Maithanet Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Cain is surging because Perry died and everyone is still completely unexcited by Romney-the-Inevitable. So it's Cain's turn!Cain should be interesting though since he knows nothing and has absolutely no boots on the ground in primary states. So now it's a question of will the old logic of "No boots, no votes" still hold? Or will the Koch's personal candidate somehow do more then just win a gig on Fox News and be their mouth-piece, despite all their attempts to make him not a real candidate?The media always likes the "hot new thing", and he was refreshing in that he was a complete outsider, and had an unusually cheery disposition for a politician. His policies seemed straightforward and down to earth, which is a big advantage in a crowded primary field. The fact that he could rise so fast shows that the Republicans are dissatisfied with the current field of candidates. But Cain is all flash and no substance (even compared to Perry and Romney, which isn't a high bar).Cain is absolutely not going to last through Iowa. Even if he could, I doubt he could win without a ground organization, but his constant verbal gaffes, cardboard policies and now sexual harassment charges are going to sink him for sure. He doesn't have the political savvy to survive the tide turning against him. I will go on record to say he will not finish in the top 2 in Iowa, New Hampshire or any other state when the voting actually starts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Pawlenty's panic at dropping out of the race is interesting, I wonder if he did a deal with Mitt: Drop out and I guarantee you the veep slot of the ticket.Mitt continues to not do anything to rock the boat, remains fairly stable polling wise, and lets all the crazies explode.I've felt this way for a long time. A bunch of other Republicans - Donald Trump, Michelle Bachman, Rick Perry - have all had their spotlight moments and then faded, but Mitt's been right in there the whole time, raising money and keeping a solid base of support. (BTW, I think we'll soon be able to add Herman Cain to the previous list. Like Donald Trump, he's not a real candidate.) I'd put my money on Romney winning the nomination.That being said, I think Rick Perry is unlike the others I named in that he's at least a plausible candidate. If he shapes up his campaign I think he can recover from his current doldrums and give Mitt a run for his money, or maybe even win.I don't know about this Pawlenty veep stuff, though. Romney strikes me as too opportunistic to promise such a plum spot so early in the game. He's going base that decision on where the party is at the moment he gets the nod (if he gets it). Besides, I think a wise nominee selects a veep who complements him; what the hell does a second moderate Republican from a blue state bring to the ticket? I'm not saying the veep pick will bring any states into the fold - they generally don't - but they say something about the candidate. Will Mitt Romney really want to have an all-blue-state ticket in 2012? I wonder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 ETA: Huntsman would be a good pick of not for the risk of tapping a two Mormon ticketAnd there's the tiny difficulty of Hunstman having been a part of the very administration he's running against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Speaking of Romney (as we were), this is an interesting piece on how "RomneyCare" seems to have vanished from the GOP discourse.I think that opposition to the ACA is primarily partisan; most of those who oppose the law have no idea what it does, other than perhaps some vague notions about the individual mandate. That being the case, Mitt's equivocations about federalism really aren't going to make a difference to those who think the ACA is the Death of Freedom. Except...this just doesn't seem to be an issue that's hurting Romney all that much, other than contributing to a general sense that he's just not a true conservative. But his stances on abortion and gay rights would have done that anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormund Ukrainesbane Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 END THE FUCKING EMBARGO. FREEDOM FOR MILLIONS IS ONE VOTE AWAY.http://www.npr.org/2...rivate-propertyCuba announced Thursday it is allowing the purchase and sale of real estate for the first time since the early days of the revolution, the most important reform yet in a series of free-market changes ushered in by President Raul Castro.The law, which takes effect Nov. 10, applies to citizens and permanent residents only, according to a red-letter headline on the front page of Thursday's Communist Party daily Granma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swift Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Speaking of Romney (as we were), this is an interesting piece on how "RomneyCare" seems to have vanished from the GOP discourse.I think that opposition to the ACA is primarily partisan; most of those who oppose the law have no idea what it does, other than perhaps some vague notions about the individual mandate. That being the case, Mitt's equivocations about federalism really aren't going to make a difference to those who think the ACA is the Death of Freedom. Except...this just doesn't seem to be an issue that's hurting Romney all that much, other than contributing to a general sense that he's just not a true conservative. But his stances on abortion and gay rights would have done that anyway.Opposition to PPACA is definitely partisan. My family is firmly split between republicans and democrats. If I ever talk to them about health care reform, it's obvious that people from either side don't understand the bill. Even though I haven't read the entire bill, I've done enough research to talk intelligibly on at least some of the bill. But it just seems like republicans are like "them government is taking my freedom and nationalizing health care!" and the democrats are like "the bill stops the evil mustache twirling insurance companies from murdering Americans! If you don't support the bill, you obviously want children to die in the street!" These are obviously broad generalizations, so please don't take insult if you are a democrat or republican and understand the bill in at least some detail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 END THE FUCKING EMBARGO. FREEDOM FOR MILLIONS IS ONE VOTE AWAY.http://www.npr.org/2...rivate-propertySorry, Florida is a swing state so it's a no go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Lord of Winterfell Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Gotta say dude, this is crap. If you make an assertion and can't back your shit up, it's on you.There's a difference between not being able to back something up, and choosing not to. If I said that Okinawa was part of a Japan, and someone says "prove it", I'm not going to bother looking for a link. Doesn't make it any less true.I already dislike the amount of unsourced claims around here, but for you to say that there is evidence, but not provide it, is intellectually dishonest.No. It's efficient. Or lazy, take your pick.Your honor my client didn't do it! He was elsewhere in the city at the time! Prove it? Why? I already told you what city he was in, go find out where he was yourself.Interesting analogy.There are often many times during a trial where you can make a techical objection to a question. But good attorneys rarely make such nit-picky, easily-cured objections, because it wastes time, pisses off the judge, and makes the jury think you're trying to hide something by being a prick. So, you generally only make objections that really matter.But you're right -- I made a mistake. If I thought it was a stupid request, I should have ignored it rather than responding by saying I wouldn't address it. So, I won't make that error again with Shryke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Yes, I'm sure you'll go back to your usual habit of not making the mistake of actually backing up anything you say.It'll be just like old times! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormund Ukrainesbane Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 There's a difference between not being able to back something up, and choosing not to. If I said that Okinawa was part of a Japan, and someone says "prove it", I'm not going to bother looking for a link. Doesn't make it any less true.One is objective reality. The other is a disputed claim for which evidence can be presented on either side. Nonetheless, if someone stated that Okinawa was not a part of Japan, I would expect the respondent to provide a map instead of merely saying "Yes it is".No. It's efficient. Or lazy, take your pick.How is not providing evidence to back up your claims efficient? But you're right -- I made a mistake. If I thought it was a stupid request, I should have ignored it rather than responding by saying I wouldn't address it. So, I won't make that error again with Shryke. I request evidence of Shryke too. He manages to duck it by not taking affirmative positions on any issue, merely arguing against (insert republican talking point here). Whenever he does make an assertive claim, it would be fair to expect him to provide back up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Lord of Winterfell Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Actually, Tormund, both are objective reality that is being disputed. The question to me is whether or not the dispute is being made in good faith, or solely to "harass and annoy" the person making the post.If I make a post saying that I witnessed something personally, people are free to assume I'm lying, or at least not rely on the my claim that I actually witnessed it. I'd take no offense at that.But when the sole response to such a claim of personally witnessing something is "prove it", that is a facially absurd request. How does you prove that you personally witnessed something?In any case, your other points are well-taken, so the problem is moot going forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swift Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 If I make a post saying that I witnessed something personally, people are free to assume I'm lying, or at least not rely on the my claim that I actually witnessed it. I'd take no offense at that.But when the sole response to such a claim of personally witnessing something is "prove it", that is a facially absurd request. How does you prove that you personally witnessed something?I have to agree with this. If you claim that you witnessed something, there really is no way you can prove it in a forum post. However, if you make a claim like "this situation happens all the time," then I think it would be fair for someone to ask for a source. If your anecdote is the only proof you can provide, then you probably exaggerated by saying "all the time," but that doesn't mean it never happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempra Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 I have to agree with this. If you claim that you witnessed something, there really is no way you can prove it in a forum post. http://www.hatcams.com/Pics or it didn't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kassi (mark two) Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Gotta say dude, this is crap. If you make an assertion and can't back your shit up, it's on you. I already dislike the amount of unsourced claims around here, but for you to say that there is evidence, but not provide it, is intellectually dishonest.Your honor my client didn't do it! He was elsewhere in the city at the time! Prove it? Why? I already told you what city he was in, go find out where he was yourself.So if I google the offered terms and link the first few relevant results somehow that makes the position stronger? I am quite sure that I can find five websites supporting most positions offered here, as well as five websites disputing them, each with their own set of 'facts'. I am not sure how taking the time to actual copy and paste the links serves, unless we are talking about recorded policy or law.As example: I sit you a Flow down. I say “Is police brutality pervasive enough to justify an inherent distrust of uniformed members of law enforcement? State your position and post links to back it up.”Do you really think that digging up links is going to have an impact on either of your viewpoints? It seems to me far more likely that each of you will simply consider the other's evidence insufficient.Is voter fraud a real issue? I highly doubt it, but I haven't seen anyone make a strong case for why our democracy is secure from tampering. Also haven't seen much evidence behind the claim that many people wish to vote, but are unable to find the time to do so. Heck, seems like fact has very little to do with the subject in general Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atreides Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Orly Taitz running for CA senate. It's the second coming of Angle and O'Donnell. California, don't let us down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awesome possum Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 If I make a post saying that I witnessed something personally, people are free to assume I'm lying, or at least not rely on the my claim that I actually witnessed it. I'd take no offense at that.But when the sole response to such a claim of personally witnessing something is "prove it", that is a facially absurd request. How does you prove that you personally witnessed something?By proving that it is, as you said:one extremely common example. Your claim that you have personally witnessed something does not suddenly make it a common occurrence, much less an extremely common one. I saw a herd of deer on the way home from work this evening. They were walking down a creek bed, about ten yards away from the road and a steady flow of traffic, a mile from downtown Bloomington. There was an adult and three juveniles, the youngest still a little wobbly-legged and the oldest almost an adult. That wasn't the first time this has happened, or the second. Just a few weeks ago a mother and her two fawn came out into a field next to a city park I had taken my children to. They grazed in the field for a good fifteen, twenty minutes; we left before they did.Does this mean seeing deer in city limits is a common happening? And if you don't see a herd of deer in the city a couple times a year you just need to get out more? Or does this mean I might have an insight into the local deer population, rather than concrete statistics on nation-wide deer behavior? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 It's all even funnier since it took Hereward no time to slap down actual data on the subject at hand. Making all the whinging about how "I can't prove what I personally witnessed, even though I claimed it was a persistant problem" even sillier.Before reading the link I figured it was the state Senate. Nope. Wow. She makes the other two that you mention look tame by comparison.Sadly, I think she doesn't have the pull with the Tea Baggers to make a real run of it.And the Birthers don't seem to be as gungho since Obama slapped them down. All of them but Sheriff Joe have switched to bagging on Rubio last I heard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awesome possum Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Michigan state senate passes "license to bully" legislationThe GOP pushed through an amended bill, SB 137, which does nothing advocates have pushed for — including reporting requirements and enumeration, or listing, of protected classes. In addition, the legislation provides an exception which allows bullying based on “moral convictions.”The full language of the insert is: “This section does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil and parent or guardian.”Essentially, you're allowed to bully others if you're doing it for Jesus. That's what I took away from this. Oh Michigan, just when a southern state reasserts it's dominance as having the most idiotic GOP members, you come back and surprise us all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awesome possum Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Oh, and another gem:Even conservatives think Republicans are purposely hindering economic recovery to hurt Obama's re-election chances. ...49 percent said they believe that the Republicans are intentionally hindering efforts to boost the economy so that President Barack Obama will not be reelected. Thirty-nine percent disagreed. As expected, most registered Democrats (70 percent) agreed that Republicans are intentionally hindering the economy and hurting Obama, but independents (52 percent) and even some Republicans (24 percent) also agreed.This seems to be common sense to me. All you have to do is take Mitch McConnell's words from a few years ago and compare it to the GOP's actions. McConnell, Boehner, Cantor, and all their piece of shit cronies all should be tried for treason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Michigan state senate passes "license to bully" legislationEssentially, you're allowed to bully others if you're doing it for Jesus. That's what I took away from this.Good grief. Well, perhaps next time Michigan voters will think better of electing a Republican legislature. Or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.