The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Golden Grahams
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Mitt Romney and Lisa Murkowski are less unpopular and modestly more popular, respectively, among Democrats than they are among Republicans:

Despite appearing to have settled into his role as professional betrayer, Romney is gesturing towards a vote on President Trump’s nominee. Perhaps he intends to pull a fast one and vote “no”, finally settling the score:

Alaska is an electorally wild state. In 2016, Murkowski’s closest general election challenger was a Libertarian who endorsed Trump, something Murkowski refused to do. He got 30% of the state’s vote compared to just 11% for the Democrat. Despite being geographically far removed from the DC swamp, Murkowski embodies Uniparty sleaze. Her senatorial career began when her father appointed her to fill his seat. So she has her reasons.

Susan Collins is the trickiest to figure out. She’s favored to lose her reelection bid in November by more than 2:1 odds. Republicans have less animosity towards her than Democrats do, so her decision to turn her back on them this late in the game seems like electoral suicide. Democrats are not going to forget her eventually falling in line on Brett Kavanaugh. Politically–not to mention constitutionally–doubling down seems the way to go. But she’s managed a precarious position to stay in power for a generation now and I’m just some blowhard on the internet, so what do I know? I know I’m going to say I told you so in six weeks, that’s what!

Despite a mob outside his personal residence, the transformation of Lady G (see :19 in) into Lindsey the Lion was completed a couple of years ago:

He’s confirming.

 
• Category: Culture/Society, Ideology • Tags: Election 2020, Law, Polling 
Hide 100 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Anonymous[278] • Disclaimer says:

    This data is an impeachment of GOP voters. As far as policy opinions go, Lindsey Graham is if anything to the “left” of Mitt Romney. He was in 2016 the face of GOPe neocons and he hasn’t changed his mind on a single issue. If all these GOPe Senators changed their tune, the way the Democrats all suddenly changed their tune about gay marriage, you could say the voters are merely overly trusting. But by and large the GOPe neocons are saying the same GOPe neocon stuff as before, just now without any criticism of Trump. It shows that the voters don’t really care about the issues. It’s the Donald Trump cult of personality that really matters, the issues are mere appendages that can be discarded if no longer useful.

    People often tire of hearing the same message over and over. So when they hear talk about all the kids growing up without fathers in the house, they want to navigate away, because I’ve been hearing about this for decades, dammit! But in those decades the problem hasn’t gone away. And this is seen now, with Trump, a lot of those kids have grown up and decided to see him as their Daddy, just as much as stoner single moms saw Obama in the same way.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Jay Fink
    @Anonymous

    I am quite certain those raised without a father are more likely to vote Democrat than for Trump. As for Trump's cult of personality. I think it's simply a matter that he fights. The same qualities of his personality that outrage Democrats and never Trumper types are what fuels the passion for his supporters.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    , @(((Owen)))
    @Anonymous


    Lindsey Graham is if anything to the “left” of Mitt Romney. He was in 2016 the face of GOPe neocons and he hasn’t changed his mind on a single issue.
     
    Exactly. Graham is the most Never Trump senator in the Congress. If the Democrat manages to beat him (a Constitution Party Candidate could be the needed margin), then the country will be much better off.

    There is not remotely any Lindsey the Lion. There is just a re-election year gambit before he starts undermining the country, sending our boys off to dumb wars, and pushing open borders and amnesty all day long.

  2. I wouldn’t underestimate the impact of the direct abuse that the likes of Linsey Graham have been on the receiving end of in altering their stances. After all dislike of Jews was common in Germany in the thirties, the reason it was particularly intense amongst the Nazi elite was because they had been subjected to repeated attempts to ruin them. Getting assualted by antifa does wonders for radicalising and shifting your politicos rightward.

    I am puzzled by the phenomenon of the likes of Murkowski and Collins, given you have the benefit of primaries, but there are plenty of examples where professional politicians, who all lean left, have found careers as Conservative MPs. Indeed there was a survey where Conservative MPs are to the left of Conservative activists who are in turn to the left of Conservative voters. Politics is a left wing pursuit.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @LondonBob


    Politics is a left wing pursuit.
     
    That may well be true these days. Politics attracts people who want to change the world. Imagine a candidate running for office with the slogan Let's Just Leave Things As They Are.

    One of the weaknesses of democracy is that politicians (and governments) are under pressure to be seen to be doing things. It doesn't matter what they're doing as long as it's something. Doing something implies changing things. That's something that usually appeals to leftists.

    That changed for a while, in the period from the late 70s up to around the 90s, when it was right-wing politicians who were the ones wanting radical change - the destruction of trade unions, deregulation of banking, privatisation, etc. Of course the kinds of radical change that those right-wing politicians favoured turned out to be just as destructive as the kinds of changes that leftists had pushed. Governments actively trying to change things rarely ends well.

    So it might be more accurate to say that politics is something that appeals to people who are interfering busybodies who usually wreck everything they touch.

    Replies: @Athletic and Whitesplosive, @The Germ Theory of Disease, @John Johnson, @Sollipsist, @Rosie, @Reg Cæsar, @Audacious Epigone

    , @A123
    @LondonBob


    I wouldn’t underestimate the impact of the direct abuse that the likes of Linsey Graham have been on the receiving end of in altering their stances.
     
    A likely possibility. Another scenario is -- No more Democrat moderates to compromise with. The DNC is the party of "No!"

    Regardless of why he exited the GOP(e), Lindsey Graham is solidly in the Populist camp at this point.


    I am puzzled by the phenomenon of the likes of Murkowski and Collins, given you have the benefit of primaries
     
    Alaska politics are truly unique:

    -- 2010 -- Murkowski lost the GOP primary to Joe Miller and won re-election as an Incumbent Write-In.
    -- 2016 -- as AE pointed out -- Joe Miller ran as a Libertarian and received ~30% of the vote. The DNC candidate came in 4th ~10%.

    Once Mitch McConnell found enough votes elsewhere, there was no upside trying to hold the line. Trump is popular in Alaska, so there was substantial downside risk to her 2022 campaign if she stayed on the losing side.
    _____

    Romney is pro-life, and his constituents have massive commitment to the issue.

    No matter how much he dislikes Trump personally, there is a 0% chance that Romney will risk losing the Supreme Court seat to a pro-choice nominee.

    PEACE 😇
     
    https://www.arcamax.com/newspics/188/18890/1889073.gif
     
    https://www.arcamax.com/thefunnies/pearlsbeforeswine/s-2410753

    Replies: @Jay Fink

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @LondonBob

    Does that hold among elected officials on the left, though? Aren't leftwing activists more left than leftist politicians are?

  3. @LondonBob
    I wouldn't underestimate the impact of the direct abuse that the likes of Linsey Graham have been on the receiving end of in altering their stances. After all dislike of Jews was common in Germany in the thirties, the reason it was particularly intense amongst the Nazi elite was because they had been subjected to repeated attempts to ruin them. Getting assualted by antifa does wonders for radicalising and shifting your politicos rightward.

    I am puzzled by the phenomenon of the likes of Murkowski and Collins, given you have the benefit of primaries, but there are plenty of examples where professional politicians, who all lean left, have found careers as Conservative MPs. Indeed there was a survey where Conservative MPs are to the left of Conservative activists who are in turn to the left of Conservative voters. Politics is a left wing pursuit.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @A123, @Audacious Epigone

    Politics is a left wing pursuit.

    That may well be true these days. Politics attracts people who want to change the world. Imagine a candidate running for office with the slogan Let’s Just Leave Things As They Are.

    One of the weaknesses of democracy is that politicians (and governments) are under pressure to be seen to be doing things. It doesn’t matter what they’re doing as long as it’s something. Doing something implies changing things. That’s something that usually appeals to leftists.

    That changed for a while, in the period from the late 70s up to around the 90s, when it was right-wing politicians who were the ones wanting radical change – the destruction of trade unions, deregulation of banking, privatisation, etc. Of course the kinds of radical change that those right-wing politicians favoured turned out to be just as destructive as the kinds of changes that leftists had pushed. Governments actively trying to change things rarely ends well.

    So it might be more accurate to say that politics is something that appeals to people who are interfering busybodies who usually wreck everything they touch.

    • Agree: Sollipsist
    • Replies: @Athletic and Whitesplosive
    @dfordoom

    Politics appeals to people who want power.

    Institutions control power, and the institutions are completely controlled by liberals because liberals have power. Therefore, nobody who is illiberal ever has a chance, it's not about illiberal people being disinterested in politics, that's absurd.

    Imagine using this asinine psychologizing during any other time in history. When hereditary nobility wielded all the power in Europe, amazingly everyone who came to hold any office or wield some degree of power was... pro-nobility! I guess back then politics was "inherently a noble pursuit" eh?

    That the powerful gatekeep who can enter into lesser levels of power is a concept so simple, intuitive, and obviously true that only people obsessed with politics can't understand it. The pervasiveness of liberal propaganda regarding how government works, especially among those who view themselves as dissidents against liberalism, is absolutely amazing.

    , @The Germ Theory of Disease
    @dfordoom

    I think a lot of it has to do with conceptual drift. There are alleged grownup alleged adults in politics who still think it's Munich 1936, or Selma 1963. They're in a time capsule.

    I always think, conceptually speaking, a lot of people are deathly afraid of being the rube who thought that Jackson Pollock and Andy Warhol were just being silly, (SEE UNDER: "the wrong side of history," as if that were a thing), so they're on the lookout to NOT be the dumb guy who doesn't get it. So they override their critical emergency brake, and that's how you wind up with Jeff Koons and Lisa Suckdog and Banksy.

    At least Damien Hirst, to his credit, is witty and funny.

    , @John Johnson
    @dfordoom

    So it might be more accurate to say that politics is something that appeals to people who are interfering busybodies who usually wreck everything they touch.

    I understand the thinking behind that statement but it only exists because of the right/left duopoly.

    The Con Inc game is centered around arguing that government intervention itself is a bad idea but they just so happen to heavily depend on examples where liberals are in charge of Black areas. Funny that.

    Liberalism is entirely dishonest and requires duping people into thinking that racist conservatives hold back their grand plans even though over a trillion has been spent on their theories.

    You're expected to either join up with lying and deluded liberals or minimal government conservatives. In both cases the real issues aren't honestly discussed cause that might be offensive.

    The people that want to fix problems through government intervention and don't believe in liberalism aren't welcome in politics. But those are precisely the people that should be in politics.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @Sollipsist
    @dfordoom

    Politicians used to be mostly glorified used car salesmen, and pretty much everybody knew it. Healthy skepticism of politicians was once as American as Mark Twain.

    Now politicians are viewed like celebrity actors -- another patently inauthentic group that far too many people are strangely eager to take at face value, and look to as moral and intellectual role models.

    But the country runs on middle managers, the classic bureaucratized system in which micromanaging busybodies are positively identified and tangibly rewarded far in excess of their actual value. The theory is: if you're not meddling, you're not working hard enough for positive change...

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @Rosie
    @dfordoom


    Imagine a candidate running for office with the slogan Let’s Just Leave Things As They Are.
     
    COTW as far as I'm concerned.

    It occurs to me that there may be something to the Leftist fear of right-wing scapegoating, because if indeed you are trying to rally the masses to a conservative cause, giving them someone to hate and blame would be the way to do it.

    Of course, as we have seen the Left is, if anything, even more guilty of this. Moreover, at any given time, certain classes of people may indeed be up to no good. It's hardly reasonable to expect people to just go on pretending it isn't so.
    , @Reg Cæsar
    @dfordoom


    Imagine a candidate running for office with the slogan Let’s Just Leave Things As They Are.
     
    Worked for Bush in '88.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    @dfordoom

    We must act!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mI4XLhY10VA

  4. @Anonymous
    This data is an impeachment of GOP voters. As far as policy opinions go, Lindsey Graham is if anything to the "left" of Mitt Romney. He was in 2016 the face of GOPe neocons and he hasn't changed his mind on a single issue. If all these GOPe Senators changed their tune, the way the Democrats all suddenly changed their tune about gay marriage, you could say the voters are merely overly trusting. But by and large the GOPe neocons are saying the same GOPe neocon stuff as before, just now without any criticism of Trump. It shows that the voters don't really care about the issues. It's the Donald Trump cult of personality that really matters, the issues are mere appendages that can be discarded if no longer useful.

    People often tire of hearing the same message over and over. So when they hear talk about all the kids growing up without fathers in the house, they want to navigate away, because I've been hearing about this for decades, dammit! But in those decades the problem hasn't gone away. And this is seen now, with Trump, a lot of those kids have grown up and decided to see him as their Daddy, just as much as stoner single moms saw Obama in the same way.

    Replies: @Jay Fink, @(((Owen)))

    I am quite certain those raised without a father are more likely to vote Democrat than for Trump. As for Trump’s cult of personality. I think it’s simply a matter that he fights. The same qualities of his personality that outrage Democrats and never Trumper types are what fuels the passion for his supporters.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Jay Fink

    Trump doesn't fight, he talks tough, and is popular among people who don't understand the difference.

  5. @dfordoom
    @LondonBob


    Politics is a left wing pursuit.
     
    That may well be true these days. Politics attracts people who want to change the world. Imagine a candidate running for office with the slogan Let's Just Leave Things As They Are.

    One of the weaknesses of democracy is that politicians (and governments) are under pressure to be seen to be doing things. It doesn't matter what they're doing as long as it's something. Doing something implies changing things. That's something that usually appeals to leftists.

    That changed for a while, in the period from the late 70s up to around the 90s, when it was right-wing politicians who were the ones wanting radical change - the destruction of trade unions, deregulation of banking, privatisation, etc. Of course the kinds of radical change that those right-wing politicians favoured turned out to be just as destructive as the kinds of changes that leftists had pushed. Governments actively trying to change things rarely ends well.

    So it might be more accurate to say that politics is something that appeals to people who are interfering busybodies who usually wreck everything they touch.

    Replies: @Athletic and Whitesplosive, @The Germ Theory of Disease, @John Johnson, @Sollipsist, @Rosie, @Reg Cæsar, @Audacious Epigone

    Politics appeals to people who want power.

    Institutions control power, and the institutions are completely controlled by liberals because liberals have power. Therefore, nobody who is illiberal ever has a chance, it’s not about illiberal people being disinterested in politics, that’s absurd.

    Imagine using this asinine psychologizing during any other time in history. When hereditary nobility wielded all the power in Europe, amazingly everyone who came to hold any office or wield some degree of power was… pro-nobility! I guess back then politics was “inherently a noble pursuit” eh?

    That the powerful gatekeep who can enter into lesser levels of power is a concept so simple, intuitive, and obviously true that only people obsessed with politics can’t understand it. The pervasiveness of liberal propaganda regarding how government works, especially among those who view themselves as dissidents against liberalism, is absolutely amazing.

    • Agree: SIMP simp
  6. This might be the Year of No Moderates. We can thank BLM and AntiFA for that. So it seems to be becoming clear to many that there is little to no upside in being a left-leaning White Repblican office holder. Graham gets it, Romney maybe. Murkowski doen’t care. Collins has no clue. Maybe Lindsey should organise a girl’s night out and explain the facts of life to her.

  7. • Replies: @Realist
    @Buzz Mohawk

    The lovely Lindsey is a fickle lover.

  8. Despite appearing to have settled into his role as professional betrayer

    Hopefully he will continue to allow the media to jerk him around like a bull with a nose ring, and the longer the better. That should put a stake through the heart of his wing of the Republican party.

  9. @LondonBob
    I wouldn't underestimate the impact of the direct abuse that the likes of Linsey Graham have been on the receiving end of in altering their stances. After all dislike of Jews was common in Germany in the thirties, the reason it was particularly intense amongst the Nazi elite was because they had been subjected to repeated attempts to ruin them. Getting assualted by antifa does wonders for radicalising and shifting your politicos rightward.

    I am puzzled by the phenomenon of the likes of Murkowski and Collins, given you have the benefit of primaries, but there are plenty of examples where professional politicians, who all lean left, have found careers as Conservative MPs. Indeed there was a survey where Conservative MPs are to the left of Conservative activists who are in turn to the left of Conservative voters. Politics is a left wing pursuit.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @A123, @Audacious Epigone

    I wouldn’t underestimate the impact of the direct abuse that the likes of Linsey Graham have been on the receiving end of in altering their stances.

    A likely possibility. Another scenario is — No more Democrat moderates to compromise with. The DNC is the party of “No!”

    Regardless of why he exited the GOP(e), Lindsey Graham is solidly in the Populist camp at this point.

    I am puzzled by the phenomenon of the likes of Murkowski and Collins, given you have the benefit of primaries

    Alaska politics are truly unique:

    — 2010 — Murkowski lost the GOP primary to Joe Miller and won re-election as an Incumbent Write-In.
    — 2016 — as AE pointed out — Joe Miller ran as a Libertarian and received ~30% of the vote. The DNC candidate came in 4th ~10%.

    Once Mitch McConnell found enough votes elsewhere, there was no upside trying to hold the line. Trump is popular in Alaska, so there was substantial downside risk to her 2022 campaign if she stayed on the losing side.
    _____

    Romney is pro-life, and his constituents have massive commitment to the issue.

    No matter how much he dislikes Trump personally, there is a 0% chance that Romney will risk losing the Supreme Court seat to a pro-choice nominee.

    PEACE 😇
      
    https://www.arcamax.com/thefunnies/pearlsbeforeswine/s-2410753

    • Replies: @Jay Fink
    @A123

    The 2010 election was upsetting to me since I considered Joe Miller the perfect Republican. Even now a decade later just seeing the word Alaska raises my blood pressure. I lived in Nevada at the time and was also horrified when Sharron Angle lost. Unless we get some right wingers elected the dreaded neoliberal status quo will continue forever.

  10. A closeted queer white guy is more favorable than women and a mormon.

    It sounds stupid, but it makes a lot of sense.

  11. @Buzz Mohawk
    https://dailysoundandfury.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/07/John-McCains-ghost-Lindsey-Graham-696x394.png

    Replies: @Realist

    The lovely Lindsey is a fickle lover.

  12. @dfordoom
    @LondonBob


    Politics is a left wing pursuit.
     
    That may well be true these days. Politics attracts people who want to change the world. Imagine a candidate running for office with the slogan Let's Just Leave Things As They Are.

    One of the weaknesses of democracy is that politicians (and governments) are under pressure to be seen to be doing things. It doesn't matter what they're doing as long as it's something. Doing something implies changing things. That's something that usually appeals to leftists.

    That changed for a while, in the period from the late 70s up to around the 90s, when it was right-wing politicians who were the ones wanting radical change - the destruction of trade unions, deregulation of banking, privatisation, etc. Of course the kinds of radical change that those right-wing politicians favoured turned out to be just as destructive as the kinds of changes that leftists had pushed. Governments actively trying to change things rarely ends well.

    So it might be more accurate to say that politics is something that appeals to people who are interfering busybodies who usually wreck everything they touch.

    Replies: @Athletic and Whitesplosive, @The Germ Theory of Disease, @John Johnson, @Sollipsist, @Rosie, @Reg Cæsar, @Audacious Epigone

    I think a lot of it has to do with conceptual drift. There are alleged grownup alleged adults in politics who still think it’s Munich 1936, or Selma 1963. They’re in a time capsule.

    I always think, conceptually speaking, a lot of people are deathly afraid of being the rube who thought that Jackson Pollock and Andy Warhol were just being silly, (SEE UNDER: “the wrong side of history,” as if that were a thing), so they’re on the lookout to NOT be the dumb guy who doesn’t get it. So they override their critical emergency brake, and that’s how you wind up with Jeff Koons and Lisa Suckdog and Banksy.

    At least Damien Hirst, to his credit, is witty and funny.

  13. Republicans never quite understood Mitt Romney, I fear. That’s Romney’s fault, of course, but he’d have been an excellent president. Romney is the one that got away.

    Romney is a conservative, nonideological problem-solver.

    My wife and I are and always have been pro-Trump, since the day Donald Trump rode down the escalator in 2015 to give the so-called Mexican rapist speech. However, Trump is a dishonest, degenerate, undisciplined slob who badly needs a prominent Republican to hold him to account. Marco Rubio might have held Trump to account, but chose not to, so the job falls to Romney.

    I love Mitt Romney. I appreciate Mitt Romney. I want Mitt Romney to keep doing exactly what he does.

    I only hope that Republicans nationwide eventually figure Mitt Romney out, because in the year 2020, that man remains a stout pillar of our otherwise crumbling Republic.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @V. K. Ovelund

    You, and I say this without malice, are an imbecile.

    Allow me to repeat myself for the umpteenth time; Mitt Romney is lower that sewer pond scum.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    , @anon
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Republicans never quite understood Mitt Romney, I fear. That’s Romney’s fault, of course, but he’d have been an excellent president. Romney is the one that got away.

    On the contrary, Mitt "Bain capital" Romney isn't that difficult to understand. Just watch what he does and never mind what he says. That's what people who had the misfortune to live with him in Taxachusetts as a Governor told me.

    I love Mitt Romney. I appreciate Mitt Romney. I want Mitt Romney to keep doing exactly what he does.

    Did you love and appreciate John McCain and Barry Obama, too?

    Exactly what is it that Romney is doing that you love and want to continue? Please be specific.

    PS: It is long past time for old people to pull away from the GOPe. Long, long past time.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    , @Twinkie
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Romney is a conservative, nonideological problem-solver.
     
    Romney is not a conservative. And, other than doing well running an Olympic committee, what great problem of the day has he ever solved? What promising solution has he ever proposed?

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Audacious Epigone

    , @Wency
    @V. K. Ovelund

    I'll be honest, I don't hate Romney. I don't quite love him either. I do think he's a good guy on a personal and family level -- something that Trump is not. I mean, just take a look at his progeny. The least of his children is better than the best of Trump's. And Romney's probably more intellectually curious and all-around competent than any President since Nixon.

    The complaints about him seem to be that he doesn't hate or fear our enemies enough. He seems to think Russia is the danger and not the Left. And yeah, he doesn't like Trump.

    When all is said and done, I think a Romney Presidency would probably have been better than the failure the Trump Presidency turned out to be. But Romney might go so far as to say that a Hillary Presidency would have been better than a Trump Presidency, and on that I can't agree.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @Twinkie

  14. @V. K. Ovelund
    Republicans never quite understood Mitt Romney, I fear. That's Romney's fault, of course, but he'd have been an excellent president. Romney is the one that got away.

    Romney is a conservative, nonideological problem-solver.

    My wife and I are and always have been pro-Trump, since the day Donald Trump rode down the escalator in 2015 to give the so-called Mexican rapist speech. However, Trump is a dishonest, degenerate, undisciplined slob who badly needs a prominent Republican to hold him to account. Marco Rubio might have held Trump to account, but chose not to, so the job falls to Romney.

    I love Mitt Romney. I appreciate Mitt Romney. I want Mitt Romney to keep doing exactly what he does.

    I only hope that Republicans nationwide eventually figure Mitt Romney out, because in the year 2020, that man remains a stout pillar of our otherwise crumbling Republic.

    Replies: @iffen, @anon, @Twinkie, @Wency

    You, and I say this without malice, are an imbecile.

    Allow me to repeat myself for the umpteenth time; Mitt Romney is lower that sewer pond scum.

    • Agree: Tlotsi, neutral
    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @iffen


    You, and I say this without malice, are an imbecile.
     
    I think rather highly of you, so would rather have your approbation than your ill opinion, for your commentary is nearly always worth reading; but I suppose that I can get along with the ill opinion if I must.

    If there is something specific you would like to teach me, though, I am always willing to learn. But that's the trouble with imbeciles, isn't it? They cannot be taught.

    To the extent to which you believe that Romney is a bad man, you and I must agree to disagree.

    Replies: @Charles Pewitt, @Twinkie

  15. @iffen
    @V. K. Ovelund

    You, and I say this without malice, are an imbecile.

    Allow me to repeat myself for the umpteenth time; Mitt Romney is lower that sewer pond scum.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    You, and I say this without malice, are an imbecile.

    I think rather highly of you, so would rather have your approbation than your ill opinion, for your commentary is nearly always worth reading; but I suppose that I can get along with the ill opinion if I must.

    If there is something specific you would like to teach me, though, I am always willing to learn. But that’s the trouble with imbeciles, isn’t it? They cannot be taught.

    To the extent to which you believe that Romney is a bad man, you and I must agree to disagree.

    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Ann Coulter was once highly enamoured of Parisian-speaking poodle boy drinkwater baby boomer bastard globalizer financializer mass immigration fanatic Mexico First Mittens Romney. Romney's father, George, said he got brain-washed by US military scamps into supporting the Vietnam War until a trip he took there in 1965 -- there's that year again...Alan Watts Blues song and riots.

    Tweets from 2015:

    https://twitter.com/CharlesPewitt/status/614061864411074560?s=20

    https://twitter.com/CharlesPewitt/status/652151310255452160?s=20

    https://twitter.com/CharlesPewitt/status/616023912036597760?s=20

    , @Twinkie
    @V. K. Ovelund


    I think rather highly of you, so would rather have your approbation than your ill opinion, for your commentary is nearly always worth reading
     
    I also write this without any malice, but I find those who grovel to others who spit on their faces to be imbecilic or at least unmanly.

    Now if you find cranky one-liners and temper-tantrums “worth reading,” that indeed is imbecilic.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @iffen

  16. anon[137] • Disclaimer says:
    @V. K. Ovelund
    Republicans never quite understood Mitt Romney, I fear. That's Romney's fault, of course, but he'd have been an excellent president. Romney is the one that got away.

    Romney is a conservative, nonideological problem-solver.

    My wife and I are and always have been pro-Trump, since the day Donald Trump rode down the escalator in 2015 to give the so-called Mexican rapist speech. However, Trump is a dishonest, degenerate, undisciplined slob who badly needs a prominent Republican to hold him to account. Marco Rubio might have held Trump to account, but chose not to, so the job falls to Romney.

    I love Mitt Romney. I appreciate Mitt Romney. I want Mitt Romney to keep doing exactly what he does.

    I only hope that Republicans nationwide eventually figure Mitt Romney out, because in the year 2020, that man remains a stout pillar of our otherwise crumbling Republic.

    Replies: @iffen, @anon, @Twinkie, @Wency

    Republicans never quite understood Mitt Romney, I fear. That’s Romney’s fault, of course, but he’d have been an excellent president. Romney is the one that got away.

    On the contrary, Mitt “Bain capital” Romney isn’t that difficult to understand. Just watch what he does and never mind what he says. That’s what people who had the misfortune to live with him in Taxachusetts as a Governor told me.

    I love Mitt Romney. I appreciate Mitt Romney. I want Mitt Romney to keep doing exactly what he does.

    Did you love and appreciate John McCain and Barry Obama, too?

    Exactly what is it that Romney is doing that you love and want to continue? Please be specific.

    PS: It is long past time for old people to pull away from the GOPe. Long, long past time.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @anon


    Did you love and appreciate John McCain?...
     
    I loathed John McCain. Did not vote for him. Never would. I believe that McCain would have been, by far, the worst president in U.S. history.

    The man's heavily practiced faux humility regarding his doubtful POW record was sickening. Citizens that have never served under arms can be forgiven for not understanding the reason POWs—though accorded standard veteran's honors—are denied the higher medals, but McCain knew better than to let the public think him a hero. He did it anyway.

    There were many American POWs. Others bore their suffering with honorable dignity. Only McCain cashed in. Disgusting.

    I have not answered all your questions but this response is already long enough. If there is a specific, additional point you wish me to address, let me know.

    Replies: @anon

  17. @dfordoom
    @LondonBob


    Politics is a left wing pursuit.
     
    That may well be true these days. Politics attracts people who want to change the world. Imagine a candidate running for office with the slogan Let's Just Leave Things As They Are.

    One of the weaknesses of democracy is that politicians (and governments) are under pressure to be seen to be doing things. It doesn't matter what they're doing as long as it's something. Doing something implies changing things. That's something that usually appeals to leftists.

    That changed for a while, in the period from the late 70s up to around the 90s, when it was right-wing politicians who were the ones wanting radical change - the destruction of trade unions, deregulation of banking, privatisation, etc. Of course the kinds of radical change that those right-wing politicians favoured turned out to be just as destructive as the kinds of changes that leftists had pushed. Governments actively trying to change things rarely ends well.

    So it might be more accurate to say that politics is something that appeals to people who are interfering busybodies who usually wreck everything they touch.

    Replies: @Athletic and Whitesplosive, @The Germ Theory of Disease, @John Johnson, @Sollipsist, @Rosie, @Reg Cæsar, @Audacious Epigone

    So it might be more accurate to say that politics is something that appeals to people who are interfering busybodies who usually wreck everything they touch.

    I understand the thinking behind that statement but it only exists because of the right/left duopoly.

    The Con Inc game is centered around arguing that government intervention itself is a bad idea but they just so happen to heavily depend on examples where liberals are in charge of Black areas. Funny that.

    Liberalism is entirely dishonest and requires duping people into thinking that racist conservatives hold back their grand plans even though over a trillion has been spent on their theories.

    You’re expected to either join up with lying and deluded liberals or minimal government conservatives. In both cases the real issues aren’t honestly discussed cause that might be offensive.

    The people that want to fix problems through government intervention and don’t believe in liberalism aren’t welcome in politics. But those are precisely the people that should be in politics.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @John Johnson


    The people that want to fix problems through government intervention and don’t believe in liberalism aren’t welcome in politics. But those are precisely the people that should be in politics.
     
    The problem is that fixing one problem can simply create a new problem. Society is very complicated so you get unforeseen consequences. The most well-intentioned and well thought-out attempts to fix things can end up causing worse problems.

    That doesn't mean you shouldn't try to fix problems, but you have to be sure that the problem you're trying to fix really is important enough to justify the risks of unforeseen consequences.

    It's also dangerous when people try to apply fixes that are based on theory.

    Replies: @Yahya K., @Twinkie, @John Johnson

  18. @V. K. Ovelund
    @iffen


    You, and I say this without malice, are an imbecile.
     
    I think rather highly of you, so would rather have your approbation than your ill opinion, for your commentary is nearly always worth reading; but I suppose that I can get along with the ill opinion if I must.

    If there is something specific you would like to teach me, though, I am always willing to learn. But that's the trouble with imbeciles, isn't it? They cannot be taught.

    To the extent to which you believe that Romney is a bad man, you and I must agree to disagree.

    Replies: @Charles Pewitt, @Twinkie

    Ann Coulter was once highly enamoured of Parisian-speaking poodle boy drinkwater baby boomer bastard globalizer financializer mass immigration fanatic Mexico First Mittens Romney. Romney’s father, George, said he got brain-washed by US military scamps into supporting the Vietnam War until a trip he took there in 1965 — there’s that year again…Alan Watts Blues song and riots.

    Tweets from 2015:

    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon
    • Troll: Supply and Demand
  19. Lindsey Graham voted for the Rubio/Obama Illegal Alien Amnesty — Mass Immigration Surge bill(S 744) of June of 2013. Graham’s immigration bill would have doubled or tripled legal immigration and it would have given amnesty to upwards of 30 million illegal alien invaders.

    Lindsey Graham voted to drag the US military into the Iraq War debacle.

    Lindsey Graham pushes sovereignty-sapping, job-killing trade deal scams that harm American workers and weakens America’s defense industrial manufacturing base.

    Lindsey Graham wants to continue to use the US military as muscle to fight wars on behalf of Israel.

    I asked Lindsey Graham a question at a town hall meeting in 2015 when he ran for president:

    Tweet from 2015:

    • Agree: Supply and Demand
  20. I honestly don’t see why anyone thinks it would be a good idea to trust Mormons in politics outside of Utah.

    I had heard to never do business with them and didn’t believe it until I dealt with a Mormon business owner.

    There are inclusive to the extreme. They will happily hire completely incompetent Mormons over non-Mormons and then lie about the results. They shouldn’t be in politics for this reason alone.

    People that think Mormons are neat or are just another sect haven’t been around them.

    You can find endless stories online about them trying to skip out on bills from non-Mormon businesses. Most of them can’t afford their large families so they try to skimp the non-believers.

    They are fine as neighbors but not much else.

    • Replies: @Ari silver
    @John Johnson

    You aren’t kidding they really bear watching. When I was a kid the Mormon bookkeeper at my job was discovered paying her Mormon brethren more money than the rest of us. Greedy and selfish.

  21. @V. K. Ovelund
    @iffen


    You, and I say this without malice, are an imbecile.
     
    I think rather highly of you, so would rather have your approbation than your ill opinion, for your commentary is nearly always worth reading; but I suppose that I can get along with the ill opinion if I must.

    If there is something specific you would like to teach me, though, I am always willing to learn. But that's the trouble with imbeciles, isn't it? They cannot be taught.

    To the extent to which you believe that Romney is a bad man, you and I must agree to disagree.

    Replies: @Charles Pewitt, @Twinkie

    I think rather highly of you, so would rather have your approbation than your ill opinion, for your commentary is nearly always worth reading

    I also write this without any malice, but I find those who grovel to others who spit on their faces to be imbecilic or at least unmanly.

    Now if you find cranky one-liners and temper-tantrums “worth reading,” that indeed is imbecilic.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Twinkie


    I find those who grovel to others who spit on their faces ...
     
    Grovel? Spit? I don't think so. Online discussion just isn't important enough to grovel or spit.

    Twenty years ago, I used to get worked up over online insults, until I realized that Internet Tough Guy is never a good look.

    Now I just like to try to get derailed online conversations back on track when I can, because online acrimony is extremely boring. I'd usually rather save the acrimony (if any) for face-to-face.

    Besides, I do think rather highly of @iffen. I find his one-liners pithy. One regrets that you do not.


    ... unmanly.
     
    Noted.

    Replies: @iffen, @Twinkie

    , @iffen
    @Twinkie

    You really need to give up this man crush and shadow chasing.

    Replies: @Twinkie

  22. @V. K. Ovelund
    Republicans never quite understood Mitt Romney, I fear. That's Romney's fault, of course, but he'd have been an excellent president. Romney is the one that got away.

    Romney is a conservative, nonideological problem-solver.

    My wife and I are and always have been pro-Trump, since the day Donald Trump rode down the escalator in 2015 to give the so-called Mexican rapist speech. However, Trump is a dishonest, degenerate, undisciplined slob who badly needs a prominent Republican to hold him to account. Marco Rubio might have held Trump to account, but chose not to, so the job falls to Romney.

    I love Mitt Romney. I appreciate Mitt Romney. I want Mitt Romney to keep doing exactly what he does.

    I only hope that Republicans nationwide eventually figure Mitt Romney out, because in the year 2020, that man remains a stout pillar of our otherwise crumbling Republic.

    Replies: @iffen, @anon, @Twinkie, @Wency

    Romney is a conservative, nonideological problem-solver.

    Romney is not a conservative. And, other than doing well running an Olympic committee, what great problem of the day has he ever solved? What promising solution has he ever proposed?

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Twinkie


    Romney is not a conservative. And, other than doing well running an Olympic committee, what great problem of the day has he ever solved? What promising solution has he ever proposed?
     
    Sorry, I'm out of date on the details. Big Dig. Health Care. Several others.

    I realize that I can't say “Health Care” without provoking a large number of Republicans (and Democrats) into a flaming tailspin, but such Republicans are seldom reacting to the practical problem Romney actually faced in Massachusetts at the time. In my observation, such Republicans are usually reacting to the partisan federal politics that emerged surrounding Obamacare at a later date.

    Not that this comment of mine is going to convince anybody, for most of us stopped listening regarding these points a long time ago, yet the facts remain on my side as far as I know.

    Don't listen to me, anyway. I have little use for ideology, conservatism (properly understood) being the very antithesis of ideology. Perhaps this is why I am, as you say, an imbecile.

    Replies: @iffen, @Audacious Epigone

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @Twinkie

    Romney's immigration scorecard from Fair is a career F.

    Graham's is a C-.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  23. @Twinkie
    @V. K. Ovelund


    I think rather highly of you, so would rather have your approbation than your ill opinion, for your commentary is nearly always worth reading
     
    I also write this without any malice, but I find those who grovel to others who spit on their faces to be imbecilic or at least unmanly.

    Now if you find cranky one-liners and temper-tantrums “worth reading,” that indeed is imbecilic.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @iffen

    I find those who grovel to others who spit on their faces …

    Grovel? Spit? I don’t think so. Online discussion just isn’t important enough to grovel or spit.

    Twenty years ago, I used to get worked up over online insults, until I realized that Internet Tough Guy is never a good look.

    Now I just like to try to get derailed online conversations back on track when I can, because online acrimony is extremely boring. I’d usually rather save the acrimony (if any) for face-to-face.

    Besides, I do think rather highly of . I find his one-liners pithy. One regrets that you do not.

    … unmanly.

    Noted.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Now I just like to try to get derailed online conversations back on track

    He's in the picture and is the first words of the post.

    It's too heavy of a lift for me and the gap is too wide for me to explain why Mitt Romney is lower than sewer pond scum. Keep reading maybe you will get there.

    , @Twinkie
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Internet Tough Guy is never a good look.
     
    If you are not an actual tough guy, by all means, don't act like one on the Internet. It's easy enough to figure out.

    Tough guys are not born. They are made - through knowledge, training, hard work, and dedication. You can sift the real ones from "internet" ones very quickly by asking some simple questions. In fact, you can figure out pretty quickly who has real experience with actual violence (and fighting) and who doesn't.

    I find his one-liners pithy. One regrets that you do not.
     
    Because that's all he does. Look, I throw out inane internet ad hominem now and then, but usually I try to contribute comments of substance (often based on real life data and such) that enhance knowledge of the readers and commentariat here.

    All iffen does is follow me around and try to paint me as a bad guy and, in general, throw out drive-by-ad hominem. Could you point to ONE substantive comment of his that added value and increased the level of knowledge here for any worthwhile subject?

    online acrimony is extremely boring
     
    And yet you find iffen's comments interesting? Right...
  24. @Twinkie
    @V. K. Ovelund


    I think rather highly of you, so would rather have your approbation than your ill opinion, for your commentary is nearly always worth reading
     
    I also write this without any malice, but I find those who grovel to others who spit on their faces to be imbecilic or at least unmanly.

    Now if you find cranky one-liners and temper-tantrums “worth reading,” that indeed is imbecilic.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @iffen

    You really need to give up this man crush and shadow chasing.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @iffen


    You really need to give up this man crush and shadow chasing.
     
    You know, if you are going to engage in projection and behave in a manner of which you accuse another, it helps not to copycat the person you are not supposedly obsessively following:

    https://www.unz.com/anepigone/trump-will-win-reelection-with-this-one-neat-trick/#comment-4170413

    Sure, sure, it was a complete coincidence that you also used the exact term I used to describe people like you, eh?

    Originality - try it sometimes.
  25. @Twinkie
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Romney is a conservative, nonideological problem-solver.
     
    Romney is not a conservative. And, other than doing well running an Olympic committee, what great problem of the day has he ever solved? What promising solution has he ever proposed?

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Audacious Epigone

    Romney is not a conservative. And, other than doing well running an Olympic committee, what great problem of the day has he ever solved? What promising solution has he ever proposed?

    Sorry, I’m out of date on the details. Big Dig. Health Care. Several others.

    I realize that I can’t say “Health Care” without provoking a large number of Republicans (and Democrats) into a flaming tailspin, but such Republicans are seldom reacting to the practical problem Romney actually faced in Massachusetts at the time. In my observation, such Republicans are usually reacting to the partisan federal politics that emerged surrounding Obamacare at a later date.

    Not that this comment of mine is going to convince anybody, for most of us stopped listening regarding these points a long time ago, yet the facts remain on my side as far as I know.

    Don’t listen to me, anyway. I have little use for ideology, conservatism (properly understood) being the very antithesis of ideology. Perhaps this is why I am, as you say, an imbecile.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @V. K. Ovelund

    yet the facts remain on my side as far as I know.

    Good one. I think I will brazenly copy it.

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Romneycare was a template for Obamacare. That's where the frustration comes from. Obamacare has been great for insurance companies. That the GOPe got behind Romney in 2012, the candidate least able to effectively attack Obama on Obamacare, gives the game away. The GOPe didn't oppose Obamacare, they love it. It's why they had no plan to replace it in 2016.

  26. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Twinkie


    I find those who grovel to others who spit on their faces ...
     
    Grovel? Spit? I don't think so. Online discussion just isn't important enough to grovel or spit.

    Twenty years ago, I used to get worked up over online insults, until I realized that Internet Tough Guy is never a good look.

    Now I just like to try to get derailed online conversations back on track when I can, because online acrimony is extremely boring. I'd usually rather save the acrimony (if any) for face-to-face.

    Besides, I do think rather highly of @iffen. I find his one-liners pithy. One regrets that you do not.


    ... unmanly.
     
    Noted.

    Replies: @iffen, @Twinkie

    Now I just like to try to get derailed online conversations back on track

    He’s in the picture and is the first words of the post.

    It’s too heavy of a lift for me and the gap is too wide for me to explain why Mitt Romney is lower than sewer pond scum. Keep reading maybe you will get there.

  27. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Twinkie


    Romney is not a conservative. And, other than doing well running an Olympic committee, what great problem of the day has he ever solved? What promising solution has he ever proposed?
     
    Sorry, I'm out of date on the details. Big Dig. Health Care. Several others.

    I realize that I can't say “Health Care” without provoking a large number of Republicans (and Democrats) into a flaming tailspin, but such Republicans are seldom reacting to the practical problem Romney actually faced in Massachusetts at the time. In my observation, such Republicans are usually reacting to the partisan federal politics that emerged surrounding Obamacare at a later date.

    Not that this comment of mine is going to convince anybody, for most of us stopped listening regarding these points a long time ago, yet the facts remain on my side as far as I know.

    Don't listen to me, anyway. I have little use for ideology, conservatism (properly understood) being the very antithesis of ideology. Perhaps this is why I am, as you say, an imbecile.

    Replies: @iffen, @Audacious Epigone

    yet the facts remain on my side as far as I know.

    Good one. I think I will brazenly copy it.

  28. @V. K. Ovelund
    Republicans never quite understood Mitt Romney, I fear. That's Romney's fault, of course, but he'd have been an excellent president. Romney is the one that got away.

    Romney is a conservative, nonideological problem-solver.

    My wife and I are and always have been pro-Trump, since the day Donald Trump rode down the escalator in 2015 to give the so-called Mexican rapist speech. However, Trump is a dishonest, degenerate, undisciplined slob who badly needs a prominent Republican to hold him to account. Marco Rubio might have held Trump to account, but chose not to, so the job falls to Romney.

    I love Mitt Romney. I appreciate Mitt Romney. I want Mitt Romney to keep doing exactly what he does.

    I only hope that Republicans nationwide eventually figure Mitt Romney out, because in the year 2020, that man remains a stout pillar of our otherwise crumbling Republic.

    Replies: @iffen, @anon, @Twinkie, @Wency

    I’ll be honest, I don’t hate Romney. I don’t quite love him either. I do think he’s a good guy on a personal and family level — something that Trump is not. I mean, just take a look at his progeny. The least of his children is better than the best of Trump’s. And Romney’s probably more intellectually curious and all-around competent than any President since Nixon.

    The complaints about him seem to be that he doesn’t hate or fear our enemies enough. He seems to think Russia is the danger and not the Left. And yeah, he doesn’t like Trump.

    When all is said and done, I think a Romney Presidency would probably have been better than the failure the Trump Presidency turned out to be. But Romney might go so far as to say that a Hillary Presidency would have been better than a Trump Presidency, and on that I can’t agree.

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    @Wency

    You are wrong about Romney.

    Before he was a public figure, before you ever head of him, he did his best to eliminate American jobs and move them overseas. Furthermore, he worked hard to maximize corporate share values by cutting away every single American expense that he could. He was emblematic of the greed and destruction of his period in American history.

    Mitt Romney has never, ever done anything for the American people.

    He is, and always has been, a corporate character living in a bubble. He does not give a shit about you or me, and he does not deserve one ounce of your sympathy or understanding.

    His essential guilt or problem far predates anything you have written about. It is best to just consider him a big ZERO.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @A123, @nebulafox, @PhilK

    , @Twinkie
    @Wency


    The complaints about him seem to be that he doesn’t hate or fear our enemies enough. He seems to think Russia is the danger and not the Left. And yeah, he doesn’t like Trump.
     
    The main complaint about him is that he tries to be all things to all people - that he flip flops as his political fortunes (and survival) dictate.

    He may or may not be a nice guy or a great family man (and I've known evil people who were objectively bad for the world, but just adored their own children and looked after them well), but he is as spineless and self-serving as they come as far as a politician is concerned.

    When all is said and done, I think a Romney Presidency would probably have been better than the failure the Trump Presidency turned out to be.
     
    In what way? I am exactly a fan of Trump, but a Romney presidency would have been "gay rights" politics married to Chamber of Commerce policies, in other words government cheerleading social degeneracy combined with support for corporatism. How'd that different from an Obama presidency (or a Hillary Clinton one)?

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Wency

  29. @anon
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Republicans never quite understood Mitt Romney, I fear. That’s Romney’s fault, of course, but he’d have been an excellent president. Romney is the one that got away.

    On the contrary, Mitt "Bain capital" Romney isn't that difficult to understand. Just watch what he does and never mind what he says. That's what people who had the misfortune to live with him in Taxachusetts as a Governor told me.

    I love Mitt Romney. I appreciate Mitt Romney. I want Mitt Romney to keep doing exactly what he does.

    Did you love and appreciate John McCain and Barry Obama, too?

    Exactly what is it that Romney is doing that you love and want to continue? Please be specific.

    PS: It is long past time for old people to pull away from the GOPe. Long, long past time.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    Did you love and appreciate John McCain?…

    I loathed John McCain. Did not vote for him. Never would. I believe that McCain would have been, by far, the worst president in U.S. history.

    The man’s heavily practiced faux humility regarding his doubtful POW record was sickening. Citizens that have never served under arms can be forgiven for not understanding the reason POWs—though accorded standard veteran’s honors—are denied the higher medals, but McCain knew better than to let the public think him a hero. He did it anyway.

    There were many American POWs. Others bore their suffering with honorable dignity. Only McCain cashed in. Disgusting.

    I have not answered all your questions but this response is already long enough. If there is a specific, additional point you wish me to address, let me know.

    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @anon
    @V. K. Ovelund

    I have not answered all your questions but this response is already long enough. If there is a specific, additional point you wish me to address, let me know.

    Once again:

    Exactly what is it that Romney is doing that you love and want to continue? Please be specific.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  30. @Wency
    @V. K. Ovelund

    I'll be honest, I don't hate Romney. I don't quite love him either. I do think he's a good guy on a personal and family level -- something that Trump is not. I mean, just take a look at his progeny. The least of his children is better than the best of Trump's. And Romney's probably more intellectually curious and all-around competent than any President since Nixon.

    The complaints about him seem to be that he doesn't hate or fear our enemies enough. He seems to think Russia is the danger and not the Left. And yeah, he doesn't like Trump.

    When all is said and done, I think a Romney Presidency would probably have been better than the failure the Trump Presidency turned out to be. But Romney might go so far as to say that a Hillary Presidency would have been better than a Trump Presidency, and on that I can't agree.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @Twinkie

    You are wrong about Romney.

    Before he was a public figure, before you ever head of him, he did his best to eliminate American jobs and move them overseas. Furthermore, he worked hard to maximize corporate share values by cutting away every single American expense that he could. He was emblematic of the greed and destruction of his period in American history.

    Mitt Romney has never, ever done anything for the American people.

    He is, and always has been, a corporate character living in a bubble. He does not give a shit about you or me, and he does not deserve one ounce of your sympathy or understanding.

    His essential guilt or problem far predates anything you have written about. It is best to just consider him a big ZERO.

    • Agree: iffen, A123, MBlanc46
    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Buzz Mohawk


    [Mitt Romney] does not deserve one ounce of your sympathy or understanding.
     
    Mitt Romney does not ask for one ounce of our sympathy or understanding.

    Look, I'm not going to get anywhere with this, because people have already made up their minds, but Romney did his duty within his assigned domain. When capitalist, as capitalist. When governor, as governor. When senator, as senator. He did his job and left the rest of us to do ours. Not a busybody, he literally minded his business. I respect that.

    When a capitalist, Romney never believed offshoring to be wise public policy as far as I know; but he was not in Congress at the time, so deciding public policy was not his rôle. His rôle was to maximize shareholder's profit at Bain.

    You and I could dive into the matter to far greater depth (and soon you'd have me in over my head), but I generally like persons that perform their rôles well. I like Romney. I think that you should, too.

    , @A123
    @Buzz Mohawk


    Before he was a public figure, before you ever head of him, he did his best to eliminate American jobs and move them overseas. Furthermore, he worked hard to maximize corporate share values by cutting away every single American expense that he could. He was emblematic of the greed and destruction of his period in American history.

    Mitt Romney has never, ever done anything for the American people.
     
    Precisely correct. Romney's firm, Bain Capital, was a destructive force.

    A Romney Administration would have served Elite Globalism at the expense of the American people. There really was a uni-party election in 2012. Romney and Obama were near identical twins in their contempt for Main Street America.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    , @nebulafox
    @Buzz Mohawk

    The decision to nominate Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan at the height of the worst economic situation since the Great Depression to that date summarized elegantly everything that was wrong with the GOP in a way no words could. It's not hard to draw the connection to the mindset that thought anybody could possibly want Jeb! in 2016.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    , @PhilK
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Before he was a public figure, before you ever head of him, he did his best to eliminate American jobs and move them overseas. Furthermore, he worked hard to maximize corporate share values by cutting away every single American expense that he could. He was emblematic of the greed and destruction of his period in American history.

    Yeah, this is why I think Romney is bad, bad, bad. I'm old enough to remember his father. No comparison between the two.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  31. @Buzz Mohawk
    @Wency

    You are wrong about Romney.

    Before he was a public figure, before you ever head of him, he did his best to eliminate American jobs and move them overseas. Furthermore, he worked hard to maximize corporate share values by cutting away every single American expense that he could. He was emblematic of the greed and destruction of his period in American history.

    Mitt Romney has never, ever done anything for the American people.

    He is, and always has been, a corporate character living in a bubble. He does not give a shit about you or me, and he does not deserve one ounce of your sympathy or understanding.

    His essential guilt or problem far predates anything you have written about. It is best to just consider him a big ZERO.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @A123, @nebulafox, @PhilK

    [Mitt Romney] does not deserve one ounce of your sympathy or understanding.

    Mitt Romney does not ask for one ounce of our sympathy or understanding.

    Look, I’m not going to get anywhere with this, because people have already made up their minds, but Romney did his duty within his assigned domain. When capitalist, as capitalist. When governor, as governor. When senator, as senator. He did his job and left the rest of us to do ours. Not a busybody, he literally minded his business. I respect that.

    When a capitalist, Romney never believed offshoring to be wise public policy as far as I know; but he was not in Congress at the time, so deciding public policy was not his rôle. His rôle was to maximize shareholder’s profit at Bain.

    You and I could dive into the matter to far greater depth (and soon you’d have me in over my head), but I generally like persons that perform their rôles well. I like Romney. I think that you should, too.

  32. @Buzz Mohawk
    @Wency

    You are wrong about Romney.

    Before he was a public figure, before you ever head of him, he did his best to eliminate American jobs and move them overseas. Furthermore, he worked hard to maximize corporate share values by cutting away every single American expense that he could. He was emblematic of the greed and destruction of his period in American history.

    Mitt Romney has never, ever done anything for the American people.

    He is, and always has been, a corporate character living in a bubble. He does not give a shit about you or me, and he does not deserve one ounce of your sympathy or understanding.

    His essential guilt or problem far predates anything you have written about. It is best to just consider him a big ZERO.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @A123, @nebulafox, @PhilK

    Before he was a public figure, before you ever head of him, he did his best to eliminate American jobs and move them overseas. Furthermore, he worked hard to maximize corporate share values by cutting away every single American expense that he could. He was emblematic of the greed and destruction of his period in American history.

    Mitt Romney has never, ever done anything for the American people.

    Precisely correct. Romney’s firm, Bain Capital, was a destructive force.

    A Romney Administration would have served Elite Globalism at the expense of the American people. There really was a uni-party election in 2012. Romney and Obama were near identical twins in their contempt for Main Street America.

    PEACE 😇

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @A123


    A Romney Administration would have served Elite Globalism at the expense of the American people.
     
    Nice try, Mr. Elite Globalist. That was a typically Talmudic deflection.

    Try harder next time.

    Replies: @A123

  33. @dfordoom
    @LondonBob


    Politics is a left wing pursuit.
     
    That may well be true these days. Politics attracts people who want to change the world. Imagine a candidate running for office with the slogan Let's Just Leave Things As They Are.

    One of the weaknesses of democracy is that politicians (and governments) are under pressure to be seen to be doing things. It doesn't matter what they're doing as long as it's something. Doing something implies changing things. That's something that usually appeals to leftists.

    That changed for a while, in the period from the late 70s up to around the 90s, when it was right-wing politicians who were the ones wanting radical change - the destruction of trade unions, deregulation of banking, privatisation, etc. Of course the kinds of radical change that those right-wing politicians favoured turned out to be just as destructive as the kinds of changes that leftists had pushed. Governments actively trying to change things rarely ends well.

    So it might be more accurate to say that politics is something that appeals to people who are interfering busybodies who usually wreck everything they touch.

    Replies: @Athletic and Whitesplosive, @The Germ Theory of Disease, @John Johnson, @Sollipsist, @Rosie, @Reg Cæsar, @Audacious Epigone

    Politicians used to be mostly glorified used car salesmen, and pretty much everybody knew it. Healthy skepticism of politicians was once as American as Mark Twain.

    Now politicians are viewed like celebrity actors — another patently inauthentic group that far too many people are strangely eager to take at face value, and look to as moral and intellectual role models.

    But the country runs on middle managers, the classic bureaucratized system in which micromanaging busybodies are positively identified and tangibly rewarded far in excess of their actual value. The theory is: if you’re not meddling, you’re not working hard enough for positive change…

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Sollipsist


    But the country runs on middle managers, the classic bureaucratized system in which micromanaging busybodies are positively identified and tangibly rewarded far in excess of their actual value. The theory is: if you’re not meddling, you’re not working hard enough for positive change…
     
    Yep.
  34. @A123
    @Buzz Mohawk


    Before he was a public figure, before you ever head of him, he did his best to eliminate American jobs and move them overseas. Furthermore, he worked hard to maximize corporate share values by cutting away every single American expense that he could. He was emblematic of the greed and destruction of his period in American history.

    Mitt Romney has never, ever done anything for the American people.
     
    Precisely correct. Romney's firm, Bain Capital, was a destructive force.

    A Romney Administration would have served Elite Globalism at the expense of the American people. There really was a uni-party election in 2012. Romney and Obama were near identical twins in their contempt for Main Street America.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    A Romney Administration would have served Elite Globalism at the expense of the American people.

    Nice try, Mr. Elite Globalist. That was a typically Talmudic deflection.

    Try harder next time.

    • Replies: @A123
    @V. K. Ovelund

    VK of Tehran,

    Are you still spewing your hate Islam and Taqiyya deception?

    We all know that you take glee in every bloody corpse of dead American soldiers.

    Sorry. No dead U.S. Army Sergeants for you today.

    PEACE 😇

  35. @V. K. Ovelund
    @A123


    A Romney Administration would have served Elite Globalism at the expense of the American people.
     
    Nice try, Mr. Elite Globalist. That was a typically Talmudic deflection.

    Try harder next time.

    Replies: @A123

    VK of Tehran,

    Are you still spewing your hate Islam and Taqiyya deception?

    We all know that you take glee in every bloody corpse of dead American soldiers.

    Sorry. No dead U.S. Army Sergeants for you today.

    PEACE 😇

  36. @John Johnson
    I honestly don't see why anyone thinks it would be a good idea to trust Mormons in politics outside of Utah.

    I had heard to never do business with them and didn't believe it until I dealt with a Mormon business owner.

    There are inclusive to the extreme. They will happily hire completely incompetent Mormons over non-Mormons and then lie about the results. They shouldn't be in politics for this reason alone.

    People that think Mormons are neat or are just another sect haven't been around them.

    You can find endless stories online about them trying to skip out on bills from non-Mormon businesses. Most of them can't afford their large families so they try to skimp the non-believers.

    They are fine as neighbors but not much else.

    Replies: @Ari silver

    You aren’t kidding they really bear watching. When I was a kid the Mormon bookkeeper at my job was discovered paying her Mormon brethren more money than the rest of us. Greedy and selfish.

  37. Campaign Ads do not get any better than this…

    A hack like Romney would never have made the cut.

    PEACE 😇

    • Replies: @Elmer's Washable School Glue
    @A123

    Not a Romney fan but everything about that ad is downright embarrassing. Legitimately thought it was a Dem satire at the beginning.

  38. @A123
    Campaign Ads do not get any better than this...

    A hack like Romney would never have made the cut.

    PEACE 😇

    https://www.twitter.com/CalebJHull/status/1309230616404275201?s=20

    Replies: @Elmer's Washable School Glue

    Not a Romney fan but everything about that ad is downright embarrassing. Legitimately thought it was a Dem satire at the beginning.

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund
  39. @A123
    @LondonBob


    I wouldn’t underestimate the impact of the direct abuse that the likes of Linsey Graham have been on the receiving end of in altering their stances.
     
    A likely possibility. Another scenario is -- No more Democrat moderates to compromise with. The DNC is the party of "No!"

    Regardless of why he exited the GOP(e), Lindsey Graham is solidly in the Populist camp at this point.


    I am puzzled by the phenomenon of the likes of Murkowski and Collins, given you have the benefit of primaries
     
    Alaska politics are truly unique:

    -- 2010 -- Murkowski lost the GOP primary to Joe Miller and won re-election as an Incumbent Write-In.
    -- 2016 -- as AE pointed out -- Joe Miller ran as a Libertarian and received ~30% of the vote. The DNC candidate came in 4th ~10%.

    Once Mitch McConnell found enough votes elsewhere, there was no upside trying to hold the line. Trump is popular in Alaska, so there was substantial downside risk to her 2022 campaign if she stayed on the losing side.
    _____

    Romney is pro-life, and his constituents have massive commitment to the issue.

    No matter how much he dislikes Trump personally, there is a 0% chance that Romney will risk losing the Supreme Court seat to a pro-choice nominee.

    PEACE 😇
     
    https://www.arcamax.com/newspics/188/18890/1889073.gif
     
    https://www.arcamax.com/thefunnies/pearlsbeforeswine/s-2410753

    Replies: @Jay Fink

    The 2010 election was upsetting to me since I considered Joe Miller the perfect Republican. Even now a decade later just seeing the word Alaska raises my blood pressure. I lived in Nevada at the time and was also horrified when Sharron Angle lost. Unless we get some right wingers elected the dreaded neoliberal status quo will continue forever.

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund
  40. I wouldn’t call Lindsay a lion, I’d call him a barely closeted queer neocon who gets it right once or twice. I haven’t seen anything else from him that suggests he’s strong in any other sense

  41. @dfordoom
    @LondonBob


    Politics is a left wing pursuit.
     
    That may well be true these days. Politics attracts people who want to change the world. Imagine a candidate running for office with the slogan Let's Just Leave Things As They Are.

    One of the weaknesses of democracy is that politicians (and governments) are under pressure to be seen to be doing things. It doesn't matter what they're doing as long as it's something. Doing something implies changing things. That's something that usually appeals to leftists.

    That changed for a while, in the period from the late 70s up to around the 90s, when it was right-wing politicians who were the ones wanting radical change - the destruction of trade unions, deregulation of banking, privatisation, etc. Of course the kinds of radical change that those right-wing politicians favoured turned out to be just as destructive as the kinds of changes that leftists had pushed. Governments actively trying to change things rarely ends well.

    So it might be more accurate to say that politics is something that appeals to people who are interfering busybodies who usually wreck everything they touch.

    Replies: @Athletic and Whitesplosive, @The Germ Theory of Disease, @John Johnson, @Sollipsist, @Rosie, @Reg Cæsar, @Audacious Epigone

    Imagine a candidate running for office with the slogan Let’s Just Leave Things As They Are.

    COTW as far as I’m concerned.

    It occurs to me that there may be something to the Leftist fear of right-wing scapegoating, because if indeed you are trying to rally the masses to a conservative cause, giving them someone to hate and blame would be the way to do it.

    Of course, as we have seen the Left is, if anything, even more guilty of this. Moreover, at any given time, certain classes of people may indeed be up to no good. It’s hardly reasonable to expect people to just go on pretending it isn’t so.

  42. @John Johnson
    @dfordoom

    So it might be more accurate to say that politics is something that appeals to people who are interfering busybodies who usually wreck everything they touch.

    I understand the thinking behind that statement but it only exists because of the right/left duopoly.

    The Con Inc game is centered around arguing that government intervention itself is a bad idea but they just so happen to heavily depend on examples where liberals are in charge of Black areas. Funny that.

    Liberalism is entirely dishonest and requires duping people into thinking that racist conservatives hold back their grand plans even though over a trillion has been spent on their theories.

    You're expected to either join up with lying and deluded liberals or minimal government conservatives. In both cases the real issues aren't honestly discussed cause that might be offensive.

    The people that want to fix problems through government intervention and don't believe in liberalism aren't welcome in politics. But those are precisely the people that should be in politics.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    The people that want to fix problems through government intervention and don’t believe in liberalism aren’t welcome in politics. But those are precisely the people that should be in politics.

    The problem is that fixing one problem can simply create a new problem. Society is very complicated so you get unforeseen consequences. The most well-intentioned and well thought-out attempts to fix things can end up causing worse problems.

    That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try to fix problems, but you have to be sure that the problem you’re trying to fix really is important enough to justify the risks of unforeseen consequences.

    It’s also dangerous when people try to apply fixes that are based on theory.

    • Replies: @Yahya K.
    @dfordoom


    The problem is that fixing one problem can simply create a new problem. Society is very complicated so you get unforeseen consequences. The most well-intentioned and well thought-out attempts to fix things can end up causing worse problems.
     
    The trick is to wait until someone else gives it a go. If it works, adopt it, if it doesn't...

    The Chinese figured that out a long time ago: ‘To find your way in the fog, follow the tracks of the oxcart ahead of you.’

    A good example of that philosophy put in practice is Singapore. They generally formulate policy by looking around the globe for solutions before considering new ideas. If they can't find any, they reluctantly innovate. I believe they adopted that philosophy from the Meiji Japanese back in the 19th century.

    Western countries in general try to fix their problems by innovation rather than imitation. That's probably a reflection of the differing attitudes toward creativity and problem-solving between Western and East Asian societies. But Western politics also has a heavy ideological strain to it that East Asian countries do not have in the same way.

    Although, Burke did preach a philosophy of prudence and incrementalism, but I guess that was lost on conservatives in the West.

    , @Twinkie
    @dfordoom


    The problem is that fixing one problem can simply create a new problem. Society is very complicated so you get unforeseen consequences. The most well-intentioned and well thought-out attempts to fix things can end up causing worse problems.
     
    THAT is original conservatism.

    Sadly, that plays very badly with most people, because most people (even supposedly intelligent ones) are creatures of emotion who use reason to rationalize the said emotion rather than arrive at logical solutions. Hence the mantra of the public whenever a problem becomes apparent (because problems have always been there - they merely come to the public attention after some episodes) - "Do something!"

    Most "democracies" have legislatures that produce new law after new law, all designed to "fix" something, all that paperweight of which does little to actually resolve any serious problem, but simply overregulates every aspect a modern human being's life. How often do these legislatures cull useless or, worse, counterproductive laws? Which modern society has fewer and fewer regulations each year? None.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @John Johnson

    , @John Johnson
    @dfordoom

    The problem is that fixing one problem can simply create a new problem. Society is very complicated so you get unforeseen consequences.

    Well of course but our politicians aren't serious about solving problems nor are they interested in even looking at data related to our problems.

    Both sides have ideological blinders to where they have a hard time even analyzing the problem itself let alone determining possible solutions and then taking negative consequences into account and making adjustments.

  43. @Jay Fink
    @Anonymous

    I am quite certain those raised without a father are more likely to vote Democrat than for Trump. As for Trump's cult of personality. I think it's simply a matter that he fights. The same qualities of his personality that outrage Democrats and never Trumper types are what fuels the passion for his supporters.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    Trump doesn’t fight, he talks tough, and is popular among people who don’t understand the difference.

  44. @Sollipsist
    @dfordoom

    Politicians used to be mostly glorified used car salesmen, and pretty much everybody knew it. Healthy skepticism of politicians was once as American as Mark Twain.

    Now politicians are viewed like celebrity actors -- another patently inauthentic group that far too many people are strangely eager to take at face value, and look to as moral and intellectual role models.

    But the country runs on middle managers, the classic bureaucratized system in which micromanaging busybodies are positively identified and tangibly rewarded far in excess of their actual value. The theory is: if you're not meddling, you're not working hard enough for positive change...

    Replies: @dfordoom

    But the country runs on middle managers, the classic bureaucratized system in which micromanaging busybodies are positively identified and tangibly rewarded far in excess of their actual value. The theory is: if you’re not meddling, you’re not working hard enough for positive change…

    Yep.

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund, Mark G.
  45. @Buzz Mohawk
    @Wency

    You are wrong about Romney.

    Before he was a public figure, before you ever head of him, he did his best to eliminate American jobs and move them overseas. Furthermore, he worked hard to maximize corporate share values by cutting away every single American expense that he could. He was emblematic of the greed and destruction of his period in American history.

    Mitt Romney has never, ever done anything for the American people.

    He is, and always has been, a corporate character living in a bubble. He does not give a shit about you or me, and he does not deserve one ounce of your sympathy or understanding.

    His essential guilt or problem far predates anything you have written about. It is best to just consider him a big ZERO.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @A123, @nebulafox, @PhilK

    The decision to nominate Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan at the height of the worst economic situation since the Great Depression to that date summarized elegantly everything that was wrong with the GOP in a way no words could. It’s not hard to draw the connection to the mindset that thought anybody could possibly want Jeb! in 2016.

    • Agree: Twinkie
    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @nebulafox


    The decision to nominate Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan at the height of the worst economic situation since the Great Depression to that date summarized elegantly everything that was wrong with the GOP in a way no words could.
     
    I do not understand. Romney more or less agreed with you. He was and still is trying to pull the Republican Party in your direction as far as I know.

    Ryan was another matter.


    It’s not hard to draw the connection to the mindset that thought anybody could possibly want Jeb! in 2016.
     
    I for one had little use for Jeb Bush.

    Donald Trump is a slob who provoked an unnecessary and avoidable fight with Romney, his predecessor as nominee. Romney told the plain truth about Trump, without rancor. Trump deserves Romney's opposition.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Yahya K.

  46. Barbarian scum.

  47. Yahya K. says:
    @dfordoom
    @John Johnson


    The people that want to fix problems through government intervention and don’t believe in liberalism aren’t welcome in politics. But those are precisely the people that should be in politics.
     
    The problem is that fixing one problem can simply create a new problem. Society is very complicated so you get unforeseen consequences. The most well-intentioned and well thought-out attempts to fix things can end up causing worse problems.

    That doesn't mean you shouldn't try to fix problems, but you have to be sure that the problem you're trying to fix really is important enough to justify the risks of unforeseen consequences.

    It's also dangerous when people try to apply fixes that are based on theory.

    Replies: @Yahya K., @Twinkie, @John Johnson

    The problem is that fixing one problem can simply create a new problem. Society is very complicated so you get unforeseen consequences. The most well-intentioned and well thought-out attempts to fix things can end up causing worse problems.

    The trick is to wait until someone else gives it a go. If it works, adopt it, if it doesn’t…

    The Chinese figured that out a long time ago: ‘To find your way in the fog, follow the tracks of the oxcart ahead of you.’

    A good example of that philosophy put in practice is Singapore. They generally formulate policy by looking around the globe for solutions before considering new ideas. If they can’t find any, they reluctantly innovate. I believe they adopted that philosophy from the Meiji Japanese back in the 19th century.

    Western countries in general try to fix their problems by innovation rather than imitation. That’s probably a reflection of the differing attitudes toward creativity and problem-solving between Western and East Asian societies. But Western politics also has a heavy ideological strain to it that East Asian countries do not have in the same way.

    Although, Burke did preach a philosophy of prudence and incrementalism, but I guess that was lost on conservatives in the West.

    • Agree: dfordoom
    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
  48. I don’t think a man being blackmailed over his private life is anything to be celebrated. At this point, there is no evidence that Lady G’s “friends” are anything but adult (18+), but historically this has not always been the case. Take this headline, for example:

    Eleven boys went on Edward Heath’s yacht but I counted only 10 who left his boat’ claims mum

    There’s a lot of suffering behind these situations; there’s nothing to celebrate here.

  49. @Wency
    @V. K. Ovelund

    I'll be honest, I don't hate Romney. I don't quite love him either. I do think he's a good guy on a personal and family level -- something that Trump is not. I mean, just take a look at his progeny. The least of his children is better than the best of Trump's. And Romney's probably more intellectually curious and all-around competent than any President since Nixon.

    The complaints about him seem to be that he doesn't hate or fear our enemies enough. He seems to think Russia is the danger and not the Left. And yeah, he doesn't like Trump.

    When all is said and done, I think a Romney Presidency would probably have been better than the failure the Trump Presidency turned out to be. But Romney might go so far as to say that a Hillary Presidency would have been better than a Trump Presidency, and on that I can't agree.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @Twinkie

    The complaints about him seem to be that he doesn’t hate or fear our enemies enough. He seems to think Russia is the danger and not the Left. And yeah, he doesn’t like Trump.

    The main complaint about him is that he tries to be all things to all people – that he flip flops as his political fortunes (and survival) dictate.

    He may or may not be a nice guy or a great family man (and I’ve known evil people who were objectively bad for the world, but just adored their own children and looked after them well), but he is as spineless and self-serving as they come as far as a politician is concerned.

    When all is said and done, I think a Romney Presidency would probably have been better than the failure the Trump Presidency turned out to be.

    In what way? I am exactly a fan of Trump, but a Romney presidency would have been “gay rights” politics married to Chamber of Commerce policies, in other words government cheerleading social degeneracy combined with support for corporatism. How’d that different from an Obama presidency (or a Hillary Clinton one)?

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Twinkie


    The main complaint about [Mitt Romney] is that he tries to be all things to all people – that he flip flops as his political fortunes (and survival) dictate.
     
    Do you find merit in the complaint? Why?

    Romney is imperfect (as are we all), but the complaint describes a clumsy caricature of the man. The complaint propagates an old political smear with little foundation in reality. The complaint has not much to do with the man himself.

    (Your comment in the other matter is noted but I've nothing to add.)

    Replies: @iffen

    , @Wency
    @Twinkie


    a Romney presidency would have been “gay rights” politics married to Chamber of Commerce policies
     
    Trump's State Department is pushing gay rights in the Middle East and Africa, and the only legislation of substance that he signed was a corporate tax cut.

    I think Romney at his heart is socially conservative (again, how could it be otherwise given his family?), but he sees social issues as a sideshow in politics compared to fixing problems like taxes and healthcare. He couldn't win on MA as a Republican offering anything else, so that's what he did.

    My guess is Romney would have done about as well as Trump on judges. But I also think Trump's habit of ineffectually poking the leftist bear and attacking democratic norms is basically the worst possible strategy. He has damaged the Republican brand in the eyes of swing voters and increased the risk that we'll live to see leftist totalitarianism in this country.

    Romney was also tougher on immigration than most of his peers at the time. He might well have gotten more done on immigration, by virtue of being more able to work with people and work with the system, possibly even passing legislation. He might well have strengthened the Republican brand, disassociating it from the ignorant incompetence of GWB (instead of doubling down on ignorance with Trump), and that might have helped Republicans win elections elsewhere and help social conservatism on the margin.

    Now, to be clear, I don't think Romney was great. I don't expect to live to see another great President, or even see anyone great come close to the office. But no, I still don't think he was bad, as Republican candidates go.

    Replies: @John Johnson

  50. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Twinkie


    I find those who grovel to others who spit on their faces ...
     
    Grovel? Spit? I don't think so. Online discussion just isn't important enough to grovel or spit.

    Twenty years ago, I used to get worked up over online insults, until I realized that Internet Tough Guy is never a good look.

    Now I just like to try to get derailed online conversations back on track when I can, because online acrimony is extremely boring. I'd usually rather save the acrimony (if any) for face-to-face.

    Besides, I do think rather highly of @iffen. I find his one-liners pithy. One regrets that you do not.


    ... unmanly.
     
    Noted.

    Replies: @iffen, @Twinkie

    Internet Tough Guy is never a good look.

    If you are not an actual tough guy, by all means, don’t act like one on the Internet. It’s easy enough to figure out.

    Tough guys are not born. They are made – through knowledge, training, hard work, and dedication. You can sift the real ones from “internet” ones very quickly by asking some simple questions. In fact, you can figure out pretty quickly who has real experience with actual violence (and fighting) and who doesn’t.

    I find his one-liners pithy. One regrets that you do not.

    Because that’s all he does. Look, I throw out inane internet ad hominem now and then, but usually I try to contribute comments of substance (often based on real life data and such) that enhance knowledge of the readers and commentariat here.

    All iffen does is follow me around and try to paint me as a bad guy and, in general, throw out drive-by-ad hominem. Could you point to ONE substantive comment of his that added value and increased the level of knowledge here for any worthwhile subject?

    online acrimony is extremely boring

    And yet you find iffen’s comments interesting? Right…

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
  51. @iffen
    @Twinkie

    You really need to give up this man crush and shadow chasing.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    You really need to give up this man crush and shadow chasing.

    You know, if you are going to engage in projection and behave in a manner of which you accuse another, it helps not to copycat the person you are not supposedly obsessively following:

    https://www.unz.com/anepigone/trump-will-win-reelection-with-this-one-neat-trick/#comment-4170413

    Sure, sure, it was a complete coincidence that you also used the exact term I used to describe people like you, eh?

    Originality – try it sometimes.

    • LOL: iffen
  52. @dfordoom
    @John Johnson


    The people that want to fix problems through government intervention and don’t believe in liberalism aren’t welcome in politics. But those are precisely the people that should be in politics.
     
    The problem is that fixing one problem can simply create a new problem. Society is very complicated so you get unforeseen consequences. The most well-intentioned and well thought-out attempts to fix things can end up causing worse problems.

    That doesn't mean you shouldn't try to fix problems, but you have to be sure that the problem you're trying to fix really is important enough to justify the risks of unforeseen consequences.

    It's also dangerous when people try to apply fixes that are based on theory.

    Replies: @Yahya K., @Twinkie, @John Johnson

    The problem is that fixing one problem can simply create a new problem. Society is very complicated so you get unforeseen consequences. The most well-intentioned and well thought-out attempts to fix things can end up causing worse problems.

    THAT is original conservatism.

    Sadly, that plays very badly with most people, because most people (even supposedly intelligent ones) are creatures of emotion who use reason to rationalize the said emotion rather than arrive at logical solutions. Hence the mantra of the public whenever a problem becomes apparent (because problems have always been there – they merely come to the public attention after some episodes) – “Do something!”

    Most “democracies” have legislatures that produce new law after new law, all designed to “fix” something, all that paperweight of which does little to actually resolve any serious problem, but simply overregulates every aspect a modern human being’s life. How often do these legislatures cull useless or, worse, counterproductive laws? Which modern society has fewer and fewer regulations each year? None.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Twinkie


    Most “democracies” have legislatures that produce new law after new law
     
    Yep. New laws, or changes to existing laws, should very rarely be required.

    And the Right is as guilty as the Left. Right-wing governments just as much as left-wing governments measure their success by the number of new laws they introduce and the number of existing laws that they change.

    There are obvious cases where laws need to be changed to take account of technological changes. Tax laws may need to be amended to deal with new tax avoidance schemes. But when it comes to criminal law and most civil law the problems that governments are trying to fix are not the result of bad, outdated old laws. They're usually the result of failures to properly enforce those existing laws.

    You certainly do not need to change laws on things like marriage when you already have laws that have worked successfully for generations or even centuries. But in Australia our right-wing government changed the marriage laws to allow homosexuals to get married. In Britain the same changes to the law were made by a right-wing government. This happened because all mainstream political parties, left or right, have bought into the delusion that they have to keep changing things.

    It's not a problem of Left vs Right, it's an inherent flaw in democracy.

    There are simple solutions of course, but simple solutions are very unpopular. Changing the law of the land should require a two-thirds majority in both houses of the legislature. That would not stop new laws being made or existing laws from being amended, but we don't need to do that. We don't need to make it impossible to change the law of the land. We just need to make it much more difficult to do.

    Another simple solution would be to prevent votes in the legislatures from being made on party lines. Voting in the legislature should be by secret ballot. Legislators could then actually vote according to their conscience without fear of repercussions. It would also largely eliminate corruption. There is no point in bribing a congressman to vote in a particular way if you can't be sure he will actually do so.

    Banning political donations and political lobbying would also help by making it incredibly difficult for corporations to persuade politicians to change laws in the interests of those corporations. It would also make it more difficult for lobby groups to pressure politicians into introducing stupid unnecessary new laws to serve the interests of those lobby groups. Ban political advertising. All parties would get a set amount of publicly funded air time based on their share of the vote at the previous election.

    Democracy could be made to work a lot better than it does.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    , @John Johnson
    @Twinkie

    Most “democracies” have legislatures that produce new law after new law, all designed to “fix” something, all that paperweight of which does little to actually resolve any serious problem, but simply overregulates every aspect a modern human being’s life. How often do these legislatures cull useless or, worse, counterproductive laws? Which modern society has fewer and fewer regulations each year? None.

    But I can list a thousand problems that were only solved through government intervention. Problems that simply would not have been solved through the free market or status quo.

    This is the problem with conservatism. Overreaching and nanny government can be a problem but so can a government that does nothing to solve real problems that its people face.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  53. @Twinkie
    @Wency


    The complaints about him seem to be that he doesn’t hate or fear our enemies enough. He seems to think Russia is the danger and not the Left. And yeah, he doesn’t like Trump.
     
    The main complaint about him is that he tries to be all things to all people - that he flip flops as his political fortunes (and survival) dictate.

    He may or may not be a nice guy or a great family man (and I've known evil people who were objectively bad for the world, but just adored their own children and looked after them well), but he is as spineless and self-serving as they come as far as a politician is concerned.

    When all is said and done, I think a Romney Presidency would probably have been better than the failure the Trump Presidency turned out to be.
     
    In what way? I am exactly a fan of Trump, but a Romney presidency would have been "gay rights" politics married to Chamber of Commerce policies, in other words government cheerleading social degeneracy combined with support for corporatism. How'd that different from an Obama presidency (or a Hillary Clinton one)?

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Wency

    The main complaint about [Mitt Romney] is that he tries to be all things to all people – that he flip flops as his political fortunes (and survival) dictate.

    Do you find merit in the complaint? Why?

    Romney is imperfect (as are we all), but the complaint describes a clumsy caricature of the man. The complaint propagates an old political smear with little foundation in reality. The complaint has not much to do with the man himself.

    (Your comment in the other matter is noted but I’ve nothing to add.)

    • Replies: @iffen
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Romney is a vulture capitalist.

  54. @nebulafox
    @Buzz Mohawk

    The decision to nominate Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan at the height of the worst economic situation since the Great Depression to that date summarized elegantly everything that was wrong with the GOP in a way no words could. It's not hard to draw the connection to the mindset that thought anybody could possibly want Jeb! in 2016.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    The decision to nominate Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan at the height of the worst economic situation since the Great Depression to that date summarized elegantly everything that was wrong with the GOP in a way no words could.

    I do not understand. Romney more or less agreed with you. He was and still is trying to pull the Republican Party in your direction as far as I know.

    Ryan was another matter.

    It’s not hard to draw the connection to the mindset that thought anybody could possibly want Jeb! in 2016.

    I for one had little use for Jeb Bush.

    Donald Trump is a slob who provoked an unnecessary and avoidable fight with Romney, his predecessor as nominee. Romney told the plain truth about Trump, without rancor. Trump deserves Romney’s opposition.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @V. K. Ovelund

    If you think I am a natural Romney supporter, you need to look a little more carefully at my commenting history.

    , @Yahya K.
    @V. K. Ovelund


    I do not understand.
     
    The thing to understand about this site is that this a place where non-conformists gather. Almost everyone here is a natural-born contrarian, from the proprietor on down. They wouldn't support a mainstream figure if their life depended on it.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @V. K. Ovelund, @Audacious Epigone

  55. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Twinkie


    The main complaint about [Mitt Romney] is that he tries to be all things to all people – that he flip flops as his political fortunes (and survival) dictate.
     
    Do you find merit in the complaint? Why?

    Romney is imperfect (as are we all), but the complaint describes a clumsy caricature of the man. The complaint propagates an old political smear with little foundation in reality. The complaint has not much to do with the man himself.

    (Your comment in the other matter is noted but I've nothing to add.)

    Replies: @iffen

    Romney is a vulture capitalist.

  56. @V. K. Ovelund
    @nebulafox


    The decision to nominate Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan at the height of the worst economic situation since the Great Depression to that date summarized elegantly everything that was wrong with the GOP in a way no words could.
     
    I do not understand. Romney more or less agreed with you. He was and still is trying to pull the Republican Party in your direction as far as I know.

    Ryan was another matter.


    It’s not hard to draw the connection to the mindset that thought anybody could possibly want Jeb! in 2016.
     
    I for one had little use for Jeb Bush.

    Donald Trump is a slob who provoked an unnecessary and avoidable fight with Romney, his predecessor as nominee. Romney told the plain truth about Trump, without rancor. Trump deserves Romney's opposition.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Yahya K.

    If you think I am a natural Romney supporter, you need to look a little more carefully at my commenting history.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  57. @V. K. Ovelund
    @nebulafox


    The decision to nominate Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan at the height of the worst economic situation since the Great Depression to that date summarized elegantly everything that was wrong with the GOP in a way no words could.
     
    I do not understand. Romney more or less agreed with you. He was and still is trying to pull the Republican Party in your direction as far as I know.

    Ryan was another matter.


    It’s not hard to draw the connection to the mindset that thought anybody could possibly want Jeb! in 2016.
     
    I for one had little use for Jeb Bush.

    Donald Trump is a slob who provoked an unnecessary and avoidable fight with Romney, his predecessor as nominee. Romney told the plain truth about Trump, without rancor. Trump deserves Romney's opposition.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Yahya K.

    I do not understand.

    The thing to understand about this site is that this a place where non-conformists gather. Almost everyone here is a natural-born contrarian, from the proprietor on down. They wouldn’t support a mainstream figure if their life depended on it.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Yahya K.


    The thing to understand about this site is that this a place where non-conformists gather. Almost everyone here is a natural-born contrarian, from the proprietor on down.
     
    It's not just a site that attracts nonconformists. It attracts people with weird obsessions. It attracts people who in real life are regarded as harmless nutters. No matter how nutty their ideas are they will find people here who share their nutty ideas and weird obsessions.

    For goodness sake, this is a site that attracts people who think the moon landing was a hoax. In real life if you believe nonsense like that people will back away from you slowly, avoiding eye contact. On UR you'll find lots of other True Believers.

    Nonconformity can be a very good thing, but only up to a point.

    Replies: @AaronB

    , @V. K. Ovelund
    @Yahya K.


    The thing to understand about this site is that this a place where non-conformists gather. Almost everyone here is a natural-born contrarian, from the proprietor on down. They wouldn’t support a mainstream figure if their life depended on it.
     
    Heh. Good point. I, too.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    @Yahya K.

    At the moment, it's hard to distinguish between dissidents and contrarians. As a self-identified member of the former but not the latter, I'd like to think that if things adjusted in an America First direction, I could support many mainstream figures. Some people are contrarians for contrarianism's sake. While there is value in that, I don't think it describes me.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  58. @dfordoom
    @John Johnson


    The people that want to fix problems through government intervention and don’t believe in liberalism aren’t welcome in politics. But those are precisely the people that should be in politics.
     
    The problem is that fixing one problem can simply create a new problem. Society is very complicated so you get unforeseen consequences. The most well-intentioned and well thought-out attempts to fix things can end up causing worse problems.

    That doesn't mean you shouldn't try to fix problems, but you have to be sure that the problem you're trying to fix really is important enough to justify the risks of unforeseen consequences.

    It's also dangerous when people try to apply fixes that are based on theory.

    Replies: @Yahya K., @Twinkie, @John Johnson

    The problem is that fixing one problem can simply create a new problem. Society is very complicated so you get unforeseen consequences.

    Well of course but our politicians aren’t serious about solving problems nor are they interested in even looking at data related to our problems.

    Both sides have ideological blinders to where they have a hard time even analyzing the problem itself let alone determining possible solutions and then taking negative consequences into account and making adjustments.

    • Agree: iffen
  59. @Twinkie
    @dfordoom


    The problem is that fixing one problem can simply create a new problem. Society is very complicated so you get unforeseen consequences. The most well-intentioned and well thought-out attempts to fix things can end up causing worse problems.
     
    THAT is original conservatism.

    Sadly, that plays very badly with most people, because most people (even supposedly intelligent ones) are creatures of emotion who use reason to rationalize the said emotion rather than arrive at logical solutions. Hence the mantra of the public whenever a problem becomes apparent (because problems have always been there - they merely come to the public attention after some episodes) - "Do something!"

    Most "democracies" have legislatures that produce new law after new law, all designed to "fix" something, all that paperweight of which does little to actually resolve any serious problem, but simply overregulates every aspect a modern human being's life. How often do these legislatures cull useless or, worse, counterproductive laws? Which modern society has fewer and fewer regulations each year? None.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @John Johnson

    Most “democracies” have legislatures that produce new law after new law

    Yep. New laws, or changes to existing laws, should very rarely be required.

    And the Right is as guilty as the Left. Right-wing governments just as much as left-wing governments measure their success by the number of new laws they introduce and the number of existing laws that they change.

    There are obvious cases where laws need to be changed to take account of technological changes. Tax laws may need to be amended to deal with new tax avoidance schemes. But when it comes to criminal law and most civil law the problems that governments are trying to fix are not the result of bad, outdated old laws. They’re usually the result of failures to properly enforce those existing laws.

    You certainly do not need to change laws on things like marriage when you already have laws that have worked successfully for generations or even centuries. But in Australia our right-wing government changed the marriage laws to allow homosexuals to get married. In Britain the same changes to the law were made by a right-wing government. This happened because all mainstream political parties, left or right, have bought into the delusion that they have to keep changing things.

    It’s not a problem of Left vs Right, it’s an inherent flaw in democracy.

    There are simple solutions of course, but simple solutions are very unpopular. Changing the law of the land should require a two-thirds majority in both houses of the legislature. That would not stop new laws being made or existing laws from being amended, but we don’t need to do that. We don’t need to make it impossible to change the law of the land. We just need to make it much more difficult to do.

    Another simple solution would be to prevent votes in the legislatures from being made on party lines. Voting in the legislature should be by secret ballot. Legislators could then actually vote according to their conscience without fear of repercussions. It would also largely eliminate corruption. There is no point in bribing a congressman to vote in a particular way if you can’t be sure he will actually do so.

    Banning political donations and political lobbying would also help by making it incredibly difficult for corporations to persuade politicians to change laws in the interests of those corporations. It would also make it more difficult for lobby groups to pressure politicians into introducing stupid unnecessary new laws to serve the interests of those lobby groups. Ban political advertising. All parties would get a set amount of publicly funded air time based on their share of the vote at the previous election.

    Democracy could be made to work a lot better than it does.

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @dfordoom

    You certainly do not need to change laws on things like marriage when you already have laws that have worked successfully for generations or even centuries. But in Australia our right-wing government changed the marriage laws to allow homosexuals to get married. In Britain the same changes to the law were made by a right-wing government. This happened because all mainstream political parties, left or right, have bought into the delusion that they have to keep changing things.

    The real problem is not that the right feels that they have to keep changing things but that they don't know what should be changed.

    The Western right ran into problems when they decided that race doesn't exist and that there must be a set of countering universalist/globalist ideals against liberalism. But this just lets the left lead them as they don't have a strong foundation. Gay marriage is a good example as they started out opposed and then later turned against majority view (this also happened in the US). Why did this even become an issue in the first place? The left leads them around like a horse as they don't know where to go on their own.

    Race denial has made the right turn irrational as it blinds them to reality and yet they try to maintain this view that some combination of free market economics and Christianity will fix everything. This however leaves too many unanswered questions and unsolved problems. In this wake of confusion the left leads the conversation and goads them into debates about gay marriage or trans bathrooms.

    I see only two ways out of this mess. Either the blinders come off on race or the right switches to populism. What we call conservatism has zero chance against the left in the long term. As someone else pointed out Western conservatism is just the left 10 years ago.

  60. @Twinkie
    @dfordoom


    The problem is that fixing one problem can simply create a new problem. Society is very complicated so you get unforeseen consequences. The most well-intentioned and well thought-out attempts to fix things can end up causing worse problems.
     
    THAT is original conservatism.

    Sadly, that plays very badly with most people, because most people (even supposedly intelligent ones) are creatures of emotion who use reason to rationalize the said emotion rather than arrive at logical solutions. Hence the mantra of the public whenever a problem becomes apparent (because problems have always been there - they merely come to the public attention after some episodes) - "Do something!"

    Most "democracies" have legislatures that produce new law after new law, all designed to "fix" something, all that paperweight of which does little to actually resolve any serious problem, but simply overregulates every aspect a modern human being's life. How often do these legislatures cull useless or, worse, counterproductive laws? Which modern society has fewer and fewer regulations each year? None.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @John Johnson

    Most “democracies” have legislatures that produce new law after new law, all designed to “fix” something, all that paperweight of which does little to actually resolve any serious problem, but simply overregulates every aspect a modern human being’s life. How often do these legislatures cull useless or, worse, counterproductive laws? Which modern society has fewer and fewer regulations each year? None.

    But I can list a thousand problems that were only solved through government intervention. Problems that simply would not have been solved through the free market or status quo.

    This is the problem with conservatism. Overreaching and nanny government can be a problem but so can a government that does nothing to solve real problems that its people face.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @John Johnson


    But I can list a thousand problems that were only solved through government intervention. Problems that simply would not have been solved through the free market or status quo.
     
    I'm not opposed to government intervention but democracy in its current form encourages ill-considered and misguided intervention, and a lot of the time it encourages intervention that has nothing to do with fixing problems and everything to do with pandering to special interest groups, and pandering to rich corporations.

    This is the problem with conservatism. Overreaching and nanny government can be a problem but so can a government that does nothing to solve real problems that its people face.
     
    I agree with that. A major problem is that governments have gone beyond simple and necessary economic intervention and are now in the social engineering business. In fact governments are not intervening in those areas where they should intervene but they are intervening massively in areas where intervention is inappropriate and dangerous.

    Again it's a flaw in the current model of democracy. Intervention is driven by interest groups, lobbying and outright corruption.
  61. @Yahya K.
    @V. K. Ovelund


    I do not understand.
     
    The thing to understand about this site is that this a place where non-conformists gather. Almost everyone here is a natural-born contrarian, from the proprietor on down. They wouldn't support a mainstream figure if their life depended on it.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @V. K. Ovelund, @Audacious Epigone

    The thing to understand about this site is that this a place where non-conformists gather. Almost everyone here is a natural-born contrarian, from the proprietor on down.

    It’s not just a site that attracts nonconformists. It attracts people with weird obsessions. It attracts people who in real life are regarded as harmless nutters. No matter how nutty their ideas are they will find people here who share their nutty ideas and weird obsessions.

    For goodness sake, this is a site that attracts people who think the moon landing was a hoax. In real life if you believe nonsense like that people will back away from you slowly, avoiding eye contact. On UR you’ll find lots of other True Believers.

    Nonconformity can be a very good thing, but only up to a point.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    @dfordoom

    I also think this site has developed a level of mass conformity of its own around certain key ideologies that is every bit as rigid and blind as the mainstream.

    It's a bit too flattering to say this is just a non conformist site - its more of an alternative culture of conformity that remains defined by the mainstream to the extent that it reliably takes positions that are merely the opposite of the mainstream (like a rebellious teenager).

    I think I can predict what Ron Unz and most columnists and commenters think on any subject by looking at the mainstream position. This is just reverse conformity. It isn't freedom.

    The noble sounding self flattering non conformity thing should be retired at this point l.

  62. @John Johnson
    @Twinkie

    Most “democracies” have legislatures that produce new law after new law, all designed to “fix” something, all that paperweight of which does little to actually resolve any serious problem, but simply overregulates every aspect a modern human being’s life. How often do these legislatures cull useless or, worse, counterproductive laws? Which modern society has fewer and fewer regulations each year? None.

    But I can list a thousand problems that were only solved through government intervention. Problems that simply would not have been solved through the free market or status quo.

    This is the problem with conservatism. Overreaching and nanny government can be a problem but so can a government that does nothing to solve real problems that its people face.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    But I can list a thousand problems that were only solved through government intervention. Problems that simply would not have been solved through the free market or status quo.

    I’m not opposed to government intervention but democracy in its current form encourages ill-considered and misguided intervention, and a lot of the time it encourages intervention that has nothing to do with fixing problems and everything to do with pandering to special interest groups, and pandering to rich corporations.

    This is the problem with conservatism. Overreaching and nanny government can be a problem but so can a government that does nothing to solve real problems that its people face.

    I agree with that. A major problem is that governments have gone beyond simple and necessary economic intervention and are now in the social engineering business. In fact governments are not intervening in those areas where they should intervene but they are intervening massively in areas where intervention is inappropriate and dangerous.

    Again it’s a flaw in the current model of democracy. Intervention is driven by interest groups, lobbying and outright corruption.

  63. @Twinkie
    @Wency


    The complaints about him seem to be that he doesn’t hate or fear our enemies enough. He seems to think Russia is the danger and not the Left. And yeah, he doesn’t like Trump.
     
    The main complaint about him is that he tries to be all things to all people - that he flip flops as his political fortunes (and survival) dictate.

    He may or may not be a nice guy or a great family man (and I've known evil people who were objectively bad for the world, but just adored their own children and looked after them well), but he is as spineless and self-serving as they come as far as a politician is concerned.

    When all is said and done, I think a Romney Presidency would probably have been better than the failure the Trump Presidency turned out to be.
     
    In what way? I am exactly a fan of Trump, but a Romney presidency would have been "gay rights" politics married to Chamber of Commerce policies, in other words government cheerleading social degeneracy combined with support for corporatism. How'd that different from an Obama presidency (or a Hillary Clinton one)?

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Wency

    a Romney presidency would have been “gay rights” politics married to Chamber of Commerce policies

    Trump’s State Department is pushing gay rights in the Middle East and Africa, and the only legislation of substance that he signed was a corporate tax cut.

    I think Romney at his heart is socially conservative (again, how could it be otherwise given his family?), but he sees social issues as a sideshow in politics compared to fixing problems like taxes and healthcare. He couldn’t win on MA as a Republican offering anything else, so that’s what he did.

    My guess is Romney would have done about as well as Trump on judges. But I also think Trump’s habit of ineffectually poking the leftist bear and attacking democratic norms is basically the worst possible strategy. He has damaged the Republican brand in the eyes of swing voters and increased the risk that we’ll live to see leftist totalitarianism in this country.

    Romney was also tougher on immigration than most of his peers at the time. He might well have gotten more done on immigration, by virtue of being more able to work with people and work with the system, possibly even passing legislation. He might well have strengthened the Republican brand, disassociating it from the ignorant incompetence of GWB (instead of doubling down on ignorance with Trump), and that might have helped Republicans win elections elsewhere and help social conservatism on the margin.

    Now, to be clear, I don’t think Romney was great. I don’t expect to live to see another great President, or even see anyone great come close to the office. But no, I still don’t think he was bad, as Republican candidates go.

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Wency

    Romney was also tougher on immigration than most of his peers at the time. He might well have gotten more done on immigration, by virtue of being more able to work with people and work with the system, possibly even passing legislation. He might well have strengthened the Republican brand

    Not a chance.

    He is from the GWB school of letting in illegals for AG while pretending he cares.

    Then he sends you a $500 tax rebate and tells you that he was able to compromise on the teenage sodomy issue with Democrats. The minimum age will be 16 instead of 15. Another conservative victory!

    That would be a Romney president.

    But in all fairness I still would have taken the 500 dollars over magic mulatto.

  64. @dfordoom
    @Twinkie


    Most “democracies” have legislatures that produce new law after new law
     
    Yep. New laws, or changes to existing laws, should very rarely be required.

    And the Right is as guilty as the Left. Right-wing governments just as much as left-wing governments measure their success by the number of new laws they introduce and the number of existing laws that they change.

    There are obvious cases where laws need to be changed to take account of technological changes. Tax laws may need to be amended to deal with new tax avoidance schemes. But when it comes to criminal law and most civil law the problems that governments are trying to fix are not the result of bad, outdated old laws. They're usually the result of failures to properly enforce those existing laws.

    You certainly do not need to change laws on things like marriage when you already have laws that have worked successfully for generations or even centuries. But in Australia our right-wing government changed the marriage laws to allow homosexuals to get married. In Britain the same changes to the law were made by a right-wing government. This happened because all mainstream political parties, left or right, have bought into the delusion that they have to keep changing things.

    It's not a problem of Left vs Right, it's an inherent flaw in democracy.

    There are simple solutions of course, but simple solutions are very unpopular. Changing the law of the land should require a two-thirds majority in both houses of the legislature. That would not stop new laws being made or existing laws from being amended, but we don't need to do that. We don't need to make it impossible to change the law of the land. We just need to make it much more difficult to do.

    Another simple solution would be to prevent votes in the legislatures from being made on party lines. Voting in the legislature should be by secret ballot. Legislators could then actually vote according to their conscience without fear of repercussions. It would also largely eliminate corruption. There is no point in bribing a congressman to vote in a particular way if you can't be sure he will actually do so.

    Banning political donations and political lobbying would also help by making it incredibly difficult for corporations to persuade politicians to change laws in the interests of those corporations. It would also make it more difficult for lobby groups to pressure politicians into introducing stupid unnecessary new laws to serve the interests of those lobby groups. Ban political advertising. All parties would get a set amount of publicly funded air time based on their share of the vote at the previous election.

    Democracy could be made to work a lot better than it does.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    You certainly do not need to change laws on things like marriage when you already have laws that have worked successfully for generations or even centuries. But in Australia our right-wing government changed the marriage laws to allow homosexuals to get married. In Britain the same changes to the law were made by a right-wing government. This happened because all mainstream political parties, left or right, have bought into the delusion that they have to keep changing things.

    The real problem is not that the right feels that they have to keep changing things but that they don’t know what should be changed.

    The Western right ran into problems when they decided that race doesn’t exist and that there must be a set of countering universalist/globalist ideals against liberalism. But this just lets the left lead them as they don’t have a strong foundation. Gay marriage is a good example as they started out opposed and then later turned against majority view (this also happened in the US). Why did this even become an issue in the first place? The left leads them around like a horse as they don’t know where to go on their own.

    Race denial has made the right turn irrational as it blinds them to reality and yet they try to maintain this view that some combination of free market economics and Christianity will fix everything. This however leaves too many unanswered questions and unsolved problems. In this wake of confusion the left leads the conversation and goads them into debates about gay marriage or trans bathrooms.

    I see only two ways out of this mess. Either the blinders come off on race or the right switches to populism. What we call conservatism has zero chance against the left in the long term. As someone else pointed out Western conservatism is just the left 10 years ago.

  65. @dfordoom
    @Yahya K.


    The thing to understand about this site is that this a place where non-conformists gather. Almost everyone here is a natural-born contrarian, from the proprietor on down.
     
    It's not just a site that attracts nonconformists. It attracts people with weird obsessions. It attracts people who in real life are regarded as harmless nutters. No matter how nutty their ideas are they will find people here who share their nutty ideas and weird obsessions.

    For goodness sake, this is a site that attracts people who think the moon landing was a hoax. In real life if you believe nonsense like that people will back away from you slowly, avoiding eye contact. On UR you'll find lots of other True Believers.

    Nonconformity can be a very good thing, but only up to a point.

    Replies: @AaronB

    I also think this site has developed a level of mass conformity of its own around certain key ideologies that is every bit as rigid and blind as the mainstream.

    It’s a bit too flattering to say this is just a non conformist site – its more of an alternative culture of conformity that remains defined by the mainstream to the extent that it reliably takes positions that are merely the opposite of the mainstream (like a rebellious teenager).

    I think I can predict what Ron Unz and most columnists and commenters think on any subject by looking at the mainstream position. This is just reverse conformity. It isn’t freedom.

    The noble sounding self flattering non conformity thing should be retired at this point l.

  66. @Wency
    @Twinkie


    a Romney presidency would have been “gay rights” politics married to Chamber of Commerce policies
     
    Trump's State Department is pushing gay rights in the Middle East and Africa, and the only legislation of substance that he signed was a corporate tax cut.

    I think Romney at his heart is socially conservative (again, how could it be otherwise given his family?), but he sees social issues as a sideshow in politics compared to fixing problems like taxes and healthcare. He couldn't win on MA as a Republican offering anything else, so that's what he did.

    My guess is Romney would have done about as well as Trump on judges. But I also think Trump's habit of ineffectually poking the leftist bear and attacking democratic norms is basically the worst possible strategy. He has damaged the Republican brand in the eyes of swing voters and increased the risk that we'll live to see leftist totalitarianism in this country.

    Romney was also tougher on immigration than most of his peers at the time. He might well have gotten more done on immigration, by virtue of being more able to work with people and work with the system, possibly even passing legislation. He might well have strengthened the Republican brand, disassociating it from the ignorant incompetence of GWB (instead of doubling down on ignorance with Trump), and that might have helped Republicans win elections elsewhere and help social conservatism on the margin.

    Now, to be clear, I don't think Romney was great. I don't expect to live to see another great President, or even see anyone great come close to the office. But no, I still don't think he was bad, as Republican candidates go.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    Romney was also tougher on immigration than most of his peers at the time. He might well have gotten more done on immigration, by virtue of being more able to work with people and work with the system, possibly even passing legislation. He might well have strengthened the Republican brand

    Not a chance.

    He is from the GWB school of letting in illegals for AG while pretending he cares.

    Then he sends you a $500 tax rebate and tells you that he was able to compromise on the teenage sodomy issue with Democrats. The minimum age will be 16 instead of 15. Another conservative victory!

    That would be a Romney president.

    But in all fairness I still would have taken the 500 dollars over magic mulatto.

  67. @Buzz Mohawk
    @Wency

    You are wrong about Romney.

    Before he was a public figure, before you ever head of him, he did his best to eliminate American jobs and move them overseas. Furthermore, he worked hard to maximize corporate share values by cutting away every single American expense that he could. He was emblematic of the greed and destruction of his period in American history.

    Mitt Romney has never, ever done anything for the American people.

    He is, and always has been, a corporate character living in a bubble. He does not give a shit about you or me, and he does not deserve one ounce of your sympathy or understanding.

    His essential guilt or problem far predates anything you have written about. It is best to just consider him a big ZERO.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @A123, @nebulafox, @PhilK

    Before he was a public figure, before you ever head of him, he did his best to eliminate American jobs and move them overseas. Furthermore, he worked hard to maximize corporate share values by cutting away every single American expense that he could. He was emblematic of the greed and destruction of his period in American history.

    Yeah, this is why I think Romney is bad, bad, bad. I’m old enough to remember his father. No comparison between the two.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @PhilK



    Before he was a public figure, before you ever head of him, he did his best to eliminate American jobs and move them overseas. Furthermore, he worked hard to maximize corporate share values by cutting away every single American expense that he could. He was emblematic of the greed and destruction of his period in American history.
     
    Yeah, this is why I think Romney is bad, bad, bad. I’m old enough to remember his father. No comparison between the two.
     
    During an earlier era, tariffs and trade barriers would have made Romney's scheme unprofitable. If Romney was bad, then how much worse were the Congressmen that eliminated the tariffs and trade barriers?

    Let me try this from another angle. I believe unemployment insurance to be bad public policy. Still, when laid off, I collected unemployment insurance. Am I bad, bad, bad? Or was I just operating within the given parameters of a system I did not define?

    We're laying the blame at the wrong door.

  68. @Yahya K.
    @V. K. Ovelund


    I do not understand.
     
    The thing to understand about this site is that this a place where non-conformists gather. Almost everyone here is a natural-born contrarian, from the proprietor on down. They wouldn't support a mainstream figure if their life depended on it.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @V. K. Ovelund, @Audacious Epigone

    The thing to understand about this site is that this a place where non-conformists gather. Almost everyone here is a natural-born contrarian, from the proprietor on down. They wouldn’t support a mainstream figure if their life depended on it.

    Heh. Good point. I, too.

  69. @PhilK
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Before he was a public figure, before you ever head of him, he did his best to eliminate American jobs and move them overseas. Furthermore, he worked hard to maximize corporate share values by cutting away every single American expense that he could. He was emblematic of the greed and destruction of his period in American history.

    Yeah, this is why I think Romney is bad, bad, bad. I'm old enough to remember his father. No comparison between the two.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    Before he was a public figure, before you ever head of him, he did his best to eliminate American jobs and move them overseas. Furthermore, he worked hard to maximize corporate share values by cutting away every single American expense that he could. He was emblematic of the greed and destruction of his period in American history.

    Yeah, this is why I think Romney is bad, bad, bad. I’m old enough to remember his father. No comparison between the two.

    During an earlier era, tariffs and trade barriers would have made Romney’s scheme unprofitable. If Romney was bad, then how much worse were the Congressmen that eliminated the tariffs and trade barriers?

    Let me try this from another angle. I believe unemployment insurance to be bad public policy. Still, when laid off, I collected unemployment insurance. Am I bad, bad, bad? Or was I just operating within the given parameters of a system I did not define?

    We’re laying the blame at the wrong door.

  70. @dfordoom
    @LondonBob


    Politics is a left wing pursuit.
     
    That may well be true these days. Politics attracts people who want to change the world. Imagine a candidate running for office with the slogan Let's Just Leave Things As They Are.

    One of the weaknesses of democracy is that politicians (and governments) are under pressure to be seen to be doing things. It doesn't matter what they're doing as long as it's something. Doing something implies changing things. That's something that usually appeals to leftists.

    That changed for a while, in the period from the late 70s up to around the 90s, when it was right-wing politicians who were the ones wanting radical change - the destruction of trade unions, deregulation of banking, privatisation, etc. Of course the kinds of radical change that those right-wing politicians favoured turned out to be just as destructive as the kinds of changes that leftists had pushed. Governments actively trying to change things rarely ends well.

    So it might be more accurate to say that politics is something that appeals to people who are interfering busybodies who usually wreck everything they touch.

    Replies: @Athletic and Whitesplosive, @The Germ Theory of Disease, @John Johnson, @Sollipsist, @Rosie, @Reg Cæsar, @Audacious Epigone

    Imagine a candidate running for office with the slogan Let’s Just Leave Things As They Are.

    Worked for Bush in ’88.

  71. @Anonymous
    This data is an impeachment of GOP voters. As far as policy opinions go, Lindsey Graham is if anything to the "left" of Mitt Romney. He was in 2016 the face of GOPe neocons and he hasn't changed his mind on a single issue. If all these GOPe Senators changed their tune, the way the Democrats all suddenly changed their tune about gay marriage, you could say the voters are merely overly trusting. But by and large the GOPe neocons are saying the same GOPe neocon stuff as before, just now without any criticism of Trump. It shows that the voters don't really care about the issues. It's the Donald Trump cult of personality that really matters, the issues are mere appendages that can be discarded if no longer useful.

    People often tire of hearing the same message over and over. So when they hear talk about all the kids growing up without fathers in the house, they want to navigate away, because I've been hearing about this for decades, dammit! But in those decades the problem hasn't gone away. And this is seen now, with Trump, a lot of those kids have grown up and decided to see him as their Daddy, just as much as stoner single moms saw Obama in the same way.

    Replies: @Jay Fink, @(((Owen)))

    Lindsey Graham is if anything to the “left” of Mitt Romney. He was in 2016 the face of GOPe neocons and he hasn’t changed his mind on a single issue.

    Exactly. Graham is the most Never Trump senator in the Congress. If the Democrat manages to beat him (a Constitution Party Candidate could be the needed margin), then the country will be much better off.

    There is not remotely any Lindsey the Lion. There is just a re-election year gambit before he starts undermining the country, sending our boys off to dumb wars, and pushing open borders and amnesty all day long.

  72. @LondonBob
    I wouldn't underestimate the impact of the direct abuse that the likes of Linsey Graham have been on the receiving end of in altering their stances. After all dislike of Jews was common in Germany in the thirties, the reason it was particularly intense amongst the Nazi elite was because they had been subjected to repeated attempts to ruin them. Getting assualted by antifa does wonders for radicalising and shifting your politicos rightward.

    I am puzzled by the phenomenon of the likes of Murkowski and Collins, given you have the benefit of primaries, but there are plenty of examples where professional politicians, who all lean left, have found careers as Conservative MPs. Indeed there was a survey where Conservative MPs are to the left of Conservative activists who are in turn to the left of Conservative voters. Politics is a left wing pursuit.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @A123, @Audacious Epigone

    Does that hold among elected officials on the left, though? Aren’t leftwing activists more left than leftist politicians are?

  73. @dfordoom
    @LondonBob


    Politics is a left wing pursuit.
     
    That may well be true these days. Politics attracts people who want to change the world. Imagine a candidate running for office with the slogan Let's Just Leave Things As They Are.

    One of the weaknesses of democracy is that politicians (and governments) are under pressure to be seen to be doing things. It doesn't matter what they're doing as long as it's something. Doing something implies changing things. That's something that usually appeals to leftists.

    That changed for a while, in the period from the late 70s up to around the 90s, when it was right-wing politicians who were the ones wanting radical change - the destruction of trade unions, deregulation of banking, privatisation, etc. Of course the kinds of radical change that those right-wing politicians favoured turned out to be just as destructive as the kinds of changes that leftists had pushed. Governments actively trying to change things rarely ends well.

    So it might be more accurate to say that politics is something that appeals to people who are interfering busybodies who usually wreck everything they touch.

    Replies: @Athletic and Whitesplosive, @The Germ Theory of Disease, @John Johnson, @Sollipsist, @Rosie, @Reg Cæsar, @Audacious Epigone

    We must act!

  74. @Twinkie
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Romney is a conservative, nonideological problem-solver.
     
    Romney is not a conservative. And, other than doing well running an Olympic committee, what great problem of the day has he ever solved? What promising solution has he ever proposed?

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Audacious Epigone

    Romney’s immigration scorecard from Fair is a career F.

    Graham’s is a C-.

    • Agree: Twinkie
    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Audacious Epigone


    Romney’s immigration scorecard from Fair is a career F.

    Graham’s is a C-.
     

    Whoa! I did not know this. I had been judging by Romney's relatively rightward stance compared to the Republican presidential primary fields during 2008 and 2012.

    I had never dreamed that Graham (of all persons) might stand, in actual point of legislative fact, to Romney's right.

    I may have to reassess.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

  75. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Twinkie


    Romney is not a conservative. And, other than doing well running an Olympic committee, what great problem of the day has he ever solved? What promising solution has he ever proposed?
     
    Sorry, I'm out of date on the details. Big Dig. Health Care. Several others.

    I realize that I can't say “Health Care” without provoking a large number of Republicans (and Democrats) into a flaming tailspin, but such Republicans are seldom reacting to the practical problem Romney actually faced in Massachusetts at the time. In my observation, such Republicans are usually reacting to the partisan federal politics that emerged surrounding Obamacare at a later date.

    Not that this comment of mine is going to convince anybody, for most of us stopped listening regarding these points a long time ago, yet the facts remain on my side as far as I know.

    Don't listen to me, anyway. I have little use for ideology, conservatism (properly understood) being the very antithesis of ideology. Perhaps this is why I am, as you say, an imbecile.

    Replies: @iffen, @Audacious Epigone

    Romneycare was a template for Obamacare. That’s where the frustration comes from. Obamacare has been great for insurance companies. That the GOPe got behind Romney in 2012, the candidate least able to effectively attack Obama on Obamacare, gives the game away. The GOPe didn’t oppose Obamacare, they love it. It’s why they had no plan to replace it in 2016.

    • Agree: Twinkie
  76. @Yahya K.
    @V. K. Ovelund


    I do not understand.
     
    The thing to understand about this site is that this a place where non-conformists gather. Almost everyone here is a natural-born contrarian, from the proprietor on down. They wouldn't support a mainstream figure if their life depended on it.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @V. K. Ovelund, @Audacious Epigone

    At the moment, it’s hard to distinguish between dissidents and contrarians. As a self-identified member of the former but not the latter, I’d like to think that if things adjusted in an America First direction, I could support many mainstream figures. Some people are contrarians for contrarianism’s sake. While there is value in that, I don’t think it describes me.

    • Agree: Twinkie
    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Audacious Epigone


    At the moment, it’s hard to distinguish between dissidents and contrarians.
     
    You need to distinguish between contrarianism and scepticism. A sceptic attacks the prevailing view for valid reasons, usually because the prevailing view contains unwarranted assumptions or is logically inconsistent. A sceptic would attack the view that "immigration is good because it leads to a more diverse society" on the grounds that the idea that a more diverse society is a good thing is an unwarranted assumption. A contrarian attacks the prevailing view merely because it's the prevailing view. His contrarian view might might actually contain just as many unwarranted assumptions or might be just as logically inconsistent

    To me, a dissident can be a sceptic or a contrarian.

    Not all dissident rightists are contrarians but many of them are. There's not enough genuine scepticism on the dissident right.

    Replies: @iffen

  77. @Audacious Epigone
    @Twinkie

    Romney's immigration scorecard from Fair is a career F.

    Graham's is a C-.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    Romney’s immigration scorecard from Fair is a career F.

    Graham’s is a C-.

    Whoa! I did not know this. I had been judging by Romney’s relatively rightward stance compared to the Republican presidential primary fields during 2008 and 2012.

    I had never dreamed that Graham (of all persons) might stand, in actual point of legislative fact, to Romney’s right.

    I may have to reassess.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @V. K. Ovelund

    You're not mistaken regarding his "public position" during the 2012 campaign, when he was rhetorically the relative--very relative--immigration restrictionist in the GOP primaries. But any time he has ever had any actual executive (Massachusetts) or legislative (senator) power, he's been open borders all the way.

    Replies: @Wency

  78. @V. K. Ovelund
    @anon


    Did you love and appreciate John McCain?...
     
    I loathed John McCain. Did not vote for him. Never would. I believe that McCain would have been, by far, the worst president in U.S. history.

    The man's heavily practiced faux humility regarding his doubtful POW record was sickening. Citizens that have never served under arms can be forgiven for not understanding the reason POWs—though accorded standard veteran's honors—are denied the higher medals, but McCain knew better than to let the public think him a hero. He did it anyway.

    There were many American POWs. Others bore their suffering with honorable dignity. Only McCain cashed in. Disgusting.

    I have not answered all your questions but this response is already long enough. If there is a specific, additional point you wish me to address, let me know.

    Replies: @anon

    I have not answered all your questions but this response is already long enough. If there is a specific, additional point you wish me to address, let me know.

    Once again:

    Exactly what is it that Romney is doing that you love and want to continue? Please be specific.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @anon


    Once again:

    Exactly what is it that Romney is doing that you love and want to continue? Please be specific.
     

    My position seems to have been overtaken by facts. Permit me to withdraw.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @iffen

  79. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Audacious Epigone


    Romney’s immigration scorecard from Fair is a career F.

    Graham’s is a C-.
     

    Whoa! I did not know this. I had been judging by Romney's relatively rightward stance compared to the Republican presidential primary fields during 2008 and 2012.

    I had never dreamed that Graham (of all persons) might stand, in actual point of legislative fact, to Romney's right.

    I may have to reassess.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    You’re not mistaken regarding his “public position” during the 2012 campaign, when he was rhetorically the relative–very relative–immigration restrictionist in the GOP primaries. But any time he has ever had any actual executive (Massachusetts) or legislative (senator) power, he’s been open borders all the way.

    • Agree: iffen, A123
    • Replies: @Wency
    @Audacious Epigone

    I think it's fair to call his record as governor "mixed", as this article does. He did veto in-state tuition for illegals, as opposed to Rick Perry, who supported it.

    https://www.foxnews.com/us/romney-had-mixed-record-on-immigration-in-mass

    I guess my question would be, if Romney is an "F", then what are actual open-borders types? The "F" just seems to say "Boo, Romney!" without leaving any room for nuance; he might as well be Trotsky, which also seems to be the consensus view I'm gathering here.

    But there's a lot to be said for nuance, for those actually interested in understanding the world. I'm reminded of a reasonably well-read normie conservative friend of mine who lumps North Korea and Russia in the same category -- they're both "not democracies" and therefore "dictatorships".

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  80. @anon
    @V. K. Ovelund

    I have not answered all your questions but this response is already long enough. If there is a specific, additional point you wish me to address, let me know.

    Once again:

    Exactly what is it that Romney is doing that you love and want to continue? Please be specific.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    Once again:

    Exactly what is it that Romney is doing that you love and want to continue? Please be specific.

    My position seems to have been overtaken by facts. Permit me to withdraw.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @V. K. Ovelund

    I applaud your ability to admit that you were wrong (about Romney). Now that is manly.

    , @iffen
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Don't you get all giddy by being moved from unmanly to manly?

    I am not sure about the masculine nature of the subject, but I have read about women who changed their minds based upon new or understood facts. Not that I could document it or write a 1200 word dissertation on the subject.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Twinkie

  81. @V. K. Ovelund
    @anon


    Once again:

    Exactly what is it that Romney is doing that you love and want to continue? Please be specific.
     

    My position seems to have been overtaken by facts. Permit me to withdraw.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @iffen

    I applaud your ability to admit that you were wrong (about Romney). Now that is manly.

  82. @V. K. Ovelund
    @anon


    Once again:

    Exactly what is it that Romney is doing that you love and want to continue? Please be specific.
     

    My position seems to have been overtaken by facts. Permit me to withdraw.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @iffen

    Don’t you get all giddy by being moved from unmanly to manly?

    I am not sure about the masculine nature of the subject, but I have read about women who changed their minds based upon new or understood facts. Not that I could document it or write a 1200 word dissertation on the subject.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @iffen


    Don’t you get all giddy by being moved from unmanly to manly?
     
    No. It's online chatter.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    , @Twinkie
    @iffen


    Don’t you get all giddy by being moved from unmanly to manly?
     
    People of intelligence and probity are not immutable. I hold those who can admit that they were wrong in high regard, and I consider that a manly characteristic. I give credit where credit is due - Mr. Ovelund realized his assessment of a Romney was badly off and “withdrew’ his earlier approval of him.

    You, on the other hand...

    Let’s just say that I regard certain behaviors - such as following someone around and leaving drive-by-ad hominem like a jilted girlfriend - as a most unmanly and, to be frank, a bitchy behavior.
  83. @iffen
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Don't you get all giddy by being moved from unmanly to manly?

    I am not sure about the masculine nature of the subject, but I have read about women who changed their minds based upon new or understood facts. Not that I could document it or write a 1200 word dissertation on the subject.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Twinkie

    Don’t you get all giddy by being moved from unmanly to manly?

    No. It’s online chatter.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Learn to take praise graciously when it is given earnestly.

  84. @Audacious Epigone
    @Yahya K.

    At the moment, it's hard to distinguish between dissidents and contrarians. As a self-identified member of the former but not the latter, I'd like to think that if things adjusted in an America First direction, I could support many mainstream figures. Some people are contrarians for contrarianism's sake. While there is value in that, I don't think it describes me.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    At the moment, it’s hard to distinguish between dissidents and contrarians.

    You need to distinguish between contrarianism and scepticism. A sceptic attacks the prevailing view for valid reasons, usually because the prevailing view contains unwarranted assumptions or is logically inconsistent. A sceptic would attack the view that “immigration is good because it leads to a more diverse society” on the grounds that the idea that a more diverse society is a good thing is an unwarranted assumption. A contrarian attacks the prevailing view merely because it’s the prevailing view. His contrarian view might might actually contain just as many unwarranted assumptions or might be just as logically inconsistent

    To me, a dissident can be a sceptic or a contrarian.

    Not all dissident rightists are contrarians but many of them are. There’s not enough genuine scepticism on the dissident right.

    • Agree: iffen, Dissident
    • Replies: @iffen
    @dfordoom

    Not all dissident rightists are contrarians but many of them are.

    Not all dissidents are rightists, either.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  85. @V. K. Ovelund
    @iffen


    Don’t you get all giddy by being moved from unmanly to manly?
     
    No. It's online chatter.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    Learn to take praise graciously when it is given earnestly.

  86. @iffen
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Don't you get all giddy by being moved from unmanly to manly?

    I am not sure about the masculine nature of the subject, but I have read about women who changed their minds based upon new or understood facts. Not that I could document it or write a 1200 word dissertation on the subject.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Twinkie

    Don’t you get all giddy by being moved from unmanly to manly?

    People of intelligence and probity are not immutable. I hold those who can admit that they were wrong in high regard, and I consider that a manly characteristic. I give credit where credit is due – Mr. Ovelund realized his assessment of a Romney was badly off and “withdrew’ his earlier approval of him.

    You, on the other hand…

    Let’s just say that I regard certain behaviors – such as following someone around and leaving drive-by-ad hominem like a jilted girlfriend – as a most unmanly and, to be frank, a bitchy behavior.

    • LOL: iffen
  87. @dfordoom
    @Audacious Epigone


    At the moment, it’s hard to distinguish between dissidents and contrarians.
     
    You need to distinguish between contrarianism and scepticism. A sceptic attacks the prevailing view for valid reasons, usually because the prevailing view contains unwarranted assumptions or is logically inconsistent. A sceptic would attack the view that "immigration is good because it leads to a more diverse society" on the grounds that the idea that a more diverse society is a good thing is an unwarranted assumption. A contrarian attacks the prevailing view merely because it's the prevailing view. His contrarian view might might actually contain just as many unwarranted assumptions or might be just as logically inconsistent

    To me, a dissident can be a sceptic or a contrarian.

    Not all dissident rightists are contrarians but many of them are. There's not enough genuine scepticism on the dissident right.

    Replies: @iffen

    Not all dissident rightists are contrarians but many of them are.

    Not all dissidents are rightists, either.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @iffen


    Not all dissidents are rightists, either.
     
    Of course.

    These days if you believe in the things that leftists used to believe in, like economic justice, you're definitely a dissident.

    Are there any actual left-wing contrarians these days?

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  88. @iffen
    @dfordoom

    Not all dissident rightists are contrarians but many of them are.

    Not all dissidents are rightists, either.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Not all dissidents are rightists, either.

    Of course.

    These days if you believe in the things that leftists used to believe in, like economic justice, you’re definitely a dissident.

    Are there any actual left-wing contrarians these days?

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    Are there any actual left-wing contrarians these days?
     
    Hardly, and what is really weird is Leftists' passionate attachment to their self-image as contrarians.

    But my observation is unoriginal. Others have noted the same, including you. The Left is so transparent in this respect, it's comical.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @dfordoom

  89. @dfordoom
    @iffen


    Not all dissidents are rightists, either.
     
    Of course.

    These days if you believe in the things that leftists used to believe in, like economic justice, you're definitely a dissident.

    Are there any actual left-wing contrarians these days?

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    Are there any actual left-wing contrarians these days?

    Hardly, and what is really weird is Leftists’ passionate attachment to their self-image as contrarians.

    But my observation is unoriginal. Others have noted the same, including you. The Left is so transparent in this respect, it’s comical.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Hardly, and what is really weird is Leftists’ passionate attachment to their self-image as contrarians.
     
    Certainly the SJWs still think of themselves as brave, free-thinking, oppressed dissidents struggling against overwhelming odds.

    But then SJWs think of themselves as leftists when in fact they're useful idiots for the corporate sector. The fact that SJWs are on the same side as Woke Capital and are funded by Woke Capital tends to give the lie to their claims of being on the Left.

    What we call the Left today is a weird alliance of extreme social liberals/libertarians and the Economic Right. What we call the Left today is in almost complete agreement on economic issues with the mainstream Right. And the mainstream Right has very few disagreements with the modern so-called Left on social issues.

    So the level of delusionalism and self-deceit (mixed with hypocrisy) on all sides is extraordinary.
    , @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    But my observation is unoriginal. Others have noted the same, including you. The Left is so transparent in this respect, it’s comical.
     
    There's just as much comical thinking on the Dissident Right. They think of themselves as being sane and rational compared to the crazies on the modern Left but the views of a large proportion of the Dissident Right are neither sane nor rational.

    This is a phenomenon that is of fairly recent vintage. If you go back to the 1950s both the Left and the Right were actually quite sane and rational. Sometimes both sides were wrong about important issues but their views were at least logically consistent, honest and rational. Even as recently as the 80s you could find lots of people on both the Left and the Right whose views were quite rational.

    The question is - why did politics across the board become so crazy and irrational? I have two theories to account for this. The first is that it's inevitable in any society saturated in mass media (and social media has made it worse). My second theory is that it's an American thing, a result of the legacies of Puritanism and American Exceptionalism, both of which explain the American obsession with moral crusades. The U.S. has aggressively spread this madness to the rest of the globe.

    Replies: @iffen, @A123

  90. @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    Are there any actual left-wing contrarians these days?
     
    Hardly, and what is really weird is Leftists' passionate attachment to their self-image as contrarians.

    But my observation is unoriginal. Others have noted the same, including you. The Left is so transparent in this respect, it's comical.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @dfordoom

    Hardly, and what is really weird is Leftists’ passionate attachment to their self-image as contrarians.

    Certainly the SJWs still think of themselves as brave, free-thinking, oppressed dissidents struggling against overwhelming odds.

    But then SJWs think of themselves as leftists when in fact they’re useful idiots for the corporate sector. The fact that SJWs are on the same side as Woke Capital and are funded by Woke Capital tends to give the lie to their claims of being on the Left.

    What we call the Left today is a weird alliance of extreme social liberals/libertarians and the Economic Right. What we call the Left today is in almost complete agreement on economic issues with the mainstream Right. And the mainstream Right has very few disagreements with the modern so-called Left on social issues.

    So the level of delusionalism and self-deceit (mixed with hypocrisy) on all sides is extraordinary.

  91. @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    Are there any actual left-wing contrarians these days?
     
    Hardly, and what is really weird is Leftists' passionate attachment to their self-image as contrarians.

    But my observation is unoriginal. Others have noted the same, including you. The Left is so transparent in this respect, it's comical.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @dfordoom

    But my observation is unoriginal. Others have noted the same, including you. The Left is so transparent in this respect, it’s comical.

    There’s just as much comical thinking on the Dissident Right. They think of themselves as being sane and rational compared to the crazies on the modern Left but the views of a large proportion of the Dissident Right are neither sane nor rational.

    This is a phenomenon that is of fairly recent vintage. If you go back to the 1950s both the Left and the Right were actually quite sane and rational. Sometimes both sides were wrong about important issues but their views were at least logically consistent, honest and rational. Even as recently as the 80s you could find lots of people on both the Left and the Right whose views were quite rational.

    The question is – why did politics across the board become so crazy and irrational? I have two theories to account for this. The first is that it’s inevitable in any society saturated in mass media (and social media has made it worse). My second theory is that it’s an American thing, a result of the legacies of Puritanism and American Exceptionalism, both of which explain the American obsession with moral crusades. The U.S. has aggressively spread this madness to the rest of the globe.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @dfordoom

    My second theory is that it’s an American thing

    Well, this is certainly a surprise coming from you.

    , @A123
    @dfordoom


    If you go back to the 1950s both the Left and the Right were actually quite sane and rational.

    The question is – why did politics across the board become so crazy and irrational?
     
    In the 1950's there was no sharp divide between parties. Politics was dominated by local issues. Travel was time consuming. When Democrats and Republicans arrived in DC they lived there. This built extensive social contacts and friendships with members of the other party.

    Airline travel changed the moderating social construct that existed in DC. Many more politicians left their families at home. Flying home every weekend eliminated most of the non-work contact points with members of the other party. It became much easier to see the opposing party as "the enemy".

    Cable television news and internet news accelerated this polarization.
    _____

    Trampling the 10th Amendment made politics national instead of local. When everything is national and there are only two parties... Once a party takes a position, they other party inherits the opposing stance. Creating party platforms issue-by-issue made no larger sense, and it left a lot of people out. How can the GOP simultaneously be the party of Christian Main Street and Wall Street Banks?

    What Trump has done is challenge the "Left-Right Construct" as it exists in the U.S. He has given the GOP a unified message by leading them into battle against multinationals and for workers. That makes TRUMP = LEFT. Except Trump's GOP also stands for Christian values. So TRUMP = RIGHT.

    The new GOP is in the process of becoming Populist, neither crazy Left nor crazy Right. That leaves the DNC embracing SJW Globalism, which has huge internal contradictions. They inherit both the crazy Left and the crazy Right.

    PEACE 😇
  92. @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    But my observation is unoriginal. Others have noted the same, including you. The Left is so transparent in this respect, it’s comical.
     
    There's just as much comical thinking on the Dissident Right. They think of themselves as being sane and rational compared to the crazies on the modern Left but the views of a large proportion of the Dissident Right are neither sane nor rational.

    This is a phenomenon that is of fairly recent vintage. If you go back to the 1950s both the Left and the Right were actually quite sane and rational. Sometimes both sides were wrong about important issues but their views were at least logically consistent, honest and rational. Even as recently as the 80s you could find lots of people on both the Left and the Right whose views were quite rational.

    The question is - why did politics across the board become so crazy and irrational? I have two theories to account for this. The first is that it's inevitable in any society saturated in mass media (and social media has made it worse). My second theory is that it's an American thing, a result of the legacies of Puritanism and American Exceptionalism, both of which explain the American obsession with moral crusades. The U.S. has aggressively spread this madness to the rest of the globe.

    Replies: @iffen, @A123

    My second theory is that it’s an American thing

    Well, this is certainly a surprise coming from you.

  93. @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    But my observation is unoriginal. Others have noted the same, including you. The Left is so transparent in this respect, it’s comical.
     
    There's just as much comical thinking on the Dissident Right. They think of themselves as being sane and rational compared to the crazies on the modern Left but the views of a large proportion of the Dissident Right are neither sane nor rational.

    This is a phenomenon that is of fairly recent vintage. If you go back to the 1950s both the Left and the Right were actually quite sane and rational. Sometimes both sides were wrong about important issues but their views were at least logically consistent, honest and rational. Even as recently as the 80s you could find lots of people on both the Left and the Right whose views were quite rational.

    The question is - why did politics across the board become so crazy and irrational? I have two theories to account for this. The first is that it's inevitable in any society saturated in mass media (and social media has made it worse). My second theory is that it's an American thing, a result of the legacies of Puritanism and American Exceptionalism, both of which explain the American obsession with moral crusades. The U.S. has aggressively spread this madness to the rest of the globe.

    Replies: @iffen, @A123

    If you go back to the 1950s both the Left and the Right were actually quite sane and rational.

    The question is – why did politics across the board become so crazy and irrational?

    In the 1950’s there was no sharp divide between parties. Politics was dominated by local issues. Travel was time consuming. When Democrats and Republicans arrived in DC they lived there. This built extensive social contacts and friendships with members of the other party.

    Airline travel changed the moderating social construct that existed in DC. Many more politicians left their families at home. Flying home every weekend eliminated most of the non-work contact points with members of the other party. It became much easier to see the opposing party as “the enemy”.

    Cable television news and internet news accelerated this polarization.
    _____

    Trampling the 10th Amendment made politics national instead of local. When everything is national and there are only two parties… Once a party takes a position, they other party inherits the opposing stance. Creating party platforms issue-by-issue made no larger sense, and it left a lot of people out. How can the GOP simultaneously be the party of Christian Main Street and Wall Street Banks?

    What Trump has done is challenge the “Left-Right Construct” as it exists in the U.S. He has given the GOP a unified message by leading them into battle against multinationals and for workers. That makes TRUMP = LEFT. Except Trump’s GOP also stands for Christian values. So TRUMP = RIGHT.

    The new GOP is in the process of becoming Populist, neither crazy Left nor crazy Right. That leaves the DNC embracing SJW Globalism, which has huge internal contradictions. They inherit both the crazy Left and the crazy Right.

    PEACE 😇

  94. @Audacious Epigone
    @V. K. Ovelund

    You're not mistaken regarding his "public position" during the 2012 campaign, when he was rhetorically the relative--very relative--immigration restrictionist in the GOP primaries. But any time he has ever had any actual executive (Massachusetts) or legislative (senator) power, he's been open borders all the way.

    Replies: @Wency

    I think it’s fair to call his record as governor “mixed”, as this article does. He did veto in-state tuition for illegals, as opposed to Rick Perry, who supported it.

    https://www.foxnews.com/us/romney-had-mixed-record-on-immigration-in-mass

    I guess my question would be, if Romney is an “F”, then what are actual open-borders types? The “F” just seems to say “Boo, Romney!” without leaving any room for nuance; he might as well be Trotsky, which also seems to be the consensus view I’m gathering here.

    But there’s a lot to be said for nuance, for those actually interested in understanding the world. I’m reminded of a reasonably well-read normie conservative friend of mine who lumps North Korea and Russia in the same category — they’re both “not democracies” and therefore “dictatorships”.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Wency

    Governors are not directly responsible for U.S. immigration policy but congressmen are, as you know. AE refers to Romney's record as congressman, as scored here.

    The scorer is serious, competent, experienced, comprehensive, fair and sober. A grade of F– from this scorer is bad.

    Admittedly, the grade is based on only a single Congress, since Romney has not been in Congress long; and much of the grade is based on a technical adjustment to the H-1B visa program, an adjustment regarding which reasonable patriots can differ. However, Romney needs to boost his grade before I am likely to return to his defense. The immigration issue is important to me.

    Replies: @iffen

  95. @Wency
    @Audacious Epigone

    I think it's fair to call his record as governor "mixed", as this article does. He did veto in-state tuition for illegals, as opposed to Rick Perry, who supported it.

    https://www.foxnews.com/us/romney-had-mixed-record-on-immigration-in-mass

    I guess my question would be, if Romney is an "F", then what are actual open-borders types? The "F" just seems to say "Boo, Romney!" without leaving any room for nuance; he might as well be Trotsky, which also seems to be the consensus view I'm gathering here.

    But there's a lot to be said for nuance, for those actually interested in understanding the world. I'm reminded of a reasonably well-read normie conservative friend of mine who lumps North Korea and Russia in the same category -- they're both "not democracies" and therefore "dictatorships".

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    Governors are not directly responsible for U.S. immigration policy but congressmen are, as you know. AE refers to Romney’s record as congressman, as scored here.

    The scorer is serious, competent, experienced, comprehensive, fair and sober. A grade of F– from this scorer is bad.

    Admittedly, the grade is based on only a single Congress, since Romney has not been in Congress long; and much of the grade is based on a technical adjustment to the H-1B visa program, an adjustment regarding which reasonable patriots can differ. However, Romney needs to boost his grade before I am likely to return to his defense. The immigration issue is important to me.

    • Thanks: Wency, Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @iffen
    @V. K. Ovelund

    reasonable patriots

    Is there any other kind?

    Replies: @dfordoom, @V. K. Ovelund

  96. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Wency

    Governors are not directly responsible for U.S. immigration policy but congressmen are, as you know. AE refers to Romney's record as congressman, as scored here.

    The scorer is serious, competent, experienced, comprehensive, fair and sober. A grade of F– from this scorer is bad.

    Admittedly, the grade is based on only a single Congress, since Romney has not been in Congress long; and much of the grade is based on a technical adjustment to the H-1B visa program, an adjustment regarding which reasonable patriots can differ. However, Romney needs to boost his grade before I am likely to return to his defense. The immigration issue is important to me.

    Replies: @iffen

    reasonable patriots

    Is there any other kind?

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @iffen



    reasonable patriots
     
    Is there any other kind?
     
    You don't get out much do you?

    Replies: @iffen

    , @V. K. Ovelund
    @iffen


    reasonable patriots

    Is there any other kind?
     
    One appreciates an editor that strikes unnecessary adjectives. You got me.
  97. @iffen
    @V. K. Ovelund

    reasonable patriots

    Is there any other kind?

    Replies: @dfordoom, @V. K. Ovelund

    reasonable patriots

    Is there any other kind?

    You don’t get out much do you?

    • Replies: @iffen
    @dfordoom


    We Mutually Pledge*** To Each Other Our Lives, Our Fortunes And Our Sacred Honor
     
    ***Except for ...
  98. @iffen
    @V. K. Ovelund

    reasonable patriots

    Is there any other kind?

    Replies: @dfordoom, @V. K. Ovelund

    reasonable patriots

    Is there any other kind?

    One appreciates an editor that strikes unnecessary adjectives. You got me.

  99. @dfordoom
    @iffen



    reasonable patriots
     
    Is there any other kind?
     
    You don't get out much do you?

    Replies: @iffen

    We Mutually Pledge*** To Each Other Our Lives, Our Fortunes And Our Sacred Honor

    ***Except for …

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS