2012 Presidential Debates

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
241

[quote]ZEB wrote:

HUH? He doesn’t want to be combatitive? He had no problem attacking George Bush and blaming him for down ward economy that cannot be fixed no matter what, to attacking Hillary during their debates, to being the master mind behind the most vicious Presidential attack ads in years. [/quote]

This. Looking at recent history, it doesn’t make sense. So, all of a sudden he’s worried about putting up even a semblance of a fight against a white opponent? Oh give me a break. It didn’t even cross Obama’s mind. Here’s the problem for Obama. He’s completely unsure what the hell to do. He doesn’t even believe himself anymore.

He knows that as soon as he begins to get some steam, to get all flowery, waxing poetic, whispering his sweet nothings to us, Romney is going bring it back down to earth. Romney is going to bring up the record of the last past four years whenever he suspects Obama might be getting some ground under his feet. And Obama knows it. He knows the record, especially when highlighted against his promises, is TERRIBLE. He knows that at this point flowery hope and change, healing the oceans, stuff isn’t going to cut it. So what does he do, start making more promises so Romney can just bring up again how the last batch of promises were broken?

It’s simple. The guy was coddled by the press for too long. And as T-bolt pointed out, even so, he still did his best to avoid them. His last batch of promises are beached and bloated on the shore of reality. And Americans might not just be in the mood for healing the world or some such thing this time around. They just want jobs.

242

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

Common sense dictates that a politician would use a weapon with such tangible power over the electorate.[/quote]

I’m telling you, this footage of Obama actively engaging in racially divisive pandering, based on outright lies and even hypocrisy, has taken it off the table.[/quote]

I disagree Sloth. That video and his comments will not get enough air play to matter. And when it does it will be described as “old news” which means nothing. This is where the MSLM does it’s best work for Obama. They convince the masses that they are not seeing what in fact they are seeing.

Of course I hope that you are correct.[/quote]

I have to disagree with you on that one Zeb.

Here in Colorado any commercial with that statement is in HEAVY rotation (I by that I mean constantly).

Watching a football game here is stupid at the moment, thank God for my DirecTV DVR![/quote]

I’m sorry what exactly are you saying? That the Obama “secret” racial rousting video is being shown regularly in your area?

[/quote]

No, nothing with that. We are getting bombarded by the 47% ad, the chinese labor add, and a new one about how he somehow managed to get a wind turbine manuf facility in Pueblo shut down.

Keep in mind these are slotted between the local political mud slinging going on, so it’s a never ending stream.

Like I said thank God for the DVR, the fast forward button is getting quite the workout.

243

[quote]ZEB wrote:

I agree that Romney uses it as defense, not offense. But until Obama attacks with the 47% line, and he won’t, it doesn’t get used. Hence, the story goes away.

See what I’m saying?

[/quote]

Oh, I know that as things are now, it most likely will slip by. And THAT’s why I believe Obama won’t use the 47% directly. Why risk provoking your opponent into bringing up his race baiting lies, in order to sow division, on a widely televised format, viewed by 60-70 million Americans? Many of which have some form of access to google and youtube. That’s a huge gamble, getting into “never before seen clip” war. You’re right it will go away. And Obama wants it to go away. And I don’t think he’s going to risk it not going away. Like it being brought up in front of the before mentioned 60-70 million people, on live tv. Because then it can’t just go away. The media has to report on the clip, and play it, in order to deal with the charge Romney makes.

I absolutely don’t think Romney should use it offensively. I think this gives him a bit of cover in the debates so long as it looks like it COULD go away. I’m telling ya, I think Romney is going to damage Obama’s campaign over the Libya debacle. Whatever else is said, that’s what going to be remembered from the debate. And all the while, as he takes his verbal beating, Matthews will be fuming, “Where is it?! Where the hell is the mention of the 47%?!”

You know I don’t say this lightly, but Romney was brilliant. His team has done one hell of a job for the man. That wasn’t some wooden corporate guy. That was a President. I think Romney found his groove. And loves it. And I think Obama feels lost, unsure, and stuck between a rock and a hard place.

I predict the next debate clinches this for Romney. If one can say Obama ends up doing better in the next debate, I’ll predict it’s because it wasn’t a TOTAL disaster. Just a disaster.

244

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

Common sense dictates that a politician would use a weapon with such tangible power over the electorate.[/quote]

I’m telling you, this footage of Obama actively engaging in racially divisive pandering, based on outright lies and even hypocrisy, has taken it off the table.[/quote]

I disagree Sloth. That video and his comments will not get enough air play to matter. And when it does it will be described as “old news” which means nothing. This is where the MSLM does it’s best work for Obama. They convince the masses that they are not seeing what in fact they are seeing.

Of course I hope that you are correct.[/quote]

I have to disagree with you on that one Zeb.

Here in Colorado any commercial with that statement is in HEAVY rotation (I by that I mean constantly).

Watching a football game here is stupid at the moment, thank God for my DirecTV DVR![/quote]

I’m sorry what exactly are you saying? That the Obama “secret” racial rousting video is being shown regularly in your area?

[/quote]

No, nothing with that. We are getting bombarded by the 47% ad, the chinese labor add, and a new one about how he somehow managed to get a wind turbine manuf facility in Pueblo shut down.

Keep in mind these are slotted between the local political mud slinging going on, so it’s a never ending stream.

Like I said thank God for the DVR, the fast forward button is getting quite the workout.[/quote]

Are there any anti-Obama ads being run by either the Romney campaign or PAC’s?

245

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Are there any anti-Obama ads being run by either the Romney campaign or PAC’s?[/quote]

We’re getting brochures about Obama’s cutting 716 billion from medicare to help fund Obamacare, down here in Florida. Obviously the right approach for Florida.

246

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Are there any anti-Obama ads being run by either the Romney campaign or PAC’s?[/quote]

We’re getting brochures about Obama’s cutting 716 billion from medicare to help fund Obamacare, down here in Florida. Obviously the right approach for Florida.
[/quote]

That is a good line because it’s true. And Romney mentioned in the debate no less than four times! If he gets enough seniors from that he will need less single women, who seem to be all gaga over Obama.

The people that he has harmed the most are his most loyal supporters.

And why?

Because they now believe that without big government they are sunk.

Remove the opportunity for a job, convince them that there is no hope other than government, demonize the rich and you have the democratic strategy.

I don’t really hate any human beings. But that strategy is so anti-American that it makes me want to puke!

247

ZEB: It sounds to me as though you are insinuating that Dems are purposely preventing people from getting jobs as part of their campaign strategy. Is this an accurate interpretation of your statement?

248

[quote]CornSprint wrote:
ZEB: It sounds to me as though you are insinuating that Dems are purposely preventing people from getting jobs as part of their campaign strategy. Is this an accurate interpretation of your statement?[/quote]

Quite honestly I’m not sure. I don’t want to believe it, yet Obama had two full years with both houses of congress democrat and instead of (trying at least) fixing the economy he pushed through health care reform against the wishes of about 65% of the American public.

Also, if you look at his background you see someone who was always flirting the the fringe. A socialist father, his friends mostly socialists.

Honestly, probably not the democratic party as a whole. But it is currently being lead by someone who wants to down size America. I see it in his policies and I hear it in his speeches. Remember him saying that he wanted to “fundamentally transform America?” Is he purposely trying to place more people on government aid? I don’t know but from what I’ve seen he acts like no other President that I’ve seen in my lifetime.

249

[quote]smh23 wrote:<<< Are you implying that Barack Obama is consciously happy that millions of Americans are poor and is actively trying to keep them there? >>>[/quote]He views them as a regrettable, but necessary sacrifice in the name of the mission. Which is Justice for the many on a global basis. You WILL agree with me one day.

250

465×632 99.1 KB

Next week’s cover. Eastwood’s revenge.

251
252

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Al Gore has suggested that Obama may not have had time to acclimate to the altitude. Jesus.

As for me, and this is wild speculation, I can’t help thinking that Obama is subconsciously unsure of whether or not he actually wants another term. I think he went into this job with an unrealistic sense of what it actually entails. He isn’t a natural politician a la Bill Clinton, he is often criticized on the Hill for failing to schmooze, he obviously doesn’t like answering questions about his decisions.

I’m finding it hard to come up with a better explanation for his recent triple-crown of mediocrity: the convention speech, the 60 minutes interview, and now the debate. Most people–even the staunch detractors–have said all along that, love or hate his policies, he’s a charismatic guy, charming, etc. There was charisma last night, but it was all sitting stage right.[/quote]

You might be on to something. It is the hardest job on earth, and I don’t think he realized that along with glory comes hard damn work.

A bunch of people are railing about why he didn’t bring up the 47% issue. My take is that if you don’t think romney has a responce (good or bad) ready and raring to go, you are insane. Why on earth would obama bring it up and give romney a chance to a) solidify his base that already agree with him and b) possibility (small chance but still) turn it into a homerun.[/quote]

I thought the same thing. Bringing it up in the debate would open up an opportunity for Romney to perform damage control. The basic point that Romney was making is that there is a vast client state that is dependent upon government who are most likely to vote for whoever will give them the most giveaways which is the democrats.

The vulnerability for Obama is that opening that issue up for discussion means, Romney can turn it against him by pointing out that if the economy sucks, putting more people on welfare, that will grow the client state and that favors democrats. In other words if a sizable portion of the forty seven percent are able to get off of the government tit, that will be bad for democrats.
[/quote]

I have to say, that sounds very insightful to me. It’s so clear now I don’t understand how I hadn’t thought of that.
[/quote]

Not sure if you are being sarcastic or not, but this is part of the reason people keep bringing up Cloward-Piven.

I don’t think Obama is trying to “destroy” the country. But the more poor there are, and the more people that can be convinced they are ‘poor’ the better off for the democrats in the polls.

If poor people and minorities consistently vote for one party over the other, and upwardly mobile an rich people vote for a second. Wouldn’t it be in the best interest of the first party to keep people either actually poor, or convinced they were poor, and to promote oppression based on race?[/quote]

No, not being sarcastic. Just about the part about it giving Romney the opportunity for damage control in front a huge audience. One of the few smart moves Obama pulled off in the debate.

253

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

If poor people and minorities consistently vote for one party over the other, and upwardly mobile an rich people vote for a second. Wouldn’t it be in the best interest of the first party to keep people either actually poor, or convinced they were poor, and to promote oppression based on race?
[/quote]

I think this argument necessitates some pretty big leaps and assumptions. The problem with the underlying logic is probably best illustrated by turning it all around:

When you juxtapose poll data on party affiliation with Census data on level of education, the best-educated states tend to be the most liberal. In 2010, for example, fifteen of the twenty most Democratic states were also fifteen of the twenty best-educated.

So, to borrow your wording: if the very educated consistently vote for Democrats, wouldn’t it be in the best interests of the Republican Party to keep people from attaining high levels of education?

From this would flow the vaguely paranoid notion that Republicans were actively discouraging the education of the citizenry, etc. Which is obviously nonsense.

254

[quote]smh23 wrote:

When you juxtapose poll data on party affiliation with Census data on level of education, the best-educated states tend to be the most liberal. In 2010, for example, fifteen of the twenty most Democratic states were also fifteen of the twenty best-educated.

[/quote]

Best indoctrinated.

The very educated don’t ‘consistently vote for Democrats’ - academia is honeycombed with leftists. That’s why the more indoctrinated vote Democrat.

[quote]
From this would flow the vaguely paranoid notion that Republicans were actively discouraging the education of the citizenry, etc. Which is obviously nonsense.[/quote]

Yes it is. However, the welfare state was predicted by Alexis de Tocqueville 200 years ago. Democrats keep bureaucrats and welfare recipients on the payroll so they will continue to vote Democrat.

255

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
The very educated don’t ‘consistently vote for Democrats’ - academia is honeycombed with leftists. That’s why the more indoctrinated vote Democrat.
[/quote]

A short summary of what you’ve written here: you said that something doesn’t happen in your first sentence. Then you said that it does happen in your second sentence, but you used derogatory euphemisms instead of the same wording.

The term indoctrinated does not change the gist of my post, which I’m sure you understood was meant to underscore the absurdity of this paranoid conspiracy theory re: welfare. The same logic propping up that nonsense has been used here by me. That you are attacking it as silly serves only to bolster my point.

256

[quote]smh23 wrote:

A short summary of what you’ve written here: you said that something doesn’t happen in your first sentence. Then you said that it does happen in your second sentence, but you used derogatory euphemisms instead of the same wording.

[/quote]

Not so. That’s why I used a direct quotation. Your first assertion which I agreed with is that “the best educated states tend to be the most liberal.” This is true.

Your next assertion that I disagreed with is that “the very educated consistently vote for Democrats.” The “very educated,” depending of course upon exactly what you mean by this, do not vote consistently Democrat.

Princeton University Press:

“If you define elites as high-income non-Hispanic whites, the elites vote strongly Republican. If you define elites as college-educated high-income whites, they vote moderately Republican. There is no plausible way based on these data in which elites can be considered a Democratic voting bloc.”

There’s no conspiracy. It’s just common sense. If a Democrat had a mandate to reduce the number of bureaucrats s/he would not be able to be elected to office. Same if they ran on a platform to reduce welfare expenditure. Obviously it’s because all those millions of bureaucrats and welfare recipients would not vote for them.

[quote]
The same logic propping up that nonsense has been used here by me. That you are attacking it as silly serves only to bolster my point.[/quote]

I attacked the notion of Republicans keeping people uneducated as silly. The Democrats keeping people on the government tit is not silly; it’s fact.

257

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Your next assertion that I disagreed with is that “the very educated consistently vote for Democrats.” The “very educated,” depending of course upon exactly what you mean by this, do not vote consistently Democrat.

Princeton University Press:

“If you define elites as high-income non-Hispanic whites, the elites vote strongly Republican. If you define elites as college-educated high-income whites, they vote moderately Republican. There is no plausible way based on these data in which elites can be considered a Democratic voting bloc.”
[/quote]

This is about “elites” and is describing not only education level but also income. I very specifically avoided using the term income or elite, anywhere.

When you look at education only–as a whole, not among whites or blacks or whatever–the best-educated states tend to vote blue. And in terms of the individual, once you get to postgraduate education you’re looking at an unmistakable majority of left-leaning voters.

You posted a study that had very little to do with my original wording, and you’re absolutely smart enough to know that.

Anyway, point is that the logic underlying your argument–despite your argument by assertion–is not sufficient cause for a reasonable person to automatically begin believing it. In fact it’s extremely weak. And it’s EXACTLY the logic I used in my post about education. If you accept the logic as it applies to welfare then you must accept it as it applies to education.

Or you could show me where I took a logical misstep. That is, that the logic I applied is somehow different from the logic used by Beans in his original post. But re-arguing the point–by assertion–isn’t going to do anything and it isn’t going get another response.

258

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

If poor people and minorities consistently vote for one party over the other, and upwardly mobile an rich people vote for a second. Wouldn’t it be in the best interest of the first party to keep people either actually poor, or convinced they were poor, and to promote oppression based on race?
[/quote]

I think this argument necessitates some pretty big leaps and assumptions. The problem with the underlying logic is probably best illustrated by turning it all around:

When you juxtapose poll data on party affiliation with Census data on level of education, the best-educated states tend to be the most liberal. In 2010, for example, fifteen of the twenty most Democratic states were also fifteen of the twenty best-educated.

So, to borrow your wording: if the very educated consistently vote for Democrats, wouldn’t it be in the best interests of the Republican Party to keep people from attaining high levels of education?

From this would flow the vaguely paranoid notion that Republicans were actively discouraging the education of the citizenry, etc. Which is obviously nonsense.[/quote]

You are confusing educated with completed college course work. I understand the metric used to measure education is just that, completed college course work, but anyone that has been anything above entry level where they work knows completed course work as zero to do with education or intelligence levels.

But, in order to keep us on the same path to further exploration of this topic, because you bring up a good point, would you agree or disagree with the following:

Higher education institutions tend to be dominated by liberal/left leaning educators & administration.

259

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

If poor people and minorities consistently vote for one party over the other, and upwardly mobile an rich people vote for a second. Wouldn’t it be in the best interest of the first party to keep people either actually poor, or convinced they were poor, and to promote oppression based on race?
[/quote]

I think this argument necessitates some pretty big leaps and assumptions. The problem with the underlying logic is probably best illustrated by turning it all around:

When you juxtapose poll data on party affiliation with Census data on level of education, the best-educated states tend to be the most liberal. In 2010, for example, fifteen of the twenty most Democratic states were also fifteen of the twenty best-educated.

So, to borrow your wording: if the very educated consistently vote for Democrats, wouldn’t it be in the best interests of the Republican Party to keep people from attaining high levels of education?

From this would flow the vaguely paranoid notion that Republicans were actively discouraging the education of the citizenry, etc. Which is obviously nonsense.[/quote]

You are confusing educated with completed college course work. I understand the metric used to measure education is just that, completed college course work, but anyone that has been anything above entry level where they work knows completed course work as zero to do with education or intelligence levels.

But, in order to keep us on the same path to further exploration of this topic, because you bring up a good point, would you agree or disagree with the following:

Higher education institutions tend to be dominated by liberal/left leaning educators & administration.[/quote]

Note that I didn’t say anything about “intelligence” or even IQ level. I mean “educated” in the narrowest sense of the term–having attained a certificate of education. I’ve spent a lot of time at institutions of higher education over the past half decade and I would be the absolute first to admit that they readily abide half-wits and stupidity.

And yes, I agree with the statement re:the political makeup of the university system. I’m glad you brought it up because I think it actually strengthens my point. It adds one more reason–and a compelling one–for conservatives (if they were so inclined) to sabotage higher education.

Anyone thinking of jumping on me for this, please note that I’m NOT arguing that last point. I’m arguing that the logic on which it is predicated is faulty, no matter how convincing it seems on the surface.

260

[quote]smh23 wrote:

Note that I didn’t say anything about “intelligence” or even IQ level. I mean “educated” in the narrowest sense of the term–having attained a certificate of education. I’ve spent a lot of time at institutions of higher education over the past half decade and I would be the absolute first to admit that they readily abide half-wits and stupidity.[/quote]

I know what you meant, but I did want to make the point, lol. I think (and this could be a whole thread in itself) that this is part of the reason we are in the mess we are in re: jobs and employment. College has become big business and dropped standards. People that had no business getting past freshman year in 1965 are now being handed master’s degrees.

Well, for it to add a compelling reason, it would ignore a large tenant of being a true conservative in the first place. Everything starts with the individual, and individual responsibility is paramount to conservative ideology being successful.

So, if you add up the loosing standards, the liberal leaning of the professors and administration, and the inherent ‘collective’ nature of college and it sort of explains itself. Because, again, someone doesn’t have to be poor in order for my original logic to work. They only need to believe they are poor, some how oppressed by those with more, or owe their success to something other than their hard work (government in this case.)

Look at affirmative action. It pushes people through the system, and therefore any success they have, they will likely give credit to the government. Now if the programs pulled people up, they would have to have individual accomplishment and get a reward for success, which would have them giving themselves credit rather than the government.

Right now a black kid applies to college, and the college pretty much has to take him or is otherwise allowed to take him irrelevant of qualification (this is completely separate from the lazing standards in college in general, one did not cause the other). When the system should be that there are hard line qualifications needed to get into a school. When a minority meets those qualifications they pay less/get free room/grants/etc.

Statistically minorities and poor people have less advantages, so it is harder for them to get to college. Pulling them up and rewarding hard work will produce a love for individual responsibility and respect for the government. Pushing them develops a love for the government and doesn’t foster any respect for self. One needs to triumph over suffering to love one’s self.

So it would stand to reason, that is isn’t that conservatives want to undermine education, but rather change it. People that complete college courses vote D, I would imagine the spread of IQ is relatively even between the voters.