US Politics The Third

[Ser Greguh]

Ser Greguh,

People's feelings change. Sometimes rapidly (the Stars by contrast are fairly constant incomparison to our lifespans) given that fact how can you know feelings haven't changed without constant evidence? Or, perhaps you have faith in your loved ones love?

No, of course not. Again, this is ridiculous (and bush-league to boot; any atheist worth his/her salt has been dealing with this sort of bogus faith association since the fifth grade or so).

I don't have "faith" in the love of my loved ones. If I did, it would have been broken long ago; I've lost love in the past, as has almost everyone, I would imagine. Not only do I not believe that love is necessarily permanent, I have empirical data to support the hypothesis that it's not (as does, again, almost everyone). What I do have is enough knowledge of human emotion and connections such that I can reasonably predict that the human connections that we codify as "love", where they are extremely strong, will still be there tomorrow.

I don't view that as any different from having enough knowledge of science so that I can reasonably predict that the sun will still be there tomorrow, from having enough knowledge of psychology to know that the poker player with the ho-hum-don't-mind-me-I'm-so-totally-not-a-threat-here expression is holding a very strong hand, or from having enough knowledge of sociology to reasonably predict that, when I go get a haircut later today, my stylist won't stab me in the cerebellum with her scissors. These are the things that humans do; we gather evidence about the universe, and we use them to make predictions and statements about the unknown with varying degrees of probability. I approach love no differently. That's not to say I don't think it's important, just that I don't assign it a mystical status, so the word "faith" is not the least bit applicable.

Belief in a god, as described by its practitioners, follows an entirely different set of rules, where no evidence for its claims is present, nor is it possible, nor is it even desirable. That is what faith means, and that is what is being presented as being on equal (or superior) footing. It's absurd.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Ser Greguh,

Okay.

[Ser Greguh]

http://www.youtube.c...player_embedded

Sorry if this is old. Mitt Romney's response to a medical marijuana patience

This would be shocking if it weren't so predictable. This is how closed-minded people operate when called out on an untenable position: they either lash out, or just move on and pretend that the conversation gets to be over at that point. The degree to which it's indicative of a true Orwellian doublethink is rather severe: he knows that if he looks the kid in the face and says "Yes, my position is that you, and people like you and your doctors, be arrested and thrown in jail," that would only make him look like more of an asshole, but he still no doubt holds that his position is morally superior. In fact, he probably blames the kid for even bringing it up and making him look bad.

[Shryke]

I'm hesitant to get too cocky in a weak economy, but it seems like a tipping point on Romney is occurring. There used to be the "he could actually beat Obama/he's electable" argument. All of the sudden it feels more like "the country will never elect this guy."

It was always that way imo. People only thought he might squeak by because the GOP had no one else and the economy would be shit enough that people would just vote anti-Democratic-Party without looking. (I've never bought that argument)

But Romney's support is still shit, even if it's the most consolodated. And that interaction with the marijuana patient is a big reason why. Look at anything the guy does in public. He's a fucking awful politician. No good at interviews, no charisma, no relatability. He comes off like a less socially aware version of Data. Aping human customs he can't understand in a desperate attempt to fit in.

And that means he lacks the basic tools to overcome his "Massefuckthisstatesname Moderate" label and gain a ton of support.

[Ser Greguh]

It was always that way imo. People only thought he might squeak by because the GOP had no one else and the economy would be shit enough that people would just vote anti-Democratic-Party without looking. (I've never bought that argument)

But Romney's support is still shit, even if it's the most consolodated. And that interaction with the marijuana patient is a big reason why. Look at anything the guy does in public. He's a fucking awful politician. No good at interviews, no charisma, no relatability. He comes off like a less socially aware version of Data. Aping human customs he can't understand in a desperate attempt to fit in.

And that means he lacks the basic tools to overcome his "Massefuckthisstatesname Moderate" label and gain a ton of support.

That's a big part of why, if he does get the nomination, this will probably be the ugliest presidential election any of us have ever seen. Romney won't be able to run any positive ads; his only message will be able to be "I know you don't like me very much, but we still need you to get out of bed and go vote against the black Keynan Muslim Socialist. Here's why you should hate him enough to bother."

[TrackerNeil]

I'm hesitant to get too cocky in a weak economy, but it seems like a tipping point on Romney is occurring. There used to be the "he could actually beat Obama/he's electable" argument. All of the sudden it feels more like "the country will never elect this guy."

I think if the economy is perceived to be bad enough, the nation will elect anyone. However, it's certainly true that Republicans' hope ride upon a poor performance from the economy. If things are looking up in that regard, come November Obama should be safe. Multiple Choice MItt certainly isn't setting Republicans hearts ablaze on his own merits, that's for sure.

[Shryke]

That's a big part of why, if he does get the nomination, this will probably be the ugliest presidential election any of us have ever seen. Romney won't be able to run any positive ads; his only message will be able to be "I know you don't like me very much, but we still need you to get out of bed and go vote against the black Keynan Muslim Socialist. Here's why you should hate him enough to bother."

He's already running that way. Every speech of his is literally just going up on stage and flat out lying about how awful Obama is. Not even like bending the truth, just flat out lies.

[Horselover Fat]

Yeah - Can someone please direct me to where Obama has indicated that he wants to create equal outcomes?

Clearly you haven't read the Protocols of the Muslim Elders of Kenya Who Are Not Christians and are Socialists.

[Shryke]

He's also apologizing for America or something. And putting free enterprise on trial. And amde massive defense cuts.

[Horselover Fat]

In all reality though, what else is he going to do? He can't run on his record, probably more than half of all republicans hate his record. When the General campaign begins I would expect him to moderate his message but he can't do that now.

On the other hand, if he moderates his message he may end up alienating his base and depress turnout. The Republican party is set up to exclude reasonable people (reasonable as compared to the rest of the field I mean)

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I mean how many people have you heard bitching about how 'he only got elected cause he's black' or 'I don't think anyone should be elected because of their skin colour'. You'd have to be blind and deaf to not know this.

Eh, why not....

I don't think Obama's race was irrelevant to him winning the election. I think it helped him among some voters and hurt him among others, though I think the former group was larger than the latter.

There were a lot of Americans, even some who voted against him like me, who still think it was pretty cool that we elected a black guy as President. I also think that both the press and his opponents were easier on him than they would have been had he been white.

For the most part, I don't think that will be the case the second time around.

[awesome possum]

Romney doesn't have a choice, he's going to need to moderate his message if he wants to go from Absolutely No Chance to a Slim Chance. The majority of Independents and Democrats aren't really paying attention to what's happening in the GOP primary. If their first taste of the nominee is all out fabricated assaults on Obama, it will backfire.

Trying to still push Obama as weak on defense, ultra liberal on social issues and a finacial socialist only works for those who get the Fox News version of reality. For those who have been paying the least bit of attention will know Obama has been far too moderate and right-leaning on too many issues.

The dissatisfaction felt throughtout the country by those not part of the rabid right isn't because Obama been too far to the left. It's because he's been too much like GWB II, with too few major victories and too many concessions.

If Mitt tries to push that Obama has been too liberal, he's going to get laughed off the stage.

[Arthmail]

Hahaha. You voted for McCain? Shit. And Palin?

[Commodore]

The template for GOP nominees is they are either dumb, corrupt, or insane. Romney is neither and can be painted as neither.

They're going to go for the evil fat cat narrative, but Romney is so dorky and unassuming, it won't work.

The Bain sob stories were supposed to appear much later ala the Swift Boat campaign. Romney knows the playbook well in advance and will have success stories to match anecdote for anecdote. The Winter Olympics as a patriotic backdrop paints a nice picture.

Plus he can trot out sob stories of his own with the high unemployment rate.

[Liffguard]

I don't understand how he expects a "weak on defense" narrative to stick. All the democrats have to do is respond with "we got bin Laden." Non-sequitar? Absolutely. Effective soundbite? Absolutely.

[Shryke]

Romeny is practically a caricature of a Gordan-Gecko-esque fat-cat businessman. Not gonna play well in this economy.

Plus, again, no charisma whatsoever.

I also think that both the press and his opponents were easier on him than they would have been had he been white.

:rofl: What?

[Shryke]

I don't understand how he expects a "weak on defense" narrative to stick. All the democrats have to do is respond with "we got bin Laden." Non-sequitar? Absolutely. Effective soundbite? Absolutely.

Democrats are always "weak on defense". It'll play to the Fox News types, not sure about anyone else.

But then, anything will play to the Fox News types. It's like a crazy parallel dimension. It's always funny to see the Daily Show pointing out some huge "scandal" the right-wing closed-circuit news machine is all over that no one else even knows or cares about. Like the "Common at the White House" scandal or the "Obama threw a secret halloween party that he invited the press too" scandal.

[Horselover Fat]

Commodore, are you actually excited about Romney as a candidate? because you might be insane.

[Shryke]

Commodore, are you actually excited about Romney as a candidate? because you might be insane.

If he's excited about Romney as a candidate, he's for sure in the minority. :P

[Shryke]

Gingrich is also suggesting illegally firing federal employees for being too liberal:

http://2012.talkingp...beral-views.php

I bet Raidne's happy Gingrich ain't winning!

Isn't it also weird that Gingrich is assailing Romney from the left in his death throes?

Not weird at all. Gingrich is a spiteful SOB and everyone in the GOP knows that Romney's time at Bain Capital is a liability if you look at it in any detail.

It's amusing as hell though.