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.
Posts
I think his argument applies just as well to sexism and the whole "War on Women? What War on Women? All I see is a bunch of legislation about fetal rights" thing.
I don't think it's only that. I think it's also that they equate racism with owning slaves or setting fire hoses and dogs on people. Not as "small" things such as not hiring because they make you uncomfortable or thinking that random ones walking around could be criminals.
It's like the person who holds people emotionally hostage but says, "I'm not abusive! There are guys that hit their wives!"
My pet theory about this is that I suspect the GOP is treating this election a bit like a litmus test. Two moderates with big money behind them - Can They Win? Here are the potential outcomes:
1) They win big - this is the worst possible outcome, and not just in a "we lost the election" way. It confirms to the party leadership that their ass-backwards crazy faction can still be counted on to buy, no matter what they're selling. It may free them up to be a little more progressive on social issues. After all, who are the pro-lifers going to vote for, a liberal? But more importantly, it does nothing to rebuke their economic policies, and they're basically given carte blanche to win elections so long as party id numbers are in their favor.
2) They win marginally - this is also pretty bad. The "I'll just stay home if a moderate is on the ticket" contingent isn't completely an empty threat. That, or party id numbers just aren't in their favor. This means that they'll have to continue to run just enough to the right to court the crazies, preventing those who want to be on "the right side of history" from making any headway. Economically, this is no better than 1.
3) They lose marginally - This leaves them in a bit of a lurch. The crazies did stay home, and they MUST be appeased to win elections. The leadership will have to make a decision where to try and recoup voter share, either from the middle, or from the far right. Dashing hard right is pretty short-sighted, the base is not sustainable as-is. The question, I suppose, is this - how much of the party thinks they can "get theirs" before the base becomes irreparably unreliable?
4) They lose big - Imagine 3, but more so. This is my "boo-freakin'-hoo/fuck'em" option. I don't know what their response to losing big will be, and frankly I do not care. If they're on the wrong side of history for social issues and the income inequality issue is a big winner for Dems, what do they have to run on in 4 years? The projection strategy will have failed. If they're smart, they'll go into the wilderness for 40 days and 40 nights and emerge a stronger, saner party with an eye for actual fiscal conservatism, not just "starve the beast" capitalism, but I'm not going to cling too tightly to that dream.
I like Coates a lot of the time, but I think he misses the mark here. The slur has little effect on conservatives now because it's been so thoroughly devalued over the past 20 years, by chronic misuse. It has been used as a political weapon against conservatives who are not racist, for political gain, so often, that it's hard to take seriously beyond its deployment as a tactic.
We mostly have Sharpton and his ilk to thank for that.
We at least have him and his ilk to blame for today's society being completely unable to have honest discussions about subcultures wherein race plays a key role.
But then again, a lot of people are to blame for that, on all sides.
politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/18/cnn-poll-of-polls-all-knotted-up-between-obama-and-romney/?hpt=hp_t2
Anybody?
Nadine Seksuel, Human Swashbuckler - Wyvern Watch DW
GM of [Deadlands: Reloaded] Coffin Rock
This line right here - takes a lot of wind out of that sail me thinks.
ROTFL
It's a poll or polls, seven months out of the election, before the general even heats up.
It's also on par with what's been predicted.
So, no, it's not as bad as it seems.
Prepare to stay bothered - I don't know if Romney will win but I feel comfortable saying he'll at least get 45% of the vote.
Probably. There's no such thing as landslide victories for president anymore.
Those 7 point polls that keep being talked about in here are 'swing state' polls, generally. Flordia, Ohio, Iowa, Virginia, Hell - fucking North Carolina is in play here.
Otherwise known as 'the reason romney will lose this election' since Obama is at +5% in most of those states.
Because those aren't the actual numbers from the polls?
RealClearPolitic shows the last 4 polls from those 4 groups to be
CBS News/NY Times - Tie
Gallup Tracking - Romney +4
CNN/Opinion Research - Obama +9
Reuters/Ipsos - Obama +4
Rasmussen Tracking - Romney +4
Pew Research - Obama +4
(neither of these two were included)
Now, Romney should be concerned that he is consistently polling quite low in swing states. Like, Virginia is up for grabs. This does not bode well for Republicans.
Being consistently (slightly) outside the margin of error in Florida is the big one.
My Backloggery
Less chronic misuse and more just chronic use.
Shit be racist.
Arizona
little heavy on the "hope" there guys
Maybe they are banking on how crazy Arizona is. Maybe in some kind of statewide psychotic bender they'll all vote Obama if you give them proper conditioning.
My Backloggery
You mean the state where they've implemented draconian new immigration checks and laws and the latino population is understandably pissed?
I don't know if they could turn the whole state, but they could probably do some damage.
Latino voters.