Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
disco

2012 Election

Recommended Posts

Some of those are really funny, a few taken out of context. A couple are actually true; not sure on the date, but Lancaster, PA was the capitol of the US for a short time when the continental congress fled Philly. I live near the area so the history was taught in school a couple times.

 

 

And MoP is funny "Oh noooo, he posted the same thing about Obama!!!!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

VP debate. So far Biden and Ryan are just spewing talking points with one decent zinger coming from Ryan. Biden definitely has the advantage of acting like the older wiser politician making Ryan sound like he doesn't know what he is talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there's one thing that the last twenty years have taught me, it's that Obama badly needs to be reelected. Republican congress + democratic president = reasonable fiscal conservatism. Republican congress + republican president = borrow & spend social conservatism shit show.

 

Romney's a retard, but even if he wasn't I'd still vote for Obama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of those are really funny, a few taken out of context. A couple are actually true; not sure on the date, but Lancaster, PA was the capitol of the US for a short time when the continental congress fled Philly. I live near the area so the history was taught in school a couple times.

 

 

And MoP is funny "Oh noooo, he posted the same thing about Obama!!!!"

So I guess you don't want to be surious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biden's wiping the floor with Ryan. Easy debate victory. Biden is more aggressive, more forceful, and comes across as far more passionate while Ryan comes across as a fairly timid technocrat.

 

Highlight will be the one retort where Biden managed to include the 47%, a related 30% quote from Ryan, and Romney's tax rate all in one 30 second segment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry you feel that way RougeCatwalker, but I have to disagree with you pretty strongly here. Since before he was elected, the ultra-right punditocracy has been using thinly-veiled euphemisms for Obama's race. The "welfare president" remark is a prime example. It has deniability as a racial reference, but speaks to the common misconception among racist whites of the "welfare queen", and similar stereotypes (most black people are on welfare (false), most people on welfare are black (also false) and so on).

 

I'm a little surprised that this is such a pearl-clutching revelation too; the Republicans have used race to fear-bait votes since the Southern Strategy in the 1960s. They're (marginally) more subtle about it now, but consider it rationally: with a (half) black man in the Oval, why would they stop using a strategy that has done pretty well for them over the last half-century?

It's possible that Obama maybe wants to make people feel racist for not voting for him. I think the race issue goes both ways... Besides, I doubt a lot of black people will vote for Romney, so this race issue favors Obama way more than it hurts him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bidens smile is going to hurt him just like Gore with his constant sighing.

 

Seems to be the consensus. It always takes the media 1-2 days to really congeal around a consensus winner. Right now, it appears to be a tie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found this post on /r/conservative on reddit.

 

The topic was what will happen after Obama gets re-elected:

 

You probably won't see anything new out of the administration. Nearly all second terms are less productive and more scandal-ridden the first terms because the president no longer has coattails to offer supporters and bludgeon opposition. There is also virtually no chance that he will have a mandate. Even the campaign admits they will not have as much support as they had four years ago. But, things that are already set in motion will go into effect:

The president will probably have to spend a lot of time fighting scandals. Fast and Furious. Questionable campaign finance (both Solyndra-type tit-for-tat and the likelihood that he's raising non-trivial amounts from overseas donors). The Libyan embassy. First-amendment lawsuits against HHS.... They're all coming at him full-force after the election is over if he's the winner. Which means he's not going to have a lot of political capital to throw at new initiatives.

A tax hike will take effect Jan. 1, which will probably throw us back into recession. However, it probably won't last as long, and may even present and opportunity for a better recovery without the president having as much time to demonize business as he had in the first term.

Your local bank is going to sell out. Every person I talk to in finance is concerned about the cost of the Dodd Frank regulations. Theoretically, they were supposed to keep "too big to fail" institutions under control. But in practice, the costs of compliance are going to favor those very institutions. Bank of America or Wells Fargo can spread the costs over hundreds of branches. Your local banks can't, so any institution with branches numbering less than 20 or 30 is probably gone in the next five years.

The bulk of the revenue-generation for Obamacare goes into effect. That pretty much means the death of medical innovation in the US because of the device tax. It also likely means millions of people dumped on state exchanges. Pretty much every business owner I talk to says the same thing: "I don't want to be the first, but I'm damn sure going to be the second." My partners and I have discussed it and we could afford to immediately grant each employee a $3500/year raise and break even paying the fines. And breaking even is a good damn strategy facing when we consider the continued escalating costs of insurance.

The Supreme Court will stay at the current balance of power. The conservative justices are mostly also the younger justices and it's not likely that they'll be leaving in the next for years anyway. However, there's a pretty high possibility that Ginsberg will be off the court during the next four years...her health isn't the greatest and she's the oldest justice. A conservative president could change the balance a bit more in a conservative direction. An Obama win maintains the status quo.

Inflation. I have absolutely no faith in the official numbers. No one who buys gas, groceries, or works in a business dealing with commodities does. Inflation is here and it's going to get worse, which means a giant transfer of wealth from savers to debtors and a great amount of instability all across the economy. This one is probably stretching it a bit, because a Romney win doesn't make it go away though it might blunt it a bit. There is simply no possible way to increase productivity remotely far enough to make up for the sheer amount of money we've poured into the economy and the only thing that is saving us from seeing high inflation now is that nearly all economies around the world are devaluing their currency at similar rates.

The house will stay Republican, and if the president wins, it will go even more Republican in 2014. There is no realistic way that the Republicans retake the Senate with an Obama victory, but they will probably pick up seats and could take it in two years. Either way, it's going to be gridlock, and there's going to have to be some sort of major crisis to break that.

 

So my question, is it not weird that most of the legislation the Obama administration passed FAVORS BIG business and burdens small business with extreme regulatory costs? Doesn't that mean Mitt Romney is really pro small business and Obama actually isn't?

 

Also, does this guy make valid points? They seem valid to me.

 

I also asked him for a source on the Dodd Frank statement and he delivered: http://financialservices.house.gov/burdentracker/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, you regular /r/ conservative. Reddit politics, regardless of your affiliation, is worthless. Hivemind does not produce many good insights.

 

Scandals: Probably not. They're mostly bullshit to begin with, and nobody cares about them but die-hard conservatives.

 

The claim that every bank less than 30 people will die is beyond idiotic. They are not going to lose competitive advantage to anyone else, so why would they have to close?

 

Tax hikes Jan 1: Maybe, probably not, but in any event hard to attribute specifically to Obama. Those shenanigans can be directly attributed to the least productive Congress in my lifetime, thanks to the Tea Party and the 2010 election. Furthermore, Romney will be unable to stop it because, assuming a victory, he won't take office for 3 weeks after the tax hike.

 

Medical innovation won't die because of a device tax. Hypberbolic fear-mongering. The US is highly geared toward technological innovation, and a small tax hike isn't going to fundamentally disrupt the healthcare sector.

 

Supreme Court: he's right.

 

Inflation: What a novel idea. Disregard all data on macroeconomics and replace it with anecdotes provided by "anyone who buys gas or works in commodites." All those economics majors, instead of crunching data, should instead be walking around asking people what their opinion is of prices. Easily the most stupid point raised. Numbers are numbers, and you can't disregard them because they tell a story contrary to what your politics would prefer.

 

House: Probably stays Republican. Which does mean more gridlock, because Republicans have successfully filibustered a record amount of legislation since 2008, especially since 2010. However, should Obama get re-elected, the Republican "he stole it!" mentality (which fuels the "we're taking the country back!" statements) will suffer a large defeat, and the stupidity of the Tea Party will hopefully diminish and allow more deal-making. To me, the gridlock is fueled by Republicans staking everything they have on winning the presidency in 2012 (which is why McConnell said his top priority is to deny Obama a second term). If they lose the election, that brinksmanship mentality will have no reason to exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scandals: Probably not. They're mostly bullshit to begin with, and nobody cares about them but die-hard conservatives.

 

The Obama campaign should fire Stephanie Cutter and hire you instead. I bet you'd work for half as much money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm being serious. I have yet to read anything which strikes me as anywhere near the level of serious as Monicagate, or even Haley Barbour's 200 pardons on his last day in office to rich donors.

 

Off the top of my head, the most serious is probably fast and furious, but that seems to be fairly well contained to justice department stupidity as opposed to direct Obama intervention. The green program scandals are a waste of money, but they're a very small waste of money (.4% of the program, quoting Biden), and in any event there haven't been significant financial ties which benefited Obama as a result of the granting of loans.

 

I haven't seen anything which isn't the typical partisan bullshit investigations done by a disaffected minority party. Democrats did it under Bush 2, Republicans did it under Clinton.

 

But I'm willing to listen. Convince me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've noticed something rather interesting. After every debate, there's a period where the media, poll organizations, and various political figures battle for 1-2 days until a consensus is reached on who won, who lost, and what the highlights were. It's almost as if what matters isn't even the debate, but instead the battle for who can spin it to support their preferred narrative.

 

Take the responses right now. It's up in the air. Fox says Obama lied, MSNBC says it was feisty, CNN is neutral. Nobody is saying who won / lost, but I would bet money that, by tomorrow, a victor is proclaimed. Fox will be arguing all day today that Obama lied and Romney won, MSN will be arguing that Obama put forth a beat down, and CNN will be leaning toward Obama but doing so cautiously. At some point, they'll all come to agree. That process, to me, is fascinating.

 

Take the first debate. Right after the debate, results were mixed - even Fox didn't claim it was a Romney victory until the next day. Everyone called it a good debate, or whatever, without picking a winner. Then, 24-48 hours later, it became seen as Romney smashing victory and propelled his campaign for two weeks.

 

What drives that consensus? Is it just polling? CNN snap polls after the Biden debate put Biden as a 20point victor ... but the consensus of the Biden-Ryan debate is now rather mixed, with Republicans indignant at Biden's body language and tone and Democrats in love with Biden's feisty behavior.

 

Anyway, something interesting I noticed. Maybe it's all polling, they just wait for the polls to finish and then base their story on poll responses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No Ach, no!

 

The rest of the world is liberally biased, we can't be having their opinions.

 

Also main pic on fox news is:

 

101712_nuromneyright_20121017_130651.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've noticed something rather interesting. After every debate, there's a period where the media, poll organizations, and various political figures battle for 1-2 days until a consensus is reached on who won, who lost, and what the highlights were. It's almost as if what matters isn't even the debate, but instead the battle for who can spin it to support their preferred narrative.

 

Take the responses right now. It's up in the air. Fox says Obama lied, MSNBC says it was feisty, CNN is neutral. Nobody is saying who won / lost, but I would bet money that, by tomorrow, a victor is proclaimed. Fox will be arguing all day today that Obama lied and Romney won, MSN will be arguing that Obama put forth a beat down, and CNN will be leaning toward Obama but doing so cautiously. At some point, they'll all come to agree. That process, to me, is fascinating.

 

Take the first debate. Right after the debate, results were mixed - even Fox didn't claim it was a Romney victory until the next day. Everyone called it a good debate, or whatever, without picking a winner. Then, 24-48 hours later, it became seen as Romney smashing victory and propelled his campaign for two weeks.

 

What drives that consensus? Is it just polling? CNN snap polls after the Biden debate put Biden as a 20point victor ... but the consensus of the Biden-Ryan debate is now rather mixed, with Republicans indignant at Biden's body language and tone and Democrats in love with Biden's feisty behavior.

 

Anyway, something interesting I noticed. Maybe it's all polling, they just wait for the polls to finish and then base their story on poll responses.

 

I honestly hate all of this. All the news shows try to paint it like a football game mixed with American Idol; they love their damn narratives. It's all about who delivered the most zingers, who was too aggressive, who wasn't aggressive enough, who loves the middle class more, who smiles too much, who "won", who "lost" (whatever that actually means), who had the bigger fucking flag lapel pin. What about whose policies make the most sense, whose numbers actually add up, and whose track record actually shows that they follow through on what they say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone just stop complaining and vote for one or the other.

 

If you want to change the system you probably need to run for office yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×