What if Romney turns out to be moderate?
invite response
2012 Oct 6, 9:58am 23,653 views 90 comments
« First « Previous Comments 51 - 90 of 90 Search these comments
freak80
2012 Oct 9, 12:36am
with the politically correct academics back to Berkeley or Chicago or Harvard or wherever the fuck they came from.
If the Democrats would put those folks out of the party, the Democrats would regain the permanent majority status they had before 1968.
I'm not holding my breath.
rootvg
2012 Oct 9, 1:32am
with the politically correct academics back to Berkeley or Chicago or Harvard or wherever the fuck they came from.
If the Democrats would put those folks out of the party, the Democrats would regain the permanent majority status they had before 1968.
I'm not holding my breath.
You're right, but it won't happen.
Today's Democrats aren't Democrats at all. They're Greens.
lostand confused
2012 Oct 9, 1:39am
If the Democrats would put those folks out of the party, the Democrats would regain the permanent majority status they had before 1968.
I'm not holding my breath.
Yeah I am so sick of the democrats. The whole Leadbetter law is just silly. As a man, I have always been in a position where someone gets paid more or less for doing the same job as me. There are too many factors that come into play. Now women alone will be protected-whatever happened to life experience, skills, learning from your mistakes, becoming stronger and negotiating from that?
I just don't get why corporations or even a business can now be forced by the government to pay somone what the govt thinks they should be paid. I hate offshoring and all, but more and more rules like this and no wonder corporations give their entire jobs to offshored solutions. it is not just the cost-but they don't have to comply with this garbage and constant threat of lawsuits. The repubs want to gut all regulations and remove all safety, which is the other extreme.
The same with all the garbage about alimony and extreme amount sof child support. I welcome equality and believe in it-so get off your behind and act as one-not oh I work if I want to and if I stay at home-the man owes me for life.
Then I look at the repubs and they are batsh*t crazy. They seem to want to take women back to the stone ages-that ship has sailed a long time ago. Today there are more women college graduates than men-so not going to happen. Then their outdated views on minorities, gays etc.
But I think affirmative actions also need to end. it was ok back then, when blacks and other minorities were prevented by law from holding many type of jobs., it was needed to break that hold. But Jay Z and beyonce's baby does not need affirmative action help. No, I am not white.
if there is some sort of quota, then poverty should be the deciding factor. The white son/daughter of crackhead should get the same help as a black or latina.
It is like the democrats and repubs are to the extremes , pandering to their base and demonizing the others and from what i converse with a lot of people, there are a lot of people in the middle, who really want change, but feel so left out.
Tenpoundbass
2012 Oct 9, 1:54am
HYPERINFLATION!!!!
That was a snapshot of today's prices. They have been drastically higher, and somewhat lower.
Volatility is even worse when you have stagnate wages.
It is that climate that creates uncertainty in the consumer and our GDP.
When you can't budget accordingly because you're monthly spread is moving target. Then it's not very conducive to an economic recovery, on a National level or in the Home, and certainly not in the work place. Where it really counts.
That was a snapshot of today's prices. They have been drastically higher, and somewhat lower.
Volatility is even worse when you have stagnate wages.
The market situation today and probably until the "fiscal cliff" issue is resolved. There is a lot of uncertainty over this especially given how things turned out the last time- when Republicans basically turned what had been a straightforward procedure into mount everest.
PolishKnight
2012 Oct 9, 10:37am
Rootvg says: "Say what you want, but [Clinton] was a very effective President."
In a way, you have a point. He had a great economy and therefore took all the credit for it. On the other hand, Obama has a lousy economy so none of it is his fault and this implies that if things don't improve in another 4 years, it still won't be his fault. Which is really turning off likely voters according to the polls right now.
When I ask people what Bill Clinton really _did_ they are usually low on specifics. He raised taxes on "the rich" but that wasn't a lot of money. Other than that, all he did was run water for Greenspan, enjoy the dotcom and housing bubble boom, and sign off on welfare reform third time it hit his desk. (Which Obama is now trying to overturn. Again, something working and middle class Americans are not appreciating right now.)
As I said above though, what matters most is the weather so to speak. Fair weather and the weatherman gets a banquet and a bunch of virgins as a reward. Bad weather and he's thrown into the volcano. A "moderate" Romney with a bad economy will be unlikely to see a second term (unless the Dems put up some more awful candidates so don't count that out!) but if the economy goes well, sure, he may get elected again even if he's moderate. Or conservative for that matter. It's all about results.
Vicente
2012 Oct 9, 3:46pm
When I ask people what Bill Clinton really _did_ they are usually low on specifics. He raised taxes on "the rich" but that wasn't a lot of money.
And yet somehow, whatever he did that to you "wasn't a lot of money" had us on a track to a ZERO DEFICIT by about 2012! There was even a paper in 1999 about the daunting prospect of what would happen when they couldn't market Treasuries any more.
So... vote Republican?
WTF?
And again a canard about "welfare reform" and how middle America is screaming for it. Ridiculous to the last. Dumber Americans have been brainwashed to think they accept no "welfare", not realizing they actually do depend on it directly or indirectly.
Visnente, what your lame chart does not show is out of control spending. No matter how much tax revenue comes in, liberals spend that much, plus more, then scream "we NEED more money (no you don't) - the rich aren't paying their "FAIR SHARE" (yes we are).
Visnente, what your lame chart does not show is out of control spending.
His chart showed ALL of the spending. The point being made is that we constantly hear from Republicans about how most any beneficial programs are somehow bad while totally ignoring the fact that the bulk of the spending is from some of the very programs and issues they support. Its interesting that whenever a Republican is President, you NEVER hear a single peep out of any Republicans or conservatives about spending even though they themselves actually tend to spend more historically. Yet whenever a Democrat comes to power, suddenly out come the cries over spending, food stamps, and "People who don't deserve" this or that.
Y
2012 Oct 10, 2:12am
Nominated for most stupid comment of the month.
Romney is a moderate. Romney went far right to secure the nomination. Romney will now move to the center, his true position.
This strategy has already been beaten to death....so WTF is your problem??
Thus I would definitely be curious about what some of these people would think if Romney were to actually win and turn out to be a moderate,
That would still be a big improvement over Obama,
How so? A lot of what Romney mentioned during the debate was that essentially, many of the core things he supported were fairly similar to Obama. I also think that since Romney has clearly put on two faces- one for the ultra-right and one for moderates, how would anyone know what President they're really getting?
lastly, I think this really only boils down to one thing I've mentioned before: Many who are voting for Romney have absolutely no clue what his policies or politics really are: Its simply all so that they can have about 5 minutes of happiness to say " Ha Ha Liberal!". Then reality sets in...
Romney is a moderate. Romney went far right to secure the nomination. Romney will now move to the center, his true position.
Ok, well then that pretty much proves my point: He is two faced. Thanks for confirming that.
rootvg
2012 Oct 10, 2:21am
Romney is a moderate. Romney went far right to secure the nomination. Romney will now move to the center, his true position.
Ok, well then that pretty much proves my point: He is two faced. Thanks for confirming that.
It only matters that you WIN.
My buddy from the labs whose daughter works for Judicial Watch was over for dinner last night and said Romney will be handed a list of acceptable judges for appointment to the Supreme Court. Reason? No more Souters. Ain't gonna happen again, no way...and it's important because this Court is getting long in the tooth. We could be looking at as many as three appointments in the next four years.
Y
2012 Oct 10, 2:33am
and you think other politicians are not?
Of course you don't. Your just playing games here..
Romney is a moderate. Romney went far right to secure the nomination. Romney will now move to the center, his true position.
Ok, well then that pretty much proves my point: He is two faced. Thanks for confirming that.
For one thing, Romney won't be a pawn for union thugs.
If we had never had unions, we would be working round-the-clock, lack much if any safety regulations, and many of the other things that are now taken fro granted. Now think about that statement for just a minute.
and you think other politicians are not?
Of course you don't. Your just playing games here..
Let me back up the train for just a second. The intent of this post was to more or less ask those who are vehemently against "Liberals" whether or not they would be more or less attracted to Romney if he turns out not to be exactly as far-right-leaning as many have indicated. Again- not naming names, but there have been a number of people here and elsewhere who from what they say pretty much sound like that they're strictly for a candidate who is extremely far to the right and some of these same people have pledged their support for Romney. So if in fact he isn't that sort of President, then what did those who were counting on him to be right leaning get out of it other than to say " Ha ha Liberals!"?
zzyzzx
2012 Oct 10, 2:50am
If we had never had unions, we would be working round-the-clock, lack much if any safety regulations, and many of the other things that are now taken fro granted. Now think about that statement for just a minute.
Does this mean that you agree that unions have outlived their usefulness?
All I see today is job fleeing the country due to excessive union demands. That lower employment opportunities for everyone here, and increases our trade deficit.
How so?
For one thing, Romney won't be a pawn for union thugs.
But he will be a pawn for Sam Waltonesque thugs and Koch bros. What an improvement!
Does this mean that you agree that unions have outlived their usefulness?
All I see today is job fleeing the country due to excessive union demands. That lower employment opportunities for everyone here, and increases our trade deficit.
No, I don't agree at all. I also don't believe that jobs are "fleeing" the country because of unions. If that were the case, then Japanese, German, Korean, and British companies making everything from cars, equipment and even whole commercial airliners- many of which are in turn shipped out to other countries wouldn't choose to setup factories all over the US.
Does this mean that you agree that unions have outlived their usefulness?
All I see today is job fleeing the country due to excessive union demands. That lower employment opportunities for everyone here, and increases our trade deficit.
No, I don't agree at all. I also don't believe that jobs are "fleeing" the country because of unions. If that were the case, then Japanese, German, Korean, and British companies making everything from cars, equipment and even whole commercial airliners- many of which are in turn shipped out to other countries wouldn't choose to setup factories all over the US.
Exactly correct. However, we have fundamenalists here is U.S who are convinced that unions are evil. In hip hop community, these sort of individuals are described as "haters." Most people who bash unions don't have union representation themselves and are secretly jealous of perks such as paid vacation and the benefits that union members enjoy. However rather than demand that their employers pay them and provide them with likewise benefits, they find it a lot easier to blame "unions." Classic jealosy, envy and "class warfare."
freak80
2012 Oct 10, 3:33am
However, we have fundamenalists here is U.S who are convinced that unions are evil
What?
freak80
2012 Oct 10, 3:34am
My buddy from the labs whose daughter works for Judicial Watch was over for dinner last night and said Romney will be handed a list of acceptable judges for appointment to the Supreme Court.
Who will be handing a list of acceptable judges to Romney? Judicial Watch? What make you think Romney will just "do what he's told?"
Vicente
2012 Oct 10, 3:50am
the rich aren't paying their "FAIR SHARE" (yes we are).
No, clearly they are not. I have no idea if you are rich are not, but we are at historic LOWS of taxation and yet wealth inequality gaps have never been larger. If we try "trickle down" for another 30 years, will it maybe start to show small signs of working? Sorry Charlie, already know the answer to that one!
Romney will be a tool of the 1%, and there is nothing "moderate" about that group. They want more for themselves, and less for the rest of us, it's that simple.
bdrasin
2012 Oct 10, 3:51am
My buddy from the labs whose daughter works for Judicial Watch was over for dinner last night and said Romney will be handed a list of acceptable judges for appointment to the Supreme Court.
Who will be handing a list of acceptable judges to Romney? Judicial Watch? What make you think Romney will just "do what he's told?"
Good question! No one knows. Romney talked like a "severely conservative" governor during his primaries. Was that just an act to get the nomination? Romney talked like a Massachusetts moderate in the debate (and probably will for the rest of the campaign, he's already raised all the money he'll need). Is this just an act to get to 51% and win the election?
What will he do when he actually wins? (At this point I'd say the race is Romney's to lose) No one knows! In Massachusetts the Dems controlled 85% of the legislature so he had no choice but to work with them. Given his flip-flops so far, imagine how "flexible" he could be once in office. Do conservatives worry about this? Or do they not really care as long as their nominee wins? Given the evidence so far, I'd say they just want to win.
However, we have fundamenalists here is U.S who are convinced that unions are evil
What?
What I mean is that it is part of the conservative dogma in the United States to be against unions. Most of them are set in this belief and they cannot be reasoned with about it, which makes them fundamentalists.
What I mean is that it is part of the conservative dogma in the United States to be against unions. Most of them are set in this belief and they cannot be reasoned with about it, which makes them fundamentalists.
What's important to understand is that it wasn't like everyday constituents suddenly up and decided that unions were bad. That idea was planted by politicians.
zzyzzx
2012 Oct 10, 4:44am
No, I don't agree at all. I also don't believe that jobs are "fleeing" the country because of unions. If that were the case, then Japanese, German, Korean, and British companies making everything from cars, equipment and even whole commercial airliners- many of which are in turn shipped out to other countries wouldn't choose to setup factories all over the US.
And exactly how many of these foreign based firms making stuff in the US unionized. It's something pretty close to nothing.
freak80
2012 Oct 10, 4:59am
Given his flip-flops so far, imagine how "flexible" he could be once in office. Do conservatives worry about this? Or do they not really care as long as their nominee wins? Given the evidence so far, I'd say they just want to win.
Well put. They're mainly just voting *against* Obama rather than *for* McCain...oops...I meant *for* Romney.
And exactly how many of these foreign based firms making stuff in the US unionized. It's something pretty close to nothing.
Quite a bit of it is in fact unionized. So much for that theory...
rootvg
2012 Oct 10, 5:01am
No, I don't agree at all. I also don't believe that jobs are "fleeing" the country because of unions. If that were the case, then Japanese, German, Korean, and British companies making everything from cars, equipment and even whole commercial airliners- many of which are in turn shipped out to other countries wouldn't choose to setup factories all over the US.
And exactly how many of these foreign based firms making stuff in the US unionized. It's something pretty close to nothing.
They're not fleeing the country but they are fleeing the Rust Belt, those who haven't left there already.
We have manufacturing and we're gonna keep it, but it's not gonna be union and it's not gonna be up north and the companies may not even be US owned. All the BMW and Mercedes SUVs are made in the American south because Germans don't understand the concept of an SUV. I don't even think you can buy one over there.
We have manufacturing and we're gonna keep it, but it's not gonna be union and it's not gonna be up north and the companies may not even be US owned. All the BMW and Mercedes SUVs are made in the American south because Germans don't understand the concept of an SUV. I don't even think you can buy one over there.
Its less to do about whether unions are there or not and more to do with the lower cost of running operations there.
freak80
2012 Oct 10, 5:15am
What I mean is that it is part of the conservative dogma in the United States to be against unions. Most of them are set in this belief and they cannot be reasoned with about it, which makes them fundamentalists.
I understand what you are saying.
Why I asked:
I hear the term "fundamentalist" thrown around willy-nilly in our culture and I can't seem to find a consistent definition. Sure, there's the "dictionary" definition which refers to "conservative" Presbyterians who broke away from "modernist" Presbyterians. Then it became a pejorative term for "anyone who is more religious than I am." Now it seems to refer to "anyone with firmly-held beliefs", whether secular or religious.
I've even heard the term "free-market fundamentalism" thrown about in some circles.
The term has become a double-edged sword, then. Most of us have firmly-held beliefs, whether we are "liberals" or "conservatives." That's what ideologies are: firmly-held beliefs.
zzyzzx
2012 Oct 10, 5:42am
Quite a bit of it is in fact unionized. So much for that theory...
Are any of the foreign owned auto plants in the US unionized???
Are any of the foreign owned auto plants in the US unionized???
Some are. Some aren't. But even if the point by saying that was to try and "prove" that any and all unionized labor is the root cause of failure, how do you explain the fact that the Midwest such as states like OH, IN, and other heavy manufacturing-centric areas that are still highly unionized are now doing better than most of the rest of the country? How do you explain the fact that the US automotive industry- again- still mostly located in the Midwest- is now doing better than it has in decades?
The whole " Unions are bad" propaganda is just that- Propaganda- and nothing more.
how do you explain the fact that the Midwest such as states like OH, IN, and other heavy manufacturing-centric areas that are still highly unionized are now doing better than most of the rest of the country? How do you explain the fact that the US automotive industry- again- still mostly located in the Midwest- is now doing better than it has in decades?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Chapter_11_reorganization
On 31 May 2009 news broke that the U.S. would initially likely become the largest shareholder of the reorganized GM following a bankruptcy filing and re-emergence from bankruptcy. The U.S. government would invest up to $50 billion and own 60% of the new GM and the Canadian government would own 12.5%.
All the BMW and Mercedes SUVs are made in the American south because Germans don't understand the concept of an SUV. I don't even think you can buy one over there.
Yes.. they do understand SUVs. And Europe does import Escalade and other US made SUVs. Big 60-70s Cads are very big.
« First « Previous Comments 51 - 90 of 90 Search these comments
I'm not the only one to notice that Romney most definitely made a dramatic "change" in his rhetoric on stage last week during the debates. Many political commentators made the same observation- that Romney seemed to have suddenly and without warning moved to the middle. You'd almost think that some of the things he was proposing were basically almost the same as what Obama already had mentioned but Romney had basically "branded" it has his own.
So... that brings up the next question. I'm not going to point fingers or name names. But there have definitely been some comments made by some of the Republican-friendly folks on this forum which has you think that anyone other than a super-rignt-wing, ultra-conservative simply will not do. Thus I would definitely be curious about what some of these people would think if Romney were to actually win and turn out to be a moderate, not as far to the right leaning President? What if he actually turned out to be somewhat liberal ( for a Republican)? What if many of the same things Obama wanted to do or accomplished were simply taken up by Romney and "re-branded" or perhaps dumbed down a little, but essentially along the same lines?
Putting "Liberals against Conservatives" and vice-versa aside for a second, what would the reactions be from those who were perhaps hoping for a super conservative President and instead got a moderate one instead?
Perhaps for once we could keep this civil? Perhaps it might reveal a thing or two from some on both sides...
#politics