U.S. Republican Primary

[Jave D]

For those of you who aren't from south of the Mason-Dixie, "Government Nigger" is an extremely common term used to describe low-income blacks on welfare. It's the much more overtly racist "welfare queen".

...So do you think Santorum thinks Obama is a low-income black on welfare?

I can't help but notice that Republican rhetoric for the past four years has been peppered with copious amounts of talk of Obama's "thugs." Does that mean that Republicans who use that language literally believe officials in the administration are low-income, violent gang-members? No. It is merely a disparaging way to use the negative connotations of that to apply to otherwise non-negative situations.

Same with this.

[jakovasaur]

For those of you who aren't from south of the Mason-Dixie, "Government Nigger" is an extremely common term used to describe low-income blacks on welfare. It's the much more overtly racist "welfare queen".

...So do you think Santorum thinks Obama is a low-income black on welfare?

I can't help but notice that Republican rhetoric for the past four years has been peppered with copious amounts of talk of Obama's "thugs." Does that mean that Republicans who use that language literally believe officials in the administration are low-income, violent gang-members? No. It is merely a disparaging way to use the negative connotations of that to apply to otherwise non-negative situations.

Same with this.

"Thug" is used all the time, by both parties, to refer to people they don't agree with. You've never heard someone say "Rethuglican"?

[Jave D]

People on both parties can call someone a "nigger" too. Doesn't really change the point.

[Garm]

"Thug" is used all the time, by both parties, to refer to people they don't agree with. You've never heard someone say "Rethuglican"?

Those people are stupid. Also, too: not prominent pundits or presidential candidates.

[Vaniver]

He probably thinks that Obama's father was

"Nigerian" is, of course, a plausible thing that Santorum could have been about to say, though also bizarre.

Once again, it looks like it's time to talk about pareidolia and speech errors. Human brains have sophisticated error-correcting audio software. So if you hear noise but expect it to sound like a particular word, you'll hear the word far more clearly than it is in the raw audio. You can experience this with sine wave speech; listen to the SWS, then the original, then the SWS. The SWS will not have changed but your perception of it will. As well, speech errors are generally not significant- someone who says "bed and butter" instead of "bread and butter" is far more likely to be tired than unconsciously expressing a desire for sex. (That is, Freud is mostly wrong about Freudian slips).

[Jonesthe Spy]

"Nigerian" is, of course, a plausible thing that Santorum could have been about to say, though also bizarre.

Um, maybe if you're deaf. 'Nigerian' and N***** sound absolutely nothing alike. That's aside from the fact that Obama has no connection whatsoever to Nigeria ans his father is from Kenya, a rather well-known fact - but hey, if you're saying Santorum is an ignorant racist who thinks there's no difference between African nations I suppose that might be irrelevant.

[Iulus Cofield]

That's not necessarily how a language error works. That is not necessarily relevant to your post.

[Vaniver]

Um, maybe if you're deaf. 'Nigerian' and N***** sound absolutely nothing alike.

They both begin similarly, and the beginning is about all that Santorum said.

That's aside from the fact that Obama has no connection whatsoever to Nigeria ans his father is from Kenya, a rather well-known fact - but hey, if you're saying Santorum is an ignorant racist who thinks there's no difference between African nations I suppose that might be irrelevant.

I should admit to this, though: I forgot which country Obama's father was from (because that's not something I care about).

[yurell]

/naɪ'dʒ/ does sound rather different to /nɪɡ/, though.

[Diadem]

"Nigerian" is, of course, a plausible thing that Santorum could have been about to say, though also bizarre.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[nitePhyyre]

He probably thinks that Obama's father was

"Nigerian" is, of course, a plausible thing that Santorum could have been about to say, though also bizarre.

"We know the candidate Barack Obama what he was like the anti-war, government Nigerian..."

Even ignoring

/naɪ'dʒ/ does sound rather different to /nɪɡ/, though.

no, that's not plausible.

[Garm]

Again, who the heck cares what Santorum meant to say or not say? It doesn't really matter. He's an odious man who ought not be in the nomination conversation anyway. The fact that he is points to the fact that we've got deeper problems. At this point, anyone who will vote for Santorum is just going to vote for him no matter what. He could come out in a white hood and call Obama all sorts of foul, horrible things, and his supporters would say something along the lines of "yeah." Or maybe "he's the only candidate brave enough to stand up to the worst president this nation has ever seen. He's telling the hard truths."

Let's talk about Romney and his endorsement of the Ryan budget instead. That actually has bearing on the primary. Ryan's budget is a terrible thing that cuts services to the poor, raises military spending, and cuts taxes on the rich (paid for by those spending cuts). It pushes deficit closure out another three decades compared to the baseline of doing absofuckinglutely nothing (which, of course, means allowing all the Bush tax cuts to sunset). Romney is supposed to be "The Business" candidate. Endorsing this budget does not show business acumen. I don't know how he expects to sustain his reputation as a smart financials guy through the general when he continues to do shit like this.

Also, too: here's this truly awesome article about Romney's positions that deserves reading: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/opinion/sunday/a-quantum-theory-of-mitt-romney.html

[Vaniver]

"Nigerian" is, of course, a plausible thing that Santorum could have been about to say, though also bizarre.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Hmm, you're right. I was using it to mean "possible" when it's stronger than that. Apparently I riddled that post with errors.

[Malice]

Let's talk about Romney and his endorsement of the Ryan budget instead. That actually has bearing on the primary. Ryan's budget is a terrible thing that cuts services to the poor, raises military spending, and cuts taxes on the rich (paid for by those spending cuts). It pushes deficit closure out another three decades compared to the baseline of doing absofuckinglutely nothing (which, of course, means allowing all the Bush tax cuts to sunset). Romney is supposed to be "The Business" candidate. Endorsing this budget does not show business acumen. I don't know how he expects to sustain his reputation as a smart financials guy through the general when he continues to do shit like this.

Endorsing this budget shows excellent business acumen. Romney's business was to latch onto companies, harvest their resources, and leave their ruined husks for a new host. In two decades the Ryan plan will have sucked all the juicy marrow out of the United States and Romney, now swollen with funds, will be free to migrate to Canada, where the cycle of life can begin anew.

Ohhhh, you meant business acumen in terms of sustaining the business, not making money. My mistake.

[Vaniver]

Romney's business was to latch onto companies, harvest their resources, and leave their ruined husks for a new host.

Like with Staples?

[CorruptUser]

To be fair to Romney, if he can suck more money out of the company than the company was otherwise worth, he is helping the total economy. Sort of. It's weird as he helps himself more than he hurts others, so technically the world is a better place with him. But if you have an ethical system where you base right and wrong on the world excluding yourself (e.g., is the rest of the world better off by having you exist) then no, taking more from the company than the company is worth is not an arbitrarily defined "good" action.

[Dark567]

Romney's business was to latch onto companies, harvest their resources, and leave their ruined husks for a new host.

Like with Staples?

Actually looking at his record, there seem to be a large number of successes he turned around:

AMC Entertainment, Aspen Education Group, Brookstone, Burger King, Burlington Coat Factory, Clear Channel Communications, Domino's Pizza, DoubleClick, Dunkin' Donuts, D&M Holdings, Guitar Center, Hospital Corporation of America (HCA), Sealy, The Sports Authority, Staples, Toys "R" Us, Warner Music Group and The Weather Channel

Those are definitely more high-profile examples, but its clear that Bain was able to take a number of companies, and make them more efficient and profitable.

[Jave D]

Also, too: here's this truly awesome article about Romney's positions that deserves reading: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/opinion/sunday/a-quantum-theory-of-mitt-romney.html

That... was AWESOME.

[Garm]

I think the endorsement lacks business acumen because the budget doesn't actually do anything to turn the country around in the way that Bain has successfully operated with the businesses that you guys mentioned. The budget makes a lot of supply-side assumptions, takes money away from where it's needed and assigns it to where it's not. I may have already stated this on this board somewhere but I believe that this is less a budget and more a blueprint for cultural hegemony. It's a right-wing wet dream where the rich are supported on the backs of the poor. Strangely enough, however, this most recent Ryan 'budget' is less regressive than earlier offerings. It's still a steaming pile of horse shit.

edit to avoid double post: Here's Obama calling the Ryan 'budget' a steaming pile of horse shit but with nicer words and a lot more facts and stuff. You know... like he does: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/46941784#46941784
I'm happy to see the president taking a hard line on this. It's important and I'm glad he realizes it.

[scotty2haughty]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/03/politics/ ... index.html

As a lifelong leaner to the right, all I can say is..."eh."

[Proginoskes]

If you go to http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries.html , it looks like Santorum is crying in that picture.

So I guess the Republicans are going to run a flip-flopper for President.

[sourmìlk]

Better than a bigoted extremist

[Ghostbear]

Not when the position they've flip flopped to is bigoted extremism. Then you just get both in the same package. Though, honestly, I don't think there's anything wrong with flip-flopping in general -- being able to say "No, I was wrong" is important, especially for people making important decisions -- but Romney's issue is the frequency and breadth of his changes.

Also, this whole topic is probably best fit in this thread.

[addams]

Also, too: here's this truly awesome article about Romney's positions that deserves reading: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/opinion/sunday/a-quantum-theory-of-mitt-romney.html

That... was AWESOME.

AWESOME, Seconded. Funny, too.

[mmmcannibalism]

Not when the position they've flip flopped to is bigoted extremism. Then you just get both in the same package. Though, honestly, I don't think there's anything wrong with flip-flopping in general -- being able to say "No, I was wrong" is important, especially for people making important decisions -- but Romney's issue is the frequency and breadth of his changes.

Also, this whole topic is probably best fit in this thread.

There is a difference between flopping and changing your mind.

[Heisenberg]

Ryan's budget is a terrible thing that cuts services to the poor, raises military spending, and cuts taxes on the rich (paid for by those spending cuts). It pushes deficit closure out another three decades compared to the baseline of doing absofuckinglutely nothing (which, of course, means allowing all the Bush tax cuts to sunset).

Will Obama allow the Bush tax cuts to sunset? He didn't when he had a Democratic House and Senate, so won't this be an issue where both candidates sit on the same (wrong) side of the issue?

It really doesn't matter how terrible the Ryan budget is, in that the main point raised by the GOP will be that it balances the budget. The narrative will be that Obama's budget is like a freight train headed for a cliff (supported by the fact that he's spent more in 3 years than Bush did in 8), and if we don't take drastic measures the economy will a-splode, or something. Obama will not counter with less terrible cuts, but rather with another mega-huge budget, which he will claim will really, for sure, solve the recession this time. He'll probably make up a new word for it too, like econo-covery, now that stimulus is out of style.

[Silknor]

It really doesn't matter how terrible the Ryan budget is, in that the main point raised by the GOP will be that it balances the budget.

It doesn't though. Here's his budget: budget.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Pathtoprosperity2013.pdf

Page 92 shows revenue at 19% of GDP and Spending at 20.25% of GDP in 2030. It takes almost until 2040 to balance the budget: Revenues will still be at 19% of GDP while spending will be down to 18.75%.

Two notes: the first is that this is taking Ryan's budget at its word when it says that it will massively reduce (completely unspecified, but generally very popular) tax expenditures, if he doesn't manage to do this, the revenues brought in will plummet. The second is that time frame appears to refer to overall balance, sometimes you see budgets described in terms of primary balance (Revenues=Spending on everything besides interest payments). The Ryan budget would reach primary balance earlier, though the summary charts don't contain enough detail to know when.

However (again assuming that the unspecified reductions in tax expenditures occur) Ryan's budget does get closer to balance in the next decade than the President's. The 10 year average projected deficit for Ryan's budget is 1.7% (his numbers) while for Obama's it's 4.7%.

[JudeMorrigan]

(supported by the fact that he's spent more in 3 years than Bush did in 8

Erm, no. Saying that the debt has increased more in the last three years than it did in the previous eight is NOT the same thing as saying that the country has spent more in the last three years than it did in the previous eight. While outlays ARE up by a fair bit over that time period, part of the reason that the deficiet has skyrocketed is due to the fact that receipts decreased when the economy tanked.

[Garm]

Sigh. The Bush tax cuts were kept around because Obama wanted the cuts for the middle class to stay in effect with the hope they would keep money flowing in the economy. The GOP and the Blue Dog Democrats threw a giant bitch-fit and threatened to shut down the government unless the rich people also got to keep their tax cuts. Because job creation, confidence fairies, and everyone gets a pony that's why (let's just ignore the marginal rate of savings because electing folks who will find competent advisers on economics is too hard to even imagine). To say that Obama kept the Bush tax cuts even when he had a majority in both houses is to ignore all the context ever.

That CBS article is another case of ignoring all the context ever. To just compare the gross amount of debt added is to ignore the deep recession that Obama inherited from Bush. It's lazy journalism. Kind of like saying that Bush II was more a more popular president than FDR because he got more votes nationally during his reelection campaign.

Obama HAS proposed cuts. He's directed the congress to make cuts, he just wants to balance it out with revenue growth.

[bentheimmigrant]

I'll just point out here that while you guys have a government that increased spending and are now out of recession and have net jobs growth, here in the UK we went for slash and burn deficit reduction, and are now in a double dip recession and ever increasing unemployment. But, hey. You totally want to do it our way.

[Dark567]

I'll just point out here that while you guys have a government that increased spending and are now out of recession and have net jobs growth, here in the UK we went for slash and burn deficit reduction, and are now in a double dip recession and ever increasing unemployment. But, hey. You totally want to do it our way.

I am not sure that and that alone are responsible. I mean, honestly the UK is probably still spending more per person then the US. One could make the argument that the small(austere) government of the US is the reason we are heading out.

[bentheimmigrant]

That may be fair, and obviously our proximity to the Euro has a lot to do with it too, but much was made over the opposite approaches here (and I'm pretty sure I remember seeing it on American sites) a year or two ago. Relatedly, there was also a lot of praise coming from the American right of Ireland's approach, IIRC - I think that's died down a bit now.

[Dark567]

That may be fair, and obviously our proximity to the Euro has a lot to do with it too, but much was made over the opposite approaches here (and I'm pretty sure I remember seeing it on American sites) a year or two ago. Relatedly, there was also a lot of praise coming from the American right of Ireland's approach, IIRC - I think that's died down a bit now.

Sure, there was, but even at the time I questioned how much a contrast could be made. I mean is raising expenditures of relatively small government expenditures really the opposite of lower expenditures of relatively large government expenditures? Obviously not, but I thought back then that they were too big a difference to make a big deal out of comparing them.

Ireland did receive praise from the American right. But I don't think anyone expected Ireland to do better than America. Ireland doesn't have the favorable interest rates the US(or UK) have. It was going to have close its deficit somehow, either by lowering expenditures or higher revenues, which precludes it from the route the US took.

[Garm]

The praise of Ireland's austerity measures was also driven by a false dawn in economic progress. There was a small uptick which was hailed by proponents of austerity as the beginning of a new era. The economy dipped again and has since stagnated.

[Diadem]

Not when the position they've flip flopped to is bigoted extremism. Then you just get both in the same package. Though, honestly, I don't think there's anything wrong with flip-flopping in general -- being able to say "No, I was wrong" is important, especially for people making important decisions -- but Romney's issue is the frequency and breadth of his changes.

Also, this whole topic is probably best fit in this thread.

There is a difference between flopping and changing your mind.

Yeah. The problem is not politicians saying: "I know, in the past I supported our war against Eastasia, but it is not doing us any good. Eurasia is our real enemy". The problem is policians saying: "We are at war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eurasia".

[Роберт]

So did anything important happen? I don't even get the title of this thread. Romney has been the likely candidate for a long time now and is still the likely candidate. Nothing seems to have changed.

[Dauric]

So did anything important happen? I don't even get the title of this thread. Romney has been the likely candidate for a long time now and is still the likely candidate. Nothing seems to have changed.

There's been some noise in the news after yesterday's primaries about Romney having the delegates to cinch the Republican nomination, or rather that for a sudden reversal to favor Santorum would require near infinitely improbable circumstances. Romney doesn't have the technical delegates to be challenge-proof and so Santorum and Paul are still holding on to their respective faint and fading hopes of nomination.

That said I do agree with Ghostbear that this should be folded in to the Republican Primaries thread.

[Ghostbear]

There is a difference between flopping and changing your mind.

Certainly, but in politics, at least, it's not at all uncommon for them to just be treated as the same thing. I was just pointing out that I do see the distinction between the two, and that Romney definitely falls in the category of a true "whatever stance it takes to win votes" politician.

So did anything important happen? I don't even get the title of this thread. Romney has been the likely candidate for a long time now and is still the likely candidate. Nothing seems to have changed.

Basically, Wisconsin represented the last of the last of Santorum's chances to turn the race around. Michigan and Ohio were his last chances to turn the race around and get on a majority delegate path (winning without a brokered convention). Illinois was his last chance to get on a plurality delegate path (brokered convention, but having more delegates than Romney). Wisconsin was his last chance to get on the path of preventing Romney from getting a majority of delegates and winning outright. Essentially, the only winning path left for Santorum is for Romney to be found to be a former porn star or to just die outright. Which aren't exactly very good hopes to base a campaign around.

[Lucrece]

If you go to http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries.html , it looks like Santorum is crying in that picture.

Paul even more so. Paul and his lonely 71 delegates lol. the Ronpaul fans amuse me.

[SlyReaper]

As far as I can tell, two things have changed.
1. Santorum has started facing calls to drop out of the race for the sake of party unity (he said no)
2. Obama's re-election campaign has started talking about Romney specifically, rather than the Republican party as a whole.