Support NeoGAF

[monchi-kun]

but why argue with them? what will it accomplish?

just wait to see if it has an effect, and if it does then you can rub your dick in their faces. until then though bickering about it like this is ridiculous and ruins the thread. needs to stop.

this is NeoGAF dude

 

[Tamanon]

BTW, I think the funniest thing about these articles about Clinton's gun answer not being relevant is that it leads the way for many tasteless Vince Foster jokes.

 

[kablooey]

I don't know if this has already been posted, but there's a pretty brilliant satire on Obama's recent "troubles" in courting the rural vote at Daily Kos. I laughed 'til I couldn't laughs no more. :lol And then I weeped for the state of our media.

 

[CoolTrick]

this i would say is a very reasonable statement. debatable, as always, as how long this will hurt him, but reasonable none the less. all i was pointing out was that citing the Ras Clinton+1 as evidence the bitter remark has already begun to impact him is false. Will it impact him? probably. has that shown up yet? no.

BUT ACCORDING TO GALLUP DAILY TRACKING AFTER ONE DAY IT HASN'T HURT HIM. WHAT IN THE WORLD ARE YOU THINKING SUGGESTING THAT? YOU FAIL! YOU LOSE! YOU'RE WRONG!


...*eyes*

Hillary's lie about Bosnia has permanently hurt more MORE than the Wright controversy did Obama.

Well that's hugely debateable. Personally, I don't think it did. People that didn't like the Bosnia lie were more likely already to believe that the Clintons were not honest and not trustworthy. Also, frankly, Bosnia is not going to turn up in the general election because it's not effective enough. "Hillary Clinton is a liar" is not going to do much, because it's something that helps Clinton's electability argument: What you see is what you get. It gained traction because the ongoing narrative of Clinton is her honesty and trustworthiness. Clinton will never win the honesty vote against McCain, and never was going to.

I think Bittergate is more of Obama's version of Bosnia than it being as bad as Rev. Wright. Watch, I think bittergate will turn off people who were already not sold on Obama's message or were undecided -- which of course still hurts him but is obviously not going to be the difference between him winning and losing the state. I also don't expect it to have much impact on the general if Obama is the nominee because I doubt it's effective enough. However, it's still hurtful because it's bad for Obama with Reagan Democrats. Clinton can still win against McCain even if she was perceived as dishonest versus McCain. Democrats can't win without a sizeable portion of Reagen Dems.

Rev. Wright hurt him across the board. It directly undercut his core campaign values. It made people disillusioned. IT's STILL being talked about a month later. That shit was majorly damaging, and just because SOME of his numbers recovered doesn't mean the impact wasn't majorly felt.

 

[CoolTrick]

but why argue with them? what will it accomplish?

It's something about their sheer smugness in their utter delusion. It's outrageous.

 

[Tamanon]

BUT ACCORDING TO GALLUP DAILY TRACKING AFTER ONE DAY IT HASN'T HURT HIM. WHAT IN THE WORLD ARE YOU THINKING SUGGESTING THAT? YOU FAIL! YOU LOSE! YOU'RE WRONG!


...*eyes*



Well that's hugely debateable. Personally, I don't think it did. People that didn't like the Bosnia lie were more likely already to believe that the Clintons were not honest and not trustworthy. Also, frankly, Bosnia is not going to turn up in the general election because it's not effective enough. "Hillary Clinton is a liar" is not going to do much, because it's something that helps Clinton's electability argument: What you see is what you get. It gained traction because the ongoing narrative of Clinton is her honesty and trustworthiness. Clinton will never win the honesty vote against McCain, and never was going to.

I think Bittergate is more of Obama's version of Bosnia than it being as bad as Rev. Wright. Watch, I think bittergate will turn off people who were already not sold on Obama's message or were undecided -- which of course still hurts him but is obviously not going to be the difference between him winning and losing the state. I also don't expect it to have much impact on the general if Obama is the nominee because I doubt it's effective enough. However, it's still hurtful because it's bad for Obama with Reagan Democrats. Clinton can still win against McCain even if she was perceived as dishonest versus McCain. Democrats can't win without a sizeable portion of Reagen Dems.

Rev. Wright hurt him across the board. It directly undercut his core campaign values. It made people disillusioned. IT's STILL being talked about a month later. That shit was majorly damaging, and just because SOME of his numbers recovered doesn't mean the impact wasn't majorly felt.

Wait...."Hillary Clinton is a liar" will *HELP* her electability argument? Now you've really gone off the deep end.

 

[reilo]

Well that's hugely debateable. Personally, I don't think it did. People that didn't like the Bosnia lie were more likely already to believe that the Clintons were not honest and not trustworthy. Also, frankly, Bosnia is not going to turn up in the general election because it's not effective enough. "Hillary Clinton is a liar" is not going to do much, because it's something that helps Clinton's electability argument: What you see is what you get.

Oh, good god.

Did you just really? I mean, wow? Really?

I'm bailing out.

 

[CoolTrick]

Wait...."Hillary Clinton is a liar" will *HELP* her electability argument? Now you've really gone off the deep end.

I was about to edit and reword that.

I meant, the GOP trying to paint Hillary Clinton as a liar isn't going to do much and helps her electability argument in saying that she is not as vulnerable to Republican attacts like Obama is. Hillary is not going to win or lose the Presidency over McCain based on whether or not people believe she's more honest than McCain. It's just an area that is ceded to McCain. He wins the "says what he believes" issue.

On the other hand, painting the Democratic nominee as elitist and out of touch HAS sunk Democratic contenders.

 

[typhonsentra]

I don't know if this has already been posted, but there's a pretty brilliant satire on Obama's recent "troubles" in courting the rural vote at Daily Kos. I laughed 'til I couldn't laughs no more. :lol And then I weeped for the state of our media.

:lol That's pretty good. A little too close to the SNL CNN debate parody with the orgasm joke at the end but still funny and observant.

 

[Tamanon]

I was about to edit and reword that.

I meant, the GOP trying to paint Hillary Clinton as a liar isn't going to do much and helps her electability argument in saying that she is not as vulnerable to Republican attacts like Obama is. Hillary is not going to win or lose the Presidency over McCain based on whether or not people believe she's more honest than McCain. It's just an area that is ceded to McCain. He wins the "says what he believes" issue.

So....that's a good thing? I'm still not seeing any way it's a positive.

"Oh, everyone knows she's dishonest, so it obviously helps her electability"

You're basically saying that Republican attacks won't be as effective because they will be the truth and won't have to distort things. That's a rather silly and asinine stance to take.

Plus, who said they wouldn't paint Hillary as elitist? SHE MADE $109 MILLION. She hasn't worked an honest job in over 20 years.

 

[bob_arctor]

I've eagerly awaited the day that the first viable black Presidential candidate would be painted as elitist and out of touch with the average American.


Truly this is a momentous time in our nation's history.

 

[Tamanon]

I've eagerly awaited the day that the first viable black Presidential candidate would be painted as elitist and out of touch with the average American.


Truly this is a momentous time in our nation's history.

Black people have finally arrived!

 

[CoolTrick]

So....that's a good thing? I'm still not seeing any way it's a positive.

"Oh, everyone knows she's dishonest, so it obviously helps her electability"

It helps her argument about her electability over Obama's.

The GOP has sunk Democratic contenders in the past by painting them as elitist and out of touch. That's something Obama is particularly vulnerable to.

If a few months from now, if Hillary wins the nomination, the Republicans aren't going to dig up Bosnia again to try and paint the Clintons as dishonest to much success because everyone already has an opinion on whether or not she's dishonest. Something like Bosnia can't take her down.

Plus, who said they wouldn't paint Hillary as elitist? SHE MADE $109 MILLION. She hasn't worked an honest job in over 20 years.

Most of that money was made by Bill.

And, besides, the PERCEPTION is that Hillary isn't an elitist. Infact, just today I think she was seen chugging down a cold beer at an Indiana bar to help bollster this image. :lol

 

[Tamanon]

It helps her argument about her electability over Obama's.

The GOP has sunk Democratic contenders in the past by painting them as elitist and out of touch. That's something Obama is particularly vulnerable to.

If a few months from now, if Hillary wins the nomination, the Republicans aren't going to dig up Bosnia again to try and paint the Clintons as dishonest to much success because everyone already has an opinion on whether or not she's dishonest. Something like Bosnia can't take her down.

So then you'd agree that anything done in the primary will not be used in the general election because people already have opinions? Thus these scandals actually HELP Obama's electability!

OK, if you're basing the perception of people by the photo ops they arrange, you're a moron, pure and simple. Enjoy your crushing disappointment come convention time.

 

[CoolTrick]

So then you'd agree that anything done in the primary will not be used in the general election because people already have opinions?

Here's a piece of advice:

How about trying to stop winning arguments and try to actually have a political discussion? You and I both know I didn't say that and you and I both know what you said doesn't make any sense, so why spin my words like that, when that's so clearly off the mark from what I was saying?

 

[reilo]

Here's a piece of advice:

How about trying to stop winning arguments and try to actually have a political discussion?

The irony... I cannot take it anymore.

 

[CoolTrick]

OK, if you're basing the perception of people by the photo ops they arrange

In the Obama bubble.

In the Obama bubble.

In the Obama bubble.

Yes, the perception of Hillary not being an elitist was clearly arrived at by me because she was at a bar today. *eyes*

I'm not going to debate with someone that is only interested in discussing to "win" the argument, and is foregoing all sense to do it.

 

[Tamanon]

Here's a piece of advice:

How about trying to stop winning arguments and try to actually have a political discussion? You and I both know I didn't say that and you and I both know what you said doesn't make any sense, so why spin my words like that, when that's so clearly off the mark from what I was saying?

No, what you said was that people know about Clinton being a liar, they know about her being conniving. You said this means that Republicans won't attack her effectively on this in the general election.

What I'm trying to understand is why that doesn't apply to information about Obama that comes out during the Primary. I'm trying to understand your logic that you are using.

I apologize for trying to "win" an argument. I thought that was the reason you argue, to convince people of your point? Although I'd wager I've actually had more political discussion than you throughout these threads.

 

[Lefty42o]

It's something about their sheer smugness in their utter delusion. It's outrageous.

it appears you need one

 

[CoolTrick]

No, what you said was that people know about Clinton being a liar, they know about her being conniving. You said this means that Republicans won't attack her effectively on this in the general election.

What I'm trying to understand is why that doesn't apply to information about Obama that comes out during the Primary. I'm trying to understand your logic that you are using.

You need to use your common sense. You need to, ya know, have some trace of objectability. I'm not willing to spell shit out for you time and time again because you're unwilling to voluntarily think of a point you don't like or agree with.

Rev. Wright directly undercuts Obama's core campaign ideals. If you genuinely believe that Bosnia is as damaging in a general election as Rev. Wright, then by all means think this. I'm getting tired of arguing with people who cannot be willing to be even remotely objective. It'd be fine if you genuinely disagreed, but I don't sense that, I just see you trying to win the argument out of Obama loyalty or annoyance of me or whatever. If you genuinely disagreed, you wouldn't be arguing the way you are now.

 

[reilo]

You need to use your common sense. You need to, ya know, have some trace of objectability. I'm not willing to spell shit out for you time and time again because you're unwilling to voluntarily think of a point you don't like or agree with.

Rev. Wright directly undercuts Obama's core campaign ideals. If you genuinely believe that Bosnia is as damaging in a general election as Rev. Wright, then by all means think this. I'm getting tired of arguing with people who cannot be willing to be even remotely objective. It'd be fine if you genuinely disagreed, but I don't sense that, I just see you trying to win the argument out of Obama loyalty or annoyance of me or whatever. If you genuinely disagreed, you wouldn't be arguing the way you are now.

Is it too late to proclaim that CoolTrick is the best satirical writer around?

 

[Lefty42o]

You need to use your common sense. You need to, ya know, have some trace of objectability. I'm not willing to spell shit out for you time and time again because you're unwilling to voluntarily think of a point you don't like or agree with.

Rev. Wright directly undercuts Obama's core campaign ideals. If you genuinely believe that Bosnia is as damaging in a general election as Rev. Wright, then by all means think this. I'm getting tired of arguing with people who cannot be willing to be even remotely objective. It'd be fine if you genuinely disagreed, but I don't sense that, I just see you trying to win the argument out of Obama loyalty or annoyance of me or whatever. If you genuinely disagreed, you wouldn't be arguing the way you are now.

:lol what? wheres your objectability?

i could cut and paste your replies back to you my freind. which is why you yourself get banned just like people like me. most of us here are partisans. get it thru your head. just like you are for hillary.

so chill the fuck out and shut the fuck up

 

[Tamanon]

In other words, you don't have an answer. You could've just said "How many angels dance on the head of a pin?" instead. Especially since you're randomly assigning points of contention to me that I have never intimated or uttered, yet conveniently glossed over any negative comment I've made about the Obama campaign, because it doesn't fit your narrative.

Really, is there an Obama Bubble, or are you just seeing the foamy wall and assuming it's not your own?

 

[reilo]

BTW, the word you are looking for is objectivity. Not objectiablity. Is that like determining your electability based on your objectivity?

 

[CoolTrick]

In other words, you don't have an answer.

No, you're just not willing to listen.

When you try and write off my arguments like this:

So then you'd agree that anything done in the primary will not be used in the general election because people already have opinions?

That tells me you're not actually interested in a discussion. That was just bullshit. No one said that, no one thinks that, and that obviously isn't true, so why try and spin my arguments like that?

 

[Azih]

he GOP has sunk Democratic contenders in the past by painting them as elitist and out of touch

Wait wait, and you *don't* think that Clinton is even more vulnerable to that? I mean good lord Clinton started out as a lawyer while Obama started as a social worker.

 

[CoolTrick]

BTW, the word you are looking for is objectivity. Not objectiablity. Is that like determining your electability based on your objectivity?

:lol I know the word, thank you, I'm sure if you look in my post history as many people here love to do, you'll see I know the word and have used it correctly. But I made a typo since we've been talking about "Electability".

 

[Lefty42o]

No, you're just not willing to listen.

When you try and write off my arguments like this:



That tells me you're not actually interested in a discussion. That was just bullshit. No one said that, no one thinks that, and that obviously isn't true, so why try and spin my arguments like that?

no we are all listening. we just DON'T AGREE!!!.

now is that so hard a concept? people see things differently and screaming and saying we aint listening will not change the fact we dissagree.

understand?

 

[CoolTrick]

Wait wait, and you *don't* think that Clinton is even more vulnerable to that?

Do I think the person who is not being perceived as elitist and out of touch in the primary season is more vulnerable to being spun as elitist and out of touch than the one that already IS spun like that?

No, I don't, no.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

Wait wait, and you *don't* think that Clinton is even more vulnerable to that? I mean good lord Clinton started out as a lawyer while Obama started as a social worker.

The Clintons have lived in mansions for the last 30 years, and in the past eight have made $109 million.

Hillary Clinton had multiple homes as a child. Obama is in no risk of being painted as elitist. One of those "thinker" types sure, but I doubt elitist.

 

[CoolTrick]

no we are all listening. we just DON'T AGREE!!!.

There's disagreeing and discussing and then there's bullshitting either deliberately (Tamanon) or out of naivete (reilo) to try and win an argument.

 

[Azih]

Do I think the person who is not being perceived as elitist and out of touch in the primary season is more vulnerable to being spun as elitist and out of touch than the one that already IS spun like that?

No, I don't, no.

Don't you know that Republican spinners aren't even paying attention to Clinton right now? Do you think that if Clinton wins she won't fact the same kind of spin ESPECIALLY since the Republicans will have a field day with a Democratic candidate who won through the use of elite super delegates over the rank and file in a situation where Republicans don't even have that kind of a concept?

 

[mashoutposse]

BUT ACCORDING TO GALLUP DAILY TRACKING AFTER ONE DAY IT HASN'T HURT HIM. WHAT IN THE WORLD ARE YOU THINKING SUGGESTING THAT? YOU FAIL! YOU LOSE! YOU'RE WRONG!


...*eyes*



Well that's hugely debateable. Personally, I don't think it did. People that didn't like the Bosnia lie were more likely already to believe that the Clintons were not honest and not trustworthy. Also, frankly, Bosnia is not going to turn up in the general election because it's not effective enough. "Hillary Clinton is a liar" is not going to do much, because it's something that helps Clinton's electability argument: What you see is what you get. It gained traction because the ongoing narrative of Clinton is her honesty and trustworthiness. Clinton will never win the honesty vote against McCain, and never was going to.

I think Bittergate is more of Obama's version of Bosnia than it being as bad as Rev. Wright. Watch, I think bittergate will turn off people who were already not sold on Obama's message or were undecided -- which of course still hurts him but is obviously not going to be the difference between him winning and losing the state. I also don't expect it to have much impact on the general if Obama is the nominee because I doubt it's effective enough. However, it's still hurtful because it's bad for Obama with Reagan Democrats. Clinton can still win against McCain even if she was perceived as dishonest versus McCain. Democrats can't win without a sizeable portion of Reagen Dems.

Rev. Wright hurt him across the board. It directly undercut his core campaign values. It made people disillusioned. IT's STILL being talked about a month later. That shit was majorly damaging, and just because SOME of his numbers recovered doesn't mean the impact wasn't majorly felt.

Your act has finally jumped the shark :lol

 

[reilo]

There's disagreeing and discussing and then there's bullshitting either deliberately (Tamanon) or out of naivete (reilo) to try and win an argument.

Then there's the CoolTrick way of bullshitting his naivete onto others like projectile vomit.

 

[scorcho]

There's disagreeing and discussing and then there's bullshitting either deliberately (CoolTrick) or out of naivete (CoolTrick) to try and win an argument.

my 2 cents

 

[CoolTrick]

The Clintons have lived in mansions for the last 30 years, and in the past eight have made $109 million.

Hillary Clinton had multiple homes as a child. Obama is in no risk of being painted as elitist. One of those "thinker" types sure, but I doubt elitist.

You're looking at the reality, not the perception.

C'mon guys. Politics 101: Perception is the only reality that matters.

Don't you know that Republican spinners aren't even paying attention to Clinton right now? Don't you think that if Clinton wins she won't fact the same kind of spin ESPECIALLY since the Republicans will have a field day with a Democratic candidate who won through the use of elite super delegates over the rank and file in a situation where Republicans don't even have that kind of a concept?

You're wrong about something.

She's not going to get the same kind of spin, no. If Clinton is the nominee, she'll get a different spin. Which one you'd rather deal with is up to the person.

Personally, I think what sums it up is that in a general election Obama's ceiling is higher but his floor is lower.

 

[CoolTrick]

I don't say shit I don't genuinely believe to try and win an argument. That's why I'm not present in every argument that takes place in this thread. The ones I AM present for I'm obviously pretty visible, but there are plenty of times I don't say anything because (I've been banned :lol -- no) I don't genuinely believe in the argument against what is being said.

 

[mashoutposse]

In other words, you don't have an answer. You could've just said "How many angels dance on the head of a pin?" instead. Especially since you're randomly assigning points of contention to me that I have never intimated or uttered, yet conveniently glossed over any negative comment I've made about the Obama campaign, because it doesn't fit your narrative.

Really, is there an Obama Bubble, or are you just seeing the foamy wall and assuming it's not your own?

perception, reality, blah blah

 

[CoolTrick]

perception, reality, blah blah

:lol :lol :lol This is why some of you people are such sheep. Who SAYS that in a political discussion thread? "Perception, reality, blah blah blah?"

That's the whole fucking game, mister.

 

[Triumph]

You know guys, I have to say that if we're in the "Obama Bubble" then I think it's a preferable place to wherever CoolTrick is... Planet Hilltron or something, I would guess. Probably not enough oxygen there for his brain.

 

[lopaz]

Personally, I think what sums it up is that in a general election Obama's ceiling is higher but his floor is lower.

So basically you'd rather go for a somewhat "safer" option than believe in HOPE AND CHANGE? Typical

 

[Thunder Monkey]

:lol :lol :lol This is why some of you people are such sheep. Who SAYS that in a political discussion thread? "Perception, reality, blah blah blah?"

That's the whole fucking game, mister.

And Obama knows how to play the game.

That's why the Wright stuff has had so little effect, and why he's kept the lead after it.

He plays the game better, and cleaner then Clinton. While she's trying to paint him as an elitist personally, he's going after her elitism politically. She claims to be for the people, and yet she votes on legislation that forces the people to bail out corporations.

He plays the game better, he speaks with a charismatic tongue, and he's at the least respected by most.

 

[Tamanon]

You're looking at the reality, not the perception.

C'mon guys. Politics 101: Perception is the only reality that matters.



You're wrong about something.

She's not going to get the same kind of spin, no. If Clinton is the nominee, she'll get a different spin. Which one you'd rather deal with is up to the person.

Personally, I think what sums it up is that in a general election Obama's ceiling is higher but his floor is lower.

I dunno about you, but I'll go for the higher ceiling every time.

Lower ceiling, higher floor got us Bush.

 

[Amir0x]

I always find it fascinating how being a bold face liar is seen as a net positive about Hilary to some people.

These cynical, assbackwards Americans are so mentally unstable that they would prefer to give the country to a habitual liar with Bipolar merely because it's "how politics works" and we should "accept that" and be happy we know what we're getting.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

I always find it fascinating how being a bold face liar is seen as a net positive about Hilary to some people.

These cynical, assbackwards Americans are so mentally unstable that they would prefer to give the country to a habitual liar with Bipolar merely because it's "how politics works" and we should "accept that" and be happy we know what we're getting.

Unnerving isn't it?

 

[Triumph]

Unnerving isn't it?

No, that's just Americans being Americans for you. CoolTrick is unnerving.

 

[Tamanon]

At least when APF tries to make a point he uses intellectually dishonest ones, not flat-out stupid ones.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

At least when APF tries to make a point he uses intellectually dishonest ones, not flat-out stupid ones.

Need I remind you of the nipple gif?

 

[RubxQub]

As a general statement:

Why is it that there is nothing that these people can say that I agree with:

- SD
- APF
- Topsy
- CoolTrick

I'm sure I'm missing something...but beyond all logic... I never seem to agree with just about anything these people have to say.

I really don't think it has crap to do with me being an Obama supporter at all, either.

There must be some fundamental difference between the way I think and the way these guys think, because I just can never wrap my mind around why the hell someone would say half the shit these people do.

The way I interpret data is completely different, the way I think politics should be run are different, my views on current events are different.

Wtf is this?

 

[bishoptl]

Well this page was 10 minutes wasted.