2012 Election Thread

Thing is it isn't the truth either, it is just how the world looks to some people in their little bubbles of wealth and prestige.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Thing is it isn't the truth either, it is just how the world looks to some people in their little bubbles of wealth and prestige.[/QUOTE]

You know you are right. I should say "truth" meaning how he thinks. I am a Dem and paid incomes taxes every year of my life since I was 16 (so I guess 21 years).

I just wonder how this will play. I hope the PACs use this in commercials.
 
So I just got a call from a polling place. It was 9:30 and it was my dam cell phone. IT was fine though since I had never done one before. Some of the question make me laugh. It is funny how completely different the relevant "issues" are when being asked to compare the 2 candidates. They read like the talking points of the opposite party.
 
Wow - I hope this is the end for Romney.

Did everyone see that he says that he and his wife gave away their inheritances, so they made their money the "old-fashioned way." lol.
 
[quote name='cancerman1120']So I just got a call from a polling place. It was 9:30 and it was my dam cell phone. IT was fine though since I had never done one before. Some of the question make me laugh. It is funny how completely different the relevant "issues" are when being asked to compare the 2 candidates. They read like the talking points of the opposite party.[/QUOTE]

What state are you in?
 
Well Romney has responded. Guess what? He stands by the statement. Asshole.

Republican Mitt Romney says a video clip in which he called nearly half of Americans "victims" was "not elegantly stated" and was "spoken off the cuff." But he says President Barack Obama's approach is "attractive to people who are not paying taxes."
...

The Republican nominee did not disavow the comments but said they were made during a question-and-answer session. He said it was indicative of his campaign's effort to "focus on the people in the middle."
 
[quote name='cancerman1120']Well Romney has responded. Guess what? He stands by the statement. Asshole.[/QUOTE]

Would you feel better if he came out with some BS statement about how he didn't mean it?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Would you feel better if he came out with some BS statement about how he didn't mean it?[/QUOTE]

No, but maybe an apology for calling Americans lazy good for nothings. Instead, he was was like I could have said it better but I still mean it. That is what makes him the asshole not the owning up to it.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Good column from David Brooks shredding Romney's comment.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/o...l=1&adxnnlx=1347941208-1XfABTDniQosx9F3upWZjQ[/QUOTE]

Where does Brooks get this data that 49% of Americans receive government benefits? What does "government benefits" include? That number seems high to me, if he's referring to things like food stamps and Medicaid.

I did some searching, and there is some census data that shows that 49% of American households received some type of government benefits, and that number apparently includes social security. So, if an elderly person who receives social security is living with family members, that household would be counted as receiving assistance.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Would you feel better if he came out with some BS statement about how he didn't mean it?[/QUOTE]

I'd feel better if he came out with a truthful statement. Tell the country how many of that 47% are hard-working Americans who pay for their own food and shelter, but have little money left for anything else. Tell America how many of the 47% are senior citizens. And tell the country how many wealthly households pay no federal income taxes because of tax havens and loopholes.
 
[quote name='cancerman1120']Well Romney has responded. Guess what? He stands by the statement. Asshole.

Republican Mitt Romney says a video clip in which he called nearly half of Americans "victims" was "not elegantly stated" and was "spoken off the cuff." But he says President Barack Obama's approach is "attractive to people who are not paying taxes."
...

The Republican nominee did not disavow the comments but said they were made during a question-and-answer session. He said it was indicative of his campaign's effort to "focus on the people in the middle."[/QUOTE]

He considers the "middle" 500k per year.
 
[quote name='chiwii']Where does Brooks get this data that 49% of Americans receive government benefits? What does "government benefits" include? That number seems high to me, if he's referring to things like food stamps and Medicaid.

I did some searching, and there is some census data that shows that 49% of American households received some type of government benefits, and that number apparently includes social security. So, if an elderly person who receives social security is living with family members, that household would be counted as receiving assistance.[/QUOTE]

That was his point. Even those in the middle class receive a lot of government benefits. Medicare in old age, subsidized student loans (and grants for lower income students--who I hardly think deserved to be called free loaders or lazy), social security (if they live long and get more benefits than what they paid in) etc. Brooks mentioned some of that stuff here:

This comment suggests a few things. First, it suggests that he really doesn’t know much about the country he inhabits. Who are these freeloaders? Is it the Iraq war veteran who goes to the V.A.? Is it the student getting a loan to go to college? Is it the retiree on Social Security or Medicare?
Click to expand...

Government benefits aren't just for the poor, unemployed etc. That's a fallacy perpetuated by the right with their focus on the welfare queen myth, Romney's comment etc.

And the best part of Brook's column for the tldr: crowd.

Romney’s comments also reveal that he has lost any sense of the social compact. In 1987, during Ronald Reagan’s second term, 62 percent of Republicans believed that the government has a responsibility to help those who can’t help themselves. Now, according to the Pew Research Center, only 40 percent of Republicans believe that.

The Republican Party, and apparently Mitt Romney, too, has shifted over toward a much more hyperindividualistic and atomistic social view — from the Reaganesque language of common citizenship to the libertarian language of makers and takers. There’s no way the country will trust the Republican Party to reform the welfare state if that party doesn’t have a basic commitment to provide a safety net for those who suffer for no fault of their own.

The final thing the comment suggests is that Romney knows nothing about ambition and motivation. The formula he sketches is this: People who are forced to make it on their own have drive. People who receive benefits have dependency.

But, of course, no middle-class parent acts as if this is true. Middle-class parents don’t deprive their children of benefits so they can learn to struggle on their own. They shower benefits on their children to give them more opportunities — so they can play sports, go on foreign trips and develop more skills.

People are motivated when they feel competent. They are motivated when they have more opportunities. Ambition is fired by possibility, not by deprivation, as a tour through the world’s poorest regions makes clear.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It occurred to me yesterday that republicans don't see facts like many people do. To many people a fact is something that can't be argued about, a fact is a fact, by definition it can't be said it's untrue if it's really a fact. Republicans don't see facts like that though, to them it almost seems like facts are hurdles or obstacles they have to overcome. Facts seem to be a hindrance to them. They know what they believe in, and something like a little fact is not going to get in their way.
 
And that's true of both main factions of the GOP base.

At the lower end you have the middle class and under social conservatives whose world view is shaped by their religious beliefs. And they just care about their religious values and morals and forcing those on society. Not much concern with facts when faith is your driving force...

Then you have the upper end that are just the greedy rich who only care about making as much money as possible and keeping as much in their own pockets as possible, and have no qualms about lying to get what they want. It's not that they don't see facts, it's that they don't mind ignoring them and lying to get ahead. It works in business--the do whatever it takes to get to the top mentality. And they carry that over to governing.
 
That's what kills me about people who like Romney. They want more truth in government, so they want to elect an ex business executive? Really?
 
To be fair, it doesn't seem there are that many who really like Romney outside of the one-percenters who know he has their backs. And those types certainly don't want truth in government. They just want lower taxes on high incomes, fewer regulations and are all for backroom deals that support their bottom lines.

His support has always been lukewarm at best among the far right GOP base. Any support he has now is more just of the "at least he's not Obama" vein.
 
[quote name='cancerman1120']No, but maybe an apology for calling Americans lazy good for nothings. Instead, he was was like I could have said it better but I still mean it. That is what makes him the asshole not the owning up to it.[/QUOTE]

If he came out and apologized, would you believe it?
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']And that's true of both main factions of the GOP base.

At the lower end you have the middle class and under social conservatives whose world view is shaped by their religious beliefs. And they just care about their religious values and morals and forcing those on society. Not much concern with facts when faith is your driving force...

Then you have the upper end that are just the greedy rich who only care about making as much money as possible and keeping as much in their own pockets as possible, and have no qualms about lying to get what they want. It's not that they don't see facts, it's that they don't mind ignoring them and lying to get ahead. It works in business--the do whatever it takes to get to the top mentality. And they carry that over to governing.[/QUOTE]

I prefer to think the "upper end" certainly know better, but it's in their individual best interests (financially) to not know better - therefore, they pretend.

EDIT: There's a reason facts are easily discarded: the freeloaders Romney speaks of are concentrated in the states that he's most likely to get electoral votes from (and Florida):
6a00d83451c45669e2017c31f0a947970b-800wi
 
I don't think they pretend. They just don't give a fuck about anything other than their own bottom lines and have no qualms lying to get conservatives in the middle and lower classes to vote for the GOP when its policies will hurt (or at the least not help) them, while benefiting the wealthy.
 
All semantics. Pretend to me implies willful ignorance and actually semi-buying into the shit they spout out. Lying means they know it's bullshit they're spouting to manipulate people and have no qualms doing so.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']One thing that has surprised me is that the Obama campaign hasn't talked about the recovery of the stock market--which I think would be big with independent voters. It closed at 13,593 yesterday, has been over 13,000 for a good while now, and over 12,000 for most of the year other than a dip back late spring/early summer.

But I guess they're just trying to keep focus off the economy, and stocks are more a concern for the upper middle class and above I suppose. But still seems like a key concern to independents in those social classes. And really just anyone who has retirement accounts in mutual funds etc., as that was the big way people who didn't lose their jobs got hit by the recession. And now we're pretty much back to where we were before the fall.[/QUOTE]

DJIA is not an effective barometer of either the economy or the amount of investment happening, or so I've been told...

Also, splinter investment from AAPL is driving a lot right now. The stock is up over $100 from the last couple of months and suppliers that are in some way or another attached to the DJIA are creating a bump in that index. Also that whole $40B per month of MBS buying that "The Fed" is doing will create a bump as well with bank stocks showing revenue from sales and reductions in A/R (the instant payment of the credit for the loan more or less).
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']One thing that has surprised me is that the Obama campaign hasn't talked about the recovery of the stock market--which I think would be big with independent voters. It closed at 13,593 yesterday, has been over 13,000 for a good while now, and over 12,000 for most of the year other than a dip back late spring/early summer.

But I guess they're just trying to keep focus off the economy, and stocks are more a concern for the upper middle class and above I suppose. But still seems like a key concern to independents in those social classes. And really just anyone who has retirement accounts in mutual funds etc., as that was the big way people who didn't lose their jobs got hit by the recession. And now we're pretty much back to where we were before the fall.[/QUOTE]
Maybe it's because I have a long-term political memory, but I remember when conservatives were trying to fuck him up the ass with Dow Jones numbers when he first got in office. I've been tempted to go back to one of the forums I used to frequent that was a right wing shit house filled with fat rich white guys and bump a couple threads.

I'm guessing that the Obama campaign isn't going to pull that out of the bag just in case something happens.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Maybe it's because I have a long-term political memory, but I remember when conservatives were trying to fuck him up the ass with Dow Jones numbers when he first got in office. I've been tempted to go back to one of the forums I used to frequent that was a right wing shit house filled with fat rich white guys and bump a couple threads.

I'm guessing that the Obama campaign isn't going to pull that out of the bag just in case something happens.[/QUOTE]

Yeah IMHO the Obama team is running a masterful campaign. My guess is that they're saving their strength for a knockout punch late in the third round.
 
I don't think it's so much that the Obama campaign has done a great job in and of themselves, as it is that Romney's a doofus and keeps fucking up his message and the Obama team has done a masterful job of exploiting every misstep.

I don't think the Obama team has done a great job of getting their clear platform message out to the average voter either though. Clinton's speech at the DNC did a better job of that than anything Obama has said or put out. The complaints of Obama being professorial do matter in that area--those of us who are educated and informed get it, can read the stuff they put on the web about their policies etc., but he's not great at explaining it to blue collar voters in simple terms like Clinton did with his arithmetic points in his speech.
 
dmaul's right. there's a lot of apathy among the people who were hella enthusiastic in 2008.

The campaign is doing well, but it's hardly what I'd call "masterful." The Olsen twins could defeat Steven Hawking in a boxing match, but that shouldn't qualify them for a fight against Floyd Mayweather.

(yeesh, pardon the lame analogy.)
 
Yep, and that's the only reason the election will be close at all. Lots of apathy among younger voters etc. compared to 2008, so turnout will be lower. Will make some of the swing states closer than they need to be.

But polls have Obama consistently 5 or so points up in Ohio and Florida currently for the most part, and way up on PA. So he's looking good. VA is still too close to call. But really just needs 2/3 of OH, FL and VA and he's good to go.
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/18/who-doesnt-pay-taxes-in-charts/?hpid=z2

Good break down of the 47% of free loaders. In short, the biggest chunk (28%) still pay payroll taxes, and the next biggest is the elderly at 10%--who are mostly retirees who paid taxes when working. Only 7% are the low income (under $20k) households. And as the article notes, a lot of the reason they (and some middle class households) don't pay federal income tax is due to tax breaks and exemptions put in place by Republicans.
 
[quote name='cancerman1120']Oh the cognitive dissidence. A few days after saying it is not his job to worry about half the country he tries to tell them he is better suited to help them. He is like an amnesic abusive boyfriend.

http://news.yahoo.com/romney-obama-cant-help-poor-middle-class-173245361--election.html[/QUOTE]

lol well what did you expect. He needs a certain percentage of dumb-fuck poor and middle-class people to vote for them, so he's going to make a show of pandering to them.

It's a weak and phony attempt, and if folks can't see through it then they are real rubes.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Just a minor nitpick, but the term is cognitive dissonance.;)[/QUOTE]

I never was that great with vocabulary. I smoked the Analytical and Quantitative part of the GRE but Verbal was a pain in my ass. Thanks for pointing it out. I would rather someone tell me then continue to make an ass out of myself. :)
 
[quote name='cancerman1120']Matt Rhoades may never work again in DC. His managing of this campaign is about as inept as they come. Also, where is Paul Ryan? He is like the invisible man. I live in his district and they run more ads for his congressional run than they do for the ticket.[/QUOTE]

Now that I think about it, that's a damn good question. I've barely heard a peep out of him since the RNC ended.
 
[quote name='Purple Flames']Now that I think about it, that's a damn good question. I've barely heard a peep out of him since the RNC ended.[/QUOTE]

It is like they trotted him out there for all the Tea Party to see but are afraid of what he might actually say.
 
They realized Ryan was a terrible pick as his policies are too extreme for the independent swing voters who turn the tide in swing states.

When we were hearing from him he was trying to distance himself from his budget and saying Romney would be the president and set policy etc.

Just a terrible campaign choice.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Clak']Even though he doesn't seem as imbecilic, he's about as bad a choice as Palin was.[/QUOTE]
I don't know if I'd say that. If anything, I'd say he's worse. At least Palin comes off as sorta folk-sy and has some utility. Ryan is just a straight up douchebag that has used douche water coming out of his pores...and that's putting it mildly.
 
I remember reading a week or so ago that he was going to start prepping for the debate. Maybe he's still working on that full-time, with no time to campaign.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top