Mitt Romney: unelectable?

[nursebenjamin]

Does Mitt Romney's flavor of Christianity make him unelectable to the office of President?

[JohnPaul]

It seems to me, with the second slow implosion of Gingrich, that Romeny is looking quite nominatable and I think that means by extension, he is also looking electable, even if he does have some hills to climb.

I still think he loses to Obama, even if unemployment is over 8%, but if I were a betting man I would lay something less than $10,000 that he gets the nomination.

I would feel safe in taking any bet you want to make to support your frightening claim that Obama will win. If Obama does win a second term, our money will be worthless anyway, when our nation is forced into national bankruptcy with more and more crippling national debt. Our money lost the "gold standard" years ago, and all that is left now is the "full faith and credit" of the US Government. When Obama destroys that, what will we have left except some worthless paper with fine engraving on it?

John

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 16:

...
>On Romney<
Actually, he's one of the two men running who has actually run successful businesses.

The US Government is not a business.

However, his real qualifications for the job, (which include his business expertise, of course) include his ability to lead and to get people of very different backgrounds to work together.

He can't even get those of his Republican background to come together to support him - if current polls are to be trusted.

And THAT is a direct consequence of his being LDS: specifically, an LDS Bishop and Stake President (compare the job to that of a Catholic parish priest and Bishop)

I challenge you to present confirmatory data for what is obviously an opinion.

Of course, I"m biased--but not as much as one would think. There are quite a few LDS politicians I wouldn't vote for; all Democrat.

Best I can tell, Democrats don't really want among their ranks folks who'd oppress others based solely on their sexual preferences.

I don't think they'll mourn the loss of your vote.

[dianaiad]

From Post 16:

...
>On Romney<
Actually, he's one of the two men running who has actually run successful businesses.

The US Government is not a business.

No argument there. That's one of the problems with it.

However, his real qualifications for the job, (which include his business expertise, of course) include his ability to lead and to get people of very different backgrounds to work together.

He can't even get those of his Republican background to come together to support him - if current polls are to be trusted.

(shrug) It's a process. The Democrats had a similar fight before Obama took the nomination,remember? The guy (or gal) who comes out ahead will get the support.

And THAT is a direct consequence of his being LDS: specifically, an LDS Bishop and Stake President (compare the job to that of a Catholic parish priest and Bishop)

I challenge you to present confirmatory data for what is obviously an opinion.

Of course it's an opinion. That should have been obvious. It is (ahem) MY OPINION that his ability to work with others is the result of his work as a church leader. That he CAN work with others is well established.

Of course, I"m biased--but not as much as one would think. There are quite a few LDS politicians I wouldn't vote for; all Democrat.

Best I can tell, Democrats don't really want among their ranks folks who'd oppress others based solely on their sexual preferences.

Best I can tell, having read history, Democrats have done a very good job of REWRITING history to make themselves look good. Lincoln, after all, was a Republican. So was Martin Luther King. So were the majority of people voting for civil rights legislation....and it was the Democrats who were fighting tooth and nail to keep segregation alive and well. I know, I know, that's embarrassing, but, well....

So perhaps you should think and do some research regarding stuff before you make such all inclusive claims?

I don't think they'll mourn the loss of your vote.

Well, cancelling yours out will be of some comfort, there.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 23:

>On Romney<
Actually, he's one of the two men running who has actually run successful businesses.

The US Government is not a business.

No argument there. That's one of the problems with it.

Thus, we see that having run a successful business, in itself, does not mean one can run a successful government.

However, his real qualifications for the job, (which include his business expertise, of course) include his ability to lead and to get people of very different backgrounds to work together.

He can't even get those of his Republican background to come together to support him - if current polls are to be trusted.

(shrug) It's a process. The Democrats had a similar fight before Obama took the nomination,remember? The guy (or gal) who comes out ahead will get the support.

So we see Miss dianaiad has not supported her assertion beyond telling about how the Democrats are having a tough time of it themselves.

And THAT is a direct consequence of his being LDS: specifically, an LDS Bishop and Stake President (compare the job to that of a Catholic parish priest and Bishop)

I challenge you to present confirmatory data for what is obviously an opinion.

Of course it's an opinion. That should have been obvious. It is (ahem) MY OPINION that his ability to work with others is the result of his work as a church leader. That he CAN work with others is well established.

(edit in)
Miss dianaiad has not supported her assertion with any confirmatory data, other'n to say it was dang good Romney was involved in some stuff.

And wouldn't ya know it, that stuff was all related to the Religion / church she seems most proud about.
(carry on)

Of course, I"m biased--but not as much as one would think. There are quite a few LDS politicians I wouldn't vote for; all Democrat.

Best I can tell, Democrats don't really want among their ranks folks who'd oppress others based solely on their sexual preferences.

Best I can tell, having read history, Democrats have done a very good job of REWRITING history...

How, barring divine intervention, is it possible to rewrite that which has already occurred?

It is my contention the accusation of "rewriting history" is merely one's opinion. As such, I contend that Miss dianaiad's failure to support her previous opinion(s) above is indication her statement here ain't nothing but sour grapes.

...to make themselves look good.

And of course it ain't the least bit possible the Republicans wouldn't do some of it themselves

Lincoln, after all, was a Republican.

Lincoln, after all, is dead.

I thought we was talkin' 'bout Romney?

It is my contention that there's some good humans in amongst all of us, regardless of religious or political affiliation, and that to point out our "heroes" is to expose us to the failures of our "not heroes".

So was Martin Luther King.

I assume you mean MLK, Jr.

He's dead.

I thought we was talkin' 'bout Romney?

So were the majority of people voting for civil rights legislation....and it was the Democrats who were fighting tooth and nail to keep segregation alive and well. I know, I know, that's embarrassing, but, well....

I'm only embarrassed that it was my fellow human beings.

I profess political independence and contend that all politicians should be held to the utmost scrutiny and suspicion.

The majority of folks who in the here and now, vote to oppress some of their fellow human beings, based on consensual[/i] sexual actions are Republican. I personally can't tell how good ol' Mr. Lincoln'd felt about it.

Tomorrow I can only hope I don't run out of alcohol, due to the fact that the majority of Republicans who surround me are so frightened of their god, that they would suppress my ability to do something that is legal on any day of the year - except those days these majority Republicans think their god would go bat-wings insane if He found out I had me a sip.

So perhaps you should think and do some research regarding stuff before you make such all inclusive claims?

I stand by my assertions.

I assert that Miss dianaiad is fully capable of expressing her opinion and that she has a right to do every bit of it. I further assert that she is unwilling or unable to support her opinion as I have previously challenged, except to present more opinion.

Of course, I"m biased--but not as much as one would think. There are quite a few LDS politicians I wouldn't vote for; all Democrat.

I don't think they'll mourn the loss of your vote.

Well, cancelling yours out will be of some comfort, there.

I don't doubt that folks who seek to oppress others'd find them some good bit of comfort in getting rid of, or cancelling out, their opposition.

[dianaiad]

From Post 23:

>On Romney<
Actually, he's one of the two men running who has actually run successful businesses.

The US Government is not a business.

No argument there. That's one of the problems with it.

Thus, we see that having run a successful business, in itself, does not mean one can run a successful government.

Well....the folks who are experienced at running governments haven't done such a great job. Let's try folks who are experienced at running a successful business...especially successful businesses coupled with extremely successful charitable organizations.

I mean...consider how things would change if the government took the LDS welfare model, worked on research and development like Mr. Rutan (oh, and perhaps Apple)?

Given that the present approach isn't working all that well, well......

However, his real qualifications for the job, (which include his business expertise, of course) include his ability to lead and to get people of very different backgrounds to work together.

He can't even get those of his Republican background to come together to support him - if current polls are to be trusted.

(shrug) It's a process. The Democrats had a similar fight before Obama took the nomination,remember? The guy (or gal) who comes out ahead will get the support.

So we see Miss dianaiad has not supported her assertion beyond telling about how the Democrats are having a tough time of it themselves.

How much support does an assertion require? The evidence remains the evidence even if you don't like it much, Joey.

However, as has been pointed out, opinions are not quite assertions. I, however, have faith in the evidence for my opinions; enough so that, at the moment at least, Romney will have my vote.

Unless someone better comes along. I don't see anybody.

...................and don't tell anybody, but I would rather vote for Obama than for Ron Paul. What's more scary, my slightly-to-the-right-of-Rush-Limbaugh, thinks-that-Michele-Malkin-is-liberal FATHER would rather vote for Obama than for Ron Paul.

And THAT is a direct consequence of his being LDS: specifically, an LDS Bishop and Stake President (compare the job to that of a Catholic parish priest and Bishop)

I challenge you to present confirmatory data for what is obviously an opinion.

Of course it's an opinion. That should have been obvious. It is (ahem) MY OPINION that his ability to work with others is the result of his work as a church leader. That he CAN work with others is well established.

(edit in)
Miss dianaiad has not supported her assertion with any confirmatory data, other'n to say it was dang good Romney was involved in some stuff.

Joey, again, how much support does an assertion require? What you have just written makes as much sense as criticizing an assertion that Michael Phelps is an Olympic champion because the only evidence provided is that he won a bunch of gold medals in the Olympics.

And wouldn't ya know it, that stuff was all related to the Religion / church she seems most proud about.
(carry on)

Your point?

Facts are facts, no matter who presents them, Joey. There are millions (about 14 million, actually; not the biggest church in the world, but big enough to go on with) of Mormons in the world...and they are organized rather well. Being a leader in that organization absolutely requires the sort of 'working well with others' that I have alluded to.

So does the fact that he was the governor of a state with a legislature composed almost entirely of members of the OTHER party.

It doesn't matter who mentions that, y'know. Even if it is me.

Of course, I"m biased--but not as much as one would think. There are quite a few LDS politicians I wouldn't vote for; all Democrat.

Best I can tell, Democrats don't really want among their ranks folks who'd oppress others based solely on their sexual preferences.

Best I can tell, having read history, Democrats have done a very good job of REWRITING history...

How, barring divine intervention, is it possible to rewrite that which has already occurred?

I take it your degree isn't in communication? Rewriting history is a long cherished approach to government.

It's not about what actually occurred, y'know. It's about what people THINK occurred. After all, if everybody involved is dead or powerless, who is to contradict things?

Then there is the concept of the 'Big Lie," ....an example of which is this constant barrage of "Republicans are Racists" when in fact it's the Republicans who did most to promote civil rights for minorities, and Democrats who did the most to keep (for instance) segregation going.

It is my contention the accusation of "rewriting history" is merely one's opinion. As such, I contend that Miss dianaiad's failure to support her previous opinion(s) above is indication her statement here ain't nothing but sour grapes.

Oh, I dunno, the civil rights issue is a beautiful case in point. Look at how the Republicans are being portrayed in political ads now....and have been for years...and then take a really good look at what party the real racists belonged to.

...to make themselves look good.

And of course it ain't the least bit possible the Republicans wouldn't do some of it themselves

Sure they do.

Your point?

Lincoln, after all, was a Republican.

Lincoln, after all, is dead.

Oh, now THAT'S ironic. Safely dead, so he doesn't count in your representation of 'truth?"

I thought we was talkin' 'bout Romney?

It is my contention that there's some good humans in amongst all of us, regardless of religious or political affiliation, and that to point out our "heroes" is to expose us to the failures of our "not heroes".

So was Martin Luther King.

I assume you mean MLK, Jr.

He's dead.

I thought we was talkin' 'bout Romney?

So were the majority of people voting for civil rights legislation....and it was the Democrats who were fighting tooth and nail to keep segregation alive and well. I know, I know, that's embarrassing, but, well....

I'm only embarrassed that it was my fellow human beings.

I profess political independence and contend that all politicians should be held to the utmost scrutiny and suspicion.

Well, me, too....sorta. I'd be a libertarian except that getting a libertarian elected would be like herding crickets.

The majority of folks who in the here and now, vote to oppress some of their fellow human beings, based on consensual[/i] sexual actions are Republican. I personally can't tell how good ol' Mr. Lincoln'd felt about it.

Tomorrow I can only hope I don't run out of alcohol, due to the fact that the majority of Republicans who surround me are so frightened of their god, that they would suppress my ability to do something that is legal on any day of the year - except those days these majority Republicans think their god would go bat-wings insane if He found out I had me a sip.

So the whole thing boils down to whether your candidate supports your right to buy booze on Christmas?

So perhaps you should think and do some research regarding stuff before you make such all inclusive claims?

I stand by my assertions.

You will have to provide at least as much support for your assertions as I have provided for mine. You haven't, y'know.

I assert that Miss dianaiad is fully capable of expressing her opinion and that she has a right to do every bit of it. I further assert that she is unwilling or unable to support her opinion as I have previously challenged, except to present more opinion.

That's not an assertion. That's an opinion. Except of course for the part about my having a RIGHT to say what I please.

Of course, I"m biased--but not as much as one would think. There are quite a few LDS politicians I wouldn't vote for; all Democrat.

I don't think they'll mourn the loss of your vote.

Well, cancelling yours out will be of some comfort, there.

I don't doubt that folks who seek to oppress others'd find them some good bit of comfort in getting rid of, or cancelling out, their opposition.

Here's an assertion: It's not me and those who believe/think as I do who are attempting to oppress anybody. Accusations of this are, in fact, a classic case of projection.

................and not even unconscious projection.

Merry Christmas, Joey, and I do hope that you managed to stock up enough booze to properly celebrate the day....

And that if you run out, and you are dumb enough to drive to a store to buy more, that you are greeted to a light display in your rear view mirror that will cap your Christmas festivities.

....and that the cops are nice to you.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 25:



I had prepared a full response to the referenced post, but dangitall if I didn't get to this here,

Merry Christmas, Joey, and I do hope that you managed to stock up enough booze to properly celebrate the day....

And that if you run out, and you are dumb enough to drive to a store to buy more, that you are greeted to a light display in your rear view mirror that will cap your Christmas festivities.

....and that the cops are nice to you.

As much as I'd so like to respond in full, I will just say that my contention here is that when folks go to presenting opinion, and you end up calling 'em on it, danged if this sort of thing doesn't so often occur.

I would add that while I'm unaware of just what we might call a "fallacy from hopin' others end up in pain", it is my contention that hopin' it there to begin with it ain't somethin' we oughta be proud of.

[JohnPaul]

From Post 25:



I had prepared a full response to the referenced post, but dangitall if I didn't get to this here,

Merry Christmas, Joey, and I do hope that you managed to stock up enough booze to properly celebrate the day....

And that if you run out, and you are dumb enough to drive to a store to buy more, that you are greeted to a light display in your rear view mirror that will cap your Christmas festivities.

....and that the cops are nice to you.

As much as I'd so like to respond in full, I will just say that my contention here is that when folks go to presenting opinion, and you end up calling 'em on it, danged if this sort of thing doesn't so often occur.

I would add that while I'm unaware of just what we might call a "fallacy from hopin' others end up in pain", it is my contention that hopin' it there to begin with it ain't somethin' we oughta be proud of.

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you!

John

[dianaiad]

From Post 25:



I had prepared a full response to the referenced post, but dangitall if I didn't get to this here,

Merry Christmas, Joey, and I do hope that you managed to stock up enough booze to properly celebrate the day....

And that if you run out, and you are dumb enough to drive to a store to buy more, that you are greeted to a light display in your rear view mirror that will cap your Christmas festivities.

....and that the cops are nice to you.

As much as I'd so like to respond in full, I will just say that my contention here is that when folks go to presenting opinion, and you end up calling 'em on it, danged if this sort of thing doesn't so often occur.

I would add that while I'm unaware of just what we might call a "fallacy from hopin' others end up in pain", it is my contention that hopin' it there to begin with it ain't somethin' we oughta be proud of.

Joey, Joey...

You make me very sad.

[micatala]

It seems to me, with the second slow implosion of Gingrich, that Romeny is looking quite nominatable and I think that means by extension, he is also looking electable, even if he does have some hills to climb.

I still think he loses to Obama, even if unemployment is over 8%, but if I were a betting man I would lay something less than $10,000 that he gets the nomination.

Why in the world do you think he would lose to Obama?

Frankly, from the polls, etc., I think Obama would lose to a stuffed elephant.

What polls are you looking at? The polls I have seen have Obama beating Gingrich, Perry, and even Romney, although that one is the closest. I have seen some recent polls saying an "unnamed republican" has a slight lead on Obama but unfortunately, the Republicans can't nominate "Unnamed."

[dianaiad]

It seems to me, with the second slow implosion of Gingrich, that Romeny is looking quite nominatable and I think that means by extension, he is also looking electable, even if he does have some hills to climb.

I still think he loses to Obama, even if unemployment is over 8%, but if I were a betting man I would lay something less than $10,000 that he gets the nomination.

Why in the world do you think he would lose to Obama?

Frankly, from the polls, etc., I think Obama would lose to a stuffed elephant.

What polls are you looking at? The polls I have seen have Obama beating Gingrich, Perry, and even Romney, although that one is the closest. I have seen some recent polls saying an "unnamed republican" has a slight lead on Obama but unfortunately, the Republicans can't nominate "Unnamed."

a two point spread is a statistical dead heat...

and as soon as any of the Republicans gets that nomination, S/he WILL be the 'unnamed Republican.' you talk about.

I'll admit that my views on this are my opinions, (the 'etc.' here) but this early in the game?

In Obama's first term, and up for his second term re-election, as the INCUMBENT...and he's in a statistical dead heat against an opponent who doesn't even have the nomination?

C'mon.

He's in trouble.