Will a Romney/Ryan win save us?

[rigney]

50 ways to hate Obama....

 

Personally, I didn't think it was very funny. If you hate a man because of his politics, you are no better for your convictions. If you hate his politics and pity the man, that's another story.

[Moontanman]

Personally, I didn't think it was very funny. If you hate a man because of his politics, you are no better for your convictions. If you hate his politics and pity the man, that's another story.

 

 

So you are sarcasm impaired? It is a parody...

[rigney]

So you are sarcasm impaired? It is a parody...

Heck! And I thought your intent was for me to take it literally By the way, how's the weather down there? Edited October 29, 2012 by rigney

[Moontanman]

Heck! And I thought your intent was for me to take it literally By the way, how's the weather down there?

 

 

Cloudy and cool today, supposed to clear and be cold tonight... down to mid 50's burrrr....

[overtone]

Romney hasn't created jobs in China' date=' but as I understand it, Obama has. [/quote'] Backwards. Romney has made a career out of moving money and jobs out of the US - to China, the Caymans, Indonesia, Mexico, all over.

 

My point was: "WOMEN can and will be able to hold jobs once Romney is elected" and buy their own birth conyrol pills' date=' if they want.[/quote'] Romney currently supports fellow Republicans and their policies - such as "life begins at conception" - that would ban birth control pills.

 

Meanwhile, Romney's rhetoric is essentially identical to Reagan's and W's - the two least effective job creating Presidents since Hoover.

 

As far as why so many US middle and upper class white men are so gullible when dazzled by rich, confident men like Romney, Reagan, and W, there's a subtext: if you look at the voting patterns in the US you'll notice after a while that these are not just any white men, but tend to be from a particular area: the Confederacy and Slave Territories of the US.

 

Overlay a map of the slavery regions in the US circa 1863, the Confederacy and allied Territories, and it will match almost perfectly the states that voted for W in 2004.

 

Not even the colossal mess created by W, let alone Reagan's treasonous foulups and mental"disengagement" (the White House press spokesman's term) was enough to bring pause or self-analysis to their vote.

[Phi for All]

Not even the colossal mess created by W, let alone Reagan's treasonous foulups and mental"disengagement" (the White House press spokesman's term) was enough to bring pause or self-analysis to their vote.

I think Reagan's "mental disengagement" has lingered in a fairly large segment of the traditional Republicans, the ones who aren't really religious fundamentalists or neocon lobby-gangsters. I think a lot of these folks are clinging to a conservative past that they remember fondly, something they feel is endangered by too much liberalism and progress. Many of those find it hard to embrace the rapid pace of technology since WWII ended, and the rise of high-powered psychological advertising that drives the economy, added to the standard devaluation of traditions that EVERY generation since the dawn of time feels as they watch the younger folks take over.

 

These folks are easy prey for the FOX hounds that seem bent on making the US fear everything new and innovative, or foreign and different. They vote Republican because they think the Republicans still represent them more closely, despite any kind of factual reality. The same think is happening with the Democrats as well, when so many firm liberals feel represented by someone like Barack Obama, who is actually more conservative than Reagan.

 

I think it's very clear we need a new voting system. After living(?) through the least productive Congress since 1947, we can't afford to keep spinning the wheels of our democracy at a time when we need leadership and representation. This artificial 50/50 split of the country imposed by the winner-takes-all voting system doesn't encourage cooperation and concession in a way that benefits the country's citizens. Plurality voting needs to be replaced by something that will nudge us hard in a more productive direction, and hopefully before these insane Republican/Democrat labels become engrained in another generation.

[iNow]

As far as why so many US middle and upper class white men are so gullible when dazzled by rich, confident men like Romney, Reagan, and W, there's a subtext: if you look at the voting patterns in the US you'll notice after a while that these are not just any white men, but tend to be from a particular area: the Confederacy and Slave Territories of the US.

This is a strange point to make here, IMO, since Romney was born and raised in Michigan... a state which was neither confederate nor a slave territory. I appreciate that perhaps many former presidents fit into this characterization, but Romney really doesn't.

 

 

Overlay a map of the slavery regions in the US circa 1863, the Confederacy and allied Territories, and it will match almost perfectly the states that voted for W in 2004.

This point, however, is a very interesting and accurate one. This last weekend on ABC News' This Week, Andrew Sullivan illuminated this precise argument. Please note, I don't follow the daily beast. I just obtained this link when searching google for video of George Stephanopoulos' show that supports my comment. There is also a short video at the link.

 

 

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/10/the-gops-geography-and-the-confederacy.html

 

if Virginia and Florida and North Carolina flip back to the GOP from Obama this November, as now looks likely, Romney will have won every state in the Confederacy. And if you look at the current electoral map without toss-up states, and only the states that were in existence in 1861, you get this comparison:

 

<Note from iNow - IMAGE AT THE LINK>

http://dailydish.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e2017c32e25bad970b-550wi

 

Here's the map of the states in 1861, colored for their position on slavery:

 

<Note from iNow - IMAGE AT THE LINK>

http://dailydish.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e2017d3d10f280970c-550wi

 

Are you not struck by the similarities? (The yellow states were not part of the Confederacy but backed slavery. Kansas is an exception, and Maryland and Delaware along the border too). I am not saying (and in the conversation it's a little garbled and I can see why Heroge might have interpreted me as saying) that that the only states that will switch from Obama to Romney this year were Confederate states. Indiana is the exception. I was saying that if Obama loses North Carolina, Virginia and Florida - which I suspect he will - then the 2012 map will more closely resemble the civil war map than 2008, when the same pattern was striking.

 

I think America is currently in a Cold Civil War.

[Moontanman]

This is a strange point to make here, IMO, since Romney was born and raised in Michigan... a state which was neither confederate nor a slave territory. I appreciate that perhaps many former presidents fit into this characterization, but Romney really doesn't.

 

 

 

This point, however, is a very interesting and accurate one. This last weekend on ABC News' This Week, Andrew Sullivan illuminated this precise argument. Please note, I don't follow the daily beast. I just obtained this link when searching google for video of George Stephanopoulos' show that supports my comment. There is also a short video at the link.

 

 

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/10/the-gops-geography-and-the-confederacy.html

 

 

This is very scary, I have come to the conclusion that the GOP's base is motivated by more by racism than anything else and the GOP is using hidden racism to denigrate Obama at every turn.

 

Has anyone else noticed how savage the anti Obama posts on facebook have become?

 

Like this one..

 

 

I wish i had anti Romney crap like this but I can't seem to find it.

[akh]

This is very scary, I have come to the conclusion that the GOP's base is motivated by more by racism than anything else and the GOP is using hidden racism to denigrate Obama at every turn.

 

Has anyone else noticed how savage the anti Obama posts on facebook have become?

 

Like this one..

 

 

I wish i had anti Romney crap like this but I can't seem to find it.

 

I don't think the core reason for Obama hatred has changed, but it seems that more people feel it is ok to spread the hatred.

 

What is for certain, is that if you accuse GOP'ers of racism, they will violently deny its a factor. I have had conversations with people during the last election who said they strongly disliked Obama. Most did not have any real reason as to why. And if you spent enough time talking to them in a casual way they would offer comments about Obama's heritage, about how he is secretely Muslim, about his middle name, about his mother, ect. After more than a few conversations like this, I really was forming a view about many GOP'ers that I wish I didn't have. Many would say things like, "I don't know what it is, I just don't like him" or "I just don't trust him." If you asked why?, they often could not give reasons. Only a few seemed to have concrete, specific issues with policy, foreign or domestic idealogy.

Edited October 31, 2012 by akh

[swansont]

I don't think the core reason for Obama hatred has changed, but it seems that more people feel it is ok to spread the hatred.

 

What is for certain, is that if you accuse GOP'ers of racism, they will violently deny its a factor. I have had conversations with people during the last election who said they strongly disliked Obama. Most did not have any real reason as to why. And if you spent enough time talking to them in a casual way they would offer comments about Obama's heritage, about how he is secretely Muslim, about his middle name, about his mother, ect. After more than a few conversations like this, I really was forming a view about many GOP'ers that I wish I didn't have. Many would say things like, "I don't know what it is, I just don't like him" or "I just don't trust him." If you asked why?, they often could not give reasons. Only a few seemed to have concrete, specific issues with policy, foreign or domestic idealogy.

The thing is, racism is just one obvious part of the overall picture. The presence of racism is just one more reason people hate Obama, but will never come up as a reason why he is hated. I know people who hated Clinton, and others who hated Bush and (perhaps more so) Cheney. But in discussions about why, I got the impression that the reasons were sometimes/often fabricated, because the thing they hated about one was done by the other, and it was fine when "their guy" did it. That's the obvious sign (for me) that the reason for the dislike is manufactured — the double standard. If e.g. you're going to complain about Bill Clinton getting a hummer from an intern, making him a horrible president, you can't give a pass to philandering that happens on the right. If Obama purportedly being a secret Muslim means he's supporting a Muslim agenda (OMG, Sharia law!), then Romney must be pushing a Mormon one — where are the concerns he'll push for legalizing polygamy and banning alcohol and caffeine?

 

The thing is, there are obvious difference between the ideologies, but that never seems to be discussed as the source of the dislike.

[Phi for All]

The thing is, racism is just one obvious part of the overall picture. The presence of racism is just one more reason people hate Obama, but will never come up as a reason why he is hated. I know people who hated Clinton, and others who hated Bush and (perhaps more so) Cheney. But in discussions about why, I got the impression that the reasons were sometimes/often fabricated, because the thing they hated about one was done by the other, and it was fine when "their guy" did it. That's the obvious sign (for me) that the reason for the dislike is manufactured — the double standard. If e.g. you're going to complain about Bill Clinton getting a hummer from an intern, making him a horrible president, you can't give a pass to philandering that happens on the right. If Obama purportedly being a secret Muslim means he's supporting a Muslim agenda (OMG, Sharia law!), then Romney must be pushing a Mormon one — where are the concerns he'll push for legalizing polygamy and banning alcohol and caffeine?

 

The thing is, there are obvious difference between the ideologies, but that never seems to be discussed as the source of the dislike.

I encounter a lot of this as well. Many people can't tell me exactly why they dislike a candidate, or when they do have an answer it's usually completely wrong. I have a friend who claims to identify with the Tea Party, and to this day swears that Obama has raised taxes on millions of people.

 

I actually have family (hangs head in shame) who think Obama has tried to outlaw guns and make late term abortion legal. The amount of misinformation that gets slung around is appalling. And invariably, after I can point out every single logical flaw, misunderstanding or flat out lie, these people invariably fall back on, "I still don't like him."

[iNow]

I don't necessarily think that racism is the driving force here. I think more likely that the personality characteristics that might lead one to be racist strongly overlap with the personality characteristics that lean one to be right-wing or extreme conservative. I may be making a distinction without a difference here, and it's pure conjecture. I just want to put it out there for consideration.

[Moontanman]

This video is being posted all over face book

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 31, 2012 by Moontanman

[swansont]

I don't necessarily think that racism is the driving force here. I think more likely that the personality characteristics that might lead one to be racist strongly overlap with the personality characteristics that lean one to be right-wing or extreme conservative. I may be making a distinction without a difference here, and it's pure conjecture. I just want to put it out there for consideration.

I think there's something to that. A large slice of the racist subset of the population probably wouldn't vote for any democrat. But his race is one more reason he is hated, even if that's never admitted.

[John Cuthber]

If your party is only a sensible choice for that small number of people who are rich enough to gain from tax cuts, yet you need to get many people to vote for you then your only chance of getting elected rests on misrepresenting yourselves.

If Romney was honest and said

"look, if you don't earn a lot of money, then my policies are bad for you. You won't gain from tax cuts, but you will lose out from benefit cuts and worse public services"

then he'd lose because rich people are not a majority of the electorate.

So his party is stuck with misleading or disenfranchising poor people.

 

Once you start from that, frankly immoral base, it's not difficult to progress to using the money you have to mislead people, and to outright fabrication of slurs against your opponent.

 

You don't have much integrity to lose, so you lie and cheat.

You get your brother or your colleagues to disenfranchise people who are likely to vote against you

http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/05/27/republicans-of-a-feather-rick-scott-follows-jeb-bush-in-disenfranchising-legal-voters-in-florida/

and you spread outright lies about your opponent

 

If that doesn't work, you pack a court with biassed judges and get them to decide that you were "fairly elected"

If racism is on your side (and it will be because black people are generally underpaid) then you play that too (but carefully- if it's too obvious then it will backfire)

 

Why is anyone surprised by this?

Edited October 31, 2012 by John Cuthber

[overtone]

"As far as why so many US middle and upper class white men are so gullible when dazzled by rich' date=' confident men like Romney, Reagan, and W, there's a subtext: if you look at the voting patterns in the US you'll notice after a while that these are not just any white men, but tend to be from a particular area: the Confederacy and Slave Territories of the US."

This is a strange point to make here, IMO, since Romney was born and raised in Michigan... a state which was neither confederate nor a slave territory. I appreciate that perhaps many former presidents fit into this characterization, but Romney really doesn't. [/quote'] ? The characterization was not of the candidates, but their voting base. It doesn't matter where the candidate is from. Reagan was from California, home of the much mocked ultra liberal Hollywood. W was third generation East Coast money and Ivy League education from Kennebunkport.

 

There is no integrity here. We are not talking about candidates who honestly represent their home town folks and native childhood culture.

 

The key national Republican voting base is the white man living in the old Confederacy, and has been ever since Nixon's "Southern Strategy" was devised to win the KKK vote from the Democrats in the wake of Lyndon Johnson's civil rights initiatives. That's the hate radio crowd, the Fox News crowd, the people who responded like Pavlov's test subjects to Reagan's dog whistle rhetoric ( welfare queens driving Cadillacs, etc), the Tea Party folks who put their father's hood in the back of the closet and contented themselves with parading pictures of Obama wearing a bone in his nose etc. As Lee Atwater, Republican strategist extraordinaire and father to Karl Rove et al, put it: in modern times you can't just say "nigger nigger nigger" any more. You have to be subtle, higher class, less obviously ugly and damaging. You talk about Kenya and birth certificates and madrassas, about whether Obama's real father was a Black Panther and Obama a secret Muslim, and also about Obama's tutelage under Protestant Christian Reverend Wright with sound clips of scary black church preaching. (There's no contradiction there, because they both mean the same thing - Obama is a nigger). You talk about "redistribution", and your target audience knows who is being robbed, and who is getting free money for doing nothing but smoke crack and make welfare babies. (They don't for a second take this as threatening their own government handouts.) You keep constantly alert for any sign of anger from Obama - which would kill his chances of election immediately, as an angry black man is completely different from the heroically angry white men who represent the real Tea Party Americans.

 

And of course anyone who even hints that there might be a sort of, y'know, possibly, in a way, racial component to all this is immediately pilloried, mocked as ridiculous - that's like saying cheerleaders at Texas football games have something to do with sex. "Where's your proof"?

 

Romney/Ryan have nothing going for them, on any reasonable and honest grounds. They have no sound policies, no attractive record of doings, no cogent critiques of Obama's administration. The consequences of alliance between predatory capitalism and Randite ideology litter the landscapes of five continents. So how can they be in the running?

[iNow]

The characterization was not of the candidates, but their voting base. It doesn't matter where the candidate is from.

This clarification suggests to me that I misread you above, and my first comment to you was off-base. I mistakenly thought that you were talking about the candidates.

[John Cuthber]

It seems that even the republicans can't stomach his lies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ByzxFQSlyDA#!

[Phi for All]

It seems that even the republicans can't stomach his lies.

http://www.youtube.c...&v=ByzxFQSlyDA#!

Oh, but that was when they were running against Mitt for the nomination. Now, I'm sure they support him fully and will readily admit they just said those things in the spirit of competition.

[akh]

Anybody else pick up on this? Somehow, I think people will ignore this too and still vote for Romney.

 

So, he slams the bailout of the auto industry while profiting greatly form the bailout!? I am looking for more confirmation on this, but...

 

http://skydancingblog.com/2012/11/01/crew-uaw-file-ethics-charges-against-romney-for-hiding-auto-bailout-profits/

[swansont]

Mayor Bloomberg wasn't running against him, but he just endorsed Obama over Romney (v2012). (He would have endorsed one of the earlier Romney models, tho)

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-01/a-vote-for-a-president-to-lead-on-climate-change.html

[Phi for All]

(He would have endorsed one of the earlier Romney models, tho)

Does he realize that Bush 2.0 and Romney 3.0 use the same operating system? Romney has 17 out of 24 Bush foreign policy advisers, even looser veracity filter parameters and the same complete lack of service-oriented architecture.

[rigney]

Does he realize that Bush 2.0 and Romney 3.0 use the same operating system? Romney has 17 out of 24 Bush foreign policy advisers, even looser veracity filter parameters and the same complete lack of service-oriented architecture.

It's obvious that I'm spinning my wheels trying to convince someone of my views about the race for president. But just look at this sad split screen commentar and tell me if it's only my fault, feeling as I do?

Or does the rhetoric of the Obama campaign bring about feelings of déjà vu, along with the inevitable nausea? If so, it could be ’cause we’ve heard it all before somewhere:

http://gfxsouls.net/topic/8201240/1/

Edited November 3, 2012 by rigney

[Phi for All]

It's obvious that I'm spinning my wheels trying to convince someone of my views about the race for president. But just look at this sad split screen commentar and tell me if it's only my fault, feeling as I do?

Or does the rhetoric of the Obama campaign bring about feelings of déjà vu, along with the inevitable nausea? If so, it could be 'cause we've heard it all before somewhere:

How can you possibly compare Obama sounding like himself over a four year period, with Romney sounding exactly like Bush, with failed Bush policies and Bush advisers and failed Bush tax plans and an admiration for Satan Dick Cheney? Have you not seen the numbers showing that Obama's policies are bringing the economy around, while Bush/Romney policies screwed us in the first place?

 

Many things stand out about this election, but the ones that stand out most to me are the pathetic Congress that wouldn't work with Obama (making it the least productive Congress since 1947), the Republican self-fulfilling prophecy with regard to federal government (they don't want it to work, so it doesn't), Mitt's son having ANYTHING to do with voting machines when his dad is running for president, and Romney's sell out to the neocon strategies that made Bush II such a poor leader at a time when this nation needed strength and direction.

 

Rigney, you've claimed you can see now that Bush II was a disaster as a president, so different from his father, so why would you support Romney when he's going to just repeat those disaster years if he's elected? It took Bush eight years to put us in this position, and you won't give Obama four more just when his policies are starting to turn things around? You want to give Bush another chance?

[swansont]

It's obvious that I'm spinning my wheels trying to convince someone of my views about the race for president. But just look at this sad split screen commentar and tell me if it's only my fault, feeling as I do?

Or does the rhetoric of the Obama campaign bring about feelings of déjà vu, along with the inevitable nausea? If so, it could be ’cause we’ve heard it all before somewhere:

http://gfxsouls.net/topic/8201240/1/

"Steps we can take to grow the economy." What's nausea-inducing about that? Obama has grown the economy. He averted a depression, and the one we had lasted a decade. He reversed the job loss in year and cut the job loss rate in half in just 3 months.

 

I stopped at that point.

 

It sounds like you're whining that you didn't get a pony. I'll tell you something — Mitt's not going to get you a pony either.