Page 96 of 200
Re: New Developments III
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 7:50 pm
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.
Re: New Developments III
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 7:45 pm
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.
Re: New Developments III
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 4:36 pm
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.
Re: New Developments III
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 4:31 pm
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.
Re: New Developments III
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 3:13 pm
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.
Re: New Developments III
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 7:30 am
by taki15
Are Republicans really going to nominate Newt Gingrich? If they do so, then Obama will officially be the luckiest man alive.
Re: New Developments III
Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 11:39 pm
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.
Re: New Developments III
Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 11:23 pm
by Big Magilla
Sonic's comment appeared a good 45 minutes before Streep. I was still awake.
Re: New Developments III
Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 11:21 pm
by Sabin
He did so somewhere between Meryl Streep and George Clooney.
Re: New Developments III
Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 9:45 pm
by Sonic Youth
Huntsman just dropped out.
Re: New Developments III
Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 3:04 am
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.
Re: New Developments III
Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 11:24 pm
by Okri
Is this a real ad? It says "Paid for by Newt" at the end, but wouldn't it say something else?
Re: New Developments III
Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 7:40 am
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.
Re: New Developments III
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 11:11 pm
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.
Re: New Developments III
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 11:52 am
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.