• 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.

PolliGaf 2012 |OT5| Big Bird, Binders, Bayonets, Bad News and Benghazi

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Downhome

Member
demon said:
Then again if McCain, why not Clinton.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't personally care as long as she is up for it just like I was perfectly fine with McCain. I just can already hear the yelling about her age. I likely wouldn't even vote for her and I think that's a stupid thing to even bring up.
 
T

Trurl

Banned
Even if Obama wins, this election has been a disappointment. I had big hopes that this would be an election about class inequality but, inspite of Romney helping Obama make that case, it hasn't panned out. It's also been very disappointing for foreign policy.
 
L

Lambtron

Unconfirmed Member
Incognito said:
RQpwT8
Click to expand...
I am surprised it's that low here (Fargo, ND). It feels like I've seen that many ads just watching the first two World Series games. There have been several commecial breaks nightly which are literally all made up of ads for the Senate race here. I honestly have no idea how it's close, and I'm going to be disgusted if Rick Berg gets voted in. The guy is a fucking slumlord. He's implied he's a "Washington outsider" despite the fact that he's been a Congressman since 2011, and Heidi Heitkamp has never held national office. The bulk of his campaign has been trying to tie Heidi to Obama's policies, despite the fact that he voted with Boehner 100% of the time. The guy is a total Republican toadie. He's horrible. I can't believe anyone would vote for the fucking scum bag for anything. Yet here we are, about to send him to the Senate. North Dakota, I'm fucking embarassed.
 
C

ClovingWestbrook

Banned
Trurl said:
Even if Obama wins, this election has been a disappointment. I had big hopes that this would be an election about class inequality but, inspite of Romney helping Obama make that case, it hasn't panned out. It's also been very disappointing for foreign policy.
Click to expand...

We're never going to have a campaign strictly about class inequality. It doesn't strike home with many of the independents. Also, Occupy Wall-street hasn't really helped the cause for those independent voters.
 
R

Rocket Scientist

Member
Trurl said:
Even if Obama wins, this election has been a disappointment. I had big hopes that this would be an election about class inequality but, inspite of Romney helping Obama make that case, it hasn't panned out. It's also been very disappointing for foreign policy.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I'm also disgusted by the lack of any kind of Occupy type movement and the media completely failing to address anything that actually matters. The complacent people are more to blame however. Their silence is mystifying. Where is the anger at the inequality we're facing? Where is the anger at romney fucking tax rate? Where is the fucking anger at anything that isn't black or Obamacare?! Fuck.
 
C

ClovingWestbrook

Banned
Rocket Scientist said:
Agreed. I'm also disgusted by the lack of any kind of Occupy type movement and the media completely failing to address anything that actually matters. The complacent people are more to blame however. Their silence is mystifying. Where is the anger at the inequality we're facing? Where is the anger at romney fucking tax rate? Where is the fucking anger at anything that isn't black or Obamacare?! Fuck.
Click to expand...

OWS hasn't helped the cause. I supported them in the beginning but no longer.
 
A

Angry Grimace

Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
Xdrive05 said:
So if Romney loses, who do you think will be on the ticket in 2016? (Both Pub and Dem)
Click to expand...

I don't see them abandoning the hardline conservative bent at all given that it worked for the most part. They'll just trot out someone just like Romney with darker skin.
 
T

TacticalFox88

Banned
Xdrive05 said:
So if Romney loses, who do you think will be on the ticket in 2016? (Both Pub and Dem)
Click to expand...

I expect the GOP to double down on the crazy, personally. It's just way too easy to throw Romney under the bus, and they will.

Democrats need SEVERAL back up plans, because I seriously doubt Hillary is going to run. She's tired of all the bullshit in politics.
 
R

Rocket Scientist

Member
ClovingWestbrook said:
OWS hasn't helped the cause. I supported them in the beginning but no longer.
Click to expand...
OWS put the matter of inequality front and center in the news cycle. Everyone was talking about it at one point. They failed to do anything else, sure, but during the beginning they managed to start the conversation. That's why I said an OWS type movement and not OWS itself. They managed to ruin the momentum they had and got caught up fighting the police instead of the things they started out fighting. It's infuriating that nobody is talking about Romney's taxes and wealth inequality at all however. Everyone's counting fucking horses and bayonets.
 
C

ClovingWestbrook

Banned
Rocket Scientist said:
OWS put the matter of inequality front and center in the news cycle. Everyone was talking about it at one point. They failed to do anything else, sure, but during the beginning they managed to start the conversation. That's why I said an OWS type movement and not OWS itself. They managed to ruin the momentum they had and got caught up fighting the police instead of the things they started out fighting. It's infuriating that nobody is talking about Romney's taxes and wealth inequality at all. Everyone's counting fucking horses and bayonets.
Click to expand...

Well I suppose it's just more difficult to talk about the inequality because on one side you'll be labeled a socialist, capitalism hating commie by conservatives, the economy is picking up so that also makes it less of a valuable talking point, and I have a feeling that many independents not only would disagree with it but don't want to hear about people complaining. While I agree that it's a conversation that needs to be had and a talking point that should be played loudly, I would guess that polling from Dems just show it isn't worth it.
 
S

Sirpopopop

Member
The GOP will double down the crazy.

My own internal profiling of the Republican voter as evinced by the exclusive super secret Sirpopopop Model suggests that the modern day GOP is more extreme than it was in the past.

My model as conducted by internal polls and adjusted using my super secret formula state that this profile consists of the following:

-60% voters who are focused solely on Abortion Rights. "It must be outlawed across all levels. The baby's life is sacred, because its innocent. The mother is just some sinful harlot."
-99% voters are against LGBT rights. "Those 'people' are just icky y'know."
- 100% for gun rights. "Need to protect my land against those dirty minorities."
- 100% for states rights. Let the states decide what's best for them (racism).
- 100% against poors. "Did you know that people on welfare and food stamps own fancy home entertainment centers, nice cars, and all sorts of inessential luxury goods? Totally true, why I know a guy who knows a guy. I see these people all the time! I can't give you any names or anything, but but I just know these people."
 
C

ClovingWestbrook

Banned
Puddles said:
What made you stop supporting them? Because I'm kind of on the same page. I completely agree with wanting to reduce inequality, but OWS as an organization was just hilariously inept.
Click to expand...

Yep. They started off in a good place but then they just came across as spoiled hipsters who were pissed off at authority, unorganized, no platform, no leader to truly represent them when there was negative press, and didn't seem to live in reality. My best friend was a huge Bam's supporter in 2008 (when I was conservative and voted McCain). He is totally unhappy with Obama and has gone full OWS. IMO there is room for both capitalism/free enterprise AND regulation in this country. It doesn't have to be one or the other and to me, it seems that OWS wants to get rid of capitalism altogether.

Now, they still do some good but they have just lost all of that positive momentum and publicity with their behavior. It's one thing to try and bring focus to class inequality but its a whole different thing to actually do so by stopping people from going to work, hating on the rich without distinguishing those who pay their fair share and those who don't. I am just tired in general of the movement.
 
R

Rocket Scientist

Member
ClovingWestbrook said:
Well I suppose it's just more difficult to talk about the inequality because on one side you'll be labeled a socialist, capitalism hating commie by conservatives, the economy is picking up so that also makes it less of a valuable talking point, and I have a feeling that many independents not only would disagree with it but don't want to hear about people complaining. While I agree that it's a conversation that needs to be had and a talking point that should be played loudly, I would guess that polling from Dems just show it isn't worth it.
Click to expand...
It's possible they are too afraid to bring it up, sure. It wouldn't be surprising and you're right the climate in the US is certainly very hostile to anything that might be interpreted as socialism. Everytime I read a right wing opinion article they cite how median income etc is down and what not though. How about Dem's cite how the stockmarket is up, how corporate profits are up, how the rich are even richer, despite the middle class having less money? And how about they show why corporations and the rich are getting richer while everyone else suffers? Seems like such a no brainer, yet people would probably still react negatively and say ''that's socialism!'' or class warfare. Such bullshit.
 
S

syllogism

Member
Since Gallup expects 2012 electorate to be +1 R, based on all their polls this month, I think it's likely that Romney will remain ahead by 2-6 points on their tracker until the election day. It's clearly a methodological difference that can't just be explained by their likely voter screen as Romney is doing well even among all registered voters.
 
R

RDreamer

Member
sillymonkey321 said:
HELPDENIED_20121026_112036.jpg


i like it.
Click to expand...

Isn't this incredibly misleading? I read the stuff posted in that other thread and from what I understand the requests for help were issued earlier in the day when the initial mob was happening. They were denied, and the consulate was pretty safe from that attack. When the actual mortar firing happened, later in the day (or I guess early the next morning), there was backup there. A quick response team from Tripoli and a friendly Libyan force had arrived.
 
E

Effect

Member
There was no central leadership for OWS from what I could tell. To many independent groups. Social media is great at getting people together but there still needs to be someone or people to provide overall direction. There was a window I felt for things to really be pushed when CEOs started getting really scared and started hiring more security for their homes. However that would have taken a group to get more destructive. That never happening always surprised me given the numbers at play and in how many cities demonstrations appeared. Not harming a person but damage to one of the CEO's homes, etc. It would have caused a backlash right away but it could have scared people in power to start changing things I feel or at least seriously addressing them instead of waiting things out.
 
C

chaostrophy

Member
Puddles said:
What made you stop supporting them? Because I'm kind of on the same page. I completely agree with wanting to reduce inequality, but OWS as an organization was just hilariously inept.
Click to expand...

I've thought for a long time that what OWS needs is focus on...WS, in other words the finance industry, rather than all sources of inequality. Inequality is too wide-ranging and multifaceted of an issue for an upstart movement to try to tackle on all fronts. Reigning in the banks would be a low-hanging fruit.
 
L

Loudninja

Member
RDreamer said:
Isn't this incredibly misleading? I read the stuff posted in that other thread and from what I understand the requests for help were issued earlier in the day when the initial mob was happening. They were denied, and the consulate was pretty safe from that attack. When the actual mortar firing happened, later in the day (or I guess early the next morning), there was backup there. A quick response team from Tripoli and a friendly Libyan force had arrived.
Click to expand...
If its on Fox its always misleading.
 
C

coldfoot

Banned
While I agree inequality is a problem, I also think it should be approached from an economic standpoint and was disappointed on Obama not expanding on it. It could have been dumbed down enough for the average voter in few points.

1. Demand is king, more important than taxes, the rich will just hoard their money when there is no demand, which means no profitable businesses to invest in.
2. The rich won't spend as much as the middle class as a percentage of their income. While Obama makes 100 times more than an average family, he can't drive 100 cars at once, or go out to eat in 100 restaurants.
3. The solution to generate more demand is to make sure middle classes have more money. When they do, they will spend it unlike the rich who just will sit on it. When the middle class spends more money, the rich will start to spend more money by investing, since there is now more demand.
4. Back to first point, taxes will not deter investors when there is demand. Therefore trickle down does not work but a bottom up approach does.
 
C

ClovingWestbrook

Banned
chaostrophy said:
I've thought for a long time that what OWS needs is focus on...WS, in other words the finance industry, rather than all sources of inequality. Inequality is too wide-ranging and multifaceted of an issue for an upstart movement to try to tackle on all fronts. Reigning in the banks would be a low-hanging fruit.
Click to expand...

That and student loan reform would've been fantastic. Like others said, OWS had a chance, a better chance to make an impact than has existed in decades and instead they squandered it. They refused to actually ORGANIZE. They refused to create an actual platform. They refused to stop coming across as spoiled children with pie in the sky dreams. OWS had the same type of chance as the Tea Party, except the Tea Party was organized from the beginning due to the strings pulling the movement.
 
R

richiek

steals Justin Bieber DVDs
So... Romney's supposed to be a moderate, right?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelangelo-signorile/romney-some-gays-are-actu_b_2022314.html

Waas reveals how, after gays and lesbians in Massachusetts won the right to marry in 2003, Governor Romney wouldn't allow the Registry of Vital Records and Statistics to revise birth certificate forms for babies born to same-sex couples. The plan was to have the box for "father," for example, relabeled "father or second parent." But according to documents obtained by Waas, Romney rejected the plan, demanding the agency continue using old forms. Romney then demanded hospitals get permission from his office each time a child was born to a same sex-couple in order to cross out, with a pen, the label "father" or "mother," and write-in, with a pen, "second parent." (Romney also required gay male parents to get a court order before any birth certificate was issued.)

Those children would then go through life with birth certificates that marked them as strange, abnormal, less than everyone else, punished because Romney didn't approve of their parents. As a Department of Health attorney warned Romney, the children would be disadvantaged and would have trouble applying to school or getting drivers licenses as adults, particularly in a post-9/11 world where they might be considered security risks, having birth certificates that appeared altered. It was a "violation of existing statutes," the attorney warned Romney. But Romney waved off the warnings, not caring about the the legal, psychological or personal ramifications.

Romney hadn't even previously fathomed that gay people had children. Boston Spirit magazine reported last month that when gay activists met with him in his office in 2004, as Romney was backing a failed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in the state, Romney remarked, "I didn't know you had families." Julie Goodridge, lead plaintiff in the landmark case that won marriage rights for gays and lesbians before the Supreme Judicial Court, asked what she should tell her 8-year-old daughter about why the governor would block the marriage of her parents. According to Goodridge, Romney responded,"I don't really care what you tell your adopted daughter. Why don't you just tell her the same thing you've been telling her the last eight years."

Romney's retort enraged a speechless Goodridge; he didn't care, and by referring to her biological daughter as "adopted," it was clear he hadn't even been listening. By the time she was back in the hallway, she was reduced to tears. "I really kind of lost it," says Goodridge. "I've never stood before someone who had no capacity for empathy."
Click to expand...

What a fucking scumbag.
 
G

GashPrex

NeoGaf-Gold™ Member
Veritas_ said:
I searched and didn't see anything, apologies if it's a repost.

Why are States so Red and Blue?

NYTimes Op piece from Steven Pinker. A few stretches and assumptions but a fun read.
Click to expand...

Interesting article - its one of the things I find so interesting about this election and elections in general. I think social psychology plays itself out in fairly predictable ways during elections.

Plus, at its core what makes somebody choose republican or democrat? In many ways it a binary choice, but in others its a very complicated matrix of choices. Most people probably don't agree with 100% of either party on the issues - is it simply which one you agree with more issues? which one agrees with issues that are more important to you? which ones agrees with more issues that you believe are important in america? the world? Who do you personally like more and trust? Does peer pressure/social acceptability play a role? Where you grew up? went to school?
 
C

coldfoot

Banned
These days, choosing D or R is as binary and clear cut as the moral choice system in the two Infamous games. Good -> Blue -> D, Evil -> Red -> R.
 
O

Owzers

Member
watching Romney's big economic speech is making me ill. Romney 2012 is going to be heartbreaking. He's got a good campaign right now, the lies sound so good. I'm for big change, real change, Obama is for small things, chasing shiny objects.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
ClovingWestbrook said:
That and student loan reform would've been fantastic. Like others said, OWS had a chance, a better chance to make an impact than has existed in decades and instead they squandered it. They refused to actually ORGANIZE. They refused to create an actual platform. They refused to stop coming across as spoiled children with pie in the sky dreams. OWS had the same type of chance as the Tea Party, except the Tea Party was organized from the beginning due to the strings pulling the movement.
Click to expand...

I really don't want to offend anybody, because I think you all make reasonable points, but I feel like all the OWS critique is a sterling example of liberal second-guessing of other liberals. If you think OWS needed a leader, why didn't you go down to your local camp and be that leader? Meetings are open attendance and all the work is done by volunteers. It's a way more open structure than trying to work for the Democratic Party! I joined a group that was trying to do exactly this, directing some of Occupy Oakland's energy into practical political causes. It wasn't very successful because OO had a lot of anarchists running things, but it would certainly have been more successful if I had worked harder at it.

You can't wish for progressive leaders. If you want progressive grassroots organizing, you need to go out and do progressive grassroots organizing. If you want it to express a specific belief, then you should express that specific belief. If you want people to fight for stuff, you need to go fight for it! Otherwise you're just "waiting for a more convenient season." Because the reality is that most of us have computers and college educations -- in the class war, we're all "white moderates" until we put up a tent.
 
A

apana

Member
Plinko said:
LOL--this alone should show anybody that Rasmussen is a terrible polling group.
Click to expand...

Wow this is crazy, Rasmussen is showing Romney and Obama tied in Wisconsin. Like I said earlier that is Mitt Romney's only other real option if Ohio fails and he is putting money into the state. Don't know what is going on at some of these polling firms, either they are prophets or just horrible at their jobs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
Poligaf 2017 |OT| It Almost Isn't Fair
9
4K
Bonen no Max'd replied
Top Bottom