EPTOn October 09 2012 09:32 Defacer wrote:
Sigh ... and the dumbing down of the thread begins ...
Sigh ... and the dumbing down of the thread begins ...
What, after five pages of arguing over "fuck you"?
President Obama Re-Elected - Page 709
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
What, after five pages of arguing over "fuck you"? | ||
|
dvorakftw
681 Posts
On October 09 2012 09:26 Defacer wrote: There you go again ... You do realize there is a video where Romney is a room full of billionaires that paid $50,000 a piece to hear him say that 47% of the country are all moochers whose minds he can't change and he's not going to bother worrying about. That's not quite wearing a top hat and a monocle. That's actually worse. Do you deny Obama and Romney will both get at least 47% of the vote? Nothing Romney says will get most Democrats to vote for him and nothing Obama will say now will get most Republicans to vote for him. This is just like when Romney said he wasn't worried about the poor because there is already a safety net in place for them but everyone on the left wants to cut that second part out. Romney disowned the 47% comment because in politics it's a better tactic than bothering to explain the obvious to people who have only heard the spinned version. | ||
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
| ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On October 09 2012 08:58 xDaunt wrote: That poll has a +5 advantage to republicans in the sample size, which I believe is in line with Rasmussen's voter composition numbers. Goes to show that the samples matter (duh). So, let me ask the obvious: are we really going to believe that much has changed over the past couple weeks or is it more likely that the previous polls with large democrat samples were bullshit? lol wut. So you're alleging that either that there was a liberal conspiracy or survey methods that favored liberals, and that this conspiracy suddenly stopped after the debate? But there's been no change in methodology. Or maybe it's just the debates? Ever think that might move polls? Occam's razor? No, the polls before aren't bullshit, anymore than the polls now are bullshit. The pollsters do not target liberals. The % of democrats in the sample before the debates is a response variable, just like it is with this new poll. What you said shows that more people after the debate call themselves republican and would vote for Romney as a result. It doesn't prove a leftest conspiracy that has, for no reason, swung the other way now. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On October 09 2012 09:33 sam!zdat wrote: What, after five pages of arguing over "fuck you"? Saying "fuck you" deserves an explanation. But are we seriously expected to defend Hova and Rocafella's wheelings and dealings? Really? | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On October 09 2012 09:36 dvorakftw wrote: Do you deny Obama and Romney will both get at least 47% of the vote? Nothing Romney says will get most Democrats to vote for him and nothing Obama will say now will get most Republicans to vote for him. This is just like when Romney said he wasn't worried about the poor because there is already a safety net in place for them but everyone on the left wants to cut that second part out. Romney disowned the 47% comment because in politics it's a better tactic than bothering to explain the obvious to people who have only heard the spinned version. Actually its not even that bad. If you listen to the whole quote, Romney was saying that he isn't gonna worry about trying win over the votes of the 47% who don't pay taxes. If you cut the quote down, then it sounds like he is saying that as President he just won't worry about them in general. But he was basically describing a campaign strategy, not a government platform. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On October 09 2012 09:37 Defacer wrote: Saying "fuck you" deserves an explanation. But are we seriously expected to defend Hova and Rocafella's wheelings and dealings? Really? Oh, I thought you were responding to my half-hearted cynicism  | ||
bkrow
Australia8532 Posts
On October 09 2012 09:36 dvorakftw wrote: Do you deny Obama and Romney will both get at least 47% of the vote? Nothing Romney says will get most Democrats to vote for him and nothing Obama will say now will get most Republicans to vote for him. This is just like when Romney said he wasn't worried about the poor because there is already a safety net in place for them but everyone on the left wants to cut that second part out. Romney disowned the 47% comment because in politics it's a better tactic than bothering to explain the obvious to people who have only heard the spinned version. He called them victims, who feel entitled and don't take personal responsibility for their lives. He characterised 47% of the US like that based on the idea that they do not pay income tax (ignoring payroll tax, the elderly and students). How are you possibly trying to rationalise that as an intelligent thing to say during an election? Or at all, at any time? | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On October 09 2012 09:40 Savio wrote: Actually its not even that bad. If you listen to the whole quote, Romney was saying that he isn't gonna worry about trying win over the votes of the 47% who don't pay taxes. If you cut the quote down, then it sounds like he is saying that as President he just won't worry about them in general. But he was basically describing a campaign strategy, not a government platform. It's when he pandered to his rich benefactors and claimed that 47% of people see themselves as victims. That's when he went over the line into top hat and monocle territory. ninja'd. | ||
|
Velocirapture
United States983 Posts
On October 09 2012 09:28 dvorakftw wrote: That's really weird since Obama went went right to bed barely an hour after the attacks began. Obama fundraising! I'll just leave this here. But cmon. Besides golf, fundraising is clearly what Obama likes best about being President. Note: This is not to diminish in anyway how stressful it must be raising money from people like JayZ and Beyonce. ![[image loading]](http://www.ijreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/article-2205541-1517E3ED000005DC-132_634x505.jpeg) btw, isn't it funny how evil Republicans "buy" elections from "special interests" and force good innocent liberals to struggle to raise good honest money? Geeze louise Dvorakftw, you come back from a ban and instantly reduce the discourse to random bickering and talking points. I beseech you, please step back from your points and ask if you are contributing new useful information or just engaging in catharsis. Nobody minds you being conservative, they mind your hyperbolic rhetoric. Xdaunt is a decent role model. This all said, part of me wonder if the moderation in the next debate will be an insane backlash against the previous debacle. I will be really interested to see where they go with it. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On October 09 2012 09:41 bkrow wrote: He called them victims, who feel entitled and don't take personal responsibility for their lives. He characterised 47% of the US like that based on the idea that they do not pay income tax (ignoring payroll tax, the elderly and students). How are you possibly trying to rationalise that as an intelligent thing to say during an election? Or at all, at any time? I don't think anyone thinks it was smart. It was even bone-headed. It was a description of his campaign strategy to get votes that he was giving to a closed GOP audience of donors. He was not describing what he would do as President but was rather describing what demographics and groups he was planning on finding a winning majority from. But ya, it was a stupid thing to say and he has now said so himself. | ||
|
rogzardo
610 Posts
On October 09 2012 09:44 Savio wrote: I don't think anyone thinks it was smart. It was even bone-headed. It was a description of his campaign strategy to get votes that he was giving to a closed GOP audience of donors. He was not describing what he would do as President but was rather describing what demographics and groups he was planning on finding a winning majority from. But ya, it was a stupid thing to say and he has now said so himself. Did he? In the press conference immediately after the video was released, he explicitly stood by his statements. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
Does the VP debate actually matter this year? Will a good performance by either candidate impact the polls? It certainly had a lot of eyeballs the last election because of Palin. | ||
KwarK
United States43187 Posts
On October 09 2012 07:11 DoubleReed wrote: Well we really don't have much of a choice in terms of the veneration of our founding fathers. I mean our law is founded in the Constitution. And some of the precedents, like the 'Separation of Church and State' is based on their intentions. That's not actually in our Constitution. So that veneration is kind of coded into our law at this point. Europeans have flags and anthems, though. What is different? We don't really fly our flags, you see them on army bases and police stations in the UK but that's pretty much it. Not only would we not get pissed off if someone wanted to burn one of them, we'd be rather bemused because they'd have missed the point pretty badly. Same with the anthem, ours is notoriously bad and outside of international sporting victories you just don't hear it. As for law, law is either good because it is good or bad because it is bad, the idea that it is good because the founding fathers said it misses the point. If they said some stuff which made sense then it can make sense on its own merit and you can appreciate them for being smart about those things without needing to go beyond that. | ||
|
dvorakftw
681 Posts
On October 09 2012 09:24 Souma wrote: Irrelevant. Romney said he wouldn't cut teachers when he actually said we did need to cut back on teachers. It's the undeniable truth. Once again you can try to spin stuff with your strawman arguments and red herrings but I'm not so easily distracted. rogzardo October 09 2012 09:21. Posts 577 PM Profile Blog Quote # You posted that graph as a response to the Romney video which clearly shows him being on both sides of the issues at different times. The graph did nothing to dispute his obvious flip flopping. Romney is against throwing money at the problem. He is not for firing people randomly but for improving the structure so you end up with more teachers. But again, people like you two are why politics is in such bad shape. You don't care about any actual policy. You simply want to take two sentences from two speeches and attack. It's as enlightening as me getting a soundbyte of Artosis calling MVP "MKP" and saying he clearly knows nothing about the game and can't tell the two players apart. | ||
|
bkrow
Australia8532 Posts
On October 09 2012 09:48 Defacer wrote: Changing subjects ... Does the VP debate actually matter this year? Will a good performance by either candidate impact the polls? It certainly had a lot of eyeballs the last election because of Palin. I think Ryan's speaking ability will whitewash Biden, regardless of what either of them have to say. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On October 09 2012 09:49 bkrow wrote: I think Ryan's speaking ability will whitewash Biden, regardless of what either of them have to say. "Whitewash". What do you mean by that? I think you're using the word in a different way than I normally do ...  | ||
|
rogzardo
610 Posts
On October 09 2012 09:48 dvorakftw wrote: Romney is against throwing money at the problem. He is not for firing people randomly but for improving the structure so you end up with more teachers. But again, people like you two are why politics is in such bad shape. You don't care about any actual policy. You simply want to take two sentences from two speeches and attack. It's as enlightening as me getting a soundbyte of Artosis calling MVP "MKP" and saying he clearly knows nothing about the game and can't tell the two players apart. Insulting me doesn't change the words that came out of Romney's mouth. Sorry. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
There is nothing scandalous about what Romney said. In fact, the very way that our system is constructed DEMANDS that he hold this opinion - it is a strategic necessity. If he did not, he would lose to a candidate who did. It is only when something that everybody already knows is the case, but represses ideologically, is brought to light and forces a confrontation with the repressed Real that the "scandal" appears. It is not Romney's comments that are scandalous - it is the system itself! Everybody already knows that he thinks this! The "scandal" is only a symptom! | ||
|
dvorakftw
681 Posts
On October 09 2012 09:40 Savio wrote: Actually its not even that bad. If you listen to the whole quote, Romney was saying that he isn't gonna worry about trying win over the votes of the 47% who don't pay taxes. If you cut the quote down, then it sounds like he is saying that as President he just won't worry about them in general. But he was basically describing a campaign strategy, not a government platform. Yes. You said that better than I did. | ||
| ||
![[image loading]](http://www.people-press.org/files/2012/10/10-8-12-1.png)
![[image loading]](http://www.people-press.org/files/2012/10/10-8-12-2.png)
![[image loading]](http://www.people-press.org/files/2012/10/10-8-12-8.png)
![[image loading]](http://www.people-press.org/files/2012/10/10-8-12-horserace.gif)
