Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
ummmm... Hmmmmmmmmmmm Interesting?
My sophisticated contribution : Hope this fucks it right up for him the c**t.
What a diiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiick
I'm just scared that there are more insanely stupid people over there than i think there are.
The rest of the video they don't show is him pulling his cock out and Cementimental doing a 10 minute noise set.
So now watch the US elect him.
When I was watching that car-crash from Eastwood I thought I saw posters saying something like Mitt Romney the road to Jeb Bush 2016.
I don't think it will make any difference to his supporters because they're the kind of self-righteous nutjobs who'll wholeheartedly agree
plus a lot of that 47% are pensioners who wont consider themselves scroungers and aren't about to switch their vote to the opposition after 80 years voting for the same team
so that only leaves a few swing voters possibly affected though people tend not to readily self-identify as scroungers
what it WILL do though is it will change the media stance towards Romney insofar as his credibility (ha) will be shot in terms of how his public statements relate to his private views - his views have been all over the place on lots of other issues too but making this level of gaffe so close to the election is really foolish
but aside from all that, where the fuck is the Foreign Policy debate in this election ? America needs to do some serious reassessing of its foreign policy things are fucked all over.
Iran & Israel are close to war - there's an armada of 25 nations in the straits of Hormuz expecting an oil blockade any day now.
There are protests at a(n anti-muslim) film during which US officials have been murdered/killed.
The US military are refusing joint exercises with the Afghan army because it has been totally infiltrated by the 'Mujahideen'.
Meanwhile Syria is in the flames of civil war and US drones daily kill civilians along the Pakistan/Afghan border as well as in Yemen.
Maybe America doesn't want to think about any of that. Maybe it wants to think about taxes & abortion control instead.
All elections, in any country, skew to values and the economy.
on home issues ITS THE ECONOMY STUPID rather than foreign policy. Dedicating time to come up with a sensible strategy that most of your voters won't really care about is not a sensible thing to do in election year, sadly.
In other words: your final sentence.
but given the militarisation of the US and the number of people posted and/or active/recently active then my guess is 'military families' number in the tens of millions - certainly the millions anyway
still, it's true that the US tend to use the foreign threat to unify under the stars & stripes as one nation and use the economy when fighting against one another
He might claim Obama should be more supportive of Israel and, if he's really stupid, that Obama should be doing more to stop these attacks by Afghan 'allies' but there's not much he can realistically (or even politically) claim to want to do any differently.
it's not as if American Foreign Policy is going swimmingly abroad is it?
Then again it was Obama that git Bin Layden waint it
He could talk about Obama's failures in Afghanistan - I dunno - just strikes me that in a debate around suitability to be President it might include suitability to lead in situations globally that will be on the President's desk from day one in the White House
To be honest, the economy and Foreign Policy are not separate fields; if Israel attacks Iran nuclear sites (which it's constantly threatening to do) then Iran has vowed to block the Straits of Hormuz - that's 30 million barrels of oil a day going nowhere and that would have disastrous consequences for the US, not to mention the EU
But, as you say, Obama got Bin Laden and both Afghanistan and Iraq are Republican-started Wars. Romney would lose support (and I suspect go against his personal beliefs) if he took any kind of negative line towards Israel and, similarly, his supporters and potential supporters want him to take an even harder line on Iran.
The problem is that Obama has basically taken a Republican line of foreign policy leaving Romney with the option of either going more moderate and losing a lot of traditional Republican supporters or going more extreme and seeming like too much of a nutcase to the rest of the public and runs the risk of highlighting Republican fuck-ups (Iraq, Afghanistan) and Democrat successes (Bin Laden). So Romney has got nothing to gain by talking about foreign policy.
but in the 'Let's frighten America by telling them how Obama is doing nothing to stop Iran from stealing OUR oil' and doing some doom mongering and so on then well...
but it's true that Obama has a poll lead over him on Foreign Policy, it's just a bit surprising that he's seemingly taken advice to let that go instead of trying to make a dent in it
I'm not too sure that this will harm him that much. 98% of Americans don't think that they're part of the 47% and those that do would never vote for him anyway.
should we take that as an endorsement? ho ho ho
ask yourself if his voice is like an American version of Bob Monkhouse
would never fuck Mitt Romney
Tell them what they want to hear - get more money out of them.
But in this day and age of iPhones, youtube and microphones everywhere, Romney should have been more careful. Gordon Brown would testify that you have to be careful what you say 24/7
From what I've read there's a wide streak over there that we don't have which is a belief that anyone COULD rise to the top and become a millionaire. Which is apparently why people who are doing crappy jobs for crappy pay will still vote for the guy who's promising not to tax high earners, because in their mind they're only a few years away from being *that* high earner and they don't want the Govt. taking away their money.
Sorry, gross simplification/stereotyping but I certainly think what he's said probably isn't nearly as damaging to him as it would be if David Cameron said similar stuff. Actually even over here, I think there are swathes of people who vote for parties that will fuck them over financially because they have an aspirational belief that they are going to be better off.
Gah. I wish I could formulate ideas better, sorry.
as being impossible to turn to your side?
I think I'd start to question what the other categories would be:
47% would never, ever vote for us
??% might vote for us if we campaign really well and Obama fucks up, but still at present, support Obama
??% might vote for us as they haven't yet made up their minds.
??% voted for McCain last time as he was a moderate and are now wavering towards Obama
??% voted for McCain last time and will still vote for us.
It wouldn't fill me with any confidence that I was backing a winner.
I mean, it's not like they're going to get a better deal backing Obama no matter what.
Sounds more like he's saying they can win with 53% and those people watching him can just accept a Democrat in power if they don't do something about it.
but things work slightly differently in the US than here.
In the UK people donate money to parties that they support. In the US companies donate money to both candidates so that the winner will support them when in power.
since this is a man who's gone to exceptional lengths to reduce his own income tax bill, seeing him sneer at those who have a fraction of the wealth he does and basically dismissing them as wasters is grotesque. I don't share Obama's politics or have much time for the Democrats generally but I don't think he's totally contemptuous towards those he considers beneath him, as Romney appears to be.
Got to laugh at the impeccable timing of this study though:
what he actually said about the government mooching doesn't sound that shocking to me given that's what I assume most Republicans think anyway. But what's barely being mentioned in the coverage is the slightly racist stuff he said afterward at the same event
Describing his family background, he quipped about his father, "Had he been born of Mexican parents, I'd have a better shot of winning this."
Because of the huge handicap being a white man has historically been in winning US elections presumably.
Romney told the contributors that "we are having a much harder time with Hispanic voters, and if the Hispanic voting bloc becomes as committed to the Democrats as the African American voting block has in the past, why, we're in trouble as a party and, I think, as a nation."
something about the media narratives not having much space for that kind if thing.
I look forward to us importing it in about 5 years.
but I disagree that the second one is.
It does seem to me that Romney is going to really struggle from here on in.
1) He's not getting himself across well and his only real angle of support from the Republicans is the Anyone But Obama line (which will, of course have some success)
2) Things like this won't change people's minds but will make the apathetic and disenfranchised Democrats more likely to back Obama again in the polls despite any reservations about his record.
3) Romney seems to be a poor public speaker who can't think on his feet whilst public speaking is one of Obama's strengths. Surely, bar any utter fuck-ups, Obama will get the poll boost from the debates.
If Obama avoids any fuck-ups over the next seven weeks, I think he's surely going to win it...
Romney has never been in front AT ANY POINT in the poll averages. There's no historical precedent for someone trailing for a year and then suddenly sneaking it in the last few weeks. And certainly not for someone who is personally disliked in the way Romney is, even by his own side in many cases.
but I get the feeling that Obama is going to walk it. None of the Republican big dogs went for the nomination, you get the sense they all knew it was a lost cause, much better to run in 2016 when they stand a better chance of winning and will hopefully inherit a much stronger economy. Hence the freak show who contested the candidacy.
But despite that, it's impossible to get rid of The Fear. I was genuinely worried in 2001 that the Tories were going to get back in, I honestly thought it was going to happen when they were clearly going to get pasted all along. It's like football, you always worry that your team is going to fuck it up somehow.
they still have a colossal mess of TWO wars under their belts which basically caused global recession and continuous knock on effects. Not to mention they choose to stick a man - who clearly is a super rich cut throat businessman who has no business in politics (they were better off having Trump as a candidate) during a time where more than half of the US are unemployed (yeah good one Republicans) and then of course there was the Eastwood talking to invisible people. All in all, I don't think the Republicans have given the public any choice but to vote Democrat. Even before he pulled a Gordon Brown on everyone.
The Republicans always nominate a super rich businessman and simply blame any wars they started on the opposition. And it never stops working.
I mean I have no idea what that might be referring to, or what measures the Republicans might have in mind to prevent the creation of any such governments in the future.
he U.N. Convention on Women’s Rights & the Convention on the Rights of the Child have long-reaching and negative effects on the American Family
they're thinking of Babylon 5
i reckon he'll be able to shake it off by the end of the week in the US