WE WERE SO CLOSE. Three pages away from completing an American politics thread in Debate and Discourse that wasn't locked for going horribly and belligerently off-topic, just
three (3) (III). But alas.
I'm starting a new thread now mainly because I think the thread title is both clever and also educational so I want to reserve the right to ensconce it on the forums as a semi-permanent fixture. Let us gaze upon it and ponder how maybe it's our fault we can't have nice things? I sort of doubt anyone has anything interesting to say about political primaries tonight (judging from the last couple pages of the previous thread anyway). In the immediate future, I'll be writing a new OP which sort of condenses down everything that's happened over the last couple of weeks in the primary. A quick run down:
*Herman Cain will apparently be pulling out prematurely -- no word from the women who accuse him of sexual impropriety as to whether or not that's something Herman Cain normally does.
*Newt Gingrich takes over the mantle of Not Romney, complains it smells like Perry's hair products.
*There was a third thing I wanted to mention, but I can't remember what it... uh... oops.
*Michelle Bachmann today offered a scathing criticism on our diplomatic presence in Tehran, later learned that Jimmy Carter isn't the incumbent. [h/t to Bagginses -- totally better than what I wrote]
*9-9-9!
*Ron Paul posting double-digits in Iowa right now, set to over-perform since everyone's ground game is looking kind of weak right now.
*Mitt Romney is still Mormon. He was Mormon yesterday, and he'll be Mormon tomorrow. So maybe we don't have to talk about it today?
UPDATE: 1 Dec 2011And now, a message about on-topic posting for those devoid of common sense
BUT SAMMY! However will I know if I'm posting in the right thread?
That's a great question, rhetorical device! Generally speaking, if your post makes a direct reference to either a candidate or an electorate, then you're almost certainly talking about an election; good for you! If your post doesn't make a direct reference to either of these things, you should probably take a second to ask yourself why. And as a rule, if your post either begins or ends with any of the following real-world statements:
*This is the closest thread for this...
*I know this is kind of a tangent...
*Sorry for bringing this thread off topic...
Then you certainly ought to know better than to hit reply. Go ahead and delete everything you wrote, or copy/paste it into your own thread should you so choose.
AND FOR GOD'S SAKE, PEOPLE, STOP FUCKING REPLYING TO POSTS WHICH INCLUDE THESE PHRASES
Everyone take a page out of Herman Cain's book as we go forward: either stay on message, or just sit there and say nothing.
9-9-9!
Posts
Dec 10 and 15. Last ones before voting starts, I think.
And this happened.
-.-
Although Newt probably has slightly more mainstream appeal than Perry or Bachmann, in that he's less inclined to say insane things (unless you bring up taxes)... look at the guy. He's a miniature version of the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man.
Looks are a significant factor in politics, and Newt is a fat slob. He will not be close second place this year (his hair is also completely white, which seems to be a turn-off for most people).
Is there anything about Gingritch that isn't white?
Man, I thought with her committee membership she was supposed to be the one who knew something about foreign policy.
Stay Puft isn't ethically fit to be the leader of a country, as evidenced by the treatment he gave his ill wife, but I'll say this - at least there's one or two things to be liked about him. He's pro-conservation, he's a space enthusiast, he's an advocate for education and, in general, he's pretty pro-science.
Little to none of that can be said of his primary opponents.
I...guess that's plausible? Although I have no idea how you talk hypothetically about something that doesn't even exist. It'd be like campaigning against the West Dakota state legislature's bill on something or other.
Personally, I think she's just trying to further emulate Ronald Reagan. By campaigning against Jimmy Carter.
This sounds plausible to me. Of course, a transcript will sort it out for sure either way.
If he has, it's news to me. A big part of the reason Stay Puft switched to Catholicism was their stance on science issues.
He's "space enthusiast" but thinks NASA should have been shut down decades ago so the private sector would have built bases on the moon by now or some dumb bullshit that would never have happened.
I thought Newt also flipped his position on immigration recently too. Or just had a terrible one or something.
"blanket everything with generic statements: say "x" is possible and just put "and god did it" afterwards"? (example: "Sure aliens could exist, and god did it")
This way if there wrong its no big deal and all hypothetical, but if there right, the pope gets to wear this shirt:
Thats so much being pro science as it's pro-business of manipulation. I guess how that could be seen as useful to politics though.
"The first thing I would do is close the US embassy there."
Can't make this stuff up, folks. Oh, and she also said that Rick Santorum would make a great VP or AG for her presidency. I'm pretty sure Rick Santorum can't even make a great bowl of microwave popcorn.
No, not really. He has more or less the same stance as Phil Plait. I don't really agree that it's the best way to approach space exploration, but both of them make very valid points about NASA and why we've been hanging around in LEO for so long.
Um, no. On a lot of topics the Vatican has real experts serving as advisors (astronomy, biology, geology, etc). Yes, they still ignore everyone's favourite razor, but - for a layman - the Catholic church is easily one of the most science-friendly religious organizations around (partly because their competitors are so backwards).
Ew, don't mention things like a Santorum and popcorn in the same paragraph, please. I eat popcorn.
Ostensibly you can't, but that version of events doesn't match what the reporter from NBC says happened -- that she mentioned that she'd close the embassy during a campaign speech in Iowa.
I'm starting to get the sinking feeling that this story has been retold so many times that it's no longer factually accurate.
I'm inclined to go with her staffers at the moment. It sounds like she was talking about the British embassy, and mentioned the American embassy as a hypothetical.
It should probably be pointed-out that the idea is dumb as shit anyway, even if you did really have an embassy there.
She's already accomplished what I thought she was after, i.e., rile up the hard-right enough to solidify her book deal(s) and future show on Fox News, yet she persists in her delusion that she's actually a real candidate for office. If she's not careful, I'm going to start to think her crazypants horseshit isn't just a cynical ploy, but rather a legitimate expression of her mental illness like her best buddy, Rick Santorum.
And god, what would a Bachmann/Santorum administration look like. "Hey folks, we may not know a gol' durned thing about no economic recovery or foreign policy, but we're pretty sure everyone is on board with our Make All Gays Have Rape Babies Act."
Its alot like how america is in general. You have some really smart people, really reasonable people. but then you talk to the average and all that goes out the window. This is how I see it, they do have those experts, yes. They do use common sense and say "dont be silly, we can use common sense when approaching this subject!" and be absolutely reasonable about things. Personally I believe these people are just good people(if they had been led into religion or not). However once you move into the mainstream it gets a hell of a lot worse and suddenly those experts dont even exist or those claims are the devil. The middle is the uninformed,misguided and brainwashed. Usually into the wrong stance due to fear. From who? the "bad" people.
I think the point I want to make is the RCC get those people for show, they dont actually care what there saying as they will just deny it when it suits them. It's blanket coverage that they can and still will call blasphemy or lies and still take the credit for if they're right.
edit: I fucked all the quotes up. whoops
Can I introduce you to my friend, the Dark Ages?
http://www.youtube.com/embed/CWKTOCP45zY
(BTW, how the hell do you do inline youtube?)
This circular firing squad has to end!
The man is the definition of a milquetoast. The second people don't have to pay attention to him, he's finished. Why attack someone who will fade at the first opportunity?
Maybe not for much longer:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2011/11/back_to_the_murdoch_primary_pt2.php?ref=fpblg
Basically, with Gingrich rising again, Ailes and Fox News may have begun turning on Romney for a more palatable candidate.
Lets review shall we?
Bachman: burned out months ago, but like a punch drunk boxer she won't stop fighting until she's dragged from the arena by her staff who realize how brutalized she actually is.
Santorum: Google=death for him.
Newt: He's deeply in debt and hasn't even started campaigning in the primaries.
Cain: has absolutely no idea what the hell forign policy is.
Perry: can't remember 3 things at a time.
No. Mitt may be an utter weather vane of politics but he has the sort of Bush Jr. charm that the republican base eats up and when the smoke clears will be the nominee.
I heard about the latest going ons via the Howard Stern Show. Cain is really kinda digging himself into an inescapable hole. But then Romney's religion comes up again and... This whole thing is a whack-a-mole. People rise up and fall down on a constant basis. The only person who has been consistent in this entire running is Bachmann - she's always been an under-performer in this whole 'race.' Oh, her and... what's his face, Santorem I think? God I can't even remember that dude, how embarrassing.
What the hell happened to Ron Paul in your review there?
I don't remember it.
I'm not the strictest of people in following politics, but I follow it closer than most people tend to. And if I forgot a 'victory' of that sort, it only goes to show the meaningless of the event. The constant rise and fall, as I mentioned, totally undoes anything these candidates "work" to do. Which is drum thumping at the moment. Part of it is because they work on burying each other's accomplishments.
Edit - As I was typing the post, I did remember it. But again, back when it happened, it was questioned as an odd fluke.
It wasn't a fluke, it was her pouring alot of money into the thing to get a big surge in attention and such (and thus gain votes and funding).
And it was working.
The problem was Perry, the great white not-yet-declared messiah at that time, declared like days later and basically cut the legs out from under her campaign by stealing all the media attention. She's never recovered.
I wonder how much media attention plays into all this, swaying opinions. Because Fox is NOT dedicating people to any one candidate, and by the time they have to vote, people are going to be flabbergasted.
God doesn't love us enough for that to happen
She was as relevant as Cain was when he was getting his surge. And is as relevant as Cain is now.