Mitt Romney's candidacy

Hobin

Yes, that's what I'm saying.

It is of course possible that these people are using a definition a fundamentalism that doesn't have a negative association. For example, a definition of fundamentalism widely used by religious people who are being accused of fundamentalism is "staying close to the fundamentals", or something similar - in other words, without invoking the problematic aspect of irrationality. However, this is not the meaning of the word fundamentalism as it is commonly used. And, as we all know, the meaning of a word is determined by how most people use it.

In essence, these people are simply using an incorrect definition of the word fundamentalism.

SHISHKABOB

What is the definition of fundamentalism that you are using? I am using the one on wikipedia.

I can understand that, to a person who values reason, fundamentalism would be considered to be a bad thing. However, to a person who values the ideals of fundamentalism, fundamentalism would not be a bad thing. The values of fundamentalism that I am talking about come from the wikipedia page on fundamentalism.

Are you of the opinion that the view of reason is correct and the view of fundamentalism is correct, regardless of whether you personally value reason or fundamentalism?

In other words, are you saying that you believe in an absolute morality?

In my opinion, believing in absolutism in this sense leads to conflict with people who have differing opinions on the specifics of the standards of whatever absolute morality they believe in. This is why I do not think that a person like Romney, who apparently opposes fundamentalist Islam, is a good choice for a president, because he would end up conflicting with those people instead of possibly ending up with a good compromise.

If someone is going around saying "Fundamentalists are bad!" then how can we have peace when there are fundamentalists out there?

Hobin

The thing is that everyone is reasonable when it comes to their daily activities. You don't expect 'X' to suddenly mean 'not X'. Or, for a less alien example: when changing a flat tire, you're using reason to determine the best course of action. The problem is not that fundamentalistic people have a certain set of beliefs, but that one of these beliefs is 'reason does not apply to our set of beliefs'.

I may very well be wrong, of course. Although I have never met anyone who didn't care that their beliefs were unreasonable (in other words, though people may have held fundamentalist beliefs, the people I met always believed they were being reasonable, as opposed to 'reason does not apply'), I cannot be sure that no one has. Maybe I've just been very lucky. Though, to be perfectly honest, I don't see what can be gained by arguing about whether reason should be valued or not. After all, such an argument would require the use of reason. I kind of expect people to value reason. Silly me.

I don't see how this should be a problem. That's what diplomacy is for.

Let's assume for the moment that I am the president of the United States. Personally, I'm opposed to fundamentalism of any kind - and thus also to fundamentalism in Islam. Does this mean that I would end up angering a whole bunch of people because of my opposition to their beliefs? Of course not. The fact that I disagree with people does not mean I will oppose them whenever they can - after all, these people still affect the rest of the world with their beliefs. You don't need to be neutral to their beliefs to see that a good compromise is better than making a lot of people very angry. This has much more to do with tact and diplomacy than with my own beliefs.

Thus, as for your question "how can we have peace when there are fundamentalists out there", the obvious answer is that being against fundamentalism does NOT mean I want to 'kill them all', or something equally barbaric. Can't I simply disagree, while still being nice to fundamentalists?

(The question remains whether Romney is capable of such tact, of course. I know too little about the man to argue one way or another.)

Evo

Let's drop this please and get back on topic. We're waiting for jduster to respond.

ThomasT

It isn't just Romney's religious affiliation that troubles me. It's his adherence to the corporatist status quo -- the ideals and practices of big corporation, big money politics. Which are certainly good for a tiny minority of Americans, but, imho, not good for the country as a whole.

Romney would, imo, be the sort of president who would seek to maximize the influence of the most wealthy and powerful, thereby minimizing the influence, and freedoms, of lesser players.

lisab

OK I admit it, my inner adolescent giggled at this...

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/a...170357495.html

mheslep

I don't know about the old man, but there does appear to be a tendency towards gag's with his offspring.

Matt Romney Schwarzenegger pranks the old man

Jimmy Snyder

The question of who will go to the convention with the most delegates is no longer an interesting one. It long ago shifted to whether Romney will get 1144 before the convention starts. Santorum's message is not that he can defeat Romney, it's that if you vote for Santorum, you are really voting for brokered convention and a Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, or Marco Rubio to be drafted. There's something in that. Romney doesn't poll well against Obama.

On the other hand, Romney's message is that if you vote for him, he can stop running negative ads against Santorum, and start running negative ads against Obama. Positive ads being considered a waste of money any more.

ThomasT

Ok, the Romney nomination thread will be closed soon. Then we'll have the Romney vs Obama thread. Oh, how exciting.

mheslep

Recently.

lisab

Given that, it'll be interesting to see Romney's choice for running mate.

Jimmy Snyder

Here's a history showing that Romney has not been polling well against Obama for some time now.
Romney Vs Obama - historical

Click on "See All General Election: Romney vs. Obama Polling Data" to get older results.

mheslep

Yes I know, and Romney was actually pulling ahead of Obama before the primary blood baths started in earnest.

SHISHKABOB

You mean that little dip thing in the middle around 9/09/11? I'm not sure I'd call that "pulling ahead".

Jimmy Snyder

Not according to the data I linked to. And that goes all the way back to April of last year. Which month do you find Romney pulling ahead in?

mheslep

September, October 2011. Then came the primary fights in earnest.

mheslep

Great Romney response on the stump. No attempt to pander.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...for_obama.html