Jump to content

Presidential Race (Respector Edition)

lost highway

By lost highway,
in Tongue-Tied Lightning

 Share Followers 3

Recommended Posts

LouieB

LouieB

Posted
Posted

Its actually both, but money spent on ads does create the impression that the candidate (any candidate, not just the pres) is powerful and has the resources and support to do the job. In campaign after campaign, the more ads and other PR mechanisms do win the day. Needless to say getting the vote out is also important, but frankly doesn't cost the millions that are being raised.

 

Be depressed, be very depressed.

 

LouieB

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

KevinG

KevinG

Posted
Posted

The man is a good liar.

 

Unlike the current GOP ticket, who are terrible liars.

 

If you don't vote for PBO because he is liar that makes sense. If the reason you vote for Romney because PBO is a liar that doesn't make sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
KevinG

KevinG

Posted
Posted

Wonder why Sheldon Adelson has vowed to spend 100 million dollars to defeat Obama?

 

Could it be because he stands to get a 2 billion dollar tax cut with the tax policies of Romney?

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11/sheldon-adelson-2-billion-tax-cut-mitt-romney_n_1873683.html

 

So yeah that is cool.

 

But here it is on another level and we should think of it this way. If you donate 100 dollars to Mitt Romney are you going to get a 2,000.00 dollar tax cut?

 

Check it out here: http://www.barackobama.com/tax-calculator/ *

 

*yes I know it is from PBO's website and the numbers may or may not be biased, but form everything else I have read and seen it appears to be fairly accurate. Plus it is interesting to see the numbers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
KevinG

KevinG

Posted
Posted

I was thinking about this whole lying thing we have been talking about and we all know politicians lie, but the lies presented by Sparky in his "video" were really broken campaign promises. Whereas the GOP especially Romney and Ryan have down right distorted the truth for political gain.

 

Which brings us to the horrible events in mid-east last night.

 

To sum up: The US ambassador to Libya and three embassy staffers where killed in an attack on the consulate http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/12/j-christopher-stevens-ambassador-to-libya-killed_n_1876544.html and large protests were held at the consulate in Cario. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11/libya-us-consulate_n_1875390.html.

 

So Mitt Romney in a statement (put out by the way during the waning hours of 9/11, when both candidates said they were going to stop negative ads) polticizing the attacks:

 

"It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11/mitt-romney-consulate-attack_n_1875906.html

 

A couple of things here:

  1. The statement Romney referenced was not from the Obama administration it was from the Embassy in Cairo, put out before the horrible murders in Libya. The White House later disavowed the statement as not approved.
  2. PBO and SS Clinton both condemned the attacks.
  3. Romney jumped on these attacks trying to show how Obama is capitulating to Muslims, which is just wrong and sad. Not to mention blatantly false.
  4. Jumping on this and putting out a statement on 9/11 is incredibly tacky.

Again Romney has shown he will outright lie and distort the truth for his political gain.

Link to post
Share on other sites
KevinG

KevinG

Posted
Posted

He's got to, though. He isn't faring as well with the base of his party due to his religion and wealth (i can't remember the poll I saw stating that).

 

He has to lie and distort the truth? Quality person I want to run the country. Quality base if that is what you have to do to win.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Winston Legthigh

Winston Legthigh

Posted
Posted

I would like to see the control of the content of the Presidential Debates returned to a third party.

 

I don't think enough voters realize that the current format is entirely scripted - that both parties control the content.

 

From wikipedia:

Control of the presidential debates has been a ground of struggle for more than two decades. The role was filled by the nonpartisan League of Women Voters (LWV) civic organization in 1976, 1980 and 1984. In 1987, the LWV withdrew from debate sponsorship, in protest of the major party candidates attempting to dictate nearly every aspect of how the debates were conducted. On October 2, 1988, the LWV's 14 trustees voted unanimously to pull out of the debates, and on October 3 they issued a dramatic press release:

 

The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates...because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.

Link to post
Share on other sites
KevinG

KevinG

Posted
Posted

Everyone distorts the truth. And throughout our history we've had some good presidents who ran nasty campaigns. I don't think one begets the other in this circumstance.

 

believe what you will, I think it goes to character. I think character is important. Apparently you don't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
bleedorange

bleedorange

Posted
Posted

believe what you will, I think it goes to character. I think character is important. Apparently you don't.

 

And I think you overvalue it. I don't think character is important at all. I'd rather have an asshole who is a good president than a high-character individual who is a crappy president. And I don't think you can judge how well a president will perform in office based on character.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Magnetized

Magnetized

Posted
Posted

And I think you overvalue it. I don't think character is important at all. I'd rather have an asshole who is a good president than a high-character individual who is a crappy president. And I don't think you can judge how well a president will perform in office based on character.

Wow. This blows me away. Really, you don't think character is important? I honestly don't mean that in any kind of a disrespectful way, but I don't think anything is MORE important.

 

For one thing, we can't foresee what kinds of events will come up in the next 4 years, and I want to have confidence that our president has integrity and a strong moral compass--both of which are elements of character. If he doesn't have those things, he won't have good advisors or they will quickly lose respect for him. Same with relations with Congress. Same with the selection of Supreme Court justices. No one person can know every detail of complicated issues, and you have to work effectively through others. If the president is seen as sleazy, opportunistic and untrustworthy, no one is going to want to work with him.

 

Edit: I don't disagree with you about the importance of character for all professions, by the way. If it's a quick, transactional kind of profession--say, a surgeon--sure, give me a competent sleazeball. But I want people with character if it's going to be a long-term relationship!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Tweedling

Tweedling

Posted
Posted

I remember when Clinton was president and how his followers would say they weren't interested in his lack of moral character or how he presents himself behind closed doors so long as he was a good leader and president.

 

Was typing that out while you posted, Jules.

Link to post
Share on other sites
bleedorange

bleedorange

Posted
Posted

Even if character was an important trait (I still don't think it matters all that much), I don't think that the way a candidate runs a campaign is at all indicative of his character. It's just a means to an end, which is getting elected.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Winston Legthigh

Winston Legthigh

Posted
Posted

If the president is seen as sleazy, opportunistic and untrustworthy, no one is going to want to work with him.

 

So obviously people who vote against Obama would characterize him as the above. And likewise, there are those who feel the same way about Romney.

 

Character isn't objective - it's a perception. And that perception is going to be tied to your political leaning. See the Clinton references above.

 

Kevin G earlier stated "show me a policitian who doesn't lie something something unicorn rainbow shits", so he admits that Obama lies, but I'm assuming his tolerance for Obama's character faults is greater than for Romney.

 

We're willing to make excuses for the guy we want to vote for. Isn't that how the world works?

Link to post
Share on other sites
ih8music

ih8music

Posted
Posted

And I think you overvalue it. I don't think character is important at all. I'd rather have an asshole who is a good president than a high-character individual who is a crappy president. And I don't think you can judge how well a president will perform in office based on character.

 

I would mostly agree with this. Whether you're talking about Kennedy, Clinton, Roosevelt, etc-- many of our past "great" presidents weren't exactly the most moral of men. But they were good leaders with good ideas. That's what's important. While I wouldn't enjoy voting for someone who's an asshole, if I think they're best suited for the job, I probably would.

 

that said, Mitt is a complete ass for politicizing the death of an ambassador.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Followers 3
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...