|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Mitt Romney: sanity check
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
Last night I read this Rolling Stone article* courtesy of a link from a friend.
Given there are a lot of stroppy Americans here from across the political spectrum ![[Smile]](smile.gif) I thought this might be the best place to get comment on whether it's fairly accurate, or tilting at windmills. Prior to reading this my general impression of Romney from reporting over here was that he was something of a very conservative wing-nut with more style than substance, but that his worryingly loony-tunes views seemed to be born from being a stupid bastard rather than a very intelligent but morally reprehensible one.
Is it a fair piece? Is the bloke who could become POTUS on the back of a wave of "anyone but Obama" feeling genuinely such an odious self-serving sack of the proverbial? Or is it just a wee bit sensationalist?
I'm not under any illusions about most successful politicians, but some of the Romney/Ryan stuff just seems to beggar belief - not that they did it/hold the views, but that people are content to not only look past it, but actively support them.
*Sorry hosts, it's rather long
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think part of the problem is that US politics appears to be more polarised than ever - and what those of us outside of the US (and maybe those inside too?) seem to be presented with are only the more polarised versions.
It's a bit like the reporting of the Pussy Riot thing (just as an example, I'm not going into the detail here). US friends tell me that there was very little, if any, reporting in the US about the other Pussy Riot stunts - the orgy in the museum and so on. They were surprised that the UK media reported this aspect and were still largely on the side of the protestors ...
Any media tends to focus on the sensationalist and the extremes. Beeswax Altar has had to remind me (and others aboard Ship) that the US Republican Party is a broader church than it is popularly portrayed. I'm sure he's right. But from coverage over here you could be forgiven for thinking that the entire American Right consists solely of Klansmen, White-Supremacists, Flat-Earthers, Six-Day Creations and people who sleep with their sisters in trailer-parks during the week and handle rattle-snakes in church on a Sunday.
We all know that isn't the case (well, not entirely ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ) but that's the impression we get. Equally the US impression of the NHS, for instance, is one where patients wait 1500 years for an appointment and are then left naked over open-sewers for the rats to lick their scabs ...
Oppositional politics of the kind we have in the US and the UK and so on are bound to create polarised views. Surely that's a healthy thing?
But it can get out of hand at times.
I just wish they'd all cool down a bit.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
To give an example of a moderate Republican, I'll cite my father.
His issues: - FOR gun control (yes, they do exist!) He even contributed to a NY Denocrat who had the cojones to stare down the NRA.
- AGAINST abortion as birth control. Fine with its use for medical danger to the mother or victims of incest or rape.
- FOR border protection. He's sure that illegal aliens are bleeding us dry.
- AGAINST our high national debt. He thinks both parties are insane for ignoring it.
- Basically likes Obama okay, but thinks he stalled on the economic recovery while spending his "honeymoon" capital on health care.
- BUT, I'm afraid he'll vote for Romney. When in doubt, he'll vote Republican.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
US friends tell me that there was very little, if any, reporting in the US about the other Pussy Riot stunts - the orgy in the museum and so on.
[Tangent] The orgy in the museum was I believe the work of performance 'art' group Voina (War) who are not affiliated with Pussy Riot (see this week's Private Eye).[/tangent]
[ 30. August 2012, 10:23: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
To give an example of a moderate Republican, I'll cite my father.
His issues: - FOR gun control (yes, they do exist!) He even contributed to a NY Denocrat who had the cojones to stare down the NRA.
- AGAINST abortion as birth control. Fine with its use for medical danger to the mother or victims of incest or rape.
- FOR border protection. He's sure that illegal aliens are bleeding us dry.
- AGAINST our high national debt. He thinks both parties are insane for ignoring it.
- Basically likes Obama okay, but thinks he stalled on the economic recovery while spending his "honeymoon" capital on health care.
- BUT, I'm afraid he'll vote for Romney. When in doubt, he'll vote Republican.
I used to be a Republican back in the day when they were fairly moderate. I won't be voting for them in their present extreme move to the right.
The interesting thing about Mitt is he's a classic liberal when he's running for office in a liberal state like Massachusetts and he's right wing hardliner when it's the Tea Party set that are setting the GOP agenda for the Presidency. If he's elected I think for the first 4 years he'll do whatever the winds decree is necessary for re-election and if he wins a 2nd term it's anybody's guess because he won't have any other election to win. I don't think we've ever seen the real Mitt and who knows what Mitt would be like in his last term with no one else to kiss up to to get elected or re-elected.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
Lyda*Rose, if he's against the debt, and that Rolling Stone article is accurate, you might want to wave it in front of him (probably not from the mobile site though, the formatting's a bit harsh!).
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl:
The interesting thing about Mitt is he's a classic liberal when he's running for office in a liberal state like Massachusetts and he's right wing hardliner when it's the Tea Party set that are setting the GOP agenda for the Presidency. If he's elected I think for the first 4 years he'll do whatever the winds decree is necessary for re-election and if he wins a 2nd term it's anybody's guess because he won't have any other election to win. I don't think we've ever seen the real Mitt and who knows what Mitt would be like in his last term with no one else to kiss up to to get elected or re-elected.
In other words, he's a politician. Who woulda thunk it!
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl:
The interesting thing about Mitt is he's a classic liberal when he's running for office in a liberal state like Massachusetts and he's right wing hardliner when it's the Tea Party set that are setting the GOP agenda for the Presidency. If he's elected I think for the first 4 years he'll do whatever the winds decree is necessary for re-election and if he wins a 2nd term it's anybody's guess because he won't have any other election to win. I don't think we've ever seen the real Mitt and who knows what Mitt would be like in his last term with no one else to kiss up to to get elected or re-elected.
In other words, he's a politician. Who woulda thunk it!
Oh no, no, no, no. He's gone waaay beyond politician. They all spin and all to some extent play to the audience they're in front of, but I've never seen anyone else who has played both ends of the spectrum in a relatively short time span and who has no real explanation as to why he's gone from one end to the other - even condemning the exact policies that he put in place in office in the place that required them in order to get in office and be re-elected. He made it as governor but couldn't beat Teddy. There was no way to turn himself into one of the last of the Camelot generation Kennedy's in Massachusetts.
[ 30. August 2012, 10:55: Message edited by: Niteowl ]
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
passer
Indigo
# 13329
|
Posted
It's always interesting to see how various elements of the Press set out their stall at election time, an especially topical subject in the UK in view of the Leveson inquiry this year.
Of course, in the US, you can always count on Faux News to toe the Murdoch line. Can't you?
Posts: 1289 | From: Sheffield | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Haven't read the article yet, but a couple of things:
--Sometime during the last week, his wife said that when they were deciding whether he'd run, "he was reluctant". Did she push him??
--Watched closely, his eyes seem very sad--all the time.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, I keep noticing something odd in his expression. I'm not sure if it's sadness - possibly. My wife thought that he looks not very convinced by himself. Again, who knows. But there is something there which is a kind of dissonance. I suppose this is true of all politicians, since they have to put on a persona, which may jar a little even with themselves. I suppose Obama has developed a very smooth and relaxed persona, although again, who knows if this is authentic or not?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
The article basically sets out a case that his entire anti-debt stance is rank hypocrisy, as he got rich on the back of destroying viable businesses by saddling them with enormous debt purely to asset strip them.
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Haven't read the article yet, but a couple of things:
--Sometime during the last week, his wife said that when they were deciding whether he'd run, "he was reluctant". Did she push him??
--Watched closely, his eyes seem very sad--all the time.
If I'm correct, it started when Paul Ryan was put on the ticket to satisfy the far right wing of the party. I'm thinking he realizes he'll be playing 2nd fiddle even if he's President.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
[Tangent reply] To Matt Black -
Yes, I'm aware it was attributed to another group but as far as I'm aware, but I can't cite chapter and verse right now, members of Pussy Riot did take part in the public orgy - including one who was heavily pregnant at the time. I might be wrong, but I have seen links and reportage to that effect. These groups tend to be fairly porous to some extent, part of the anarchic ethos.
Anyway, whether or not this was the case, the point I was making was that all media filters things out - whether it comes from the right or the left.
[Tangent over]
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think part of the problem is that US politics appears to be more polarised than ever - and what those of us outside of the US (and maybe those inside too?) seem to be presented with are only the more polarised versions.
I think that's right. Few people that I know get caught up in these extremes.
Politicians are in the business of demonizing their opponents. I think the truth is that the differences in what happens when either democrats or republicans are in charge are so slight that they are hard to identify with much objectivity.
The simple version of republican and democrat that motivates most people, I think, is this: - Republicans emphasize "family values", lower taxes, "smaller" government, certain types of individual rights (better business climate, gun ownership), and defense spending that promotes democracy worldwide.
- Democrats emphasize compassion and care for disadvantaged groups, the helpful role of government in the economy and for individuals, other types of individual rights (abortion, gay marriage), de-emphasis on defense, international harmony.
Both of these alternatives have their strengths and weaknesses. They are both largely hypocritical because these goals are hard to realize and there is actually little difference in how the two parties act on the issues. National elections, though, do give a perspective and a kind of mandate to one or the other that helps to inch their programs forward.
I myself fall on the Republican side. It seems reasonable to me. I don't care about the candidates so much as the party platforms, even though I know there is little actual difference.
I think Obama is a fine man and a good president. I think the same would be true of Romney. I would rather see Republicans in charge. I simply don't believe or care about the polarising rhetoric that comes with the campaign season. On the other hand, you never know!
[ 01. September 2012, 12:20: Message edited by: Freddy ]
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
The link that Snags posts to is a Rolling Stone article by Matt Taibbi, detailing Mitt Romney's background as a Bainie. I'm sure that most of the facts are right - they would likely have been double-checked anyway.
But even so, Bain is a classic example of what is called "vulture capitalism", a species that predates businesses to take them over by means of a leveraged buyout, saddle them with enormous debt, and sell their consultancy services to the new management at enormous cost. They are loathed and destested almost as much by other kinds of capitalists as they are by those who would point out that capitalism may have a few flaws needing urgent current attention.
But I think the point is to highlight the amusing notion of Mitt Romney running on an anti-debt ticket, given how he made his millions.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think part of the problem is that US politics appears to be more polarised than ever - and what those of us outside of the US (and maybe those inside too?) seem to be presented with are only the more polarised versions.
I think that's right. Few people that I know get caught up in these extremes.
Politicians are in the business of demonizing their opponents. I think the truth is that the differences in what happens when either democrats or republicans are in charge are so slight that they are hard to identify with much objectivity.
The simple version of republican and democrat that motivates most people, I think, is this: - Republicans emphasize "family values", lower taxes, "smaller" government, certain types of individual rights (better business climate, gun ownership), and defense spending that promotes democracy worldwide.
- Democrats emphasize compassion and care for disadvantaged groups, the helpful role of government in the economy and for individuals, other types of individual rights (abortion, gay marriage), de-emphasis on defense, international harmony.
Both of these alternatives have their strengths and weaknesses. They are both largely hypocritical because these goals are hard to realize and there is actually little difference in how the two parties act on the issues. National elections, though, do give a perspective and a kind of mandate to one or the other that helps to inch their programs forward.
I myself fall on the Republican side. It seems reasonable to me. I don't care about the candidates so much as the party platforms, even though I know there is little actual difference.
I think Obama is a fine man and a good president. I think the same would be true of Romney. I would rather see Republicans in charge. I simply don't believe or care about the polarising rhetoric that comes with the campaign season. On the other hand, you never know!
This sounds way too reasonable to have been written by a Republican (and yes, I realize that statement makes me part of the problem. Ironic).
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
From your description of the two groups, Freddy, I assumed you were a Democrat. Firstly, may I compliment you on being so generous to both sides? Secondly, I'd like to know why you are a Republican? It must be a reflection of my political bias, but your description of the Democratic position sounds far more attractive than the alternative, so you must have good reasons for being a Republican.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Secondly, I'd like to know why you are a Republican? It must be a reflection of my political bias, but your description of the Democratic position sounds far more attractive than the alternative, so you must have good reasons for being a Republican.
I would have thought that my description of the Republican position sounded more attractive. To each his own, I guess.
Maybe one thing would be that all the positive things about each party have their corresponding downside, and we all have our opinions about whether the upside or downside is the more likely result.
I tend to think that the beautiful dreams of the Democratic party are more unrealistic than the beautiful dreams of the Republican party.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, I keep noticing something odd in his expression. I'm not sure if it's sadness - possibly. My wife thought that he looks not very convinced by himself. Again, who knows. But there is something there which is a kind of dissonance. I suppose this is true of all politicians, since they have to put on a persona, which may jar a little even with themselves. I suppose Obama has developed a very smooth and relaxed persona, although again, who knows if this is authentic or not?
My sister who is completely uninterested in politics, and has in fact never voted (!) told me Romney creeps her out and she might vote this fall just to vote for Obama. Basically, she hasn't really paid attention to content (she's not interested); she just gets a vibe from him that he can't be trusted.
I haven't paid enough attention to see this expression you're talking about.
I suspect Romney is basically a good guy, with most of his faults probably chalked up to growing up privileged and being rich. At least I want to be charitable and think that.
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
- Republicans emphasize "family values"...
And how do you define that ambiguous term in a manner consistent with the other stated policies and observed practices of the party?
Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carex:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
- Republicans emphasize "family values"...
And how do you define that ambiguous term in a manner consistent with the other stated policies and observed practices of the party?
Heh-heh. Don't forget we are dealing the American public here. No need for any broad measures of consistency. The voting public understands the terms well enough to form their decisions.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Carex:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
- Republicans emphasize "family values"...
And how do you define that ambiguous term in a manner consistent with the other stated policies and observed practices of the party?
Heh-heh. Don't forget we are dealing the American public here. No need for any broad measures of consistency. The voting public understands the terms well enough to form their decisions.
Yes, the voting public knows what it means: a dog whistle for bigoted, misogynistic, head-in-the-sand types recalling the fairytale image of Father Knows Best (where anyone Not Like Us isn't seen), and that tries to pretend that the Republicans have the best interests of families at heart to disguise that fact that, in reality, their policies accomplish just the opposite. Advocated by politicians such as our local representative who hired his mistress as his campaign manager at salary (out of his campaign funds rather than his own pocket) that was found to be far beyond what was reasonable for her contribution, then, as soon as he was elected, he divorced his wife and married the mistress, so, in effect, converting the campaign donations to his personal use. All while advocating "family values", so we can use his actions as a guide to a working definition...
This plank in the party platform is so insidious that they nobody dares to spell out exactly what they mean by it, and you think it is a reason why someone would vote FOR a Republican candidate?
Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carex:
This plank in the party platform is so insidious that they nobody dares to spell out exactly what they mean by it, and you think it is a reason why someone would vote FOR a Republican candidate?
I see your point. It does sound bad doesn't it!
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
I have a number of friends who can't imagine voting other than Republican whether or not they agree with any of the policies, so a lot of what is going on is, I don't know, emotional? Loyalty to someone/something other than a political party?
Some friends go to churches that apparently teach that Republican is the Christian party. One friend laughed when I mentioned that I had voted for Obama. Obviously it was a joke, all Christians vote Republican.
I don't know that preachers outright say "if you are a Christian you must vote Republican," but I heard Bush referred to as "a prophet of God," and derision of "Godless Democrats," and opposition to abortion as the sole important issue that overrides all other considerations about who to vote for.
I guess if one is repeatedly told the definition of a good Christian is someone who has "asked Jesus to come into my heart" and goes to church every Sunday and tithes and votes Republican, one doesn't admit to not doing any of those if one wants to be thought -- or wants to think oneself -- a good Christian.
A different group of friends intrigue me -- at a gathering they complained about Bush policy after policy, from starting unnecessary wars to torture to the economy, on and on, and yet the topic concluded with one declaring "but I would never vote for a Democrat" and the others vehemently agreeing. "Never!"
If they don't have anything nice to say about Republican policies but won't switch parties, that may suggest some kind of identification that is not related to politics. Loyalty to parents? A way of expressing racism (white supremacy) without quite admitting it? Not wanting to face maybe having voted "wrong" in the past? I have no idea.
(There are of course others who thoughtfully conclude Republican party better matches their views about what if any level of social services government should provide.)
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Some friends go to churches that apparently teach that Republican is the Christian party. One friend laughed when I mentioned that I had voted for Obama. Obviously it was a joke, all Christians vote Republican.
Statistically, churchgoers tend to vote Republican, according to this CNN item.
quote:
A Gallup Poll shows that 40% of Republicans say they attend church weekly.
Twenty-one percent say they attend nearly weekly or monthly, and 38% say they seldom or rarely go to church.
Compare that to only 27% of Democrats who say they go to church every week, 20% who say they go monthly and 52% of Democrats who say they seldom or never go to church.
These polls also show that Democrats are less religious than the average American, and Republicans are more religious.
Consider this: Almost one in five Democrats identify with no religious faith compared to only one in 10 Republicans who feel that way.
These are pretty significant differences.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Statistically, [self-reported] churchgoers tend to vote Republican, according to this CNN item.
quote:
A Gallup Poll shows that 40% of Republicans say they attend church weekly.
Twenty-one percent say they attend nearly weekly or monthly, and 38% say they seldom or rarely go to church.
Compare that to only 27% of Democrats who say they go to church every week, 20% who say they go monthly and 52% of Democrats who say they seldom or never go to church.
These polls also show that Democrats are less [self-reportedly] religious than the average American, and Republicans are more [self-reportedly] religious.
Consider this: Almost one in five Democrats [say they] identify with no religious faith compared to only one in 10 Republicans [say they] who feel that way.
These are pretty significant [self-reported] differences.
Fixed your quote for you.
It is well known among statisticians that self-reported church attendance is significantly different than actual church attendance, especially among Americans.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
I'm just glad to be part of the 27%. Sometimes it feels smaller.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Fixed your quote for you.
Good one.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lord Jestocost
Shipmate
# 12909
|
Posted
I learnt today (and have verified) that "Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan" is an anagram of "My ultimate Ayn Rand porn".
Just saying.
Posts: 761 | From: The Instrumentality of Man | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
coniunx
Shipmate
# 15313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Statistically, churchgoers tend to vote Republican, according to this CNN item.
quote:
A Gallup Poll shows that 40% of Republicans say they attend church weekly.
Twenty-one percent say they attend nearly weekly or monthly, and 38% say they seldom or rarely go to church.
Compare that to only 27% of Democrats who say they go to church every week, 20% who say they go monthly and 52% of Democrats who say they seldom or never go to church.
These polls also show that Democrats are less religious than the average American, and Republicans are more religious.
Consider this: Almost one in five Democrats identify with no religious faith compared to only one in 10 Republicans who feel that way.
These are pretty significant differences.
Errm...
Actually, those figures say that more Republicans than Democrats say they are weekly churchgoers. That's a very different thing from saying most churchgoers are Republican, which is one possible conclusion from the figures, but relies on quite a lot of unstated assumptions. It's not difficult to construct a situation in which those answers would arise, despite most churchgoers voting Republican.
--------------------
--
Coniunx
Posts: 250 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
Errm...
Actually, those figures say that more Republicans than Democrats say they are weekly churchgoers. That's a very different thing from saying most churchgoers are Republican, which is one possible conclusion from the figures, but relies on quite a lot of unstated assumptions. It's not difficult to construct a situation in which those answers would arise, despite most churchgoers voting Republican.
You are probably right about unstated assumptions. ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
As I read it, those answers show that Republicans are, for the most part, on the path to heaven. Sadly, the same cannot be said for Democrats, although I am sure that some of them are probably perfectly decent individuals. ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Jestocost:
I learnt today (and have verified) that "Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan" is an anagram of "My ultimate Ayn Rand porn".
Just saying.
This is worthy of the Quotes file!
--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson
Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It is well known among statisticians that self-reported church attendance is significantly different than actual church attendance, especially among Americans.
So we can at least figure that more Republicans than Democrats feel sufficiently guilty about not going to church that they are willing to lie about it to pollsters.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
So - honestly not meaning to insult anyone - is Mormonism, the Church of the LDS basically accepted amongst conservative or Republican Americans as just another Christian denomination?
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
I'd have to say "No", but strides may have been made in the last decade.
As evidence, I would point to the recent advertisements from the LDS having various people talk about what they do and then end by saying "...and I am a Mormon". They wouldn't need this sort of 'normalcy' campaign if they came across as normal.
On the other hand, a number of successful political figures of recent years have been Mormons, so it is probably less of a stumbling block than it was.
There may be an odd pop cultural fascination with Mormonism at the moment as something totally other and yet totally homegrown. And yet, I very much doubt Mormonism is accepted as a Christian denomination by most Evangelical Christians in the U.S., among other groups.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
People are perhaps a little less likely to be rude about it, but overall the Christian groups with strong ideas about who will be going to Hell almost universally consign Mormons to the nether regions.
--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson
Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grits
Compassionate fundamentalist
# 4169
|
Posted
I'd have to say no, as well.
I think this speaks to the concept of voting for the man or for the party (or politician.). Case in point: Bill Clinton. Possibly a truly fine politician, but I wouldn't want to be in a room alone with him.
Sometimes you just gotta pick your own poison.
--------------------
Lord, fill my mouth with worthwhile stuff, and shut it when I've said enough. Amen.
Posts: 8419 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sylvander
Shipmate
# 12857
|
Posted
No, they are not regarded as Christian by any other major denomination in the world. But their social positions on family, sexual ethics and a few other things tend to coincide with those of most evangelical Christians in the U.S. And the Republican party's.
Incidentally it is all very well to ridicule the "family values" Mormons advocate. But more helpful to spell out where exactly they are wrong? Surely just looking to the past in order to learn from experience is not in itself bad, is it?
One has to admit that Mormon marriages are far more stable, alcohol and drug abuse among their youngsters is much lower than average and a few other aspects where they do not come out badly at all. As far as I know Mormon women do not rate their own lives as unhappier than other women do (i.e. most people there are happy). I know a few modern, emancipated, professionally successful women in Germany who became Mormon - family values being an important factor. Mormon men want a family and you can be pretty sure they'll stick around to raise them and make time to be with them. Their faith prescribes it.
And I am not sure looking at our socities, dominated as they are by left wing family policies (single parenthood advocated as perfectly fine and equally good, gay marriage legal in most European countries, divorce easy, gay adoptions) have much to brag about when it comes to "family". Or maybe we think the dire reality of our socities does not count? After all we on the left just know we know better AND are better people, so to vote Republican can only be motivated by greed, stupidity and bad faith (no pun intended).
Would it not be more helpful to assume that my political opponent is genuinely motivated by what s/he perceives to be the best for the common good? Just like I am.
I think that is what Freddy did above.
Posts: 1589 | From: Berlin | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
Thanks for the replies. I was just wondering how a Mormon as first citizen of the US would sit with the Republican movement. Or those Americans whose patriotic identity is very much tied in to their Christian faith.
But the point about Mormonism as a 'home-grown' faith is interesting. Persecuted, driven out to find their own corner in the country and stupendously successful. Ticks a lot of boxes.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sylvander:
Incidentally it is all very well to ridicule the "family values" Mormons advocate.
No one that I know of ridicules family values--and I know some really far-out-there liberals. They ridicule politicians who use the term to play on the fears of people that society is going to Hell in a handbasket. Politicians play on those fears by stigmatizing single parents--many of whom (maybe most?) did not choose to be single. They do it by stigmatizing gay people. They do it by continually harping on "illegal immigration"--which has the unfortunate consequence of meaning that any American citizen who doesn't look like a WASP worries about routine traffic stops. They also bring ridicule to the term when they don't live up to the values they use to beat the rest of us about the ears.
No one on the left is "against" stable families. No one on the left is "against" living up to one's obligations. They are against ostracizing those whose lives have not been as fortunate, and they are concerned right now that the Republican party is trying to turn the nation into government of the corporation, by the corporation, and for the corporation.
That's not just the left, either. More than a few old-style Republicans aren't terribly thrilled with the direction of the party either, and I think that's one more reason why Romney isn't inspiring the base the way the Bushes did.
I tend to hold the view that each party holds the government until the other party stops being crazy. I don't think the Republicans are quite there, yet.
--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson
Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Thanks for the replies. I was just wondering how a Mormon as first citizen of the US would sit with the Republican movement. Or those Americans whose patriotic identity is very much tied in to their Christian faith.
The Republican movement's interests are flexible enough to stretch to contain a Mormon first citizen, even if they are uncomfortable with his religion, as long as he's on the right(ward) side of the issues.
The lack of enthusiasm in the base for Romney stems more from his previous record as a much more moderate Republican, at least on social issues, and they worry about 'betrayal' after the election. The religion adds a certain outre flair, but if that was the only concern then you'd see no enthusiasm gap on the right.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sylvander:
Incidentally it is all very well to ridicule the "family values" Mormons advocate. But more helpful to spell out where exactly they are wrong?
First, of course, you have to define what they are, because the phrase appears to be intentionally ambiguous, especially as used by politicians. And Mormons aren't alone in using the term. Consider that that would mean translated into laws, and what the impact would be on the rest of the population.
Then look at the the actual impacts of other legislation supported by the same Party and see if it really does support families, and whether the behavior of the politicians that run on a "family values" reflects those values.
So in the case of the local politician who divorced his wife and married his campaign manager, such behavior on its own isn't that remarkable. We've had plenty of national candidates who have divorced and remarried, some multiple times. But the fact that he was a staunch advocate of "family values" in the campaign would imply either that (a) he didn't think it applied to him, or (b) that such behavior was not contrary to whatever one includes in the term "family values".
With enough samples of such behavior, one might come to the conclusion that "family values" is really an empty term, or at least the meaning is limited to "gays should stay in the closet." But perhaps the reason why I never see a specific description of what politicians mean by it is because they don't want to be held to it as a standard for their personal behavior.
From personal discussions and some involvement with therapy, it appears that abuse is not as uncommon in Mormon households, or those of other strong male-headship groups, as surveys might suggest, because it simply is not talked about. Certainly the sexual abuse of young girls by older male family members is significantly under-reported.
(Pretending that such things as sexual abuse, teenage pregnancy and gays don't exist by keeping them out of sight appears to be a major attraction of returning to the mythical 1950's.)
Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sylvander:
Incidentally it is all very well to ridicule the "family values" Mormons advocate. But more helpful to spell out where exactly they are wrong? Surely just looking to the past in order to learn from experience is not in itself bad, is it?
I may have missed it. Can you point out here where anyone has ridiculed the Mormons' family values? Or did you have some other input in mind beyond this thread?
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
I am very surprised that so many people suggest that Mormons are widely considered "not-Christian." When I was active in my church & representing our congo on the local Council of Churches, the local Mormons were active and accepted members.
Mind you, I didn't consider them Christian at the time. When you take a detailed look under the hood of their religious vehicle, it looks distinctly L. Ron Hubbardish to me.
But then I live in a region of the U.S. regarded as "least religious" in the country. So what do I know?
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I may have missed it. Can you point out here where anyone has ridiculed the Mormons' family values? Or did you have some other input in mind beyond this thread?
I had the same thought. I think "family values" has a very specific, well understood meaning, and with Mormons it wouldn't be any different than any other Christians (except for those Mormons who accept "plural marriage").
So many Mormons have been active in politics that they are well accepted, in my view. They stand for nothing more or less than "clean living" and are widely regarded as honest and public spirited.
I was enlightened on this point not too long ago by a family connection who is a Mormon Bishop. He said, rightly or wrongly I don't know, that the specific LDS theology is not really the point of Mormonism. The point is "clean living" and it is rigorously enforced.
Probably his major responsibility is subjecting every single member of his flock to annual interviews (twice annually for teens) to make sure that they are doing everything they are uspposed to be doing, from tithing, to church attendance, to refraining from wrong things such as alcohol, caffeine, tobacco, impure sexual behavior, etc. He said "I know when they are lying." If they fail the examination the consequences are real and severe.
This practice goes a long way, to my way of thinking, in explaining why Mormons have such a positive reputation despite the peculiar theology.
So my opinion is that Romney's LDS faith is not seen by many people as a negative thing. Mormon "family values" dovetail quite well with those of other conservative Christian denominations.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Lothiriel
Shipmate
# 15561
|
Posted
Listening to Romney in the first two debates made me think of this article and thread again. He keeps repeating "I know how to create jobs", and I keep wanting to throw something at the TV every time he says it. Can any American shipmates comment on whether the Bain connection gets much discussion or airplay? I see that the Obama campaign and a super-PAC have run ads about it -- are they having any effect?
--------------------
If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the men to gather wood, divide the work and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea. St-Exupery
my blog
Posts: 538 | From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lothiriel:
Listening to Romney in the first two debates made me think of this article and thread again. He keeps repeating "I know how to create jobs", and I keep wanting to throw something at the TV every time he says it. Can any American shipmates comment on whether the Bain connection gets much discussion or airplay? I see that the Obama campaign and a super-PAC have run ads about it -- are they having any effect?
Bain gets lots of airplay. It is all part of what makes campaigns so bizarre -- Bain is a successful business venture. Romney uses that fact to claim that he knows how to "create jobs," which is simply not the purpose of a business venture. Obama uses that fact to claim that Bain willfully destroys jobs, which is equally absurd.
So the net effect seems to be that folks who don't like rich people feel that Bain is a negative, and folks who admire rich people see it differently. In short, it is used as a mirror to show you your own prejudices and tie them to Romney. My expectation is that people would do that sort of thing on their own anyway.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
So, one can't dislike Bain because of the nature of the business they conducted? Either you like rich people and like Bain, or hate rich people and hate Bain? Black-or-white fallacy, anybody? (with a healthy dose of ad hominem* or at least poisoning the well)
I seem to remember Newt Gingrich had some pretty juicy things to say about Bain. Hard to say he hates rich people.
___________________
*to the man
[ 17. October 2012, 16:07: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
