The idea that a President doesn't "listen to the Generals on the ground" is moronic.
They advise him daily. This is just Romney doing his knee-jerk anti-Obama stuff.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2012 Community Thread
- Thread starter AlteredBeast
- Start date
- Status
The idea that a President doesn't "listen to the Generals on the ground" is moronic.
They advise him daily. This is just Romney doing his knee-jerk anti-Obama stuff.
NullPointer
Member
Amen.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
That isn't the question, though.
The pundits were all flabbergasted that Romney would suggest such an asinine premise, especially in lieu of Perry saying he would invent a time machine to get troops back to Iraq yesterday, along with some other candidates. I thought his response was good, especially since they repeatedly tried to press him to give a hard response with a definite plan and time frame (when he has had ZERO briefing on what is actually going on, of course) but the absolutely inane and pathetic pundits were blasting him for it.
jamesinclair
Banned
Romney is stuck in 2004, when everyone loved wars, the budget wasnt an issue, and we idolized billionaires and their wall street magic.
PhoenixDark
Banned
This guy's daughter requires constant medical attention. Any regular person dealing with such a child would be unable to handle the costs, yet he can thanks to his former government job/health care and of course money received through lobbying
I wish no ill on his daughter and it's truly a heart breaking story. Yet Santorum's heartlessness on healthcare is one of the most stunning narratives of this election. This system doesn't work for regular people, even those who work every day and aren't buying "iPads" and other useless/expensive entertainment items.
You can see the same thing in guys like Paul Ryan, who worked his way through college thanks to social security money from his dad. The message is always "I worked hard to get where I am, never mind the help I received. Now you do it on your own and stop wasting my tax dollars."
Meh, was looking for a response to my post concerning Romney being tied with Obama on Gallup. Someone said it's a good thing that Obama is tied with him pre-campaigning. Got dismissed with a "folks, it's Diablos" comment. Gotta love getting talked over.
First of all, when you have Obama leading Newt by +10 or more, and then only tied with Romney, I'm not sure how that can still be a reassuring thing? It could go either way; Obama isn't campaigning hardcore because he doesn't have to yet, but when he does there is no guarantee that he would ever be able to get more than a few points ahead of Romney, if at all. Would it not be more ideal for the starting point to be ahead of the other guy by double digits (i.e. Newt)?
I can appreciate the optimism for Obama's campaign, but at the same time it's kind of silly to think him being tied with Romney (when he was blowing every other GOP candidate out of the water, mind you) is a good thing. Someone explain to me why Obama, when you acknowledge how well he was faring against the rest of the GOP candidates, is still in a good position against Romney?
It kind of reeks of the faux optimism a lot of people seemed to demonstrate during the 2010 House and Senate races. We all know how that ended up.
Frankly, the fact that Mittens basically has this locked up is horrifying. This is the last thing I wanted to see. The amount of negative ads against even Gingrich is pretty mind-boggling, and if he's doing that to people in his own party, the GE is going to be a living hell.
First of all, when you have Obama leading Newt by +10 or more, and then only tied with Romney, I'm not sure how that can still be a reassuring thing? It could go either way; Obama isn't campaigning hardcore because he doesn't have to yet, but when he does there is no guarantee that he would ever be able to get more than a few points ahead of Romney, if at all. Would it not be more ideal for the starting point to be ahead of the other guy by double digits (i.e. Newt)?
I can appreciate the optimism for Obama's campaign, but at the same time it's kind of silly to think him being tied with Romney (when he was blowing every other GOP candidate out of the water, mind you) is a good thing. Someone explain to me why Obama, when you acknowledge how well he was faring against the rest of the GOP candidates, is still in a good position against Romney?
It kind of reeks of the faux optimism a lot of people seemed to demonstrate during the 2010 House and Senate races. We all know how that ended up.
Frankly, the fact that Mittens basically has this locked up is horrifying. This is the last thing I wanted to see. The amount of negative ads against even Gingrich is pretty mind-boggling, and if he's doing that to people in his own party, the GE is going to be a living hell.
The Chosen One
Member
The main problem I have with Romney is that he reeks of a "rich guy wanting to be President". Obviously anyone running for President is required to have a massive ego, but it doesn't seem like Romney brings with him any core values or principles. He's just a guy with a lot of money who feels like being President. I really have no idea if he's anti/pro-war, anti/pro-immigration, anti/pro affordable healthcare, anti/pro birth control, and anti/pro middle class. He's flipped on just about every single position when it's been politically advantageous.
Despite the right's propaganda, Obama is a centrist for the most part and he's never really pretended to be a liberal lion. And for the most part, his policies and actions have reflected that thus far. It's hard to call Romney a centrist because he's rarely maintained a consistent position for more than a few years. He's simply a political wind-sock. Those type of people scare me as President because you don't know what to expect and they may not have the ability to make tough decisions. For example, will Romney lead us into endless wars if it seems like it's politically safe to just "follow the generals on the ground"? Does he have an actual foreign policy philosophy that he would lean on if he got conflicting advice? Or would he just get taken over by neo-conservatives like Bush?
IMO, Huntsman was the true Republican centrist. He had grounded views and wasn't afraid to say them even to hostile audiences. It felt like he actually had some non-crazy core values, principles and pragmatism that he would bring to the office. You don't want someone to run a country by their ideology, but it's good to have an idea where they'll lean when tough decisions need to be made. Or at the very least feel if they did something contrary to their core values it was probably for a good pragmatic reason.
But of course Huntsman didn't even make it to the second Primary in today's Republican party...
How do you think I feel, I'm in Oregon. For some reason we can't get anything passed until both Cali and Washington do it first.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Wow. Completely out of touch. It is mind-boggling how out of touch these guys are with the vast majority of society. There's a huge difference between $900 a month and a $900 one-time purchase (are iPads even $900?).
But hey, anything to rile up the "angry elderly who don't care about anyone but themselves" vote, right?
The Librarian
Banned
The dude is reflexively anti-Obama. The position on Afghanistan he's taking isn't a popular one.
Anyway, an interview with Obama will air before the Super Bowl:
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/interview-with-president-obama-will-air-before-super
You should listen to everyone, but you shouldn't base your long-term decisions on what 'generals on the ground' have to say. They are too invested into short-term goals to have any kind of unbiased perspective.
--- /// ---
I don't think Romney is going to hit 45%, but that's too much ground for the others to recover to have a chance.
I don't know if he's completely out of touch, I would say that he's just playing to his base. He can't be naive enough to think that the current system works for anybody but the most privileged classes (or the healthiest Americans). What's more worrisome to me is that we seem to have a significant section of the population that has checked out of critical thinking about their own situation or the situation of those less fortunate.
It's the same thing with MR and Afghanistan. I don't think that he believes the shit he's spewing right now, he's just playing to his base. Rightfully or wrongly what they want right now is for their nominee to say: If Obama does X, I will do not X. Because anything Obama does must be wrong. It's an ugly trap they've set for themselves because it means they have to adopt a lot of nonsense stances.
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
I'm still wondering if there's anyone in their right mind who thinks it's a good idea to give those jackasses more responsibility in our government, or if everyone who votes Republican are either fools, nihilists or just plain crazy.
BotoxAgent
Member
Republicans and their voters just don't give a shit about the country or sacrifice, they are generally selfish and spiteful. They will forever be anti-everything Obama does, until something horrible happens on their backyard. Then they will blame Obama for not enacting the policies that could have helped them.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
I disagree.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
Why aren't blogs like the 538 or sites like RealClearPolitics getting a reading of polls for Nevada? The Caucus is in 2 days and nobody is reporting anything. It is strange.
gutter_trash
Banned
I re-watched the Mitt Romney poor people safety net clip about 5 times now...
what a moran, yeah you are playing to the Conservative Republican base for the Primaries but when the General Election comes around, all these words are fair game momo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQnxHBK6zMY
what a moran, yeah you are playing to the Conservative Republican base for the Primaries but when the General Election comes around, all these words are fair game momo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQnxHBK6zMY
RustyNails
Member
Here's something to ponder. The "generals on the ground" advised AGAINST Obama's Bin Laden raid plan.
RustyNails
Member
Donald Trump is set to endorse Mitt Romney
On the subject of meaningless endorsements, apparently Sharron Angle endorsed Santorum yesterday. I saw it sail by my Twitter feed at some point.
Mortrialus
Banned
Surprised I missed this here. I guess I saw Chris Matthews and glossed over it. This clip is perfect.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Actually it's still up in the air at this point.
I find it fascinating that the media seems to be implying this may impact the race in any way whatsoever. Nobody cares about Trump. Nobody will care about Trump.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Wait, I thought he was going to endorse Gingrich?
RustyNails
Member
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/02/trump-set-to-endorse-romney/?hpt=hp_t2
He thinks his endorsement carries weight...such an egoistic birther buffoon.
The Don wants to stay relevant for 2016, I'm telling ya. Yeah, I agree, nobody cares about him in the way he wants them to care about him.
Every now and then Matthews hits one out of the park.
Invisible_Insane
Member
I know people who thought trump running for president would have been an excellent thing, so he's not entirely wrong.
I am hoping the news media is not so stupid as to still be falling for that bullshit in four years.
Fine. It works great if your employer likes you.
Mortrialus
Banned
Apparently. That was the most perfect summary of Mitt Romney I have ever heard.
Ghost_Protocol
Member
Is this "Fast and Furious" uproar/theater more about attacking the administration in any way possible, or is it seriously concerned with controlling firearms?
Officerrob
Banned
A Trump endorsement? Why the fuck would Mitt share the stage with him? If your trying to shake the image of being the "out of touch rich guy" why would you hold an event where you are endorsed by the ultimate out of touch rich guy?
BotoxAgent
Member
The dude is a narcissist--in other words, the perfect Republican.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
I was disagreeing with his thought that Santorum couldn't "be naive enough" to believe that it works for everyone. I believe that some of these guys are so out of touch with the life that the majority of Americans live that I fully believe he could be that naive.
I think the health care system in this country is deeply flawed and we need to move to single-payer.
An endorsement is nothing more than a statement of "I support Candidate X" from the endorser, Romney doesn't have to acknowledge Trump's existence let alone share a stage with him.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
Romney set the bar for the ads this year with the one where he blatantly misrepresented Obama's quote, and when Romney was called out on it he said some shit like 'what's good for the goose is good for the gander'. I know attack ads are a part of the deal, but that one was so transparently misleading, and for him to snicker when questioned about it, like he thought it was a good one...
I can't wait to watch that asshole get taken down a notch at a time.
I can't wait to watch that asshole get taken down a notch at a time.
Officerrob
Banned
But he is sharing a stage with Trump. This whole debacle will be at a Romney event
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
LOL. All's fair in politics and war, buddy.
See the DNC ad for reference. It is going to be a bloodbath this year. I only wish I could see more political ads in Nebraska (joking)
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
http://www.cnbc.com/id/46205381/
The GOP keeps referencing North Dakota as this shining example of how great the oil industry is.
I encourage all of you to read this article. Things aren't as great as they seem.
The GOP keeps referencing North Dakota as this shining example of how great the oil industry is.
I encourage all of you to read this article. Things aren't as great as they seem.
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
It's not that, it's just how desperate and obnoxious it was. It was from a widely seen speech from that campaign, I mean, everyone knows the context of that line. He was speaking as if he was McCain, "If we talk about the economy, we lose".
Have there been any polls conducted? PPP released a preview this morning.
There are two issues to examine. First, we must distinguish between tactics and strategy. Tactics entail the methods the military employs to pursue its goals. It is operational; e.g., how soldiers should proceed in capturing a safe house. It is specific to a battle. Obviously, the president defers to military commanders on the issue of tactics. They have analyzed which methods are most effective and appropriate given particular circumstances. Whereas tactics entails the methods to achieve certain goals, strategy involves the formulation of those goals and the methods used to achieve them. Essentially, you employ tactics to achieve strategic goals. Now, while military commanders are experts on tactics, their strategic advice is flawed. They typically inflate the effectiveness of military power. Moreover, they insufficiently incorporate political goals into their strategy; remember, political goals are as essential to Afghanistan's success as eliminating insurgents. Of course, the military is not intended to operate as a diplomatic service. It is a military. Therefore, pertaining to strategy, the president should consider military advice in conjunction with that of other elements of our foreign policy apparatus.
The second issue is the connotation of "listening". Recently, the Republican refrain of "listening" to our commanders has become synonymous with blind acquiescence. We should consider the advice of our military, but we should not submit to their desires.
BotoxAgent
Member
Wow, Romney actually did that?
don't worry....that response of his probably did more harm than good for his image (like many of his other verbal fuck-ups)
Living in North Dakota, it's driven me crazy to see all these people talking about North Dakota like it's somehow a Free Market Utopia kills me. Sure, unemployment is low, but it was low before the oil boom (because cost of living is low, companies can put low skill, low paying jobs here for not much more than offshoring them). North Dakota's cost of living & wages make it basically recession proof.
Also, some of them are idiots.
I know, I know, we all decided around 9/11 that soldiers are saints and officers are super saints, but ask anyone who been in the military - brass stupidity and incompetence is as integral to military life and folklore as weapon inspections.
If you look historically at the US military, it's not so much a story of brilliant generals out maneuvering their opponents.
In fact, many of the great battles you heard about are colossal tactical or strategic blunders, that left the burden of victory on the rank and file.
As they used to say in World War 2 - Generals make plans, plans go wrong and soldiers die.
Now just so I'm clear, I'm not saying all generals are idiots, far from it, but not all generals are brilliant either.
Our civilian leadership should solicit advice and information from them, but not to the extent that it override their judgment and common sense; history is filled with examples where listening to the generals turned to be oh so very wrong.
Only if the electorate have the same attitude as you do.
If people start reacting badly to these things, they will go away almost immediately.
My mistake then, I only read the two articles posted on this page about it, and they just talk about an event at his hotel and make no mention of Romney being there.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Does he understand that as President you're Commander and Chief? I mean he knows that the President is the boss of the generals right?
jamesinclair
Banned
And all that they're building? In ten years, they're going to start abandoning it as the jobs dry up. Get ready for mile after mile of empty strip malls in what used to be prairie.
Also, wtf happened to the predictions showing a buddy surge in Florida? He's didn't even come in 5th!
Yep. It's going to be awesome.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked