Mitt 'Gaffe' Romney!

He was aptly described as a "wazzock" I believe - what a complete buffoon

It's frightening that this man may become the leader of the most powerful country in the world. Lets not overestimate the American people - after all they did elect George W Bush!

Cameron came back well with the "city in the middle of nowhere" remark!

Whoops! they're not taking it too well!

In the words of Corporal Jones from Dad's Army, 'They don't like it up 'em'

Oh well, what do you expect from a filthy-rich ultra right-winger steeped in a weird religion which treats women and gays poorly and has a racist history: a man with a history of destroying jobs: a man who plans to destroy Obama's Affordable Health Care Act and anything else that is good for ordinary people?

What would he know and understand about the civilised world?

Thanks for the link, jingle. Judging by the comments, the Americans view him in the same light as we do!

Joan Why don't you tell us what you really think of him?

I daren't, Absentgrana I really do have to be nice - not good to be rude!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19221182

Now he is trying to select a running mate. It was tough enough finding a Republican candidate. How to find a running mate who will bring something to the party without outshining the Candidate? Not a very prepossessing bunch (see link) and not a woman in sight. But oh dear - we should probably be glad Palin's star has waned a bit. Is the republican party ready for an Indian (as in subcontinent) or Cuban VP? - I somehow doubt it.

Sorry
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19221182

His only chance to beat Obama, imho, would be to select a good woman, but Condoleeza Rice wouldn't touch the job with a barge pole!!

So he's selected another middle aged white male right wing nasty.

Good.

A couple of years ago, while at a conference in The States, we were placed with a couple with whom we got on very well. They were lecturers / teachers, and we assumed they'd think like us. They assumed, I think, that our political stance was the same as theirs, and were prone to vituperative outbursts about Obama. Then, I referred, in passing, to Sarah Palin as "that dreadful woman" and I think they realised, but I was advised that she'd be a good replacement for Obama.

I had a peek at the wife's FB page; she posts the most provocative Romney /anti Obama promotional posters.

I find it so scary.

Scary is the word! We simply don't understand the conservative American mindset.

The way they seem to think that all aspects social justice and looking after the vulnerable are utterly appalling, while pushing religion at the same time, is incomprehensible.

I think that their imagined freedom is more important to them, than anything, though I feel utterly free here in Australia, and did so in England. Programs of social justice never seemed to cause the slightest dent in freedom. In fact it gives us more freedom - freedom to leave appalling jobs for instance, without the fear of starvation.

I just don't understand them.

It's the fact that they equate their brand of devil take the hindmost capitalism with Christianity that stumps me. Just shows, I suppose, that humans can rationalise anything.

I would argue that they're not rationalising. Justifying (in their eyes), but not rationalising. You couldn't hold Mormon beliefs if you were rational.

I suppose I mean constructing a coherent internal world, that is not full of contradictions. Is that not what rationalising means. It only means that it has to make internal sense?

e.g. 1. Other people have guns and may try to shoot me
2. If I have a gun, I can potentially shoot someone before they shoot me
3. Therefore I will be safer if I own a gun

OK. I see what you mean, I think. They can produce what seems to themselves like a logical justification for their beliefs. The trouble with internal rationalisations is that they don't usually stand up when subjected to the realities of the external world. So the gun argument doesn't hold up, for instance, when you look at the fact that where more people have guns, there are proportionally more injuries inflicted by gunshot and more deaths from gunshot wounds than in places where fewer people have guns. So not allowing any and everyone to carry a gun might actually help .

Try telling that to the gun lobby though. Sigh.

Yes, because not doing it leads to cognitive dissonance - an uncomfortable inner state.

We spent a few weeks travelling around the mid-west and found the people we met generous, hospitable and lovely. But incredibly naive and insular. They had the weirdest notions of the wide world generally and there's obviously a considerable fear culture. Many thought we were completely foolhardy to travel alone - and unarmed.

Cognitive dissonance. So now I know. I'm learning so much since I joined Gransnet!

And Joan, I agree, in Britain and Australia, because of the welfare support we have we are far freer than the USA. in a lot of ways even the Chinese have more personal freedom.

We , go to the States twice a year , all over the place, in fact every single state , we usualy drive about 4.000 miles and in all honesty have never felt afraid .

Neither have we, Nonu; our trips are lengthy and we love small town America. But there you meet people who have never left their town, let alone their county or state, and whose knowledge of the world beyond comes from, mainly, the TV news, which tends very much towards the parochial. And, if it's Fox news, towards the sensational!

So true , it also took us well me to twigg that when "The World " is mentioned on the news they actually mean the USA most of the time . I find the people really lovely , kind and helpful another thing they do is when you going to cross they actually stop to allow you to pass , whereas here most drivers would run u down as soon as look at you . Fox News do do a bit of Obama bashing which doesn"t really bother me that much , as I am fairly ambivilent about him , think I am divided between CNN and them . Anyway roll on Detroit in 4 weeks for 5 weeks stay . When are u next over there ?