New Developments III

Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10779
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: New Developments III

Post by Sabin »

I fear Newt Gingrich as the nominee. This is going to end up being the most negative Presidential campaign of my conscious lifetime. And unless Barack Obama starts to up his game and start acting like the President, Newt could end up winning.

What I like about Newt as the nominee is this: the base of the right is in fractions right now.In an age where Rick Perry aired his "Strong" advertisement, where Rick Santorum's (how shall I put this?) "private thoughts" are actually said without fear in the public forum, demonstrates how far to the right the base is moving. That Santorum is at all seen as halfway viable is pretty staggering. And yet, in the age of the Tea Party, Mitt Romeny is now just barely losing grip of the nomination. A total moderate at, well, not the height of the Tea Party zeitgeist but a year or two past it. Were they to run Mitt and he were to lose, the lesson they would learn is "Go crazier." The problem was that they didn't have a candidate Church-y and hate-y enough. And the next guy would be a piece of work. That dialogue is still going to happen when Newt Gingrich loses, but right now? The Right needs to lose for being a Republican, not Mitt Romney.
"How's the despair?"
taki15
Assistant
Posts: 541
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 4:29 am

Re: New Developments III

Post by taki15 »

Big Magilla wrote:As the pundits keep reminding us, the Democrats hoped Reagan would win the Republican nomination in 1980 because he couldn't win the general election. Be careful what you wish for.
Yeah, but Gingrich is no Reagan and Obama certainly is not Carter.
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19359
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: New Developments III

Post by Big Magilla »

As the pundits keep reminding us, the Democrats hoped Reagan would win the Republican nomination in 1980 because he couldn't win the general election. Be careful what you wish for.
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Re: New Developments III

Post by OscarGuy »

Gingrich is the best and worst thing that could happen to the Republican party. Having a right wing idealogue on the top of your ticket will show the Republican National Convention just how unelectable someone like that is on a national level.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Greg
Tenured
Posts: 3300
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:12 pm
Location: Greg
Contact:

Re: New Developments III

Post by Greg »

Fresh off of his big win in the South Carolina primary, Newt Gingrich is now leading in the most recent polls in Florida.
taki15
Assistant
Posts: 541
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 4:29 am

Re: New Developments III

Post by taki15 »

Are Republicans really going to nominate Newt Gingrich? If they do so, then Obama will officially be the luckiest man alive.
User avatar
Sonic Youth
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8006
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Re: New Developments III

Post by Sonic Youth »

It happened during A Separation's win.

How will this affect A Separation's chances for Best Foreign Language film at the Oscars? I say it's a bad sign.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19359
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: New Developments III

Post by Big Magilla »

Sonic's comment appeared a good 45 minutes before Streep. I was still awake.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10779
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: New Developments III

Post by Sabin »

He did so somewhere between Meryl Streep and George Clooney.
"How's the despair?"
User avatar
Sonic Youth
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8006
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Re: New Developments III

Post by Sonic Youth »

Huntsman just dropped out.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Damien
Laureate
Posts: 6331
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: New York, New York
Contact:

Re: New Developments III

Post by Damien »

Okri wrote:Is this a real ad? It says "Paid for by Newt" at the end, but wouldn't it say something else?
Yes, that actually is a real Newt ad. Don't vote for somebody because he speaks French.

Such is the world of Republicans in 2012.
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
Okri
Tenured
Posts: 3355
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Re: New Developments III

Post by Okri »

Is this a real ad? It says "Paid for by Newt" at the end, but wouldn't it say something else?
criddic3
Tenured
Posts: 2875
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 11:08 pm
Location: New York, USA
Contact:

Re: New Developments III

Post by criddic3 »

Sonic Youth wrote:
criddic3 wrote:It is a lot of money, but when Obama points to those who make that amount, he makes it seem like some evil thing and seems to equate it with being a millionaire. As some have said, many such people are small business owners who hire people. I concede your point to the extent that it is a lot of money. However, when average people talk about rich people, they are thinking about millionaires. $200,000/yr, even $100,000, is definitely a comfortable place to be (even with all the taxes), but I think you know what I'm talking about.
I give you a lot of credit, Criddic. I've had this discussion with several conservatives, and none of them would concede that $200,000 is a lot of money. I could nitpick over some points you made, but never mind. For once, your answer was refreshing.

On second thought, I'll nitpick. "Millionaire" is sort of a loose term, used to call people who appear rich even if they don't make over a million dollars. They're referring more to a life-style than a gross amount of income. So in a way you're right. Technically, someone who earns $200,000 a year may not be a millionaire. But if you look at their total assets, I'm willing to bet that far more of them are millionaires than you think. And if you're suffering financial hardships when living on such an income, then you're terrible at household management.

Anyway, we've veered off the point. If, as you've conceded, $200,000 is a lot of money, then Gingrich's 2010 income of $2.6 million is "a lot of money" 13 times over. And if he's sincere and doesn't believe he's rich, then he is (as they say) out of touch with the American people. And if you believe he's sincere, then you have no right to accuse Mitt Romney (which I haven't seen you do yet; I'm just saying...) of being out of touch for making a $10,000 bet or saying he likes to fire people.
You bet it's a lot of money. I make around $11,000/yr. I don't mind making that known. People assume that if you're relatively poor you will vote Democrat. There are many reasons not to, and the class warfare is one of them. If i don't make $200,000 a year, it's probably because I don't deserve to. Maybe I'm not smart enough, or maybe life just didn't turn out that way. Anyway, whoever says it's not a lot of money must have a different comparative view of money versus the cost of living. Of course, the more money you have, the more expensive are the things you buy.
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
User avatar
Sonic Youth
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8006
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Re: New Developments III

Post by Sonic Youth »

criddic3 wrote:It is a lot of money, but when Obama points to those who make that amount, he makes it seem like some evil thing and seems to equate it with being a millionaire. As some have said, many such people are small business owners who hire people. I concede your point to the extent that it is a lot of money. However, when average people talk about rich people, they are thinking about millionaires. $200,000/yr, even $100,000, is definitely a comfortable place to be (even with all the taxes), but I think you know what I'm talking about.
I give you a lot of credit, Criddic. I've had this discussion with several conservatives, and none of them would concede that $200,000 is a lot of money. I could nitpick over some points you made, but never mind. For once, your answer was refreshing.

On second thought, I'll nitpick. "Millionaire" is sort of a loose term, used to call people who appear rich even if they don't make over a million dollars. They're referring more to a life-style than a gross amount of income. So in a way you're right. Technically, someone who earns $200,000 a year may not be a millionaire. But if you look at their total assets, I'm willing to bet that far more of them are millionaires than you think. And if you're suffering financial hardships when living on such an income, then you're terrible at household management.

Anyway, we've veered off the point. If, as you've conceded, $200,000 is a lot of money, then Gingrich's 2010 income of $2.6 million is "a lot of money" 13 times over. And if he's sincere and doesn't believe he's rich, then he is (as they say) out of touch with the American people. And if you believe he's sincere, then you have no right to accuse Mitt Romney (which I haven't seen you do yet; I'm just saying...) of being out of touch for making a $10,000 bet or saying he likes to fire people.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
flipp525
Laureate
Posts: 6168
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 7:44 am

Re: New Developments III

Post by flipp525 »

Sonic Youth wrote:
criddic3 wrote:Fairfax County, Virginia ($105,241).
Where I grew up. Sucks that we were apparently #2 that year, though.
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."

-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
Post Reply

Return to “Current Events”