• 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 knows?

Huh? I have not much more use for Romney than I do Gingrich. If you want to start a thread, I will happily explain why. The one thing Romney has over Gingrich is to the best of my knowledge he has no ethics convictions.

Indeed, he has no convictions of any kind.
 
Maybe Romney's ass is clean enough that there's no need for long and detailed examination, unlike Newt's. Other than the flip-flopping, Romney maintains a good personal and professional history. He's married to one women, with well adjusted family that supports him. He has held private and public position without needing to resign over ethic charges. Can't say the same for Newt. Plus he doesn't act like a dick in public which seems to come naturally to Newt.

Well, he did strap the family dog to the roof of his car....
 
Maybe Romney's ass is clean enough that there's no need for long and detailed examination, unlike Newt's. Other than the flip-flopping, Romney maintains a good personal and professional history. He's married to one women, with well adjusted family that supports him. He has held private and public position without needing to resign over ethic charges. Can't say the same for Newt. Plus he doesn't act like a dick in public which seems to come naturally to Newt.
And don't forget he passed Romneycare which makes him a leftwing favorite. No vetting needed.
 
Huh? I have not much more use for Romney than I do Gingrich. If you want to start a thread, I will happily explain why. The one thing Romney has over Gingrich is to the best of my knowledge he has no ethics convictions.
Well them come on and kick him in the teeth for me, so I know you're fair. :D
 
If the GOP nominates Gingrich, he will lose and they will lose and we will lose. I'll vote for him in the general if it comes to it, but I just registered as a Republican specifically in the hopes of helping to avoid that.
 
1/5 of the country would kill most people's chance to win the Presidency without strong support from other substantial group to offset it like with Obama and the black vote. Mormons are not that big a group to offset it.

That's what they said about Kennedy...

ujw139swq0ak9tyl1izmrg.jpg

People can say all they want when they're talking theoretically, but when the real choice is at hand, only a tiny, tiny fraction of Republicans would rather let Obama win than see a Mormon in the white house.
 
1/5 of the country would kill most people's chance to win the Presidency without strong support from other substantial group to offset it like with Obama and the black vote. Mormons are not that big a group to offset it.

That's what they said about Kennedy...

View attachment 67119205

People can say all they want when they're talking theoretically, but when the real choice is at hand, only a tiny, tiny fraction of Republicans would rather let Obama win than see a Mormon in the white house.
 
That's what they said about Kennedy...

View attachment 67119205

People can say all they want when they're talking theoretically, but when the real choice is at hand, only a tiny, tiny fraction of Republicans would rather let Obama win than see a Mormon in the white house.

True, and he managed to win by a whisker over a sweaty paranoic named Richard Nixon. And Kennedy was a charismatic, young war hero.
 
Last edited:
True, and he managed to win by a whisker over a sweaty paranoic named Richard Nixon. And Kennedy was a charismatic, young war hero.

If the Nixon-Kennedy debate had only been on the radio nixon would have been president
 
So they say.

a vast majority of those who heard the debate said Nixon won-but those who watched it said Kennedy did. That and the vote fraud gave Kennedy an election he really didn't deserve to win

however the Karma backlash was far far nastier than mere balance demanded
 
a vast majority of those who heard the debate said Nixon won-but those who watched it said Kennedy did. That and the vote fraud gave Kennedy an election he really didn't deserve to win

however the Karma backlash was far far nastier than mere balance demanded

Not familiar with any fraud allegations, but I am with the rest of it. As it turns out, the American people may be pretty good at judging a book by its cover -- at least in Tricky Dick's case.
 
Not familiar with any fraud allegations, but I am with the rest of it. As it turns out, the American people may be pretty good at judging a book by its cover -- at least in Tricky Dick's case.

You never heard stories that Joe Kennedy bought the Illinois vote for his son making a comment I paid for a win not a landslide?
 
Not familiar with any fraud allegations, but I am with the rest of it. As it turns out, the American people may be pretty good at judging a book by its cover -- at least in Tricky Dick's case.
David Broder-major league Nixon Hater (his son Matt was a classmate of mine in college-had a copy of Nixon's resignation letter to Kissinger on his dorm door) noted that it was Nixon's belief that he had been robbed in 1960 that caused his paranoia in 1972 when he crushed McGovern and didn't need to "cheat"

it is undetermined if Nixon knew about the watergate break in before or only after it happened

later dude
 
David Broder-major league Nixon Hater (his son Matt was a classmate of mine in college-had a copy of Nixon's resignation letter to Kissinger on his dorm door) noted that it was Nixon's belief that he had been robbed in 1960 that caused his paranoia in 1972 when he crushed McGovern and didn't need to "cheat"

it is undetermined if Nixon knew about the watergate break in before or only after it happened

later dude

No, never heard that story. But I don't think Nixon needed much help to fuel his raging paranoia.
 
True, and he managed to win by a whisker over a sweaty paranoic named Richard Nixon. And Kennedy was a charismatic, young war hero.

And Nixon was the VP of a very popular incumbent Prez. There were no guarantees about that election.
 
If I remember correctly, the straw that broke the camels back was a book deal with Murdoch when needed help with a foreign entity purchasing US media. His "transgressions" didn't help.

It is sad for me that the best of the bunch seems to be either Gingrich or Romney, neither of which has a principle that they will not break for another vote or buck
 
That's what they said about Kennedy...

View attachment 67119205

People can say all they want when they're talking theoretically, but when the real choice is at hand, only a tiny, tiny fraction of Republicans would rather let Obama win than see a Mormon in the white house.

But Kennedy did have another substantial group to make up for the anti-Catholic sentiments - the poor and Catholics themselves. We don't know how people will vote for Romney, we only know what they say about Mormons right now. For the life of me, I don't understand why the GOP is so resistant to him. Given the choice in that line up, I would choose Romney in a heartbeat.
 
Last edited:
But Kennedy did have another substantial group to make up for the anti-Catholic sentiments - the poor and Catholics themselves. We don't know how people will vote for Romney, we only know what they say about Mormons right now. For the life of me, I don't understand why the GOP is so resistant to him.

The general "sleeziness" or "weasely" factor that seems to be felt by people of all stripes and colors?

The questionable past stances on things like abortion, health care, and other issues?

The combination of said weasely factor causing distrust that the current change in positions stated by him are sincere?

The just seemingly unlikable personality?

I think a lot of it is just the man seems like a perfect charactiture of a typical sleezy politician and that image and feeling about him erases any belief that he's the least bit sincere in any of his beliefs. Its hard to really rally behind someone like that.
 
When? Under what circumstances?

It's actually pretty creepy.

The reporter intended the anecdote that opened part four of the Boston Globe's profile of Mitt Romney to illustrate, as the story said, "emotion-free crisis management": Father deals with minor — but gross — incident during a 1983 family vacation, and saves the day. But the details of the event are more than unseemly — they may, in fact, be illegal.

The incident: dog excrement found on the roof and windows of the Romney station wagon. How it got there: Romney strapped a dog carrier — with the family dog Seamus, an Irish Setter, in it — to the roof of the family station wagon for a twelve hour drive from Boston to Ontario, which the family apparently completed, despite Seamus's rather visceral protest.

Massachusetts's animal cruelty laws specifically prohibit anyone from carrying an animal "in or upon a vehicle, or otherwise, in an unnecessarily cruel or inhuman manner or in a way and manner which might endanger the animal carried thereon." An officer for the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals responded to a description of the situation saying "it's definitely something I'd want to check out."

Read more: Romney's Cruel Canine Vacation - TIME
 
And don't forget he passed Romneycare which makes him a leftwing favorite. No vetting needed.


Some of us are adults who make decisions in a complicated process that handles more than a single variable. Don't keep projecting.
 
But Kennedy did have another substantial group to make up for the anti-Catholic sentiments - the poor and Catholics themselves. We don't know how people will vote for Romney, we only know what they say about Mormons right now. For the life of me, I don't understand why the GOP is so resistant to him. Given the choice in that line up, I would choose Romney in a heartbeat.

Both Romney and Gingrich can switch positions faster than horses at the Derby. Deal breakers for me are UHC, which needs to be gone, and illegal border invaders, the same. Neither candidate has convinced me where they stand on these issues.
 
The general "sleeziness" or "weasely" factor that seems to be felt by people of all stripes and colors?

The questionable past stances on things like abortion, health care, and other issues?

The combination of said weasely factor causing distrust that the current change in positions stated by him are sincere?

The just seemingly unlikable personality?

I think a lot of it is just the man seems like a perfect charactiture of a typical sleezy politician and that image and feeling about him erases any belief that he's the least bit sincere in any of his beliefs. Its hard to really rally behind someone like that.


All of those describe Gingrich perfectly, plus a few more. And then there's Bachman and Santorum who are also dislikeable and crazy dogmatic. Paul who's principled, but hold impractical beliefs. Perry, more likeable, but also in the crazy beliefs range. Huntsman - maybe, I don't know much about him nor does he seem to be anywhere close to winning the nomination. What's so unlikeable about Romney? Politicians flip-flop - they say things they don't always believe to get vote, it applies to everyone if we get pass the stereotype that he's stuck with. He's well presented, and seem to rarely have said offensive crap like Gingrich often does, and which Santorum and Bachman believes about homosexuals. He has a rather successful professional history. Out of that lineup, he's still the most electable.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom