U.S. Republican Primary

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Hawknc, Zamfir, Prelates, Moderators General

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Ghostbear » Sat Mar 24, 2012 4:01 am UTC

nitePhyyre wrote:If the non-majority front-runner was LOVED by the people voting for him, I could see a problem. If the back room delegate candidate was hated, I could see a problem. Romney isn't loved though. And Paul isn't at the back of the pack because he is disliked. I just don't see people getting pissed off at losing the ability to ignore Paul. If Paul walks away with the nomination The reaction won't be "Fuck that guy, he's not the one I voted for", nor will it be "Fuck that guy, I hate him and everything he stands for." The reaction will be more "Paul? Who is that guy? Oh well, I'm sure he's still better than that ni##er in the white house."

It's not about how much they like their candidates, it's about how much they feel the candidates have earned the nomination. Paul has been consistently at the bottom of the pack in primaries, with only a handful of exceptions where he's done better than last or second last place. He has the least delegates, I'm 99% sure he has the least number of accumulated votes. He's the candidate that is least likely to win the nomination. People will get annoyed with seeing someone that they have consistently not chosen to be the nominee end up the nominee.

nitePhyyre wrote:Paul is more-or-less suffering under a media blackout. Once the MSM stops being able to sweep him under the rug, his numbers will go up.

That's not an accurate assessment of Paul's relation with the media at all. For most of the early parts of the campaign, they ignored him because he wasn't polling well (just like they did to Santorum, Gingrich, and Huntsman when they polled poorly). They didn't ignore him because he was Paul, or because of his positions, they ignored him because they didn't think anyone else gave a shit about him. When he started polling well, and the media wanted to cover him, he ignored them. Or walked out of interviews. His media problems are almost entirely self inflicted.

Pointing out that Romney, Santorum or Gingrich will have trouble beating Obama doesn't change that Paul would have an even more difficult time (except for Gingrich, anyway) than them.

lutzj wrote:There's a distinction between states overriding legitimate laws they don't like (the tariffs that sparked the Nullification Crisis under Andrew Jackson, for example) and states overriding laws that the federal government wasn't allowed to enact in the first place under the Constitution . Almost all states'-rights advocates since the Civil War have argued for the latter.

How do you ensure that only unconstitutional laws get nullified? If you've proven that the law is unconstitutional, then it should have been removed from books by the supreme court. If you haven't proven it, then you're left in a situation of just nullifying if because you think it's unconstitutional, which could very easily be shorthand for "We don't like this law".
Ghostbear
 
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Jonesthe Spy » Sat Mar 24, 2012 7:45 am UTC

Griffin wrote:
jestingrabbit wrote:I'm sorry, but Paul is not pro civil liberties, he's pro states rights and small government. If states want sodomy laws on the books, he's fine with that. If states want to ban abortions, he's fine with that. He believes that the remedy for someone who has been sexually harassed at work is to quit the job. He's pro guns and pro freedom of speech, but he is not pro civil liberties.

He also doesn't believe that your constitution guarantees a right to privacy. Make of that what you will.


I... don't see how any of this indicates he is not pro-civil liberties? Not saying he is, but this isn't evidence against it.


Real libertarians don't think that it's okay for the government to oppress people as long as the states are doing it instead of the feds. Nor can anyone actually be "pro-civil liberties" unless one believes in equality under the law for everyone.
Jonesthe Spy
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 7:05 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Mar 24, 2012 3:08 pm UTC

Jonesthe Spy wrote:Nor can anyone actually be "pro-civil liberties" unless one believes in equality under the law for everyone.


What 'equality' means is up for debate. Sodomy laws technically apply to heterosexuals as well (but not de facto), and a heterosexual man can't marry another heterosexual man in most states. Some will argue separate but equal is still equal, which might've held up in court for a few years more if it actual was equal.

And define 'everyone'. By definition, if you are in prison, you don't have the same liberties as someone outside of prison. Unless you want to advocate corporal punishment.

Personally I'm of the belief that being able to hire a better attorney affects the outcome of a civil suit and directly harms the rights of the other person, and so we should socialize the legal process before even considering socializing anything else.
User avatar
CorruptUser
 
Posts: 6643
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby nitePhyyre » Sun Mar 25, 2012 6:45 pm UTC

Silknor wrote:
nitePhyyre wrote:Paul is more-or-less suffering under a media blackout. Once the MSM stops being able to sweep him under the rug, his numbers will go up.* I believe he is the only one who can say that. I don't see how Romney, Santorum or Gingrich ever hope to raise thier numbers against Obama. What will their strategy be going forward?
The latest PPP poll has Paul at 31% favorable and 57% unfavorable among Republican primary votes. If the Ronpaul was suffering from a media blackout, you'd expect a high number saying don't know, not unfavorables above 50%. I couldn't find any data for non Republican primary votes, so I don't know if there's more room for growth there.
I stand corrected.

Ghostbear wrote:It's not about how much they like their candidates, it's about how much they feel the candidates have earned the nomination.
I respectfully disagree. It seems to me people care more about the results than the process. Remember Bush v. Gore?

Ghostbear wrote:
nitePhyyre wrote:Paul is more-or-less suffering under a media blackout. Once the MSM stops being able to sweep him under the rug, his numbers will go up.
That's not an accurate assessment of Paul's relation with the media at all. For most of the early parts of the campaign, they ignored him because he wasn't polling well (just like they did to Santorum, Gingrich, and Huntsman when they polled poorly). They didn't ignore him because he was Paul, or because of his positions, they ignored him because they didn't think anyone else gave a shit about him. When he started polling well, and the media wanted to cover him, he ignored them. Or walked out of interviews. His media problems are almost entirely self inflicted.
That's simply not true. He came in first and second in a bunch of the early straw polls. At one point, he won a debate and wasn't even included in the post debate commentary. Go read about his campaign. It is basically a list with Paul coming in first and second over and over and over and over. The only time the media wanted anything to do with him was when they were (deservedly) trying to bury him with the newsletter scandal. So, I guess you are right. Ignoring a campaign unless you can damage it isn't a blackout per se, it's just much, much worse.

Spoiler:
During his previous presidential campaign, it was alleged by many supporters that there was a media blackout and suppression of coverage of Paul.[72] Similar allegations have arisen in the 2012 campaign and received some media coverage.[73] Politico columnist Roger Simon noted on CNN's Reliable Sources that Paul has received considerably less coverage than Michele Bachmann, despite earning a close second to her at the Ames Straw Poll.[74] Simon later noted again in Politico that the media was treating Paul unfairly.[75]

Comedian Jon Stewart similarly complained about the lack of coverage, despite Paul polling much better than candidates who received coverage. Stewart presented a montage of mainstream media clips that showed commentators ignoring, and two CNN correspondents admitting to suppressing, coverage of Paul.[76] Will Wilkinson complained[77] in The Economist that if Paul had won the Ames straw poll, it would have been written off as irrelevant, but since Bachmann had won, it was claimed to boost her campaign. Other commentators noted that Paul has had success at past straw polls but has not turned that into broader success as a reason for the relative lack of media attention.[78]

Paul was asked in a Fox News interview "What are they [the media] afraid of?"[79] He answered "They don't want to discuss my views, because I think they're frightened by me challenging the status quo and the establishment." Later, he continued on Piers Morgan Tonight: "They don't want my views out there—they're too dangerous ... We want freedom, and we're challenging the status quo. We want to end the war, we want a gold standard, and their view is that people just can't handle all this freedom."[80]

During the November 12 CBS/National Journal Debate, Paul was allocated 90 seconds speaking time. Paul's campaign responded, saying, "Congressman Paul was only allocated 90 seconds of speaking in one televised hour. If we are to have an authentic national conversation on issues such as security and defense, we can and must do better to ensure that all voices are heard. CBS News, in their arrogance, may think they can choose the next president. Fortunately, the people of Iowa, New Hampshire, and across America get to vote and not the media elites."[81]

Paul Mulshine a columnist with The Star-Ledger noted that the New York Times admitted to suppressing coverage of Paul. He quoted a column by Times editor Arthur Brisbane that said: "Early in the campaign, The Times decided to remain low key in its coverage of the Ronpaul, the libertarian Texas congressman."[82][83]

The Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism found in August 2011 that Paul did in fact receive substantially less coverage than other candidates in the 2012 race.[84][85][86][87] Pew released another study in October 2011 confirming that Paul has been receiving disproportionately low coverage in the media. Paul polled 6.0-9.8% during the study period, but only received 2% of media coverage, the lowest of all candidates. It also noted that Paul's coverage among blogs was the most favorable of all candidates.[88] In January 2012, The Atlantic cited the weekly Pew study. They noted that despite steadily rising in the polls, Paul has been losing his share of press coverage, going from 34% in late-December 2011 to about 3% in mid-January 2012. They also noted a sharp drop in positive coverage and a small rise in negative.[89]
If you are arguing that Paul's media coverage has been commensurate to his poll numbers you are seriously arguing out of looney land. Hell, even the article you linked disagrees with you.
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.
nitePhyyre
 
Posts: 1279
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby bentheimmigrant » Sun Mar 25, 2012 8:12 pm UTC

You do realise that the GOP straw polls are famous for Paul voters flooding the venues, right?
"Comment is free, but facts are sacred" - C.P. Scott
User avatar
bentheimmigrant
Dotcor Good Poster
 
Posts: 1215
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:01 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby nitePhyyre » Sun Mar 25, 2012 11:10 pm UTC

From the first paragraph after the fold:
Paul appeared in the 2010 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) straw poll. Paul won the poll, defeating Mitt Romney, who had won it the previous three years.
If Romney won for 3 years running, IDK how 'famous' they are at it. I will agree that he has a core of rabid fans.

If the argument has been that Paul was ignored by the MSM because they didn't believe in the legitimacy of the poll numbers, that would be an argument not out of looney tunes land. It wasn't.
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.
nitePhyyre
 
Posts: 1279
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Ghostbear » Mon Mar 26, 2012 6:22 am UTC

nitePhyyre wrote:
Ghostbear wrote:It's not about how much they like their candidates, it's about how much they feel the candidates have earned the nomination.

I respectfully disagree. It seems to me people care more about the results than the process. Remember Bush v. Gore?

People were pissed off about the fact that process distorted what seemed like the "most fair" outcome. What they weren't, however, was pissed off on a large scale because Nader lost. Bush winning in 2000 doesn't work as a counter-argument, because the people that were angry about it felt that Bush hadn't earned the victory, having lost the popular vote, having benefited from his brother being governor of Florida, and having the good luck to have a supreme court with a conservative tilt. Go forward to 2004: people weren't as pissed when Kerry could have won if he had done slightly better in Ohio, because he had lost convincingly throughout the rest of the nation, and him winning through a flipped Ohio would have been more of an aberration than him losing.

nitePhyyre wrote:That's simply not true. He came in first and second in a bunch of the early straw polls. At one point, he won a debate and wasn't even included in the post debate commentary. Go read about his campaign. It is basically a list with Paul coming in first and second over and over and over and over. The only time the media wanted anything to do with him was when they were (deservedly) trying to bury him with the newsletter scandal. So, I guess you are right. Ignoring a campaign unless you can damage it isn't a blackout per se, it's just much, much worse.

My post was about how he hasn't fostered any positive relations with the media. Part of running a national campaign is knowing how to work with the press, how to get them to want to run stories and articles and time with you. Instead of doing that though, Paul spends half a year complaining about how they ignored him, then when they actually stop ignoring him and pay attention* he proceeds to ignore them. When he gets questions he doesn't like, he takes his microphone off and leaves. That's an attitude that's going to make the media say "fuck this guy, he's just a curmudgeonly old man that doesn't want our coverage anyway". Hence, self-inflicted.

* Due to him rising in polls in an actual state that's about to have a vote that actually matters. Unlike straw polls; straw polls are mostly a measure of enthusiasm, so seeing Paul win a straw poll is not a surprise at all, since it's already well known his supporters are very energetic about him. State and national polls matter far more at creating and defining narrative. And look! Paul's good showings in state and national polls in your link coincide with his increasing media attention that he promptly told to bugger off.
Ghostbear
 
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Vaniver » Mon Mar 26, 2012 5:55 pm UTC

Ghostbear wrote:When he gets questions he doesn't like, he takes his microphone off and leaves. That's an attitude that's going to make the media say "fuck this guy, he's just a curmudgeonly old man that doesn't want our coverage anyway". Hence, self-inflicted.
I don't know which specific incident you're referring to, but my understanding is that reporters are aware that they have editorial control over interviews, and on occasion have asked someone the same question multiple times, hoping to get a response they think they can use well (or to get the other person to leave in a huff). For Paul with CNN, it looks like they just ask the same question on different days.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.
User avatar
Vaniver
 
Posts: 9415
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Ghostbear » Mon Mar 26, 2012 6:44 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote:I don't know which specific incident you're referring to, but my understanding is that reporters are aware that they have editorial control over interviews, and on occasion have asked someone the same question multiple times, hoping to get a response they think they can use well (or to get the other person to leave in a huff). For Paul with CNN, it looks like they just ask the same question on different days.

I was talking about the CNN case (link). And yeah, I mean, as a person, I don't blame him at all for deciding "fuck this". As a candidate however, it doesn't speak well of him or the team he has gathered together to run his campaign. If Obama or Romney pulled a stunt like that, they'd get eviscerated for it. Part of running a national campaign is knowing (or hiring people that do know) how to use the media to your advantage. How to work with them, how to make it so that they want to cover you. Learning how to convey to them that "this line of questioning is over, and you won't change that" without also pissing them off. That is why I'm calling it self-inflicted.

Paul hasn't appeared to make any changes for his media problem. In fact, by all accounts his doubled down on his "the media ignores me" rhetoric. When given attention from the media, he either ignored it (mentioned earlier, link to save searching), or does stuff like with the CNN interview. He should be figuring out why he has a media problem, and working to solve it. I won't deny that part of it, and almost certainly the initial lack of it, is due to his non-mainstream views, but his actions indicate a non-desire to actually see proper coverage. Some candidates get lucky and just have a natural media appeal to them (Obama in 2008 comes to mind. And Palin as well), but not every person that has gotten widespread media coverage has that, and even for those that do have that natural appeal, the smart ones are going to have people working to make it work even more to their advantage. Paul doesn't appear to be doing that.
Ghostbear
 
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby nitePhyyre » Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:38 am UTC

Ghostbear wrote:
nitePhyyre wrote:
Ghostbear wrote:It's not about how much they like their candidates, it's about how much they feel the candidates have earned the nomination.
I respectfully disagree. It seems to me people care more about the results than the process. Remember Bush v. Gore?
Ghostbear wrote:Bush winning in 2000 doesn't work as a counter-argument, because the people that were angry about it felt that Bush hadn't earned the victory, having lost the popular vote, having benefited from his brother being governor of Florida, and having the good luck to have a supreme court with a conservative tilt.
Yes, and with all those aberrations how many Bush supporters became detractors? Not many. Which is why I say people care more about the results than the process.

Ghostbear wrote:My post was about how he hasn't fostered any positive relations with the media. Part of running a national campaign is knowing how to work with the press, how to get them to want to run stories and articles and time with you. Instead of doing that though, Paul spends half a year complaining about how they ignored him, then when they actually stop ignoring him and pay attention* he proceeds to ignore them. When he gets questions he doesn't like, he takes his microphone off and leaves. That's an attitude that's going to make the media say "fuck this guy, he's just a curmudgeonly old man that doesn't want our coverage anyway". Hence, self-inflicted.
Ahh, so the news ignored him in 2010-2011 because they knew he would be a curmudgeonly old man in response to a scandal in late 2011-2012. Yeah, that makes sense. :|

Oh, and if your post was about how Paul hasn't fostered any positive relations with the media, you should have, you know, mentioned it a some point in your post. Instead you brought up nonexistent 'low poll numbers'. Twice.
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.
nitePhyyre
 
Posts: 1279
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Ghostbear » Tue Mar 27, 2012 6:39 am UTC

nitePhyyre wrote:Yes, and with all those aberrations how many Bush supporters became detractors? Not many. Which is why I say people care more about the results than the process.

Yes, because he still won 47.9% of the popular vote and would have had 246 electoral votes without Florida. He was "close enough" that the outrage wasn't universal. This is analogous to if Santorum ends up getting the republican nomination instead of Romney. He'd almost certainly have to win a floor battle at the convention, but the fact that he'll have been in a not-that-distant second place will be enough to prevent overwhelming outrage. Paul, on the other hand, hasn't won any of the 50 states. He's gotten the smallest share of the popular vote. His delegate total is dwarfed by even Gingrich. He frequently comes in 3rd or 4th place in primaries, and even in caucuses -- his strong point -- he has only won one of them, and that was the Virgin Islands; a territory, not a state. There is no means under which people can say "Paul as the nominee would be a fairly accurate reflection of the will of the republican electorate".

nitePhyyre wrote:Ahh, so the news ignored him in 2010-2011 because they knew he would be a curmudgeonly old man in response to a scandal in late 2011-2012. Yeah, that makes sense. :|

Oh, and if your post was about how Paul hasn't fostered any positive relations with the media, you should have, you know, mentioned it a some point in your post. Instead you brought up nonexistent 'low poll numbers'. Twice.

Maybe if instead of being snarky, you actually read my whole argument? The stories I brought up were meant to illustrate how he has done a terrible job fostering good relations or interest with the media. How, when he finally got his wish of media coverage, he didn't want to deal with them anymore. They didn't cover him 2010-2011 because he got less than 2% of the delegates in 2008, because he frequently got less than 10% of the votes in a state, because he didn't win any states. The only strong numbers he was able to show was in straw polls, but the straw polls diverged from his national or state polling numbers; since straw polls are more a factor of supporter enthusiasm than overall support, and his supporters were already known to be enthusiastic, it did nothing to make him less of a long-shot.

The poll numbers factor in: the media isn't going to want to cover the people at the bottom of the pack. It's up to him to make them want to cover him anyway, despite being at the bottom of the pack. When he wasn't at the bottom of the pack (because his poll numbers had risen) he got media coverage, but he then did everything he could to get rid of it.

Also, how, exactly, do you describe the low poll numbers as "nonexistent"? You can point to some states where he has polled well, definitely, but overall, his polling numbers have been low, best seen through how he has polled nationally. Throughout 2011, he was almost always polling in the single digits. He only consistently broke through that barrier in January 2012, and that was after he had already spitted the media's attempt to cover him. He hasn't come first in any of the national polls listed, going as far back as November 2008. His poll numbers are low, have been low, and will continue to be low.
Ghostbear
 
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby nitePhyyre » Tue Mar 27, 2012 7:39 am UTC

Before I bother responding let's be clear: Are you arguing that Paul's media coverage has been commensurate to his poll numbers?
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.
nitePhyyre
 
Posts: 1279
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Ghostbear » Tue Mar 27, 2012 7:55 am UTC

No, I'm saying that it's due to multiple things all at once. That he doesn't have a natural media appeal (he's an old white guy running against a field of slightly-less-old white guys). That he haven't appeared to make any proper attempt to work with the media to get around his lack of natural appeal. That, yes, he has generally had poor polling numbers. That he has many views that are far outside of the mainstream. That those views can frequently be difficult to align on the left-right political axis. That he's had disappointing results in the primaries (both 2008 and 2012) and only somewhat less disappointing results in the caucuses. That the only time he appeared to be the leading challenger to Romney, he got a bunch of media coverage and, more or less, told them to bugger off. That there has almost never been any credible case where someone could say "Paul is going to win at least the plurality, if not majority, of the delegates and become the republican nominee".

You can't attribute it all to one thing, but the events that are under his control to change (without compromising his core beliefs) he has handled poorly, and has not made any attempt as far as I can tell to rectify them.
Ghostbear
 
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby LaserGuy » Thu Mar 29, 2012 4:16 am UTC

Romney is apparently taking some flak for a telling a "humorous" anecdote about how his father shut down an auto factory in Michigan. Apparently people in the Rust Belt are still a little sensitive about stories relating to job losses.
LaserGuy
 
Posts: 3622
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby LtNOWIS » Thu Mar 29, 2012 4:45 am UTC

Ghostbear wrote:No, I'm saying that it's due to multiple things all at once. That he doesn't have a natural media appeal (he's an old white guy running against a field of slightly-less-old white guys). That he haven't appeared to make any proper attempt to work with the media to get around his lack of natural appeal. That, yes, he has generally had poor polling numbers. That he has many views that are far outside of the mainstream. That those views can frequently be difficult to align on the left-right political axis. That he's had disappointing results in the primaries (both 2008 and 2012) and only somewhat less disappointing results in the caucuses. That the only time he appeared to be the leading challenger to Romney, he got a bunch of media coverage and, more or less, told them to bugger off. That there has almost never been any credible case where someone could say "Paul is going to win at least the plurality, if not majority, of the delegates and become the republican nominee".

You can't attribute it all to one thing, but the events that are under his control to change (without compromising his core beliefs) he has handled poorly, and has not made any attempt as far as I can tell to rectify them.

And the most obvious reason: many of Paul's political views are anathema to either the "base" or "establishment" of the GOP. Therefore he has no real chance of gaining enough support to be the nominee. Therefore he isn't really important or worth listening to in the eyes of hte media.

If you ignored demographics, background, polls, and campaign ability and just had a slate of political positions instead of actual people, Paul would still be immediately dismissed as a fringe kook by any rational evaluator of modern American politics. No serious commentator ever thought Paul had a real shot at the nomination due to his beliefs, and any attention they ever paid to him as a serious candidate was pro forma.
LtNOWIS
 
Posts: 371
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 4:21 pm UTC
Location: Fairfax County

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby sardia » Thu Mar 29, 2012 7:07 am UTC

LaserGuy wrote:Romney is apparently taking some flak for a telling a "humorous" anecdote about how his father shut down an auto factory in Michigan. Apparently people in the Rust Belt are still a little sensitive about stories relating to job losses.

That's not gonna cut it as "bad" for Romney at this point. We're gonna need news on the level of general election crushing like Romney killed a hooker or was caught in bed with a boy.
Anyway, yea, Romney is an out of touch rich son of a bitch. =.=
User avatar
sardia
 
Posts: 2618
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby lutzj » Thu Mar 29, 2012 11:15 am UTC

sardia wrote:
LaserGuy wrote:Romney is apparently taking some flak for a telling a "humorous" anecdote about how his father shut down an auto factory in Michigan. Apparently people in the Rust Belt are still a little sensitive about stories relating to job losses.

That's not gonna cut it as "bad" for Romney at this point. We're gonna need news on the level of general election crushing like Romney killed a hooker or was caught in bed with a boy.
Anyway, yea, Romney is an out of touch rich son of a bitch. =.=


To be fair, he wasn't discussing the ceteris paribus closing-down of a Michigan factory, but the relocation of a factory from Michigan to Wisconsin, with Wisconsin voters. It's probably not a very bright thing to say on the campaign trail, and obviously people in Michigan are going to hate reminders that they routinely make their own state less competitive, but the actual act in question probably resulted in a net increase in employment for the US.
addams wrote:I'm not a bot.
That is what a bot would type.
User avatar
lutzj
 
Posts: 897
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 6:20 am UTC
Location: Ontario

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Ghostbear » Thu Mar 29, 2012 3:55 pm UTC

LtNOWIS wrote:And the most obvious reason: many of Paul's political views are anathema to either the "base" or "establishment" of the GOP. Therefore he has no real chance of gaining enough support to be the nominee. Therefore he isn't really important or worth listening to in the eyes of hte media.

Of course, but that accounts for his initial lack of coverage. There's still a lot a candidate can do to fix that, and he hasn't appeared to even try. He was able to get the media interested in him before Iowa when he led in the polls after all, so his less conventional views aren't the whole story. Yet when he did get that coverage, he did practically everything he could to make it go away. That is not the actions of someone that understands how to use the media to his advantage, it's the actions of someone who is bitter over past actions and letting it cloud his judgement. Which is very human, but not very impressive for a candidate to do.

sardia wrote:That's not gonna cut it as "bad" for Romney at this point. We're gonna need news on the level of general election crushing like Romney killed a hooker or was caught in bed with a boy.

Anything that helps reinforce his aura of "rich guy that doesn't understand not-being-rich" is bad for him. Whether it fairly or unfairly adds to that aura is another matter, but it does him no favors for November.
Ghostbear
 
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby sardia » Thu Mar 29, 2012 4:30 pm UTC

Fox news and the conservatives are already changing the definition of out of touch rich guy into hard working common man job creator that cannot be questioned.
User avatar
sardia
 
Posts: 2618
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby lutzj » Thu Mar 29, 2012 6:37 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Fox news and the conservatives are already changing the definition of out of touch rich guy into hard working common man job creator that cannot be questioned.


Those two definitions aren't mutually exclusive.
addams wrote:I'm not a bot.
That is what a bot would type.
User avatar
lutzj
 
Posts: 897
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 6:20 am UTC
Location: Ontario

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Diadem » Fri Mar 30, 2012 2:09 pm UTC

So, Santorum drops the n-word on Obama. He catches himself halfway, and no doubt his team will try to spin it, but I can't see what else he was going to say.

Surprisingly, none of the big media corporations are writing about this. Not sure why.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister
User avatar
Diadem
 
Posts: 4929
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby bentheimmigrant » Fri Mar 30, 2012 2:28 pm UTC

Let's be fair... he may have been going for "negro".
"Comment is free, but facts are sacred" - C.P. Scott
User avatar
bentheimmigrant
Dotcor Good Poster
 
Posts: 1215
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:01 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Mar 30, 2012 2:29 pm UTC

Speaking of the n-word, since the Klan used to refer to Hispanics as "Brown-n-words", East Asians as "Yellow-n-words", and Jews as "White-n-word", can those groups get any type of n-word privilege?
User avatar
CorruptUser
 
Posts: 6643
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Diadem » Fri Mar 30, 2012 2:41 pm UTC

bentheimmigrant wrote:Let's be fair... he may have been going for "negro".

True, but that is only slightly less offensive. Another suggestion I heard was "niggardly", though that doesn't fit the sentence very well, and if he was going to say that, why would he stop halfway?

CorruptUser wrote:Speaking of the n-word, since the Klan used to refer to Hispanics as "Brown-n-words", East Asians as "Yellow-n-words", and Jews as "White-n-word", can those groups get any type of n-word privilege?

There's no such thing as n-word privilege really. For every single vulgar word out there, there are instances when its use is offensive, and instances when it isn't. The thing with the word nigger is that it's almost always offensive. But there are exceptions. And it's a universal rule that when you say things that also apply to you it's always less offensive. That however does not mean that any use by a white person is automatically offensive, or any use by a black person is automatically not offensive. It's just that use by a black person is less likely to be found offensive. But there are still plenty of situations where it would be offensive, and indeed plenty of people think the liberal use of the n-word by some black subcultures is rather poor taste. And there are still situations where a white person can use it without being offensive. Heck I used it once in this post.

But this rule applies to all potentially offensive words. And not even words. Also jokes, stereotypes, everything basically.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister
User avatar
Diadem
 
Posts: 4929
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Роберт » Fri Mar 30, 2012 3:06 pm UTC

I honestly can't figure out what Santorum was trying to say. Anti-war, government Negro doesn't really make sense.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.
Роберт
 
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Griffin » Fri Mar 30, 2012 3:20 pm UTC

The statement, no matter which word you put at the end, is not uncommonly hear in certain areas of the South to my understanding.
Bdthemag: "I don't always GM, but when I do I prefer to put my player's in situations that include pain and torture. Stay creative my friends."

Bayobeasts - the Pokemon: Orthoclase project.
User avatar
Griffin
 
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:46 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Garm » Fri Mar 30, 2012 3:46 pm UTC

So let's see

  • Newt - Running because he's trying to sell books
  • Romney - Running because he like money
  • Santorum - Running because he doesn't like black people or women
  • Paul - Running because he doesn't like people

Sound about right? :D

/tongueincheek
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK
User avatar
Garm
 
Posts: 2243
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Dark567 » Fri Mar 30, 2012 3:57 pm UTC

Garm wrote:[*]Romney - Running because he likes power
I have to imagine its actually this. If your someone like Romney, there are better ways to make money.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?
Dark567
 
Posts: 3426
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Garm » Fri Mar 30, 2012 3:59 pm UTC

Dark567 wrote:
Garm wrote:[*]Romney - Running because he likes power
I have to imagine its actually this. If your someone like Romney, there are better ways to make money.


That's actually bringing thoughtful analysis to the list, something I was avoiding. :D
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK
User avatar
Garm
 
Posts: 2243
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Jave D » Fri Mar 30, 2012 4:35 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:So, Santorum drops the n-word on Obama. He catches himself halfway, and no doubt his team will try to spin it, but I can't see what else he was going to say.

Surprisingly, none of the big media corporations are writing about this. Not sure why.


Probably because the media is all owned and run by the liberals! Especially those dirty liberal Christ-killing je- just horrible liberals. Wink wink.
I work all night, I work all day, to pay the bills I have to pay
Ain't it sad?
And still there never seems to be a single penny left for me
That's too bad.
User avatar
Jave D
chavey-dee
 
Posts: 996
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:41 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Qaanol » Fri Mar 30, 2012 4:50 pm UTC

I’d like to take this opportunity to remind everyone that Obama is not a foreign-born, brown-skinned, anti-war socialist who gives away free healthcare. You’re thinking of Jesus.
Small Government Liberal
User avatar
Qaanol
 
Posts: 2547
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 11:55 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Griffin » Fri Mar 30, 2012 4:54 pm UTC

Quoting that elsewhere. :P
Bdthemag: "I don't always GM, but when I do I prefer to put my player's in situations that include pain and torture. Stay creative my friends."

Bayobeasts - the Pokemon: Orthoclase project.
User avatar
Griffin
 
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:46 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby jakovasaur » Fri Mar 30, 2012 4:54 pm UTC

I think it's unlikely he was about to say nigger. Sounded to me like an unfortunate slip of the tongue, like this one.
User avatar
jakovasaur
 
Posts: 681
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 7:43 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby bentheimmigrant » Fri Mar 30, 2012 5:07 pm UTC

Or like this one?
"Comment is free, but facts are sacred" - C.P. Scott
User avatar
bentheimmigrant
Dotcor Good Poster
 
Posts: 1215
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:01 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Jave D » Fri Mar 30, 2012 5:12 pm UTC

Oh, I agree he didn't intend to say "nigger." He intended to say "nig" hinting at "nigger" while the "slip of the tongue" provides plausible deniability that he was appealing to the racial fear of Obama that a disturbingly large segment of the population who will vote for him have.
I work all night, I work all day, to pay the bills I have to pay
Ain't it sad?
And still there never seems to be a single penny left for me
That's too bad.
User avatar
Jave D
chavey-dee
 
Posts: 996
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:41 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Роберт » Fri Mar 30, 2012 5:25 pm UTC

Jave D wrote:Oh, I agree he didn't intend to say "nigger." He intended to say "nig" hinting at "nigger" while the "slip of the tongue" provides plausible deniability that he was appealing to the racial fear of Obama that a disturbingly large segment of the population who will vote for him have.

Santorum is that convincing an actor and that devious, huh.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.
Роберт
 
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Jave D » Fri Mar 30, 2012 5:29 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:
Jave D wrote:Oh, I agree he didn't intend to say "nigger." He intended to say "nig" hinting at "nigger" while the "slip of the tongue" provides plausible deniability that he was appealing to the racial fear of Obama that a disturbingly large segment of the population who will vote for him have.

Santorum is that convincing an actor and that devious, huh.


Not that convincing at all, really, but then it doesn't take much in this country.
I work all night, I work all day, to pay the bills I have to pay
Ain't it sad?
And still there never seems to be a single penny left for me
That's too bad.
User avatar
Jave D
chavey-dee
 
Posts: 996
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:41 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Iulus Cofield » Fri Mar 30, 2012 6:07 pm UTC

It sounds more like "nik" than "nig" to me. A commentator on Language Log thought likewise and suggested he might have been going for "peacenik" and misread his notes. That would make sense from context, but is pure speculation of course.
User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
 
Posts: 2931
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby lutzj » Fri Mar 30, 2012 7:50 pm UTC

Iulus Cofield wrote:It sounds more like "nik" than "nig" to me. A commentator on Language Log thought likewise and suggested he might have been going for "peacenik" and misread his notes. That would make sense from context, but is pure speculation of course.


Maybe "governmentnik?" Still doesn't explain the quick "uhhs" and hurrying on.
addams wrote:I'm not a bot.
That is what a bot would type.
User avatar
lutzj
 
Posts: 897
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 6:20 am UTC
Location: Ontario

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Qaanol » Fri Mar 30, 2012 7:56 pm UTC

Griffin wrote:Quoting that elsewhere. :P

I didn’t come up with it, I just paraphrased John Fugelsang.
Small Government Liberal
User avatar
Qaanol
 
Posts: 2547
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 11:55 pm UTC

PreviousNext

Return to News & Articles

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests