• 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!

Mitt Romney: Look at how much money Hillary Clinton is making!

I don't think anyone disagrees with this, at least I don't. That doesn't mean Mitt doesn't make a good point though. And I'm not a Romney fan in the least.

I'm addressing all of the silly folks in this thread who pretend that their hypothetical are arguments for anything.
 
He's entitled to speak his opinion just like you and I are, and he really isn't wrong. Democrats pointed to Romney as mega-wealthy and out of touch as a reason not to vote for him, and Hillary is the same thing. So, why would they vote for her?

Mitt is pointing out a huge case of hypocrisy.

Democrats didn't have to point out Romney's wealthy elitism.....he did that all by himself when he spoke to a crowd of rich people about the 47%.
 
Democrats didn't have to point out Romney's wealthy elitism.....he did that all by himself when he spoke to a crowd of rich people about the 47%.

And, so Hillary Clinton is just a phony who is trying to trick her voters then?
 
Which Republican doesn't represent part of the mega-wealthy? Rubio and that's pretty much it. Hillary and Mittens should both go back to wherever they came from so I never have to hear from them ever again.

The funny thing is that the Democrats are essentially attacking Rubio for not being wealthy enough.
 
No one is so gullible as those who are desperate to be deceived, because they see no other option.

Says the man who thinks what this country needs is another Bush. Talk about desperate.
 
And, so Hillary Clinton is just a phony who is trying to trick her voters then?

Huh? Yes, Hillary is wealthy but I don't see her trying to "pull the ladder up behind her" like most of the wealthy GOP contenders and their conservative donors are.
 
Huh? Yes, Hillary is wealthy but I don't see her trying to "pull the ladder up behind her" like most of the GOP contenders are.

Really? How is she not? Hillary is absolutely no different than Romney, besides the fact that Romney actually earned most of his money, and Hillary never worked a day in her life.
 
The Man said:
He's entitled to speak his opinion just like you and I are, and he really isn't wrong. Democrats pointed to Romney as mega-wealthy and out of touch as a reason not to vote for him, and Hillary is the same thing. So, why would they vote for her?

Mitt is pointing out a huge case of hypocrisy.
Romney tried to make a "small" bet of $10,000 with Rick Perry. Romney insulted 47% of voters as "moochers" and praised the wealthy as the sole job creators. Romney favored cutting income taxes on the wealthy as well as capital gains and dividend taxes.

Hillary favors raising taxes on income -- even if it means people like her pay higher taxes. HRC also favors the social safety net for the unfortunate.

Sorry, I fail to see the hypocrisy.

JFK's family was the 10th richest family in the country at the time. FDR was also a wealthy aristocrat. Both passed policies to help the poor. That isn't hypocrisy.
 
Romney tried to make a "small" bet of $10,000 with Rick Perry. Romney insulted 47% of voters as "moochers" and praised the wealthy as the sole job creators. Romney favored cutting income taxes on the wealthy as well as capital gains and dividend taxes.

Hillary favors raising taxes on income -- even if it means people like her pay higher taxes. HRC also favors the social safety net for the unfortunate.

Sorry, I fail to see the hypocrisy.

When did Mitt call 47% of voters 'moochers'? Link please.

Hillary wants to raise income taxes on everyone... Exactly, that's why we don't want Hillary Clinton as president. Only a fool would vote for that out of touch hypocrite. The middle class can't afford to have their taxes raised yet again.
 
Seems to me pointing out the extreme hypocrisy of the left is fair and reasonable.

I for one would love to see your citation for supposing that the left doesn't think anyone at all should be rich or that becoming rich is a sin.
 
Really? How is she not? Hillary is absolutely no different than Romney, besides the fact that Romney actually earned most of his money, and Hillary never worked a day in her life.


That's just your opinion.
 
I for one would love to see your citation for supposing that the left doesn't think anyone at all should be rich or that becoming rich is a sin.

Good luck with that. It's a common accusation with zero basis in reality.
 
Really? How is she not? Hillary is absolutely no different than Romney, besides the fact that Romney actually earned most of his money, and Hillary never worked a day in her life.

Being an attorney, a Senator and Secretary of State isn't "work"?
 
Being an attorney, a Senator and Secretary of State isn't "work"?

Ok, I'll give her the attorney gig, but come on, the Senator and Secretary of State gigs were earned on name recognition alone, we all know that. Let's not pretend otherwise.
 
Ok, I'll give her the attorney gig, but come on, the Senator and Secretary of State gigs were earned on name recognition alone, we all know that. Let's not pretend otherwise.

So if someone gets a job for reasons you don't approve of, then the job doesn't count?

Mitt Romney, since we're comparing them, had a bit of name recognition too.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Romney
 
So if someone gets a job for reasons you don't approve of, then the job doesn't count?

Mitt Romney, since we're comparing them, had a bit of name recognition too.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Romney

Of course the job counts, but she didn't get the Senator and Secretary of State jobs on her merits, she got them because she is Bill Clinton's wife, and she didn't do a very good job at either one of those positions either.
 
Of course the job counts, but she didn't get the Senator and Secretary of State jobs on her merits, she got them because she is Bill Clinton's wife, and she didn't do a very good job at either one of those positions either.

I tend to agree; however, that doesn't mean she didn't perform those jobs. The statement that she's "never worked a day in her life" is objectively false.
 
I tend to agree; however, that doesn't mean she didn't perform those jobs. The statement that she's "never worked a day in her life" is objectively false.

Well, given her performance as a Senator and Secretary of State, I really don't think that she did work a day in those jobs. Her biggest career accomplishment was marrying Bill Clinton.
 
Well, given her performance as a Senator and Secretary of State, I really don't think that she did work a day in those jobs. Her biggest career accomplishment was marrying Bill Clinton.

"It's true because I say it's true!"

I ain't voting for her, but some of the stuff people dredge up to criticize Hillary over is just plain stupid.
 
"It's true because I say it's true!"

I ain't voting for her, but some of the stuff people dredge up to criticize Hillary over is just plain stupid.

I agree, but the same can be said for a lot of candidates. People said they wouldn't vote for McCain because he was too old. Hillary will be the same age in 2016 as McCain was in 2008. People said Romney was mega-wealthy and out of touch, can't vote for that. Hillary is also mega-wealthy and out of touch. Why do they think it's ok when it's Hillary?
 
Back
Top Bottom