2012 Nevada Caucuses

Another day, another caucus. Another win for Mitt Romney. Nevada delivered what we all pretty much expected to happen. Though they delivered it with a fraction of their over all voter base, as is typical with the caucus system. In the big picture, Nevada by itself is meaningless. It's the momentum that Romney is going to build from this and from contests in the next few days that is going to all but assure he wins the nomination. The writing is on the wall, barring another surprise result.

Nevada also seems to take its sweet ass time counting votes. Here we are almost 24 hours later in an age where information should flow like lightning and they're barely past 70% of precincts reporting in. So take this for what it's worth, the result isn't likely to change in the next 24 hours, but the delegate counts might.

Mitt Romney - 48% (11,822 votes, 10 delegates)
Newt Gingrich - 23% (5,623 votes, 4 delegates)
Ron Paul - 19% (4,619 votes, 3 delegates)
Rick Santorum - 11% (2,749 votes, 2 delegates)

Delegate Totals to Date

Mitt Romney: 79 delegates.
Newt Gingrich: 30 delegates.
Rick Santorum: 16 delegates.
Ron Paul: 7 delegates.

1,144 required to win.

Yes, be afraid, be very afraid, that Ron Paul made that much of a showing. Though, it is Nevada, maybe they don't know any better. On Tuesday, the first multi-state contest takes place with 128 total delegates at stake. Minnesota and Colorado hold caucuses, while Missouri holds a primary. Chances are this setup calls the nomination if Romney takes them all.
.........................
RIP United States of America

July 1776 - November 2012.

       
« The Forgotten Man
2012 Missouri, Minnesota, and Colorado Primaries »

Posted on Feb 5, 2012 1:48 pm by Samson in: | 36 comment(s) [Closed]
Comments
Anonymous [Anon] said:
Comment #1 Feb 6, 2012 2:36 am
Obama is my shepherd, I shall not work.
He keepth jobs out of the hands of the people,
Which leadeth the country to class warfare and polarization.
He encourageth sloth. He leadeth the government to new heights in deficit spending.
Yea, though I walk in the shadow of Economic collapse,
I shall fear no depression, for Obama is with me.
His handouts and monetary indiscretion supplement my income.
He maintainest spending increases in the presence of insurmountable debt.
He punisheth businesses with excessive regulations,
And giveth the hard earned fruits of labor to the unproductive.
Surely, handouts and stimulus payments shall follow all the days of his administration;
And I will stay unemployed forever.

       
Nice one Anon

       
In what the annon says, I basically see a refined version of this.

       
You mean other than the fact that the Youtube thing was nothing but poking fun (hint: South Park is left wing to the core) whereas the Anon posts something coherent and is an awesome piece of political satire with a valid point?

Yeah, I totally see the similarities. :rolleyes:

       
Acutally, neither of the guys that make south park define themselves as left wing and broadly speaking I don't find the show too left wing either (everyone in 'progressive' San Francisco smells their own farts and goes around to all the wine and cheese stores boasting about how progressive they are while talking with their eyes closed, for instance). Trey Parker (or the other guy, I can't actually remember which one) is a member of the Libertarian Party, for that matter.

Moreover, in the sense that the South Park clip wasn't particularly serious, I wasn't particularly serious either, which I probably didn't do the greatest job establishing in my post. (and you know what, I think that South Park clip would have been a lot better if the cries of protest didn't disintegrate into caveman drivel).

       
Edited by prettyfly on Feb 7, 2012 11:36 pm
Eh.

I thought they were both Libertarians, but regardless, they make fun of everyone, as the entire plot of Team America should demonstrate.

On another note, Rick Santorum, WTF?

       
Day touk his jewbs.

       
For possible facepalming humor, try playing this really tragic and WTF ad*, followed up by prettyfly's South Park video.

* - So, SO much fail. Actual layers of fail.

       
The problem with that comparison is that I see one ad with a message that you can at least understand, and a pathetic animated video segment where you can't even make out a single piece of intelligible speech the whole time.

I still say we should give China the finger and tell them we're not paying. What are they going to do? Nuke us to get the money we don't have?

       
hey tirrrkk errrr JERRRBBSS!

Is that a serious political advert for someone running for office in the US? If so, its no wonder your nation is in the shape it currently is in. Dwip is right, those 2 are exactly the same, Dey toooks are joobs.

       
Yes, that is a for real totally not faking it political ad for this dude. Republican, of course. Aired during the Super Bowl, I'm told. Not a lot of people happy with it. Kind of deserves to be mocked, which is of course my entire point here.

       
Yes, it's an ad for a Senate race in Michigan. One must understand that the Dems there have destroyed the economy (oh, what a surprise) and the government bailouts did nothing to revive it. Pretty much everything that used to get done in Michigan has since been outsourced to China. So yes, many of the people there rightly feel the Chinese are taking their jobs. Something the producers of South Park apparently think is worthy of being mocked and derided.

Dems have of course taken their usual tack and simply attacked it as being racist, rather than arguing the merits of the actual claims being made.

       
Edited by Samson on Feb 10, 2012 1:05 am
The fact that it is, in fact, racist may have something to do with that, of course. Just a thought.

Of course, it's also being racist against Vietnamese people instead of Chinese, so that probably doesn't help a lot.

       
The fact that it is, in fact, racist may have something to do with that, of course. Just a thought.


I think its the over simplification of a really complex issue that i find the most obnoxious about it. It is hardly the Chinese fault that they have all the manufacturing jobs in the world, it is our own stupidity, greed and desire for cheaper and cheaper consumer goods that has moved all manufacturing to the place where labour is abundant and cheap. It is The American Dream (Aussie Dream as well for that matter) that has pushed it in that direction.

Pretty much everything that used to get done in Michigan has since been outsourced to China.


And you can thank the global conglomerates whose CEO's you like to give tax cuts and fat bonuses to for selling out the people of Michigan. This capitalism and market forces at its best. I guess its time Michigan comes into the new economy and starts to innovate and create new jobs instead of crying about the past.

Situations like this do not just happen overnight, it happens over decades and successive governments listening to the lobby groups for things to end up as you now have them. Anything less than that is naive to say the least.

       
Edited by The_Fury on Feb 10, 2012 5:13 am
And you can thank the global conglomerates whose CEO's you like to give tax cuts and fat bonuses to for selling out the people of Michigan.

This argument is about as old and tired as calling everything racist too you know. The whole "tax cuts for the rich" argument was never valid by any stretch. Everyone got tax cuts here of the same percentage. The lefities are just mad that 10% of nothing is still nothing.

The real reason we can't compete is because of unionized labor. The insistence by the unions that workers be paid insanely large wages and receive lifetime pensions once they stop working is why the CEO's have decided that outsourcing to China is more economically viable. Don't like that? Change the stupid laws governing how publicly traded companies have to operate for maximum shareholder profits.

       
The Fury said:

I think its the over simplification of a really complex issue that i find the most obnoxious about it. It is hardly the Chinese fault that they have all the manufacturing jobs in the world, it is our own stupidity, greed and desire for cheaper and cheaper consumer goods that has moved all manufacturing to the place where labour is abundant and cheap. It is The American Dream (Aussie Dream as well for that matter) that has pushed it in that direction.


China has been very proactive at taking advantage of their position though, and done other things like devalue their currency in order to allow them to drop export prices.

Samson said:


The real reason we can't compete is because of unionized labor. The insistence by the unions that workers be paid insanely large wages and receive lifetime pensions once they stop working is why the CEO's have decided that outsourcing to China is more economically viable. Don't like that? Change the stupid laws governing how publicly traded companies have to operate for maximum shareholder profits


Which I think goes back to the whole American dream being over. Market forces of globalization mean that the sort of stuff the unions ask for and traditionally got are no longer viable and not a whole lot is going to stop that. Which means living standards in America are going to go down and living standards in China are going to go up until some sort of new balance is reached (also, having a large middle class will hopefully mean the Chinese democratize a bit, which would be good for everyone).

       
Just to clarify my point:

- It might be one thing if the ad was actually making logical arguments about much of anything. There is, I suppose, a "They took our jobs!" argument being made, albeit not well;

- If you were going to argue about Chinese manufacturing jobs, the somewhat obvious thing would be to show an overpolluted Chinese industrial zone. What they're actually showing doesn't so much look like China as it does Vietnam, ditto girl on bike with straw hat, which I guess you could either qualify as incompetent or racist, depending;

- I figure that you can push it over the line into racist given the pidgin. There's just not a lot of excuse for that unless you're trying to be a racist jackass about it.

Want to make an argument? Make an argument. This, I get to mock.

       
It wouldn't have mattered how solid the argument or how well produced the ad itself was. The left would have branded it racist regardless, because they can't argue against the merits of the claim. Even as badly presented as they were in that ad. The reason they can't is because they'd have to acknowledge that unions have crushed this country into economic ruin.

Who are the left's biggest backers? Unions. Oops, expose the truth, they stop funding your campaigns, and those horrible evil Republicans win! We obviously can't have that, can we? </sarcasm>

So no, you don't get to mock it without coming up with something to argue against it with. Using racism as a crutch is old, tired, and simply indicative of the facts about who the actual racists are for even bringing it up.

       
Hear it from the man himself:

       
That may be the worst interview I've ever seen. Dunno, there's a lot of competition.

You act like I care one way or another about that argument, other than to point out he's not doing a very good job of making it.

Right or wrong on the argument has no particular bearing on the racist angle.

       
Right or wrong on the argument has no particular bearing on the racist angle.

Sure it does, that was the guy's WHOLE DAMN POINT. Were you even listening to what he said? That the people who ought to be offended are not the Chinese, but us? Pretty telling in my mind that absolutely nobody wants to address the merits of the ad and instead just wants to take another chance to trot out the same old bullshit arguments that all Republicans are racist.

I've seen an awful lot of heinously obvious racism on the part of Democrats, but oddly enough nobody ever talks about it in the "mainstream" media. On those rare occasions where someone does, guess what they say? "They're just calling it racist because they have no argument." W T F. Double standard if I ever saw one.

       
No, actually, it doesn't. Cases in point: Our waging war against Japan in the 1940s was one of the most noble causes we've ever engaged in as a nation. This is still super-duper extra racist. Something like Birth of a Nation gets to be wrong AND racist. Going back to Japan, This gets to be for the right cause AND not racist.

Which is to say that having people speak in pidgin with all the related paraphenalia gets to be racist, never mind the merits or lack thereof of the argument being made.

Now, as to the interview, they are advancing an argument there which can be made, but is being made very poorly by that ad - no X% of MI jobs went to China, no my opponent voted for this thing that fucked us over, nothing. You can do that kind of 30 second ad, and I've seen plenty of them. This is, however, not that ad.

Which is to say that the pidgin, the vaguely faux Asian music, and the rice paddies and foliage make for good racial stereotyping, but they don't make for a particularly good argument. That we're seeing rice paddies and not industrial zones and guys in Mao jackets or some shit just makes the presentation of argument that much more incompetent and the presentation of racial stereotypes that much better.

So, you know. Bad at presenting an argument AND racist, all at once.

The actual merits of the argument being made are entirely beside the point.

       
You can make an argument that perhaps it was ignorant or incompetent to not show the dirty cities, the guys in Mao jackets, and the highly industrialized areas, but that's certainly not the ONLY China that exists. Rice paddies, girls on bikes, and Asian music do exist you know. And nobody over there would consider what was depicted to be too far out of place, other than perhaps the fact that the girl herself didn't quite fit the region being depicted.

Yes, they were bad at presenting the argument. But they did have one. No, it was certainly NOT racist, and to make that leap is just plain disingenuous and, IMO, a total admission that the other side has no counter argument.

Do you even know anything about that girl? Are you sure they had her speak that way on purpose? Do you know that the scene was in fact NOT filmed in China, or based on actual Chinese footage?

Even you're not giving a valid counter argument to the point being made. One does not need a phD in politics to know that this racism argument is a complete smokescreen.

       
Well, ok. So:

New York Times said:


The “Debbie Spenditnow” ad was shot not in rural China but in the rice fields of California, with an American actress whose parents are Chinese, said Bill Kenyon, political director of Strategic Perception Inc., the Hollywood-based media firm run by a Republican media veteran, Fred Davis, that created the ad.

Mr. Kenyon, who would not release the name of the actress, said he did not know whether she actually spoke heavily accented, pidgin English, but said the script called for it.

“We only have 30 seconds, so we wanted to throw out something visually that evoked the image of China,” he said.


Insofar as the backdrop looks totally photoshopped anyway, I'm going to figure they probably could have photoshopped in some stock footage of actual China. Considering the subject (industrial jobs), there's not a whole lot of reason to use that imagery unless you're trying to do racial stereotyping and make people think you're watching Apocalypse Now or something. People who've actually lived in China? Same argument.

Too, the since pulled down website is pretty awesome, and I can definitely see the stereotyping from my house.

If it walks, quacks, etc...

Samson said:

Even you're not giving a valid counter argument to the point being made. One does not need a phD in politics to know that this racism argument is a complete smokescreen.


I don't really know how I can keep telling you this, but I don't give the first shit about his argument. He could be making any argument whatsoever and I would be saying the same thing. He could be a Democrat and I would still be saying the same thing. Hell, I just got done saying about the same things I've been saying here about a video game over at AFK Mods. I'm not even interested in having that argument.

I am saying that, whatever his message, he is going about it in an altogether racist and incompetent fashion. Also I was making a joke, which I probably should have realized was a poor idea since it wasn't about Obama. Oh well. Silly me.

       
I think at this point we can agree that it was poorly executed and the left wing media is eating it up because it gives them fodder, valid or otherwise, to pick on Republicans some more instead of dealing with the mess they've made of our country. Attack the messenger, etc. This is what the left does. Make personal attacks against the people, NEVER attack the substance of the argument. I mean look, the NYT went and did a whole investigation into the racism angle, but never bothers to try and refute the positions being put forth. Because they can't! I realize though that my having a chance to make you see this lies somewhere between -1 and 0% likely.

Honestly, I have no particular interest in reading about your DLC reviews for F:NV since I have no intention of ever playing the game anyway, so I have no idea what you said there one way or the other.

Apparently I missed the joke. Whether it was about Obama or Bush or whoever's fault all this is, if there was one being made, I'm still not seeing it.

       
<< prev 1, 2 next >>
Comments Closed
Comments for this entry have been closed.
Anonymous
Register

Forgot Password?

SuMoTuWeThFrSa
 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29  

Click for Chino, California Forecast