• 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.

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
This is why Scott Brown will beat Warren
http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=aExxgbIuGlU

Fact wise, the ad is false; Brown's bill didn't make it to the floor, and the actual insider trading bill that was passed was created by Lieberman. Regardless it's a perfectly staged 30 second ad of regular ol' Scotty driving around the neighborhood tellin folks how he's got their back. He might as well be driving to the local bar to drink a couple Buds with some construction workers

Props for admitting the obvious truth earlier when the Ohio numbers came out, but it was obvious long before. I see you're now trolling our new englanders and I'll leave you at it, but really, this is kinda low-hanging fruit. Why not something more difficult, like "McCaskill will actually lose to the guy that said legitimate rape?"
 
Huh, didn't see this poll out of North Carolina's 7th district:

NC-07 (North Star Opinion Research for YG Action--R):
Rep. Mike McIntyre (D) 49, David Rouzer (R) 40

If both Dem incumbents in NC hang on (McIntyre and Kissell) that could bode well for Speaker Pelosi.
 
This is why Scott Brown will beat Warren
http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=aExxgbIuGlU

Fact wise, the ad is false; Brown's bill didn't make it to the floor, and the actual insider trading bill that was passed was created by Lieberman. Regardless it's a perfectly staged 30 second ad of regular ol' Scotty driving around the neighborhood tellin folks how he's got their back. He might as well be driving to the local bar to drink a couple Buds with some construction workers

*cough* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8Lp66KISa4&feature=player_embedded *cough*
 

Clevinger

Member
Props for admitting the obvious truth earlier when the Ohio numbers came out, but it was obvious long before. I see you're now trolling our new englanders and I'll leave you at it, but really, this is kinda low-hanging fruit. Why not something more difficult, like "McCaskill will actually lose to the guy that said legitimate rape?"

The only thing I disagree with PD on this is how he usually implies that Warren is running a bad campaign. Outside of the whole Native American thing, she's doing it how it should be done; about the issues and her experience in fighting for the middle class. It's a failing of Massachusetts voters, not Warren, that they fall for Brown's bullshit.

Otherwise, he's right.
 

East Lake

Member
this is interesting because i had this argument with someone (who didn't take long to go full racist) earlier today.

These riots and fatwas and whatnot only seem to be an issue in the middle east. only about 20% of the world's muslims live there, the vast majority (the other 80) don't really seem to give a shit.

why is it that middle east muslims in particular seem to go apeshit over slights to islam?
I think you probably have to put it in perspective for who you're talking to. Along with Al Qaeda members we're also killing civilians. Estimates in Iraq are usually around 100,000 civilians killed in the war. Now think about the number of people who were friends or relatives of these people. Do you think they're going to take to the streets yelling god bless America? An entire network of anti-american sentiment is being created and they'll probably despise the US for the rest of their lives. At this point you'd probably have to fend off an accusation about letting Al Qaeda or the Taliban go unpunished, so just tell him/her it's about cause and effect, the justification isn't relevant for the example.

It's funny because in a class I had at my university today we talked about this and you could tell by a lot of the comments of my classmates that they believed themselves to be more rational because they could watch a offensive video and think nothing of it. Last humanities class I have to take thank god.

Anyway, Yemen is a good scenario to use because you can point out how US hatred is being stirred up as we speak by the drone strike campaign, and connect it to Yemen's own recent embassy storming. Imagine for a moment you're born in Yemen and you're Muslim (this is critical, you can't separate people's activity from their environment). So there's some Al Qaeda operatives mixed into your population. Then this happens.

There is a long history of senior Yemeni officials lying to protect Barack Obama's secret war on terror. When US cruise missiles decimated a tented village in December 2009, at least 41 civilians were butchered alongside a dozen alleged militants, as a parliamentary report later concluded.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/06/drone-deaths-yemen?INTCMP=SRCH

So lets say you're sitting in your makeshift tent trying to figure out how to get a little food or money for tomorrow because there's 40% unemployment in the country, and the tents near you are incinerated with an ear shattering explosion on a quiet evening. Being the rational thinker are you just going to forget it and go about your business the next day? Of course not. You might not storm an embassy, but some given the chance will, and at the very least you aren't going to have a favorable opinion of America.

Most of us have a fairly non-eventful life compared to some Middle Eastern countries. We can go to school or work, watch the low budget Muslim film, laugh at it and go home and then tear our hair out when Tony Romo throws an interception knowing that the apartment complex next to us probably won't get bombed while we sleep. I think it's really short sighted to think this is only about the movie when it's only one of the dominoes. I think its sucks it happened in Libya because for our track record of middle east intervention Gaddafi's toppling went about as well as you can hope. I think it was Gallup that had a poll where Libyans were more favorable of the US than Canadians, and now we have to deal with the politics of cutting off aid to their country from reactionary assholes. Meanwhile people in office jobs in the US are wondering why there's protests and violence.
 
Props for admitting the obvious truth earlier when the Ohio numbers came out, but it was obvious long before. I see you're now trolling our new englanders and I'll leave you at it, but really, this is kinda low-hanging fruit. Why not something more difficult, like "McCaskill will actually lose to the guy that said legitimate rape?"

Dude a poll came out yesterday with Akin up like 5...I'd be shocked if he loses
 
Oh about colonialism in the ME, you have to realize that the ME was the last place to be colonized. The majority of it was basically under Ottoman rule until the end of WWI, and then under British/France until the end of WWII. So basically it saw only 25-30 years of European imperialism. Compare this with places like India, Vietnam, or the Congo. Those areas had European masters for close to 200 years. They got the full impact of a Western culture mixing with theirs. You also had a long period of time for dissidents and grudges among the colonists to die off. Most of the ME didn't experience these things. Turkey stands out because they have a closer relationship with Europe. Ataturk basically outlawed Islam in the government and the military after WWI. He fully westernized their society, and you don't see them getting upset about stupid films. But let me warn you, don't talk about soccer to the Turks. They can be crazy about that.
 

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
The only thing I disagree with PD on this is how he usually implies that Warren is running a bad campaign. Outside of the whole Native American thing, she's doing it how it should be done; about the issues and her experience in fighting for the middle class. It's a failing of Massachusetts voters, not Warren, that they fall for Brown's bullshit.

Otherwise, he's right.

Of course he's right, that was my point. You can't get an election PD'd unless you really go for something big. What's big enough that we could reasonably get him to pretend to believe for the next couple months?
 

Clevinger

Member
Dude a poll came out yesterday with Akin up like 5...I'd be shocked if he loses

A poll commissioned by the Family Research Council, done by Wenzel Strategies, who I've never heard of before (though apparently the guy behind it is the head of Citizens United?). Yeah...

I think he'll squeak out a win, because it's Missouri, but I'll wait for better pollsters.
 

Drakeon

Member
A poll commissioned by the Family Research Council, done by Wenzel Strategies, who I've never heard of before (though apparently the guy behind it is the head of Citizens United?). Yeah...

I think he'll squeak out a win, because it's Missouri, but I'll wait for better pollsters.

You forgot the fact that they had Obama down by what? 20? Obama may not be winning MO, but hes not doing *that* badly there.
 
I really don't think that's an effective ad for a female professor of an ivy league school. We'll see, but I really doubt she can win in MA because Brown should dominate the male vote and take enough of the female vote to win by 2-4 points

Why should Warren be constrained to the caricature of an ivy league professor? I'm sure you are aware as I am that Brown calls her "Professor" so he can talk down to her. Also makes her look more snobbish and using the hoi polloi for her own ends. The ad is fine. It talks about how Warren is a tough fighter and will fight for MA's interests. Scott Brown is only looking out for the banks.

Though I do agree with you that women voters are a hard sell when it comes to female politicians. But you are giving too much weight that there will be a lot of cross over voting. Brown is very dependent on rank and file MA Democrats for a win.
 
It may have been 4 words that really killed him . . . "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt".

A lot of auto suppliers would have been screwed.

Romney mucked up his own chances by not denouncing the title of that op-ed, which I believe was chosen by the NYT. But, that's the impression he wanted to give back then, so he can't run away from it now.

Holy shit, this may be Romneys worst week ever.

DRUDGE SIREN

Dow Soars 200, S&P Logs Best Close Since 2007

DRUDGE SIREN

Obama's America.

Why isn't there a new aggregator like Drudge for the left?

Think I'll just leave this here. I hate this state so much.

Never happen. I'm surprised the RNC isn't stamping this out right now. Even if they did it, it would be reversed before the election by the courts. It just further sours the Republican brand.

Yep, gonna be fun watching him answer if he knew about this:

Probably not something that would some up in the Presidential Daily Briefing, right?

Not that I would expect any "journalist" to actually ask about it.

I'd really like to see you apologize for pushing this crap if it's false. Who am I kidding? What is your contention here? Obama was briefed about an impending attack and did nothing? Obama would have been briefed about an impending attack, but doesn't attend briefings? Obama didn't read the briefing about an impending attack?
 
news.google.com


We live in the real world.
ibrulSBIFyRsvE.png


Damn straight. Perfect answer.
 
Except it does have potential issues, we remember that New York special election (mentioned in the article), right? It also could have an effect on the Congressional races.
mm, but I do think of NY-09 as being an outlier. It was only D+2 at the presidential level in 2008 - the difference between Clinton and Gore's performances there to Kerry and Obama is pretty staggering. Weiner left disgraced, as well as the dem guy being a weak campaigner.

It feels like whenever someone writes an article like "Will Jews leave Obama?" they're just trying to pigeonhole a group based around on one issue. They do it for blacks ("Will blacks abandon Obama in droves over gay marriage") and Hispanics ("Rubio offers up tepid support for watered down DREAM Act, clearly courting the Hispanic vote") when the reasons those groups vote Dem is much more fundamental. For Jews it's Israel.

That poll may show something, but I seem to remember other pollsters, namely Gallup showing that Obama's lost the least ground with Jews of any religious group.
 

Forever

Banned
I'd really rather turn that question back on his responders. They're his sustenance, after all.

We're a bunch of angry liberals pacing around in our corner of this GAF zoo. Whenever we're dangled a little Red State Meat do you expect us to not rip at it?
 

Loudninja

Member
They really digging this hole.

Romney team sharpens attack on Obama’s foreign policy
“There’s a pretty compelling story that if you had a President Romney, you’d be in a different situation,” Richard Williamson, a top Romney foreign policy adviser, said in an interview. “For the first time since Jimmy Carter, we’ve had an American ambassador assassinated.”

Williamson added, “In Egypt and Libya and Yemen, again demonstrations — the respect for America has gone down, there’s not a sense of American resolve and we can’t even protect sovereign American property.”
“The president can’t even keep track of who’s our ally or not. This is amateur hour — it’s amateur hour,” said Williamson, a former assistant secretary of state and ambassador. He was among those who counseled Romney to respond aggressively on Tuesday night and was offered by the campaign to speak about the candidate’s foreign policy.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...3f2744-fdd3-11e1-b153-218509a954e1_print.html
 
We need a strong leader like bush back to clear up the American name in the middle East. Its amazing how badly Obama has screwed up our reputation abroad.
 
British tabloid. No credible source is reporting it. Remember that story about the ambassador being raped?



And that's Kosmo's cue to bow out of the thread for another page.

It's amazing how shitty of a poster in this thread he actually is. Almost as bad as PD but PD actually believes the dopey shit he says.
 
LOL these clowns.

Romney’s policy advisers laid out steps that a President Romney would have taken in the Middle East that they said Obama has not done.

“What would the governor do differently? It really starts with having a vision for the future of the Middle East, supporting those that have been shortchanged by the administration,” Mitchell Reiss, a top Romney policy adviser, said in an interview. “There are things that we can do in terms of what we say, the constancy of what our vision is — pluralism, respect for law, human dignity — these are things that you don’t hear from the administration, and the people in the region want to hear that.”

Romney’s campaign hopes to force a broader debate about America’s role in the world and to argue that while Obama has been successful in fighting terrorism, his foreign policies have resulted in waning U.S. influence abroad.

“We’ve got Barack Obama with a risk-adverse, lead-from-behind approach, and how’s that worked?” Williamson said. “We not only have the events in Egypt and Libya and now in Yemen, but we have in Syria 20,000-plus people killed, many by means of various atrocities by a regime, and the Obama administration is missing in action.”

WTF is this shit
 
Thoughts on the conservative argument that polls are innaccurate due to false/unlikley dem sample size numbers? I've heard the Marist polls are around +10 dem
 
WTF is this shit

“There are things that we can do in terms of what we say, the constancy of what our vision is — pluralism, respect for law, human dignity — these are things that you don’t hear from the administration, and the people in the region want to hear that.”

Yeah, they don't do any of that stuff . . . . oh wait . . .

Secretary Clinton Delivers Powerful Religion Speech After Middle East Embassy Attacks

Secretary Clinton delivered a powerful and personal speech about religion at an Eid ul-Fitr reception, marking the end of the Muslim holiday of Ramadan. The speech, at times, was a direct response to the attacks on U.S. diplomatic missions in the Middle East, and the deaths of four diplomats at the hands of militants in Libya.

In her remarks, Clinton repeated much of what she's said in the last two days. Namely that the Benghazi attack was carried out by a "small and savage group," and that the United States completely rejects what she called the "inflammable and despicable" anti-Muslim film circulating the Internet. However, Clinton pointed out all religions have faced insults and denigration, but that's no justification for violence. The response to such insults is what separates people of true faith from those who would use religion as an excuse to commit violent acts, she said.

"When Christians are subject to insults to their faith, and that certainly happens, we expect them not to resort to violence. When Hindus or Buddhists are subjected to insults to their faiths, and that also certainly happens, we expect them not to resort to violence," said Clinton. "The same goes for all faiths, including Islam."

She spoke movingly about her own personal beliefs as a way of re-enforcing her point.
"I so strongly believe that the great religions of the world are stronger than any insults. They have withstood offense for centuries," said Clinton."Refraining from violence, then, is not a sign of weakness in one's faith; it is absolutely the opposite, a sign that one's faith is unshakable."

She asked the crowd to work towards building a world where if one person commits a violent religious act, millions of people will stand up and condemn it
"We can pledge that whenever one person speaks out in ignorance and bigotry, ten voices will answer," Clinton said forcefully. "They will answer resoundingly against the offense and the insult; answering ignorance with enlightenment; answering hatred with understanding; answering darkness with light."

The secretary urged the audience not to be discouraged by the hatred and violence that exists, but instead resolve to do something tangible to promote religious tolerance in their own communities.
http://news.yahoo.com/secretary-cli...middle-east-034054319--abc-news-politics.html

Keep on lyin'!
 

Salazar

Member
Romney’s campaign hopes to force a broader debate about America’s role in the world

The bolded don't exactly rhyme.

I wish motherfuckers wouldn't invoke consensualism when they patently crave the opposite.

Or that journalists, in paraphrasing their positions, wouldn't give them the luxury of that contradiction.
 

pigeon

Banned
Thoughts on the conservative argument that polls are innaccurate due to false/unlikley dem sample size numbers? I've heard the Marist polls are around +10 dem

This is the thing that article about Obama's campaign team was talking about a while back -- since July polls have been returning self-identified Democrats in numbers that don't match registered Democrats. But that isn't really enough information to make any decision on its own -- it's perfectly possible that more people are identifying as Democrat than previously, which is causing them to vote for Obama in greater numbers as well. So the assumption that all the polls that show a sample of Democrats higher than expected are skewed (which is the assumption Free Republic and that crazy Examiner dude made) is a dangerous one, because it seems to be repeatable.

In any case, these polls are almost all the same scores or slightly better than what Obama got the last time Marist hit these states July, so to assume they're skewed in favor of Obama is to assume that Obama must be losing ground in these states. There's really no evidence of that.
 
I want to comment on this, but I can't find the nearest catch all conspiracy thread anywhere.
The Romney campaign is trying to force the public into thinking that this Egypt/Libya situation is exactly like when Jimmy Carter was President and there was that whole Iran hostage thing going on. Because that's when a Republican challenger won the presidency.

It's so fucking transparent and pathetic.
 
This is the thing that article about Obama's campaign team was talking about a while back -- since July polls have been returning self-identified Democrats in numbers that don't match registered Democrats. But that isn't really enough information to make any decision on its own -- it's perfectly possible that more people are identifying as Democrat than previously, which is causing them to vote for Obama in greater numbers as well. So the assumption that all the polls that show a sample of Democrats higher than expected are skewed (which is the assumption Free Republic and that crazy Examiner dude made) is a dangerous one, because it seems to be repeatable.

In any case, these polls are almost all the same scores or slightly better than what Obama got the last time Marist hit these states July, so to assume they're skewed in favor of Obama is to assume that Obama must be losing ground in these states. There's really no evidence of that.

Ah forgot about that. Just looked at the 08 exit polls, where dems have the voter ID lead in all three states
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=USP00p1

Ohio +7, Florida +3, Virginia+6. The Marist/NBC poll has Ohio +10, Florida +2, Virginia +5. So they're pretty damn close actually
 
I actually think we'd be better off if the Fed started buying $40 billion of student loan debt every month.

the students would still owe the debt...


1 ambassador dead is so much worse than what happened on 9/11 under Republican watch...sigh. Using a man's death for political gain...

If the ME hates us more, it's not because of what Obama has done, it's the 8 year prior...fucking makes me mad.


edit: It doesn't completely matter how many dems or repubs are polled, the polls get weighted. If there's a problem, it's with the weighting (which is educated guessing, usually) but not the "over sampling" stuff is just dumb.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom