All Aboard the Romneybus!

[AcetheSuperVillain]

So what do real people actually think of Presidential Candidate, Mitt Romney? It's plainly apparent that the rabid dogs of the conservative media don't care for the fellow, but the Romney has won the Republican Primary, so he seems to have curried favor with enough real republicans.

Mitt Romney is "accused" of being The Most Moderate Man in the Universe. Despite being a "Republican" (which he probably became because knows nobody votes for Independents), he was elected governor of Massachusetts, the most liberal state in the USA, where he passed Romney-Care, a state-wide public health care plan that became the basis of Obama-Care, the national health care plan. When confronted about this in the primaries, Captain Moderate brought up a really good point. What's good for the People's Republic of Massachusetts isn't necessarily good for all of America.

That is exactly the kind of attitude I'd like to see in a national leader. This is, after all, a representative democracy. We don't elect the president so that they can do whatever they want; we elect a president that will do whatever we want. Being able to adapt to different situations is also a great skill to have, especially with the rapid changes in technology and the rapid development of foreign countries like the BRIC nations.

Unfortunately for The Romney, he is a gajillionaire and chronically out of touch with the "common man" with comments like "I don't keep up with NASCAR much, but I have a few friends who own NASCAR teams," or "my wife drives a couple of cadillacs", or "I'm unemployed too". Even Texas Governor Rick Perry was flabbergasted when The Romney bet him $10,000 that his attack-. When one of America's top priorities is the clean-up of corruption in Big Business, it seems like faulty logic to elect someone who was part of the cause of so many problems. But that said, it has been years since he rolled with Big Business, and who better to turn a new leaf than The Most Moderate Man in the Universe?

All that's nice, but what is most important to many of the American people is a President who will ass rape congress with a rusty nail-bat. America's Legislative Branch has a 79% public disapproval rating. For the voter, a faulty congress is hard to deal with, since you can only vote for your own Senators and Representative (3 out of 535 people) and the only way to remove them from power is to vote for the other team, who is generally bat-shit crazy and probably perceived as the problem. The President, however, can check and balance them by ordering executive mandates, vetoing bills or in extreme cases, parking a tank in front of the Capitol Building or having the police follow them around.

In this aspect, The Romney has the advantage over Obama. Romney has few ties to congress, having been a businessman and then governor, while Obama was a lawyer and senator. Romney was somewhat known for undermining the state legislature of Massachusetts, while Obama has been mired in the muck of congressional arguments for the last 4 years. Obama has tried to take the high ground and play fair with congress, but he is realizing that decision to be a mistake and might reach the breaking point even before the debates start.

At this point, I for one will not be disappointed with either candidate taking the presidency, but it will depend on how they conduct themselves during the campaigns and debates.

[Angry-Hatter]

At 4/25/12 11:15 AM, AcetheSuperVillain wrote: So what do real people actually think of Presidential Candidate, Mitt Romney? It's plainly apparent that the rabid dogs of the conservative media don't care for the fellow, but the Romney has won the Republican Primary, so he seems to have curried favor with enough real republicans.

Juuuuuuust barely though. His victory has been anything but resounding and was more the result of a lack of serious opposition than anything else. When you're in a race with Dick "Poo-stain" Santorum and a Great White Shark (Gingrich) and you're just barely squeaking by with a plurality of the vote in most states, even LOSING some, then your standing can hardly be defined as anything close to robust.

Mitt Romney is "accused" of being The Most Moderate Man in the Universe. Despite being a "Republican" (which he probably became because knows nobody votes for Independents), he was elected governor of Massachusetts, the most liberal state in the USA,

Romney isn't a moderate. He is an opportunist. The candidate Romney of 2002 isn't anywhere close to the candidate Romney of 2012; running for Governor in 2002, Romney was a pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-stem cell research, pro-gun control candidate, positions which he has since abandoned. If he had run on his 2012 platform back in 2002, he would have lost the election by double digits.

where he passed Romney-Care, a state-wide public health care plan that became the basis of Obama-Care, the national health care plan.

Which was itself based on the Republican alternative to Clinton's proposed health care plan during the 1990's. It is perfectly illustrative of how far the political spectrum has shifted when the Democratic president's crowning achievement, his landmark, ultra left wing, signature legislation is nothing but an homage to the Republican plan from the 90's.

When confronted about this in the primaries, Captain Moderate brought up a really good point. What's good for the People's Republic of Massachusetts isn't necessarily good for all of America.

A cop out if you ask me. He and the rest of the Republican party was in love with the plan, all up until Obama adopted it, at which point they suddenly started hating it.

When one of America's top priorities is the clean-up of corruption in Big Business, it seems like faulty logic to elect someone who was part of the cause of so many problems. But that said, it has been years since he rolled with Big Business, and who better to turn a new leaf than The Most Moderate Man in the Universe?

Has it really been that long? It seems like only yesterday that Romney was taking massive campaign contributions from all manner of special interest groups and multi billionares, promising massive tax cuts for the wealthy, saving the average millionare hundreds of thousands of dollars each year, if he is elected. Time sure does fly.

All that's nice, but what is most important to many of the American people is a President who will ass rape congress with a rusty nail-bat. America's Legislative Branch has a 79% public disapproval rating. For the voter, a faulty congress is hard to deal with, since you can only vote for your own Senators and Representative (3 out of 535 people) and the only way to remove them from power is to vote for the other team, who is generally bat-shit crazy and probably perceived as the problem. The President, however, can check and balance them by ordering executive mandates, vetoing bills or in extreme cases, parking a tank in front of the Capitol Building or having the police follow them around.

In this aspect, The Romney has the advantage over Obama. Romney has few ties to congress, having been a businessman and then governor, while Obama was a lawyer and senator. Romney was somewhat known for undermining the state legislature of Massachusetts, while Obama has been mired in the muck of congressional arguments for the last 4 years. Obama has tried to take the high ground and play fair with congress, but he is realizing that decision to be a mistake and might reach the breaking point even before the debates start.

I believe that a huge part of the reason for Congress' low approval rating is the fact that a large majority of its members (practically all of the Republicans and maybe half of the Democrats) are completely bought and paid for by special interests, and all of their votes are tailored to serve their corporate overlords as effectively as possible. I this regard, Romney isn't going to do a damn thing to change the climate of corruption that exists in the Congress; if anything, he'll just add to it.

At this point, I for one will not be disappointed with either candidate taking the presidency, but it will depend on how they conduct themselves during the campaigns and debates.

I'm no fan of Obama, but Mitt Romney is a corporate robot sent from the future to clear the way for the machines to take over the world. Unless you make a MINIMUM of 1 million dollars per year, you would be insane to vote for Romney.

I'm pleased to see that the American tradition of choosing between a punch in the face or a kick in the balls is still going strong for this election cycle.

[AcetheSuperVillain]

Romney isn't a moderate. He is an opportunist.

Both the same thing in my opinion. Plus, the side effect of changing from one Romney into another to do what people want is that the people get what they want. Massachusetts wanted health-care and Massachusetts has health-care.

He and the rest of the Republican party was in love with the plan, all up until Obama adopted it, at which point they suddenly started hating it.

Because Republican leadership and the conservative media don't give a shit about what the people actually think. They are obsessed with promoting ideological philosophy with little to no bearing on reality. Right now, Romney is catering to this viewpoint to get his foot in the door, but there's little to indicate that he has any sort of political agenda himself.

it has been years since he rolled with Big Business,

^ I meant this as being employed by Big Business. He hasn't worked for a living in years (arguably ever). All politicians have connections with big business, Romney has more. The important thing is that he's not on anybody's leash. If one of his contributors says "yo romney, ah'm gonna cut yo funding if you don't change your stance on my issue!" Romney would have little reason to care.

Mitt Romney is a corporate robot sent from the future to clear the way for the machines to take over the world.

That is a serious possibility, but begs the question if a robocracy would really be worse than the idiocracy we have now.

[Korriken]

At 4/25/12 12:21 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote:

I believe that a huge part of the reason for Congress' low approval rating is the fact that a large majority of its members (practically all of the Republicans and maybe half of the Democrats) are completely bought and paid for by special interests, and all of their votes are tailored to serve their corporate overlords as effectively as possible.

no bias here, please move along. /sarcasm

I this regard, Romney isn't going to do a damn thing to change the climate of corruption that exists in the Congress; if anything, he'll just add to it.

honest politicians have short careers. this has been true for thousands of years.

[Warforger]

At 4/25/12 11:15 AM, AcetheSuperVillain wrote: So what do real people actually think of Presidential Candidate, Mitt Romney? It's plainly apparent that the rabid dogs of the conservative media don't care for the fellow, but the Romney has won the Republican Primary, so he seems to have curried favor with enough real republicans.

He seem's fine so far. He's just a run of the mill Mormon.

At 4/25/12 11:15 AM, AcetheSuperVillain wrote: Mitt Romney is "accused" of being The Most Moderate Man in the Universe. Despite being a "Republican" (which he probably became because knows nobody votes for Independents), he was elected governor of Massachusetts, the most liberal state in the USA,

Ronald Reagan was also governor of California and Richard Nixon was also from California. Rick Santorum was also a Senator from Pensslyvania, hell Coolidge was from Massachussetts. Or do you mean those Southern Redneck Conservatives like Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter or Linden Johnson? Obviously what state you're from does not define your political beliefs.

where he passed Romney-Care, a state-wide public health care plan that became the basis of Obama-Care, the national health care plan. When confronted about this in the primaries, Captain Moderate brought up a really good point. What's good for the People's Republic of Massachusetts isn't necessarily good for all of America.

It didn't really matter since Obama had already incorporated Republican demands of the bill into it and it didn't change their opposition.

That is exactly the kind of attitude I'd like to see in a national leader. This is, after all, a representative democracy. We don't elect the president so that they can do whatever they want; we elect a president that will do whatever we want.

Right, but then again the "we" is incredibly diverse and constantly disagree with each other. If that weren't the case there would be only one party.

Unfortunately for The Romney, he is a gajillionaire and chronically out of touch with the "common man" with comments like "I don't keep up with NASCAR much, but I have a few friends who own NASCAR teams," or "my wife drives a couple of cadillacs", or "I'm unemployed too". Even Texas Governor Rick Perry was flabbergasted when The Romney bet him $10,000 that his attack-. When one of America's top priorities is the clean-up of corruption in Big Business, it seems like faulty logic to elect someone who was part of the cause of so many problems. But that said, it has been years since he rolled with Big Business, and who better to turn a new leaf than The Most Moderate Man in the Universe?

Ok? Who really cares anyway? Great he's rich meaning he knows how the Capitalist economy works and how to succeed in it. He's probably going to have to deal with politicians who are "in touch with the people" anyway.

All that's nice, but what is most important to many of the American people is a President who will ass rape congress with a rusty nail-bat. America's Legislative Branch has a 79% public disapproval rating. For the voter, a faulty congress is hard to deal with, since you can only vote for your own Senators and Representative (3 out of 535 people) and the only way to remove them from power is to vote for the other team, who is generally bat-shit crazy and probably perceived as the problem.

I doubt if an incumbent is THAT unpopular that his party will bother nominating him again. Besides how is that a problem?

The President, however, can check and balance them by ordering executive mandates, vetoing bills or in extreme cases, parking a tank in front of the Capitol Building or having the police follow them around.

That doesn't sound anything like what the President can do.

In this aspect, The Romney has the advantage over Obama. Romney has few ties to congress, having been a businessman and then governor, while Obama was a lawyer and senator. Romney was somewhat known for undermining the state legislature of Massachusetts, while Obama has been mired in the muck of congressional arguments for the last 4 years. Obama has tried to take the high ground and play fair with congress, but he is realizing that decision to be a mistake and might reach the breaking point even before the debates start.

Or just using it as campaign material to blame the Republicans.

[Camarohusky]

As far as Republicans go, Romney is pretty harmless.

[gumOnShoe]

Would you vote for the Pope of the USA? Would you vote for a Bishop for President of the USA? Then why would you ever vote for a Mormon Bishop to be president of the united states.

Electing Romney would really strain the the separation of church and state. If you are a constitutional conservative, you really don't want to elect Romney. If you're an aethiest I don't think you want him

And if you're not a conservative, you really don't want to elect Romney.

If you're an evangelical you don't want to elect a mormon, which means you don't want elect Romney.

Who in this country even wants Romney?

[Entice]

At 4/25/12 09:10 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: Would you vote for the Pope of the USA? Would you vote for a Bishop for President of the USA? Then why would you ever vote for a Mormon Bishop to be president of the united states.

Is it really fair to compare having a position in the Mormon church (where all males over the age of 12 are ordained and hold some sort of temporary rank in the Church) with an elected position in the Catholic church?

You'd basically be excluding him from the election based solely on the fact that he's a Mormon, which is silly.

[AcetheSuperVillain]

I doubt if an incumbent is THAT unpopular that his party will bother nominating him again. Besides how is that a problem?

It's a huge problem because Congress is the branch of government most able to fuck things up. If you don't believe me about how much the American People hate congress, check out http://cynicalsynapse.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/congress-hits -rock-bottom-9-approval-rating/ At the time of the survey, Congress had 9% approval, the same approval rating as Americans had for Hugo Chavez and 2% less than the idea of America becoming a communist country. Congress is practically the new Soviet Union.

The President, however, can check and balance them by ordering executive mandates, vetoing bills or in extreme cases, parking a tank in front of the Capitol Building or having the police follow them around.

That doesn't sound anything like what the President can do.

The Emancipation Proclamation was an example of an executive mandate (or executive order). As Commander in Chief, the President of the United States of America is constitutionally empowered to command the Executive Branch, the nation's military and police forces, to do whatever needs to be done, so long as it is not illegal. The Constitution is designed so that if one branch of government fails or becomes corrupted, the other 2 can exert power to fix it or fill the gap.

At one point, Obama threatened to bypass Congress and enforce his public health care plan by executive mandate, but ultimately allowed Congress' bickering to prevail.

As far as I know, no President has ever used an executive order against Congress, nor has Congress ever had such a low public approval rating. I don't know if either Romney or Obama will go that far, but if either candidate has an ounce of brains, they're going to use America's hatred of Congress to their advantage.

[Ravariel]

At 4/25/12 08:06 PM, Camarohusky wrote: As far as Republicans go, Romney is pretty harmless.

I think you may be right. And that is both the nicest, and saddest, thing you can say about him.

[gumOnShoe]

At 4/25/12 08:06 PM, Camarohusky wrote: As far as Republicans go, Romney is pretty harmless.

I highly disagree.

He's so out of touch with what the middle class is feeling that he might be one of the most dangerous people for our country right now. (Britain just slipped into a recession because of their horrible austerity measures, which Romney has been campaigning to impose here). His focus on business is not a focus on jobs. Its a focus on those on the top taking the cream, the stock market doing well, and the business thriving over the employee.

All of the companies bain capital took over either shut down, or moved to a model where they hired a lot of cheep cheep labor and the owners at the top made a lot more money. That's not harmless. That's a recipe for a horrible economy.

I looks harmless. He ran a very liberal state and had very liberal opinions because if he didn't they'd throw him out. If he were president it'd be very different. On top of that, you have no idea what he stands for. Name one position he has other than cutting taxes and bashing gay people? Huh? You don't know?

This man is what is wrong with the republican party, even if he is Republican Light. Don't forget that its his sort of policies that ruined this country. He's not a fiscal conservative. He's not a brilliant leader. He's not in touch with the people of this country. The only thing he's got going for him is he's not black, people don't think he's muslim, and people have no idea what he'd really do.

Its fine, this is the beginning of the campaign. But YOU need to do your research.

[gumOnShoe]

At 4/25/12 09:48 PM, bgraybr wrote: Is it really fair to compare having a position in the Mormon church (where all males over the age of 12 are ordained and hold some sort of temporary rank in the Church) with an elected position in the Catholic church?

You'd basically be excluding him from the election based solely on the fact that he's a Mormon, which is silly.

No, I'd be excluding someone who'd have a tendency to push religion. Which is different than picking a church. Besides, he was a Bishop. That's different than just doing the mandatory service. He took a leadership roll in which he basically held court and lectured women on whether or not they were going to hell because they had abortions and what not. If you really want to know this guy's viewpoint, his real viewpoint, take a look at some of the very very conservative positions he's taken as a Bishop of the Mormon Church.

[Korriken]

At 4/25/12 09:10 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: blah blah blah
Who in this country even wants Romney?

plenty. trying to use a man's religion in order to try and disqualify him from being elected is a low blow.

also, where were you when the Jeremiah Wright issue came up with Obama? Remember, he attended the church for over 20 years and "never once heard him speak in such a way" yeah... smells like bullshit to me and anyone who even thought to touch it got labeled a racist for bringing it up.

[Iron-Hampster]

he's moderate on this scale.

[Camarohusky]

At 4/26/12 06:41 AM, gumOnShoe wrote:

At 4/25/12 08:06 PM, Camarohusky wrote: As far as Republicans go, Romney is pretty harmless.

I highly disagree.
But YOU need to do your research.

I will restate it, because you didn't seem to understand.

As far as Republicans go, Romney is pretty harmless.

[gumOnShoe]

At 4/26/12 09:49 AM, Iron-Hampster wrote: he's moderate on this scale.

True... lol

At 4/26/12 09:08 AM, Korriken wrote: plenty. trying to use a man's religion in order to try and disqualify him from being elected is a low blow.

No, not using a man's religion. I wouldn't vote for a rabbi or a priest or an imam. I do not believe anyone involved in the leadership of a religion should also be involved in government.

also, where were you when the Jeremiah Wright issue came up with Obama? Remember, he attended the church for over 20 years and "never once heard him speak in such a way" yeah... smells like bullshit to me and anyone who even thought to touch it got labeled a racist for bringing it up.

Which is completely different. In one case a man listened to an idiot espouse idiotic things, and he should have known better. In the other case a man espoused the beliefs I'm calling into question and preached to other people.

You can't seem to understand that there's a dividing line between espousing beliefs and listening to others espouse beliefs.

I listen to you often enough. Thank god that's not a reflection on what I believe.

[AcetheSuperVillain]

I think that whatever Romney is in the Mormon Church is equivalent to an Elder or Deacon in reformed church (I don't know how universal those terms are). If so, it's nothing like a Catholic Bishop or any kind of real spiritual leader.

Besides, if he's going to enforce his beliefs as president, maybe he'll re-legalize polygamy. That wouldn't be so bad.

[gumOnShoe]

At 4/26/12 09:19 PM, AcetheSuperVillain wrote: I think that whatever Romney is in the Mormon Church is equivalent to an Elder or Deacon in reformed church (I don't know how universal those terms are). If so, it's nothing like a Catholic Bishop or any kind of real spiritual leader.

Besides, if he's going to enforce his beliefs as president, maybe he'll re-legalize polygamy. That wouldn't be so bad.

Tell me how your husband is when your wife gets two of them.

Anyhow, polygamy isn't part of the COLDS (that's a hilarious acroynym by the way). Its splinter movements that try to do that.

[DoctorStrongbad]

Mitt Romney may not be the best choice, but he is superior to Obama.

[Dawnslayer]

At 4/27/12 02:44 AM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: Mitt Romney may not be the best choice, but he is superior to Obama.

Do elaborate. I could use some proper contestation of my current views of the election.

[Iron-Hampster]

At 4/27/12 02:44 AM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: Mitt Romney may not be the best choice, but he is superior to Obama.

They appear as two, but they speak as one.

[CaptainCornhole]

Although I prefer Romney to Obama, I really can't stand either of them.

[theburningliberal]

I just wanted to repost this first bit because it made me laugh.

At 4/25/12 11:15 AM, AcetheSuperVillain wrote: Unfortunately for The Romney, he is a gajillionaire and chronically out of touch with the "common man" with comments like "I don't keep up with NASCAR much, but I have a few friends who own NASCAR teams," or "my wife drives a couple of cadillacs", or "I'm unemployed too". Even Texas Governor Rick Perry was flabbergasted when The Romney bet him $10,000 that his attack-. When one of America's top priorities is the clean-up of corruption in Big Business, it seems like faulty logic to elect someone who was part of the cause of so many problems.

And on to the show:

But that said, it has been years since he rolled with Big Business, and who better to turn a new leaf than The Most Moderate Man in the Universe?

If we are pinning our hopes on a presidential candidate based on the hope that he will no longer remain beholden to corporate interests, well, who are we joking? Obama is beholden to corporate interests just as much as Romney would be. I don't pretend to like Obama, but at least he has done something to help me.

In this aspect, The Romney has the advantage over Obama. Romney has few ties to congress, having been a businessman and then governor, while Obama was a lawyer and senator.

So, when looking at someone to execute the laws on a national level, we have Romney, who is beholden to corporate interests, doesn't understand how the US Congress operates, and was involved with enforcing laws he had little real influence in writing. Or we have Obama, who is beholden to corporate interests, understands how the US Congress operates, and is now executing laws that he himself helped to write and uphold? Hmmm....

Romney was somewhat known for undermining the state legislature of Massachusetts, while Obama has been mired in the muck of congressional arguments for the last 4 years. Obama has tried to take the high ground and play fair with congress, but he is realizing that decision to be a mistake and might reach the breaking point even before the debates start.

It's a big stretch to say that just because Romney worked on the MA state legislature, he will work on the US Congress. The power of party politics and special interest funding is magnified a hundred-fold, if not more, when you switch from working with a state legislature (which many conservative causes won't touch with a hundred-foot pole) to working with the US Congress (which has so many lobbyists, no one can keep track of them all).

At this point, I for one will not be disappointed with either candidate taking the presidency, but it will depend on how they conduct themselves during the campaigns and debates.

I'm glad to hear you say that. I honestly think neither of the two are going to take the country in the direction I want to see it go, but as individuals with just a single vote, we kind of have to pick our battles. What is most important to you, or me, or anyone else, and that needs to be one of the key issues that decides who our vote will be cast for.

[bismuthfeldspar]

At 4/30/12 11:10 PM, theburningliberal wrote: If we are pinning our hopes on a presidential candidate based on the hope that he will no longer remain beholden to corporate interests, well, who are we joking? Obama is beholden to corporate interests just as much as Romney would be. I don't pretend to like Obama, but at least he has done something to help me.

What exactly can evil corporations give or take from Romney, if they take half his wealth he's still a multi-millionaire, if they manage to get $1 million into his bank account past the scrutiny of his many many critics he gains virtually nothing and risks his reputation, he might as well just show up to congress one day in the nude smeared in nutella proclaiming himself to be king of the pigeons. He isn't out of touch with the public, he is out of reach of corruption.

How does the attitude towards the poor of a liberal hipster compare to that of a Mormon anyway? The Mormon might lose a debate about god's existence on the internet but when confronted with a mentally ill homeless man on the street their attitude is far more noble, the hipster would raise his upper lip in contempt and say "uhhh, what a freak", the Mormon however is far more likely to direct him to a homeless shelter possibly buy him some food and investigate his situation a little further to make sure he's not in serious trouble. Don't deny it, if objective evidence like charity spending doesn't prove it then you must have seen this attitude yourself, you guys shun anyone who isn't part of your trendy sub-culture while Mormons read about jesus giving to the poor all day and when they finally come across them they're like "wow, just like it says in the bible, I'm going to go full jesus here".

[theburningliberal]

At 5/1/12 08:39 AM, bismuthfeldspar wrote:

At 4/30/12 11:10 PM, theburningliberal wrote: If we are pinning our hopes on a presidential candidate based on the hope that he will no longer remain beholden to corporate interests, well, who are we joking? Obama is beholden to corporate interests just as much as Romney would be. I don't pretend to like Obama, but at least he has done something to help me.

What exactly can evil corporations give or take from Romney, if they take half his wealth he's still a multi-millionaire, if they manage to get $1 million into his bank account past the scrutiny of his many many critics he gains virtually nothing and risks his reputation, he might as well just show up to congress one day in the nude smeared in nutella proclaiming himself to be king of the pigeons. He isn't out of touch with the public, he is out of reach of corruption.

No politician is ever out of reach of corruption because it is corporate financing of campaigns that is the problem. If the same corporations that have funded Republican campaigns for years suddenly evaporate because of a policy issue that they don't like Romney's stance on, Romney can kiss re-election goodbye because he will no longer have as much money to spend on campaigning in 2016 should he win in 2012. And as we saw in the 2008 election cycle, Presidential campaigns are huge pools of cash. If you take a portion of that cash away, especially a big portion of corporate campaign contributions, then you are no longer competitive (which makes Romney just as likely to be corrupted by big business and special interests as Obama).

How does the attitude towards the poor of a liberal hipster compare to that of a Mormon anyway? The Mormon might lose a debate about god's existence on the internet but when confronted with a mentally ill homeless man on the street their attitude is far more noble, the hipster would raise his upper lip in contempt and say "uhhh, what a freak", the Mormon however is far more likely to direct him to a homeless shelter possibly buy him some food and investigate his situation a little further to make sure he's not in serious trouble. Don't deny it, if objective evidence like charity spending doesn't prove it then you must have seen this attitude yourself, you guys shun anyone who isn't part of your trendy sub-culture while Mormons read about jesus giving to the poor all day and when they finally come across them they're like "wow, just like it says in the bible, I'm going to go full jesus here".

Not sure where this is coming from but by-and-large, Obama has done a lot to help the lower and middle class over the last few years. Making health insurance easier and more affordable, renewing tax breaks he really didn't support but wanted to keep because they had positive effects on the lower and middle class. And being willing to help the poor has nothing to do with religion - there are plenty of non-Mormons out there who donate and do what they can to help the homeless as a whole. But what does any of this have to do with Romney's electability?

[Camarohusky]

At 5/1/12 08:39 AM, bismuthfeldspar wrote: He isn't out of touch with the public, he is out of reach of corruption.

Actually, he's both. He is out of touch with the public. He boldly claims that he doesn't need Medicare and will never accept a Medicare payment, as if 99.99% of Americans could do the same. Guess what? I can't, and I'm wealthier than more than half of America.

you guys shun anyone who isn't part of your trendy sub-culture while Mormons read about jesus giving to the poor all day and when they finally come across them they're like "wow, just like it says in the bible, I'm going to go full jesus here".

I'm no fan of hipsters, but don't go around thinking Mormons are the pinnacle of humanity. They have a very VERY nasty bad side. I have seen it first hand. If you truly are looking to starting smashing glass houses, I'd be very willing to explain more.

[Iron-Hampster]

At 5/1/12 11:14 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 5/1/12 08:39 AM, bismuthfeldspar wrote: He isn't out of touch with the public, he is out of reach of corruption.

I can't believe people believe this, if he were incorruptible he would be using his vast amounts of wealth to help other people who are in need. His opponent Ron Paul didn't have near as much money as he did, but he voluntarily treated people at reduced prices and often times for free when they couldn't pay for help. When people got Medicaid, he refused it from his patients and covered it himself.

you guys shun anyone who isn't part of your trendy sub-culture while Mormons read about jesus giving to the poor all day and when they finally come across them they're like "wow, just like it says in the bible, I'm going to go full jesus here".

Religion in politics is just for decoration, so is being trendy. Obama said things that were appealing to hipsters and did some very NOT so trendy things like giving the government more power and vowing to enforce drug laws no matter what the states choose to d. You also see how often the Republicans, who are all about protecting America from god's wrath get caught with their pants down in the same room as 15 prostitutes (male and/or female) and $5000 worth of Coke... in a public bathroom.

[Ravariel]

At 4/25/12 11:15 AM, AcetheSuperVillain wrote: So what do real people actually think of Presidential Candidate, Mitt Romney? It's plainly apparent that the rabid dogs of the conservative media don't care for the fellow, but the Romney has won the Republican Primary, so he seems to have curried favor with enough real republicans.

Not so fast.

ROn Paul has, under the radar, been scooping up delegates left and right, and many people think he may be able to garner enough of them to be on the floor at the convention. The mainstream media, even places such as RealClearPolitics, have been ignoring Paul, and even deliberately miscounting delegates. This fight ain't over yet, and establishment types are even attempting to shut down caucus venues that have been seen to support Paul.

[Kidradd]

At 5/2/12 08:24 PM, Ravariel wrote: Not so fast.

ROn Paul has, under the radar, been scooping up delegates left and right, and many people think he may be able to garner enough of them to be on the floor at the convention. The mainstream media, even places such as RealClearPolitics, have been ignoring Paul, and even deliberately miscounting delegates. This fight ain't over yet, and establishment types are even attempting to shut down caucus venues that have been seen to support Paul.

its so funny to see posts like this, like there is a massive conspiracy against ron paul because he's like the magical solution to all the world's problems, and the illuminati are trying to silence him, or something, idk. the media isn't talking about him because its irrelevant. mitt romney is going to be the nominee, its over. its finished. newt is done. everyone else is gone. just face it, romney will be the nominee. there will not be a brokered convention. its not mathematically possible. you know how many corporations are betting on romney to be the nominee? do you know how many millions of dollars this guy's campaign is getting through superpacs? ron paul can get a million here and there from die hard supporters but you'll soon see how quickly the money dries up when there is no chance of anything but minor media coverage here and there. thats about as far as paul meant to go, anyway. all this talk about hijacked delegates is so silly. His name might be formally in contention for the nomination, as in someone will read it out before Romney sails to an easy first ballot victory. besides, all this talk about him going to tampa is irrelevant. his name might be formally in contention for the nomination, as in someone will read it out before romney sails to an easy first ballot victory. the concept of winner take all is not really this difficult to understand is it? romney is getting the only thing you can win at the convention. he will also effectively have carte blanche control over the vp nominee and party policy.

[theburningliberal]

At 5/2/12 08:35 PM, Kidradd wrote:0

its so funny to see posts like this, like there is a massive conspiracy against ron paul because he's like the magical solution to all the world's problems, and the illuminati

Not only did I stop reading here, I also lost a little bit of respect for you.