• 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.

A Romney nomination almost assures Obama’s election.

I

I'm Supposn

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,819
Reaction score
281
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
A Romney nomination almost assures Obama’s election.

Many if not most Republicans were all opposed to Massachusetts Romneycare but then Governor Romney, Republicans and Democrats passed and enacted it. Romney was the liberal governor of a liberal state. Massachusetts voters will not repeal Romneycare.

Despite Republican leaderships’ opposition and a U.S. Supreme Court challenge, Romneycare is now federal law.

It’s conceivable that a Republican could be elected president in 2012, but in my opinion that cannot occur if Romney is nominated.
Romney is a chameleon with no core convictions. He’s was more liberal when ran and served as governor. He was a proponent and the governor that signed off on and enacted Romneycare.

I expect every Obama speech will begin, end, and within its main body mention and praise Romney for the exact model of federal Romneycare. He’ll make mention of it during every debate. Romney’s candidacy would leave the Republicans appearing to be illogical fools and will make Obama’s re-election more certain.

Romney is the choice of Republican leaders. It is my opinion that Ron Paul followers in particular will prevent Romney’s nomination on the first ballot. If Romney’s fails to be nominated on the first ballot, I don’t believe the Republicans will be so foolish as to nominate him.

Romney’s nomination would almost assure Obama’s election.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
I think the democrats (not Obama at first but his henchmen) will talk and talk and talk about Bain investments, outsourcing and tax returns. The fact that he will not release his taxreturns is bad news for the republicans.
 
Yes.

I agree.

The GOP has done a dog crap job of fielding a candidate.
 
I'm Supposn said:
A Romney nomination almost assures Obama’s election.

Many if not most Republicans were all opposed to Massachusetts Romneycare but then Governor Romney, Republicans and Democrats passed and enacted it. Romney was the liberal governor of a liberal state. Massachusetts voters will not repeal Romneycare.

Despite Republican leaderships’ opposition and a U.S. Supreme Court challenge, Romneycare is now federal law.

It’s conceivable that a Republican could be elected president in 2012, but in my opinion that cannot occur if Romney is nominated.
Romney is a chameleon with no core convictions. He’s was more liberal when ran and served as governor. He was a proponent and the governor that signed off on and enacted Romneycare.

I expect every Obama speech will begin, end, and within its main body mention and praise Romney for the exact model of federal Romneycare. He’ll make mention of it during every debate. Romney’s candidacy would leave the Republicans appearing to be illogical fools and will make Obama’s re-election more certain.

Romney is the choice of Republican leaders. It is my opinion that Ron Paul followers in particular will prevent Romney’s nomination on the first ballot. If Romney’s fails to be nominated on the first ballot, I don’t believe the Republicans will be so foolish as to nominate him.

Romney’s nomination would almost assure Obama’s election.

Respectfully, Supposn
Click to expand...


I doubt that Obama will thank Romney in his speeches, but it will come into play in the debates. Whenever Romney mentions ObamaCare, Obama will mention RomneyCare.
 
Romney has the nomination. No one else is going to get it. Paul's last gasp is over, he did not get enough delegates to even ensure a speaking part at the convention.
 
I'm Supposn said:
A Romney nomination almost assures Obama’s election.

Many if not most Republicans were all opposed to Massachusetts Romneycare but then Governor Romney, Republicans and Democrats passed and enacted it. Romney was the liberal governor of a liberal state. Massachusetts voters will not repeal Romneycare.

Despite Republican leaderships’ opposition and a U.S. Supreme Court challenge, Romneycare is now federal law.

It’s conceivable that a Republican could be elected president in 2012, but in my opinion that cannot occur if Romney is nominated.
Romney is a chameleon with no core convictions. He’s was more liberal when ran and served as governor. He was a proponent and the governor that signed off on and enacted Romneycare.

I expect every Obama speech will begin, end, and within its main body mention and praise Romney for the exact model of federal Romneycare. He’ll make mention of it during every debate. Romney’s candidacy would leave the Republicans appearing to be illogical fools and will make Obama’s re-election more certain.

Romney is the choice of Republican leaders. It is my opinion that Ron Paul followers in particular will prevent Romney’s nomination on the first ballot. If Romney’s fails to be nominated on the first ballot, I don’t believe the Republicans will be so foolish as to nominate him.

Romney’s nomination would almost assure Obama’s election.

Respectfully, Supposn
Click to expand...

I would help Romney's chances immensely if he would just let go of the Romney/ObamaCare issue. Its a web for him that will only serve to tangle him and make him easy prey for the Dems. He should be talking about the economy and other forward thinking issues. Every day he talks about legislation that has already been passed and upheld is a day that he does not talk about the economy and a day when he looks like a guy wallowing in the past, which is the opposite of leadership.

If the rest of the regressives are unable to let go of their objections to the ACA, let them argue that in their individual congressional elections. ACA is finally gaining traction; polls are showing people want to move on from this. If Romney wants to look like a guy with a vision for the future, he needs to steer clear.
 
upsideguy said:
I would help Romney's chances immensely if he would just let go of the Romney/ObamaCare issue. Its a web for him that will only serve to tangle him and make him easy prey for the Dems. He should be talking about the economy and other forward thinking issues. Every day he talks about legislation that has already been passed and upheld is a day that he does not talk about the economy and a day when he looks like a guy wallowing in the past, which is the opposite of leadership.

If the rest of the regressives are unable to let go of their objections to the ACA, let them argue that in their individual congressional elections. ACA is finally gaining traction; polls are showing people want to move on from this. If Romney wants to look like a guy with a vision for the future, he needs to steer clear.
Click to expand...

There are portions of that bill that are terrible. The reporting options and side taxes that are never talked about for instance. Do you really think we need to tax prosthetics and make them cost more for instance?

ACA is just making barriers to entry into business higher and also making hiring barriers higher. Those are two things we dont need right now.
 
OpportunityCost said:
There are portions of that bill that are terrible. The reporting options and side taxes that are never talked about for instance. Do you really think we need to tax prosthetics and make them cost more for instance?
Click to expand...

I assume you're talking about the tax on medical devices? If so, then yes, I do think we need it. Why do Republicans always think they can get something for nothing? This is a 2.3% tax on a segment that comprises just 1% of health care spending. It will offset the cost of ACA by about $30 billion over 10 years. The increased sales volume that device manufacturers will see as a result of ACA will offset most of the additional cost.
 
OpportunityCost said:
There are portions of that bill that are terrible. The reporting options and side taxes that are never talked about for instance. Do you really think we need to tax prosthetics and make them cost more for instance?

ACA is just making barriers to entry into business higher and also making hiring barriers higher. Those are two things we dont need right now.
Click to expand...

I could approach this two ways: 1) the don't throw the baby out with the bathwater argument, but that is an argument on the merits to the ACA.... another place and time for that; or 2) the political argument, that I attempted to articulate above, is this is poison for the Romney campaign (though the web metaphor is more apt) and HE (his campaign) should stay away from this issue and let those running for HR and Senate carry the water on this one.
 
A large percentage of the population is on the dole, one way or another. Unemployment, welfare, ADC, Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare and another 1001 programs.

There is no question as to wether Obusha is the free lunch president. Actually, I suspect Romney is another free luncher but his party makes noises that sound like they're opposed.

While to lower classes (sorry, I know thats not PC) are not dedicated voters, their sheer volume assures re-election of Obusha. In the middle, those dissatisfied with the last 4 years will be voting 3rd party rather than Repugnantcan, thus, by default, assuring Democrap victory.

((DISCLOSURE: I voted for Obusha because 8 years of that smirking, selfish jerk that preceded him made me desperate and Obusha seemed intelligent, and Clinton-like. What a disappointment this man has been. A weakling and a whiner.))
 
AdamT said:
I assume you're talking about the tax on medical devices? If so, then yes, I do think we need it. Why do Republicans always think they can get something for nothing? This is a 2.3% tax on a segment that comprises just 1% of health care spending. It will offset the cost of ACA by about $30 billion over 10 years. The increased sales volume that device manufacturers will see as a result of ACA will offset most of the additional cost.
Click to expand...

No it wont. What happens when you raise costs? Thats right, the producers raise prices.
People in need of prosthetics are covered under disability already they wont get increased sales volume from the bill.
Your post has a logic disconnect.
 
upsideguy said:
this is poison for the Romney campaign
Click to expand...

Nominating Romney is poison for the GOP hopes of winning control of the White House.

Any other Republican could successfully campaign against ObamaCare/RomneyCare. Mitt Romney can't.
 
OpportunityCost said:
No it wont. What happens when you raise costs? Thats right, the producers raise prices.
People in need of prosthetics are covered under disability already they wont get increased sales volume from the bill.
Your post has a logic disconnect.
Click to expand...


In order to follow the logic of Mr T only one thing is necessary. All debate points have at their foundation that Obama must be defended. So from there, no need to say that no one today gets turned away from a hospital if he needs a heart valve. The thing that changes is who pays.

Again remembering what Mr T's basic point is it matters not that this hurts smaller, younger companies which are looking to ramp up sales with their better mousetrap. It also does not have to focus on the fact that if there is no competing device, the tax will simply get added in full or partially so the taxpayer will pay in the form of an indirect tax.

That is why, unless you remember to debate the underlying reason for debating Mr T then would will only frustrate yourself.
 
AdamT said:
I assume you're talking about the tax on medical devices? If so, then yes, I do think we need it. Why do Republicans always think they can get something for nothing? This is a 2.3% tax on a segment that comprises just 1% of health care spending. It will offset the cost of ACA by about $30 billion over 10 years. The increased sales volume that device manufacturers will see as a result of ACA will offset most of the additional cost.
Click to expand...

Have you ever seen a tax you didn't think we needed?
 
johnny_rebson said:
Nominating Romney is poison for the GOP hopes of winning control of the White House.

Any other Republican could successfully campaign against ObamaCare/RomneyCare. Mitt Romney can't.
Click to expand...

He does not need to. He has said repeatedly it's a state issue in which he believes in states rights. Obamacare is a power crab and yet another entitlement that is going to further increase our national debt, kill jobs, thus killing our economy. This flows right into Romney's campaign of the "it's the economy stupid"
 
johnny_rebson said:
Nominating Romney is poison for the GOP hopes of winning control of the White House.

Any other Republican could successfully campaign against ObamaCare/RomneyCare. Mitt Romney can't.
Click to expand...

Just have Mitt stay clear of the spider web aka as ACA, and he will do fine (assuming he can actually give us a vision of the future, which he has yet do to).
 
Born Free said:
He does not need to. He has said repeatedly it's a state issue in which he believes in states rights. Obamacare is a power crab and yet another entitlement that is going to further increase our national debt, kill jobs, thus killing our economy. This flows right into Romney's campaign of the "it's the economy stupid"
Click to expand...

Yep, he's said it's a state's rights issue ... and at the same time he says that the federal government needs to make sure that people with preexisting conditions can get insurance ... except not using that crappy Obamacare ... which is virtually the same as Romneycare. :2rofll:
 
upsideguy said:
Just have Mitt stay clear of the spider web aka as ACA, and he will do fine (assuming he can actually give us a vision of the future, which he has yet do to).
Click to expand...


Sorry, but we missed a golden opportunity.

Any other GOP candidate could have destroyed Obama in a debate on the issue of ObamaCare.

Romney can't because he created RomneyCare, the precursor of ObamaCare.
 
OpportunityCost said:
...........................................ACA is just making barriers to entry into business higher and also making hiring barriers higher. Those are two things we dont need right now.
Click to expand...

OpportunityCost, how so?
Respectfully, Supposn
 
johnny_rebson said:
And RomneyCare isn't?????????
Click to expand...

No matter what Romney says, he's proven that he will say anything and counter what he's said in the past... which is on video. With regards to this topic though, tie Romney's say anything untrustworthy mouth, combined with the fact that the MIT graduate that wrote Romneycare was hired by Obama to write Obamacare and the writer himself is out there saying "It's the same thing!"

There is no way Romney can win at all on the healthcare topic.
 
Born Free said:
He does not need to. He has said repeatedly it's a state issue in which he believes in states rights. Obamacare is a power crab and yet another entitlement that is going to further increase our national debt, kill jobs, thus killing our economy. This flows right into Romney's campaign of the "it's the economy stupid"
Click to expand...

Born Free, states’ and federal rights are not necessarily exclusive. In this case there’s no doubt the U.S. Supreme Court has decreed our federal government can legally enact Romneycare.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
OpportunityCost said:
No it wont. What happens when you raise costs? Thats right, the producers raise prices.
People in need of prosthetics are covered under disability already they wont get increased sales volume from the bill.
Your post has a logic disconnect.
Click to expand...

First, since you don't seem to be talking about the medical device tax, perhaps you can provide a link showing this supposed prosthetics tax?

Second, you are wrong about prosthetics being automatically covered by disability, as many prosthetics users would tell you:
Amputee Coalition - Amputees fight caps in coverage for prosthetics
 
Born Free said:
He, (Romney) does not need to discuss it, (Romneycare). He has said repeatedly it's a state issue in which he believes in states rights. Obamacare is a power crab and yet another entitlement that is going to further increase our national debt, kill jobs, thus killing our economy. This flows right into Romney's campaign of the "it's the economy stupid"
Click to expand...

Born Free, affordable medical insurance is entwined with the economy. Among major causes of personal bankruptcy are the medically uninsured or medical items not covered by insurance.

Other than the young that believe they’re immortal and hospital must treat them, it’s the working poor and the middle income earners having no access to affordable insurance that also use expensive emergency room facilities as their only access to medical care. These are the free riders that contribute to additional medical prices paid by all others.

Within every discussion of USA’s economy Obama can and should inject the need for Romneycare and our middle income earners’ population segment drifting into that of lower incomes and the working poor.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Last edited:
I'm Supposn said:
A Romney nomination almost assures Obama’s election.

Many if not most Republicans were all opposed to Massachusetts Romneycare but then Governor Romney, Republicans and Democrats passed and enacted it. Romney was the liberal governor of a liberal state. Massachusetts voters will not repeal Romneycare.

Despite Republican leaderships’ opposition and a U.S. Supreme Court challenge, Romneycare is now federal law.

It’s conceivable that a Republican could be elected president in 2012, but in my opinion that cannot occur if Romney is nominated.
Romney is a chameleon with no core convictions. He’s was more liberal when ran and served as governor. He was a proponent and the governor that signed off on and enacted Romneycare.

I expect every Obama speech will begin, end, and within its main body mention and praise Romney for the exact model of federal Romneycare. He’ll make mention of it during every debate. Romney’s candidacy would leave the Republicans appearing to be illogical fools and will make Obama’s re-election more certain.

Romney is the choice of Republican leaders. It is my opinion that Ron Paul followers in particular will prevent Romney’s nomination on the first ballot. If Romney’s fails to be nominated on the first ballot, I don’t believe the Republicans will be so foolish as to nominate him.

Romney’s nomination would almost assure Obama’s election.

Respectfully, Supposn
Click to expand...

James Carville gave the Bush Sr campaign some good advice back in 1992......It's the economy stupids! When election day comes, folks are going to ask themselves "Am I better off today than 4 years ago"? If yes they'll vote for Obama, if NO they'll vote for Romney. It's that simple. Myself, I know precious few who are better off today than 4 years ago. The economy will decide who is the next President.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom