Mitt Romney Was A Bully

[JenniferJuniper]

Do you think those anti-gay-rights blacks will side with Obama because he's black? Or do you think they're more likely to side with Romney, who, despite being another race, is anti-gay like they are? Having a black or white president doesn't improve their standing in this country, nor does is lower them, but one will be more likely to abide by their wishes of keeping gays fro having rights. Or are we supposed to believe they'll vote for the black make because he is racially seen as one of them?

African Americans traditionally vote heavily Democratic regardless of whether a candidate is white or black. One issue that has little to no impact on the lives of non-gay people is not going to suddenly change that.

[Dhani_C]

You chose your religion. If a friend of mine or my daughter chose a religion that said all women who have babies out of wedlock are hell-bound and that gays should be stoned to death and was vocal enough for us to know about it, we would not have that person in our home. You chose your religion, and you've chosen to publicly align yourself with that religion. Why are you making sure others know your religion before they know you as a person? Because your religion and its teachings are important enough to you that you want them to know that right off the bat. This is your decision.

I've had close Mormon friends, and you know what? Making sure I knew their religion came down the line. They let me get to know them as people first because that was more important than what church or temple they attend.

You make sure that one of the first things people know about you is your religion. My friends make sure people get to know them first.

Don't whine about the choices you make. Don't whine if you choose to share choices you make that you know are controversial because of the people those choices condemn. Between standing up for gay rights (people can't choose their sexuality) or coddling you for your religion (which you chose), you're going to lose, especially when the first impression you make sure to make is what your religious beliefs are.

You are making a lot of assumptions about me. My religion usually does come up fairly quickly in a friendship not because I bring it up but because people figure it out on their own. The moment they offer me coffee, alcohol, or tea and I decline, that's when they usually ask and I respond honestly. With Romney essentially being the nominee it has come up a lot more often because I correct people when they say something about the church or have an honest question.

[treemom]

You may not choose your race or gender, but it still influences your actions and thoughts/beliefs. The majority of my black friends voted for Obama because he was black. Many of my female friends voted for Hillary because they believed they owed it to her as a fellow female.

Don't buy it.

[treemom]

The fact is they ran to the media and did not consult Mitt about it or talk to the family privately. If it were my brother they were using as a political game piece I would be furious (as the sister of the victim is: [link=]http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/sister-of-alleged-romney-target-has-no-knowledge-of-any-bullying-incident/[/link]).

Why does that matter in whether it is truthful or not?

[Lily]

I'm not sure what is a more frightening prospect.

A: He's lying now and he does remember it as a significant event, and doesn't care enough to own up to it or admit it was horrific.

B: He's telling the truth or some form of the truth, and he really doesn't remember it as a significant event, indicating that either this kind of incident was common enough that one specific one doesn't ring much of a bell, or even if it wasn't a frequent occurrence, he has so little conscience that it didn't stick out enough in his memory to realize the gravity of the act.

Either way, it doesn't speak highly to Mittens' character.

Oh, and I was both a bullying victim and a bully myself at times. I recognize it and own up to it. Granted, I bullied because I was bullied severely myself and almost exclusively struck at people who tormented me, it was a natural reaction, but that doesn't make it right. If I knew where any of them were or ran into them, I'd apologize as best I could manage, considering what many of them did to me.

[formergothardite]

Dhani C - I'm taking a page from formergothardite - are you going to answer my question about whether or not you can be objective about Romney given that you're a practicing Mormon?

I've just gotten to this page and this made me laugh.

[formergothardite]

It is worth pointing out that '150+' years ago, people knew that slavery was wrong. The campaign against slavery had started in earnest over 200 years ago and other countries had banned the slave trade, and slavery and pretty much automatically freed slaves who set foot on their land. Anti-slavery movements in America were pretty big too.

In order to own slaves your ancestors, and others like them, had to actively ignore a whole avalanche of evidence that what they were doing was wrong so yes, it is fair to call them scumbags.

In the past it was culturally acceptable for white people to treat black people like shit. My ancestors that did so were scumbags. No way would I sit here and give them a benefit of a doubt for shoving black children off the sidewalks and threatening whole families just because it was acceptable at that time. Especially not if they giggled while talking about it years later.

Mitt is the asshole who strapped his dog to the top of the car, right? Dhani, are you going to defend that too?

[GolightlyGrrl]

I thought this article was interesting.

http://www.alternet.org/story/155401/wh ... age=entire

[silvia]

I thought this article was interesting.

http://www.alternet.org/story/155401/wh ... age=entire

Great column, thank you! I feel the same way. I would be much more inclined to forgive Romney if he had taken responsibility for having committed an act that was destructive by its very nature and spoken out against the inhumanity of such acts. Instead, he claimed not to remember the act, apologized "if anyone was hurt or offended" and passed up an opportunity to condemn bullying (which should be a non-partisan stand if ever there was one).

[Effie]

There is a woman from high school who bullied me (and others) back in the day who has sent me 2 different friend requests, both of which I clicked "not now". Maybe she doesn't remember, maybe she does, but either way we weren't friends then, and there is no reason to start now. No apology necessary, I just don't care enough to want to connect. Have to say I am surprised she does.

The same here. First I accepted, but when I didn't get an apology, I removed her (my bully). I didn't want her to be listed as a friend, when that was the least she was to me 10 years ago...

[breadprincess]

I think it's possible to be objective about Romney as a practicing Mormon. I'm a Mormon and I would NEVER vote for Romney, or any other Republican. Everyone in my family votes Democrat (my mom voted Republican ONCE in the 80s and we still give her crap about it). I think Romney is a flip-flopping scumbag who has no idea what it's like to be a member of the middle class or working poor, has the wrong views on women's reproductive rights and LGBTQ rights, abuses animals without remorse, and would do great harm to this country if he were elected. I'm voting for the same person I voted for last time- Obama. Romney may share the same religion as me, but I could never vote for a anti-choice, anti-queer candidate. I was bullied heavily in school, and was bullied specifically for being queer in high school, so this is just another mark against him in my book.

[OnceModestTwiceShy]

I think it's possible to be objective about Romney as a practicing Mormon. I'm a Mormon and I would NEVER vote for Romney, or any other Republican. Everyone in my family votes Democrat (my mom voted Republican ONCE in the 80s and we still give her crap about it). I think Romney is a flip-flopping scumbag who has no idea what it's like to be a member of the middle class or working poor, has the wrong views on women's reproductive rights and LGBTQ rights, abuses animals without remorse, and would do great harm to this country if he were elected. I'm voting for the same person I voted for last time- Obama. Romney may share the same religion as me, but I could never vote for a anti-choice, anti-queer candidate. I was bullied heavily in school, and was bullied specifically for being queer in high school, so this is just another mark against him in my book.

I don't want to get too personal or inappropriate, but I've wondered for a while now how you reconcile being a Mormon and being queer, not to mention pro-choice. Feel free to ignore if you don't want to get into it.

[breadprincess]

I reconcile it the same way a pro-choice or queer or BC-using Catholic would (just using Catholicism as an example because of these churches sharing similar views on many controversial subjects). I think it's possible to be part of an organization, or believe in a religion, but disagree with certain aspects of it. There are a lot more queer/pro-choice Mormons than most people realize, and mostly we try to work within the church structures to educate others about how we feel on these subjects. I recognize the good and the bad in my church, and hope that one day the leaders will become more accepting of the LGBT community and of allowing all women to have reproductive autonomy. Maybe it's because I don't live in Utah, but my church friends are all pro-LGBT-equality and many are in favor of women having access to freedom of reproductive choice (my bishop, for instance, supports Planned Parenthood in all of the services they provide except abortion). While I would never personally get an abortion I will fight tooth and nail for it to be kept legal for all women for any reason, even if my church teaches otherwise. I view it very much like I view growing up Lutheran- while I was active in the Lutheran church they didn't include LGBT acceptance as part of their doctrine, but I still attended and believed as a queer member anyway.

PS: Sorry if this isn't very coherent, my sleeping pills have kicked in for the night.

[OnceModestTwiceShy]

Thank you for your gracious answer. I had no idea there were so many progressive folks in the church.

[breadprincess]

No problem! And thank you for being so kind in your initial question and response, I was afraid that I would be disliked/pegged as a bad fundie on FJ because of my religion, so I'm usually afraid to post about it or even post at all, even though I'm a feminist, pro-choice, queer, etc. I do quite enjoy lurking here though. :)

[debrand]

In the past it was culturally acceptable for white people to treat black people like shit. My ancestors that did so were scumbags. No way would I sit here and give them a benefit of a doubt for shoving black children off the sidewalks and threatening whole families just because it was acceptable at that time. Especially not if they giggled while talking about it years later.

Mitt is the asshole who strapped his dog to the top of the car, right? Dhani, are you going to defend that too?

This. I can say and will say that my ancestors were scumbags if they owned slaves. People don't get a pass simply because they were related to me.

[Dhani_C]

In the past it was culturally acceptable for white people to treat black people like shit. My ancestors that did so were scumbags. No way would I sit here and give them a benefit of a doubt for shoving black children off the sidewalks and threatening whole families just because it was acceptable at that time. Especially not if they giggled while talking about it years later.

Mitt is the asshole who strapped his dog to the top of the car, right? Dhani, are you going to defend that too?

I agree that strapping the dog on the car was horrendous. They really should have put the dog in a kennel if it was getting sick on the road so much.

I also don't understand why people still think I'm defending Mitt. I simply offered another explanation as to why he (him, not me) may not have thought his behavior was in bad taste. I have said countless times that if he did do this then it is horrendous, horrible, and unjustifiable (my viewpoint on things) and he's a real jerk for participating in it.

I'm also done with this story as a whole. It's another attempt to side-step the real issues of the election which are jobs and the economy- two issues no one wants to talk about (both sides). I want to know where both candidates stand on these topics and that is how I will base my decision on who to vote for.

[formergothardite]

I don't see how anyone can treat another human like he did and not think it was a bad thing.

[Dhani_C]

This. I can say and will say that my ancestors were scumbags if they owned slaves. People don't get a pass simply because they were related to me.

My ancestors (i.e. their children at the time) came to the conclusion that slavery was wrong and freed the slaves on their plantations before the war ended once their parents died and they were able to legally do so. They also paid the consequences for their decision to own slaves by having their land seized by the Union and essentially forced to start over (everything, and I mean everything was taken from them). Later, my relatives were strongly involved in the civil rights movement for blacks in the 50s and 60s as well as the suffragette movement of the early 1900s.

They learned from their past as well all must do. I'm disinclined to call someone a scumbag if they have a truthful and honest reform after self-reflection that they then take action on (not to mention make restitution for their wrong-doing).

[Dhani_C]

I don't see how anyone can treat another human like he did and not think it was a bad thing.

No one is disputing that. What's being disputed is whether or not he actually did it and why he thought it was okay to do it if he did.

[debrand]

My ancestors (i.e. their children at the time) came to the conclusion that slavery was wrong and freed the slaves on their plantations before the war ended once their parents died and they were able to legally do so. They also paid the consequences for their decision to own slaves by having their land seized by the Union and essentially forced to start over (everything, and I mean everything was taken from them). Later, my relatives were strongly involved in the civil rights movement for blacks in the 50s and 60s as well as the suffragette movement of the early 1900s.

They learned from their past as well all must do. I'm disinclined to call someone a scumbag if they have a truthful and honest reform after self-reflection that they then take action on (not to mention make restitution for their wrong-doing).

Chances are, my ancestors owned slaves. Yes, those particular individuals were scumbags. I also know that some of my ancestors were very brave and stood for what was right. Neither the good nor bad actions cancel each other out.

What my ancestors did, good or bad, does not have to influence my beliefs as a human being. However, I won't glorify or excuse the bad behavior either.

My paternal grandfather asked that his DIL(my aunt) not look too far into his ancestry because she might discover something unpleasant. I've always found it odd that people would be ashamed about what long dead people did. Even if you discovered that your great great grandfather was a serial killer, that information would not say anything about you as a person.

Also, Dhani, you state that your ancestors set their slaves free at some point. Most slave owners did not willingly free their slaves so your story proves the point that people who owned slaves had a choice. There was controversy over owning slaves and your ancestors decided to stand for what they thought was right. Most slave owners did not do this. The same people who owned slaves were the ones to enforce segregation after the Civil War. By not calling people who owned slaves, scumbags, you are sort of down playing the good that your ancestors tried to do and lumping them together with the majority of slave owners.

[treemom]

No one is disputing that. What's being disputed is whether or not he actually did it and why he thought it was okay to do it if he did.

You are the only one disputing whether he did it. And I ask again, why is someone less truthful because they go to the media? I mean the dude is running for president, not America's Next Top Model. His character is pretty important. Going quietly to the family doesn't make a whole bunch of sense if you want people to know he was a bully.

(For the record, I don't think what you do or what you think in your teens and twenties is all that important, but the way you react to those things being brought to your attention when you are older is really important)

[Dhani_C]

Chances are, my ancestors owned slaves. Yes, those particular individuals were scumbags. I also know that some of my ancestors were very brave and stood for what was right. Neither the good nor bad actions cancel each other out.

What my ancestors did, good or bad, does not have to influence my beliefs as a human being. However, I won't glorify or excuse the bad behavior either.

My paternal grandfather asked that his DIL(my aunt) not look too far into his ancestry because she might discover something unpleasant. I've always found it odd that people would be ashamed about what long dead people did. Even if you discovered that your great great grandfather was a serial killer, that information would not say anything about you as a person.

By virtue of this, then, the little Duggarlings should all be their own person and not under mom and dad's control. The fact is, their parent's experiences have plagued them and caused them all to be part of an abusive organization that leaves them socially and financially crippled. Unless they have that moment of self-reflection to realize what their "beliefs" mean for them, it's unlikely they will change- and it's all because of the generation before them (i.e. JB and Michelle). Your past influences you in a big way whether you choose to see it or not.

Also, I never glorified my ancestor's behavior. I clearly stated it was wrong for them to own slaves. However, I am disinclined to call them scumbags because they had that moment of self-reflection to know that what they were doing was wrong and changed (and made restitution for their mistake by freeing their slaves, losing everything they had, and starting anew by campaigning for the rights of others).

Would everyone continue to call Josh a scumbag if he openly admitted his wrong-doings (i.e. doesn't own the car lot, doesn't own his home) and started anew by focusing on selling quality cars, allowing Anna to work if she so chose, and put his kids into public school?

[Alana Rickman]

I don't see how anyone can treat another human like he did and not think it was a bad thing.

This. If you do something like that to another person, and then you look back on your actions 50 years later and you DON'T feel bad about it, you are a bad person. At the very least, you would have to be some kind of emotionless robot to not feel remorse over your participation in something so cruel.

[Dhani_C]

You are the only one disputing whether he did it. And I ask again, why is someone less truthful because they go to the media? I mean the dude is running for president, not America's Next Top Model. His character is pretty important. Going quietly to the family doesn't make a whole bunch of sense if you want people to know he was a bully.

(For the record, I don't think what you do or what you think in your teens and twenties is all that important, but the way you react to those things being brought to your attention when you are older is really important)

I only dispute it because the family of the alleged has come out and said the story is factually incorrect (I posted a link to it earlier) and had no knowledge of the incident ever occurring. Also, the men only remembered the incident after reporters came looking for a story (I think this was in the story quoting the family, but if not I will try to find where I read that).

I just know that I personally would be appalled if something like this was brought it up without my family's permission as a character slam against a potential Presidential candidate. It's one thing if the family themselves brought it up- that's their right as their child was the victim. It's another for the people who said they were involved in the incident (all of whom are not being blasted and one of whom was not even present for the alleged incident as he had already graduated at the time it took place) to.

Also, if we are going to address character, why would anyone want a President in office who knowingly broke a law by taking illegal drugs and smokes? Or a President who committed adultery while in office (this could be said for two of our former Presidents)? Where do you draw the line on what good character is?

Also, I agree that reactions to events of our past are important. That being said, Mitt did not respond well to this incident. He should have taken it more seriously and used the moment to speak about the harmful nature of bullying.