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!

Primary 2012: Romney Wins Debate By Saying Nothing, Having Nice Hair

15355575859

Posts

  • DeebaserDeebaser Alpha Teemo Fake Board GamerRegistered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Palin's just going to coyly hint at running and wink. Good on her, the more money that the rubes give her, the less they'll be able to give to an actual candidate.

  • ClevingerClevinger Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Richy wrote: »
    So Palin wasn't part of the debate. Does this mean her bid for a run in 2012 is officially over?

    I think Labor Day (September 5th) is generally considered the cut-off point for new candidates.

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Clevinger wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    So Palin wasn't part of the debate. Does this mean her bid for a run in 2012 is officially over?

    I think Labor Day (September 5th) is generally considered the cut-off point for new candidates.

    Yes and No, in 2008 by the end of may 2007 all the canidates who were going to run had already declared, including both winning canidates. So while there may be some actual cut off point, the longer she waits to declare the less likely she is actually going to run.

  • DynagripDynagrip destroy everything you touch Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2011
    KalTorak wrote: »
    One of the complaints I hear a lot about Kerry is that he ran on "I'm not Bush!" and not much else. And it seems like all these candidates are running on "I'm not Obama," plus crazy. I may be wrong but I remember Bush being less popular in 2004 than Obama at the moment; I don't think that strategy is going to work any better this time around.
    well, the republicans can also appeal to racism this time around, which helps them out in horribly biggoted and backwater areas such as the pacific northwest.

    gusinrepose.png
  • LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Speaking of women voters, I suspect that Bachmann's really obvious repeated mentions of her 5 children and 23 foster kids was an attempt to soften up her image with the female voters who have soured on Palin.

  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Dynagrip wrote: »
    KalTorak wrote: »
    One of the complaints I hear a lot about Kerry is that he ran on "I'm not Bush!" and not much else. And it seems like all these candidates are running on "I'm not Obama," plus crazy. I may be wrong but I remember Bush being less popular in 2004 than Obama at the moment; I don't think that strategy is going to work any better this time around.
    well, the republicans can also appeal to racism this time around, which helps them out in horribly biggoted and backwater areas such as the pacific northwest.

    What the hell? o_O

    steam_sig.png
  • DracomicronDracomicron Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Raggaholic wrote: »
    Azith, I don't want you to think we're ganging up on you. We're not. I actually think it's interesting to have a fresh face in here.
    azith28 wrote:
    Its not that i dont like palin's attitude, or am unappriciative of the womens republican voting trend shes boosting but no I dont think many conservatives see her as a viable candidate.
    Palin doesn't have a voting trend. She was a half-term governor. Governors don't really vote on things, they decide what to veto and sometimes introduce legislation. The stuff she did introduce and champion wasn't even all that Republican. They share the wealth like crazy in Alaska, and they blow tons of money on bridges to nowhere.
    I think he's referring to Palin starting to move the numbers of women who vote republican instead of democrat. Without looking up the numbers, I think it's a fair assumption. Of course, if someone pulls up the numbers, I could be wrong.

    For some reason Palin seems to think that she has that demographic, but the best numbers we have to support the Republican strategist's claims are from the 2008 election, when she was not terribly popular with women.

    If azith28 meant Tea Party voters, then I can't speak to that. They seem to like her.

    Gary Gygax wrote:
    ''The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules.''
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Speaking of women voters, I suspect that Bachmann's really obvious repeated mentions of her 5 children and 23 foster kids was an attempt to soften up her image with the female voters who have soured on Palin.

    I refuse to belive that bachmann is actually raising 28 children in her home. Maybe if she was a 60 year old social worker and talking about the entiretry of her career I could buy it, but 23 foster children sounds more like 12 year old boys bragging about how big their dicks are.

    Spoiler:
  • ForarForar #432 Already prepping for Toronto Fan Expo!Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    azith28 wrote: »
    well I'm feeling pretty confident that the huge amount of people in this thread voting for Bachman or palin are democrats trying to skew the vote to the least likely obama unseaters.

    There are scientific polls, unscientific polls, and "forum made up of primarily liberal/democratic posters with a smattering of conservatives/republicans who are mostly choosing the funniest option". I'd say that we just went over this, but we did manage to put out a good 25 pages in half a day, so even I can't be bothered going hunting for it.
    Santorum might have a shot due to experience.

    *snicker*

    Amidst the GOP contenders? Maybe. He's white, religious and has said some fairly batshit crazy things over the years.

    In the general? No. He really doesn't. The batshit crazy goes over well with Teapers and the hard religious right, but overall he'll get creamed... frothed... look it's going to be a mess nobody will want to clean up but somebody has to or its going to stain the sheets even worse.

    sigtwo.png
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Re: Herman cain.

    See, here's the thing Azith: Herman cain isn't a politician, so he's never had to worry about earning popular support based on his policys and his personality. as such, he's going to be in for a rude surprise if he actually clinches the nomination and gets pasted in the general.

    As to the other part about black voters: if presented with two black candidates the african american population will vote for obama. why? because cain is part of a party that has long been at odds with that demographic and I seriously question if he understands the concerns of that community.

    Spoiler:
  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Forar wrote: »
    There are scientific polls, unscientific polls, and "forum made up of primarily liberal/democratic posters with a smattering of conservatives/republicans who are mostly choosing the funniest option".

    Don't forget that we are most likely choosing the funniest option with the least chance of winning the general.

    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    It always amuses me when conservatives/republicans think that a token Negro is all it'll take to get black people to vote GOP. We're not stupid, and we don't just vote on race, no matter what you guys keep telling yourselves to explain why Obama gotalmost all the black vote. Putting a black face on the GOP doesn't make the party any friendlier to the poor and minorities. If anything, putting up a token like Cain is an insult to our intelligence, as if we don't know that the (R) is next to the name.

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • GoslingGosling Looking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, Probably Watertown, WIRegistered User regular
    edited June 2011
    MSNBC has on their site Breaking News that Huntsman will announce he's running next week.

    Ah, the hokey-pokey dance of announcing your run.

    I have a blog. Read it. Blog-reading makes you pretty and popular.
  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    wwtMask wrote: »
    It always amuses me when conservatives/republicans think that a token Negro is all it'll take to get black people to vote GOP. We're not stupid, and we don't just vote on race, no matter what you guys keep telling yourselves to explain why Obama gotalmost all the black vote. Putting a black face on the GOP doesn't make the party any friendlier to the poor and minorities. If anything, putting up a token like Cain is an insult to our intelligence, as if we don't know that the (R) is next to the name.

    Seeing as how they had the same expectations with Palin, it reasons that the conservatives/Republicans just don't get it.

    steam_sig.png
  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Lawndart wrote: »
    South host wrote: »
    OK, I was in class and missed most of the debate, just catching the recap. Did Gingrich really say we should do loyalty test for people in government? McCarthy style?

    No, he said that it doesn't matter if Muslims take loyalty oaths, because they just lie in order to carry out terrorist bombings, so we should root them out like the Nazis and Communists.

    Yes, Newt Gingrich just made Joe McCarthy seem sane in comparison.

    I didn't see the debate, but that's actually true (if phrased terribly poorly.) If someone is infiltrating the government to do nefarious things, lying about a loyalty oath is really no big deal. You'd be much better served by thoroughly vetting them.

    sig.png
  • HedgethornHedgethorn Associate Professor of Historical Hobby Horses In the Lions' DenRegistered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Gosling wrote: »
    MSNBC has on their site Breaking News that Huntsman will announce he's running next week.

    Ah, the hokey-pokey dance of announcing your run.

    I'm sure somewhere there's an academic paper discussing whether it's possible to announce that you're going to announce that you're running, without ipso facto announcing that you're running.

    IOW: Can't MSNBC just say: "Breaking News -- Jon Huntsman announces presidential campaign."

  • TaramoorTaramoor Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Hedgethorn wrote: »
    Gosling wrote: »
    MSNBC has on their site Breaking News that Huntsman will announce he's running next week.

    Ah, the hokey-pokey dance of announcing your run.

    I'm sure somewhere there's an academic paper discussing whether it's possible to announce that you're going to announce that you're running, without ipso facto announcing that you're running.

    IOW: Can't MSNBC just say: "Breaking News -- Jon Huntsman announces presidential campaign."

    Why would you need an academic paper when that's what Newt Gingrich did?

    He announced via twitter that he was going to announce that he was announcing a run for president.

  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    DoctorArch wrote: »
    Dynagrip wrote: »
    KalTorak wrote: »
    One of the complaints I hear a lot about Kerry is that he ran on "I'm not Bush!" and not much else. And it seems like all these candidates are running on "I'm not Obama," plus crazy. I may be wrong but I remember Bush being less popular in 2004 than Obama at the moment; I don't think that strategy is going to work any better this time around.
    well, the republicans can also appeal to racism this time around, which helps them out in horribly biggoted and backwater areas such as the pacific northwest.

    What the hell? o_O

    I've heard wild stories of racism and bigotry outside the big cities.

  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Taramoor wrote: »
    Hedgethorn wrote: »
    Gosling wrote: »
    MSNBC has on their site Breaking News that Huntsman will announce he's running next week.

    Ah, the hokey-pokey dance of announcing your run.

    I'm sure somewhere there's an academic paper discussing whether it's possible to announce that you're going to announce that you're running, without ipso facto announcing that you're running.

    IOW: Can't MSNBC just say: "Breaking News -- Jon Huntsman announces presidential campaign."

    Why would you need an academic paper when that's what Newt Gingrich did?

    He announced via twitter that he was going to announce that he was announcing a run for president.

    At some point you have so many nested announcements that your entire campaign collapses into a blue screen of death.

    steam_sig.png
  • dojangodojango Registered User
    edited June 2011
    DoctorArch wrote: »
    Dynagrip wrote: »
    KalTorak wrote: »
    One of the complaints I hear a lot about Kerry is that he ran on "I'm not Bush!" and not much else. And it seems like all these candidates are running on "I'm not Obama," plus crazy. I may be wrong but I remember Bush being less popular in 2004 than Obama at the moment; I don't think that strategy is going to work any better this time around.
    well, the republicans can also appeal to racism this time around, which helps them out in horribly biggoted and backwater areas such as the pacific northwest.

    What the hell? o_O

    Well, although Obama will probably win Oregon and Washington, but I reckon the 2012 Republican candidate will have a lock on Idaho!

  • TaramoorTaramoor Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    MKR wrote: »
    DoctorArch wrote: »
    Dynagrip wrote: »
    KalTorak wrote: »
    One of the complaints I hear a lot about Kerry is that he ran on "I'm not Bush!" and not much else. And it seems like all these candidates are running on "I'm not Obama," plus crazy. I may be wrong but I remember Bush being less popular in 2004 than Obama at the moment; I don't think that strategy is going to work any better this time around.
    well, the republicans can also appeal to racism this time around, which helps them out in horribly biggoted and backwater areas such as the pacific northwest.

    What the hell? o_O

    I've heard wild stories of racism and bigotry outside the big cities.

    You actually have to get east of the Cascades before Washington turns into Idaho-lite

    Or south of Olympia...

    Or north of Mukilteo...

    Or west of Seattle...

    Just, nevermind.

  • LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Lawndart wrote: »
    South host wrote: »
    OK, I was in class and missed most of the debate, just catching the recap. Did Gingrich really say we should do loyalty test for people in government? McCarthy style?

    No, he said that it doesn't matter if Muslims take loyalty oaths, because they just lie in order to carry out terrorist bombings, so we should root them out like the Nazis and Communists.

    Yes, Newt Gingrich just made Joe McCarthy seem sane in comparison.

    I didn't see the debate, but that's actually true (if phrased terribly poorly.) If someone is infiltrating the government to do nefarious things, lying about a loyalty oath is really no big deal. You'd be much better served by thoroughly vetting them.

    From the CNN transcript:
    GINGRICH: I just want to comment for a second. The Pakistani who emigrated to the U.S. became a citizen, built a car bomb which luckily failed to go off in Times Square was asked by the federal judge, how could he have done that when he signed -- when he swore an oath to the United States. And he looked at the judge and said, "You're my enemy. I lied."

    Now, I just want to go out on a limb here. I'm in favor of saying to people, if you're not prepared to be loyal to the United States, you will not serve in my administration, period.

    (APPLAUSE)

    GINGRICH: We did this -- we did this in dealing with the Nazis and we did this in dealing with the communists. And it was controversial both times, and both times we discovered after a while, you know, there are some genuinely bad people who would like to infiltrate our country. And we have got to have the guts to stand up and say no.

  • FencingsaxFencingsax Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Hedgethorn wrote: »
    Gosling wrote: »
    MSNBC has on their site Breaking News that Huntsman will announce he's running next week.

    Ah, the hokey-pokey dance of announcing your run.

    I'm sure somewhere there's an academic paper discussing whether it's possible to announce that you're going to announce that you're running, without ipso facto announcing that you're running.

    IOW: Can't MSNBC just say: "Breaking News -- Jon Huntsman announces presidential campaign."

    It has to do with campaign finance, I assume. This is just the way to get around the regulation.

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
  • TwoQuestionsTwoQuestions Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Lawndart wrote: »
    South host wrote: »
    OK, I was in class and missed most of the debate, just catching the recap. Did Gingrich really say we should do loyalty test for people in government? McCarthy style?

    No, he said that it doesn't matter if Muslims take loyalty oaths, because they just lie in order to carry out terrorist bombings, so we should root them out like the Nazis and Communists.

    Yes, Newt Gingrich just made Joe McCarthy seem sane in comparison.

    I didn't see the debate, but that's actually true (if phrased terribly poorly.) If someone is infiltrating the government to do nefarious things, lying about a loyalty oath is really no big deal. You'd be much better served by thoroughly vetting them.

    From the CNN transcript:
    GINGRICH: I just want to comment for a second. The Pakistani who emigrated to the U.S. became a citizen, built a car bomb which luckily failed to go off in Times Square was asked by the federal judge, how could he have done that when he signed -- when he swore an oath to the United States. And he looked at the judge and said, "You're my enemy. I lied."

    Now, I just want to go out on a limb here. I'm in favor of saying to people, if you're not prepared to be loyal to the United States, you will not serve in my administration, period.

    (APPLAUSE)

    GINGRICH: We did this -- we did this in dealing with the Nazis and we did this in dealing with the communists. And it was controversial both times, and both times we discovered after a while, you know, there are some genuinely bad people who would like to infiltrate our country. And we have got to have the guts to stand up and say no.

    I think I found the ideal Republican presidential nominee...

    Retri_adrastia_portrait.png

    Purge the unclean...

    steam_sig.png
  • ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Lawndart wrote: »
    South host wrote: »
    OK, I was in class and missed most of the debate, just catching the recap. Did Gingrich really say we should do loyalty test for people in government? McCarthy style?

    No, he said that it doesn't matter if Muslims take loyalty oaths, because they just lie in order to carry out terrorist bombings, so we should root them out like the Nazis and Communists.

    Yes, Newt Gingrich just made Joe McCarthy seem sane in comparison.

    I didn't see the debate, but that's actually true (if phrased terribly poorly.) If someone is infiltrating the government to do nefarious things, lying about a loyalty oath is really no big deal. You'd be much better served by thoroughly vetting them.

    From the CNN transcript:
    GINGRICH: I just want to comment for a second. The Pakistani who emigrated to the U.S. became a citizen, built a car bomb which luckily failed to go off in Times Square was asked by the federal judge, how could he have done that when he signed -- when he swore an oath to the United States. And he looked at the judge and said, "You're my enemy. I lied."

    Now, I just want to go out on a limb here. I'm in favor of saying to people, if you're not prepared to be loyal to the United States, you will not serve in my administration, period.

    (APPLAUSE)

    GINGRICH: We did this -- we did this in dealing with the Nazis and we did this in dealing with the communists. And it was controversial both times, and both times we discovered after a while, you know, there are some genuinely bad people who would like to infiltrate our country. And we have got to have the guts to stand up and say no.

    Utterly confused. He suggests loyalty oaths right after telling a story about the futility of such things because people not inclined to take such oaths, can just lie?

    And people applauded?

    Automata-Sg.png
  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Since normal terrorists can fake their loyalty oaths, anyone who's incapable of giving a loyalty oath must be some kind of super-terrorist whose fiery disdain for the country cannot be hidden.

    They'd kill 3,000 or 30,000, or 300,000 or 3,000,000, or 30,000,000 million people (if they could)!

  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Yeah I like that.

    Sometimes we just have to stand up and say "let's do something proven ineffective"

  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Whole debate is up on youtube (in 3 parts).

    Just for the love of all that is holy stay out of the comments.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. On Hiatus!

    Any gamers in the Danville, PA area? PM me if you're interested in some tabletop gaming.
  • KetBraKetBra hiRegistered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Why...why did I read the comments...?

    sig.png
  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    How come Ron Paul's the only Republican with supporters who know how to use the internet? They're the only Republicans I ever see in comments sections.

  • devCharlesdevCharles Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    There's only one person to blame for this announce to announce crap, and I think you all know who I'm talking about.
    Spoiler:
    Utterly confused. He suggests loyalty oaths right after telling a story about the futility of such things because people not inclined to take such oaths, can just lie?

    I asked that exact question while watching it last night. Loyalty oaths are important even though they're useless?

    Xbox Live: Hero Protag
    SteamID: devCharles
    twitter: https://twitter.com/charlesewise
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    How come Ron Paul's the only Republican with supporters who know how to use the internet? They're the only Republicans I ever see in comments sections.

    Neckbeards tend to be libertarian and internet commenters are almost 95% neckbeard.

  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    How come Ron Paul's the only Republican with supporters who know how to use the internet? They're the only Republicans I ever see in comments sections.
    He's the only Republican with any amount of under-40 brain space. There isn't a lot of penetration there for Gingrich or Romney. There isn't really for Paul either, just more than the other old white people free marketeers.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. On Hiatus!

    Any gamers in the Danville, PA area? PM me if you're interested in some tabletop gaming.
  • YallYall Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Can someone explain the logic behind their notion that Sarbanes/Oxley and Frank/Dodd are somehow "killing" jobs?

    Do these dolts have any clue how many people companies have hired to ensure compliance with this stuff?

    What happens if Sarbanes/Oxley is gone tomorrow? How will that somehow turn into more positions now that companies ostensibly will have less work to do?

  • Bionic MonkeyBionic Monkey Registered User, ClubPA
    edited June 2011
    MKR wrote: »
    DoctorArch wrote: »
    Dynagrip wrote: »
    KalTorak wrote: »
    One of the complaints I hear a lot about Kerry is that he ran on "I'm not Bush!" and not much else. And it seems like all these candidates are running on "I'm not Obama," plus crazy. I may be wrong but I remember Bush being less popular in 2004 than Obama at the moment; I don't think that strategy is going to work any better this time around.
    well, the republicans can also appeal to racism this time around, which helps them out in horribly biggoted and backwater areas such as the pacific northwest.

    What the hell? o_O

    I've heard wild stories of racism and bigotry outside the big cities.

    Well, the I5 corridor is a pretty notorious hotbed of KKK activity, but it's not like we're tripping over racists every time we turn the corner over here.

    sig_megas_armed.jpg
  • AmphetamineAmphetamine Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    watching this on dvr

    did... did gingrich compare muslims to nazis or...?

  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    America is unique in that we have both a ton of rural areas and infrastructure that is close enough to first world that people in those rural areas aren't spending 99% of their time just trying to stay alive. Plus a history severe racial inequity and tension.

    Put all that together and you've got a lot of really fucked up pockets to be found out there.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. On Hiatus!

    Any gamers in the Danville, PA area? PM me if you're interested in some tabletop gaming.
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    watching this on dvr

    did... did gingrich compare muslims to nazis or...?
    Yeah. Yeah he did.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. On Hiatus!

    Any gamers in the Danville, PA area? PM me if you're interested in some tabletop gaming.
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    watching this on dvr

    did... did gingrich compare muslims to nazis or...?
    Yeah. Yeah he did.

    The worst part for the GOP thats not an absurd stance, thats pretty much a mainstream republican ideal.

  • CervetusCervetus Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Just started the debate now. I always get a kick out of politicians saying they aren't politicians. "I am currently engaged in the political process so that I can hold a political office! How not-politician is that?!"

    The libertarian response to anything is, "Sure, that works fine in practice, but it doesn't fly in theory."
This discussion has been closed.