2012 Election Thread

[quote name='dohdough']Mojito's are a cuban drink that were the trendy drink of choice about 5-7 years ago, hence mojito; not mohito. It isn't really a girly drink at all because it has a lot of rum conventionally. Caipirinha is the Brazilian variant that's a little more sweet and without the mint, which is also a variant of the Portuguese version naturally.[/QUOTE]


Really? So I speak a fair bit of Spanish and assumed it was mojito, but then recipes online and spelled it with an H. Frick sake...it's a good thing I don't drink. I can't keep up. Haa ha
 
Dan Senor, one of Romney’s closest advisers, has kept a tight grip on Ryan, traveling with him everywhere and making sure he hews to the directions of the Romney “brain trust” in Boston. (A brain trust, rumor has it, that refers to Ryan as “Gilligan.”)
Click to expand...
:rofl: He's Romney's little buddy.....
 
[quote name='yourlefthand']If that's true then I guess he's a better/smarter politician than I had thought.[/QUOTE]

It's supposed to be satirical. Threw off a lot of people because the author, Roger Simon, is usually a straight shooter in his columns, or so I'm told.
 
[quote name='dohdough']HAHAHA...Obama has an ad with Romney's 47% talk as the only audio with people in that 47%.[/QUOTE]

That is completely awesome.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Curious: At this point, could the Obama campaign simply stop spending any money and still win?[/QUOTE]
Depends on Romney and whether he continues screwing things up.
 
[quote name='Clak']Depends on Romney and whether he continues screwing things up.[/QUOTE]

I just don't see anything that Romney can do at this point to court undecided voters, those leaning third party, or those planning not to vote.

The only concern that I would see would be Obama voters who aren't very energized who end up staying home on election day. Seems unlikely at this point, though.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I just don't see anything that Romney can do at this point to court undecided voters, those leaning third party, or those planning not to vote.

The only concern that I would see would be Obama voters who aren't very energized who end up staying home on election day. Seems unlikely at this point, though.[/QUOTE]

Well, he could keep trying to not be himself. Maybe if Romney tries long enough he'll finally come up with a version of himself which resonates with someone...
 
Romney needs Obama to royally fuck up but he's never done much of that since he started running for president in 2007. The gut runs a pretty disciplined campaign which you couldn't say for McCain and certainly not Romney.
 
Obama's campaign isn't as exciting or interesting as the previous one, though. "Forward" definitely did not catch on the way "Hope" and "Change" and "Believe" did.
 
Yeah, the campaign isn't as energized, but I think a lot of that is he's the incumbent now so hard to rail on about change. Also people on the left were fired up after 8 years of Bush.

In any case, this election is over barring something crazy happening in the next 40 days. Obama's been up in Ohio, Florida and PA consistently. Recent polls have him up solidly in NH as well, and also having narrow leads in VA, NV, and NC. As well as being solidly up in national polls.
 
qm.gif
 
Look at the way the RNC is changing their tune on Akin. They know the presidential race is over. They need to desperately get what they can in the House and Senate so they can continue to block everything.

Of course, thanks to Paul Ryan they might not even keep the House.
 
[quote name='EmpireWF']The house is safe I thought the senate coming down to the wire to see if dems maintain a majority.[/QUOTE]

I would not mind a split Congress if it was about 20 years ago but it seems like it will be nothing but 4 more years of getting nothing done if the Dems do not win both chambers. Even so, without 60 in the Senate the filibuster can pretty much stop anything it wants. Makes me sad there is no compromise anymore. Even the little we had in the 90s was 100x better than today.
 
Brown did pretty good job. He'll do well with low-info voters that haven't picked someone yet. There were a lot of low blows and he's clearly a classless sack of shit...lot's of dog whistles. I mean goddamn, the final question was to say something nice about their opponent and Brown turned it into a bunch of backhanded compliments.

"I'm not a student in your classroom..." really pissed me off when he interrupted her more than a couple times by then. Might as well have just told her to get her ass back into the kitchen.

Warren didn't do as great a job communicating her points and unfortunately require more than a quick soundbite to explain. When it comes to her work on the insurance cases, her campaign hasn't quite figured out a way to condense it. Brown trying to hit her on her Native American status is dumb as hell when at least half the Native Americans at Harvard look white, not that he knows dick about their issues anyways and uses it cynically. Warren doesn't help the situation either because most voters understand that shit on the same level as Brown.

As for the spectacle of the debate, the moderator was checking the candidates like he was a in a hockey game. fucking hilarious. I can't wait until the fact checkers get through this debate.
 
What is there to understand? To say that you have a Native American heritage is one thing, but there is a line between that and claiming yourself as a Native American person, especially for affirmative action purposes. I think we can agree that it would be inappropriate for her to do that. If she was not hired on the basis of her claiming to be a minority then lets put the records out there and kill the issue once and for all. If Romney can get hammered for not releasing his tax records (i.e. what is he hiding), why aren't the Harvard records fair game?

Warren deserved to be told to STFU at the point that Brown did it, the moderator dropped the ball by allowing her to talk over him to that degree. Brown can't win in that situation, he either allows Warren to not allow him to respond or he looks bad by coming down hard on a woman. I wouldn't be surprised if she tried to put him in the position to be another Lazio.
 
Brown killed it in those debates. There is always an advantage to being a woman in a debate when it comes to emotional voters. Any slight will be considered much worse.

I don't support affirmative action but it's funny to see that she abused a program she supports. I wish Brown the best. Warren sounds like Underdog Lady in addition to everything else that is wrong with her views. This is the definitive Warren parody.

56cHU.png
 
[quote name='dafoomie']What is there to understand? To say that you have a Native American heritage is one thing. But there is a line between that, and claiming yourself as a Native American person, especially for affirmative action purposes. I think we can agree that it would be inappropriate for her to do that. If she was not hired on the basis of her claiming to be a minority then lets put the records out there and kill the issue once and for all. If Romney can get hammered for not releasing his tax records (i.e. what is he hiding), why aren't the Harvard records fair game?[/quote]
LOLZ...this only highlights how little you know about the hiring process for faculty members, muchless Harvard. Prospective faculty members aren't hired like an admin assistant, but are specially selected by the Dean and other faculty members within the department. HR would be one of the last stops in the hiring process as a mere formality. Considering how Harvard is, and not your more than likely false impression of it, checking off that box might actually hurt her depending on her packet and job talk. Sorry to disappoint you, but this isn't like applying to Target.

Warren deserved to be told to STFU at the point that Brown did it, the moderator dropped the ball by allowing her to talk over him to that degree. Brown can't win in that situation, he either allows Warren to not allow him to respond or he looks bad by coming down hard on a woman.
Click to expand...
Did this happen before or after he had interrupted Warren more than once while she was talking? Not to mention how Brown started talking about how great he was only to put himself down a notch a second later because he was exaggerating to begin with. This was on top of not being able to answer a straight question for the first half of the debate, saying that he "published" a list of clients when he didn't while calling out Warren on it, and a slew of other bullshit. He couldn't even give a graceful compliment AFTER he was given one and decided to just be an asshole instead. This was his tone the entire night. His performance was great because he wanted to look like an asshole; not because he was talking about substantive issues.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Why would Brown say he would nominate judges like Scalia when he is running in MA?[/QUOTE]
He didn't. When asked who his model justice was, the first name that popped into his head was Scalia. He then proceeded to name all the conservative ones, took a few seconds of silence, and threw in Sotomayor, which elicited some loud boo-ing from the crowd...after he was boo-ed for Scalia.

For a person that wants to distance themselves from the far-right, he certainly had an interesting choice.
 
[quote name='dohdough']LOLZ...this only highlights how little you know about the hiring process for faculty members, muchless Harvard. Prospective faculty members aren't hired like an admin assistant, but are specially selected by the Dean and other faculty members within the department. HR would be one of the last stops in the hiring process as a mere formality. Considering how Harvard is, and not your more than likely false impression of it, checking off that box might actually hurt her depending on her packet and job talk. Sorry to disappoint you, but this isn't like applying to Target. [/QUOTE]
Let me paint a picture for you. Its the early 90s, there are no minority female professors at Harvard Law. Your first black professor is denouncing you publicly over it and has already staged a sit in. Protests are occurring on campus after 4 white men are granted tenure. You're being sued by a female professor who was denied tenure and the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination is coming down on you over it. Other professors are concerned that another denial of a minority or a woman would be viewed as discriminatory even if it were justified based on their merits. You're under a great deal of pressure to hire a minority woman.

Elizabeth Warren comes along. She didn't get her JD from a very prestigious school (Rutgers), but you hire her anyway and proclaim that she's Harvard Law's first woman of color. You tell me what that looks like in light of Harvard withholding both her personnel records and their diversity records which listed a female Native American professor there.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']Let me paint a picture for you. Its the early 90s, there are no minority female professors at Harvard Law. Your first black professor is denouncing you publicly over it and has already staged a sit in. Protests are occurring on campus after 4 white men are granted tenure. You're being sued by a female professor who was denied tenure and the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination is coming down on you over it. Other professors are concerned that another denial of a minority or a woman would be viewed as discriminatory even if it were justified based on their merits. You're under a great deal of pressure to hire a minority woman.[/QUOTE]
You're mixing up your dates. Protests were in 1986 and Warren was hired in 1992 as a visiting professor, which is pretty much like an adjunct position. The protests in 86 were involving a woman of color that was denied tenure; unlike how Warren was never offered a tenure-track position to begin with. Token or not, it's not as simple as you're trying to make it.

Elizabeth Warren comes along. She didn't get her JD from a very prestigious school (Rutgers), but you hire her anyway and proclaim that she's Harvard Law's first woman of color. You tell me what that looks like in light of Harvard withholding both her personnel records and their diversity records which listed a female Native American professor there.
Click to expand...
Getting your JD from a "prestigious" school means jack shit if you have the research background, have the publications, and are a name in your field...or maybe having a tenured position at UPenn Law from 87 to 91 makes a big difference in that too. But no, let's ignore that because it works against your argument or is UPenn not prestigious enough for you?

Harvard publishing that on the diversity report is on Harvard. Harvard has no obligation for releasing personnel records. If anything, it's damning of Harvard, not Warren.

Her answer about her heritage is very clear: she identifies as white and has Native American geneology. The only people that can say that she isn't "Native enough" are the Cherokee Nation or Delaware Tribe and each has their own metric for blood quantums; not some asshole white guy from Wrentham that doesn't know shit about it nor you. You don't know jack shit about this and you don't know jack shit about the hiring process for professors. I don't give a fuck how it looks to know-nothings. "Just look at her!" is a dumb argument.

edit: Hell, I don't even like Warren that much, but there are far more biting and important criticisms of her than personnel records and checking off a fucking box.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='UncleBob']She did that back when she was a Republican. So it doesn't count against her now.[/QUOTE]
And you're defending the integrity of affirmative action right? Cause it's ALL about bullshit like principles. Something that you really don't know about...or maybe it's scruples that you have a problem with...probably both.:roll:
 
[quote name='dohdough']The only people that can say that she isn't "Native enough" are the Cherokee Nation or Delaware Tribe and each has their own metric for blood quantums;[/QUOTE]

This is laughable at best. You've stated this twice now and it's so ignorantly misleading. Neither of these two groups use any blood quantum to determine membership (although some Cherokee "splinter" groups do require quarter-blood or more - however, "Cherokee Nation" is used specifically with regards to the three Federally recognized tribes and the Joint Council will do anything in their power to keep it that way)... and none of that gets to the fact that this is only talking about tribe membership - which has nothing to do with ethnicity - which is Warren's claim.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']This is laughable at best. You've stated this twice now and it's so ignorantly misleading. Neither of these two groups use any blood quantum to determine membership (although some Cherokee "splinter" groups do require quarter-blood or more - however, "Cherokee Nation" is used specifically with regards to the three Federally recognized tribes and the Joint Council will do anything in their power to keep it that way)... and none of that gets to the fact that this is only talking about tribe membership - which has nothing to do with ethnicity - which is Warren's claim.[/QUOTE]
If either one gives her membership, then she "qualifies" and the "controversy" goes away? At what point would it be "ok" for her to check that box then? Whether they use blood quantum as a metric is secondary to the fact that they have their own system for determining who's a member and who isn't. My point still stands and "Just look at her" is still a dumb fucking argument.

Since you're such an expert on racial matters, why don't you enlighten us on the nuances of ethnicity! I'm sure a quick google search can help you out with that as well as I'm sure you knew all about the various requirements for tribal membership. And maybe you can explain why ethnicity should be divorced from tribal membership while you're at it.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Your entire argument is a complete cluster. Not being a member of either one of those four tribes does not mean you're not of Cherokee descent. Period. They are not the defining source for who is and isn't of Cherokee descent. Period.[/quote]
That means she can check that fucking box and Brown, you, and dafoomie can shut the fuck up about it already because it's a non-issue.

I do find myself oddly curious though, what your thoughts on this old story would have been back in the day: http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=7567291&page=1#.UGqQB646aSo
Click to expand...
You fucking tell me. It's not THAT complicated.
 
[quote name='dohdough']That means she can check that fucking box and Brown, you, and dafoomie can shut the fuck up about it already because it's a non-issue.[/quote]

Oddly enough, I never said a word about her "eligibility" to claim Native American status.

I was just tired of you repeating the same misinformation as if you knew what you were talking about. Perhaps next time, instead of yelling at me to do Google searches, you should familiarize yourself with the subject before you go off on it. If the information can easily be found through Google searches (which I assume it can - even more so since it's probably came up more with the entire Warren thing), it should have been an easy task for you to look it up before coming here and spouting off misinformation.

You fucking tell me. It's not THAT complicated.
Click to expand...
Heh. Nice answer.
dd.jpg
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Oddly enough, I never said a word about her "eligibility" to claim Native American status.

I was just tired of you repeating the same misinformation as if you knew what you were talking about. Perhaps next time, instead of yelling at me to do Google searches, you should familiarize yourself with the subject before you go off on it. If the information can easily be found through Google searches (which I assume it can - even more so since it's probably came up more with the entire Warren thing), it should have been an easy task for you to look it up before coming here and spouting off misinformation.[/quote]
So if her eligibility isn't an issue, then, again, marking that check box shouldn't be an issue. You, yourself, said that being or not being a member has no effect on whether or not you have Native American ancestry.

Heh. Nice answer.
Click to expand...
And you had a better one? Piss off.

Race: white
Ethnicity: Portuguese
Nationality: Mozambique(African also applies because of common usage and American though naturalization)

African American and Native American are not comparable in the way you're trying to trip me up on, which is another reason why critiques about Warren's heritage are dumb.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Wait, this whole scandal is over Warren being hired as a *visiting* professor?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Please tell me that's not true.[/QUOTE]
But you see, a professor is a professor whether you're adjuncting, visiting, tenured, or tenure tracked.:lol:

[quote name='mykevermin']http://www.philly.com/philly/news/p...rules_voters_can_cast_ballots_without_ID.html

Well, now those Republicans can vote fraudulently in the election, since the Republican-propoed voter ID law has been halted for this election (for provisional ballots only, it would appear).[/QUOTE]
Well, this makes my morning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top