2012 Election Thread
- Thread starter IRHari
- Start date
Caught some of the speeches yesterday, and watched Clinton's online.
Clinton's was definitely the best (still haven't seen Michelle Obama's though). I thought Biden and Obama both did a good job of being firey and getting the base riled up.
John Kerry was very good as well (as he was in 2008). If he'd shown this fire in 2004 he'd probably have won.
Clinton's was definitely the best (still haven't seen Michelle Obama's though). I thought Biden and Obama both did a good job of being firey and getting the base riled up.
John Kerry was very good as well (as he was in 2008). If he'd shown this fire in 2004 he'd probably have won.
[quote name='Clak']I don't know what to call it then, someone once told me it was called "Minnesota nice". Hell if I know.[/QUOTE]
that's part of our goofy accent, the actual term is Minnesotan Ice. There be some incredibly rude people around here. I try to do my part by holding doors for people and wishing them a nice day. Amazing how a small amount of civility can spread...
By the way, who was the lady in blue that was yelling a whole bunch? I think she was on before Eva Longoria.
that's part of our goofy accent, the actual term is Minnesotan Ice. There be some incredibly rude people around here. I try to do my part by holding doors for people and wishing them a nice day. Amazing how a small amount of civility can spread...
By the way, who was the lady in blue that was yelling a whole bunch? I think she was on before Eva Longoria.
[quote name='dmaul1114']Caught some of the speeches yesterday, and watched Clinton's online.
Clinton's was definitely the best (still haven't seen Michelle Obama's though). I thought Biden and Obama both did a good job of being firey and getting the base riled up.
John Kerry was very good as well (as he was in 2008). If he'd shown this fire in 2004 he'd probably have won.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, Kerry deserved some kudos for his speech. I mean holy shit that Rocky 4 line was GOLD and wasn't even his best line.
[quote name='nasum']that's part of our goofy accent, the actual term is Minnesotan Ice. There be some incredibly rude people around here. I try to do my part by holding doors for people and wishing them a nice day. Amazing how a small amount of civility can spread...
By the way, who was the lady in blue that was yelling a whole bunch? I think she was on before Eva Longoria.[/QUOTE]
She was the governor of Michigan and also...wait for it...born in Canada. She totally drank the Republican's milkshake with her speech and shit down their throats. She was catharsis incarnate.
Clinton's was definitely the best (still haven't seen Michelle Obama's though). I thought Biden and Obama both did a good job of being firey and getting the base riled up.
John Kerry was very good as well (as he was in 2008). If he'd shown this fire in 2004 he'd probably have won.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, Kerry deserved some kudos for his speech. I mean holy shit that Rocky 4 line was GOLD and wasn't even his best line.
[quote name='nasum']that's part of our goofy accent, the actual term is Minnesotan Ice. There be some incredibly rude people around here. I try to do my part by holding doors for people and wishing them a nice day. Amazing how a small amount of civility can spread...
By the way, who was the lady in blue that was yelling a whole bunch? I think she was on before Eva Longoria.[/QUOTE]
She was the governor of Michigan and also...wait for it...born in Canada. She totally drank the Republican's milkshake with her speech and shit down their throats. She was catharsis incarnate.
KingBroly
CAGiversary!
[quote name='dmaul1114']Caught some of the speeches yesterday, and watched Clinton's online.
Clinton's was definitely the best (still haven't seen Michelle Obama's though). I thought Biden and Obama both did a good job of being firey and getting the base riled up.
John Kerry was very good as well (as he was in 2008). If he'd shown this fire in 2004 he'd probably have won.[/QUOTE]
I find it interesting that Kerry has become somewhat of a foreign policy Hawk since then. I guess when you lose because of one big thing you try to improve your knowledge around it.
Clinton's was definitely the best (still haven't seen Michelle Obama's though). I thought Biden and Obama both did a good job of being firey and getting the base riled up.
John Kerry was very good as well (as he was in 2008). If he'd shown this fire in 2004 he'd probably have won.[/QUOTE]
I find it interesting that Kerry has become somewhat of a foreign policy Hawk since then. I guess when you lose because of one big thing you try to improve your knowledge around it.
cancerman1120
CAGiversary!
[quote name='dohdough']Eastwood talks about his RNCC speech:
http://www.pineconearchive.com/120907-1.html
LOLZ[/QUOTE]
I was about to post this. The irony of the entire line of thinking is that the GOP is GLAD he was not able to keep all his promises. Eastwood hammering on about Obama being the 'greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people' is both laughable and scary that people think this way. As a conservative exactly what upsets you about that? He says he was aiming for the middle? Obama has really been a middle of the road leader. It is the progressives that are most upset with his lack of reform. Even Healthcare reform is not very radical (even the mandate) when you are still tied to a for-profit private insurance system. Maybe I am naive but all this talk of broken promises and what not just does not resonate with me. The opposition to this President has been so large that I am surprised with what he has accomplished.
http://www.pineconearchive.com/120907-1.html
LOLZ[/QUOTE]
I was about to post this. The irony of the entire line of thinking is that the GOP is GLAD he was not able to keep all his promises. Eastwood hammering on about Obama being the 'greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people' is both laughable and scary that people think this way. As a conservative exactly what upsets you about that? He says he was aiming for the middle? Obama has really been a middle of the road leader. It is the progressives that are most upset with his lack of reform. Even Healthcare reform is not very radical (even the mandate) when you are still tied to a for-profit private insurance system. Maybe I am naive but all this talk of broken promises and what not just does not resonate with me. The opposition to this President has been so large that I am surprised with what he has accomplished.
[quote name='dohdough']Eastwood talks about his RNCC speech:
http://www.pineconearchive.com/120907-1.html
LOLZ[/QUOTE]
I was visiting my parents this past weekend and I was asked if I saw the speech. I started in on, "Wow, that was one of the most bizarre, horrific speeches I've ever seen. He looks like he's finally lost it. Rambling, incoherent. Really hurt Romney"...my mom responds, "Oh, I disagree. It was very funny. I thought he did a great job." She's my mom, so I didn't go into full-on WTF mode, but my wife and I exchanged looks of shock.
Maybe it's an age thing, maybe my mom, who is certainly more conservative than liberal on most issues (social issues excluded) was the demographic they were going for, but I finally found a person who thought it was good. Clearly it didn't appeal to a vast majority, but it did make me realize that if you want to like something bad enough, you'll find ways to justify it. That is really the theme of this election for me.
I don't like either side. If I wanted to work hard to massage talking points into something I wanted to believe, then I guess I could come away with a good feeling, but it's just been so transparent, so "truthiness", and so pandered that I can't, in good faith, embrace either party after seeing parts of their conventions.
Sidenote-can we do away with the imaginary 2/3rds majority voice votes? Holy shit, that Democratic one was so incredibly wrong that the speaker couldn't figure out a way to legitimize it, so some lady had to walk over and tell him to do it again...so he could still pretend like there was a 2/3rds majority. That was a sham.
http://www.pineconearchive.com/120907-1.html
LOLZ[/QUOTE]
I was visiting my parents this past weekend and I was asked if I saw the speech. I started in on, "Wow, that was one of the most bizarre, horrific speeches I've ever seen. He looks like he's finally lost it. Rambling, incoherent. Really hurt Romney"...my mom responds, "Oh, I disagree. It was very funny. I thought he did a great job." She's my mom, so I didn't go into full-on WTF mode, but my wife and I exchanged looks of shock.
Maybe it's an age thing, maybe my mom, who is certainly more conservative than liberal on most issues (social issues excluded) was the demographic they were going for, but I finally found a person who thought it was good. Clearly it didn't appeal to a vast majority, but it did make me realize that if you want to like something bad enough, you'll find ways to justify it. That is really the theme of this election for me.
I don't like either side. If I wanted to work hard to massage talking points into something I wanted to believe, then I guess I could come away with a good feeling, but it's just been so transparent, so "truthiness", and so pandered that I can't, in good faith, embrace either party after seeing parts of their conventions.
Sidenote-can we do away with the imaginary 2/3rds majority voice votes? Holy shit, that Democratic one was so incredibly wrong that the speaker couldn't figure out a way to legitimize it, so some lady had to walk over and tell him to do it again...so he could still pretend like there was a 2/3rds majority. That was a sham.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='berzirk']I don't like either side. If I wanted to work hard to massage talking points into something I wanted to believe, then I guess I could come away with a good feeling, but it's just been so transparent, so "truthiness", and so pandered that I can't, in good faith, embrace either party after seeing parts of their conventions.[/QUOTE]
More berzerk bullshit. Although lately I'm hearing this line of bullshit from every Republican I know, it must have been on the Fox news talking points recently.
On the Dem side, speeches such as Clinton's have been deemed to be highly factual whereas Republicans have been caught in truthiness stretching or outright lies.
It basically amounts to this - Republicans and/or conservatives don't want to admit that they lost the convention wars (and lost hard), so they make up some shit about how it never really mattered to them in the first place.
Yeah, right.
More berzerk bullshit. Although lately I'm hearing this line of bullshit from every Republican I know, it must have been on the Fox news talking points recently.
On the Dem side, speeches such as Clinton's have been deemed to be highly factual whereas Republicans have been caught in truthiness stretching or outright lies.
It basically amounts to this - Republicans and/or conservatives don't want to admit that they lost the convention wars (and lost hard), so they make up some shit about how it never really mattered to them in the first place.
Yeah, right.
perdition(troy
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (89%)
Do the televised conventions reach anyone other than their most hardcore base? I doubt neither of the conventions did much to change anyones minds in regards to who they are voting for.
cancerman1120
CAGiversary!
[quote name='perdition(troy']Do the televised conventions reach anyone other than their most hardcore base? I doubt neither of the conventions did much to change anyones minds in regards to who they are voting for.[/QUOTE]
My sister and her husband watched the DNC and they are hardcore conservatives. Not that it will change their vote but I think independents have definitely watched the conventions.
My sister and her husband watched the DNC and they are hardcore conservatives. Not that it will change their vote but I think independents have definitely watched the conventions.
[quote name='camoor']More berzerk bullshit. Although lately I'm hearing this line of bullshit from every Republican I know, it must have been on the Fox news talking points recently.
On the Dem side, speeches such as Clinton's have been deemed to be highly factual whereas Republicans have been caught in truthiness stretching or outright lies.
It basically amounts to this - Republicans and/or conservatives don't want to admit that they lost the convention wars (and lost hard), so they make up some shit about how it never really mattered to them in the first place.
Yeah, right.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I have to agree with you here. berzirk is basically one step above bobby with both-sides-do-it-ism with that post. It's one thing to watch, compare, and analyze the messages, but reducing it to pandering is just lazy. Pandering is just fine and to be expected, but Republicans are straight up patronizing. It's like when bobby brings up "bombing brown folks" or when IATCG talks about being concerned about people in general or when Ann Romney talks about being poor while living off of stocks and dividends. It's simply preposterous and disingenuous.
[quote name='perdition(troy']Do the televised conventions reach anyone other than their most hardcore base? I doubt neither of the conventions did much to change anyones minds in regards to who they are voting for.[/QUOTE]
I'd say it does. People are becoming more politically conscious all the time, especially during presidential elections. For someone with curious mind, this is a great time to be introduced to the basic tenets of US political ideologies and parties. Even for political junkies like me, there's always something to look at and analyze.
On the Dem side, speeches such as Clinton's have been deemed to be highly factual whereas Republicans have been caught in truthiness stretching or outright lies.
It basically amounts to this - Republicans and/or conservatives don't want to admit that they lost the convention wars (and lost hard), so they make up some shit about how it never really mattered to them in the first place.
Yeah, right.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I have to agree with you here. berzirk is basically one step above bobby with both-sides-do-it-ism with that post. It's one thing to watch, compare, and analyze the messages, but reducing it to pandering is just lazy. Pandering is just fine and to be expected, but Republicans are straight up patronizing. It's like when bobby brings up "bombing brown folks" or when IATCG talks about being concerned about people in general or when Ann Romney talks about being poor while living off of stocks and dividends. It's simply preposterous and disingenuous.
[quote name='perdition(troy']Do the televised conventions reach anyone other than their most hardcore base? I doubt neither of the conventions did much to change anyones minds in regards to who they are voting for.[/QUOTE]
I'd say it does. People are becoming more politically conscious all the time, especially during presidential elections. For someone with curious mind, this is a great time to be introduced to the basic tenets of US political ideologies and parties. Even for political junkies like me, there's always something to look at and analyze.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='dohdough']I'd say it does. People are becoming more politically conscious all the time, especially during presidential elections. For someone with curious mind, this is a great time to be introduced to the basic tenets of US political ideologies and parties. Even for political junkies like me, there's always something to look at and analyze.[/QUOTE]
I agree.
From a practical standpoint, we all know that ads work and the convention is just about the best political ad you can buy. Not only for the folks who watch it, but for the bits that get played and/or talked about the next day on just about every news and talk show out there.
But dohdough is right for another reason - it sparks interesting debates. I've seen convention news spark quite a few back-and-forth discussions on fb.
I agree.
From a practical standpoint, we all know that ads work and the convention is just about the best political ad you can buy. Not only for the folks who watch it, but for the bits that get played and/or talked about the next day on just about every news and talk show out there.
But dohdough is right for another reason - it sparks interesting debates. I've seen convention news spark quite a few back-and-forth discussions on fb.
[quote name='dohdough']Yeah, I have to agree with you here. berzirk is basically one step above bobby with both-sides-do-it-ism with that post. It's one thing to watch, compare, and analyze the messages, but reducing it to pandering is just lazy. Pandering is just fine and to be expected, but Republicans are straight up patronizing. It's like when bobby brings up "bombing brown folks" or when IATCG talks about being concerned about people in general or when Ann Romney talks about being poor while living off of stocks and dividends. It's simply preposterous and disingenuous.[/QUOTE]
Holy crap. Camoor, you have a freakishly-bizarre, mildly-flattering, raging hardon for me. I've already put you on ignore, only see your comments through quotes, you know this...yet you continue to quote and mention me? I don't know what to tell ya dude. I guess it gives you the avenue to bash me and collaborate with others so...uhh...congrats?
Doh, I'm alright with that. I think modern politics are a mess. I truly think leaders of both parties lie constantly, and pander to their bases. I didn't think that was a revelation, but I'm sorry for not appropriately handicapping it to be more like, "Liberals and Conservatives lie, but the Liberals are nicer when they lie." I forgot to pander...err...speak to the majority CAG audience
Holy crap. Camoor, you have a freakishly-bizarre, mildly-flattering, raging hardon for me. I've already put you on ignore, only see your comments through quotes, you know this...yet you continue to quote and mention me? I don't know what to tell ya dude. I guess it gives you the avenue to bash me and collaborate with others so...uhh...congrats?
Doh, I'm alright with that. I think modern politics are a mess. I truly think leaders of both parties lie constantly, and pander to their bases. I didn't think that was a revelation, but I'm sorry for not appropriately handicapping it to be more like, "Liberals and Conservatives lie, but the Liberals are nicer when they lie." I forgot to pander...err...speak to the majority CAG audience
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='berzirk']Holy crap. Camoor, you have a freakishly-bizarre, mildly-flattering, raging hardon for me. I've already put you on ignore, only see your comments through quotes, you know this...yet you continue to quote and mention me? I don't know what to tell ya dude. I guess it gives you the avenue to bash me and collaborate with others so...uhh...congrats?
Doh, I'm alright with that. I think modern politics are a mess. I truly think leaders of both parties lie constantly, and pander to their bases. I didn't think that was a revelation, but I'm sorry for not appropriately handicapping it to be more like, "Liberals and Conservatives lie, but the Liberals are nicer when they lie." I forgot to pander...err...speak to the majority CAG audience[/QUOTE]
But see this is just more bs. Like I said to Troy this is just an intellectual form of putting your head in the sand.
Doh, I'm alright with that. I think modern politics are a mess. I truly think leaders of both parties lie constantly, and pander to their bases. I didn't think that was a revelation, but I'm sorry for not appropriately handicapping it to be more like, "Liberals and Conservatives lie, but the Liberals are nicer when they lie." I forgot to pander...err...speak to the majority CAG audience[/QUOTE]
But see this is just more bs. Like I said to Troy this is just an intellectual form of putting your head in the sand.
Commander0Zero
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 13 (100%)
[quote name='perdition(troy']Do the televised conventions reach anyone other than their most hardcore base? I doubt neither of the conventions did much to change anyones minds in regards to who they are voting for.[/QUOTE]
It seems the whole purpose it to rally the party. You're not watching these things to learn anything new (or factual for that matter). They are rolling out the party stars old and new and talking up their candidate. The people that watch intently I wager either watch to bash a certain party or to cheer lead the party of the views they hold. Usually if you really haven't made up your mind by now these pep rallies won't help.
It seems the whole purpose it to rally the party. You're not watching these things to learn anything new (or factual for that matter). They are rolling out the party stars old and new and talking up their candidate. The people that watch intently I wager either watch to bash a certain party or to cheer lead the party of the views they hold. Usually if you really haven't made up your mind by now these pep rallies won't help.
[quote name='dohdough']Eastwood talks about his RNCC speech:
http://www.pineconearchive.com/120907-1.html
LOLZ[/QUOTE]
ing hell, is he really that stupid?
http://www.pineconearchive.com/120907-1.html
LOLZ[/QUOTE]
It wasn't irritation you old fart, we thought granmpa had gotten into the medicine cabinet.
ing hell, is he really that stupid?
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Temporaryscars
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 38 (100%)
[quote name='camoor']More berzerk bullshit. Although lately I'm hearing this line of bullshit from every Republican I know, it must have been on the Fox news talking points recently.
On the Dem side, speeches such as Clinton's have been deemed to be highly factual whereas Republicans have been caught in truthiness stretching or outright lies.
It basically amounts to this - Republicans and/or conservatives don't want to admit that they lost the convention wars (and lost hard), so they make up some shit about how it never really mattered to them in the first place.
Yeah, right.[/QUOTE]
More partisan hackery.
http://factcheck.org/2012/09/factchecking-obama-and-biden/
Bullshit indeed.
On the Dem side, speeches such as Clinton's have been deemed to be highly factual whereas Republicans have been caught in truthiness stretching or outright lies.
It basically amounts to this - Republicans and/or conservatives don't want to admit that they lost the convention wars (and lost hard), so they make up some shit about how it never really mattered to them in the first place.
Yeah, right.[/QUOTE]
More partisan hackery.
http://factcheck.org/2012/09/factchecking-obama-and-biden/
Bullshit indeed.
[quote name='Commander0Zero']It seems the whole purpose it to rally the party. You're not watching these things to learn anything new (or factual for that matter). They are rolling out the party stars old and new and talking up their candidate. The people that watch intently I wager either watch to bash a certain party or to cheer lead the party of the views they hold. Usually if you really haven't made up your mind by now these pep rallies won't help.[/QUOTE]
You must be one of those people you're talking about. It's such a shallow interpretation and unfortunate that this attitude is so pervasive.
[quote name='berzirk']Doh, I'm alright with that. I think modern politics are a mess. I truly think leaders of both parties lie constantly, and pander to their bases. I didn't think that was a revelation, but I'm sorry for not appropriately handicapping it to be more like, "Liberals and Conservatives lie, but the Liberals are nicer when they lie." I forgot to pander...err...speak to the majority CAG audience[/QUOTE]
That's not pandering to who you think it is.
[quote name='Temporaryscars']More partisan hackery.
http://factcheck.org/2012/09/factchecking-obama-and-biden/
Bullshit indeed.[/QUOTE]
Like I said in another post, it's one thing to pander and it's another to outright lie. I personally hated the neo-liberal(I know you don't know what that word means, so look it up) bootstrapping garbage in Castro's, Clinton's, Biden's, and Obama's speeches, but no where did they come close to being at the same level of crap as speeches from the RNC. The gist of FactCheck's indictment on DNC speeches was that Republicans didn't explicitly say certain things, but they also didn't say anything that would refute those claims either. FactCheck isn't saying what you think it's saying at all.
You must be one of those people you're talking about. It's such a shallow interpretation and unfortunate that this attitude is so pervasive.
[quote name='berzirk']Doh, I'm alright with that. I think modern politics are a mess. I truly think leaders of both parties lie constantly, and pander to their bases. I didn't think that was a revelation, but I'm sorry for not appropriately handicapping it to be more like, "Liberals and Conservatives lie, but the Liberals are nicer when they lie." I forgot to pander...err...speak to the majority CAG audience[/QUOTE]
That's not pandering to who you think it is.
[quote name='Temporaryscars']More partisan hackery.
http://factcheck.org/2012/09/factchecking-obama-and-biden/
Bullshit indeed.[/QUOTE]
Like I said in another post, it's one thing to pander and it's another to outright lie. I personally hated the neo-liberal(I know you don't know what that word means, so look it up) bootstrapping garbage in Castro's, Clinton's, Biden's, and Obama's speeches, but no where did they come close to being at the same level of crap as speeches from the RNC. The gist of FactCheck's indictment on DNC speeches was that Republicans didn't explicitly say certain things, but they also didn't say anything that would refute those claims either. FactCheck isn't saying what you think it's saying at all.
[quote name='dohdough']You must be one of those people you're talking about. It's such a shallow interpretation and unfortunate that this attitude is so pervasive.[/QUOTE]
If it's the majority's opinion (and I'm not saying it is) and is commonly voiced, then are they the weird ones for seeing it that way, or are you the weird one for not? I felt like this year's, moreso than others, was exactly that. You really think that an undecided voter is going to tune in for 6 nights to watch a host of people, many of which they've never heard of before, speak about topics, and make claims that will rally their party, and walk away from two weeks of that stuff saying "wow, I learned a lot. I'm going to vote for candidate X"? I don't think so. I just don't think there was that much content.
As I said back on page 24, the DNC positively and absolutely outshined and crushed the RNC. I'm not sure any rational person has said otherwise, but I've heard a lot of people from both parties agree that they are energizing the base, not converting or bringing aboard new people. This election seems more divided than previous ones. Maybe that's why so many pundits and viewers feel the way they do. I don't think that's unfortunate. It's indicative of how this election has gone since even the primary days with the lineup of kooks the Republicans crapped out there. You either hate Obama, hate Romney, or hate both. I would consider a person rather feeble-minded if they watched two weeks of convention coverage and that's all it took to change their mind on who to vote for. THAT would be unfortunate IMO.
If it's the majority's opinion (and I'm not saying it is) and is commonly voiced, then are they the weird ones for seeing it that way, or are you the weird one for not? I felt like this year's, moreso than others, was exactly that. You really think that an undecided voter is going to tune in for 6 nights to watch a host of people, many of which they've never heard of before, speak about topics, and make claims that will rally their party, and walk away from two weeks of that stuff saying "wow, I learned a lot. I'm going to vote for candidate X"? I don't think so. I just don't think there was that much content.
As I said back on page 24, the DNC positively and absolutely outshined and crushed the RNC. I'm not sure any rational person has said otherwise, but I've heard a lot of people from both parties agree that they are energizing the base, not converting or bringing aboard new people. This election seems more divided than previous ones. Maybe that's why so many pundits and viewers feel the way they do. I don't think that's unfortunate. It's indicative of how this election has gone since even the primary days with the lineup of kooks the Republicans crapped out there. You either hate Obama, hate Romney, or hate both. I would consider a person rather feeble-minded if they watched two weeks of convention coverage and that's all it took to change their mind on who to vote for. THAT would be unfortunate IMO.
[quote name='KingBroly']I find it interesting that Kerry has become somewhat of a foreign policy Hawk since then. I guess when you lose because of one big thing you try to improve your knowledge around it.[/QUOTE]
His name has been tossed around as one to replace Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State when she steps down if Obama gets a second term.
[quote name='dohdough']Eastwood talks about his RNCC speech:
http://www.pineconearchive.com/120907-1.html
LOLZ[/QUOTE]
Ah, good to read. People kept claiming to me that the whole reason his speech was so odd was that his teleprompter broke and he was forced to wing it. Sounds like the winging it was his idea right along.
[quote name='berzirk']Sidenote-can we do away with the imaginary 2/3rds majority voice votes? Holy shit, that Democratic one was so incredibly wrong that the speaker couldn't figure out a way to legitimize it, so some lady had to walk over and tell him to do it again...so he could still pretend like there was a 2/3rds majority. That was a sham.[/QUOTE]
Did you see the GOP convention stuff regarding changing the rules so basically another Ron Paul can't happen? Mitch McConnell literally asked for the "yeas" and "nays" in one breath so everyone shouted at the same time, not to mention the other times were both sides sounded roughly the same, so they just went with what was the decision they wanted. It's ridiculous and hardly democratic.
His name has been tossed around as one to replace Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State when she steps down if Obama gets a second term.
[quote name='dohdough']Eastwood talks about his RNCC speech:
http://www.pineconearchive.com/120907-1.html
LOLZ[/QUOTE]
Ah, good to read. People kept claiming to me that the whole reason his speech was so odd was that his teleprompter broke and he was forced to wing it. Sounds like the winging it was his idea right along.
[quote name='berzirk']Sidenote-can we do away with the imaginary 2/3rds majority voice votes? Holy shit, that Democratic one was so incredibly wrong that the speaker couldn't figure out a way to legitimize it, so some lady had to walk over and tell him to do it again...so he could still pretend like there was a 2/3rds majority. That was a sham.[/QUOTE]
Did you see the GOP convention stuff regarding changing the rules so basically another Ron Paul can't happen? Mitch McConnell literally asked for the "yeas" and "nays" in one breath so everyone shouted at the same time, not to mention the other times were both sides sounded roughly the same, so they just went with what was the decision they wanted. It's ridiculous and hardly democratic.
[quote name='Cantatus']Did you see the GOP convention stuff regarding changing the rules so basically another Ron Paul can't happen? Mitch McConnell literally asked for the "yeas" and "nays" in one breath so everyone shouted at the same time, not to mention the other times were both sides sounded roughly the same, so they just went with what was the decision they wanted. It's ridiculous and hardly democratic.[/QUOTE]
I think I did watch that. I'm a big Ron Paul fan, but in that building, I'm not sure he had a loud enough group that would have sounded like more than 1/3rd. Still the sham of voice votes from the convention floor is outrageous. That needs to be done away with. Release an app for delegates, give em a buzzer...do something, anything better than a lame ass "Yea/No" voice vote.
I think I did watch that. I'm a big Ron Paul fan, but in that building, I'm not sure he had a loud enough group that would have sounded like more than 1/3rd. Still the sham of voice votes from the convention floor is outrageous. That needs to be done away with. Release an app for delegates, give em a buzzer...do something, anything better than a lame ass "Yea/No" voice vote.
You know what is hilariously funny? In that article Eastwood mentions the myth about all Hollywood actors being liberal, but it's the party he pledges loyalty to that says that! They're the ones spreading that lie, and he's speaking up for them, it boggles the mind. And on the off chance that Romney does win, I hope Eastwood holds his ass to the fire to keep every stinking single promise he's made. I won't hold my breathe.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='berzirk']I think I did watch that. I'm a big Ron Paul fan, but in that building, I'm not sure he had a loud enough group that would have sounded like more than 1/3rd. Still the sham of voice votes from the convention floor is outrageous. That needs to be done away with. Release an app for delegates, give em a buzzer...do something, anything better than a lame ass "Yea/No" voice vote.[/QUOTE]
hand count all votes.
you have 3 minutes to register starting...10 minutes ago.
make sure you bring ID.
hand count all votes.
you have 3 minutes to register starting...10 minutes ago.
make sure you bring ID.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Clak']You know what is hilariously funny? In that article Eastwood mentions the myth about all Hollywood actors being liberal, but it's the party he pledges loyalty to that says that! They're the ones spreading that lie, and he's speaking up for them, it boggles the mind. And on the off chance that Romney does win, I hope Eastwood holds his ass to the fire to keep every stinking single promise he's made. I won't hold my breathe.[/QUOTE]
I think it's kinda true though. Eastwood is a pull, but besides him what celebrity power do the Republicans have? They typically trot out some D-lister or has-been.
To further that thought, I'm not sure why you would be proud that your party is unpopular with Hollywood celebrities but that's the Republicans for you...
I think it's kinda true though. Eastwood is a pull, but besides him what celebrity power do the Republicans have? They typically trot out some D-lister or has-been.
To further that thought, I'm not sure why you would be proud that your party is unpopular with Hollywood celebrities but that's the Republicans for you...
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
shrug. celebrities, schmelebrities.
i mean, it's charming and all, but it's all a distraction from discussing ideas and specifics.
which, ironically, is pretty much what Ryan's Path to Prosperity is all about.
i mean, it's charming and all, but it's all a distraction from discussing ideas and specifics.
which, ironically, is pretty much what Ryan's Path to Prosperity is all about.
Temporaryscars
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 38 (100%)
[quote name='dohdough']
Like I said in another post, it's one thing to pander and it's another to outright lie. I personally hated the neo-liberal(I know you don't know what that word means, so look it up) bootstrapping garbage in Castro's, Clinton's, Biden's, and Obama's speeches, but no where did they come close to being at the same level of crap as speeches from the RNC. The gist of FactCheck's indictment on DNC speeches was that Republicans didn't explicitly say certain things, but they also didn't say anything that would refute those claims either. FactCheck isn't saying what you think it's saying at all.[/QUOTE]
So that doesn't qualify as an outright lie? There are plenty other examples in the article I linked. Come on, I know it's difficult for a liberal apologist such as yourself to accept the fact that your side is just as sleazy as the other, but you should at least make an effort.
Here's the part where you talk a bunch of shit, exclaim "LOLZ," claim that I said things I didn't and then sulk away when I point out how ridiculous you're being.
Ugh...I feel as though I just defended Romney. I need a shower.
Like I said in another post, it's one thing to pander and it's another to outright lie. I personally hated the neo-liberal(I know you don't know what that word means, so look it up) bootstrapping garbage in Castro's, Clinton's, Biden's, and Obama's speeches, but no where did they come close to being at the same level of crap as speeches from the RNC. The gist of FactCheck's indictment on DNC speeches was that Republicans didn't explicitly say certain things, but they also didn't say anything that would refute those claims either. FactCheck isn't saying what you think it's saying at all.[/QUOTE]
So that doesn't qualify as an outright lie? There are plenty other examples in the article I linked. Come on, I know it's difficult for a liberal apologist such as yourself to accept the fact that your side is just as sleazy as the other, but you should at least make an effort.
Here's the part where you talk a bunch of shit, exclaim "LOLZ," claim that I said things I didn't and then sulk away when I point out how ridiculous you're being.
Ugh...I feel as though I just defended Romney. I need a shower.
[quote name='camoor']I think it's kinda true though. Eastwood is a pull, but besides him what celebrity power do the Republicans have? They typically trot out some D-lister or has-been.
To further that thought, I'm not sure why you would be proud that your party is unpopular with Hollywood celebrities but that's the Republicans for you...[/QUOTE]
Jon Voight and Craig T Nelson are the only other conservative celebrities I can think of. Heston would have been. But Eastwood is socially liberal supposedly, yet he is endorsing someone like Romney, it's nuts.
To further that thought, I'm not sure why you would be proud that your party is unpopular with Hollywood celebrities but that's the Republicans for you...[/QUOTE]
Jon Voight and Craig T Nelson are the only other conservative celebrities I can think of. Heston would have been. But Eastwood is socially liberal supposedly, yet he is endorsing someone like Romney, it's nuts.
[quote name='Temporaryscars']So that doesn't qualify as an outright lie? There are plenty other examples in the article I linked. Come on, I know it's difficult for a liberal apologist such as yourself to accept the fact that your side is just as sleazy as the other, but you should at least make an effort.[/QUOTE]
"Both sides do it" herp derp.
If you've read the article, then you'd be able to comprehend that "Ryan, or whoever, didn't exactly say how they were going to do it exactly, just that they would, but it's impossible to know exactly because they didn't say exactly..." is an incomplete analysis of the statement that ignores evidence that points to what Ryan et al would be proposing to do. You don't have to ban abortion if you can redefine an individual into something that flashes into existence when a sperm cell joins an egg. All you're doing is arguinging semantics without an iota of nuance.
Maybe you should ass yourself into reading the other FactCheck articles to see the difference between what Democrats were asserting about Republicans and what the Republicans were asserting about Democrats. I mean! Biden has a habit of embellishing and saying inappropriate things, but Ryan has proven himself to be a pathological liar.
And for the record: Increasing the tax burden by removing deductions is operationally the same as raising taxes when the deductions were not intended to be temporary in nature.
Since "both sides are sleazy," I guess that guy from theblaze.com was right in saying that it's hypocritical of Democrats to require an id for press privileges too because what the DNC did is exactly the same as going to a voting booth?
"Both sides do it" herp derp.
If you've read the article, then you'd be able to comprehend that "Ryan, or whoever, didn't exactly say how they were going to do it exactly, just that they would, but it's impossible to know exactly because they didn't say exactly..." is an incomplete analysis of the statement that ignores evidence that points to what Ryan et al would be proposing to do. You don't have to ban abortion if you can redefine an individual into something that flashes into existence when a sperm cell joins an egg. All you're doing is arguing
ing semantics without an iota of nuance.Maybe you should ass yourself into reading the other FactCheck articles to see the difference between what Democrats were asserting about Republicans and what the Republicans were asserting about Democrats. I mean
! Biden has a habit of embellishing and saying inappropriate things, but Ryan has proven himself to be a pathological liar.And for the record: Increasing the tax burden by removing deductions is operationally the same as raising taxes when the deductions were not intended to be temporary in nature.
Since "both sides are sleazy," I guess that guy from theblaze.com was right in saying that it's hypocritical of Democrats to require an id for press privileges too because what the DNC did is exactly the same as going to a voting booth?
I don't need to "lulz" or talk shit to win a debate, I just do it for fun. The fact that you think everything should be taken at face value only points to your lack of ability to critically analyze things. You might not explicitly say what you mean, but what you DO say has lots of implications and is as transparent and shallow as your analyses.
You feel like you just defended Romney because you just did.Ugh...I feel as though I just defended Romney. I need a shower.
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Clak']Jon Voight and Craig T Nelson are the only other conservative celebrities I can think of. Heston would have been. But Eastwood is socially liberal supposedly, yet he is endorsing someone like Romney, it's nuts.[/QUOTE]
You forgot Fred Thompson already? He ran for president and was on Law and Order.:lol:
You also forgot Kelsey Grammer.
Now, who wants to bet that Ted Nugent will be speaking at the next RNC as an official speaker?
You forgot Fred Thompson already? He ran for president and was on Law and Order.:lol:
You also forgot Kelsey Grammer.
Now, who wants to bet that Ted Nugent will be speaking at the next RNC as an official speaker?
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']shrug. celebrities, schmelebrities.
i mean, it's charming and all, but it's all a distraction from discussing ideas and specifics.
which, ironically, is pretty much what Ryan's Path to Prosperity is all about.[/QUOTE]
True, just having some fun.
[quote name='Clak']Jon Voight and Craig T Nelson are the only other conservative celebrities I can think of. Heston would have been. But Eastwood is socially liberal supposedly, yet he is endorsing someone like Romney, it's nuts.[/QUOTE]
Yeah they are both has-beens.
I was looking at the list of conservative celebs, here are some surprises:
Adam Sandler
Vince Vaughn
Joan Rivers
Bruce Willis (I guess he's not so surprising)
Johnny Ramone (what's up with punk rockers and conservativism? Is it a goof?)
Alice Cooper
James Woods
Kid Rock
http://www.ijreview.com/2012/07/11669-31-conservative-celebrities/
http://www.mypalal.com/aboutalan/ConservativeCelebrities.cfm
i mean, it's charming and all, but it's all a distraction from discussing ideas and specifics.
which, ironically, is pretty much what Ryan's Path to Prosperity is all about.[/QUOTE]
True, just having some fun.
[quote name='Clak']Jon Voight and Craig T Nelson are the only other conservative celebrities I can think of. Heston would have been. But Eastwood is socially liberal supposedly, yet he is endorsing someone like Romney, it's nuts.[/QUOTE]
Yeah they are both has-beens.
I was looking at the list of conservative celebs, here are some surprises:
Adam Sandler
Vince Vaughn
Joan Rivers
Bruce Willis (I guess he's not so surprising)
Johnny Ramone (what's up with punk rockers and conservativism? Is it a goof?)
Alice Cooper
James Woods
Kid Rock
http://www.ijreview.com/2012/07/11669-31-conservative-celebrities/
http://www.mypalal.com/aboutalan/ConservativeCelebrities.cfm
I'm guessing that the only reason why Kid Rock is on that list is because conservatives are the only ones that like his faux-patriotic nationalist music. It's just like how Joey McIntyre was huge in christian music until the New Kids got back together and he dumped that shit.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='dohdough']I'm guessing that the only reason why Kid Rock is on that list is because conservatives are the only ones that like his faux-patriotic nationalist music. It's just like how Joey McIntyre was huge in christian music until the New Kids got back together and he dumped that shit.[/QUOTE]
Yeah Katy Perry started out as a Christian singer but dumped the Jebus once her career kicked in.
Britney Spears still asserts that she is a conservative. Always funny when amoral white trash gets preachy about how the rest of us should live our lives.
Yeah Katy Perry started out as a Christian singer but dumped the Jebus once her career kicked in.
Britney Spears still asserts that she is a conservative. Always funny when amoral white trash gets preachy about how the rest of us should live our lives.
[quote name='berzirk']I think I did watch that. I'm a big Ron Paul fan, but in that building, I'm not sure he had a loud enough group that would have sounded like more than 1/3rd. Still the sham of voice votes from the convention floor is outrageous. That needs to be done away with. Release an app for delegates, give em a buzzer...do something, anything better than a lame ass "Yea/No" voice vote.[/QUOTE]
The things they were voting on weren't necessarily specific to Ron Paul as they were changing how the delegate rules work. From the videos I saw, the volume between the "yeas" and "nays" were fairly hard to distinguish.
Regardless, like you said, this is the 21st century. Surely there's some form of technology out there that they can use. Hell, screw 21st century, Star Search (or some televised talent competition, I may be wrong on which) was using a system that measured the volume of applause 25 years ago.
Of course, all of this presumes the parties actually want to vote fairly. From what I saw, it's mostly just part of the dog and pony show.
[quote name='mykevermin']shrug. celebrities, schmelebrities.
i mean, it's charming and all, but it's all a distraction from discussing ideas and specifics.[/QUOTE]
Agreed. I really had no interest in watching Eastwood's speech until I heard all the hubbub of him yelling at a chair. I guess, to some degree, I understand why they want celebrities speaking at these conventions, but realistically, why should I care that Eastwood is for Romney or Natalie Portman is for Obama? But then I find most endorsements to be fairly meaningless...
The things they were voting on weren't necessarily specific to Ron Paul as they were changing how the delegate rules work. From the videos I saw, the volume between the "yeas" and "nays" were fairly hard to distinguish.
Regardless, like you said, this is the 21st century. Surely there's some form of technology out there that they can use. Hell, screw 21st century, Star Search (or some televised talent competition, I may be wrong on which) was using a system that measured the volume of applause 25 years ago.
Of course, all of this presumes the parties actually want to vote fairly. From what I saw, it's mostly just part of the dog and pony show.
[quote name='mykevermin']shrug. celebrities, schmelebrities.
i mean, it's charming and all, but it's all a distraction from discussing ideas and specifics.[/QUOTE]
Agreed. I really had no interest in watching Eastwood's speech until I heard all the hubbub of him yelling at a chair. I guess, to some degree, I understand why they want celebrities speaking at these conventions, but realistically, why should I care that Eastwood is for Romney or Natalie Portman is for Obama? But then I find most endorsements to be fairly meaningless...
Feeding the Abscess
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
Aside from the DNC doing everything but giving the military and Israel a blowjob on live TV during its convention:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...gs-about-whistleblower-persecutions?fb=optOut
and
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...gs-about-whistleblower-persecutions?fb=optOut
and
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']Aside from the DNC doing everything but giving the military and Israel a blowjob on live TV during its convention:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...gs-about-whistleblower-persecutions?fb=optOut
[/QUOTE]
He's right, it is a radical transformation of their platform. Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay, national security letters, whistleblowers, transparency, claiming politically contentious things as state secrets, these were all the reasons why I hated Bush and why I've been completely disillusioned with Obama and the Democratic Party.
Is this whole affair over the administration leaking information beneficial to them, including details of Bin Laden's death, not analogous to Valerie Plame? How about claiming executive privilege to quash the Fast and Furious investigation? Obama himself called out Bush for hiding behind executive privilege with regard to the US Attorney/Karl Rove/Harriet Miers scandal. And they would've hammered Bush on the extrajudicial killing of American citizens overseas, if he had actually done it and not Obama. Imagine the protests that would've ensued if George W. Bush had claimed to have the power to execute American citizens at his sole discretion with no due process.
I forget who I'm paraphrasing but Obama has turned a right wing assault on constitutional rights into a bipartisan one.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...gs-about-whistleblower-persecutions?fb=optOut
[/QUOTE]
He's right, it is a radical transformation of their platform. Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay, national security letters, whistleblowers, transparency, claiming politically contentious things as state secrets, these were all the reasons why I hated Bush and why I've been completely disillusioned with Obama and the Democratic Party.
Is this whole affair over the administration leaking information beneficial to them, including details of Bin Laden's death, not analogous to Valerie Plame? How about claiming executive privilege to quash the Fast and Furious investigation? Obama himself called out Bush for hiding behind executive privilege with regard to the US Attorney/Karl Rove/Harriet Miers scandal. And they would've hammered Bush on the extrajudicial killing of American citizens overseas, if he had actually done it and not Obama. Imagine the protests that would've ensued if George W. Bush had claimed to have the power to execute American citizens at his sole discretion with no due process.
I forget who I'm paraphrasing but Obama has turned a right wing assault on constitutional rights into a bipartisan one.
Last edited by a moderator:
ElwoodCuse
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Clak']Jon Voight and Craig T Nelson are the only other conservative celebrities I can think of. Heston would have been. But Eastwood is socially liberal supposedly, yet he is endorsing someone like Romney, it's nuts.[/QUOTE]
Eastwood is basically a libertarian at his core. Aside from being mayor of Carmel, CA he's also well-known for opposing the Americans with Disabilities Act because he thought it was an unfair government intrusion. Kinda like how Rand Paul thinks the Civil Rights Act should be repealed.
Eastwood is basically a libertarian at his core. Aside from being mayor of Carmel, CA he's also well-known for opposing the Americans with Disabilities Act because he thought it was an unfair government intrusion. Kinda like how Rand Paul thinks the Civil Rights Act should be repealed.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='dafoomie']He's right, it is a radical transformation of their platform. Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay, national security letters, whistleblowers, transparency, claiming politically contentious things as state secrets, these were all the reasons why I hated Bush and why I've been completely disillusioned with Obama and the Democratic Party.
Is this whole affair over the administration leaking information beneficial to them, including details of Bin Laden's death, not analogous to Valerie Plame? How about claiming executive privilege to quash the Fast and Furious investigation? Obama himself called out Bush for hiding behind executive privilege with regard to the US Attorney/Karl Rove/Harriet Miers scandal. And they would've hammered Bush on the extrajudicial killing of American citizens overseas, if he had actually done it and not Obama. Imagine the protests that would've ensued if George W. Bush had claimed to have the power to execute American citizens at his sole discretion with no due process.
I forget who I'm paraphrasing but Obama has turned a right wing assault on constitutional rights into a bipartisan one.[/QUOTE]
You're going to have to elaborate on the analogues b/w Obama and Bush w/r/t Valerie Plame. I'm not seeing it in the slightest.
I maintained years ago that Obama was very Reagan-esque as a president, that Democratic voters merely thought they were getting an ultra liberal when he was a centrist leaning to the right.
Here's the thing, though - suppose you're right. That's consistent with the general thesis of Pierson and Hacker in their book (Winner Takes All Politics) I mentioned before. We have two parties: right and righter. The political theater we have today distracts us from this fact.
So suppose you're right. What is an ultraliberal like myself to do? Who can I vote for? Romney? Someone who we has said nothing about doing away with any of these bad things? Someone who brags about their neoconservative credentials, who will boost military spending by 50% (to satisfy the military-industrial complex), who brags about preemptive war in Iran, and who brags about making economic (and therefore military) enemies of Russia and China?
Obama is the safer bet by a long shot, but as you point out, not a comfortable one.
Why is it the Libertarians get to act all clean of soul and spirit and ideology when they vote for totalitarian religious oppressors merely because they oppose business regulations and promise lower tax rates?
Liberals like myself vote for someone who is to the right of them politically without being thrown the "hypocrite" card. It's boring and it's inaccurate. Libertarians vote based on who is electable and what is available. I do the same.
It's also a matter of principle. You know who fits my ideology really closely? Bernie Sanders. Maybe Kucinich, too. Neither of them will ever be a major candidate for president because of their beliefs being so far right. I have to compromise to make an informed vote. I don't get to vote for someone who fits my belief systems or ideas entirely. And, most importantly, I don't ever pretend to. I worry deeply for someone who thinks that they're getting *everything* they want *exactly* how they want it with their presidential candidate of choice. Because that's bloody delusional.
(though you did get universal health care from Romney, so perhaps you're a bit closer to attaining Nirvana than the rest of us are, eh?
Lastly, wasn't this about taxes and spending? I thought it was taxes and spending. Someone said, previously, in this thread:
So this is all trivial, unimportant stuff, right? I mean, it's not like you were the one who said that just a day and a half ago.
:lol:
Is this whole affair over the administration leaking information beneficial to them, including details of Bin Laden's death, not analogous to Valerie Plame? How about claiming executive privilege to quash the Fast and Furious investigation? Obama himself called out Bush for hiding behind executive privilege with regard to the US Attorney/Karl Rove/Harriet Miers scandal. And they would've hammered Bush on the extrajudicial killing of American citizens overseas, if he had actually done it and not Obama. Imagine the protests that would've ensued if George W. Bush had claimed to have the power to execute American citizens at his sole discretion with no due process.
I forget who I'm paraphrasing but Obama has turned a right wing assault on constitutional rights into a bipartisan one.[/QUOTE]
You're going to have to elaborate on the analogues b/w Obama and Bush w/r/t Valerie Plame. I'm not seeing it in the slightest.
I maintained years ago that Obama was very Reagan-esque as a president, that Democratic voters merely thought they were getting an ultra liberal when he was a centrist leaning to the right.
Here's the thing, though - suppose you're right. That's consistent with the general thesis of Pierson and Hacker in their book (Winner Takes All Politics) I mentioned before. We have two parties: right and righter. The political theater we have today distracts us from this fact.
So suppose you're right. What is an ultraliberal like myself to do? Who can I vote for? Romney? Someone who we has said nothing about doing away with any of these bad things? Someone who brags about their neoconservative credentials, who will boost military spending by 50% (to satisfy the military-industrial complex), who brags about preemptive war in Iran, and who brags about making economic (and therefore military) enemies of Russia and China?
Obama is the safer bet by a long shot, but as you point out, not a comfortable one.
Why is it the Libertarians get to act all clean of soul and spirit and ideology when they vote for totalitarian religious oppressors merely because they oppose business regulations and promise lower tax rates?
Liberals like myself vote for someone who is to the right of them politically without being thrown the "hypocrite" card. It's boring and it's inaccurate. Libertarians vote based on who is electable and what is available. I do the same.
It's also a matter of principle. You know who fits my ideology really closely? Bernie Sanders. Maybe Kucinich, too. Neither of them will ever be a major candidate for president because of their beliefs being so far right. I have to compromise to make an informed vote. I don't get to vote for someone who fits my belief systems or ideas entirely. And, most importantly, I don't ever pretend to. I worry deeply for someone who thinks that they're getting *everything* they want *exactly* how they want it with their presidential candidate of choice. Because that's bloody delusional.
(though you did get universal health care from Romney, so perhaps you're a bit closer to attaining Nirvana than the rest of us are, eh?
Lastly, wasn't this about taxes and spending? I thought it was taxes and spending. Someone said, previously, in this thread:
So this is all trivial, unimportant stuff, right? I mean, it's not like you were the one who said that just a day and a half ago.
:lol:
That's really it. In a two party system only people who are center-left or center-right can find a candidate to vote for who truly matches their beliefs. That or through away their vote on a third party candidate on the ballot or a write in. That's viable if you're not in a swing state since your vote doesn't matter anyway if you're in a solid red/blue state. But if in a swing state it's just wasteful as you're giving a candidate who's more opposed to your views a better chance of winning your state by not voting for the one closer to your views. How many Nader voters are ok with having 8 years of Bush that might have been averted if they'd all voted for Gore?
For me, I don't have the issue as much as an ultraliberal like Myke as I'm way closer to center left than him and most others on here. Obama doesn't match my views perfectly, but he's not far off--as illustrated by that facebook poll test where I matched him a lot higher than most others who took it.
For me, I don't have the issue as much as an ultraliberal like Myke as I'm way closer to center left than him and most others on here. Obama doesn't match my views perfectly, but he's not far off--as illustrated by that facebook poll test where I matched him a lot higher than most others who took it.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Crotch
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
A multi-party system has its problems. Canada has three major political parties: the Conservatives on the right, the Liberals centre-left, and the NDP as the "So... are you guys still socialist?" party. There's also the Bloc Quebecois in Quebec, but they got shit on hard last election, so 'em.
Thing is, with two left-ish parties, the vote got split. Hard. And we got a majority Conservative government. Hell, they got >50% of the seats with 40% of the vote. A third of my province voted NDP, yet we ended up sending 13 Conservatives and one Liberal to Ottawa.
You want to have 3+ strong parties? You have to get rid of thising ricockulous first-past-the-post system.
And you have to be prepared to deal with minority and coalition governments, butwhatever.
'em.Thing is, with two left-ish parties, the vote got split. Hard. And we got a majority Conservative government. Hell, they got >50% of the seats with 40% of the vote. A third of my province voted NDP, yet we ended up sending 13 Conservatives and one Liberal to Ottawa.
You want to have 3+ strong parties? You have to get rid of this
ing ricockulous first-past-the-post system.And you have to be prepared to deal with minority and coalition governments, but
whatever.Yeah, the fact is there's never going to be any perfect system of government. Most people aren't going to be totally happy unless the government does everything they want. And that's just never going to happen as society is far to diverse in values, beliefs, priorities etc. And the government is going to reflect that and always end up with some hodge podge middle ground between all the competing view points.
Temporaryscars
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 38 (100%)
[quote name='dohdough']"Both sides do it" herp derp.
If you've read the article, then you'd be able to comprehend that "Ryan, or whoever, didn't exactly say how they were going to do it exactly, just that they would, but it's impossible to know exactly because they didn't say exactly..." is an incomplete analysis of the statement that ignores evidence that points to what Ryan et al would be proposing to do. You don't have to ban abortion if you can redefine an individual into something that flashes into existence when a sperm cell joins an egg. All you're doing is arguinging semantics without an iota of nuance.
Maybe you should ass yourself into reading the other FactCheck articles to see the difference between what Democrats were asserting about Republicans and what the Republicans were asserting about Democrats. I mean! Biden has a habit of embellishing and saying inappropriate things, but Ryan has proven himself to be a pathological liar.
And for the record: Increasing the tax burden by removing deductions is operationally the same as raising taxes when the deductions were not intended to be temporary in nature.
Since "both sides are sleazy," I guess that guy from theblaze.com was right in saying that it's hypocritical of Democrats to require an id for press privileges too because what the DNC did is exactly the same as going to a voting booth?
I don't need to "lulz" or talk shit to win a debate, I just do it for fun. The fact that you think everything should be taken at face value only points to your lack of ability to critically analyze things. You might not explicitly say what you mean, but what you DO say has lots of implications and is as transparent and shallow as your analyses.
You feel like you just defended Romney because you just did.[/QUOTE]
I don't need to read their assessment of republican assertions. I already know the republicans are full of shit. What I'm fighting against is this liberal circle-jerk you've found yourself in where "The Republicans are lying!" and yet "The Democrats are just slightly bending the truth!"
In all reality, I wasn't defending Romney. An attack on your side doesn't equal a propping up of the other side. There are glaring problems within the liberal platform that you just refuse to deal with as you're nothing more than a liberal-apologist.
If you've read the article, then you'd be able to comprehend that "Ryan, or whoever, didn't exactly say how they were going to do it exactly, just that they would, but it's impossible to know exactly because they didn't say exactly..." is an incomplete analysis of the statement that ignores evidence that points to what Ryan et al would be proposing to do. You don't have to ban abortion if you can redefine an individual into something that flashes into existence when a sperm cell joins an egg. All you're doing is arguing
ing semantics without an iota of nuance.Maybe you should ass yourself into reading the other FactCheck articles to see the difference between what Democrats were asserting about Republicans and what the Republicans were asserting about Democrats. I mean
! Biden has a habit of embellishing and saying inappropriate things, but Ryan has proven himself to be a pathological liar.And for the record: Increasing the tax burden by removing deductions is operationally the same as raising taxes when the deductions were not intended to be temporary in nature.
Since "both sides are sleazy," I guess that guy from theblaze.com was right in saying that it's hypocritical of Democrats to require an id for press privileges too because what the DNC did is exactly the same as going to a voting booth?
I don't need to "lulz" or talk shit to win a debate, I just do it for fun. The fact that you think everything should be taken at face value only points to your lack of ability to critically analyze things. You might not explicitly say what you mean, but what you DO say has lots of implications and is as transparent and shallow as your analyses.
You feel like you just defended Romney because you just did.[/QUOTE]
I don't need to read their assessment of republican assertions. I already know the republicans are full of shit. What I'm fighting against is this liberal circle-jerk you've found yourself in where "The Republicans are lying!" and yet "The Democrats are just slightly bending the truth!"
In all reality, I wasn't defending Romney. An attack on your side doesn't equal a propping up of the other side. There are glaring problems within the liberal platform that you just refuse to deal with as you're nothing more than a liberal-apologist.
[quote name='Temporaryscars']An attack on your side doesn't equal a propping up of the other side.[/QUOTE]
This.
The only problem is, too many folks on here (and elsewhere) see the entire thing as "us vs. them" and anyone who sees it differently must be "them".
This.
The only problem is, too many folks on here (and elsewhere) see the entire thing as "us vs. them" and anyone who sees it differently must be "them".
[quote name='Temporaryscars']I don't need to read their assessment of republican assertions. I already know the republicans are full of shit. What I'm fighting against is this liberal circle-jerk you've found yourself in where "The Republicans are lying!" and yet "The Democrats are just slightly bending the truth!"
In all reality, I wasn't defending Romney. An attack on your side doesn't equal a propping up of the other side. There are glaring problems within the liberal platform that you just refuse to deal with as you're nothing more than a liberal-apologist.[/QUOTE]
Politics are dishonest on both sides. But there are differences in degree of lying.
In any case, I don't really give a shit. I'm liberal and want the liberal side to always win. If they have to lie to do it, so be it. In most things in life the ends justify the means. I do what it takes to succeed and get what I want in life, so I'd be hypocritical to bash politicians or others for doing the same.
It's voters own fault if they're too lazy to stay informed and figure out what's truth, what's lies and what's exaggeration before casting their vote.
In all reality, I wasn't defending Romney. An attack on your side doesn't equal a propping up of the other side. There are glaring problems within the liberal platform that you just refuse to deal with as you're nothing more than a liberal-apologist.[/QUOTE]
Politics are dishonest on both sides. But there are differences in degree of lying.
In any case, I don't really give a shit. I'm liberal and want the liberal side to always win. If they have to lie to do it, so be it. In most things in life the ends justify the means. I do what it takes to succeed and get what I want in life, so I'd be hypocritical to bash politicians or others for doing the same.
It's voters own fault if they're too lazy to stay informed and figure out what's truth, what's lies and what's exaggeration before casting their vote.
[quote name='mykevermin']You're going to have to elaborate on the analogues b/w Obama and Bush w/r/t Valerie Plame. I'm not seeing it in the slightest.
...
Lastly, wasn't this about taxes and spending? I thought it was taxes and spending. Someone said, previously, in this thread:
So this is all trivial, unimportant stuff, right? I mean, it's not like you were the one who said that just a day and a half ago.
:lol:[/QUOTE]
Apparently you didn't like the discussion I was having so you went ahead and had your own.
In the case of Plame, the Bush administration chose to illegally leak classified information for political gain, to discredit Joe Wilson. The Obama administration is accused of illegally leaking classified information for political gain, including details of the Bin Laden Raid (which blew the cover of the Pakistani doctor working for the CIA), details of the worm that infected Iranian nuclear facilities, the kill list, and more. The difference is that the Bush administration succumbed to pressure to appoint a special prosecutor and Obama is refusing to do so.
And as for the economy, its all the general public cares about. Nobody talks about these issues anymore and the general public is either unaware or doesn't care, these are not issues that will impact the election. These are issues that matter to me.
You can vote for the guy that turned his back on his stated core principles once he got into office, or you can punish him by voting him out. Win the next battle in 2016 with candidates who will likely have fewer ties to Obama. If Obama wins again, why would the Democrats change? Is Romney so strong a candidate that you'd be afraid of him in 2016?
...
Lastly, wasn't this about taxes and spending? I thought it was taxes and spending. Someone said, previously, in this thread:
So this is all trivial, unimportant stuff, right? I mean, it's not like you were the one who said that just a day and a half ago.
:lol:[/QUOTE]
Apparently you didn't like the discussion I was having so you went ahead and had your own.
In the case of Plame, the Bush administration chose to illegally leak classified information for political gain, to discredit Joe Wilson. The Obama administration is accused of illegally leaking classified information for political gain, including details of the Bin Laden Raid (which blew the cover of the Pakistani doctor working for the CIA), details of the worm that infected Iranian nuclear facilities, the kill list, and more. The difference is that the Bush administration succumbed to pressure to appoint a special prosecutor and Obama is refusing to do so.
And as for the economy, its all the general public cares about. Nobody talks about these issues anymore and the general public is either unaware or doesn't care, these are not issues that will impact the election. These are issues that matter to me.
You can vote for the guy that turned his back on his stated core principles once he got into office, or you can punish him by voting him out. Win the next battle in 2016 with candidates who will likely have fewer ties to Obama. If Obama wins again, why would the Democrats change? Is Romney so strong a candidate that you'd be afraid of him in 2016?
bread's done