The reverse Veep thread...

[Kerad]

I can understand how that might make you not want him to be the head of an animal shelter, but that really seems like a petty issue to not want him to be POTUS or VPOTUS over.

"He used poor judgement when travelling with a dog." Is that it?

"Hmmm....we're running out of room. Looks like we're going to have to tie something to the roof. Hmmmm...
Oh...I've got it!!!!"


It's a barometer of his decision making abilities and thought processes. If he was that stupid about something so obvious, imagine what he may decide when it comes to something "slightly more complicated".

 

[SamSpade]

:shrug: I thought you were implying it with this:

Didn't think "makes me wonder" translates into "won't vote for" or "unfit to be POTUS".

Truth is, he was my favorite up until I read this - and then I thought, that is kind of weird, in an LBJ hold the beagle by the ears kind of way.

 

[Larry Gude]

Oh...

"Hmmm....we're running out of room. Looks like we're going to have to tie something to the roof. Hmmmm...
Oh...I've got it!!!!"


It's a barometer of his decision making abilities and thought processes. If he was that stupid about something so obvious, imagine what he may decide when it comes to something "slightly more complicated".

...come on. People put the dog in the back of the pick up all the time, with ZERO protection. No big deal. There's a guy here in town that has a doggy seat on his motorcycle. Big deal. Anyone ever notice what dogs tend to do when they're INSIDE the car? That's right; stick their head out the window.

 

[chernmax]

It's a barometer of his decision making abilities and thought processes. If he was that stupid about something so obvious, imagine what he may decide when it comes to something "slightly more complicated".

....................... and NObama is the perfect wonderboy, you should follow NObama's lead and get off the COKE!!!

 

[SamSpade]

...come on. People put the dog in the back of the pick up all the time, with ZERO protection. No big deal. There's a guy here in town that has a doggy seat on his motorcycle. Big deal. Anyone ever notice what dogs tend to do when they're INSIDE the car? That's right; stick their head out the window.

Well that's why it wasn't a deal breaker for me. It just seemed stupid, for a 12 hour trip, to strap a dog carrier to the roof - if nothing else, the brown stuff should have been a red flag to thinking "damn - maybe we ought to let him out every few hours".

 

[Larry Gude]

Well...

Well that's why it wasn't a deal breaker for me. It just seemed stupid, for a 12 hour trip, to strap a dog carrier to the roof - if nothing else, the brown stuff should have been a red flag to thinking "damn - maybe we ought to let him out every few hours".

...I'm sure they did. No one drives 12 hours straight with kids. No one drives 12 hours straight, period!

Hell, how much different can it be than a horse trailer?

 

[MMDad]

It's a barometer of his decision making abilities and thought processes.

I see. Anyone who doesn't seatbelt their dog into a booster seat is unfit to be POTUS.

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

I really wish you were joking

And I thought nit-picking about letting muslims into the camera shot was petty.

 

[Kerad]

I see. Anyone who doesn't seatbelt their dog into a booster seat is unfit to be POTUS.

Most people would find a solution to this "puzzling dilemma" somewhere between the two extremes.

 

[MMDad]

Most people would find a solution to this "puzzling dilemma" somewhere between the two extremes.

So, is leaving the dog unrestrained in the back of a pickup more or less extreme than securing it in a carrier on top of a car? Which one is more likely to lead to injury or death?

 

[Kerad]

So, is leaving the dog unrestrained in the back of a pickup more or less extreme than securing it in a carrier on top of a car? Which one is more likely to lead to injury or death?

I wouldn't do either...especially for a 12 hour trip at highway speeds. And Romney didn't have to choose between those two alternatives...so the question doesn't really apply.

 

[SamSpade]

I do admit that early on, Mormonism played a part in not liking him. I mean, I'm not even always sure about Christianity - but Mormonism to me is like believing in The Force. And you wouldn't vote for someone who believed in The Force, would you?

Well you might if it could be shown they did a damned good job at doing their job. I'd hire a kid who believed in Santa Claus if he was great at programming and statistics.

Mostly.

 

[tiny_dancer33]

Oh my gosh, I'd forgotten about the dog thing entirely. That has nothing to do with the reason I don't like Romney, though, that's a petty thing to pick on. I don't like his fair-weather stances on a lot of things, choice, gun control, gay marriage, illegal immigration...I could go on. But that's just me.

Anyway, I think McCain would have a better chance if he could get someone besides Romney and Huckabee, they had too much opposition among voters, and he needs someone to make people fall in love with him, because right now I think they're mostly kind of indifferent, you know what I mean? For example, people pretty much either love Obama, or hate him (with some exceptions, I'm sure), but McCain most people just say "meh." He needs someone with serious street cred to bring in people's attention, whereas Obama needs someone with a little less exposure.

 

[SamSpade]

Oh my gosh, I'd forgotten about the dog thing entirely. That has nothing to do with the reason I don't like Romney, though, that's a petty thing to pick on. I don't like his fair-weather stances on a lot of things, choice, gun control, gay marriage, illegal immigration...I could go on. But that's just me.

Anyway, I think McCain would have a better chance if he could get someone besides Romney and Huckabee, they had too much opposition among voters, and he needs someone to make people fall in love with him, because right now I think they're mostly kind of indifferent, you know what I mean? For example, people pretty much either love Obama, or hate him (with some exceptions, I'm sure), but McCain most people just say "meh." He needs someone with serious street cred to bring in people's attention, whereas Obama needs someone with a little less exposure.

Sarah Palin - Alaskan governor - might be a good choice. She has the highest approval ratings for a governor - any governor - ever (often in the 90's).

I still think Bobby Jindal - governor of Louisiana - is a good choice.

That said, EVERY time I see Pawlenty - governor of Minnesota - he impresses me.

I haven't seen any other candidates for McCain VP that do anything for me.

 

[Larry Gude]

Why?

Sarah Palin - Alaskan governor - might be a good choice. She has the highest approval ratings for a governor - any governor - ever (often in the 90's).

I still think Bobby Jindal - governor of Louisiana - is a good choice.

That said, EVERY time I see Pawlenty - governor of Minnesota - he impresses me.

I haven't seen any other candidates for McCain VP that do anything for me.

I'd like to hear your argument for him.

 

[SamSpade]

I'd like to hear your argument for him.

Basically, I think you'd like him. Smart guy - graduated HS at 16. BS at Brown. Rhodes Scholar. Son of Indian immigrant parents. As such - pro-immgration, ANTI illegal immigration. State university president. Brought Medicare in LA from bankruptcy, to in the black. Won his congressional seat with 78 percent of the vote, 88% percent in re-election. Won governorship with 54% of the vote, and won in almost every parish. Since being governor. he pushed his ethics reform in two weeks. Frankly, if anyone can clean up Louisiana politics, they get an A from anyone. Limbaugh calls him the next Reagan. Pretty solid conservative.

His drawback? Same as Obama's. Short resume. Big on talent, short list of accomplishments. Biggest difference is, however, he's about 8 years younger than Obama and seems to have accomplished more.

My dad's sentiment is - good guy, let him speak at the convention, throw him back and let him run in '12. He'll win.

 

[Larry Gude]

Yeah...

My dad's sentiment is - good guy, let him speak at the convention, throw him back and let him run in '12. He'll win.

...see. I'm with your pops here. Clinton and W have cured me forever of voting for anyone much under 60 for the top spot. I just think there is a maturation that goes on once you've started slowing down some and you stop thinking you can do every damn thing and instead focus on a few big things, on clearing the path some so individual Americans can do their thing.

 

[MMDad]

I wouldn't do either...especially for a 12 hour trip at highway speeds. And Romney didn't have to choose between those two alternatives...so the question doesn't really apply.

The question does apply. You said most people would find something less extreme than putting the dog in a carrier on top of the car.

Most rational people see putting the dog in a carrier as being less extreme than the common practice of putting a dog unrestrained in the back of a pickup. I'm wondering which one you think is less extreme. Where do you draw the line?

Of course, I already know where you draw the line. He's not a liberal, so anything he does is wrong. If he put the dog in the car and it crapped on one of the kids, he'd be a bad dad. If he left the dog at home, he'd be heartless. If he put it in a kennel, he'd be contributing to the spread of dog diseases. If he held it on his lap, he'd be an unsafe driver.

 

[tiny_dancer33]

My dad's sentiment is - good guy, let him speak at the convention, throw him back and let him run in '12. He'll win.

I second that. A conservative candidate I could probably get behind.

I dunno, Larry has an interesting point about the maturity and pragmatism that you get from older candidates, but I still think that that can be reached before the age of 60. I support the trend towards younger candidates - why not make the average elected official of middle age rather than someone in their 60s, 70s, or 80s? That way they're not so young that they have no experience, but they're not completely out of touch with everyone under 50.

Of course, I might just be saying that because I'm young for the moment. Check back in 40 years and I'll let you know how I think then.

...And oookay, can we stop talking about the dog thing now? Pretty please?

 

[Larry Gude]

See...

I I dunno, Larry has an interesting point about the maturity and pragmatism that you get from older candidates, but I still think that that can be reached before the age of 60. I support the trend towards younger candidates - why not make the average elected official of middle age rather than someone in their 60s, 70s, or 80s? That way they're not so young that they have no experience, but they're not completely out of touch with everyone under 50.

Of course, I might just be saying that because I'm young for the moment. Check back in 40 years and I'll let you know how I think then.

...And oookay, can we stop talking about the dog thing now? Pretty please?

...the thing is in your late 40's, early 50's, Clinton, Gore, W, Obama, you've reached the peak of the balance between your physical vigor, your intellectual maturity, your world view and your ambition.

The dot.com bubble was pure vigor and ambition under Clinton that might not gotten away from from a more mature president concerned with what happens when the music inevitably stops. Same with housing and W. For people that age, at their peak, the music never stops. You just play a new tune. That mindset doesn't promote some of the stability many Americans simply need as we're not all prepared for whatever reason, to just keep on dancing. Illegal immigration is another one that needed a more mature, longer view of the impact on the general welfare. Having said that, Reagan kinda let it run free when he was at the controls, so, WTF do I know?

 

[Kerad]

The question does apply. You said most people would find something less extreme than putting the dog in a carrier on top of the car.

Most rational people see putting the dog in a carrier as being less extreme than the common practice of putting a dog unrestrained in the back of a pickup. I'm wondering which one you think is less extreme. Where do you draw the line?
...

I would never drive around with a dog in the back of a pickup...or on top of a car.

Again, the question is irrelevant when it comes to Romney. He did not have to choose between putting a dog on top of his car or in the back of a pickup. He had to choose between on the car or in the car.

Even an idiot would know to put the dog in the car. Out of room? Strap the freaking luggage to top of the car, and put the dog inside.