Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: Election 2012

Postby Fridmarr » Sat Oct 13, 2012 7:29 pm

Aureon when it comes to actual news coverage both networks do actually try to maintain some semblance of balance for the most part. However, if you ever watch their shows, you've got folks Sean Hannity, Beck, and Orielly on Fox and folks like Donahue, Olberman (where ever he is these days), Matthews , and Madow on MSNBC and they are all also used to cover certain high profile news events too. Each side has their token conservatives/liberals too, but there's no doubt on their leaning.

MSNBC has specifically targeted the anti Fox demographic, and so that has become their angle. I don't blame them, but they certainly are the answer to Fox.

Also please forgive me if my names are a little out of date, I very rarely watch cable news these days. I don't even get their channels on cable.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9667
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Election 2012

Postby aureon » Sat Oct 13, 2012 8:23 pm

I don't dispute that MSNBC leans left.
I dispute HOW they do it: i don't seem to see the hatemongering and pathological lying off the (admittedly limited) sample i managed to see this election cycle.
User avatar
aureon
 
Posts: 497
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 4:41 pm

Re: Election 2012

Postby Fridmarr » Sat Oct 13, 2012 8:30 pm

Oh, well listen to a few of the folks I listed, it'll become extremely clear very quickly.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9667
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Election 2012

Postby Fridmarr » Sat Oct 13, 2012 8:36 pm

So I'm going to take the lead on the debate that I invited since no one has posted yet. The first charge was that the GOP hates women, and therefore how could someone possibly vote for them. Now, I can't say I know for sure all the issues involved in reaching the conclusion that the GOP hates women, but I'm going to guess that one of the primary ones stems from the GOP's pro life stance. I may be wrong, and if so please correct me. If there are other issues, please raise them.

I don't want a pro life/pro choice debate, lets please try to avoid heading down that road. This probably isn't the place for such a debate, but I am going to try to put forth the notion that the GOP's stance is not out of hatred for women.

Now the general idea here is that pregnancy occurs to the woman's body, and she should certainly have the right to control nearly everything about her body. Suggesting that she must, under penalty of law, carry a baby inside her body to term and can not have an abortion violates that woman's right to control her body. Further if the woman doesn't want the child it can be quite dangerous to her mental and physical health. There are also other negative societal impacts listed by the pro choice side, but I believe the woman's right to control her own body is the crux of the notion that the GOP hates women.

Undoubtedly this is one area where I think everything is framed around a "woman's right to choose", but I think the GOP sees it as the "baby's right to live". When a woman has an abortion, I think without debate, she is killing something...what is it?

I think many people especially religious people believe it's a human being. Science as far as I know, doesn't exactly say it isn't (certainly not after a time), so it's not an anti science stance. The point is, we have a philosophical difference. Pro lifers are concerned about the rights of the baby, and pro choicers are concerned about the rights of the mother.

Who is right? Well I'm not trying to answer that here, but I think it's as unfair to claim that the pro life stance means that the GOP hates women as it is to suggest that the democrat's pro choice stance means that they hate babies. Only one of those comments ever gets any play though.

I think that covers it sufficiently, as I said I'm not trying to say who is right, but I don't think the GOP stance is totally unreasonable and certainly not based on a hatred of women.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9667
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Election 2012

Postby Brekkie » Sat Oct 13, 2012 8:40 pm

Let's try to turn the vitriol down from 11 to <5, things are getting a little shrill in here.
I take responsibility for that, because I posted an angry explosion over a guaranteed hot-button issue, so my apologies.

will post a more substantive response once I get to work in an hour.
Theckhd wrote:big numbers are the in-game way of expressing that Brekkie's penis is huge.
Brekkie
 
Posts: 953
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:44 pm

Re: Election 2012

Postby Klaudandus » Sat Oct 13, 2012 8:49 pm

Ok. Here it goes

Men and Women should be paid equally! --- nah~
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/us/po ... .html?_r=0

Ok. You don't want abortions, then allow women to have easier access to birth control -- no wait, let's not!
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/07 ... h-control/

Older women, you will be covered in your twilight years! -- meh~
http://www.thenation.com/blog/169368/pa ... ttom-line#

Single moms! The GOP would like to support you! -- not really
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2 ... d-neglect/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/womensenews ... ngle-moms/

Didn't even touch abortions... yet.

Ok, let's talk about having the mother carry the unwanted child to term... now what? The GOP has pushed for welfare reform... and already has passed reforms that limit programs like TANF, changes that have disqualified 3 million families from getting assistance -- did i mention that 9 out of 10 TANF beneficiaries are women?
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3566

So... the GOP wants to force a woman to stick with an unwanted fetus -- but doesn't seem very pro-life when they cut the strings of the help you would need to successfully raise that kid, all they care you chuck the baby out of your uterus.

Now, I touch the abortions -- let's concentrate on a very specific percentage of cases where you'd normally be in favor of abortions -- RAPE

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3566
But most importantly -- http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/21 ... m-20120821


Yeah, I'm being snarkier than usual -- but this is precisely the reason why Europeans see the GOP and the US in general as a joke.

I laugh at our country because there's hardly anything else I could do, but if I lived in Norway or Finland, I'd laugh at the US over how absurd things are instead.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 11110
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Election 2012

Postby Fridmarr » Sat Oct 13, 2012 9:29 pm

Klaudandus wrote:Ok. Here it goes

Men and Women should be paid equally! --- nah~
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/us/po ... .html?_r=0
That's a bill extending the statute of limitations on lawsuits over equal pay...That's a far cry from suggesting that women should not have equal pay.
Ok. You don't want abortions, then allow women to have easier access to birth control -- no wait, let's not!
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/07 ... h-control/
See to me, this is one of those arguments that is really misleading. The GOP is saying that some employers (like religious institutions) shouldn't be forced to pay for their employees birth control pill. Women's access doesn't change. If the male birth control pill was available, do you really think these employers would be chomping at the bit to pay for that?

Older women, you will be covered in your twilight years! -- meh~
http://www.thenation.com/blog/169368/pa ... ttom-line#

Single moms! The GOP would like to support you! -- not really
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2 ... d-neglect/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/womensenews ... ngle-moms/

Didn't even touch abortions... yet.

Ok, let's talk about having the mother carry the unwanted child to term... now what? The GOP has pushed for welfare reform... and already has passed reforms that limit programs like TANF, changes that have disqualified 3 million families from getting assistance -- did i mention that 9 out of 10 TANF beneficiaries are women?
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3566

So... the GOP wants to force a woman to stick with an unwanted baby -- but doesn't seem very pro-life when they cut the strings of the help you would need to successfully raise that kid, all they care you chuck the baby out of your uterus.

And the rest of these are just addressing the fact that the proposed Ryan budget plan cuts federal spending in part by by cutting entitlement programs. These are the sorts of arguments that I was hoping we would be above. If cutting any entitlement program means that the people responsible for those cuts, hates the people that received them then I think you'll find that all parties have hated everyone at various points in time.

LOL at TANF cuts and the beneficiary comment (that only referred to adults btw, I'm sure about half of the children are in fact, boys). I mean WIC, which was a republican created program in the first place which specifically targets women and their children. So how does that work, hey guys lets create a program to help women who are pregnant or have small children with food and counseling...30 years later..., hey guys, we are debt up to our ears, can we cut back this program a bit...sure, but why do you hate women?
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9667
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Election 2012

Postby Brekkie » Sat Oct 13, 2012 11:47 pm

RE: Abortion shit-storm

Lets try to take a step back from the “they are all in the he-man-woman-haters-club!” hyperbole, and try to establish some common ground.

FACT: Abortion after the point of the fetus being viable (i.e. can survive outside the mother) is currently illegal in the U.S. The point of “viability” is determined by the doctor, but is generally accepted as being around the 24-week mark (though this has been getting foggy with advances in medical science).
Very few people disagree with this, or want an expansion of abortion rights to include late-term abortions.

FACT: Per the Hyde Amendment, federal taxpayer money is forbidden from paying for abortions.
Medicaid does NOT cover abortions as part of their health care coverage plan. If the individual desires abortion procedures be covered, they need to pay a separate premium solely for that, and this money is kept separate from taxpayer money.
As part of full disclosure, some private insurance plans for low-income individuals are subsidized by taxpayer money, and some of those plans include coverage of abortion procedures. Thus , it is possible to argue that taxpayer money INDIRECTLY pays for abortions via these subsidies, but it is pretty difficult to avoid this without dropping all support for privatized health insurance for low-income people.

FACT: Women do not seek abortions for children they want and are capable of effectively caring for.
Unwanted children are statistically almost certain to become trapped in poverty, and vastly more likely to become involved in crime as well as, in turn, having unplanned children of their own. There is, world-wide as well as through the historical record, a strong statistical correlation between reproductive control and per capita quality of life.
Interestingly, in the 1990s (approximately 15-20 years after the legalization of abortion), there was a sudden, inexplicably huge drop in crime. What happened was all those unwanted children, who would have otherwise been abandoned and turned into criminals, simply weren’t there.

FACT: The more difficult you make it to get a procedure, the fewer people will be able to take advantage of it. Lack of availability is de facto no different than a total ban.
87% of counties in the U.S. have no health care provider willing to perform an abortion. The entire state of Mississippi, for example, has only a single clinic.
Every new procedural step that is added as a new requirement (from 24-hour waiting periods, to medically-unnecessary invasive transvaginal ultrasounds, to other guilt-trip inducing “informed consent” laws), no matter how good the intentions behind them, will incontrovertibly result in a reduction in the number of women who desire an abortion who end up receiving one. Because of the previous fact, this results in the reality of more unwanted children than there otherwise would have been.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I don’t think many people would argue with any of the above. The Pro-Life crowd would instead jump in at this point and say “Yes, but all that is outweighed by the fact that an abortion amounts to murder of a human being, which is clearly immoral.”

Perhaps. Let’s delve into that a little deeper.

It’s true that science doesn’t really have anything very definitive to say here, because the definition of what “Life” actually is at all is pretty murky.
To me, however, discussing whether or not an embryo counts as “Life” is missing the point. Obviously it is life. But not all life is equal. A fertilized egg may be “alive”, but it certainly isn’t sentient, or equivalent to an adult human being. Unless you are also a Buddhist vegan, it’s kind of hypocritical to argue that ALL life is sacred. It’s all very well to talk about an embryo having a heartbeat, but so did the cow in your cheeseburger. And, unlike the embryo, the cow vividly experienced every second of being killed.

But maybe it’s different because we are talking about a Human.
Perhaps.
We also kill humans, actual walking talking adult humans, all the time and call it moral. A hefty plurality of Pro-life advocates also believe in the death penalty, and the Just War theory. Is an Afghan kid who is shot because he is spotting US troops for his father shooting mortar rounds any less innocent than the egg accidentally fertilized inside a poor urban teenager whose condom broke? Both are unfortunate to have been brought into the world under their circumstances, and neither of them are at fault. Yet there is a legitimate argument to be made that the right to life of others outweighs theirs.

And all this is assuming we agree that a cluster of multiplying cells is equivalent in rights to an adult human being.
There is a big difference between an actual human being, and the potential for a human being. Just because the definitions are murky and science has a lot of trouble defining the transition point doesn’t mean the entire process is equivalent, or that we can’t draw arbitrary lines just because they are arbitrary.
Evolution is a process of gradual change. One form of life has the potential to develop into something quite different if allowed to develop. Scientists have trouble defining the precise point where one species turns into another. But that does not mean that all stages of the process are equivalent. In effect, defining an adult human being as equivalent in rights to an embryo is the same as saying that a human being is equivalent to a fish. After all, the only difference between them is just time to develop…

Treating a potential human as being equal to an actual human is also rather shaky because it suffers from infinite regression problems. I remember living in England my family accidentally hit a sheep with our car. By law, we had to pay the farmer not merely for the cost of that sheep, but for the cost of the next four subsequent generations of sheep that would have stemmed from that sheep.

Control over reproduction is one of the single biggest factors that lifts a country up from poverty. Lack of control by women over when they reproduce is the sad trend among societies that live in desperate squalor.
Access to abortion is not, and should not be the only piece of the puzzle, but it is a vital plank. It goes hand-in-hand with accessible and effective methods of contraception, and accurate and science-based sexual education, which both reduce the necessity for abortions in the first place.

Yet, tellingly, Pro-Life factions seek to undermine both.

Telling people not to have sex doesn’t even work among catholic priests, so how could it possibly work with teenagers? Abstinence-only education has been a total, unmitigated, verifiable failure.

Meanwhile, experimentation has shown that more than half of unplanned pregnancies aren’t due to lack of contraception, but due to contraception failure, which is tied directly to individuals only having access to/be able to afford the cheapest (and highest failure rate) methods of contraception. Providing a sample of women with access to the contraceptive method of their choice at no added personal cost resulted in an 80% reduction in unplanned pregnancies (and therefore, sought abortions), and a similarly massive drop among teenagers. Mandating inclusion of free contraceptives in health care coverage takes advantage of this fact, and opposition to it on the grounds of “we shouldn’t have to pay for it/buy your own contraceptives!” is shortsighted because it doesn’t recognize the MASSIVE benefits to society and the economy that such a huge reduction in unwanted pregnancies/births would create, far outweighing the proximate cost.
(I will post all the data about this experimentation later, I don’t have the essay I wrote on it here on this computer.)


Pro-life groups have created this debate-without-an-enemy. They rant about late-term abortions, when few to no people seek them or are getting them. The vast majority of abortions are conducted very early on, when the embryo consists of a cluster of cells or a tiny blob of protoplasm. I’ve even been present for one of them; the doctor took what was essentially a tiny vacuum cleaner hose and sucked it out.
Here’s some CDC data on when women actually get abortions:
Image


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Finally, I just want to leave you with a thought on the bigger picture.
I don’t advocate appeals to authority, and a debate position should certainly be discussed according to its actual merits, but I do believe in a doctrine I like to call “Don’t have Bad Friends”.

What I mean by that is “If you are on one side of an issue, and all the terrible people are also on the same side, you should probably step back and re-evaluate your stance.
In other words, if your side is conducting terrorism, firebombing clinics and murdering people (actual people), and the other side is not, the chances are you miiiiiiiiiight not have the moral high ground.

Similarly, if one side of a debate has the vast majority of the scientists and highly-educated people, and your side has the climate change deniers and creationists, there miiiiiiiiiight be something you have overlooked in your perspective.
Last edited by Brekkie on Sun Oct 14, 2012 11:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
Theckhd wrote:big numbers are the in-game way of expressing that Brekkie's penis is huge.
Brekkie
 
Posts: 953
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:44 pm

Re: Election 2012

Postby Brekkie » Sat Oct 13, 2012 11:54 pm

Imagine two sisters, Sally and Jane, who have a very rare genotype.

Sally is going to go into organ failure and die, unless she gets an organ transplant, let's say a Kidney. Jane is the only possible organ donor whose organs Sally's body would accept.
If Jane donates an organ to Sally, Jane's life will be severely negatively impacted. Even if Sally lives, she will likely be disabled and a drain of society, as will Jane if she gives up the organ.

If Jane voluntarily decides to donate her organ to Sally, that would be very nice and very laudible, and we would praise Jane for her sacrifice.

But what if Jane does not want to donate her organ?
Without it, Sally will die.

Does the government (or anyone) have the right to forcible require Jane to donate the organ, negatively impacting her own life, in order to let Sally live?
What is the moral choice here?
Theckhd wrote:big numbers are the in-game way of expressing that Brekkie's penis is huge.
Brekkie
 
Posts: 953
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:44 pm

Re: Election 2012

Postby Brekkie » Sun Oct 14, 2012 1:02 am

Fridmarr wrote:The birther movement... Seriously?

How come there isn't the obvious balance, with Bush and the Reserves, the Occupy Whatever and the like?


The difference is, when it came out that the key document in the Bush's reserves service affair was a forgery, Dan Rather was publically humiliated and ostracized, and his career in journalism ended.

On the opposite side of the fence, Romney himself has made birther comments in front of journalists, and no one batted an eye.
We aren't talking about some fringe element; this is the GOP Candidate for President.

EDIT: I'm beginning to think I need to hold a primer on what exactly the conservative logic is on an issue, versus what the prevailing reporting on it actually is.


I think perhaps you are percieving yourself to be part of a silent majority that doesn't really exist. Much of my family is conservative, and I work in one of the most conservative organizations there is; the US Military. But I have never met a conservative like you Fridmarr.
Maybe that's because times have changed. Maybe you are part of a dying breed.
Maybe my sample selection has just been unlucky enough to include all nutjobs.
I don't know.

But for better or for worse it seems like the things you believe in are more and more being absorbed by the Libertarian party, or otherwise forgotten, while the GOP shifts more and more right-ward.

If the majority of people who self-identify as "Conservative" believe one way, isn't that, by definition, what being conservative IS? Regardless of what it once was in the past?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I question the idea that the Democrats have been shifting left even a fraction of as much as the Republicans have shifted right over the past 3 years.

Look at it this way: There are still moderate Democrats. There are pro-life Democrats, fiscally conservative Democrats, Democrats opposed to gay marriage or unions. There are Democrats in Congress who are religious and Democrats who are non-religious. Two Muslim Democrats have been elected to Congress, while the Republican party wouldn't even include a Muslim Imam in the prayer service of their convention despite having every other major religion represented.

On the other hand, there is little to no variation between Republicans. The moderate Republicans are gone, swept away in a tea party reactionary frenzy.

In the GOP Presidential Primary field:

-4 candidates claimed they have been TOLD BY GOD to run! And none of them was even Santorum!

-Every single candidate was vehemently Pro-Life.

-Every single candidate was hawkish on foreign policy, particularly towards Iran.

-Every single candidate advocated massive tax cuts, varying only on implementation, without bothering to justify whether we were truely on the wrong side of the Laffer Curve.
(indeed, their own logic indicates that we are NOT, since the tax cuts were qualified as being compensated for with spending cuts and "closing loopholes", implying they are not revenue neutral just due to growth. In which case, why, precisely, are we cutting taxes? Growth due to tax cuts sees severe diminishing returns on the bottom side of the Laffer Curve.)

-Every single candidate was against gay marriage.

-Every single candidate was against Defense Spending cuts, despite claiming to be concerned over the deficit.

-Every single candidate blamed China for our economic woes, despite lack of supporting evidence.

-Every single candidate advocated more restrictions on immigration.


There was zero serious variation. The difference was merely in style and details.

More telling was what killed Huntsman's campaign. After polling decently for months, Huntsman made the mistake of admitting that evolution is a real thing. Literally overnight, the bottom fell out under his polling numbers, and his campaign ended less than a week later.
Seriously.

This kind of homogeny does not exist on the Democrat side.
One of my favorite moments during the DNC was when a vote was taken over whether to put a reference to God and to Jerusalem being the capitol of Israel in the party platform. Half the delegates were for it, half were against. They took the vote three times with the same result.
Can you imagine something like that happening in the RNC?

Look at the policies which now seem so outrageous to the Republican field:
-Medicaid/Medicare, the largest recent expansion of which occured under George W. Bush
-Universal Healthcare, an idea pioneered by the Republican Nominee and based off of original concepts suggested by Republican Congressmen in previous years.
-Immigration Reform, which was something advocated by both MCain and Bush.

The GOP has shifted so far right that their own previous ideas now seem abominable.
It's difficult to comprehend.
Theckhd wrote:big numbers are the in-game way of expressing that Brekkie's penis is huge.
Brekkie
 
Posts: 953
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:44 pm

Re: Election 2012

Postby Klaudandus » Sun Oct 14, 2012 6:42 am

Brekkie wrote:It's difficult to comprehend.


Someone should have told the GOP that "Every sperm is sacred" was a parody.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 11110
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Election 2012

Postby Brekkie » Sun Oct 14, 2012 11:56 am

Quoting a facebook post of mine from earlier this month.

Contraceptives prevent unplanned pregnancy. Everybody knows that much.

But what many people do not realize is that about HALF of unplanned pregnancies are as a result of contraceptives failing, rather than because the couple were not using contraceptives in the first place. A condom can break, or a pill may be taken at the wrong time. The least expensive types of contraception are the ones with the highest failure rate, by far.

Since cheap contraceptives have the highest chance of failure, and failure of contraceptives result in half of unplanned pregnancies, a team of researchers from Washington University conducted an experiment on what happened if women were given access to whatever contraceptive they wanted at no cost.

Over the course of three years, they gave over 9,000 women in the St. Louis area access to free contraceptives. Study participants could choose from cheap but high failure-rate birth control pills, or more long-acting contraceptives, like the implantable IUD. The IUD is 20 times more effective than the pill, but more expensive. Three in four women in the experiment chose the IUD.

The results of the experiment were dramatic.

Teen pregnancies (80% of which are unintentional) plummeted to 6.3 per 1000 teens in the experiment, down from 34 per 1000 normally.

Abortion rates plunged too. Only 5.9 women per 1000 in the experiment got abortions, compared to 13.4 per 1000 in the control group.

The scientists attributed these results to the ability of the women to gain access to longer-lasting contraceptives they would not otherwise be able to afford. Such reliable birth control methods, chosen by 75% of the women in the study, are only used by 8.5% of women today.


This impact is why ensuring free access to contraceptives for women who have insurance is such an important part of Obamacare. The scientists in this experiment estimate that it would have the effect of “preventing as many as 41–71% of abortions performed annually in the United States.”

Such reductions in unplanned pregnancies would have vast ripple effects across the country in other areas, such as improving the economy and reducing the rate of crime, as well as allowing more people to escape from the cycle of poverty and dependency.

So anyone who cares about reducing the number of people in poverty and preventing abortion should support Obamacare's mandate that contraception be included in health insurance coverage.

Cited paper linked below:
http://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/Ab ... 99945.aspx
Theckhd wrote:big numbers are the in-game way of expressing that Brekkie's penis is huge.
Brekkie
 
Posts: 953
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:44 pm

Re: Election 2012

Postby Brekkie » Wed Oct 17, 2012 1:16 am

The Debate tonight:

I feel like things could have been better moderated, or perhaps Romney just did not understand the format very well and thought it was supposed to be very regimented into set time segments like the first debate was. (It wasn't. They were each supposed to get 2 minutes, followed by 2 minutes for them to address each other.)
At any rate, what effectively happened is Obama seemed to get the last word most of the time because Romney was more reactionary and spent the whole debate on the back foot, despite them alternating their order of getting to answer. I wouldn't be surprised if Obama got more total talking time in than Romney either.

The Conservative media are already throwing hissy fits over the moderator correcting Romney's outright lie about Benghazi, and I agree it probably wasn't her place, but at the same time it was an incredibly stupid line of attack and he only has himself to blame.
At any rate, when you start ranting about how the moderator was biased, it's a pretty clear sign you lost the debate.


Economy: I think for the most part this was a wash. I doubt any opinions were swayed as a result of what either man said. It was pretty much just the same talking points reiterated, and it just boils down to whether you believe the recession was Obama's fault and how ignorant you are on macroeconomic trends.
DRAW

Energy: Romney continued to repeat his tired old line about how he would cause "North American Energy Independence within 8 years". Obama missed yet another huge opportunity to point out that he accomplishes this by doing nothing other than taking credit for the trajectory we are already on (set by Obama administration policies). Romney tried to play up the narrative about the keystone pipeline, and Obama again missed an opportunity that all his administration did was have it take a slight detour, didn't stop it altogether. Overall, a wash, and a huge missed opportunity for Obama.
DRAW

Immigration: Romney took a hit here, but he was never very popular among Hispanics anyway. This might sway the needle somewhat in Colorado and Florida though.
POINT OBAMA

Taxes: Romney did a terrible job. Blatant evasion. Got all red faced and huffy, and his response to Obama's math coming out as "OF COURSE MY MATH WORKS!! OF COURSE!!!" was almost comical. Of course, all the wonderful cocktails of cognitive biases will likely have everybody who supports him manage to hand-wave that away, so this topic was probably a wash too.
DRAW

Equality for Women: This was where Romney really shot himself in the foot. BindersofWomen is already an internet meme, and he managed to both come off as insincere and condescending. His answer played badly for BOTH sexists, AND for feminists, which takes some real talent. The tide turning against him in the female vote is a very serious blow.
POINT OBAMA

Gun Control: This one was interesting, because neither candidate really had much to bring to the table. Obama plays to a constituency which tends to be anti-gun, so he couldn't bring up how pro-gun his record has been. On the other hand Romney plays to a pro-gun base, but has an anti-gun record. So pretty much all either one of them could do was avoid answering the question, and allow both of their totally fictional narratives to just play out.
DRAW

Benghazi: Boy oh boy did Romney look like an asshole.
POINT OBAMA


All in all, it wasn't as dominating a win as Romney scored in the first debate, but it was a solid win nonetheless. And in particular, it will likely influence important voting blocs like women and Hispanics.

Looking forward to the final debate on foreign policy, an area Romney will likely struggle in.
Theckhd wrote:big numbers are the in-game way of expressing that Brekkie's penis is huge.
Brekkie
 
Posts: 953
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:44 pm

Re: Election 2012

Postby aureon » Wed Oct 17, 2012 6:01 am

Economy: I think for the most part this was a wash. I doubt any opinions were swayed as a result of what either man said. It was pretty much just the same talking points reiterated, and it just boils down to whether you believe the recession was Obama's fault and how ignorant you are on macroeconomic trends.

I somewhat disagree.
Atleast to the blue base, the pension fund thing, and even more the "you want 7 trillion dollars and won't tell anyone how you'll pay for them" will probably resonate.

"Please governor, proceed" was a "Take this rope, governor, and please proceed to hang yourself"
User avatar
aureon
 
Posts: 497
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 4:41 pm

Re: Election 2012

Postby Melathys » Wed Oct 17, 2012 10:23 am

It seemed to me that no one actually answered a question. Take the women's issues for example, the question was about equal pay, not equal opportunities.

I'm amused how Obama touched on the Romney flip flopping meme... "You were for oil before you were against it."
Image
User avatar
Melathys
 
Posts: 1910
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 1:08 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Klaudandus and 1 guest

Who is online

In total there are 3 users online :: 2 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Klaudandus and 1 guest