Jump to content

The Politics Thread


Toups

Recommended Posts

  • Members

Carl, I'm sorry but you're wrong.

There will always, always be Beltway village media who try to force the false equivalency, yes, that much is true. But just because they try doesn't mean it always works and is all-consuming. It failed in 08 and it's failing even harder now. The public and press reaction to this has been overwhelming shock and disgust. It's going nuclear. Going by the desperate spinning of Andrea Mitchell, Chuck Todd or most of the droogs at Politico will always make you unhappy. But they are not the majority. And even they know this is awful and another death blow. I'm sure Todd will say so this morning, and Mitchell all but admitted it last night.

I understand the way those kind of press corps tools work; I grew up in a family that worked inside the Beltway village. But you can't let it all get to you. Those few shills are trying to preserve a mentality and a cocktail circuit that needs that mentality, and above all preserve the illusion of the 'close' horse race election to keep ratings and ad revenue up. But they know how bad this tape is, and they know this election is done. It's one thing to be practical and pragmatic. But in this case, letting a few negative voices dominate the spectrum from your vantage point is only feeding a dying beast. They know they're spinning ashes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 45.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Vee

    6820

  • DRW50

    5995

  • DramatistDreamer

    5521

  • Khan

    3466

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • Members

I just wonder how many in the public will react to this. The common public view often seems to be, "Yes, there are moochers and lazy people. I'm not one of them. The other guy is." The public is comfortable with the idea of those who get assistance from the government being demonized, as long as they themselves don't lose those benefits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

"This comment suggests a few things. First, it suggests that he really doesn’t know much about the country he inhabits. Who are these freeloaders? Is it the Iraq war veteran who goes to the V.A.? Is it the student getting a loan to go to college? Is it the retiree on Social Security or Medicare? "

"The people who receive the disproportionate share of government spending are not big-government lovers. They are Republicans. They are senior citizens. They are white men with high school degrees. As Bill Galston of the Brookings Institution has noted, the people who have benefited from the entitlements explosion are middle-class workers, more so than the dependent poor. "

When David Brooks has to call out Romney and his delusion about the American people, you know things have hit bottom.

I don't think that this is the common public view at all. Yes, there is a segment of the population that is delusional about the truth about their socioeconomic status and are disdainful of others less fortunate and have no close that Romney and his ilk feel this way about them, but this not close to being everyone or I think even most of population.

Yeah, I don't see this is the mainstream media coverage at all. There might be a line on Obama's gaffe in 2008, but most of the articles focus on Romney's disdain and misrepresentation of almost half of the population.

I don't get this at all and read lots of political commentary.

Edited by Ann_SS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The Obama/Carter stuff is brought up fairly often.

Here's some of the mainstream press coverage bringing up the "bitter" comment as a comparison.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/09/17/47-percent-vs-bitter-clinger/189956

A lot of this ends up filtering in from the far right media outlets. Some spin sites are also trying to say he was only speaking of Obama supporters, which of course would make it OK.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/09/did-romney-just-lose-the-election-ctd.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The dude can't meet with the Israeli Prime Minister at a time when Israel is considering a strike on Iran? You don't see that as turning his back on the man? Honestly, Wales... Then again, Obama IS confused about who our allies are...

Who said that? It was Obama, himself, who claimed he would do it! Another broken promise, Wales? You give him a pass on yet another broken promise? When do you hold him accountable for all the things he said in 2008 to get elected... all the things he promised from that podium between huge Greek columns and an unbelievably huge crowd... Remember all that?

When did he say that? Excerpt this for me so I can read it... and in context, not the typical liberal "piecemeal-twist-to-mean-what-you-want-it-to-mean" routine...

Probably? You say "probably"? You are doing what you've accused Romney of doing.

Do you mean this tongue-in-cheek? Or are we getting a true glimpse into what Wales really thinks about America?

Edited by GoldenDogs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Who said that? Who claimed "every democrat" does not pay taxes, thinks they are a victim and wants the government to give them food? Come on, Q-Fan, quit distorting Romney's comments. It's getting old... and it's exactly what the media Carl claims loves Romney is doing.

He never said that. Now, analyze precisely WHAT the man SAID and explain to me where he was wrong... and try to be a little balanced and less partisan about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Excerpt some of this for me. I'm not seeing this in the mainstream media. And please don't quote or point to opinion pieces... where is the hard news coverage that portrays the "both sides are bad but Democrats are worse" mindset. Does that comes from the New York Times? MSNBC? CNN? Fox News? The Huffington Post? Politico?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

In January, an article that appeared in Carl's New York Times stated that "Thanks to the recession, and changes in program rules, a large fraction of households receive government assistance, especially those headed by people without a four-year college degree."

One cannot deny that there has always been a significant segment of society - all ages, all races, etc. - who have made a living on the dole. It's true that some work harder to avoid working at all... we've all seen and even know those who do it! The article indicates the largest number of people receiving some form of benefits are those who did not receive a high school diploma. The article does not include old people forced on to Medicaid and Social Security. The article also does not offer a breakdown on race or ethnicity.

I'm not going to go there because Romney NEVER brought race or ethnicity into the argument. If he did, excerpt it for me so I can read it.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/25/who-receives-government-assistance/

I gotta get ready for work... I can't play any more this morning... LOL!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Roman is right on this one... It seems I have heard this before. Or was it that most entitlements are given to those in Republican states?

My question is... are these poor states? Are they unemployed? I don't have time to research right now...

Link to them... quote them for me... thanks dude!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Ok I don't want to defend Romney but there was an article in the local paper this morning and it talked about Americans paying taxes. In 2009 and 2010, 47 and 46 percent of Americans did not pay federal income tax. Now that doesn't mean they didn't pay other taxes, they still payed into social security, payed sales taxes, state taxes, county taxes where applicable. All it says is in those years that a percentage of the population didn't have to pay federal income tax, whether it was due to income level or tax incentives. Now I have no idea, Romney might have been referring to that statistic in general I have no clue, and we really don't know what the entire context was of what he said.

As for unemployment, it's a given that there will always be a certain percentage of the population that will never work for a variety of reasons, I think that number is somewhere between 3 and 4 percent. So when unemployment is at 4 percent, it's assumed that anyone who wants to work or is capable of it, is working.

Edited by JaneAusten
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

As I said in my response to you before. We obviously see things differently and should just leave it at that. I don't find it beneficial to engage in discussions or debates where I have to substantiate all my claims and the other person can pick and choose when to give a response and what constitiutes sufficient validation. It's kind of like my saying that I.D. would not help in instances of voter fraud where people are voting multiple times or in other instances where identifying the voter is not the issue and not having that acknowledged as a valid point.

Since you've already stated that Mitt Romney never brought up race or ethnicity then his standing before the NAACP specifically referring to free stuff would mean nothing to you anyway as he goes around telling other groups of people he addresses the same thing.

For anyone else who may be interested, I don't believe if a person refuses to meet with another once that it then constitutes turning his back on that person.

I don't think blowing up Iran or whatever the plan is to pertaining to Iran has any direct correlation to the unrest that this anti-Mohammed video is being used to stir up.

Oh and I have no idea what Barack Obama promised on energy but I doubt that he claimed he was going to fix America's energy dependency issues in less than four or even four years. And if he did, then whoever was naiveenough to believe him now knows better.

Wasn't he basically saying the people who don't pay taxes are the people who vote for Barack Obama? Even if he was referring to those statitstics, he still implied that all those people are moochers. He must not use tax loopholes or anything to attempt to pay as little in taxes as possible. He hides his money in other countries and he's attacking a percentage of the population for doing essentially the same thing he does, only in their case they have less income and those loopholes keep them from having to pay. Plus I am not sure that I believe that many people paid no federal taxes at all because even under a meager income there are automatic deductions made to a pay check and it would have to mean that all those people received 100% of whatever was deducted back and that seems a more likely scenarion under EIC than it does in general. They may not have owed any money but I can't believe that many people would have gotten all their federal deductions back.

Edited by Wales2004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • 6-5   Case in point...lol.   Kat and Jacob can soooo have a spinoff. Just watching her being adamant that Eva is up to no-good while Jacob continues to try to play straight man to the craziness continued to be a hoot to watch. And the sad part is that Kat is on the right trail, just following the wrong clues. Or worse coming to the wrong conclusion. All because of her dislike for Eva.    Meanwhile, Eva continued to make inroads. I know I have said this since the start of the show, but I love how for the most part, the writers write the characters in gray. Not completely white. Not completely black. Most of the characters have moments where they resonate with the audience and then have moments where they are unlikeable. Like technically, Eva should be a pariah. I like that she knows this, understands this, and still shows remorse and still tries to work to get back the lost trust. It makes her so rootable. And played by a star is a bonus.

      Please register in order to view this content

       It is also what makes the rivalry between Eva and Kat so much fun to watch. Also played by a star. Neither one is perfect really, but they are oh so watchable and a nice by-product of the SilkPress storyline.    Same for Anita. I love the regal coldness TT has given to the role. The sense of ruthlessness beneath the beautiful face. And yeah it can be a turn-off. And it's been nice to see a softer side to her throughout this story of her and her bandmates. She is far from perfect. She...is also NOT a doormat so it was great to watch her versus her bandmates this episode.    I like the run-in between NuTed and Nicole. I'm getting used to NuTed. And Nicole's presence has been a little too light for my liking. I can only assume that is to build to the next Nicole vs Silk Press Sheila confrontation which rumor has it will be another good one.    Speaking of which...LAURA IS OUT OF THE HOSPITAL!!!! Praise it be!!! And I thought it was so adorable that Nicole, Kat, and Mona were on hand to welcome her back. I liked that Laura has an open mind toward Eva (unlike her feelings toward SilkPress). Another layer to add to the Eva vs Kat rivalry. 
    • Victoria Principal clearly stacked her Dallas coins real good. In the grand scheme of things, she was smart to walk away from Dallas when she did.
    • When Robert Calhoun became EP I thought GL was finally hitting its stride after some pretty rough years. Unfortunately the ratings during Robert Calhoun's run did not reflect the quality of the show.
    • There was a five week break between the last Friday episode and the Thursday episodes which were the final four episodes. I have a feeling the final four episodes were refilmed to wrap up the storylines. 
    • Yes, I forgot there was a gap between his exit from GL and his start at ATWT. This almost makes me want to cry. He really turned ATWT around (and good for them). It would have been great if someone had done the same for GL. Can't imagine who. The Dobsons were doing Santa Barbara at this point. I mainly blame Kobe. She may not have been the worst EP they ever had, but she almost totally destroyed the Bauers and decimated much of the rest of the cast, sometimes for egotistical reasons. That was a huge mistake and made it that much harder for the show to recover.
    • Douglas Marland began at As the World Turns in September 1985 but it took about a year for his run to show growth in the ratings. 1986 As the World Turns becomes CBS's #2 daytime drama after Y&R.
    • This is not at all surprising. Watching the recently uploaded episodes, the uneveness is SO apparent. Characters are changing at the drop of a hat. The stories are close to incoherent. It's a mess, and we're only up to May. What a fall from grace. An Emmy-winning show with good ratings and within a few short years hitting possible cancelation territory.  I'm surprised CBS and/or P&G didn't try to do SOMETHING to restore its former glory. Was Marland still at ATWT at this point? 
    • I think she did, yes. The only part of that return I remember appreciating was the ripoff they did of Earrings of Madame De, where a secretly broke India sold a trinket and Ross or Alan (I think it was Ross) then bought it for her, not knowing it was hers.
    • 6-4   Getting around to the rewatching and I guess Dani/Bill/Hayley as A story is coming around better to me. I hope that means that I will feel different about Friday's episode which first time around I felt was more of a Wednesday/Thursday episode. Anita's story and Dani/Bill/Hayley (with Kat vs SilkPress being a solid B plot to keep the SilkPress storyline alive, but NOT A story) have been the focus for this past week. So I'm worried I'll feel a way when I get back to Friday's episode. I guess I'm about to find out.   I know I have issues with Dani/Bill/Hayley coming back into focus since the much better paced SilkPress storyline is truly where it's at with so much aftermath/new direction to explore. However, I'm finding that...just like with the story of Martin's secret being slowly woven back into the story narrative...I care a little bit more for it since it's been background since Week 3, Month 1. IMHO the characters...outside of Hayley...have been developed in other plots. The past week and a half has had Dani and Andre growing closer and they have gotten to the 'third month what are we?' talk that I expect in all relationships in real life. And I liked how the writers have slowly had friction between them to see what they are made of? Is it still just a booty call or can it be more? Meanwhile, Bill has been hiding his physical issues for months. Too busy messing with other people's marriages.

      Please register in order to view this content

          So now that they have some more POV to them, it was good to see an organic...and yes, it was organic...reason for them to be in the same room. In this case...the hospital room. Lord, Karla and Timon have such great chemistry. And Dani and Bill were so acting like exes. No wonder Hayley feels threatened. Oh, well. lol. Bonus...the drama with Bill has Hayley and Naomi back in each other's orbit. They don't have enough scenes together.    You all know I was waiting for Anita's story. So how am I feeling? Pretty good. TT has been playing it to the hilt. And I was not expecting the story of a fourth member who killed themselves after being pushed out. And it's had a build. First through Tracy. And now with Sharon...who is swiftly being established as a piece of work. A Have-Not (if not Has-Been) who is not above scheming. Okay. lol. I liked the conversation between Anita and Vernon where she told him the truth, and he tried to hold her up. Whether she deserved it or not, it was good to see. I'm sure all of the secrets are not out yet so I look forward to more. Cuz we know they are not cancelling the reunion. Which fingers crossed...will be at the police fundraiser.     Honestly, I continued to be impressed with how the writers have kept Silk Press Sheila out of jail, but still playing the beats of it all. She's definitely in covering her tracks mode, and it's great to watch. It's also great to see her mixing it up with different characters. I was happy to get the long-awaited showdown between her and Nosy Nurse and Nosy Nurse READ...HER...DOWN. I was just disappointed Nosy Nurse spilled some tea. And that led to SilkPress's scene with Andre. And then Andre...lord...talked too much.   C plot this episode has been Chelesa's love life. I was wondering where it was going to go after her talk with Vernon. Enter...Mystery Woman. I wonder what her secret would be that would get in her way with Chels. Related to an enemy of the Duprees? Married? I am intrigued. And I do like Chelesa getting the spotlight because daytime does not really do it like how they are doing it with her.    Can Kat and Jacob get a spinoff? lol. 
    • 1986 began with the EP change from Gail Kobe to Joe Willmore and the HW change from Pamela Long to Jeff Ryder. Over the course of 1986 there was turnover in the HW ranks: Jeff Ryder, Jeff Ryder and Mary Ryan Munisteri as co-HWs, Mary Ryan Munisteri and Ellen Barrett as co-HWs, Joseph Manetta, Joseph Manetta and Sheri Anderson as co-HWs. The 1986 ratings reflected the quality of the show. GL was saved from cancel territory in 1986 because Capitol was still CBS's lowest-rated daytime drama.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy