Homestar Runner Wiki Forum
http://forum.hrwiki.org/

Mitt Romney running for president
http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=8169		 Page 1 of 5
Author:  lahimatoa [ Thu May 04, 2006 8:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Mitt Romney running for president
What are your thoughts on him as a presidential candidate?
Author:  PianoManGidley [ Thu May 04, 2006 8:39 pm ]
Post subject: 
Anyone against same-sex marriages won't get my vote.
Author:  Beyond the Grave [ Thu May 04, 2006 8:42 pm ]
Post subject: 
The fact that a Republican became Governor in one of the most liberal states in the US says something.

I wouldn't vote for him.
Author:  Acekirby [ Thu May 04, 2006 9:12 pm ]
Post subject: 
Rofl. Oh, us crazy Massachusetts people. We're blue as the sky, but we elect this guy.

If he runs, I [s]won't[/s] (I'm just going to miss the 2008 election) wouldn't vote for him.
Author:  lahimatoa [ Thu May 04, 2006 9:55 pm ]
Post subject: 
I'm curious, Ace, I've never spoken to anyone who's lived in Massachussettes while Romney was governor.

Why wouldn't you vote for him?
Author:  Acekirby [ Thu May 04, 2006 10:48 pm ]
Post subject: 
He doesn't suit a lot of my tastes. I mean, you can check out what he's done. Things like cracking down on drunk diving, health care, and the environment are good. Movements to abolish same-sex marrige and abortions, support of the death penalty, and enforcing on gun control are things I don't agree with.

He's not the worst guy in the world, but there are plenty of things I don't agree with him on, so I would not vote for him.
Author:  putitinyourshoe [ Thu May 04, 2006 11:33 pm ]
Post subject: 
yeah not a mass person so i have to plead ignorance about his policy but all the roadblocks he put up to same sex marriage when Mass was going through that is not my cup of political tea. he would only get my vote if joe leiberman was the democratic candidate (fat chance), and even then i might vote for joe. probably not though.
Author:  lahimatoa [ Thu May 04, 2006 11:37 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
He doesn't suit a lot of my tastes.


Fair enough, Ace.

It's also probably fair to say that people who are for banning same-sex marriages and abortion yet are for the death penality and his stance on gun control enforcement would vote for him.
Author:  Dactyl [ Fri May 05, 2006 1:04 am ]
Post subject: 
ARRGH! I turn eighteen EIGHT MONTHS after the elecion I can vote until I'm...*calculates* 21! My firend turns 18 one day before election day in 2008. But I woud have wait to see what he would do when he runs. I'm not going to not vote for him just because he will try to abolish gay-ridge. He might have other good ideas. But who cares because I won't even be able to vote. X-( [/i]
Author:  Didymus [ Fri May 05, 2006 7:01 pm ]
Post subject: 
Ahem! "State and local elections!" Ahem! It's probably best to start small and work your way up, anyway.

Kirby Person wrote:
cracking down on drunk diving

More cops around the swimming pool! "Excuse me, sir! How many beers did you have before you got up on that diving board?"
Author:  Metal Head [ Fri May 05, 2006 11:54 pm ]
Post subject: 
The thing about us Massies is that despite many of of us being liberal (not me, and for a good reason.) we have had republican governers for the past 14-16 years. I think it's cus they're good with money. I wouldn't vote for Romney cus he won't try to stop illigal immigration.
Author:  lahimatoa [ Mon May 08, 2006 4:10 am ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
I wouldn't vote for Romney cus he won't try to stop illigal immigration.


While I cannot disagree with you, PLEASE tell me who is.

From what I can see, no one on either side of the aisle is willing to do anything substantial.
Author:  sb_enail.com [ Mon May 08, 2006 5:38 am ]
Post subject: 
Well, I don't see anything wrong with Mitt Romney. It still boils down to who wins the nomination. According to a straw poll, he's behind Bill Frist by a large margin.
Author:  Choc-o-Lardiac Arrest [ Tue May 09, 2006 5:23 am ]
Post subject: 
Acekirby wrote:
He doesn't suit a lot of my tastes. I mean, you can check out what he's done. Things like cracking down on drunk diving, health care, and the environment are good. Movements to abolish same-sex marrige and abortions, support of the death penalty, and enforcing on gun control are things I don't agree with.

He's not the worst guy in the world, but there are plenty of things I don't agree with him on, so I would not vote for him.

Is there really an Innsmouth?
Author:  WildCard [ Wed May 10, 2006 8:19 am ]
Post subject: 
sb_enail.com wrote:
Well, I don't see anything wrong with Mitt Romney. It still boils down to who wins the nomination. According to a straw poll, he's behind Bill Frist by a large margin.


That was actually a straw poll done in TN and around 40% of thedelegates who voted in the poll were from there. Romney finished a strong second. In the South.
Author:  lahimatoa [ Sat Jul 01, 2006 5:50 am ]
Post subject: 
Video done on Christian Broadcasting Network (Pat Robertson's friends) about Romney:

link

Looks good. I've always maintained that if Romney can get past Christians who believe Mormons are a cult, he has a solid chance to win the presidency.

This interview is a good sign.
Author:  VectorCell [ Mon Jul 03, 2006 2:01 am ]
Post subject: 
As an American that will be able to vote in 2008, I must say that I WILL be voting, if he gets past the primaries, for Mitt Romney. I think that him being a mormon is not a set-back, but a benefit, as all of the mormons that I know have really good values and are trying to do what they think is right.
Author:  lahimatoa [ Tue Aug 22, 2006 3:55 pm ]
Post subject: 
Oh, what irony.

:)
Author:  What's Her Face [ Thu Aug 24, 2006 10:14 am ]
Post subject: 
lahimatoa wrote:
Oh, what irony.

:)


Bah....... and that Salt Lake Tribute article said that his ancestors' antics might damage his ambitions. Nah, that couldn't happen, could it? Anyone who'd hold a person's ancestors' actions against them is an dangerous cretin who shouldn't be allowed to vote. Bah, I say.
Author:  StrongRad [ Thu Aug 24, 2006 3:42 pm ]
Post subject: 
lahimatoa wrote:
Quote:
I wouldn't vote for Romney cus he won't try to stop illigal immigration.


While I cannot disagree with you, PLEASE tell me who is.

From what I can see, no one on either side of the aisle is willing to do anything substantial.

Of course, they won't. Political strategists and PR types would be all over them for "alienating the minority vote". Oh well, after December, we won't care about it again until 2016 (we only care about illegal immigration in years that end in 6), so it won't be an issue in this election, nor the next one, but the one after that...

WHF, I can't argue with you. If the actions of his ancestors become an issue, it's sad. Of course, Romney can take the approach of "Yes, my grandfater was a polygamist, but that's my grandfater, not me."
If "his grandfather was a polygamist" is the best argument his opponents can muster against him, then he's a pretty good candidate.

I can see the debate:
Romney:"Your plans for foreign policy seem weak. You seem to have no plans for dealing with the middle east."
Other candidate: "My opponent's grandfather was a polygamist. HE HAD MULTIPLE WIVES! DO YOU REALLY WANT HIS GRANDSON RUNNING THE COUNTRY?!? THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!"

Next day, major papers : "ROMNEY STOMPED IN DEBATE"
Author:  racerx_is_alive [ Thu Aug 24, 2006 4:03 pm ]
Post subject: 
I doubt the real cause for concern is that his ancestors were polygamous. I think that the concern is that he is Mormon, so he obviously must be polygamous. Or he is Mormon so he must be trying to be President so that he can make polygamy legal and score a major victory for the church. [note: he isn't polygamous, and he isn't going to legalize polygamy. The church has no interest in being polygamous any more, and I seriously seriously doubt they would approve it internally anymore, even if it were legalized.]

From my own experience, there are boatloads of people who still are under the impression that Mormons have multiple wives. It surprises me each time I get a question about how many wives I have, but at least here in Texas, it happens relatively often.

What I think the concern is is that there are many many people who will think like this:

Mitt Romney.
He's a Mormon.
Mormons are polygamous.
Mormons are a cult.
I ain't voting for no Mormons.
Author:  Artvandelay [ Thu Aug 24, 2006 4:47 pm ]
Post subject: 
Mormons are a large percentage of our population where I live, nearly 1 out of 6. Most LDS members that I know are actually pretty good people. The only problem is that I don't believe in their religion. I don't know how much weight this would have on my vote, though. It depends who runs against him.
Author:  What's Her Face [ Thu Aug 24, 2006 5:48 pm ]
Post subject: 
I've been digging up more dirt on Romney's family, and look -this (PDF file) says that his father was born in Mexico.

OMG FENCE JUMPER!!1! :mrgreen:

I'm joking. But you know that, right?

racerx_is_alive wrote:
Mitt Romney.
He's a Mormon.
Mormons are polygamous.
Mormons are a cult.
I ain't voting for no Mormons.


Naaaaaah....... People don't think like that. Um, do they?

Either way, I'd bet anything that a Mormon is much more likely to get into the White House than, say, an atheist. But that's a different issue.
Author:  racerx_is_alive [ Thu Aug 24, 2006 7:04 pm ]
Post subject: 
What's Her Face wrote:
Either way, I'd bet anything that a Mormon is much more likely to get into the White House than, say, an atheist. But that's a different issue.


That's true. We're also more likely to be elected to office than a Muslim. But that's about it. According to a poll a while back, 37% of Americans would not vote for a Mormon, all things being equal.

Of course, back then it was a more hypothetical question. Now that there is an actual candidate, I think *most* people will decide to vote or not vote for him based on what they actually know about him. There is a subset of the population who will not vote for him period, but I think that the majority will decide based on other reasons.
Author:  lahimatoa [ Fri Aug 25, 2006 9:56 pm ]
Post subject: 
Romney raises $1,000,000 in California

Not a bad reception for a blue state.
Author:  lahimatoa [ Wed Sep 06, 2006 10:48 pm ]
Post subject: 
So former president of Iran Mohammed Khatami is visiting the US soon... and apparently Harvard has invited him to speak to their student body. Because, you know, it's always good to hear how terrorism is the US's fault from the ex-President of Iran.

Anyway, Governor Romney has decided not to spend a cent of city or state money to escort\protect Khatami while he's in Massachussettes. Good for him.

link

Although to be honest, if Khatami is somehow killed while in the US, I fear the consequences. Oh well, the feds will protect him well enough.
Author:  Mike D [ Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:50 am ]
Post subject: 
Romney seems to be painting Khatami with a bit of a broad brush, at least as that Fox article is presenting it. By post-Islamic Revolution standards, Khatami is very much a moderate. During his tenure he clashed constantly with Islamic hardliners in the government. I'd take him over Ahmadinejad any day.

In any event, I'm not sure what Romney's doing is such a great idea. It'll be entirely too easy for propagandists to distort this to their own ends, conventiently leaving out the bit about a federal escort: U.S. denies Khatami protection! Khatami left at the mercy of the American public! See how the Americans treat our dignitaries, our best and brightest? And so forth. I dislike that Romney is giving them this material for the sake of a little political grandstanding.

Finally, let's remember that inviting Khatami to speak and endorsing his opinions are two different things. In this country we should not be afraid to let dissenters air their views.

Mike
Author:  StrongRad [ Thu Sep 07, 2006 4:34 am ]
Post subject: 
I disagree with Romney slightly. Allowing this guy to speak to students about tolerance isn't propaganda, it's more like allowing Fred Phelps to speak about tolerance.

I'm going to have to listen to Glenn Beck tomorrow, Romney is going to be on there. The only problem is that, to do so, I'll have to deal with listening to Rush Limbaugh (he's gonna be on Beck's show, too).

How's Mitt doing in the polls?
Author:  What's Her Face [ Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:54 pm ]
Post subject: 
Hmm. Khatami is one of the very few friends America has in Iran. If Romney is planning on being president, it wouldn't serve him very well to alienate people like Mohammad Khatami.

Khatami is one of those people that I've kept my eye on, and I'd definately want to know how Romney came to the conclusion that he supports "violent jihad" and the "destruction of Israel". If it's true, then it certainly goes against the moderate, West-friendly, concilitory Khatami that I've been hearing about.(*)

But hmmm........ certainly until I can find more info behind Romney's reasoning, my inner cynic is telling me that Romney may just be working by this formula:

Code:
Former Iranian president + critic of Israel = VERY BAD MAN!!!!


* There's more to him, of course, and I could write an essay about how innocent he may or may not be - but that's for another time and place.
Author:  lahimatoa [ Fri Sep 08, 2006 5:01 pm ]
Post subject: 
WHF wrote:
Khatami is one of the very few friends America has in Iran.


link below wrote:
Khatami, speaking to reporters after a meeting with Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai, said, "We say that America is at the top of the list of countries which are endangering world peace and security and we hope that one day they come to their senses," adding he thought a change in U.S. policy was very unlikely.



link


Seattle Post-Intelligencer wrote:
"As America claims to be fighting terrorism, it implements policies that cause the intensification of terrorism and institutionalized violence," Khatami said at the Islamic Society of North America's 43rd annual convention.


link

ABC news wrote:
in interviews with CNN and USA Today, Khatami faulted Bush on several counts: He refused, for example, to back off a previous comparison between the American leader and Osama bin Laden. He also said the U.S. was partly to blame for the turmoil in the Middle East.

"As a result of such wrong policies, such unilateral, violent policies, that is the voice of logic has decreased and voice of terror and attractiveness of terror unfortunately among youth has increased," CNN quoted him as saying in an interview.


link

I know it's fun to imagine you're that much smarter than the governor of a US State, but sometimes that's not entirely true.
Page 1 of 5 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/