• 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.

Tim-E

Member
Yeah I don't see questions about this going away; and I imagine that he's going to Fox to answer them because he can't handle off script questions from other journalists without looking like he's going to blow up. Dude can't even handle a softball interview with David Gregory without looking like he's furious that he has to answer these questions.
 

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Yeah I don't see questions about this going away; and I imagine that he's going to Fox to answer them because he can't handle off script questions from other journalists without looking like he's going to blow up. Dude can't even handle a softball interview with David Gregory without looking like he's furious that he has to answer these questions.

It really does make you wonder about the upcoming debates.
 

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
Why did McCaskill lose your vote, or is this a joke?

She is running an ad here in KC where she says she "stood up to President Obama," for various things, like the oil pipeline. I know why she's doing it, and I think it's cowardly and shows a lack of leadership. She was good for exactly one healthcare vote. Other than that she ain't shit. Let the rapist in and see what happens.

Because they dont. Remember the 10 pages Poligaf blathered on about Romney speaking in front of an empty Ford Field and how disasterous it was? It means jack shit to the average voter today.

It only matters to people with predisposed, polarized minds. Just another coat of laminate to put on the fanboy credenza.

Wait, does anybody remember this? I don't. I remember it being a laffer and then 10 pages of meta about OPTICS! Please stop pretending that none of this matters. You're in a PoliGAF thread, updated almost to the minute. It's gonna get pedantic, small, and you'll see a lot of minutiae.

If you want big picture read the title of the thread and move on.

I think the Midwest is the next in line to make the conversion over the next decade or so. It feels like most of the conservatives here are of the self-defined "moderate" kind.

Disagreed. You might be observing GWB suburbanites recoiling in horror at what they've wrought, but these are the same people wavin' flags, driving SUVs, and ranting about abortion. Same people. I think the Midwest (I mean Kansas, Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska) are all pretty far out there once you get 20 miles from a metropolitan area.

Why do you guys care so much about numbers/polls when there's still a lot of time left, shouldn't sideliners only bother looking at that stuff 2-3 weeks before election where there isn't a long gap before voting day and the numbers will mean a lot more? It's like watching a 2 month long basketball game and comparing points every day I don't get it.

You should be posting more and complaining less. As with TA, you can't come into a thread updated literally every 5-10 minutes and complain about too much focus on detail. That's the point! You have a big picture conclusion? Let's hear it.

John Sununu is an awful surrogate.

Watching Andrea Mitchell? He was remarkably bad -- but I will say he's probably the purest Romney supporter there is, saying exactly what Romney is saying. It just sounds really offensive because it IS really offensive.
 
Attempts to compare Romney's "47%" moment to Obama's "cling to guns and religion" moment are way off the mark. You can even overlook the part where Obama was speaking about the people of rural PA from an empathetic standpoint whereas Romney was speaking about the 47% of Americans who pay no federal income tax (many of whom still pay payroll tax) dripping with disdain for a perceived overdependence on the government along with a lack of desire to take care of themselves.

Obama's "guns and religion" remark was mostly talking about people who wouldn't vote for him anyways, evangelical righties. However, that 47% statistic which Romney cited includes retirees who are benefitting from Medicare and Social Security, two of the "entitlements" he spoke so disdainful of, and members of our armed forces in combat zones, who aren't taxed for their pay that comes from the federal government. The elderly in particular make up a good portion of the Republican base and Romney just effectively referred to them as freeloaders. Obama's guns and religion comment was nowhere near as bad as this will be.


Fox news admitted last night it was worse for Romney, but more so because Obama said those things in April 08 when he was battling it out w/Hillary in the primaries - thus it was early. Romney's goof comes 50 days before the election.
 

Ecotic

Member
You'd just think at some point Romney would realize he has to go before somebody other than Fox News if he's going to win this election. Cavuto is safe and such small-ball, he should sit down with somebody from the networks and make the evening news if he's really going to attempt to squelch this thing.

I've been around for far less time than Romney and I've still lost out on amazing opportunities worth far less than the Presidency by playing it safe. You'd just think Romney would've learned that by now.
 

Tim-E

Member
Disagreed. You might be observing GWB suburbanites recoiling in horror at what they've wrought, but these are the same people wavin' flags, driving SUVs, and ranting about abortion. Same people. I think the Midwest (I mean Kansas, Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska) are all pretty far out there once you get 20 miles from a metropolitan area.

Hey now, I drive an SUV!

Also, I know the feeling of being frustrated with local dems running away from Obama. I'm in West Virginia, and my congressman, governor, and senator are all doing everything they can to split themselves from him. It's frustrating, but I really don't want a republican in any of those offices, so I'll suck it up.
 
LOL, I think Romney is too.
"I don't get it, what'd I say?" - Mitt Romney

Good news on Dems' House chances - PPP went into FL-26 and found Joe Garcia leading by 7 (46-39), and in CA-36, Rep. Mary Bono Mack is only leading her Dem challenger by 3 (47-44). Combined with the good generic ballot polling, I'm feeling a bit more optimistic about Dems taking the House, but I still think they'll fall short.
 

thefro

Member
Fox news admitted last night it was worse for Romney, but more so because Obama said those things in April 08 when he was battling it out w/Hillary in the primaries - thus it was early. Romney's goof comes 50 days before the election.

The thing is there's at least a couple other things on the tape that are somewhat damaging (the Israel/Palestine thing which is blowing up outside the US & the Latino comments).

Also, Benjamin Netanyahu just happens to be in NYC right now, so really the timing of the person who leaked it couldn't have been better.
 
The thing is there's at least a couple other things on the tape that are somewhat damaging (the Israel/Palestine thing which is blowing up outside the US & the Latino comments).

Also, Benjamin Netanyahu just happens to be in NYC right now, so really the timing of the person who leaked it couldn't have been better.

You have a link to the Latino comments?
 

Tamanon

Banned
You have a link to the Latino comments?

My dad, as you probably know, was the governor of Michigan and was the head of a car company. But he was born in Mexico… and had he been born of, uh, Mexican parents, I’d have a better shot at winning this. But he was unfortunately born to Americans living in Mexico. He lived there for a number of years. I mean, I say that jokingly, but it would be helpful to be Latino.”

http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/201...arents-id-have-a-better-shot-at-winning-this/

It's a weird thing to say.
 
Mitt's comments about not being Latino are baffling to me. Is he saying that he'd be doing better if he weren't white? It's a disadvantage to being a wealthy white guy now?
 

Tim-E

Member
I'd say we've already seen the juicy stuff. I doubt there's much of anything in the rest of it. I'd love to be proven wrong, though. :p
 

pigeon

Banned

Nah, it's just an incredibly privileged thing to say, the kind of thing that you might "kind of joke" about if you had no actual conception of how much harder going to Harvard and becoming the favored son of a management consulting firm would be for a Latino kid. In Romney's mind, his success is due entirely to his own gumption and character, so institutionalized racism is obviously just an excuse lazy colored people use to explain why they're so lazy, and the main consequence of being born in the minority is that you get affirmative action and you can play the race card whenever you want. If you really believe in the John Galt theory of personal success, it's a natural next step.

I'm pretty sure you could find the same sentiment posted almost verbatim in more than one NeoGAF thread, actually.
 

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
I'd say we've already seen the juicy stuff. I doubt there's much of anything in the rest of it. I'd love to be proven wrong, though. :p

The Tax Returns are still the big elephant in the room.

I think he means electorally he'd be doing better with Latinos if he were Latino.

Oh, he likely would be. But he would also have not won the Republican Primary, among other things.
 

Loudninja

Member
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Casts Doubt On Voter ID Law
Updated: 2:53PM

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court cast serious doubt on the state’s voter ID law on Tuesday, ordering a lower court to rethink its decision upholding the law earlier this year.

In a 4-2 ruling, the justices ordered the lower court to block the law unless Pennsylvania can prove it is currently providing “liberal access” to photo identification cards and that there “will be no voter disenfranchisement” on Election Day.

The ruling said there was a “disconnect” between what the law prescribes and how it was actually being implemented. It said an “ambitious effort” to implement identification procedures in a short timeframe “has by no means been seamless in light of the serious operational constraints faced by the executive branch.”

While the court had “no doubt” state officials were “proceeding in good faith,” the justices in the majority said they were not satisfied making “a mere predictive judgment based primarily on the assurances of government officials.”

But beyond simply punting the decision, the Supreme Court specifically said the lower court would be “obliged to enter a preliminary injunction” if there was convincing proof that voters would be disenfranchised in the upcoming election because of the law.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsme...me_court_voter_id_decision.php?ref=fpnewsfeed
 

Kosmo

Banned
Yeah I don't see questions about this going away; and I imagine that he's going to Fox to answer them because he can't handle off script questions from other journalists without looking like he's going to blow up. Dude can't even handle a softball interview with David Gregory without looking like he's furious that he has to answer these questions.

Which question will get asked at the debates and should be of more importance the electorate:

"Why do you think 47% of Americans are lazy and don't want to help themselves?"
"Why do you think the government should be able to drone Americans without due process and are you personally involved in those decisions?"

Clearly the first is more important.
 

Kosmo

Banned
lols, even for you dude that's a pretty crazy equivalency.

I'm not making an equivalency, I'm just asking which one you think is more important to ask. And yes, it's crazy that we would be talking about the former and ignoring the latter, which is against the Constitution that the President took an oath to uphold.
 

Chichikov

Member
I'm not making an equivalency, I'm just asking which one you think is more important to ask. And yes, it's crazy that we would be talking about the former and ignoring the latter, which is against the Constitution that the President took an oath to uphold.
They're not even going to get covered in the same debate, seriously, I'm not sure I'm even seeing your point.

I do agree that Obama need to be asked about his drone killing policy, but not at the exclusion of all other questions.
And that's why we have a foreign policy debate.
 
I'm not making an equivalency, I'm just asking which one you think is more important to ask. And yes, it's crazy that we would be talking about the former and ignoring the latter, which is against the Constitution that the President took an oath to uphold.

Why expect Romney to act differently?

I can see why you'd want it asked-- but it doesn't really help differentiate the candidates when Romney's already a war hawk.
 
Which question will get asked at the debates and should be of more importance the electorate:

"Why do you think 47% of Americans are lazy and don't want to help themselves?"
"Why do you think the government should be able to drone Americans without due process and are you personally involved in those decisions?"

Clearly the first is more important.

Too bad that second question won't come up in the first debate, which is about domestic policy!
 

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
They're not even going to get covered in the same debate, seriously, I'm not sure I'm even seeing your point.

I do agree that Obama need to be asked about his drone killing policy, but not at the exclusion of all other questions.
And that's why we have a foreign policy debate.

I'd be curious to hear if Romney would quit using drone strike...
 
Which question will get asked at the debates and should be of more importance the electorate:

"Why do you think 47% of Americans are lazy and don't want to help themselves?"
"Why do you think the government should be able to drone Americans without due process and are you personally involved in those decisions?"

Clearly the first is more important.
What, you think Romney will be to the left of Obama on drone attacks? Fat chance.
 
Foreshadowing Libya?


In the newly released full Mojo/Romney tapes, about 4 minutes in on tape one, Romney starts to talk about what he refers to as “the Jimmy Carter election”, i.e., 1980. He then goes on to talk about how the hostage crisis and the failed rescue mission Desert One were pervasive issues through the 1980 election. Then at the end he says that “if something of that nature presents itself I will work to find a way to take advantage of the opportunity.”

He has a couple stopped and started sentences and at some points it’s not entirely clear to me what his meaning is. But on this last point he seems to be saying that if a major international crisis erupted he’d do what he could to turn it to political advantage.

Please take a listen. It’s about four minutes in, on the 1st of the two videos here. What do you make of it?
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/09/foreshadowing_libya.php?ref=fpblg

Very interesting
 

Dude Abides

Banned
All those Latino presidents, damn, whitey just can't catch a break.

Could be accurate, though. He'd probably be more competitive in a few states if he wasn't cratering amongst Latinos.

I also like how Kosmo is now pretending to care about due process for Islamofascists.
 

Tim-E

Member
The drone strike complaints typically come from the left. Kosmo endorses MMT and now he's being critical of drone strikes. I bet Kosmo is at an OWS rally.
 
Yep like I've said before, Romney's campaign is experiencing death by Sununu.

But now it's more like Mitt screwed Mitt.

I can't believe they send Sununu out there . . . every time he goes out there he just acts like a really bully asshole. If they are going to have him out there then the might as well just send Limbaugh out there for Mitt.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom