• 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.

Priorities ad ties Mitt Romney to cancer death

tessaesque said:
Surely you saw Stephen Colbert's series on how to circumvent the rules of Super PAC operation. It isn't beyond the realm of imagination to think that both Romney and Obama have a behind the scenes relationship with the heads of the Super PACs that back them.
Click to expand...

Again, Democrats opposed Citizens United and would like to see super PACs abolished tomorrow. Republicans fiercely support Citizens United and super PACs. It's hypocritical in the extreme to turn around and attack Democrats over what these abominations produce.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Translation: "Paid for by Priorities USA Action and not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee."
Click to expand...

What it really translates into, is that Obama's performance/policies have been so crappy, that Obama supporters know they have to talk about anything that will steer attetnion away from that.
 
AdamT said:
Again, Democrats opposed Citizens United and would like to see super PACs abolished tomorrow. Republicans fiercely support Citizens United and super PACs. It's hypocritical in the extreme to turn around and attack Democrats over what these abominations produce.
Click to expand...

Who did I criticize, exactly? I think it's funny that you say dems oppose and would abolish Super PACs, yet use them, start them, and donate to them on a grand scale in the mean time.
 
tessaesque said:
Who did I criticize, exactly? I think it's funny that you say dems oppose and would abolish Super PACs, yet use them, start them, and donate to them on a grand scale in the mean time.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately Democrats have no option but to use super PACs. Someone may oppose loose gun laws, but it's suicidal to bring a knife to a gun fight. And in fact, the reason Republican super PACs are bringing in so much more money than the Democratic ones is in large part that Democratic donors oppose super PACs.
 
AdamT said:
Unfortunately Democrats have no option but to use super PACs. Someone may oppose loose gun laws, but it's suicidal to bring a knife to a gun fight. And in fact, the reason Republican super PACs are bringing in so much more money than the Democratic ones is in large part that Democratic donors oppose super PACs.
Click to expand...

So we should exempt them from character challenges because they "have no other choice". Gotcha.

Also, prove the bold.
 
tessaesque said:
So we should exempt them from character challenges because they "have no other choice". Gotcha.

Also, prove the bold.
Click to expand...

No, that's not what I'm saying. What you should do is acknowledge that they don't speak for the candidates, as that is the legal justification the Court used to give them existence. In other words, it is hypocritical to support them on the basis that they are independent, and then turnaround and whine that they aren't really independent when they do something you don't like.
 
AdamT said:
No, that's not what I'm saying. What you should do is acknowledge that they don't speak for the candidates, as that is the legal justification the Court used to give them existence. In other words, it is hypocritical to support them on the basis that they are independent, and then turnaround and whine that they aren't really independent when they do something you don't like.
Click to expand...

And yet again, I have no idea why you're bothering to make a point that doesn't fall in line with anything I said. Did I say I supported Super PACs? Did I say I agree with how they're handled? Did I ever whine about anything? No.

So honestly, I have no clue what kind of point you're trying to make here, but my guess is that it's irrelevant.

As for your "they don't speak for the candidates 'cause the law says they can't" nonsense....well, it's just that. There are few checks in place and multiple means of manipulating the rules so that they do exactly that.
 
AdamT said:
Unfortunately Democrats have no option but to use super PACs.
Click to expand...

Ah, the old 'they made me do it' excuse. No, you are, as you are so often, incorrect. It is possible for a group to play the role of 'the bigger man'.

Here's the CNN video about this add. You know, that horrible right-wing organization CNN.

 
Jeeze....third parties making up ridiculous **** about someone that isn't truthful....I'm shocked this is happening....even ignoring the fact it happened in 2004 I'm amazing that unfettered political capital by non-associated third parties would dare lie!
 
Arbo said:
Ah, the old 'they made me do it' excuse. No, you are, as you are so often, incorrect. It is possible for a group to play the role of 'the bigger man'.

Here's the CNN video about this add. You know, that horrible right-wing organization CNN.

Click to expand...


That's just ridiculous. Democrats have the option of being the better man and losing, or doing the best they can to make it an even playing field so they can win and hopefully work to change these horrible rules.

How super PACs are saving Mitt Romney - The Washington Post
 
Bill Burton left the white house to start a super PAC as the election cycle began. He was an obama mouth piece and it is not unreasonable to assume he and obama made this decision together or at the very least Bill had his blessing so this PAC starts out by breaking the rules against collusion and communication with the candidate the PAC supports. It is also reasonable to assume obama keeps in communication with Bill and they share strategies in Romney attack adds. obama worshipers will say oh yeah, prove it. This is not a court of law , this is the court of public opinion and this chain of events and relationships although circumstantial evidence counts in this court. What obama needs to do to wiggle out from under this rock like the snake he is, is to apologize to Romney for this scurrilous untrue attack add made on his behalf. I won't hold my breath.
 
tessaesque said:
And yet again, I have no idea why you're bothering to make a point that doesn't fall in line with anything I said. Did I say I supported Super PACs? Did I say I agree with how they're handled? Did I ever whine about anything? No.

So honestly, I have no clue what kind of point you're trying to make here, but my guess is that it's irrelevant.

As for your "they don't speak for the candidates 'cause the law says they can't" nonsense....well, it's just that. There are few checks in place and multiple means of manipulating the rules so that they do exactly that.
Click to expand...

In other words, you think that the legal justification for super PACs is bogus and they should be abolished?
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Bill Burton left the white house to start a super PAC as the election cycle began. He was an obama mouth piece and it is not unreasonable to assume he and obama made this decision together or at the very least Bill had his blessing so this PAC starts out by breaking the rules against collusion and communication with the candidate the PAC supports.
Click to expand...

That is only "reasonable" in an alternate universe where evidence is unnecessary and partisan blather counts as proof.
 
tessaesque said:
Didn't say that either.
Click to expand...

No, you didn't, but it is the logical conclusion from what you did say. The Court justified super PACs because they are separate from the campaigns. You claim they are not really separate, ergo....
 
AdamT said:
That's just ridiculous. Democrats have the option of being the better man and losing, or doing the best they can to make it an even playing field so they can win and hopefully work to change these horrible rules.
Click to expand...

So you think it's not possible to win on merit and ideas? I see. And the excuses continue.
 
apdst said:
What it really translates into, is that Obama's performance/policies have been so crappy, that Obama supporters know they have to talk about anything that will steer attetnion away from that.
Click to expand...

Performance as compared to what other country? You do realize that the US is the fastest growing economy in the western world. Most of Europe is back in recession.
 
AdamT said:
No, you didn't, but it is the logical conclusion from what you did say. The Court justified super PACs because they are separate from the campaigns. You claim they are not really separate, ergo....
Click to expand...

And yet that still doesn't suggest or imply that I believe they should be abolished entirely. Leaps are not logic.
 
American said:
New ad ties Romney to cancer death - The Washington Post


So Romney caused this woman's death!! This is what Obama or one his PAC friends is pushing. Obvious Romney himself pulled the lever and injected this woman with cancer. The Stage IV cancer develop right after the husband lost his job.
Click to expand...

Romney's policies was responsible for this poor woman not getting the health care that could have saved her life. It's pretty clear cut. Romney does not care about hard working middle-class people. He cares about his own bottom line. Money is his God. And money doesnt care about you and me...
 
CONSagainROMNEY said:
Romney's policies was responsible for this poor woman not getting the health care that could have saved her life. It's pretty clear cut. Romney does not care about hard working middle-class people. He cares about his own bottom line. Money is his God. And money doesnt care about you and me...
Click to expand...

No, actually. Her being injured is what caused her to lose her job as a school teacher and then both of them decided to roll the dice by not buying into a COBRA. (First time I've noticed you on board, Con. Welcome.)
 
Arbo said:
So you think it's not possible to win on merit and ideas? I see. And the excuses continue.
Click to expand...

I think the reality is that the candidate with the most money almost always wins.
 
CONSagainROMNEY said:
Romney's policies was responsible for this poor woman not getting the health care that could have saved her life. It's pretty clear cut. Romney does not care about hard working middle-class people. He cares about his own bottom line. Money is his God. And money doesnt care about you and me...
Click to expand...

What is pretty 'clear cut' is your ignorance on the subject. As it has already been shown in this thread, that the woman had her own insurance, years after Romney left Bain.
 
AdamT said:
I think the reality is that the candidate with the most money almost always wins.
Click to expand...

That doesn't really answer the question, does it?
 
MaggieD said:
No, actually. Her being injured is what caused her to lose her job as a school teacher and then both of them decided to roll the dice by not buying into a COBRA. (First time I've noticed you on board, Con. Welcome.)
Click to expand...

Where are you getting this information that they "rolled the dice" by not getting insurance? How is someone who looses their job in a vulture capital feeding supposed to afford the outrageous prices of health insurance? Oh wait, that doesnt concern Romney does it? All that matters to him is money - not people!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom