View Full Version : Are Newt or Romney Electable?
flowerseverywhere
1-23-12, 8:40am
I have been watching with interest the debates, what is going on in Congress and Senate etc. out of curiosity. I love the US and really want for things to be better for our citizens.
But I don't know if either front runner for President is electable.
With Newt, he preaches about doing the right "Christian" thing but his personal marriage history isn't great.
With Romney I can't help but think being a Mormon will hurt Romney. Mainly because of public misconception.
With all their money I don't think that either can come close to representing the American people. Personally I don't want to have a bunch of old rich guys deciding they know what is better for American women than they do as far as reproductive rights and access to medical care.
I fell so conflicted about what I am seeing with the sitting president and those that are most likely to run against him this fall. Maybe someone has some insight that will make me feel better. Or maybe not.
Both Romney and Gingrich have enough money to be part of the proverbial 1%, but then so does Mr. Obama. The President was able to overcome that even though there is an underlying sentiment in this country that Democrats should basically take a vow of poverty prior to running for office. There seems to be less fear of success on the right so I don't think either man's wealth will be an obstacle for the nomination. If it becomes an issue in the general election it would simply provide a platform for the Reps to play on the hypocrisy of the opposition. Glass houses and all that.
Gingrich's personal life will be an issue. While I think we need to concentrate on each man's management style to determine who is most qualified to lead their past histories are indications of character. There is little room for argument that the press pays far more attention to such issues than is warranted, but its ultimately up to the voters to decide how much it really matters to them.
I sincerely hope that Mr. Romney's beliefs are a non-issue. It is hard to imagine a successful campaign from the opposition that negatively targets the Mormon faith. The potential for backlash is, and should be, far too great.
There is no such thing as a perfect candidate. Anyone who runs for public office will have strong points and weak points. As voters it is our job to decide which candidate best represents our positions before we get to the polls. One advantage of a tough primary campaign is that whoever wins the Republican nomination should be in pretty good shape for the general election because all the skeletons will have been shaken out of the closet before the Democrats even get a shot at him.
Romney is electable. I would not vote for him. Newt is not he has his personal problems. A 3 time loser in marriage plus he had sex outside of his marriages. Not very Christian but he says God forgave him. I guess that makes it OK. He also has the baggage of his ethics probe while in congress and his fine for them. He says he made 3.1 million dollars last year from consulting. Or did he use his contacts in congress?
His win in SC is a little unbelievable.
Miss Cellane
1-23-12, 2:10pm
It isn't just Newt's personal life--he has had issues with check kiting and other ethical issues while in office. Or have those charges been proven false and I just missed it? I don't give a darn about a candidate's sex life--unless they make it an issue by claiming to be a Christian, with all that that entails, and then not living their lives according to the precepts they claim to espouse.
Romney? Well, I lived in Massachusetts while he was governor. I didn't like him then and I don't like him now. I don't care what religion he is (I'm Catholic and know about the struggles Kennedy had in getting accepted as a candidate because of his religion).
Frankly, I think we've reached a point where any really good candidate for public office with a shred of intelligence won't run for office--because of the relentless poking and prying into their private lives and the negative aspects of campaigning. It's not just the private affairs of the candidates but their entire families at this point and a lot of good people just won't put themselves and their families through that.
We reap what we sow.
loosechickens
1-23-12, 3:12pm
I think that all any of us can do is to try to seek out the most objective facts that we can about each person, their performance in various areas of life that might affect their fitness or abilities in office, try the best we can to ignore the shrill voices of enemies who will twist everything to their advantage, and also to ignore all the "chest thumping" of the version of the candidates themselves and their surrogates.
It's really hard, because there is literally a billion dollar industry spreading propaganda on all sides, and it is difficult to sift through all the chaff to find the grains of truth that are necessary to make an informed opinion.
I would not be nearly so concerned about Newt Gingrich's sex life, other than as it might show hypocrisy in that he has been a person doing a lot of talking about "family values" and pointing out the sins of others, while secretly engaging in serial affairs, etc. himself. I'd worry about the fact that his own party dumped him from the Speaker's job, that many in his own party who had to work with him are speaking out that management by Gingrich was "management by chaos". He is undeniably a brilliant man, but has shown himself throughout his career to be unstable, thinskinned to the point of being willing to sink a ship to get revenge on an enemy, and has been the consumate "Washington Insider" for decades. To my way of thinking, even if I were still a Republican, Gingrich would be a dicey choice. And long term, I HOPE he is unelectable, because he frightens me.
I would never hold Mitt Romney's religion against him, any more than I would hold the fact of a person being an atheist or a Muslim against them. A person's faith, or lack thereof is a private matter, and I would never let that influence my vote. I would also not be prejudiced against Romney because he is very wealthy. I would be interested in knowing how and if his taxes were manipulated by offshore investments, etc., but in general, I think I would look at his tax situation more as a perfect illustration of how the very wealthiest of our citizens are able to use their influence to see that laws benefit them and tilt the playing field ever more in their direction, and he may be an excellent example of how well that works in real life.
In the case of Romney, I'd want to be keeping a favorite quote in mind and measuring his business and tax decisions by:
“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.”
- Frederic Bastiat
To me, Mitt Romney seems like a person who thinks he "should" become President. Maybe out of duty, maybe out of personal ambition, perhaps because he feels he is the best person to lead the country. I wouldn't be as SCARED of what Romney might do as President, although I suspect I wouldn't agree with much of his philosophy. In the case of Gingrich, I would, as a citizen, actually be AFRAID of what he might do, because I think Gingrich is an impulsive person who could make a lot of really dangerous mistakes out of an excess of grandiosity.
Now, our current President. Contrary to the picture that has been painted of him as a "radical", "socialist", etc., I find him to be much more a centrist, moderate, looking for consensus when he can, wanting a government that works well, has a positive effect on its citizens, etc. (Those who think government is the problem and just want it reduced in size would probably not agree). I don't think he is interesting in GROWING government (despite his critics), I think he want government to WORK.
I don't think people truly appreciate what a terrible situation this President faced when he took office. I believe the country was far closer to complete financial and economic meltdown that most people grasp. I also think that he entered office with an opposition absolutely determined to make him fail, no matter what, and which has obstructed him in every way possible. I believe he has made sincere efforts to compromise, has tried to bring all parties to the table, and I don't really blame HIM for the lack of success. I haven't agreed with everything he's done, but I believe he is competent and has done a good job given the situations, both economic and political that have been severe headwinds against him. He's steady, calm, and I believe, understands the complexities facing the country very well.
To me, President Obama is far more "electable" than either of the Republican frontrunners. It remains to be seen what happens in the election.
In the case of Newt Gingrich, my gut feeling is that he will implode before election day, as more people become knowledgeable about his actual record in Washington, or by his own actions. If Romney were more likeable and didn't seem so stiff, disconnected and almost phony to so many people, I think he would be eminently electable, but his personality leaves most Republicans cold, and he seems to be too moderate for the current Republican voters. But the Republican voter electorate despises President Obama, so I suspect most will, even if they have to hold their nose, will vote for the Republican nominee, regardless.
So in the end, "electability" may well hinge on what the person thinks of our President, not the person running against him. JMHO, of course.
When I get as objective as possible, I can't picture either one as president. Not to mention a first lady who was a mistress for eight years. But there is such a wave of anti-Obama sentiment, I think anything is possible. I can think of a recent president who had a drinking problem in his history and was suspected of cocaine use.
It's interesting that the main goal of the Republican party seems to be to beat Obama, yet the candidates have spent much of their debate time picking apart each other's weaknesses for all the public to see and judge. That doesn't seem too smart.
This election year has been such a roller-coaster ride.
Newt Gingrich - He seems like a very intelligent guy. Get things done kinda guy, but and a BIG but, if a guy cheats on his wife(s), the person he supposably cares the most about - how can we trust him - the masses? The whole Freddy/Fannie Mac consulting thing also to me is a biggie.
Mitt Romney - He seems to be his own worst enemy - but I trust him. He comes across stiff and impersonal, but everyone who knows him says he is really just the opposite. Being a Mormon myself, when I hear comments like, "he needs deal with the Mormon issue" I think he dealt with that last go around. If the Mormonism is an issue - well then I guess you can vote for someone else. I personally don't factor in religion with my voting...we are voting for a President -- not a spiritual leader.
Seems jobs are the issue, I would like to see someone in the Presidency who has actually worked in business and the government too. Can see both sides of the issues.
Flip flopper - wow who hasn't changed their mind on a issues? Is there a law against that?
Taxes - I guess we will learn tomorrow he is a very wealthy man -- opps we already knew that. Much to do about nothing.
He donates millions to his Church. Mormons pay a 10% tithe (he just has more to pay it on ;) ) I think that is a Christian doctrine! No news there. He follows the tax laws to minimize the tax he pays -- wow, so do I. No news there.
I am already tired of the endless debates - especially when they vote who won the debate - who got the most zings. Who got tripped up, who was on the defense?
** sigh**
If i didn't disagree with 98% of Romney's stances, and have serious questions about his Bain Capital investors from ruling families in El Salvador & Guatemala, I'd be interested in him... because, well, at least he's been married to the same person all these years. And I find it utter BS when someone's faith is used as a reason to question them for public office. Newt is a vile reptile, IMHO.
I am a D.
ApatheticNoMore
1-24-12, 1:00am
As someone once wrote about the U.S. presidential election:
"It is a tale, told by an idiot
Full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."
or something like that.
flowerseverywhere
1-24-12, 8:50am
Interesting in that there are 194 views so far and no-one has said X is an excellent (or at least very good) candidate for these reasons and that is why they are electable.
In an election where the economy seems to be the most important issue, one can hope that Romney's tax returns are highlighted. His effective tax rate is lower than mine and most others. Not that any blame can be placed on Romney, but just another example of Republican protection of the wealthy by refusing to look at increased taxes or Obama's millionaire tax. And if Newt has his way with a 15% flat tax and no taxes on capital gains, Romney's tax rate could essentially become zero. (Plus, I'm sort of wondering how he made 22 million in capital gains in a recession economy.)
To me, with a struggling middle class and budget and debt issues, this just isn't right. If occupy wall street had more organization and focus, they should take this and run with it.
"Romney's tax records also show that an undisclosed amount of his money is in the Grand Cayman Islands and other places overseas."
"Romney advisers stressed that the holdings in the Caymans — along with those in a Swiss bank account that was closed in 2010 after an investment adviser decided it could be politically embarrassing to Romney — were reported on tax returns and were not vehicles to avoid taxes," Reuters adds.
Capital gains are income and should be taxed as such. Same with dividends. There is no reason to exempt certain kinds of income just as there is no reason to promote effective tax rates of 40% or 50% or more for high earners. Either extreme of the argument quickly becomes ridiculous. If anyone were to propose a simple 15% flat tax on every dollar that comes in the door I think they would deserve consideration.
I might suggest an equally interesting plan would be to tax capital gains at a progressive rate, just like income.
I might suggest an equally interesting plan would be to tax capital gains at a progressive rate, just like income.
+1
ApatheticNoMore
1-24-12, 11:12am
(Plus, I'm sort of wondering how he made 22 million in capital gains in a recession economy.)
Well if congress engaged in insider trading ... this stuff extends down to the governors too? :laff:
To me, with a struggling middle class and budget and debt issues, this just isn't right. If occupy wall street had more organization and focus, they should take this and run with it.
Well distribution of wealth is one of OWS issues, although money in politics may be a bigger one. OWS may have indeed been kind of disorganized, there was also most likely a federally coordinated effort to evict them all, there were and are increasing police crackdowns (on any protesting by them) etc.. They are a movement under fire for sure, though still there.
There is no reason to exempt certain kinds of income just as there is no reason to promote effective tax rates of 40% or 50% or more for high earners.
You know there may be income I end up paying 50-60% taxes on. Oh but it's horrible and unfair, wah, wah, wah. It is but there is nothing I can do if that's how it ends up. How do you appeal obscure unfair tax law? You pay it or evade it and risk prison.
OWS may have indeed been kind of disorganized, there was also most likely a federally coordinated effort to evict them all.
What kind of evidence can you offer that the federal government was coordinating eviction efforts?
ApatheticNoMore
1-24-12, 12:50pm
Oh I can't prove it. What you are asking for would take a leak of some sort (wikileaks?). If such exists out there now I do not know about it (I have seen things that proported to be so, but they were not conclusive IMO).
My thinking here is really more along the lines of if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck .... I suspect a webfoot.
Oh I can't prove it. What you are asking for would take a leak of some sort (wikileaks?). If such exists out there now I do not know about it (I have seen things that proported to be so, but they were not conclusive IMO).
My thinking here is really more along the lines of if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck .... I suspect a webfoot.
Similar arguments have been made for the existence of any number of conspiracies. The quackery emanating from the President and his retainers strikes me as pro-OWS, however.
Based on the current Administration's apparent eagerness to identify with and perhaps co-opt OWS, it doesn't seem likely that the federal machinery of oppression is being deployed against our smart phone sans culottes.
ApatheticNoMore
1-24-12, 1:32pm
Based on the current Administration's apparent eagerness to identify with and perhaps co-opt OWS
I think that's all an act. The usual Obama fakery. He could have at least been vocal against the police abuse of OWS if he wanted.
it doesn't seem likely that the federal machinery of oppression is being deployed against our smart phone sans culottes
Honestly, I don't really know who NDAA and other draconian would be laws are really intended for, it's a great mystery. I don't buy that there is that much terrorist threat at present (perhaps if we bomb bomb Iran). OWS is certainly one possible reason.
Capital gains are income and should be taxed as such. Same with dividends.
Then index the capital gains to inflation, and eliminate corporate taxes to eliminate the double-taxation dividends are subjected to.
The tax rates are different from "regular" income for actual reasons, which I suspect most people selling y'all on class warfare know...
I think that's all an act. The usual Obama fakery.
I think its genuine. He's made it clear he intends to incorporate a lot of similar rhetoric in his campaign.
ApatheticNoMore
1-24-12, 1:57pm
Then why isn't interest income treated the way capital gains are as it is also subject to inflation? Come to think of it shouldn't gains on collectables also be adjusted for inflation? I mean if you want to argue the tax code is rational ..
I might suggest an equally interesting plan would be to tax capital gains at a progressive rate, just like income.
Truthfull Rogar, I can't see any reason to ever tax any form of income at a progressive rate.
Then index the capital gains to inflation, and eliminate corporate taxes to eliminate the double-taxation dividends are subjected to.
Agreed regarding corporate taxation. I've always been on the side of levying the tax where the buck stops rather than at every opportunity along they way. I'd like to hear a little more in depth your ideas regarding tying capital gains to inflation. Thinking CPI or some other, similar index or something else?
I'd like to hear a little more in depth you ideas regarding tying capital gains to inflation. Thinking CPI or some other, similar index or something else?
Consider:
For the sake of argument, assume a 3% yearly inflation rate. And inflation compounds, so use the rule-of-69 to determine that in 23 years, inflation eats half the real value of a dollar.
So, say I bought $1000 in BigCo 23 years ago. I sell it today for $1800! Yay, $800 profit!
Except, that $1800 is actually less than my original investment, in constant dollars. When you tax my "profit", you are really twisting the knife, you're taxing me on a real capital *loss*.
Even if I sold it for $2000, I'm only breaking even, taxing my phantom "profit" seems a bit cruel.
As to how to do the accounting on inflation over the period, that's what beancounters are for. The IRS seems to have no trouble issuing new mileage rates as costs increase, they could certainly just produce a table of canonical inflation rates to be used to determine your actual gain.
As to how to do the accounting on inflation over the period, that's what beancounters are for. The IRS seems to have no trouble issuing new mileage rates as costs increase, they could certainly just produce a table of canonical inflation rates to be used to determine your actual gain.
Makes more sense and should be simpler than trying to hold the value of the dollar steady in perpetuity. You would think it should be an easy sell as all the older boomers and the younger boomers' parents realize substantial gains from the sale of assets they've held for a generation. I wonder what the actual effect on the Federal tax rolls would be?
Then index the capital gains to inflation, and eliminate corporate taxes to eliminate the double-taxation dividends are subjected to.
The tax rates are different from "regular" income for actual reasons, which I suspect most people selling y'all on class warfare know...
As the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations enjoy the same rights as individuals. They should be taxed the same and the dividends they pay to share holders should be taxed like wages. I must admit I try to invest in qualified dividends so I am only taxed at the 15% rate. As an investor why should I pay less on my income than a working stiff. The whole tax code is a mes. I am currently working on the stuff I need to give to my accountant for my 2011 taxes. Now that is real work. There has got to be a better way.
What kind of evidence can you offer that the federal government was coordinating eviction efforts?
There is no evidence other than a story by Naomi Wolf with unconfirmed allegations. The Justice Department has vehemently denied those allegations. Those on the extreme left are just as paranoid about the federal government as those on the extreme right.
I think Newt's own mouth might eventually be his liability.
Romney is probably too moderate for the conservatives I know, although he might appeal to moderate independents. Romney also seems to lean in favor of some sort of gun control, as I've read several places. That won't endear him to those who dislike gun control.
ApatheticNoMore
1-24-12, 5:06pm
Those on the extreme left are just as paranoid about the federal government as those on the extreme right.
Skepticism is paranoid now. But blind faith is what, wonderful? Least of all faith in the U.S. federal government as it is now. The undeniable reality there is bad enough. And really my first post was merely suggestive and I never intended anyone to take it as proof (although clearly it was ambiguous and could be read that way). And my second post openly admited I couldn't prove it, which is honest debating. Now I fully expect several years from now to have been proven right with my instincts on what went on :), but right now nothing is known.
I've seen Naomi Wolfs article too and I reject it as inconclusive. Naomi Wolf is on the side of the angels arguing for our rights, her cause is just, but sigh probably not a first rate debater or journalist, you know ...
Romney also seems to lean in favor of some sort of gun control, as I've read several places. That won't endear him to those who dislike gun control.
Romney signed off on a permanent ban of what is perhaps the most popular, best-selling rifle platform in America, used for National Match target shooting, informal plinking, hunting, self-defense, and so on. So he perhaps isn't going to be the favorite choice of many.
A ban seems a bit more than "control" to me, but, as Orwell says, "if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought".
Skepticism is paranoid now. But blind faith is what, wonderful? Least of all faith in the U.S. federal government as it is now, the undeniable reality there is bad enough. And really since my first post was merely suggestive and I never intended anyone to take it as proof (although clearly it was ambiguous and could be read that way), and my second post openly admited I couldn't prove it, which is honest debating, skepticism is what it is, which toward a increasingly dangerous world I prefer over trust.
I've seen Naomi Wolfs article too I reject it as inconclusive. Naomi Wolf is on the side of the angels arguing for our rights, her cause is just, but sigh probably not a first rate debater or journalist, you know ...
You claimed eviction efforts were "most likely" coordinated by the federal government. Being skeptical of that claim doesn't require "faith" in the government. "Suggesting" such a thing to be true in the absence of evidence is not skepticism; it is mere conspiracy theory.
ApatheticNoMore
1-24-12, 5:53pm
I think it's conspiracy theory backed by history, but be that as it may. I'm tired of this. A post someone rushed out in 10 minutes this morning speculated something they didn't have proof for. Well if indefinite detention and our fascist government, global warming, and Fukushima spewing radation all over the world doesn't get us, that horror of one speculative post surely will (oooh saying that any of those things might have *any* potential to get us is speculative too - oooh).
I'm using the ignore function. And don't dare claim I'm dishonest. Because I admitted what I couldn't prove which really takes a kind of courage (the always right brigade would not know it - they still defend their leaders even). Btw I've never been a conspriacy theoriest in my life, but at this point (this point since NDAA mostly) the world is so evil, I am starting to think they have something to them. And this is way to much argumentation to have over one silly post to this discussion board.
Romney signed off on a permanent ban of what is perhaps the most popular, best-selling rifle platform in America, used for National Match target shooting, informal plinking, hunting, self-defense, and so on. So he perhaps isn't going to be the favorite choice of many.
A ban seems a bit more than "control" to me, but, as Orwell says, "if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought".
Hey, cut me some slack! ;) I've been swamped lately and only read he was in more in favor of gun control than the other GOP candidates.
the dividends they pay to share holders should be taxed like wages.
That would be fine since wages are deductible to the payor, so you would only have one level of tax (no corp tax). That's the way REITs work.
As an investor why should I pay less on my income than a working stiff.
You don't. The corp has already paid 35% tax on your behalf. Your total federal tax on those earnings is 100-35 = 65 - (.15 * 65) = 44.75%
That would be fine since wages are deductible to the payor, so you would only have one level of tax (no corp tax). That's the way REITs work.
You don't. The corp has already paid 35% tax on your behalf. Your total federal tax on those earnings is 100-35 = 65 - (.15 * 65) = 44.75%
Sorry , that doesn't pass the smell test. Warren Buffet paid taxes on his income, from which he then paid his toilet scrubber who still pays 27%, or whatever. Change the tax code or not, but don't use the 'he already paid taxes on it' as an excuse. Everyone paid taxes on it, all the way down the line. Still doesn't excuse the bottom rung paying the highest percentage taxes. The corporation made a profit, on which they paid taxes, and Romney made a profit, on which he paid taxes. And he paid a lot of pool boys, toilet scrubbers, and nose wipers who paid taxes on it, but at a much higher percentage than Romney. That's what it boils down to. And Romney knows it. He knows it isn't fair or he wouldn't be shuffling his feet and hemming and hawing about what percentage he paid.
Sorry , that doesn't pass the smell test.
Only for those who are too biased or stupid to think about it correctly, which is a large part of the electorate. Thus his problem.
Well, I'm a registered democrat, but I vote for who I like. I probably would have voted for McCain if it hadn't been for Palin.
So...I'd consider voting for Romney. But I'd never vote for Newt. I'm guessing if the Republicans want to win, they'd have to try and get more middle-of-the-road voters. But maybe not.
Skepticism is paranoid now. But blind faith is what, wonderful? Least of all faith in the U.S. federal government as it is now. The undeniable reality there is bad enough. And really my first post was merely suggestive and I never intended anyone to take it as proof (although clearly it was ambiguous and could be read that way). And my second post openly admited I couldn't prove it, which is honest debating. Now I fully expect several years from now to have been proven right with my instincts on what went on :), but right now nothing is known.
I've seen Naomi Wolfs article too and I reject it as inconclusive. Naomi Wolf is on the side of the angels arguing for our rights, her cause is just, but sigh probably not a first rate debater or journalist, you know ...
Didn't mean that post as a jab at you. I was just tracing the genesis of that rumor and making a general observation that there is a lot of paranoia both left and right. Generally Wolfe has made some contributions I appreciate but she kinda went off the rails during the Bush Admin. She predicted that Bush would declare martial law and cancel the 2008 election. Just sayin' that's a little nutty. Skepticism is certainly ok.
The Storyteller
1-24-12, 10:50pm
As someone once wrote about the U.S. presidential election:
"It is a tale, told by an idiot
Full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."
or something like that.
Sounds pretty apathetic to me.
The Storyteller
1-24-12, 10:55pm
I think Romney is electable because he is fairly moderate. He is to the left of most Democrats down here in OK. I can't believe he is even in the running, but Republicans must be desperate.
I don't think Newt is, and not because he is sleazy, but because he runs off at the mouth and incredibly polarizing. There is an awful lot of footage of him saying stupid, extremist stuff.
All that said, neither one could beat Obama. It would take a Reagan or a Clinton to beat him, and these dudes ain't that.
Hillary Clinton should switch to the Republican party, and run as the GOP candidate.
ApatheticNoMore
1-25-12, 12:12am
Sounds pretty apathetic to me.
Actually I'm probably WAY too political, angry these days. Just I think the presidential campaign actively distracts from what I view as the important issues (and I have long thought so, only it is getting much worse).
Hillary Clinton should switch to the Republican party, and run as the GOP candidate.
Do ya know the meaning of fat chance??
Only for those who are too biased or stupid to think about it correctly, which is a large part of the electorate. Thus his problem.
You calling me stupid? Just because I can't see the 'wisdom' of taxing income from someone who didn't break a sweat to earn his less than the gal who wipes the p*** off his toilet? Or maybe I'm too stupid to 'know' that corporate income and personal income are really really the same thing. And since corporations are people, that makes him twice as...smart? Lucky? And if that woman who wipes the p*** off his toilet were only smart enough to invest her wealth in her corporation, then she too could be twice as lucky. See, paying nearly twice what he pays percentage wise is really her own fault, and sort of her fee for not investing in this great, wonderful country of ours. See, I've been listening to Romney. I can sound just like him.
The only thing in this debate I consider stupid is the SCOTUS decision basically recognizing corporations as people. That, IMHO, is absurd and even dangerous.
ApatheticNoMore
1-25-12, 10:36am
Due to the whole combination of what is occuring, it is actually approaching the point where corporations don't just have the same rights as people but MORE rights than people. Can corporations be renditioned and tortured? Do they not bleed? Of course they do not bleed. If the people try to protest because they know no other way to reach their bought and paid for congresspeople they will be treated as roughly as the government wants to (again LESS rights than corporations due to the liabilities of being human).
Arbitrary power *could* be exercised against corporations, but in a corptocracy bought and paid for by corporations, it won't be against the corporations that have contributed. A megaupload or two might be shut down, a youtube never will.
Oh yea money in politics is a problem. It furthermore leads to absurd laws, not necessarily blaming the creeping fascism on them (although it could be argued), but blaming clear cases like laws like SOPA. A clear result of money in politics and clearly absurd IMO. I mean really our laws are getting sillier by the day.
The only thing in this debate I consider stupid is the SCOTUS decision basically recognizing corporations as people. That, IMHO, is absurd and even dangerous.
Corporations in some respects have more rights than people - corporations and their investors have limited liability, which is not a right extended to just folks.
San Onofre Guy
1-25-12, 2:54pm
I would vote for neither Romney or Newt, but the Republicans do have an easy choice.
Newt is an immoral borderline criminal liar who failed in a leadership role. My proof is he cheated on his first two wives, he settled and resigned pending criminal charges being filed and he resigned in disgrace as Speaker of the House. Also remember while he was criticizing and calling for the impeachment of Clinton for Monicagate he was doing the same thing.
Romney is a moral family guy, very successful in business, donates a lot of money to good causes and I believe left Massachusetts better off at the end of his term.
Still the Republicans have a difficult choice???
ApatheticNoMore
1-25-12, 3:06pm
Really, I regard most of them as evil really pretty much (although Paul is ok - by which I mean at least not downright evil). But Newt is unelectable because he will literally out in the open start saying crazy stuff.
No no no, if you want to get elected, you at least want to hide your crazy, in some sillky smooth delivery maybe, an iron fist in a velvet glove. Look at those who do wield power, they know how to hide their insanity, make it sound nice.
And you don't start spewing not possibly reasonable speculation but IMO downright ridiculous prophecies about what may happen in the future because you consider yourself some kind of futurist (I mean literally the things that come out of Newts mouth). This is good in a science fiction novelist not a presidential candidate. And you don't say stuff like: yea I'll abolish the supreme court while I'm at it. Evil and crazy and unconstitutional is going on right now, but again you don't come right out and announce that your presidency would be some unpredictable kind of crazy (even though they all seem to end up that way). But that is Newt. That kind of off the wall thinking actually has some appeal, but not for the job he's applying for.
Only for those who are too biased or stupid to think about it correctly, which is a large part of the electorate. Thus his problem.
East River, disagreeing does not make one stupid. Please, I ask you to not engage in disrespect by calling people names.
Thanks.
Rebecca
East River, disagreeing does not make one stupid. Please, I ask you to not engage in disrespect by calling people names.
Thanks.
Rebecca
Do you mean names like ignorant and racist?
The Storyteller
1-25-12, 10:13pm
Actually I'm probably WAY too political, angry these days.
Kidding.
The Storyteller
1-25-12, 10:17pm
Hillary Clinton should switch to the Republican party, and run as the GOP candidate.
Do ya know the meaning of fat chance??
Actually, he has a point. She is probably to the right of Romney. If the Republicans will nominate him, why not her?
Actually, he has a point. She is probably to the right of Romney. If the Republicans will nominate him, why not her?
Because she comes with baggage.
Actually, he has a point. She is probably to the right of Romney. If the Republicans will nominate him, why not her?
Frankly, I don't think that she is to the right of President Obama, who is probably not to the left of the elder George Bush.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.