• 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.

Question to Romney Supporters

Gill said:
Yes, states have a right to try the method they feel is best for them.

States rights is a solid conservative value.
Click to expand...

Hmm, so if a state government imposes a mandate forcing people to buy insurance, that's okay. But not if the federal government does it. That makes ... no sense.
 
Gill said:
Yes, states have a right to try the method they feel is best for them.

States rights is a solid conservative value.
Click to expand...

So it's OK that he governed his state as a liberal? Of course not!

That doesn't show one iota of conservative values. There's nothing conservative about government mandated healthcare. There's nothing conservative about appointing liberal judges. There's nothing conservative about raising fees.

Here is the point. The evidence shows that this man's mindset is toward big government solutions. How can any conservative relate to that?
 
AdamT said:
Hmm, so if a state government imposes a mandate forcing people to buy insurance, that's okay. But not if the federal government does it. That makes ... no sense.
Click to expand...


See the Tenth Amendment.

Romneycare was, in my opinion, a very bad idea, and it is certainly a damaging bit of baggage for Mr. Romney, especially with him potentially being in the position of campaigning against Obama for supporting a similar law at the national level.

But the Tenth Amendment—even as badly as it has come to be undermined—is clearly on Romney's side, here.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
See the Tenth Amendment.

Romneycare was, in my opinion, a very bad idea, and it is certainly a damaging bit of baggage for Mr. Romney, especially with him potentially being in the position of campaigning against Obama for supporting a similar law at the national level.

But the Tenth Amendment—even as badly as it has come to be undermined—is clearly on Romney's side, here.
Click to expand...

Of course he had the right to enact Romney-care. That isn't in dispute.

That doesn't make it conservative.

It means he governed as a liberal. It's not illegal to be a liberal.
 
Last edited:
Peter Grimm said:
So it's OK that he governed his state as a liberal? Of course not!

That doesn't show one iota of conservative values. There's nothing conservative about government mandated healthcare. There's nothing conservative about appointing liberal judges. There's nothing conservative about raising fees.

Here is the point. The evidence shows that this man's mindset is toward big government solutions. How can any conservative relate to that?
Click to expand...

So which Presidential candidate does not believe in "big government solutions." Gingrich does, his record as Speaker bears that conclusion. Santorum would institute the national sex police (Government so small it fits in your pants!)

Which leaves you with Ron Paul who would bankrupt the world economy with the gold standard, and decimate everything in the government, including the army. We'd have no choice but a non-interventionist foreign policy because we'd barely be able to keep order at home.
 
AdamT said:
Hmm, so if a state government imposes a mandate forcing people to buy insurance, that's okay. But not if the federal government does it. That makes ... no sense.
Click to expand...

Then you do not understand his position. His position is a states rights position. The states, beingsmaller and more able to respond to their constituants, should make laws that fit their needs, while the federal govern ment should only handle those things that are strictly federal in scope. I disagree with his position, but it follows logically from basic conservatism.
 
rocket88 said:
So which Presidential candidate does not believe in "big government solutions." Gingrich does, his record as Speaker bears that conclusion. Santorum would institute the national sex police (Government so small it fits in your pants!)

Which leaves you with Ron Paul who would bankrupt the world economy with the gold standard, and decimate everything in the government, including the army. We'd have no choice but a non-interventionist foreign policy because we'd barely be able to keep order at home.
Click to expand...

Santorum is a far more conservative candidate than Romeny.

Gingrich is more conservative than Romney as well.

George Soros himself said the other day that there is very little difference between Romney and Obama... and he is correct.
 
Redress said:
Then you do not understand his position. His position is a states rights position. The states, beingsmaller and more able to respond to their constituants, should make laws that fit their needs, while the federal govern ment should only handle those things that are strictly federal in scope. I disagree with his position, but it follows logically from basic conservatism.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between a state having a right to do something, and that something being the right thing to do.

So, the larger question I am asking is why would any self-proclaimed Republican support someone who enacted such a liberal policy in his state while governor?
 
AdamT said:
Hmm, so if a state government imposes a mandate forcing people to buy insurance, that's okay. But not if the federal government does it. That makes ... no sense.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is a state's right to choose its own health care program. It is NOT the federal government's role to mandate health care for all states whether they want it or not.
 
Peter Grimm said:
There is a difference between a state having a right to do something, and that something being the right thing to do.

So, the larger question I am asking is why would any self-proclaimed Republican support someone who enacted such a liberal policy in his state while governor?
Click to expand...

Yes, I understand the difference between a right, and right thing to do. His argument however followed constantly from his position. He is what I consider a true conservative. I disagree with him on almost every issue, but I can respect him.
 
Peter Grimm said:
There is a difference between a state having a right to do something, and that something being the right thing to do.

So, the larger question I am asking is why would any self-proclaimed Republican support someone who enacted such a liberal policy in his state while governor?
Click to expand...


You telling a state what is right or wrong to do is no better than what Obama has done. YOU have no right to tell any state, other than your own, what they should enact for their citizens. If the citizens of Mass. don't like it, which they overwhelmingly do, they can vote it out of existence.
 
Redress said:
Then you do not understand his position. His position is a states rights position. The states, beingsmaller and more able to respond to their constituants, should make laws that fit their needs, while the federal govern ment should only handle those things that are strictly federal in scope. I disagree with his position, but it follows logically from basic conservatism.
Click to expand...

I do understand that part of it, but I don't think he's being entirely honest about his philosophy. I think that, if he was being honest, he would say that government should never force anyone to buy anything, whether it's the federal government, state government, county government, or a municipal government that's doing the forcing. But then admitting that would be problematic for the Republican frontrunner....
 
Peter Grimm said:
Santorum is a far more conservative candidate than Romeny.

Gingrich is more conservative than Romney as well.

George Soros himself said the other day that there is very little difference between Romney and Obama... and he is correct.
Click to expand...

So you have three bad options and now you think George Soros is right!

Are you trying to re-elect Obama?

Guaranteed in 6 months the things Conservatives are saying about Romney will suddenly be blamed Liberals. We've already seen it with Newt's little movie.
 
Gill said:
You telling a state what is right or wrong to do is no better than what Obama has done. YOU have no right to tell any state, other than your own, what they should enact for their citizens. If the citizens of Mass. don't like it, which they overwhelmingly do, they can vote it out of existence.
Click to expand...

I am not making laws for the state of Massachusetts.

Once again, they have the right to have Romneycare if they want to. That doesn't make it conservative. They like it? That means they like a liberal policy.

There are plenty of liberals in Massachusetts, as Romney is quick to point out.

I am not making laws for the state of Massachusetts. I am voicing the conservative stance on the issue... which is against government-run healthcare.

You haven't explained how you can defend someone who governed as a liberal.

He did it at the state level. What makes you think he would do any differently on the federal level?
 
Redress said:
Yes, I understand the difference between a right, and right thing to do. His argument however followed constantly from his position. He is what I consider a true conservative. I disagree with him on almost every issue, but I can respect him.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about Romney, or the poster you were responding to?

If you're talking about Romney, I agree. It's just not a conservative position.
 
Last edited:
Peter Grimm said:
So it's OK that he governed his state as a liberal? Of course not!

That doesn't show one iota of conservative values. There's nothing conservative about government mandated healthcare. There's nothing conservative about appointing liberal judges. There's nothing conservative about raising fees.

Here is the point. The evidence shows that this man's mindset is toward big government solutions. How can any conservative relate to that?
Click to expand...

They are trying to get used to the idea and will start defending Romney's ideology, whichever one happens to be the one, at the time of question (since he flip-flops so much). The establishment Republican party does not like Romney, but what else have they got? Gingrich?

Both Romney and Gingrich have lots of baggage, the only difference is that Romney's is Louis Vuitton.
 
The issue of free riders who get service but skip out on paying has to be addressed.

This problem was solved by states regarding people getting into car crashes with no insurance by passing a law requiring car insurance.

It will work for health insurance too.
 
mertex said:
They are trying to get used to the idea and will start defending Romney's ideology, whichever one happens to be the one, at the time of question (since he flip-flops so much). The establishment Republican party does not like Romney, but what else have they got? Gingrich?

Both Romney and Gingrich have lots of baggage, the only difference is that Romney's is Louis Vuitton.
Click to expand...

Wait a minute........I thought the establishment Republican party DID like Romney and were promoting him relentlessly.

Which is it ??? You need to make up your minds.
 
Redress said:
He is what I consider a true conservative.
Click to expand...

Is the "He" you referring to Romney? If so, what makes Romney a true conservative?
 
Peter Grimm said:
Are you talking about Romney, or the poster you were responding to?

If you're talking about Romney, I agree. It's just not a conservative position.
Click to expand...

I was referring to Gill
 
Peter Grimm said:
I am not making laws for the state of Massachusetts.

Once again, they have the right to have Romneycare if they want to. That doesn't make it conservative. They like it? That means they like a liberal policy.

There are plenty of liberals in Massachusetts, as Romney is quick to point out.

I am not making laws for the state of Massachusetts. I am voicing the conservative stance on the issue... which is against government-run healthcare.

You haven't explained how you can defend someone who governed as a liberal.

He did it at the state level. What makes you think he would do any differently on the federal level?
Click to expand...

I'm sure the liberals in Mass. don't like the gun laws we have here in Kentucky. Too bad, but it's our right to enact the gun laws we want and its their right to enact the health care laws they like. Their state won't enact gun laws like ours and we won't enact health care laws like they have.

Has nothing to do with liberal or conservative..... it's the people's choice.

It is NOT the right of the federal government to cram health care reform down all of our throats if we don't want it.
 
Gill said:
I'm sure the liberals in Mass. don't like the gun laws we have here in Kentucky. Too bad, but it's our right to enact the gun laws we want and its their right to enact the health care laws they like. Their state won't enact gun laws like ours and we won't enact health care laws like they have.

Has nothing to do with liberal or conservative..... it's the people's choice.

It is NOT the right of the federal government to cram health care reform down all of our throats if we don't want it.
Click to expand...

You keep saying "they".... ROMNEY was the one who enacted Romneycare. That is his liberal policy.

If you call yourself Republican, how do you defend voting for someone who is essentially a liberal?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom