• 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 2011: Of Weiners, Boehners, Santorum, and Teabags

Status
Not open for further replies.
mckmas8808 said:
This being the most important part. But you could argue that had Perry or Romney won it, the media would be making a big deal out of it like they are doing for Bachmann.
It would be a reasonably big deal if Romney won it without entering. It's a glorified fundraiser and should be treated as such.
 

ToxicAdam

Member
SecretMoblin said:
I'm not sure I agree. Goldwater was about as libertarian as a mainstream Republican can get, and ever since leaders in the conservative movement started advocating "fusionism" libertarian ideas and rhetoric have been common in Republican Party politics.
.

Well, it should be noted that the 'most libertarian' candidate also suffered one of the worst defeats ever.

Now, future Republicans after Goldwater have co-opted a sliver of his platform and included it into their rhetoric, but how they actually governed once they won is a different story. But, they haven't wavered away from the neocon philosophy. Both in rhetoric and in action.
 
Oblivion said:
AyO3c.gif
 

Cubsfan23

Banned
So obama has better ratings in his worst days so far than all of the GOP candidates. Again, why are people being delusional about obama losing?
 

gcubed

Member
PhoenixDark said:
To be fair, I make "happy birthday Tupac" threads all the time on his birthday, regardless of him being dead. I'm guessing this is the same

its the anniversary of his death, not his birthday
 

Jonm1010

Banned
Cubsfan23 said:
So obama has better ratings in his worst days so far than all of the GOP candidates. Again, why are people being delusional about obama losing?

Exactly. Its what I dont get with the doomsayers.

Yes his numbers are down, but what are they compared to any given specific candidate?

Obama isnt running against the gallup opinion polls, hes running against another candidate.

It doesnt matter what his numbers are on his own, it matters whether when given two choices, more people will chose Obama over the other guy. And so far, polls have him beating the front runners who will potentially fill the other guy role.
 

Joe

Member
Ron Paul is the President that the media and corporations don't want us to have which probably means he is the President we need.
 

Dude Abides

Banned
Cubsfan23 said:
So obama has better ratings in his worst days so far than all of the GOP candidates. Again, why are people being delusional about obama losing?

The GOP hasn't coalesced around a candidate. What's delusional is thinking a weak president with 40% approval and 9% unemployment is some kind of shoe-in.
 

Chichikov

Member
Joe said:
Ron Paul is the President that the media and corporations don't want us to have which probably means he is the President we need.
That crazy person in the corner of my block who talks to aliens is also the president that the media and corporations don't want us to have.

I'm not saying Ron Paul is crazy, I'm trying to illustrate how faulty that logic is.
 

mj1108

Member
Dude Abides said:
The GOP hasn't coalesced around a candidate. What's delusional is thinking a weak president with 40% approval and 9% unemployment is some kind of shoe-in.
At the rate the GOP is going, they wont find a candidate to get behind. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if one ran as a Tea Party candidate and split the right wing vote.
 

Macam

Banned
scorcho said:
As if the multitude Bush-on-Steroids quips aren't enough to inform one to Perry's potential as POTUS, here's another one to scare us all up - Douglas Feith has become a (thus far informal) advisor to Perry on national security issues.

some of you may ask, well, who's this Feith dude?

http://www.slate.com/id/2100899/


really, the whole thing is worth the read.

Saw that piece when Perry formally announced along with his campaign staff and I had to laugh at the idea that he would've brought Feith on. It's quite fitting.

And I could've sworn OT had a Ron Paul thread for the three people that cared about Ron Paul.
 

Evlar

Banned
Bachmann Has Income from Subsidized Farm
Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, a critic of federal spending, received between $5,000 and $15,000 in income last year from a family farm that has received more than $250,000 in federal subsidies.

Bachmann, winner of the Aug. 13 Iowa Straw Poll for Republican presidential contenders, reported in her House financial-disclosure form that her interest in the farm was valued at between $500,000 and $1 million in 2010; a year earlier, she assigned the value of Bachmann Farm Family LP at between $100,000 and $250,000. Lawmakers can list income and assets in broad ranges.

The farm in Independence, Wisconsin, received $259,332 in federal subsidies from 1995 to 2008, according to U.S. government data compiled by the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based research and advocacy organization focusing on public health and environmental issues. The farm received no federal subsidies in 2009 or 2010, said Sara Sciammacco, a spokeswoman for the organization.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-16/bachmann-has-income-from-subsidized-farm.html

This will help her in Iowa, where the mental gymnastics required to simultaneously oppose government spending AND demand your subsidy checks are well practiced.
 
Evlar said:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-16/bachmann-has-income-from-subsidized-farm.html

This will help her in Iowa, where the mental gymnastics required to simultaneously oppose government spending AND demand your subsidy checks are well practiced.
Heh, I was going to bring this up in the case of Warren Buffet calling for higher tax rates on the wealthy but taking the tax breaks anyway. It just makes me laugh.

Does it mean I'm not allowed to say they should remove the mortgage interest deduction from taxes when I use it?
 
dave is ok said:
He doesn't belong to the Republican or Democrat party
This is the correct answer.

Media has no clue how to pigeonhole Ron Paul. They don't understand why he trumps poll after poll and has a huge following, but the shit he says is so far off the well tread Republican talking points they genuinely don't know what to do. And that's a good thing about Paul. He doesn't stick to talking points.
Plumbob said:
http://www.hillaryis44.org/ is still going strong, man.
Bill Clinton, don't you have anything better to do
 

Meadows

Banned
View from a dirty socialist Brit:

You know, for all I disagreed with him, at least McCain was a sane, balanced individual who was popular, experienced and had a good life background. The rest of the world got behind Obama, sure, but we thought that McCain was a pretty decent person. Sure Palin was crazy but we saw through her appointment as a PR scheme to put some life into a boring ticket.

But then it went wrong. Some Social conservatives in the mid-west started to like Palin. A lot. They went crazy over her, idolised her, hung on her every word. Someone who was a PR gimmick, probably by McCain's admission too, was gaining credibility when that was never meant to be the outcome. McCain knew that putting her on the ticket was a hail mary, he didn't really think that she would be a good VP, just someone to appeal to a demographic. But this demographic is lucrative. Fox News saw this and started targeting its coverage towards this small minority to provide talking points for its news cycles, presenting the minority as a majority. The Tea Party wasn't a nuts fringe group it was a "constitutional movement" that wanted to get the "deficit under control".

This clearly wasn't the Tea Party's intention. The Tea Party can be much more easily traced back to a right-wing white lower-middle class disdain for liberal social policies on issues such as religion, drugs and abortion. The term "separation of state from the church" was hijacked not to mean that government (ran by the people) would be free from the church, but that Baptist/Evangelical groups would be "protected from" the government. It could be easily, although possibly only backed up with anecdotal evidence, contented that most people that joined the "movement" probably didin't understand the fundamental basics of what a deficit is, how it works, how it can be good for the economy.

So it is clear that the Tea Party was founded in Social, not Fiscal conservatism. So how was it that their agenda changed so quickly? Fox News.

It was in Fox News' interest to make this "movement" bigger and bigger, presenting the station as a source of propaganda for followers and a source of amusement/worry for moderates. But the Social Conservatism issue didn't sell. Economics were in vouge. Fox News started to change what the Tea Party were about, something easily done due to the "movement's" lack of hierarchy/structure and in doing so gave them a "reasonable" message. Suddenly the Tea Party weren't Bible bashing nutters, they were concerned fiscal conservatives who were in the moral right. This is what gave the movement a step into political influence.

Politicians started to pander more and more to this "movement" with people like Palin/Bachmann using the guise of "balancing the budget" to disguise their crazy ultra-right wing views, allowing them to seem reasonable, heck even likeable. More traditional republicans, or even Libertarians such as Ron Paul who would be better at balancing the budget suddenly weren't appealing to this "movement" (see: small fringe) and were dropped by the news cycle.

So yes, this America, is how Fox News is killing your country.

Although I already suspect you knew this it was nice for me to sum up the madness that is the GOP.
 

Evlar

Banned
Skiptastic said:
Heh, I was going to bring this up in the case of Warren Buffet calling for higher tax rates on the wealthy but taking the tax breaks anyway. It just makes me laugh.

Does it mean I'm not allowed to say they should remove the mortgage interest deduction from taxes when I use it?
With the difference being, Buffett doesn't deny taking the deductions.
 
The tea party's roots have to do with fiscal issues, not social; there's a lot of tension among social conservatives, who feel they're being ignored as the party moves further toward 10th amendment libertarianism. Ron Paul started the movement with his 08 campaign, and it was later hijacked by former GOP leaders.

Fox News helped with this hijack movement by completely ignoring the Paul campaign and billing it as some grassroots movement. And then in 2010 they helped whip the country into a frenzy over health care.

Palin set off a reaction of paranoia and despair among white voters, who later turned to the tea party. Those October 08 rallies were pretty ugly, perhaps dangerous. If it's clear Obama is going to win by next October, things will get even uglier.
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
I still feel that when the Perry marketing starts nationwide independents will turn on him in a second. He's way too similar to George W. Bush and his state is successful because of the oil companies. Once the democrats tie on that connection he'll lose almost all support from independents.
 

Stinkles

Clothed, sober, cooperative
Skiptastic said:
Heh, I was going to bring this up in the case of Warren Buffet calling for higher tax rates on the wealthy but taking the tax breaks anyway. It just makes me laugh.

Does it mean I'm not allowed to say they should remove the mortgage interest deduction from taxes when I use it?

I voted for income tax in Washington State, but I don't voluntarily send the amount to the State after the measure failed. Because a) It would be meaningless and b) I am simply living my life and obeying the tax code.

The two things are not contradictory.
 

ToxicAdam

Member
OuterWorldVoice said:
I voted for income tax in Washington State, but I don't voluntarily send the amount to the State after the measure failed. Because a) It would be meaningless and b) I am simply living my life and obeying the tax code.

The two things are not contradictory.


Kind of like people that accept subsidies while they want to shrink the government?
 

Stinkles

Clothed, sober, cooperative
RustyNails said:
This is the correct answer.

Media has no clue how to pigeonhole Ron Paul. They don't understand why he trumps poll after poll and has a huge following, but the shit he says is so far off the well tread Republican talking points they genuinely don't know what to do. And that's a good thing about Paul. He doesn't stick to talking points.

Bill Clinton, don't you have anything better to do


He's also a nutcase with incredibly fringe views and lots of ridiculous contradictory positions. He's made hommophobic remarks in a movie, is against gay marriage based on a mental-gymnastics interpretation of States' Rights and doesn't believe in evolution. And published a series of racist newsletters. These are facts. Ron Paul defense force will be along in a second to deny, but not refute them. He's even more fringe than the Tea Party. He only gets a pass because his foreign policy SOUNDS attractive (but would fail miserably in real life) and Ayn Randisms.
 

Stinkles

Clothed, sober, cooperative
ToxicAdam said:
Kind of like people that accept subsidies while they want to shrink the government?


No. Not at all. My position is consistent. I think we should enact revenue generating taxes in a reasonable fashion. We have not. I will continue to vote that way when the opportunity arises.

I don't get on a podium and state the opposite to get elected.
 

Loudninja

Member
Wait A Minute…
Perry Slams Non-Existent Federal Farm Regulation

Rick Perry pulled a Michele Bachmann on Tuesday, passionately condemning a policy that does not actually exist.

This time round it was over farming issues. "If you're a tractor driver, if you drive your tractor across a public road, you're gonna have to have a commercial driver's license. Now how idiotic is that?" perry told a Des Moines crowd. "What were they thinking?"

As it turns out, Perry's claim is based off a false rumor that was circulating among farmers that the Department of Transportation recently put to rest. The Wall Street Journal reports that the confusion was over a federal review of a proposal by Illinois to require commercial licenses for farmers, but the DOT ultimately concluded -- as Perry did -- that "the common sense exemptions that allow farmers, their employers, and their families to accomplish their day-to-day work and transport their products to market" should not be tampered with by states.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...m-regulation----that-doesnt-exist.php?ref=fpa
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
OuterWorldVoice said:
No. Not at all. My position is consistent. I think we should enact revenue generating taxes in a reasonable fashion. We have not. I will continue to vote that way when the opportunity arises.

I don't get on a podium and state the opposite to get elected.


And you properly fill out your tax returns correctly. That's different than going out and finding gov't subsidies to help you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom