• 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.

Today's Republican Debate - Mitt Romney vs. Mitt Romney

Dav said:
I'm no Romney fan, but a bunch of those supposed "flip-flops" seemed like kind of a stretch. Like when he said the economy "needs stimulus" and they tried to paint it as him supporting the specific stimulus bill that Obama signed, which isn't what he said at all.

EDIT: Also when he said he wasn't there to talk about Ohio's collective bargaining law, he never at any point indicated that he was against it. He just didn't want to talk about it at that particular moment. Another non-flip-flop.
Click to expand...

Taking quotes out of context is a primary pillar of the art of making political ads.
 
The stupid thing is there's definitely ways to attack Mitt for both being a flip flopper and his actions with masscare, the issue is however HOW they have gone about it. The sad thing is, the political add will likely work despite the blatant lie (or at best, misrepresentation) because it plays into the stereotype tha surrounds him and most people won't research it any farther.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Taking quotes out of context is a primary pillar of the art of making political ads.
Click to expand...

Pointing this out to only one side would be hypocrisy however, which is why I pointed this out in this thread. I don't care for Romney, but I think it is effective to attack him for what he does say and believe, in context. This whole "the other side does it so we should do it" mentality is shameful.
 
Redress said:
Pointing this out to only one side would be hypocrisy however, which is why I pointed this out in this thread. I don't care for Romney, but I think it is effective to attack him for what he does say and believe, in context. This whole "the other side does it so we should do it" mentality is shameful.
Click to expand...

The way I see it, political messaging is all about propaganda and other such bullcrap, so expecting political ads to not contain bull**** is like expecting a chicken to give live birth. I personally don't identify with the DNC or even particularly strongly with the Democratic Party, so I don't see this as an "us and them" kinda thing. It's all bull**** and we shouldn't expect it to be anything less.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
Of course its trivial. You called my post out for not sourcing the differences between the two plans when one of those differences was obvious common sense and one was in your article. I didn't have anything to respond with BUT triviality because it was ridiculous in the first place for you to respond condenscendingly about my lack of "sources".
Click to expand...

If you don't want people to condescend to you you should perhaps try to be less of an arrogant prick. So again, claiming that one was a state plan and other a federal plan ws assinine when that was the very point of the comparison. And I still haven't seen any reference to support your claim about senior benefits. I assume you're referring to the HCR bill's reduction of Medicare provider payments, which isn't really part of HCR but rather a continuation of a '97 Medicare reimbursement measure.

Your own source stated otherwise. And what did you say concerning your source....
Click to expand...

Fair.

"In Massachusetts, a fund of approximately $700 million, known as the Uncompensated Care Pool (or "free care pool"), was used to partially reimburse hospitals and health centers for these expenses and the expenses of non-residents.[11] The fund was created through an annual assessment on insurance providers and hospitals, plus state and federal contributions. It was predicted that implementation of the Massachusetts health reform law would result in a decrease in expenses incurred in providing services to the uninsured, as the number of covered Massachusetts residents increased. In 2006, an MIT economics professor Jonathan Gruber predicted that the amount of money in the "free care pool" would be sufficient to pay for reform legislation without requiring additional funding or taxes."

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_health_care_reform

Elsewhere Gruber explained that half the money for Romneycare came from existing state taxes: Romney Healthcare Adviser: ObamaCare Based Off RomneyCare | RealClearPolitics

From the same link: "John McDonough, one of the other advisers,who work in both Massachusetts and advised the White House said 'it's the Massachusetts with three more zeros.' And that's basically a good description of what the federal bill did."

So I'm confused, in one post you ridicule me for my stance sighting with great reverence you're source, and in the next moment you basically are saying your source is full of it.
Click to expand...

The first cite from Gruber was pretty emphatic about the similarity between Romneycare and Obamacare, which I really haven't seen contradicted anywhere. He didn't go into the tax issue in any detail.

Again, this is a blatant lie. He stated a number of things from it could be used on the federal level which is different than stating that the entirety of it could be used as a model. This is, once again, you taking your opinion and stating it as fact to then be able to claim unquestioned hypocrisy and flip flopping.
Click to expand...

And around and around we go. Saying that Romneycare could be a model doesn't imply that it could or should be implemented in every particular. What is a model? In this context is a reference for something else -- something similar. In this case, something astonishingly similar.

What you PERSONALLY think matters roughly jack and **** to what was actually stated when you're wanting to talk about the truth of the matter.

I actually agree with you, or more I agree that if he felt it was more popular to be in favor of it that Romney would be in favor of it and that his disapproval of it has nothing to do with principles. However, to state that he "supported Obamacare" is simply a lie, flat out, its a lie. He supported something, on a state level, that was similar to Obamacare and of which he felt that parts of it could work on a federal level.

Seriously, that's as "mostly true" as me saying that Obama wants to ban people from owning firearms.
Click to expand...

In other words, you think that he did flip flop, which I believe is the whole f*cking point of the exercise.
 
StillBallin75 said:
The way I see it, political messaging is all about propaganda and other such bullcrap, so expecting political ads to not contain bull**** is like expecting a chicken to give live birth. I personally don't identify with the DNC or even particularly strongly with the Democratic Party, so I don't see this as an "us and them" kinda thing. It's all bull**** and we shouldn't expect it to be anything less.
Click to expand...

I can concoct a short message attacking Romney that would be both effective and completely factually correct. While I accept that there will be some dishonesty in political advertising, I see no problem with pointing it out and condemning it across the board.
 
To an extent I can see Stillballin's point. I don't really get massively heated about Ad's from either side unless its just way, way over the top. I expect it from politicians and while that's a sad thing, its also just the pragmatic side of me to accept it. I'll comment when others comment on it, such as this, but I don't generally lead a rallying cry of it. Its just such a systemic issue
 
Zyphlin said:
Is Romneycare identical to Obamacare, or not? If it is not, then attempting to equate them as identical in terms of support for one being interchangable with the other is dishonest.

Did he say Obamacare could be a model for other states, or did he say Romneycare would? If its the later, then attempting to dishonestly say he stated it about Obamacare is just that, dishonest.

Is it possible to support something on the state level and not on a federal level? If so, then pointing out his support for something on the state level and automatically assuming he supports it at a national level is dishonest.
Click to expand...

Since Obamacare is based on Romneycare, I don't see the difference.
 
danarhea said:
Since Obamacare is based on Romneycare, I don't see the difference.
Click to expand...

Our method of government was based on the works of Thomas Paine, so we must be set up identically to how Thomas Paine thought government should be. The movie Rudy was based on the Notre Dame Football team, so the reality must be identical to the movie since it was based on it. The automobile was based on the cart and buggy so cars must be exactly the same as a horse drawn carriage.

Something being based on something does not mean they're the exactly the same thing. To say support for one thing equals support for another thing it would require those two things to be completely identical.
 
Zyphlin said:
Our method of government was based on the works of Thomas Paine, so we must be set up identically to how Thomas Paine thought government should be. The movie Rudy was based on the Notre Dame Football team, so the reality must be identical to the movie since it was based on it. The automobile was based on the cart and buggy so cars must be exactly the same as a horse drawn carriage.

Something being based on something does not mean they're the exactly the same thing. To say support for one thing equals support for another thing it would require those two things to be completely identical.
Click to expand...

Well, since we're so deferential to Politifact here, perhaps we should have them weigh in?

"Obamacare was patterned after (Mitt Romney's) plan in Massachusetts." Politifact: TRUE!!

PolitiFact | Pawlenty says Obamacare is patterned after Romneycare
 
Where did I ever say it wasn't patterned after Romneycare?

Yes, it was. Yes it was extremely similar. Indeed, I actually stated three times in this thread that they were very similar.

Zyphlin said:
Its true to say they're "extremely similar", and a matter of opinion to say they're "essentially identical"
Click to expand...

Zyphlin said:
[Masscare was] something similar [to Obamacare] on a state level.
Click to expand...

Zyphlin said:
He supported something, on a state level, that was similar to Obamacare
Click to expand...

So where exactly did you get the idea that pointing out that they're similar or that Obamacare was patterned after Masscare was going to be some shock to me?
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
This video deals a huge blow to Romney's campaign:



In spite of what this video shows, I still believe that Romney is the only candidate that has even an outside chance against Obama, which speaks volumes to what the Republican Party has become. Romney and Ron Paul are the only candidates running who are not bat**** insane. Paul doesn't have a chance against the GOP party machine, and Romney is.... well, Romney. See for yourself on the video.
Click to expand...


Hopefully this knocks his ass out of the race.No one calling themselves a conservative should vote for a RINO like Mitt.
 
MrMindSpeaker said:
most of the video was taken out of context just like they all do during the campaigns.

my self i changed my mind on abortion to many times to count over the years, thats a tuff one.

everyone changes their mind about something when new or better arguments are presented.

i remember Obama hammering Hilary in the debates about her mandate for health care. what did he do made his own mandate, they all do it
Click to expand...

Seeing how is he is trying to do a 180 from being liberal Massachusetts governor to now a conservative one has to assume that his changes are not legitimate but merely a ploy to become president. A lot of people change their mind over a few issues here and there, but this is more than just a few issues.
 
Zyphlin said:
Our method of government was based on the works of Thomas Paine, so we must be set up identically to how Thomas Paine thought government should be. The movie Rudy was based on the Notre Dame Football team, so the reality must be identical to the movie since it was based on it. The automobile was based on the cart and buggy so cars must be exactly the same as a horse drawn carriage.

Something being based on something does not mean they're the exactly the same thing. To say support for one thing equals support for another thing it would require those two things to be completely identical.
Click to expand...

No they are not identical... but they are very similar, and in one respect - the inclusion of a partial public option - Romneycare is arguably even worse. No, it did not raise taxes, but it led to spending rates that required later tax raises, and I don't see that as being any different. The rest of the bill, even its main architects agree that it's extremely similar. Same economy-killing regulations and idiotic price-controls.

Now, all of this would be fine if what Romney's been saying is true, that it was a Massachusetts-centric problem, not meant to be applied elsewhere, and that it's an improvement on the system that came before it. However, he was clearly very proud of the bill, going so far as to include a copy of it in his gubernatorial portrait. And he never, ever made it seem like a state-only concern until it became politically necessary to do so. The killer is that he has endorsed using the plan - sorry, "aspects" of the plan (whatever that means) - elsewhere in the nation, and clearly thought it was a good plan that held up in its own right, not just for MA, but universally. Given the government-expanding nature of the bill, it really puts his supposedly fiscal conservative instincts into question.

I don't hate Romney, in fact I think he may be the least-bad candidate running for office right now and might end up voting for him just to keep the crazies out (unless, unlikely as it seems now, Huntsman catches on). But this is a huge stain on his record - even bigger than his various social-policy flip-flops (most of which aren't as bad as people make them out to be) - and conservatives should remain suspicious of him for it.
 
Call me a flip-flopper (or maybe.....not).....I like the Mitt Romney of a decade ago....can't stand the one now. If I could vote for the old Romney I would, however, the re-invented Romney that is trying to attract the right-wing GOP of today is not the same guy....
 
The ridiculous thing is that it's Romney's No. 1 achievement in government, and something he SHOULD be proud of. Thanks to Obamneycare, 98% of MA residents are covered by health insurance. In a recent poll, 62% of MA residents said they were favor of it to just 21% against.

Romneycare’s Rising Popularity in Massachusetts | FrumForum
 
AdamT said:
The ridiculous thing is that it's Romney's No. 1 achievement in government, and something he SHOULD be proud of. Thanks to Obamneycare, 98% of MA residents are covered by health insurance. In a recent poll, 62% of MA residents said they were favor of it to just 21% against.

Romneycare’s Rising Popularity in Massachusetts | FrumForum
Click to expand...

That's the thing about UHC. Everyone talks down on it, but, as far as I am aware, where it exists people tend to love it more than hate it (with Hawaii being perhaps the exception to the rule since I have heard it did not perform well there).
 
whysoserious said:
That's the thing about UHC. Everyone talks down on it, but, as far as I am aware, where it exists people tend to love it more than hate it (with Hawaii being perhaps the exception to the rule since I have heard it did not perform well there).
Click to expand...

I think that the opposition to HCR is primarily the result of an effective attack campaign by Republicans and entrenched interests. When people are polled about the individual components of the law they generally like them. Then you put them all together and call them Obamacare and it's the worst thing since New Coke.
 
MrMindSpeaker said:
most of the video was taken out of context just like they all do during the campaigns.

my self i changed my mind on abortion to many times to count over the years, thats a tuff one.

everyone changes their mind about something when new or better arguments are presented.

i remember Obama hammering Hilary in the debates about her mandate for health care. what did he do made his own mandate, they all do it
Click to expand...

Maybe that should be Romney's campaign slogan, "They all do it." LOL
 
AdamT said:
That fact that he said that Romneycare could be a model for a national plan, i.e. Obamacare, has everything to do with the ruling.
Click to expand...

can you show evidence of him saying it would be a model for a national plan?
the only thing i remember him saying is it a state plan and not a national plan!
 
jamesrage said:
Seeing how is he is trying to do a 180 from being liberal Massachusetts governor to now a conservative one has to assume that his changes are not legitimate but merely a ploy to become president. A lot of people change their mind over a few issues here and there, but this is more than just a few issues.
Click to expand...

i think thats a fair claim, but one really dosnt know the motive. so when deciding to support him or not if he does happen to be the nominee, people will then have to choose to believe it or not. i strongly feel most republicans and independents will not hold too much weight in that charge!
 
danarhea said:
This video deals a huge blow to Romney's campaign:

[video=youtube;K9njHHyRI7g]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=K9njHHyRI7g[/video]

In spite of what this video shows, I still believe that Romney is the only candidate that has even an outside chance against Obama, which speaks volumes to what the Republican Party has become. Romney and Ron Paul are the only candidates running who are not bat**** insane. Paul doesn't have a chance against the GOP party machine, and Romney is.... well, Romney. See for yourself on the video.
Click to expand...

The romney unit is actually a very effective flip-flopper, which it had to be in order to function as both MA governor and as a GOP candidate. Furthermore, it (supposedly) doesn't require ethanol or alkaloids to keep it running, unlike its competitors.

The Wall St. firms that purchased it definitely got their money's worth. It will be sometime before it's refurbished and re-sold or junked.
 
MrMindSpeaker said:
can you show evidence of him saying it would be a model for a national plan?
the only thing i remember him saying is it a state plan and not a national plan!
Click to expand...

"I think there are a number of features in the Massachusetts plan that could inform Washington on ways to improve health care for all Americans"

-- Mittens Romney
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom