Mitt Romney - One Of Only A Few Honorable Republicans

[fskimospy]

I voted for Mitt Romney back in 2012 against Bronco Bama. Would I do it again? Probably. Anything is better than the mess we have now.

Well you’ve said you’re against debt so I assume you regret your vote for Trump, GWB, etc.

 

[fskimospy]

Am I kidding you? No I am not kidding you.

This is Guy On The Internet stupidity.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

I voted for Mitt Romney back in 2012 against Bronco Bama. Would I do it again? Probably. Anything is better than the mess we have now.

-Barakstar O'Bummer, get it right.

 

[dank69]

This is Guy On The Internet stupidity.

Yeah I know when I make a "mistake" I don't simply acknowledge it, apologize and attempt to do better. Instead I opt for insulting the person I misrepresented. Feels good man.

It's okay eskimospy, I guess I'll just have to be the bigger man here.

Let's see, you want to know why I think Bernie lost at the ballot box, even though I already said it was probably due to numerous factors. I also already said I think a large portion of the population has been fooled, to which you replied that you do not think a large portion of the population has been fooled.

Now do I have any data to prove that a large portion has been fooled? No I do not. Do you have any evidence showing that a large portion has not been fooled?

I'd have a hard time believing you operate under the assumption that every voter is 100% well informed on all details of all policies and proposals, but then again, I figured you'd know the difference between a large portion and all, yet here we are, so perhaps it would be best for you to clarify. I mean, if you think no voters have been fooled I can just counter with FDC for example who votes Republican because he thinks they're fiscally conservative.

I think some portion of the population votes primarily based on personality over policy, and some other portion vice versa. I think some portion of the second group is well informed, another portion is under informed but at least not delusional, and then another portion is operating mostly on alternative "facts."

I have no idea what the ratio is for any of these groups, but I think we can at least agree that none of them are zero. Maybe you'll be able to find some evidence or studies examining the sizes of some or all of them, if you care to investigate.

The point is, you can rule out the personality people, and you can rule out the misinformed or "fooled" people right off the bat.

I suspect you are just fishing for an opportunity to list a few examples of how some of Bernie's numbers don't add up, as if that is the reason he lost. I won't agree to that unless you can provide evidence that yes millions of people were ready to vote for Bernie over Hillary or Joe until they found out his numbers were off. I think the number of people who were uninformed and misinformed dwarfs the number of people who even know he has bad numbers.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I think a scary amount of americans vote for personality over policy.

 

[Pens1566]

I think a scary amount of americans vote for personality over policy.

And another scary amount of Americans are just colossally fucking stupid.

 

[UNCjigga]

Americans overwhelmingly love progressive policies—hell even downright “communist” policies as long as you don’t use the “C” word.

The trouble is when certain people realize that these policies may also be used to benefit certain others with darker skin tones or different concepts of sky Gods. Then we’re not so sure…and we start listening to the billionaire class when they tell us they shouldn’t have to pay taxes to fund these policies.

Seriously—just look at American attitudes towards taxes, organized labor, the New Deal, public health, etc. pre-Civil Rights era vs. post-Civil Rights era. The more heterogeneous our society becomes, the less support we have for progressive policies.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I think this is not true, yes.

Have we forgotten the videos of street randos in support of the ACA, then turning around and shitting on Obamacare?

 

[ch33zw1z]

Have we forgotten the videos of street randos in support of the ACA, then turning around and shitting on Obamacare?

This is one of the first examples that springs to mind. And in hindsight, I actually heard this crap from my peers about 2014-2015

 

[HomerJS]

This is not accurate.

You can find polls where people broadly agree with things he says but once the details come into play they oppose them.

There’s nothing wrong with Bernie - he’s great! He does not represent the median voter though.

Kinda of the opposite of opinion pools when the ACA was passed. When you spelled out the details people favored. When you called it Obamacare people opposed.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Kinda of the opposite of opinion pools when the ACA was passed. When you spelled out the details people favored. When you called it Obamacare people opposed.

Or women’s rights, then vote for a party that has no plans on respecting it.

 

[repoman0]

To me, someone like my brother represents the median voter. He’s an early 30s bartender in Pennsylvania and makes around the national median income. Very smart guy but uninterested in spending his free time keeping up with politics. Also a “normal” guy in that if pressed he would typically support most liberal policy positions.

When the Democrats won all three chambers in 2020 I remember he said something like “great, can’t wait for my taxes to go up.” I didn’t bother addressing it or debating because there’s nothing more boring than convincing your brother to vote for democrats during a rare visit. I think there are legions like him who just think democrats == taxes and don’t bother voting or vote republican.

 

[fskimospy]

To me, someone like my brother represents the median voter. He’s an early 30s bartender in Pennsylvania and makes around the national median income. Very smart guy but uninterested in spending his free time keeping up with politics. Also a “normal” guy in that if pressed he would typically support most liberal policy positions.

When the Democrats won all three chambers in 2020 I remember he said something like “great, can’t wait for my taxes to go up.” I didn’t bother addressing it or debating because there’s nothing more boring than convincing your brother to vote for democrats during a rare visit. I think there are legions like him who just think democrats == taxes and don’t bother voting or vote republican.

I can see that - it's also that a lot of voters are cross-pressured. There are plenty of people who think the rich should pay more in taxes but also hate trans people or abortion, for example.

If the Democrats really wanted to maximize their vote share they should probably moderate on trans rights and such. I'm not saying they necessarily should do that as some things are a moral issue, but it would probably make them win more elections.

 

[FelixDeCat]

Yeah I know when I make a "mistake" I don't simply acknowledge it, apologize and attempt to do better. Instead I opt for insulting the person I misrepresented. Feels good man.

It's okay eskimospy, I guess I'll just have to be the bigger man here.

Let's see, you want to know why I think Bernie lost at the ballot box, even though I already said it was probably due to numerous factors. I also already said I think a large portion of the population has been fooled, to which you replied that you do not think a large portion of the population has been fooled.

Now do I have any data to prove that a large portion has been fooled? No I do not. Do you have any evidence showing that a large portion has not been fooled?

I'd have a hard time believing you operate under the assumption that every voter is 100% well informed on all details of all policies and proposals, but then again, I figured you'd know the difference between a large portion and all, yet here we are, so perhaps it would be best for you to clarify. I mean, if you think no voters have been fooled I can just counter with FDC for example who votes Republican because he thinks they're fiscally conservative.

I think some portion of the population votes primarily based on personality over policy, and some other portion vice versa. I think some portion of the second group is well informed, another portion is under informed but at least not delusional, and then another portion is operating mostly on alternative "facts."

I have no idea what the ratio is for any of these groups, but I think we can at least agree that none of them are zero. Maybe you'll be able to find some evidence or studies examining the sizes of some or all of them, if you care to investigate.

The point is, you can rule out the personality people, and you can rule out the misinformed or "fooled" people right off the bat.

I suspect you are just fishing for an opportunity to list a few examples of how some of Bernie's numbers don't add up, as if that is the reason he lost. I won't agree to that unless you can provide evidence that yes millions of people were ready to vote for Bernie over Hillary or Joe until they found out his numbers were off. I think the number of people who were uninformed and misinformed dwarfs the number of people who even know he has bad numbers.

Tl;Dr

😉

 

[dank69]

Tl;Dr

😉

No shit.

 

[ch33zw1z]

No shit.

needs a 3 word chant to sell it to magatarians like FDC.

 

[HomerJS]

Food for thought from a Republican Senator

One Republican congressman confided to Romney that he wanted to vote for Trump’s second impeachment, but chose not to out of fear for his family’s safety,”

This is what Trumps MAGAts have brought

 

[Jaskalas]

I’m saying if you ran a national campaign with Sanders’ exact policy positions you would lose.

But is that because the policies are unpopular or because so many people assume anything progressives support is evil? When you ask conservatives or "independents" why they don't support specific bills the Democrats put forth, the reasons they give are almost universally because they believe the bills do things that the bill doesn't do.

I think we should be pretty wary of the idea that everyone secretly agrees with us but are tricked into believing otherwise.

Hold the horses.
These two ideas are not mutually exclusive.

People want a better life for themselves. But they HAVE been fooled into opposing anything that can achieve it. The Republican economic agenda is to !@#$ people over while lying to them that they could be the next Bill Gates. As long as you are not the person on the bottom, it doesn't matter if we trickle down piles of steaming !@#$. Sounds good? Great!!! *pist, you're going to be that person on the bottom, eating !@#$ all day*

But so long as we LIE to people and convince them that OTHER people are the !@#$ eaters instead, their !@#$ tastes better than other people's !@#$. Presto, fascist party for the detriment of mankind and the harming of each other's economic well being, to say the least.

So what difference does it make, if you want to call them fools or not?
They wholeheartedly support harming themselves. But that is because propaganda is a real and powerful tool, not because they are actually interested in self mutilation. This does not change the outcome, it is the same whether they are fooled or not. It does need to change our methods though. We need potent, uplifting, and powerful narratives. Propaganda of our own that desperate hurting people can latch onto and join us in a campaign. Middling policy like the ACA is not going to cut it. We need promises and visions of REAL reform, the sort that would make Bernie Sanders blush.

And for gods sake. We need speakers who are not ancient fossils.