2012 Election Thread

[quote name='RedvsBlue']Except that attending the DNC isn't a fundamental right like voting is thus leading to a false equivalency.[/QUOTE]

Voting in the presidential election isn't a fundamental right either. As we've established.

Additionally, are you saying it's okay for groups to discriminate against poor, elderly and minorities so long as the event isn't a "fundamental right"?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Which major party is seriously backing real spending cuts? Because I wanna vote for them.

Can't we have higher taxes and spending cuts?[/QUOTE]
Romney's stated goal is to cap federal spending at 20% of GDP in his first year, though this is a meaningless throw away promise as only Congress has the power to do that.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']Romney's stated goal is to cap federal spending at 20% of GDP in his first year, though this is a meaningless throw away promise as only Congress has the power to do that.[/QUOTE]

What has he proposed to cut? Where specifically will he reduce? What policies will accomplish this goal?
 
[quote name='dafoomie']Didn't watch any of the DNC today except for Mayor Menino, whenever they put him in front of a mic it's must see TV. Meant to catch Fauxcahontas but wasn't able to.[/QUOTE]
Menino isn't great at being in front of a camera, but he's actually very personable in person. I've met and conversed with him in official and unofficial capacities and has always been nice with a good sense of humor. Many in my home community work for and with his office.

As for Warren-gate, who are you to judge whether or not she officially passes for Native American? Last time I checked, only the Cherokee Nation has the legal authority for that.
She was a Republican when she checked that box too, but don't let facts get in the way of your ignorance

The policy debate of the election comes down to whether you believe higher taxes and higher government spending or lower taxes and spending cuts are better for the economy. Very few other issues are of any significance.
Click to expand...
Ahh yes...wave that know-nothing flag proud, my friend.

[quote name='UncleBob']Hey, I'm not a fan of voter ID laws myself - just highly amused at the hypocrisy (hey, there's that word again) of how forcing folks to have ID is discriminating against particular groups of people.

Maybe the DNC just doesn't want poor, elderly or black people inside.[/QUOTE]
I can't tell if you're trolling or being a stupid asshole...probably both.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Who, pray tell, is faux...whatever dreadful name you used up there?

Second, I'm disappointed that you refuse to discuss any ideas. Reducing the election to the simplicity of your above quote is insincere, inaccurate and extraordinarily lazy. You can have an opinion, but if you're not going to work at it I'm going to constantly remind you of that fact.[/QUOTE]
I'm surprised you're not familiar with the story of how Elizabeth Warren claimed to be a Native American in order to benefit from affirmative action in academia.

I don't refuse to discuss other issues, I simply believe that they're going to have little impact on the election.
 
[quote name='dohdough']I can't tell if you're trolling or being a stupid asshole...probably both.[/QUOTE]

I can't tell if you're trying to say that requiring someone to have photo ID isn't a form of discrimination or if you're just disagreeing because it doesn't fit with the party line.

[quote name='dafoomie']Romney's stated goal is to cap federal spending at 20% of GDP in his first year, though this is a meaningless throw away promise as only Congress has the power to do that.[/QUOTE]

I've heard the "cut spending" song and dance from the GOP before. In fact, I think it was right before the spent billions killing brown folk in the middle east.
 
That's because 9/11 happened. It changed things. Forever.

To be honest though, I don't have much faith in either Obama or Romney as President to act for and demand real, good change. I don't see Obama as a leader, and I think Romney is a bit over his head. I have a feeling that most probably feel a lack of confidence in either like I do.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I can't tell if you're trying to say that requiring someone to have photo ID isn't a form of discrimination or if you're just disagreeing because it doesn't fit with the party line.[/QUOTE]
So trolling like a stupid asshole, it is.

I've heard the "cut spending" song and dance from the GOP before. In fact, I think it was right before the spent billions killing brown folk in the middle east.
Click to expand...
Why do you persist in using that term as if you're "down" with people of color? You're not and you're not even using it ironically. At least then, it would be somewhat understandable if you've proven that you understand the concept of race and racism, but we all know that you don't have a goodamn clue. It wouldn't be so bad if you were truly concerned with both of their plights, but all they are to you is a tool for your rhetoric. It's cynical and transparent.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']"lolz" @ DD complaining about rhetoric. And trolling. And stupid.

Sounds like someone got his evaluation today.[/QUOTE]
Yeah...cause I'm the one that compared an event that's closed to the general public to one that's open to any citizen over the age of 18. And then I sourced it with theblaze.com because their reputation for accuracy is beyond reproach. It's not like the guy in the pics had special privileges either considering he is a MEMBER OF THE PRESS WITH MORE ACCESS THAN THE AVERAGE DELEGATE.

And then you want to accuse me of trolling and being stupid? Go fuck yourself with a spiked baseball bat.
 
In my defense, After I followed the post I initially read back to the original source, I immediately came back here and updated my post and added the link and the disclaimer.

However, that's beside the point. Your defense is that the event isn't open to the general public... so, let's say a gentleman's club wants to discriminate (as we've already established that requiring photo ID is a form of discrimination, right), then you're okay with that, as the gentleman's club isn't open to the general public either?

At what point are you okay with political parties discriminating against poor, elderly and minorities, DD? Just so long as they're sectioning off their meetings as "private events"?
 
Needing an id to goto a strip club is different from needing one to vote and the id is used for different purposes, you twit. One is to prove you're old enough and the other is a poll tax.

If the disclaimer says it's bullshit, then why the fuck are you white knighting it like a stupid trolling asshole if you don't want to be called one?

edit: Are you saying that it's great that at leasst the RNCC ISN'T "hypocritical" by requiring id for the same press credentials? Which is standard practice for getting any standard press access for any publicized event???
 
You realize that a gentleman's club isn't always a strip club, right?

Also, how is it a poll tax in the bills where it's been written that the IDs are to be made free of charge?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']You realize that a gentleman's club isn't always a strip club, right?[/QUOTE]
Don't blame me for your ambiguity.

Also, how is it a poll tax in the bills where it's been written that the IDs are to be made free of charge?
Click to expand...
MAYBE WHEN FREE ID'S AREN'T AVAILABLE DURING ALL BUSINESS HOURS.

fuck it, I'm done with this stupidity. Get back to me after you're done fucking yourself.
 
Inconvenience is a tax now?

Glad to hear that. So, when I have to stand in line at the DMV or wait on hold to speak with someone at City Hall, then I'll know I can figure up the time spent and deduct that from my taxes.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Menino isn't great at being in front of a camera, but he's actually very personable in person. I've met and conversed with him in official and unofficial capacities and has always been nice with a good sense of humor. Many in my home community work for and with his office.[/quote]
Menino's a great guy and I voted for him when I still lived in Boston. Would vote for him again if I could. I poke fun but he's a riot when he's speaking in public, the Southie Roasts wouldn't be the same without him.

[quote name='dohdough']As for Warren-gate, who are you to judge whether or not she officially passes for Native American?[/quote]
I'm a voter in the state that she is running to represent, I have every right to question her integrity. Even if her claim of negligible Cherokee ancestry is true, she has no tribal affiliation or any real cultural connection with them. She doesn't come close to meeting Harvard's rules or federal regulations regarding who can claim to be a Native American. Its not my personal criteria she has to meet, its theirs.

Affirmative action is meant to help the genuinely disadvantaged people and groups in our society. Native Americans are the most economically disadvantaged group in the country, to give them greater access to higher education is a laudable goal. It is not meant to help people who don't self identify as a minority and have never suffered any racial discrimination or disadvantage on the basis of their race, ethnicity, or cultural background.

Warren gamed the system by committing academic fraud. If she's innocent, she should tell Harvard to release the relevant documents that they've refused to provide to the media.


As for the rest, barring any major developments I believe the Presidential election will largely be a referendum on the economy and who is best able to improve it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dafoomie']As for the rest, barring any major developments I believe the Presidential election will largely be a referendum on the economy and who is best able to improve it.[/QUOTE]

Who do you think will best improve it? In what ways will they improve it, and how? What policies will accomplish this goal?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Inconvenience is a tax now?

Glad to hear that. So, when I have to stand in line at the DMV or wait on hold to speak with someone at City Hall, then I'll know I can figure up the time spent and deduct that from my taxes.[/QUOTE]

I don't know what you guys are talking about but that's an interesting way to look at taxes and regulation - also factoring in how much they tax your time.

I love it when I can interact with the govt online - whether it be renewing my plates or paying taxes. By reducing the time it takes to perform these activities, I get time back that can be spent doing what I want to do (whether it be relax or earn money). Taking less of my time - to me that's almost as good as money.
 
Yesterday, journalist Michael Tracey was instructed to leave a DNC media section for asking Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett about drone strikes.
Click to expand...
That isn't true, he was asked to leave because he wouldn't set up an interview like everyone else and kept harassing Jarret about an answer. Had he actually set up an interview I'm sure she would have been happy to talk to him.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']http://gawker.com/5940608/stuttering-and-sincerity#13469463441797&[/QUOTE]

CaptobviousChooseOption.gif
 
[quote name='Clak']That isn't true, he was asked to leave because he wouldn't set up an interview like everyone else and kept harassing Jarret about an answer. Had he actually set up an interview I'm sure she would have been happy to talk to him.[/QUOTE]

Knowing what he wanted to talk about, no, she wouldn't.
 
It's hilarious how they couldn't find an actual lie or #misstatementoffact in Bill Clinton's speech, all they got him on was just exaggerations. The AP attacked Clinton because of the Lewinsky thing, saying because of that, there's no way we can believe what he said is correct.

That jobs number he stated was actually true, as it turns out. And some say he was at the right place at the right time. Never mind his administration's other accomplishments, ahem cutting down on a lot of regulations.
 
By this time last week, Paul Ryan's claims of fact had been ripped to shreds - and continues to this day, in fact. He can't even be honest about his marathon running time or how many Colorado mountains he's climbed. So we can't take him at his word - which says a considerable amount about the degree of deficit reduction in the "path to prosperity" budget proposal of his (since it specifies precisely *nothing* being cut, save for the same $716B in medicare he lambasts Obama of cutting).

So, with that in mind, the degree of difference in truth between Clinton and Ryan's speeches says everything that needs to be said about the respective parties.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']So, with that in mind, the degree of difference in truth between Clinton and Ryan's speeches says everything that needs to be said about the respective parties.[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't go that far. I'd say that the speechwriters are the ones who should be praised for keeping lies to a minimum while taking creative liberties with exaggeration (Clinton), and lashed for the multitude of lies that Ryan's speech contained.

Anyone who trusts one of these political parties is a moron IMO. This level of poltical posturing is entertainment, not public service. A friend of mine was just about in a puddle of his own semen after beating off to the entire Clinton speech, and took great offense when my response to "How did he do?" was -I think we hear what we want to hear. I don't mean that negatively, if a car is blue-green and a person we already like tells us it's blue, and a person we don't particularly like tells us it's green, we're probably going to side with team blue.

I thought it was self-aggrandizing, arrogant, pompous, self-serving, and 99% about Clinton. It was delivered with amazing grace, there were minimum stutters and stammers for a speech that many are saying was partly ad-libbed. It was technically a wonderful speech. I don't think anybody that thought the car was green now believes it was blue, but again, to rally the party, he did a masterful job.

From a technical perspective, Michelle Obama and Clinton's speeches alone already blow anything the Republicans put on stage out of the water. If Barack is even mildly coherent tonight, the DNC will be superior in every way to the RNC.
 
[quote name='Clak']There are some people in this world of ours who I think live to disagree.[/QUOTE]

I don't think I would necessary say tha...oh wait. :lol:
 
Foo Fighters performing My Hero acoustic after Beau Biden refers to his father, Joe Biden, being his hero...LOLZ...this makes the RNCC look like a binch of amateurs.

edit: LOLZ...Kerry dropping wicked ice burns on Romney...tearing his ass up bad.:rofl:

"Romney talks about Russia like he's only seen Rocky 4!" AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH...holy fuck balls!!!!

edit2: Where the fuck was this guy in 2004???
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Regardless of message, the Democrats have basically blown the RNC out of the water. The Republicans had Eastwood talking to an empty chair like someone's feeble grandfather for crying out loud. That was their best shot.
 
[quote name='Clak']Regardless of message, the Democrats have basically blown the RNC out of the water. The Republicans had Eastwood talking to an empty chair like someone's feeble grandfather for crying out loud. That was their best shot.[/QUOTE]
Yeah...production value, messaging, spectacle, fucking everything was light years ahead of the Republicans. I'm not going to lie, Rubio was really good, but goddamn, the whole thing was cyncial and pathetic. Eastwood was the personification of the Republican Party and most conservatives that night: an old white guy yelling at an imaginary Barack Obama on an empty chair.

edit: I really don't understand it. I mean the Republican machine is mean and usually has it's shit under control...we've all seen it. It's honestly mind-boggling how inept they were this time. Maybe because they're looking at 2016 instead?
 
Am I the only person who finds Joe Biden to be just plain boring? Is there something more to him that I don't know about?
 
[quote name='ID2006']Am I the only person who finds Joe Biden to be just plain boring? Is there something more to him that I don't know about?[/QUOTE]

People only listen to him to watch him screw up.
 
[quote name='ID2006']Am I the only person who finds Joe Biden to be just plain boring? Is there something more to him that I don't know about?[/QUOTE]
At some points, he was dragging a bit, but he seems pretty genuine and that's the attraction.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Eastwood was the personification of the Republican Party and most conservatives that night: an old white guy yelling at an imaginary Barack Obama on an empty chair.

[/QUOTE]

Haha! That's perfect!


[quote name='dohdough']
edit: I really don't understand it. I mean the Republican machine is mean and usually has it's shit under control...we've all seen it. It's honestly mind-boggling how inept they were this time. Maybe because they're looking at 2016 instead?[/QUOTE]

Well, there was Palin in 2008.
 
[quote name='chiwii']Haha! That's perfect!




Well, there was Palin in 2008.[/QUOTE]
Credit where credit is due, her speeches were GREAT, especially at the convention. I hated every bit of her message, but she was on point. She really knows how to project her folksy-ness. If it wasn't for her gaffes, she would've been very formidable.

Welp, Obama speech is over and I thought it was boring as fuck. Had a few good digs, but nothing like Clinton or Michelle.
 
Palin has that (mid-western?) sounding accent that I hate. She sounds like the mom from Bobby's World.
 
[quote name='dohdough']

Welp, Obama speech is over and I thought it was boring as fuck. Had a few good digs, but nothing like Clinton or Michelle.[/QUOTE]

I won't go so far as to say it was boring as fuck as there were parts that I liked, but yeah it didn't have the same punch as previous nights.

Either way, this was leagues better than the old man talking to an empty chair.
 
[quote name='Purple Flames']I won't go so far as to say it was boring as fuck as there were parts that I liked, but yeah it didn't have the same punch as previous nights.

Either way, this was leagues better than the old man talking to an empty chair.[/QUOTE]
True. But even beyond not having the same punch as other speakers, I just thought it was bad in comparison to his other great speeches.

edit: Let me rephrase that a little. It wasn't a bad speech, but it was heavy on the details without the flair. Clinton had both and it really worked for him as it's a great foundation to use that Obama has used before. I'm just surprised he didn't here.
 
Wow great convention... Solid to fantastic speeches pretty much everyday. Michelle killed it and I found myself surprisingly touched by some of her more personal points. (In stark constast to how fake and doctored Ann Romney's was. Anyone catch the random "I love you WOMEN" part? Atleast be somewhat subtle in your pandering...) Awesome to see Slick Willie again, my favorite modern President, just crush with numbers, and numbers ABOUT GOP proposed policies that the Repubs didn't even mention during their OWN conventions haha (+1 to myke, fuck the 22nd amendment)... Kerry was hilarious today, where the fuck was this guy in 04?

I think Barack's speech served it's purpose in doing what the aim of the conventions ultimately is. Fire up and energize your base and make sure they vote. Sure, independents would be nice, but the excitement at the end was comparable to 08 IMO.
 
[quote name='Clak']Palin has that (mid-western?) sounding accent that I hate. She sounds like the mom from Bobby's World.[/QUOTE]
Trust me, we do NOT (mercifully) talk like that. We may call soda 'pop' and brag about ChiCAWWGo like we're a bunch of crows, but if I ever met a mid-westerner that folky, I'd move lol...
 
I am not sure why I subject myself to reading comments on yahoo.com articles. You get gems like these that are just nothing but lies and stupidity. I may not grasp the entire political landscape but I am at least not this person.

"Do you not acknowledge that Obama had unilateral majority of the senate and house for over 48 Months (Hewas rubber stamped for two (2) years). The policies failed, the plan didn't work and change was a Pres. that compared to time in office vs. the other 43 is 1.1 % but his overall national debt accrued compared to all the other 43 presidents combined is 33.6 % (ticker just turned 6 trillion as he spoke). I find it ironic that the American tax payers now own a car company we never asked for, owe China so much $ we should call them Capital One and unemployment levels are so unspeakable your party wont speak of them. Your talking points are stale, time for a real change...in office!"
 
[quote name='cancerman1120']I am not sure why I subject myself to reading comments on yahoo.com articles. You get gems like these that are just nothing but lies and stupidity. I may not grasp the entire political landscape but I am at least not this person.

"Do you not acknowledge that Obama had unilateral majority of the senate and house for over 48 Months (Hewas rubber stamped for two (2) years). The policies failed, the plan didn't work and change was a Pres. that compared to time in office vs. the other 43 is 1.1 % but his overall national debt accrued compared to all the other 43 presidents combined is 33.6 % (ticker just turned 6 trillion as he spoke). I find it ironic that the American tax payers now own a car company we never asked for, owe China so much $ we should call them Capital One and unemployment levels are so unspeakable your party wont speak of them. Your talking points are stale, time for a real change...in office!"[/QUOTE]

Tell a lie often enough and you won't be able to tell it from the truth.
 
[quote name='RealDeals']Trust me, we do NOT (mercifully) talk like that. We may call soda 'pop' and brag about ChiCAWWGo like we're a bunch of crows, but if I ever met a mid-westerner that folky, I'd move lol...[/QUOTE]
I don't know what to call it then, someone once told me it was called "Minnesota nice". Hell if I know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top