« Huntsman drops out, good news for Romney | Main | Newt’s debate performance »

January 17, 2012

Comments

It would be nice if Romney actually stood up for what he wrote in that book instead of trying hard to appease everyone. You can't win against Obama if you are going to fluff talk just like Obama instead of getting to the point. On the Fox News debate, people just loved Paul's and esp. Newt's straight answers and unapologetic stance when the insolent Black journalist implied he was racist.

Why doesn't Romney tell the people what he actually believes instead of what he thinks they want to hear? I'm sure he would pull in the Santorum voters and people like me if he demonstrated a clear understanding of jihad and sharia in the debate. Robert Spencer almost endorsed Santorum for instance.

On Fox News' debate site, they showed that he consistently dodged the questions. People preferred Ron Paul by a landslide, and he can certainly beat Obama in a debate. Mitt, I'm not so sure.

Either way, despite any sympathy for Paul, I'd be happy with either Mitt or him, if Mitt actually stood for the things expressed in his book that you mention, which is still a question mark, and if he were honest about his opposition to the bailout of his friends on Wall St. The US needs a hybrid between Ron Paul on economics and social issues, Romney on foreign policy and Bachmann on immigration.

From OpenSecrets.org, via Mangan (http://mangans.blogspot.com/):

Top Ten Romney Contributors (Employees of these corporations and their PAC's, not the corporations themselves)

Goldman Sachs $367,200
Credit Suisse Group $203,750
Morgan Stanley $199,800
HIG Capital $186,500
Barclays $157,750
Kirkland & Ellis $132,100
Bank of America $126,500
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $118,250
EMC Corp $117,300
JPMorgan Chase & Co $112,250

....

Damn! And we thought Obama was owned by Wall Street!

And, in case you were wondering, here's the same for Ron Paul:


US Army $24,503
US Air Force $23,335
US Navy $17,432
Mason Capital Management $14,000
Microsoft Corp $13,398
Boeing Co $10,620
Google Inc $10,390
Overland Sheepskin $10,350
IBM Corp $8,294
US Government $7,756

....


Wow! Of course, Ron Paul's numbers are much smaller than Romney's, because Paul isn't a multimillionaire with an investment capital background, but, still, it's shocking to see that thee are so many anti-Semites in the US military (because all Ron Paul are, by definition, anti-Semites). Also, Mangan notes that in Iowa and new Hampshire, half the votes of the under-30 demographic group went to Paul. Besides their obvious anti-Semitism, they like Paul's message because they realize that they are going to get royally screwed by the Social Security-Medicare Ponzi schemes and because they don't want their scarce tax dollars wasted on Wall Street bailouts or futile foreign wars.

Now I'm not a big Ron Paul fan, but I do think he is clearly different from the other candidates and that there are certain good points in his message. I'll definitely vote for Romney if he gets the GOP nomination, as now seems almost certain, if only to prevent our current Dear Leader from making any more judicial appointments. But I just don't expecy things to change too much under a Romney administration.

1. I don't give a shit if Islam retakes all territories previously owned by Muslims. [HS: The Spanish and the Portuguese won't appreciate that.]

2. I don't give a shit about Honduras.

3. China, Russia, and Islam are not causing America to fail. Stupid NAMs are. What's his solution for that?

What else does he have?

HS: "And unfortunately that won’t come out of any candidate today unless we, the HBD bloggers, spread the message first and make it palatable to the majority of Americans."

Step One is to make HBD not sound like hate. (I'm not implying that the Half Sigma site does.) Even as reasonable an HBD movement as American Renaissance, says almost nothing about using HBD-knowledge to actually help the less fortunate, and only talks about the effect its denial has on whites.

More of us need to sound like Arthur Jensen, who points out that affirmative action efforts are well-meant but doomed for failing to acknowledge science.

Yes, Islam is on a collision course with the rest of the planet, that's unavoidable but that's not gonna be pretty...

Well, Obama doesn't feel "guilty" about American greatness because he's not a real American. He's a half-breed who has no meaningful connection to this country, other than the fact that it's been useful to him. However, the Disingenuous White Liberals who support him do feel genuinely guilty, which is why they support someone who is clearly their enemy.

China is probably the future replacement of the U.S. as the leading world power. The Islamic countries are a current threat but probably not a long term threat. They are almost totally dependent on their oil exports and their oil production has peaked and will soon start declining. They have massive population overshoot and when the oil runs out they won't be able to pay for food imports and there will be a population crash. Mark Twain visited the Mideast in the nineteenth century and was surprised that he could travel mile after mile without seeing any people. It's going to go back to that in the not too distant future. We mainly just need to focus on keeping the Muslims from immigrating to the U.S. and Europe because they can't be assimilated.

[HS: The threat of Muslims isn't that they are going to build a technologically advanced army that will occupy the United States.The plan is to get a foothold through immigration, and then a certain percentage of Muslim immigrants will join the jihad program and become a fifth column.

Muslims will take over Kashmir just by making the place miserable for non-Muslims rather than by beating the Indian military. The Muslim strategy is long-term.]

Romney is nothing but a shill for banks and entrenched interests. How can you not see that. He does not live by a moral code and compass. Only Ron Paul can deliver any meaningful, positive change.

Check this story of a marine biologist facing prosecution. http://williamlanderson.blogspot.com/2012/01/amerika-obama-and-eric-unjust.html

Do you think Romney is the person to end this type of injustice? Of course, not. He is a man who "listens" to experts; because he himself has no strong moral compass. A vote for Romney is a vote for tyranny. He does not stand for the individual but rather for the corporation and for the state.

"[HS: The Spanish and the Portuguese won't appreciate that.]"

It's their fight. It is not only not our fight, but it SHOULD NOT be our fight and we should not vote for a President who wants to make it his fight.

"Muslims will take over Kashmir just by making the place miserable for non-Muslims rather than by beating the Indian military."

Kashmir has been majority Muslim for 500+ years. They will not take over Kashmir some time in the future; they already did it centuries ago.

Half Sigma is more of a moron than he thinks he is (how else is he still unmarried); hew censors comments he doesn't like. What else do you expect from this list.

[HS: If you think I'm such a moron and a loser, WHY ARE YOU READING THIS BLOG? Why don't you read a blog written by a smart winner?]

I think that Romney being able to limit was he says and does even when he believes in something is a good sign. There's no use having a Ron Paul wildman who's sincere but unable to accomplish anything. Like it or not, we need someone to work within the system. Obama is loathsome to us partly because he was so good at dissembling while promoting a leftist agenda. Of course, the far left is still unhappy despite the fact that no one even more to the left could get elected or get anything done. I can only hope Romney will govern as far to the right as Obama has to the left while pushing verbal pablum to the elites and the press.

HS, last comment was really unfortunate. I read your blog every day and I enjoy it. Mostly I agree with you, although we clearly have different views of Ron Paul and Mitt Romney and maybe a few other things. Often I get sarcastic, but, in the immortal words of Curley of the Three Stooges, don't take it poisonal. And if we disagree, well, that just makes the discussion more interesting. You do good work - keep it up.

The only 'threat' of Islam I can imagine is their multiplying power in western nations, if the native populations ever feel like waking up they can effectively deny them entry, Israel is the only one who will have real trouble with this of course. BUT if they ever feel like turning up the full heat, they could easily keep them out too, it'll just be a PR disaster.

Russia sucks/evil and is pretty much everything not to do for a country. China is ehh, just growing rapidly; do you think they want an empire like ours which involves kicking around random people in foreign nations and toppling governments?

That's my lazy analysis of our largest 'threats'..

I agree Romney seems pretty good on foreign policy, and he is getting some good advisors. Pretty much the whole GOP field except Paul is good on foreign policy.

"It's their fight. It is not only not our fight, but it SHOULD NOT be our fight and we should not vote for a President who wants to make it his fight."

I'm glad that FDR and Reagan didn't see things that way. Isolationism doesn't work. Whether or not you are looking for trouble, trouble is always looking for you.

I wonder how much awareness of HBD presidential candidates tend to have.

If any candidate will understand HBD even a little bit, It's Romney. At least he doesnt believe in incentives for illegal immigration, meaning he *may* understand the damage that ethnic minorities are doing to this country. He also is not afraid to go after China, which is a semi-nationalist position. I think at heart he's an old-fashioned conservative, who wants America to go back to the values it once had.

There is NO evidence that pro-illegal immigration Gingrich and Perry, and pro-violent felon voting rights Santorum understand the ethinc threat to the Republican party and to America.

I want to read the book myself, but really, none of the stuff you cited sounds particularly ground-breaking. I'm sure you'd hear the exact same talking points about the caliphate and Honduras and China in some book by Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity or Laura Ingraham or some other generic conservative talking-head.

I still support Romney, but beyond the economic matters I really don't get the impression he's a guy with particularly big ideas or unique insights. I think he's the classic "follow from the front" politician, who's very keen on the ways the winds are blowing at any given time, and learns to effectively ape the language of the moment. Right now, that's a particular vien of Tea Party / Fox News / Christian Right populist-conservatism. But it'll be something else by the end of his presidency, I'm sure.

I don't doubt Islam's ambitions, I doubt it's collective IQ and therefore can't think of it as an existential threat to the US. They just don't have enough smart people to 'take over' America. Random Islamic thugs should be dealt with using total brutality, that's all.

I like what Lee Siegel says about Romney being such a White candidate (Siegel uses it in a bad way). Romney does harken back to a 50s White America. So, maybe if Romney can make voting for him in some way, voting for 50s White America, he could win. I doubt he'll do that of course, but he could stress middle class behavior, familiy, and honorable conduct.

"I'm glad that FDR and Reagan didn't see things that way."

The analogy is false. It is not 1941 or 1981. Muslims in Europe in 2011 are not the same as the Nazis or the Soviets. The threat of invasion by powerful states is not the same as the threat of mass immigration, and do not require the same response. Europe needs no help from us today to control Muslim immigration and make Muslim immigrants behave. Europe only needs the will to do so. If they lack it, we cannot provide it for them.

"Isolationism doesn't work."

Not wanting or needing to intervene in every fight everywhere is not isolationism. Not every fight is our fight. If the Spanish, Portuguese and other Europeans are too supine to prevent Muslim immigration or to make Muslim immigrants behave, then it is hardly our job to put a spine in the Europeans. We couldn't do that if we wanted to, and furthermore we _should_ not do that. It is not our job to dictate immigration policy to other countries (or any other internal policy for that matter).

"Whether or not you are looking for trouble, trouble is always looking for you."

The last time trouble genuinely came looking for us was 1812.

Mitt Romney for president?

The comments to this entry are closed.