JCC [Reactions] U.S. Presidential Election Day 2012

I wrote out a long, angry post, but it will suffice to say this: Romney burned his own bridges, and really has no one to blame but himself.

It's very concerning that there are millions of other people in the country that share his views.

 

This is disingenuous and incredibly unfair. You're characterizing a very large class of people with caricatured beliefs that I'm fairly certain most of them don't actually have.

 

Please tell me you are kidding, because as a Christian and a registered Republican, that is the single most personally offensive post I have seen on this site in a very long time.

I could just as easily use that same brand of lazy logic to say that the Democrats intentionally brainwash low-income blacks and hispanics into a culture of professional victimhood and a can't-do mentality in order to keep their vote-plantation running.

 

That's what elected Republican party officials already say, have been saying for years, and continue to use as the explanation for their most recent electoral defeat. Kind of makes your "what if" ring hollow.

 

Those comments are just as disingenuous and offensive.


"Alia quoque" is an even worse fallacy than "tu quoque".

 

And it is intellectually dishonest, every bit as much as Juliet's post.


It's the kind of thinking that fosters the miserable "us vs. them" infighting that politicians thrive on.

 

oops meant to edit.

 

In what sense is it "intellectually dishonest?" What other interpretation do you draw from Mitt Romney's comments that Obama won because of "gifts" directed at "especially the African-American community, the Hispanic community, and young people"? Insofar as I've learned to read, that looks pretty much like a restatement of what you said above.

 

As a Christian and former Republican who finally decided to jump ship and become an Independent because of the Hard Right's rhetoric taking over the GOP and living in a state where women's reporductive rights have been under attack for the last year (Virginia which passed restictive laws on how women get abortions and even more restrictive regulations on abortion clinics and nearly passed it's own Personhood amendment through the GOP run state legislature), as well as being in the same area as Pat Robertson, it's hard not to believe that the GOP; at least as far as it's current leadershop goes, is doing exactly that. So yes, I stand by my comments.

 

Yes, and I've stated that the notion that the Democrats are farming their votes like the old masters farmed cotton is intellectually dishonest. I was criticizing that very point in my rebuttal to Juliet.

It is flipside of the same dirty coin as her argument that Republicans want to keep women "barefoot and pregnant" and making "minorities jump through hoops" to keep them from voting.

As OZK stated, basing political opinion on political stereotypes is disingenuous no matter what party you support.

 

The motivation is not to keep women at home, pregnant, and disenfranchised. The motivation is rather clear: most pro-lifers actually genuinely believe that it's murder to kill an unborn human. That's what the "attack" on women's "reproductive rights" is about. Your improper declaration of other people's motivations is what is problematic with your post.

It's analogous to me saying to you, "Women who want 'reproductive rights' just want to be able to be promiscuous without suffering any consequences and they want me to pay for it because they're lazy."

I don't think that's the motivation when people want insurance companies to be forced to cover contraceptives.

I think that people who support that think that regulation of a woman's fertility is completely moral and absolutely related and very important to the health and well-being of a woman. I take them at their stated motives; I don't assume ulterior motives based on stereotypes.

 

I'm now confused. You said my point was "intellectually dishonest" but just agreed that Mitt Romney was using racial stereotypes in explaining voter behavior. If my assessment was correct, how was it dishonest?

 

If the leadership of the Republican Party did not want that perception out there then perhaps they should not have made women's issues campaign issues this time out (including several of their candidates sticking their foots in it on said women's issues - "legitimate rape" my butt), and various GOP states coming up with some of the most asinine Voter ID laws I've ever seen in my lifetime.

 

Because he's not Mitt Romney.

Pretty much every Republican I know who supports voter ID laws thinks that Democrats perpetrate massive voter fraud and that illegal aliens vote for Democrats. I don't think they're right, but their motivations are to prevent actual voter fraud. You're accusing them of wanting to disenfranchise eligible voters based on their support of laws that would not actually exclude them.

And again, the "women's issues campaign issues" that you refer to are not about restricting the rights of women or forcing them into lifestyles that they don't want; their opposition is based on their desire not to financially support lifestyles they disagree with and to protect the rights of a class of people.

I'm certain they don't want that perception out there; it's people like you who accuse them of motives they don't actually have who perpetuate beliefs of false motivations like that.

 

I didn't say he was. I said Republican leaders make public statements in line with what he described. Mitt Romney, as the party's most recent nominee, qualifies as a Republican leader. His comments were in line with what was described. Making my statement accurate. Which is the opposite of "dishonest."

 

Maybe they don't want it out there, but it's there and I don't think I'm the one necessarily perpetuating it. People like Rush Limbaugh, Todd Akin, Ken Cuccinelli and Mitt Romney do just fine all on their own making that perception seem like reality.

 

No no no. My comment on intellectual dishonesty was not aimed at you. It was aimed at the far left and far right who will go out of their way to divide the country in the name of vote-getting. In this case, the Republican leadership that you cited.

1. Akin is a fool and the Republican party condemned his stupid comment.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/08/20/todd-akins-biggest-problem-gop-critics/
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/20/brown-calls-on-akin-to-quit-missouri-senate-race/
http://www.cnbc.com/id/48737475/Romney_Calls_for_Akin_to_Quit_but_Candidate_Defiant

2. What asinine voter ID laws? The only law I heard of were the ones in Pennsylvania that required a photo ID when voters signed the logbooks that caused the far left to lose their **** and start claiming that most elderly people didn't have a photo ID.
(and yet nobody countered with the fact that it photo ID is generally required for the elderly to pick up prescription medications....)
(at least it is here at Louisiana Rite Aids. If i have to pick up something for my grandparents, they have to call ahead to let them know I am coming, then I have to present both my ID and their IDs in order to get the stuff)

 

Oh, I see. Very good then, carry on. My final comment, in light of this, though is that as Juliet has said for herself, her feelings are inspired in part by the aforementioned behavior of Republican officials. While we should all temper our comments, I don't think it's quite fair to accuse someone of being divisive because they point out how offensive others are being. Proper blame should instead be apportioned to the one offering first offense.

 

Aside from reproductive rights issues, the GOP still has a problem with women. Pay equality takes a backseat to the abortion and contraceptive issues, yet it's one of my biggest issues with the party. And you know what Romney said during the second debate when directly asked about pay equity? He talked a great deal about hiring equality, which included the "binders full of women" comment and an anecdote about how he allowed a flexible work schedule so his women could cook for their men and kids.

He not only completely sidestepped the pay issue, he reduced it to a ridiculous catch phrase, and came off as slightly chauvinistic in the process.

 

The GOP eventually got around to fully supporting Akin's campaign again, after the deadline to drop-out passed.

Which left a lot of voters feeling their condemnation of his statements wasn't really genuine, that they didn't really believe it was that awful.

 

IF YOU INSIST.

 

This is also the party that doesn't have the guts to stand up to someone like Rush when he calls a woman a prostitute for arguing for contraception.
All Republicans may not think women should just be barefoot and pregnant but I know which party, by a commanding lead, harbors people who feel that way.

It's like racism in the GOP. Of course they're not an overtly racist party but then again look at the string of racist tweets posted earlier. Wonder which party they were rooting for?

 

my god, its a treasure trove

lmao she was surprised by the outcome of freakin' new york. not even romney was that dense

"instead of paying to kill brown children in afghanistan with drones, ill be paying to kill white fetuses in america with MY OWN hard earned success. that's cool."


seriously its really sad that he refers to money as "hard-earned success". we pin our lives on such paltry, transient things in this culture...

if he still doesnt want it tell him i said to send it to me care of the first homeless person he sees.

wow that's pretty despicable. if anyone can be blamed for this poor, stupid man's suicide its the media that led him to believe obama has the intent or capability to change anything substantial about this country.

a woman i knew in passing was killed in her sleep by her husband in a murder suicide the morning after the election after being heard arguing loudly in their home the night before. he was a CEO and they havent released motive but in my gut, solely because of the timing, im dreading the announcement that it will be election-related.

did you unfriend her?

 

Well now it appears that somebody has filed a petition for Austin to secede from Texas and become it's own US state in the event that Texas secedes from the Union.

Link.

 

Denny's owner to raise prices and cut hours because Obama

Ok. Morons. If you cut service then you piss off the customers and they will stop going to your place. You are still going to be a billionaire. Also, what is not quoted in the article is that he said if you don't like the price hike just go ahead and cut the amount you tip the the server.

Denny's, Pappa Jon's, off my list of places to eat for turning this into a whining rich person's politcal issue.