This is one of the large reasons I refuse to leave the party. There's much about the conservative philosophy that I agree with wholeheartedly, and somebody has to keep moderating the GOP or none of it will be represented nationally.
What, exactly, appeals to you about it?
It's really the wrong thread for a discussion of exactly why I'm a conservative! It's a collection of reasons, ranging from negative responses to leftist policies and actions, agreement with conservative writers, and a series of policy goals I've supported in the past, or do now. It's my house - the plumbing is kind of fucked up and there's something sinister haunting the basement, but I want to fix the pipes and exorcise whatever the fuck is making those noises and breaking my crockery, not burn the place down and move in with the guys across the street.
Those guys never mow their grass, I swear.
We don't care that you're a conservative. Honestly, while I disagree with you on a number of things if you were running for office against my Congressman I'd probably vote for you. You're consistent in your positions but aren't afraid to change them if provided with sufficient empirical evidence, are typically able to articulate WHY you hold those positions, and those reasons usually include more than "because it pisses off Democrats!".
We just wonder why you're a Republican when they seem to have no intention of helping you in any way or supporting any of the things you believe in.
I think it's important to remember that one can be a Republican and yet vote for a Democrat. That's what I've been doing.
Second, I will make our business taxation globally competitive. I will reduce the corporate tax rate to 25%. Currently, it's among the highest in the developed world; I will bring it in line with other nations.
But if you are actually using base broadening to keep shit revenue neutral, that would result in many companies paying more money thanks to lack of loopholes, effectively increasing the real rate despite lowering the nominal rate.
These changes will not add to the deficit. Stronger economic growth, spending cuts, and base broadening will offset the reductions. Middle-income Americans will continue to enjoy tax benefits that favor important priorities, including home ownership, charitable giving, health care, and savings. But there will be some changes in the current deductions and exemptions for higher-income Americans. Those who receive the greatest benefit from rate cuts will see the most significant limits.
Stronger economic growth through cutting spending makes perfect sense.
He will be beholden to the far right as they will be the ones in Congress. The Republicans in Congress currently hate the shit Bush did like NCLB. Why would they treat Romney differently when they have already shown they don't really care for him?
Everyone hates NCLB. This is one of the most sensible positions the right wing holds.
If you factor in shit like how skilled they are and experience, the wages are generally worse but the benefits greater, aren't they?
For example, this is the req for getting a GS11 position as basically IT Help Desk (a GS11 Step 1 starts at 50k before area adjustment)
To qualify at the GS-11 grade level, you must have at least one FULL year specialized experience equivalent to at least the GS-9 grade level. Specialized experience is experience that equipped the applicant with particular knowledge, skills and abilities to perform successfully the duties of the position, and that is typically in or related to the position to be filled. Specialized experience includes all of the following: supporting 50 or more users as a desktop support technician (or equivalent role); installing and configuring small systems hardware and software in a Microsoft desktop environment; administering access, security roles, and user accounts for an SAP-based Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system; managing and accounting for an inventory of hardware and software; diagnosing and troubleshooting problems with PC applications; diagnosing and troubleshooting connectivity problems; diagnosing and troubleshooting access and account problems in an SAP-based Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system; instructing end-users in the basics of Microsoft desktop applications, Microsoft networking, and the SAP production environment; communicating technical concepts and principles to a non-technical audience; writing Root Cause Analysis (RCA) reports containing the results of diagnostics and troubleshooting.
OR A Ph.D. or equivalent doctoral degree or three years of progressively higher level graduate education* leading to a Ph.D. OR a combination of graduate education and specialized experience that totals 100% of the requirement for the GS-11.
If you don't have that experience (Total of like 6-7 years or a PhD) you start as a GS-9, $41k. That requires like 5 years or a MASTERS.
mindspork on
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
He will be beholden to the far right as they will be the ones in Congress. The Republicans in Congress currently hate the shit Bush did like NCLB. Why would they treat Romney differently when they have already shown they don't really care for him?
Everyone hates NCLB. This is one of the most sensible positions the right wing holds.
The problem I have with the Republican mainline about NCLB is that they want to trash it and then replace it with nothing and stick local districts with the bill for education.
Which doesn't do anything for providing a solid, across the board education system for all Americans.
I hate NCLB, I came up through public school in the rise of the FCAT, I know how shit it is. But everytime a GOP candidate starts talking about education they start parroting Ron Paul about how the government has no business to provide education. Which I disagree with. But education reform is my pet cause, so I'll go back in my corner now.
First, I will make an across-the-board, 20% reduction in marginal individual income tax rates. By reducing the tax on the next dollar of income earned by all taxpayers, we will encourage hard work, risk-taking, and productivity by allowing Americans to keep more of what they earn.
The businesses that pay taxes through the individual income tax system account for more than half of all private sector jobs in the United States. So this tax cut will encourage businesses to hire, raise wages, and grow the economy.
But there will be some changes in the current deductions and exemptions for higher-income Americans. Those who receive the greatest benefit from rate cuts will see the most significant limits.
The whole things seem contradictory. He is trying to advertise this as a massive tax cut when it looks more like just an attempt at restructuring the tax base through elimination. Those businesses would theoretically see their taxes rise because of less deductions while the middle and lower classes keep their deductions so the difference has to come from somewhere. Any spending cuts shouldn't add up to much because most of his shit is long term to avoid pissing off seniors. Claiming that tax cuts will help pay for themselves is pretty much a joke at this point.
I would expect the tax cuts to succeed while special interests ensure the rest doesn't exceed though I admit I'm not an expert on this shit.
The whole thing just seems like bullshit:
My administration will also make the hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts necessary to reduce spending to 20% of GDP by the end of my first term. I will cap it there. And then, without sacrificing our military superiority, I will balance the budget.
But government spending should rise in a recession unless you are in no way neo-Keynesion.
He will be beholden to the far right as they will be the ones in Congress. The Republicans in Congress currently hate the shit Bush did like NCLB. Why would they treat Romney differently when they have already shown they don't really care for him?
Everyone hates NCLB. This is one of the most sensible positions the right wing holds.
The problem I have with the Republican mainline about NCLB is that they want to trash it and then replace it with nothing and stick local districts with the bill for education.
Which doesn't do anything for providing a solid, across the board education system for all Americans.
I hate NCLB, I came up through public school in the rise of the FCAT, I know how shit it is. But everytime a GOP candidate starts talking about education they start parroting Ron Paul about how the government has no business to provide education. Which I disagree with. But education reform is my pet cause, so I'll go back in my corner now.
Paying for education is on the short list of things government should be doing. The prospect of abuse in how the money gets spent is super high in like a dozen different ways.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
He will be beholden to the far right as they will be the ones in Congress. The Republicans in Congress currently hate the shit Bush did like NCLB. Why would they treat Romney differently when they have already shown they don't really care for him?
Everyone hates NCLB. This is one of the most sensible positions the right wing holds.
The problem I have with the Republican mainline about NCLB is that they want to trash it and then replace it with nothing and stick local districts with the bill for education.
Which doesn't do anything for providing a solid, across the board education system for all Americans.
I hate NCLB, I came up through public school in the rise of the FCAT, I know how shit it is. But everytime a GOP candidate starts talking about education they start parroting Ron Paul about how the government has no business to provide education. Which I disagree with. But education reform is my pet cause, so I'll go back in my corner now.
Paying for education is on the short list of things government should be doing. The prospect of abuse in how the money gets spent is super high in like a dozen different ways.
The prospect of abuse is high in every transaction. The actual instance of abuse is much lower than the current slate of candidates would have us believe, and not just in education.
On that note, all the candidates talk about rolling back power to the states because, I think this is Romney's line, local powers can spend the money much better. Every federal program is run at the state level already, so I don't know where this magic abuse is coming from.
The federal/state distribution is a debate that we could have with clear heads, there's a thread floating in the PA ether somewhere out there, but the current GOP is anything but sane about it.
If you're a conservative and you want to see the country move forward and you're not a bigot then Barack Obama is your candidate. I dare say he's tried to be more conservative that Reagan, certainly Ghost Jesus Reagan that the GOP keeps dry humping.
If you factor in shit like how skilled they are and experience, the wages are generally worse but the benefits greater, aren't they?
At the low end of the spectrum (high school degree or some college experience, little-to-no work experience) government workers make slightly more than private-sector equivalents. At the high end of the spectrum (MA/MS, PhD, advanced professional licenses, significant work experience, etc.) government workers make significantly less than private-sector equivalents.
How is it even possible that this man is this incredibly bad at running for President after 5 years?
Romney received an instant avalanche of criticism on Twitter after the speech for saying of his wife's affection for American cars, "Ann drives a couple Cadillacs, actually." (A Cadillac SRX, a campaign spokesman later confirmed. She has one at their home in California and another in Massachusetts. Mitt, for his part, owns a Ford Mustang and a Ford truck.)
How can anyone running for the highest elected office in the country be that completely politically tone-deaf? O_o
It is true that Mr. Romney’s campaign did not treat this speech as a rally, making no attempt to fill the stadium. This was an economic speech that was moved to Ford Field after the number of people who wanted to attend grew larger than the earlier location could allow.
But in politics, it is always better to show an overly crowded venue than an overly empty one. So the decision to move the event to Ford Field was an unfortunate one for Mr. Romney.
How is that dishonest? I'll admit that the XL Center photo shows a bit less of the field, and the stadium may well be smaller, but the contrast is still remarkable.
What's dishonest about it? It's just a comparison showing the different levels of voter turnout. Romney's been pulling low numbers the whole race. Now, arguably it'd be more "fair" to compare it with an Obama event this year but then again you have the leading light of the opposition party attempting to run against what his base see as a "failed" president. So, not that different.
He will be beholden to the far right as they will be the ones in Congress. The Republicans in Congress currently hate the shit Bush did like NCLB. Why would they treat Romney differently when they have already shown they don't really care for him?
Everyone hates NCLB. This is one of the most sensible positions the right wing holds.
The problem I have with the Republican mainline about NCLB is that they want to trash it and then replace it with nothing and stick local districts with the bill for education.
Which doesn't do anything for providing a solid, across the board education system for all Americans.
I hate NCLB, I came up through public school in the rise of the FCAT, I know how shit it is. But everytime a GOP candidate starts talking about education they start parroting Ron Paul about how the government has no business to provide education. Which I disagree with. But education reform is my pet cause, so I'll go back in my corner now.
Paying for education is on the short list of things government should be doing. The prospect of abuse in how the money gets spent is super high in like a dozen different ways.
The prospect of abuse is high in every transaction. The actual instance of abuse is much lower than the current slate of candidates would have us believe, and not just in education.
...
If you're a conservative and you want to see the country move forward and you're not a bigot then Barack Obama is your candidate. I dare say he's tried to be more conservative that Reagan, certainly Ghost Jesus Reagan that the GOP keeps dry humping.
I'm not sure we're thinking of the same things when we say 'abuse'. I'm including promoting a political or social agenda (left and right), defending union jobs instead of boosting education, distributing funds unevenly or wasting them on proven bad ideas... The incidence of the abuse I'm talking about is super fucking high. Money for educating kids gets spent on a zillion things that don't educate kids, and sometimes harms their future prospects.
If you think Obama is the true conservative in the race, how can you argue that progressives should support him? I know he's The One, but come on.
That's what pisses me off about the anti-abortion, anti-contraception, anti-immigrant (not be confused with the real issue of a bad immigration system and a huge illegal alien population), anti-gay and tax cut agenda of the current party. The goal isn't to address real issues, it's to throw out none issues to distract everyone while they enact legislation that the majority of citizens wouldn't support if they weren't busy with the culture wars. Hell, I'd argue that tax cuts are in the territory of conservative, it's just a buzzword and most of the party doesn't fully understand the full implications of it anymore.
Here's how my dream presidential debate goes:
MODERATOR: Senator Denny Cratic, Governor Rick Publican claimed recently that he planned to cut government funding for Planned Parenthood to zero. Would you like to address that?
D : No. Next question.
MODERATOR: Really?
D : If he wants to make an appeal to single-issue pro-life voters, that's his prerogative.
MODERATOR: Uhh, next question I guess.
If you're a conservative and you want to see the country move forward and you're not a bigot then Barack Obama is your candidate. I dare say he's tried to be more conservative that Reagan, certainly Ghost Jesus Reagan that the GOP keeps dry humping.
If you think Obama is the true conservative in the race, how can you argue that progressives should support him? I know he's The One, but come on.
A. He didn't say that Obama was the true conservative. B. Stop parroting the GOP lie about Democrats worshiping Obama.
What's dishonest about it? It's just a comparison showing the different levels of voter turnout. Romney's been pulling low numbers the whole race. Now, arguably it'd be more "fair" to compare it with an Obama event this year but then again you have the leading light of the opposition party attempting to run against what his base see as a "failed" president. So, not that different.
Romney was just holding some meeting for the Detroit Economic club, and they happened to hold it in a stadium. He wasn't trying to invite everyone, like you would at a rally.
Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
He will be beholden to the far right as they will be the ones in Congress. The Republicans in Congress currently hate the shit Bush did like NCLB. Why would they treat Romney differently when they have already shown they don't really care for him?
Everyone hates NCLB. This is one of the most sensible positions the right wing holds.
The problem I have with the Republican mainline about NCLB is that they want to trash it and then replace it with nothing and stick local districts with the bill for education.
Which doesn't do anything for providing a solid, across the board education system for all Americans.
I hate NCLB, I came up through public school in the rise of the FCAT, I know how shit it is. But everytime a GOP candidate starts talking about education they start parroting Ron Paul about how the government has no business to provide education. Which I disagree with. But education reform is my pet cause, so I'll go back in my corner now.
Paying for education is on the short list of things government should be doing. The prospect of abuse in how the money gets spent is super high in like a dozen different ways.
The prospect of abuse is high in every transaction. The actual instance of abuse is much lower than the current slate of candidates would have us believe, and not just in education.
...
If you're a conservative and you want to see the country move forward and you're not a bigot then Barack Obama is your candidate. I dare say he's tried to be more conservative that Reagan, certainly Ghost Jesus Reagan that the GOP keeps dry humping.
I'm not sure we're thinking of the same things when we say 'abuse'. I'm including promoting a political or social agenda (left and right), defending union jobs instead of boosting education, distributing funds unevenly or wasting them on proven bad ideas... The incidence of the abuse I'm talking about is super fucking high. Money for educating kids gets spent on a zillion things that don't educate kids, and sometimes harms their future prospects.
If you think Obama is the true conservative in the race, how can you argue that progressives should support him? I know he's The One, but come on.
I'm not arguing that progressives should vote for him, am I? I was arguing that he's been more center-right than any of the GOP candidates. America isn't leaning left anytime soon. The Obama administration is smack dab in the middle of where most American voters are. That's my point. But while he's been a fairly conservative president actions like DADT, ACA, repealing the global gag rule, increasing opportunity for women and minorities are all good things that progressives can latch on to. Your other choice is to abdicate responsibility by not voting (basically voting for the Republicans) or trying to get a third party going. If you want a third party, more power to you. A viable third party might shake things up just the right amount even.
But if we're sitting here holding our breathes for a lefty government, we're going to be waiting or quite some time.
How is that dishonest? I'll admit that the XL Center photo shows a bit less of the field, and the stadium may well be smaller, but the contrast is still remarkable.
Obama's event was an open campaign rally coming the night before Super Tuesday. Romney's is a staged speech 2 weeks before Super Tuesday.
It's not an honest comparison because the timing and the event access aren't equivalent.
How is that dishonest? I'll admit that the XL Center photo shows a bit less of the field, and the stadium may well be smaller, but the contrast is still remarkable.
Obama's event was an open campaign rally coming the night before Super Tuesday. Romney's is a staged speech 2 weeks before Super Tuesday.
It's not an honest comparison because the timing and the event access aren't equivalent.
Explained that way, I'd have to agree with you. It's still pretty goddamned funny, though.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
How is that dishonest? I'll admit that the XL Center photo shows a bit less of the field, and the stadium may well be smaller, but the contrast is still remarkable.
Obama's event was an open campaign rally coming the night before Super Tuesday. Romney's is a staged speech 2 weeks before Super Tuesday.
It's not an honest comparison because the timing and the event access aren't equivalent.
Which is fair enough I suppose. Though whoever is taking pictures and picking venues for Romney is an idiot. For a campaign that can't rise above 50% in its own primary and has record low turnout every time it does score a victory, squeezing a few people into the endzone of a stadium is a boneheaded move.
How is that dishonest? I'll admit that the XL Center photo shows a bit less of the field, and the stadium may well be smaller, but the contrast is still remarkable.
Obama's event was an open campaign rally coming the night before Super Tuesday. Romney's is a staged speech 2 weeks before Super Tuesday.
It's not an honest comparison because the timing and the event access aren't equivalent.
Maybe I'm biased, but the photos seemed less like "Look how unpopular Romney is, especially compared to Obama, he can't even fill half a football field and Obama packed the entire stadium" and more "man, Romney picked a terrible venue for this speech and Obama's was spot-on". There's nothing wrong with a campaign event not filling a stadium, particularly when the goal isn't to show and bolster support. It's eminently mockable when you have a campaign event that doesn't come close to taking all the space available, no matter the purpose.
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
One would think that in a political campaign that is running on a theme of fiscal integrity and responsibility, paying for a stadium when you don't need one is a bit goosey, no?
He will be beholden to the far right as they will be the ones in Congress. The Republicans in Congress currently hate the shit Bush did like NCLB. Why would they treat Romney differently when they have already shown they don't really care for him?
Everyone hates NCLB. This is one of the most sensible positions the right wing holds.
This is very true.
Also, I've been very interested in this thread all week. it's been interesting to read opposing view points.
How is that dishonest? I'll admit that the XL Center photo shows a bit less of the field, and the stadium may well be smaller, but the contrast is still remarkable.
Obama's event was an open campaign rally coming the night before Super Tuesday. Romney's is a staged speech 2 weeks before Super Tuesday.
It's not an honest comparison because the timing and the event access aren't equivalent.
Maybe I'm biased, but the photos seemed less like "Look how unpopular Romney is, especially compared to Obama, he can't even fill half a football field and Obama packed the entire stadium" and more "man, Romney picked a terrible venue for this speech and Obama's was spot-on". There's nothing wrong with a campaign event not filling a stadium, particularly when the goal isn't to show and bolster support. It's eminently mockable when you have a campaign event that doesn't come close to taking all the space available, no matter the purpose.
Yeah, I think that's your poli-sci bias showing. No offense, but I don't think the message ThinkProgress is trying to send out is "Romney is bad at picking venues". Few people are looking at that and comparing the messaging skills and political stagecraft of the two candidates.
How is that dishonest? I'll admit that the XL Center photo shows a bit less of the field, and the stadium may well be smaller, but the contrast is still remarkable.
Obama's event was an open campaign rally coming the night before Super Tuesday. Romney's is a staged speech 2 weeks before Super Tuesday.
It's not an honest comparison because the timing and the event access aren't equivalent.
Maybe I'm biased, but the photos seemed less like "Look how unpopular Romney is, especially compared to Obama, he can't even fill half a football field and Obama packed the entire stadium" and more "man, Romney picked a terrible venue for this speech and Obama's was spot-on". There's nothing wrong with a campaign event not filling a stadium, particularly when the goal isn't to show and bolster support. It's eminently mockable when you have a campaign event that doesn't come close to taking all the space available, no matter the purpose.
Yeah, I think that's your poli-sci bias showing. No offense, but I don't think the message ThinkProgress is trying to send out is "Romney is bad at picking venues". Few people are looking at that and comparing the messaging skills and political stagecraft of the two candidates.
I'm watching the speech this picture is from, and at the beginning he makes a joke about how hard it was to find a big enough venue. In Detroit. I'll accept that this was a staged event for specific people, but it is indeed a poor showing on his part. If you can't fill up a stadium, don't go to a stadium. At the very least, book a high school stadium. Smaller, would've looked more full, and it would've emphasized all the BS he was saying about education in the speech.
On another aspect, where does Mittens get off saying that he's a car man? Didn't he make his mint in the financial sector? Is it cause his dad worked for Detroit? My dad was a trucker driver, doesn't make me a truckman.
How is that dishonest? I'll admit that the XL Center photo shows a bit less of the field, and the stadium may well be smaller, but the contrast is still remarkable.
Obama's event was an open campaign rally coming the night before Super Tuesday. Romney's is a staged speech 2 weeks before Super Tuesday.
It's not an honest comparison because the timing and the event access aren't equivalent.
Maybe I'm biased, but the photos seemed less like "Look how unpopular Romney is, especially compared to Obama, he can't even fill half a football field and Obama packed the entire stadium" and more "man, Romney picked a terrible venue for this speech and Obama's was spot-on". There's nothing wrong with a campaign event not filling a stadium, particularly when the goal isn't to show and bolster support. It's eminently mockable when you have a campaign event that doesn't come close to taking all the space available, no matter the purpose.
Briefly: XCel is a basketball/hockey arena, with capacity around 20k. Ford Field is a football stadium, with capacity 65k (for games, with the field open for people, maybe 70k?)
This is where Barack Obama has the greatest advantage. It's the spoils of incumbency. Even though President Obama has turned out to be far more moderate (and some would argue even more conservative) than candidate Obama said he would be, his past performance speaks for itself. It is what it is. There is no waffling, no deviation necessary there. There is a smaller chance for him to be dismantled with a prior, contradictory statement.
He really hasn't. He's been basically what he promised he'd be. Consistently center-left personally, strongly desiring to be bi-partisan no matter how ridiculous it seemed, wanting Congress to do its fucking job.
He has two remarkable political abilities:
1) Everyone to the left of, say, Olympia Snowe projects their own views on him.
2) His opponents underestimate him, overreach, and destroy themselves. Except for Bobby Rush.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
How is that dishonest? I'll admit that the XL Center photo shows a bit less of the field, and the stadium may well be smaller, but the contrast is still remarkable.
Obama's event was an open campaign rally coming the night before Super Tuesday. Romney's is a staged speech 2 weeks before Super Tuesday.
It's not an honest comparison because the timing and the event access aren't equivalent.
Maybe I'm biased, but the photos seemed less like "Look how unpopular Romney is, especially compared to Obama, he can't even fill half a football field and Obama packed the entire stadium" and more "man, Romney picked a terrible venue for this speech and Obama's was spot-on". There's nothing wrong with a campaign event not filling a stadium, particularly when the goal isn't to show and bolster support. It's eminently mockable when you have a campaign event that doesn't come close to taking all the space available, no matter the purpose.
Yeah, I think that's your poli-sci bias showing. No offense, but I don't think the message ThinkProgress is trying to send out is "Romney is bad at picking venues". Few people are looking at that and comparing the messaging skills and political stagecraft of the two candidates.
I'm watching the speech this picture is from, and at the beginning he makes a joke about how hard it was to find a big enough venue. In Detroit. I'll accept that this was a staged event for specific people, but it is indeed a poor showing on his part. If you can't fill up a stadium, don't go to a stadium. At the very least, book a high school stadium. Smaller, would've looked more full, and it would've emphasized all the BS he was saying about education in the speech.
On another aspect, where does Mittens get off saying that he's a car man? Didn't he make his mint in the financial sector? Is it cause his dad worked for Detroit? My dad was a trucker driver, doesn't make me a truckman.
It's unlikely he actually drives the truck. That's got to be a prop for PR to appeal to the common man. I can believe he drives the Mustang, though.
Harry Dresden on
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
How is that dishonest? I'll admit that the XL Center photo shows a bit less of the field, and the stadium may well be smaller, but the contrast is still remarkable.
Obama's event was an open campaign rally coming the night before Super Tuesday. Romney's is a staged speech 2 weeks before Super Tuesday.
It's not an honest comparison because the timing and the event access aren't equivalent.
Maybe I'm biased, but the photos seemed less like "Look how unpopular Romney is, especially compared to Obama, he can't even fill half a football field and Obama packed the entire stadium" and more "man, Romney picked a terrible venue for this speech and Obama's was spot-on". There's nothing wrong with a campaign event not filling a stadium, particularly when the goal isn't to show and bolster support. It's eminently mockable when you have a campaign event that doesn't come close to taking all the space available, no matter the purpose.
Yeah, I think that's your poli-sci bias showing. No offense, but I don't think the message ThinkProgress is trying to send out is "Romney is bad at picking venues". Few people are looking at that and comparing the messaging skills and political stagecraft of the two candidates.
I'm watching the speech this picture is from, and at the beginning he makes a joke about how hard it was to find a big enough venue. In Detroit. I'll accept that this was a staged event for specific people, but it is indeed a poor showing on his part. If you can't fill up a stadium, don't go to a stadium. At the very least, book a high school stadium. Smaller, would've looked more full, and it would've emphasized all the BS he was saying about education in the speech.
On another aspect, where does Mittens get off saying that he's a car man? Didn't he make his mint in the financial sector? Is it cause his dad worked for Detroit? My dad was a trucker driver, doesn't make me a truckman.
It's unlikely he actually drives the truck. That's got to be a prop for PR to appeal to the common man. I can believe he drives the Mustang, though.
Oh, I don't really know about any prop cars, I meant that he's claiming to be a car man as in car industry man. Even though four years ago he was advocating throwing GM and Chrysler our into the creditless void of the recession (and with them every manufacturing job that supports and is fed by the auto industry, but whatevs).
How is that dishonest? I'll admit that the XL Center photo shows a bit less of the field, and the stadium may well be smaller, but the contrast is still remarkable.
Obama's event was an open campaign rally coming the night before Super Tuesday. Romney's is a staged speech 2 weeks before Super Tuesday.
It's not an honest comparison because the timing and the event access aren't equivalent.
Maybe I'm biased, but the photos seemed less like "Look how unpopular Romney is, especially compared to Obama, he can't even fill half a football field and Obama packed the entire stadium" and more "man, Romney picked a terrible venue for this speech and Obama's was spot-on". There's nothing wrong with a campaign event not filling a stadium, particularly when the goal isn't to show and bolster support. It's eminently mockable when you have a campaign event that doesn't come close to taking all the space available, no matter the purpose.
Yeah, I think that's your poli-sci bias showing. No offense, but I don't think the message ThinkProgress is trying to send out is "Romney is bad at picking venues". Few people are looking at that and comparing the messaging skills and political stagecraft of the two candidates.
I'm watching the speech this picture is from, and at the beginning he makes a joke about how hard it was to find a big enough venue. In Detroit. I'll accept that this was a staged event for specific people, but it is indeed a poor showing on his part. If you can't fill up a stadium, don't go to a stadium. At the very least, book a high school stadium. Smaller, would've looked more full, and it would've emphasized all the BS he was saying about education in the speech.
On another aspect, where does Mittens get off saying that he's a car man? Didn't he make his mint in the financial sector? Is it cause his dad worked for Detroit? My dad was a trucker driver, doesn't make me a truckman.
It's unlikely he actually drives the truck. That's got to be a prop for PR to appeal to the common man. I can believe he drives the Mustang, though.
Eh, when I think of a car man who also has the financial resources to feed his obsession, I think of "Jay Leno." Unless Mitt Romney has a hangar full of classics to go with those daily drivers, then there's a pretty good chance that he's a "car man" in the same sense that any man who owns a car is also a car man.
What are the odds that the Mustang is an...is an automatic? *spits on the ground in disgust*
Truly this man is one of history's greatest monsters.
How is that dishonest? I'll admit that the XL Center photo shows a bit less of the field, and the stadium may well be smaller, but the contrast is still remarkable.
Obama's event was an open campaign rally coming the night before Super Tuesday. Romney's is a staged speech 2 weeks before Super Tuesday.
It's not an honest comparison because the timing and the event access aren't equivalent.
Maybe I'm biased, but the photos seemed less like "Look how unpopular Romney is, especially compared to Obama, he can't even fill half a football field and Obama packed the entire stadium" and more "man, Romney picked a terrible venue for this speech and Obama's was spot-on". There's nothing wrong with a campaign event not filling a stadium, particularly when the goal isn't to show and bolster support. It's eminently mockable when you have a campaign event that doesn't come close to taking all the space available, no matter the purpose.
Yeah, I think that's your poli-sci bias showing. No offense, but I don't think the message ThinkProgress is trying to send out is "Romney is bad at picking venues". Few people are looking at that and comparing the messaging skills and political stagecraft of the two candidates.
I'm watching the speech this picture is from, and at the beginning he makes a joke about how hard it was to find a big enough venue. In Detroit. I'll accept that this was a staged event for specific people, but it is indeed a poor showing on his part. If you can't fill up a stadium, don't go to a stadium. At the very least, book a high school stadium. Smaller, would've looked more full, and it would've emphasized all the BS he was saying about education in the speech.
On another aspect, where does Mittens get off saying that he's a car man? Didn't he make his mint in the financial sector? Is it cause his dad worked for Detroit? My dad was a trucker driver, doesn't make me a truckman.
It's unlikely he actually drives the truck. That's got to be a prop for PR to appeal to the common man. I can believe he drives the Mustang, though.
Oh, I don't really know about any prop cars, I meant that he's claiming to be a car man as in car industry man. Even though four years ago he was advocating throwing GM and Chrysler our into the creditless void of the recession (and with them every manufacturing job that supports and is fed by the auto industry, but whatevs).
How is that dishonest? I'll admit that the XL Center photo shows a bit less of the field, and the stadium may well be smaller, but the contrast is still remarkable.
Obama's event was an open campaign rally coming the night before Super Tuesday. Romney's is a staged speech 2 weeks before Super Tuesday.
It's not an honest comparison because the timing and the event access aren't equivalent.
Maybe I'm biased, but the photos seemed less like "Look how unpopular Romney is, especially compared to Obama, he can't even fill half a football field and Obama packed the entire stadium" and more "man, Romney picked a terrible venue for this speech and Obama's was spot-on". There's nothing wrong with a campaign event not filling a stadium, particularly when the goal isn't to show and bolster support. It's eminently mockable when you have a campaign event that doesn't come close to taking all the space available, no matter the purpose.
Yeah, I think that's your poli-sci bias showing. No offense, but I don't think the message ThinkProgress is trying to send out is "Romney is bad at picking venues". Few people are looking at that and comparing the messaging skills and political stagecraft of the two candidates.
I'm watching the speech this picture is from, and at the beginning he makes a joke about how hard it was to find a big enough venue. In Detroit. I'll accept that this was a staged event for specific people, but it is indeed a poor showing on his part. If you can't fill up a stadium, don't go to a stadium. At the very least, book a high school stadium. Smaller, would've looked more full, and it would've emphasized all the BS he was saying about education in the speech.
On another aspect, where does Mittens get off saying that he's a car man? Didn't he make his mint in the financial sector? Is it cause his dad worked for Detroit? My dad was a trucker driver, doesn't make me a truckman.
It's unlikely he actually drives the truck. That's got to be a prop for PR to appeal to the common man. I can believe he drives the Mustang, though.
Oh, I don't really know about any prop cars, I meant that he's claiming to be a car man as in car industry man. Even though four years ago he was advocating throwing GM and Chrysler our into the creditless void of the recession (and with them every manufacturing job that supports and is fed by the auto industry, but whatevs).
That's our Romney. Always pretending to be something else very badly. I'm very interested in how he does in Michigan. The recent idiotic stuff he's done has got to bite him on the ass there.
Yeah, I think that's your poli-sci bias showing. No offense, but I don't think the message ThinkProgress is trying to send out is "Romney is bad at picking venues". Few people are looking at that and comparing the messaging skills and political stagecraft of the two candidates.
Actually I think they're both technically correct. Why can't the person creating that photo have been clever enough to code several different messages into a single photo comparison? It's probably meant to evoke both responses in different sets of people so as to drive some narrative of inevitability home. So much work often gets put into these sorts of things I'm convinced they almost always have more than a few levels of intended meaning to them. It gives a way to take a cheap shot while providing plausible deniability. It's common in politics to find ways to do just that.
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
One would think that in a political campaign that is running on a theme of fiscal integrity and responsibility, paying for a stadium when you don't need one is a bit goosey, no?
I just assumed someone dumping money into his superPAC owned it :-p
Seriously though, that image is hilarious.
PAD ID - 328,762,218
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
How is that dishonest? I'll admit that the XL Center photo shows a bit less of the field, and the stadium may well be smaller, but the contrast is still remarkable.
Obama's event was an open campaign rally coming the night before Super Tuesday. Romney's is a staged speech 2 weeks before Super Tuesday.
It's not an honest comparison because the timing and the event access aren't equivalent.
Maybe I'm biased, but the photos seemed less like "Look how unpopular Romney is, especially compared to Obama, he can't even fill half a football field and Obama packed the entire stadium" and more "man, Romney picked a terrible venue for this speech and Obama's was spot-on". There's nothing wrong with a campaign event not filling a stadium, particularly when the goal isn't to show and bolster support. It's eminently mockable when you have a campaign event that doesn't come close to taking all the space available, no matter the purpose.
Yeah, I think that's your poli-sci bias showing. No offense, but I don't think the message ThinkProgress is trying to send out is "Romney is bad at picking venues". Few people are looking at that and comparing the messaging skills and political stagecraft of the two candidates.
I'm watching the speech this picture is from, and at the beginning he makes a joke about how hard it was to find a big enough venue. In Detroit. I'll accept that this was a staged event for specific people, but it is indeed a poor showing on his part. If you can't fill up a stadium, don't go to a stadium. At the very least, book a high school stadium. Smaller, would've looked more full, and it would've emphasized all the BS he was saying about education in the speech.
On another aspect, where does Mittens get off saying that he's a car man? Didn't he make his mint in the financial sector? Is it cause his dad worked for Detroit? My dad was a trucker driver, doesn't make me a truckman.
It's unlikely he actually drives the truck. That's got to be a prop for PR to appeal to the common man. I can believe he drives the Mustang, though.
Oh, I don't really know about any prop cars, I meant that he's claiming to be a car man as in car industry man. Even though four years ago he was advocating throwing GM and Chrysler our into the creditless void of the recession (and with them every manufacturing job that supports and is fed by the auto industry, but whatevs).
Didn't he repeat himself, like, 4 days ago
He did indeed, while also trying to say he never said it and that he's responsible for saving the auto industry because eventually the White House started listening to him.
Posts
I think it's important to remember that one can be a Republican and yet vote for a Democrat. That's what I've been doing.
Stronger economic growth through cutting spending makes perfect sense.
Everyone hates NCLB. This is one of the most sensible positions the right wing holds.
For example, this is the req for getting a GS11 position as basically IT Help Desk (a GS11 Step 1 starts at 50k before area adjustment)
OR A Ph.D. or equivalent doctoral degree or three years of progressively higher level graduate education* leading to a Ph.D. OR a combination of graduate education and specialized experience that totals 100% of the requirement for the GS-11.
If you don't have that experience (Total of like 6-7 years or a PhD) you start as a GS-9, $41k. That requires like 5 years or a MASTERS.
The problem I have with the Republican mainline about NCLB is that they want to trash it and then replace it with nothing and stick local districts with the bill for education.
Which doesn't do anything for providing a solid, across the board education system for all Americans.
I hate NCLB, I came up through public school in the rise of the FCAT, I know how shit it is. But everytime a GOP candidate starts talking about education they start parroting Ron Paul about how the government has no business to provide education. Which I disagree with. But education reform is my pet cause, so I'll go back in my corner now.
I would expect the tax cuts to succeed while special interests ensure the rest doesn't exceed though I admit I'm not an expert on this shit.
The whole thing just seems like bullshit: But government spending should rise in a recession unless you are in no way neo-Keynesion.
Paying for education is on the short list of things government should be doing. The prospect of abuse in how the money gets spent is super high in like a dozen different ways.
The prospect of abuse is high in every transaction. The actual instance of abuse is much lower than the current slate of candidates would have us believe, and not just in education.
On that note, all the candidates talk about rolling back power to the states because, I think this is Romney's line, local powers can spend the money much better. Every federal program is run at the state level already, so I don't know where this magic abuse is coming from.
The federal/state distribution is a debate that we could have with clear heads, there's a thread floating in the PA ether somewhere out there, but the current GOP is anything but sane about it.
If you're a conservative and you want to see the country move forward and you're not a bigot then Barack Obama is your candidate. I dare say he's tried to be more conservative that Reagan, certainly Ghost Jesus Reagan that the GOP keeps dry humping.
At the low end of the spectrum (high school degree or some college experience, little-to-no work experience) government workers make slightly more than private-sector equivalents. At the high end of the spectrum (MA/MS, PhD, advanced professional licenses, significant work experience, etc.) government workers make significantly less than private-sector equivalents.
But then, it's ThinkProgress.
How can anyone running for the highest elected office in the country be that completely politically tone-deaf? O_o
How is that dishonest? I'll admit that the XL Center photo shows a bit less of the field, and the stadium may well be smaller, but the contrast is still remarkable.
What's dishonest about it? It's just a comparison showing the different levels of voter turnout. Romney's been pulling low numbers the whole race. Now, arguably it'd be more "fair" to compare it with an Obama event this year but then again you have the leading light of the opposition party attempting to run against what his base see as a "failed" president. So, not that different.
I'm not sure we're thinking of the same things when we say 'abuse'. I'm including promoting a political or social agenda (left and right), defending union jobs instead of boosting education, distributing funds unevenly or wasting them on proven bad ideas... The incidence of the abuse I'm talking about is super fucking high. Money for educating kids gets spent on a zillion things that don't educate kids, and sometimes harms their future prospects.
If you think Obama is the true conservative in the race, how can you argue that progressives should support him? I know he's The One, but come on.
Here's how my dream presidential debate goes:
MODERATOR: Senator Denny Cratic, Governor Rick Publican claimed recently that he planned to cut government funding for Planned Parenthood to zero. Would you like to address that?
D : No. Next question.
MODERATOR: Really?
D : If he wants to make an appeal to single-issue pro-life voters, that's his prerogative.
MODERATOR: Uhh, next question I guess.
Romney was just holding some meeting for the Detroit Economic club, and they happened to hold it in a stadium. He wasn't trying to invite everyone, like you would at a rally.
I'm not arguing that progressives should vote for him, am I? I was arguing that he's been more center-right than any of the GOP candidates. America isn't leaning left anytime soon. The Obama administration is smack dab in the middle of where most American voters are. That's my point. But while he's been a fairly conservative president actions like DADT, ACA, repealing the global gag rule, increasing opportunity for women and minorities are all good things that progressives can latch on to. Your other choice is to abdicate responsibility by not voting (basically voting for the Republicans) or trying to get a third party going. If you want a third party, more power to you. A viable third party might shake things up just the right amount even.
But if we're sitting here holding our breathes for a lefty government, we're going to be waiting or quite some time.
Obama's event was an open campaign rally coming the night before Super Tuesday. Romney's is a staged speech 2 weeks before Super Tuesday.
It's not an honest comparison because the timing and the event access aren't equivalent.
Explained that way, I'd have to agree with you. It's still pretty goddamned funny, though.
Which is fair enough I suppose. Though whoever is taking pictures and picking venues for Romney is an idiot. For a campaign that can't rise above 50% in its own primary and has record low turnout every time it does score a victory, squeezing a few people into the endzone of a stadium is a boneheaded move.
Besides, it's fair to the Romney Standard.
This is very true.
Also, I've been very interested in this thread all week. it's been interesting to read opposing view points.
Yeah, I think that's your poli-sci bias showing. No offense, but I don't think the message ThinkProgress is trying to send out is "Romney is bad at picking venues". Few people are looking at that and comparing the messaging skills and political stagecraft of the two candidates.
I'm watching the speech this picture is from, and at the beginning he makes a joke about how hard it was to find a big enough venue. In Detroit. I'll accept that this was a staged event for specific people, but it is indeed a poor showing on his part. If you can't fill up a stadium, don't go to a stadium. At the very least, book a high school stadium. Smaller, would've looked more full, and it would've emphasized all the BS he was saying about education in the speech.
On another aspect, where does Mittens get off saying that he's a car man? Didn't he make his mint in the financial sector? Is it cause his dad worked for Detroit? My dad was a trucker driver, doesn't make me a truckman.
Briefly: XCel is a basketball/hockey arena, with capacity around 20k. Ford Field is a football stadium, with capacity 65k (for games, with the field open for people, maybe 70k?)
He really hasn't. He's been basically what he promised he'd be. Consistently center-left personally, strongly desiring to be bi-partisan no matter how ridiculous it seemed, wanting Congress to do its fucking job.
He has two remarkable political abilities:
1) Everyone to the left of, say, Olympia Snowe projects their own views on him.
2) His opponents underestimate him, overreach, and destroy themselves. Except for Bobby Rush.
It's unlikely he actually drives the truck. That's got to be a prop for PR to appeal to the common man. I can believe he drives the Mustang, though.
Oh, I don't really know about any prop cars, I meant that he's claiming to be a car man as in car industry man. Even though four years ago he was advocating throwing GM and Chrysler our into the creditless void of the recession (and with them every manufacturing job that supports and is fed by the auto industry, but whatevs).
Eh, when I think of a car man who also has the financial resources to feed his obsession, I think of "Jay Leno." Unless Mitt Romney has a hangar full of classics to go with those daily drivers, then there's a pretty good chance that he's a "car man" in the same sense that any man who owns a car is also a car man.
What are the odds that the Mustang is an...is an automatic? *spits on the ground in disgust*
Truly this man is one of history's greatest monsters.
Didn't he repeat himself, like, 4 days ago
That's our Romney. Always pretending to be something else very badly. I'm very interested in how he does in Michigan. The recent idiotic stuff he's done has got to bite him on the ass there.
Actually I think they're both technically correct. Why can't the person creating that photo have been clever enough to code several different messages into a single photo comparison? It's probably meant to evoke both responses in different sets of people so as to drive some narrative of inevitability home. So much work often gets put into these sorts of things I'm convinced they almost always have more than a few levels of intended meaning to them. It gives a way to take a cheap shot while providing plausible deniability. It's common in politics to find ways to do just that.
Seriously though, that image is hilarious.
He did indeed, while also trying to say he never said it and that he's responsible for saving the auto industry because eventually the White House started listening to him.