• 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.

Today's Republican Debate - Mitt Romney vs. Mitt Romney

danarhea

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
This video deals a huge blow to Romney's campaign:

[video=youtube;K9njHHyRI7g]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=K9njHHyRI7g[/video]

In spite of what this video shows, I still believe that Romney is the only candidate that has even an outside chance against Obama, which speaks volumes to what the Republican Party has become. Romney and Ron Paul are the only candidates running who are not bat**** insane. Paul doesn't have a chance against the GOP party machine, and Romney is.... well, Romney. See for yourself on the video.
 
How can one even consider running for office with such a messed up past.

Even wacky as Bachmann is, you know where she stands. Mitt the Flip has earned his nickname.
 
There's nothing wrong with a candidate changing their views for various reasons - but when it's done it should be done to where they explain why they change and do it with solid reason.

Mitt - what's his other nickname? Mittens . . . Romney.

Mitt on Mittens.
 
That was brutal!! :lol:
 
most of the video was taken out of context just like they all do during the campaigns.

my self i changed my mind on abortion to many times to count over the years, thats a tuff one.

everyone changes their mind about something when new or better arguments are presented.

i remember Obama hammering Hilary in the debates about her mandate for health care. what did he do made his own mandate, they all do it
 
danarhea said:
This video deals a huge blow to Romney's campaign:



In spite of what this video shows, I still believe that Romney is the only candidate that has even an outside chance against Obama, which speaks volumes to what the Republican Party has become. Romney and Ron Paul are the only candidates running who are not bat**** insane. Paul doesn't have a chance against the GOP party machine, and Romney is.... well, Romney. See for yourself on the video.
Click to expand...


Hey look, the DNC is showing balls. Who woulda thunk...

Then again, it's about as easy to make a video of Romney's flip flops as it is to make a Kwame Brown blooper reel.
 
Last edited:
 
danarhea said:
This video deals a huge blow to Romney's campaign:



In spite of what this video shows, I still believe that Romney is the only candidate that has even an outside chance against Obama, which speaks volumes to what the Republican Party has become. Romney and Ron Paul are the only candidates running who are not bat**** insane. Paul doesn't have a chance against the GOP party machine, and Romney is.... well, Romney. See for yourself on the video.
Click to expand...


Paul got off on a tangent about the United States assassinating its own citizens the other day in the debate. I'm sorry, if you're going to call Paul sane there's no possible way you can call Gingrich, Huntsman, and Cain insane. Gingrich may be a sleezeball, Cain may be in over his head, and Huntsman may be a blip on the radar, but none of those things makes one insane.
 
danarhea said:
This video deals a huge blow to Romney's campaign:

[video=youtube;K9njHHyRI7g]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=K9njHHyRI7g[/video]

In spite of what this video shows, I still believe that Romney is the only candidate that has even an outside chance against Obama, which speaks volumes to what the Republican Party has become. Romney and Ron Paul are the only candidates running who are not bat**** insane. Paul doesn't have a chance against the GOP party machine, and Romney is.... well, Romney. See for yourself on the video.
Click to expand...

The add fairs poorly when fact checked:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m.../28/checking-dncs-claims-romney-flip-flopped/
 
pbrauer said:
That was the 30-second version, not the version shown in the OP.
Click to expand...

SO the one in the OP did not claim Romney flip flopped on Obama's health care plan and the stimulus?
 
Redress said:
SO the one in the OP did not claim Romney flip flopped on Obama's health care plan and the stimulus?
Click to expand...

I think the ad exaggerates the flip-flop, but I also think Politifact is wrong when they give the claim a mostly false rating. Romney did say that Obamacare could be a model for other states, or even a national health care plan. And it is damned-near identical to his MA plan.
 
AdamT said:
I think the ad exaggerates the flip-flop, but I also think Politifact is wrong when they give the claim a mostly false rating. Romney did say that Obamacare could be a model for other states, or even a national health care plan. And it is damned-near identical to his MA plan.
Click to expand...

Which has nothing to do with the actual ruling.
 
Redress said:
Which has nothing to do with the actual ruling.
Click to expand...

That fact that he said that Romneycare could be a model for a national plan, i.e. Obamacare, has everything to do with the ruling.
 
AdamT said:
That fact that he said that Romneycare could be a model for a national plan, i.e. Obamacare, has everything to do with the ruling.
Click to expand...

You might want to read it again then, and maybe slower so you comprehend.
 
AdamT said:
I think the ad exaggerates the flip-flop, but I also think Politifact is wrong when they give the claim a mostly false rating. Romney did say that Obamacare could be a model for other states, or even a national health care plan. And it is damned-near identical to his MA plan.
Click to expand...

Is Romneycare identical to Obamacare, or not? If it is not, then attempting to equate them as identical in terms of support for one being interchangable with the other is dishonest.

Did he say Obamacare could be a model for other states, or did he say Romneycare would? If its the later, then attempting to dishonestly say he stated it about Obamacare is just that, dishonest.

Is it possible to support something on the state level and not on a federal level? If so, then pointing out his support for something on the state level and automatically assuming he supports it at a national level is dishonest.
 
I'm no Romney fan, but a bunch of those supposed "flip-flops" seemed like kind of a stretch. Like when he said the economy "needs stimulus" and they tried to paint it as him supporting the specific stimulus bill that Obama signed, which isn't what he said at all.

EDIT: Also when he said he wasn't there to talk about Ohio's collective bargaining law, he never at any point indicated that he was against it. He just didn't want to talk about it at that particular moment. Another non-flip-flop.
 
Last edited:
Excellent video which should have been held until after Mitt got nominated. However, I imagine the calculation was to destroy Romney now and let the wingnuts with no chane of winning in November get the GOP nod.
 
Zyphlin said:
Is Romneycare identical to Obamacare, or not? If it is not, then attempting to equate them as identical in terms of support for one being interchangable with the other is dishonest.

Did he say Obamacare could be a model for other states, or did he say Romneycare would? If its the later, then attempting to dishonestly say he stated it about Obamacare is just that, dishonest.

Is it possible to support something on the state level and not on a federal level? If so, then pointing out his support for something on the state level and automatically assuming he supports it at a national level is dishonest.
Click to expand...

Yes, Romneycare is for all intents and purposes identical to Obamacare. Or, in the words of the man who was primarily responsible for crafting both plans, "they're the same f*cking bill!" Romneycare/Obamacare Architect: "They're the Same ****ing Bill" | Slog

Romney is now claiming that he only suggested that Romneycare could be a model for other states to emulate, but in 2006 he said, "I think there are a number of features in the Massachusetts plan that could inform Washington on ways to improve health care for all Americans."

So, while I wouldn't say it's a full-on flip-flop, I also wouldn't say that the claim it's a flip-flop is "mostly false". I'd actually say it's mostly true.
 
AdamT said:
Yes, Romneycare is for all intents and purposes identical to Obamacare. Or, in the words of the man who was primarily responsible for crafting both plans, "they're the same f*cking bill!" Romneycare/Obamacare Architect: "They're the Same ****ing Bill" | Slog
Click to expand...

Well good for him, but just because he doesn't think a difference is important doesn't mean it's not existant. Differences:

1. One was a state level plan, one was a federal level plan
2. One required an increase in taxes, the other doesn't
3. One cut some senior benefits, the other doesn't

Now, call me crazy but I always thought the definition of Identical was "Similar in every detail; exactly alike". Note the words every and exactly then go back and look at the fact I pointed out three differences, and tell me again they're "identical". They're not, and saying they are is simply not true. Its true to say they're "extremely similar", and a matter of opinion to say they're "essentially identical", but to claim that they're identical and to then use that claim as a means of saying support for one defacto means support for the other is just plainly a lie.

Romney is now claiming that he only suggested that Romneycare could be a model for other states to emulate, but in 2006 he said, "I think there are a number of features in the Massachusetts plan that could inform Washington on ways to improve health care for all Americans."
Click to expand...

What's that, he stated "a number of features" of hte plan could improve things on a national level. Gee, I'm sorry, that sure doesn't sound like he said "romneycare as a whole" would be good on the Federal level, let alone did he say "Something very similar to romneycare as a whole" would be good. No, it appears from the quote you used that he said a NUMBER of features, specifically signifying a level of support other than the entirety of the plan. So, yet agian, attempting to take that as support for Obamacare directly is again flat out fraudulent.

I'd actually say it's mostly true.
Click to expand...

That's because, as evidenced by your continued claim that they're exactly the same, you have no issue lying about the situation which places you in a similar camp as the DNC.
 
Zyphlin said:
Well good for him, but just because he doesn't think a difference is important doesn't mean it's not existant. Differences:

1. One was a state level plan, one was a federal level plan
2. One required an increase in taxes, the other doesn't
3. One cut some senior benefits, the other doesn't

Now, call me crazy but I always thought the definition of Identical was "Similar in every detail; exactly alike". Note the words every and exactly then go back and look at the fact I pointed out three differences, and tell me again they're "identical". They're not, and saying they are is simply not true. Its true to say they're "extremely similar", and a matter of opinion to say they're "essentially identical", but to claim that they're identical and to then use that claim as a means of saying support for one defacto means support for the other is just plainly a lie.



What's that, he stated "a number of features" of hte plan could improve things on a national level. Gee, I'm sorry, that sure doesn't sound like he said "romneycare as a whole" would be good on the Federal level, let alone did he say "Something very similar to romneycare as a whole" would be good. No, it appears from the quote you used that he said a NUMBER of features, specifically signifying a level of support other than the entirety of the plan. So, yet agian, attempting to take that as support for Obamacare directly is again flat out fraudulent.



That's because, as evidenced by your continued claim that they're exactly the same, you have no issue lying about the situation which places you in a similar camp as the DNC.
Click to expand...

No, if I was in the same camp as the DNC I would say the claim was true, and not mostly true. It is mostly true because the two plans are essentially the same. Again, the guy who was the main architect of both plans said that they are "the same f*cking bill". Pardon me if I credit his extremely well informed opinion over your unreferenced two minute google search.

"I think there are a number of features in the Massachusetts plan that could inform Washington on ways to improve health care for all Americans" is about as straight a statement as you will ever get from Mitt Romney.
 
AdamT said:
No, if I was in the same camp as the DNC I would say the claim was true, and not mostly true. It is mostly true because the two plans are essentially the same. Again, the guy who was the main architect of both plans said that they are "the same f*cking bill". Pardon me if I credit his extremely well informed opinion over your unreferenced two minute google search.
Click to expand...

Out of the three things I listed, one was sourced by common ****ing sense and one was sourced by your own damn link.

Did Masscare just govern the laws of a single state or did it affect the entire country? Did Obamacare govern the laws of just a single state or of the entire country? Seriously, you want a SOURCE to say that a STATE law was a state law and a federal law was a federal law. Fine, here you go. Source saying that Masscare was for Massachusetts HERE. And HERE is the full text for HR 3200 which higlights its at a federal level.

As to my second claim, from your own source:

"The only big difference is he didn't have to pay for his. Because the federal government paid for it. Where at the federal level, we have to pay for it, so we have to raise taxes."

As to the third, it was from a politifact breakdown listing differences.

"I think there are a number of features in the Massachusetts plan that could inform Washington on ways to improve health care for all Americans" is about as straight a statement as you will ever get from Mitt Romney.
Click to expand...

Becuase he's a politician that doesn't like to give straight answers doesn't mean you get to invent things and meanings he's never said and treat them as if they're fact.

He has not came out in support of "Obamacare". That's simple, unquestionable, fact. To suggest that he did come out in support of it is a lie, one that is only even SOMEWHAT true because he's came out in favor of something similar on a state level. You can say he came out in support of something similar to Obamacare, but that's about it.
 
Zyphlin said:
Out of the three things I listed, one was sourced by common ****ing sense and one was sourced by your own damn link.

Did Masscare just govern the laws of a single state or did it affect the entire country?
Click to expand...

Seriously? How disingenuous a question is that? Obviously the question as to whether Romney suggested that his state plan could be a model for a national plan includes the assumption that his plan was a state plan. Unbelievably trivial criticism.

As to my second claim, from your own source:

"The only big difference is he didn't have to pay for his. Because the federal government paid for it. Where at the federal level, we have to pay for it, so we have to raise taxes."
Click to expand...

Sure, MA got some federal assistance, but that was intended to offset the reduction in federal expenditures for uninsured care, which also accrue to the federal government with Obomneycare. And MA did have to raise taxes.

Becuase he's a politician that doesn't like to give straight answers doesn't mean you get to invent things and meanings he's never said and treat them as if they're fact.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's why said it was mostly true and not simply true. I think you'd have to be a fool not to try and interpret what politicians mean when they are intentionally being cagey to avoid being pinned down.

He has not came out in support of "Obamacare". That's simple, unquestionable, fact. To suggest that he did come out in support of it is a lie, one that is only even SOMEWHAT true because he's came out in favor of something similar on a state level. You can say he came out in support of something similar to Obamacare, but that's about it.
Click to expand...

I disagree. He clearly said that Romneycare, which is functionally identical to Obamacare, could serve as a model for national health care reform. He unambiguously stated that he was glad that Obama implemented insurance exchanges on the national level -- and idea that Romney claimed credit for. He's previously said that such a plan requires a mandate, which is also central to Obamacare. So taking everything together, I think Romney supported Obamacare and flip flopped. Personally I would bet that he still supports it and is only saying he doesn't because he knows it would kill his chance of winning the Republican primary.
 
AdamT said:
Seriously? How disingenuous a question is that? Obviously the question as to whether Romney suggested that his state plan could be a model for a national plan includes the assumption that his plan was a state plan. Unbelievably trivial criticism.
Click to expand...

Of course its trivial. You called my post out for not sourcing the differences between the two plans when one of those differences was obvious common sense and one was in your article. I didn't have anything to respond with BUT triviality because it was ridiculous in the first place for you to respond condenscendingly about my lack of "sources".

Sure, MA got some federal assistance, but that was intended to offset the reduction in federal expenditures for uninsured care, which also accrue to the federal government with Obomneycare. And MA did have to raise taxes.
Click to expand...

Your own source stated otherwise. And what did you say concerning your source....

Pardon me if I credit his extremely well informed opinion over your unreferenced two minute google search
Click to expand...

So I'm confused, in one post you ridicule me for my stance sighting with great reverence you're source, and in the next moment you basically are saying your source is full of it.

I disagree. He clearly said that Romneycare, which is functionally identical to Obamacare, could serve as a model for national health care reform.
Click to expand...

Again, this is a blatant lie. He stated a number of things from it could be used on the federal level which is different than stating that the entirety of it could be used as a model. This is, once again, you taking your opinion and stating it as fact to then be able to claim unquestioned hypocrisy and flip flopping.

He unambiguously stated that he was glad that Obama implemented insurance exchanges on the national level -- and idea that Romney claimed credit for.
Click to expand...

And if the commercial stated that instead of the lie it stated we'd not be having this discussion.

Personally I would bet that he still supports it and is only saying he doesn't because he knows it would kill his chance of winning the Republican primary.
Click to expand...

What you PERSONALLY think matters roughly jack and **** to what was actually stated when you're wanting to talk about the truth of the matter.

I actually agree with you, or more I agree that if he felt it was more popular to be in favor of it that Romney would be in favor of it and that his disapproval of it has nothing to do with principles. However, to state that he "supported Obamacare" is simply a lie, flat out, its a lie. He supported something, on a state level, that was similar to Obamacare and of which he felt that parts of it could work on a federal level.

Seriously, that's as "mostly true" as me saying that Obama wants to ban people from owning firearms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom