Here is a confusing character to kick around for a while. The names he is getting called cover the full spectrum. Everything from RINO to liberal in disguise. But nothing seems to add up. Twenty years ago he could easily be ranked up there with the most conservative of Republicans. Mormon to the core and anti-labor to the max. We are talking about a guy that as head of Bain Capital was the greatest exporter of jobs to starvation wage countries that ever lived. When Mitt exported jobs the family in India or Bangladesh that got the jobs had to have the whole family work in an unsafe, fire trap factory, just so each could have a bowl of rice a day. You can't get any more conservative (regressive actually) or anti-labor than that. Scion of the breed. Laissez-faire capitalist to the MAX. So, he is suddenly the "liberal", anti-Trump wing of the party? Please explain. Enlighten if you will.
Now and then even a BLIND squirrel can find an acorn
0
To remove first post, remove entire topic.
Here is a confusing character to kick around for a while. The names he is getting called cover the full spectrum. Everything from RINO to liberal in disguise. But nothing seems to add up. Twenty years ago he could easily be ranked up there with the most conservative of Republicans. Mormon to the core and anti-labor to the max. We are talking about a guy that as head of Bain Capital was the greatest exporter of jobs to starvation wage countries that ever lived. When Mitt exported jobs the family in India or Bangladesh that got the jobs had to have the whole family work in an unsafe, fire trap factory, just so each could have a bowl of rice a day. You can't get any more conservative (regressive actually) or anti-labor than that. Scion of the breed. Laissez-faire capitalist to the MAX. So, he is suddenly the "liberal", anti-Trump wing of the party? Please explain. Enlighten if you will.
He's a republican just not apart of trump's new republican party. Trump is a far right "progressive" for the lack of better word. You can't tell the difference between moderate repubs or moderate dems because they are all in cahoots with each other. The outer fringes are louder hence why they think Mitt is a liberal which couldn't be more LOL worthy.
Just a clown... doing clown things
0
He's a republican just not apart of trump's new republican party. Trump is a far right "progressive" for the lack of better word. You can't tell the difference between moderate repubs or moderate dems because they are all in cahoots with each other. The outer fringes are louder hence why they think Mitt is a liberal which couldn't be more LOL worthy.
If anyone falls out of line, especially if it is against Trump then the GOP starts the media assault because Trump must be protected and the ultra conservative agenda must be protected.
In reality, why is it that a politician cannot support a solid cause for personal reasons and be attacked for it? Romney thinking that this cause deserves his support and attention is not going against the concepts of the GOP, and even if he were it isnt the end of the world for a politician to have their own views from time to time.
I am no Mitt supporter for the reasons Key listed above, he is a capitalist exporter of jobs for the dividend sucking purpose which supports Bain and their elite owners and investors. I think Bain and their ilk have destroyed the fabric of the middle class and are exploiting the extreme poor in other countries so they can make more and more money. Mitt is all that is bad about capitalism, but his support of this cause should be his decision and it has zero bearing on his ultra conservative views...because even though he dare veer from the GOP lane of acceptable behavior he is still extremely conservative and is by no means any sort of democrat.
The whole idea of blind and to the death party allegiance is pretty moronic on both sides.
0
If anyone falls out of line, especially if it is against Trump then the GOP starts the media assault because Trump must be protected and the ultra conservative agenda must be protected.
In reality, why is it that a politician cannot support a solid cause for personal reasons and be attacked for it? Romney thinking that this cause deserves his support and attention is not going against the concepts of the GOP, and even if he were it isnt the end of the world for a politician to have their own views from time to time.
I am no Mitt supporter for the reasons Key listed above, he is a capitalist exporter of jobs for the dividend sucking purpose which supports Bain and their elite owners and investors. I think Bain and their ilk have destroyed the fabric of the middle class and are exploiting the extreme poor in other countries so they can make more and more money. Mitt is all that is bad about capitalism, but his support of this cause should be his decision and it has zero bearing on his ultra conservative views...because even though he dare veer from the GOP lane of acceptable behavior he is still extremely conservative and is by no means any sort of democrat.
The whole idea of blind and to the death party allegiance is pretty moronic on both sides.
The whole idea of blind and to the death party allegiance is pretty moronic on both sides.
Precisely
I myself do not swear allegiance to any party or a confined dogma. Blind faith and blind loyalty are just that, BLIND, and that is the God's honest truth. I voted FOR Trump in 2016 with very little faith, but best hope, as the lesser of two evils. Until recently I did not believe I could be convinced to do so again, but the Dems are working on it. We see a commitment there that has nothing to do with the overall welfare of the country, present or future. Insisting on a female V.P. candidate, preferably (probably) black, takes the qualification to step into the president's shoes completely out of the equation. Think of it this way..............
I want to draft the best possible shortstop I can get
100 nominees show up
Send 50 home (white)
Send another 25 home (male)
I have effectively eliminated 75% of the eligible nominees for reasons that have nothing to do with playing shortstop
What are the chances that by sheer luck the best possible prospect is in the remaining 25?
I voted for Obama twice and have no regrets. I have no problem with a female occupying the Oval Office.
Choosing a V.P. based on political correctness scares the crap out of me.
Now and then even a BLIND squirrel can find an acorn
0
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
The whole idea of blind and to the death party allegiance is pretty moronic on both sides.
Precisely
I myself do not swear allegiance to any party or a confined dogma. Blind faith and blind loyalty are just that, BLIND, and that is the God's honest truth. I voted FOR Trump in 2016 with very little faith, but best hope, as the lesser of two evils. Until recently I did not believe I could be convinced to do so again, but the Dems are working on it. We see a commitment there that has nothing to do with the overall welfare of the country, present or future. Insisting on a female V.P. candidate, preferably (probably) black, takes the qualification to step into the president's shoes completely out of the equation. Think of it this way..............
I want to draft the best possible shortstop I can get
100 nominees show up
Send 50 home (white)
Send another 25 home (male)
I have effectively eliminated 75% of the eligible nominees for reasons that have nothing to do with playing shortstop
What are the chances that by sheer luck the best possible prospect is in the remaining 25?
I voted for Obama twice and have no regrets. I have no problem with a female occupying the Oval Office.
Choosing a V.P. based on political correctness scares the crap out of me.
Nice breakdown KeyElement,however you could take it one step further..
The best possible prospect is in the remaining 25% has to be broken down again, to be a woman with color. Black and Latino voters are strongly urging Biden to choose not just any woman but the first woman of color as a running mate on a major party's ticket.
It appears the black community feel,that they were the ones, that got Biden there and he owes them..If in fact he does chose a black female the pool of prospects shrinks the 25 % even smaller..
So, I have a candidate for Joe ...he want's a VP that can fight President Trump ......."Viola" District of Columbia mayor Muriel Bowser.. she recently kicked out all of the National Guard troops from DC ,,after the President refused her request to remove them... .showing what Joe is looking for a strong woman of color ...not afraid to combat President Trump..
0
Nice breakdown KeyElement,however you could take it one step further..
The best possible prospect is in the remaining 25% has to be broken down again, to be a woman with color. Black and Latino voters are strongly urging Biden to choose not just any woman but the first woman of color as a running mate on a major party's ticket.
It appears the black community feel,that they were the ones, that got Biden there and he owes them..If in fact he does chose a black female the pool of prospects shrinks the 25 % even smaller..
So, I have a candidate for Joe ...he want's a VP that can fight President Trump ......."Viola" District of Columbia mayor Muriel Bowser.. she recently kicked out all of the National Guard troops from DC ,,after the President refused her request to remove them... .showing what Joe is looking for a strong woman of color ...not afraid to combat President Trump..
Uh, Slim, if I kick out all males and whites, am I not pretty much left with "women of color"? Maybe you didn't read it the way I intended, but no matter. While mayor of D.C. is an important and exalted job, I fail to see the qualification for V.P. Inner city mayors from predominantly black majority cities are usually woefully short on experience in running much larger and more culturally diverse areas like states, much less countries. I am reminded of Sarah Pahlin contending she was OK and up to speed on foreign policy because she could see Russia from her state. The mayor of D.C. probably does not want to be grilled extensively on the problems of the upper Mid-West, Wyoming, Montana or Utah. We would be talking about a fish out of water, and political correctness does not overcome that. The enemy in the V.P. nomination sweepstakes is not political correctness, it is qualification for the job.
Now and then even a BLIND squirrel can find an acorn
0
Uh, Slim, if I kick out all males and whites, am I not pretty much left with "women of color"? Maybe you didn't read it the way I intended, but no matter. While mayor of D.C. is an important and exalted job, I fail to see the qualification for V.P. Inner city mayors from predominantly black majority cities are usually woefully short on experience in running much larger and more culturally diverse areas like states, much less countries. I am reminded of Sarah Pahlin contending she was OK and up to speed on foreign policy because she could see Russia from her state. The mayor of D.C. probably does not want to be grilled extensively on the problems of the upper Mid-West, Wyoming, Montana or Utah. We would be talking about a fish out of water, and political correctness does not overcome that. The enemy in the V.P. nomination sweepstakes is not political correctness, it is qualification for the job.
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers: The whole idea of blind and to the death party allegiance is pretty moronic on both sides. Precisely I myself do not swear allegiance to any party or a confined dogma. Blind faith and blind loyalty are just that, BLIND, and that is the God's honest truth. I voted FOR Trump in 2016 with very little faith, but best hope, as the lesser of two evils. Until recently I did not believe I could be convinced to do so again, but the Dems are working on it. We see a commitment there that has nothing to do with the overall welfare of the country, present or future. Insisting on a female V.P. candidate, preferably (probably) black, takes the qualification to step into the president's shoes completely out of the equation. Think of it this way.............. I want to draft the best possible shortstop I can get 100 nominees show up Send 50 home (white) Send another 25 home (male) I have effectively eliminated 75% of the eligible nominees for reasons that have nothing to do with playing shortstop What are the chances that by sheer luck the best possible prospect is in the remaining 25? I voted for Obama twice and have no regrets. I have no problem with a female occupying the Oval Office. Choosing a V.P. based on political correctness scares the crap out of me.
Yep, the example you've provided is what makes "affirmative action " so disgusting. The process has nothing to do with finding the best overall candidate . It only seeks to find the best candidate of the remaining 25 people ( per your example)
Reverse racism at its finest ..
0
Quote Originally Posted by KeyElement:
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers: The whole idea of blind and to the death party allegiance is pretty moronic on both sides. Precisely I myself do not swear allegiance to any party or a confined dogma. Blind faith and blind loyalty are just that, BLIND, and that is the God's honest truth. I voted FOR Trump in 2016 with very little faith, but best hope, as the lesser of two evils. Until recently I did not believe I could be convinced to do so again, but the Dems are working on it. We see a commitment there that has nothing to do with the overall welfare of the country, present or future. Insisting on a female V.P. candidate, preferably (probably) black, takes the qualification to step into the president's shoes completely out of the equation. Think of it this way.............. I want to draft the best possible shortstop I can get 100 nominees show up Send 50 home (white) Send another 25 home (male) I have effectively eliminated 75% of the eligible nominees for reasons that have nothing to do with playing shortstop What are the chances that by sheer luck the best possible prospect is in the remaining 25? I voted for Obama twice and have no regrets. I have no problem with a female occupying the Oval Office. Choosing a V.P. based on political correctness scares the crap out of me.
Yep, the example you've provided is what makes "affirmative action " so disgusting. The process has nothing to do with finding the best overall candidate . It only seeks to find the best candidate of the remaining 25 people ( per your example)
What you say is true Rush, and I agree, but in some circumstances there is room for affirmative action. When schools, universities, trade schools and apprenticeship programs are flooded with equally qualified candidates there is no harm in racial preference. If we do not offer a way up, then obviously we are not offering a way out. I entered the construction field in the early 1960's and except for a few laborers I can assure you there NO minority men, black or otherwise in the construction trade unions and apprenticeship programs. There really were not all that many black or "men of color" laborers in any case. In some cases trades were even dominated by ethnic standards. I never saw in my entire career a terrazzo worker that was not of Italian extraction.
These are the types of situations that affirmative action has helped with a great deal. Sixty years ago I couldn't hire a minority bricklayer, carpenter, plumber, eletrician, ironworker, sheet metal worker or HVAC (heating, ventilating and air conditioning) guy. There are other fields that are of the same circumstances.
The problem is, one size DOES NOT fit all, and nationalized, comprehensive, universal programs attempt to fit one formula to every situation.
Now and then even a BLIND squirrel can find an acorn
0
What you say is true Rush, and I agree, but in some circumstances there is room for affirmative action. When schools, universities, trade schools and apprenticeship programs are flooded with equally qualified candidates there is no harm in racial preference. If we do not offer a way up, then obviously we are not offering a way out. I entered the construction field in the early 1960's and except for a few laborers I can assure you there NO minority men, black or otherwise in the construction trade unions and apprenticeship programs. There really were not all that many black or "men of color" laborers in any case. In some cases trades were even dominated by ethnic standards. I never saw in my entire career a terrazzo worker that was not of Italian extraction.
These are the types of situations that affirmative action has helped with a great deal. Sixty years ago I couldn't hire a minority bricklayer, carpenter, plumber, eletrician, ironworker, sheet metal worker or HVAC (heating, ventilating and air conditioning) guy. There are other fields that are of the same circumstances.
The problem is, one size DOES NOT fit all, and nationalized, comprehensive, universal programs attempt to fit one formula to every situation.
Precisely
Hot Forum Topics
