• 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.

And the Next NotRomney is....

nota bene said:
Many will. Most, maybe. But not all.
Click to expand...

The right wing is guided by hate and contempt. It has always been that way. As long as they hate Obama more than the they hate the guy who is running against him, then they will show up and vote.
 
CriticalThought said:
The Conservative base will vote for NotObama, whoever that may be.
Click to expand...

nota bene said:
Many will. Most, maybe. But not all.
Click to expand...

CriticalThought said:
The right wing is guided by hate and contempt. It has always been that way. As long as they hate Obama more than the they hate the guy who is running against him, then they will show up and vote.
Click to expand...

True. The question is..... Will they all vote for the SAME "NotObama"? My belief (based on my own personal choice) is PROBABLY NOT. I cannot and will not vote for Romney under ANY circumstance. Given an option between only Romney and Obama, I would have to vote for Obama.... At least he's HONEST about being a Progressive/Socialist waste of flesh and oxygen. Romney cannot even be HONEST about who and what he is. I'm a proponent of voting for the GREATER evil when the choice is between two of them (as it would be in this case) because at least then I know what I'm dealing with, and HOPEFULLY it would forment armed insurrection or at least a true political revolution.

In reality, I will likely end up doing one of two things..... Either voting for a third party candidate (likely from the Constitution Party, as I did in 2008) or writing my own name in on the ballot. This is not unusual considering my POTUS voting history - (2 Republicans, 2 Independents, 1 No Vote)
 
Demon of Light said:
Talk about outliers. Paul and Romney are generally five to six points higher in every other recent poll, Gingrich is doing three to four points better than in any other poll and all the other candidates save Huntsman see wide variance over the recent polls with this one at the extremes of the current range.
Click to expand...

It is possible, but every time I said something like that so far this election, I got burned. Cain surging, "Oh no, it's will smooth out next poll", Gingrich surging "oh no, it's an aberration".
 
Demon of Light said:
Talk about outliers. Paul and Romney are generally five to six points higher in every other recent poll, Gingrich is doing three to four points better than in any other poll and all the other candidates save Huntsman see wide variance over the recent polls with this one at the extremes of the current range.
Click to expand...

ANother outlier....

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/S...ay_Stories_Teases/Iowapoll111230nbcmarist.pdf

It's hard to deny at this point that Santorum is surging in at least Iowa, and doing it at exactly the right time.
 
Tigger said:
True. The question is..... Will they all vote for the SAME "NotObama"? My belief (based on my own personal choice) is PROBABLY NOT. I cannot and will not vote for Romney under ANY circumstance. Given an option between only Romney and Obama, I would have to vote for Obama.... At least he's HONEST about being a Progressive/Socialist waste of flesh and oxygen. Romney cannot even be HONEST about who and what he is. I'm a proponent of voting for the GREATER evil when the choice is between two of them (as it would be in this case) because at least then I know what I'm dealing with, and HOPEFULLY it would forment armed insurrection or at least a true political revolution.

In reality, I will likely end up doing one of two things..... Either voting for a third party candidate (likely from the Constitution Party, as I did in 2008) or writing my own name in on the ballot. This is not unusual considering my POTUS voting history - (2 Republicans, 2 Independents, 1 No Vote)
Click to expand...

You do watch cable news.

What is interesting is that in 2008 Romney was seen as the conservative. Cut taxes. Balanced Budget. Vetoed abortion legislation etc.

His "logic" on "Romney care" was that hospitals were required to treat everyone FOR FREE and that was unfair and running hospitals broke. So he thought requiring people to responsibly buy insurance with the government helping out for indigent people a better alternative than everyone who wants free hopital care -whether they can pay or not - all at taxpayer expense was a bad idea. That was his reasoning anyway.

Lots of people do the tantrum thing of "IF I DON"T LIKE WHO WINS THE PRIMARY I'M VOTING FOR OBAMA!" threat. Very juvenile.
 
Do you think with Santorum now rising Huntsman is super depressed thinking:

"Why doesn't anyone like me?!" :(

OR

"Yes! I'm now the only one left so soon it will be MY turn to Not-Be-Romney!!" :2razz:
 
joko104 said:
Do you think with Santorum now rising Huntsman is super depressed thinking:

"Why doesn't anyone like me?!" :(

OR

"Yes! I'm now the only one left so soon it will be MY turn to Not-Be-Romney!!" :2razz:
Click to expand...
i think the failure to give the smartest candidate in the group a look says more about those who comprise the republican party than Huntsman's merits
 
joko104 said:
His "logic" on "Romney care" was that hospitals were required to treat everyone FOR FREE and that was unfair and running hospitals broke. So he thought requiring people to responsibly buy insurance with the government helping out for indigent people a better alternative than everyone who wants free hopital care -whether they can pay or not - all at taxpayer expense was a bad idea. That was his reasoning anyway.
Click to expand...

The irony of all this is that Ronald Reagan is responsible for law requiring hospitals to treat indigents.
 
Tigger said:
What this should be screaming at the Republican Party Establishment, is that Mitt Romney is NOT electable if he is their general election candidate. Every time it looks like Romney is gaining traction, there is a significant run AWAY from him, and to whomever might be a possible alternative. Considering the influence of the Tea Party last year, the Republican Party needs to begin to understand that Conservatives in this country are no longer willing to sit idly by and have our viewpoint paid lip service to by the Party. If they want Conservative support they need to find a Conservative candidate, and that's NOT Mitt Romney in any way, shape, manner, or form. For every Independent vote Mitt gets the party will lose 1.5-2 votes from the Conservative base.
Click to expand...

It's like King of The Hill...everyone goes after Romney, he smiles, stands his ground and they all fall back down the hill.

Yes, died-in-the-wool-unchangeable-conservatives want a complete right-winger. The rest of us want someone more aligned toward the middle but someone who knows how to add and subtract.
 
joko104 said:
You do watch cable news.
Click to expand...

Nope. Almost not at all. When the tv is on in my condo it's generally on sports or History/TLC/etc.....

joko104 said:
What is interesting is that in 2008 Romney was seen as the conservative. Cut taxes. Balanced Budget. Vetoed abortion legislation etc.
Click to expand...

Compared to McShame, he was. Compared to anything/anyone actually Conservative.... not in a million years.

joko104 said:
His "logic" on "Romney care" was that hospitals were required to treat everyone FOR FREE and that was unfair and running hospitals broke. So he thought requiring people to responsibly buy insurance with the government helping out for indigent people a better alternative than everyone who wants free hopital care -whether they can pay or not - all at taxpayer expense was a bad idea. That was his reasoning anyway.
Click to expand...

Yep, and all of us in the Communistwealth know how that's worked out. Not very well.

joko104 said:
Lots of people do the tantrum thing of "IF I DON"T LIKE WHO WINS THE PRIMARY I'M VOTING FOR OBAMA!" threat. Very juvenile.
Click to expand...

I'm not suggesting I'd vote for Obama. I'm just noting that I WILL NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, vote for Mitt Romney.
 
coolwalker said:
It's like King of The Hill...everyone goes after Romney, he smiles, stands his ground and they all fall back down the hill.
Click to expand...

Mostly because nobody is willing to do the things necessary to topple him.

coolwalker said:
Yes, died-in-the-wool-unchangeable-conservatives want a complete right-winger. The rest of us want someone more aligned toward the middle but someone who knows how to add and subtract.
Click to expand...

Nothing personal, but since the rest of you aren't part of the Solution, you're part of the Problem, and need to be removed from the process as completely as the real Lefties out there.
 
joko104 said:
You do watch cable news.

What is interesting is that in 2008 Romney was seen as the conservative. Cut taxes. Balanced Budget. Vetoed abortion legislation etc.
Click to expand...

Ummm...What?

Romney's biggest criticism in the 2008 primaries was that he was too liberal and moderate...just as it is now? The big difference was that the guy he was largely going against, John McCain, was ALSO viewed as very moderate.

When in the world were you where you were hearing Romney being considered some kind of strong and stereotypical Conservative by people on the right in 2008? o_O At best they were saying he was more conservative than McCain, which is kind of like saying Dog **** smells slightly better than Horse **** does when it comes to the view point of those who were making such claims.
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
Do you think with Santorum now rising Huntsman is super depressed thinking:

"Why doesn't anyone like me?!" :(

OR

"Yes! I'm now the only one left so soon it will be MY turn to Not-Be-Romney!!" :2razz:
Click to expand...

I don't think Huntsman likely cares. He decided to completely forgo Iowa and had no intentions what so ever to win there. Santorum, on the flip side, is a very typical "Iowan Candidate" in regards to being a staunch social conservative and a guy who wears his religion on his sleeve.

I think if Huntsman started to lose to Santorum in the polls in New Hampshire, THEN you'd see it possibly precipitate a drop out of the race for him.

A surging Santorum may be a benefit for him....if Ron Paul's little bit of time being the front runner in Iowa was his true "Surge" (I don't think it was, he may break the mold with two mild, short surges...one in iowa, one in NH...instead of the type the others have had), and now Santorum's "Surge" is happening....the options comes down to either rehashing someone who was already had their shot OR the attention finally shifting to him just in time for an election in the state he's focusing on.
 
justabubba said:
i think the failure to give the smartest candidate in the group a look says more about those who comprise the republican party than Huntsman's merits
Click to expand...

I think it speaks to Huntsman's astounding pathetic and ****ty campaign strategy up to this point more than anything. Its been HORRIBLE and this is from arguably the forums biggest Huntsman backer.
 
Huntsman, Santorum and perhaps Bachmann (without her campaign manager) are now the only GOP presidential hopefuls left for the "Not-Romney-ites" to "park" their votes.

Perry, Cain, Gingrich and now Paul have not been able to withstand their "15 minutes of fame" in the spotlight.

Whoever emerges with the GOP nomination will already be "damaged goods!"
 
Last edited:
Umm, Bachmann already had her "15 minutes of fame" in the spotlight and was not able to withstand it so I'm unsure why you'd list her seperately than the second batch.
 
AdamT said:
The irony of all this is that Ronald Reagan is responsible for law requiring hospitals to treat indigents.
Click to expand...

True, just like it ironic that it was the first President Bush responsible for the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Those damn Marxist Republicans!
 
Tigger said:
Mostly because nobody is willing to do the things necessary to topple him.



Nothing personal, but since the rest of you aren't part of the Solution, you're part of the Problem, and need to be removed from the process as completely as the real Lefties out there.
Click to expand...

Say that again when you and others let Obama stay where he is now. jackson is long dead although I would love to see another of him, but I don't dream anymore, I live in reality and the reality is that anyone is better than Obama..
 
coolwalker said:
Say that again when you and others let Obama stay where he is now. jackson is long dead although I would love to see another of him, but I don't dream anymore, I live in reality and the reality is that anyone is better than Obama..
Click to expand...

My preference for removing Obama from office is the same as it is for removing most of the residents of Capital Hill and the SCOTUS.... which is to do it at Gunpoint during a Revolution, after which they will all be tried, found guilty of Treason, and punished for their crimes.
 
Tigger said:
My preference for removing Obama from office is the same as it is for removing most of the residents of Capital Hill and the SCOTUS.... which is to do it at Gunpoint during a Revolution, after which they will all be tried, found guilty of Treason, and punished for their crimes.
Click to expand...
please point out the treason which you believe has been committed
 
joko104 said:
True, just like it ironic that it was the first President Bush responsible for the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Those damn Marxist Republicans!
Click to expand...

He had no choice but to sign the act. I'm not saying he wouldn't have signed it otherwise, but I am saying he was never in front of the bill early on. In reality George the Elder was not responsible for the act other than signing it into law.
 
justabubba said:
please point out the treason which you believe has been committed
Click to expand...

The constant, consistant, and knowing violation of the US Constitution with nearly every piece of legislation they pass or sign; and the repeatedly Un-Constitutional decisions made by the SCOTUS and the massive over-stepping of their bounds. In terms of the Legislative/Executive Branch.... any of them who have been around for two Budget votes have already committed the two necessary acts against the United States of America.
 
Redress said:
Thing is, he could be timing it just right.
Click to expand...

If there is one place Santorum should do OK it would be Iowa. No offense to people in Iowa, but well, it is Iowa and Santorum is like a native son.
 
Tigger said:
The constant, consistant, and knowing violation of the US Constitution with nearly every piece of legislation they pass or sign; and the repeatedly Un-Constitutional decisions made by the SCOTUS and the massive over-stepping of their bounds. In terms of the Legislative/Executive Branch.... any of them who have been around for two Budget votes have already committed the two necessary acts against the United States of America.
Click to expand...

given the lack of specificity, i am accepting that you want us to believe every action the house, senate, executive and supreme court have taken would be found as treason

tigger, i appreciate your honesty. it's unfailing. but [edited to avoid an infraction]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom