Is anyone actually fired up about either of this guys because of what they have accomplished or bring to the office of president? Maybe it’s because I’m a republican who has a hard time feeling good about Romney, but it seems I can’t really find anyone who supports either candidate because of what their guy has accomplished or intends to do to make the US better over the next 4 years. Everyone I run into supports their guy because they don’t like the other guy. I’m really interested to hear positive reasons why people support either candidate.
I don’t know how it started, but American politics has been reduced to an infantile playground populated by reality show characters promoting a ‘us’ versus ‘them’ mentality, crowding out any room for cogent arguments or respectful debates that actually benefit the country. Many supporters of the republican party seem to be content with voting against their own economic interests, placing people in power that simply do not represent their priorities…Not a single western developed economy has its politicians pray at the altar of ‘bipartisanship’ and ‘political correctness’ as vehemently as the US…In any other western developed country…you win the election, you run the country…
______________________________________________________
You must be the square root of two cause i feel irrational around you
http://alphahive.wordpress.com/
I hate all the commercials I see pointing out all negatives and no positives. Maybe we need term limits to get certain people out of the house and senate.
To some extent, it’s always been a bit that way. Nostalgia tends to make it look more honorable than it really was.
But I think that media technology and the internet have something to do with it. Quite simply, it is less and less possible to have quiet agreements of “I’ll give you this, if you give me that,” types without a challenger casting it immediately as a betrayal of core principles. With print media and only three broadcast channels, the room for compromise was larger without putting politicians’ careers at immediate risk. As a result, we get intransigent parties that threaten to blow up everyone’s pie if they don’t get the largest piece for themselves.
You want a quote? Haven’t I written enough already???
I fully support term limits for Congress. I would limit senators to 2 consecutive 6-year terms and would increase the term for representatives to 4 years and limit them to 3 consecutive terms.
You can fondle the cube, but it will not respond.
Studying With
I’m not a fan of either candidate, so I’ll probably abstain from voting or see if there’s an independent candidate in the ballot.
NO EXCUSES
Critique my resume: http://www.razume.com/documents/27593
Like electronic music? Check out my latest mix: http://www.mixcloud.com/bpdulog/mix-5/
Mitt has a pretty good head of hair, so that’s something.
I’ve had the chance to meet with many people who’ve worked closely with Romney and I’m fairly convinced that he’s the type of guy that is willing to do unpopular things because it’s better for the organization he’s leading. One example that rings in my head is when I spoke to a woman that used to work for him in the Massachusetts state government (and still does, under the current administration). She mentioned how often he’d take time to interview candidates for positions based on their credentials, instead of hiring based on political/monetary favors. People who work(ed) at Bain practically view him as a living legend that saved their company.
I’d like to consider what people are like before they run for president and have cameras on them 24/7 (Sarah Palin + cameras = mess). It’s a better glimpse of who they truly are.
There is a difference between running a company such as Bain Capital successfully and running for president!
______________________________________________________
You must be the square root of two cause i feel irrational around you
http://alphahive.wordpress.com/
The wierdest thing is they pray at this altar but their behaviour indicates that their intention is not to practice bipartisanship. I prefer my own parlimentary dictatorship for all its faults relative to what they have in the states. its an effin gong show down there.
I’ve been out of the US for awhile now, don’t watch TV, don’t read the news. Totally out of the loop so sorry for the basic question…
** DO EITHER OF THESE GUYS ACTUALLY HAVE A PLAN? **
The country has a serious financial problem. Run the government expected cash flows out and discount it back, what is it these days, negative $85 trillion NPV? So what’s the plan?
I don’t know a lot about the Canadian system of government.
However I believe when something isn’t working it’s time to try something different. After a society lasts a couple hundred years it is natural that it’s going to get “stuck in a rut” where the way that worked before, just isn’t working anymore.
I’ve vote for a change to get us thru a new age, not sure what a “parliamentary dictatorship” is exactly, sounds interesting, but certainly something that ends the arguing/procrastination and starts the ACTION is what is needed.
BTW Mitt does a some nice hair, just Googled him.
Governor of Massachusetts also, which is as Democrat a state as they come, so getting anything done requires quite a bit of political savvy as a Republican. A lot of people hated him cause he downsized a lot of corrupt programs (i.e. MassPort) and was demonized by the press (Boston Globe is owned by NYT and is very liberal). When he pressured William Bulger (brother of Whitey Bulger) to resign as president of UMass due to refusing to cooperating with the FBI, the Globe labelled Romney as an “enemy of education”.
Not the biggest fan of either candidate, but I’d have to pick Romney. As MCalamari said, he seems like someone that would make the difficult choices. He’s not that exciting to watch, but if he really follows through on that instead of the populist route, then it would be amazing for the country.
Well, either of them has to be somewhat populist - don’t forget that both have made many promises to donors, special interest groups, etc. One could even argue that Obama can afford to be more independent than Romney, since Obama will not run for reelection in 2016.
I would personally support Romney, but for purely selfish reasons. Neither candidate is objectively better or worse for the economy - it depends on ideology.
“I’m a CPA! I got money b***h!”
Saved the company? Wasn’t he the founder?
He founded Bain Capital, but he was also the CEO of Bain Consulting. He brought Bain Consulting back from the edge of bankruptcy.
“I’m a CPA! I got money b***h!”
Obama, because he’s trying to deal with reality.
Check out the response to question #7 in this recent poll.
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~benv/files/poll%20responses%20by%20party%20ID.pdf
The problem is they both have to be populist in order to govern. This is politics, not business, Dealing with an array of people that you absolutely must work with yet have their own vested and competing interests makes being a politician far less straightforward then a business manager.
^ No I understand that. But, I’ve been fairly disappointed to the degree to which Obama has exercised a populist tone.
@frisian: nice survey.
Romney would probably be more willing to execute hard decisions. Obama tries to satisfy all, which obviously never works and ends in a nothing accomplished deadlock
Hope. It is the quintessential human delusion, simultaneously the source of your greatest strength, and greatest weakness.
I wish we could combine the ideas of Obama with the wanton audacity of Bush junior…I think more than any other president, Obama needs to be very tactical in building up political capital and spending it in opportune moments…
______________________________________________________
You must be the square root of two cause i feel irrational around you
http://alphahive.wordpress.com/
Studying With
I tend to lean left on most political issues, but feel like Obama has been a major letdown. My biggest concern with Romney is that he will bow down to the religious fundamentalist part of his party. Yes, he is Mormon, but did not push for Mormonism to be taught in Massachusetts public schools. I wish the evangelical Republicans followed that philosophy.
I think you have too much faith in him. I believe that the institition itself corrupts people, just the way the whole political system is set up in the United States leads to suboptimal ‘populist’ decision making. These types of mistake will emerge and I don’t think it really matters whose in power. Voting is more about picking a lesser of two evils.
Often presidents can either be populist in pursue of more votes, or do the right thing and help some future presidents get all the credit.
I voted for people in the past based on reasoning like “I’m sure he is lying - he won’t do those awful crazy things, but the other guy might” - it’s a very weird game…
I guess I’m not the only one who is having trouble finding positive things to support about either candidate. By my count, only 5 posts in this tread actually put forth a positive reason to support either one and I think I’m being pretty kind classifying some of the 5 as positive reasons (6 if you count good hair).
You can fondle the cube, but it will not respond.
That’s the real problem with Romney though, he doesn’t have a natural supporter base in the GOP. Not the evangelicals, not white working class, not libertarians, not fiscal conservatives etc. etc. Plus he’s not Catholic or Protestant, so no natural base there either. The only faction I think of that can support him is neocons.
Obama on the other hand: Blacks (check), Yuppies (check), Elite University Liberals (check), Social Liberals (Check), Economic Liberals (check), Hispanics (unsure), white working class (doubt it).
I think broadly this is just the result of conservatism just going through an internal struggle to redefine itself after basically mistakenly supporting Bush. To me US conservatives seem to be mired in a pretty confused ideology. Conservatism is usually presented in the US as being about “small government, low taxes” when really conservatism is supposed to be built around an idealistic notion of ethnic nationalism. This notion of ethnic nationalism has been the source for the “small government, low taxes”, but by making the latter the “ideology”, things get really confusing. Outreach to minorities? Answer to that for the conservative party depends on what the “ideology” is. Wars of nation building? Answer again depends…etc.
As a result we get a good looking generical republican candidate.
Cities teem with evil and decay, let’s give it a good shake and see what falls out!!
Well, I have a few reasons to support either candidate:
1. Not an idiot (Bush Jr, Kerry, McCain, Biden)
2. Not crazy (Palin, Nancy Pelosi)
3. Not entirely evil (Dick Cheney)
The economy is not so good, and no one has any great solutions, but we could do worse than a Harvard law professor and a genius consulting/finance executive.
“I’m a CPA! I got money b***h!”
Anyone catch the HBO doc on George H.W. Bush, 41? It was actually really good. He had a pretty interesting life. Seems like he was a cool dude back in the day.
yeah, even though I think he was an aweful president. On a personal level he’s a guy I wouldn’t mind drinking near beers and eating pretzels with.
Not that I know GW personally, but I never thought he was a bad guy. He was just manipulated by a bunch of evil people, and he did not have the strength or character to fight back. It must have been hard to resist control of his dad’s club that was treating him like a puppet.
“I’m a CPA! I got money b***h!”
Pages