View Single Post
      09-27-2012, 01:07 PM   #72

Drives: M3
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sitting down, facing the keyboard

iTrader: (0)

Originally Posted by BKsBimmer View Post
in order to lead effectively people have to like you and people don't like Mitt Romney.
I would dispute that. Take a look at the financial statements of Apple, then read Steve Job's biography. The guy, by ALL accounts, was a misanthropic, mean spirited bully who mercilessly slammed his own people. He makes the fictional Dr. House seem like Mr. Congeniality, and yet that did not impair his ability to lead effectively and take Apple to where it is. Romney may not be Mr. Personality, but there's no evidence he is as personally harsh and abrasive as Jobs was, not by a long shot.

Originally Posted by BKsBimmer View Post
Mitt Romney's calling card is is supposed to be his competence. He has yet to display competence in his campaign to be president.
Take a look at the Salt Lake Olympics for concrete evidence of competence. In fact, one Bill Clinton used the words "Sterling Business Record" to refer to Romneys credentials. The Olympics, just like corporate boardrooms, are filled with politics. If he can get the IOC to play nice, congress should be a walk in the park.

Originally Posted by BKsBimmer View Post
If Obama wins again, which he likely will, more Democrats will likely be swept into office with him. I believe the Republican fever of obstruction will break by necessity. It will have to or Republicans will be blamed for their obstruction and nothing getting done and they will get slaughtered in the mid terms. After the eleciton I see the Republican party taking one of 2 paths:

The party will completely implode and relegate itself to permanent minority party status.

Or the party will be forced to do some serious soul searching, reorganize and come up with new ideas that appeal to demographics beyond Christian Evangelicals and wealthy white men.
IMHO, those hardly seem like the most plausible outcomes. When the Republicans won 2 consecutive terms with Dubya, that did not cause the Democrats to move to the right ideologically speaking; in fact, their next candidate has gone farther to the left than his predecessor, stating in an interview he is in favor of wealth redistribution. Why would the Republicans suddenly go farther to the left, ideologically speaking, after 2 consecutive Democrat wins? There's no precedent for it, it hardly seems likely.

As people see what is happening in Europe, where decades of more socialist style democracies have finally caught up to them, financially speaking, and they see rioting in the streets of Madrid because excess entitlement spending can no longer be sustained, the well has run dry, I can't imagine everyone here watching that and suddenly stating; hey, lets really embrace more of that approach.

Originally Posted by BKsBimmer View Post
Interesting times ahead...
I'll agree to that, assuming you share my sentiment that "interesting" does not always equate to "joyous".