Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board

OscarGuy wrote:No, criddic, I have no problem with people expressing their opinions, but when they act as sheep on a regular basis, they have nothing valid to say that will carry any weight for me. You claim to discuss more than Republican talking points, but you can't help but use the same terminology, expressions and faulty rationale party sheep use. I don't have the time or desire to constantly address the inane and factually unsupported "observations" you provide. I have far too many other things to do, so my frustration stems from just getting annoyed with you when you talk politics. You'll see I've shared VERY LITTLE on this site for a long time and only recently posted much at all and even that was sporadic at best.

It's not that I've lost interest, but unlike your little video store job and occasional political meanderings, I have two seemingly full-time jobs, one for which I get paid and the other I do because I want to. Then I have a secondary part time job running the OFCS, so pardon me if I have little patience for "debating" with someone who seems to have absolutely no clue how to think on his own and doesn't even realize it.

Fair enough, your life is more important than mine. I get it! But seriously, I don't post just for you. I post to express my opinion. If you're going to post your opinions, why shouldn't I respond to them? Unless you're always being rhetorical, I would think there's room for discussion. Your put-down is one in a long line from you. Yes, I don't have a glamorous job. I thought Democrats were supposed to be sympathetic to those less fortunate. Yes, I'm no genius and I don't come up with clever ways to say why I agree with some of the same thinking other Republicans express. Maybe the reason my posts sound like things you've heard is that I think much like that. For example, when it was posted about Todd Akin, I had not heard the story prior to that. My immediate reaction was that he was nuts to say what he did, and then of course launched the whole debate about rape and abortion. None of what i said in that conversation was what I was reading in some blog. It came from my head and my heart while I was writing it. Anyway, I guess my own frustration comes from people assuming I'm some "sheep." I don't think of myself that way. And what, if I changed my mind on these issues today, would I somehow be less of a sheep or somehow be smarter?

No, criddic, I have no problem with people expressing their opinions, but when they act as sheep on a regular basis, they have nothing valid to say that will carry any weight for me. You claim to discuss more than Republican talking points, but you can't help but use the same terminology, expressions and faulty rationale party sheep use. I don't have the time or desire to constantly address the inane and factually unsupported "observations" you provide. I have far too many other things to do, so my frustration stems from just getting annoyed with you when you talk politics. You'll see I've shared VERY LITTLE on this site for a long time and only recently posted much at all and even that was sporadic at best.

It's not that I've lost interest, but unlike your little video store job and occasional political meanderings, I have two seemingly full-time jobs, one for which I get paid and the other I do because I want to. Then I have a secondary part time job running the OFCS, so pardon me if I have little patience for "debating" with someone who seems to have absolutely no clue how to think on his own and doesn't even realize it.

OscarGuy wrote:Who the fuck said underdog? Now that I have stopped sharing my status updates with you and you can't get your conservative jollies off there, I guess you had no recourse but to come back here and troll. Believe me when I say that no one missed that. Stick to talking about movies or stop posting altogether, I'm sure it will make everyone happier and fewer people will actively ignore you.

"So, it might be 50-50 when you look at Obama vs. Romney alone, it's more like 75-25 when you count in PAC spending. So, your argument doesn't really hold water when you have so many more wealthy individuals using trickery to try and buy elections." To me this says 'I think Obama is the underdog in terms of money this election.' You didn't say the word underdog. I didn't say you said the word underdog. I said 'don't try to make him out to be the underdog.' Is this not connecting?

I don't care if you share your updates with me. This is a separate site that provides a discussion for politics. Why do you include that if you only want to hear an echo chamber? Maybe I've underestimated just how closed-minded you are, or maybe I just underestimated how much you hate my way of expressing my views. Either way, it is a rather nasty way to treat people.

Who the fuck said underdog? Now that I have stopped sharing my status updates with you and you can't get your conservative jollies off there, I guess you had no recourse but to come back here and troll. Believe me when I say that no one missed that. Stick to talking about movies or stop posting altogether, I'm sure it will make everyone happier and fewer people will actively ignore you.

I could have referred to him as "former Governor," but I have heard plenty of people (and no, not just on FOXNews) refer to him as "Governor." When people refer to Bill Clinton, you hear "President" said both ways. It may not be an active title, but it's a title that never goes away. When people retire from the military, they still refer to "Captain" or "Admiral," so you are right to say it's a "quibble."

I suppose the SuperPAC issue is one of perception. I think you are slightly misrepresenting how many groups, SuperPACs and big-money donors are supporting President Obama. And look, Barack Obama massively out-raised and spent John McCain in 2008, so don't even try to use the underdog routine for this election. President Obama's campaign was talking about raising a billion dollars this year not long ago. All of a sudden we're supposed to believe Mitt Romney, who does not have the advantages of incumbency, has a lopsided lead on funds from SuperPACS? Yeah. This play will not work with me. Obama has most of the media on his side, and he's had over 100 big-money fundraisers already. And maybe, just maybe, I heard that on some obscure conservative blog somewhere, too... right?

First, a quibble: You may no longer refer to Mitt Romney as Governor Romney. He is a former governor, yes, but the title you have applied may only be used while still in office, which is not. It would be Governor Duval Patrick, not Governor Mitt Romney. They can't have two concurrently...and unless I missed a memo, he's not governor of any other state at the moment.

But that's not really the issue. On this whole money thing you're talking about, I'm sure it's some Republican talking point you heard and while there's a modicum of truth to your assertion that there's big money on both sides, the fact of the matter is this: whether or not Obama has outraised Romney isn't the only issue. The shadowy SuperPACs who can take anonymous donations are more well organized on the Republican side (Crossroads GPS and others). The problem is that the ones on the left aren't nearly as organized as they need to be to compete on a national stage. So, regardless of whether Obama has some big name donors on his side, they are limited to how much they can donate unlike the PACs which are permitted to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money without any accountability. So, it might be 50-50 when you look at Obama vs. Romney alone, it's more like 75-25 when you count in PAC spending. So, your argument doesn't really hold water when you have so many more wealthy individuals using trickery to try and buy elections.

Right wingers whine about George Soros and Jeffery Katzenberg and the big bucks they will spend to support the Dems this year. But they are pikers compared to the GOP lineup. We all know about the Koch brothers and the 200 MILLION they admitted in October they are planning to spend in the 2012 cycle. But remember Sheldon Adelson (donated 42M so far in 2012 cycle), Harold Simmons (19M so far), Bob Perry (14.1M), etc. If there are progressives planning to spend anywhere close to this they are keeping it a secret.

No doubt that both sides have big money donors. Both sides also try to make the other seem like the party of the rich. Depending on what team your on, you're likely to be more offended that the other guy is doing it. That's the game of politics. Truth is that both parties still include many different types of people from all walks of life. I have absolutely no problem with George Soros spending money in support of candidates he likes. I don't agree with his politics, but he can support whomever he wants. But let's not pretend that the president will be at a disadvantage financially. Overall he raised more than Romney, although his backers also spent far more already. So the money will be more even compared to 2008.

Pay no attention to polls until two or three weeks after the Democratic convention. The polls will have "corrected" by then. If Romney still leads, then it was a true lead after all. But it's meaningless now.

All that is true, but that doesn't mean the added enthusiasm isn't showing in the polls. If one thing is clear from the polls, it is that Mitt Romney has solidified his support among Republicans. That wasn't necessarily a given and something both candidates have to do in order to be competitive. Also interesting is that polls have shown that Romney was not hurt by bringing up issues like Medicare, which some media-types thought would be a danger for him when he chose Ryan as his running mate. That is why most "experts" sill envision an extremely close election. So I don't think anyone can be too confident that President Obama will defeat Governor Romney (and frankly, I can't be too confident the other way yet, either).

criddic3 wrote:You could be right, but right now the trend is looking better for Romney.

That's how bumps work. They look good "right now" and then in retrospect we see that it was only a bump.

Pay no attention to polls until two or three weeks after the Democratic convention. The polls will have "corrected" by then. If Romney still leads, then it was a true lead after all. But it's meaningless now.

I agree Romney has a lot going for him. GOP majority state legislatures and GOP governors in several swing states with large numbers of electoral votes that Obama carried in 2008 (PA, OH, FL, MI, ID) have passed laws this past spring and summer to make it more difficult for the poor, elderly, minorities, blue collar workers and college students to cast votes in November. The supporters of these laws have not provided any evidence that of voter fraud in recent elections and have even complained that asking them to provide evidence of fraud is unreasonable. After all, you are asking them to prove a negative! It is perfectly reasonable to insist that the elderly and infirm who are dependent on others for transportation (or blue collar shift workers or college students) to dig up their birth and marriage certificates and schlep over to the nearest state office building to get the new voter ID card. Or, if the 82 year old woman who has not driven a car in decades cannot produce her marriage and birth certificate she will just have to come up with the 20 or 25 dollars for certified copies of these documents. But if her deceased husband was the type of hard working rugged individual that votes GOP anyway, that should not be a financial burden. The supporters of these laws do not even try to explain why not allowing early voting during the weekend before the election, allowing early or absentee voting only during weekdays between 8:30am and 4:30pm, or banning same day registration and voting fights fraud.

Right wingers whine about George Soros and Jeffery Katzenberg and the big bucks they will spend to support the Dems this year. But they are pikers compared to the GOP lineup. We all know about the Koch brothers and the 200 MILLION they admitted in October they are planning to spend in the 2012 cycle. But remember Sheldon Adelson (donated 42M so far in 2012 cycle), Harold Simmons (19M so far), Bob Perry (14.1M), etc. If there are progressives planning to spend anywhere close to this they are keeping it a secret.

You could be right, but right now the trend is looking better for Romney. Either way, the race has been neck-and-neck the whole time thus far. I think it's encouraging that several polls are showing a much closer race in swing states. The other important thing to note is that throughout the campaign, most polls have shown bad numbers for President Obama on his handling of the economy and jobs. His approval ratings have been fairly low for a long time now. To imply that he'll have a relatively easy time getting re-elected doesn't seem plausible.

You act like there's no such thing as a "post-pick" bump...there will also be a post-convention bump for both parties. It won't mean a hill of beans.

criddic3 wrote:I wouldn't be too confident that President Obama will win. Since choosing Paul Ryan, many polls have shown swing states become friendlier towards Mitt Romney's candidacy.

You make the same silly mistake every election year.

I wouldn't be too confident that President Obama will win. Since choosing Paul Ryan, many polls have shown swing states become friendlier towards Mitt Romney's candidacy.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... gap-obama/

In states like Virginia, Colorado, Ohio and Wisconsin, the gap has narrowed considerably. That is not to say they will fall into the GOP column necessarily, but it does show that the president is vulnerable. It also shows that Paul Ryan has not emerged as the kind of VP choice that would scare voters away from Romney. While it is true that traditionally, a VP choice does little to sway voters, it is just as true that a really poor pick can bring bad publicity. So far, the giddiness that many Democrats displayed in the immediate aftermath of the announcement, seems to have been premature.

Not all are calling this close. There are some out there who insist it isn't as close as people are saying. Here's a site I return to regularly. They ignore partisan pollsters, though they include Rasmussen (of note, they have a Rasmussen-free map available.

Here's the site: http://electoral-vote.com/

Of note here is the Tipping-Point link. If you look how far into Likely Dem Romney has to go to get to 270 EV's, you'll see just how likely Obama is to win. While the site certainly skews democrat, he seems to be more free of bias than most poll-watchers out there. He's a bit repetitive at times, but it's information that doesn't make me want to punch the screen when I read it.

Back on July 30, he posted an interesting set of statistics regarding how little a VP choice helps the Presidential ticket. Since 1972, every winning candidate's VP carried his home state. Since 1948, only once (1968) did they not. Picking Ryan from Wisconsin, a state that's unlikely to go red, may be further evidence to suggest that Romney's done for. The other chart showing the losing candidate, the losing candidate's VP didn't carry his home state 9 out of the 16 cycles. That's 7 times the losing candidate's VP carried his home state. I think it shows just how little a VP candidate matters if you pick them from a state you can't flip. So, had he gone with Tim Kane of Virginia or Rob Portman of Ohio, he might have had a chance.

From USA Today:

It didn't take long for Hollywood to react to today's news of Mitt Romney's vice presidential pick, Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan. Given Hollywood's liberal bend, it's not surprising that the reaction was largely negative (save for conservative news magnate Rupert Murdoch).

Here's a sampling of what the stars had to say via Twitter:

Eva Longoria: "Romney's VP pick voted against equal pay for women and repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. We can't go backward."

Olivia Wilde: "Two R's won't make it right. Romney/Ryan are Wrong for America."

Jared Leto: "Today Mitt Romney picked Paul Ryan, who wants to cut Pell Grant scholarships for nearly 10 million students!"

Michael Ian Black: "Romney/Ryan = same initials as Ronald Reagan. THINK ABOUT IT!!!"

Andy Richter: "I think saying "worst recovery in 70 years" is kinda cute. Doesn't at all beg the phrase "worst recession in 70 years."

Kal Penn: "This is awful. I was hoping it would be Jindal so I could play him in a HBO movie"

Michael Moore: "Channeling Bush, war supporters/military dodgers Romney and Ryan insult those who served by using battleship as their prop."

Rupert Murdoch: "Thank God! Now we might have a real election on the great issues of the day. Paul Ryan almost perfect choice."

Russell Simmons: "MItt Romney and Paul Ryan, two men who will destroy our people..."