• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Faux outrage of the day- "not optimal"

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,183
3,872
126
you got the response you deserve.
He deserves compassion and a huge medical effort to find a way to cure conservative brain disease. Nobody has it because they wanted to be sick. They had to be sick to survive as children.
 

Doppel

Lifer
Feb 5, 2011
13,306
2
0
This doesn't even count as a gaffe. It is nothing, even for the GOP this is desperate.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,212
126
Obama was answering a question posed by Stewart, who used the word "optimal." I'm not sure what we're even discussing here...
It's merely territorial pissings. One side becomes outraged and the other becomes indignant. This is called partisan bickering. The subject really isn't important, it's the act itself which matters. Well to some at least. I see it as a common Homo sapiens expression of dominance games.
 

Farang

Lifer
Jul 7, 2003
10,914
3
0
Only buffoons. That is funny for Internet memes but nothing more than a simple gaffe and doesn't speak with any depth to Romney either.
I'd say it was mostly meaningless but I think the binders comment spoke to something bigger.

Romney responded to an answer about fair pay at work by talking about how he made sure to hire women in his cabinet as Governor. In fact the way he framed it was that it was political posturing--we need women because there are a lot of women out there. Obama then responded by citing his first bill signed as President--the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

There's a difference between a gaffe that actually says something about a candidate and one that is just a pairing of words that sounds poorly taken out of context. While binders is also not to be taken seriously, it had more staying power because people genuinely responded with a 'Huh?' when he answered the question. More importantly it reinforced an existing perception.

This 'gaffe' really has no meaning at all.
 

Doppel

Lifer
Feb 5, 2011
13,306
2
0
I'd say it was mostly meaningless but I think the binders comment spoke to something bigger.

Romney responded to an answer about fair pay at work by talking about how he made sure to hire women in his cabinet as Governor. In fact the way he framed it was that it was political posturing--we need women because there are a lot of women out there. Obama then responded by citing his first bill signed as President--the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

There's a difference between a gaffe that actually says something about a candidate and one that is just a pairing of words that sounds poorly taken out of context. While binders is also not to be taken seriously, it had more staying power because people genuinely responded with a 'Huh?' when he answered the question. More importantly it reinforced an existing perception.

This 'gaffe' really has no meaning at all.
Oh, there was other stuff Romney said about women that does speak to him, but I thought the binders was just a poor slip of the tongue :)
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Take all of the people who care about this issue.

Subtract from that all of the people who would never vote for Obama under any circumstances.

You're left with the null set.
You don't understand how elections work;)

No one changes their vote.

The winner is the team who's fans bother to vote.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
0
0
You don't understand how elections work;)

No one changes their vote.

The winner is the team who's fans bother to vote.
Very good point and since it looks like such an overwhelming Obama victory I'd like to suggest to all his supporters to go out and have a beer or a glass of wine on election day instead of voting.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Very good point and since it looks like such an overwhelming Obama victory I'd like to suggest to all his supporters to go out and have a beer or a glass of wine on election day instead of voting.
I definitely plan on having a drink on election day...after I vote of course. And I might have another after Obama wins ;) Maybe two if we're stuck with Romney for 4 unfortunate years.
 

Agent11

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2006
3,535
1
0
Steward said the response wasn't optimal. Obama just pointed out that the situations wasn't either.

This wasn't some hermetically sealed situation. They didn't even know the specifics of what all had happened right away.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Just think how much trouble Obama would be in if he ever granted an interview with a legitimate news agency. The guy even fucks up on the Jon Stewbert Show, maybe he needs another visit to "The View" with Whoopi "it wasn't rape-rape" Goldberg.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2220241/Barack-Obama-Benghazi-attack-Mother-diplomat-criticises-Presidents-optimal-comment.html
Except it only looks like "fucking up" to people who have an embarrassingly obvious vested interest in claiming Obama fucked up. And to be honest, I don't believe there is a single person out there who is genuinely outraged by what he said unless they're very, very stupid. The problem isn't excessive outrage over something a political said, since that tends to happen quite often, it's outrage about something that wasn't even really said. Did Obama say the actual words "not optimal"? Sure, but does anyone ACTUALLY think he said that to make light of dead Americans? Or was he just replying using Jon Stewart's phrase and you all are very obviously trying to make something out of it?
 

buckshot24

Diamond Member
Nov 3, 2009
9,916
85
91
Except it only looks like "fucking up" to people who have an embarrassingly obvious vested interest in claiming Obama fucked up. And to be honest, I don't believe there is a single person out there who is genuinely outraged by what he said unless they're very, very stupid.
One of the victims mother was pretty outraged.
The problem isn't excessive outrage over something a political said, since that tends to happen quite often, it's outrage about something that wasn't even really said. Did Obama say the actual words "not optimal"? Sure, but does anyone ACTUALLY think he said that to make light of dead Americans? Or was he just replying using Jon Stewart's phrase and you all are very obviously trying to make something out of it?
I'll be consistent, Obama was merely repeating a term Stewart used in framing his question. It wasn't really his choice of words he was only responding. He also didn't call the Benghazi attack an act of terror in the Rose Garden speech on 9/12.

Earlier today I didn't know about Stewart using the phrase in asking the question but even then, I wasn't that concerned about it. This is silly. There are so many legitimate "outrages" to be had about this affair that spending time on some BS like this is only a distraction.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
11,880
1,214
126
Having now seen this interview it is with reluctant admiration that I salute the GOP noise machine for making a mountain out of absolutely nothing. There was clearly no gaffe or disrespect or disinterest on the President's part. But this is the international crisis that Romney was expressly rooting for in his 47% speech so his relentless exploitation is to be expected.
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
0
0
You don't understand how elections work;)

No one changes their vote.

The winner is the team who's fans bother to vote.
If you actually followed and read polls as much as I do, you'd know that this is not true. A lot of people do change their minds during the course of an election, and especially this one thanks to Obama phoning in his performance in the first debate.

It's just that some things change votes and some don't. And BS "controversies" like this one don't.
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
27,866
4,913
126
This 'gaffe' nearly as laughable as lipstick on a pig. He was using the phrase almost sarcastically to make a point. To paraphrase:

Stewart: Is how the government handled this optimal?
Obama: Of course it's 'not optimal' when four Americans are killed.

Another paraphrase:

Stewart: Did the government handle this perfectly?
Obama: Perfect? Four Americans are dead--that's not perfect.

Taken in a soundbyte, it is a poor choice of words, but that's it
This.

I can't tell if some of you are just trolling or really didn't understand this.
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
If you actually followed and read polls as much as I do, you'd know that this is not true. A lot of people do change their minds during the course of an election, and especially this one thanks to Obama phoning in his performance in the first debate.

It's just that some things change votes and some don't. And BS "controversies" like this one don't.
Well, I generally file this under 'the exception proves the rule'. A small percentage (I would guess much less than 20%) of voters are 'available' to be swung from election to election. Even fewer are willing to change their votes during the campaign.

Combine this with low voter turnout, and 'getting out the vote' likely trumps 'changing voters preferences' as the most important part of winning an election.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
11,880
1,214
126
What evidence is there that she's not very, very stupid, though?
Which one are you claiming is very, very stupid? I've seen TV interviews of both the Ambassador's mother and ex-Seal's mother. Both seemed to me to be very intelligent, dignified grieving woman, but maybe I don't have your astute perception skills.

Or, to put it more bluntly, have you no shame?
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,988
14,152
136
One of the victims mother was pretty outraged.

I'll be consistent, Obama was merely repeating a term Stewart used in framing his question. It wasn't really his choice of words he was only responding. He also didn't call the Benghazi attack an act of terror in the Rose Garden speech on 9/12.

Earlier today I didn't know about Stewart using the phrase in asking the question but even then, I wasn't that concerned about it. This is silly. There are so many legitimate "outrages" to be had about this affair that spending time on some BS like this is only a distraction.
The Rose garden speech? Then wtf was Obama talking about when he said this-

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.
http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/10/19/foxs-word-games-create-parallel-universe-of-oba/190781

His statements the next day echo that, no matter how desperately Faux News & the rest attempt to distort it.

Find out what was actually said before accepting anybody's interpretation of what it meant, particularly when those interpreting have a political axe to grind.

Sheesh.
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
0
0
It's not an article, it's an op-ed opinion piece by a right-winger.

Kind of ironic that you posted it in the same breath as you complained about others using biased sources. (Ironic, but no longer surprising.)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY