Mitt Romney is going to get the GOP nomination.......and he is a cupcake

[JoeB131]

Look, up in the sky.. It's

 

[JoeB131]

2) Sorry, man, 22% of the country won't vote for a Mormon. 26% don't think they are Christians and 22% aren't sure what they are. A real problem when 67% think the president ought to be a real Christian.

I hear you, and you're probably right, but must honestly say I find that disgusting. The big problem for Romney of course being that those most bothered by his Mormonism include a big chunk of the GOP base. (There are plenty of people on the left who don't like Mormons, either, but they wouldn't vote for Romney anyway.)

A couple things. I won't vote for a Mormon, and I'm an atheist. Not that if find their silly superstitions less silly than Catholic or Baptist beliefs, but because the cult like mentality bothers me, the fact that they don't seem to respect the clearly drawn line between church and state, and because my own personal experiences with them left me creeped out to a degree that has stuck with me 30 years later. Also, there is a Scientology level of fraud involved in the whole enterprise that kind of offends me.

But I can't fault a Evangelical or Baptist for not wanting to vote for this guy. If you really believe Joseph Smith was a false prophet inspired by the devil, I would have less respect for you if you voted for Romney because he isn't Obama.

I know its our inclination in this country to say, "Different strokes for different folks", but really, what's the point of having a religious belief system if you can discard it so easily?

3) Romney will very likely trigger a third party challenge that will split the GOP vote.

Could be. The Republican Party is in a crisis of its own right now (as is the Democratic Party). Both are facing insurgencies upset by the corruption in our politics by big money, and both insurgencies see the parties as departing from what ought to be their principles so they can serve the fat cats. The difference is that while the insurgents on the Democratic side are pushing an agenda that would actually work, those on the GOP side want a return to government that would only work in a long-gone set of material circumstances.

QUOTE]

I don't think the OWS are any more practical than the TPM. In fact, quite the opposite. I think the OWS is kind of the result of an entitlement society. The OWS complain about how they can't get a job after college. But that's because they won't take a job that is beneath them, even in this economy.

When I graduated college in 1985, I went active duty military. When I finally got out in 1992, the economy was in the shitter, so I took a job working in a warehouse. Eventually, I showed that I had a lot more capability than that, and moved up quickly to supervisory and purchasing work. In short, I proved myself through hard work. And I've had setbacks in the intervening 20 years. I'm still not where I'd like to be.

The problem I see with OWS is that they want the government to establish results without them doing the work. I think it's where that generation has gone soft. Adversity is not making them better, it's making them worse.

We have such a weird situation right now. We have completely forgotten what the word "conservative" is supposed to mean: preservation of order, resistance to radical change, upholding of tradition. Those who call themselves "conservatives" are pushing an agenda of radical reaction that is the antithesis of real conservatism. The Republicans are supposed to be our conservative party, but they're not, and the Democrats aren't supposed to be (they're supposed to be our progressive party), but they have become conservative -- someone, after all, needs to fill those shoes or the nation will come apart at the seams.

I don't know how it will all shake out, but neither party is going to be the same when it's done. I suspect this may be a crucial year of change for the Republicans. For the Democrats, it's more likely to be 2016.[/

The problem I see with the GOP is that is this alliance between religious, economic and security conservatives, and the goals don't always overlap. The Religious guys want more government control, while the economic conservatives want less. SO you get this bizarre combination where they don't want the banks regulated ,but they want the government telling a woman she can't have an abortion.

Liberals, on the other hand, have become the party of perpetuating government solutions by making as many of us dependent on government as possible. So now we have a situation where out of a 14 trillion dollar economy, 6 trillion of that is spending by government at all levels.

So when you get something like Free Trade, where it is not in the interest of the American working man to make him compete with a sweatshop in China, you have the "Conservatives" being all for it because it makes their donors richer, and you have the liberals being for it because it makes more people dependent on government.

But as policy, it's absolutely assinine.

 

[Crackerjack]

It ought to be fun when they start asking him about magic underwear and whatnot.

Hell, I'd almost vote for him just to see that!

What is all this about "magic" underwear..

Mash here.

 

[Avatar4321]

Ill says this, if Romney gets the the nomination, he will win in a landslide.

 

[candycorn]

I used to worry that Mitt could run a strong campaign against Obama. The more I see of him the more obvious it is that he is stiff, awkward and uncomfortable around people. At times, he is downright creepy

He has little chance against Obama

I think you're right but he's got 35 percent of the vote built in. Any election nowadays is a coin flip. I doubt he can win on his own. As Gore showed us though, the heavy favorite can do any number of things to destroy his own campaign.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I used to worry that Mitt could run a strong campaign against Obama. The more I see of him the more obvious it is that he is stiff, awkward and uncomfortable around people. At times, he is downright creepy

He has little chance against Obama

Be careful. You've seen what can come of misunderestimating a candidate.

I agree.

Reading posts here shows that the right wing voter doesn't really know anything beyond what lush, Beck, O'Reilly tell them. They've been told to vote for "anyone but Obama" and that they don't need to think for themselves.

To most of them, a guy born in the foreign country of Hawaii seems exotic. Hell, they're probably scared their sister will marry one of them or something. Next to President Obama, white bread and boring Romney is reassuring that all is right with their narrow little world.

About the magic underwear, he did answer a question about it some years years ago during one of his many failed runs for office but hasn't since then. I seem to remember that he said he would not. Even so, magic underwear isn't nearly as scary to the uneducated as well educated, elitist Prez Barry.

In their lemming-like race to the bottom, these people would even vote for $arah, for Pete's sake!

 

[JoeB131]

Ill says this, if Romney gets the the nomination, he will win in a landslide.

Not really.

But keep telling yourself that.

22% won't vote for a member of the LDS. INcluding 18% of Republicans.

Frankly, I don't see where this "landslide" is going to come from.

The math is that Romney has to get everyone who voted for McCain in 2008 to show up AND get at least 5 million of those who voted for Obama to either change their minds or 10 million of them to stay home. The math would be one to change mind to two staying home. So if he got 3 million to change their minds and 6 million to stay home, he might have a change. (59+3 to 69-6)

I just don't see that happening. I have not talked to one Obama supporter yet who tells me he's swooning at the knees to vote for Romney. I've talked to a few McCain supporters who tell me they won't vote for Romney under any circumstances. - Too Mormon, too liberal, too oily, whatever.

 

[Zander]

At this stage of the game, with 10 months to go, Obama has a 50% chance of winning reelection. The strategy for Obama is simple- ignore the "white" working class and appeal to poor people, minorities, and the elites. This is his "coalition"- screw whitey! He will continue to sow discontent for the "evil" rich, the "corporations, and all of the successful people that make this country work. It is a risky strategy, but what else can he do? He can't run on his record.

Fortunately, if he does manage to win, he will be handcuffed with a Republican Senate and Republican House and will not be able to get anything done. I can live with that outcome.

 

[JimH52]

I used to worry that Mitt could run a strong campaign against Obama. The more I see of him the more obvious it is that he is stiff, awkward and uncomfortable around people. At times, he is downright creepy

He has little chance against Obama

I think he would make the perfect Undertaker. Stiff, Unemotional, and Bland...

 

[JoeB131]

At this stage of the game, with 10 months to go, Obama has a 50% chance of winning reelection. The strategy for Obama is simple- ignore the "white" working class and appeal to poor people, minorities, and the elites. This is his "coalition"- screw whitey! He will continue to sow discontent for the "evil" rich, the "corporations, and all of the successful people that make this country work. It is a risky strategy, but what else can he do? He can't run on his record.

Fortunately, if he does manage to win, he will be handcuffed with a Republican Senate and Republican House and will not be able to get anything done. I can live with that outcome.

This is a good argument of why we SHOULDN'T nominate Romney.

He doesn't have to "ignore" the white working class, a lot of which will vote for him, anyway. Quite the contrary, union membership is overwealmingly white and middle classs (It's really the only middle class we have left in this country) and if you are pitting Mitt the Job-Slashing Corporate Raider against Barack the guy who made sure that we saved GM and it's union jobs, it ain't gonna be much of a contest.

But keep telling yourself Mitt is a great pick, man.

(Hey, this is the part where you don't have a real response and start whining about how I don't like him because of his religion.)

 

[JoeB131]

I used to worry that Mitt could run a strong campaign against Obama. The more I see of him the more obvious it is that he is stiff, awkward and uncomfortable around people. At times, he is downright creepy

He has little chance against Obama

I think he would make the perfect Undertaker. Stiff, Unemotional, and Bland...

Not to mention kind of creepy.

 

[Toro]

At this stage of the game, with 10 months to go, Obama has a 50% chance of winning reelection. The strategy for Obama is simple- ignore the "white" working class and appeal to poor people, minorities, and the elites. This is his "coalition"- screw whitey! He will continue to sow discontent for the "evil" rich, the "corporations, and all of the successful people that make this country work. It is a risky strategy, but what else can he do? He can't run on his record.

Fortunately, if he does manage to win, he will be handcuffed with a Republican Senate and Republican House and will not be able to get anything done. I can live with that outcome.

This is a good argument of why we SHOULDN'T nominate Romney.

He doesn't have to "ignore" the white working class, a lot of which will vote for him, anyway. Quite the contrary, union membership is overwealmingly white and middle classs (It's really the only middle class we have left in this country) and if you are pitting Mitt the Job-Slashing Corporate Raider against Barack the guy who made sure that we saved GM and it's union jobs, it ain't gonna be much of a contest.

But keep telling yourself Mitt is a great pick, man.

(Hey, this is the part where you don't have a real response and start whining about how I don't like him because of his religion.)

12% of the workforce is unionized. Are you saying that only 12% of the country is middle class. (And that's a very uber-RINO statement BTW.)

 

[Dragon]

I don't think the OWS are any more practical than the TPM. In fact, quite the opposite. I think the OWS is kind of the result of an entitlement society. The OWS complain about how they can't get a job after college. But that's because they won't take a job that is beneath them, even in this economy.

When I graduated college in 1985, I went active duty military. When I finally got out in 1992, the economy was in the shitter, so I took a job working in a warehouse. Eventually, I showed that I had a lot more capability than that, and moved up quickly to supervisory and purchasing work. In short, I proved myself through hard work. And I've had setbacks in the intervening 20 years. I'm still not where I'd like to be.

The problem I see with OWS is that they want the government to establish results without them doing the work. I think it's where that generation has gone soft. Adversity is not making them better, it's making them worse.

Well, naturally I don't see it that way, and I would like to point out something about the generational dynamic. If you graduated from college in 1985, that probably means you were born sometime in the 1960s, which makes you probably an early-wave Gen-Xer. If you graduated late, you could be a very late-cohort Boomer, but Xer is more likely. (Note that the demographic "baby boom" and the Boomer generation don't overlap perfectly; 1943-45 are considered Boom birth years and 1961-64 aren't.) Most people involved in Occupy, as you observe, are the next generation after yours, the Millennials. Generation X is what we call a "reactive" generation, very individualistic. Their mission in life, coming of age right after a period of cultural upheaval and re-set of collective values, was to test those values in real life and refine them, all of which is better done small-scale than large-scale.

Now the thing about the Millennials is that they're a "Civic" generation. They're collective mission in life is to fix what's wrong with our civic order, with our economy and politics. And so it's not good enough for any one of them to beat the odds as you did and make it. They're here to fix the broken system so that it isn't so damned hard to make it. It really shouldn't be, you know. That may give go-getters a maximum of personal satisfaction in having achieved something despite the stacked deck, but it's still not the right way to organize our society.

As long as the rules are set up the way they are now, it's always going to be the case that most people can't make it. It's competitive: a person who does make it, makes it not because he tried hard enough to meet some objective test, but because he tried harder (or had more talents, etc. going for him) than the competition did. The smartest and best of the Millies, like the smartest and best of any generation, know that they, personally, can make it. But that's not good enough. They know that things can be set up so that most people make it, because it's been done before, and we're richer now than we were then, and so that's what they want to see happen. You'll never understand where they (or Occupy) are coming from if you look at it from a me standpoint, or assume that's what they're doing, because they're not. You have to understand it from a we perspective.

The problem I see with the GOP is that is this alliance between religious, economic and security conservatives, and the goals don't always overlap. The Religious guys want more government control, while the economic conservatives want less. SO you get this bizarre combination where they don't want the banks regulated ,but they want the government telling a woman she can't have an abortion.

I see the current GOP as a mix of several ideologies, but I don't consider the so-called "economic conservatives" to be one of them. I see that as the corporate-dominated bought-out wing of the party, identical for most purposes to the bought-out wing of the Democrats. Both parties also incorporate certain ideologies into the mix. For the GOP, the religious right is one, right-leaning libertarians are another. The Tea Party emphasizes both those ideologies (insofar as that's possible) against the corporate-controlled wing. There's some overlap between what the corporatists want and what the libertarians want, but less than you might thing; the corporatists for example were tickled pink about the bank bailout, but that didn't sit well with anyone else. They also like their fossil-fuel subsidies and other corporate welfare, which libertarians oppose.

Liberals, on the other hand, have become the party of perpetuating government solutions by making as many of us dependent on government as possible. So now we have a situation where out of a 14 trillion dollar economy, 6 trillion of that is spending by government at all levels.

Now that's just silly. There is no deliberate goal to "make as many of us as dependent on government as possible." Absolutely no one wants that. You can argue that that's the outcome, objectively, of Democratic policies, but to say that's the intent is simply absurd. (I disagree that it's the objective outcome as well, but that isn't quite so ridiculous.)

Here's how I see the Democrats. Like the Republicans, they have a corporate-bought wing fleshed out by more than one ideology. The Democrats' ideological wings are if anything more diverse than those of the GOP. They have left-leaning libertarians, identity politics advocates of various kinds, unions and similar advocates for economic equality, environmentalists, peaceniks and objectors to the American Empire. If anything, there's even more of a disconnect between these groups and the corporatist wing than there is in the GOP. So there's really serious trouble brewing for the Dems. It's already cost them one election, when proto-Occupy (as I call it) organized a boycott of the 2010 election to send them a message. Despite the delusions of some on this forum, Obama is a long way from being the left's darling. I think he's likely to win reelection for the reasons we've already discussed, but I also think it will be closer than it was in '08, and that both parties have storms ahead of them.

So when you get something like Free Trade, where it is not in the interest of the American working man to make him compete with a sweatshop in China, you have the "Conservatives" being all for it because it makes their donors richer, and you have the liberals being for it because it makes more people dependent on government.

But as policy, it's absolutely assinine.

Almost right. The truth is that liberals were never for the kind of free trade we have today. Some Democrats were -- but ask liberals if we think Bill Clinton was one of us. (Ask me: hell, no!) The corporate wings of both parties were for it. That's why it passed.

 

[candycorn]

So this is what it will be.

Romney: Stiff, awkward speaker.
Obama: Worst economy in 80 years.

I'd take those chances.

In 2000, we had the choice between Gore who, at least, helped give us the best economy most of us can remember vs. regular guy Bush whose qualifications were suspect at best.

Ask President Gore how it turned out.

I like your logic...but logic doesn't always prevail.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Mitt Romney is going to get the GOP nomination.......and he is a cupcake

.....And, a liar.....​

12/28/2011​

"A persistent GOP line of attack against President Obama is that he's inflicted an intolerable "regulatory burden" on American businesses. Mitt Romney, for instance, has been telling campaign crowds that the Obama administration has issued four times as much regulation as past presidents. This claim is false. According to Bloomberg news, the Obama administration has issued 613 new federal rules so far in his presidency. During the same period in the presidency of George W. Bush, his administration had issued 643 new rules."

Mitt's Full O' Shit​

 

[JoeB131]

12% of the workforce is unionized. Are you saying that only 12% of the country is middle class. (And that's a very uber-RINO statement BTW.)

I mean, yeah, what a horrible concept, the people who actually DO the work getting the wages.

Don't they know only the parasites on Wall Street deserve to make real money. How dare they demand fair wages.

Of course, once upon a time, Republicans understood that fair wages and a middle class were important. Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, they all got this.

But somewhere along the line, teh GOP became the tool of the Corporatists, and screw them middle class wages.

Which is why the GOP has only won one popular vote out of five for the presidency since 1992.

Two biggest mistakes the GOP is making today

1) Chummying up to the MNC's that want to dismantle the middle class in this country.
2) Chummying up to the racists in the Minuteman movement.

As you blurt out, Obama's got the worst economy in 80 years. Yet 6 out of 9 polls have him beating Romney. Even factoring for Romney's flaws, this plain old should not be happening.

But then you have Romney's flaws. He's a Wall Street bloodsucker who made his fortune putting working Joes out of good paying jobs so he could buy another mansion.

Obama's smear machine is going to have him for lunch.

 

[JoeB131]

[Well, naturally I don't see it that way, and I would like to point out something about the generational dynamic. If you graduated from college in 1985, that probably means you were born sometime in the 1960s, which makes you probably an early-wave Gen-Xer. If you graduated late, you could be a very late-cohort Boomer, but Xer is more likely. (Note that the demographic "baby boom" and the Boomer generation don't overlap perfectly; 1943-45 are considered Boom birth years and 1961-64 aren't.) Most people involved in Occupy, as you observe, are the next generation after yours, the Millennials. Generation X is what we call a "reactive" generation, very individualistic. Their mission in life, coming of age right after a period of cultural upheaval and re-set of collective values, was to test those values in real life and refine them, all of which is better done small-scale than large-scale.

For the record, I was born in 1962, and I've always been told that is part of the "baby Boom". Now, I'll admit that I don't think my generation was as noble or great as my father's WWII generation, where my dad and all his friends defined themselves by "What they did in the War". But I still think it was a generation that valued hard work.

I joined the National Guard to pay for college, and worked two min wage jobs to get through it. The notion that I should take out a loan and then have someone else write it off as bad debt is sort of an anathema to me, as it should be.

And the idea that hey, let's just occupy a park, and throw a big tantrum until the government gives us what we want.

Now the thing about the Millennials is that they're a "Civic" generation. They're collective mission in life is to fix what's wrong with our civic order, with our economy and politics. And so it's not good enough for any one of them to beat the odds as you did and make it. They're here to fix the broken system so that it isn't so damned hard to make it. It really shouldn't be, you know. That may give go-getters a maximum of personal satisfaction in having achieved something despite the stacked deck, but it's still not the right way to organize our society.

I'm sure that's how millenials see themselves, but that's not how they appear to the rest of us. My impression is that they aren't changing anything or trying to change anything, they are demanding the government do so. (Did they forget they put the current guy in?)

As long as the rules are set up the way they are now, it's always going to be the case that most people can't make it. It's competitive: a person who does make it, makes it not because he tried hard enough to meet some objective test, but because he tried harder (or had more talents, etc. going for him) than the competition did. The smartest and best of the Millies, like the smartest and best of any generation, know that they, personally, can make it. But that's not good enough. They know that things can be set up so that most people make it, because it's been done before, and we're richer now than we were then, and so that's what they want to see happen. You'll never understand where they (or Occupy) are coming from if you look at it from a me standpoint, or assume that's what they're doing, because they're not. You have to understand it from a we perspective.

Sorry, just don't buy that. Here's the thing. When all the whining is over, they'll support Barack Obama a second time, even though he's been just as bad as any Republican on these issues.

I'm sure they are all for the "noble' nature of being anti-corporate, but at the end of the day, they will still use those corporate products and still take jobs for "the man". They are a teenager throwing a tantrum. They consider a great accomplishment they can stay on Mommy's health insurance until they are 26. Sorry, I find that personally horrifying. It's an infantile generation that refuses to grow up.

 

[WatertheTree]

I used to worry that Mitt could run a strong campaign against Obama. The more I see of him the more obvious it is that he is stiff, awkward and uncomfortable around people. At times, he is downright creepy

He has little chance against Obama

Its time you join the Ron Paul revolution.

 

[WatertheTree]

At this stage of the game, with 10 months to go, Obama has a 50% chance of winning reelection. The strategy for Obama is simple- ignore the "white" working class and appeal to poor people, minorities, and the elites. This is his "coalition"- screw whitey! He w....

All paid for by the hardest working Americans.

 

[JoeB131]

I see the current GOP as a mix of several ideologies, but I don't consider the so-called "economic conservatives" to be one of them. I see that as the corporate-dominated bought-out wing of the party, identical for most purposes to the bought-out wing of the Democrats. Both parties also incorporate certain ideologies into the mix. For the GOP, the religious right is one, right-leaning libertarians are another. The Tea Party emphasizes both those ideologies (insofar as that's possible) against the corporate-controlled wing. There's some overlap between what the corporatists want and what the libertarians want, but less than you might thing; the corporatists for example were tickled pink about the bank bailout, but that didn't sit well with anyone else. They also like their fossil-fuel subsidies and other corporate welfare, which libertarians oppose.

I think the corporatists are very good at manipulating both sides to get what they want. If you look at the bailout, the problem there was everyone was panicking and signed a big blank check. The purpose of the bailout was to infuse money into the monetary system to keep people employed. INstead the banks used it to cover their losses and let people get fired, anyway. And no one called them on it.

Liberals, on the other hand, have become the party of perpetuating government solutions by making as many of us dependent on government as possible. So now we have a situation where out of a 14 trillion dollar economy, 6 trillion of that is spending by government at all levels.

Now that's just silly. There is no deliberate goal to "make as many of us as dependent on government as possible." Absolutely no one wants that. You can argue that that's the outcome, objectively, of Democratic policies, but to say that's the intent is simply absurd. (I disagree that it's the objective outcome as well, but that isn't quite so ridiculous.)

If you look at any fight over budgets, the first concern the Democrats have is making sure their union buddies don't have to give anything up. They in fact poured millions fighting Wisconsin and Ohio from cutting union power and benefits. The purpose of a government should be to perform a function, not to keep people employed. Democrats simply don't see it that way, good Keynesians that they are.

Here's how I see the Democrats. Like the Republicans, they have a corporate-bought wing fleshed out by more than one ideology. The Democrats' ideological wings are if anything more diverse than those of the GOP. They have left-leaning libertarians, identity politics advocates of various kinds, unions and similar advocates for economic equality, environmentalists, peaceniks and objectors to the American Empire. If anything, there's even more of a disconnect between these groups and the corporatist wing than there is in the GOP. So there's really serious trouble brewing for the Dems. It's already cost them one election, when proto-Occupy (as I call it) organized a boycott of the 2010 election to send them a message. Despite the delusions of some on this forum, Obama is a long way from being the left's darling. I think he's likely to win reelection for the reasons we've already discussed, but I also think it will be closer than it was in '08, and that both parties have storms ahead of them.

Whoa.. Gotta call shennanigans on this one. What "boycott" or "Protest" vote? There was nothing of the sort. What happened in 2010 was that the TEA movement occurred from the other side, but there was no organized thing on the left. People just didn't show up, as they normally don't during midterms. Ommission of action is not action.

Almost right. The truth is that liberals were never for the kind of free trade we have today. Some Democrats were -- but ask liberals if we think Bill Clinton was one of us. (Ask me: hell, no!) The corporate wings of both parties were for it. That's why it passed.

Except when Push comes to shove, Democrats always sign these treaties. Clinton signed GATT, WTO, NAFTA and MFN for the butchers of Beijing when they hadn't quite washed all the blood off the tank treads yet. Obama signed this latest batch of treaties with S. Korea, Columbia and Panama, even though they are going to eliminate a quarter million jobs.

And if you want to make a distinction between liberal and Democrat, fine, but I couldn't tell the difference when they went to the mat for Clinton or Obama.