• 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.
R

Ready Up Already

Neo Member
LosDaddie said:
Some on my FB feed posted that the 47% who aren't paying taxes is partly due to the Bush Tax Cuts, that Obama extended. Is that correct? I need to do some research. Seemed kinda funny if true.
Click to expand...
Yes, it's true. Reagan and GWB both lowered taxes of Americans in this income range.

Ezra Klein has more:

Part of the reason so many Americans don’t pay federal income taxes is that Republicans have passed a series of very large tax cuts that wiped out the income-tax liability for many Americans. That’s why, when you look at graphs of the percent of Americans who don’t pay income taxes, you see huge jumps after Ronald Reagan’s 1986 tax reform and George W. Bush’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. So whenever you hear that half of Americans don’t pay federal income taxes, remember: Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush helped build that.
Click to expand...


Beaten by pigeon, but I threw in a back-pat eligible citation!
 
T

TiVo

Member
So the wacky talk show hosts are claiming Romneys "disdain" for the 47% is a word taken from the Obama statement and he never said he disdained them. Kinda like Rush coining apology tour and every right winger running with it when Obama never apologized.

Also can someone explain how people think Romney is going to mop the floor with Obama in the debates?
 
E

eBay Huckster

Member
teruterubozu said:
Ah yes, sorry. I don't see that happening either though.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I feel like Obama's absolute realistic peak in terms of raw EVs (barring Romney being recorded on live TV in the final debate biting the head off a baby, or every economic indicator suddenly surging to dot-com levels in the next month and a half, or some other kind of equally unlikely event) would be 1996, when Clinton won 379-159.

Still, it's fun to prognosticate.
 
M

markatisu

Member
TiVo said:
Also can someone explain how people think Romney is going to mop the floor with Obama in the debates?
Click to expand...

Because they are delusional and have no experience watching Romney debate.

I have heard how Romney won the GOP debates but we all must have watched different debates. Romney won 1 or 2 but got wiped in more than a handful of others. Romney got outright destroyed against Kennedy years ago as well.

He is quick to temper, stands for nothing so has no real ideas on policy and refuses to talk about his past record. Debating is not his strong suit, as many can see now when he is forced to defend his positions.

Obama just needs to go to watch what Perry did to Romney and then of course be Obama and it should be fairly easy.
 
T

ToxicAdam

Member
TiVo said:
Also can someone explain how people think Romney is going to mop the floor with Obama in the debates?
Click to expand...

That would be a small handful of people. I thought that was one of the big reasons for the Newt Gingrich surge in the primaries, because people thought he would actually do well in the debates against Obama.
 
T

teruterubozu

Member
ToxicAdam said:
That would be a small handful of people. I thought that was one of the big reasons for the Newt Gingrich surge in the primarie, because people thought he would actually do well in the debates against Obama.
Click to expand...

I thought people liked Newt simply because they couldn't stand Romney (and probably some Mormon phobia too). Newt was sticking his foot in his mouth every few days, I can't believe they would think he would be a great debater.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
ToxicAdam said:
That would be a small handful of people. I thought that was one of the big reasons for the Newt Gingrich surge in the primarie, because people thought he would actually do well in the debates against Obama.
Click to expand...

Yeah. In the Fox Universe, remember, Obama is a stuttering halfwit without his TelePrompTer, so an attack dog like Gingrich would finally be able to expose him for the fake he is, resulting in a sudden surge of voters to the former Speaker and a 1984-style victory (in terms of Reagan's election, or in terms of Orwell's totalitarian vision -- works either way).

And yes, these are the same people who think that Romney's going to talk circles around the president, in defiance of every unscripted moment the Romney campaign has ever had.
 
M

markatisu

Member
pigeon said:
And yes, these are the same people who think that Romney's going to talk circles around the president, in defiance of every unscripted moment the Romney campaign has ever had.
Click to expand...

The sad thing is we can guarantee those folks will still think Romney won lol
 
K

KingGondo

Banned
@TheFix: Optics of Romney spending all day today raising money=not good.
Click to expand...
Mitt flat-out doesn't give a fuck anymore.

Then again, I'm not really sure if it's possible to fix this problem by making more public appearances or posing for pics with "everyday Americans."

His image is pretty irreparably damaged at this point.
 
L

LosDaddie

Banned
pigeon said:
You mean "income tax." 60% of those people pay payroll tax, which is just as large a chunk of the federal budget as income tax. But yes, they don't pay income tax because of cuts -- not just Bush's, but Reagan's.
Click to expand...

Ready Up Already said:
Yes, it's true. Reagan and GWB both lowered taxes of Americans in this income range.

Ezra Klein has more:

Beaten by pigeon, but I threw in a back-pat eligible citation!
Click to expand...

Thanks! I'll have to read some more during lunch today.



ToxicAdam said:
I dunno .. I just remember reading about dozens of blogposts like this: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/the-myth-of-newt-gingrich-the-great-debater/ around that time.
Click to expand...

I think most of those Newt-backers back then just wanted to see Obama get bloodied up in the debates.
 
M

Miletius

Member
Gingrich certainly isn't a bad speaker and he's also very quick to reaffirm GOP talking points, making him even more attractive to the base of his party. At least, that's the take I got on him a couple of weeks ago. Substantively I don't really believe much of what he said passed the smell test but it was interesting to watch.

At the very least I think he could have had the appearance of holding his own against Obama. I always figured Romney would also have that appearance too though, even despite recent events. In either case it wouldn't be a teleprompter-Obama style fake blowout though.
 
T

teruterubozu

Member
Miletius said:
Gingrich certainly isn't a bad speaker and he's also very quick to reaffirm GOP talking points, making him even more attractive to the base of his party. At least, that's the take I got on him a couple of weeks ago. Substantively I don't really believe much of what he said passed the smell test but it was interesting to watch.

At the very least I think he could have had the appearance of holding his own against Obama. I always figured Romney would also have that appearance too though, even despite recent events. In either case it wouldn't be a teleprompter-Obama style fake blowout though.
Click to expand...

If anything it'll be up and down like all debates. Obama will score high on some days and Romney may look better on others. We'll be watching those annoying blue and red graphs going up and down as they speak. Fox will say Romney looked great - CNN will say he looked dreadful. Other conversations will be like: What tie is he wearing? Who is asking the questions? And of course we can expect plenty of SNL skits (Tina Fey turned out to be a better Palin than Palin herself). Debates seem to be more entertainment these days, I can't see how they affect elections too much.
 
D

DEO3

Member
This video is just Romney saying what everyone already knows he believes, I seriously doubt its going to change anybody's mind. Those who are voting for him are voting for him because of the views he's stating in this video, not in spite of.

What it does do though is distract the media for another day, put his campaign in damage control for another day, and fails to move his poll numbers for another day - and he's running out of days. It continues to make him looks like a clown instead of a president, disheartening his base and energizing his opponent's.
 
P

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
pretty sure I just had an OPTICS! sighting. This pleases me. Next up: backpats all around, The Narrative, and reaction pics from PoliGAF n00bs.

Did I mention McCaskill lost my vote?
 
R

RustyNails

Member
aKG4v.gif


From the other thread
 
S

speculawyer

Member
Black Mamba said:
well, he is addressing the US perspective. I don't think empathy was needed, there.
Again, he's basically described US policy for some time now. I actually don't find anything bad about what he says there at all.
In fact, I'm actually surprised he has the understanding of the situation that he does. While not complex, it's far from the stupidity I expected.
I can't believe I'm defending Mitt. But really, it's much ado about nothing with this one.
Click to expand...
Well, our official policy is to actually work toward peace and try to get a two-state solution. Yes, we haven't made much progress lately but that is our goal and we do have various talks to move things that way.

Mitt Romney is just saying "Fuck Palestine". He said that he has no interest in trying for mid-East peace at all.

As the AP put it . .

Romney video: Palestinians not interested in peace
Associated Press – 1 hr 47 mins ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney told donors in a newly released video clip that Palestinians "have no interest" in peace with Israel and suggested that efforts at Mideast peace under his administration would languish.

Romney says that Palestinians are "committed to the destruction and elimination of Israel" and that the prospects for a two-state solution to Mideast peace were dim.

"You hope for some degree of stability, but you recognize that this is going to remain an unsolved problem.and we kick the ball down the field and hope that ultimately, somehow, something will happen and resolve it," Romney said.
Click to expand...
http://news.yahoo.com/romney-video-palestinians-not-interested-peace-114354732--election.html

Romney 2012: No hope and no change.


For his base that doesn't give a shit about Palestinians or peace, that is just fine. But I think most people would at least like to see continued efforts for peace. He has given up without even trying. And he has also told the entire Muslim world "FUCK YOU" . . . yeah, thanks for painting a terrorist target on our back, Mitt.
 
N

NathanMcMahon

Banned
DEO3 said:
This video is just Romney saying what everyone already knows he believes, I seriously doubt its going to change anybody's mind. Those who are voting for him are voting for him because of the views he's stating in this video, not in spite of.

What it does do though is distract the media for another day, put his campaign in damage control for another day, and fails to move his poll numbers for another day - and he's running out of days. It continues to make him looks like a clown instead of a president, disheartening his base and energizing his opponent's.
Click to expand...

Independents are who it can sway. They aren't necessarily decided yet. This is enough of a gaffe to maybe turn them off.
 
T

TacticalFox88

Banned
Fox News has once again appealed to the radical base of the Republican party, this time bringing back the "Obama is a Muslim" rhetoric that has gone on since the 2008 election.

After a low-budget, anti-Islamic film went viral on the internet last week, protesters took to the streets across the Middle East, bringing foreign policy to the front page. The U.S. ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, was killed outside the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi along with three other Americans. The response from both sides of the political spectrum came fast and furious, but it was Mitt Romney who pointed his finger in blame at President Obama before he had all the facts about the situation. Many prominent conservative voices quickly criticized Romney, but Fox News was there to cushion his fall.

Fox News followed Romney's lead, blaming President Obama for the attacks in Libya and the protests in the Middle East. During Monday's edition of "The Five," the panel was discussing the anti-Islamic film, "The Innocence of Muslims," and the filmmaker's criminal history. In response to the filmmaker's recent interview with federal authorities, co-host Eric Bolling took it upon himself to state that President Obama puts the Quran ahead of the U.S. Constitution.

“America changed at that moment. To use what is being called a flimsy ploy to bring this guy in for questioning proves that the Obama administration, through all this appeasement and apologizing, answers to the Quran first and to the Constitution second.”

Co-host Bob Beckel quickly fired back at Boling, calling his comments "outrageous" and Bolling later tried to walk back his statement.

The comments made by Bolling might seem shocking to many, but the conservative base has echoed similar rhetoric since President Obama was elected in November of 2008. During the 08' election, the conservative right tried to attack President Obama for being a "radical Christian." Over the years, "birthers" and other right-wing conservatives have pushed the conspiracy theory that the president is actually a Muslim. Following the Democratic National Convention, Mitt Romney and the Republican party have falsely hinted that the president might even be an atheist for allegedly wanting to take "God" off of U.S. currency.

With Fox News and other right-wing media outlets going so far to the right with their hatred for President Obama, they have all but eliminated Mitt Romney's chances of being the next president of the United States.
Click to expand...

SMFH. The irrational hate for this man I will NEVER understand.
 
E

Ecotic

Member
So one of the keys to Obama's success so far was hitting Romney early with ads before he was the nominee and had full access to his parties' funds to respond. Do you think this signals the end of the two parties staging their conventions later and later to have the convention bounce closer to election day?

The Democrats had their convention this year in the first week of September. In 2004 the convention was in late July. That's a huge difference.
 
S

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Ecotic said:
So one of the keys to Obama's success so far was hitting Romney early with ads before he was the nominee and had full access to his parties' funds to respond. Do you think this signals the end of the two parties staging their conventions later and later to have the convention bounce closer to election day?

The Democrats had their convention this year in the first week of September. In 2004 the convention was in late July. That's a huge difference.
Click to expand...

There was no reason super-pacs had to wait.
 
T

Tim-E

Member
Ecotic said:
So one of the keys to Obama's success so far was hitting Romney early with ads before he was the nominee and had full access to his parties' funds to respond. Do you think this signals the end of the two parties staging their conventions later and later to have the convention bounce closer to election day?

The Democrats had their convention this year in the first week of September. In 2004 the convention was in late July. That's a huge difference.
Click to expand...

I don't think we'll see them get much later than they were this year. They have to formally nominate someone in time to get on ballots in every state. Not sure how those deadlines work, but I'd say that by September there isn't much time left to go through that process.
 
G

Gruco

Banned
This goes back to the previous page, but just because Romney's chances are increasingly miniscule, that doesn't mean the election is over nor that gaffes like this don't matter. The difference between Obama +3 and Obama +5 could also be the difference between a republican and democratic house and could have huge implications for both policy and future elections.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
I wish I could donate to Bam's campaign everytime without having to tell my wife to do it...I'm a federal contractor, so I'm not eligible :(
 
K

kaching

"GAF's biggest wanker"
DEO3 said:
This video is just Romney saying what everyone already knows he believes, I seriously doubt its going to change anybody's mind.
Click to expand...
Assuming you know where he stands isn't the same as outright knowing. Without straightforward statements like this Romney always had the veil of plausible deniability and the ability to project that his opponent is just trying to villify him. That'd be enough for some to give him the benefit of the doubt, but not after you present them with statements like this.
 
W

Wolfgunblood Garopa

Member
Gruco said:
This goes back to the previous page, but just because Romney's chances are increasingly miniscule, that doesn't mean the election is over nor that gaffes like this don't matter. The difference between Obama +3 and Obama +5 could also be the difference between a republican and democratic house and could have huge implications for both policy and future elections.
Click to expand...

BORING.
 
C

Chichikov

Member
T

ToxicAdam

Member
Gruco said:
This goes back to the previous page, but just because Romney's chances are increasingly miniscule, that doesn't mean the election is over nor that gaffes like this don't matter. The difference between Obama +3 and Obama +5 could also be the difference between a republican and democratic house and could have huge implications for both policy and future elections.
Click to expand...

House districts have been so gerrymandered and the incumbent advantage is still pronounced that such a small margin of national voting variation (as you describe) would have a negligible/undecipherable effect on the overall outcome.
 
C

Chumly

Member
Gruco said:
This goes back to the previous page, but just because Romney's chances are increasingly miniscule, that doesn't mean the election is over nor that gaffes like this don't matter. The difference between Obama +3 and Obama +5 could also be the difference between a republican and democratic house and could have huge implications for both policy and future elections.
Click to expand...
Seriously I don't know why people are trying to pretend that these gaffes don't matter or won't have any effect.
 
S

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Tim-E said:
Further evidence that the FP debate will be hilarious.
Click to expand...

All other things equal, given the degree the president determines foreign policy, this election should be a landslide.
 
E

Ecotic

Member
Suikoguy said:
There was no reason super-pacs had to wait.
Click to expand...
Joe Trippi actually made the best point about this in a politico article earlier today: “They picked a good moment when Romney couldn’t respond as effectively as they would have liked. Super PACs are fine but they don’t let you establish the case for the candidate like the candidate’s own campaign.”
 
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
23K
EN250 replied
"We observed Nvidia and decided to wait" (Chief Architect of Gaming at AMD)
2
64
4K
Kataploom replied
[GI.biz] The future of storytelling with Ken Levine
27
1K
mitch1971 replied
[GI.biz] Cheap money and bad bets: How the games industry turned pandemic success into disaster
2
75
4K
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