Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Omnibus GOP Primary ThreadFollow

#702 Feb 06 2012 at 7:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Once they learn that Obama once didn't wear a flag pin, it'll all be over.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#703 Feb 06 2012 at 7:08 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Once they learn that Obama once didn't wear a flag pin, it'll all be over.


Exactly!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#704 Feb 06 2012 at 7:20 PM Rating: Good
******
44,314 posts
My favorite was when he wore a yarmulke.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#705 Feb 06 2012 at 9:02 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,491 posts

While I agree in this specific case, I think that's more wishful thinking on your part. Same with your "GOP needs to hope for higher unemployment" bit earlier. It's about what you hope the GOP does, not about what would actually be the better choice for them to do. The reality is that the left uses a constant repetitive message to affect people's opinions. The specifics don't matter, of course, but the general feel of what is said and how that affects perceptions of candidates in a race absolutely does.


What the **** are you on about? I know what the GOP will do, it's not a secret. Obstruct as much as possible legislatively and hope things don't get better economically before November. That's the strategy. That's why you nominate Romney.

If voters perceive the economy is getting better, it's over. You understand that, right? Without the economic fear aspect it's Donnie Osmond on stage with Elvis in one debate and that's the end of the election.


They wont parrot the line Romney said, but they will play on the perception that is created by those things. And you can bet that over the next 6 months, the liberal media will not stop finding every way they can to remind the public over and over that Romney is wealthy and doesn't like poor people. And he eats puppies!


What perception? That the son of a millionaire Governor, handed every privilege possible his entire life, who leveraged his families contacts and wealth into a successful private equity career might not have a good handle on the problems of the working class? Perish the thought that narrative gets repeated.

Romney is a nice guy. I've met him in passing a few times. I've worked with Bain, they're a above board ethical company. For a private equity company they're ******* saints.

Here's the thing, though. Nice as he is, he's the classic "little boy lost". He doesn't know what to do with his life, he's never known. He got into Stanford because of who his father was. He spent his LDS mission time in Paris because of who his father was. He was able to find Bain because of who his fathers was. He ran for Governor because of who his father was.

He clearly wants to be President, it's FAR FAR FAR less clear why. He doesn't seem very passionate about, well, anything. Surpassing his father maybe? Maybe being president finally raises him above his old man? I genuinely have no idea why he's running.

I like the guy, I really do. If he moved next door, I'd have a beer with him. Well, I'd have a beer and he'd have whatever magic underpants drinkers have, I guess. Soda? (Ok, I'd have a 2001 Napa Cab, happy?).

He's hard to actively dislike, but also hard to be that enthusiastic about. Anger with Obama works great when things are perceived as hard. When things are perceived as getting better, what's going to motivate GOP voters? I mean, don't get me wrong, you'll always have racism. God knows the GOP is the party of homicidal racists nationwide. You might get a little traction from the God thing, itself, but beyond that, what? If the economy improves you lose women by a large margin. There just aren't enough white men and Mormons in the country to win this thing if there's less fear.

You should pray, every night, that unemployment is in the high 8s in November, otherwise the demographics are really really hard for the GOP in a national race. With the wrong VP or particularly favorable economic conditions, you lose the house, as well.

The whole plan has to been obstruct everything until the election and pin the lack of improvement on Obama. Again, this is openly commented about by GOP politicians, strategists, everyone. How do you idiots claim credit if things turn around? Say you obstructed things that would have been harmful, I guess?

Good luck with that. That and the 17% of the minority vote you're going to get in Florida will buy you another 4 years out of power.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#706 Feb 07 2012 at 6:29 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
You know what the problem with all that is Smash? You're proceeding from the assumption that Democrat economic policies work. Thus, you assume that GOP obstruction since the 2010 election has been designed to hinder recovery, and more of the same is a desperate ploy to keep recovery from happening so as to pin failure on Obama. That's a nice fantasy, and I totally get why you believe it (you have to). But it's wrong.

The message the GOP will sell is that the Democrats economic policies don't work. Their policies were actively harming the economic outlook and we'd be in much much worse shape if it weren't for the GOP gaining control of the house and stopping them from doing yet more damage. Let's not forget that the GOP win in 2010 was 100% about the publics lack of faith in the Dem economic approach. So it's not like it's hard to simply continue the same message this time around.

The mediocre recovery we've had so far is because we failed to put the GOP more in control. The GOP has not been able to implement a single one of its plans to create recovery. The best it has been able to do with control of just one half of the legislature has been to prevent the Dems from continuing to make things worse. That has borne fruit so far, but if we want full recovery, we need to get rid of the disastrous and failed stimulus programs. We need to roll them back. We need to repeal Obamacare. And since the Dems have steadfastly refused to do those things with the GOP, the only way to accomplish them is to boot them out of office.


It's not hard to paint the picture in a way that puts the Dems as the obstructers of recovery. After all, things only started to get marginally better *after* the GOP took partial control of the government. Give us full control and we'll be able to put the country back on the right track. Queue music.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#707 Feb 07 2012 at 6:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
The mediocre recovery we've had so far is because we failed to put the GOP more in control.

With that messaging, I feel more confident than ever about the election.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#708 Feb 07 2012 at 7:09 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,491 posts
The GOP has not been able to implement a single one of its plans to create recovery.

I don't recall there being any, but let me guess. Cut taxes, keep the **** from getting married, and get rid of the migrant labor force?

I do remember constant warnings about all of the inflation we were going to have to suffer through because of the stimulus, the S&P ratings cut, etc. I'm going to assume the "plans" would have been about as prescient.


You're proceeding from the assumption that Democrat economic policies work.


I don't know what "Democrat economic policies" are. Keynesian economic policies obviously and demonstrably work. Real buisness cycle theory on the other hand...well again, it's predicted spikes in inflation, the inability of the US to sell bonds, etc.

Damned inconvenient when you're forced to actually test a theory you use to make policy, isn't it?

Edited, Feb 7th 2012 8:13pm by Smasharoo
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#709 Feb 08 2012 at 12:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Ouch. Romney 0-3 tonight and Santorum taking them all. Romney must have seen this coming (bad internal polling in CO? He was supposed to be favored there) and put out a memo this afternoon dismissing the elections' importance. While it's true the delegate selection is non-binding in these states, it's also true that, well, no one liked Romney all that much. Mathematically nothing much is changed but the image is really poor.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#710 Feb 08 2012 at 2:08 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
12,055 posts
The only shred of a chance for the non-romney candidates still involves all other non-romney candidates dropping out.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#711 Feb 08 2012 at 8:04 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I still firmly believe that Romney will win the nomination. It increasingly seems that he'll win it without much enthusiasm. He'll have lots of money from corporate donations though so maybe what he'll lack in citizen donations and volunteers he'll make up in corporate cash and paid employees.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#712 Feb 08 2012 at 8:23 AM Rating: Good
******
44,314 posts
Santorum got Colorado, Missouri, and Minnesota yesterday? I wasn't paying attention to the results.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#713 Feb 08 2012 at 8:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Yeah. Missouri and Minnesota were expected to go Santorum but Romney was well favored to win Colorado. That he got shut out by five points is pretty embarrassing.

Two of the caucuses were "nonbinding" in that the convention delegates will be chosen by the state party at a later date, theoretically using the caucus results as a guide. The other was just a joke and waste of money by the GOP -- they're holding ANOTHER election later in the year for the delegates. It's the image that no one bothered supporting Romney and the lost momentum that hurts.

Edited, Feb 8th 2012 8:38am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#714 Feb 08 2012 at 8:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Rather than trying to remember which "M" state has which stupid process, I'll just cut & paste:
Electoral-Vote.com wrote:
The Missouri result is simultaneously the least important and the most important of the three. It is the least important because the primary has nothing to do with the delegate selection process. The actual delegates will be chosen at a caucus in March. But it is also the most important because Newt Gingrich failed to qualify for the ballot, thus making this a one-on-one race (at least for the 85% of the Republican electorate not in love with Ron Paul) and a conservative. The result was a crushing defeat for Romney. Santorum won by 30 points, This fact is not going to be lost on anyone, but with Santorum alive again, the schism in the not-Romney camp, which was slowly coalescing around Gingrich, is going widen into a canyon again. In a certain sense that does not matter because delegates are allocated proportionally until April 1 (except for Florida), and all that matters to the conservatives is that Romney doesn't get them. After April 1, it is winner take all almost everywhere, and unless either Santorum or Gingrich drops out, Romney will simply win all the delegates with small pluralities.

Minnesota and Colorado held nonbinding caucuses yesterday. Delegates were elected to the county conventions, but they are not legally bound to support the winners of their precincts. Nevertheless, typically in a precinct caucus, each of the candidates for delegate gets to make a short speech explaining why he or she should be elected to go to the next level. In a caucus full of Santorum supporters, it is unlikely that someone who gets up there and says: "If elected, I will support Mitt Romney" is going to get many votes. So in practice, most of the delegates elected in both states are probably Santorum supporters.

The scope of the disaster for Romney shouldn't be underestimated. He lost every county in Missouri and came in third (after Santorum and Paul) in Minnesota. Romney won both states in 2008. The Minnesota loss is especially painful since former governor and former candidate Tim Pawlenty is Romney's national campaign chairman and has been very active in supporting Romney. In terms of delegates, none of this matters, but in terms of perceptions of inevitability, it weakens Romney substantially.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#715 Feb 08 2012 at 9:28 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,314 posts
The longer it goes, the more it sounds like an elaborate April Fools joke. Romney might as well get Kerry as a running mate for the full effect.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#716 Feb 10 2012 at 1:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
World News Daily wrote:
WASHINGTON – For critics of Barack Obama, 2012 has been portrayed as a do-or-die year for the country – an election that will determine whether America stays on the road to European-style socialism or veers right to reclaim its positions as the most vibrant economy in the world and the home of individual liberty.

But the 2012 election is looking more like a replay of 2008 than a do-over.

The latest WND/Wenzel Poll shows none of the current crop of Republican presidential candidates has solidified the base of the party, with one in five GOP voters leaning toward support of Obama in November.

The results are from the public-opinion research and media consulting company Wenzel Strategies. The poll was conducted by telephone Feb. 1-3, 2012, and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.44 percentage points.


I'm not saying I believe it. I'm just wondering why a Republican pollster and kookshow wingnut "paper" are pushing the story.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#717 Feb 10 2012 at 1:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,318 posts
Trying to rally the troops, I reckon. Every Middlesex village and farm, and all that.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#718 Feb 10 2012 at 2:01 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,314 posts
They'll begrudgingly rally behind Romney whoever gets the final pat on the head.

Then blame Gingrich and Santorum when they don't get the presidency.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#719 Feb 10 2012 at 2:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Samira wrote:
Trying to rally the troops, I reckon. Every Middlesex village and farm, and all that.

Could be. Maybe they're afraid that enough people will stay home and want to push the message that, if you care, you'd better vote because a lot of people won't.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#720 Feb 10 2012 at 6:43 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
/shrug

Not terribly worried (although you never know how media spin might influence things). After the incredible showing so far, I suspect that a lot of conservatives thought "Ok. Romney's won" and didn't show up to vote in these three states for what are really somewhat meaningless processes anyway. The fervent followers of the guys in the 3rd and 4th positions, still thinking their guys could come from behind, did show up. I wouldn't read much more than that from it.

It has the potential to be a momentum killer for Romney, but Santorum just doesn't have the national appeal or recognition to be viable right now. I'm not an opponent of Santorum. I'd certainly rather have him in the slot than Gingrich. But I don't think he has the operation to get this done. And I also think he's getting the same sort of positives that each candidate has so far, right up until the media takes them seriously and give the voting public a really good look.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#721 Feb 10 2012 at 8:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
After the incredible showing so far, I suspect that a lot of conservatives thought "Ok. Romney's won" and didn't show up to vote in these three states for what are really somewhat meaningless processes anyway. The fervent followers of the guys in the 3rd and 4th positions, still thinking their guys could come from behind, did show up. I wouldn't read much more than that from it.

Smiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laugh

Ah, you.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#722 Feb 10 2012 at 8:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,519 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
After the incredible showing so far, I suspect that a lot of conservatives thought "Ok. Romney's won" and didn't show up to vote in these three states for what are really somewhat meaningless processes anyway. The fervent followers of the guys in the 3rd and 4th positions, still thinking their guys could come from behind, did show up. I wouldn't read much more than that from it.

Smiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laugh

Ah, you.


My father in law really believes that Herman Cain will un-suspend his campaign just before the national convention and swoop in to rescue the GOP, riding on a white horse, at a brokered convention.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#723 Feb 10 2012 at 9:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Prodigal Son
******
20,016 posts
Are you sure he didn't say "riding on a white *****"?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#724 Feb 12 2012 at 6:55 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,289 posts
#725 Feb 12 2012 at 8:10 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Romney wins Maine caucus by 194 votes. Fails to call it "meaningless" despite it being as nonbinding as Minnesota and Colorado was. Or Iowa for that matter. Actually Maine is worse because they had late precincts (or ones just holding their own caucus on another day) but cut them off and declared the election closed without taking their results. It's legal because this caucus didn't select the real delegates anyway.

But, hey, he beat Santorum in the state that elects Collins and Snowe over and over again so that's something.

Edited, Feb 12th 2012 5:41pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#726 Feb 13 2012 at 1:52 AM Rating: Good
I don't understand the lack of faith in, and the lack of discussion about Ron Paul as a serious candidate. Sure he hasn't won any primaries yet, but he's placed 2nd a few times. He has the support of the military, and from what I can tell, the whole world when it comes to his foreign policy, and he's the only one who plans on seriously addressing any sort of budget reform through auditing the fed and ending bailouts.

Before I go on listing a whole bunch more examples of why I think Paul's policies are superior to the other candidates, is there a reason that this whole thread was basically only Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum hype with just a little hint of Paul? Am I wrong to be taking him seriously?

Also, what do you think of this?

It works like this: After the actual caucus, there is another meeting where delegates are selected. What Paul's campaign seeks to do is take those meetings over with supporters in hopes of capturing a majority of the delegates to the national Republican convention in Tampa.

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-spokane/ron-paul-s-delegate-strategy-threatens-to-undermine-will-of-gop-voters

____________________________
96BST 95BLM 88RDM 78MNK 75BRD

FFXI roxorz
#727 Feb 13 2012 at 5:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,008 posts
SingBismark wrote:
I don't understand the lack of faith in, and the lack of discussion about Ron Paul as a serious candidat... He has the support of the military, and from what I can tell, the whole world when it comes to his foreign policy, and he's the only one who plans on seriously addressing any sort of budget reform through auditing the fed and ending bailouts.


That's why. No one likes logic.

He also has glaring flaws, such as being a former presidential loser (never even makes it as the candidate). But, hey-o, guess we can say that about Romney too?
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#728 Feb 13 2012 at 6:28 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Paul's foreign policy is anathema to the GOP. Some of his fiscal policies (eliminating the Fed, returning to the gold standard) are considered unrealistic by everyone. Besides his inability to capture states, he would have the whole of the GOP machine working against him if he ever threatened to capture the nomination.

Also, the later contests are binding, winner-takes-all affairs and I can't see Paul winning enough of those to seriously have a chance at anything.

This is all aside from whatever I my personally think of Ron Paul. Debating me and my view of the gold standard won't change how its perceived by the party at large.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#729 Feb 13 2012 at 6:34 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,318 posts
Quote:
is there a reason that this whole thread was basically only Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum hype with just a little hint of Paul? Am I wrong to be taking him seriously?


Because Paul has the worst qualities of each of those, and a whole lot of bigotry and conspiracy theory baggage as well? Because his "foreign policy" is the worst sort of naive, toxic isolationism in a global economy?

Are you wrong to take him seriously? I'm not sure. It depends on what you want, I suppose. His statements on fiscal responsibility in particular are useful, for keeping the conversation on point.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#730 Feb 13 2012 at 6:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,519 posts
The reason no Republicans take Ron Paul seriously as a candidate is because he's not a Republican. He's a real Libertarian, and as much as the Tea Party likes to make overtures about Going Galt, none of them are real Libertarians and neither is anyone else really in the Republican party.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#731 Feb 13 2012 at 8:04 AM Rating: Good
******
44,314 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Romney wins Maine caucus by 194 votes. Fails to call it "meaningless" despite it being as nonbinding as Minnesota and Colorado was. Or Iowa for that matter.
Leading by 8 is a monumental victory, trailing by 130 is basically a tie.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#732 Feb 13 2012 at 8:07 AM Rating: Good
Sage
****
5,550 posts
I hope in the general election that all you repubs think that Romney has it by a landslide so you guys don't show up.


What a fantastic excuse.
____________________________
Mindel wrote:
Don't listen to bisexuals.
Aripyanfar wrote:
All bi's are ****-tarts.
#733 Feb 13 2012 at 8:09 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Speaking of not bothering to show up...
Electoral-Vote.com wrote:
Noteworthy is that only 5,516 Republicans showed up to vote, even though they had an entire week to do so. In 2008, John McCain got 295,273 votes in Maine, so if we take this as the number of Republicans in Maine, fewer than 2% of Maine Republicans bothered to vote.

I guess all those Romney supporters were so relaxed by the recent string of primary losses that they decided to stay home since Romney had it all under control.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#734 Feb 13 2012 at 8:21 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,314 posts
That's simple. Supporters of NotRomney were all so despondent over how bad their chosen candidates were doing so they came to the conclusion that it was futile to even bother showing up to vote.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#735 Feb 14 2012 at 12:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,491 posts

The reason no Republicans take Ron Paul seriously as a candidate is because he's not a Republican. He's a real Libertarian


Of course he isn't. He's the sort of abject political opportunist who makes crazy oversimplifications of complex issues for personal profit (yes even moreso than other candidates). He's just in it for the fame, and mostly, the money.

Why does no one take him seriously? Because he's not running for President of the United States. He's running for President of the Self Righteous Neck-beards With Too Much Money. He's a Republican, he votes like any other Republican, he gets whipped like any other Republican. He raises a lot of money (that he later, you know, pockets) from internet donors because he's struck a particularly rich vein of oversimplification that appeals to marginally successful people who are convinced of their own genius.

They're a weird and fickle lot, these idiots who think things like fractional reserve banking is a bad idea and that 10 year olds should be able to buy pharmaceutical grade Heroin from vending machines. They latch on to a fellow though, I'll give them that. It used to be harder. Lyndon Larouche had to print leaflets and publish whacko books. Ross Perot had the brilliant idea of making oversimplified charts to explain his unworkable oversimplified rhetoric. Paul has had the good fortune of having been anointed without really trying.

Let's look at the archetype he represents, and it's clearly an archetype. I'll call it the "Frustrated Wise Gnome." What are the key characteristics that let you build this persona that the soft minded so identify with? It's simple really.

1. A FWG must be ordinary looking and socially awkward. Ugly is allowed, but average will do. Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader, the aforementioned Hercule Ross Pierrot (you're welcome, Sam) etc.

2. A FWG must be consistent with his whacko rhetoric. The great squishy headed minority value consistency very highly. After all the answers are simple, why would you change your mind?

3. A FWG must either seem perpetually amazed that what he proposes doesn't happen, OR have an elaborate conspiracy theory why, either attached to him post hoc, or that he propagates himself. Ideally, both, of course. And most ideally, the FWG is a blank slate softies can project their own craziness on.

4. A FWG must obviously have no real hope of victory, but must continue to campaign and spread his "message" regardless. Rarely a problem given the money involved when one catches on.

5. Oh, right, should go without saying, but white male. The vastness of the soft mildly successful class is composed of white men.

Paul ticks all the boxes. Easy, completely impossible solution for every problem, that if ever tested would lead to disaster, but that will never be tested because...well they obviously lead to disaster. Ordinary looking, socially awkward, committed to ideas (except when told to vote the opposite way), easy to project whatever you want onto, he's really the whole FWG package. He lacks the broader appeal of a Perot, which is probably good for him, long term. The FWG star burns out quickly if exposed to too much reality. It's best if it hovers at the edges.

As for his actual positions, who gives a ****? He's a character actor, not a leading man. It's cute that his son was elected a Senator, but that's about the end of the family dynasty. The best we can hope for future amusement from the family is that his kid has a son and names him Paul.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#736 Feb 14 2012 at 6:53 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,318 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Hercule Ross Pierrot


My dear inspector, eet ees simplicity eetself! Smiley: laugh

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#737 Feb 14 2012 at 11:48 AM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
I attribute Ron Paul's 'success' entirely to his name.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#738 Feb 14 2012 at 12:36 PM Rating: Good
******
44,314 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
He's a character actor, not a leading man.
He's a political Will Ferrel.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#739 Feb 14 2012 at 12:46 PM Rating: Good
******
44,314 posts
Also, Ron Paul looks remarkably like Marshall Applewhite.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#740 Feb 14 2012 at 1:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Political Wire wrote:
"Pressure is on the Maine Republican Party to reconsider its weekend declaration that Mitt Romney won the state's caucuses," the Bangor Daily News reports.

"A number of communities were not included in that poll because they had not held their caucuses in time. Washington County Republicans postponed their caucuses, originally scheduled for Saturday, Feb. 11, because of a pending snowstorm and will now meet this Saturday. Other communities across the states also have caucuses scheduled for this weekend and later this month."

"However, a review of the town-by-town results released Saturday by the Maine GOP suggests that some communities that had caucused prior to Feb. 11 were not counted."


So that's Iowa, Nevada and now Maine that have been fucked up this GOP primary season. That's 38%? Thank God we have the Republicans here to impose voting regulations and tell us all how to hold safe, honest and accurate elections Smiley: laugh

Edited, Feb 14th 2012 1:52pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#741 Feb 14 2012 at 1:54 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,314 posts
But the birth certificates are in order. Smiley: schooled
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#742 Feb 14 2012 at 3:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The Iowa and Nevada GOP state chairs have resigned. Maine apparently left out counties that voted that night but just never got counted. Smiley: disappointed
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#743 Feb 14 2012 at 7:02 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Political Wire wrote:
"Pressure is on the Maine Republican Party to reconsider its weekend declaration that Mitt Romney won the state's caucuses," the Bangor Daily News reports.

"A number of communities were not included in that poll because they had not held their caucuses in time. Washington County Republicans postponed their caucuses, originally scheduled for Saturday, Feb. 11, because of a pending snowstorm and will now meet this Saturday. Other communities across the states also have caucuses scheduled for this weekend and later this month."

"However, a review of the town-by-town results released Saturday by the Maine GOP suggests that some communities that had caucused prior to Feb. 11 were not counted."


So that's Iowa, Nevada and now Maine that have been fucked up this GOP primary season. That's 38%? Thank God we have the Republicans here to impose voting regulations and tell us all how to hold safe, honest and accurate elections Smiley: laugh


You're taking your cues from fringe sites now? The only folks making claims of some kind of conspiracy or fraud are the nutty Paulites. You're really jumping on that bandwagon now?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#744 Feb 14 2012 at 7:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Who said conspiracy? This is just gross incompetence. Having the GOP say how elections should be run is like having the Keystone Kops lecture you on home security.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#745 Feb 14 2012 at 8:15 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Who said conspiracy? This is just gross incompetence. Having the GOP say how elections should be run is like having the Keystone Kops lecture you on home security.


I'm sure that's what someone on MSNBC said, so it must be true.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#746 Feb 14 2012 at 8:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smiley: laugh Ah, it's cute because you try so hard and yet you know so very, very little about what's going on around you.

The chairs of two state GOP chairs have resigned over the fiascoes their states' primaries became. Maine is looking worse and worse. I know you'll never ever admit that I have a point but chanting "Liberal media liberal media" like some little Palin acolyte isn't a better response than just remaining silent and reassuring yourself internally.

Edited, Feb 14th 2012 8:22pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#747 Feb 14 2012 at 8:34 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,519 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Smiley: laugh Ah, it's cute because you try so hard and yet you know so very, very little about what's going on around you.

The chairs of two state GOP chairs have resigned over the fiascoes their states' primaries became. Maine is looking worse and worse. I know you'll never ever admit that I have a point but chanting "Liberal media liberal media" like some little Palin acolyte isn't a better response than just remaining silent and reassuring yourself internally.

Edited, Feb 14th 2012 8:22pm by Jophiel


I'm beginning to understand why Republicans all believe the zombie-Reagan lie: "Government is the problem."

They've all taken it to heart so much that they've made it come true, and it's started to affect how they even govern their own **** party.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#748 Feb 14 2012 at 8:43 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Smiley: laugh Ah, it's cute because you try so hard and yet you know so very, very little about what's going on around you.


That's some irony right there.

Quote:
The chairs of two state GOP chairs have resigned over the fiascoes their states' primaries became. Maine is looking worse and worse.


So that's what MSNBC told you that the reputable Ron Paul support web site they sourced said. Right? It must be true!!!

I'll give you a secret hint: The Nevada chair had submitted her intent to resign right after the primary weeks before said primary. But I'm sure the folks on your TV who reported (with baited breath no less!) that the RNC chair in Nevada had resigned in the midst of this whole fiasco going on failed to mention that. And I'm sure you never bothered to see if there was actually a causative relation between those two. Because apparently no matter how many times I point out that during/after don't mean "because", some people still make that mistake.

Edited, Feb 14th 2012 6:43pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#749 Feb 14 2012 at 9:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
That's some irony right there.

This would be cutting if, you know, you actually displayed some knowledge.

Quote:
I'll give you a secret hint: The Nevada chair had submitted her intent to resign right after the primary weeks before said primary

As I was saying...

The Nevada caucuses had been a shambles for months leading up to the event.
Las Vegas Sun wrote:
Much to the confusion of voters, the state party did not establish a common set of rules for conducting the caucuses.
Instead, it let county parties establish everything from start times to rules on whether candidates could give speeches at caucus sites.
The result was a mishmash of caucus procedures that differed in all 17 counties.
The decision to decentralize the planning — which was made in October, just four months before the event — was made when county officials became fed up with the apparent inability of the state party to get its act together.
The Atlantic wrote:
Since then, the Nevada GOP has not become any more professional, effective or able to control its grassroots activists. (In 2010, after all, they nominated Sharron Angle to challenge Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.) The party chairwoman during the caucus, Amy Tarkanian, arranged to have her resignation effective as soon as the counting was done. She told Politico that in the face of county parties that wanted to do things their own way, she had thrown up her hands and let them.

Tarkanian's "official" reason for leaving was so her husband could run for a Congressional seat but the writing was on the wall here months ago. And trying to debate Tarkanian's reason for leaving doesn't do much to whitewash the disaster of the primary itself.

But say "MSNBC" some more. In the absence of knowing what you're talking about, you'll always have that Smiley: laugh

Edited, Feb 14th 2012 9:26pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#750 Feb 14 2012 at 9:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,318 posts
Quote:
I'm beginning to understand why Republicans all believe the zombie-Reagan lie: "Government is the problem."

They've all taken it to heart so much that they've made it come true, and it's started to affect how they even govern their own **** party.


Oh, it's so much worse than that. Did you read the NYT article about "conservatives" who hate taking money from the government, blame the government for giving it to them, but keep taking it because, well, they'd be broke without it?

That's some fine cognitive dissonance there, Lou.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#751 Feb 14 2012 at 10:03 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,314 posts
You can't take that article serious, Clint Eastwood wrote it.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 29 All times are in CST
Bijou, Prim, Anonymous Guests (27)