The Game Changer?
6/1/12 16:17![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
rick-day.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpolitics
Well, it looks like Mitt Romney has been playing the "Selective Family Album" game and kinda/sorta/oppsies forgot to tell everyone he is 1/4 Mexican.
And just did why did Mitt's father flee Mexico for the safety of the US?
In his public life Mitt Romney has said and written little about his ancestors' history in Mexico. In one oft-repeated quote he said his family left the U.S. for Mexico to escape persecution for their religious beliefs.
In fact, Romney's great grandfather, Miles Park Romney, led that first expedition to escape not persecution but prosecution for polygamy, or what Mormons called ‘plural marriage.’
Well, this is rather awkward, from a race standpoint. So we have the Southern US. There is a strong showing of rather simple minded voters who are Crusading Voters for Christ and All Other Things White™.
Who they going to vote for. Mitt the Mex? Barrak the Magic Negro?
Or maybe that white guy Gary Johnson, the only real social liberal/fiscal conservative in the race.
God DAMN I love Southern Idiocracy.
Question: Game changer? If Mitt embraces his SOTB roots, will this swing brown skins to his camp? WILL ANYONE DEMAND TO SEE HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE?
ETA: This just in! Cain demands to know more about this polygamy thing! 
(no subject)
Date: 8/1/12 19:01 (UTC)The absence of those signs pretty much shoots down *your* position -- not mine.
But thanks for making my point for me in showing how much of a stretch your point was..
(no subject)
Date: 8/1/12 19:04 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/1/12 19:13 (UTC)You realize how ... interesting... your objections are. Especially to your OWN points
(no subject)
Date: 8/1/12 19:14 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/1/12 19:24 (UTC)WHO brought up religious persecution as some "meaningful" difference between Romney's family and Mexicans at the border. I believe that person was you.
Right now, may I recommend you straighten out your story of WHO said WHAT in the discussion right above... and then re-evaluate if *your* words should be a reflection on *you*.
(no subject)
Date: 8/1/12 19:44 (UTC)In fact, you were the one who made the equation. FACT: Romney's grandparents fled from religious persecution. You keep wanting to make hay out of a different kind of immigration as if they're at all comperable.
So yes, please straighten yourself out here.
(no subject)
Date: 8/1/12 19:51 (UTC)If you're going to be mad at someone bringing up false equivalence arguments, may I suggest a mirror?
(no subject)
Date: 8/1/12 20:10 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/1/12 22:38 (UTC)* Fleeing from the law, into another country to take refuge = Good
* Fleeing from bad conditions or live-threatening events, into another country for refuge = Bad
It seems the distinction only seems to be on *who* were talking about, and why it's a double standard.
(no subject)
Date: 8/1/12 22:55 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/1/12 23:01 (UTC)Sneaking across the border going South = GOOD
Sneaking across the border going North = BAD
**That** is what we're talking about.
I also like how you ignore people coming north to escape violence...escape being arrested by corrupt cops...to escape poverty
But the ONLY THING THAT MATTERS is that grandpa Joe, already in the U.S. and in violation of laws it had for years....had to run
I almost have to ask WHY you seem to only care about Prosecution of the family of the Republican, but not those "non-Romney's" coming NORTH?
It's the lack of concern of ALL the people that makes it a double standard. You keep putting a strawman of "religious persecution", except that's not the point....
(no subject)
Date: 8/1/12 23:06 (UTC)Sneaking across the border going North = BAD
**That** is what we're talking about.
"Sneaking?" The Mexicans welcomed them.
I almost have to ask WHY you seem to only care about Prosecution of the family of the Republican, but not those "non-Romney's" coming NORTH?
Why do you think I don't care? You know I'm pretty much an open borders advocate.
It's the lack of concern of ALL the people that makes it a double standard. You keep putting a strawman of "religious persecution", except that's not the point....
I swear, if you spent less time assuming the positions I hold, we'd get along a lot better. 75% of this is you assuming I'm somehow angry or apathetic about illegal immigration, which is solely based on some fantasy you have about me rather than fact.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 8/1/12 19:49 (UTC)People in Mexico, today, are often trying to escape
escalating violence, blatantly corrupt government and
officials who victimize them as badly as any criminal, and
increasing poverty.
THOSE people are deemed criminals, leeches, and talk of building a fence to keep them out gets applause
HOWEVER
Romney's family flee the US in violation of laws that had been effect for years beforehand -- and not only is "OK", but is even spun as "fleeing persecution" and talks of asylum come up.
People fleeing for their lives = BAD. SHOOT THEM. BUILD A WALL.
People fleeing for a second wife = Those poor people, they're victims.
Notice the inconsistency in your stance there Jeff?
(no subject)
Date: 8/1/12 20:12 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/1/12 22:39 (UTC)We're not talking the reasons...we're talking the REACTIONS of the GOP.
and again: You're now picking and choosing which breaches of the law and policy you're willing to overlook...while condemning others for doing the same.
DOUBLE STANDARD. Get it?
(no subject)
Date: 8/1/12 22:46 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/1/12 22:56 (UTC)Take your time... thanks.
(no subject)
Date: 8/1/12 23:03 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/1/12 23:26 (UTC)Or DID YOU FORGET about:
* Minuteman patrols
* Building walls in the desert
* Shoot on Sight slogans
* We cant afford them here
* They're taking our jobs
You focus on a straw-man ("religious persecution") and ignore that the GOP arguments Dont give a shit why people come over here and they HAVENT. To now suddenly make a big stink about persecution?? It's revisionist and dishonest to try to frame this as some long-standing principle of the GOP that doesnt make this hypocrisy.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 8/1/12 22:43 (UTC)http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/11/nyregion/reaganism-now-liability-for-giuliani.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
Note the Republicans who were **against** offering people asylum in this country.
Your thoughts Mr. "Show me a Republican against asylum"?
(no subject)
Date: 8/1/12 22:44 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/1/12 22:55 (UTC)has anyone on the GOP side been talking about asylum
and yet, you throw it into the mix. And then actually tried to use the *absence* of those issues on *your* side of the fence as proof that I was wrong????
I'm glad you finally admit you were wrong -- it's just it shouldn't have required a link to prove it, since many of us have followed the community long enough to already know the answer to it.
Next, I'll make sure I send a link proving the sun sets and rises in an approximatley 24-hour period along the equator...because otherwise how would anyone know?
(no subject)
Date: 8/1/12 22:58 (UTC)The point is there have been MONTHS of this conversation happening... and NOWHERE
has anyone on the GOP side been talking about asylum
Right, because it's not an issue. No one's talking about asylum because there's no need to talk about it.
and yet, you throw it into the mix. And then actually tried to use the *absence* of those issues on *your* side of the fence as proof that I was wrong????
I didn't throw it in - this post is about Romney's Mexican family past, a past that is inextricably linked to the Romney's fleeing religious persecution in the United States. There is no way to discuss the issue in regards to Romney without it.
I'm glad you finally admit you were wrong -- it's just it shouldn't have required a link to prove it, since many of us have followed the community long enough to already know the answer to it.
Oh, so now we don't need to prove our points? That's quite a change of tune from the whining you constantly do about my supposed style!
(no subject)
Date: 8/1/12 23:19 (UTC)YOU BROUGHT IT UP! Now, pointing out that *your* lack of a point somehow proves me wrong? It doesn't work that way...
I didn't throw it in
Yes you did. Because we weren't talking religious persecution -- we were talking about Double Standards of the GOP. Fleeing South so you can legally marry 2 or more women = GOOD. Fleeing North so you dont die in gang violence, starve to death, or go to jail for NOT paying a bribe = BAD.
Stop with the strawman argument. Even when your attempt to insert a non-issue backfires, you STILL try to act like the *absence* of your point means there is nothing to the conversation.
No - there was nothing to YOUR side of the conversation.
One more time so you'll get it: This is about Double Standards. If you were REALLY concerned about persecution it would have been brought up much sooner than now. But you haven't. In FACT, your fellow Republicans have argued **against** asylum for people fleeing persecution.
Face it. You're on the wrong side of the argument and your GOP buddies are inconsistent in their responses. Glad to clear that up for you...
(Who wants to bet he'll bring up "religious persecution" again even though it's NOT what we're talking about?)
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 8/1/12 23:29 (UTC)The GOP has not and does not give a shit as to WHY someone sneaks across the border -- yet you keep framing this false argument and reasoning that has been absent from the discussion.
Other people would call that "Revisionism", but I'll call that "Typical Jeff".
(no subject)
From: