That's how it always is though. I think a pretty hefty chunk of that comes from the fact that she's a woman too.
People are more awed by spectacle than competence.
-
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.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PoliGAF 2015 |OT2| Pls print
- Thread starter ivysaur12
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
People are more awed by spectacle than competence.
It is surprising how few Republican nominees are not candidates who ran before and lost, which is rarely the case in the Democratic party. Most open primaries are won by first time Presidential candidates. Only time the Republicans didn't pick a previous losing candidate since 1976 was 2000.
Romney 2012: Ran in 2008 and lost.
McCain 2008: Ran in 2000 and lost.
Bush 2000: Did not run before.
Dole 1996: Ran in 1980 and lost.
Bush 1988: Ran in 1980 and lost.
Reagan 1980: Ran in 1976 and lost.
To keep this trend up either you have to be the spawn of George HW Bush or be a previous failed presidential candidate.
Romney 2012: Ran in 2008 and lost.
McCain 2008: Ran in 2000 and lost.
Bush 2000: Did not run before.
Dole 1996: Ran in 1980 and lost.
Bush 1988: Ran in 1980 and lost.
Reagan 1980: Ran in 1976 and lost.
To keep this trend up either you have to be the spawn of George HW Bush or be a previous failed presidential candidate.
Coriolanus
Banned
That's how it always is though. I think a pretty hefty chunk of that comes from the fact that she's a woman too.
People are more awed by spectacle than competence.
Given how long she's been a player in the game, her failure to provide the spectacle can and should be considered a display of incompetence.
Santorum 2016It is surprising how few Republican nominees are not candidates who ran before and lost, which is rarely the case in the Democratic party. Most open primaries are won by first time Presidential candidates. Only time the Republicans didn't pick a previous losing candidate since 1976 was 2000.
Romney 2012: Ran in 2008 and lost.
McCain 2008: Ran in 2000 and lost.
Bush 2000: Did not run before.
Dole 1996: Ran in 1980 and lost.
Bush 1988: Ran in 1980 and lost.
Reagan 1980: Ran in 1976 and lost.
To keep this trend up either you have to be the spawn of George HW Bush or be a previous failed presidential candidate.
It is surprising how few Republican nominees are not candidates who ran before and lost, which is rarely the case in the Democratic party. Most open primaries are won by first time Presidential candidates. Only time the Republicans didn't pick a previous losing candidate since 1976 was 2000.
Romney 2012: Ran in 2008 and lost.
McCain 2008: Ran in 2000 and lost.
Bush 2000: Did not run before.
Dole 1996: Ran in 1980 and lost.
Bush 1988: Ran in 1980 and lost.
Reagan 1980: Ran in 1976 and lost.
To keep this trend up either you have to be the spawn of George HW Bush or be a previous failed presidential candidate.
Well Nixon started it in 1968 after getting the nomination and losing in 1960. Don't forget Dole was VP nominee in 1976. You have to go back to 1928 for a Republican win without Nixon or a Bush on the ticket.
Eisenhower 1952: Nixon as VP
Eisenhower 1956: Nixon as VP
Nixon 1960: loss
Goldwater 1964: loss
Nixon 1968: win
Nixon 1972: win
Ford 1976: loss & Dole as VP nominee
Reagan 1980: Bush as VP
Reagan 1984: Bush as VP
Bush 1988: win
Bush 1992: loss
Dole 1996: loss
Bush 2000: win
Bush 2004: win
Bush 2016: ?
Is it? I think with Hillary, who started back in an environment where she was criticized for keeping her maiden name and making Bill look bad, has essentially developed a closed image for the public because the media is so intent on criticizing her for all sorts of things. She doesn't need to create the spectacle for the media to make a spectacle of her.Given how long she's been a player in the game, her failure to provide the spectacle can and should be considered a display of incompetence.
And the only reason they made a spectacle of her in the first place was because she was a First Lady that decided she wouldn't just be the regular old First Lady. Even if what she wanted to be was behind the scenes competent, they wouldn't let her do that.
Coriolanus
Banned
Is it? I think with Hillary, who started back in an environment where she was criticized for keeping her maiden name and making Bill look bad, has essentially developed a closed image for the public because the media is so intent on criticizing her for all sorts of things. She doesn't need to create the spectacle for the media to make a spectacle of her.
Well yes. That's quite true. And also the problem. Never a reason to believe that the spectacle others create for you will be the one that you want for you. She knows, or at the very least, should know this.
The reason they choose to make a spectacle out of a candidate is irrelevant. It is up to the candidate to take control of the narrative and play it to his benefit. Failure to do so rests with the candidate.
Ironically, this is something that Trump seems quite apt at doing.
Black Mamba
Member
Guys, I'm back! Someone fill me in super quick on the last 2 weeks. I have seriously ignored almost everything minus big news stories (like the shooting).
I know Scott Walker dropped out (lol PD) a while ago and Boehner announced his resignation, but other than that, been in the dark.
I know Scott Walker dropped out (lol PD) a while ago and Boehner announced his resignation, but other than that, been in the dark.
Guys, I'm back! Someone fill me in super quick on the last 2 weeks. I have seriously ignored almost everything minus big news stories (like the shooting).
I know Scott Walker dropped out (lol PD) a while ago and Boehner announced his resignation, but other than that, been in the dark.
JEB! is pretty fucked as well, his response to the shooting was lol worthy, I doubt he'll last past the next debate.
Also, Biden is reportedly going to make his decision in a week or two so that might at least make the dem's side of things more interesting.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
Guys, I'm back! Someone fill me in super quick on the last 2 weeks. I have seriously ignored almost everything minus big news stories (like the shooting).
I know Scott Walker dropped out (lol PD) a while ago and Boehner announced his resignation, but other than that, been in the dark.
1. Hillary in the lead still, Biden should have an answer soon, Dems flirting with Sanders waning.
2. GOP field still a mess. Trump still in the lead. One outlier poll has Carson ahead. Jeb in single digits.
3. Jeb said 'stuff happens'
4. jobs report
5. Something bad is happening in Turkey
Guys, I'm back! Someone fill me in super quick on the last 2 weeks. I have seriously ignored almost everything minus big news stories (like the shooting).
I know Scott Walker dropped out (lol PD) a while ago and Boehner announced his resignation, but other than that, been in the dark.
You missed an awful lot of election fanfiction and semantic arguments.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
You missed an awful lot of election fanfiction and semantic arguments.
no please stop they literally JUST stopped
Coriolanus
Banned
Guys, I'm back! Someone fill me in super quick on the last 2 weeks. I have seriously ignored almost everything minus big news stories (like the shooting).
I know Scott Walker dropped out (lol PD) a while ago and Boehner announced his resignation, but other than that, been in the dark.
Jeb jebbed all over the shooting. Gaf gaffed all over to Rubio. Diablos and PD pd'd and diablosed, respectivelly.
And retromelon did a nice image macro.
Then what do you make of Jewish atheists?
This is kind of weird, separating the cultural and religious concept of Jewish. I guess I fall into this category, but I kind of feel once you decide everything in the religion is nonsense you aren't really a member of the religion anymore. I guess since it's from the point of view of others in the religion - since I still meet the criteria, I'm technically Jewish.
RustyNails
Member
Jeb! happened in a really bad wayGuys, I'm back! Someone fill me in super quick on the last 2 weeks. I have seriously ignored almost everything minus big news stories (like the shooting).
I know Scott Walker dropped out (lol PD) a while ago and Boehner announced his resignation, but other than that, been in the dark.
Retromelon
Member
Thank you corey i know they look sloppy but i don't have a computer so i do it on mobile. Fun fact: each one takes me at least 2 hours to completeJeb jebbed all over the shooting. Gaf gaffed all over to Rubio. Diablos and PD pd'd and diablosed, respectivelly.
And retromelon did a nice image macro.
Poodlestrike
Banned
This is kind of weird, separating the cultural and religious concept of Jewish. I guess I fall into this category, but I kind of feel once you decide everything in the religion is nonsense you aren't really a member of the religion anymore. I guess since it's from the point of view of others in the religion - since I still meet the criteria, I'm technically Jewish.
I'm kinda in the same boat; my family's Reform, so much so that we don't even go to Synagogue, and I'm pretty much Agnostic, but... still Jewish.
Jewishness is at least as much ethnic and cultural as it is religious, so you're still Jewish even if you've decided you're not really into this whole "god" business.
Aaron Strife
Banned
#missmeyetGood luck with that, Jeb! lmfao
I just love that the only two living GOP presidents are Bushes. One an old one-termer and one who will be an albatross for the GOP for a generation. Whereas the Democrat will have Clinton (mega popular president during a prosperous time) and Obama (will probably have break-even or slightly positive numbers as an incumbent president) actively stumping for them. And, God willing, Carter (unpopular during his term but someone who's massively rehabilitated his public image by leading an active post-presidential life, unlike the Bushes who just sort of disappeared) will still be around to say nice things about them.
The republican will need everything to go their way. And if it's someone like Trump even that might not be enough. Rubio maybe but only if the economy outright tanks. And no PD that does not just mean a mediocre jobs report every once in a while.
The belief in the Godhead and the divinity of Jesus are abjectly incompatible with the beliefs of Judaism. Jews for Jesus doesn't take the position that Jesus was the Jewish conception of the messiah, it's Christian dogma wrapped in the trappings of Jewish traditions without the religion (I.e. They make the Passover Sedar about the trinity and resurrection instead of the exodus from Egypt and repurpose all the symbolism in service of this).I'm not so sure that that's right, either. Which tenet(s) do they reject?
It's a deeply cynical and transparent fraud of a "religion" propped up by evangelicals for the express purpose of converting Jews. They don't even really hide it particularly well.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
That early burst Fiorina got after the debate seems to have really worn off- at 6% in our new national poll and she had 8% a month ago
Fiorina can't interest anyone when she's not debating.
82/13 support for background checks on all gun sales on our new national poll- among Republican primary voters
That will never happen, but nice.
Also among GOP primary voters nationally- only 17% see Kim Davis favorably, 26% unfavorably. 61% say gay marriage not a big deal
That's actually awesome.
Trump's polling and numbers are actually starting to look like Romney's which is kind of weird...
Also, conservatives in Canada cashing in on that anti-Muslim hatred:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s-dominating-canadas-election-race/?tid=sm_tw
Trump's polling and numbers are actually starting to look like Romney's which is kind of weird...
Not really, that's what he's been going for. Ever since he jumped in and took the lead he's slowly been taking steps to make himself the inevitable choice at the end of the process, so that even if a flavor of the month passes him, unlikely as it may be, he'll still be positioned to take the whole thing. It's been rather ingenious really.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
I still can't believe Fiorina fever is not working despite the media and the establishment's absolute best attempts to give her praising coverage. She just sucks that bad I guess.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Not really, that's what he's been going for. Ever since he jumped in and took the lead he's slowly been taking steps to make himself the inevitable choice at the end of the process, so that even if a flavor of the month passes him, unlikely as it may be, he'll still be positioned to take the whole thing. It's been rather ingenious really.
It's just weird since he's been compared to Herman Cain and the rest of the flavors of the month and there were constant declarations of how Jeb would end up like Romney. But now it looks like Scott Walker was the Rick Perry of this cycle, Fiorina and Carson are the flavors of the month, and Trump is the Romney.
I still can't believe Fiorina fever is not working despite the media and the establishment's absolute best attempts to give her praising coverage. She just sucks that bad I guess.
You can only polish a turd so much.
It's just weird since he's been compared to Herman Cain and the rest of the flavors of the month and there were constant declarations of how Jeb would end up like Romney. But now it looks like Scott Walker was the Rick Perry of this cycle, Fiorina and Carson are the flavors of the month, and Trump is the Romney.
I don't think anyone has been able to say that Trump's a flavor of the month since the first debate, I've been saying he's the 2016 Romney since like early September.
RustyNails
Member
At this point in time in 2011, Rick Perry flamed out and the Cain Train was in the early stages of taking off.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
"Pretending?" Are they not actually Jewish? From their FAQ:
It bears mentioning that Christ was a Jew, as were the first Christians. In fact, originally there was some question about whether the gospel was even applicable to Gentiles.
No they are not Jewish. They believe in Jesus. The two believes are incompatible.
There are no hideous parallels. Jews own Judaism, they set the rules of their faith. An outside group can't just ride up and say they are a part of the group with the said goal of destroying the groupYou are treading very dangerous waters with some potentially extremely hideous parallels, mate.
Roland_Gunner
Member
I still can't believe Fiorina fever is not working despite the media and the establishment's absolute best attempts to give her praising coverage. She just sucks that bad I guess.
Aside from the Planned Parenthood slam and subsequent attacks, what does Fiorina have that would bring in GOP voters? She doesn't have a hook like immigration for Trump or the religious pull of Carson. To me, her surge just shows how much Republican voters do not want to vote for an establishment candidate.
RustyNails
Member
I'm with you on this. The in-group has the authority to decide what constitutes their rules and belief sets. This is exactly how Muslims feel when outsiders throw no true scotsman bullshit at them.No they are not Jewish. They believe in Jesus. The two believes are incompatible.
There are no hideous parallels. Jews own Judaism, they set the rules of their faith. An outside group can't just ride up and say they are a part of the group with the said goal of destroying the group
Not even counting Nixon there hasn't been a single winning Republican ticket for President since 1972 that didn't have a Bush on the ticket, that's pretty remarkable on its own!Well Nixon started it in 1968 after getting the nomination and losing in 1960. Don't forget Dole was VP nominee in 1976. You have to go back to 1928 for a Republican win without Nixon or a Bush on the ticket.
Eisenhower 1952: Nixon as VP
Eisenhower 1956: Nixon as VP
Nixon 1960: loss
Goldwater 1964: loss
Nixon 1968: win
Nixon 1972: win
Ford 1976: loss & Dole as VP nominee
Reagan 1980: Bush as VP
Reagan 1984: Bush as VP
Bush 1988: win
Bush 1992: loss
Dole 1996: loss
Bush 2000: win
Bush 2004: win
Bush 2016: ?
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
At this point in time in 2011, Rick Perry flamed out and the Cain Train was in the early stages of taking off.
Interesting timing what with Carson having about the same experience and popularity.
Is self-quoting a previous post (that has never been challenged) made in response to an image macro bad form? I don't think so, considering its not like any effort went into posting the same out-of-context quote everyone does, and I don't have time to reinvent the wheel and reword my long-form unpacking and analysis, especially when no one has ever objected to my analysis.
If someone actually did refute some of my logic I would of course engage them in debate... but no one does. And then people complain about no one wanting to have a serious discussion.
A couple people did read one of my political semantics posts though, and it was nice. Someone even pointed out that that the quote in the image macro is even further out of context than what I originally thought the context was, which was interesting and made for good discussion. Still no disagreement about my analysis itself though, and still people throw out that quote as their entire argument.
If someone actually did refute some of my logic I would of course engage them in debate... but no one does. And then people complain about no one wanting to have a serious discussion.
A couple people did read one of my political semantics posts though, and it was nice. Someone even pointed out that that the quote in the image macro is even further out of context than what I originally thought the context was, which was interesting and made for good discussion. Still no disagreement about my analysis itself though, and still people throw out that quote as their entire argument.
Retromelon
Member
I saw someone here quadruple post once, your idea of bad form is so tame ͡° ͜ʖ ͡ -Is self-quoting a previous post (that has never been challenged) made in response to an image macro bad form?
I cannot say for certain but I can only assume that person has a rather high self regard for their own posts, and so the more the betterI'm curious: was it a super combo type of situation or did they just not understand how multiquote works?
I have a deeply personal reason for lusting to understand quote functionality: how else can I understand who I really am?
hehehe
I'm curious: was it a super combo type of situation or did they just not understand how multiquote works?I saw someone here quadruple post once, your idea of bad form is so tame ͡° ͜ʖ ͡ -
I have a deeply personal reason for lusting to understand quote functionality: how else can I understand who I really am?
hehehe
At this point in time in 2011, Rick Perry flamed out and the Cain Train was in the early stages of taking off.
I still occasionally watch herman cain coverage for laughs
I still occasionally watch herman cain coverage for laughs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o95KxKKrgkQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwawPMSJins
Classics
Brawndo Addict
Banned
No they are not Jewish. They believe in Jesus. The two believes are incompatible.
There are no hideous parallels. Jews own Judaism, they set the rules of their faith. An outside group can't just ride up and say they are a part of the group with the said goal of destroying the group
I'm with you on this. The in-group has the authority to decide what constitutes their rules and belief sets. This is exactly how Muslims feel when outsiders throw no true scotsman bullshit at them.
Yes, but according to those rules one is considered a Jew if their mother was Jewish. From the Wiki article that Ivy posted earlier:
All Jewish religious movements agree that a person may be a Jew either by birth or through conversion. According to halakha, a Jew by birth must be born to a Jewish mother. Halakha states that the acceptance of the principles and practices of Judaism does not make a person a Jew. But, those born Jewish do not lose that status because they cease to be observant Jews, even if they adopt the practices of another religion.[5]
It would be more accurate for them to call themselves Christian Jews, as that would make clear the ethnic/religious issue, but obviously they enjoy the mental confusion/curiosity it causes and I have to admit it is a good strategic decision given their motivations.
I still occasionally watch herman cain coverage for laughs
I show my friends Rachel Maddow's piece on Herman Cain and whether it was performance art or not all the time. Fucking love that segment.
I show my friends Rachel Maddow's piece on Herman Cain and whether it was performance art or not all the time. Fucking love that segment.
Cain had to have been performance art, it was just too glorious to be real.
@JohnJHarwood
Rubio tells me he no longer supports provision of his Senate immigration bill letting undocumented immigrants get green cards in 10 yrs.
https://twitter.com/JohnJHarwood/status/651145164728102912
Wow.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Romney-esque. I'm not sure the abortion rightward swing matters, but stuff like this does. And I'd imagine he'll say something crazy about gun laws in the next week.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Yes, but according to those rules one is considered a Jew if their mother was Jewish. From the Wiki article that Ivy posted earlier:
All Jewish religious movements agree that a person may be a Jew either by birth or through conversion. According to halakha, a Jew by birth must be born to a Jewish mother. Halakha states that the acceptance of the principles and practices of Judaism does not make a person a Jew. But, those born Jewish do not lose that status because they cease to be observant Jews, even if they adopt the practices of another religion.[5]
It would be more accurate for them to call themselves Christian Jews, as that would make clear the ethnic/religious issue, but obviously they enjoy the mental confusion/curiosity it causes and I have to admit it is a good strategic decision given their motivations.
This is what happens when you quote things with out a lot of context
lets go to the Jewish religious group statements:
On several occasions leaders of the four major Jewish movements have signed on to joint statements opposing Hebrew-Christian theology and tactics. In part they said: "Though Hebrew Christianity claims to be a form of Judaism, it is not ... It deceptively uses the sacred symbols of Jewish observance ... as a cover to convert Jews to Christianity, a belief system antithetical to Judaism ... Hebrew Christians are in radical conflict with the communal interests and the destiny of the Jewish people. They have crossed an unbridgeable chasm by accepting another religion. Despite this separation, they continue to attempt to convert their former co-religionists."[29]
They are not jewish. At all. They do not accept Jewish teaching. They accept christian teaching. They only use Jewish trappings when it helps their christian conversion racket
I think it comes down to being another example of the non-central fallacy - whilst they may be technically Jews "by definition" of having a Jewish mother, they do not possess the characteristics that one most typically would associate with being Jewish. Which is to say, following the traditions of Judaism. The fact that they seem to be actively attempting to discourage people from practicing Jewish traditions and believing in traditionally Jewish beliefs (the pamphlet I was given by Jews for Jesus as I walked by a stand they had was pretty aggressive about that, to say the least) does further to demonstrate that they are not very close to the prototypic image of Judaism. While they may have the symbols of Judaism, they have very little of the substance behind the definition.
Martin Luther King may be a criminal "by definition", but it would be pretty disingenuous to primarily categorize him as one and treat him like a archetypal burglar.
Martin Luther King may be a criminal "by definition", but it would be pretty disingenuous to primarily categorize him as one and treat him like a archetypal burglar.
Aaron Strife
Banned
But guys. He'll totally peel off Hispanic voters.
Did anyone see Clinton's gun control proposals? With a Dem Congress I think they would actually be quite doable. Closing the gun show and Charleston loopholes, banning domestic abusers from getting guns and repealing legal immunity for gun manufacturers and sellers. The main obstacles would of course be the House and the filibuster.
Brawndo Addict
Banned
This is what happens when you quote things with out a lot of context
lets go to the Jewish religious group statements:
They are not jewish. At all. They do not accept Jewish teaching. They accept christian teaching. They only use Jewish trappings when it helps their christian conversion racket
Their theology and their tactics are a different issue than their heritage. They may not be followers of Judaism but they are Jewish (assuming the members actually do have Jewish mothers). We seemed to settle on using self-determination in terms of defining membership, and by that standard there is complete agreement. Saying they do not espouse or practice Judaism is different from saying they are not Jews by ancestry.
According to the traditional Rabbinic view, which is maintained by all branches of Orthodox Judaism, Conservative Judaism and Reform Judaism[49] today, only halakha can define who is or is not a Jew when a question of Jewish identity, lineage, or parentage arises about any person seeking to define themselves or claim that they are Jewish.
As a result, mere belief in the principles of Judaism does not make one a Jew. Similarly, non-adherence by a Jew to the 613 Mitzvot, or even formal conversion to another religion, does not make one lose one's Jewish status. Thus the immediate descendants of all female Jews (even apostates) are still considered to be Jews, as are those of all their female descendants. Even those descendants who are not aware they are Jews, or practice a religion other than Judaism, are defined by this perspective as Jews, as long as they come from an unbroken female line of descent. As a corollary, the children of a Jewish father and a non-Jewish mother are not considered to be Jews by halakha unless they formally convert according to halakha, even if raised fully observant in the mitzvot.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Yes, but according to those rules one is considered a Jew if their mother was Jewish. From the Wiki article that Ivy posted earlier:
It would be more accurate for them to call themselves Christian Jews, as that would make clear the ethnic/religious issue, but obviously they enjoy the mental confusion/curiosity it causes and I have to admit it is a good strategic decision given their motivations.
That is for determining if you are Jewish at birth. You are no longer Jewish if you convert to Christianity. There is no such thing as a Christian Jew other than it being a completely different sect that does not fall under the Judaism umbrella.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Their theology and their tactics are a different issue than their heritage. They may not be followers of Judaism but they are Jewish (assuming the members actually do have Jewish mothers). We seemed to settle on using self-determination in terms of defining membership, and by that standard there is complete agreement. Saying they do not espouse or practice Judaism is different from saying they are not Jews by ancestry.
You are using wiki. That wiki post is oversimplifying the explanation. A Jew who converts to another religion can come back to Judaism without having to go through conversion again if they are born to a Jewish mother. That is essentially what that is supposed to be about.
Once again, Jews For Jesus are a self identified Christian group made for the purpose of converting Jews to Christianity.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.