Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ColDayMan

Mitt Romney

Recommended Posts

Private equity in a nutshell. Buy a company with borrowed money. Pay themselves hefty management and consultant fees as they get the company on the "right path". Load the company of up with debit to pay said fees. Debt that prevents the company from functioning. Either bankruptcy or sold again. Pay little or not taxes thanks to the Carried Interest. 'merica.

 

Sometimes it works that way.  Sometimes the company is functioning in an outdated model that no longer works -  a toy retailer is a perfect example when busy parents would rather just click on amazon...  and sometimes the hefty management & consultant fees are worthwhile.  I have friends that work for Deloitte and it's absurd what they charge but their philosophy and counseling works in changing outdated management and visions...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mitt being the only Republican Senator to vote to remove Trump from office and the only Republican anywhere (I think?) to align with Black Lives Matter do not equate to "things would have been better if he won in 2012."

Edited by DarkandStormy

Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

Mitt being the only Republican Senator to vote to remove Trump from office and the Republican anywhere (I think?) to align with Black Lives Matter do not equate to "things would have been better if he won in 2012."

There would not have been Trump in 2016. Trust me, things would have been better

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's setting himself up as the Republican nominee should Trump be removed from office or not endorsed by the Republican Party in November.  He'll be 77 in 2024 so good luck with that campaign, old man. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's to short memories!! Perhaps Romney is, in his own words, simply courting minority voters?

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/mitt-romney-slams-hillary-clinton-for-criminal-justice-speech-2015-5

 

The former governor also accused Clinton of politicizing the recent death of an unarmed black man, Freddie Gray, who suffered fatal injuries while in the custody of the Baltimore Police Department. In additional to high-profile protests, Gray's funeral triggered riots and violence in Baltimore. 

 

"It was political in nature to get more support in the African-American community, and I think it was a big mistake on her part and simply wrong," Romney said.

 

This is not the first time that Romney has criticized a presidential candidate for allegedly politicizing issues to court minority voters. Following his 2012 loss, the former governor reportedly cited President Barack Obama's overwhelming support among young and minority voters as a result of policy "gifts" to those groups.  

Edited by surfohio
BOLD print

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

There would not have been Trump in 2016. Trust me, things would have been better

 

You're still treating Trump as the root cause when he's merely part of the problem.  "Trumpism" would have still existed and probably pushed Romney to the right.  If he wouldn't have complied, they simply would have moved on to the next authoritarian.

 

"Romney should have won in 2012 to prevent Trump in 2016" is fantastical revisionist history.  Perhaps Republicans shouldn't have nominated and rallied around Trump in 2016 in the first place if that's your main cause of worry/wishful thinking in this hypothetical.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

You're still treating Trump as the root cause when he's merely part of the problem.  "Trumpism" would have still existed and probably pushed Romney to the right.  If he wouldn't have complied, they simply would have moved on to the next authoritarian.

 

"Romney should have won in 2012 to prevent Trump in 2016" is fantastical revisionist history.  Perhaps Republicans shouldn't have nominated and rallied around Trump in 2016 in the first place if that's your main cause of worry/wishful thinking in this hypothetical.

You feel that Romney's centrist approach is not the right approach given that it does not pass your purity test.  Yes, Romney would not have been what Obama was to you, but he offered good leadership that aimed to take into account all Americans. Both Trump and Obama's biggest failures were that they did not speak (as in Trump) or quit speaking (Obama) to the other side. Part of the reason why you have Trump is that Obama quit having the conversation and trying to include those who disagreed with him. 

Yes, they would have never come around, but a lot of "Trump" voters, rejected the Dem party because of the push for identity politics. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama never quit speaking to other side, he reached out and spoke to them and tried to unite to the day he left office.

 

Romney 2012 is what happens when a northeastern Rockefeller Republican has to pretend to be something he isn't because Tea Party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

You feel that Romney's centrist approach is not the right approach given that it does not pass your purity test.  Yes, Romney would not have been what Obama was to you, but he offered good leadership that aimed to take into account all Americans. Both Trump and Obama's biggest failures were that they did not speak (as in Trump) or quit speaking (Obama) to the other side. Part of the reason why you have Trump is that Obama quit having the conversation and trying to include those who disagreed with him. 

Yes, they would have never come around, but a lot of "Trump" voters, rejected the Dem party because of the push for identity politics. 

 

Quite frankly, I don't really care about this hypothetical.  2012 was 8 years ago.  What good does it do to go down the rabbit hole of what would have happened?  Romney lost the popular by 5m votes.

 

The "Obama quit speaking to the other side" is hilarious revisionist history as well, considering the Tea Party (which then just became all Republicans) essentially refused to work with Democrats on anything when they gained power.

 

Anyway, all the hypotheticals aside...

1 hour ago, OldBearcat said:

^ People can change, you hear...

 

I don't know if this meant as sarcasm or not, but we shouldn't ridicule Mitt for doing a good thing.  As mentioned, he's 73.  It's not like he's vying for a future POTUS run or something.  He has nothing to gain politically from using his platform to say Black Lives Matter and joining a protest/march.  This is...what we want from elected leaders!  He stood alone in his party in voting to remove the President.  Again...nothing to gain politically from that.

 

I, for one, am not going to demonize him for these or try to bring up past votes/quotes to say he isn't genuine now.  Sometimes people do change.  Sometimes people do see the errors of their ways.  Do I still disagree with most of his politics/stances?  Yes.  But I can acknowledge that he showed courage in voting to remove a President from his own party and that he is standing up for racial equality in joining a BLM protest.  Has any other Republican official acknowledged that black lives do matter?  Has any other Republican gone to a march?  Or are they all too busy being reactionaries saying "Blue Lives Matter" and "All Lives Matter" or releasing victim blaming statements justifying these police killings?

 

Good on, Mitt.  I don't see the point in trying to attack him over everything.  I'd rather have Mitt Romneys in the Senate instead of a bunch of Tom Cottons.

Edited by DarkandStormy

Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mu2010 said:

Obama never quit speaking to other side, he reached out and spoke to them and tried to unite to the day he left office.

 

He didn't speak to "white grievance" politics so, naturally, Republicans think he stopped speaking to them.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DarkandStormy said:

I don't know if this meant as sarcasm or not, but we shouldn't ridicule Mitt for doing a good thing.  As mentioned, he's 73.  It's not like he's vying for a future POTUS run or something.  He has nothing to gain politically from using his platform to say Black Lives Matter and joining a protest/march.  This is...what we want from elected leaders!  He stood alone in his party in voting to remove the President.  Again...nothing to gain politically from that.

 

I, for one, am not going to demonize him for these or try to bring up past votes/quotes to say he isn't genuine now.  Sometimes people do change.  Sometimes people do see the errors of their ways.  Do I still disagree with most of his politics/stances?  Yes.  But I can acknowledge that he showed courage in voting to remove a President from his own party and that he is standing up for racial equality in joining a BLM protest.  Has any other Republican official acknowledged that black lives do matter?  Has any other Republican gone to a march?  Or are they all too busy being reactionaries saying "Blue Lives Matter" and "All Lives Matter" or releasing victim blaming statements justifying these police killings?

 

Good on, Mitt.  I don't see the point in trying to attack him over everything.  I'd rather have Mitt Romneys in the Senate instead of a bunch of Tom Cottons.

No, its not sarcasm --- its inre SurfOhio's post. The marches and protests are to change things => yet when a politician actually does... umm I don't believe you --- here's some evidence from 5 years ago. 


Formerly "Mr Sparkle"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, OldBearcat said:

No, its not sarcasm --- its inre SurfOhio's post. The marches and protests are to change things => yet when a politician actually does... umm I don't believe you --- here's some evidence from 5 years ago. 

 

Gotcha.  No worries.  


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Y'all - 

 

Let me just say... I love my UO family - most of you I've met and conversed with, I know to be great people... 

 

But HOLY F***.... We have a politician, before our eyes, evolving and taking a stand against the current tied of the party to which he's been a fixture his entire life ... Doing so vocally, and in the face of the leader of his party publicly attempting to humiliate him for it... 

 

And yet, here I am, reading "UMMMMMM YEAH BUT ACTUALLY HE LIKE TOTALLY PROMISED TO DEFUND HUD IN 2011 SOOOO LIKE SORRY BUT HES JUST EVIL."

 

Y'ALLL!!!!!!

 

We are experiencing a cultural revolution - in which I include myself. When Ferguson happened, I'll be honest, I thought the people protesting were all opportunists protesting a system they didn't understand. I've since completely altered my vision, listened to black voices, realized that I cannot share their experiences, and have absolutely no problem saying black lives matter - I'm on board for the long haul to make life better for our black friends and neighbors - and frankly I'm ashamed I didn't feel this way in 2015. But, personal growth requires self reflection.

 

People change - be proud that our voices have effectuated this change! Don't shame a man for trying to do the right thing. 2020 needs to be about big tent, and this movement has drawn in so many of us that I think it has the potential to change our country forever, for the better - so welcome it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

We are experiencing a cultural revolution - in which I include myself. When Ferguson happened, I'll be honest, I thought the people protesting were all opportunists protesting a system they didn't understand. I've since completely altered my vision, listened to black voices, realized that I cannot share their experiences, and have absolutely no problem saying black lives matter - I'm on board for the long haul to make life better for our black friends and neighbors - and frankly I'm ashamed I didn't feel this way in 2015. But, personal growth requires self reflection.

 

People change - be proud that our voices have effectuated this change! Don't shame a man for trying to do the right thing. 2020 needs to be about big tent, and this movement has drawn in so many of us that I think it has the potential to change our country forever, for the better - so welcome it. 

 

And this is what it's all about.  Doesn't matter when you get on the bus, as long as you recognize and buy the ticket to that bus that goes to a better America.


"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am happy to see Mitt Romney come around and hope that he has genuinely changed his mind on some important issues. However I will wait to see how this affects his voting record going forward before I give him too much credit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, taestell said:

I am happy to see Mitt Romney come around and hope that he has genuinely changed his mind on some important issues. However I will wait to see how this affects his voting record going forward before I give him too much credit.

Exactly. This is good, symbolically. But as long as the topic is criminal justice reform you can't just show up to one public event and have that mean anything real. I suppose in the very near future we shall see.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, surfohio said:

Exactly. This is good, symbolically. But as long as the topic is criminal justice reform you can't just show up to one public event and have that mean anything real. I suppose in the very near future we shall see.  

 

Imo - there are multiple, viable paths to criminal justice reform. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, YABO713 said:

Y'all - 

 

Let me just say... I love my UO family - most of you I've met and conversed with, I know to be great people... 

 

But HOLY F***.... We have a politician, before our eyes, evolving and taking a stand against the current tied of the party to which he's been a fixture his entire life ... Doing so vocally, and in the face of the leader of his party publicly attempting to humiliate him for it... 

 

And yet, here I am, reading "UMMMMMM YEAH BUT ACTUALLY HE LIKE TOTALLY PROMISED TO DEFUND HUD IN 2011 SOOOO LIKE SORRY BUT HES JUST EVIL."

 

Y'ALLL!!!!!!

 

We are experiencing a cultural revolution - in which I include myself. When Ferguson happened, I'll be honest, I thought the people protesting were all opportunists protesting a system they didn't understand. I've since completely altered my vision, listened to black voices, realized that I cannot share their experiences, and have absolutely no problem saying black lives matter - I'm on board for the long haul to make life better for our black friends and neighbors - and frankly I'm ashamed I didn't feel this way in 2015. But, personal growth requires self reflection.

 

People change - be proud that our voices have effectuated this change! Don't shame a man for trying to do the right thing. 2020 needs to be about big tent, and this movement has drawn in so many of us that I think it has the potential to change our country forever, for the better - so welcome it. 

It was the same thing 6 years ago when Rob Portman came out in support of gay marriage. Because he did not have a D behind his name, he was labeled as insincere, and only cared about the issue because his son was gay, and that his support was inadequate for some reason because, again he had an R behind his name. It is this BS that needs to stop. Recognize the guy for doing the right thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, YABO713 said:

Y'all - 

 

Let me just say... I love my UO family - most of you I've met and conversed with, I know to be great people... 

 

But HOLY F***.... We have a politician, before our eyes, evolving and taking a stand against the current tied of the party to which he's been a fixture his entire life ... Doing so vocally, and in the face of the leader of his party publicly attempting to humiliate him for it... 

 

And yet, here I am, reading "UMMMMMM YEAH BUT ACTUALLY HE LIKE TOTALLY PROMISED TO DEFUND HUD IN 2011 SOOOO LIKE SORRY BUT HES JUST EVIL."

 

Y'ALLL!!!!!!

 

We are experiencing a cultural revolution - in which I include myself. When Ferguson happened, I'll be honest, I thought the people protesting were all opportunists protesting a system they didn't understand. I've since completely altered my vision, listened to black voices, realized that I cannot share their experiences, and have absolutely no problem saying black lives matter - I'm on board for the long haul to make life better for our black friends and neighbors - and frankly I'm ashamed I didn't feel this way in 2015. But, personal growth requires self reflection.

 

People change - be proud that our voices have effectuated this change! Don't shame a man for trying to do the right thing. 2020 needs to be about big tent, and this movement has drawn in so many of us that I think it has the potential to change our country forever, for the better - so welcome it. 

 

I would have to refer back to the discussion we had on here a month or so ago (don't remember which thread) whereby sometimes progressives don't want to acknowledge progress when it's right in front of us. The fact that BLM is going mainstream is a huge victory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

It was the same thing 6 years ago when Rob Portman came out in support of gay marriage. Because he did not have a D behind his name, he was labeled as insincere, and only cared about the issue because his son was gay, and that his support was inadequate for some reason because, again he had an R behind his name. It is this BS that needs to stop. Recognize the guy for doing the right thing.

Portman is a loser and deserves whatever he gets.

 

Romney is a decent person and I think he is genuine in his support for Black Lives Matter. His dad was a champion for civil rights and quit form the Nixon administration when Nixon decided to start caving to racists as part of the Southern Strategy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, mu2010 said:

 

I would have to refer back to the discussion we had on here a month or so ago (don't remember which thread) whereby sometimes progressives don't want to acknowledge progress when it's right in front of us. The fact that BLM is going mainstream is a huge victory.


well said.

 

And progressives - know who’s been conspicuously absent from BLM events now that he won’t be the nominee...

 

Bernie Sanders 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

It was the same thing 6 years ago when Rob Portman came out in support of gay marriage. Because he did not have a D behind his name, he was labeled as insincere, and only cared about the issue because his son was gay, and that his support was inadequate for some reason because, again he had an R behind his name. It is this BS that needs to stop. Recognize the guy for doing the right thing.

 

It takes nearly all Republicans having a close connection to someone to change their stance - you can look up why Boehner had a change of heart on legalizing marijuana, for example.  It's why Romney's statements/actions stick out - to me, at least.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, YABO713 said:


well said.

 

And progressives - know who’s been conspicuously absent from BLM events now that he won’t be the nominee...

 

Bernie Sanders 

I agree. BLM gaining the traction it has is huge. Not long ago BLM was viewed in the same way aNtIfA. They are now a legit formidable movement. 

 

I think the momentum for police reform has really moved as well. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

And progressives - know who’s been conspicuously absent from BLM events now that he won’t be the nominee...

 

Bernie Sanders 

 

Oh, don't get me started on him, and his class reductionism. But I think the reason he never did well with black voters should now be abundantly clear if it wasn't already.

Edited by mu2010

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

It takes nearly all Republicans having a close connection to someone to change their stance - you can look up why Boehner had a change of heart on legalizing marijuana, for example.  It's why Romney's statements/actions stick out - to me, at least.

 

This.  Portman's "epiphany" is not even on the same planet as Romney's.


"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, YABO713 said:


well said.

 

And progressives - know who’s been conspicuously absent from BLM events now that he won’t be the nominee...

 

Bernie Sanders 

I have noticed the same thing and wanted to ask a certain "CA" about it but why bother

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

It was the same thing 6 years ago when Rob Portman came out in support of gay marriage. Because he did not have a D behind his name, he was labeled as insincere, and only cared about the issue because his son was gay, and that his support was inadequate for some reason because, again he had an R behind his name. It is this BS that needs to stop. Recognize the guy for doing the right thing.

 

No, he wasn't "labeled" that way -- that's what really happened. He did not care about gay rights until his own some came out as gay. That's like being anti-police department until your own house goes up in flames. It has nothing to do with the letter behind his name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

It takes nearly all Republicans having a close connection to someone to change their stance - you can look up why Boehner had a change of heart on legalizing marijuana, for example.  It's why Romney's statements/actions stick out - to me, at least.

Romney has African American Grandchildren. Does that change things in your opinion? It shouldn't 

 

However someone comes to their epiphany shouldn't matter. In fact, I would say someone like Portman coming to the conclusion is much more sincere than someone like Hillary Clinton (whose husband supported DOMA if you dont remember) who appeared to embrace it solely because it was what the base wanted. Portman at least has a conviction behind his stance. Same with Romney. In their cases it no longer becomes political. Personally, that is someone i would rather have on my side than getting behind someone who is for an issue solely because the populist winds are blowing in that direction. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, taestell said:

 

No, he wasn't "labeled" that way -- that's what really happened. He did not care about gay rights until his own some came out as gay. That's like being anti-police department until your own house goes up in flames. It has nothing to do with the letter behind his name.

It is called being sincere, vs supporting what the political winds are blowing in your direction. At least with Portman or Romney you have less of a fear they will sell out their vote because it is personal to them, vs a typical politician who will more readily horse trade on those issues. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Portman at least has a conviction behind his stance.

 

Lolololol  didn't bother reading the rest


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

Lolololol  didn't bother reading the rest

You have proven my point about if you have an R behind their name and they are on the right side of a social issue, they are still bad solely because they have the R behind their name.  Thank you for serving as the example. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

You have proven my point about if you have an R behind their name and they are on the right side of a social issue, they are still bad solely because they have the R behind their name.  Thank you for serving as the example. 

 

My comment was not about Rob Portman being "bad solely because they have the R behind their name."  My comment was about your insistence about Portman being genuine because he had nothing to gain politically - it seems like you're either burying your head in the sand about his own son coming out to him or you're trying out some new material for a stand-up routine.

 

He also *LITERALLY CITES HIS SON COMING OUT TO HIM* as the impetus for changing his mind on it.  https://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2013/03/15/gay-couples-also-deserve-chance-to-get-married.html or https://www.cnn.com/2013/03/15/politics/portman-gay-marriage/index.html?hpt=hp_c1 or https://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/rob-portman-gay-marriage-stance-088903

 

Quote

As a congressman, and more recently as a senator, I opposed marriage for same-sex couples. Then something happened that led me to think through my position in a much deeper way.

 

Two years ago, my son Will, then a college freshman, told my wife, Jane, and me that he is gay. He said he’d known for some time, and that his sexual orientation wasn’t something he chose; it was simply a part of who he is. Jane and I were proud of him for his honesty and courage. We were surprised to learn he is gay but knew he was still the same person he’d always been. The only difference was that now we had a more complete picture of the son we love.

 

At the time, my position on marriage for same-sex couples was rooted in my faith tradition that marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman. Knowing that my son is gay prompted me to consider the issue from another perspective: that of a dad who wants all three of his kids to lead happy, meaningful lives with the people they love, a blessing Jane and I have shared for 26 years.

 

In his own words, he admits he only reconsidered his position on gay marriage because his son came out to him.  It's virtually the same across the board for Republicans who "cross over" on social issues.  He didn't reconsider his position because he cared about gay people or cared about equality - he did it only because he learned his son is gay.  That's not exactly "genuine" in terms of having a change of heart because he cares about other people, but sure, it's still better than opposing gay marriage.

 

Anyway, let's check in on ol' Rob's genuineness., shall we?  https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2020/06/09/sen-portman-heard-from-dozens-of-black-leaders-his-office-wont-name-one/

 

Quote

Sen. Portman heard from ‘dozens’ of black leaders. His office won’t name one.

 


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

My comment was not about Rob Portman being "bad solely because they have the R behind their name."  My comment was about your insistence about Portman being genuine because he had nothing to gain politically - it seems like you're either burying your head in the sand about his own son coming out to him or you're trying out some new material for a stand-up routine.

 

He also *LITERALLY CITES HIS SON COMING OUT TO HIM* as the impetus for changing his mind on it.  https://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2013/03/15/gay-couples-also-deserve-chance-to-get-married.html or https://www.cnn.com/2013/03/15/politics/portman-gay-marriage/index.html?hpt=hp_c1 or https://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/rob-portman-gay-marriage-stance-088903

 

 

In his own words, he admits he only reconsidered his position on gay marriage because his son came out to him.  It's virtually the same across the board for Republicans who "cross over" on social issues.  He didn't reconsider his position because he cared about gay people or cared about equality - he did it only because he learned his son is gay.  That's not exactly "genuine" in terms of having a change of heart because he cares about other people, but sure, it's still better than opposing gay marriage.

 

Anyway, let's check in on ol' Rob's genuineness., shall we?  https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2020/06/09/sen-portman-heard-from-dozens-of-black-leaders-his-office-wont-name-one/

 

 

Are you kidding me? What is more genuine than hearing from your own family member on the issue and coming to an epiphany. That is one of the most sincere things possible. A person that he loves has shown the pain he is going through and a father is trying to make a difference. Pretty damn genuine to me. And considering that most members of the GOP at the time were not on board, it was not like he would gain votes from this. But again, his beliefs are insincere.

 

Much more sincere than say the D politician that hosts a think tank, gets some gay constituents as props reads the polling, and then comes out as an advocate because it will get him/her votes? You actually think that is more sincere? You have to be kidding. This is the person who will say to the gay couple, your needs may matter to me, but a newer cause is more important now, and they have given me more money so you just have to wait your turn, but show us you are a good soldier and still support me. 

 

Just like Romney only coming to his conclusions because he has black grandchildren.. But he again does not count as sincere because there is the R behind the name. I am sorry but you really cant justify yourself on this one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Are you kidding me? What is more genuine than hearing from your own family member on the issue and coming to an epiphany. That is one of the most sincere things possible

 

Their criticism is that conservatives need a family member or friend to experience something to feel empathy, they can't feel it for strangers. It's been observable many times. He does deserve some credit for going against the grain of his party I suppose.

Edited by mu2010

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mu2010 said:

 

Their criticism is that conservatives need a family member or friend to experience something to feel empathy, they can't feel it for strangers. It's been observable many times.

It should not matter the path people travel on their journey just as long as they get there in the end.


It is really not a valid criticism, because, again, who is to say those politicians who are "empathazing" with strangers are authentic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Brutus_buckeye said:

It should not matter the path people travel on their journey just as long as they get there in the end.


It is really not a valid criticism, because, again, who is to say those politicians who are "empathazing" with strangers are authentic. 

 

What does authentic mean? Ultimately they are listening to strangers and advocating things that help them. If it's inauthentic (a cynical take) it doesn't really matter.

 

Republicans the past few years have thrown their own alleged constitutional principles under the bus to get votes from their base, who Trump has shown to be fundamentally authoritarian in nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Just like Romney only coming to his conclusions because he has black grandchildren.. But he again does not count as sincere because there is the R behind the name. I am sorry but you really cant justify yourself on this one. 

 

Please cite where I've said Romney "isn't sincere" in this entire thread.  Otherwise, you're just making up a claim (like usual) to get your point across.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mu2010 said:

 

What does authentic mean? Ultimately they are listening to strangers and advocating things that help them. If it's inauthentic (a cynical take) it doesn't really matter.

 

Republicans the past few years have thrown their own alleged constitutional principles under the bus to get votes from their base, who Trump has shown to be fundamentally authoritarian in nature.

Inauthentic means those who support the cause as a way to win votes or solely because the polls are blowing that direction. For example, nobody questioned say Hillary Clinton's authenticity on the gay marriage issue or racism issue even though she took a tough stance on crime or she was there when her husband signed DOMA and did not speak out against it, or she did not support gay marriage until it seemed politically expedient to her. Nobody questions, whether or not she will sell out the cause because as a Democrat, she needs to be in favor of those issues because of her base.


Whereas, Portman and Romney come by their conviction personally and obviously they run contrary to their bases. I would have a hard time considering them to be inauthentic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

It is really not a valid criticism, because, again, who is to say those politicians who are "empathazing" with strangers are authentic. 

 

You are making the determination.  Right here:

37 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Much more sincere than say the D politician that hosts a think tank, gets some gay constituents as props reads the polling, and then comes out as an advocate because it will get him/her votes? You actually think that is more sincere? You have to be kidding. This is the person who will say to the gay couple, your needs may matter to me, but a newer cause is more important now, and they have given me more money so you just have to wait your turn, but show us you are a good soldier and still support me. 

 

Doing a lot of assuming about *all* politicians.  Sorry, not all, only Democratic politicians.  Republicans are sincere/authentic and Democrats are the opposite (well, if they host a think tank).  All of them.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Republicans wouldn't have to deal with these suspicions if they displayed empathy toward their outgroups on a more regular basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The dividing line isn't Democrat or Republican, it's reductionism vs compassion. Do you only care about issues that affect you personally or do you care about issues that affect people different from yourself. Rob Portman only cared about gay marriage when it affected his family personally, Mitt Romney going to a BLM protest doesn't help him in any way, especially considering there is an extremely small black population in Utah for him to be (potentially) pandering to anyway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, ucgrady said:

Rob Portman only cared about gay marriage when it affected his family personally, Mitt Romney going to a BLM protest doesn't help him in any way, especially considering there is an extremely small black population in Utah for him to be (potentially) pandering to anyway. 

 

Yes. It's reactive vs. proactive. Do you care about solving a problem because it's the right thing to do, or only because it's starting to affect you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't I propose this to bottle up this thread and prevent it from spiraling, requiring concessions from all of us:

 

- What Mitt Romney did was objectively good

- He did so in the face of criticism from his own base

- He showed moral courage most politicians currently lack

- His voting records on other issues do not reflect his adaptation to social justice reform

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GCrites80s said:

Republicans wouldn't have to deal with these suspicions if they displayed empathy toward their outgroups on a more regular basis.

....and, if they stopped actively trying to make life more miserable for those groups. The end of gay marriage is still in the GOP platform. There aren't 'suspicions' about Republicans, it's experience reminding us not to fall for one-second photo ops. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...