Politics What did Romney and the GOP do wrong?

You confuse me here with the word "charitable". Liberals often talk about livable wages, the disparity between the rich and everyone else, fairness, etc. I talk in terms of market supply and demand - meaning let the market determine fair wages. either way what does "charity" have to do with it? Even in the context of fairness where does charity come into the equation?

...but there is in fact a "limited number of people" - even if government is providing (providing whatever) government can only impact a limited number of people. That number can only be expanded by government when other people are taxed more, contribute more. Again we are not talking about marginal wealthy people, we are talking (not just Oprah) super wealthy people - people who have amassed more wealth than they could spend in thousands of lavish lifestyles.

The most extreme most clearly illustrates the point. but in the US for example many studies have shown that conservatives give more of their disposable incomes than liberals to help others. The liberal call for higher taxes on others to me seems to have an empty ring to it.

There are many aspects to liberal ideology that I do not understand - when I don't understand I ask about it - just as I am asking about this.

there are the things liberals say and there are the things they do - often I can not reconcile the two. For example the calls to close Gitmo - I heard President Obama simple is not even going to try to close it any longer, why all the talk about its closure and when in power it does not get closed by liberals?

 

You introduced charity in the context of Oprah giving money for schools, I just followed along with that line. Outside of that line there is still a point under consideration.

When comparing the acts of individuals in the market compared to government activity - individual acts trumps government acts many times over. If the collection of business owners reduced their profit margins and paid employees more the impact is far greater than any government policy.

I give. We are going in circles. I truly don't know how to layout the basic premise in a manner that is clear to you.

 

B.S.

There are inherent conflicts with an individual doing what needs to be done to amass billions in net-worth and liberal ideology.

If you disagree or don't see it dosen't mean it is not clearly apparent. Thousands of examples can be used to illustrate the premise, if you get hung up on an example here and there while not looking at the broader point, that is your issue.

 

What did Romney do wrong? This sums it up pretty well-

 

And look at what happens...you have to pump your own gas.

 

I seriously doubt he has to pump his own gas. Probably getting his image out there as an average Joe for his 2016 run.

 

Elections are not won or lost by the votes of people who care deeply about politics. You've already decided who you'll vote for mostly and youre such a small minority in any modern state.

_

Its the people who dont really get into the issues, who dont hold strong affiliations, who think that most politicians are probably crooks who decides who governs.

 

It is intellectually dishonest in my opinion to do what you are doing here - taking a sentence totally out of context to illustrate the absurdity of an argument. We know that you either don't see the premise I presented or you are ignoring it. As it follows, what I don't get is the pretense so often displayed by liberals, and you display it here - you will forever defend the notion there are no inherent conflicts in liberal ideology and their actions. On the other hand I will readily admit to countless conflict I have with conservative ideology - especially in our current context with my libertarian leanings.
--- merged: Nov 27, 2012 3:06 AM ---

I doubt Romney will run in 2016. In some regards it is a travesty that a man with his accomplishments are being disparaged by both people on the right and on the left. Romney does strike me as a person who would gladly pump his own gas.

What I find more striking is when the President of the United States will disrupt the lives of possibly thousands to go to a hamburger restaurant to get a hamburger. As President you can have any kind of burger you want, handcrafted any time any way you want without making a show of it and costing $$$$$$ in security, traffic backup, lost production, etc.

 

In the same manner of you taking a sentence of Sec. Chu out of context in another discussion...where he was talking about oil as a global commodity?
--- merged: Nov 26, 2012 at 10:21 PM ---

Bush used Air Force One 77 times to go to Crawford, TX for the weekend....costing $millions and disrupting the town on every visit.

 

Romney won't run again. People on both side now see him as a negative. The left sees him as a wealthy asshole who could give a shit about anyone who isn't also wealthy. And the right just sees him as a two time loser.

As for where Obama eats his lunch- if he did have a hand crafted gourmet burger folks like you would complain about him being an elitist snob. He goes out in public and it's "Oh, the poor public! He creates crowds and problems." Yeah lots of unhappy folks in that photo. The burger place probably gets double the daily take for a couple months then they got before he stopped there. If he didn't engage in public appearances it would be "he won't even show his face in public, too good for the common people."

It's ok Ace, you're not doing anything folks on the left wouldn't be doing if Romney or Bush were in the White House.

 

On two occasions I explained what i meant and there is legitimacy to it. It is a difficult issue, again, the pretense here is disturbing. On one-hand we do in fact have the dependance on fossil fuel questions and how best to have all social costs reflected - on the other-hand we do in fact have the issue of affordability and the disproportional impact of high fuel prices on the poor and middle class. In liberal la-la land we can not even have an honest discussion, all we get is pretense, one to do something about fossil fuels and two to do something about keeping fuel prices affordable.

I think this should have been done at his own expense, or it be written in law where he gets one trip every two years. How is it handled for other civil servants required to be away from home? We should be consistent.
--- merged: Nov 26, 2012 at 10:53 PM ---

What I am blaming you for is arguing issues not related to the premise. I am not even sure if you understand it based on your responses. Even here are you saying the premise is poor or my examples in support of my view point on the premise?

What I am interested in understanding is how liberals reconcile what on the surface may appear to be hypocritical - there may in fact be no hypocrisy, I don't know. For example I see no hypocrisy in many of my views when on the surface it appears it exists. I work through the conflicts and come to a determination - and I acknowledge imperfection and double standards.

I am clear when I say my financial well being comes first, before political ideology. I was intrigued by the substantial market activity after President Obama was first elected and then re-elected. I sort of understand conservatives acting in a certain manner reflecting pessimism but I would think that would be countered with liberal optimism. Even for me trying to understand this psychology is financially self-serving for me. I fully expected a big upside or a big down side move in the major stock indexes - I just want to understand it better. Just as I don't understand Union activity - why not compete with Wal-mart do it better and do it right rather than try to manage their business from the outside - as an example.

Because the Apple culture is not easily duplicated. If they could duplicate it...not that they are not trying.

No.
--- merged: Nov 26, 2012 at 11:01 PM ---

I think of people as being elitist snobs when they publicly rub their wealth/power in the noses of regular people. For example - I live in the Charlotte area, the Democrat convention was down-town Charlotte (actually called up-town in Charlotte) but President Obama resided in a exclusive hotel in South Charlotte, about 25 minutes from down-town Charlotte. so for several days traffic for thousands was disrupted unnecessarily. What a waste, and people around here were not happy about it.

I don't want to know about President's and where they eat! Just give me a President who does his job.

 

See post #86.

No. I don't consider it a double standard when a person is honest about the standard in question. For example, I do not respect fiscal conservatives who went to Washington and contributed to excessive government spending - it is dishonest. However, when a free market capitalist motivated by making money exploits opportunities in the market - they are being honest about what they do. When a person preaches about "fairness" and other il defined non-sense and then expoits opportunities in the market - they are being dishonest - however, if they can reconcile it, I am listening.

Yes.

I am sorry your memory of interactions is not in sync with mine. Much has been written about President Obama and his role in creating an environment of uncertainty for business and how bussiness has responded to his rhetoric. A win by Romney would have been seen as a positive for business. Simply given Obama care - now many businesses are resolved with the fact that now they really have to plan for it - i.e. you won't see many businesses with 50 full time employees when they can get by with 49. Part-time employment is going to spike, negatively affecting many. That margin of one employee could cost an employer $100,000+.

How about Micheal Moore.



I think he can afford a better hat and I bet he could have paid his employees more or hired more people from his home town the decaying city of Flint. Is he driven by fairness, or personal greed?

 

Donald Trump....America's richest birther with racist subtext.

Need I say more?