You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 10, 2016, 10:21:37 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: So... Mitt Romney  (Read 15506 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline BeorningTopic starter

So... Mitt Romney
« on: August 29, 2012, 01:17:17 PM »
Out of curiosity, a question to American Elliquians: is any going to vote for Romney during the upcoming elections? If so, why? He's getting a pretty bad press here in Europe, but it's just a part of a story, I guess?

BTW. What do you think about Ann Romney? She seems quite nice to me.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #1 on: August 29, 2012, 01:27:25 PM »
No.. even if I go with the simple 'Lesser Evil' choice he's not my choice. Recalling from my own memory, his own recants and changes (some times very dynamic ones) in policiy and outlook, he comes off as a fair weather friend to anyone who will help him into office. He'd support the green party if it gave him the authority to do what he wanted and got him into office.

Looking at what he says..and the people he's assoicated with it is clear to me.. he's for moral conservativism and corporate favoritism..despite the fact the majority wants neither.

As for Anne Romney... she seems.. understated at the moment. I figure that his wranglers are looking for a good angle to put her in the light to maximize her appeal. She's remarkably.. out of the spot light though.

Offline AndyZ

Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #2 on: August 29, 2012, 01:38:46 PM »
The real issue, Beorning, is that we're pretty much owned by the Democrats and Republicans.  This is nothing new, but both of them are absolutely terrible, and people are fine with choosing the lesser evil.

I don't think anyone actually likes either Obama or Romney, it's just which one they hate more which makes the other more tolerable.

This is nothing new, but attempts to fix the system have been met with enough derision and skepticism that it isn't likely to change any time soon.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #3 on: August 29, 2012, 01:50:29 PM »
The real issue, Beorning, is that we're pretty much owned by the Democrats and Republicans.  This is nothing new, but both of them are absolutely terrible, and people are fine with choosing the lesser evil.

I don't think anyone actually likes either Obama or Romney, it's just which one they hate more which makes the other more tolerable.

This is nothing new, but attempts to fix the system have been met with enough derision and skepticism that it isn't likely to change any time soon.

Not fine with 'lesser evil'. More like figuring that one can do 'less damage'.

As for liking either man.. I USED to respect the president. (this years NDAA killed a lot of that) and Gov Romney reminds me too much of folks like Jim Hunt and other career politicians back home for me to think he's going to fix anything. He's a 'Machine Man.' That is he works for the National GOP machine and will do what they tell him to do.

He's not a leader..and for a 'constituional scholar' the president is too willing to go into the 'fear mode' to do changes.

Offline Beguile's Mistress

  • Time flies like an arrow ~ Fruit flies like a banana ~ Elliquiy's Fair-E Godmother
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2009
  • Location: Faeleacanvald ~ The Steeler Nation ~ Home of Lord Stanley's Cup 2016 ~ She won't stay throwed! ~ 48\22-5\1\11-5\7
  • Gender: Female
  • Perpetual Notion Machine ~ 'What if...?'
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #4 on: August 29, 2012, 09:06:08 PM »
No.. even if I go with the simple 'Lesser Evil' choice he's not my choice. Recalling from my own memory, his own recants and changes (some times very dynamic ones) in policiy and outlook, he comes off as a fair weather friend to anyone who will help him into office. He'd support the green party if it gave him the authority to do what he wanted and got him into office.

Looking at what he says..and the people he's assoicated with it is clear to me.. he's for moral conservativism and corporate favoritism..despite the fact the majority wants neither.

As for Anne Romney... she seems.. understated at the moment. I figure that his wranglers are looking for a good angle to put her in the light to maximize her appeal. She's remarkably.. out of the spot light though.

I've only had a chance to see her twice.  Once was pretty blah and understated as you say.  The other was some rant about disclosing their earnings and assets as all candidates are required to do.  She remarked that they are through talking about their money because every time they do they get attacked.  Okay.  Fine.  I can understand the feelings there but when you say you're not going to disclose no one listens to the reasons.  They just keep on asking what is being hidden.

They might need to keep her under wraps or quiet until the election lest she Palinates her husband.

Offline AndyZ

Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #5 on: August 29, 2012, 09:09:32 PM »
Another issue we have is that people aren't willing to properly compare and contrast.

For example, you hear a lot about Romney's message on abortion, but you don't hear a lot about Obama's.  So how has Obama voted on things like abortion?

http://www.nysun.com/national/obama-facing-attacks-from-all-sides-over-abortion/84059/

http://www.jillstanek.com/2008/02/links-to-barack-obamas-votes-on-illinois-born-alive-infant-protection-act/

Various bill came up in Illinois which extended legal protections to a baby born after a failed attempt at abortion.  In other words, if an abortion attempt causes a living baby to be born, that baby would then be afforded legal status.  Obama voted present (abstaining) on the first bill and no on the others.  He then claimed that his reason for voting no was because it didn't have specific language to protect Roe v. Wade's decision, even though specific wording had already been amended into one where he still voted no.

Here's the full wording just in case you want it: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=000500700K1.36

I've only had a chance to see her twice.  Once was pretty blah and understated as you say.  The other was some rant about disclosing their earnings and assets as all candidates are required to do.  She remarked that they are through talking about their money because every time they do they get attacked.  Okay.  Fine.  I can understand the feelings there but when you say you're not going to disclose no one listens to the reasons.  They just keep on asking what is being hidden.

They might need to keep her under wraps or quiet until the election lest she Palinates her husband.

From my understanding, this is incorrect.  You aren't required to do so, just that many do.

http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/web/presidentialtaxreturns

Offline Beguile's Mistress

  • Time flies like an arrow ~ Fruit flies like a banana ~ Elliquiy's Fair-E Godmother
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2009
  • Location: Faeleacanvald ~ The Steeler Nation ~ Home of Lord Stanley's Cup 2016 ~ She won't stay throwed! ~ 48\22-5\1\11-5\7
  • Gender: Female
  • Perpetual Notion Machine ~ 'What if...?'
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #6 on: August 29, 2012, 09:40:14 PM »
Thank you for the correction.  However, I really makes no difference if it's a requirement or not.  There is a perception of hiding things when you refuse to disclose.  Also, if you refuse to disclose but attack someone else for what they have disclosed you are seen as a hypocrite.

However, my comment was directed toward Mrs. Romney and the attitude of abrasive defiance she appeared to portray during that interview.  You know, you elect the president and you're stuck with those he brings with him.  I feel as though I don't want to be stuck with her.

Offline AndyZ

Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #7 on: August 29, 2012, 09:42:21 PM »
Fair enough.  Do you like Michelle Obama, then?

Offline Beguile's Mistress

  • Time flies like an arrow ~ Fruit flies like a banana ~ Elliquiy's Fair-E Godmother
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2009
  • Location: Faeleacanvald ~ The Steeler Nation ~ Home of Lord Stanley's Cup 2016 ~ She won't stay throwed! ~ 48\22-5\1\11-5\7
  • Gender: Female
  • Perpetual Notion Machine ~ 'What if...?'
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #8 on: August 29, 2012, 10:34:17 PM »
I've always had a positive response to Michelle Obama.  She comes across as a warm and friendly person, willing to listen and gentle and giving.  Ann Romney on the other hand presents as someone very much concerned with herself, her image and that of her husband in a political sense.  She is aloof and I sense a disconnect with people outside her circle.  She isn't unkind by not warm and welcoming.

Offline MasterMischief

Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #9 on: September 01, 2012, 05:13:34 PM »
Quote from: AndyZ
I don't think anyone actually likes either Obama or Romney...

I actually like Obama.  I may not agree with all of his policies.

I believe the problem with Romney is he is the Republicans' version of Kerry.  His identity seems to be "I'm not Obama".  The Republicans have done everything they can in the last four years to paint Obama as a failure.  Their success is the only reason Romney has a shot.

Well that and their campaign to disenfranchise anyone voting Democrat.

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #10 on: September 01, 2012, 05:43:04 PM »
Yeah, well, nobody is really required to disclose their long-form birth certificate either, and yet.

I think Mitt Romney is sleaze. I think he made his fortune by banking on tax loopholes and aggressive business practices. I think he has picked a running mate who claims to have a roadmap when in fact all he has is a half-broken compass. It makes me physically ill to think of him as president during an economic recession and (hopefully) recovery. I will most certainly NOT be voting for Romney.

Offline TaintedAndDelish

Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #11 on: September 01, 2012, 06:22:06 PM »
Once again, I  will be deciding who I dislike the least. Apparently, being a lying scumbag is a quality, not a flaw for politicians. My ideal of an honest, intelligent, resourceful candidate who has the country's best interests in mind is a bit naieve, I suppose. I guess this year I'll put on my crime boss hat and ask myself, "Which of these henchman would work out best?" :-)


Offline Bloodied Porcelain

  • E's Masked Lady ~ Swamp Witch ~ Sisterkitten ~ Little Red ~ Crowley ~ Baby Girl ~ Muse Crack ~ Code Monkey ~ LLS ~ Favorite ~ Good Girl ~ Pointe Shoes & Combat Boots
  • Dame
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2012
  • Location: Catching 'em all.
  • Gender: Female
  • Captain Of Team Fuck Up Your Sheets
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #12 on: September 01, 2012, 09:56:01 PM »
A thousand times no! Religion aside, Romney scares the crap out of me, and the entire GOP bunch worries me more than a little bit. The only republican I had any respect for was Ron Paul... up until I heard his take on the social issues (a woman's right to chose, Gay marriage, etc), and then I suddenly had far less respect for him. It doesn't help that when you look at it logically, a vote cast for anyone but a Democrat or a Republican these days is a waste of a vote because no independent, Green Party, Libertarian, etc is ever going to win when most Americans are too lazy to even read the platforms of the people they're voting for, let alone look beyond what's shown to them on TV.

Honestly though, I like Obama. I've seen him speak live, a friend of mine is a professional photographer who's gone on tours with him and while I've never had the pleasure of meeting him in person I've gotten to get feedback from him in regards to questions I've had. He is incredibly intelligent, well spoken, polite, and friendly. And Michelle, who I have gotten to meet, is an absolute joy to be around. Funny, warm, charismatic, and concerned with things that actually matter... like combating childhood obesity and promoting higher standards of education.

Bear in mind I don't agree with everything Obama has done, I think over all his heart is in the right place and with the primary issues I'm concerned about on the table, he's the one I agree with.

Offline WildCat

Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #13 on: September 02, 2012, 11:35:13 AM »
If I'm honest with myself, I don't think Romney's flip-floppery is AS extreme as it's made out to be. But... I think Obama and Romney are both decent people, willing to say and do the kinds of things you have to say and do to get elected and re-elected and actually effect such meaningful change as is possible.

I just am more partial to meaningful change in the direction of helping people who need help than meaningful change in the direction of empowering the big bullies in big business to enrichen themselves at everybody else's expense. I voted for Obama four years ago knowing full well that he would too often seek far too conservative policies and bend too often to right-wing pressure. But at the same time, I recognize that the kind of president I would appoint couldn't get elected.

As for Ann... *shrug* seems likeable enough at a glance. There again, first ladies can get away with just being 'likeable' and not pushing for divisive policy. I don't think we've really had a non-likeable first lady since Nancy Reagan. 

Offline Elias

Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #14 on: September 02, 2012, 12:00:43 PM »
My candidate was removed early on (Herman Cain) I think Romney is a little weak and could very well bend over for the Democrats on "big" government so that he can cut taxes, which Republicans have been doing since the beginning. A major weakness for the party, I find myself stuck in a strange middle ground more than anything. I agree with Democrats on some of their moral issues (Gay marriage) but disagree totally with their takes on what government should be (Cradle to grave) and economic policies (Governments providing more jobs then private sector) I am Canadian and quite frankly it was disgusting. I run a small business I spent years trying to get it off the ground and taxes and regulations destroyed my work, it always felt like Canada promoted laziness over hard work and success and the Democrats have the same philosophy. A few years in America and I surpassed my wildest expectations.

In short, I will be supporting Mitt, not because hes the best choice but because hes not democrat. Government didn't make this country great the citizens of America did and Democrats seem to me to just scream over and over again that government is the answer and I see government as the antithesis of everything wrong with the world.

Offline Foxy Oni

Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #15 on: September 02, 2012, 01:08:49 PM »
My candidate was removed early on (Herman Cain) I think Romney is a little weak and could very well bend over for the Democrats on "big" government so that he can cut taxes, which Republicans have been doing since the beginning. A major weakness for the party, I find myself stuck in a strange middle ground more than anything. I agree with Democrats on some of their moral issues (Gay marriage) but disagree totally with their takes on what government should be (Cradle to grave) and economic policies (Governments providing more jobs then private sector) I am Canadian and quite frankly it was disgusting. I run a small business I spent years trying to get it off the ground and taxes and regulations destroyed my work, it always felt like Canada promoted laziness over hard work and success and the Democrats have the same philosophy. A few years in America and I surpassed my wildest expectations.

In short, I will be supporting Mitt, not because hes the best choice but because hes not democrat. Government didn't make this country great the citizens of America did and Democrats seem to me to just scream over and over again that government is the answer and I see government as the antithesis of everything wrong with the world.

My issue with that take is why it is understandable desire, the Republicans are anything but the party of small government. They have no problem with the government getting into personal lives. No problem giving tax breaks to religios schools... as long as it's their religion. No problem with giving money to corporation just not to people. No problem spending money on the military, just not on social programs. No problem with TARP, no problem with taking stimulus money even when they bash it (Hi, Paul Ryan. How did you like that $20 million you asked for to make jobs in your home state?).  Do you know how Romney "saved" the 2002 Winter Olympics? With one and a half billion dollars in federal money. And here's a tidbit about government versus private sector jobs... when Bush left office private sector jobs were down 1.4 percent from when he took office. Since Obama took office, private sector jobs have gone up 4 percent. On the other hand, the public sector rose by 3.7 percent under Bush while decreasing 2.7 percent under Obama. One really has to look at the facts and not just the slogans to see who really is small government and who is just blowing smoke.

Offline Valth

Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #16 on: September 02, 2012, 01:09:19 PM »
Nah, Romney is just one of those guys who goes, "Oh yeah, I'm totally for equal rights. Except, gays can't marry. Other than that, equal rights, whoo!"


Offline WildCat

Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #17 on: September 02, 2012, 03:20:54 PM »
I get the appeal of "small government". But the thing is--the real disagreements aren't over whether anything should be "big" or "small". To my eyes, the argument over freedom comes down to a divide over whether we prize individual freedom (even if it means government interferes with corporate bullies, financial bullies, social bullies) or the freedom of bullies (even if it means surpressing individual freedom).

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #18 on: September 02, 2012, 03:42:41 PM »
Neither party is actually for small government. The only disagreement seems to be where the bloat goes. The GOP is for a so-called free market system (although I don't personally see how corporate tax breaks factor in to a free market) but they want to legislate morality (abortion, gay marriage). The Dems are for less personal legislation but they want to regulate the crap out of overarching systems like business and health care.

I can see both sides of it. And don't tell me that the GOP is for lowering taxes, because that's a line of bullshit right there.

Both parties are guilty of cronyism. Both parties are guilty of obstructionism and corruption. Neither side seems to be able to see that the see-saw needs to be balanced for everyone to have fun. Normally, there would be compromise between the two parties that would allow for a balancing act, but I don't see that happening lately. Either one side gets 'its way' or the other one does.

I don't necessarily want President Obama controlling my whole paycheck, but neither do I want Governor Romney in my uterus.

Offline gaggedLouise

  • Quim Queen | Collaborative juicy writer
  • Champion
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Location: Scandinavia
  • Gender: Female
  • Bound, gagged and unarmed but still dangerous.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #19 on: September 02, 2012, 04:02:21 PM »
I get the appeal of "small government". But the thing is--the real disagreements aren't over whether anything should be "big" or "small". To my eyes, the argument over freedom comes down to a divide over whether we prize individual freedom (even if it means government interferes with corporate bullies, financial bullies, social bullies) or the freedom of bullies (even if it means surpressing individual freedom).

Agree, and I'd say it's a bit of self-deception today to think a "small government" - one that says it will pull back to the core functions of governance and leave the rest to you, as per Nozick, Ron Paul or Manchester liberalism - would not feel ready and willing to use the most modern, up-to-date (and most slippery and secretive) means of surveillance over the citizens of the land. A small government in a big power today - especially in a major power - would feel compelled to go down that road: it can't afford to sit on its hands, or to take a very prudent stance, when it comes to what it sees as the risks of identity theft, illegal drugs trading, rogue or just vociferous political opposition, terrorist attacks and so on. It would have to resort to tough surveillance sometimes - and not always in the best considered or legit ways. It might think though that it can afford to sit on its hands when it comes to corporate malpractices, fraud, Ponzi schemes, mass unemployment and so on - because those are not seen as part of the field that the state should bother about.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2012, 05:56:03 PM by gaggedLouise »

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #20 on: September 02, 2012, 06:07:18 PM »
And everytime I see Mitt's running mate talk about 'fixing' things like social security by privitzing it.. I break out in hives. Think about it.. a mortgage crisis size bubble.. but with our social security at stake.

Offline gaggedLouise

  • Quim Queen | Collaborative juicy writer
  • Champion
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Location: Scandinavia
  • Gender: Female
  • Bound, gagged and unarmed but still dangerous.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #21 on: September 02, 2012, 06:12:37 PM »
And everytime I see Mitt's running mate talk about 'fixing' things like social security by privitzing it.. I break out in hives. Think about it.. a mortgage crisis size bubble.. but with our social security at stake.

Or (privatized) police and jails, going up and down with the need to make revenue when much of the economy would be riding a jumpy road?  :-X

Offline Serephino

Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #22 on: September 03, 2012, 10:55:36 AM »
I'd like to think I'm at least a decent judge of character, and every time I see Mitt Romney I feel a strong urge to throw up and take a shower.  My intuition tells me that if he wins and the GOP gets control of the Senate, the Great Depression of the 30's will be a fond memory.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #23 on: September 03, 2012, 11:23:52 AM »
I'd like to think I'm at least a decent judge of character, and every time I see Mitt Romney I feel a strong urge to throw up and take a shower.  My intuition tells me that if he wins and the GOP gets control of the Senate, the Great Depression of the 30's will be a fond memory.


I'd look into phrases like 'plutotocracy' and 'Robber Barons' if I were you. The folks backing him will rape, pillage and burn like no tomorrow and blame everything on the Democrats. As it is we gotta LEAST on Supreme Court Jusyice who is hinting he won't retire till the GOP has the White House. 

Offline WildCat

Re: So... Mitt Romney
« Reply #24 on: September 03, 2012, 11:32:54 AM »
Yeah, government is flawed. Duh. But so is everything else. "privatize" doesn't mean "move from the flawed to the unflawed". It just means the flawed decisionmakers have a priority of money instead of people.

Meanwhile--can I express how comforting it is to see "vouchers" tossed into medicare debate--after years of hearing "vouchers" used as a stand-in argument in education because "eliminate our socialized education system and let people who want education hire tutors" isn't politically palatable. Yeah, _so_ delighted to see medicare entering GOP chopping block sights as well. [sarcasmmode]