Our City Online

Messageboard - Politics

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard. As of 05/22/16 they have been closed to new comments and replies, but will remain accessible for archived searches and reference. For more information CLICK HERE

Presidential Election 2012

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Politics Presidential Election 2012

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 15 posts - 2,116 through 2,130 (of 2,844 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #437098
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    DTown said:
    Get that. I’m just referring to the personification of how good/bad someone is, based on how much/little money they pay/give. Can’t just say whether someone is noble or patriotic or more electable merely by how much they toss in the till.

    For me, Romney’s charitable giving really knocks the “evil rich guy” meme down a few notches, which is a lot of why I hear Romney is unelectable.

    “Evil rich guy” is a different thing than saying one disagrees with Romney’s policy ( or can’t tell what Romney’s policy would be between all the differing statements ). It’s a personal attack rather than something substantial.

    #437099

    mrsgeedeck
    Participant

    If it were simply a case of “evil rich guy” then I agree, it’s a personal attack with no relevance to his ability to govern. However, when paired with statements about asking your patents for money to pay for College,or to say 47% of Americans are looking for a handout, the evil rich guy schtick makes it easy to question whether he can truly empathize with,and fight for low income and middle class citizens.

    #437100

    jackoh
    Participant

    rus said:
    For me, Romney’s charitable giving really knocks the “evil rich guy” meme down a few notches, which is a lot of why I hear Romney is unelectable.

    “Evil rich guy” is a different thing than saying one disagrees with Romney’s policy ( or can’t tell what Romney’s policy would be between all the differing statements ). It’s a personal attack rather than something substantial.

    So in casting a vote the personal qualities of the candidate should be totally discounted, and only the policy positions matter?

    #437101
    Coremodels
    Coremodels
    Participant

    jackoh said:
    So in casting a vote the personal qualities of the candidate should be totally discounted, and only the policy positions matter?

    I think the guy probably holds up to most people’s scrutiny on a personal level. Agree or disagree the LDS church, devoting a couple years of your life as a missionary is pretty serious stuff, IMO. Add to that the pretty strict moral code of Mormons, you’re probably not going to find a lot of stuff about the man personally that would be nasty.

    #437102

    jackoh
    Participant

    Coremodels said:
    I think the guy probably holds up to most people’s scrutiny on a personal level. Agree or disagree the LDS church, devoting a couple years of your life as a missionary is pretty serious stuff, IMO. Add to that the pretty strict moral code of Mormons, you’re probably not going to find a lot of stuff about the man personally that would be nasty.

    My comment was not made with regard to Romney specifically, but, rather, to the idea of a candidate as a set of policy proposals vs the candidate as a person with an attitude toward what the society should look like and a skill set to achieve it independently of the specifics of policy. I have personally known candidates (public officials) whose policy positions I was totally in agreement with, but whom I thought were bad for the republic (not because of moral concerns, but because of character defects related to the art of governing).

    #437103

    Twixlen
    Participant

    Cynical thought – since Romney hasn’t released any farther back in tax-return-land, we can’t actually say what his pattern of charitable giving is. He knew he was running for president when that particular donation period took place – maybe it’s totally par for the course for him, maybe it’s not.

    #437104

    gramarye
    Participant

    jackoh said:
    My comment was not made with regard to Romney specifically, but, rather, to the idea of a candidate as a set of policy proposals vs the candidate as a person with an attitude toward what the society should look like and a skill set to achieve it independently of the specifics of policy. I have personally known candidates (public officials) whose policy positions I was totally in agreement with, but whom I thought were bad for the republic (not because of moral concerns, but because of character defects related to the art of governing).

    In a country of 300 million people, we ought to be able to design a vetting system capable of finding someone with both executive acumen and good moral fiber. My aspirational appeals to the law of large numbers generally prove acarpous, however, so I’ll say this: given a choice between the two, I’ll take a competent policymaker over a nice guy any day of the week. Jimmy Carter was a nice guy but a disastrous president. Bill Clinton was an adulterer but generally had a successful presidency.

    #437105
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    Twixlen said:
    Cynical thought – since Romney hasn’t released any farther back in tax-return-land, we can’t actually say what his pattern of charitable giving is. He knew he was running for president when that particular donation period took place – maybe it’s totally par for the course for him, maybe it’s not.

    You sound like the people who, upon seeing Romney’s tax returns, demanded more saying the most interesting bits had to be from over a decade ago. Not enough mud to fling in what has been released.

    Sure, if you want to see activist government forcing people to do what you what Romney isn’t your guy since he puts his money where his mouth is when it comes to private charity. An actual difference in the D and R candidates.

    Guess if you demand a government program as the solution to every problem you’ll have to vote for Obama.

    #437106
    Coremodels
    Coremodels
    Participant

    Guess if you demand a government program as the solution to every problem you’ll have to vote for Obama.

    As long as the current Republican party insists on capitulating to both the hawks and the religious right the idea that they’re a “small government party” is pure myth.

    #437107

    Cookie
    Member

    rus said:
    You sound like the people who, upon seeing Romney’s tax returns, demanded more saying the most interesting bits had to be from over a decade ago. Not enough mud to fling in what has been released.

    From an article that I linked earlier.

    Ironically, it was Mitt’s father, George Romney, who released 12 years of tax returns, in November 1967, just ahead of his presidential campaign, thereby setting a precedent that nearly every presidential candidate since has either willingly or unwillingly been subject to. George, then the governor of Michigan, explained why he was releasing so many years’ worth, saying, “One year could be a fluke, perhaps done for show.”

    But his son declined to release any returns through one unsuccessful race for the U.S. Senate, in 1994, one successful run for Massachusetts governor, in 2002, and an aborted bid for the Republican Party presidential nomination, in 2008. Just before the Iowa caucus last December, Mitt told MSNBC, “I don’t intend to release the tax returns. I don’t,” but finally, on January 24, 2012—after intense goading by fellow Republican candidates Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry—he released his 2010 tax return and an estimate for 2011.

    #437108
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    Coremodels said:
    As long as the current Republican party insists on capitulating to both the hawks and the religious right the idea that they’re a “small government party” is pure myth.

    It’s a choice between lip service to the idea of a less activist government and those who are for activist government, sure.

    Like I said however many pages ago: who I’d like to see win isn’t possible.

    #437109

    myliftkk
    Participant

    rus said:
    Do you think Obama is a liberal? Romney? One critique I keep hearing of Romney is he’s too much like Obama ( Obamacare / Romneycare for instance ).

    From previous discussions here, you’ve said Obama and Romney are a lot alike. I wonder if you think that means Romney is as liberal as Obama or if, to you, that means Obama is as conservative as Romney.

    I think Obama is fairly conservative in governing (discounting his last minute gay rights/immigration politically motivated actions). That, I think, has given Romney very little running room to Obama’s right without bumping right up into the right wing crazylanders. And every time he bumps into them, the O team is there to point it out.

    Let’s be honest, Romney, by all appearances, would be fine running on Obama’s platform for the most part, but he can’t, because Obama’s still on it.

    #437110

    gramarye
    Participant

    myliftkk said:
    I think Obama is fairly conservative in governing (discounting his last minute gay rights/immigration politically motivated actions). That, I think, has given Romney very little running room to Obama’s right without bumping right up into the right wing crazylanders. And every time he bumps into them, the O team is there to point it out.

    Let’s be honest, Romney, by all appearances, would be fine running on Obama’s platform for the most part, but he can’t, because Obama’s still on it.

    Yes, but this isn’t necessarily a flattering fact for either candidate. As an inside politics calculation, however, it does play to Obama’s advantage.

    I am amazed that neither party actually fielded a candidate, even in the primaries, other than Ron Paul, who was genuinely opposed to the bank bailouts. In our attention-span-deficient world, very few wounds leave scars longer than a few months, but there are still a lot of people feeling rubbed raw over those.

    #437111
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    myliftkk said:
    I think Obama is fairly conservative in governing (discounting his last minute gay rights/immigration politically motivated actions). That, I think, has given Romney very little running room to Obama’s right without bumping right up into the right wing crazylanders. And every time he bumps into them, the O team is there to point it out.

    Let’s be honest, Romney, by all appearances, would be fine running on Obama’s platform for the most part, but he can’t, because Obama’s still on it.

    So, in your view, no matter who wins in November its effectively a conservative ( in the neocon/neolib sense ) that will win?

    On immigration, doesn’t look like any last minute comments from Obama are wooing crowds.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81470.html

    #437112
    Snarf
    Snarf
    Participant

    Rode 200 miles in Hocking Hills area on Saturday, backroads mostly, beautiful weather and a few colors starting…anyways…what I didn’t expect was seeing a couple dozen Obama signs in peoples yards and not one Romney sign.

    Crazy.

Viewing 15 posts - 2,116 through 2,130 (of 2,844 total)

The forum ‘Politics’ is closed to new topics and replies.

URBAN LIVING TOUR 2020

This year’s Urban Living Tour event has been postponed due to COVID-19, but will be returning later this summer!

CLICK HERE to sign up to be notified when tickets go on sale!