• 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!

Romney moves to reassemble campaign apparatus for 2016

Kobie said:
Romney's campaign was an unmitigated disaster. His top people actually believed the "skewed polls" nonsense and ran almost ZERO ground game in the days leading up to the election because they were convinced it was in the bag.
Click to expand...

Romney's campaign wasn't a disaster. He came out of the convention with a lead and then Hurricane Sandy happened and Obama got all the media airtime and love and the Christie seal of approval and Romney lost momentum. Then, in the debates, the media did everything it could to protect Obama's record and even lied, in the case of Candy Crowley, about what the President said in relation to Benghazi. The 47% nonsense didn't damage Romney nearly as much as the Hurricane Sandy photo-ops did. Romney stayed away from the damage sites, rightly so, but a more crass and opportunistic politician (read liberal) would have dove right in and gotten his/her minutes with Christie.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
oh i am pretty sure that something will go wrong for jeb bush
Click to expand...

Maybe so, but speaking about actual political careers, Hillary Clinton's is horrific. She began her career being FIRED from the Watergate investigation for LYING. She had a nonexistant life in the Senate, and then, well, haha we all know how hilarious her Sec. of State career was. I mean, come on. That was just brutal.

If you take Jeb Bush vs. Hillary Clinton, even though he's a Bush....his career is no where near as disasterous as Hildawg's.
 
Zyphlin said:
Bring him on. Hopefully he and Jeb can split votes and donor money and doom both of them
Click to expand...

:lamo I needed this laugh after last night's painful game.

Who do you like--more than one answer is allowed--Paul Ryan just dropped out .
 
CanadaJohn said:
Romney's campaign wasn't a disaster. He came out of the convention with a lead and then Hurricane Sandy happened and Obama got all the media airtime and love and the Christie seal of approval and Romney lost momentum. Then, in the debates, the media did everything it could to protect Obama's record and even lied, in the case of Candy Crowley, about what the President said in relation to Benghazi. The 47% nonsense didn't damage Romney nearly as much as the Hurricane Sandy photo-ops did. Romney stayed away from the damage sites, rightly so, but a more crass and opportunistic politician (read liberal) would have dove right in and gotten his/her minutes with Christie.
Click to expand...

One can question if Crowley was doing her job at the debate, but she didn't lie about what Obama said. That's a silly semantic cop-out.
 
Kobie said:
It most certainly was what he said.
Click to expand...

Go on, I'll wait. Site the reference where it shows Romney said or even words to the effect that "all who are not net taxpayers are completely dependent on the government".
 
Kobie said:
One can question if Crowley was doing her job at the debate, but she didn't lie about what Obama said. That's a silly semantic cop-out.
Click to expand...

She flat out lied to protect the President. Anybody watching the debate knows Romney had Obama on the ropes and he was going down and then Crowley jumped in and lied. The record is clear.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Jeb Bush will be the next Republican nominee for President and the next President of the United States.

All this talk of Romney wanting to get back into the race over the past month or so has got me thinking, however, that a Bush/Romney ticket on the Republican side would be a very powerful one, one that the Democrats would be hard pressed to even come close to.
Click to expand...

No, Jeb Bush will not be the nominee.
 
canadajohn said:
go on, i'll wait. Site the reference where it shows romney said or even words to the effect that "all who are not net taxpayers are completely dependent on the government".
Click to expand...

DON'T MIND IF I DO.

Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

there are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That's an entitlement. The government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And i mean the president starts off with 48, 49...he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. So he'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. ... My job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What i have to do is convince the 5–10% in the center that are independents, that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not.
Click to expand...

This is what he said. This is incontrovertible fact.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Romney's campaign wasn't a disaster. He came out of the convention with a lead and then Hurricane Sandy happened and Obama got all the media airtime and love and the Christie seal of approval and Romney lost momentum. Then, in the debates, the media did everything it could to protect Obama's record and even lied, in the case of Candy Crowley, about what the President said in relation to Benghazi. The 47% nonsense didn't damage Romney nearly as much as the Hurricane Sandy photo-ops did. Romney stayed away from the damage sites, rightly so, but a more crass and opportunistic politician (read liberal) would have dove right in and gotten his/her minutes with Christie.
Click to expand...

True. Christie completely torpedoed Romney in a horrific betrayal. After all, Christie gave the nominating speech for Christie.
 
CanadaJohn said:
She flat out lied to protect the President. Anybody watching the debate knows Romney had Obama on the ropes and he was going down and then Crowley jumped in and lied. The record is clear.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Obama referred to the Benghazi attack as an "act of terror" within a day of the attack. Any bull**** about him not specifically saying "terrorISM," as if there's ANY DIFFERENCE, is horse**** semantics.

The completely incomprehensible logistical pretzels people will twist themselves into in order not to contradict the Benghazi Narrative are utterly laughable.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Indeed - those are his words - not your interpretation of them nor the media's interpretation of them.

And just to be clear, each word he spoke is also incontrovertible fact.
Click to expand...

So the 47% of people who don't pay federal income tax are all people "who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it"? And you wonder why poor people think conservatives are dicks.

His words require no interpretation. IT IS WHAT HE SAID. Period. Discussion ****ing over.
 
Kobie said:
Wrong. Obama referred to the Benghazi attack as an "act of terror" within a day of the attack. Any bull**** about him not specifically saying "terrorISM," as if there's ANY DIFFERENCE, is horse**** semantics.

The completely incomprehensible logistical pretzels people will twist themselves into in order not to contradict the Benghazi Narrative are utterly laughable.
Click to expand...

It is not bull****, unless you're a brain dead sycophant. Obama used the same phrase "act of terror" when giving a speech at the memorial for those who were killed in the Colorado movie theater shootings. Was Obama claiming that the Colorado shootings were terrorism? No. Obama refuses, perhaps to this day, to use the words terrorism or terrorists in the same sentence as any that references Islam or Muslims. He refused to refer to the murders in Benghazi as terrorism because it didn't fit with their line about it being a "protest" about a video.

Crowley flat out lied by claiming the President called it terrorism. As you like to say, that's incontrovertible fact.
 
CanadaJohn said:
It is not bull****, unless you're a brain dead sycophant. Obama used the same phrase "act of terror" when giving a speech at the memorial for those who were killed in the Colorado movie theater shootings. Was Obama claiming that the Colorado shootings were terrorism? No. Obama refuses, perhaps to this day, to use the words terrorism or terrorists in the same sentence as any that references Islam or Muslims. He refused to refer to the murders in Benghazi as terrorism because it didn't fit with their line about it being a "protest" about a video.

Crowley flat out lied by claiming the President called it terrorism. As you like to say, that's incontrovertible fact.
Click to expand...

An "act of terror" isn't "terrorism." Interesting.
 
That 47% remark was so bad it could sink him twice. There is a movement in the U.S. that is very unhappy with wealth distribution and that remark is diametrically opposed to it. Nobody in the middle class or lower should vote for him because he does not have their best interests in mind, he cares only for the wealthy "job creators".
 
Kobie said:
So the 47% of people who don't pay federal income tax are all people "who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it"? And you wonder why poor people think conservatives are dicks.

His words require no interpretation. IT IS WHAT HE SAID. Period. Discussion ****ing over.
Click to expand...

Sorry if you can't comprehend that there are two groups that happen to be at the 47% level. There is undoubtedly, as he stated, 47% of the electorate that were going to vote for Obama no matter what. All the polls showed this. The election was a very narrow one. And he's right - these people are bought and paid for by Democrats. They represent those in society who want bigger government, bigger handouts from government and they want government to rape the rich and successful to pay for more benefits to the rest. It's the entire reason for Democrats to exist - what can government give me next?

Then there's the portion of the American people who don't pay federal income taxes - also, coincidentally, around the 47% mark. And as he said, the 47% who pay no federal income taxes aren't going to be interested in a message that says when President, Romney will work to reduce federal income taxes. If you pay no taxes, lower tax rates affect you not one bit so you don't care.

You and the media twist the message to mean that both groups of 47% represent the same people - they don't. But it was a good trick and Romney's words were open to being used against him and they were, quite effectively. That's what's incontrovertibly true.
 
CanadaJohn said:
It is not bull****, unless you're a brain dead sycophant. Obama used the same phrase "act of terror" when giving a speech at the memorial for those who were killed in the Colorado movie theater shootings. Was Obama claiming that the Colorado shootings were terrorism? No. Obama refuses, perhaps to this day, to use the words terrorism or terrorists in the same sentence as any that references Islam or Muslims. He refused to refer to the murders in Benghazi as terrorism because it didn't fit with their line about it being a "protest" about a video.

Crowley flat out lied by claiming the President called it terrorism. As you like to say, that's incontrovertible fact.
Click to expand...

Who gives a **** what he said? I am pretty sure the voting public didn't care one iota.
 
Kobie said:
An "act of terror" isn't "terrorism." Interesting.
Click to expand...

It isn't. I thought you were smart enough to understand that.

If a child gets kidnapped and held in a basement, raped and mutilated, that's an act of terror against the child and his/her family and perhaps society as a whole. Terrorism, in contrast, is an act designed to affect change in government action. The Oklahoma City bombings was terrorism - 9/11 was terrorism - beheadings in Iraq/Syria is terrorism - all designed to give the government pause and to have average citizens speak out against their government's policies and actions.

Hope that's clear for you now.
 
Kobie said:
So the 47% of people who don't pay federal income tax are all people "who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it"? And you wonder why poor people think conservatives are dicks.

His words require no interpretation. IT IS WHAT HE SAID. Period. Discussion ****ing over.
Click to expand...

That is not all of what he said.

...And they will vote for this president no matter what. ... These are people who pay no income tax.
Click to expand...

He was discussing the political reality concerning income tax cuts as a policy appealing to voters. If you now pay no income tax then income tax cuts have no political appeal to you.
 
pbrauer said:
Who gives a **** what he said? I am pretty sure the voting public didn't care one iota.
Click to expand...

And you're smart enough to know the actual words were irrelevant at that point - the issue was that Crowley entered the debate on the issue and lied for the President in order to protect him. The voting public, many of which are ignorant of the facts, and those who saw the multiple replays of the exchange but didn't watch the debate, only saw that the media said Romney was wrong and the President was right - the exact opposite of the truth. But it suited your purposes, so who gives a ****, right?
 
CanadaJohn said:
It isn't. I thought you were smart enough to understand that.

If a child gets kidnapped and held in a basement, raped and mutilated, that's an act of terror against the child and his/her family and perhaps society as a whole. Terrorism, in contrast, is an act designed to affect change in government action. The Oklahoma City bombings was terrorism - 9/11 was terrorism - beheadings in Iraq/Syria is terrorism - all designed to give the government pause and to have average citizens speak out against their government's policies and actions.

Hope that's clear for you now.
Click to expand...


Mornin CJ. :2wave: Fact check Org had it down with what BO said. Here was what the leftists forgot all about, when BO was asked why he didn't use the word Terrorism.


◾Obama said he used the term “act of terrorism” a day after the attack. Not exactly. He said “acts of terror” and “act of terror.” Also that day, the president said he did not use the word “terrorism” because “it’s too early to know exactly how this came about.” Over the next several days, he would repeat that the attack began as a protest of an anti-Muslim video and spiraled out of control.

Between the morning speech and the evening fundraiser, Obama spoke to CBS News reporter Steve Kroft of “60 Minutes.” Kroft noted that “you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya attack.” Obama said, “Right.” Asked why, the president said that “it’s too early to know exactly how this came about.”.....snip~


Benghazi Attack, Revisited
 
CanadaJohn said:
And you're smart enough to know the actual words were irrelevant at that point - the issue was that Crowley entered the debate on the issue and lied for the President in order to protect him. The voting public, many of which are ignorant of the facts, and those who saw the multiple replays of the exchange but didn't watch the debate, only saw that the media said Romney was wrong and the President was right - the exact opposite of the truth. But it suited your purposes, so who gives a ****, right?
Click to expand...

I think Candy Crowley was wrong for injecting herself in the debate. But she was correct, Romney used the words "act of terror" himself and he said the President didn't say them. Again, what the President said or didn't say was of little consequence. Watch the video.

 
pbrauer said:
I think Candy Crowley was wrong for injecting herself in the debate. But she was correct, Romney used the words "act of terror" himself and he said the President didn't say them. Again, what the President said or didn't say was of little consequence. Watch the video.
Click to expand...

Nearly 3 years later, we find Obama still has a hard time using certain words, as does his administrations hired speakers. Obama clearly did not say "terrorism" - hasn't this been debunked about a dozen times already and here we are, with yet a fresh attempt. :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom