Jump to content

Presidential Race (Respector Edition)


Recommended Posts

Atticus, are you suggesting that I'm slinging mud or pandering by saying that Romney is arguably a psychopath? Not at all. I'm dead serious. I really do think that he is a dangerous and bad man. That is not the same thing as mudslinging.

 

Romney is just a terrifically wealthy man who thinks it's destiny to be President, and he's trying to get there any which he can.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Atticus, are you suggesting that I'm slinging mud or pandering by saying that Romney is arguably a psychopath? Not at all. I'm dead serious. I really do think that he is a dangerous and bad man. That is not the same thing as mudslinging.

 

I don't think Romney personally is dangerous, nor would I call him a psychopath. I'd say he's a highly opportunistic politician who's shown a willingness to take whatever position is necessary to get him the results he wants. I don't know what he truly believes in, nor what he would actually do if elected. That's concerning to me.

 

Maybe we have different definitions for what constitutes psychopathic behavior... but for me, calling Romney that is over the top.

 

On a different note, this is a great read regardless of who you're planning to vote for tomorrow:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/business/a-capitalists-dilemma-whoever-becomes-president.html?smid=pl-share

Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite all the rancor both here in this thread and during the long and grueling campaign, you have to feel a bit badly for Romney when he loses (and he is going to lose) since both he and his father ran for president and lost and he is now a two time loser and really will have no other chance. Time will have marched on and younger and more qualified candidates will be on tap for four years from now. I guess Mitt will just have to be content with his wealth.

 

LouieB

Link to post
Share on other sites

Atticus, are you suggesting that I'm slinging mud or pandering by saying that Romney is arguably a psychopath? Not at all. I'm dead serious. I really do think that he is a dangerous and bad man. That is not the same thing as mudslinging.

 

Jeez.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, unless it's a surprise "landslide" popular vote like 54-46, I think both sides will cry foul somewhere and claim the other guy didn't really win.

 

And regardless, the partisan bickering will still be there no matter what. The only difference is that on Weds we won't have robo calls and tv/radio ads all over the place amplifying it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, unless it's a surprise "landslide" popular vote like 54-46, I think both sides will cry foul somewhere and claim the other guy didn't really win.

 

And regardless, the partisan bickering will still be there no matter what. The only difference is that on Weds we won't have robo calls and tv/radio ads all over the place amplifying it.

 

The main problem is that large portions of both sides truly hate the other side. That's why it will never end.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The main problem is that large portions of both sides truly hate the other side. That's why it will never end.

 

The main problem is that people cannot accept that others might have different opinions. At least we aren't inflicting physical harm on each other

 

The idea that politics today is uglier and more cut throat today than it was in years past is laughable and shows a complete disconnect with the reality that is, was and will be of American politics. Check out the election of 1800...1828...1860.

 

One would expect that we would be more civil in our discourse because we have more access to communication and don't need to be so over the top in expressing opinions...

Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea that politics today is uglier and more cut throat today than it was in years past is laughable and shows a complete disconnect with the reality that is, was and will be of American politics. Check out the election of 1800...1828...1860.

 

One would expect that we would be more civil in our discourse because we have more access to communication and don't need to be so over the top in expressing opinions...

 

Brokaw was recently talking about this -- how ugly things were in the 19th century -- and he suggested that our increased means of communication (cable TV, social media, blogs, etc.) are actually drawing us back to those days because so much is being said without the filter of journalism. Blogs are the new propaganda leaflets, where any wild anonymous claim can be made without repercussions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Romney is going to win.

 

I sure hope not, I just bought a bunch of shares of Ruger, Colt, and S&W.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea that politics today is uglier and more cut throat today than it was in years past is laughable and shows a complete disconnect with the reality that is, was and will be of American politics. Check out the election of 1800...1828...1860.

 

Definitely. But I think it's in our faces a lot more than back then due to the proliferation of the 24-hour news cycle and the fact that every single person in the country has a forum to express his or her views.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I might have been over the top in calling Romney a psychopath, and I really wasn't trying to be rude to any one person on here. I was just multitasking and shot off my response without parsing my words carefully enough. Sorry--I'm really wrapped up in this thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

it does indeed look, taste, and feel like there's going to be a 2000 style recount controversy, and boy, i hope i'm wrong. still it feels like the drums are growing louder.

 

it will be riveting, no doubt, and i will pray for the candidates, their families, and the voters safety aftre the eagles game tonight.

 

 

 

i look forward to romney's concession speech. it could just be his finest moment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't help but think of all of my friends who have offered up the equally cliched "Two party system is busted. What's the point? They're all the same criminals." argument. I can relate to their sentiment. There is some truth to it. It's a massive oversimplification, but there is something to it.

 

The problem is that everyone I know who feels that way responds by either a) not voting, or B) voting for a third party. Neither of these options is an effective form of activism (nor are they really "active" at all). Until there is some kind of legislation that evens the playing field for 3rd parties, that whole conversation goes nowhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not voting is a little silly, imo, but I can see why some folks opt out. Voting for a third party, though? That's great if that's what you feel is best. I realize the whole "throw away" vote argument, but really, it's not a thrown away vote if that's what you feel in your heart to do. If you feel like "screw either of the big candidates," then you should vote for who you would rather personally see in there, regardless of the fact that person has no legitimate shot. That's the problem, imo, is people kowtowing to people telling them not to vote this way or that in order to not waste a vote. Screw it, vote for Alf if you want. It's a private vote.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...