Support NeoGAF

[Chichikov]

I was really just kidding.

Oh, cool.
For a second, I thought you went off the deep end there.

And while we're at the subject of poligaf conservatives, legend has it that on a full moon nights, you can still see BigSicily's charts, restlessly wondering the off-topic forum halls.

 

[AlteredBeast]

glass houses

touche

 

[PantherLotus]

I haven't seen anybody link it. The top result on google is for GAF

funny, huh?

Oh, cool.
For a second, I thought you went off the deep end there.

And while we're at the subject of poligaf conservatives, legend has it that on a full moon nights, you can still see BigSicily's charts, restlessly wondering the off-topic forum halls.

Yes yes and every hall is truncated in a completely bizarre fashion

 

[cartoon_soldier]

I think at some point Chuck Todd said that Romney may look to Wisconsin to go Red because of the trouble they are having in OH and somebody thought it meant Romney is giving up on OH.

Romney has no reason to give up on any states. He has more money than Obama.

And they raised another 100 million in August.

 

[Puddles]

I finally got around to reading that Forbes article that someone posted a few pages ago, and these paragraphs have no basis in sound economic theory, or, indeed, in reality:

There is no secret or magic as to how to turn around these declining incomes. Increased investment in business expansion and start ups increases demand for labor, which drives up wages. That investment buys new tools and capital equipment for workers, making them more productive, which provides the cash flow to increase wages.

Increasing investment results from reducing the tax rates on investment, which enables investors to keep a higher percentage of what they produce, increasing incentives for investment. It also comes from maintaining a stable or rising dollar, which assures investors they will not lose some of their investment returns to a declining dollar or rising inflation, or the boom and bust cycles that dollar manipulation and inflation create.

The second paragraph is ridiculous. Capital gains have been the same since early in Bush's first term. They were much higher when we had the longest run of sustained growth in American history. Where would this guy want to see the capital gains rate set? 10%? 5%? Zero?

As for currencies, we're stronger against the pound and the euro than we were under most (or perhaps all) of Bush's presidency. We're weaker against the yen, but so is everyone. We're slightly weaker against the yuan, but that's a good thing. And our inflation is minimal.

This guy is an economic dunce.

 

[B-Dubs]

I think at some point Chuck Todd said that Romney may look to Wisconsin to go Red because of the trouble they are having in OH and somebody thought it meant Romney is giving up on OH.

Romney has no reason to give up on any states. He has more money than Obama.

And they raised another 100 million in August.

Money will only do so much, a smear campaign won't work as well on Obama as it did on the chucklemonkeys in the primary.

 

[PantherLotus]

I think at some point Chuck Todd said that Romney may look to Wisconsin to go Red because of the trouble they are having in OH and somebody thought it meant Romney is giving up on OH.

Romney has no reason to give up on any states. He has more money than Obama.

And they raised another 100 million in August.

Did you see the segment in question?

 

[PantherLotus]

I ask because nobody seems to have seen it, I never saw a link, an article, a video, anything that would further elucidate the idea that Romney might be giving up on Ohio.

However, I see a number of search results that describe Chuck Todd as saying the Romney camp sees Ohio slipping away. Which, if that was what the person that originally posted the idea was talking about, is a significant departure from the suggested.

 

[reilo]

Silver on the "Are you better off Four Years ago?" as it pertains to Reagan saying it in 1980 versus today:

The economy certainly improved on balance under Mr. Reagan — there were about 95 million payroll jobs in the country when voters went to the polls in November 1984, as compared with about 90 million four years earlier.

Still, that was only about half as many jobs as were added in the four years leading up to Mr. Carter’s losing election night in 1980.

What mattered, of course, was the trend: Mr. Reagan had gotten his recession out of the way early. From an employment standpoint, the recession of 1981-82 was actually more severe than the 1980 one: about 2.5 million jobs were subtracted.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...-years-voters-have-short-memories/#more-34025

 

[speculawyer]

I finally got around to reading that Forbes article that someone posted a few pages ago, and these paragraphs have no basis in sound economic theory, or, indeed, in reality:



The second paragraph is ridiculous. Capital gains have been the same since early in Bush's first term. They were much higher when we had the longest run of sustained growth in American history. Where would this guy want to see the capital gains rate set? 10%? 5%? Zero?

As for currencies, we're stronger against the pound and the euro than we were under most (or perhaps all) of Bush's presidency. We're weaker against the yen, but so is everyone. We're slightly weaker against the yuan, but that's a good thing. And our inflation is minimal.

This guy is an economic dunce.

I haven't read the article but those two paragraphs seem to be missing the elephant in the room . . . Demand. People don't invest because there is insufficient demand. He seems to think all we need is investment . . . . well guess what Einstein, interest rates are near zero. If you have a good investment opportunity, you'll have money thrown at you. And yeah, the tax-rates are not that important. What there needs to be is a good investment opportunity. And that is created by demand. So we need someone to invent something that people didn't know they needed or we need to make sure the consumers out there have money to buy stuff.

 

[Jooney]

I haven't read the article but those two paragraphs seem to be missing the elephant in the room . . . Demand. People don't invest because there is insufficient demand. He seems to think all we need is investment . . . . well guess what Einstein, interest rates are near zero. If you have a good investment opportunity, you'll have money thrown at you. And yeah, the tax-rates are not that important. What there needs to be is a good investment opportunity. And that is created by demand. So we need someone to invent something that people didn't know they needed or we need to make sure the consumers out there have money to buy stuff.

Yep. I don't know what it will take to convince the average joe that supply side economics is not working.

The people who advocate this stuff will never be happy. If it's not tax rates they're complaining about, then it's the discussion on tax rates (don't want to have uncertainty). Or it's regulations. Or the minimum wage. Or the unions. Anything besides what has demonstrated to have an effect - putting extra demand into the economy.

 

[Black Mamba]

I finally got around to reading that Forbes article that someone posted a few pages ago, and these paragraphs have no basis in sound economic theory, or, indeed, in reality:



The second paragraph is ridiculous. Capital gains have been the same since early in Bush's first term. They were much higher when we had the longest run of sustained growth in American history. Where would this guy want to see the capital gains rate set? 10%? 5%? Zero?

As for currencies, we're stronger against the pound and the euro than we were under most (or perhaps all) of Bush's presidency. We're weaker against the yen, but so is everyone. We're slightly weaker against the yuan, but that's a good thing. And our inflation is minimal.

This guy is an economic dunce.

Any time someone claims we need to lower taxes at the top end to increase investment, just show em this:

QED

 

[Black Mamba]

I haven't read the article but those two paragraphs seem to be missing the elephant in the room . . . Demand. People don't invest because there is insufficient demand. He seems to think all we need is investment . . . . well guess what Einstein, interest rates are near zero. If you have a good investment opportunity, you'll have money thrown at you. And yeah, the tax-rates are not that important. What there needs to be is a good investment opportunity. And that is created by demand. So we need someone to invent something that people didn't know they needed or we need to make sure the consumers out there have money to buy stuff.

Eh, this isn't exactly right, either. The Demand part yes, but interest rates are zero for banks and borrowing from the government (actually, negative), but not for businesses to start up something. And banks right now are being risk adverse so it's not like anyone can just borrow for easy money. So it's not fair to just say anyone with even what they think is a sound start-up idea will have money thrown at them. Probably the opposite, right now.

Plus, businesses are being given massive breaks right now for investing in new equipment an hiring, etc. It's obviously 100% a demand issue driven by unemployment. Which can be fixed IF THE FUCKING GOVERNMENT PUT PEOPLE TO WORK.

 

[Oblivion]

 

[Snake]

I can't wait for the foreign policy debate.

 

[Puddles]

The majority of. We have a few regular conservatives in here. AlteredBeast, ToxicAdam is conservative I'm pretty sure, maybe Salvor.Hardin? I've never been quite clear where he stands.

Oh and Kosmo.

Salvador.Hardin is a PhD economist, IIRC, and he seems to lean left on some issues and right on others.

 

[ThisWreckage]

So is the majority of poligaf with Obama or what

I'm certainly not. I will not vote for Romney or Obama. They're both not even remotely close to what I want in office.

 

[Oblivion]

Is Charlie Cook librul or conservative?

 

[Black Mamba]

lol, i didn't see this Romney announces he quits youtube before. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jy1CFsSXkBc

Sorry if old.

 

[Averon]

Early voting starts this Thursday if anyone wants to know.

 

[Oblivion]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSmfAONOejk&list=PL3CB99D6B204F307E&index=1&feature=plcp

 

[Black Mamba]

^^ LOL, that got me.

SeekingArrangement.com, a “sugar daddy dating website,” claims that it saw a 25.9 percent increase in Web traffic originating from Tampa during the GOP convention. This compares with a 2.2 percent drop in traffic from the state of Florida overall, according to the website.

“While overtraffic originating from Florida fell this past week because of Hurricane Isaac, we saw a signficant increase in traffic from Tampa where the Republicans held their national convention,” Brandon Wade, the site’s founder and CEO, said in a press release.
The website also noted that 42.1 percent of Sugar Daddy members are Republicans, compared to 34.9 percent who are Democrats.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/80585.html#ixzz25UGepvZt

haha.

 

[Opiate]

confirmed? I thought he self-banned for good. Thank goodness. Although he is more snark than insight over the past year. I was hoping him and I could make an alliance to bring reason back to the party...

Confirmed.

 

[Oblivion]

Wow, has this been posted? Nicki Minaj endorses the Mittster:

“I’m a Republican voting for Mitt Romney, you lazy bitches are f------ up the economy,” she rapped on "Mercy," the fifth track on the Lil Wayne's "Dedication 4" album.

http://thehill.com/conventions-2012...icki-minaj-endorses-mitt-romney-in-a-rap-song

haha.

Family values indeed.

 

[Pickles the Firecat]

^^ LOL, that got me.




haha.

I wonder how many politicians, Republican or Democratic, have a basic knowledge of modern web analytics. Shouldn't someone tell them to tone that down?

Then again, I guess the average person will never hear about it.

 

[Dr. Pangloss]

Is Charlie Cook librul or conservative?

Charlie Cook might have some conservative leanings. He did go to my high school with my father in Shreveport, Louisiana. This is Bible Belt territory. But my Dad is pretty liberal and always liked Charlie. I wonder if he went to the 40th reunion this year.

 

[Brinbe]

Holy Christ... hope someone else caught this (probably not), but that Tea Party chairwoman/GOP surrogate on CNN just now was absolutely horrible. She went on for a while about how Obama doesn't love this country the way "we" do and just looked absolutely crazy. Guarantee she's not showing up on TV ever again hahaha

 

[Mengy]

The majority of. We have a few regular conservatives in here. AlteredBeast, ToxicAdam is conservative I'm pretty sure, maybe Salvor.Hardin? I've never been quite clear where he stands.

I'm a conservative. And a Republican. But I'm voting for Obama. Again, like I also did four years ago. I voted for him then because I couldn't in good conscience vote Sarah Palin anywhere near the White House, even though I'd waited over a decade for McCain to get that close. This time I'm voting for him because Romney is the wrong direction for this country. We need more wealth equality and he won't bring that. We need more peaceful relations and he isn't the man to promote them. And Romney is way too disconnected from the middle class America that needs a President to help them out right now. He just isn't in tune with the next generation of Americans at all.

I don't think I'm a true Republican anymore, lol.

 

[Puddles]

I'm a conservative. And a Republican. But I'm voting for Obama. Again, like I also did four years ago. I voted for him then because I couldn't in good conscience vote Sarah Palin anywhere near the White House, even though I'd waited over a decade for McCain to get that close. This time I'm voting for him because Romney is the wrong direction for this country. We need more wealth equality and he won't bring that. We need more peaceful relations and he isn't the man to promote them. And Romney is way too disconnected from the middle class America that needs a President to help them out right now. He just isn't in tune with the next generation of Americans at all.

I don't think I'm a true Republican anymore, lol.

Pretty much how I was starting to feel in late 2006/early 2007.

 

[PantherLotus]

You can still feel good about voting for an Eisenhower Republican, even if he's black and he has a D next to his name on the ballot.

 

[PantherLotus]

Nate Silver's blog today has an interesting post about how the last several elections look like the conventions have been producing smaller and smaller bounces. He hypothesizes that it's a result of candidates being known quantities due to 'round-the-clock coverage way before the conventions ever happen.

Oh, and Obama is up to a 75% chance of winning, as Ohio, Florida, and Virginia are all tilted blue (Ohio more so than I realized). And Colorado looks pretty solidly blue at the moment.

 

[Particle Physicist]

I'm certainly not. I will not vote for Romney or Obama. They're both not even remotely close to what I want in office.

Who are you voting for, out of curiosity?

 

[PantherLotus]

Who are you voting for, out of curiosity?

I try to remember that any vote not for Romney is a vote for Obama.

 

[TacticalFox88]

INGRAHAM: You’ve also noted that there are signs of improvement on the horizon in the economy. How do you answer the president’s argument that the economy is getting better in a general election campaign if you yourself are saying it’s getting better?
ROMNEY: Well, of course it’s getting better. The economy always gets better after a recession, there is always a recovery. […]

INGRAHAM: Isn’t it a hard argument to make if you’re saying, like, OK, he inherited this recession, he took a bunch of steps to try to turn the economy around, and now, we’re seeing more jobs, but vote against him anyway? Isn’t that a hard argument to make? Is that a stark enough contrast?

ROMNEY: Have you got a better one, Laura? It just happens to be the truth.[/QUOTE]

Bwhahahahah THIS guy. THIS motherfucking guy.

 

[Cheebo]

I try to remember that any vote not for Romney is a vote for Obama.

If he is voting for a third party like the green party then that is a vote that would otherwise go to Obama over Romney.

 

[ErasureAcer]

Obama winning re-election at 74.8% at 538. Dude will be at 80% a week from now.

 

[Krauser Kat]

That seeking arrangement article just amuses me to no end. Even if it is just correlation .

 

[PantherLotus]

If he is voting for a third party like the green party then that is a vote that would otherwise go to Obama over Romney.

That's possible. But I think that someone that would vote Green would never vote for Obama anyway, just like the entire spectrum of voters to the far right and far-far right.

 

[giga]

Virgil Goode just made the ballot in VA. He's…in the Constitution Party. There goes Mittens chance for VA.

 

[Stinkles]

^^ LOL, that got me.




haha.

You didn't bilk that.

 

[AlteredBeast]

Bwhahahahah THIS guy. THIS motherfucking guy.

One of the more honest things that Romney has uttered in the past 2 years.

 

[DeathbyVolcano]

Damn, Silver's latest numbers are crazy. Nov. 6 forecast as 308 for Obama? "I can feel it in the air." Fucking PD. :lol

Nate Silver's blog today has an interesting post about how the last several elections look like the conventions have been producing smaller and smaller bounces. He hypothesizes that it's a result of candidates being known quantities due to 'round-the-clock coverage way before the conventions ever happen.

Yeah, I'd wager social media/mass media coverage is the reason for this, mostly.

 

[Zoibie]

Bwhahahahah THIS guy. THIS motherfucking guy.

Honestly, I applaud him for not parroting the usual GOP hyperbole that Obama has 'destroyed the economy'. We got enough of that last week.

 

[eznark]

He keep saying that.
Sometimes I even believe him .
He ain't perma is he?

Also eznark.

NFL starts tomorrow so I'll pretty much be a ghost unless the race gets interesting. I've got important things to argue about.

 

[AlteredBeast]

Damn, Silver's latest numbers are crazy. Nov. 6 forecast as 308 for Obama? "I can feel it in the air." Fucking PD. :lol




Yeah, I'd wager social media/mass media coverage is the reason for this, mostly.

308 seems about right.

 

[PantherLotus]

Damn, Silver's latest numbers are crazy. Nov. 6 forecast as 308 for Obama? "I can feel it in the air." Fucking PD. :lol




Yeah, I'd wager social media/mass media coverage is the reason for this, mostly.

Probably. It's also possible we're talking about genuinely unlikable politicians like Kerry, Bush II, McCain, and Dole muddying up the waters.

 

[AlteredBeast]

NFL starts tomorrow so I'll pretty much be a ghost unless the race gets interesting. I've got important things to argue about.

I know I've got a couple leagues to win. This election is pretty much over now, too bad Romney couldn't put up more of a fight.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Obama winning re-election at 74.8% at 538. Dude will be at 80% a week from now.

Hey man, phoenixdark's got a good feeling about this.

 

[Cheebo]

The fact everyone buys into PD's act is hilarious. He is as pro-Obama as anybody.

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

308 seems about right.

Right now my generous-to-Romney but plausible prediction is 293-245. And that's giving Romney WI, NC and FL. Really not thinking he flips CO and VA right now--which still wouldn't give him the election.

The fact everyone buys into PD's act is hilarious. He is as pro-Obama as anybody.

He's not, politically, but he's hesitant to test his actual opinions so he mixes in half- to two-thirds trolling. Like the kid in gym class who pretends to be really clownishly terrible at basketball so you can't tell how bad he actually is.