Mitt Romney's Lament

[Pontus Bosporia]

Hello everyone! I wanted to start a topic of conversation about somethings Mitt Romney has been saying over the last day or two on why he lost the election. I wasn't crazy about him but I dislike him less than Obama. I think some of Mitt's comments are more sour grapes than anything else but he says some things that really make sense.

He mentioned how Obama "bought" votes by giving a number of special organizations federal funding for some of their needs and projects. Apparently these organizations in turn rallyed to get the vote out and keep Obama in mind when they went to the polls. And, Mitt also mentioned about how our country is becoming a country of entitlements and we're becoming an "entitled society" at the expense of the upper middle class, the wealthy, and single taxpayers (of all income levels) who don't have dependents to claim.

He says that the lower income people of society voted for Obama because "he's giving them money" In other words, he's giving them more and more welfare. There's a lot of truth to that. Think about it for a minute. If you got entitlements or on any kind of welfare, would you honestly vote for someone who wants to continue giving you welfare or someone who wants to scale those things back? I think the answer is obvious. I was rereading something Teleskopia posted here from some newspaper article that says when people are on welfare, they shouldn't be allowed to vote. I agree because it is a conflict of interest. As more things come up, I'll post an update. What do you guys think?

[Sabastos]

Yah, I heard the same thing too. What the Republicans don't want to understand is that American society basically rejected their platform and the peoplw who represent it. A couple guys at work told me they used to be Republican but they can't identify with them anymore. They don't like the Dem's platform either so they're pretty much not being represented by any party. This is a very good case to form a third party that combines certain ideas for both, like the PC in Canada (and on here).

[The Ruescher Empire]

Lol good plug Sab It's the main problem with the American political system, no is willing to try making a third party. Why not have the Tea Party? It's a huge wing of the Republican party and by all means it could form its own. Or form a further left winged party, and so on. Honestly betting on the same 2 horses despite repeated failures is just a show of futility

[Yávaros]

This is something that I never understood with the US political system. You only really have two choices. If you cannot identify with one or the other, then you have problems. The US is a very big country. I cannot understand why they give the people so few choices. And the smaller countries in Europe, and even in Mexico, have dozens of politcal parties. This is very difficult to believe.

[Basileus Romanus]

Don't think people haven't made attempts to form a thrid party. Unfortunately, it must be part of the American mindset. It's probably related to the fact we won't get rid of the penny and we don't like dollar coins. That's why the mint and Fed still make pennies and dollar bills even though the cost to make them doesn't justify it. Maybe now the Grand Old Party will start to see they have to reinvent themselves. We need to go back where we were before during the 60s. Over the years they've snuggled up to the way right wing and some of those other religious groups so now the general public thinks we're a bunch of fascist bible bangers. That is the one of the biggest mistakes Reagan made. He invited all these ultra conservatives and religious kooks to be the Republican Party's poster children. Not good, not good.

[The Ruescher Empire]

Bas they haven't made a third party. The only time a new party takes hold is when one of the current 2 collapse (it has happened, remember the GOP use to be the left winged party ). But honestly the American mindset is a very much Us vs Them. It doesn't allow a middle position or alternative anymore. And honestly if you look at the political parties now (Dem/Rep) they are so varied its amazing they can agree on anything in their own parties. You compare a Republican from the North East with one from the South and you would think they were in opposite parties! Now Why don't they form their own party? Why stick with a party that doesn't represent people properly? I'm just throwing this out there, but it seems to me that the two party system makes it easier for sponsors to donate easier. I say take money out of US politics and see what happens. We did it in Canada and it works a hell of a lot better, no more corporate or union pandering (or at least not nearly as much)

[Tlatoani Azteca]

No, there've been third parties before and I think they even won an presidential election once. It was back in the 1800's. Us against Them? Maybe. But with how things are now people aren't just plain old black and white or one or the other. There has to be some kind of mid ground and I think it's going to happen in the next few years. Alot of people can't completely identify with one or the other.

[The Ruescher Empire]

People haven't been able to identify with either party for a couple elections now from what I've seen. People need to grow some balls in the US and take the leap to a third party.

[zain]

Thanks for your excellent story.