Lol wtf. Thought the democrats where the more classy of the 2 parties in their adds and campaigning but i guess i was wrong. Its funny, i have to admit, its also extremely childish though. The (arguably) most powerfull job in the world, and then people try win it with adds like this. Usa deserves to loose its leading postion to china tbh.
The swiss feel offended by this vid btw, so guess will hear more about it.
Wait, wait. You thought that the party that, 1) inferred that Romney was a felon, 2) ran an ad showing Paul Ryan rolling granny off of a cliff, and 3) ran an add inferring that Romney killed another guy's wife was the classier of the two parties? What have republicans done that comes anywhere near any of these three things?
Do we really need to go down memory lane of the past two presidential elections?
You know what the difference is between the things you mention and the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth? The GOP and Fox News gave the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth all the benefit of doubt and legitimacy they could ask for. Or when Sarah Palin accused Obama of "palling around with terrorists", she didn't use a second-hand campaign contributor. No, she stood right in front of a massive audience and told them her political opponent for President of the United States was a friend of terrorists.
The sad thing is, you probably agreed with her.
The main difference I remember about the Swiftboat ads is that they were (at least the first one which started it all) almost entirely quotes directly from Kerry himself. Thats a lot more legit than to say "Romney killed my wife becuase the firm he ran for several years closed my steel mill 2 years after Romney left the firm. Oh and I and my wise also had insurance from other sources after that. Oh, and she was diagnosed until 6 years after the closing of the mill"
On August 23 2012 04:44 Sanctimonius wrote: (seriously, how did draft-dodging, cocaine-snorting Bush manage to attack the fucking decorated war veteran for his record!?),
I'm officially done with the Republic Party. I can SORT OF understand banning abortion and restricting womens rights in that regard. SORT OF. But banning them from fighting on the front lines? That's straight up fucking sexism.
NO ABORTION IN CASES OF RAPE OR INCEST. The proposal for a “human life amendment” passed without a hitch — and without any exceptions for rape or incest. The committee didn’t stop there; they also adopted language that would ban drugs that end pregnancy after conception, which could potentially include Plan B, the “morning after pill.”
SALUTE TO MANDATORY ULTRASOUNDS. The GOP officially praises states’ “informed consent” laws that force women to undergo unnecessary procedures, require waiting periods and endure other measures meant to discourage them from getting an abortion. One such law receiving a “salute” was crafted by committee head McDonnell, who passed a notorious mandatory ultrasound requirement after he signed an unsuccessful bill to require an even more invasive transvaginal probe ultrasound during an abortion consultation.
NO LEGAL RECOGNITION OF SAME-SEX COUPLES. The committee embraced extreme anti-gay language, even rejecting a proposal to endorse civil unions for gay couples after vehement objections from Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council and Romney adviser Jim Bopp, who called it a “counterfeit marriage.” The rejection of civil unions, along with the refusal to include a line affirming the legal equality of same-sex couples prompted the organization GOProud to declare, “Those who have engaged in this public platform fight have provided distraction from important issues and damaged Mitt Romney’s campaign.”
REPLICATE ARIZONA-STYLE IMMIGRATION LAWS. Kris Kobach, who wrote the now mostly invalidated immigration laws in Arizona and Alabama, pushed for language calling for a border fence, a national E-Verify system to make it harder for undocumented workers to find employment, the end of in-state tuition for illegal immigrants and an end to sanctuary cities. The committee overwhelmingly approved the proposals, as well as a line chastising the Department of Justice to halt the lawsuits against draconian immigration laws in Arizona, Alabama, South Carolina and Utah: “State efforts to reduce illegal immigration must be encouraged, not attacked.”
AUDIT THE FED. The pet project of Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) to audit the Federal Reserve has now been embraced as an official Republican goal. For the first time, the platform calls for an annual audit of the Federal Reserve. NO WOMEN IN COMBAT. The platform condemns “social experimentation” in the military, which covers everything from the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” to allowing officers to wear their uniforms in gay pride events to letting women serve on the front lines.
NO STATEHOOD, MORE GUNS FOR WASHINGTON DC. FRC’s Perkins, who recently blamed President Obama and the Southern Poverty Law Center for the shooting at FRC’s Washington headquarters, requested and received a section specifically urging the DC Council to expand gun rights. The same section also opposes DC statehood, which would allow the District to govern itself and put an end to Congressional attempts to impose abortion bans on DC.
NO NEW TAXES, EXCEPT FOR WAR. The platform calls for a Constitutional amendment requiring a super-majority to approve any tax increase, “with exceptions for only war and national emergencies.” It would also deliberately hobble future Congresses through a cap limiting all government spending to historical average percentage of GDP — “so that future Congresses cannot balance the budget by raising taxes.”
You know, I wonder if every person who votes/is planning on voting Republican were shown this, would they agree with it? I think many wouldn't. It'd be interesting to see how many voters are grossly misinformed on the policies of the people they elect into office. It's not like this article is lying or decieving, either, though it's obviously highlighting the more controversial positions the Republicans have chosen to take.
I always wonder how any sane person can vote Republican. Not that Democrats are angels, of course, but almost every Republican position is so revolting to me. Not just on social issues either, many of their economics positions can be proven inaccurate in a basic macroeconomics course(massive cuts on spending in times of large unempoyment? "Trickle Down Economics"? lol). And unfortunately I'm in Texas, so my vote doesn't mean shit here(one of the things I dislike about our electoral system-your vote only matters if you're in a swing state).
Of course, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but there is such a thing as a stupid opinion. When you think you can decide the lives of other people in ways that don't affect yours at all, when your economic policy has no foundation in facts or history, when you claim to be standing for freedom but are actually limiting people's rights, and when you want to make people who are wealthy wealthier while keeping the poor in poverty just for the sake of "economic freedom", I believe you have stupid opinions, because your opinions are not grounded in facts, at all. I can't wait for the younger generation to become the primary voters-Republicans will be forced to change or they'll be destroyed. The ridiculous voter ID laws are only delaying the inevitable for them.
On August 23 2012 04:44 Sanctimonius wrote: (seriously, how did draft-dodging, cocaine-snorting Bush manage to attack the fucking decorated war veteran for his record!?),
Just by quoting him. Thats all.
Kerry was just a really bad candidate with a bad platform.
Speaking of which, I'm wondering when the democrat party is going to revisit its platform.
Lol wtf. Thought the democrats where the more classy of the 2 parties in their adds and campaigning but i guess i was wrong. Its funny, i have to admit, its also extremely childish though. The (arguably) most powerfull job in the world, and then people try win it with adds like this. Usa deserves to loose its leading postion to china tbh.
The swiss feel offended by this vid btw, so guess will hear more about it.
Wait, wait. You thought that the party that, 1) inferred that Romney was a felon, 2) ran an ad showing Paul Ryan rolling granny off of a cliff, and 3) ran an add inferring that Romney killed another guy's wife was the classier of the two parties? What have republicans done that comes anywhere near any of these three things?
Do we really need to go down memory lane of the past two presidential elections?
You know what the difference is between the things you mention and the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth? The GOP and Fox News gave the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth all the benefit of doubt and legitimacy they could ask for. Or when Sarah Palin accused Obama of "palling around with terrorists", she didn't use a second-hand campaign contributor. No, she stood right in front of a massive audience and told them her political opponent for President of the United States was a friend of terrorists.
The sad thing is, you probably agreed with her.
The main difference I remember about the Swiftboat ads is that (at least the first one which started it all) was almost entirely quote directly from Kerry himself. Thats a lot more legit than to say "Romney killed my wife becuase the firm he ran for several years closed my steel mill 2 years after Romney left the firm. Oh and I and my wise also had insurance from other sources after that. Oh, and she was diagnosed until 6 years after the closing of the mill" Swiftboat ad: + Show Spoiler +
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phqOuEhg9yE
Because Swift Boat was just one advertisement right? You see how your video has the title "Sellout", and mine has the title "Why?".
"Why?" is the video that is actually relevant to the discussion.
These were flat out LIES regarding a highly-decorated veteran.
I live in Chicago and get the Chicago Tribune. It is a conservative, Republican-endorsing newspaper.
This is their main editor who served with John Kerry. This is what one of the Republicans own had to say about it. In my opinion the "Swiftboating" of John Kerry was basically the most audacious, brazen, disgusting political attack in our nation's history. There have been several low-blows, but this was disgusting, and it was on a highly-paid national television ad. To lie about a veteran's service, on a national scale, disgrace his service. Nothing compares. Nothing.
On August 23 2012 08:43 Falling wrote: Sometimes I really don't understand the roles of executive and legislative power in non-Parliamentary democracies.
What effect does the GOP approving the conservative platform on Romney's bid to become president? Does he have to adopt this platform? Is he involved in this? Or is this just a parallel set of promises from Congress/ Senate and has little to do with Romney.
This is not Romney's platform. This is what the party "in general" thinks. He does not have to abide by it at all. You will see that he has different stances on some things. For example, he has always been in favor of not outlawing abortion in the cases of rape, incest, or when the mother's life is in danger.
Lol wtf. Thought the democrats where the more classy of the 2 parties in their adds and campaigning but i guess i was wrong. Its funny, i have to admit, its also extremely childish though. The (arguably) most powerfull job in the world, and then people try win it with adds like this. Usa deserves to loose its leading postion to china tbh.
The swiss feel offended by this vid btw, so guess will hear more about it.
Wait, wait. You thought that the party that, 1) inferred that Romney was a felon, 2) ran an ad showing Paul Ryan rolling granny off of a cliff, and 3) ran an add inferring that Romney killed another guy's wife was the classier of the two parties? What have republicans done that comes anywhere near any of these three things?
Do we really need to go down memory lane of the past two presidential elections?
You know what the difference is between the things you mention and the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth? The GOP and Fox News gave the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth all the benefit of doubt and legitimacy they could ask for. Or when Sarah Palin accused Obama of "palling around with terrorists", she didn't use a second-hand campaign contributor. No, she stood right in front of a massive audience and told them her political opponent for President of the United States was a friend of terrorists.
The sad thing is, you probably agreed with her.
The main difference I remember about the Swiftboat ads is that (at least the first one which started it all) was almost entirely quote directly from Kerry himself. Thats a lot more legit than to say "Romney killed my wife becuase the firm he ran for several years closed my steel mill 2 years after Romney left the firm. Oh and I and my wise also had insurance from other sources after that. Oh, and she was diagnosed until 6 years after the closing of the mill" Swiftboat ad: + Show Spoiler +
This is their main editor who served with John Kerry. This is what one of the Republicans own had to say about it. In my opinion the "Swiftboating" of John Kerry was basically the most audacious, brazen, disgusting political attack in our nation's history. There have been several low-blows, but this was disgusting, and it was on a highly-paid national television ad. To lie about a veteran's service, on a national scale, disgrace his service. Nothing compares. Nothing.
Just out of curiosity, what part of that ad did you think was a lie? He did make some false statements about where he was sent and when and he definitely came back and testified against the US army which did benefit the enemy in a time of war.
EDIT: I see. Well, I think it is more audacious to come back and testify against your fellow soldiers while they are still in combat. Apparently many other Americans felt the same way. In my opinion, they shoulda just stuck to that and direct quotes from him. That was enough.
EDIT2: Anyway, we better not derail this thread too much from 2012, but I will agree that some of the other ads were shady. But I think the one I posted was legit and I wish they had stuck to that. The rest is a bunch of he-said she-said that I could never be certain to know the truth of since I wasn't there. But direct quotes from candiates do have a place.
Lol wtf. Thought the democrats where the more classy of the 2 parties in their adds and campaigning but i guess i was wrong. Its funny, i have to admit, its also extremely childish though. The (arguably) most powerfull job in the world, and then people try win it with adds like this. Usa deserves to loose its leading postion to china tbh.
The swiss feel offended by this vid btw, so guess will hear more about it.
Wait, wait. You thought that the party that, 1) inferred that Romney was a felon, 2) ran an ad showing Paul Ryan rolling granny off of a cliff, and 3) ran an add inferring that Romney killed another guy's wife was the classier of the two parties? What have republicans done that comes anywhere near any of these three things?
Do we really need to go down memory lane of the past two presidential elections?
You know what the difference is between the things you mention and the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth? The GOP and Fox News gave the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth all the benefit of doubt and legitimacy they could ask for. Or when Sarah Palin accused Obama of "palling around with terrorists", she didn't use a second-hand campaign contributor. No, she stood right in front of a massive audience and told them her political opponent for President of the United States was a friend of terrorists.
The sad thing is, you probably agreed with her.
The main difference I remember about the Swiftboat ads is that (at least the first one which started it all) was almost entirely quote directly from Kerry himself. Thats a lot more legit than to say "Romney killed my wife becuase the firm he ran for several years closed my steel mill 2 years after Romney left the firm. Oh and I and my wise also had insurance from other sources after that. Oh, and she was diagnosed until 6 years after the closing of the mill" Swiftboat ad: + Show Spoiler +
This is their main editor who served with John Kerry. This is what one of the Republicans own had to say about it. In my opinion the "Swiftboating" of John Kerry was basically the most audacious, brazen, disgusting political attack in our nation's history. There have been several low-blows, but this was disgusting, and it was on a highly-paid national television ad. To lie about a veteran's service, on a national scale, disgrace his service. Nothing compares. Nothing.
Just out of curiosity, what part of that ad did you think was a lie? He did make some false statements about where he was sent and when and he definitely came back and testified against the US army which did benefit the enemy in a time of war.
Do you not trust the Chicago Tribune? Because he lays it all out. Eye-witness testimony from someone who was there, explaining what was said and what was wrong about it.
The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth wrote several ads, television, books.
You want to which part of this particular ad is a lie?
All of it. Watch the video, before reading the articles if you like, and ask yourself how many people in that commercial actually served with John Kerry.
The video doesn't tell you, but the answer is none. Steve Gardner was with him for a short amount of time, during which he witnessed none of the incidents he talks about, nor any of the events surrounding John Kerry's medals -- something even he has admitted to after the ads were taken off the air. It is completely disingenuous from the very start. It might as well be Newt Gingrich talking, not Jim Werner, Former POW.
One guy claims it's been proven Kerry never went into Cambodia... there's no proof either way, but we know people went to Cambodia and the Tribune editor mentions their trips often went over the border (probably, because the border hardly existed from the sounds of it). One guy claims Kerry's CO didn't approve his purple heart -- that's complete hearsay. It's literally filled with baseless accusations from people who falsely represent themselves as having some sort of first-hand experience. It's about as blatant as it gets.
On August 23 2012 04:44 Sanctimonius wrote: (seriously, how did draft-dodging, cocaine-snorting Bush manage to attack the fucking decorated war veteran for his record!?),
Just by quoting him. Thats all.
I believe it was a little more than simply quoting Kerry. It was a well funded and organised character assassination attacking Kerry on what should have been his strength, his war record. I'm very surprised nobody ever seemed to question Bush on his war record to the same extent, though I guess he never presented himself as a veteran to gain votes.
On August 23 2012 08:43 Falling wrote: Sometimes I really don't understand the roles of executive and legislative power in non-Parliamentary democracies.
What effect does the GOP approving the conservative platform on Romney's bid to become president? Does he have to adopt this platform? Is he involved in this? Or is this just a parallel set of promises from Congress/ Senate and has little to do with Romney.
They have influence, but Romney isn't the head of his party yet. The platform is set by 100+ "insiders" who consist of mostly old people. They pass what they envision their party to be, but it by no means requires anyone to follow them. It's more like guidelines than actual rules. There are Republicans who disagree with all sorts of parts of the party platform, but they're still Republicans.
Honestly, if it wasn't for the social conservatism stuff, I bet 70%+ of America would be Republican. Their economic platform is bounds ahead of the Democrat platform.
On August 23 2012 10:04 BluePanther wrote: Honestly, if it wasn't for the social conservatism stuff, I bet 70%+ of America would be Republican. Their economic platform is bounds ahead of the Democrat platform.
Shhhhhhh... Don't tell them that! Not that democrats would believe you anyway.
Earlier, I was thinking about asking above whether an Obama loss would finally spur the democrats to take a hard look at their party and its platform -- particularly the economic elements. But then it occurred to me that what's more likely to happen is that democrats and liberals will throw Obama under the bus as being ineffective (not that I disagree) rather than revisiting and refreshing a 35-year-old playbook that hasn't given democrats much success nationally (just to be clear, I don't think that Clinton followed that playbook). Then again, if Obama loses this election, the democrat party is likely to be tarnished in the same way that the republican party was tarnished by Hoover. That might actually spur some soul-searching.,
On August 23 2012 10:04 BluePanther wrote: Honestly, if it wasn't for the social conservatism stuff, I bet 70%+ of America would be Republican. Their economic platform is bounds ahead of the Democrat platform.
Shhhhhhh... Don't tell them that! Not that democrats would believe you anyway.
Earlier, I was thinking about asking above whether an Obama loss would finally spur the democrats to take a hard look at their party and its platform -- particularly the economic elements. But then it occurred to me that what's more likely to happen is that democrats and liberals will throw Obama under the bus as being ineffective (not that I disagree) rather than revisiting and refreshing a 35-year-old playbook that hasn't given democrats much success nationally (just to be clear, I don't think that Clinton followed that playbook). Then again, if Obama loses this election, the democrat party is likely to be tarnished in the same way that the republican party was tarnished by Hoover. That might actually spur some soul-searching.,
The Democrats? Will never happen... they're too busy trying to block 3rd party candidates off the ballot and demand entitlement of the votes of left wing independents using scare tactics. :D
On August 23 2012 08:43 Falling wrote: Sometimes I really don't understand the roles of executive and legislative power in non-Parliamentary democracies.
What effect does the GOP approving the conservative platform on Romney's bid to become president? Does he have to adopt this platform? Is he involved in this? Or is this just a parallel set of promises from Congress/ Senate and has little to do with Romney.
They have influence, but Romney isn't the head of his party yet. The platform is set by 100+ "insiders" who consist of mostly old people. They pass what they envision their party to be, but it by no means requires anyone to follow them. It's more like guidelines than actual rules. There are Republicans who disagree with all sorts of parts of the party platform, but they're still Republicans.
Honestly, if it wasn't for the social conservatism stuff, I bet 70%+ of America would be Republican. Their economic platform is bounds ahead of the Democrat platform.
Probably more like 60%. But yea I'd say that's about right.
But the social conservatism stuff is there. It's active. It's not like they aren't acting on it. All across the states we've seen state legislatures legislate viciously against abortion in random and strange ways (because obviously they can't outright ban it). And it's not at all minor and simple to ignore. Although you and xDaunt are trying your darned hardest.
The fact is that there are plenty of corporatist and fiscally conservative democrats, but for some reason that gets ignored too. I honestly don't get it. How authoritarian do they need to be on social side before you stop supporting them? Because they're really trying to push that envelope at this point.
On August 23 2012 08:43 Falling wrote: Sometimes I really don't understand the roles of executive and legislative power in non-Parliamentary democracies.
What effect does the GOP approving the conservative platform on Romney's bid to become president? Does he have to adopt this platform? Is he involved in this? Or is this just a parallel set of promises from Congress/ Senate and has little to do with Romney.
They have influence, but Romney isn't the head of his party yet. The platform is set by 100+ "insiders" who consist of mostly old people. They pass what they envision their party to be, but it by no means requires anyone to follow them. It's more like guidelines than actual rules. There are Republicans who disagree with all sorts of parts of the party platform, but they're still Republicans.
Honestly, if it wasn't for the social conservatism stuff, I bet 70%+ of America would be Republican. Their economic platform is bounds ahead of the Democrat platform.
Probably more like 60%. But yea I'd say that's about right.
But the social conservatism stuff is there. It's active. It's not like they aren't acting on it. All across the states we've seen state legislatures legislate viciously against abortion in random and strange ways (because obviously they can't outright ban it). And it's not at all minor and simple to ignore. Although you and xDaunt are trying your darned hardest.
The fact is that there are plenty of corporatist and fiscally conservative democrats, but for some reason that gets ignored too. I honestly don't get it. How authoritarian do they need to be on social side before you stop supporting them? Because they're really trying to push that envelope at this point.
There are socially liberal republicans too. Though they are an endangered species these days. Both sides have grown more extreme. Republicans more so since they've been the party out of power.
Last time in power, Republicans tried (under Bush believe it or not) to be more moderate though their policies in that regard were a mixed bag.
IMO fixing gerrymandering would go a long way to make both parties more moderate and reasonable.
Honestly this election would be a lot better if it was Obama vs. Ryan. Romney stands for absolutely nothing. As a leader that's significantly detrimental. At least with Ryan, I can see where he stands, where he's coming from, and what he actually believes, even if I disagree with a lot of it.
On August 23 2012 10:50 Souma wrote: Honestly this election would be a lot better if it was Obama vs. Ryan. Romney stands for absolutely nothing. As a leader that's significantly detrimental. At least with Ryan, I can see where he stands, where he's coming from, and what he actually believes, even if I disagree with a lot of it.
I agree that Obama vs Ryan would be better, but I wouldn't confuse Romney's ideological vacillations with his capacity to lead. The guy is a seasoned executive. I think that by picking Ryan, Romney has committed to a specific ideological bent for his campaign and presidency. Sure, it's not really his (it is Ryan's), but it will do.
Very powerful, but a double edged sword. Knowing the trend of technological and structural unemployment, I doubt anyone would dare to use this today. At least not if they want a good chance at a second term.
EPT
