Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Presidential Election Thread] All Hail the Liberty Rooster.

1646567697097

Posts

  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    Pardon this humble foreigner's digression, but this whole SuperPAC thing...could you set one up that was ostensibly for your opponent, but just put out a bunch of really bizarre, tone deaf, or unpopular messaging? Obviously this strategy isn't necessary during this campaign cycle, though.

    http://www.colbertsuperpac.com/

  • Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    KalTorak wrote: »
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    Pi-r8 wrote: »
    Magus` wrote: »
    Augh there are no new posts in this thread! Also yeah, that's not surprising. Anyone who thought CU would do anything else but give a massive (and hidden) funding increase to the GOP is an idiot.

    (Fuck you, Kennedy)

    I wonder if it really increased their funding, or if it just allowed them to transfer money that would have gone to traditional fundraising channels, into superPACS instead where it's less accountable.

    The problem is that "traditional fundraising channels" have limits. SuperPACs don't.

    I think Pi-r8 means, if not for CU, would the same amount of money still be going to the candidates, just channeled through shady means to get under the limits. Like "I'm giving you the maximum (i want to say $2300?) allowable by law, and so is every member of my family, my dog, and all my employees."

    Obviously CU would make it easier in that they don't have to jump through as many hoops, which lowers transactional costs, which means they have more money to donate, I suppose.

    Yeah, exactly. Also the superPACS make it a little easier to run really dirty, negative ads as long as the candidates can plausibly deny that they had anything to do with those ads.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Ann Arbor, MichiganRegistered User regular
    edited April 2012
    UNH has Obama up 9 in New Hampshire. Which defies conventional wisdom that Romney has a very good shot at winning there.

    EDIT: There's also a poll from a firm I don't recognize that didn't push undecideds at all that has Romney up only 42-40 in Arizona.

    enlightenedbum on
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular

    Can Ron Paul save us all! Maybe it's not too late for the republicans to rend each other into pieces and collapse into a broken heap.

    SuperPACs will of course be a massive disaster and effectively render us into a democracy where cash is literally equal to votes but I think Obama at least has enough support to beat them. However, if citizens united doesn't fall during the next two years this may as well be the last election. It certainly will be the last election where anyone even pretends to listen to what the people want.

    Your puny weapons are useless against me
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    tbloxham wrote: »

    Can Ron Paul save us all! Maybe it's not too late for the republicans to rend each other into pieces and collapse into a broken heap.

    SuperPACs will of course be a massive disaster and effectively render us into a democracy where cash is literally equal to votes but I think Obama at least has enough support to beat them. However, if citizens united doesn't fall during the next two years this may as well be the last election. It certainly will be the last election where anyone even pretends to listen to what the people want.

    Ok chumbawumba, let's get back up again. This is a little silly.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • MillMill Registered User regular
    Well it's going to depend on turn out for the remainder of the primaries and caucuses that can still reward delegates, and on how careless Romney's campaign gets. I really doubt that the Paul supporters are going to pull off a brokered convention scenario, even if Romney gets careless. Now factoring in that the Romney camp and the supporting superPACs are still dumping millions of dollars into primary ads, I'm pretty certain a brokered convention won't happen. Fortunately, Romney nonexistent appeal amongst the base is forcing his campaign to blow additional money on a primary that he supposedly has wrapped up.

    If the PBS segment on it is any indication, Romney might be fucked the general election. He's going to lose voters if he picks someone who is moderate, sane or/and blander than him, but picking a hardcore conservative is going to cost him voters, possibly even energize the democrat base a little. I'm wondering how much of the base that hates Romney, but would support him will actually vote in the fall because I think some of them will be no shows. This also hits on a point brought up earlier where Romney doesn't just need them to show up and vote for him, he needs them to convince others to vote for him and I just don't see the base being that effective.

    Yeah, there are studies that show it's easier to bond with people by talking about things you don't like; however, that requires both people to actively dislike enough of Obama's policies, while also not hating most of Romney's positions. I don't think there are many people left who aren't in the Romney camp already that fit the description. If I were an independent voter that was still undecided on who to vote for, the teaper/fundies/Republican/conservative telling me to vote for Romney who doesn't excite them, while coming off as a Robot to me, isn't going to convince me to vote for Romney. In fact, I have a feeling that could backfire and make independents vote for Obama because you have people who don't like the out of touch robot, telling you to support that thing over the guy that still seems human.

  • ZythonZython Registered User regular
    Boring7 wrote: »
    Pardon this humble foreigner's digression, but this whole SuperPAC thing...could you set one up that was ostensibly for your opponent, but just put out a bunch of really bizarre, tone deaf, or unpopular messaging? Obviously this strategy isn't necessary during this campaign cycle, though.

    It has already been suggested numerous times, by me if no one else. The problem is that the same organizations that do the whole superPAC thing are kind of lacking in creativity, as are the donors to said superPACs. Also, if you set up the "Stop Socialism Now" organization you will only get one round of donations before the donors notice you are making advertisements that are against Republicans.

    At this point, one would just solicit money from Democrats and claim to support Republicans in public, while keeping the donor list hidden. Ah, Super PACs, you bastions of freedom and democracy.

    8->

    3DS Friend Code: 4854-6465-0299 | Wii U: zython
    Steam: pazython
    Lv 90 Tauren Shaman Lv 90 Pandaren Monk
  • ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor Registered User regular
    Magus` wrote: »
    The fact that SuperPACs are legal but they still try really hard to hide who is providing funding kind of implies they know they're skirting some line somewhere.

    Eh, it really just implies that they don't want you to know who is paying for ads.

    Speaking of, I think a good ad for the Obama campaign to run is a bunch of quotes from George Romney that go directly against what his son is doing.

    That seems entirely too honest, how come Dems never get to Swift Boat anyone?

    They could PAC-up and run some ads in the Mormon community talking about what a great opportunity Romney's inauguration will be to baptize the whole of Arlington National Cemetery into the faith; ensuring our fallen heroes a place by Heavenly Father's side. You know, something to remind the more bigoted of his supporters that Mormons are scary, different, and certainly no True Christians.


    Automata-Sg.png
  • ScooterScooter Registered User regular
    KalTorak wrote: »
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    Pi-r8 wrote: »
    Magus` wrote: »
    Augh there are no new posts in this thread! Also yeah, that's not surprising. Anyone who thought CU would do anything else but give a massive (and hidden) funding increase to the GOP is an idiot.

    (Fuck you, Kennedy)

    I wonder if it really increased their funding, or if it just allowed them to transfer money that would have gone to traditional fundraising channels, into superPACS instead where it's less accountable.

    The problem is that "traditional fundraising channels" have limits. SuperPACs don't.

    I think Pi-r8 means, if not for CU, would the same amount of money still be going to the candidates, just channeled through shady means to get under the limits. Like "I'm giving you the maximum (i want to say $2300?) allowable by law, and so is every member of my family, my dog, and all my employees."

    Obviously CU would make it easier in that they don't have to jump through as many hoops, which lowers transactional costs, which means they have more money to donate, I suppose.

    It's kind of hard to compare sneaking $10-15k in through family members and different campaigns to being able to just write a $15 million dollar check.

  • TofystedethTofystedeth veni, veneri, vamoosi Registered User regular
    tbloxham wrote: »

    The only thing that the SuperPACs could do that wouldn't just energise the democratic base too would be...

    b) Massive DDOS attacks on all high tech industry across election day to keep young obama supporters at work
    Job creation!

    steam_sig.png
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    tbloxham wrote: »

    Can Ron Paul save us all! Maybe it's not too late for the republicans to rend each other into pieces and collapse into a broken heap.

    SuperPACs will of course be a massive disaster and effectively render us into a democracy where cash is literally equal to votes but I think Obama at least has enough support to beat them. However, if citizens united doesn't fall during the next two years this may as well be the last election. It certainly will be the last election where anyone even pretends to listen to what the people want.

    Ok chumbawumba, let's get back up again. This is a little silly.

    Stop being silly about Paul or about super pace? I guess i agree it is too late for Paul to do any damage other than to Romney's 'sheen' but superpacs are going to be a disaster, growing exponentially in the money they provide and the corruption they cause. If they aren't banned soon its game over.

    Your puny weapons are useless against me
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    tbloxham wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »

    Can Ron Paul save us all! Maybe it's not too late for the republicans to rend each other into pieces and collapse into a broken heap.

    SuperPACs will of course be a massive disaster and effectively render us into a democracy where cash is literally equal to votes but I think Obama at least has enough support to beat them. However, if citizens united doesn't fall during the next two years this may as well be the last election. It certainly will be the last election where anyone even pretends to listen to what the people want.

    Ok chumbawumba, let's get back up again. This is a little silly.

    Stop being silly about Paul or about super pace? I guess i agree it is too late for Paul to do any damage other than to Romney's 'sheen' but superpacs are going to be a disaster, growing exponentially in the money they provide and the corruption they cause. If they aren't banned soon its game over.

    About the Super PACs, they're awful but we'll fix it eventually so long as people don't give up and roll over.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor Registered User regular
    tbloxham wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »

    Can Ron Paul save us all! Maybe it's not too late for the republicans to rend each other into pieces and collapse into a broken heap.

    SuperPACs will of course be a massive disaster and effectively render us into a democracy where cash is literally equal to votes but I think Obama at least has enough support to beat them. However, if citizens united doesn't fall during the next two years this may as well be the last election. It certainly will be the last election where anyone even pretends to listen to what the people want.

    Ok chumbawumba, let's get back up again. This is a little silly.

    Stop being silly about Paul or about super pace? I guess i agree it is too late for Paul to do any damage other than to Romney's 'sheen' but superpacs are going to be a disaster, growing exponentially in the money they provide and the corruption they cause. If they aren't banned soon its game over.
    Is it even possible to ban them at this point? What leeway did the CU ruling leave to regulate SuperPACs with new legislation? Any?

    Supposing Obama got his contributors to shift into SuperPACs, then I'd think a SuperPAC fueled Obama victory could be a slam dunk for getting some anti-PAC legislation through congress. I'm just not clear on what good it could do.

    Automata-Sg.png
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    The only thing you could do that would guarantee killing super pacs is a constitutional amendment.

    Ideally there is some limiting that can be done, but basically all you can do is mess with the campaigns themselves, not the super PACs. Unless SCOTUS overturns CU. Which is possible.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • SpoitSpoit *twitch twitch* Registered User regular
    MKR wrote: »
    Pardon this humble foreigner's digression, but this whole SuperPAC thing...could you set one up that was ostensibly for your opponent, but just puts eel out a bunch of really bizarre, tone deaf, or unpopular messaging? Obviously this strategy isn't necessary during this campaign cycle, though.

    http://www.colbertsuperpac.com/
    Those ads have been quite even keeled compared to some of the primary ads: obamaville, that creepy little girl animal cruelty campaign by cain, etc

    camo_sig2.png
  • DexterBelgiumDexterBelgium Registered User regular
    Magus` wrote: »
    The fact that SuperPACs are legal but they still try really hard to hide who is providing funding kind of implies they know they're skirting some line somewhere.

    Eh, it really just implies that they don't want you to know who is paying for ads.

    Speaking of, I think a good ad for the Obama campaign to run is a bunch of quotes from GeorgeMitt Romney that go directly against what his sonhe is doingsaying this week.
    FTFY.

  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    tbloxham wrote: »

    The only thing that the SuperPACs could do that wouldn't just energise the democratic base too would be...

    b) Massive DDOS attacks on all high tech industry across election day to keep young obama supporters at work
    Job creation!

    "Crap, I can't check facebook during work? I guess I'll go vote."

    11793-1.png
    Spoiler:
  • belligerentbelligerent Registered User regular
    I guess it's primary day in PA?

    Thank god I work next to my polling place. I would totally have forgotten.

  • TubularLuggageTubularLuggage Registered User regular
    Technically, there are primaries in Connecticut, Delaware, New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island today.
    Romney can't officially sew it up today, but he can become even more inevitable. Paul and Gingrich could also both go from "oh, they're still running?" to mathematically impossible today.

  • TheBlackWindTheBlackWind Registered User regular
    On the other hand, I don't see how Romney doesnt sweep up those states fairly easily...

    So remember the dust up that the satire site made with their joke article about Ann Romney? Well suck on reality, comedic imagination:
    Romney alluded to the fact that not all women can stay at home saying, “I love the fact that there are women out there who don’t have a choice and they must go to work and they still have to raise the kids. Thank goodness that we value those people too. And sometimes life isn’t easy for any of us.”

    http://thinkprogress.org/special/2012/04/24/469896/ann-romney-women-work/?mobile=wp

    It's really more of a foot in mouth than genuine sentiment, but still, hahahahaha.

    Pokemon Black FC: 0518-7386-3511
    Pokemon Black 2: 0519-5108-3139
  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    There's also that asshat state senator in Wisconsin talking about how money means more to men because they're going to be the breadwinners. Made me think of that Ann Romney satire.

    KalTorak on
  • GoslingGosling Looking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, Probably Watertown, WIRegistered User regular
    Technically, there are primaries in Connecticut, Delaware, New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island today.
    Romney can't officially sew it up today, but he can become even more inevitable. Paul and Gingrich could also both go from "oh, they're still running?" to mathematically impossible today.

    Even without the inevitability, those are the kind of states Romney's been winning anyway. If he even gets threatened in any of those states, it's a story.

    I have a blog. In the near future, I will also have a Kickstarter to get my club-soccer book up and running. I will let you know when I will start demanding all your money.
  • TheCanManTheCanMan Registered User regular
    On the other hand, I don't see how Romney doesnt sweep up those states fairly easily...

    So remember the dust up that the satire site made with their joke article about Ann Romney? Well suck on reality, comedic imagination:
    Romney alluded to the fact that not all women can stay at home saying, “I love the fact that there are women out there who don’t have a choice and they must go to work and they still have to raise the kids. Thank goodness that we value those people too. And sometimes life isn’t easy for any of us.”

    http://thinkprogress.org/special/2012/04/24/469896/ann-romney-women-work/?mobile=wp

    It's really more of a foot in mouth than genuine sentiment, but still, hahahahaha.

    November better hurry the fuck up because I don't think my forehead is structurally designed to withstand this level of facepalm. I'm afraid one of these days I'm going to cave my skull in.

  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    Is it even possible to ban them at this point? What leeway did the CU ruling leave to regulate SuperPACs with new legislation? Any?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Tradition_Partnership,_Inc._v._Attorney_General_of_Montana

  • AtomikaAtomika (citation needed)Registered User regular
    Newt says if he loses Delaware today, he's pulling out.

    http://shortformblog.com/post/21714794904/newt-gingrich-delaware



    Looks like it's Ron Paul's race to lose!

  • TubularLuggageTubularLuggage Registered User regular
    Well, everyone knows that, As goes Delaware, so goes... Delaware.

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    On the other hand, I don't see how Romney doesnt sweep up those states fairly easily...

    So remember the dust up that the satire site made with their joke article about Ann Romney? Well suck on reality, comedic imagination:
    Romney alluded to the fact that not all women can stay at home saying, “I love the fact that there are women out there who don’t have a choice and they must go to work and they still have to raise the kids. Thank goodness that we value those people too. And sometimes life isn’t easy for any of us.”

    http://thinkprogress.org/special/2012/04/24/469896/ann-romney-women-work/?mobile=wp

    It's really more of a foot in mouth than genuine sentiment, but still, hahahahaha.
    I don't understand why ThinkProgress is the only place reporting on this.

    Lolberal media, I guess?

    Thanatos on
  • ForarForar #432 Already prepping for Toronto Fan Expo!Registered User regular
    Pardon this humble foreigner's digression, but this whole SuperPAC thing...could you set one up that was ostensibly for your opponent, but just put out a bunch of really bizarre, tone deaf, or unpopular messaging? Obviously this strategy isn't necessary during this campaign cycle, though.

    I don't see why not, but if it were bad enough that it reflected poorly on the candidate it was pretending to support, it would also embolden that particular candidate when they cry slander.

    If you want to learn more about them, you should try to find the episodes that The Colbert Report did on PACs/Super PACs. They won a Peabody for their work.

    sigone.png
  • TheCanManTheCanMan Registered User regular
    Forar wrote: »
    Pardon this humble foreigner's digression, but this whole SuperPAC thing...could you set one up that was ostensibly for your opponent, but just put out a bunch of really bizarre, tone deaf, or unpopular messaging? Obviously this strategy isn't necessary during this campaign cycle, though.

    I don't see why not, but if it were bad enough that it reflected poorly on the candidate it was pretending to support, it would also embolden that particular candidate when they cry slander.

    If you want to learn more about them, you should try to find the episodes that The Colbert Report did on PACs/Super PACs. They won a Peabody for their work.

    That's just about the most harsh condemnation of our media possible.

  • TheCanManTheCanMan Registered User regular
    Also, while not strictly on the topic of the Presidential Election, Boehner estimates that the Dems have about a 1-in-3 chance of winning the House back. Which means that he probably thinks it's closer to 50/50.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    Also, while not strictly on the topic of the Presidential Election, Boehner estimates that the Dems have about a 1-in-3 chance of winning the House back. Which means that he probably thinks it's closer to 50/50.

    I'd wager that it's higher than that.. The Teaper freshmen shot themselves in the foot with their war on earmarks, as now they have nothing to bring home to their constituency that is concrete.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • MuddBuddMuddBudd Registered User regular
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    Also, while not strictly on the topic of the Presidential Election, Boehner estimates that the Dems have about a 1-in-3 chance of winning the House back. Which means that he probably thinks it's closer to 50/50.

    I'd wager that it's higher than that.. The Teaper freshmen shot themselves in the foot with their war on earmarks, as now they have nothing to bring home to their constituency that is concrete.

    They can't come back with "Thwarted Obama as much as possible." ?

    steam_sig.png
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    MuddBudd wrote: »
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    Also, while not strictly on the topic of the Presidential Election, Boehner estimates that the Dems have about a 1-in-3 chance of winning the House back. Which means that he probably thinks it's closer to 50/50.

    I'd wager that it's higher than that.. The Teaper freshmen shot themselves in the foot with their war on earmarks, as now they have nothing to bring home to their constituency that is concrete.

    They can't come back with "Thwarted Obama as much as possible." ?

    Um, no. People like seeing concrete benefits of their Congresscritter's work.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    Yup, it turns out the people who back the tea partiers and hate government actually love everything that the federal government does and gain direct benefit from it, they just don't realize that its the federal government building say deeper shipping ports and army bases.

    Your puny weapons are useless against me
  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    Thanatos wrote: »
    On the other hand, I don't see how Romney doesnt sweep up those states fairly easily...

    So remember the dust up that the satire site made with their joke article about Ann Romney? Well suck on reality, comedic imagination:
    Romney alluded to the fact that not all women can stay at home saying, “I love the fact that there are women out there who don’t have a choice and they must go to work and they still have to raise the kids. Thank goodness that we value those people too. And sometimes life isn’t easy for any of us.”

    http://thinkprogress.org/special/2012/04/24/469896/ann-romney-women-work/?mobile=wp

    It's really more of a foot in mouth than genuine sentiment, but still, hahahahaha.
    I don't understand why ThinkProgress is the only place reporting on this.

    Lolberal media, I guess?

    I'm trying really hard, but I don't think there's a charitable interpretation of that comment.

  • TheCanManTheCanMan Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Well, looks like we can scratch one name off the list of possible 2016 GOP candidates. Why Jon Huntsman is leaving the GOP (not because they’re Communists)

    <img class=" title=":lol:" class="bbcode_smiley" />

    TheCanMan on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Ann Arbor, MichiganRegistered User regular
    He's the third party plutocrat the Washington media has been longing for. Well, besides Bloomberg.

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User regular
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    Well, looks like we can scratch one name off the list of possible 2016 candidates. Why Jon Huntsman is leaving the GOP (not because they’re Communists)

    <img class=" title=":lol:" class="bbcode_smiley" />

    I'm not sure how effective Huntsman would be as an independent candidate. Could Huntsman even get Ron Paul levels of support?

  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular
    I feel like anyone pragmatic enough to vote for Huntsman is also going to be pragmatic enough not to vote for an independent candidate who doesn't have a chance of winning.

  • TheCanManTheCanMan Registered User regular
    He's the third party plutocrat the Washington media has been longing for. Well, besides Bloomberg.

    A Huntsman/Bloomberg ticket would be a pretty epic spoiler ticket for the GOP. That would be delicious.

This discussion has been closed.