Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bauglir]

Yeah, it doesn't really occupy the same position in the minds of most people, and for good reason (both the magnitude of the events, all of which are "not good" but to wildly varying degrees, let's be honest, and the time since they occurred). There's a fair chunk of the populace who won't even get the joke until it's explained to them that they should be outraged, and why. Although, for that matter, I'd absolutely love either of those joke possibilities you outlined, depending on the particular joke. Dismissing the pain of those wronged as meaningless or a fraud? Absolutely out of the question. Otherwise, have a blast.

I'd be okay with a Genghis Khan joke being made to a Mongolian diplomat visiting Russia, provided the joke was made without malice and offended neither of the people involved (I don't have a fucking clue what the political situation between the two is, or how either culture deals with that bit of history, so maybe it would be likely to offend, but assume for the sake of example that it wouldn't). In the latter case, I'd still be okay with it as long as a sincere apology was made.

[warhammer651]

If anything, I think most Americans around here regard the burning of Washington as a "Gotta respect the brits/Canadians" point rather than a  "SHAME TO OUR NATIONAL PRIDE" point

[Aqizzar]

Can't you see how this brainless tearing-apart of a flippant remark is tearing us apart?  Some conservative talking heads are going to "blast" Obama for "joking" about how the British sacked D.C. during the War of 1812, and about seven people who already hated Obama anyway are going to care.  There, it's done.

Meanwhile, as OP, I have an announcement to make.  I have no fucking idea how the Republican delegate count is supposed to add up, or even how to talk about it.  The first four Google results are RealClearPolitics, CBS News, NPR's Tracker, and Tea Party Cheer.  No two of them have the same total count for any one candidate, and they have wildly different ideas about how some states are apportioned, and even different dates for when some of them are supposed to vote - especially the ones that have already "voted" but will later hold a caucus for the real count, like Missouri, which everyone keeps saying happens on Saturday but the websites say won't count until April.

This is no goddamn way to pick a Presidential candidate.  When a nation's worth of professional reporters cannot come to an agreement on who has how many votes, your system is too convoluted.

[Sirus]

Ah, now the candidates tear each other to pieces all over again to decide who truly wins. It's like a neverending train of lunacy

[mainiac]

Oh wow, trying to compare those numbers I just learned that RNC rules could invalidate the winner take all proportions out of Florida and Arizona.  That could be a pretty big deal.

Looking at the three different legitimate news sources Aqizzar posted, I have the impression that NPR is avoiding assuming that state caucuses are going to follow the primaries where they are not explicitly bound to do so while RCP and CBS are assuming such.  I don't know what the differences between RCP and CBS are though.

[Aqizzar]

And now we have the president of Newt Gingrich's SuperPAC, while mightily attempting to defend his candidate, admitting on live television that Gingrich has missed his last possible window for a nomination, and will now remain in the race for the express purpose of denying Romney the nomination.  I wonder if Newt knows that...

[RedKing]

Yeah, a lot of the variation has to do with how people are handling caucuses and "unbound" delegates (for instance, in some states the large bulk of delegates are awarded in some flavor of proportional, but then there's a handful of state delegates who are unbound, but assumed to vote for the "winner" of the state but are not required to do so).

Given that Ron Paul has been going after these caucus and unbound delegates like a starving lion after a thick, juicy ribeye, it's probably better to err on the side of caution and only count the bound delegates.

@Aqizzar: I think he does. If you look at his comments, he's not saying "I'm going to win", he's saying "I'm not going to drop out". He knows he can't be king, but he still sure as hell thinks he can be a kingmaker.

[mainiac]

Given that Ron Paul has been going after these caucus and unbound delegates like a starving lion after a thick, juicy ribeye, it's probably better to err on the side of caution and only count the bound delegates.

I wouldn't take it that far.  The candidate who won the primary is going to be seen as having a legitimate claim on these delegates, unlike Ron Paul.  It's pretty unlikely that they are just going to stand pat and ignore the caucuses (well maybe Newt).  I'd expect Paul to do better then his fair share, but not a huge portion better.

[Nadaka]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/poll-obama-leads-gop-candidates-head-head-contests-151032764.html

Long story short: with each republican candidate spending most of his time trying to cast the other republican candidates as a worse scumbag, it looks like people are becoming more favorable to Obama. His lead over Romney has gone from about 4% to about 12%, breaching the line that puts him over 50% line. His lead when matched against the other republican candidates is even wider.

[RedKing]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/poll-obama-leads-gop-candidates-head-head-contests-151032764.html

Long story short: with each republican candidate spending most of his time trying to cast the other republican candidates as a worse scumbag, it looks like people are becoming more favorable to Obama. His lead over Romney has gone from about 4% to about 12%, breaching the line that puts him over 50% line. His lead when matched against the other republican candidates is even wider.

While generally true that Obama is beating the GOP field, I wouldn't overstate this one poll. Just a couple of days ago, I was mentioning how we had the first polls in months that actually showed Romney beating Obama in the general election. There's still a lot of volatility out there, and a lot of consolidation that will happen once the GOP settles on a nominee. Just as the "Anybody But Bush" mentality meant that John Kerry didn't see all that depressed a turnout (with apologies to mainiac, since you've commented on this before, but Kerry was NOT that popular of a candidate with the base), the anti-Obama furor on the Right means they'll vote for whoever gets the nod, even if they can't stand the guy. The biggest up-for-grabs chunk of voters are going to be that "mushy middle" of low-information voters whose political opinions are very malleable and prone to influence by high-profile stories. In that respect, yeah...having the GOP beat the hell out of each other publicly is a big help to Obama.

[nenjin]

I wonder if Newt knows that...

He's probably just reveling in the fact that, while he's not going to be president, he still has the power to have an impact on politics. Even if that impact is to weaken his own party even further. But why does he honestly care? He's going on to quasi-political stardom after this.

[ECrownofFire]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/poll-obama-leads-gop-candidates-head-head-contests-151032764.html

Long story short: with each republican candidate spending most of his time trying to cast the other republican candidates as a worse scumbag, it looks like people are becoming more favorable to Obama. His lead over Romney has gone from about 4% to about 12%, breaching the line that puts him over 50% line. His lead when matched against the other republican candidates is even wider.

Saw a poll similar to that earlier that showed Ron Paul leading on Obama in a theoretical election between the two.

[nenjin]

Tbh, I think Paul is the only one that stands a remote chance of beating Obama, in terms of who John Q would be willing to vote for. All the other Republicans are poster-children for the kind of candidates that actually manage to motivate the democratic base.

[mainiac]

Paul has never faced a competitive election in anything vaguely resembling the typical american electorate.  He would get positively creamed in a national race against Obama.  Paul's extremist views go unnoticed because nobody but internet tough guys ever bothers to call bullshit on the fact that he loathes the social programs that Americans overwhelmingly support not to mention his cultural extremism.  If he actually had Obama '12 and the DNC gunning for him he'd probably do worse then Hoover in '32.

Paul is a boxer who's never taken a fall... because he's never been in a boxing match.

[nenjin]

I don't disagree with that sentiment. But what I think he does have going for him is he seems to genuinely care about his particular issues and that does resonate with people. (Those that aren't aware of all of his positions, at any rate.) When he's ranting about our wars, it doesn't have the same rabid partisan frothiness that you get when Santorum opens his mouth, or all varieties of canned responses like you get with Romney. And he hasn't proposed moon bases.

So really I think he's the only one among Republicans that can motivate disillusioned moderates into voting against Obama. But when no one in the media will take him seriously, he's basically never going to get the chance to do that. When he attacks the administration's foreign and fiscal policy, he's got an audience that agrees with him. I don't know if that would be enough for it to even be a fight....but I think he'd have a better chance of a truly "interesting" election than with Romney, Santorum or Gingrich.