name thing. I wonder how one can verify such a thing, outside of the obvious linking to one's Facebook account. I think that is pretty much the only way to assure real discussion, or at least weed out the asinine, racist, bigoted comments that come along with anonymity.
 
B

Buddha Beam

Banned
Stinkles said:
Drives me insane. They are diametrically opposed.
Click to expand...
not really. They are diametrically opposed on issues that have minimal impact on the economy like abortion and women's rights... But the more money is at stake, the more they seem to agree, at least in the broader sense. In that sense, I can't blame anybody for feeling they're both the same.

I've always likened the two parties to being in a car heading towards a brick wall. The Republicans want to slam on the gas and charge right towards it. The democrats are more than happy to put their foot on the brake and occasionally even stop the car.
But neither party is willing to actually turn the car around, thus it's still heading towards a Brick wall.

Basically, on "social issues" they're radically different. On economic issues, they're two sides of the same coin.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
AlteredBeast said:
Yeah, I definitely can appreciate the real name thing. I wonder how one can verify such a thing, outside of the obvious linking to one's Facebook account. I think that is pretty much the only way to assure real discussion, or at least weed out the asinine, racist, bigoted comments that come along with anonymity.
Click to expand...

Hmm, I think there is a facebook posting system you can use. I see people posting at the bottom of articles with their facebook accounts sometimes. That might be something worth looking into.


CHEEZMO™;42010196 said:
Trust me, people are just as shitty as ever even on their Facebook accounts.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but nothing will stop all of the dumb shit unless you make it so every post needs to be approved.
 
R

RDreamer

Member
B-Dubs said:
Hmm, I think there is a facebook posting system you can use. I see people posting at the bottom of articles with their facebook accounts sometimes. That might be something worth looking into.
Click to expand...

Wordpress has a facebook posting plugin.

That's definitely not going to weed out the asinine, racist, bigoted comments, though.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
RDreamer said:
Wordpress has a facebook posting plugin.

That's definitely not going to weed out the asinine, racist, bigoted comments, though.
Click to expand...

Yea, you could try combining that with a reddit like system though. You're never going to get rid of hateful asses though.
 
A

AlteredBeast

Fork 'em, Sparky!
RDreamer said:
Wordpress has a facebook posting plugin.

That's definitely not going to weed out the asinine, racist, bigoted comments, though.
Click to expand...

No it won't, but at least then people are accountable for what they post.

I think RepublicanInSaneOnly.com might turn away the very people I am looking to reach. Of course, there is no such thing as bad press, right? hmmmm...
 
Z

Zabka

Member
Buddha Beam said:
not really. They are diametrically opposed on issues that have minimal impact on the economy like abortion and women's rights... But the more money is at stake, the more they seem to agree, at least in the broader sense. In that sense, I can't blame anybody for feeling they're both the same.

I've always likened the two parties to being in a car heading towards a brick wall. The Republicans want to slam on the gas and charge right towards it. The democrats are more than happy to put their foot on the brake and occasionally even stop the car.
But neither party is willing to actually turn the car around, thus it's still heading towards a Brick wall.

Basically, on "social issues" they're radically different. On economic issues, they're two sides of the same coin.
Click to expand...

Stinking thinking like this only benefits extremist parties like the Republicans.
 
G

Gruco

Banned
Buddha Beam said:
not really. They are diametrically opposed on issues that have minimal impact on the economy like abortion and women's rights... But the more money is at stake, the more they seem to agree, at least in the broader sense. In that sense, I can't blame anybody for feeling they're both the same.

I've always likened the two parties to being in a car heading towards a brick wall. The Republicans want to slam on the gas and charge right towards it. The democrats are more than happy to put their foot on the brake and occasionally even stop the car.
But neither party is willing to actually turn the car around, thus it's still heading towards a Brick wall.

Basically, on "social issues" they're radically different. On economic issues, they're two sides of the same coin.
Click to expand...

You could strengthen your argument by citing examples of specific policies both parties agree on, rather than driving metaphors.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Buddha Beam said:
Basically, on "social issues" they're radically different. On economic issues, they're two sides of the same coin.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I really don't buy this at all. Unless you think "taxes" or "social programs" are social issues.


So the White House is denying that Netanyahu was refused a meeting at all.

http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=284750

There was never a request for Prime Minister Netanyahu to meet with President Obama in Washington, nor was a request for a meeting ever denied,” the statement also read.
Click to expand...

Also:

Opposition leader Shaul Mofaz on Tuesday said he does not expect that Israel will take military action against Iran this year. Instead of making a decision on Iran, the opposition leader said, Netanyahu is busy subverting Obama.

Mofaz went on to accuse Netanyahu of meddling in the upcoming US presidential elections, which he described as “irresponsible behavior and an error that harms the fabric of relations with [Israel’s] biggest ally.”
Click to expand...

I'm not super pleased about this, but I'm still hoping that national security issues just favor Obama.
 
A

AlteredBeast

Fork 'em, Sparky!
CombatingIgnorance.com is available. That sounds pretty much exactly what I am looking for. Should I pull the trigger? Some bot on the internet is probably reading this post right now outgunning me to register it...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Eurogamer: Assassin's Creed boss discusses "devastating" impact of Shadows' diversity and inclusivity backlash
Drama 3 4 5 6 7
316
24K
EN250 replied
"We observed Nvidia and decided to wait" (Chief Architect of Gaming at AMD)
2
64
5K
Kataploom replied
[GI.biz] The future of storytelling with Ken Levine
32
1K
Mister Wolf replied
[GI.biz] Cheap money and bad bets: How the games industry turned pandemic success into disaster
2
75
5K
sharp weiner replied
  • Poll
Palworld has, once again, highlighted the on going deficiencies in PC Game Pass and the Xbox app on Windows 11 (Windows Central)
Hardware Platform 2 3
111
14K
Unknown Soldier replied
Top Bottom