Was Mitt Romney Right About Everything?

[LA Ute]

That's the title of this Buzzfeed piece (http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/was-mitt-romney-right-about-everything) by McKay Coppins, who covered Romney's campaign. Excerpt:


In the most actively cited example of the Republican nominee’s foresight, Romneyites point to the candidate’s hardline rhetoric last year against Russian President Vladimir Putin and his administration. During the campaign, Romney frequently criticized Obama for foolishly attempting to make common cause with the Kremlin, and repeatedly referred to Russia as “our number one geopolitical foe.”


Many observers found this fixation strange, and Democrats tried to turn it into a punchline. A New York Times editorial (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/29/opinion/the-never-ending-cold-war.html) in March of last year said Romney’s assertions regarding Russia represented either “a shocking lack of knowledge about international affairs or just craven politics.” And in an October debate, Obama sarcastically mocked his opponent’s Russia rhetoric. “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years,” the president quipped at the time.


That line still chafes Robert O’Brien, a Los Angeles lawyer and friend of Romney’s who served as a foreign policy adviser.

“Everyone thought, Oh my goodness that is so clever and Mitt’s caught in the Cold War and doesn’t know what he’s talking about,” O’Brien said. “Well guess what. With all of these foreign policy initiatives — Syria, Iran, [Edward] Snowden — who’s out there causing problems for America? It’s Putin and the Russians.”


Indeed, earlier this summer, Moscow defiantly refused to extradite National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden to the United States, prompting Obama to cancel a meeting he had scheduled with Putin during the Group of 20 summit. Russia has blocked United Nations action against Syria. And on Wednesday, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told lawmakers that Russia was one of the countries supplying Syria with chemical weapons.


To Romney’s fans, these episodes illustrate just how unfairly their candidate was punished during the election for speaking truths the rest of the country would eventually come around to.

[LA Ute]

775

[concerned]

775

seriously, nobody misses Mitt Romney. Everybody may want anybody other than Obama, with the exception of Mitt Romney. They're 50 Republicansthat Republicans and independents would prefer to Obama, but Mitt is not one of them. Time to move on.

[LA Ute]

seriously, nobody misses Mitt Romney. Everybody may want anybody other than Obama, with the exception of Mitt Romney. They're 50 Republicansthat Republicans and independents would prefer to Obama, but Mitt is not one of them. Time to move on.

Easy for you to say.

[USS Utah]

seriously, nobody misses Mitt Romney. Everybody may want anybody other than Obama, with the exception of Mitt Romney. They're 50 Republicansthat Republicans and independents would prefer to Obama, but Mitt is not one of them. Time to move on.

Yes, but those 50 are all crap.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Yes, but those 50 are all crap.

In other words, the Republicans have nothing to offer...

Actually I think Chris Christie would be good. But he would need to lose 150 lbs to contend, since appearance is 85% of the election.

Romney was too short-sighted to realize that a significant portion of his potential supporters fall within the 47% whom he maligned. I also fear he would have been far too hawkish, and also would have tried something silly to defund the Affordable Care Act rather than work to improve it.

[USS Utah]

In other words, the Republicans have nothing to offer...

Actually I think Chris Christie would be good. But he would need to lose 150 lbs to contend, since appearance is 85% of the election.

Romney was too short-sighted to realize that a significant portion of his potential supporters fall within the 47% whom he maligned. I also fear he would have been far too hawkish, and also would have tried something silly to defund the Affordable Care Act rather than work to improve it.

Christie wouldn't be accepted any more than Romney was by the right wing of the party.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Christie wouldn't be accepted any more than Romney was by the right wing of the party.

I agree. That is why Republicans are spinning their wheels. They spend so much time pandering to the extreme Right in the primaries that they can't pivot to the center for the national.

Romney was still to the Right of center in the minds of most Americans, but was far too liberal for that far Right Wing of the Republican party.

The next R to win the Presidency will be a supporter of gay marriage, will be moderately pro-abortion, will be supportive of welfare and job training programs, and will decriminalize non-violent drug offenses. I just can't see anybody getting enough broad support without seeming antagonistic to poor and disadvantaged people.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Also the Tax Cuts for 'the Rich' position is poisonous.

[LA Ute]

seriously, nobody misses Mitt Romney. Everybody may want anybody other than Obama, with the exception of Mitt Romney. They're 50 Republicansthat Republicans and independents would prefer to Obama, but Mitt is not one of them. Time to move on.

There are not 50, but I like the GOP up-and-comers. They're all more interesting than the Democrat contenders so far (Hillary and Biden). Rubio is a talented political leader and so are Ryan and Cruz. Of the three I think Rubio is most electable. If Christie can lose 80 lbs. or so and get nominated (both tough tasks for him) he'll beat Hillary or Biden. The guy is just a natural.

P.S. No one is responding to my original point: Even if you don't want him as POTUS, it looks like he was right about a lot of things, even though the news media and the left-of-center part of the punditocracy pooh-poohed him at the time.

[USS Utah]

I agree. That is why Republicans are spinning their wheels. They spend so much time pandering to the extreme Right in the primaries that they can't pivot to the center for the national.

Romney was still to the Right of center in the minds of most Americans, but was far too liberal for that far Right Wing of the Republican party.

The next R to win the Presidency will be a supporter of gay marriage, will be moderately pro-abortion, will be supportive of welfare and job training programs, and will decriminalize non-violent drug offenses. I just can't see anybody getting enough broad support without seeming antagonistic to poor and disadvantaged people.

If you don't pander to the extreme right wing, they will take their ball and go home in November.

Big deal, you say? A Republican needs a turnout of at least 90% of GOP voters to win.

One glaring problem for the GOP right now is the demographics as Hispanic voters become an ever more significant factor. But the extreme right wing will declare anything short of deportation of illegals amnesty and, in the process of killing immigration reform, will hand the White House to the Democrats for the next 20 years.

[SeattleUte]

That's the title of this Buzzfeed piece (http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/was-mitt-romney-right-about-everything) by McKay Coppins, who covered Romney's campaign. Excerpt:

Romney is not the only one who regarded Putin as evil. This was no revelation.

[UtahDan]

In other words, the Republicans have nothing to offer...

Actually I think Chris Christie would be good. But he would need to lose 150 lbs to contend, since appearance is 85% of the election.

Romney was too short-sighted to realize that a significant portion of his potential supporters fall within the 47% whom he maligned. I also fear he would have been far too hawkish, and also would have tried something silly to defund the Affordable Care Act rather than work to improve it.

Didn't he have lap band surgery?

Sent from my MB865 using Tapatalk 2

[LA Ute]

Romney is not the only one who regarded Putin as evil. This was no revelation.

Who were the others and how clearly and prominently did they speak out about Putin?

[SeattleUte]

Who were the others and how clearly and prominently did they speak out about Putin?

Good grief. Russia's abysmal human rights record and lack of basic freedoms including free speech has been reported on extensively since well before the last elections. Here is a 2009 article I found after a cursory Google search.

http://humanrightshouse.org/Articles/9574.html

I know Romney and many of his supporters now calling him prophetic because he identified Putin as an enemy of U.S. interests probably didn't care much about Putin's human rights record per se, but many of us regard that as a litmus test for alignment of American interests with said country. I don't know about you, but it didn't take Putin disagreeing with Obama over Syria for many to realize that Russia is still a focus of evil. In my debates with Lebowski before the Syrian crisis arose I've been commenting on the irony of Snowden defecting to a country like Russia that has forever including to the present been ruled by authoritarian regimes.

[LA Ute]

Good grief. Russia's abysmal human rights record and lack of basic freedoms including free speech has been reported on extensively since well before the last elections. Here is a 2009 article I found after a cursory Google search.

http://humanrightshouse.org/Articles/9574.html

I know Romney and many of his supporters now calling him prophetic because he identified Putin as an enemy of U.S. interests probably didn't care much about Putin's human rights record per se, but many of us regard that as a litmus test for alignment of American interests with said country. I don't know about you, but it didn't take Putin disagreeing with Obama over Syria for many to realize that Russia is still a focus of evil. In my debates with Lebowski before the Syrian crisis arose I've been commenting on the irony of Snowden defecting to a country like Russia that has forever including to the present been ruled by authoritarian regimes.

The point is, Romney was right about that and the Left, which has always gotten Russia wrong, was wrong again this time.


"It's men in shorts."

-- Rick Majerus

[GarthUte]

Of course he was right. But just like in '08, there were too many people who were afraid of being marked a racist if they didn't vote for Obama. Political correctness won. Again.

[SeattleUte]

The point is, Romney was right about that and the Left, which has always gotten Russia wrong, was wrong again this time.


"It's men in shorts."

-- Rick Majerus

Harry Truman was a democrat, he got the Russians right, Nixon and Ford were Republicans who got them wrong.

[LA Ute]

Harry Truman was a democrat, he got the Russians right, Nixon and Ford were Republicans who got them wrong.

I am talking about the Left, the guys who thought Stalin was a great guy back in the 30s and 40s. Truman was a liberal, not a man of the Left. Obama's instincts seem to be is somewhere between liberal and Left, learning hard to the Left.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Harry Truman was a democrat, he got the Russians right, Nixon and Ford were Republicans who got them wrong.

And let's not forget that George W. Bush went to Russia to meet Putin, noticed the crucifix the Bear-Wrestling former head of the KGB wears around his neck, shook his hand, looked deeply into his eyes, and cane away believing he can 'trust' Putin and Russia...

Bush was about the only recent leader to NOT be suspicious of Putin.

[NorthwestUteFan]

But I will actually balance that statement against the fact that Condoleezza Rice is a Subject Matter Expert on Russia and is fluent in the language, so at least he had somebody on staff with knowledge of the situation

[concerned]

I am talking about the Left, the guys who thought Stalin was a great guy back in the 30s and 40s. Truman was a liberal, not a man of the Left. Obama's instincts seem to be is somewhere between liberal and Left, learning hard to the Left.

who were the guys who thought Stalin was a great guy back in the 30's? FDR? Hull? Acheson? Stimson? How did they implement their instincts into foreign policy?

[LA Ute]

who were the guys who thought Stalin was a great guy back in the 30's? FDR? Hull? Acheson? Stimson? How did they implement their instincts into foreign policy?

I'm not talking about guys like them. I'm flaming the intellectual left, guys like Walter Duranty. There were dozens of such folks who admired Stalin and started breaking with him after the Non-Aggression Pact, and were (mostly) horrified to learn of his crimes as the evidence emerged. To this day the debate continues: Was he merely a tyrant who took over the Soviet government for a while, or the inevitable result of Communism and the author of the Cold War?

Anyway, this thread is about how Romney was right about Putin. You and Seattle keep trying to threadjack, but I see what you are doing.

[SeattleUte]

I am talking about the Left, the guys who thought Stalin was a great guy back in the 30s and 40s. Truman was a liberal, not a man of the Left. Obama's instincts seem to be is somewhere between liberal and Left, learning hard to the Left.

Really. Then I wonder why Tavis Smiley and Cornell West were calling Obama "a house negro" on NPR yesterday. Actually, except for the Affordable Care Act, which isn't really "Leftist" legistlation whether or not you support it (except to those who identify themselves as men of the "Right"), I have a hard time distinguishing Bush's policies from Obama's at least insofar as what really matters. Seems like Obama has been just more of the same in Iraq, Pakistan, etc. As those wars wind down he wants to sart a new one (I'm sure you and Il Pad would be vociferous in your support for a strike on Syria were Bush the president advocating that action). Obama's justice department has pretty much let go scot-free the Wall Street fat cats who were substantial factors in the 2008 financial crisis that led to the greatest economic downturn since the 1930's. Obama continued Bush's awful Keynsian economic measures in response to said recesssion.

[SeattleUte]

Many republicans' hatred for any democratic president no matter moderate or similar to prior republican presidents is something I can't explain. I'm sure that Il Pad's blazing hatred for Obama has nothing to do with the president's race. But nor does it have much to do with his actual actions or positions taken while in office. It's simply because Obama is a democrat.

[SeattleUte]

I'm not talking about guys like them. I'm flaming the intellectual left, guys like Walter Duranty. There were dozens of such folks who admired Stalin and started breaking with him after the Non-Aggression Pact, and were (mostly) horrified to learn of his crimes as the evidence emerged. To this day the debate continues: Was he merely a tyrant who took over the Soviet government for a while, or the inevitable result of Communism and the author of the Cold War?

Anyway, this thread is about how Romney was right about Putin. You and Seattle keep trying to threadjack, but I see what you are doing.

Oh my god. Good grief again. Now you're being truly ridiculous. Have you read the acclaimed book Bloodlands? Please post a link where any real "intellectual" is in any way defending the Soviet Union or downplaying its genocides. From "intellectuals" to thriller novelists like Martin Cruz Smith and even "leftist" novelists like Le Carre the totalitarian Soviet Union system is trashed.

[LA Ute]

Really. Then I wonder why Tavis Smiley and Cornell West were calling Obama "a house negro" on NPR yesterday. Actually, except for the Affordable Care Act, which isn't really "Leftist" legistlation whether or not you support it (except to those who identify themselves as men of the "Right"), I have a hard time distinguishing Bush's policies from Obama's at least insofar as what really matters. Seems like Obama has been just more of the same in Iraq, Pakistan, etc. As those wars wind down he wants to sart a new one (I'm sure you and Il Pad would be vociferous in your support for a strike on Syria were Bush the president advocating that action). Obama's justice department has pretty much let go scot-free the Wall Street fat cats who were substantial factors in the 2008 financial crisis that led to the greatest economic downturn since the 1930's. Obama continued Bush's awful Keynsian economic measures in response to said recesssion.

Since you don't want to admit that Romney was right about Putin (you dislike him, perhaps, because he is an active Mormon, much as you accuse Garth of disliking Obama because he's a Democrat?), I'll bite here. I don't dislike Obama personally and think he is a decent fellow, although not very interesting. For example, I don't think Bill Clinton is a decent fellow but it would be interesting to have dinner with him. I think dinner with Obama would be boring.

There are plenty of people besides me who think Obama is a man of the Left. Norman Podhoretz, for example (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323595004579062811443943666.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop) (Podhoretz is a former leftist and knows the type):


The key to understanding what Mr. Obama has pulled off is the astonishing statement he made in the week before being elected president: "We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America." To those of us who took this declaration seriously, it meant that Mr. Obama really was the left-wing radical he seemed to be, given his associations with the likes of the anti-American preacher Jeremiah Wright and the unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers, not to mention the intellectual influence over him of Saul Alinsky, the original "community organizer."

So far as domestic affairs were concerned, it soon became clear—even to some of those who had persuaded themselves that Mr. Obama was a moderate and a pragmatist—that the fundamental transformation he had in mind was to turn this country into as close a replica of the social-democratic countries of Europe as the constraints of our political system allowed.

As for Obamacare, if you don't see how it will pull the country towards single-payer healthcare you haven't studied it very carefully.

[SeattleUte]

Romney lost because he wasn't a very good politician. Also, the republican party's alliance with the Christian right turned into a net negative in the last election.

[concerned]

So you are saying that Obama is far to the left of FDR and Truman, that his instincts are the equivalent of Duranty or any other communist sympathizer in the 1930's? Really? How has he manifested this instinct into foreign policy? How has his being "wrong" about Putin affected foreign policy one iota?

P.S. I didn't highjack the thread. You posed the question "Miss me yet," and I responded with the unanimous answer (present company excepted).

[LA Ute]

Oh my god. Good grief again. Now you're being truly ridiculous. Have you read the acclaimed book Bloodlands? Please post a link where any real "intellectual" is in any way defending the Soviet Union or downplaying its genocides. From "intellectuals" to thriller novelists like Martin Cruz Smith and even "leftist" novelists like Le Carre the totalitarian Soviet Union system is trashed.

The historical record is full of the likes of Emma Goldman, who thought Lenin and Stalin were just great guys until the Non-Aggression Pact. The disaffection began then but you cannot deny that prior to that time many American leftists loved the guy. Even now I'll bet the majority of American poli sci professors think Stalin was just an aberration. Guys like Le Carre think Gorbachev was the man who really ended the Cold War. All I am saying is that historically the Left has tended to be wrong about Russian Communism. Attack that proposition.

[concerned]

The historical record is full of the likes of Emma Goldman, who thought Lenin and Stalin were just great guys until the Non-Aggression Pact. The disaffection began then but you cannot deny that prior to that time many American leftists loved the guy. Even now I'll bet the majority of American poli sci professors think Stalin was just an aberration. Guys like Le Carre think Gorbachev was the man who really ended the Cold War. All I am saying is that historically the Left has tended to be wrong about Russian Communism. Attack that proposition.

now you have highljacked your own thread. You throw around overwroght labels like 'leftist' and equate Obama's views with Emma Goldman's? Seriously?

[SeattleUte]

The historical record is full of the likes of Emma Goldman, who thought Lenin and Stalin were just great guys until the Non-Aggression Pact. The disaffection began then but you cannot deny that prior to that time many American leftists loved the guy. Even now I'll bet the majority of American poli sci professors think Stalin was just an aberration. Guys like Le Carre think Gorbachev was the man who really ended the Cold War. All I am saying is that historically the Left has tended to be wrong about Russian Communism. Attack that proposition.

You said people are still defending the Soviet Union and calling Stalin an aberation. Emma Goldman died over 70 years ago. She also eventually wised up considerably about the Soviet Union. In any event, forgive her, a native Russian, for supporting a revolutionary movement that brought down the Czar and theocracy in Russia which were not much better than the Soviet Union (as the status quo -- led by Putin, a devout Orthodox Christian -- demonstrates).

[LA Ute]

So you are saying that Obama is far to the left of FDR and Truman, that his instincts are the equivalent of Duranty or any other communist sympathizer in the 1930's?

No, no, no. That's not what I said. Not even close. I said this:


The point is, Romney was right about that and the Left, which has always gotten Russia wrong, was wrong again this time.

By "that," I was referring directly to this quotation from a Buzzfeed piece:


In the most actively cited example of the Republican nominee’s foresight, Romneyites point to the candidate’s hardline rhetoric last year against Russian President Vladimir Putin and his administration. During the campaign, Romney frequently criticized Obama for foolishly attempting to make common cause with the Kremlin, and repeatedly referred to Russia as “our number one geopolitical foe.”

Many observers found this fixation strange, and Democrats tried to turn it into a punchline. A New York Times editorial (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/29/opinion/the-never-ending-cold-war.html) in March of last year said Romney’s assertions regarding Russia represented either “a shocking lack of knowledge about international affairs or just craven politics.” And in an October debate, Obama sarcastically mocked his opponent’s Russia rhetoric. “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years,” the president quipped at the time.


P.S. I didn't highjack the thread. You posed the question "Miss me yet," and I responded with the unanimous answer (present company excepted).

You guys are brutal.

776

[LA Ute]

...led by Putin, a devout Orthodox Christian....

:rofl:

[concerned]

No, no, no. That's not what I said. Not even close. I said this:



By "that," I was referring directly to this quotation from a Buzzfeed piece:





You guys are brutal.

776


I think you just qualified for the Guiness Book of World Records for most highjacking of your own thread.

[LA Ute]

I think you just qualified for the Guiness Book of World Records for most highjacking of your own thread.

778

[SeattleUte]

:rofl:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3d_yxJhmjk

[NorthwestUteFan]

:rofl:

Hardly! As I mentioned above, GWB felt he could trust Putin because he is a Christian (at least nominally) and wears a cross. Also he has twin daughters like GWB, so they really bonded over those issues. Perhaps he dismissed the fact that Putin was the head of the KGB in the 80s-90s because GHWB was head of the CIA back in the 70s.

But the bottom line is he let his strong cognitive biases blind him to the facts on the ground.

An argument COULD be made that's Obama overstepped in his trust of Putin when he agreed to a one-sided reduction in the nuclear arsenal, but frankly we should get rid of much of our aging stockpiles before they cause problems.

As for Putin being devout, recall he pushed for the band Pussy Riot to be given harsh prison sentences because they criticized Patriarch Kiril of the Russian Orthodox Church. They were given 3 year sentences for doing some this we take for granted in this country.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Also, I hope Romney and the Republican party will collectively look at Putin and recognize his crackdown against gays and gay marriage is bad, and will at least moderate their position on the matter.

[LA Ute]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3d_yxJhmjk

What did you mean by "devout?"

[SeattleUte]

What did you mean by "devout?"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/devout

[SeattleUte]

I can explain it. Politics is a game, a sport. Republicans and Democrats are rival fans and hate each other.

A BYU player gets a DUI. BYU fans say he's a good kid who needs another chance. Utes say he's a thug. The next week, a Utah player gets a DUI, and the fanbases invert their responses. Democrats and Republicans are no different. The same bill that Democrats reject under Republican leadership would be accepted and praised under democratic leadership, and vice versa.

Some people fill their need for competition with sports and some with politics, but both are just games. After Utah loses to BYU, I am a wreck for 24 hours but then life goes back to normal. After some guy beats some other dude in an election, half the population is ecstatic and the other half is depressed, and then they all go back to work the next day.

When you understand that this is all a game as meaningless as football, you can relax a little about it.

I agree and I reached that point a long time ago. However, it's my perception that republicans are more wedded to the party label. For example, despite NAFTA and other pro-business actions by Clinton, a Southerner who was quite moderate and not so different from Bush Sr. with respect to foreign policy, etc., Clinton engendered the same kind of hatred as we see directed at Obama, as evidenced by the moribund impeachment proceedings.

[LA Ute]

I can explain it. Politics is a game, a sport. Republicans and Democrats are rival fans and hate each other.

A BYU player gets a DUI. BYU fans say he's a good kid who needs another chance. Utes say he's a thug. The next week, a Utah player gets a DUI, and the fanbases invert their responses. Democrats and Republicans are no different. The same bill that Democrats reject under Republican leadership would be accepted and praised under democratic leadership, and vice versa.

Some people fill their need for competition with sports and some with politics, but both are just games. After Utah loses to BYU, I am a wreck for 24 hours but then life goes back to normal. After some guy beats some other dude in an election, half the population is ecstatic and the other half is depressed, and then they all go back to work the next day.

When you understand that this is all a game as meaningless as football, you can relax a little about it.

I thought the Ute player who drove the wrong way, drunk, on the freeway was a thug who should have been tossed from the team. I don't recall what actually happened to him. There are other examples.

I also lean in favor of action in Syria but fear the president has waited too long.

I think you make some important points but if you are saying elections don't matter, I disagree strongly.

[LA Ute]

We agree to disagree then. My life would be no different today had Mitt Romney won the election, other than me being bothered by having a BYU grad in a position of prominence (disclosure: I did not make it to the polls. Couldn't vote for Obama because he promised a football playoff and did nothing about it. Couldn't vote for Romney because he used to be president of the Cougar Club - far too many Ute fans were willing to overlook this).

Because of the 2008 election we have Obamacare and it will affect all of us pretty substantially. If Obama gets a chance to change the Supreme Court's balance from its current 4-1-4 conservative-independent-liberal "balance," we will changes that affect all of us.

[SeattleUte]

Because of the 2008 election we have Obamacare and it will affect all of us pretty substantially. If Obama gets a chance to change the Supreme Court's balance from its current 4-1-4 conservative-independent-liberal "balance," we will changes that affect all of us.

I think the president per se is important for two reasons: judicial appointments and foreign policy. The Affordable Care Act would not have been enacted absent a receptive Congress comprised of enough democrats.

However, when you have a president like GW Bush who left office so hugely unpopular you should consider yourself lucky to get a moderate democrat, and I consider both Clinton and Obama to be moderates. I think regarding whether Obama is a "Leftist" I'll take Smiley & West's word for it instead of Norman Podhoritz's, for reasons related to the political gamesmanship identified by sancho.

[GarthUte]

Really. Then I wonder why Tavis Smiley and Cornell West were calling Obama "a house negro" on NPR yesterday. Actually, except for the Affordable Care Act, which isn't really "Leftist" legistlation whether or not you support it (except to those who identify themselves as men of the "Right"), I have a hard time distinguishing Bush's policies from Obama's at least insofar as what really matters. Seems like Obama has been just more of the same in Iraq, Pakistan, etc. As those wars wind down he wants to sart a new one (I'm sure you and Il Pad would be vociferous in your support for a strike on Syria were Bush the president advocating that action). Obama's justice department has pretty much let go scot-free the Wall Street fat cats who were substantial factors in the 2008 financial crisis that led to the greatest economic downturn since the 1930's. Obama continued Bush's awful Keynsian economic measures in response to said recesssion.

As usual, you are wrong about me.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Because of the 2008 election we have Obamacare and it will affect all of us pretty substantially. If Obama gets a chance to change the Supreme Court's balance from its current 4-1-4 conservative-independent-liberal "balance," we will changes that affect all of us.

Had whatsisname pulled out of the primaries when he should have, I think Romney would have beat McCain in the primary and likely would have won the General over Obama.

Congress would have delivered a very similar medical plan, dubbed it Romney care (a new plan, patterned after the the old one he installed, where he used to live). And he would have signed it.

[GarthUte]

Many republicans' hatred for any democratic president no matter moderate or similar to prior republican presidents is something I can't explain. I'm sure that Il Pad's blazing hatred for Obama has nothing to do with the president's race. But nor does it have much to do with his actual actions or positions taken while in office. It's simply because Obama is a democrat.

You may be book smart, but your arrogance in thinking that you know who I am or what I'm about seems to force you to put me in some sort of little box so that it fits your narrative and makes you look like a buffoon.

I'll give you credit that it has nothing to do with race, but I'd hate him just as much if he was a Republican. My hatred for Obama is that he is an arrogant asshole who believes himself superior to everyone. His far left policies only give me reason to hate his policies and his "good for thee but not for me" attitude about implication of his policies just emphasizes his arrogance.

[LA Ute]

I think the president per se is important for two reasons: judicial appointments and foreign policy. The Affordable Care Act would not have been enacted absent a receptive Congress comprised of enough democrats.

However, when you have a president like GW Bush who left office so hugely unpopular you should consider yourself lucky to get a moderate democrat, and I consider both Clinton and Obama to be moderates. I think regarding whether Obama is a "Leftist" I'll take Smiley & West's word for it instead of Norman Podhoritz's, for reasons related to the political gamesmanship identified by sancho.

SU, I am crestfallen and disappointed. I really am. I try to write nuanced posts (OK, I usually try) and it's all lost on you, of all people. For example, I never called Obama a leftist. He isn't. I was careful to say that. I do think he is the most left-leaning president we have had since -- well, maybe ever.

Obamacare was enacted as it is because the Democrats had a veto-proof majority, something that occurs very rarely in U.S. history. Without such a majority there would have been a health care bill but it would have been quite different, probably something along the lines of Bennett-Wyden. My point was that elections matter. Now, that one is not very nuanced, and you should not have missed it.


Had whatshisname pulled out of the primaries when he should have, I think Romney would have beat McCain in the primary and likely would have won the General over Obama.

Congress would have delivered a very similar medical plan, dubbed it Romney care (a new plan, patterned after the the old one he installed, where he used to live). And he would have signed it.

Cross my heart and hope to die, I promise you that any health care bill Romney got behind as president would have been quite different from Obamacare, and probably from Romneycare too.

[concerned]

SU, I am crestfallen and disappointed. I really am. I try to write nuanced posts (OK, I usually try) and it's all lost on you, of all people. For example, I never called Obama a leftist. He isn't. I was careful to say that. I do think he is the most left-leaning president we have had since -- well, maybe ever.

Obamacare was enacted as it is because the Democrats had a veto-proof majority, something that occurs very rarely in U.S. history. Without such a majority there would have been a health care bill but it would have been quite different, probably something along the lines of Bennett-Wyden. My point was that elections matter. Now, that one is not very nuanced, and you should not have missed it.



Cross my heart and hope to die, I promise you that any health care bill Romney got behind as president would have been quite different from Obamacare, and probably from Romneycare too.

\
You didn't call Obama a leftist, but you invoke Duranty and Emma Goldman, and you say "Obama's instincts seem to be is somewhere between liberal and Left, learning hard to the Left," and "I do think he is the most left-leaning president we have had since -- well, maybe ever." That is nuanced all right, sort of like trying to figure out what the definition of is, is.

[LA Ute]

\
You didn't call Obama a leftist, but you invoke Duranty and Emma Goldman, and you say "Obama's instincts seem to be is somewhere between liberal and Left, learning hard to the Left," and "I do think he is the most left-leaning president we have had since -- well, maybe ever." That is nuanced all right, sort of like trying to figure out what the definition of is, is.

I think he is the most liberal president since Wilson, but the modern term kind of loses its applicability if you go back too far. Reagan was the most conservative since Coolidge. Whether terms like "liberal" or "conservative" are pejoratives depends on one's point of view. I brought up Goldman and Duranty in support of my (unfortunately) tangential point about the Left historically being wrong about Russia. Obama's not in the same category as those people, as far as I can tell.

[SeattleUte]

I think he is the most liberal president since Wilson, but the modern term kind of loses its applicability if you go back too far. Reagan was the most conservative since Coolidge. Whether terms like "liberal" or "conservative" are pejoratives depends on one's point of view. I brought up Goldman and Duranty in support of my (unfortunately) tangential point about the Left historically being wrong about Russia. Obama's not in the same category as those people, as far as I can tell.

Really? More liberal than FDR who enacted social security and advocated entry into World War II? More liberal than Truman who undertook the Berlin airlift, established NATO, developed the policy of containment, reconstructed Japan, and opposed Jim Crow and other segregation? More liberal than Johnson, who enacted the 1964 Civil Rights Act, medicare, and medicaid and appointed the first black Supreme Court justice? More liberal than Reagan, who repudiated nuclear arms control treaties with the Soviets, comparing this process (at least implicitly) to Neville Chamberlain's appeasment of Nazis?

These actions were all radical departures from historical norms and/or the status quo. I would call them "liberal" actions. Obama has not even clearly supported gay marriage. His only "liberal" activity has been the Affordable Care Act, which I don't think is as radical a departure as the examples I used above. How is Wilson more liberal than the presidents I've identified in this post? (I hope I would not want to be dissasociated from what you consider "conservative".)

[USS Utah]

I can explain it. Politics is a game, a sport. Republicans and Democrats are rival fans and hate each other.

A BYU player gets a DUI. BYU fans say he's a good kid who needs another chance. Utes say he's a thug. The next week, a Utah player gets a DUI, and the fanbases invert their responses. Democrats and Republicans are no different. The same bill that Democrats reject under Republican leadership would be accepted and praised under democratic leadership, and vice versa.

Some people fill their need for competition with sports and some with politics, but both are just games. After Utah loses to BYU, I am a wreck for 24 hours but then life goes back to normal. After some guy beats some other dude in an election, half the population is ecstatic and the other half is depressed, and then they all go back to work the next day.

When you understand that this is all a game as meaningless as football, you can relax a little about it.

I made a comparison between partisan politics and sports rivalries a number of years ago at my history site. Reason need not apply.

I've been trying to go against the grain the last four years in both areas.

[LA Ute]

Really? More liberal than FDR who enacted social security and advocated entry into World War II? More liberal than Truman who undertook the Berlin airlift, established NATO, developed the policy of containment, reconstructed Japan, and opposed Jim Crow and other segregation? More liberal than Johnson, who enacted the 1964 Civil Rights Act, medicare, and medicaid and appointed the first black Supreme Court justice? More liberal than Reagan, who repudiated Soviet arms control, comparing this process (at least implicitly) to Neville Chamberlain's appeasment of Nazis?

These actions were all radical departures from historical norms and/or the status quo. I would call them "liberal" actions. Obama has not even clearly supported gay marriage. His only "liberal" activity has been the Affordable Care Act, which I don't think is as radical a departure as the examples I used above. How is Wilson more liberal than the presidents I've identified in this post? (I hope I would not want to be dissasociated from what you consider "conservative".)

I'm just using political science parlance, which is different from what you are using. "Bold" does not mean "liberal."

I thought about the FDR comparison, but FDR was a president who wanted a strong American role in the world. Perhaps that was because WWII forced him that direction, but he jumped into the role with alacrity and skill. (Whether his decisions at Yalta, etc., were right will be debated forever.) Obama so far has been a president whose actions are consistent with wanting a lesser American role in the world. I am not saying that as a criticism, even though I strongly dislike his foreign policy; I'm just trying to describe him.

[SeattleUte]

I'm just using political science parlance, which is different from what you are using. "Bold" does not mean "liberal."

I thought about the FDR comparison, but FDR was a president who wanted a strong American role in the world. Perhaps that was because WWII forced him that direction, but he jumped into the role with alacrity and skill. (Whether his decisions at Yalta, etc., were right will be debated forever.) Obama so far has been a president whose actions are consistent with wanting a lesser American role in the world. I am not saying that as a criticism, even though I strongly dislike his foreign policy; I'm just trying to describe him.

Here in Seattle we say progressive, not liberal. What I described were all progressive actions.

[USS Utah]

I think he is the most liberal president since Wilson, but the modern term kind of loses its applicability if you go back too far. Reagan was the most conservative since Coolidge. Whether terms like "liberal" or "conservative" are pejoratives depends on one's point of view. I brought up Goldman and Duranty in support of my (unfortunately) tangential point about the Left historically being wrong about Russia. Obama's not in the same category as those people, as far as I can tell.

Many on the far left are upset at him for one thing or another. I know one in particular who insists the Obama has governed as a centrist, much to his dismay.

I don't know how liberal he is, I just see him as largely ineffective -- probably the most ineffective president since Buchanan.

[LA Ute]

Here in Seattle we say progressive, not liberal. What I described were all progressive actions.

"Progressive" is a term liberals have started suing to avoid the negative connotation of the term "liberal." It's pretty nifty: A progressive is in favor of progress, which suggests their opponents are opposed to progress. It also moves the discussion away from the idea of governing principles or core beliefs. After all, who can disagree with progress? It's a word like "fairness," or "compassion," etc.

Again, don't get angry or indignant, I am just looking at this as a pretty impressive use of rhetoric, an area in which conservatives have been performing horribly for decades now. Romney, for example, was really bad at articulating such core beliefs.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Cross my heart and hope to die, I promise you that any health care bill Romney got behind as president would have been quite different from Obamacare, and probably from Romneycare too.

Unless he changed course somehow and adopted McCain's plan* (which I liked), I suspect the Act would be similar in very many ways to the plan we have now. And after spending the better part of a year berating McCain's plan he would have looked wishy washy to suddenly accept it.


*all hospitals must accept all insurance plans without market interference from the various states, and the insurance buyer rather than the employer gets to keep the tax deduction/credit. An insurance exchange would be established to offer cheaper insurance options to those who couldn't otherwise afford it.

[LA Ute]

I've read a few studies on the topic. They both satisfy competitive urges and fill needs for community.

Some people get involved in politics because they care about public policy and want to influence it. Just sayin'.


"It's men in shorts."

-- Rick Majerus

[LA Ute]

I've had one good friend who was a politician, so my sample size is 1. He was great with people, loved schmoozing, and craved the spotlight. He was a born politician. When we talked, he admitted to me that he didn't care too much about the issues; he was happy to go whichever way would get him elected. But politicians are a different breed - I'm mostly talking about people who belong to political parties, follow things closely, and get excited/depressed based on polls. For those people, politics and sports more or less the same except one is cool and the other is lame.

785

[SeattleUte]

I'm just using political science parlance, which is different from what you are using. "Bold" does not mean "liberal."

I thought about the FDR comparison, but FDR was a president who wanted a strong American role in the world. Perhaps that was because WWII forced him that direction, but he jumped into the role with alacrity and skill. (Whether his decisions at Yalta, etc., were right will be debated forever.) Obama so far has been a president whose actions are consistent with wanting a lesser American role in the world. I am not saying that as a criticism, even though I strongly dislike his foreign policy; I'm just trying to describe him.

LA, democrats favored entering WWII, republicans were isolationists who obstructed Roosevelt's desire to join in the fight against fascism -- until Pearl Harbor. Truman saved South Korea from Communism. Kennedy/Johnson got ut into Vietnam (but Nixon prolonged the war by four years after in 1968 being elected on an end the war platform).

[LA Ute]

LA, democrats favored entering WWII, republicans were isolationists who obstructed Roosevelt's desire to join in the fight against fascism -- until Pearl Harbor. Truman saved South Korea from Communism. Kennedy/Johnson got us into Vietnam (but Nixon prolonged the war by four years after in 1968 being elected on an end the war platform).

You keep trying to turn this into a simplistic Democrat/Republican issue. Sorry, old friend, but that's ridiculous.

[LA Ute]

Is this a 6 or 10 point scale? That dude on the right must be an independent.

It's SU.

[Applejack]

I haven't read this tread in its entirety (too long and boring), but I do want to give an LOL to the initial article that LA linked. The main source for whether Mitt was right about "everything": Spencer Zwick!!!!! The person who stood to benefit the most financially from a Romney victory (he even started a hedge fund with Tagg - neither he nor Tagg know jack squat about finance).

This is like reading an article entitled "Is Obama the bestest president in the Universe?" with in depth analysis from Rahm Emanuel and Joe Biden.

[LA Ute]

I haven't read this tread in its entirety (too long and boring), but I do want to give an LOL to the initial article that LA linked. The main source for whether Mitt was right about "everything": Spencer Zwick!!!!! The person who stood to benefit the most financially from a Romney victory (he even started a hedge fund with Tagg - neither he nor Tagg know jack squat about finance).

This is like reading an article entitled "Is Obama the bestest president in the Universe?" with in depth analysis from Rahm Emanuel and Joe Biden.

Everybody here needs to lighten up. That was a Buzzfeed article written by McKay Coppins, a Buzzfeed writer who covered the Romney campaign, presumably because Coppins himself is a Mormon. Even the title, "Was Mitt Romney Right About Everything?" ought to tip everyone off about its semi-tongue in cheek nature. Does no one appreciate a little friendly towel-snapping now and then?

786

[U-Ute]

I'll give you credit that it has nothing to do with race, but I'd hate him just as much if he was a Republican. My hatred for Obama is that he is an arrogant asshole who believes himself superior to everyone. His far left policies only give me reason to hate his policies and his "good for thee but not for me" attitude about implication of his policies just emphasizes his arrogance.

That is pretty much every modern President then.

[GarthUte]

That is pretty much every modern President then.

A rather fair point, though to paraphrase one George Orwell, all Presidents are arrogant assholes, but some Presidents are more of an arrogant asshole than others. Obama is one of those asshole Presidents.

[USS Utah]

Some presidents had the skill and experience to back up their arrogance. Others did not, and learned some very hard lessons as a result.

[LA Ute]

Some presidents had the skill and experience to back up their arrogance. Others did not, and learned some very hard lessons as a result.

I came up with this list of 20th century presidents who did:

T. Roosevelt
FDR
Coolidge
Kennedy (caveat: short term, so we will never really know)
Reagan
Clinton

Then I decided I really can't agree that they were arrogant a-holes. It takes a special person to become POTUS, and they're all too complex to simplify that way.

[USS Utah]

I came up with this list of 20th century presidents who did:

T. Roosevelt
FDR
Coolidge
Kennedy (caveat: short term, so we will never really know)
Reagan
Clinton

Then I decided I really can't agree that they were arrogant a-holes. It takes a special person to become POTUS, and they're all too complex to simplify that way.

How could you miss Ike?

Kennedy was one of those who had to learn some hard lessons, turning to his predecessor for help after Bay of Pigs.

If those with skill experience were not arrogant a-holes, they certainly had a high level of self confidence.

[LA Ute]

How could you miss Ike?

Kennedy was one of those who had to learn some hard lessons, turning to his predecessor for help after Bay of Pigs.

If those with skill experience were not arrogant a-holes, they certainly had a high level of self confidence.

I forgot Ike. My bad.

[LA Ute]

According to this ABC News/Washington Post poll, Mitt was 12 months too early: (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/11/botched-aca-rollout-hammers-obama-job-disapproval-reaches-a-career-high/)


Registered voters divide numerically in Mitt Romney's favor, 49-45 percent, if they had a mulligan for the 2012 presidential election. While the difference between the two is within the poll's error margin, Obama's support is 6 points below his actual showing a year ago.

[Diehard Ute]

According to this ABC News/Washington Post poll, Mitt was 12 months too early: (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/11/botched-aca-rollout-hammers-obama-job-disapproval-reaches-a-career-high/)

Stuff like this makes me laugh...and it should never be called "news"

[LA Ute]

Stuff like this makes me laugh...and it should never be called "news"

Indulge me. I am having fun in my own little warped way.

[Diehard Ute]

Indulge me. I am having fun in my own little warped way.

Yeah...you're a lawyer. I'm used to it ;)

[LA Ute]

This doesn't fit anywhere so I am shoe-horning it in here.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-ke6wKzPwM#t=49

[LA Ute]

Regardless of how one feels about Mitt, this will be worth watching:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLHxbemvpxY

[LA Ute]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HTJaJuA0Gw#t=60

Also, NBC on the "Mitt" documentary:

http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nightly-news/54171347/#54171347

[Viking]

The documentary got me teary eyed a few times. Mitt is a good man and our country needed him.

[DrumNFeather]

The documentary got me teary eyed a few times. Mitt is a good man and our country needed him.

To me it really exposed the canibalistic nature of the primarys. There has to be a better way to select a candidate for your party. I think he came off very well in the documentary. His sons on the other hand...

[Sullyute]

To me it really exposed the canibalistic nature of the primarys. There has to be a better way to select a candidate for your party. I think he came off very well in the documentary. His sons on the other hand...

I think he was the better candidate, but was part of the wrong party. :shrug:

[LA Ute]

Listen to Obama's jab in the first 30 seconds and then listen to Romney's answer at about 2:24 here:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-QRY_MJtN8

The response didn't get much notice at the time but seems pretty solid now.

[Scratch]

Listen to Romney's answer at about 2:30 here:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bowhUWl6rxQ

No answer.

[LA Ute]

No answer.

Whoops. I embedded the wrong video. Try again!

[LA Ute]

1065

[LA Ute]

Regardless of what Mitt was right about, Harry was pretty wrong:
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/03/31/harry-reids-appalling-defense-of-his-attack-on-mitt-romneys-tax-record/)
Harry Reid’s appalling defense of his attack on Mitt Romney’s tax record (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/03/31/harry-reids-appalling-defense-of-his-attack-on-mitt-romneys-tax-record/)

[NorthwestUteFan]

Regardless of what Mitt was right about, Harry was pretty wrong:
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/03/31/harry-reids-appalling-defense-of-his-attack-on-mitt-romneys-tax-record/)
Harry Reid’s appalling defense of his attack on Mitt Romney’s tax record (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/03/31/harry-reids-appalling-defense-of-his-attack-on-mitt-romneys-tax-record/)

In other words, don't trust a Mormon to be honest if the truth doesn't support his goals.

[LA Ute]

In other words, don't trust a Mormon to be honest if the truth doesn't support his goals.

Seems a bit of an over-generalization, doesn't it?

http://i.imgur.com/m82F2BK.gif

[Scratch]

In other words, don't trust a Mormon to be honest if the truth doesn't support his goals.

Are you trying (and failing) to be funny or are you just a monumental ass?

[NorthwestUteFan]

Are you trying (and failing) to be funny or are you just a monumental ass?

Just trying to write the tl:dr for that article, and didn't realize excessive hyperbole required a smilie face to protect the fragile.

[LA Ute]

Just trying to write the tl:dr for that article, and didn't realize excessive hyperbole required a smilie face to protect the fragile.

Look, I challenged you to a duel below and you haven't even responded. How's that supposed to make me feel?

[Rocker Ute]

Just trying to write the tl:dr for that article, and didn't realize excessive hyperbole required a smilie face to protect the fragile.

So the latter. :)

[Scratch]

Just trying to write the tl:dr for that article, and didn't realize excessive hyperbole required a smilie face to protect the fragile.

A smiley face really wouldn't mitigate the ass-holishness, nor was that comment a tl;dr in any way whatsoever. It was just another in a long line of unnecessary shots taken not only at the LDS church, but at LDS members generally. It's a play straight out of the Max Hall playbook. I'm also not fragile; I understand that there are plenty of aspects about the LDS church and its members that are troubling and offensive to many, but making broad comments like that when the context has nothing to do with it is boorish and unnecessary. It's also an established pattern that is getting quite tiresome. Again, I'm not fragile and don't care if you want to criticize aspects of the LDS church or things done by LDS people, but your approach here and elsewhere is juvenile and unproductive.

[Scratch]

So the latter. :)

Beat me to it.
:)

[USS Utah]

In other words, don't trust a politician to be honest if the truth doesn't support his goals.

Fixed it for you.

[LA Ute]

I think NWUF was just being his usual puckish self and used imprecise language.

1437

[NorthwestUteFan]

Either my Stake President when I was a child, my wife's former employer, and one of the most honest and forthright men I have met (Huntsman) lied, or the SP of the stake next to mine in Boston (Romney) lied, or the most (politically) powerful LDS church member in history (Reid) lied. And it was only to score a political point. That is the point, and it is disturbing.

Those of us who hold temple recommends swear that we are honest in all of our dealings with our fellow men. Those of us who were Elders Quorum Presidents, Sunday School Presidents, primary teachers, bishopric counselors, and high council members hold ourselves to a very high standard of honesty. Every one of us on here is more honest, moral, and upstanding than one of those three men. It just isn't clear which one that is, and by association that smears all of us who do our very best to be the very best possible people we can be.

In some ways I am glad that Romney didn't win, if for no other reason than I don't want my culture to be stained by some of the less moral-seeming things a president is forced to do.

For LA:
I accept your challenge. We can have a pizza duel at the Pie before one of the football games this year. The quickest one on to draw out the Platinum Card gets to choose which pizza we enjoy. (I really wanted to bookend the Michigan experience by catching the return game, but travelling for a Thurs game is tough. Maybe something later in the season?).


For Scratch:
"Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted."
~Ralph Waldo Emerson

[LA Ute]

Romney paid taxes, NWUF. Reid lied about that and refuses to apologize. Maybe in his memoir. Romney and Reid are not, repeat not, two sides of the same coin.

That is all.

[USS Utah]

Either my Stake President when I was a child, my wife's former employer, and one of the most honest and forthright men I have met (Huntsman) lied,

Huntsman denied involvement.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865589632/New-book-Jon-Huntsman-Sr-told-Harry-Reid-that-Mitt-Romney-hadnt-paid-taxes-for-10-years.html?pg=all

[USS Utah]

You and I might see politicians differently. To politicians, politics is a game. I think Delon Wright is as "honest, moral, and upstanding" as anyone, but when he knocks the ball out, he still points as if it went off the other guy. It's kind of an understood part of the game he is playing. Politicians wanted to be athletes, but they weren't good enough, so they play a different game to satisfy their cravings for competition and fame. The game they play has understood, unwritten rules, and lying about opponents is one of those rules. As observers of the game, we understand what is going on. Was there any close follower of politics who really believed what Reid said (or believed that Reid believed it)? Anyone who thought Reid was being sincere? He was just playing the game, and I think we all knew it. For him to say "well it worked, didn't it" is a breach of another of the unwritten rules - the rule that says we are supposed to pretend that the whole game is serious and sincere.

I had a good friend in grad school who wanted to get into politics. His Dad was mayor of some Chicago area suburb. He didn't care at all about issues and said he'd be happy to adopt whatever point of view could get him elected. I think he's the rule rather than the exception.

If politics is a game, its seems that you have to pay to play. There might be good people in politics but it appears that they are badly outnumbered.

[Scratch]

Either my Stake President when I was a child, my wife's former employer, and one of the most honest and forthright men I have met (Huntsman) lied, or the SP of the stake next to mine in Boston (Romney) lied, or the most (politically) powerful LDS church member in history (Reid) lied. And it was only to score a political point. That is the point, and it is disturbing.

Those of us who hold temple recommends swear that we are honest in all of our dealings with our fellow men. Those of us who were Elders Quorum Presidents, Sunday School Presidents, primary teachers, bishopric counselors, and high council members hold ourselves to a very high standard of honesty. Every one of us on here is more honest, moral, and upstanding than one of those three men. It just isn't clear which one that is, and by association that smears all of us who do our very best to be the very best possible people we can be.


That is a reasonable tl;dr for the article, even though I think your last sentence is a pretty significant stretch. In any event, it's a very far cry from your original moronic statement.


For Scratch:
"Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted."
~Ralph Waldo Emerson

"I sure as hell hope that one of my quotes is never again misapplied as severely as this."
~ Ralph Waldo Emerson

I don't feel like I'm being "persecuted" by you, but I suppose you could say that I'm being contradicted because I disagree with your statement to not trust a Mormon unless it supports his goals. In any event, even if your statement was simple contradiction it doesn't make you any less of an ass for how you presented it.

[USS Utah]

I think there are a lot of good people in politics. You just have to understand that lying and backbiting are part of the rules of the game they are playing and not a reflection of their character. Hockey players check and hit other players during the game, but when they aren't playing, they aren't necessarily violent. I lie when I play Balderdash, but I'm fairly honest when I'm not playing it.

But yes, you do have to pay to play.

I came across a book the other day with the title "Party and Pressure Politics." The copyright was 1949. I glanced through the table of contents and noticed that the chapters discussed areas of concern that we have today. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[LA Ute]

Irony.


https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=2Dly52zARCk

[concerned]

Irony.


https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=2Dly52zARCk




Here is some real irony with significant implications going forward. How do suppose Putin feels about Trump and the Republicans






https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/503725514494730240/PFkR-eVX_bigger.jpegJeffrey Goldberg ‏@JeffreyGoldberg (https://twitter.com/JeffreyGoldberg) 23m23 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/JeffreyGoldberg/status/757586920578899968)
A big story -- even bigger than the whining of DNC functionaries -- is that the Kremlin views Hillary and the Democrats as enemies.

[LA Ute]

I am enjoying this campaign the way I enjoy a football game when I am a fan of neither team. For example, one has to admire the sheer political genius of the Clinton campaign in creating this distraction about the Russians hacking the DNC in order to help Trump. It's simply brilliant.

[concerned]

I am enjoying this campaign the way I enjoy a football game when I am a fan of neither team. For example, one has to admire the sheer political genius of the Clinton campaign in creating this distraction about the Russians hacking the DNC in order to help Trump. It's simply brilliant.

E. Erickson doesn't think it has far fetched at all.

http://theresurgent.com/i-now-believe-donald-trump-is-on-track-to-win-the-presidency/

[LA Ute]

E. Erickson doesn't think it has far fetched at all.

http://theresurgent.com/i-now-believe-donald-trump-is-on-track-to-win-the-presidency/

I am agnostic. Who knows? Whether it's true or not we are all talking about it, and so are the news media. As I said, brilliant.

Erick Erickson is an arch-conservative. I dislike and disrespect him so can't be objective about what he says.

[LA Ute]

Well, Mitt was right about this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xd3kr-QpeM

[concerned]

This year, Mitt Romney could not have won the nomination, but he would have won the election, IMHO.

[NorthwestUteFan]

This year, Mitt Romney could not have won the nomination, but he would have won the election, IMHO.
Ronald Reagan would have dropped out of the primary before Kasich.

[pangloss]

That's the title of this Buzzfeed piece (http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/was-mitt-romney-right-about-everything) by McKay Coppins, who covered Romney's campaign. Excerpt:

I'm not sure the way it turned out was written in stone four years ago. When Sec. Clinton criticized Moscow about the legitimacy of their election it apparently pissed Putin off, a lot. And maybe if Congress hadn't obstructed Pres. Obama at every turn and given the impression that he was weakened at home (plus his red line screw up) perhaps Russia wouldn't have acted so hostile. That said, yes, Romney was right. Putin and Russia are not now nor have they been in the past our buddies.

Then again, in Romney's 59 point plan for the economy he promised to reduce unemployment to 6% by the end of his first term. It's now 4.9% So, 'right about everything'? Ah, the good old days, when a Republican candidate for the presidency had a detailed, concrete, well thought out plan rather than a cult of personality.

Bill Maher had a segment last week where he said he was wrong to vilify Romney, Bush & McCain. He said they were good men and the country would have survived if McCain or Romney had won. He thinks civilization will collapse if Trump wins. I agree.

The conviction of Christie's aids and his close ties to Trump will hang around his neck like a stinking dead albatross. I think he's done, regardless of his weight.

I'm hoping the Republican party snaps back toward center (toward, not to) after tomorrow's assumed repudiation of Trump. Maybe the moderates will show up for the primaries next time and elect a mainstream candidate.

I think Cruz is a loon and un-electable outside Texas. He's worse than Perry.

Rubio should be rehabilitated from Trump's 'little Marco' banner by then. He has some personal finance baggage, but I think that will evaporate.

Kasich? Maybe. Will the mainstream R's be pissed at him for not getting behind Trump or will that be a positive?

Sen. Sasse is a bright new face that didn't support Trump (he didn't pull a Chaffetz did he?). He isn't alt-right or tea party. I think he could give presumptive Pres. Clinton a run and maybe win if the economic cycle is down.

[LA Ute]

I'm not sure the way it turned out was written in stone four years ago. When Sec. Clinton criticized Moscow about the legitimacy of their election it apparently pissed Putin off, a lot. And maybe if Congress hadn't obstructed Pres. Obama at every turn and given the impression that he was weakened at home (plus his red line screw up) perhaps Russia wouldn't have acted so hostile. That said, yes, Romney was right. Putin and Russia are not now nor have they been in the past our buddies.

Then again, in Romney's 59 point plan for the economy he promised to reduce unemployment to 6% by the end of his first term. It's now 4.9% Ah the good old days, when a Republican candidate for the presidency had a detailed, concrete, well thought out plan rather than a cult of personality.

Bill Maher had a segment last week where he said he was wrong to vilify Romney, Bush & McCain. He said they were good men and the country would have survived if McCain or Romney had won. He thinks civilization will collapse if Trump wins. I agree.

The conviction of Christie's aids and his close ties to Trump will hang around his neck like a stinking dead albatross. I think he's done, regardless of his weight.

I'm hoping the Republican party snaps back toward center (toward, not to) after tomorrow's assumed repudiation of Trump. Maybe the moderates will show up for the primaries next time and elect a mainstream candidate.

I think Cruz is a loon and un-electable outside Texas. He's worse than Perry.

Rubio should be rehabilitated from Trump's 'little Marco' banner by then. He has some personal finance baggage, but I think that will evaporate.

Kasich? Maybe. Will the mainstream R's be pissed at him for not getting behind Trump or will that be a positive?

Sen. Sasse is a bright new face that didn't support Trump (he didn't pull a Chaffetz did he?). He isn't alt-right or tea party. I think he could give presumptive Pres. Clinton a run and maybe win if the economic cycle is down.

I like Sasse.

[Rocker Ute]

I'm not sure the way it turned out was written in stone four years ago. When Sec. Clinton criticized Moscow about the legitimacy of their election it apparently pissed Putin off, a lot. And maybe if Congress hadn't obstructed Pres. Obama at every turn and given the impression that he was weakened at home (plus his red line screw up) perhaps Russia wouldn't have acted so hostile. That said, yes, Romney was right. Putin and Russia are not now nor have they been in the past our buddies.

Then again, in Romney's 59 point plan for the economy he promised to reduce unemployment to 6% by the end of his first term. It's now 4.9% Ah the good old days, when a Republican candidate for the presidency had a detailed, concrete, well thought out plan rather than a cult of personality.

Bill Maher had a segment last week where he said he was wrong to vilify Romney, Bush & McCain. He said they were good men and the country would have survived if McCain or Romney had won. He thinks civilization will collapse if Trump wins. I agree.

The conviction of Christie's aids and his close ties to Trump will hang around his neck like a stinking dead albatross. I think he's done, regardless of his weight.

I'm hoping the Republican party snaps back toward center (toward, not to) after tomorrow's assumed repudiation of Trump. Maybe the moderates will show up for the primaries next time and elect a mainstream candidate.

I think Cruz is a loon and un-electable outside Texas. He's worse than Perry.

Rubio should be rehabilitated from Trump's 'little Marco' banner by then. He has some personal finance baggage, but I think that will evaporate.

Kasich? Maybe. Will the mainstream R's be pissed at him for not getting behind Trump or will that be a positive?

Sen. Sasse is a bright new face that didn't support Trump (he didn't pull a Chaffetz did he?). He isn't alt-right or tea party. I think he could give presumptive Pres. Clinton a run and maybe win if the economic cycle is down.

It seems there are a lot of people coming out and saying that they were wrong to vilify Romney, etc. The stuff coming out as attacks about him seem downright silly now.

[LA Ute]

To me, the most egregious attack was vice president Biden telling an African American audience Romney would "put y'all back in chains."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pangloss]

To me, the most egregious attack was vice president Biden telling an African American audience Romney would "put y'all back in chains."
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yea, that was bad. I read his entire phrase. He was accusing Republicans of wanting to unchain Wall Street from regulations and got carried away. Dumb.

Remembering that gaff and the others from four years ago makes me nostalgic. Obama, Biden, Romney and what's his name ... Ryan each made a handful of dopey statements -- 57 states, 47%, etc. Few were mean spirited, Biden didn't literally mean to accuse Republicans of wanting to re-institute slavery.

This cycle, it seemed like there were several really nasty statements every week. I'm not objective at all. That said, I blame Trump. He debased the process. It started during the primaries when he used insulting, juvenile nick names for his opponents. Every time he made some outrageous comment it got him more media coverage. I think Trump believes all publicity is good, so he got positive reinforcement for his nasty, negative behavior. And like heaping attention on a dog that chews shoes, Trump tried to outdo himself with even more outrageous comments. It fed his addiction to media attention. The negative feedback loop finally caught up with him during the general election. Then, he got bit with the old video. The reaction was, "Oh my God, what did he say this time? Don't let the kids hear that."

Hopefully, the next cycle will be about ideas, plans, ideals, experience and return to a standard of civility. I'm not particularly optimistic it will.

[LA Ute]

Yea, that was bad. I read his entire phrase. He was accusing Republicans of wanting to unchain Wall Street from regulations and got carried away. Dumb.

Remembering that gaff and the others from four years ago makes me nostalgic. Obama, Biden, Romney and what's his name ... Ryan each made a handful of dopey statements -- 57 states, 47%, etc. Few were mean spirited, Biden didn't literally mean to accuse Republicans of wanting to re-institute slavery.

This cycle, it seemed like there were several really nasty statements every week. I'm not objective at all. That said, I blame Trump. He debased the process. It started during the primaries when he used insulting, juvenile nick names for his opponents. Every time he made some outrageous comment it got him more media coverage. I think Trump believes all publicity is good, so he got positive reinforcement for his nasty, negative behavior. And like heaping attention on a dog that chews shoes, Trump tried to outdo himself with even more outrageous comments. It fed his addiction to media attention. The negative feedback loop finally caught up with him during the general election. Then, he got bit with the old video. The reaction was, "Oh my God, what did he say this time? Don't let the kids hear that."

Hopefully, the next cycle will be about ideas, plans, ideals, experience and return to a standard of civility. I'm not particularly optimistic it will.

The fundamental problem with Trump is that he is not a decent man. Period. It's a travesty that he got this close to the presidency. It's a good sign that such a person has difficulty winning a general election. What fascinates me is that despite his lack of decency, decent people vote for him. Something different from a lack of decency on their part motivates them to do that. I'm sympathetic to their frustration but not to their decision.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Irving Washington]

To me, the most egregious attack was vice president Biden telling an African American audience Romney would "put y'all back in chains."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
He said that? Why in God's name did he think he needed to say that to that audience?

[Rocker Ute]

Its funny that people were outraged by the 47% comment yet ignored the 'basket of deplorables' comment. It's also funny that Romney got castigated for being wealthy when not a word has been said about Trumps wealth (either the real or pretend wealth). Harry Reid made up problems with Romney's taxes yet no hard core press on Trump's issues. People made big issue of Romney reorganizing companies and terminating employees yet seem to ignore Trumps bankruptcies and cheating small business people. People painted Romney as a misogynist with his "binders of women" comment and ignore sexual assault.

In fact almost everything that disqualified him at the time both candidates actually have issues with themselves and nobody seems to care. Quite a shift.

Heck, 8 years ago Howard Dean said "Yearghhh!!" and that disqualified him from being president.

Trump has proven that there is no such thing as bad media. Here he his, in a tight race while being completely unfit for president. It almost feels like Trading Places where a couple of wealthy people had a bet that they could elect any idiot they could find and settled on Trump.

I really do think we are getting more stupid as a society.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

He said that? Why in God's name did he think he needed to say that to that audience?

Joe just says dumb things.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7Q1I6PIIuY

[pangloss]

The fundamental problem with Trump is that he is not a decent man. Period. It's a travesty that he got this close to the presidency. It's a good sign that such a person has difficulty winning a general election. What fascinates me is that despite his lack of decency, decent people vote for him. Something different from a lack of decency on their part motivates them to do that. I'm sympathetic to their frustration but not to their decision.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well put.

Fundamental decency ought to be a qualifying requirement.

[chrisrenrut]

Its funny that people were outraged by the 47% comment yet ignored the 'basket of deplorables' comment. It's also funny that Romney got castigated for being wealthy when not a word has been said about Trumps wealth (either the real or pretend wealth). Harry Reid made up problems with Romney's taxes yet no hard core press on Trump's issues. People made big issue of Romney reorganizing companies and terminating employees yet seem to ignore Trumps bankruptcies and cheating small business people. People painted Romney as a misogynist with his "binders of women" comment and ignore sexual assault.

In fact almost everything that disqualified him at the time both candidates actually have issues with themselves and nobody seems to care. Quite a shift.

Heck, 8 years ago Howard Dean said "Yearghhh!!" and that disqualified him from being president.

Trump has proven that there is no such thing as bad media. Here he his, in a tight race while being completely unfit for president. It almost feels like Trading Places where a couple of wealthy people had a bet that they could elect any idiot they could find and settled on Trump.

I really do think we are getting more stupid as a society.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

:clap:

[Diehard Ute]

The fundamental problem with Trump is that he is not a decent man. Period. It's a travesty that he got this close to the presidency. It's a good sign that such a person has difficulty winning a general election. What fascinates me is that despite his lack of decency, decent people vote for him. Something different from a lack of decency on their part motivates them to do that. I'm sympathetic to their frustration but not to their decision.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have a family member, whom most would say is a decent person, who posted a meme on Facebook today that said

"In sad news from New York Hillary is still alive"

He has no issues with Trump and openly praises him.

It's sort of scary.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

I have a family member, whom most would say is a decent person, who posted a meme on Facebook today that said

"In sad news from New York Hillary is still alive"

He has no issues with Trump and openly praises him.

It's sort of scary.

Yeah, it is. He's not the type I am talking about. I know plenty of decent, kind people who support Trump and that's what fascinates me about him.

[U-Ute]

The fundamental problem with Trump is that he is not a decent man. Period. It's a travesty that he got this close to the presidency. It's a good sign that such a person has difficulty winning a general election. What fascinates me is that despite his lack of decency, decent people vote for him. Something different from a lack of decency on their part motivates them to do that. I'm sympathetic to their frustration but not to their decision.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My dad is/was a closet supporter, meaning that he won't come out and say that he wanted Trump, but he was talking up Trump and criticizing Hillary all the time.

His perspective on this was that he wants Trump to flame out spectacularly and take the federal government with him. That's not an particularly far fetched position. The skeptic in me believes that Washington would just be rebuilt by the same people that control it now.

I don't think Trump will be able to push through any of the ideas that he Trump-eted during the campaign that made him so popular with the unedumacated, pissed off white folks that elected him, so it'll be interesting to see how they feel 2 years from now.

[USS Utah]

I have a friend in Michigan who posted at my history group about a lawyer who represented Hulk Hogan and who was a Trump supporter. According to this lawyer, the media, the Democrats, the pundits, and the #NeverTrump types took Trump literally, but did not take him seriously, with the effect that they simply wrote off Trump and his supporters. Surely, no thinking person could vote for such a clown. The voters, meanwhile, took Trump seriously but not literally. They seemed to know that Trump didn't mean he would literally build a wall, or round up Hispanics or Muslims, or nuke America's enemies, or cut off allies and buddy up to Russia. In that view, Trump was just using the same bull shooting hyperbole that all politicians use, while meaning only that he would tighten the borders, establish a working law on immigration (one that has real teeth), and make sure we actually get a good deal when reaching trade agreements.

My response was I supposed I qualifed as one of those #NeverTrump types. However, I never took Trump literally. Quite simply, I never believed a word he said regarding what he was supposedly going to do as president. I never believed he was a conservative who would actually do conservative things once in office. Why? Because Trump had a history as a Democrat supporting Democrats; he didn't just say nice things about the Clintons -- about the woman he would later rip to shreds on the campaign trail -- he gave them money, and lots of it. But when he decided to run for president he chose to do so as a Republican. For me, this did not compute. Trump's problem going forward is that, while many of his supporters like the lawyer, may not have taken him literally, many others did. They may or may not expect him to do what he said he would with exactness, but they will expect something very like much like it.

[LA Ute]

In answer to my question, Mitt was right about Trump but wrong about Trump's prospects for winning.

[concerned]

The irony in this thread could not have been imagined. It started as a reference to Obama's intention to "reset" Russian relations after the election, and Romney's belief that Russia is our greatest foe. Now Trump wants to befriend Russia and pick fights with China. Obama imposes sanctions on Russia for Crimea and Ukraine, and wants to retaliate for hacking, and Trump denies the hacking and may end the sanctions. How Trump befriends Russia and opposes its greatest ally, Iran, will be interesting.

[LA Ute]

The irony in this thread could not have been imagined. It started as a reference to Obama's intention to "reset" Russian relations after the election, and Romney's belief that Russia is our greatest foe. Now Trump wants to befriend Russia and pick fights with China. Obama imposes sanctions on Russia for Crimea and Ukraine, and wants to retaliate for hacking, and Trump denies the hacking and may end the sanctions. How Trump befriends Russia and opposes its greatest ally, Iran, will be interesting.

I will snarkily reply that Obama finally wants to punish Russia because they cyber-attacked the DNC. Some things must not be tolerated! :stirthepot:

[concerned]

I will snarkily reply that Obama finally wants to punish Russia because they cyber-attacked the DNC. Some things must not be tolerated! :stirthepot:


good for you for ignoring the sanctions. maybe you can be Trump-like and deny they were imposed.

[LA Ute]

good for you for ignoring the sanctions. maybe you can be Trump-like and deny they were imposed.

When one is stirring the pot, facts like that are unimportant.

Seriously, one can argue pretty reasonably that the sanctions have been 100% ineffective. Russia now own Crimea and continues to harass Ukraine. Still, the Ukrainians are better off than the folks in Aleppo, who haven't yet figured out where that red line went.

[concerned]

When one is stirring the pot, facts like that are unimportant.

Seriously, one can argue pretty reasonably that the sanctions have been 100% ineffective. Russia now own Crimea and continues to harass Ukraine. Still, the Ukrainians are better off than the folks in Aleppo, who haven't yet figured out where that red line went.

No doubt Romney or Trump would have prevented events in Crimea, Ukraine, or Aleppo (without committing American troops).

[LA Ute]

No doubt Romney or Trump would have prevented events in Crimea, Ukraine, or Aleppo (without committing American troops).

We'll never know. Committing troops is not the only option, is it? In any case I do doubt their red line would have vanished!

[concerned]

We'll never know. Committing troops is not the only option, is it? In any case I do doubt their red line would have vanished!

So what are the other options? Inquiring minds want to know.

Arming Syrian rebels? Anything for Crimea or Ukraine?

[Diehard Ute]

So what are the other options? Inquiring minds want to know.

Arming Syrian rebels? Anything for Crimea or Ukraine?

An excellent question.

I think these situations are ones where POTUS is damned any way they go.

Look at the use of drones and the backlash that's occurred there. Don't use them and he's doing nothing. Use them and he's killing innocents.

(This also goes to why I don't think the USAF will ever abandon piloted aircraft but that's another discussion)

And in this day and age, information is instantaneous, and rarely do people care if it's factual until far later. Which leads to even further issues. (I see this just from my little work sphere, it's amplified many many many times for the president and military leaders)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

So what are the other options? Inquiring minds want to know.

Arming Syrian rebels? Anything for Crimea or Ukraine?

You haven't said anything about the vanishing red line. Drawing a line in the sand and then erasing it is a huge mistake in child-rearing, human resource management, and foreign policy. Obama really blew that.

You spoke of committing ground troops as if that was Obama's only alternative to what he did do. I was just questioning that. I do recall that some right-of-center foreign policy mavens were talking about other options at the time. Henry Kissinger found Russia's actions in Ukraine unacceptable. (See https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/opinions/henry-kissinger-to-settle-the-ukraine-crisis-start-at-the-end/2014/03/05/46dad868-a496-11e3-8466-d34c451760b9_story.html?client=safari.)




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[concerned]

You haven't said anything about the vanishing red line. Drawing a line in the sand and then erasing it is a huge mistake in child-rearing, human resource management, and foreign policy. Obama really blew that.

You spoke of committing ground troops as if that was Obama's only alternative to what he did do. I was just questioning that. I do recall that some right-of-center foreign policy mavens were talking about other options at the time. Henry Kissinger found Russia's actions in Ukraine unacceptable. (See https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/opinions/henry-kissinger-to-settle-the-ukraine-crisis-start-at-the-end/2014/03/05/46dad868-a496-11e3-8466-d34c451760b9_story.html?client=safari.)



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have said several times in the past on this board that Obama never should have made the statement re the red line. The error was in saying it and then changing his mind about trying to enforce it effectively; I think he did not make a mistake in not trying to enforce it.

One of the other alternatives in Syria was a no fly zone, which Obama decided against because he thought it was unenforceable without a major escalation; Clinton, McCain and others supported it. I have not clicked on your clink; did Kissinger say how he would have prevented Russia's actions in Ukraine and Crimea, or just responded to them thru sanctions and other measures?

[LA Ute]

I have said several times in the past on this board that Obama never should have made the statement re the red line. The error was in saying it and then changing his mind about trying to enforce it effectively; I think he did not make a mistake in not trying to enforce it.

One of the other alternatives in Syria was a no fly zone, which Obama decided against because he thought it was unenforceable without a major escalation; Clinton, McCain and others supported it. I have not clicked on your clink; did Kissinger say how he would have prevented Russia's actions in Ukraine and Crimea, or just responded to them thru sanctions and other measures?

OK, I will leave you alone on the red line.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rocker Ute]

OK, I will leave you alone on the red line.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Can we take this as your red line on this subject?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ma'ake]

Seriously, one can argue pretty reasonably that the sanctions have been 100% ineffective. Russia now own Crimea and continues to harass Ukraine.

Here's pretty strong evidence from a Russia state media outlet that the sanctions were painful: https://sputniknews.com/russia/201610031045956753-russia-us-plutonium-agreement/

(Of particular note is the demand for reversing sanctions against certain individuals, ie, Russian oligarchs.)

Putin was a double-down strategist long before Trump's 2016 campaign. And Putin demonstrates that prevailing over international pressure is quite possible, if you rule your nation with an iron fist, have killed or silenced opposition, etc.

China is a less vicious example of the virtues of suppressing domestic dissent, for autocratic dictatorships. That population of 1.4 Billion is ready for confrontation with the US. It's part of their national narrative, an expected obstacle to their rise to be the world's most powerful nation.

It remains to be seen if Trump can pull off the same type of autocratic power consolidation within the US. My (historic) hunch is Americans are pretty resistant to tyranny - we view taxes for the local library as the slippery slope to communism.

But Trump has been amazingly successful at getting Americans to engage in selective morality, and alter their tolerance for what would have been insanely outrageous behavior and language from any other presidential candidate.

"I could shoot somebody on 5th Avenue and not lose a single voter!" (That was the "G" rated remark)

[Rocker Ute]

My brother just saw Mitt and Ann at Bed Bath and Beyond with 20% off coupon in hand. Yes I think he was right about everything.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

My brother just saw Mitt and Ann at Bed Bath and Beyond with 20% off coupon in hand. Yes I think he was right about everything.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hey, there's a reason why rich people are rich.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[U-Ute]

Hey, there's a reason why rich people are rich.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because they get the starter kit from daddy and then only have to pay a stated rate of 15%-20% taxes on their income (which is reduced to <10% after loopholes they lobbied for are exercised)?

[LA Ute]

Because they get the starter kit from daddy and then only have to pay a stated rate of 15%-20% taxes on their income (which is reduced to <10% after loopholes they lobbied for are exercised)?

I was talking about frugality. I wish I could get that 15-20% rate.

[concerned]

I bought my wife an Xmas present over the weekend. I looked at Amazon on line and BBB. Even with the 20% coupon, it was cheaper at Amazon. Anybody who walks into BBB w/o several 20% coupons is an idiot, IMHO. (My daughter and I went there yesterday, and used three of them on three dinky purchases.)

[LA Ute]

I bought my wife an Xmas present over the weekend. I looked at Amazon on line and BBB. Even with the 20% coupon, it was cheaper at Amazon. Anybody who walks into BBB w/o several 20% coupons is an idiot, IMHO. (My daughter and I went there yesterday, and used three of them on three dinky purchases.)

Mitt was not right about this, then.

[concerned]

Mitt was not right about this, then.


He was since he had the coupon.

[mUUser]

Because they get the starter kit from daddy and then only have to pay a stated rate of 15%-20% taxes on their income (which is reduced to <10% after loopholes they lobbied for are exercised)?


Top one percent in Utah is income of $340k or greater. To what loopholes are you referring that can cut their taxes in half?

[Sullyute]

Top one percent in Utah is income of $340k or greater. To what loopholes are you referring that can cut their taxes in half?

The ones you lobbied for, duh!?

[LA Ute]

The ones you lobbied for, duh!?

I guess if you have enough of a portfolio to generate $340K annually you might get the lower capital gains rate. That could be a 50% cut if you were in the highest bracket before you switched to 100% capital gains income.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mUUser]

I guess if you have enough of a portfolio to generate $340K annually you might get the lower capital gains rate. That could be a 50% cut if you were in the highest bracket before you switched to 100% capital gains income.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I assumed the 20% he referred was already the CGTR. Otherwise, they'd be pushing 40%. I'm curious what magical loopholes and deductions a guy making $500k-$1mm uses to push it to 10%.

[Two Utes]

I assumed the 20% he referred was already the CGTR. Otherwise, they'd be pushing 40%. I'm curious what magical loopholes and deductions a guy making $500k-$1mm uses to push it to 10%.

There is none. Guys making that kind of money (like some of our fellow posters here) pay shit tons of taxes. That's why small businessmen are generally Republican.

[tooblue]

Have you all seen this:

Poll: Obama 'worst president' since World War II

https://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2014/07/02/obama-george-w-bush-quinnipiac-poll-reagan-clinton/11985837/


The Quinnipiac poll also reports that 45% believe the nation would be better off had Mitt Romney defeated Obama in the 2012 presidential election; 38% say the country would be worse off with a Romney presidency.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Obama is the worst president between Jan 2009 and early 2017. At least they got that part right.

By far and away he is the third worst in the 21st century.

[LA Ute]

Obama is the worst president between Jan 2009 and early 2017. At least they got that part right.

By far and away he is the third worst in the 21st century.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170530/af5d21227aaa885314cb4503d7edfe2f.jpg

[tooblue]

Obama is the worst president between Jan 2009 and early 2017. At least they got that part right.

By far and away he is the third worst in the 21st century.

Well, the jury is still out on Trump so far, I suppose. And I guess, you are part of the 8%?

[NorthwestUteFan]

Well, the jury is still out on Trump so far, I suppose. And I guess, you are part of the 8%?
Being better than Trump and Bush is a pretty low bar, and Obama did plenty of things to piss me off. I am just saying he was the least worst.

[tooblue]

Being better than Trump and Bush is a pretty low bar, and Obama did plenty of things to piss me off. I am just saying he was the least worst.

Per the poll, he's already considered a worse president than Bush, so the only low bar he has to clear is Trump. I personally struggle to see him as the least worst. His legacy is built exclusively on executive orders and party-line voting. With those party-line votes very hard to come by, because he struggle to build consensus even among his fellow democrats, in concert with the fact he made no real effort to cross the aisle and work with Republicans. Yes, they were obstructionists. However, in his smug conceit he was remarkably dismissive and ultimately divisive. Of course history will be the ultimate judge. But considering nearly his entire eight year legacy has been wiped out in 100 days by a tough talking (from the safety of his own borders) reality tv star, it doesn't look good.

[LA Ute]

Interesting video from the Romney E2 Summit.

https://www.facebook.com/david.parker.982/posts/10158806545845075

[U-Ute]

Interesting video from the Romney E2 Summit.

https://www.facebook.com/david.parker.982/posts/10158806545845075


2206

[LA Ute]

2206

It's a link to a Facebook page. I guess you need to be a"friend" of the guy who posted it there.