So... Mitt Romney

[kckolbe]

I think that considerable damage has been done to civil liberties during Obama's term, though not all of it what due to his actions.  In fact, the increase of police incidents regarding cell phone confiscation were spoken against by Obama, just not nearly as strongly as I wanted.  Unfortunately, Romney has not addressed this either, so looks like that is continuing with either one. 

With the drone attacks, bear in mind that they are against a country we are not at war against (we aren't officially at war with anyone, but that's another issue), but against Pakistan, a country we give a significant amount of money to in order to support our actions in Afghanistan.  Not only is it morally wrong, but it's just stupid.  We are spending money to kill people in Pakistan while we give additional money to Pakistan to be our tentative friend, allowing us to spend money on Afghanistan.  This is why we have no money.

As far as the economy goes, I think the very small amount of growth we've seen would happen under any President (and historically has happened faster under others), and is countered by the huge amount of debt we have accumulated in the process.  Also, GM is still faltering, so expect them to ask for help again soon.  This time, in addition to the too big to fail argument (which I disagree with for practical and ethical reasons), now the federal government owns too much of it to let it fail.

As before, I am not advocating Romney.  I think both candidates are poor choices.  Please vote for a third party candidate.

[OldSchoolGamer]

As far as the economy goes, I think the very small amount of growth we've seen would happen under any President (and historically has happened faster under others), and is countered by the huge amount of debt we have accumulated in the process.  Also, GM is still faltering, so expect them to ask for help again soon.  This time, in addition to the too big to fail argument (which I disagree with for practical and ethical reasons), now the federal government owns too much of it to let it fail.

As before, I am not advocating Romney.  I think both candidates are poor choices.  Please vote for a third party candidate.

The reason we have no growth and huge debt is because central banks worldwide--but especially the Fed--have embarked on a massive operation to substitute printed money for dwindling oil supplies.  I'm not going to elaborate on this or someone would complain, but I will say neither Romney nor Obama have much of a clue that this is even happening, let alone where it's going to lead or how to fix it.

[kckolbe]

All right then, OldSchoolGamer, a dice battle it shall be.

I don't have anything combative to say, really, just wanted to make the avi reference.  The mass printing of money is definitely a problem, and I don't blame GM's failure on Obama either.  It's just shitty decision-making at GM  I think we should have let them fail in the 80s when they proved they weren't willing to stay competitive on their own.  By keeping companies like this alive, we are only preventing new car companies from forming and growing. 

My claim against Obama is not that he ruined the economy, but that he has not aided a recovery, and that, far more importantly, civil rights continue to erode.  To give him some credit, though, he did repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell.  Granted, homosexual conduct is *still* illegal in the military, but hopefully that is being remedied.

[OldSchoolGamer]

All right then, OldSchoolGamer, a dice battle it shall be.

I don't have anything combative to say, really, just wanted to make the avi reference.  The mass printing of money is definitely a problem, and I don't blame GM's failure on Obama either.  It's just shitty decision-making at GM  I think we should have let them fail in the 80s when they proved they weren't willing to stay competitive on their own.  By keeping companies like this alive, we are only preventing new car companies from forming and growing. 

My claim against Obama is not that he ruined the economy, but that he has not aided a recovery, and that, far more importantly, civil rights continue to erode.  To give him some credit, though, he did repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell.  Granted, homosexual conduct is *still* illegal in the military, but hopefully that is being remedied.

Obama has done nothing to fix the economy, because the economy is doing fine.  There's not much that needs fixing...from the perspective of the people who control the White House and government.  The rich are getting richer, ergo there is no "problem."  That the rest of us are having problems is irrelevant; we don't matter.  We're expendable.  If your net worth is less than a million, you're a cockroach as far as they're concerned.  If your net worth is between one and ten million, you're like a lab rat or hamster.  Between $10 million and $50 million, a household pet.  Between $50 and $200 million, a favored servant.  In this economic crisis, the "cockroaches" are doing most of the suffering, but that's what cockroaches are for.

[Ironwolf85]

or maybe the world just isn't that simple oldschool...

Maybe "the rich" are just as flawed, condfused, and prone to human stupid as the rest of us. I believe much of the modern disconnect comes from many american communities becoming more isolated and electronic. For example romney's children likely attend private school, have rich friends, and have never met anyone on welfare ever.
Likely they've never even chatted outside their social circle.

There's a disconnect, but talking to a few people who have wealth (middle class here, ever shrinking, but can move between both teirs.) Not Supa rich mind you...
But many seem like decent human beings who just don't understand, I've had a few moments with my best friend, he is near poverity, if you've never gone to bed hungry you just don't understand.
What's worse a good number are a bit afraid of "the peasents storming the castle" what with the 99% ers, riots in europe, the rise of china on the world stage, and public restlessness across america, over the way things are going, much of which did contribute to obama's landslide victory in 2008. I think a lot of blue bloods are scared for a lot of reasons, and scared people are easy to convince into doing stupid shit. especally when they can go "lalalalalala this isn't happening, I'm safe behind my wall of money lalalalalalala"

I think this might be the reason that so many wealthy doners are jumping on romney's bandwagon.

This does not bode well & money can't protect anyone it's just credit, paper, and agreed value.

[MasterMischief]

If you do not like two non-wars...what do you think of Romney's blustering about 'getting tough' on China and Iran?  I am certainly not pleased with either country, but I know it takes more than a bully's attitude to reign them in.

[JackWhite]

Just read an online article in the Belgian press and now I want to ask the people here what their opinion is on Romney's way of getting energy. None of the two seems to be interested really in "clean" or "green" energy. Romney seems to choose fossil fuels because of the oil lobby but what do you think about that?

[MasterMischief]

I think his plan is more of the same that continues our reliance on oil and destroys our environment.  The XL pipeline is to ship oil overseas.  Why do you think they are trying to get it to a port in the Gulf?  And 'clean coal'?  There is no such beast.  He is firmly in the pocket of Big Oil and Big Coal.

[Stattick]

I think that Big O has the right idea. Invest in green energy companies. Sure, some are going to go under. It's worth the investment for the country and the world to spend that money now, to give those grants to companies as start up and research money.

And despite the lies that Romney told during the debate, fewer than 1% of the green companies that Obama invested federal dollars in went under. That's a far cry from the 50% that Rmoney was claiming during the debate.

[Stattick]

In other news, it's estimated that if it weren't for Republican obstructionism, that the unemployment rate would be under 6% instead of being under 8%. They're gambling in a bid to "win" politics like it's a video game, and they're hurting real people. It's time to make them loose their jobs.

http://www.veteransnewsnow.com/2012/07/10/without-gop-unemployment-would-be-under-six-percent/

[bubby]

I'm sure someone has probably posted this already, but I just had to do it again. It's perfect to me.

http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6830834/mitt-romney-style-gangnam-style-parody

[Missy]

From what I know of Mitt I don't like him.

For one thing he's about investing in coal and oil, even if that were unlimited it's really about time we tried to invest in something a bit more advanced. We need to move forward technologically, we have the means we're just holding ourselves back.

Secondly is, well religion is usually unimportant in politics and definitely should be. The problem in this case is that well Mormon's are all about 'the sanctity of marriage'. If I thought they only preached that to their own people then I wouldn't care, but I can't see a Mormon President passing bills granting recognizing the rights of hetero-non-normative's so my vote's off of him for that reason. Mind you, I wouldn't care what his personal beliefs on the subject were if I thought he would recognize the right of others to live their lives differently from his, but I don't see Mormons supporting or simply holding neutrality on bills recognizing marriage equality and the like.

[Ironwolf85]

He held a position simmilar to that of a bishop for a while within the mormon church. One of the major things that turned me off, I likely would be a bit squemish about voting for an ex-cathloic bishop, if his stances and ideas were good for the country I'd be fine with it.

ya know more of a "I need to do right by my people and my god, and that means making hard choices, working with people I might not like persionally, and looking towards the future."
instead of "I need to right by my church and ensure their agenda is put at the forefront"

[TheGlyphstone]

To play devil's advocate, has anything he's said or done implied he would allow the Mormon church as an entity to influence his policies?

[Ironwolf85]

No, he hasn't other than occasionally appealing to the religious right on occasion.
it's one of a number of factors about him that makes me squirm

[TheGlyphstone]

Meh. He's got more than enough reasons not to vote for him. I just don't see "he might turn America into a Mormon theocracy" any more plausible than the 60s-era accusations that electing JFK would render America subordinate to the Pope.

[Myrleena]

I'm only going to pop in briefly, as an ex-mormon myself. (I just don't care about organized religion at all.)

The official stance of the LDS church is that they shouldn't have anything to do with government. Considering some of the furor with Prop 8, you can tell it doesn't work sometimes. And I knew many, many mormons who were absolutely disgusted with that support.

But, honestly...if I wasn't absolutely horrified by his VP pick, and questionable about some of his policies...I'd be all for him winning the election, if only to get someone who wasn't mainstream Christian in the White House for once.

[Ironwolf85]

I don't think that will happen either. it just makes me squemish that he used to be the equivlient of a bishop.

I'd have no problem if he simply mormon, I'm a christian myself, and they are a diffrent sub-sect. There's just somthing about electing an Ex-bishop makes me squrm...

[Missy]

I think it would be pretty hard to turn America into anyone's theocracy, sorry if I implied that, it wasn't intentional.

It's just the thing is we have enough people going on about imposing their beliefs in the 'purity' of marriage onto other people is all I'm saying.


Like I said I don't care what people believe, but I will argue very strongly about people saying that certain personal belief's ought to be codified into law. I'm not picking on Mormonism specifically, not intentionally, a lot of people of different denominations feel this way.


However it is true I do not know for certain that Mitt Romney would oppose the recognition of hetero-non-normative's rights, I also do not recall him ever saying he would support such recognitions. So I'm going off of what I know about Mormonism's belief's pertinent to hetero-non-normativism etc. in addition to the incident pertinent the proposition eight in California several years back and saying I think it's unlikely. If a Mormon candidate were to vocally support the legal recognition of such rights and have a platform which I felt comfortable with I wouldn't care about his religion. Well, not mostly, I would wonder if his local priesthood leaders would try to counsel him, but if he stayed the course I think I could support him.

[Tamhansen]

Personally, I believe most of the church of Mormon will turn their policies on equal marriage rights as soon as the mainstream Christians do. I mean the mainstream LDS dropped Polygygny pretty quick when the other people wouldn't play with them any more.

The thing that scares me most about Romney is the fact that he spent the last 30 odd years putting hardworking people out of a job. For no other reason than personal profit. And this is the guy who is supposed to bring back the jobs? Fix the economy?

[Vekseid]

To play devil's advocate, has anything he's said or done implied he would allow the Mormon church as an entity to influence his policies?

The oath that people take to get/maintain their temple recommend comes to mind.

[Valerian]

On a slightly different note, Romney uses his religion to be a little deceptive when it comes to his charitable contributions.  Mormons are required to tithe -- that is, to give literally a tenth of their income to the church.  In 2011 he donated about $4 million to charity, which includes a little over $1 million to his church.  LDS leaders claim that virtually 100% of the money collected goes into charitable works; critics of the church point out that they own roughly $35 billion in real estate and other for-profit ventures such as ranches worldwide.

It's very difficult to find out how much of their money goes towards what most people would consider charitable efforts, since the U.S. requires very little reporting from churches on how such funds are spent.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/12/insight-mormon-church-mad_n_1769539.html

[Tamhansen]

Maybe the IRS should start calling it tithes. Maybe then they'll get what they should from guys like rmoney

[Oniya]

I'd also point out that JFK wasn't an ex-priest.  He was simply Roman Catholic.

(Also, historical trivia, but the impetus behind the LDS dropping polygyny was the fact that the US wouldn't let Utah become a state until they did.)

[Tamhansen]

Yeah, like I said, the other people wouldn't play with them. :p

Strange thing is though. IIRC Utah still has a pretty large number of polygynists right?

Personally, I have nothing against polygyny or polyandry. I'd love to see both of them become legal in my country. But not in the forced marriage kind of way like some Mormon or mashriq cultures have it.