DCP's Stock goes Down again

[_cinepro]

What evidence is there that he has given more than the least amount of money and time necessary to further his own personal, political and spiritual ambitions?

Seriously, not a rhetorical question. He may be a great guy for all I know. I just haven't seen any evidence. Does he tip his waitresses 25%? Does he refuse to eat foie gras on principle? If he sees trash on the side the road, does he pull over and pick it up?

I don't know what kind of "evidence" you would be looking for (especially if comparing between two candidates). I'm just saying that based on the many bishops and stake presidents I've known over the last few decades, including close friends and family members, there is a tremendous amount of thankless work done privately that deals with people who are struggling with "real world" issues, and I would consider that service to be a huge asset towards accumulating the kind of attitudes and life experience I might look for in a President.

I certainly don't think Romney is perfect, and I agree that his "47%" comment was stupid (just as Obama's "guns and religion" comment was stupid back in 2008), but given the choice between Obama and Romney, I think Romney is the right guy to lead the country for the next 4 or 8 years. There are many other people whom I might have preferred, and I've voted libertarian in the past when I didn't like the Republican or Democratic nominees, but this time, I like Romney enough to vote for him.

That being said, I live in California so my vote isn't going to mean much either way. Oh well.

[_Chap]

Being a nice guy - even a very nice guy, which Romney may well be - does not really add a great deal to a person's qualifications for filling what is still the most powerful and potentially dangerous job in the world.

Being incautious in speech both at home and abroad, and being evidently unaware of one's limitations, is however a really crucial disqualification for filling what is still the most powerful and potentially dangerous job in the world.

[_Kishkumen]

I certainly don't think Romney is perfect, and I agree that his "47%" comment was stupid (just as Obama's "guns and religion" comment was stupid back in 2008), but given the choice between Obama and Romney, I think Romney is the right guy to lead the country for the next 4 or 8 years. There are many other people whom I might have preferred, and I've voted libertarian in the past when I didn't like the Republican or Democratic nominees, but this time, I like Romney enough to vote for him.

cinepro is such a reasonable and rational fellow. I can respect his reasons here. I don't agree, of course. Nevertheless, if Romney should somehow manage to pull victory from the closing maw of defeat, I hope that he manages not to stick his foot in his mouth nearly so often. Still, I don't foresee some kind of Nazi apocalypse in the event of his victory.

Also, I would like Paul Ryan to somehow disappear into irrelevance because he is a lying crap, but that's another story.

[_Jaybear]

I don't know what kind of "evidence" you would be looking for (especially if comparing between two candidates). I'm just saying that based on the many bishops and stake presidents I've known over the last few decades, including close friends and family members, there is a tremendous amount of thankless work done privately that deals with people who are struggling with "real world" issues, and I would consider that service to be a huge asset towards accumulating the kind of attitudes and life experience I might look for in a President.

Sorry, but I don't believe that a man who accepts and serves a calling as an LDS Bishop, is AXIOMATICALLY a kind and generous person. He may be. He may not. That is simply not enough information for me to judge a person.

Similarly, unlike Romney, I don't believe that a person who does not pay federal income taxes, AXIOMATICALLY considers themselves a victim, and will never take personal responsibility for their life. A person who doesn't pay federal income tax may or may not be a moocher. Again, not enough information for me to judge a person.

Romney's comment wasn't just "stupid", it was evidence that he either harbored a personal disdain for people who are poor and struggling, or was he was willing to pander to people who harbored such opinions.

Either way, Romney's comments were not simply a reflection on his intelligence, but on his core character.

He may make fine president, but that doesn't mean he isn't a dick.

[_DarkHelmet]

I don't know what kind of "evidence" you would be looking for (especially if comparing between two candidates). I'm just saying that based on the many bishops and stake presidents I've known over the last few decades, including close friends and family members, there is a tremendous amount of thankless work done privately that deals with people who are struggling with "real world" issues, and I would consider that service to be a huge asset towards accumulating the kind of attitudes and life experience I might look for in a President.

Sorry, but I don't believe that a man who accepts and serves a calling as an LDS Bishop, is AXIOMATICALLY a kind and generous person. He may be. He may not. That is simply not enough information for me to judge a person.

Similarly, unlike Romney, I don't believe that a person who does not pay federal income taxes, AXIOMATICALLY considers themselves a victim, and will never take personal responsibility for their life. A person who doesn't pay federal income tax may or may not be a moocher. Again, not enough information for me to judge a person.

Romney's comment wasn't just "stupid", it was evidence that he either harbored a personal disdain for people who are poor and struggling, or was he was willing to pander to people who harbored such opinions.

Either way, Romney's comments were not simply a reflection on his intelligence, but on his core character.

He may make fine president, but that doesn't mean he isn't a dick.

True. Jimmy Carter seems to be one of the most decent human beings ever to serve as president, but he was a disaster. Meanwhile, Bill Clinton seems to be one of the biggest scumbags to ever serve as president, but he was a pretty good president. Romney may be as great a person as Carter, or he might be as big a dick as Clinton. His biggest problem is he acts like a dickish douchebag in public, but everyone says he is a great guy in private. To be a good president, you need to do the opposite.

[_cinepro]

Sorry, but I don't believe that a man who accepts and serves a calling as an LDS Bishop, is AXIOMATICALLY a kind and generous person. He may be. He may not. That is simply not enough information for me to judge a person.

Similarly, unlike Romney, I don't believe that a person who does not pay federal income taxes, AXIOMATICALLY considers themselves a victim, and will never take personal responsibility for their life. A person who doesn't pay federal income tax may or may not be a moocher. Again, not enough information for me to judge a person.

Romney's comment wasn't just "stupid", it was evidence that he either harbored a personal disdain for people who are poor and struggling, or was he was willing to pander to people who harbored such opinions.

Either way, Romney's comments were not simply a reflection on his intelligence, but on his core character.

He may make fine president, but that doesn't mean he isn't a dick.

I suspect Romney's "47%" remark stemmed, at least in part, from frustration from a desire to run a campaign based on what he sees as the necessary "austerity" and other economic changes that will have to come to the US government, while realizing that those necessary changes will be anathema to a large portion of the population who are benefiting from them.

If we are in a position where the politicians who can save our economy can't get elected because a large portion of the voters rely on the government continuing to make poor financial decisions, then we are totally screwed. And this goes for republicans and democrats.

[_Chap]

I suspect Romney's "47%" remark stemmed, at least in part, from frustration from a desire to run a campaign based on what he sees as the necessary "austerity" and other economic changes that will have to come to the US government, while realizing that those necessary changes will be anathema to a large portion of the population who are benefiting from them.

Now we're rescuing Romney by mindreading. Well, so long as you are willing to extend the same mode of exoneration to other politicians, including Obama, go ahead.

If we are in a position where the politicians who can save our economy can't get elected because a large portion of the voters rely on the government continuing to make poor financial decisions, then we are totally screwed. And this goes for republicans and democrats.

CFR that Romney (and Ryan) can save the US economy.

And CFR that the 47% of voters that Romney said thought of themselves as victims do in fact make poor financial decisions (apart from the poor financial decision, no doubt made in the prexistence, not to be born to rich parents).

In any case, it remains to be established that the 'poor financial decisions' made by very rich people such as the directors of Lehman Brothers, Bear Sterns and the rest of them, have not damaged the US much, much more than any financial decisions of the 47%.

[_Jaybear]

True. Jimmy Carter seems to be one of the most decent human beings ever to serve as president, but he was a disaster. Meanwhile, Bill Clinton seems to be one of the biggest scumbags to ever serve as president, but he was a pretty good president. Romney may be as great a person as Carter, or he might be as big a dick as Clinton. His biggest problem is he acts like a dickish douchebag in public, but everyone says he is a great guy in private. To be a good president, you need to do the opposite.

Well said. I couldn't agree more.

[_Chap]

Anyhow, there's no point in our discussing Romney any more, now The Onion has spoken

(Do I detect an extract from a Nortinski video there?)

[_cinepro]

Now we're rescuing Romney by mindreading. Well, so long as you are willing to extend the same mode of exoneration to other politicians, including Obama, go ahead.

It isn't "rescuing Romney by mindreading". It's simply asking why the subject of 47% of US citizens being excused from paying income taxes even came up. Why is it relevant?

CFR that Romney (and Ryan) can save the US economy.

I don't know that they can. I only know that no economy has ever been saved by doing what we're doing now, so my only hope is that Romney might do something a little wiser. But based on the actions of the most recent Republican President, I recognize that wise economic decisions aren't a given in either party, so I try to be optimistic.

And CFR that the 47% of voters that Romney said thought of themselves as victims do in fact make poor financial decisions (apart from the poor financial decision, no doubt made in the prexistence, not to be born to rich parents).

I don't agree with Romney's "47%" number and characterization of those citizens. As I've said before, it was a boneheaded statement. There is some percentage of citizens that seem content to live on government support and see themselves as "victims" of some sort, but certainly not everyone who is exempt from paying income tax would fit that description, so the percentage would be much smaller.

In any case, it remains to be established that the 'poor financial decisions' made by very rich people such as the directors of Lehman Brothers, Bear Sterns and the rest of them, have not damaged the US much, much more than any financial decisions of the 47%.

The recent financial bubble (and bubble pop) isn't the problem. The problem is that the US government has taken on obligations that far, far exceed its ability to pay. It was a huge problem even before the bubbles of the 90's and 2000's.

Taxing the rich can't be the solution, because even if we taxed the "rich" at a 99% rate, it still wouldn't be enough money. We can either address the problem now, or kick it down the road so we can deal with it when it's much more painful. I believe there is a slightly greater chance of Romney trying to deal with the issue than Obama, but even then it's a slim hope.