• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Who is Mitt Romney Conning?

What was NARAL again? I forgot.
 
From a GOP point of view, this should justifiably be a deal breaker. However, Romney is still the only candidate they have with broad enough appeal to oust Obama and since the primaries have been moved up, the GOP doesn't have time to find anyone else. I'm betting Romney gets the nod no matter what comes out about his past.
 
Q: will hardcore conservatives ever get it through their thick heads that they are a relatively small minority, and as such, will never get a hardcore conservative elected as President?

This is something liberals figured out a long time ago; a harcore liberal is not going to win the presidency, so we take the best we can get.
 
Who is Mitt Romney conning? Every moron who thinks he is a conservative or moderate that's who.

...or the Republican party out of any shot at the White House in 2012 given he is the only electable Repub still in the race and still polling over 5%.
 
Q: will hardcore conservatives ever get it through their thick heads that they are a relatively small minority, and as such, will never get a hardcore conservative elected as President?

This is something liberals figured out a long time ago; a harcore liberal is not going to win the presidency, so we take the best we can get.

That is their problem in a nutshell. It seems that many conservatives these days live in neighbourhoods where the majority of their neighbours think like they do, they go to churches where the vast majority of the members think the way they do, they watch news programs that simply preach to the choir, and they read books that affirm their personal views.... In their insular world they don't seem to get that their views, especially on social issues, are in the minority just like the views of hardcore liberals are. They don't get that most people are much more nuanced in their views than they are. In the end, most people are moderates.
 
Q: will hardcore conservatives ever get it through their thick heads that they are a relatively small minority, and as such, will never get a hardcore conservative elected as President?
This has nothing to do with voting for a moderate. Romney is no moderate, he is a liberal and he is literally lying about the positions he supports in order to try to be president. Liberal positions are liberal positions period.
 
...or the Republican party out of any shot at the White House in 2012 given he is the only electable Repub still in the race and still polling over 5%.

Trying to prop up a RINO didn't work in 08 didn't work for the GOP.So why would propping up a bigger RINO work in 2012 for the GOP? Its like saying hey using hay didn't work in putting out that fire, lets use gasoline this time to try to put that fire out.
 
This has nothing to do with voting for a moderate. Romney is no moderate, he is a liberal and he is literally lying about the positions he supports in order to try to be president. Liberal positions are liberal positions period.

Again, Romney isn't anything. He just says whatever he thinks he has to say in order to get elected.
 
Trying to prop up a RINO didn't work in 08 didn't work for the GOP.So why would propping up a bigger RINO work in 2012 for the GOP? Its like saying hey using hay didn't work in putting out that fire, lets use gasoline this time to try to put that fire out.

Conservatives aren't propping these guys up. They are F*CKING them up. They are forcing them to take extreme positions in order to get nominated and those same positions make them unelectable in a general election. If McCain had just been McCain instead of sucking up to the far right, he probably would have won. Except, of course, he couldn't have been nominated if he hadn't sucked up to the far right.... See the problem?
 
Conservatives aren't propping these guys up. They are F*CKING them up. They are forcing them to take extreme positions in order to get nominated and those same positions make them unelectable in a general election. If McCain had just been McCain instead of sucking up to the far right, he probably would have won. Except, of course, he couldn't have been nominated if he hadn't sucked up to the far right.... See the problem?
Are you kidding? Obama would have won against any Republican Candidate.
 
Are you kidding? Obama would have won against any Republican Candidate.

Had McCain been the same McCain of 2000 he would have won.

Instead he moved to the Neocon spectrum and as such was tarnished with the GWB legacy.

The only reason Obama won was because GWB made the republicans seem so idiotic.
 
Are you kidding? Obama would have won against any Republican Candidate.

I think McCain could have won easily if he hadn't flip-flopped on so many issues, picked Palin as his running mate, and botched his response to the financial crisis so badly. If he had eliminated two out of those three he probably still could have won.
 
Had McCain been the same McCain of 2000 he would have won.

Instead he moved to the Neocon spectrum and as such was tarnished with the GWB legacy.

The only reason Obama won was because GWB made the republicans seem so idiotic.
No, they wouldn't. People didn't vote for Obama, because McCain was too right. They voted for Obama, because of Bush, and Obama was black.

In fact, if he was more moderate, he would probably lose even more because he would lose votes from the right.

I think McCain could have won easily if he hadn't flip-flopped on so many issues, picked Palin as his running mate, and botched his response to the financial crisis so badly. If he had eliminated two out of those three he probably still could have won.
No chance what so ever. If you think Mccain could win, then you didn't understand the general mood of the country. If he didn't pick Palin as a running mate, he probably would have to pick a boring candidate. That would kill his campaign.

Who are they going to vote for? A boring old republican with questionable ties to George W. Bush. Or a young inspiring black Democrat who want to change the country.
 
Also, although Sarah Palin approval rating dropped. She didn't drop that much among Republicans, because guess what? They got their news from Fox News.
Sarah Palin's Poll Numbers Down, But Path To GOP Nomination Not Out

In fact, even though Sarah Palin was terrible. I don't think it hurt his campaign that much, compared to what would have happen if he picked anyone else.
 
Also, although Sarah Palin approval rating dropped. She didn't drop that much among Republicans, because guess what? They got their news from Fox News.
Sarah Palin's Poll Numbers Down, But Path To GOP Nomination Not Out

In fact, even though Sarah Palin was terrible. I don't think it hurt his campaign that much, compared to what would have happen if he picked anyone else.

You're dead wrong. See, everyone -- not just Republicans -- gets to vote in a general election, and many people, including many Republicans, voted against McCain (not for Obama) because of his shockingly stupid decision to pick Palin as his running mate. He could have taken it if he had picked Joe Lieberman. He would have won back the many independents and even Democrats.

And of course McCain destroyed himself by running against his own record. People liked him because he was a maverick, but he ended up toadying to the far right.
 
Last edited:
You're dead wrong. See, everyone -- not just Republicans -- gets to vote in a general election, and many people, including many Republicans, voted against McCain (not for Obama) because of his shockingly stupid decision to pick Palin as his running mate.

And of course McCain destroyed himself by running against his own record. People liked him because he was a maverick, but he ended up toadying to the far right.
This is only propaganda from the Republican political establishment, and you got fooled.

But, I will give you some proper evidence. Do you remember Bob Dole? He was a moderate, seemingly the perfect candidate, and went against Bill Clinton who had about 55% in approval ratings. He lost big time. Obama had approval ratings in the 70s, bush had a approval rating of 20%. He would crush any Republican candidate, even a Reagan.
 
Trying to prop up a RINO didn't work in 08 didn't work for the GOP.So why would propping up a bigger RINO work in 2012 for the GOP? Its like saying hey using hay didn't work in putting out that fire, lets use gasoline this time to try to put that fire out.

Well...in 2008 McCain had to face off against not only Obama, but an incumbent Republican president with approval ratings in the low 30s. That's not a problem Romney will face. It's very likely that Obama will be blamed if economic problems continue next year.
 
I think McCain could have won easily if he hadn't flip-flopped on so many issues, picked Palin as his running mate, and botched his response to the financial crisis so badly. If he had eliminated two out of those three he probably still could have won.

No, it just wasn't in the cards for McCain to win in 2008. And no tactical campaign decisions would have substantially changed that fact. Any mainstream Democrat would have beaten any mainstream Republican in 2008, regardless of what kind of electoral strategies they pursued, period.
 
Conservatives aren't propping these guys up.

Republicans are propping up these RINOs.Conservatives are sick of republicans trying to prop up RINOs.Again Nominating a RINO in 08 didn't work, nominating a bigger RINO will not work.As I said before it amounts to saying hey this hay didn't put the fire out, lets use this gasoline this time to put it out.

They are F*CKING them up. They are forcing them to take extreme positions in order to get nominated and those same positions make them unelectable in a general election.

There is nothing extreme about being pro-2nd amendment, being against illegal immigration, thinks climate change is something that occurs naturally, thinks marriage is something that is for only a man and woman, against legalized abortion as a means of birth control and a whole bunch of other issues.

If McCain had just been McCain instead of sucking up to the far right, he probably would have won.

Being a RINO is why many did not vote for him.

Except, of course, he couldn't have been nominated if he hadn't sucked up to the far right.... See the problem?

HE got nominated because of the idiots who listened to the media and the GOP and voted for a RINO.
 
Comparison of health care plans by the two most similar candidates:


A Tale Of Two Health Plans: Romney Versus Obama

"Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney appears to be headed into the 2012 GOP presidential primary season as the consistent, if not overwhelming, favorite for his party's nomination.

But there remains great discomfort among a wide swath of party members over the striking similarity of the Massachusetts health care reform legislation Romney signed in 2006 as governor, and the federal health care overhaul President Obama put his signature on last year.
President Obama, surrounded by lawmakers and guests, signs health care insurance legislation during a ceremony in the East Room of the White House on March 23, 2010.
Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images

President Obama, surrounded by lawmakers and guests, signs health care insurance legislation during a ceremony in the East Room of the White House on March 23, 2010.

While Romney has alternately distanced himself from and taken credit for the Bay State law, his role in what former opponent Tim Pawlenty called "Obamneycare" could be a major obstacle to winning the GOP nomination."

"Similarities

* Both have individual mandates that impose a tax penalty on people who have the financial ability to buy insurance but don't. Federal penalties start at $695 annually, or 2.5 percent of income, whichever is higher. In Massachusetts, penalties range from $228 to $1,212, depending on family size and income.

* Both require health care "exchanges" (in Massachusetts, the exchange is called the "connector") designed to create a competitive health insurance market that gives individual and small business consumers a choice of private plans, rules that facilitate price comparison and plan transparency.

* Both leave intact employer-provided insurance systems — Medicare plans for the nation's seniors, and Medicaid for poor and low-income citizens.

* Both would fine companies that don't offer employee heath insurance, with exceptions for small businesses. Massachusetts requires companies with more than 10 employees to offer insurance; the national law sets the limit at 50 employees.

* Both provide subsidies to low-income individuals and families to help pay for health insurance coverage.

Differences

* The federal plan has a stated goal of attempting to lower health care costs; Massachusetts had no such stated goal.

* The federal plan includes a patients' bill of rights, and provisions designed to promote public health.

* The federal plan includes the so-called CLASS Act, a voluntary insurance program offered to workers for long-term care in the event that they become disabled when they get older. (The Obama administration last week delayed the program's rollout because it isn't financially self-sustaining as designed.)

* The federal plan would expand Medicaid to cover poor, able-bodied adults who are not parents in addition to poor children, elderly, pregnant women and those with disabilities. The Massachusetts plan expands Medicaid coverage to more children.

* To pay for the new coverage, the federal plan imposes taxes on a variety of sectors, from drug and medical device makers to health insurers. Massachusetts relies largely on federal matching funds."
 
Back
Top Bottom