• 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.

Who is Mitt Romney Conning?

Camlon said:
This is only propaganda from the Republican political establishment, and you got fooled.

But, I will give you some proper evidence. Do you remember Bob Dole? He was a moderate, seemingly the perfect candidate, and went against Bill Clinton who had about 55% in approval ratings. He lost big time. Obama had approval ratings in the 70s, bush had a approval rating of 20%. He would crush any Republican candidate, even a Reagan.
Click to expand...

Dole was also really really old and about as charismatic as a hammer. If you're looking for an example of a moderate Republican who won you need look no further than GWB, who ran as a "compassionate", i.e., moderate, conservative.
 
Conservatives are sick of republicans trying to prop up RINOs.Again Nominating a RINO in 08 didn't work, nominating a bigger RINO will not work.As I said before it amounts to saying hey this hay didn't put the fire out, lets use this gasoline this time to put it out.
Click to expand...

One example does not a trend make. McCain didn't lose because he was a moderate.


There is nothing extreme about being pro-2nd amendment, being against illegal immigration, thinks climate change is something that occurs naturally, thinks marriage is something that is for only a man and woman, against legalized abortion as a means of birth control and a whole bunch of other issues.
Click to expand...

* Second amendment is not an issue. The SC has settled that question and no one is trying to take away your gun rights. Get over it.
* Illegal immigration is something both parties acknowledge needs fixing.
* Everyone acknowledges that climate change occurs naturally. But climate is also affected by CO2 and other greenhouse gasses produced by man. It is an extremist position to deny scientific fact;
* A majority of Americans believe that gays should be able to marry if they want to;
* A majority of Americans support legal abortion; etc.

So again, it is irrational to think that a candidate can win when he or she takes positions that a majority of Americans oppose. It's as simple as that.
 
jamesrage said:
This has nothing to do with voting for a moderate. Romney is no moderate, he is a liberal and he is literally lying about the positions he supports in order to try to be president. Liberal positions are liberal positions period.
Click to expand...
the far right is why we won't elect a conservative republican into the WH any time soon... They don't exist in the numbers they think they do. Both main parties have more moderates than the party leadership thinks...
 
Camlon said:
No, they wouldn't. People didn't vote for Obama, because McCain was too right. They voted for Obama, because of Bush, and Obama was black.

In fact, if he was more moderate, he would probably lose even more because he would lose votes from the right.


No chance what so ever. If you think Mccain could win, then you didn't understand the general mood of the country. If he didn't pick Palin as a running mate, he probably would have to pick a boring candidate. That would kill his campaign.

Who are they going to vote for? A boring old republican with questionable ties to George W. Bush. Or a young inspiring black Democrat who want to change the country.
Click to expand...

Obama in a normal election cycle would have lost a large number of votes because he is black, just as Hillary would have lost votes because she is a woman. The effect would have been a wash as the people who would have voted for Obama because he is black most likely would have voted democrat anyway

As for McCain, if he was the McCain of 2000, and did not toady up to the Neocon Bush admin, he would have still picked up the votes of the republicans and conservatives ( as voting for the socialist Obama would have been a no go.) and he would have been able to pick up more of the middle ground (ie independants) who were tired of the Neo Con agenda. Instead McCain moved towards the Neo Con agenda, causing the lose of the middle ground indies
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
As for McCain, if he was the McCain of 2000, and did not toady up to the Neocon Bush admin, he would have still picked up the votes of the republicans and conservatives ( as voting for the socialist Obama would have been a no go.) and he would have been able to pick up more of the middle ground (ie independants) who were tired of the Neo Con agenda. Instead McCain moved towards the Neo Con agenda, causing the lose of the middle ground indies
Click to expand...

You do know that the folks McCain liked in 2008 were also in his realm of agreement back in 2000, right? Those same neoconservative foreign policy advocates were always behind McCain, and were very much in connection with him and worked together (writing in the Weekly Standard, forwarding Kagan's work, etc etc.) The narrative you are trying to push just does not match up with anything resembling reality. Sorry.
 
Last edited:
* Second amendment is not an issue. The SC has settled that question and no one is trying to take away your gun rights. Get over it.
Someone tell Obama he seems to be all for gun control.
Click to expand...
* Illegal immigration is something both parties acknowledge needs fixing.
We dont have any border control whatsoever, thats why we have an illegal immigration problem.
Click to expand...
* Everyone acknowledges that climate change occurs naturally. But climate is also affected by CO2 and other greenhouse gasses produced by man. It is an extremist position to deny scientific fact;
Its also extremist to ignore there has been no substantial climate change in the last 10 years and fudging data to make the case for man made climate change isnt convincing
Click to expand...
* A majority of Americans believe that gays should be able to marry if they want to;
Depends on where you poll. State by state decision in my opinion
Click to expand...
* A majority of Americans support legal abortion; etc.
A majority dont support late term abortions, seems Obama does. A majority do NOT support tax payer funded abortions, seems Obama does.
Click to expand...

Whose in the minority again? Whose extreme again? Looks like Obama to me. But maybe my views are too nuanced.
 
PHP: 
Someone tell Obama he seems to be all for gun control.

He appears to be? What has he actually done to give that appearance? :popcorn2:

We dont have any border control whatsoever, thats why we have an illegal immigration problem.
Click to expand...

We have an illegal immigration problem because our quotas for legal immigration are completely unrealistic. As far as border patrol goes, Obama has done more to police the border than his predecessors.

Its also extremist to ignore there has been no substantial climate change in the last 10 years and fudging data to make the case for man made climate change isnt convincing
Click to expand...

That is just ignorant.

Fig.A2.gif


A majority do NOT support tax payer funded abortions, seems Obama does.
Click to expand...

Actually Obama does not. Nor could he, for that matter, as the Hyde Amendment prohibits federal funding of abortions.
 
Kandahar said:
Well...in 2008 McCain had to face off against not only Obama, but an incumbent Republican president with approval ratings in the low 30s. That's not a problem Romney will face. It's very likely that Obama will be blamed if economic problems continue next year.
Click to expand...

The great thing is Kandahar, the GOP actually won by losing the election. If McCain was president now, we'd STILL be in the same craphole. Except that they'd have no one to blame but themselves (god knows what that would look like). Obama essentially lets them blame a Democrat for conditions no one can fix quickly. The intelligent GOP elite know this (even Cpwill acknowledged this). By losing the battle, they are winning the war. I agree with Lord T's assertion way back when that anyone who won 2008 would be a 1 term president because the conditions were just that bad.

So in a sense, the GOP had little to lose and everything to gain from putting 4 years of bad economic conditions on a Democrat president rather than letting their own get tarnished. The economy will get better historically by the later half of who ever wins 2012. That tends to be the timeline on financial recessions and the GOP will get to claim credit for it. Even when they actually made it worse during Obama's Presidency. Losing 2008 may have been the best thing that's happened to the GOP since Bush Jr.
 
obvious Child said:
The great thing is Kandahar, the GOP actually won by losing the election. If McCain was president now, we'd STILL be in the same craphole. Except that they'd have no one to blame but themselves (god knows what that would look like). Obama essentially lets them blame a Democrat for conditions no one can fix quickly. The intelligent GOP elite know this (even Cpwill acknowledged this). By losing the battle, they are winning the war. I agree with Lord T's assertion way back when that anyone who won 2008 would be a 1 term president because the conditions were just that bad.



So in a sense, the GOP had little to lose and everything to gain from putting 4 years of bad economic conditions on a Democrat president rather than letting their own get tarnished. The economy will get better historically by the later half of who ever wins 2012. That tends to be the timeline on financial recessions and the GOP will get to claim credit for it. Even when they actually made it worse during Obama's Presidency. Losing 2008 may have been the best thing that's happened to the GOP since Bush Jr.
Click to expand...


Wow talk about pie in the sky...wishful thinking. I think its absurd to say that McCain losing benefited the GOP I vote for McCain/Palin. If McCain had won there wouldnt have been any Obama/PelosiCare fiasco.
I wouldnt be so smug that this is all going to work out for the Republicans...the last election where they took the house was DIRECTLY the fault of Nancy Pelosi and her gloating glaring face everyday that totally turned america off. America was so sick of that woman they quickly embraced a teaparty that started out as just ANTI PELOSICARE...and then morphed into the far right nutjob we just need tax cuts for the rich organization. Thats the only thing the GOP is for...assuring that corporations and the rich keep paying very little taxs. Thats their main goal and they've made pledges to do just that...How about a pledge to not allow greed to make more americans jobless...how about a pledge to not have any poverty in the USA, how about a pledge that americans that get out of bed every damn morning and go to work, get paid. enough to live a halfway basic decent life...Im a longtime used to be a straight republican voter who is not any longer.
 
First of all, I disagree that any of the GOP candidates is unelectable. Whoever runs against Obama will be potentially electable just based on Obama's poor approval ratings. People will not be voting FOR the GOP candidate; they will be voting AGAINST Obama. This makes anybody electable.

Secondly, it is a shame that there is not a viable libertarian candidate running. I think this would be a great time for the GOP to suck it up and nominate a libertarian. People are tired of having only two choices. But no libertarian needs to run against the GOP candidate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom