The debates on the Debates

Mitt Romney Criticizes Obama On Iraq Withdrawal
--- merged: Oct 26, 2012 at 9:15 PM ---

I would stand by my principles and not have any dealings with him. You obviously, would let such things slide as the deal trumps principles.

As I said, making money or winning elections at any cost are not principles. So what "other" principles are you referring to?

I see. Your opinion that financial greed is perfectly acceptable is not in conflict with your own values. I'll admit, I am developing a pretty clear picture of what principles you value.

No Ace, you've made the claim that you are voting for Romney because a candidate's high minded principles are important to you. Now it appears they are not very important at all and to question their absence is now considered judgmental.

Obviously the world needs another cowboy. We fared so well with the last one.
--- merged: Oct 26, 2012 at 9:41 PM ---

No, not silly. Not where Colin Powell is concerned. This is the man the neo-cons hung out to dry. The man they pushed in front of the UN and demanded he feed the world a pack of lies. When the light bulb went off in Colin Powell's head, Obama was barely a blip on the radar. Colin Powell is a Republican who has witnessed the take-over of his party by brigands and he'd rather endorse a centrist Democrat than someone from a party that no longer resembles the party he supported for years.

Easier for you to cry "race" than admit that the Republican party is losing the support of those who still remember what the party used to be.

 

Romney is the most spineless person to ever get this close to the Oval Office. The fact this race is even close makes me very happy I no longer live stateside.

 

if more americans were capable of self-reflection and aware of actually existing reality of the past 30 years, perhaps they too could reach the point of seeing the entire thatcher-reagan period for the degenerate horseshit that it always was. this would be the most effective way to get rid of the dysfunctional narcissism that is contemporary conservatism:

Thatcher, Murdoch, Hillsborough and beyond: What the 1980s did to Britain | Politics | The Guardian

 

My point is that everyone has their own personal line, a line they won't cross. It is personal. Romney's line may be different than yours or mine, not better or worse. We can agree or disagree but it is is best when people are open and honest about where they stand. This is one issue I have with both President Obama and Romney - but it is my issue. My vote for Romney is based on my view that he will have a focus on the economy and odds are he will get the US economy on the right track. On every other issue, I don't think he will do harm and actually be less risky than President Obama.

Making money can be the fundamental basis of a person's behaviors. Winning elective office can be also. I think Romney, like many people, has gone through different stages in his life - perhaps a religious focus, to a making money focus, to a political focus. the principles guiding behaviors would change over time.

We have not been discussing my principles.

If you want to know why I voted for Romney, ask. Many factors go into my vote.Prior to deciding to vote for Romeny, my vote was going to simply be a protest vote - because I did not like President Obama or Romney. In 2008, the only reason I voted for McCain was because of Palin, otherwise I was not going to vote for him. In addition, I would have voted for Hillary Clinton before voting for McCain without Palin.

I live in the present. The Republican party is gaining support in almost all demographic categories compared to 2008 with the exception of the black vote. Race is a factor with that demographic.
--- merged: Oct 27, 2012 at 6:35 PM ---

President Obama and surrogates have criticized Romney on everything and anything.
--- merged: Oct 27, 2012 at 6:43 PM ---

We are both talking drone strikes but beyond that we are not on the same page. I see a drone strike by the military on another nations sovereign territory as an act of war, unless that nation has given its approval.

Let me put it another way. When is a drone strike o.k. with you and when is it not o.k.?

Come on now! How do you know? There are terrorist (cells, camps, individuals, activities) in the US. Who is to judge what is and what is not a terorist or terrorist camp? You seem to be digging yourself into a hole, I don't know what you are trying to say.
--- merged: Oct 27, 2012 at 7:00 PM ---

You see principles in the context of good and bad. And that those principles you find distasteful are not principles. I understand there is a common definition of principles that infers doing things the "right" way (whatever that means), but there is also the clearer definition that defines principles as a fundamental view that defines behavior. some hold principles based on religion that defines marriage a certain way - others hold principles counter to that. I can see both behaviors in the context of their defining principles. Again, I may agree or disagree - that is my view - who am I to say one is right or wrong?

True. However, when our interests are in line - I see that as being on my side. For example if I make money when he makes money, our interest in making money is in line. If Romney is motivated to make the economy better for small business owners and I am a small business owner.....

 

No. I see principles as beliefs that guide action. They are not negotiable for the person that holds them. Unless, of course, we define "whatever suits my purposes" as a "principle" - but that would be stretching the definition way too far to remain meaningful. If a "principle" is something that can change on a frequent basis, I would define that as a "tactic" (and not the same thing at all).

The problem is that you can't know what he stands for - because it changes with circumstance.

 

Wow. I only just noticed this.

Did you realise that you said that out loud?

 

You know I'm from the US and lived there most of my life but now I live in Mexico. I don't know if you'd lived in the US but I think you're from the UK. I know from experience and talking to people that most people outside of the US, and many in the US, are completely puzzled why anyone would think Palin was a reason candidate. But in the US she still has a 20-30% approval rating.

I'm heading out to a costume party shorty and I have no doubt many people will ask me if it's true Romney could really win this election after all the crazy stuff he's said. Sadly my answer is going to be "yes, he really could. That's just how crazy politics have gotten in the US."

 

It's why we, who do not live in the US, all shake our heads in awe. We, generally speaking, find it astounding that the US, the most powerful nation in the world, can have it's leadership decided by one of the most uninformed populaces around. So much economic and military power can be put in the hands of the "wrong" people by a populace that doesn't really understand the impact of these decisions beyond, "USA! USA! Fuck ya!"

 

Way too many people in the US live in a bubble is my theory. If you watch and listen to Fox,Rush or MSNBC as your primary news/information source you're going to think and believe a lot of horse shit.

Pollsters call these people low information voters. The rest of the world calls them morons... And they can vote. By far the most frightening thing this Halloween.

 

Yes, I'm from the UK. I was born in the Far East, spent my childhood in the Middle East, but spent most of my life in the UK. I'm married to an American and have spent a good amount of time in the USA (3 months here, a month there, lots of visits) but have never been a resident.

Different parts of America strike me as quite different in culture and outlook. It's a big place. People in Oklahoma and people in Rhode Island may as well be from different countries! I get that.

However, there is another difference that has nothing to do with geography. There are some Americans I meet and I fully understand how they think and see the world. There are others that I don't understand at all. Anyone who would want Palin in power falls into the latter category.

Over here, it's the same - but maybe less so. We certainly have "low information" voters on all sides of the political spectrum, as does the USA. Democracy isn't perfect but it's the best we have. There are also people who clearly see the world differently from me and vote accordingly. However, I do understand them a bit better than their American counterparts - maybe because they aren't so extreme (mostly). The American right wing appears to me to have become frighteningly radical in the last decade - or maybe it always was and I'm just paying more attention.

I doubt I can ever fully understand it. Unless you are raised within it, you never fully "get" it. From an outside perspective, it looks as if it is about a sense of entitlement and about fear. Mix that with a paucity of information about the world beyond the US borders and a media that seems to manipulate rather than inform and you have a heady cocktail. Having watched some of the "news" channels, I was shocked at the lack of balance and the focus on opinion over fact.

I look at the betting odds and the markets and it seems to me that when people are putting their money where their mouths are they are predicting an Obama win. I'm hoping they are right, but markets have been known to get it wrong, too. I don't think Obama is perfect and I would certainly criticise some of his actions, but I can't see Romney as anything but a disaster for the USA. It matters to everyone because the world is increasingly interdependent and a healthy America is good for all of us. It also matters to me because my step-children and my wife's family live there. I have an interest in Australia too, because my daughter lives there.

 

October 22, 2012 - DL Hughley - The Daily Show With Jon Stewart - Full Episode Video | Comedy Central

Watch from about 4:55 - 10:26, and that is all the right has to offer this country.

 

It seems to me you "get it" pretty well.


I like to bet sports a little. by a little I mean I start out the NFL season with a few hundred dollars and when it's gone it's gone and I'm done. Some year I'm out by mid season or sooner and other years I end up taking a very nice vacation after the Super Bowl. I belong to a sport gambling forum. It's much like this one but most people trade injury news and how the lines or odds are trending. The site is full of many, many conservatives. There is a political forum with threads. It's full of Obama is a lying Muslim commie out to destroy the US. If he wins the US will not survive even six more months of Obama and his (take your pick- do nothing or change everything.) Two weeks ago they put up a poll of "who's going to win?" At first it was a blind poll and you couldn't see who vote for who. After a week Romney was up 80% to 20%. The comments were mainly "see this ass clown is toast!" One poster called him a "homosexual crack ho" and claimed to have proof he was smoking crack on AF1 and trading blow jobs with some low life. Then something weird happened and the poll shifted dramatically and as of this morning Obama is up by 4-5%. As soon as the numbers started to move the admin. of the site changed it to a public poll and inserted a note basically stating "now we're gonna start seeing who are the "real Americans!" I hate when people pull that "real Americans shit, but anyway. Several right leaning guys (or ladies?) have been called out for choosing Obama. The general response has been "you didn't ask who I'd like to see win. You asked who will win and I choose who I thinks going to win." So many of these people who gamble a lot do not think Romney will win. Of course many of these guys also thought Green Bay might have a prefect season this year so...

 

Do 15% of Ohio Republicans think Romney killed bin Laden?

62% of Republicans polled are either ignorant of the fact Romney had no role in the killing of OBL or they refuse to give the President credit for actions they agree with or are pleased about. Or maybe some of the 47% unsure were simply being uncooperative.

 

So, according to your reasoning:
President Clinton is a white man
I voted for President Clinton
I voted for President Clinton because he's a white man.

The percentage of black voters voting for Democratic candidates has always been high. Support for Obama by the black community is consistent with their support for white Presidential candidates, Clinton and Gore for instance. So why is race now a factor? Because there happens be a person of color in the White House? Do you have any non-coincidental data to support your assertion, Ace?

Race is far more likely to be a factor in voting preference by whites who are biased against a black president but even that is an assumption.

Accusing Colin Powell of voting for a fellow black man simply because he's a fellow black man is a clear sign you have either lost all sense of reason or are intentionally trying to stoke the racial fires. The claim is fairly transparent. You, Sununu and others like you are unable to accept the fact that the Republican Party of today is unpalatable to many moderate Republicans. Colin Powell, from his position as a moderate Republican, has the courage to admit his distaste and disappointment but because he happens to be a person of color as well, his opinion on the sorry state of the Republican party can be ignored and his voting intentions boiled down to racial loyalty.

Your loss really. Keeping the truth in the dark only makes it more difficult to change a party on the course to shooting itself in the head with its own extremism.

I naturally assumed that, when discussing Presidential candidates, we were talking about principles that are generally considered "good." Greed is not considered good. Winning at any cost is not considered good. Lying is not considered good. Sorry to break it to you Ace, but those for whom greed is a "fundamental view defining behavior" are generally regarded as being "unprincipled."

Who are you to say one is right or wrong? I suppose it's difficult to make a judgment as long as you are open to any behavior which the owner of that behavior can find a way to justify.

Accumulating wealth for the sole purpose of being as rich as possible with no regard for the economic health of the country or negative consequences to others is not a "principle" to be admired. Unless of course you possess that same fundamentally unprincipled view.

 

Read some of my previous posts from 2007/2008. I stated the above many times. It is true. I had no intention of voting for McCain. I also know many other conservatives who had no intention of voting for McCain, but for Palin. Some re-write history to make it appear Palin cost McCain the election, but Palin's selection got the Republican base excited to vote for McCain. McCain lost in 2008 due to the perception of how he responded to the "financial crisis" compared to President Obama.

Regarding Palin, she would have had my support, 100%, if she had run for President. I am a Palin fanatic.

 

OK.

Umm. Understood.

Kind of speechless.

Why? ... Actually, never mind.

 

I have to wonder how someone can support a candidate 100% when that candidate holds views 180 degrees from their own - unless you've been lying to us about your views on the social issues, Ace.