• 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 USA General Elections (DAWN OF THE VEEP)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Gaborn

Member
Tamanon said:
Yup, and we're back to the original argument that we've been over many a time already tonight.:lol Although one might argue that to a lot of people, it's not about exluding homosexuals, but preserving what they believe marriage is. It's basically the whole Pro-Choice/Pro-Life bit. Partisans on boths sides view it in the negative ligth of the others' position.

It's deeper than that though. A closer analogy in my view is segregated school systems. One all nice and respected, rich, and (needless to say unfortunately) white. The other using older textbooks, with more children in fewer schools, poor, it does the job with the same amount of money for more students and it looks almost the same, you're getting the same amount of money... but it's clearly not the same situation.

Anyway, it's 3:30 in the morning so I'm pretty much out for the night.
 

Mumei

Member
Tamanon said:
Yup, and we're back to the original argument that we've been over many a time already tonight.:lol Although one might argue that to a lot of people, it's not about exluding homosexuals, but preserving what they believe marriage is. It's basically the whole Pro-Choice/Pro-Life bit. Partisans on boths sides view it in the negative ligth of the others' position.

Heh.

The definitional argument of what marriage is is by far the weakest; the best deconstruction I've seen of it was in Richard Mohr's The Long Arc of Justice... I was going to try to distill it down, because it really makes a strong argument for marriage equality, but I realized pretty quickly it isn't possible. Being a professor of philosophy, he takes a very deliberative, reasoned approach that I really enjoy. In all honesty, his book is a big reason why I feel so strongly about civil unions not being good enough. It's too bad that I'm unable to find it online, though, otherwise I'd link to the chapter in question.
 

Tamanon

Banned
Philosophy is really hard to portray to the American people, especially when you're using philosophy as a counter to a belief born by many in faith.:lol
 

Fatalah

Member
I know this has probably been said here before, but I am absolutely disgusted at how "the right" is reacting to Obama's decision about public funding.

On the train this morning, I spotted the front page of the NY Post (Yeah I know), which had a headline of Obama's "Flipflop". They called it a "Barackflip".

And as the informed know, Obama never even changed his mind. Even if he did, why is Barack changing his mind MORE of a story than McCain changing his? I mean, did the Post put McCain's 10 flips-in-one-week story on the front page? Nope.

I'm just fed up is all--at the mainstream journalism community. I mean, if the NY Post wants to do right by the public, they'd put a story on the front page with the headline "Obama Makes Key Decision on Funding". A few pages in, you have an article reporting the events of what happened. A few more pages in, then you could have the "spin" on the story. The right or left wing spin, I don't care what your rag is spewing.

See, I'm not just talking about the right-wing media. As much as I enjoy MSN, they are in danger of becoming as laughable as FOX news if they're not careful.

I suppose what bothers me is the potential power the NY Post has. One measley headline leads to random New Yorkers saying "well ya know....that Obama is a flippah! A FLIPPAH!"
 
Tamanon said:
Jesse would be so much more respectable still if he hadn't become a hardcore Truther:(

I did not know this. I saw Ventura speak when I was at university, and I thought he was great. This makes me sad.

About this election, I'll probably vote with my party (I'll watch the debates, but I already know what the candidates feel on the issues important to me so I don't imagine my mind will change), but I'm just bored/annoyed/disgusted with both sides at this point. I think it is mostly due to the way the media cover things (24 hour news is a plague), but everything that happens gets spun by both sides and I don't have a fucking clue who is right. The biggest disappointment for me was the town hall meetings.

I use the past tense because I'm pretty sure they just aren't going to happen anytime soon, and even if they do, I'm sure it won't be fair and honest. I was hopeful until I read both sides claiming the other was unwilling to commit and was backing out. Both sides are just using the usual politics and I'm already tired of this election.

Edit: No offense to Fatallah, but I can't stand people that rip "Faux" News. Does anyone actually like or trust any of those 24 hour news channels? I'm not defending Fox, but they are all jokes to me.
 

schuelma

Wastes hours checking old Famitsu software data, but that's why we love him.
Fatalah said:
I know this has probably been said here before, but I am absolutely disgusted at how "the right" is reacting to Obama's decision about public funding.

On the train this morning, I spotted the front page of the NY Post (Yeah I know), which had a headline of Obama's "Flipflop". They called it a "Barackflip".

And as the informed know, Obama never even changed his mind. Even if he did, why is Barack changing his mind MORE of a story than McCain changing his? I mean, did the Post put McCain's 10 flips-in-one-week story on the front page? Nope.

I'm just fed up is all--at the mainstream journalism community. I mean, if the NY Post wants to do right by the public, they'd put a story on the front page with the headline "Obama Makes Key Decision on Funding". A few pages in, you have an article reporting the events of what happened. A few more pages in, then you could have the "spin" on the story. The right or left wing spin, I don't care what your rag is spewing.

See, I'm not just talking about the right-wing media. As much as I enjoy MSN, they are in danger of becoming as laughable as FOX news if they're not careful.

I suppose what bothers me is the potential power the NY Post has. One measley headline leads to random New Yorkers saying "well ya know....that Obama is a flippah! A FLIPPAH!"


It's not just "the right". It's virtually the entire political world saying he changed his mind.
 

DEO3

Member
It's not just "the right". It's virtually the entire political world saying he changed his mind.

Well, he did.

But there's more to it than that. For the past 30 or so years there have only been two ways to fund a presidential campaign: you either accept public financing, paid for by our tax dollars, or you go crawl on your hands and knees to K-Street and beg lobbyists for money. This is why every presidential candidate for the past 30 years has chosen public financing. He won't take money from lobbyists, so he pledged to go with public financing.

But over the past year Obama has been blessed with a third way to fund his campaign: a fuck-ton of small donors. So while he may have broken his pledge, I'd argue that he didn't not break the spirit of it, as his campaign is the first to be truly financed by the public. The internet is an amazing thing, it really is the great equalizer.
 

gkryhewy

Member
prodystopian said:
Edit: No offense to Fatallah, but I can't stand people that rip "Faux" News. Does anyone actually like or trust any of those 24 hour news channels? I'm not defending Fox, but they are all jokes to me.

Fox is by far, by far, by far the most slanted mainstream news source that has even a pretense of balance.
 

schuelma

Wastes hours checking old Famitsu software data, but that's why we love him.
Politico article on the reality of GOP 527's:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11220.html

The truth is that, less than five months before Election Day, there are no serious anti-Obama 527s in existence nor are there any immediate plans to create such a group.

Conversations with more than a dozen Republican strategists find near unanimity in the belief that, at some point, there will be a real third-party effort aimed at Obama.

But not one knows who will run it, who will pay for it, what shape it will eventually take or when such a group may form.


Another veteran Republican who works closely with outside conservative groups is even more blunt: “[Democrats] think another Swift Boat is coming – and it’s not.”
 
schuelma said:
Politico article on the reality of GOP 527's:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11220.html
The news just keeps getting better and better!

Obama is bringing a gun to a cane fight.

22961605.jpg
 

GhaleonEB

Member
The Lamonster said:
The news just keeps getting better and better! Obama is bringing a gun to a cane fight.
As Kerry said yesterday, the Swiftboat group wasn't around even in July - they formed in August, and were very well funded. And considering 1) that won the Republicans the election and 2) McCain has publicly given them free reign, people are insane or delusional if they think it won't be at least as bad this time around.
 

Door2Dawn

Banned
schuelma said:
Politico article on the reality of GOP 527's:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11220.html

The truth is that, less than five months before Election Day, there are no serious anti-Obama 527s in existence nor are there any immediate plans to create such a group.

Conversations with more than a dozen Republican strategists find near unanimity in the belief that, at some point, there will be a real third-party effort aimed at Obama.

But not one knows who will run it, who will pay for it, what shape it will eventually take or when such a group may form.


Another veteran Republican who works closely with outside conservative groups is even more blunt: “[Democrats] think another Swift Boat is coming – and it’s not.”
If you think there wont be swift boat and smear campaigns before the election in november,then you are just as delusional as that veteran Republican.
 
GhaleonEB said:
As Kerry said yesterday, the Swiftboat group wasn't around even in July - they formed in August, and were very well funded. And considering 1) that won the Republicans the election and 2) McCain has publicly given them free reign, people are insane or delusional if they think it won't be at least as bad this time around.
Even if a new Swiftboat group didn't form this election, this is what the GOP deserves for fighting dirty in 2004.

Taste it.
 

schuelma

Wastes hours checking old Famitsu software data, but that's why we love him.
GhaleonEB said:
As Kerry said yesterday, the Swiftboat group wasn't around even in July - they formed in August, and were very well funded. And considering 1) that won the Republicans the election and 2) McCain has publicly given them free reign, people are insane or delusional if they think it won't be at least as bad this time around.


Not according to this article:

"The Swift Boat Veterans were unveiled at National Press Club event on May 4 that year. By late June, PFA was not only up and running but had launched ads in some key states. And a handful of well-funded Democratic third-party groups had already spent tens of millions of dollars at that point hammering Bush and the GOP. "
 

schuelma

Wastes hours checking old Famitsu software data, but that's why we love him.
Door2Dawn said:
If you think there wont be swift boat and smear campaigns before the election in november,then you are just as delusional as that veteran Republican.

I'm sure there will be something, but there is no evidence it will be anything nearly as bad as 04. Read the article I linked.
 
Qwerty710710 said:
Clinton is going to campaign with Obama next Friday.

In related news...

Hillary Clinton's fund-raising has run so dry she'll likely have to eat the entire $11 million loan she gave her campaign, sources said.

Clinton's push to retire her debt - more than $20 million including her loan - is going so poorly that getting help paying it down has become a major point of negotiation with Barack Obama, who wants Clinton to help smooth things with angry Clinton die-hards, sources said.

"I have raised nothing since the campaign ended," one Clinton money person said.

That's left the Clintons in a bind, choosing between stiffing themselves, major creditors like pollster Mark Penn or thousands of small vendors.

Sources said the fact they've all but written off their own loan suggests they're favoring the local caterers and printers they used for campaign events.

--

Clinton's best shot at retiring her debt now lies with Obama, who has built the best political cash machine ever seen. Sources said she wants Obama to tap his full grass-roots ATM, but negotiations were ongoing.

At stake for Team Obama is getting Clinton out working for him as soon as possible. "She will not go out until they have an agreement," said a senior source, adding that a deal certainly would be reached.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...6-19_hillary_clinton_struggles_with_debt.html
 
Anyone who doesn't think the 527s will come out hard against Obama this fall is delusional. They're salivating at the prospects of it all. The media will ride Obama hard for a few days on this but come the fall when the 527s come out in force, the media will play dumb as usual.
 

scorcho

testicles on a cold fall morning
maximum360 said:
Anyone who doesn't think the 527s will come out hard against Obama this fall is delusional. They're salivating at the prospects of it all. The media will ride Obama hard for a few days on this but come the fall when the 527s come out in force, the media will play dumb as usual.
my thinking is that a few 527s were awaiting the McCain response before they started to tepidly organize around their uninspiring candidate -

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/na...n_impending_war_of_words/srvc=home&position=0

and now they have a likewise tepid green light.

straight talkin'!
 

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
Question:

Has Obama ever said something along the lines of "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman" where it is clear he is talking about it legally, rather than from a religious lens?

Every time people say he's against gay marriage and for civil unions they point to a quote like that, but it is never clear if he's talking about his personal religious beliefs or his beliefs from a legal standpoint.

Has he ever indicated that he believes gay marriage should be referred to differently than heterosexual marriage under the law?
 

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
I ask this because I know that he is personally "pro-life" but in the world of politics, he is pro-choice, because his choice is a religiously-inspired one.
 

AmishNazi

Banned
scorcho said:

You're energizing a block of voters every time it goes on the ballot. These people will also most likely vote Republican. 2+2=4 more years of hell. Just look at the 2004 elections, or in other words how Bush went from losing Ohio to winning it.
 

scorcho

testicles on a cold fall morning
AmishNazi said:
You're energizing a block of voters every time it goes on the ballot. These people will also most likely vote Republican. 2+2=4 more years of hell. Just look at the 2004 elections, or in other words how Bush went from losing Ohio to winning it.
what do you mean by 'your' homosexual relationships?
 

Cyan

Banned
AmishNazi said:
You're energizing a block of voters every time it goes on the ballot. These people will also most likely vote Republican. 2+2=4 more years of hell. Just look at the 2004 elections, or in other words how Bush went from losing Ohio to winning it.
Things change slowly, but they're changing. "Oh teh noes gay marriage!" ain't gonna work this time.
 

AmishNazi

Banned
scorcho said:
what do you mean by 'your' homosexual relationships?

I'm not a homosexual so I really say our homosexual relationships now can I? I think marriage is a idiotic institution (for anyone) originally created by old rich men to keep their young hot partners from leaving them or fucking other people.

Cyan said:
Things change slowly, but they're changing. "Oh teh noes gay marriage!" ain't gonna work this time.

I don't know. I lost that argument in 2004. I said it wouldn't matter and that Bush was too much of a idiot for it to help keep him in office....

Thing is civil unions are a great first step to making society as a whole more comfortable with it. After enough civil unions you build up that relatability factor for society. It's hard to vote against something when you see how happy Susan and Sally are, or how happy John and Joe are.
 

Cyan

Banned
AmishNazi said:
I think marriage is a idiotic institution (for anyone) originally created by old rich men to keep their young hot partners from leaving them or fucking other people.
Got it backwards there dude.
 

GhaleonEB

Member
Exclusive: MoveOn To Close Its 527 In Response To Obama's Candidacy

MoveOn, the advocacy group supporting Barack Obama, has decided to permanently shutter its 527 operation, partly in response to the Illinois Senator's insistence that such groups should not spend on his behalf during the general election, I've learned from the group's spokesperson.

MoveOn's decision, which will dramatically impact the way it raises money on Obama's behalf, is yet another sign of how rapidly Obama is taking control of the apparatus that's gearing up on his behalf.

By shuttering its 527, MoveOn is effectively killing its ability to raise money in huge chunks from labor unions, foundations, and big donors who would give over $5,000. The decision doesn't mean MoveOn will stop spending on Obama's behalf. Instead it will raise money exclusively with its political action committee, whose average donation is below $50 and will even be raising money with things like bake sales starting this weekend.

To put this in perspective, MoveOn's 527 raised $20 million for the general election in 2004 -- and at least half of that came from donations over $5,000.

"This is an affirmation that we, like Senator Obama, believe that this election can be won by ordinary Americans giving small donations," MoveOn spokesperson Ilyse Hogue told me.

MoveOn's 527 has been dormant since 2005, but the group had held open the option of starting it up it for the 2008 election -- until Obama's success with small donors showed that huge sums could be raised without it.

The move could also make it tougher politically for John McCain and the GOP to benefit from 527s, which can raise money in unlimited sums, on his side. While he has generally disapproved of such activity, he recently said that he couldn't control negative ads by such groups.

"The hope is that Republicans will match this, so that the voices of ordinary Americans can drive this election," Hogue said.

Late Update: It should be noted that the group has not traditionally been driven by large donations during non-presidential race times. It has raised $122 million since it opened in 1998 -- and only 10% came in donations of over $5000. But during the 2004 race, of course, it was another story.
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/moveon_to_close_its_527.php

AmishNazi said:
I'm not a homosexual so I really say our homosexual relationships now can I? I think marriage is a idiotic institution (for anyone) originally created by old rich men to keep their young hot partners from leaving them or fucking other people.
s1szmp.gif
 
AmishNazi said:
You're energizing a block of voters every time it goes on the ballot. These people will also most likely vote Republican. 2+2=4 more years of hell. Just look at the 2004 elections, or in other words how Bush went from losing Ohio to winning it.
You speak as if gay people were the ones putting things like "Should marriage be defined as between a man and a woman in our constitution?" on ballots.
 

AmishNazi

Banned
Cyan said:
Got it backwards there dude.

Not when marriage was created. Now, fuck yeah women own it. Back then it was something most of them were forced into.

JoshuaJSlone said:
You speak as if gay people were the ones putting things like "Should marriage be defined as between a man and a woman in our constitution?" on ballots.

Didn't mean it to sound that way. Just this issue being on the ballot is like flag burning anymore.
 
AmishNazi said:
You're energizing a block of voters every time it goes on the ballot. These people will also most likely vote Republican. 2+2=4 more years of hell. Just look at the 2004 elections, or in other words how Bush went from losing Ohio to winning it.
Imagine how energized gay people and real progressives would be if Obama actually, you know, practiced what he preached about hope and change. I recently had lunch with a friend of mine who's an agent in Hollywood. His circle is made up mostly of wealthy, successful gay entertainment biz people. None of them are giving a dime to the Obama campaign because of his stance on marriage equality. In fact, he's so disillusioned that he was mulling voting for McCain out of sheer anger with the idea that being wealthy would protect him from any ills a McCain presidency would yield. I don't agree with this stance, and yes, this is an anecdote and one small slice of the population. But it does make me wonder what Obama is losing by not taking a principled, progressive stand here.
 

Gaborn

Member
GaimeGuy said:
Question:

Has Obama ever said something along the lines of "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman" where it is clear he is talking about it legally, rather than from a religious lens?

Every time people say he's against gay marriage and for civil unions they point to a quote like that, but it is never clear if he's talking about his personal religious beliefs or his beliefs from a legal standpoint.

Has he ever indicated that he believes gay marriage should be referred to differently than heterosexual marriage under the law?

Yes, he did here. Notably:
You know, I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, but I also think that same-sex partners should be able to visit each other in hospitals, they should be able to transfer property, they should be able to get the same federal rights and benefits that are conferred onto married couples.

In other words, civil unions is NOT the same as a "married couple."

Mercury Fred - Honestly, after hiring Donnie McClurkin for his campaign we shouldn't be surprised.
 
Is the stiq of joy banned from the OT?

McCain campaign ad features Medal of Honor music, composer 'dismayed'

A recent ad for John McCain's presidential campaign features music from Medal of Honor: European Assault, which GamePolitics believes may be the first time video game music has been used as such. The awkward thing here is that the composer of the piece, Christopher Lennertz, is a passionate Barack Obama supporter who is "dismayed" by the use of his composition in the ad.

Lennertz doesn't own the rights to the piece, but he did release a statement saying that he wishes he'd been consulted before his music was used to promote a campaign that he does not agree with. He says he respects McCain, but has "never supported his candidacy nor his agenda for this country." Lennertz concludes, "As an artist, business owner, and patriot, I proudly support Senator Barack Obama for the Presidency of the United States of America..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1OUxBvlLr0
 

Cyan

Banned
Mumei said:
Heh.

The definitional argument of what marriage is is by far the weakest; the best deconstruction I've seen of it was in Richard Mohr's The Long Arc of Justice... I was going to try to distill it down, because it really makes a strong argument for marriage equality, but I realized pretty quickly it isn't possible. Being a professor of philosophy, he takes a very deliberative, reasoned approach that I really enjoy. In all honesty, his book is a big reason why I feel so strongly about civil unions not being good enough. It's too bad that I'm unable to find it online, though, otherwise I'd link to the chapter in question.
Ultimately, I don't think there are any rational, logical arguments against gay marriage. Generally, the stance comes first, in emotional irrational form (gay people are gross!), and the justification comes later, in pseudo-logical argument.

Any truly logical argument against gay marriage must presuppose that gayness is bad or wrong. If you accept that that is the case, then your argument holds together... but don't be surprised if people think you're a bigot.

This is the main reason I changed my stance on the whole issue a while back.
 

Cyan

Banned
AmishNazi said:
I don't know. I lost that argument in 2004. I said it wouldn't matter and that Bush was too much of a idiot for it to help keep him in office....
Indeed, I guess the real question is just how quickly things are changing. It'll be interesting to see what happens here in CA with this proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot. I don't think there's much chance of it passing. This is only... what, 8 years since the last anti-gay marriage thing passed on the state ballot?

Thing is civil unions are a great first step to making society as a whole more comfortable with it. After enough civil unions you build up that relatability factor for society. It's hard to vote against something when you see how happy Susan and Sally are, or how happy John and Joe are.
Yeah, I think that will eventually turn things around. But it's hard to fault the gay people who don't want to wait.
 

sangreal

Member
adamsappel said:
Is the stiq of joy banned from the OT?

McCain campaign ad features Medal of Honor music, composer 'dismayed'

A recent ad for John McCain's presidential campaign features music from Medal of Honor: European Assault, which GamePolitics believes may be the first time video game music has been used as such. The awkward thing here is that the composer of the piece, Christopher Lennertz, is a passionate Barack Obama supporter who is "dismayed" by the use of his composition in the ad.

Lennertz doesn't own the rights to the piece, but he did release a statement saying that he wishes he'd been consulted before his music was used to promote a campaign that he does not agree with. He says he respects McCain, but has "never supported his candidacy nor his agenda for this country." Lennertz concludes, "As an artist, business owner, and patriot, I proudly support Senator Barack Obama for the Presidency of the United States of America..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1OUxBvlLr0

I guess GamePolitics needs to do better research. We already had a thread on Frank Lautenberg using MoH music:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=302124
 

Gaborn

Member
Mercury Fred said:
Yep, I've always been grossed out by "ex-gay" McClurkin's inclusion Obama's campaign.

Definitely. he claims he "disagrees" with McClurkin, but as far as I know he's still an official campaigner for Obama, I just think he's trying to have it both ways, appealing to the homophobia in the black community while condemning homophobia publicly. He can say what he wants, but he's still keeping a bigot on his campaign.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom