2012 Election Thread

[quote name='VipFREAK']
1232550426_worf-face-palm.gif


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkso-T_3GOw[/QUOTE]

To answer the question...yes I would...it would be a hate fuck but I still would.
 
[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]
Warren was offered tenure in February of 93, she waited until 95 to accept for personal reasons.

[quote name='dohdough']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.[/QUOTE]
No, protests were still occurring even during the time Warren was a visiting professor in 92. The 4 white professors were offered tenure in 92 and it sparked protests that included taking over the dean's office (i.e. the Griswold Nine). The week before she was first offered tenure, there was a vigil held by law students on campus demanding more women and minorities.

She's the only tenured professor at Harvard Law to not come from a top 10 school. Only one Ivy League law professor has come from a worse school. There were allegations of scientific misconduct in her scholarship prior to Harvard. By all accounts she was very good in the classroom but her resume is pedestrian enough for there to be some doubt.

But even after all that, I'm not necessarily sure its Warren that needs to come clean here, its Harvard. Harvard was selling a bill of goods that simply wasn't true, and those records are being held back not because they might damage Warren, but because they're potentially embarrassing to Harvard. Harvard Law promoted her as a minority whenever the issue of diversity within their faculty arose for years.

The only thing that bothered me is that she refused to directly answer the question, "Are you a minority?" By any reasonable standard she is not. It would've helped her just to say no.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ok, that "romantic anniversary" quip was actually funny.

Something funny that Mitt said though, the lady in Ohio wanted to know what he'd do to help. Since when do republicans directly ask for handouts?!
 
no you fucking numbskull. Demand creates a necessity for hiring, not extra magic money from a tax break. It's BULLSHIT and has been for 33 years.
 
[quote name='nasum']no you fucking numbskull. Demand creates a necessity for hiring, not extra magic money from a tax break. It's BULLSHIT and has been for 33 years.[/QUOTE]

If Romney had $101 million to stuff in an IRA instead of just the $100, he'd have been able to create jobs with that. DUHHHHH.
 
[quote name='4thHorseman']Im gettin a kick on how flustered Romney seems to be getting.[/QUOTE]
He's actually coming off very well in my opinion.

Could someone explain the discrepancy in the $5 trillion number that Mitt's denying as part of his plan?
 
[quote name='Ugamer_X']He's actually coming off very well in my opinion.

Could someone explain the discrepancy in the $5 trillion number that Mitt's denying isn't part of his plan?[/QUOTE]
I agree, he's had some good retorts but he'd be better served by keeping it short, a lot of Obama's points are being lost as he rambles on and Romney's almost as bad at times.

The discrepancy comes from Romney taking into account economic growth as a result of tax cuts. Obama cites a study that did not take that into consideration and later corrected itself.
 
[quote name='Ugamer_X']He's actually coming off very well in my opinion.

Could someone explain the discrepancy in the $5 trillion number that Mitt's denying as part of his plan?[/QUOTE]

There was a moment at the beginning of the second topic, which he started, that he kind of flew off the handle and got really verbal and physically expressive. He calmed down, but it was something that struck me.
 
Romney math on energy tax breaks:

$90 billion to green energy divided by $2.8 billion per year is 50 years of tax breaks... (Nevermind its closer to 30 than 50 but eh we're too stupid to know that anyway I guess)
 
thing about playing the numbers game is that either candidate can dismiss accusations as false and there will be no validation check. no one at home is going to look it up, so boring stuff so far, really.
 
This is borderline making me an undecided voter (Maher be damned). fuck both of these clowns. Romney will ruin things, but Obama is sitting there trying to say he's not much different.
 
[quote name='panzerfaust']thing about playing the numbers game is that either candidate can dismiss the accusations as false and there will be no validation check. no one at home is going to look it up, so boring stuff so far, really.[/QUOTE]

Very true, there is a fact check stream floating around that I saw on Reddit but largely any BS won't come to light until tomorrow.

The one thing I will say is that Romney is probably looking the best he has looked in a long time BUT he is not doing anything at all to help his smug image. At the end of the 1st segment arguing with the moderator completely wiped away any points he may have made.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']I agree, he's had some good retorts but he'd be better served by keeping it short, a lot of Obama's points are being lost as he rambles on and Romney's almost as bad at times.

The discrepancy comes from Romney taking into account economic growth as a result of tax cuts. Obama cites a study that did not take that into consideration and later corrected itself.[/QUOTE]
But is he actually proposing $5 trillion in cuts over the length of his program?
 
[quote name='Ugamer_X']But is he actually proposing $5 trillion in cuts over the length of his program?[/QUOTE]
The $5 trillion number is an estimate of what the maximum amount could be based on an interpretation of Romney's remarks by outside groups. His proposal isn't that specific.

Romney essentially wants to lower the tax rate and offset the loss in revenue by eliminating many tax deductions, credits, etc. Obama is correct in saying that eliminating deductions alone likely won't pay for all of it but Romney argues that the economic growth caused by the lower rates will make up that difference.
 
[quote name='4thHorseman']Is Jim Lehrer the moderator tomorrow? He's letting both candidates roll over him for the most part.[/QUOTE]

It looks like it's Candy Crowley for the second one and Bob Schieffer for the last one.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']The $5 trillion number is an estimate of what the maximum amount could be based on an interpretation of Romney's remarks by outside groups. His proposal isn't that specific.

Romney essentially wants to lower the tax rate and offset the loss in revenue by eliminating many tax deductions, credits, etc. Obama is correct in saying that eliminating deductions alone likely won't pay for all of it but Romney argues that the economic growth caused by the lower rates will make up that difference.[/QUOTE]

The economic growth of the Bush tax cuts has yet to happen (I stopped waiting), and the economic growth of the 1990's followed tax hikes by both Bush and Clinton. Let's stop lying to each other about tax cuts increasing revenue, please.

EDIT: See also nasum's post about demand from this evening. Giving a corporation a tax subsidy doesn't lead to increased revenues. Supply-side is garbage, real growth comes from demand-side policies.
 
[quote name='panzerfaust']my plan for healthcare is too long to explain right now[/QUOTE]

Lol. Glad others caught that. I was afraid I misheard him because it was so obsurd he would say that after being called out on it.
 
I can't get over that smug looking grin Romney has when he's not talking. I really expect him to bust out an impromptu snarky comment at any moment.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']The economic growth of the Bush tax cuts has yet to happen (I stopped waiting), and the economic growth of the 1990's followed tax hikes by both Bush and Clinton. Let's stop lying to each other about tax cuts increasing revenue, please.

EDIT: See also nasum's post about demand from this evening. Giving a corporation a tax subsidy doesn't lead to increased revenues. Supply-side is garbage, real growth comes from demand-side policies.[/QUOTE]
And I don't think you grow the private sector by taking money out of the private sector in the form of taxes, putting it into the government and then giving it back to the private sector in the form of stimulus, subsidies and other government spending.

Keynesianism was discredited decades ago and rightly so. Look at Europe.
 
[quote name='4thHorseman']Im gettin a kick on how flustered Romney seems to be getting.[/QUOTE]

i think you mean obama

all he does is say

ummmm ahhh ummm ahhh ummmm


also what the hell is up with the left side of obama face is it his jaw or what you see these little bumps on the left side of his face and then they disappear
 
romney can literally take any position he wants and completely benefit from it, it's like he's a completely different person question to question.

guess it's just the natural disadvantage of the incumbent.
 
Oh the declaration of independence? That thing where the last line is "we pledge our lives Our FORTUNES and our sacred honor"?

Mother intercourser! We were founded as people that share? fuck me...

$90 billion would have hired 2 million teachers where? In what public unions that would campaign against you? For kolob's sake you nimrod, you're preaching against your own salamander choir!
 
[quote name='dafoomie']Keynesianism was discredited decades ago and rightly so. Look at Europe.[/QUOTE]

Oh, the riots in Spain are because of...Keynesian economics?

Ireland overstimulated itself to the point of breaking?

England is struggling economically due to explosive tax hikes?

;)

[quote name='dopa345']Wow, surprised that Romney is absolutely burying Obama.[/QUOTE]

In hindsight, I can't say that I'm as surprised. Someone willing to literally say or do anything to become president, who will gleefully contradict themselves within minutes, who will make up any fact, who doesn't have time to explain the math - they can appear to be "winning." But there's a lot going on here in terms of answers, so while it appears that Romney is winning by virtue of his nice teeth and giant grin, underneath it all is the same vapid nonsense he's proffered before. No policy, just pixie-dust economics policies. Cut taxes, add pixie dust, and boom - we're in the money again. That's not a gameplan for victory.
 
People that are hurting:
Romney's 2010 return showed over $20M in inco e while the 2011 return showed $13M nearly six months after April 15th.
That hurts.
 
[quote name='slidecage']anyone else noticing those bumps on the left side of obama face

his left[/QUOTE]

Do me a favor... DON'T VOTE. Thanks
 
[quote name='dafoomie']And I don't think you grow the private sector by taking money out of the private sector in the form of taxes, putting it into the government and then giving it back to the private sector in the form of stimulus, subsidies and other government spending.

Keynesianism was discredited decades ago and rightly so. Look at Europe.[/QUOTE]
The New Deal begs to differ and overall, Europe isn't doing that bad. Greece is not Europe and austerity measures is what's causing civic and economic unrest. Slashing and burning social programs tends to do that.
 
[quote name='dopa345']Wow, surprised that Romney is absolutely burying Obama.[/QUOTE]

Easy to do when you never give a detail and only say I would keep certain things that are already in place.
 
"we have best health record in the world" - Mitt Romney.

Saying outright bullshit is why it's easy to appear to be victorious. Who thinks he's looking victorious? The folks watching who don't care about facts.
 
bread's done
Back
Top