·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- # RomneyShambles
# RomneyShamblesFollow
It's currently 3:1 on 538, and 2:1 on intrade. If voting was done today, 9:1.
Just as Planned.
There's always a chance, but it's about the same chance as Ron Paul had back in January.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
lolgaxe wrote:
There's always a chance, but it's about the same chance as Ron Paul had back in January.
That chance... is that people get lazy and don't actually go vote. Polls mean nothing if people don't show up.
Spoonless wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
So please vote for Obama, us Canucks need your economy moving forward, not stuck in neutral, or worse reverse.
Barring some really nasty October surprise, Obama will probably win. Nate Silver gives him an 80% chance on election day, based on current data.
Actually, because of that a lot of Dem energy is now focusing on downticket races, to try to "upgrade" the Senate and with some serious luck re-take the house.
Delusional conservatives saying "GOP candidate down by three? He has Obama right where he wants him!"?
What a surpri--- wait, it IS 2008, right?
What a surpri--- wait, it IS 2008, right?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
crazylegz1975 wrote:
Wow a bunch of radical lefties think obama's going to win, big surprise.
What distinguishes a radical lefty from a plain old lefty?
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
I'm already bored with this new poster 
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
Elinda wrote:
crazylegz1975 wrote:
Wow a bunch of radical lefties think obama's going to win, big surprise.
Edited, Sep 17th 2012 1:02pm by lolgaxe
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
lolgaxe wrote:
Elinda wrote:
crazylegz1975 wrote:
Wow a bunch of radical lefties think obama's going to win, big surprise.
Edited, Sep 17th 2012 1:02pm by lolgaxe
Needs Mohawk too, maybe a beat up Trans Am just for flavoring.
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
It's funny how arguing for a political position becomes convoluted into arguing about vote prediction. If Democrats win, couldn't you just say that they were better at fooling people this election, while maintaining the superiority of the Republican ideology? The best policy doesn't have to be the most popular - it's really okay if its not. You're like someone using sales numbers to justify why their music or movie is critically superior.
If I saw that Romney were up by 100 electoral votes, I wouldn't deny it, I'd say "Well this sucks."
Of course this same thing happened on this forum in 2008: conservatives with blinders on ignoring polling data because it somehow shattered their worldview, I guess?
trickybeck wrote:
Of course this same thing happened on this forum in 2008: conservatives with blinders on ignoring polling data because it somehow shattered their worldview, I guess?
I think that's much of it. A lot of their rhetoric is about appealing to the idea that Obama and his policies are unpopular. There's supposed to be a silent majority backing up all their claims, they won't be happy if they find out that it's not there.
Edited, Sep 17th 2012 1:39pm by Eske
crazylegz1975 wrote:
Wow a bunch of radical lefties think obama's going to win, big surprise.
Eske Esquire wrote:
trickybeck wrote:
Of course this same thing happened on this forum in 2008: conservatives with blinders on ignoring polling data because it somehow shattered their worldview, I guess?
I think that's much of it. A lot of their rhetoric is about appealing to the idea that Obama and his policies are unpopular. There's supposed to be a silent majority backing up all their claims, they won't be happy if they find out that it's not there.
Edited, Sep 17th 2012 1:39pm by Eske
Or irregardless or their views on Obama's policies they don't really see Romney as the solution.
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
Romney's policies actually aren't all bad. The problem is that his good and bad policies are on the same issues and are subject to change at any given moment.
That, and he's a huge ****. The *********** he managed to suppress during the primary, but now that there's no one around to look worse than he is, the *********** is shining through in all its ******* glory.
That, and he's a huge ****. The *********** he managed to suppress during the primary, but now that there's no one around to look worse than he is, the *********** is shining through in all its ******* glory.
trickybeck wrote:
If Democrats win, couldn't you just say that they were better at fooling people this election, while maintaining the superiority of the Republican ideology?
You could, but it'd be arbitrary conjecture. Talking about who's going to win is just a little more grounded in fact than who any particular poster believes should win or why they
Edited, Sep 17th 2012 1:34pm by Allegory
Spoonless wrote:
crazylegz1975 wrote:
Wow a bunch of radical lefties think obama's going to win, big surprise.
Varus already skipped out on mine!
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
My new theory is that this not-Varus sock is actually Varus, but he can't let on that he's really the real Varus because he knows that 50 of his daddy's hard earned bucks is soon gonna be a hand-out to a lib!
Guenny wrote:
My new theory is that this not-Varus sock is actually Varus, but he can't let on that he's really the real Varus because he knows that 50 of his daddy's hard earned bucks is soon gonna be a hand-out to a lib!
Can't be funding them radical Liberal Muslim terrorists!!
Truly, Romney is a font of gaffes.
I swear, he came this close to saying (of Obama supporters, or the poor, or whomever he's lashing out at in this generalizing, ill-advised diatribe) "You know what? Fuck 'em."
Edited, Sep 17th 2012 4:50pm by Eske
I swear, he came this close to saying (of Obama supporters, or the poor, or whomever he's lashing out at in this generalizing, ill-advised diatribe) "You know what? Fuck 'em."
Edited, Sep 17th 2012 4:50pm by Eske
Hey, ya beat me!
Unspoken is Obama's 95% of the African-American vote making up a good part of the 47% of Americans who are lazy, entitled slackers who expect the government to do everything for them. Way to tweet that dog whistle, Mitt!
Edited, Sep 17th 2012 3:57pm by Jophiel
Unspoken is Obama's 95% of the African-American vote making up a good part of the 47% of Americans who are lazy, entitled slackers who expect the government to do everything for them. Way to tweet that dog whistle, Mitt!
Edited, Sep 17th 2012 3:57pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Eske Esquire wrote:
trickybeck wrote:
He "very literally said it," and then in the next sentence he said that middle class was $250k or less, thus giving a more precise answer. I think you're making a big deal out of 2 seconds of misspeaking.
Seems like a nonsensical way of making that point. I mean, the two statements (100k isn't middle class, and middle class is 250k and less) are contradictory, so the second can't be "a more precise answer".
I gather that you're saying that the intention was to say something like "No, 100k isn't middle class, because middle class is actually everything up to 250k, including 100k"? It's possible, but that just strikes me as an odd error of speech.
The confusion comes from folks falling over themselves to make the "Romney thinks 200-250k is middle income" argument so they're leaving out key parts of the conversation.
He was responding to a question about a study showing that in order for his economic plan to work, he would have to eliminate tax deductions for folks earning more than $100k. GS asked "Is $100k middle class?", but it's clear in context that he was really asking if $100k was some kind of cut off point for being "middle class" with everyone above that being "rich". Romney's answer only seems awkward if you don't read the bits leading up to it. It's clear in context that he was saying that middle class extends upwards to the $200-$250k range, not that it starts at that point.
Quote:
Either way, it's a gaffe, which is the entire reason that I linked it. And I do think that there's a reason that Romney's prone to such gaffes.
To be fair though, if you have enough people trying really hard to take anything you say out of context, it's pretty close to impossible not to say anything ever that they can do this with.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
I think he's more like-able in those videos than in the mass market ones. But uh, I liked Eastwood's speech too, so ymmv.
Just as Planned.
Timelordwho wrote:
I think he's more like-able in those videos than in the mass market ones. But uh, I liked Eastwood's speech too, so ymmv.
He certainly comes off less fake in them, so, well...there's that, I guess.
But to me, he also comes off as condescending, bitter, and more than a little deluded.
Timelordwho wrote:
I think he's more like-able in those videos than in the mass market ones.
There ya go. New campaign slogan!
Romney/Ryan 2012: Because Fuck Those 48%
Speaking of, in today's video dump we have Romney saying that it'd be easier for him (running for President) if he was Latino:
Edited, Sep 17th 2012 4:27pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Recent Visitors: 224
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (224)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- # RomneyShambles
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC