Presidential Election: 2012

[Keef]

Interesting. I missed the first part of it, and I'm already confused about what I've seen so far. It's a bit of a crapshoot for everybody. I'd rather see them in a boxing ring.

The career politician comments by Newt made me laugh. Newt sounds like Romney should be jealous that he's been a career politician his whole life. And the crowd erupted in laughter when Paul accused him of lobbying Freddie Mac (lobbying by any other word is still lobbying), and when Newt defended that stating he was offering "strategic advice", the whole crowd erupted in laughter.

 

[Danoff]

Something along the lines of what specific idea would you use that differs from the other candidates to create jobs and how many will it create?

In that case, I'm 100% confident that you're right. Every one of them (with the possible exception of Ron Paul) would fuel the belief that the proper role for the president has anything to do with creating jobs.

The only correct response to that question is "that is not the function of the presidency".

 

[Dapper]

Interesting. I missed the first part of it, and I'm already confused about what I've seen so far. It's a bit of a crapshoot for everybody. I'd rather see them in a boxing ring.

I may have been dreaming, but did Romney just bet Perry $10,000?!

In that case, I'm 100% confident that you're right. Every one of them (with the possible exception of Ron Paul) would fuel the belief that the proper role for the president has anything to do with creating jobs.

The only correct response to that question is "that is not the function of the presidency".

Right. But what is even worse is they all said they would continue what Regan started!

 

[Keef]

I may have been dreaming, but did Romney just bet Perry $10,000?!

Yes. Boy, I wish I had $10,000 to bet somebody.

 

[Negrumir]

haahaha ya this video is so funny. Opening line is "you know something is wrong with America when gays can openly serve in the military" lol like who the **** possibly thinks that is going to get you more votes! At least it has more dislikes than I have ever seen.

Yeah, I don't think that guy is gonna have a chance, frankly, I hope he doesn't.

Now I'm a Christian mind you, and there is a valid point in what he said in that video. It's amazing how much people will fight for various rights and yet they continually try to take away the rights that the country was founded for in the first place.

We came here to worship freely. The separation of Church and State was to keep the government from forcing a particular Religion of belief. (Like what Europe was doing at the time the pilgrims came over.) All parties need to remember this.

Aside from all that, I don't really have any particular person I wish to win. Just so long as this nation isn't stupid enough to believe whatever lies Obama comes up with for his re-election campaign. It's time for someone else, we'll see if they're terrible or not, but we already know about Obama.

 

[FoolKiller]

Marketing is real. And it works (obviously).

Yes, but it is not responsible for any actions people take. It cannot force anyone to have a want or to take an action to buy something (unlike what the president wishes to do). It does not take away personal responsibility, nor does it remove the part of your brain that tells you what you should do. In fact, it does not even effectively trick people into thinking a bad product is good. It can trick them into getting a bad product once, but no one would by a second iPhone it were crap.

No, the bigger issue is that we have become effective at making products that do things that we love. The iPhone isn't popular because it has good advertising. Actually, those silhouette ads were horrible. But it brought something that gave us a useful object. It takes a phone, which ~85% of the US population has in one form or another (counting home phones here), and then adds your music library to it (no more CD books in the car), then gives you Internet activity on the road (no laptop necessary), plenty of pick up and play games (don't have to read a two month old issue of Highlights in the waiting room ever again), dozens of books in your pocket, PDA functionality (run your business from your pocket), dozens of functionality apps so you immediately know things like weather and traffic, and access to all the forms of digital entertainment that will make terrestrial/broadcast media irrelevant in a generation (My car radio never leaves auxiliary mode, the Adam Carolla podcast is my drive-time listening, Pandora is my radio, and I listen to audiobooks now that I get the whole thing at the push of a button).

That is why the iPhone is so popular. No single marketing campaign can make people buy an iPhone more than the iPhone itself does. Now, is Apple supposed to not make a device that people will want? Sure, now its functionality is redundant forms of things we have now, but in a generation or two there will be people with 100% digital multimedia libraries and they will be fitting it all in their pocket, and the only hardware will be something like the iPhone.

If marketing were all that was necessary to make people buy things there would be no vehicle test drives or home sale open houses, sites like Rotten Tomatoes would have no readers, and even bad movies would have a good opening weekend. Marketing will make you look into a product, but the product is what makes you buy it.


And side note: Since the 1920s the Magic Bullet Theory has been disproved, reworked, disproved, and currently being used to say violent video games make violent children and, despite what fundamentalists think, has already been disproved.

 

[Biggles]

even bad movies would have a good opening weekend.

Are you trying to say that doesn't happen?!

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/twilight_saga_breaking_dawn/

It would be nice to think that advertising doesn't influence people to a significant degree, but surely you can see that the evidence doesn't bear that out? That's the reason the amount of money that candidates have to spend is always considered one of the primary factors in the electability of a political candidate.

 

[Keef]

Are you trying to say that doesn't happen?!

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/twilight_saga_breaking_dawn/

It would be nice to think that advertising doesn't influence people to a significant degree, but surely you can see that the evidence doesn't bear that out? That's the reason the amount of money that candidates have to spend is always considered one of the primary factors in the electability of a political candidate.

Pretty sure Foolkiller isn't retarded and he knows what advertising is and what it does.

What he said was this:

Yes, but it is not responsible for any actions people take. It cannot force anyone to have a want or to take an action to buy something (unlike what the president wishes to do). It does not take away personal responsibility, nor does it remove the part of your brain that tells you what you should do.

Force. The threat of punishment is force. Or jailtime. Or the threat of bodily injury, or of death. Those things are force. When is the last time a television commercial forced you do do anything?

The advertisement does not make the decision for you. The decision is made by you. Therefore, you are responsible for the decision. I cannot recall the last time an advertisement rendered a person legally insane and therefore unable to take responsibility for their decisions while legally insane.

 

[FoolKiller]

Are you trying to say that doesn't happen?!

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/twilight_saga_breaking_dawn/

Are you trying to say that a single example of a movie concluding a series based on a highly popular series of novels means all bad movies have good opening weekends? Better yet, are you trying to say the advertising for Twilight had more effect on its opening weekend than advertising the date to a built-in audience?

It would be nice to think that advertising doesn't influence people to a significant degree, but surely you can see that the evidence doesn't bear that out? That's the reason the amount of money that candidates have to spend is always considered one of the primary factors in the electability of a political candidate.

I believe I actually described it as influencing what kinds of things you will look into. Advertising works as information. Without it you wouldn't have a clue what any new products were or did. Some do accept advertising info as total fact, but the ad isn't to blame.

 

[Adamgp]

Good news everybody. As of Wednesday, pending congressional redistricting, delaying of the primary, and re-opening of the petition, when I vote in Ohio's primary election in June, 2012, Newt Gingrich won't even be on the ballot. That's how little support he has. He also did not make the ballot in Missouri, making him the only candidate to miss the ballot in any state so far.

And yet all these political polls are placing Newt in a healthy 1st place. Now that's a joke if I've ever heard one.

Good news everybody. This is from 3 days ago, but according to this he will have another chance to get on the ballot in Ohio, after January 20th.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_new...may-miss-ohio-deadline-but-still-be-on-ballot

The Missouri primary is more like a meaningless "beauty contest", no delegates will be awarded. He missed it on purpose.

 

[Biggles]

I didn't suggest Foolkiller was "retarded" & I didn't say anything about advertising forcing people to do things. That's clearly not the case. I was responding to this:

If marketing were all that was necessary to make people buy things there would be no vehicle test drives or home sale open houses, sites like Rotten Tomatoes would have no readers, and even bad movies would have a good opening weekend. Marketing will make you look into a product, but the product is what makes you buy it.

Are you trying to say that a single example of a movie concluding a series based on a highly popular series of novels means all bad movies have good opening weekends?

That is a single example, but there are an astonishing number of examples of terrible movies that do well at the box office on their opening weekend. I could just refer you to the career of Adam Sandler, for instance:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/celebrity/adam_sandler/

Marketing will make you look into a product, but the product is what makes you buy it.

This definitely applies to politics. But without the money to spend on marketing the public doesn't even get exposure to the "product" to decide whether they want to buy it or not.

 

[Dapper]

Yes, but it is not responsible for any actions people take. It cannot force anyone to have a want or to take an action to buy something (unlike what the president wishes to do). It does not take away personal responsibility, nor does it remove the part of your brain that tells you what you should do.

Putting Big Bird on the front of a cereal box does not force anyone to do anything and it does not make anyone less responsible, no one said it would, but what it does do is makes the cereal more appealing and literally does taste better because that is what happens. I can't say why, but it is a fact. The generic cereal coming out of a fancy box taste better than out of the generic box.

 

[Keef]

Good news everybody. This is from 3 days ago, but according to this he will have another chance to get on the ballot in Ohio, after January 20th.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_new...may-miss-ohio-deadline-but-still-be-on-ballot

The Missouri primary is more like a meaningless "beauty contest", no delegates will be awarded. He missed it on purpose.

Hopefully he won't be able to make it on then, either. He didn't make it on, not because he missed the deadline as the MSN article says, but because he didn't "present enough signatures" as Rove said, whatever that means. He made the deadline, he just didn't have enough support to get a mention, like a failed petition.

 

[Adamgp]

Hopefully he won't be able to make it on then, either. He didn't make it on, not because he missed the deadline as the MSN article says, but because he didn't "present enough signatures" as Rove said, whatever that means. He made the deadline, he just didn't have enough support to get a mention, like a failed petition.

Link?

I can only find conflicting ones that say he missed it but has another shot, others say he made the deadline and is in. All from 2-4 days ago.

 

[Keef]

I already posted the link in that last post.

Karl Rove: "...and on Wednesday he failed to present enough signatures to get on the ballot in Ohio."

Like I said, he failed because of a lack of support. Rove didn't mention anything about Kasich's law that will go into effect and change the deadline, but if that happens or one of the other few things that could give Gingrich another chance, he may be able to gather more support. But as it sits now, he won't be on the ballot in at least two states.

Gingrich is the most bogus candidate on the stage right now. His accusations of lobbying and being paid by Freddie Mac while the bank was being bailed out (which is inarguable), his infidelity in his personal life and government career (a question which was given to some of the other candidates but not to him on purpose), and the fact that people laughed at him when he tried to defend those Freddie Mac claims. They laughed because he's a moron.

In my opinion, this is clearly a race between Romney and Paul. Perry is illiterate, Bachman is a woman, and Gingrich is a war-mongering, amnesty-granting, backstabbing, cheating bastard of a career politician who dared to brag to Romney about his career as a politician and politician only.

 

[FoolKiller]

That is a single example, but there are an astonishing number of examples of terrible movies that do well at the box office on their opening weekend. I could just refer you to the career of Adam Sandler, for instance:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/celebrity/adam_sandler/

You don't think Adam Sandler has a degree of a built-in audience also?

Let's take an Adam Sandler movie (aka Happy Madison Productions) that isn't starring Adam Sandler, or equally popular actor.

Bucky Larson
It didn't even make 50% of its budget.
And 0% on Rotten Tomatoes

And I wonder if we should take more account into viewer ratings than critics ratings, as those are a better measure of popularity. You will always have, "It's Waterboy! He's always funny."

This definitely applies to politics. But without the money to spend on marketing the public doesn't even get exposure to the "product" to decide whether they want to buy it or not.

Yes, the marketing is important to politics because you have one, maybe two if it is really successful, day to "buy" the product.

Putting Big Bird on the front of a cereal box does not force anyone to do anything and it does not make anyone less responsible, no one said it would, but what it does do is makes the cereal more appealing and literally does taste better because that is what happens. I can't say why, but it is a fact.

So, you are saying that you buy brand name cereal with a cartoon character because that makes it taste better to you?

The generic cereal coming out of a fancy box taste better than out of the generic box.

Odd, my daughter likes Toasted Oats and Cinnamon Graham Crackers as much as Cheerios and Cinnamon Toast Crunch. And she is old enough to go down the baby food aisle and grab the toddler meals that she likes best. She is also old enough to make me watch "Choo Choo" (Thomas and Friends) multiple times a night and bring it up on Netflix on her own.

Just a thought, maybe parenting is the issue.

Do you think violent video games make violent killers too?

 

[Dapper]

So, you are saying that you buy brand name cereal with a cartoon character because that makes it taste better to you?

I didn't say that. But you are the one who got suckered by Apple.

Just a thought, maybe parenting is the issue.

Do you think violent video games make violent killers too?

Not only are these statements naive in my opinion, but you seem to be disregarding marketing and it's role in reality and verging on nature vs nurture. Parenting does matter, and video games can supplement as a parenting role, but it is hard to tell what role the past has on one's future. I'm sure you've heard the Ted Bundy being raised by his grandparents possibly setting his path in life idea... But no one can say for sure either way. Same goes with games and parenting techniques.

On a more adult level than cereal, 20/20 did a blind Vodka taste test that resulted in everyone disliking their favorite vodka and preferring the cheaper vodka. Cereal is no different though.

 

[ChaosStar79]

Do you think violent video games make violent killers too?

The Spartan video games were the best in the world at the time.

Violence is inherit to life, and is up to us to embrace or deny.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

The Spartan video games were the best in the world at the time.

Violence is inherit to life, and is up to us to embrace or deny.

I agree, because if videogames did make killers then I'd be a lv 50 prestige in real life (COD MW for those who don't know).

 

[ChaosStar79]

I agree, because if videogames did make killers then I'd be a lv 50 prestige in real life (COD MW for those who don't know).

I'd be a flying T2 Ice Tank! (DCUO-villian) Bwahahaha...

Also The whole drone issue is really bothering me. I actually support Obama in his 'asking for it back' instead of more aggressive tactics. Granted we shouldn't be flying our drones there in the first place so I don't see that we have any right to do anything more than ask for it politely. I can't believe that such a device would not have a built in fail safe self destruct device though, so I have to question the entire story based on that one fact. I hope this is not another false pretense for empire building.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I'd be a flying T2 Ice Tank! (DCUO-villian) Bwahahaha...

Also The whole drone issue is really bothering me. I actually support Obama in his 'asking for it back' instead of more aggressive tactics. Granted we shouldn't be flying our drones there in the first place so I don't see that we have any right to do anything more than ask for it politely. I can't believe that such a device would not have a built in fail safe self destruct device though, so I have to question the entire story based on that one fact. I hope this is not another false pretense for empire building.

it's just funny how media now feels like reporting on downed drones, the Iran one, how Pakistan is going to be more frequent about shooting them down. Also off africa coast today a reaper crashed and was handled well after by our own military but our media now feels some need to report on it.

 

[FoolKiller]

I didn't say that.

Then by all means, explain what you meant by this:

Putting Big Bird on the front of a cereal box does not force anyone to do anything and it does not make anyone less responsible, no one said it would, but what it does do is makes the cereal more appealing and literally does taste better because that is what happens. I can't say why, but it is a fact. The generic cereal coming out of a fancy box taste better than out of the generic box.

You literally said it tastes better.

But you are the one who got suckered by Apple.

Suckered, or I spent two years comparing phones and didn't make a choice until I had a chance to use an iPhone, an Android, and a Blackberry owned by family/friends? Do note, I said their marketing campaign was horrible, and I didn't purchase an iPhone until the 4. The silhouette ads told you nothing about the iPhone. The new ads finally show you what you can do on an iPhone but still fail at distinguishing it from the competition that has their own version of everything they show. I can actually go through and fully describe why I chose an iPhone over the competition, but this is not the thread for that discussion.

I suspect you just say that because Apple represents a big corporation to you, so anyone that buys their products must have been suckered. Ironically, they were the home PC choice of anti-corporation types 10-15 years ago. I do wonder what it says about someone when they judge others by their phone.

Not only are these statements naive in my opinion, but you seem to be disregarding marketing and it's role in reality and verging on nature vs nurture.

No, I'm not. If you buy whatever cartoon character product your kid wants then you have to take the responsibility for confirming the notion that it is better. If you are in a battle with marketers for your child's attention you have to examine why. And if the marketing penetrates to them even without them being allowed to watch television (or only watch it on something like Netflix, as is done in my house) then I suggest shopping without them or shopping somewhere like Aldi. You get the same cereal at Aldi, it just isn't in the commercial box.

Parenting does matter, and video games can supplement as a parenting role, but it is hard to tell what role the past has on one's future. I'm sure you've heard the Ted Bundy being raised by his grandparents possibly setting his path in life idea... But no one can say for sure either way. Same goes with games and parenting techniques.

I am not trying to have a nature vs nurture debate. I already explained the Magic Bullet Theory of media and how your notion that advertising makes people do things has morphed into the violent video game theory today. It uses the same assumptions to say why a form of media has a negative affect on individuals. It takes on a different form every generation.

On a more adult level than cereal, 20/20 did a blind Vodka taste test that resulted in everyone disliking their favorite vodka and preferring the cheaper vodka. Cereal is no different though.

Actually, in the straight test...

There wasn't a hands-down favorite vodka for the testers, but two did stand out: Hangar One at $35 a bottle and Belvedere at $32 a bottle.

Although Grey Goose came out as a unanimous last place (no surprise to me, but I'm a Smirnoff man).

In the mixed drinks test Smirnoff did come out on top, but is anyone really surprised? These city hipsters order drinks that are 90% sugar and fruit.

Side note: Ditch the vodka in mixed drinks for gin. Thank me later.

I would challenge 20/20 to try this again at a non-upscale restaurant with patrons who don't chose their hang outs by image. They chose a primarily image conscious group to begin with. They probably pay twice as much as average for their drinks just to be able to say they were at B.R. Guest. And I blame pretentious D-bags on society/culture.

 

[Dapper]

Then by all means, explain what you meant by this:

You literally said it tastes better.

The fact people pay more for stuff because of the brand name or a cartoon character is evidence stuff taste better because of the label (that is the only way to gauge what people think taste best), otherwise no one would buy it.

I am not trying to have a nature vs nurture debate. I already explained the Magic Bullet Theory of media and how your notion that advertising makes people do things has morphed into the violent video game theory today. It uses the same assumptions to say why a form of media has a negative affect on individuals. It takes on a different form every generation.

Talk about a straw man... I never said advertising makes people do things.

In the mixed drinks test Smirnoff did come out on top, but is anyone really surprised?

That is my argument! How did you flip sides in just one post?

 

[Keef]

The fact people pay more for stuff because of the brand name or a cartoon character is evidence stuff taste better because of the label (that is the only way to gauge what people think taste best), otherwise no one would buy it.

How the hell do you make that connection? The fact that people buy stuff based on the brand name or cartoon character is evidence that they prefer that brand or cartoon character, and nothing more. It is actually a regular occurrence that people habitually buy a certain brand, despite it not being the best or even the cheapest, simply because they prefer the brand for some trivial reason, like color, or font, or mascot. That has nothing to do with taste.

Talk about a straw man... I never said advertising makes people do things.

The statement you made saying that you blame advertising corporation for the wants of individuals (which is ridiculous because advertising does not force people to make decisions or remove their responsibility for those decisions, thus you cannot blame the advertiser for those decisions) suggests that you think advertising makes people do things. It makes no sense to blame the advertiser for people's decisions unless the advertising does in fact make people do things. This entire argument is based on that first statement you made.

You're right. But do you give any of the blame to corporations for the extreme wanting people have these days? Cell phones for example, do you blame Apple and AT&T for creating such a weird need to consume things? I do.

 

[Dapper]

How the hell do you make that connection? The fact that people buy stuff based on the brand name or cartoon character is evidence that they prefer that brand or cartoon character, and nothing more. It is actually a regular occurrence that people habitually buy a certain brand, despite it not being the best or even the cheapest, simply because they prefer the brand for some trivial reason, like color, or font, or mascot. That has nothing to do with taste.

The vodka test showed people declare their favorite, or whatever adjective you like, vodka and when the marketing didn't affect their reaction almost all chose a different brand. People's perception of the quality, or whatever adjective you prefer, of a product is directly related to the marketing.

The statement you made saying that you blame advertising corporation for the wants of individuals (which is ridiculous because advertising does not force people to make decisions or remove their responsibility for those decisions, thus you cannot blame the advertiser for those decisions) suggests that you think advertising makes people do things. It makes no sense to blame the advertiser for people's decisions unless the advertising does in fact make people do things. This entire argument is based on that first statement you made.

That is quite a leap. Influence and force are not comparable.

 

[ChaosStar79]

How the hell do you make that connection? The fact that people buy stuff based on the brand name or cartoon character is evidence that they prefer that brand or cartoon character, and nothing more. It is actually a regular occurrence that people habitually buy a certain brand, despite it not being the best or even the cheapest, simply because they prefer the brand for some trivial reason, like color, or font, or mascot. That has nothing to do with taste.


The statement you made saying that you blame advertising corporation for the wants of individuals (which is ridiculous because advertising does not force people to make decisions or remove their responsibility for those decisions, thus you cannot blame the advertiser for those decisions) suggests that you think advertising makes people do things. It makes no sense to blame the advertiser for people's decisions unless the advertising does in fact make people do things. This entire argument is based on that first statement you made.

This is all due to the Perceived Value of an item . If you think it is better, it will taste better.
This is the same reason I can buy 'Skins' in dcuo and sell them on the Auction House for 10 times what I payed for them. People perceive that the item is rare because I price it as such and control the flow of them onto the Auction Block, so they happily and speedily snatch them up and collect them every time I list. So when you market a product as being of a better quality than the competition, someone is sure to buy it. Not everyone, but someone will, and I have to think that the inflated price tag almost serves as an improved marketing gimmick in itself. The idea that 'You get what you pay for' is true and false all at the same time.

 

[FoolKiller]

The fact people pay more for stuff because of the brand name or a cartoon character is evidence stuff taste better because of the label (that is the only way to gauge what people think taste best), otherwise no one would buy it.

It is no such evidence. It is evidence that people have an image issue. The vodka test that you present proves that it does not "literally" taste better. The fact that this current vodka craze came, not from advertising, but from Sex and the City also goes further to show that it is an image issue, not an advertising issue. The whole reason why they are drinking vodka cocktails of any kind is that they want to look "cool."

Talk about a straw man... I never said advertising makes people do things.

You blamed it for our society's consumerism. You said AT&T and Apple are to blame for people wanting their phones. Media making people want to do things is the original Magic Bullet Theory of media from the 1920s. I am sure I already explained this. Call it a straw man but you are using the same premise as a 1920s argument.

That is my argument! How did you flip sides in just one post?

Conveniently not quoting the part of my statement that qualified why it should be no surprise. Let's review the full statement.

In the mixed drinks test Smirnoff did come out on top, but is anyone really surprised? These city hipsters order drinks that are 90% sugar and fruit.

Yes, when you order a watered down beverage you will not be able to tell the difference in the type of liquor used...ever. I'd be surprised if they ever get the vodka they thought they were getting when they normally order their drinks. These upscale clubs love to water down the drinks and pump up the prices. I could probably give them sour lemonade and they wouldn't know the difference.

You also completely avoided the part where I quoted the news story that showed on a straight vodka taste test they did chose two of the expensive brands.

This is all due to the Perceived Value of an item .

The goal of advertising is to give your product a good perception. If a person is more willing to buy an image and perception than look into quality and production it says they are more concerned about their own image and perception to those around them.




And for something completely different, yet more on topic than all of this:

I got a Christmas card from Rand Paul and his family. I guess being a donor gets you on their Christmas card list. Interestingly the family photo on their card is a picture of them with Joe Biden. Bit odd.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

And for something completely different, yet more on topic than all of this:

I got a Christmas card from Rand Paul and his family. I guess being a donor gets you on their Christmas card list. Interestingly the family photo on their card is a picture of them with Joe Biden. Bit odd.

How so? Biden isn't as progressive as Obama and Paul isn't as conservative as the tea party/neo-cons. Also some people know how to set differences aside. I guess I see where you're coming from, not what you would expect, but not that strange.

 

[ChaosStar79]

I would gladly trade Pres Obama for Pres Biden. He seems more straight forward at least. Like, I can't trust him, but I can trust him to be himself. Perceived value I guess.

 

[Danoff]

How so? Biden isn't as progressive as Obama and Paul isn't as conservative as the tea party/neo-cons.

Biden has zero respect for rights (especially property), Paul is basically the opposite. I can't think of a politician I hate more than Biden. The list of politicians I like more than Rand Paul is very short (if any).