US Presidential Election: Tuesday November 6th, 2012

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mitt, how will you solve immigration? "By virtue of my putting in place a long term solution with legislation that creates law that relates to these individuals."

Mitt you say we can have lower tax rates and less deductions, which tax credits will you eliminate, when will you tell us? "We'll go over that with Congress." Right, why would you tell us before you're president.

Mitt, do you personally think homosexuality is a sin? "Nice try but I'm not getting into...." It's a valid question isn't it? "It's a valid question, and my answer is nice try."

Mitt, what was the last book you read or are reading? "I'm reading kind of a fun one right now so I'll skip that."
 
Reminds me of Schwarzenegger's run for Governor of California, his platform was half a page of bland generic statements about making things better. Why actually discuss any specific plans if no one pressures you to do so?

"I can solve everything" always sounds better before someone actually explains their plans.
 
In all fairness its easy to ridicule either candidate when you selectively edit multiple clips. All the political adverts are a complete misrepresentation of what was actually said.

Its FUN though.
 
republicans.jpeg
 
gooDevil said:
Mitt Romney is here to be generic, not specific.

"No Country For Bold Men"

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-august-1-2012/no-country-for-bold-men
Click to expand...


makes sense... he is going to be a virtue "fantasy" candidate and leaving you want him to "be all you want him to be" -- blowup doll Mitt. The repud strategist know that they are slowly getting boxed in and having the narrative determined by the Democrats. Mitt can't talk about this nor that now from religion or family to his professional work experiences.

So fantasy or blow-up doll Mitt is the best position.

Otherwise if you were an undecided and if you dug deeper into Romney's buffet of positions, you probably land-up voting for Obama.

This election may be the case of smarts out-maneuvering pure cash/muscle.
 
mjs020294 said:
In all fairness its easy to ridicule either candidate when you selectively edit multiple clips. All the political adverts are a complete misrepresentation of what was actually said.

Its FUN though.
Click to expand...

I hope you're not talking about the Jon Stewart clips, I can't see how showing those statements in a bubble distorts Romney's ideas, it just shows to how much effort he goes to keep from giving a straight answer. Which is hardly something new from a politician, but he may be setting a new high water mark for vagueness.
 
It's just the silly old "both sides are always equally bad" thing that used to be so popular on RedCafe. Romney is definitely worse than Obama. The Republicans are far worse than the Democrats.
 
niMic said:
It's just the silly old "both sides are always equally bad" thing that used to be so popular on RedCafe. Romney is definitely worse than Obama. The Republicans are far worse than the Democrats.
Click to expand...

You should listen to NPR for the next few months. They do regular "fact or myth" segments on the campaigns and it really is eye opening. They analyzed the top three adverts from both camps a week or so ago. Both parties are equally as bad when it comes to manipulation of the truth and flat out lies in their adverts. I was aware of the untruths in the Romney adverts but it was shocking hearing Obama's adverts broken down as well.

Funny thing is on this site everyone buys into the anti-Romney stuff, and on a US football site they love the Obama bashing stuff.
 
But see, you're just doing it again. No one is arguing that the Democrats don't do it, but things aren't always "equally bad". Even your repeated argument that we're essentially the opposite of another forum you frequent is part of this whole idea, and is essentially irrelevant.
 
niMic said:
But see, you're just doing it again. No one is arguing that the Democrats don't do it, but things aren't always "equally bad". Even your repeated argument that we're essentially the opposite of another forum you frequent is part of this whole idea, and is essentially irrelevant.
Click to expand...

That isn't what NPR are finding when they analyze the adverts TBH.

The other forum is relevant in this debate because people buy into the party line and adverts that appeal to their beliefs, another thing uncovered in the NPR segment.

This forum barely has a single poster on the right hand side of the US political spectrum. So like a bunch of hungry puppies they lap up the anti Romney spew. The other forum probably has three or four people on the left of the political spectrum and so that place buys into the anti-Obama trash.
 
There you are doing it again. Putting people on sides of the "spectrum", and then assuming that everything they believe is a result of being on that particular side, toeing the party line, etc. You use the phrases "anti Romney" and "anti Obama" as if they are the same. They aren't.

This is a particular thing with American politics, I feel. Every now and then we'll have people in here who say that there isn't a point in voting for anyone, since they're essentially equal, or at the very least equally bad. But that in itself is such an arbitrary argument. The fact that there are two sides to something doesn't make them equal.

It reminds me of a regular poster on another big (now pretty much abandoned) forum I used to frequent. He had this idea that being "moderate", or "centre" was inherently preferable to anything else. But what is moderate? Whose centre? Centre politics in Norway are not the same as centre politics in Mexico.
 
What not talking which side is right/wrong; its which side you're on impacts which adverts you believe.

The NPR segment took it a little further and media psychologists reviewed the reactions to the adverts of various people. Guess what: people on the left believed the Obama adverts, and people on the right believed the Romney adverts. Despite both sets of adverts being very inaccurate.
 
In all fairness someone outside the US, and maybe outside a swing State really doesn't get the full picture on political adverts. US political campaigning is very different to the UK. No one here really seems to care about the truth; its more important to tell the most convincing lies. In the UK the mainstream media would call them out on it but not in the US.

Hearing adverts being broken down and analyzing many of the quotes in those adverts it really highlights just how easy simple editing can manipulate everything. Same goes for political satire programs. As funny as they are they shouldn't get held up as factual like one or two posters seem to do on the CAF.
 
Yeah, I don't think that has anything to do with the point of what was being argued though, you have a knack of coming in and debating a point with irrelevant tangents.
 
Hectic said:
Yeah, I don't think that has anything to do with the point of what was being argued though, you have a knack of coming in and debating a point with irrelevant tangents.
Click to expand...

Going to disagree there: this little discussion stemmed from this:

niMic said:
It's just the silly old "both sides are always equally bad" thing that used to be so popular on RedCafe. Romney is definitely worse than Obama. The Republicans are far worse than the Democrats.
Click to expand...

Impartial analysis of both sides found them equally as bad as one another.
 
mjs020294 said:
Impartial analysis of both sides found them equally as bad as one another.
Click to expand...

No. Analysis from an entity that strives for the appearance of impartiality via a fatally flawed "equal sides" doctrine found that a couple of adverts from both sides are misleading. Concluding that they are "equally as bad as one another" based on this is like concluding that two cars are equally as bad because one has a poor stereo system and the other spontaneously combusts, and neither flaw are mentioned in the press releases.
 
I don't think Republicans are particularly more prone to lying than Democrats, in general.

But Romney has just been ridiculous. It started with 'Obama's apology tour' and has just gone on like that, absolutely flagrantly making shit up all the time.
 
The Obama team have highlighted/embellished the President's achievements as well as the failings/flaws of Romney.

What the Obama team has not done is just flat out lie as often and as blatantly as the Romney camp has.

no. they are not as bad...

I mean splicing the President's words to say something completely opposite to what he said...ridiculous.
 
Man, I hope the drought doesn't skyrocket the price of popcorn before the Republican Convention. We're going to need lots of it.

And then come the debates. :)

(Do you think they'll send out a holographic Mitt, like Tupac at Coachella?)


I liked this post.
 
Red Dreams said:
to say that Romney said the opposite thing?

go on and give us a link.
Click to expand...

It was on NPR, try and find it. One was a complete splice and edit on Romney, and one was on McCain. The third adverts that declared a myth was the one showing deserted factories stating Romney sent jobs abroad. Every sire showed in the advert were bought by Bain after Romney left.

Don't get me wrong I don't like Romney and wouldn't trust in as far as I could kick him BUT both parties play it very dirty
 
mjs020294 said:
It was on NPR, try and find it. One was a complete splice and edit on Romney, and one was on McCain. The third adverts that declared a myth was the one showing deserted factories stating Romney sent jobs abroad. Every sire showed in the advert were bought by Bain after Romney left.

Don't get me wrong I don't like Romney and wouldn't trust in as far as I could kick him BUT both parties play it very dirty
Click to expand...

I asked did the Obama team say the complete opposite of what Romney said.

I have seen adverts on both sides and the two Romney ones were blatant lies. The one where Obama quoted McCain and the recent one where Obama was talking about Businesses not achieving everything they did without government infra structure.

The one about Bain you mention, let me ask you...did Romney still gain from Bain's profits after he left? btw the date seems unclear if you know what I mean.

I have seen whatever adverts were shown here and I did not see where they blatantly lied about what Romney said.
 
Can't say much for either sides adds. Turn the channel whenever they come on. Of course easier for me to avoid them since the state I live in is not a swing state so both sides not spending a lot on adds.
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/05/reince-priebus-harry-reid_n_1743825.html?ref=topbar

RNC Chair goes to Def Con 1....

Harry Reid's attack is working :)

Late Sunday morning, Reid’s spokesman Adam Jentleson responded via email to TPM.

“Republicans can try to cover up for Mitt Romney’s stonewalling all they want, but this issue is not going away until Romney decides to be straight with the American people and release his tax returns. It is sad that the most secretive candidate since Richard Nixon has forced his party to defend his decision to hide the truth about his tax returns. As Senator Reid has said, an extremely credible source informed him that Mitt Romney did not pay taxes for ten years. From the one year of returns Romney has released, we’ve seen that he uses secret offshore accounts in places like Switzerland and the Cayman Islands to avoid paying U.S. taxes. It’s clear Mitt Romney is hiding something, and the only way for him to clear this up is to be straight with the American people and release his tax returns.”

Brilliant strategy by Reid.
 
It appears I may get lucky the week of the RNC conference in Tampa...business trip planned for that week (there is a god after all).
 
I just went to get away from the traffic chaos. The RNC conference is the second largest event after the Olympics, 15,000 media alone. They are completely closing a highway that carries 50,000 cars a day, and it happens to be on my route to work.
 
Ramshock said:
Its regarded as slightly left leaning as far as I have observed.
Click to expand...

I think most impartial journalists tend to get tagged slightly left TBH. The quest for the truth often puts them in conflict with the establishment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.