The politics of being too wealthy.

[timcsaw]

Touché!

In reality, I'm neither a "Glass half empty" or "Glass half full" kinda' guy. I look at every glass as being completely full (half filled with water the other half filed with air).

Oh... and a half a cup of "Romney" is preferable to the half a glass of "pee".

[Codger_64]

...

So you don't see a change in his stances and demeanor in the past few months?

At the end of a meeting last Monday with Medvedev, President Obama was overheard saying on a hot mic, “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space… This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...ful-of-voters/

[timcsaw]

So you don't see a change in his stances and demeanor in the past few months?

I gotta' million ub' um'.... Cha cha cha!

[OliverH]

The only thing left for you to do then is to get rid of the pee in your cup. I have, that's why neither Romney or Obama are left in my cup.

I think the other visual response is:

Democrat-Republican-Awake.jpg

[ttoney83]

I don't mean to speak for ttoney, but there is a political persuasion that doesn't define "conservative" according to what's on offer at the mainstream GOP. This "true conservatism" is more socially libertarian and tends to be far less militaristic, advocating an isolationist--or to be a bit kinder, "non-interventionist"--foreign policy. It's not exactly true that Paul draws people from "both sides of the aisle," since most people who are in the room where the aisle is are already committed or at least somewhat affiliated to a party, and thus have already drunk one flavor of partisan Kool-Aid or the other. It is true, however, that Paul's particular combination of stances will attract people who might otherwise by default choose to side with one party or the other, depending on which issues they ascribe more importance to. Paulistas who deplore the social-welfare aspects of government, and the wealth redistribution that is a necessary means and end, might have otherwise gone Republican. Those who think that the war on drugs and our various imperial military enterprises are madness might otherwise have their lot in with Democrats.

Yeah, pretty much. I think most Americans, whether they are in politics or not, are generally more moderate than the GOP or DNC hard core supporters who vote party line ALL the time. I think most who are on either side of the aisle chose a party to make their securing of a seat more likely than if they ran independent.

[ttoney83]

I think the other visual response is:

Democrat-Republican-Awake.jpg

Yes, I've seen and used that one before.

[ttoney83]

Oh... and a half a cup of "Romney" is preferable to the half a glass of "pee".

BAAAaaad visual

[timcsaw]

BAAAaaad visual

I go too far....

[OliverH]

Yeah, pretty much. I think most Americans, whether they are in politics or not, are generally more moderate than the GOP or DNC hard core supporters who vote party line ALL the time. I think most who are on either side of the aisle chose a party to make their securing of a seat more likely than if they ran independent.

I think it's worse than that. The great majority of people on both sides of the aisle necessarily are products of or at least were vetted through the established party structures. They absorbed those institutional values and attitudes on the way up the ladder. There is not an easy way out of this since the laws themselves entrench the two-party system, and getting elected now requires the vast sums of money that are only available to such large organizations.

Timcsaw may be right in the narrow sense that if the only vegetables on the table when the dinner bell rings are broccoli or cauliflower, your choice is to eat one or go hungry. However, you can still start your own garden for next season. It's hard work and takes a lot of time, and for the nonce you still are subject to what's in the bowl that's put before you, but that's pretty much the alternative.

[BlackKnight86]

Timcsaw may be right in the narrow sense that if the only vegetables on the table when the dinner bell rings are broccoli or cauliflower, your choice is to eat one or go hungry. However, you can still start your own garden for next season. It's hard work and takes a lot of time, and for the nonce you still are subject to what's in the bowl that's put before you, but that's pretty much the alternative.

That's not true, though. Instead of accepting what is essentially a false dilemma, you can refuse to chose either vegetable; and you can go to the store and get what you want.

I'm sorry; but the idea that we do not own our own government is a cop-out. Everyone may say that they have to hold their nose and pick the "least worst"; but they've been saying that for years. So I'm throwing the "brown flag" on that play...."The People" are clearly content enough with the status quo to not bother doing anything about it.

I remember receiving unsolicited emails from the father of a young girl who was in a show that I did....I guess since I was involved in theater, he just assumed that I was politically aligned in the same fashion as was he. Or maybe he is a presumptuous wanker who thinks he has something to say that everyone MUST hear. One of those two....anyway, he kept crying about how, since Nader "could never win", we all had to vote Democrat, because Bush was just evil, and destroying the world....nonsense like that. After putting up with his stupidity long enough for the sake of his daughter, I finally let him have it in a series of return emails. He got predictably butt-hurt; so communication with them ceased. Shame, too....his daughter was a good little actor and a sweet kid....lot of promise. Too bad she had a brain-dead d-bag for a father.... (By the way, never let people use email lists for any purpose other than the stated one.)

Anyway, my point is that you vote your conscience ALWAYS, not the result. If you don't like the choices, those choices are made in plenty of time to marshall "grass roots" forces for a write-in candidate....I think that the problem is that people who claim to hold a principled stand either don't, or are unable to put said stand into a good enough argument to add power to their viewpoint; so of course no one is going to be swayed by them. Moreover, if we continuously get two unpalatable "vegetables" (by the way, OliverH....excellent object to use for an analogy for politicians) EVERY SINGLE ELECTION; then wouldn't people start to say, "hey, maybe we need to change the process so it doesn't result in poo all the time", instead of looking for the next "messiah" stand-in, like the idiot currently occupying the Oval Office?

Since they don't do that, and the situation is pretty much the same every time around; it seems obvious that they don't mind it, or if they do they don't mind it enough to do something about it....

...other than whine, I guess.

[timcsaw]

That's not true, though. Instead of accepting what is essentially a false dilemma, you can refuse to chose either vegetable; and you can go to the store and get what you want.

I'm sorry; but the idea that we do not own our own government is a cop-out. Everyone may say that they have to hold their nose and pick the "least worst"; but they've been saying that for years. So I'm throwing the "brown flag" on that play...."The People" are clearly content enough with the status quo to not bother doing anything about it.

I remember receiving unsolicited emails from the father of a young girl who was in a show that I did....I guess since I was involved in theater, he just assumed that I was politically aligned in the same fashion as was he. Or maybe he is a presumptuous wanker who thinks he has something to say that everyone MUST hear. One of those two....anyway, he kept crying about how, since Nader "could never win", we all had to vote Democrat, because Bush was just evil, and destroying the world....nonsense like that. After putting up with his stupidity long enough for the sake of his daughter, I finally let him have it in a series of return emails. He got predictably butt-hurt; so communication with them ceased. Shame, too....his daughter was a good little actor and a sweet kid....lot of promise. Too bad she had a brain-dead d-bag for a father.... (By the way, never let people use email lists for any purpose other than the stated one.)

Anyway, my point is that you vote your conscience ALWAYS, not the result. If you don't like the choices, those choices are made in plenty of time to marshall "grass roots" forces for a write-in candidate....I think that the problem is that people who claim to hold a principled stand either don't, or are unable to put said stand into a good enough argument to add power to their viewpoint; so of course no one is going to be swayed by them. Moreover, if we continuously get two unpalatable "vegetables" (by the way, OliverH....excellent object to use for an analogy for politicians) EVERY SINGLE ELECTION; then wouldn't people start to say, "hey, maybe we need to change the process so it doesn't result in poo all the time", instead of looking for the next "messiah" stand-in, like the idiot currently occupying the Oval Office?

Since they don't do that, and the situation is pretty much the same every time around; it seems obvious that they don't mind it, or if they do they don't mind it enough to do something about it....

...other than whine, I guess.

When you come to a fork in the road, and don't like the options of going to the left or right (figuratively speaking), build a new tine... a very good idea... unless you're sliding down hill toward the fork at 100 MPH and only have the "dream" of a third tine to accompany you to the funeral. Make a decision (or momentum will make it for you), and after you've made that decision, start building the new tine. Make a move to the right, or to the left... Of the three; "lead, follow or get out of the way", only one requires expediency.

[Triton]

Again, just as the Main Stream Propaganda Machine says and those under its control parrot.

Right, only the chose few enlightened aren't under the mind control of the main stream media. It can't possibly be because people don't agree with some of his sillier positions or anything like that. Whatever. Even if you believe that it's irrelevant, he's still not going to get elected.

Facts are facts Triton, delegates are being denied to Ron Paul by disobedience to GOP rules in County after County and State after State. It is documented real time by those who are there.

What "rules?" Are you saying that Paul actually won a popular vote somewhere? Where?

If pragmatic means siding with evil and the destruction of this Republic, I will NOT be pragmatic. It is PRAGMATISM which will ultimately destroy this Republic by voting for the presumed "lesser of two evils." Will you fight for the Constitution and the Republic, or will you vote it away.
Your call.

Right, so you are going with idealistic irrelevance. Got it. I guess that means my vote will count a little more. That's not as good as two votes against the obama but I guess it will have to do.

[Triton]

I love the delusion underlying this particular boogeyman story. Obama didn't grab your guns, burn your churches, expropriate your houses and bank accounts, and force your children into classrooms where the teachers are all black Muslim communist homosexuals when he had the chance. Why? Because he wanted to be re-elected!

So you don't believe the obama's own words? Okay well, you've got me there, neither do I...

[jdm61]

Actually, "social libertarians" and "true conservatives", like the founding fathers, are not conservative at all. They are the WORST kind of radicals in that they insist on sticking to the old pre French Revolution concept of the individual being paramount as opposed to the collective even if it is "bad" for the collective. The Bill of Rights is a perfect example. How can a government be expected to regulate a polite society when individuals are permitted to say whatever they want, own huge numbers of firearms and be shielded from long arm of the law? This whole concept of the state leaving the individual citizen alone to the greatest extent possible is SOOOOO outdated. Our wise European brethren realized how silly such things were long ago. My problem with Ron Paul is that he seems to be somewhat delusional in his views, particularly in the area of foreign policy.

I don't mean to speak for ttoney, but there is a political persuasion that doesn't define "conservative" according to what's on offer at the mainstream GOP. This "true conservatism" is more socially libertarian and tends to be far less militaristic, advocating an isolationist--or to be a bit kinder, "non-interventionist"--foreign policy. It's not exactly true that Paul draws people from "both sides of the aisle," since most people who are in the room where the aisle is are already committed or at least somewhat affiliated to a party, and thus have already drunk one flavor of partisan Kool-Aid or the other. It is true, however, that Paul's particular combination of stances will attract people who might otherwise by default choose to side with one party or the other, depending on which issues they ascribe more importance to. Paulistas who deplore the social-welfare aspects of government, and the wealth redistribution that is a necessary means and end, might have otherwise gone Republican. Those who think that the war on drugs and our various imperial military enterprises are madness might otherwise have their lot in with Democrats.

[ttoney83]

Personally I would like to know what the cut off is to being "too rich." Who gets to decide? Kerry for instance apparently wasn't "too rich" nor was Kennedy. Yet it seems Romney is.... Or maybe this is just another silly self serving liberal narrative.

I don't think there should be a cut off, but I also don't think it should be so expensive to run for office that one MUST be wealthy or MUST raise millions of dollars to mount an effective campaign.

On the OTHER hand, many of the founders felt that the only people who could be truly effective leaders were those who were financially independent. The thinking was that those persons who did not require any more wealth to be wealthy, since they were already wealthy, would be harder to bribe. In their terms, they could govern in a "disinterested" fashion. By that they meant that they could govern impartially......Great in theory, but somehow falls short in practice, often enough, then as now.

It seems to me that the problem is not the wealth per se, but the person. Recent studies have shown that between 10 out of 100 persons employed on Wall Street are psychopaths. I think the numbers are similar for politicians, hence, no amount of money or power is ever enough for them. These kinds of people don't react the same way to risks and rewards as normal people do since they lack empathy. This is another reason I oppose Obama and Romney, I am certain that they are not right in the head.

http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2012/03/psyc...ll_street.html

10% of people in the financial services industry are psychopaths. And that's a conservative estimate, according to Christopher Bayer, a Wall Street psychotherapist cited by DeCovny.

Two things should be noted about the claimed estimate that 10% of people in the financial services industry are psychopaths. First, it is just that — an estimate — and not based on a scientific study. Second, it is likely an overestimate of true psychopaths in the industry, but an underestimate of those who fall into the "almost" category. Formal studies indicate that as much as 15% of the general population can be characterized as almost psychopaths. And if we consider that the financial services industry may select for people with characteristics of psychopathy, it is fair to say that the number of people in the industry who fall into the "almost" range is at least that high. As such, individuals predisposed to fraud, deceit, manipulation, and insider trading may be far more numerous than the 10% estimate that has attracted so much attention.

Take a look at this list of characteristics of the psychopath, and then compare them to what is typically demonstrated by the average politician. How closely this applies to each individual is the measure of how dangerous they might be. IMO both Obama and Romney score VERY high on this list.

Glibness and superficial charm
Lack of empathy
Consistent decisions in their self interest, even where it is ethically questionable
Chronic, sometimes transparent lies, even with regard to minor things
Lack of remorse
Failure to take responsibility for their actions, and instead blaming others
Shallow emotions
Ignoring responsibilities
Persistent focus on gratifying their own needs at the expense of others
Conning and manipulative behavior

[ttoney83]

Right, only the chose few enlightened aren't under the mind control of the main stream media. It can't possibly be because people don't agree with some of his sillier positions or anything like that. Whatever. Even if you believe that it's irrelevant, he's still not going to get elected.

Again, the numbers presented to you in the main stream propaganda machine are not accurate. Vote fraud has been demonstrated in various videos by persons present.
The "enlightened" are gaining in number every day. I am awake.

What "rules?" Are you saying that Paul actually won a popular vote somewhere? Where?

I'm talking about delegate allocation. This is the next stage in the fraud. In every county or state where paper ballots were cast and counted, many districts somehow went missing. In those with electronic ballots, there is no telling who actually wins as the results are easily programmed before the event. BUT, as demonstrated by numerous on site videos and testimonty of persons in charge of counting votes, the fraud is evident to all who do not get their news from the main stream propaganda machine. It's time to wake up Triton, the media lies and they are lieing about the numbers in this GOP contest. The numbers at the rallies indicate something is not right with the numbers being reported.

Right, so you are going with idealistic irrelevance. Got it. I guess that means my vote will count a little more. That's not as good as two votes against the obama but I guess it will have to do.

Those who vote for Romney vote for the destruction of the Republic. You go right ahead and be complicit in that. I am a Patriot and I will fight the Globalists at every opportunity. YOU are playing in to their hands. You go right ahead but don't come crying to me when Romney further subverts the Constitution. If that's even possible at this point. Your "pragmatism" is no pragmatism at all since there is essentially not a shred of difference between Obama and Romney.

It still amazes me that any alleged "conservative" could vote for such an obvious "liberal" as Romney. What I am witnessing in America on the GOP side now, with THEIR version of ANY BODY BUT, is absolute insanity.

[quietmike]

Getting back to the OP, were supposed to be more upset with what Romney does with his own money than with what Baraq has done with ours?

[Triton]

Again, the numbers presented to you in the main stream propaganda machine are not accurate. Vote fraud has been demonstrated in various videos by persons present.

Really? How do you know? Did you go do a count yourself? How do you know the people in the "videos" aren't lying to you? Sorry you can keep trying to sell the conspiracy but people still aren't buying.

The "enlightened" are gaining in number every day. I am awake.

Sure they are... but they still can't seem to win a single primary anywhere. Maybe you need some more blue pills... or was that red ones I forget...

I'm talking about delegate allocation.

I see, so you admit that paul can't seem to win a popular vote anywhere. All those mindless drones I guess...

Those who vote for Romney vote for the destruction of the Republic.

I'm sorry that you can't see any difference between Romney and the obama. I can, and so can most people. You go right ahead and continue in your idealistic irrelevance because that is precisely what you are going to be doing.

I am a Patriot and I will fight the Globalists at every opportunity.

Who is a globalist? How will you fight him?

It still amazes me that any alleged "conservative" could vote for such an obvious "liberal" as Romney. What I am witnessing in America on the GOP side now, with THEIR version of ANY BODY BUT, is absolute insanity.

Your candidate couldn't win, no amount of railing about insanity and being asleep is going to change that. Nor will not voting.

[ttoney83]

Really? How do you know? Did you go do a count yourself? How do you know the people in the "videos" aren't lying to you? Sorry you can keep trying to sell the conspiracy but people still aren't buying.

I trust people present at the elections more than I do the untrustworthy propaganda machine. I now dismiss nearly everything I see on TV as complete and utter BS.....Because it has been proven to be BS time and time again.....

Sure they are... but they still can't seem to win a single primary anywhere. Maybe you need some more blue pills... or was that red ones I forget...

I think they are, but the main stream propaganda machine and the vote manipulators have fixed the machines and denied various districts paper ballots where paper ballots are still used. Our election process is now more corrupt than any third world bannana republic.

I see, so you admit that paul can't seem to win a popular vote anywhere. All those mindless drones I guess...

No, I do not admit that. There is plenty of proof of vote fraud. Irregularities have even been mentioned, in passing, in the main stream propaganda machine. So it is probably true that Ron Paul has won at least one. Given that we are using machines which have been proven to be easily manipulated, and given that dead people can vote, it should be obvious to even the most brainwashed GOP drones that fraud is occurring.

I'm sorry that you can't see any difference between Romney and the obama. I can, and so can most people. You go right ahead and continue in your idealistic irrelevance because that is precisely what you are going to be doing.

No, you and most people see ANYONE BUT. You and they are not voting on principle, or even conscience, you and they are voting ANYONE BUT and that is no way to vote because, well heck, we sure got ANYONE BUT when everyone voted for ANYONE BUT A REPUBLICAN didn't we! The only differences between Romney and Obama are skin color and upbringing. In every other sense they are the same.

Who is a globalist? How will you fight him?

Romney is a globalist and I am fighting to keep him out of office by spreading the word. Obama is a globalist and he should be impeached. Besides that, even if he weren't a globalist, how can one be certain where he stands on ANYthing? He has literally been on every side of every issue he's ever spoken of, sometimes within mere hours of giving one opinion. To support such a 'man" is the height of insanity. This is plain nuts Triton, the choices between the evils are getting MORE evil not less.

Your candidate couldn't win, no amount of railing about insanity and being asleep is going to change that. Nor will not voting.

Actually, I've been thinking. Logically speaking, the devil we know is the safer option. At least we know that Obama will move, unrestrained toward the destruction of America. THEN, if he does indeed move in that direction, maybe some more people will wake up and finally stand up and fight the globalists efforts to destroy America. I'm thinking this is EXACTLY what America needs, a final, UNQUESTIONABLE, wake up call.
The railing is an effort to wake some more people up. It is having an effect in other places I post. People are seeing that there is no difference between the GOP or the DNC candidates presented to them every election cycle except on surface issues which don't matter, like abortion and gay marriage. They split us in two and we fight each other over two evils, the GLOBALISTS evils.

With what I have learned over the last 12 years of research, combined with my conscience, I can not, and will not vote for or support a candidate I consider a domestic enemy of the Constitution, whether that candidate be Obama or Romney.

[ttoney83]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47138446...ew_york_times/

This is exactly what I mean by the devil we know being the better option.

WASHINGTON — One Saturday last fall, President Obama interrupted a White House strategy meeting to raise an issue not on the agenda. He declared, aides recalled, that the administration needed to more aggressively use executive power to govern in the face of Congressional obstructionism.

“We had been attempting to highlight the inability of Congress to do anything,” recalled William M. Daley, who was the White House chief of staff at the time. “The president expressed frustration, saying we have got to scour everything and push the envelope in finding things we can do on our own.”

We know EXACTLY what this guy is pushing for and if he does, then maybe that will wake enough people up to actually DO something about it. The issue must be pushed, and that issue is domestic enemies of the Constitution infesting all branches and levels of government. This has to come to a head or it will simmer just below the boiling point and one day we will wake up and it will be too late.
It may already be too late IMO.....