Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
What little I did watch of the debate left me impressed by the job the moderator was doing. She was cutting off both participants and directing the conversation. It looked the way a debate was supposed to look, but again I only watched for 5-10 minutes.
I wish they would sit a fact checker next to the moderator. So that every time they accused one another of something they said or did, the fact checker rings a bell for fact, and a buzzer for false. Its too much ”You said this!” and ”No, that's wrong. I never said that.”
No, this was a town hall debate with questions coming from the crowd. They just couldn't stop interrupting each other and talking longer than they should. Also, Romney feels like he should always get the last word on every topic.
Last Edit: Oct 17, 2012 0:53:27 GMT -5 by Deleted - Back to Top
No, this was a town hall debate with questions coming from the crowd. They just couldn't stop interrupting each other and talking longer than they should. Also, Romney feels like he should always get the last word on every topic.
I noticed this as well. And a lot of times he does this even when he doesn't have anything worthwhile to say.
Romney was talking about equal opportunity for women, and when he was hiring cabinet members for his staff as governor. His team brought him the candidates they deemed qualified, and they were all men. So he prided himself on the fact that he reached out to a company to find him qualified women candidates, and they gave him a binder full of female candidates for his cabinet positions.
Last Edit: Oct 17, 2012 9:24:24 GMT -5 by Deleted - Back to Top
Post by Dave Maynar on Oct 17, 2012 9:36:06 GMT -5
Yeah, I haven't watched the clip, but I don't see the big deal about the binders full of women aside from it being somewhat awkwardly phrased. Maybe it is how he said it rather than what he said.
Yeah, I haven't watched the clip, but I don't see the big deal about the binders full of women aside from it being somewhat awkwardly phrased. Maybe it is how he said it rather than what he said.
It's because it's probably capitally untrue that there aren't any women qualified to be in the cabinet - it's just that a large swath of them fundamentally disagree with Repug ideology on major issues. Also it sounds like he's out of touch with reality - women are 51% of the population so the whole phrasing sounds obnoxious in that light.
Yeah, I haven't watched the clip, but I don't see the big deal about the binders full of women aside from it being somewhat awkwardly phrased. Maybe it is how he said it rather than what he said.
Here it is in a nutshell:
Catcher's Mitt was asked about equal pay for women, to which he answered by saying he had trouble finding enough qualified females to hire to "balance his administration" as governor of Mass. To resolve this, he approached "female interest groups" about giving him a list of qualified candidiates and he said they gave him "binders full of names." Thatis how he told it, that he initiated this quest for the holy grail of female intelligence (more on this in a moment).
To put it better than I ever could I'll quote Emma Keller who writes for The Guardian:
Why did the phrase resonate? Because it was tone deaf, condescending and out of touch with the actual economic issues that women are so bothered about. The phrase objectified and dehumanized women. It played right into the perception that so many women have feared about a Romney administration – that a president Romney would be sexist and set women back.
Also, Romney never actually answered the question on equal pay for women, he avoided it completely.
And the story about him "seeking out" females for senior leadership positions is, in a word, bullsh*t.
Someone at the Boston Globe reported that there was a bipartisan group that created these lists prior to the election to address a lack of female senior leadership in the Massachusetts and only after Mitt was elected did they hand over the binders.
Essentially, women are pissed because Romney (again) sounds like an insensitive robot with no self-awareness who does a horrible job of even pretending he gives two sh*ts about female equal rights.
If I was a woman I couldn't fathom voting for a party that wants to control my uterus and keep me making less than my male counterparts, but hey, that's just me.
Post by Dave Maynar on Oct 17, 2012 9:53:01 GMT -5
Alright, the little I had been able to read up on it didn't flesh out the whole situation as much. It appeared that he was trying to get women in to be inclusive, but I may have been reading it wrong which is often the case when I read things at 6am.
Alright, the little I had been able to read up on it didn't flesh out the whole situation as much. It appeared that he was trying to get women in to be inclusive, but I may have been reading it wrong which is often the case when I read things at 6am.
That's how he wanted it to sound, but that's not the reality at all.
Post by itrainmonkeys on Oct 17, 2012 13:34:39 GMT -5
Also, it's being reported that the women's groups came to Romney with the "binders" and not that Romney went to them first. (edit: I see Flanzo addressed this
Romney did not ask women groups for candidates. Instead, prior to his election, a “bipartisan group of women in Massachusetts formed MassGAP to address the problem of few women in senior leadership positions in state government.” They “put together the binder full of women qualified for all the different cabinet positions, agency heads, and authorities and commissions” and presented it to Romney after he was elected. A UMass-Boston study found that “the percentage of senior-level appointed positions held by women actually declined throughout the Romney administration, from 30.0% prior to his taking office, to 29.7% in July 2004, to 27.6% near the end of his term in November 2006.”
It really bothers me how much he and other Republicans lie so damn much and go back on what they said. Obama wasn't on point the whole time either and stumbled at points but I never felt like he was directly lying to everyone about his beliefs.
That's my biggest concern about this republican ticket. Nothing they say seems truthful. And the worst part is that half the country believes it. Obviously all politicians bend issues in their favor, but Romney/Ryan seem to have a complete disregard for anything truthful.
Also, it's being reported that the women's groups came to Romney with the "binders" and not that Romney went to them first. (edit: I see Flanzo addressed this
Romney did not ask women groups for candidates. Instead, prior to his election, a “bipartisan group of women in Massachusetts formed MassGAP to address the problem of few women in senior leadership positions in state government.” They “put together the binder full of women qualified for all the different cabinet positions, agency heads, and authorities and commissions” and presented it to Romney after he was elected. A UMass-Boston study found that “the percentage of senior-level appointed positions held by women actually declined throughout the Romney administration, from 30.0% prior to his taking office, to 29.7% in July 2004, to 27.6% near the end of his term in November 2006.”
It really bothers me how much he and other Republicans lie so damn much and go back on what they said. Obama wasn't on point the whole time either and stumbled at points but I never felt like he was directly lying to everyone about his beliefs.
Get on my level ITM!
Or just go to Electablog every morning, they do the legwork for you.
Post by itrainmonkeys on Oct 17, 2012 14:01:43 GMT -5
When Mitt Romney said this: "We’re going to have to have employers in the new economy, in the economy I’m going to bring to play, that are going to be so anxious to get good workers they’re going to be anxious to hire women."
I said out loud to myself "What new economy? We don't know ANYTHING about the details of your "new economy". He made it seem like "you elect me, this new economy I'm bringing will fix it all." but hasn't given any specifics about his economic plan.
When Mitt Romney said this: "We’re going to have to have employers in the new economy, in the economy I’m going to bring to play, that are going to be so anxious to get good workers they’re going to be anxious to hire women."
I said out loud to myself "What new economy? We don't know ANYTHING about the details of your "new economy". He made it seem like "you elect me, this new economy I'm bringing will fix it all." but hasn't given any specifics about his economic plan.
That's funny, I didn't even make that far in my confusion. My first question was "....why do people need his magical economic saving to hire women? His political party is the one making it impossible for women to be treated as complete equals."
Thanks for the background. Between my first question and coming back now I've found that the phrase was not just awkward but bullshit as well. God I am sick of these clowns!
When Mitt Romney said this: "We’re going to have to have employers in the new economy, in the economy I’m going to bring to play, that are going to be so anxious to get good workers they’re going to be anxious to hire women."
I said out loud to myself "What new economy? We don't know ANYTHING about the details of your "new economy". He made it seem like "you elect me, this new economy I'm bringing will fix it all." but hasn't given any specifics about his economic plan.
That's funny, I didn't even make that far in my confusion. My first question was "....why do people need his magical economic saving to hire women? His political party is the one making it impossible for women to be treated as complete equals."
It just really stuck out to me when he said "The new economy I'm going to bring in" as if everyone knows what his plan is.
That's funny, I didn't even make that far in my confusion. My first question was "....why do people need his magical economic saving to hire women? His political party is the one making it impossible for women to be treated as complete equals."
It just really stuck out to me when he said "The new economy I'm going to bring in" as if everyone knows what his plan is.
As someone who studied economics for four years it's borderline insulting to say something like "The new economy I'm going to bring in."
A) Economic policy lags at least a year all sectors, but much longer than that in most. Let's say he changed the entire economic policy the day he took office (a literal impossibility), the effects of that wouldn't be felt for a year for certain groups & economic sectors, but in a lot of ways those changes wouldn't be felt until his term was coming to a close, and some wouldn't be felt until years after he left office. To act like it's a f*cking company HR policy that's interchangeable with any other one and that they can enforce all changes immediately proves he's either a) clueless, b) gutless, or c) a flat-out liar. Personally, I think it's a lot of A, not much of B and a little of C.
B) To have people in your own camp calling out your job plan, your economic recovery and basically anything fiscally related to your campaign unattainable is hilarious and (if I were Mitt) would shame me into remission for the rest of my life.
C) His current economic advisers are straight out of the Bush administration, does anyone want to go back to that 8-year long fiscal d*ck-kick?
D) While I disagree with the GOP's stance that tax cuts creates jobs on a fundamental fiscal level, they pay people with far more knowledge and experience than I have, I get that I could be wrong. Except they tried this during the Bush administration and the history shows that when super rich people get tax breaks, they don't give money back. This isn't including the nearly 100 billionaires that signed the pact with Warren Buffet to donate at least half of their fortunes, but that's the point. A lot of rich people DO put money back in and we're still not fully recovered. What is cutting the number that group puts into the pool by a 1/4 going to do? I can assure all of you that we will never see a benefit associated with that savings.
Look, I personally don't think Mitt is a bad guy, I think he's a good businessman and a guy put into a position he thought he wanted but realized he probably didn't. He doesn't strike me as someone who wants to win. He strikes me as a party member doing what his party asks because he'll benefit from it.
"Hey, Mitt, if you're President we cut your taxes and you get richer!"
"Herp Derp, where do I sign?!?"
Aside from all the stuff that I can barely stomach listening to (women's rights, gay marriage...basically the whole "let's go back to the 1950's! When times were best......for white males over the age of 25 with a family, a gun, and open racism!"), his economic and environmental policies are downright deplorable.
Oh, and that's something else, when are they going to bring the fact that Mitt's appreciation for Mother Earth is along the lines of the way I appreciate Mac Miller. To Mitt, the earth is just an obstacle to getting more money.
My brother hates Obama. HATES him, but he's also a big environmentalist and proponent for green energy and travel, so when my brother (who tried to put a "NObama" bumper sticker on my apartment front door) is voting for Obama because Mitt's energy policy is so awful, that's saying something.