• 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!

White House in damage control mode as potential scandals pile up [W:378]

CJ, it depends on which Romney you are talking about. The one who came up with Romney care, pretty socially liberal and worked with Democrats to get things done or the one after he did his 180 degree turn in order to run for president on the Republican ticket. The thing with Romney, even among his own party members, they weren't sure which one they would get. So working with Democrats is pretty irrelevant after Romney did his 180.

On the economy, who knows. He never really laid anything out as to a plan. In fact he never laid out a vision for the next 4 years to give the voters a reason to vote for him. You the economy is in such and such a state under Obama, it would have been better under Romney. But Romney never said what he would to to compare the two with. I pointed a lot of this out when we were on politico.

Hi Pero - what you say is all fair comment and impossible to dispute. My point was simply that Obama was a known commodity as President - how much worse could Romney possibly be and the potential for being much better was there. People took a leap of faith voting for Obama in 2008 knowing he had no real background that would indicate he'd bring any competence to the position - at least Romney had a record, a history, that could inform the voter.

It's all irrelevant now, however, but it's interesting to speculate.
 
No. He shouldn't. But he does.

You brought it up that you would not want to be blamed for getting rid of the first black president. Why does it matter what color his skin is?
 
You brought it up that you would not want to be blamed for getting rid of the first black president. Why does it matter what color his skin is?
To me it doesn't matter a whit. I do know that it matters to a large number of people - he won the last election. He needs to be exposed. And yes, race is an issue, whether you want to admit it or not. I would prefer it not be, but we have what we have.
 
While Nixon Lied, no one died

But when Obama Fiddled, our ambassador got diddled
 
If you understood the run up to the Iraq war instead of repeating left wing talking points, if you realized that numerous Democrats in 1998 admitted to Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapon stock piles maybe you would understand the Conservative position.

Instead of calling us Hypocrites and using left wing debunked talking points to do it, realize we warned you guys about Obama's true character.

Maybe if you guys hadn't bought in to the media's Production of " Barrack Obama, Americas first black super president ", and had actually vetted him, we wouldn't be here listening to you mitigate his coruption by repeating tired rehashed talking points.

Funny your'e ok with Benghazi, still the worst of these three scandals by far.

Benghazi is the worst scandal? Surely you jest. This isn't even seen as legitimate outside of FauxNews and the right-wing propaganda machine. Why do you think that America isn't buying the feigned outrage?
Where was all of your outrage when people died in 911? Where was your outrage at the thousands of lives lost as a result of the lies and manipulation of the Bush Administration. Sorry if your outrage rings hollow now, but your silence screams volumes.
 
You conveniently left out: When GWB lied....thousands died.

sadly for the BDS fanatics, Bush believed SH had WMD. so did clinton

nice try but you failed
 
Benghazi is the worst scandal? Surely you jest. This isn't even seen as legitimate outside of FauxNews and the right-wing propaganda machine. Why do you think that America isn't buying the feigned outrage?
Where was all of your outrage when people died in 911? Where was your outrage at the thousands of lives lost as a result of the lies and manipulation of the Bush Administration. Sorry if your outrage rings hollow now, but your silence screams volumes.

Posts like this make you irrelevant and show that you are just looking for attention. Your comments have been debunked over and over again yet you continue making the same lies over and over.
 
Posts like this make you irrelevant and show that you are just looking for attention. Your comments have been debunked over and over again yet you continue making the same lies over and over.

the undying love for Obama will brook no criticism of dear leader
 
Hi Pero - what you say is all fair comment and impossible to dispute. My point was simply that Obama was a known commodity as President - how much worse could Romney possibly be and the potential for being much better was there. People took a leap of faith voting for Obama in 2008 knowing he had no real background that would indicate he'd bring any competence to the position - at least Romney had a record, a history, that could inform the voter.

It's all irrelevant now, however, but it's interesting to speculate.

Half the fun of politics is speculation. In 2008 the majority of the people were just plain tired of anything called Republican. Any Tom, Dick or Harry would do and Obama stepped into that void. In 2012, I agree. President Obama was very vulnerable. But Romney wasn't the right candidate. I do not think it even got to people thinking if Romney could do a better job or not. As you know my hobby is studying independent voters, most of them couldn't get over the trust or distrust factor. Romney never introduced himself to the voters, his campaign was, okay I am not Obama, vote for me. He never gave, independent especially a reason to vote for him. Still independents roughly split their vote 50-50, it was the base that won it for Obama. The democratic base, those who associate or identify with the democratic party back in November stood at 32%, the republican base was at 28%. Obama won by 4 points and now you know where that difference came from.

I love to say it is the independents who determine who wins national elections. But in 2012, it was the base vote that was decisive, not the independents.
 
Are you referring to Iran/Contra?

Lets try it again.

>" Reagan was known for compromising with the opposition, that's sign of good leadership. Unless it had any thing to do with national defense and winning the Cold War then there was no compromising. America first.
 
Half the fun of politics is speculation. In 2008 the majority of the people were just plain tired of anything called Republican. Any Tom, Dick or Harry would do and Obama stepped into that void. In 2012, I agree. President Obama was very vulnerable. But Romney wasn't the right candidate. I do not think it even got to people thinking if Romney could do a better job or not. As you know my hobby is studying independent voters, most of them couldn't get over the trust or distrust factor. Romney never introduced himself to the voters, his campaign was, okay I am not Obama, vote for me. He never gave, independent especially a reason to vote for him. Still independents roughly split their vote 50-50, it was the base that won it for Obama. The democratic base, those who associate or identify with the democratic party back in November stood at 32%, the republican base was at 28%. Obama won by 4 points and now you know where that difference came from.

I love to say it is the independents who determine who wins national elections. But in 2012, it was the base vote that was decisive, not the independents.

I agree, and while many continue to deny it, I still feel a lot of that Republican base that didn't turn out were people who refused to vote for a Mormon and since they'd never vote for Obama they stayed home.
 
if obama still rules certainly everything is going to be destroyed here
 
I agree, and while many continue to deny it, I still feel a lot of that Republican base that didn't turn out were people who refused to vote for a Mormon and since they'd never vote for Obama they stayed home.

Mornin CJ. :2wave: Over 2 million registered Republicans didn't come out to vote. Moreover.....if Romney would have pulled what Bush did for Hispanics and scored 40% he would have won. As much as people say his Mormon Faith wasn't an issue. I think it was more than they are saying. Course that don't make up for Romney be a flip-flopper and for the things he said out of his mouth. Hell Romney Could have did it with just 32% of the Hispanic Vote.

Course Romney shouldn't have worried about the politicization of Benghazi.....on National Television he had his chance to take it to Obama. All he had to do was say. Mr President.....face the facts. You dropped the ball on the Anniversary of 911. You let security get lax and you drop your Guard. Because of this Election and that need of yours to go out and party with other peoples Money. Including the tax payers money. From this moment on Sir. You will no longer carry any Respect in this Country.....and I am going to see to that!

Which truthfully.....Romney had the money to do it. He still could do it with the Money he has.
 
That'll never happen. They'll go down with the ship. You gotta hand it to them, they are loyal.


So were the members of the Peoples Temple...
 
Posts like this make you irrelevant and show that you are just looking for attention. Your comments have been debunked over and over again yet you continue making the same lies over and over.

The polls say otherwise. Keep trying to beat this dead dog. Its just making you all look silly.
 
Lets try it again.

>" Reagan was known for compromising with the opposition, that's sign of good leadership. Unless it had any thing to do with national defense and winning the Cold War then there was no compromising. America first.

Except Iran/Contra speaks otherwise. Reagan was certainly willing to compromise and negotiate with terrorists.
 
The polls say otherwise. Keep trying to beat this dead dog. Its just making you all look silly.

And what polls would that be? You obviously are a crew member on the Titanic and a loyal one at that.
 
Yep...the gipper got something right when he planted the seed for the free ObamaPhone.:2wave:
Are you sure it wasn't Alexander Graham Bell who "planted the seed" -after all, he invented the telephone.

Calling Reagan the father of the ObamaPhone is a bit like crediting Johnson or Kennedy with invention of IRS abuse, when we all know that goes to FDR.
 
I agree, and while many continue to deny it, I still feel a lot of that Republican base that didn't turn out were people who refused to vote for a Mormon and since they'd never vote for Obama they stayed home.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I never noticed that and never seen any polls reflecting it either. I think the GOP base vote did vote for him, perhaps without enthusiasm, but they did vote. I have a classification I call, Swing Voters lean Republican and of course the opposite, Swing Voters lean Democrat that I place most independents in. It was in this Swing Voter lean Republican, usually white but not all, these were the ones that stayed home.
 
And what polls would that be? You obviously are a crew member on the Titanic and a loyal one at that.

Nope. Look at the latest job approval ratings for Hilary and Obama. Benghazi has not had any effect on Obama's numbers and Hilary's have actually gone up.

So you can believe your right-wing propoganda that the "Main Stream Media" is all liberal and the vast majority of Americans are wrong. Or you can believe your FauxNews that this is the worst "scandal" in the history of America (next to Bill Clinton's blowjob) and it is going to destroy Obama and Hilary. I say go with the latter.....its fun to watch you guys perseverate over how reality turns out otherwise.
 
Nope. Look at the latest job approval ratings for Hilary and Obama. Benghazi has not had any effect on Obama's numbers and Hilary's have actually gone up.

So you can believe your right-wing propoganda that the "Main Stream Media" is all liberal and the vast majority of Americans are wrong. Or you can believe your FauxNews that this is the worst "scandal" in the history of America (next to Bill Clinton's blowjob) and it is going to destroy Obama and Hilary. I say go with the latter.....its fun to watch you guys perseverate over how reality turns out otherwise.

And obviously you are going to believe what you want to believe so since the Obama poll numbers haven't suffered I am sure you will have no problem posting those poll numbers from reputable pollsters? How about those Gallup numbers? Wonder what it is about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty?
 
Back
Top Bottom