That's because he's Sx lastOriginally Posted by Kim
That's because he is soulless.
That's because he's Sx lastThat's because he is soulless.
Or just a clueless rich guy.That's because he's Sx last
“Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
― Anais Nin
That's because Obama isn't very bright and can't think well on his feet.Poor obama got pounded in that debate.
… He looked like he was hurting.
He thought well on his feet just fine, he just didn't attack the way he could and should have. It was a tad uninspiring.
“Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
― Anais Nin
Let's call it a draw and say he's bothOr just a clueless rich guy.
also yeah I only a bit of the debate, but Romney was very much on offense.
Last edited by Galen; 10-04-2012 at 04:09 AM.
Absolutely!
“Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
― Anais Nin
My god I recorded the debate and started it and I can't watch it after the opening statements. Why does watching these things actually physically hurt me?
Moonlight will fall
Winter will end
Harvest will come
Your heart will mend
Romney is 1, 3, 6, or 8. I try not to focus on him or politics in general, but he definitely isnt 2, 4, 5, 7, 9.
"From MensHumor Twitter:
Watching the political #debate… It's like watching two shoes argue over which one gets to kick me in the balls."
3w2 so/sp
Durrrrrr
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Obama looked tired...so fuckin' tired...
And he had teh better points.
What the fuck
^ People keep saying that he was probably tired or unprepared, but to be honest, I kind of expected this to happen. Obama's not done well as a President. The economy is in the shitter and Romney, being a superb businessman, is the perfect candidate to take down someone who has shown they don't know what they are doing. Obama can't use his tactics to sway people away from the facts. He has a track-record now and it hasn't been a very good one.
In terms of a shallow interpretation based only on that debate, I sort of agree with Starfall; that seemed like socionics supervision.
How insightful.
At 2:33 mins through the following video clip it is mentioned that Mitt & Ann Romney have not engaged in a serious argument in 43 years together so I am inclined to think that they are a duality pair above all else.
Her with strong& he with strong
.
Of course they "have not," as if a serious argument is even bad, but it doesnt matter, since it is a part of their culture to be looked down on for such a thing.At 2:33 mins through the following video clip it is mentioned that Mitt & Ann Romney have not engaged in a serious argument in 43 years together so I am inclined to think that they are a duality pair above all else.
Her with strong
I didn't watch the debate, but I'm not surprised by reports of Obama's lackluster performance—it's typical for him to become awkward and bumbling anytime he has to speak unscripted. I remember glimpsing it back in 2008 during some 1-1 personal interviews that aired; his 2008 campaign PR team did a magnificent job projecting an image of him as a dynamical charismatic figure he isn't, but certainly an old bloated senile goof like McCain wasn't going to blow open any convincing holes in that.
I am surprised by reports of Romney's apparently stellar performance. Didn't know Robo-Mormon had it in him; I figured he'd be too squishy and milquetoast, amounting to little more than McCain II albeit younger and sharper looking.
Blood sports.
NOT TYPE-RELATED!!!My IEE mom watched the debate and told me that she finds Romney "very attractive".
She was mesmorised by his.
“Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
― Anais Nin
Actually Obama is known to do well in debates, both in terms of knowledge and delivery, which is why last night seemed so bad. However, he did have solid answers, facts, and figures, just his demeanor seemed very off. He didn't attack and he didn't engage. The reason why people are so surprised is because last night was out of character.
“Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
― Anais Nin
Romney did well because he kept lying and lying. It's fuckin' easy to make a point when you're creating facts out of air.
Those seem like good observations. I find this thread interesting and my first guess for Romney who I have watched very little of is also LSE. Part of that is much based on what I know about Mormons. I think Mormonism is a tough place to be an "N" because the theology is so ridiculous. Scratch the surface and there is nothing there. Just a whole lot of empty phrases. I think any NF who realizes the fallacies of the theology would flee. And S does not need to go so deep, so they can exist there, nodding at the general platitudes and immersing himself inthe organization and the busy, busy, busyness. And since it is his family religion, it makes sense he is there and S would help him stay.
Also, from my experience, being a SJ makes a great Mormon. Its is the perfect religion for an ESxJ. It is a religion of great busyness. And for a man to be a Mormon "bishop", as Romney was (and a Mormon "bishop" is what the rest of us call a local pastor or minister, but the Mormons are very organized and have many work/service requirements of all their members so they have a lot to coordinate) and keep a full-time job you really have to love organizations and hard work, and being a J type who fulfills many tasks. It is also a great postion for someone who likes to be admired for his accomplishments. Because the whole community (when you are a Mormon your church, or "local Ward" is your whole community) will look up to you and rather idealize you. You are on display in all you do, and so is your family. If you can be a "perfect-looking family" - nice wife, perfect looking kids in proper dress - and you are in that visible role, you really are a local "star"..
So, having not followed much of Romeny - I watched one special with interviews - I also think LSE, especially since he is a Mormon.
They all lie. None of them are genuine. Elections are just a matter of who's less worse.
.
Last edited by mfckr; 12-25-2014 at 02:19 AM.
.
Last edited by mfckr; 12-25-2014 at 02:19 AM.
Well it's not a causal relation obviously. I think part of what threw Obama off is that apparently Mitt ran for the middle in the debate and said he thought a lot of things were alright that in primary mode he'd demonized and outright rejected, like Dodd-Frank or that he wouldn't cut taxes at all for the wealthiest, that the ACA isn't all bad, etc. But to get back to the accusations of lying a few factcheck things I read seemed to point to Mitt as being far more exaggerative with the numbers (unemployment, health insurance, the deficit) and flat out making up a few things (clean energy 'facts'). Obama had some on his side to be sure, but it's the difference between rounding created jobs from 4.6 mil to 5 mil (although that difference appears to be from him already adding jobs that will be added through to next year) and Romney saying that 20 mil would lose health insurance (estimates are more on the order of 3-5). That's a cherry picked example of course, but numerically Romney felt pretty comfortable expanding the numbers in his favor by significant orders of magnitude.
Facts aside (because really most people seem to not care about those things) Romney was just swinging away trying to chop at Obama's lead going into the debate so he came off as a very assertive, knowledgeable candidate that's no longer some ultra conservative but transmogrified into a 'moderate republican willing to reach out to democrats'. It's a rough sell for me. If he won the election I couldn't tell you for the life of me which man would have made it in.
Moonlight will fall
Winter will end
Harvest will come
Your heart will mend
ENT*
He wants to keep the military large... why I have no idea, since we're broke; but if he gets elected and starts another war I'm going to be pissed.
Ok so after lots of thought I've decided this is how this goes. MITT ROMNEY is LSE and his wife is SEE so you might ask how can this work. Well, he's of the type where he needs to follow the right way and the mormon church spells out what the right q ay of doing things is especially in relationships so he follows this. Second, they are wealthy enough to not depend on each other as much so they can live almost near separate lives. Third, they have to have a clear division of things that they can have influence on or division of responsibility. How about fulfillment. It may be somewhat stale but as long as thwy are convinced that they are doing what they are supposed to be doing then they exist that way.
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
LSE 3w4 and possibly sp/so
Are you sure? Tell me what you know about George Bush Sr? Do you think he was a bad guy? Do you even know what gossip is?
The mind is restless and difficult to restrain, but it is subdued by practice
-Krishna
Hey, I remember this. I actually believed people would judge Obama based on poor performance. Then I learned his poor performance was blamed on the Republicans for making a difficult financial debt situation to begin with. And I learned people hated Romney for being conservative and changing his stance to liberal to appeal to more voters. So I guess people thought a Republican would be like a worse evil or something, a conservative that will enforce conservative ideas and make the finances decline at an even worse rate through war-mongering, I guess I don't know.
Man, honestly, why do politics have to be so god damn complicated? Why can't we just put people in temporary power to fix specific problems that they are good at dealing with, leave them with only that and then let them go, and stop the ideology wars? Because it's so annoying when fixing problems gets put on hold because people are worried about what ideologies are going to be implemented in the background. It's like shit, stuffs messed up, fix it, then have ideology wars, then argue and play power games. ($18 trillion debt now)
/rant
Oh yeah, his type. I dunno, I just remember thinking Te during the election.
LSE E3 sp/so. The boring type.
Obama Outperforms Reagan On Jobs, Growth And Investing
“Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
― Anais Nin
LSE E3w2
First of all, posting an ad from a website that has a huge Liberal bias doesn't make me think the article is impartial, especially when it says things like "Simultaneously the current administration has reduced the deficit, which skyrocketed under Reagan." They haven't even tried to tackle the deficit; the plan has always been to continue borrowing money and they have never deviated from that. At this point, Obama's borrowed nearly $9 trillion since 2008, which is way more than Reagan did. So I don't even,,,
Second of all, besting Reagan isn't much of an accomplishment, nor does it mean that the alternative is to do what Reagan did. It's not and this is a false dichotomy, which makes the argument pointless to begin with...but to humor you,
The article doesn't specify how everything they claimed has happened. It doesn't talk about what kind of jobs have been created or include how the economy has shifted or what percentage of people are under-employed and why, what developments grew and why, etc., etc. This article is mostly generalizations without any meat, backed up by statistics that don't specify what the statistics are even based upon... And I'm just supposed to believe it because they have pretty charts, nice numbers, and simply say so?
Would you date him? Lol
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
would you date him if you were single?
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
You are not supposed to do anything. It is a perspective (one of many) and it is a bit more informative than simply stating that his performance is poor.First of all, posting an ad from a website that has a huge Liberal bias doesn't make me think the article is impartial, especially when it says things like "Simultaneously the current administration has reduced the deficit, which skyrocketed under Reagan." They haven't even tried to tackle the deficit; the plan has always been to continue borrowing money and they have never deviated from that. At this point, Obama's borrowed nearly $9 trillion since 2008, which is way more than Reagan did. So I don't even,,,
Second of all, besting Reagan isn't much of an accomplishment, nor does it mean that the alternative is to do what Reagan did. It's not and this is a false dichotomy, which makes the argument pointless to begin with...but to humor you,
The article doesn't specify how everything they claimed has happened. It doesn't talk about what kind of jobs have been created or include how the economy has shifted or what percentage of people are under-employed and why, what developments grew and why, etc., etc. This article is mostly generalizations without any meat, backed up by statistics that don't specify what the statistics are even based upon... And I'm just supposed to believe it because they have pretty charts, nice numbers, and simply say so?
“Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
― Anais Nin
Uhm, is this a trick question? No, I wouldn't, but not just because our types would be very incompatible, but more so because he's way too old for me and a Republican.
Do you fancy him
He makes me want to vomit. I saw him talk about how he did some marriage counseling years ago and he would shame the people (mostly the woman) into following his rules that had nothing to do with their personal issues. He didn't even take the time to listen to them or understand them as people, what they want out of life, what their personal values and instincts told them was right for them. There is no inner guidance for him, you are only supposed to follow some rules someone else made up. Period, even if they don't make sense to you personally or your situation. All this is presented with his weird fake smile, and "perfect" persona. People like him scare me in a way... So is this Delta? I thought Delta was live and let live? He is a "live by the rules I think should live by" person...
there's nothing informative in that article. It's makes generalizations, but doesn't back them. I at least stated a fact about the debt and how it's been rising steadily and almost doubled since Obama's been in office, something that the article flat out denies. This indicates a financial problem, that the money hasn't been invested properly, which does indicate poor financial performance.
For example, if I had a business plan and asked you to let me borrow your money, you'd expect your money back and some over some period of time. The idea is to give me money so that I can create more money with what you gave me. However, instead of paying any of that money back, I keep asking for more of the same money, spending it, and then requiring more money to stay afloat. After awhile you're going to stop lending me money and realize I have no idea what I'm doing, but only after you've lost all the money that you gave me. It's poor investing when I can't provide any return on your investment because it means I'm not producing money from the money you've given me. I'm simply spending that money and while you let me borrow money, I will have plenty of income and everything will be fine, at least until you stop giving me money and then I'm screwed, there would be a depression. That isn't financially stable and it certainly isn't good financial performance. The bottom line is there is no plan to actually pay back the debt.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote