-
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 Interim Thread of cunning stunts and desperate punts
- Thread starter Amir0x
- Start date
- Status
DeathbyVolcano
Banned
minus_273 said:
February 2008 called, it wants it's arguments back.
polyh3dron
Banned
Yeah because Kwame Kilpatrick is black too amirite?minus_273 said:
soul creator
Member
polyh3dron said:
obama the messiah, taking on the sins of all black people he's ever come in contact with
HylianTom said:From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro
*** The post-convention map:
Likely Obama: CA, CT, DE, DC, HI, IL, ME, MD, MA, NJ, NY, OR, RI, VT, WA (190 electoral votes)
Lean Obama: IA, MN, PA (38 votes)
Toss-up: CO, FL, MI, NV, NM, NH, OH, VA, WI (110 votes)
Lean McCain: AK, GA, IN, MO, MT, NC, ND, SD (64 votes)
Likely McCain: AL, AZ, AR, ID, KS, KY, LA, MS, NE, OK, SC, TN, TX, UT, WV, WY (136 votes)
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/
No way are MI, WI, and NM tossups.
Or FL for that matter (but for McCain).
Gruco said:
Wisconsin and Michigan (and Pennsylvania usually) are always talked-up as swing states every four years, but they always end-up in the blue column, however narrowly. I suspect that the same will happen this time. Kinda like Florida and Virginia being reliably red.
AniHawk said:
In that case, Obama would be at 260. Colorado's 9 would seal the deal.
polyh3dron
Banned
Bush has hurt the Republican party in US putting IT in play. But since he and McCain aren't black it doesn't matter as much.minus_273 said:
And I love it how the Republican party still gets accepted after lying to the country and taking it to war unjustly, but all it takes for everyone to disown the Democrats is some marital infidelity.
VanMardigan said:
Totally addressed.
JayDubya said:
Zeliard said:
We hurt / kill animals regularly for food, sport, medical experimentation, etc. We buy and sell domesticated animals. You walk into a Petsmart, you give them the market worth of the animal, and you walk out with a hamster or whatever. They are property. If they're supposed to be invested with rights, then our entire society is guilty of travesty on a massive scale. I guess that's the PETA stance, and you're welcome to embrace it, but I'll have no part of it.
Honestly, I'm quite good with pets; I love cats and dogs, and the feeling is mutual. I am simply saying that's it's none of my business what other people do with their property if they're not infringing upon the rights of others.
Gruco said:
That metaphor fails pretty hard, and I've seen it in these types of arguments dozens of times.
For starters, the person involved is justified in shooting every member of the Society of Music Lovers that is trespassing in his or her home and then ripping out the connection to the violinist.
For seconds, the metaphor only has relevance to rape, so unless by adopting this argument, you are conceding that abortion for reasons other than rape are not justified, the use of the argument is wholly disingenuous.
For thirds, the metaphor implies a lack of understanding of the right to life. It fully equates pulling the plug on a dying man (one who was connected to you without consent, see above) and stabbing the back of a fetus's head with surgical scissors, when these acts are not morally equivalent. A right to life does not mean that everyone everywhere has to go to unreasonable lengths to save you from death; it is freedom from aggressive efforts to end your life, enforced by the rule of law.
In this case, the actions of the Society of Music Lovers society represent a multitude of aggressive violations of the victim's rights. This is in no way comparable to the actions of the child in utero, incapable of both aggression or culpability for its actions. Going back to the rape comparison, the child is also utterly devoid of culpability for the actions of its parents.
I'm not even sure how to indulge you other than by treating it like a joke, which I thought it was, and moving on, which is what I did.
ryutaro's mama
Member
GhaleonEB said:I'm trying to figure out why they swtiched WI. There's not a single new poll that shows it in toss-up range.
Last new poll was a month ago, according to that chart.
VanMardigan
has calmed down a bit.
polyh3dron said:
Your posts are hilarious for all the wrong reasons.
CharlieDigital
Banned
I'm kind of depressed this morning and a little bit in shock.
I was speaking with my boss last night and it was apparent that he readily bought into all of the sound bites which are out there on Obama. He was on every talking point which negatively framed his experience (in fact, he didn't even know that Obama was an IL legislator...as if he was a "community organizer" one day and a US Senator the next (seriously)). He thought McCain's stance on taxes would save the country more money (according to the Tax Policy Center, it won't ($2.9 trillion in cuts for Obama, $4.2 trillion for McCain)). He called out Obama for his 130 "Present" votes, but did not understand the strategic usage of the "Present" vote nor did he know the context of the 130 (it's out of some 4000 total votes).
He railed on about how Obama wouldn't be able to get us out of Iraq any faster than McCain and cited the failure of the "Democratic Congress" to get us out of Iraq. Of course, this ignored the fact that the Democrats have only had a majority in the Senate since January of 2007 and, in reality, the so called majority is razor thin (or even non-existent).
He bought into the talking points about how Obama has been running for the presidency since he was in the US Senate, failing to see that in the 109th Congress, Obama only missed 1.9% of the votes while McCain missed 9% of the votes. Then of course, in the 110th Congress, he railed against Obama for missing 45.5% of the votes, but he didn't realize that McCain lead everyone with 63.8% missed votes.
It was sad because this guy is very well educated, he's wired and I felt that he should have known better on most of these talking points which have framed Obama as a know nothing, do nothing senator. It was a sad realization that the public is so easily fooled by numbers framed out of the context of the whole.
I was speaking with my boss last night and it was apparent that he readily bought into all of the sound bites which are out there on Obama. He was on every talking point which negatively framed his experience (in fact, he didn't even know that Obama was an IL legislator...as if he was a "community organizer" one day and a US Senator the next (seriously)). He thought McCain's stance on taxes would save the country more money (according to the Tax Policy Center, it won't ($2.9 trillion in cuts for Obama, $4.2 trillion for McCain)). He called out Obama for his 130 "Present" votes, but did not understand the strategic usage of the "Present" vote nor did he know the context of the 130 (it's out of some 4000 total votes).
He railed on about how Obama wouldn't be able to get us out of Iraq any faster than McCain and cited the failure of the "Democratic Congress" to get us out of Iraq. Of course, this ignored the fact that the Democrats have only had a majority in the Senate since January of 2007 and, in reality, the so called majority is razor thin (or even non-existent).
He bought into the talking points about how Obama has been running for the presidency since he was in the US Senate, failing to see that in the 109th Congress, Obama only missed 1.9% of the votes while McCain missed 9% of the votes. Then of course, in the 110th Congress, he railed against Obama for missing 45.5% of the votes, but he didn't realize that McCain lead everyone with 63.8% missed votes.
It was sad because this guy is very well educated, he's wired and I felt that he should have known better on most of these talking points which have framed Obama as a know nothing, do nothing senator. It was a sad realization that the public is so easily fooled by numbers framed out of the context of the whole.
Fragamemnon
Member
ryutaro's mama said:
That's because there's probably little to no demand to poll a state that is so clearly Democratic. Like someone else said, if we are making WI a tossup then MT, ND, NC and maybe even IN should be one as well.
Stoney Mason
Banned
CharlieDigital said:I'm kind of depressed this morning and a little bit in shock.
I was speaking with my boss last night and it was apparent that he readily bought into all of the sound bites which are out there on Obama. He was on every talking point which negatively framed his experience (in fact, he didn't even know that Obama was an IL legislator...as if he was a "community organizer" one day and a US Senator the next (seriously)). He thought McCain's stance on taxes would save the country more money (according to the Tax Policy Center, it won't). He called out Obama for his 130 "Present" votes, but did not understand the strategic usage of the "Present" vote nor did he know the context of the 130 (it's out of some 4000 total votes).
He bought into the talking points about how Obama has been running for the presidency since he was in the US Senate, failing to see that in the 109th Congress, Obama only missed 1.9% of the votes while McCain missed 9% of the votes. Then of course, in the 110th Congress, he railed against Obama for missing 45.5% of the votes, but he didn't realize that McCain lead everyone with 63.8% missed votes.
It was sad because this guy is very well educated, he's wired and I felt that he should have known better on most of these talking points which have framed Obama as a know nothing, do nothing senator. It was a sad realization that the public is so easily fooled by numbers framed out of the context of the whole.
Happens all the time. People only sort information in the context of the picture they want to frame in their mind.
CharlieDigital said:I'm kind of depressed this morning and a little bit in shock.
I was speaking with my boss last night and it was apparent that he readily bought into all of the sound bites which are out there on Obama. He was on every talking point which negatively framed his experience (in fact, he didn't even know that Obama was an IL legislator...as if he was a "community organizer" one day and a US Senator the next (seriously)). He thought McCain's stance on taxes would save the country more money (according to the Tax Policy Center, it won't). He called out Obama for his 130 "Present" votes, but did not understand the strategic usage of the "Present" vote nor did he know the context of the 130 (it's out of some 4000 total votes).
He bought into the talking points about how Obama has been running for the presidency since he was in the US Senate, failing to see that in the 109th Congress, Obama only missed 1.9% of the votes while McCain missed 9% of the votes. Then of course, in the 110th Congress, he railed against Obama for missing 45.5% of the votes, but he didn't realize that McCain lead everyone with 63.8% missed votes.
It was sad because this guy is very well educated, he's wired and I felt that he should have known better on most of these talking points which have framed Obama as a know nothing, do nothing senator. It was a sad realization that the public is so easily fooled by numbers framed out of the context of the whole.
Did you correct him and what did he say after that?
Stoney Mason said:
Exactly. Anyone who's changing their mind from Obama to McCain after that lame convention wasn't gonna vote Obama anyways..
There is no such thing as an "undecided" voter at this stage IMO. They are just waiting for information to back up what they already believe..
~Devil Trigger~
In favor of setting Muslim women on fire
like every 4 years, we thank god for NY and CA :lol
Stoney Mason
Banned
Cloudy said:
There is a lot of truth in this statement. I think some people sort of fall into the trap of thinking that "undecided" means unbiased. They aren't the same thing.
I'm getting really aggravated by one of my friends who doesn't seem to think Obama has any shot at all at being elected.
His current away message reads "McCain/Palin Blowout '08"
This friend was pulling for Obama earlier in the year. He's a "fair weather fan" that switched sides once he decided Obama had no shot. He just wants to vote for a winner.
I sent him over to fivethirtyeight.com, and electoral-vote.com. But he's so set on the belief that America is racist, that he doesn't believe it.
I showed him the party ID numbers, and he said "well, isn't there a crop of new young liberal voters every year?"
Bah.
His current away message reads "McCain/Palin Blowout '08"
This friend was pulling for Obama earlier in the year. He's a "fair weather fan" that switched sides once he decided Obama had no shot. He just wants to vote for a winner.
I sent him over to fivethirtyeight.com, and electoral-vote.com. But he's so set on the belief that America is racist, that he doesn't believe it.
I showed him the party ID numbers, and he said "well, isn't there a crop of new young liberal voters every year?"
Bah.
Fragamemnon
Member
~Devil Trigger~ said:
They get Texass and all of the old core confederate states minus Virginia, so it evens out.
VanMardigan
has calmed down a bit.
AniHawk said:
You really think what he said makes sense? You really think McCain/Bush have gotten a free pass on Iraq? Looking at an electoral map where a black Democrat leads a white war veteran, you really think the Republicans haven't felt the effects of a terrible Bush administration?
Now, I can understand if you personally feel the Republican brand should be worse off, but to suggest that Bush/McCain are on the same level as four years ago, then attribute it to race (which was triggered by a post linking a scandal in Michigan to the Democratic party's chances there, NOT to Obama because of his race) is laughable at best. Why do you think Obama is STILL favored to win this election?
Frank the Great
Banned
Fatalah said:
Show him this:
http://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/graphs/graph_Pres08_WTA.cfm
It's the most accurate election predictor. Also, fivethirtyeight.com.
The Blue Jihad
Member
CharlieDigital said:I'm kind of depressed this morning and a little bit in shock.
I was speaking with my boss last night and it was apparent that he readily bought into all of the sound bites which are out there on Obama. He was on every talking point which negatively framed his experience (in fact, he didn't even know that Obama was an IL legislator...as if he was a "community organizer" one day and a US Senator the next (seriously)). He thought McCain's stance on taxes would save the country more money (according to the Tax Policy Center, it won't ($2.9 trillion in cuts for Obama, $4.2 trillion for McCain)). He called out Obama for his 130 "Present" votes, but did not understand the strategic usage of the "Present" vote nor did he know the context of the 130 (it's out of some 4000 total votes).
He bought into the talking points about how Obama has been running for the presidency since he was in the US Senate, failing to see that in the 109th Congress, Obama only missed 1.9% of the votes while McCain missed 9% of the votes. Then of course, in the 110th Congress, he railed against Obama for missing 45.5% of the votes, but he didn't realize that McCain lead everyone with 63.8% missed votes.
It was sad because this guy is very well educated, he's wired and I felt that he should have known better on most of these talking points which have framed Obama as a know nothing, do nothing senator. It was a sad realization that the public is so easily fooled by numbers framed out of the context of the whole.
Fuck, man, I had to do the same damn thing with one of my girlfriend's relatives. I had to show her the proper tax cut information. Most of what she knew about the "Present" votes was what the Republican propaganda has been spewing and not how it was used as a strategic vote on crappy bills. And she had no idea that the US Senate was only in session for around 140 days a year so *everyone* in there had only served 140 days before doing anything in any given year.
I'm hoping she read the emails, because...fuck. I know I can turn her to Obama. Hell, she and her family wanted Huckabee originally, and aren't terribly happy with McCain. So...yeah.
CharlieDigital
Banned
Rugasuki said:
I corrected him on every point. I showed him the data that most of the talking points against Obama have been framed out of context. Like I said, he's a smart guy and very reasonable. But it was like every time I shot down one talking point which was framed against Obama based on insufficient context, he'd bring up another...it's amazing how much distortion is out there on Obama outside of PoliGAF
It has me thinking that Obama has done a terrible job framing his own experience. Why not get it out there that he was an IL state legislator? He really doesn't tout this enough since I think a lot of people think he went from "community organizer" to the US Senate. Why not focus on his work as a lawyer and a professor at UC? They've really dropped the ball on the whole experience issue, in my opinion and haven't really defined -- for the general public -- what the "community organizer" label really means.
Of course, I could just be delusional in thinking that my presentation of facts on his talking points swayed him to any degree; after all, he does live in Utah :lol He was still bitter about Romney. I told him to do a write in :lol
minus_273 said:
And the other 2 years, the Senate was under Republican control.
It makes passing/writing the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 and the Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act even more impressive.
What did McCain do in the same amount of time in his first few years in the senate? Voted against MLK, Jr. day and passed no bipartisan (or otherwise) legislation.
Fragamemnon
Member
Fatalah said:
Sounds like the kind of weak-minded, fetal-position assuming Democrat that is so used to getting beat that they just assume that they will lose. Not much you can do for those people except point them to polls that will show otherwise in a week after the bounce fades and we likely return to the Obama +2 steady state that we were in before the conventions.
I can't stand liberals on the internet like that. The only ones I dislike even more are the dirty hippies that like marches and protests that are more about themselves protesting than actually demonstrating against something in an effective way.
Guy Legend
Member
HylianTom said:
I'd rather see Obama/Biden massacre the Republicans come election night. Take that Fox news, and stupid right wing talk radio.
ryutaro's mama
Member
minus_273 said:
And neither does being a gangster/thug.
Because, of course, everyone who EMULATES that appearance is by definition a criminal, confirmed.
Fragamemnon
Member
Republican talk radio hacks will not cry a tear if McCain loses, trust me. They'll be given total license to rail on "the government" and "the administration" for everything-no more tiptoeing or apologizing around Bush dumbassery anymore.
VanMardigan
has calmed down a bit.
As of right now, I don't think there's any reason to doubt that Obama can get more than 300 electoral votes. That should be enough to be considered a rout. Not Bill Clinton-level rout, but respectable still.
Elections rarely are blowouts, and I said above, there's no reason right now to think this one won't be a sizable win. In any case, to equate the current elections to racism based on a Kilpatrick reference (which had nothing to do with race) was a stupid thing to do. I don't think I'm wrong there.
Elections rarely are blowouts, and I said above, there's no reason right now to think this one won't be a sizable win. In any case, to equate the current elections to racism based on a Kilpatrick reference (which had nothing to do with race) was a stupid thing to do. I don't think I'm wrong there.
VanMardigan said:
For this to be possible, he'd have to get OH, CO, and VA. I see him picking up one (and maybe NV too), but not more.
I'd like to see MT and ND turn though. For extra craziness.
EDIT: Actually, I'm not sure why MT can't go blue this year. Two Democratic senators and a Democratic governor? And the state's red?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked