• 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.

Why Romney is NOT electable

Libertarian.... why did Paul nearly win Iowa? It's because you people are enthusiastic enough to come out to vote for him.

Third is not "nearly winning". Do you know why Romney did win and Santorum came in second? Because people where enthusiastic enough to come out and vote for them.
 
Young people, blacks, and a general hatred for Bush won Obama the election.

He won the last election because he caried most moderate and independent voters actually, and even a fair portion of conservatives(20 %).
 
Look, if I'm going to debate a bunch of liberals... I'll put this in terms you can relate to.

Obama won the last election because he got the liberal base fired up to come out for him. Record turnouts of young people, blacks, etc.

On the other hand, McCain did not fire up the conservative base the same way.

This big liberal voted for McCain because Obama sucked. However, the independents put Obama in because they were

1) sick of the Bush administration and made even sicker by the Press's constant bashing of Bush

2) were sick of McCain's constant flip floppings-such as the bail out

3) liked the novelty of "something new"

and while BO's race certainly caused black turnout to reach its highest number in modern history, Obama would have lost if the independents had broken for McCain
 
It shows you're hung up on details, and you don't understand the big picture. It makes no difference if the number is 50% or 30%. The point is that many people do not care about politics, and they don't vote.


No it does not show any ambivalence. It shows that some people for whatever reason do not vote. It also shows that unlike your claim, over 1/3 of people do vote. In other words, it shows that you where factually wrong. Do you want me to show how your other assumptions in the OP where wrong? I can.
 
I will skip the presidential election if Mitt Romney is the Republican nominee. I believe there are many others who will do the same.

If Mitt Romney wants to be president, he should be running against Obama in the Democratic primaries.

He's way too liberal for me.

President Obama thanks you for that silly attitude

so you would rather have two more Kagans on the Supreme Court instead of two more John Roberts or Sam Alitos?

great thinking there mate
 
Obama won because he wasn't Bush.

Obama won more % of black voters than any other candidate in history.

Obama got a huge swell of young voters compared to pervious elections.

Numbers do not back that up.
 
Libertarian.... why did Paul nearly win Iowa? It's because you people are enthusiastic enough to come out to vote for him.

Paul's too old, too nutty and would be an Obama wet dream as an opponent. McCain got drilled for his age-Ron Paul is over 75 years old now. Good message-lousy messenger
 
It shows you're hung up on details, and you don't understand the big picture. It makes no difference if the number is 50% or 30%. The point is that many people do not care about politics, and they don't vote.

There are many reasons not to vote, not caring is only one. That does not further your argument, and your facts have been proven wrong in this thread. It's not that I do not understand the big picture, it's that no one is buying into your lies.
 
Romney has a history of appointing liberal judges.

President Obama thanks you for that silly attitude

so you would rather have two more Kagans on the Supreme Court instead of two more John Roberts or Sam Alitos?

great thinking there mate
 
Obama won because he wasn't Bush.

Obama won more % of black voters than any other candidate in history.

Obama got a huge swell of young voters compared to pervious elections.

Obama won because he was a democrat when republicans where unpopular.

Obama got slightly more % of the black vote than most black presidential contenders, but not enough more to matter much.

Young voters still did not vote in nearly the numbers or percentages of middle aged and older voters and made up a relatively small percentage of total votes.

Obama won because he carried over 60 % of moderates and independants, and 20 % of conservatives.
 
Pointing out that 50% vote, instead of 30%, is getting hung up on details - It doesn't change the bigger point I am making.

But your mind gets so hung up on numbers, minutia, and details that I actually think you don't understand the logic of the argument I've made.


There are many reasons not to vote, not caring is only one. That does not further your argument, and your facts have been proven wrong in this thread. It's not that I do not understand the big picture, it's that no one is buying into your lies.
 
Romney has a history of appointing liberal judges.

In a state that was run by liberals

do you have any clue who picks 99.5% of all the federal judges in a given administration's tenure?
 
Pointing out that 50% vote, instead of 30%, is getting hung up on details - It doesn't change the bigger point I am making.

But your mind gets so hung up on numbers, minutia, and details that I actually think you don't understand the logic of the argument I've made.

Your right, almost double what you claimed is getting hung up on details. Yeah, that's it. You really are making your points...
 
Wow you really don't understand!!

You think like a computer. It's interesting actually. You really don't comprehend the big picture at all.

Your right, almost double what you claimed is getting hung up on details. Yeah, that's it. You really are making your points...
 
I'm not going to go on a wild goose chase to hunt down specific names and instances when it's fairly common knowledge that Romeny appointed liberal judges... and if you watch the Republican debates this gets brought up and Romeny does not deny it.

If Romeny doesn't even deny it, why would you on his behalf?

Wow, some random person's blog. You really convinced me. Hint: that blog uses almost solely editorials as it's source material. That's what we call bad.
 
Wow you really don't understand!!

You think like a computer. It's interesting actually. You really don't comprehend the big picture at all.

The big picture is you have not made your point, you have used lies to try and make it, and you got caught at it. When you got caught, you fall back on silly ad homs.
 
I'm not going to go on a wild goose chase to hunt down specific names and instances when it's fairly common knowledge that Romeny appointed liberal judges... and if you watch the Republican debates this gets brought up and Romeny does not deny it.

If Romeny doesn't even deny it, why would you on his behalf?

So I should take your word for it? Should I have taken your word that independents and moderates don't vote and only 30 % of peopel vote?
 
So you think that because I said 30% vote, and I was wrong by 20%, that invalidates my argument?

How?

The big picture is you have not made your point, you have used lies to try and make it, and you got caught at it. When you got caught, you fall back on silly ad homs.
 
Back
Top Bottom