|
|
On October 19 2012 03:31 oneofthem wrote: i didn't know all those kids on tumblr are political operatives. curses! the vast conspiracy of meme creators. It's one thing to make a joke or meme about a clumsy turn of phrase. It's another to take that meme and try to turn it into a campaign issue. The Obama campaign isn't responsible for the former. It is responsible for the latter.
|
On October 19 2012 03:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 03:31 oneofthem wrote: i didn't know all those kids on tumblr are political operatives. curses! the vast conspiracy of meme creators. It's one thing to make a joke or meme about a clumsy turn of phrase. It's another to take that meme and try to turn it into a campaign issue. The Obama campaign isn't responsible for the former. It is responsible for the latter.
so the GOP isnt to blame for "we built it night" but obama is to blame for people pissing around on facebook?
|
I greatly dislike the two parties in American politics. What can someone do?
|
The sad thing is almost everyone in this thread is a partisan hack. If you put a R next to Obama and a D next to Romney everyone's allegiances would magically change. Everyone cheers for their party like it's a football team.
|
On October 19 2012 03:36 mordek wrote:I greatly dislike the two parties in American politics. What can someone do? data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/77e98/77e98be67f263e78995d632fb850d627ce97d99f" alt=""
Start a new party, call for political reform. Institute a multiparty system instead of a twoparty system. Combine that with serious regulations on money in politics in a new constitution (retaining most of the current one, but removing the supreme court and instituting the new constitution in a similar fashion as most other western countries (generally two elections and super majority to make any changes) - as it is now the supreme court is a political tool more or less outside voters control, without any real democratic control). And then, give it time.
Edit: Of course constitution worship and a lack of wanting to face reality means this will not happen any time soon. Perhaps maybe never. In that case, though, I'm going to enjoy watching the US populace get continously shafted, as they are, by their system and those who operate within it. On a small sidenote the decline of the US as a superpower with the rise of China and the rest of Asia is going to be interesting, both in general and in regards to how the US (on both a populace and political level) decide to handle it.
|
On October 19 2012 03:46 Zaqwert wrote: The sad thing is almost everyone in this thread is a partisan hack. If you put a R next to Obama and a D next to Romney everyone's allegiances would magically change. Everyone cheers for their party like it's a football team.
im such a partisan hack for wanting tax plans to "add up" and for women to not come in binders
fuck me right? ;p
|
On October 19 2012 03:00 ziggurat wrote: On a different note, the latest gallup poll shows Romney at 52% among likely voters to Obama's 45%. This is a pretty significant lead. I am starting to doubt that Obama is really the favorite anymore with polls like these.
The only poll you should be watching is Ohio. Without Ohio Romney has a slim chance of winning, with it his odds increase dramatically. In the end it doesn't matter if its 50-46% for Romney, popular vote is useless. If Ohio +Wisconsin go Obama it's pretty much a done deal.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
a main problem for obama is how republicans stonewall him in congress, with the intent of politicizing and taking advantage of the administration's "failure" to pass policies.
this problem should lessen in the 2nd term, and obama is pretty keen on trading short term compromise for long term gain. it just so happens that compromises are pretty worthless to republicans nowadays and that threw a major wrench into his calculations, which is probably based on the history of a more civilized age.
here's obama on his long term strategy http://krebscycle.tumblr.com/post/32914071836/the-obama-method
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 19 2012 03:46 Zaqwert wrote: The sad thing is almost everyone in this thread is a partisan hack. If you put a R next to Obama and a D next to Romney everyone's allegiances would magically change. Everyone cheers for their party like it's a football team. most people root for policies. i am just here for the show. the really interesting policies won't ever get passed anyway.
|
On October 19 2012 03:55 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 03:46 Zaqwert wrote: The sad thing is almost everyone in this thread is a partisan hack. If you put a R next to Obama and a D next to Romney everyone's allegiances would magically change. Everyone cheers for their party like it's a football team. most people root for policies. i am just here for the show. the really interesting policies won't ever get passed anyway.
Same here ^^
|
On October 19 2012 03:46 Zaqwert wrote: The sad thing is almost everyone in this thread is a partisan hack. If you put a R next to Obama and a D next to Romney everyone's allegiances would magically change. Everyone cheers for their party like it's a football team.
Far from it. I was very outspoken against several candidates, such as Bachman, Perry, and Santorum. I would not at all be involved with those campaigns. Romney is a person I can stomach when you compare him with Obama.
|
On October 19 2012 03:53 oneofthem wrote:a main problem for obama is how republicans stonewall him in congress, with the intent of politicizing and taking advantage of the administration's "failure" to pass policies. this problem should lessen in the 2nd term, and obama is pretty keen on trading short term compromise for long term gain. it just so happens that compromises are pretty worthless to republicans nowadays and that threw a major wrench into his calculations, which is probably based on the history of a more civilized age. here's obama on his long term strategy http://krebscycle.tumblr.com/post/32914071836/the-obama-method
Yes and no. Yes, Republicans stonewalled him. But no, I don't think that's going to lessen in a second term. It's not just a one-sided stonewalling. The Democrats have been just as unwilling to let Republicans have a say.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 19 2012 04:04 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 03:53 oneofthem wrote:a main problem for obama is how republicans stonewall him in congress, with the intent of politicizing and taking advantage of the administration's "failure" to pass policies. this problem should lessen in the 2nd term, and obama is pretty keen on trading short term compromise for long term gain. it just so happens that compromises are pretty worthless to republicans nowadays and that threw a major wrench into his calculations, which is probably based on the history of a more civilized age. here's obama on his long term strategy http://krebscycle.tumblr.com/post/32914071836/the-obama-method Yes and no. Yes, Republicans stonewalled him. But no, I don't think that's going to lessen in a second term. It's not just a one-sided stonewalling. The Democrats have been just as unwilling to let Republicans have a say.
Yeeaah, because Democrats are so petty that they drag down the judicial confirmation process.
Stop it. Your comparison holds no weight. Both sides have hated each other throughout history, and both sides have impeded one another and will continue to do so. The past four years have been on an entirely different level, however, mainly through the efforts of a moronic Republican party.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
On October 19 2012 03:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 03:03 xDaunt wrote:On October 19 2012 02:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I'm thinking back to that Binders quote...
When Romney turned down the most qualified applicants for his governor's cabinet in favor for "binders of women", he was employing Affirmative Action. Isn't that notoriously liberal (despite the fact that most educators and experts, regardless of political agenda, note that favoring this stereotyped hiring and accepting, instead of equalizing the standards of the playing field, doesn't solve the inherent problem anyway)? The binder thing is patently ridiculous. No one but the most hardcore Obama supporters are going to view it as evidence that Romney is sexist. Hell, it doesn't jive at all with what voters have seen of Romney during these debates. I'm thinking this may backfire among more moderate voters. Regardless, it's pretty clear that the Obama campaign is out of bullets. They've been grasping at straws for a few weeks now. If something dramatic doesn't happen at the final debate, Obama's finished. I'm not talking about the Obama campaign or anything like that. I didn't hear this from them. As an educator, I thought about this in retrospect (as AA is a popular topic when it comes to education). Please respond to my comment directly (or not at all), but please don't change the subject I'm pointing out that when Romney was asked the question of how he would help increase gender equality for women, he basically said, "Here's an example where I employed affirmative action to benefit some women". He noted that all of the top and most qualified candidates were men, but instead he asked for (binders full of) women just so he could elect them and have a large percentage of females in his cabinet (I believe he said the highest out of any state). Whether that was a political play or he truly cares for gender equality, it's still affirmative action. Or am I really reading this wrong? It depends if you think that the women that were hired were less qualified than the men. If the women were just as qualified, and I haven't heard anyone suggest that they weren't, then no, it was not affirmative action.
|
On October 19 2012 04:04 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 03:53 oneofthem wrote:a main problem for obama is how republicans stonewall him in congress, with the intent of politicizing and taking advantage of the administration's "failure" to pass policies. this problem should lessen in the 2nd term, and obama is pretty keen on trading short term compromise for long term gain. it just so happens that compromises are pretty worthless to republicans nowadays and that threw a major wrench into his calculations, which is probably based on the history of a more civilized age. here's obama on his long term strategy http://krebscycle.tumblr.com/post/32914071836/the-obama-method Yes and no. Yes, Republicans stonewalled him. But no, I don't think that's going to lessen in a second term. It's not just a one-sided stonewalling. The Democrats have been just as unwilling to let Republicans have a say.
thats not fair. the repubs are the one starting from the top of mount stupid on some issues (NO TAX RISES AT ALL) so when they give an inch in compromise, they are still on mount stupid, you cant have a dialogue with that. and secondly this past 4 years has seen more filibusters than ever before. they are considerably worse than any minority party in history.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 19 2012 04:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 03:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 19 2012 03:03 xDaunt wrote:On October 19 2012 02:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I'm thinking back to that Binders quote...
When Romney turned down the most qualified applicants for his governor's cabinet in favor for "binders of women", he was employing Affirmative Action. Isn't that notoriously liberal (despite the fact that most educators and experts, regardless of political agenda, note that favoring this stereotyped hiring and accepting, instead of equalizing the standards of the playing field, doesn't solve the inherent problem anyway)? The binder thing is patently ridiculous. No one but the most hardcore Obama supporters are going to view it as evidence that Romney is sexist. Hell, it doesn't jive at all with what voters have seen of Romney during these debates. I'm thinking this may backfire among more moderate voters. Regardless, it's pretty clear that the Obama campaign is out of bullets. They've been grasping at straws for a few weeks now. If something dramatic doesn't happen at the final debate, Obama's finished. I'm not talking about the Obama campaign or anything like that. I didn't hear this from them. As an educator, I thought about this in retrospect (as AA is a popular topic when it comes to education). Please respond to my comment directly (or not at all), but please don't change the subject I'm pointing out that when Romney was asked the question of how he would help increase gender equality for women, he basically said, "Here's an example where I employed affirmative action to benefit some women". He noted that all of the top and most qualified candidates were men, but instead he asked for (binders full of) women just so he could elect them and have a large percentage of females in his cabinet (I believe he said the highest out of any state). Whether that was a political play or he truly cares for gender equality, it's still affirmative action. Or am I really reading this wrong? It depends if you think that the women that were hired were less qualified than the men. If the women were just as qualified, and I haven't heard anyone suggest that they weren't, then no, it was not affirmative action. it's actually politics.
some women's groups brought it to romney's attention that there were no women in his ship and provided the folders. it would be pretty costly if an issue is made of this. so there was no issue.
|
On October 19 2012 04:12 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 04:04 BluePanther wrote:On October 19 2012 03:53 oneofthem wrote:a main problem for obama is how republicans stonewall him in congress, with the intent of politicizing and taking advantage of the administration's "failure" to pass policies. this problem should lessen in the 2nd term, and obama is pretty keen on trading short term compromise for long term gain. it just so happens that compromises are pretty worthless to republicans nowadays and that threw a major wrench into his calculations, which is probably based on the history of a more civilized age. here's obama on his long term strategy http://krebscycle.tumblr.com/post/32914071836/the-obama-method Yes and no. Yes, Republicans stonewalled him. But no, I don't think that's going to lessen in a second term. It's not just a one-sided stonewalling. The Democrats have been just as unwilling to let Republicans have a say. thats not fair. the repubs are the one starting from the top of mount stupid on some issues (NO TAX RISES AT ALL) so when they give an inch in compromise, they are still on mount stupid, you cant have a dialogue with that. and secondly this past 4 years has seen more filibusters than ever before. they are considerably worse than any minority party in history.
Yawn. Unimpressed. More filibusters does not equal more stonewalling. I know Democrats love that statistic as it "proves" their point. But it doesn't.
|
On October 19 2012 04:18 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 04:12 turdburgler wrote:On October 19 2012 04:04 BluePanther wrote:On October 19 2012 03:53 oneofthem wrote:a main problem for obama is how republicans stonewall him in congress, with the intent of politicizing and taking advantage of the administration's "failure" to pass policies. this problem should lessen in the 2nd term, and obama is pretty keen on trading short term compromise for long term gain. it just so happens that compromises are pretty worthless to republicans nowadays and that threw a major wrench into his calculations, which is probably based on the history of a more civilized age. here's obama on his long term strategy http://krebscycle.tumblr.com/post/32914071836/the-obama-method Yes and no. Yes, Republicans stonewalled him. But no, I don't think that's going to lessen in a second term. It's not just a one-sided stonewalling. The Democrats have been just as unwilling to let Republicans have a say. thats not fair. the repubs are the one starting from the top of mount stupid on some issues (NO TAX RISES AT ALL) so when they give an inch in compromise, they are still on mount stupid, you cant have a dialogue with that. and secondly this past 4 years has seen more filibusters than ever before. they are considerably worse than any minority party in history. Yawn. Unimpressed. More filibusters does not equal more stonewalling. I know Democrats love that statistic as it "proves" their point. But it doesn't.
I'm sure there's a dandy good fucking reason for delaying low-level judicial appointments that had bipartisan support in committee.
|
I feel like this thread is similar to the debates. The democrats or "liberals" present statistics and data or rather "arithmetic" and the republican users go "Nope, doesn'tt work that way! Didn't you hear romney or any of his studiesszzz, they say it works!". Democrats ask how and the republicans reply "Well he said it! he wouldn't lie!" What deductions the dems press "well durrr Obama is horrible look at his last 4 years!" and then the cycle continues of dodging any financial debate on Romneys currently flimsy at best plan.
|
|
|
|