Skiptastic
Member
Not that I disagree with you about the GOP going through changes, but this describes nearly everyone online. :lol
-
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.
US PoliGAF 2012 | The Romney VeepStakes: Waiting for Chris Christie to Sing
- Thread starter Invisible_Insane
- Start date
- Status
Slurpy2k20
Member
Everything I've seen tells me that GOP supports are the absolute worst though. I havent seen anywhere NEAR the levels of racism, bigotry, irrationality, hatred, viciousness, deceit, etc. from the other side.
Invisible_Insane
Member
Arguably, your last sentence indicates that people who say Huntsman should have waited for 2016 are wrong, and that if he does want to be president, getting the requisite failed candidacy out of the way in a cycle where he couldn't have won anyway is a good opening move.
The histrionics of the supporters of the other side are meaningless. Did Obama really need to fix the hurt feelings of the right with his gods and guns remark? These people are disruptive and are there to attack you, insulting them viciously is fine by me.
Alright. I'll let Christie know that if a LGBT group ever protests him, calling them "fucking fagots" (for example) in public would be just fine by you.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
I don't think it is racism. It would be the exact same thing if Hilary were in office. It is just that the way people like Rush and Hannity have framed it, democrats are literally trying to destroy the country. People are afraid for their 401(k), retirement savings, jobs, healthcare, and so on. When you have millions and millions of people tuning into radio and talk shows that espouse the virtues of cutting taxes and the evils of forcing healthcare and regulation that protect consumers on people, you have a populace primed to follow any pied piper who can promise the world. I am guessing Mitt Romney, should he accomplish the not-so-likely and attain the presidency, he would actually lead like anybody else. Especially with a democratic congress.
RustyNails
Member
Chief of staff Bill Daley is resigning.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Honestly I didn't take it as some sexual innuendo, dunno
speculawyer
Member
Invisible_Insane
Member
Typical liberal bitching about process.Wait, we got a new Poligaf thread already? We didn't even go through the title suggestion process!
We were 7 pages over cap and it hadn't really come up. Oh, well.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
Wellllll...I had mentioned it several pages before a couple times, but, hey, I am just one conservative voice in a sea of unpatriotic people who avoid the democratic process.
PhoenixDark
Banned
I can't imagine Romney putting Barbour on a ticket. A southern bumblefuck from Mississippi who's made insensitive comments on race in the past running against Obama? Not going to happen.
Rubio makes sense.
Rubio makes sense.
jamesinclair
Banned
Romney wont have a VP.
Hes that good.
Hes that good.
Invisible_Insane
Member
I think yours were two or three of the five or so posts on the matter.Wellllll...I had mentioned it several pages before a couple times, but, hey, I am just one conservative voice in a sea of unpatriotic people who avoid the democratic process.
By which I mean I reached across the aisle to create this thread.
Barbour seems pretty unlikely. Rubio makes sense, but he's seemed pretty hostile to the idea of going second, as opposed to the usual coyness.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
According to all of my media sources, reaching across the aisle is ALWAYS a bad thing. Therefore, you are trying to destroy PoliGAF. I am now its savior.
Aaron Strife
Banned
He's not gonna do it though. It's about as useful as speculating when Obama is going to drop Biden from the ticket and replace him with Hillary.
Yeah but he broke even with Rick Santorum and still got less votes than in 2008. I don't know if I'd peg that as a sign of strength.
Invisible_Insane
Member
I doubt Barbour is in consideration. His remarks on racial issues and association with a firm that lobbied on behalf of the Mexican government for amnesty are potentially significant distractions. Obviously, no prospective running mate is perfect. But I doubt Republicans want to draw attention to those issues.
Had Daniels contested the nomination, he would have been an establishment candidate. And I suspect a lack of establishment support heavily influenced his decision not to run. Not that he would have been a terrible candidate. Rather, I think many party actors were already supporting Romney and would have considered his candidacy an unnecessary challenge. Mitt had already constructed a national organization and established an extensive network of donors. Why challenge Romney and split the party? I suspect this also compelled Pawlenty to withdraw relatively early in the process. Further, this is probably the principal reason Daniels would accept an invitation to serve as Romney's running mate. He is the prototypical Republican. If they solicited his service, he would probably oblige.Skiptastic said:
Romney's reaction is hilarious. He could not look less comfortable.
RustyNails
Member
It's that "I'm running for office, for pete's sake!" look.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I think it's funny how the winning argument for Hillary supporters seems to be her approval ratings - which are really high, yeah, but she hasn't had to run an election in over three years. Obama's name has been dragged through the mud by Republicans since inauguration and went from 70s to the 40s, which for the position he's in is pretty good.
And also Biden is completely inoffensive so it's not like Hillary would be a net positive for the Obama campaign. I don't buy into the idea of a VP nom winning votes, all the action is at the top of the ticket. Biden was supposed to help Obama in states like AR, WV, KY etc. that Obama still got blown away in during one of the best elections for Democrats in years. I think Hillary would have made those competitive as a presidential nominee, but as VP it won't amount to shit.
Dude Abides
Banned
Chris Christie should play the Penguin in the next Batman movie.
Sirpopopop
Member
You sure you talking about Chris Christie?
The person you just described doesn't sound like Chris Christie at all.
BotoxAgent
Member
And if he wins, he should appoint Monopoly man and Mr. Peanut in his cabinet, lol
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
There was a vast Delawarean conspiracy against her. Either that, or there weren't enough patriots in Delaware who loved their country enough.
Oh shit, I hadn't even realized that yet lol. I actually kinda like Mitch (as much as I can like a Republican, at any rate). I should pay more attention to our state politics (although I've recently been neglecting all politics, national or otherwise, compared to how closely I used to follow it).
I can't fucking stand Mike Pence. I can't believe he's going to be governor. At least I'll probably be moving out of the state in 2 or 3 years, after I graduate.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Bob McConnell would be a great VP choice imo, perhaps the best. He's a popular governor in a state republicans need to return to the red column, and could have impact on an important senate contest. Virginia only allows governors to serve one term, so it would be a perfect upgrade for McConnell, plus he has movement conservatism credibility while also being liked by the establishment.
Well, some more good news. Reps are less excited to vote for their party than they were in 2008:
What are Democrats at?
The Librarian
Banned
ShockingAlberto
Member
Choosing a VP is a really big commitment for Romney.
I mean, it's not like choosing a policy position or something. You're stuck with this person for at least a few months!
The Librarian
Banned
RollingStone Magazine has an article up: "The Quiet Ones: 12 Leaders Who Get Things Done." One of them is Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin.
Best governor in the country, by quite a margin, IMO.
Best governor in the country, by quite a margin, IMO.
What I find interesting is the way liberals are referred to on right-wing echo chamber sites like National Review or WSJ. There's a very palpable feeling of contempt, and the word itself is used as an insult. I don't really see the same level of hatred coming from the left.
Monopoly man is too moderate, he couldn't energise the base enough
The Librarian
Banned
Everyone probably heard about Romney's latest (maybe) gaffe: "I like firing people who provide services to me."
It's taken out of context, but what Romney was talking about health care. Specifically, how competition helps bring down prices.
Matt Yglesias, Johnothan Cohn, Derek Thompson, Igor Volsky, and before the statement was made, Ezra Klein, all explain why competition doesn't work in health care.
It's taken out of context, but what Romney was talking about health care. Specifically, how competition helps bring down prices.
Matt Yglesias, Johnothan Cohn, Derek Thompson, Igor Volsky, and before the statement was made, Ezra Klein, all explain why competition doesn't work in health care.
Ghost_Protocol
Member
I cannot believe the amount of pussyfooting around Romney amongst the GOP. Hillary put up more of a fight against Obama singlehandedly than the entire GOP is doing collectively against Romney.
PhoenixDark
Banned
The argument is that Romney was quoted out of context here - which is true BUT even watching the full video will give you the perception of a guy who is far out of touch with the average person.
I don't know anyone who frames service choices in terms of liking being able to fire people. Yes, people like options, people like being able to switch to better services if they are available...but when you change plumbers or caterers for instance, do you enjoy firing that person or business? jeez
(also if Romney likes having choices, why is he against Obamacare again..?)
The Librarian
Banned
Vermont agrees!
The right does an amazing job with painting words with the exact connotations the way they want them to do. They're almost wordsmiths in a way. It's some of the most genius marketing I've ever seen. Stuff like this is just amazingly well crafted in how well it works on people who just don't realize it.
And you're definitely right about the word liberal. The media the right watches, like Fox news, doesn't even use insults anymore. Something is liberal and that inherently makes it bad. Socialism has the same sort of connotation, too. They paint words negatively and then that way they can use them against anything they dislike that even leans in that direction.
I've never heard someone on the left say just the word republican or conservative with the same sort of contempt and disdain that I've heard from some people on the right.
I wrote something similar to this in the thread about the $4800 hospital bill.
The right likes to bring up the issue of choice. Choose the coverage that's right for you! They make it sound as though choosing an insurance plan is some great exercise in freedom alongside voting and the right of free speech.
Most people would rather just have something that covers them and be done with it. Few people have the time to "shop around", especially when it comes to something this complex.
Furthermore, the idea of "consumer choice" when it comes to healthcare is irrelevant, because no one can accurately predict what kind of care they will require. You don't have a choice when you get sick or injured. Most of us would choose to consume zero medical resources if possible. Using medical resources (beyond a check-up) means you have a health problem, and most of us would prefer not to have any problems.
"Choosing a plan that's right for you" is ridiculous because you have no idea what medical procedures you will require tomorrow, let alone over the next year. The only "coverage" that makes sense is for everyone to be covered for everything, and for us to spread the costs of covering all necessary medical procedures across the entire population.
The right likes to bring up the issue of choice. Choose the coverage that's right for you! They make it sound as though choosing an insurance plan is some great exercise in freedom alongside voting and the right of free speech.
Most people would rather just have something that covers them and be done with it. Few people have the time to "shop around", especially when it comes to something this complex.
Furthermore, the idea of "consumer choice" when it comes to healthcare is irrelevant, because no one can accurately predict what kind of care they will require. You don't have a choice when you get sick or injured. Most of us would choose to consume zero medical resources if possible. Using medical resources (beyond a check-up) means you have a health problem, and most of us would prefer not to have any problems.
"Choosing a plan that's right for you" is ridiculous because you have no idea what medical procedures you will require tomorrow, let alone over the next year. The only "coverage" that makes sense is for everyone to be covered for everything, and for us to spread the costs of covering all necessary medical procedures across the entire population.
Fixed.
The other thing is that you really don't have much of a choice anyway. Your insurance is tied to your job. You don't have any choice. You take the job, you get the health insurance. And as far as costs go for anything you might need, you're right, people really don't want to shop around for their health. If something is wrong they need to and want to just go in and get it taken care of.
It also doesn't help that doctor's offices aren't like a McDonald's. You can't walk in and see the menu and how much things cost. If you ask, they barely know, because it depends on your insurance. You can't call up a bunch of places and ask prices, that I know of. The other thing is people aren't educated enough to be able to pick where they get their procedure. With shopping for clothing or a television or something physical we can see what's going on. We can see the quality of something right there in the store and inspect our purchase before we decide to throw down money. How the fuck do you do that with your health? How the hell do I know if the guy that's working on me is any better than the other 10 guys in the same building much less the other 100+ guys in the same city or whatever. You can't compare this stuff.
So, yeah, I definitely value health and peace of mind over some false notion of freedom and choice.
I get downright angry. Health shouldn't be a product. Health shouldn't be packaged and sold to people at a premium. Health shouldn't happen with big fancy advertising. The goal of health providers shouldn't be their bottom line. The goal of health providers shouldn't be profit. Profit shouldn't even be in the equation.
The purpose and goal of a business is, in my opinion, to extract as much money from doing as little as they can. I don't mean this to sound like business is evil. It isn't. That's what it exists to do, and I do not blame it for that. If one business doesn't take advantage of something, another will, and so they must. It is because of this that I believe the care of the people in our society should not be up to a business. It should never ever be run like a business.
As a society we pool together for the greater good of everyone, and what's more basic a greater good than our health? Nothing. If we can't give our fellow man, and specifically a fellow man who we have already formed a pact with called society, his health, then what good are we? What good is a government that lets its people die on the streets? It's pointless.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked