• 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.

Romney competence?

johnny_rebson said:
I've had some discussions with people regarding Romney's recent statements claiming he is now pro-life. If Romney is elected, will he end legal abortion?
Click to expand...

Bush didn't end it, and he was President and had control of both houses of Congress at the same time. If it was that easy to do, Bush would have done it.

Romney won't do it either.

But I'm still voting for Romney anyway. With pleasure!
 
AdamT said:
Seems the main selling point for Romney, since he won't really say what his policies are, and he flips faster than a Chinese gymnast, is that he's just a competent fellow. But he sure seems to be running an incompetent campaign. The latest example of that was Romney choosing American Spring Wire as the location to press his big China argument against Obama. Romney, of course, argues that Obama hasn't done enough to protect American trade from the Chinese. The only problem? In 2009, American Spring Wire sought and received protection from the Obama administration against Chinese dumping. DOH!



How incompetent is that? Of all the companies in the U.S. to pick to deliver your trade protection message, you pick one that benefitted enormously from the Obama administration's trade policy intervention?

Romney also claims that Obama hasn't done enough to force the Chinese to inflate their currency. Last week it was announced that China's yuan hit it's highest level versus the dollar in 19 years.
Click to expand...
:lamo Hows Obamas green energy campaign contributor buyout plan doing?
You trying to compare Romneys competence with Obamas is laughable. One guy has a proven track record of running major corporations, government, an Olympics, etc whilst the others communities that he 'organized' are some of the most bloody and violent in the country. I wouldnt trust Obama with a paper route or a lemonade stand.
 
While a person may disagree with Romney, "Competence" is his real middle name. Being competent is not question about Romney.
 
johnny_rebson said:
I've had some discussions with people regarding Romney's recent statements claiming he is now pro-life. If Romney is elected, will he end legal abortion?
Click to expand...

Romney specifically stated that he has no agenda concerning abortion. Rather, that he has only expressed his personal opinion.
 
VanceMack said:
:lamo Hows Obamas green energy campaign contributor buyout plan doing?
Click to expand...

I'm glad you asked that question, actually, because his green energy program is performing quite a bit better than Romney ever did at Bain. Specifically, of the 65 or so companies that received loan guarantees under the program, 8% of them have failed. In contrast, 22% of the companies that Bain invested in under Romney went under, and other estimates but the number as high as 30%.

An example of competence versus incompetence? Not really, but that's what you'd have to conclude based upon right wing "logic". The truth is, as usual, more complex. Neither the government nor Bain had a reasonable expectation that 100% of their investments would pay off.

In the governments case, it was expected that there would be failures, but the companies that succeeded would help pave the way for a the green energy sector and more jobs in the future.

In Bain's case it was expected that there would be failures, but the companies that succeeded would ring up profits that more than made up for the failures.

In short: bogus comparison.
 
joko104 said:
Romney specifically stated that he has no agenda concerning abortion. Rather, that he has only expressed his personal opinion.
Click to expand...

What he specifically stated was the he would be "delighted" to sign a bill that banned abortion if one crossed his desk.
 
AdamT said:
What he specifically stated was the he would be "delighted" to sign a bill that banned abortion if one crossed his desk.
Click to expand...

The president doesn't pass legislation.
 
AdamT said:
What he specifically stated was the he would be "delighted" to sign a bill that banned abortion if one crossed his desk.
Click to expand...

Obamabots make it too easy. You don't even know when he said that, do you? Or what was happening when he said that. Or what else he said.

Good grief. I'm embarrassed for your drones not even knowing your facts.
 
Last edited:
Mitt Romney, 2007:

But that’s not where we are,” Romney replied. “That’s not where America is today. Where America is ready to overturn Roe v. Wade and return to the states that authority. But if the Congress got there, we had that kind of consensus in that country, terrific.”
 
tres borrachos said:
Obamabots make it too easy. You don't even know when he said that, do you? Or what was happening when he said that. Or what else he said.

Also, he never said anything about a bill being on his desk when he used the word "delighted".

Good grief. I'm embarrassed for your drones not even knowing your facts.
Click to expand...

Wow, the salesman has got you completely snowed with his Mitthology, doesn't he? :lamo

 
AdamT said:
I'm glad you asked that question, actually, because his green energy program is performing quite a bit better than Romney ever did at Bain. Specifically, of the 65 or so companies that received loan guarantees under the program, 8% of them have failed. In contrast, 22% of the companies that Bain invested in under Romney went under, and other estimates but the number as high as 30%.

An example of competence versus incompetence? Not really, but that's what you'd have to conclude based upon right wing "logic". The truth is, as usual, more complex. Neither the government nor Bain had a reasonable expectation that 100% of their investments would pay off.

In the governments case, it was expected that there would be failures, but the companies that succeeded would help pave the way for a the green energy sector and more jobs in the future.

In Bain's case it was expected that there would be failures, but the companies that succeeded would ring up profits that more than made up for the failures.

In short: bogus comparison.
Click to expand...

Oh Boy here we go again, there is not one green anything that can compete with natural gas or coal. Not one. All this solar and wind subsidizing is costing the tax payer billions. The government subsidizes wind and solar and then gives loan guarantees to manufactures that make the wind and solar products it subsidizes. It's like I'll subsidizes you if you buy this particular electric car, then the government goes and gives loan guarantees to the car manufacture to make these stupid electric cars. So the government using tax payer money pays you money to buy a car, and then gives loans to the manufacture to make the car. And you stand there and say this is so profitable. Like hell it is.

Without government pouring billions of tax payer money down a rate hole you would not see one windmill or one solar panel. If all this wind and solar was so profitable the private sector would run with it, and not one dime from government would be needed. T Boon lost millions on wind and is now promoting natural gas as the future energy source. And him loosing millions was on top of the tax credit subsidies the government was handing out.
 
AdamT said:
Wow, the salesman has got you completely snowed with his Mitthology, doesn't he? :lamo

Click to expand...


That was from 2007. He said he wanted to make it a state issue. Now tell us again, how is that part of his "agenda"?
 
Born Free said:
Oh Boy here we go again, there is not one green anything that can compete with natural gas or coal. Not one. All this solar and wind subsidizing is costing the tax payer billions. The government subsidizes wind and solar and then gives loan guarantees to manufactures that make the wind and solar products it subsidizes. It's like I'll subsidizes you if you buy this particular electric car, then the government goes and gives loan guarantees to the car manufacture to make these stupid electric cars. So the government using tax payer money pays you money to buy a car, and then gives loans to the manufacture to make the car. And you stand there and say this is so profitable. Like hell it is.

Without government pouring billions of tax payer money down a rate hole you would not see one windmill or one solar panel. If all this wind and solar was so profitable the private sector would run with it, and not one dime from government would be needed. T Boon lost millions on wind and is now promoting natural gas as the future energy source. And him loosing millions was on top of the tax credit subsidies the government was handing out.
Click to expand...

We're getting off topic, but you miss the point. This is a forward looking strategy. The cost of oil, gas, and coal is going to continue to rise. The cost of wind and the suns rays ... not so much. The technology is steadily improving and in fact in some locations wind is at grid parity and solar is very close.

You also assume that there is no cost to continued reliance on fossil fuels, which, as we are about to see in spades, is false. Fossil fuels contribute to climate change which is going to impose astronomical costs going forward. For example, global warming is partly responsible for Hurricane Sandy which will likely end up costing around $15 billion in property damage alone. The midwest droughts are responsible for a whopping .4% reduction in GDP last quarter, and a .1% reduction the quarter before that. That represents tens of billions of dollars.

Economists have warned us that the cost of not addressing climate change will be far higher than the cost of addressing it proactively.
 
tres borrachos said:
That was from 2007. He said he wanted to make it a state issue. Now tell us again, how is that part of his "agenda"?
Click to expand...

To repeat, he said that he would sign a bill banning all abortion if one crossed his desk.
 
AdamT said:
We're getting off topic, but you miss the point. This is a forward looking strategy. The cost of oil, gas, and coal is going to continue to rise. The cost of wind and the suns rays ... not so much. The technology is steadily improving and in fact in some locations wind is at grid parity and solar is very close.

You also assume that there is no cost to continued reliance on fossil fuels, which, as we are about to see in spades, is false. Fossil fuels contribute to climate change which is going to impose astronomical costs going forward. For example, global warming is partly responsible for Hurricane Sandy which will likely end up costing around $15 billion in property damage alone. The midwest droughts are responsible for a whopping .4% reduction in GDP last quarter, and a .1% reduction the quarter before that. That represents tens of billions of dollars.

Economists have warned us that the cost of not addressing climate change will be far higher than the cost of addressing it proactively.
Click to expand...

AGW is a hoax, Adam. A big hoax perpetrated by people that want to take away YOUR freedom.. just one example, we now have mandatory curly light bulbs, they are expensive, contain hazardous materials, and are made in China. explain how that is helping the USA.

and hurricanes existed long before algore invented global warming, look up the 1938 hurricane that hit new england
 
AdamT said:
I'm glad you asked that question, actually, because his green energy program is performing quite a bit better than Romney ever did at Bain. Specifically, of the 65 or so companies that received loan guarantees under the program, 8% of them have failed. In contrast, 22% of the companies that Bain invested in under Romney went under, and other estimates but the number as high as 30%.

An example of competence versus incompetence? Not really, but that's what you'd have to conclude based upon right wing "logic". The truth is, as usual, more complex. Neither the government nor Bain had a reasonable expectation that 100% of their investments would pay off.

In the governments case, it was expected that there would be failures, but the companies that succeeded would help pave the way for a the green energy sector and more jobs in the future.

In Bain's case it was expected that there would be failures, but the companies that succeeded would ring up profits that more than made up for the failures.

In short: bogus comparison.
Click to expand...

You of course have citations that some dem talking points machine has created for you that shows how Obamas failed investments in green energy resources were a 'success' as compared to Romney Bain from...how many years ago?
 
AdamT said:
We're getting off topic, but you miss the point. This is a forward looking strategy. The cost of oil, gas, and coal is going to continue to rise. The cost of wind and the suns rays ... not so much. The technology is steadily improving and in fact in some locations wind is at grid parity and solar is very close.

You also assume that there is no cost to continued reliance on fossil fuels, which, as we are about to see in spades, is false. Fossil fuels contribute to climate change which is going to impose astronomical costs going forward. For example, global warming is partly responsible for Hurricane Sandy which will likely end up costing around $15 billion in property damage alone. The midwest droughts are responsible for a whopping .4% reduction in GDP last quarter, and a .1% reduction the quarter before that. That represents tens of billions of dollars.

Economists have warned us that the cost of not addressing climate change will be far higher than the cost of addressing it proactively.
Click to expand...

Natural Gas is as cheap as it's ever been.

Then you go onto fossil fuels, like wind and solar is the answer to our need for oil. Sorry wind and solar make electricity it is not a substitute for oil. Wind and solar will not power our ships, planes, trains, heavy construction equipment, long haul trucks, etc etc etc. Wind and solar does not save one drop of oil.

Then you talk about global warming, I agree the planet may be warming, but the cause has not been proven. The planet has been going through climate changes from the beginning of time when the planet was formed. Last you blame global warming for the droughts, which is a natural accordance as the planet continues to evolve. What you are stating is man is the reason for climate changes from the beginning of the formation of the planet. Maybe you can explain that one to me.
 
Maybe there should be a separate forum where folks can just post their own crass bull**** political ads, like the thread starter here.
 
Born Free said:
Natural Gas is as cheap as it's ever been.

Then you go onto fossil fuels, like wind and solar is the answer to our need for oil. Sorry wind and solar make electricity it is not a substitute for oil. Wind and solar will not power our ships, planes, trains, heavy construction equipment, long haul trucks, etc etc etc. Wind and solar does not save one drop of oil.

Then you talk about global warming, I agree the planet may be warming, but the cause has not been proven. The planet has been going through climate changes from the beginning of time when the planet was formed. Last you blame global warming for the droughts, which is a natural accordance as the planet continues to evolve. What you are stating is man is the reason for climate changes from the beginning of the formation of the planet. Maybe you can explain that one to me.
Click to expand...

Wind and solar are just two examples, but there are certainly many cases where they can substitute for oil and/or coal. No one is claiming that they can be a total replacement, so there's no need to beat that strawman. Nor am I going to entertain your climate denier strawman. It's a complex case that has been accepted by the vast majority of climatologists and by virtually every climatological organization in the world.
 
AdamT said:
Wind and solar are just two examples, but there are certainly many cases where they can substitute for oil and/or coal. No one is claiming that they can be a total replacement, so there's no need to beat that strawman. Nor am I going to entertain your climate denier strawman. It's a complex case that has been accepted by the vast majority of climatologists and by virtually every climatological organization in the world.
Click to expand...

Not one person has ever explained how shifting fossil fuel usage to China helps the atmosphere. I guess some people don't realize that China is also on earth.
 
I love that the left just hasn't figured out yet that the GOP doesn't love Romney, they just hate Obama. All this Romney hate doesn't help because there is no Obama love among the intended audience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom