• 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!

Paul Ryan, Help Or Hurt Romney

Will Ryan as VP help or hurt Romney win election?


  • Total voters
    120
Not being a popular politician from a battleground state, I don't think he will help tHat much but he won't hurt either, which is good. If Jeb Bush wasnt agreeable, would ave been my choice too.
 
Keep working on those excuse-making skills. You'll need 'em more than ever on November 7th.

You need to keep working on coming up with a real FACT now and then and not cutesy little empty rhetoric...and make sure you have your tissues out on nov 7th
 
In terms of consistency and alignment to the mission of turning the country around financially, it's a great choice.

But Romney and his team have to sell the mission and while Ryan is articulate, he is not passionate enough to complement Romney's calm. Intelligent people will appreciate the team, but consumers of television realities will not.

Net loss to the politics of the situation, but a great team if they can get elected.
 
The wonderful thing about this nomination is that no longer will the McCain choice of Sarah Palin be held up as the standard of incompetence.

Romney just blew his chance at victory. Christmas comes early for dem supporters such as myself. The only real question now is the down ballot influence and how it should help sweep other dems into office.
 
In terms of consistency and alignment to the mission of turning the country around financially, it's a great choice

Can you extrapolate on this?

I'd love to hear a reasonable, principle, fact based argument as to why the Ryan plan actually gets us back into the black.
 
This is a big blow. Obama now has the fight he wanted. People, Obama is a very smart man and politician. This is pretty much a lay up.
 
This is a big blow. Obama now has the fight he wanted. People, Obama is a very smart man and politician. This is pretty much a lay up.

And the GOP just lowered the rim to eight feet off the ground.
 
And the GOP just lowered the rim to eight feet off the ground.

Im a bit more reserved than you are haymarket lol... I dont believe anything is secure for anyone yet. I do believe Obamas chances improved with the ryan pick...simply because of ryans past statements and budget declarations show what he is and he cant change that and it gives obama alot of ammo to direct at the largest voting block cpwills loathesome babyboomers.

Ryans plan was pushed twice and both times it was extremely unpopular...as soon as his plan is brought forward again by the media and obama it will be just as unpopular....and he wont be able to change his tune either.....the debates the debates the debates will lock this up for either side....but my money is now on obama
 
Correct in what? Wanting to destroy America? It's amusing watching you side with someone who's authored plan deliberately destroys a consumer capitalist economy.

No, what is amusing is watching you descend into Joe Biden territory.

And that budget is largely ignored year after year. Sure Obama is running on increasing taxes. There is no mathematical way you can balance the budget without raising revenue.

Well that is simply false. I think what you meant was that you do not see a political way to balance the budget without increasing taxes.

As much as your fairly tale land would suggest, you cannot balance purely on cuts.

Well, actually you can. However, that is neither here nor there, as no one is suggesting such a thing.

O'rly? Do you know how much you're paying right now to cover the uninsured?

Well that depends on the degree to which my employer draws funds that go to health insurance from general "compensation" that would otherwise go to me in pay.

Dishonest people like you never address the fact that premiums and taxes are being used right now to cover the uninsured.

Well that is also false, as I have discussed precisely that several times. I simply think that it is not the biggest structural problem in our healthcare system.

With a mandate, a sizable chunk of those uninsured now cover at least part of their own resulting in less premiums being stolen and less taxes going to pay for the uninsured, Dishonest people like you don't even want to acknowledge that we are already socializing medical costs. The amusing **** about dishonest people like you is that you are subtly arguing that free riding and the theft of premiums is okay. Apparently taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor is bad, but taking premiums from the middle class and rich and giving it to the freeloaders is okay. Dishonest people like you make no sense. All the ACA really does is bring the costs to the front rather then hiding them in the insurance company 10ks.

:roll: ladies and gentlemen of the audience, if you will open the dictionaries located under your seat, and flip to the "P's", you will notice that this very post can be found under the word "projection".

You are in exceptionally poor form tonight. This isn't even an argument - it's just a rant. Been drinking?

He has a strong spine but stands for nothing and will bend over whenever it gets him an inch? Really? Did you really just say that? You know, three years ago you wouldn't have been caught dead saying something that asinine.

Actually, as I have been saying for at least two years not, Romney's strongest belief is "Romney should be President". He does have a strong backbone (the rigor of the modern campaign, which he has been engaged in now for about 5-6 years accepts nothing less), and will sacrifice lesser priorities for his central one.

And I wanted John Huntsman.

And that was an amazingly bad choice, as Huntsman began his campaign by alienating virtually every portion of the Republican Party. But I find that deeply entertaining, given that Huntsman was the first and the loudest of the GOP candidates to seek to tie himself to the Ryan Plan, which you now denounce :). So apparently everyone in here who supports the Ryan Plan is an idiot for doing so, but Jon Huntsman, the guy who ran on the Ryan Plan, is the guy who should be President. :lol:

:lol: seriously, it's like all you know about him is his campaign manager said some bad things about conservatives, and so now you decided you liked him.

I seriously doubt Obama ever was against it. In fact, I suspect he was lying when he came out against it. Nothing he's ever done or said suggests he actually was against gay marriage.

And on that we would agree. Obama was and remains a liar. Not "basically honest" about what he believes.

Again, you are comparing many campaign promises to actual governing.

You are arguing that honesty does not mean telling the truth if one happens to be campaigning?

Romney as GOVERNOR was pro-choice, pro-climate change, pro-gun control, pro-tax hikes, pro-mandate. What has he done now?

And as governor he changed on abortion. But you'll get no argument from me that Romney hasn't just shifted conservative in order to win the Presidency. My point here is simply that President Obama is in no way honest about himself, either.

I still find it hilarious the GOP nominated a candidate who outright disavowed Reagan.

yup. And Romney has since switched on Reagan. Huntsman hasn't switched on Ryan :).
 
No, what is amusing is watching you descend into Joe Biden territory.

Translation: I got nothing. Let's just make something up.

Well that is simply false. I think what you meant was that you do not see a political way to balance the budget without increasing taxes.

Well, if you cut entitlements and defense to zero, sure. That would work. That would also essentially be theft as people who paid into Medicare/Social Security would have their taxed wages be stolen.
Now, assuming we're not going to steal pension tax dollars from Americans, and we're not going to entirely cut defense, there is no mathematical way to balance by cutting.

Well, actually you can. However, that is neither here nor there, as no one is suggesting such a thing.

Then you clearly have not read the Ryan Plan you so lavishly praise. Thanks for admitting that.

Well that depends on the degree to which my employer draws funds that go to health insurance from general "compensation" that would otherwise go to me in pay.

Half right. Better than your regular average. The amount within the general insurance pool at the insurance company level is where your premiums are getting jacked. While you are right that your premiums are dependent upon how much your employer draws, that alone does not tell you how much of your premiums are being taken to pay for the uninsured essentially levying a tax on you that you never agreed upon and that is nowhere in your medical package agreement.

Well that is also false, as I have discussed precisely that several times. I simply think that it is not the biggest structural problem in our healthcare system

Like once? On another forum? That no one here read? Figures. You're being taxed right now to cover the uninsured. But it's okay that way but it's wrong to reduce that? What kind of ****ed up logic are you using?

:roll: ladies and gentlemen of the audience, if you will open the dictionaries located under your seat, and flip to the "P's", you will notice that this very post can be found under the word "projection".

You are in exceptionally poor form tonight. This isn't even an argument - it's just a rant. Been drinking?

Translation: Cpwill doesn't have a rebuttal.

If you actually disagreed with my statement, you'd be for a mandate.

Actually, as I have been saying for at least two years not, Romney's strongest belief is "Romney should be President". He does have a strong backbone (the rigor of the modern campaign, which he has been engaged in now for about 5-6 years accepts nothing less), and will sacrifice lesser priorities for his central one.

And you screwed that up as you always do. Merely having stamina and the capacity to prioritize does not give a spine. By that measure, an actress wanting to make it big who prostitutes herself to anyone who may slightly give her a chance has a spine. That's what you're arguing.

And that was an amazingly bad choice, as Huntsman began his campaign by alienating virtually every portion of the Republican Party. But I find that deeply entertaining, given that Huntsman was the first and the loudest of the GOP candidates to seek to tie himself to the Ryan Plan, which you now denounce :). So apparently everyone in here who supports the Ryan Plan is an idiot for doing so, but Jon Huntsman, the guy who ran on the Ryan Plan, is the guy who should be President. :lol:

Huntsman came out honest. And it cost him. And every Republican endorsed the Ryan plan. And Huntsman was wrong for backing it then (oh look, it's honesty, something you don't have). But if we actually look at Huntsman's time in office, he did very little of what Ryan authored. That you are ignoring because it suits you. Jumping on a plan everyone else does is hardly the same as actually writing it. I really didn't care that Romney backed the plan. I care now that he's joined with the author.

:lol: seriously, it's like all you know about him is his campaign manager said some bad things about conservatives, and so now you decided you liked him.

Come again? Care to look at my posts when the republican nomination was starting or you going to your regular liar self?

You are arguing that honesty does not mean telling the truth if one happens to be campaigning?

Not quite. I'm saying that your position when you are actually elected matters. And then changing it, or in Romney's case, virtually everything he stood for, to get the nomination matters.

And as governor he changed on abortion. But you'll get no argument from me that Romney hasn't just shifted conservative in order to win the Presidency. My point here is simply that President Obama is in no way honest about himself, either.

More honest then Romney. You know what you're going to get from Obama, whether you like it or not. No one has any damn idea what Mittens will actually push.

yup. And Romney has since switched on Reagan. Huntsman hasn't switched on Ryan :).

And neither did the rest. Doesn't change what Huntsman did in Utah. Or the fact that he's not bat **** crazy.
 
Obvious Child the big flaw in CPwills thinking and everyone like him is simple....MILLIONS of people only have social security income and medicare...NOTHING ELSE....millions of people have no income ...and whether or not cpwill likes it...these people need to continue to live and eat everyday...I know this offends the very rich that poor people have the ORDASITY to want to eat and have a place to sleep and a innoculations for their small children...and they cant find a job because they sent them all to China, India and Phillipines and Biafra...because they are much better people than poor trifling americans and those disgusting half dead babyboomers...and besides were RICH and were ENTITLED to all we can get from anyone in anyway....smirk
 
The R&R express will have to make a fact based, emotional argument that loading all this debt onto future generations is a huge, human mistake. If they can't, they will lose.
 
Obvious Child the big flaw in CPwills thinking and everyone like him is simple....MILLIONS of people only have social security income and medicare...NOTHING ELSE....millions of people have no income ...and whether or not cpwill likes it...these people need to continue to live and eat everyday...I know this offends the very rich that poor people have the ORDASITY to want to eat and have a place to sleep and a innoculations for their small children...and they cant find a job because they sent them all to China, India and Phillipines and Biafra...because they are much better people than poor trifling americans and those disgusting half dead babyboomers...and besides were RICH and were ENTITLED to all we can get from anyone in anyway....smirk

That would be a sensible argument except that 1/3 of the US population is now getting some taxpayer assistance. It is very hard to believe that can be "good", while we have at least 15 million illegal aliens that can find work.
 
The R&R express will have to make a fact based, emotional argument that loading all this debt onto future generations is a huge, human mistake. If they can't, they will lose.
But that was always true. Until now, Romney had not really offered a significant alternative to Obama, nor a coherent plan as to what he would do differently. Now he has. There needs to be a stark contrast between an Obama who ignores (or makes worse) existing problems and a Romney who would address them. And now there is.
 
Im a bit more reserved than you are haymarket lol... I dont believe anything is secure for anyone yet. I do believe Obamas chances improved with the ryan pick...simply because of ryans past statements and budget declarations show what he is and he cant change that and it gives obama alot of ammo to direct at the largest voting block cpwills loathesome babyboomers.

Ryans plan was pushed twice and both times it was extremely unpopular...as soon as his plan is brought forward again by the media and obama it will be just as unpopular....and he wont be able to change his tune either.....the debates the debates the debates will lock this up for either side....but my money is now on obama

Consider that the state of Florida is now firmly in the Obama column. Obama won it four years ago and we all know how crucial it is. With a Rubio selection Mittens had a real chance to move Florida back into the GOP column - he blew that opportunity. He had a chance to cut into the growing allegiance Latino voters have to the Democratic Party - he blew that also.

So the real question then becomes a simple one: what did Romney gain in this pick? The pundits are claiming that it solidifies his conservative base going into the convention. Okay. But than leads to another question: where were those on the right going to go in November anyway? They were pretty much a sure thing.

Mittens has just made a really stupid decision in giving up something that could have helped him win and gaining nothing except what he would have had in the and anyway.

Another bad month for Mittens just continues to get worse.
 
It's good if he wants to appeal to other conservatives but liberals can have a field day with him.
 
But that was always true. Until now, Romney had not really offered a significant alternative to Obama, nor a coherent plan as to what he would do differently. Now he has. There needs to be a stark contrast between an Obama who ignores (or makes worse) existing problems and a Romney who would address them. And now there is.

And that stark difference will cost him the election as older voters flee Mittens in droves.
 
But that was always true. Until now, Romney had not really offered a significant alternative to Obama, nor a coherent plan as to what he would do differently. Now he has. There needs to be a stark contrast between an Obama who ignores (or makes worse) existing problems and a Romney who would address them. And now there is.

But there are many that prefer gov't assistance to the effort required to replace that "windfall" with harder/more work. The problem with either "plan" is that the huge federal nanny state remains largely intact "until things get better" - which is why things will likely not change at all. Cutting the federal deficit from 42% to 38% is still peanuts, even if the numbers involved are really big. The "Ryan plan" achieves balance (even with its rosy growth projections) long after the national debt reaches critical mass. Add a likely war with Iran, increased defense spending for Israel and a tiny increase in national debt interest costs and we lose all of that "savings" in a single year. There is too much resistance from congress to actually get anything done regardless of which "lead from behind" president is selected. USA, USA, USA...
 
Last edited:
And that stark difference will cost him the election as older voters flee Mittens in droves.
Which is fine. If it happens. If people vote to re-elect a man who has no intention of addressing the countrys problems, then Americans and America deserve what they get and get what they deserve.

Personally, I think it is a winning move for Romney, and I think Americans wont vote for bankruptcy, but if they do, it will be a good thing to have Obama in the White House when the crap hits the fan.
 
I'm no Romney fan but I believe 4 years as a governor is a MUCH more applicable experience than 3 1/2 years as a Senator. No one can run against an incumbant POTUS and say "I have more Presidential experience than this guy" so that's a fallacy anyway. Romney has a wealth more of managerial experience than then Senator Obama did. So lets not argue about experience on this one. I think thats an argument that makes no sense. IMO, being Governor of a state is THE best preparation for the office of the President. Its basically the same job, just on a smaller scale. With all that being said, I still think Romney sucks, so whatever lol.

Yes, Romney did a wonderful job maintaining the peace with Vermont, defending the borders from New Hampishereites crossing the border in search of a better life and protected Nantucket from invasion of Long Island yachts. :)

...so not exactly the same job on a smaller scale, but I agree the best prep job in America to be POTUS (other than VPOTUS) would be governor of a decent sized state.

What I was quibbling with was not the experience going into the office, but the idea that on this DATE Romney has more or better experience at being POTUS than someone that has 3.5 years experience actually doing the job of POTUS.
v
 
It will help him. He need someone to kinda help him seem "conservative" and i think this will kinda help that.
 
Poll numbers are now correct for members voting. Some one was stacking the vote...
 
It will help energize the conservative base to come out and vote for Romney.
 
Back
Top Bottom