• 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.

The most dishonest campaign in memory

AdamT

AdamT

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2011
Messages
17,773
Reaction score
5,746
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Unbelievable! Romney strikes again with another lying, absolutely hypocritical campaign ad. This time Romney starts:

"In 1996, President Clinton and a bipartisan Congress helped end welfare as we know it, but on July 12th, President Obama quietly announced a plan to gut welfare reform by dropping work requirements."

Mitt Romney Ad Criticizes Obama For Welfare Policy Romney Supported As Governor
Click to expand...

So first, this is a lie. In fact the rule change by itself doesn't change a thing with respect to work requirements. What it in fact does is provide states with the opportunity to apply for waivers that would give them more flexibility in implementing the work requirement. The work requirement is in no way "dropped".

Second, this is a change that Romney LOBBIED FOR when he was governor of Massachusettes! :doh
He and every other Republican governor in the United States signed a letter to President Bush requesting the implementation of just such waivers. Obviously the idea of giving more responsibility to the states is a quintessentially Republican notion.

"Romney 2012: I'm a lying hypocrite -- won't you vote for me?"
 
AdamT said:
"Romney 2012: I'm a lying hypocrite -- won't you vote for me?"
Click to expand...

As compared to pretty much every other Republican or Democrat candidate out there, Adam? Come on. This is exactly what our system is made of now. Hypocricy, Lies, Blatant Falsehoods and Flip-Flops. You want to know whose to blame for it..... YOU, ME, and EVERY SINGLE OTHER VOTER in the United States.... because we continue to allow the system to operate this way and vote these people into office.
 
AdamT said:
In fact the rule change by itself doesn't change a thing with respect to work requirements. What it in fact does is provide states with the opportunity to apply for waivers that would give them more flexibility in implementing the work requirement. The work requirement is in no way "dropped".
Click to expand...

You've done a poor job of explaining what this rule does. The Obama Administration has made the mistake of doing the same thing. When you allow states a waiver on work requirements? Just exactly what does that mean? On its face, it sounds like a very bad thing.

But I guess when unemployment is so high, we don't want those welfare recipients to actually look for a job.
 
Tigger said:
As compared to pretty much every other Republican or Democrat candidate out there, Adam?
Click to expand...

Yes, absolutely as compared to any other campaign by either party that I can recall.

I'm not a fan of negative ads, but just because an ad is negative doesn't mean that it has to be dishonest and hypocritical. Is lying not a sin in the Mormon faith?
 
You have a very short memory. That's nothing to be proud of.
 
MaggieD said:
You've done a poor job of explaining what this rule does. The Obama Administration has made the mistake of doing the same thing. When you allow states a waiver on work requirements? Just exactly what does that mean? On its face, it sounds like a very bad thing.

But I guess when unemployment is so high, we don't want those welfare recipients to actually look for a job.
Click to expand...

Correct, what we need to do is allow illegal immigrants to get work permits. This will allow them to compete with unskilled Americans, the segment with the highest unemployment rates.

Oh wait, Obama just did this. Another brilliant move by our beloved leader.
 
Romney is a serial killer.

- Stephen Colbert
 
AdamT said:
Yes, absolutely as compared to any other campaign by either party that I can recall.

I'm not a fan of negative ads, but just because an ad is negative doesn't mean that it has to be dishonest and hypocritical. Is lying not a sin in the Mormon faith?
Click to expand...

I haven't seen anything other than a negative ad in more than 20 years, Adam. This is, unfortunately, what American Politics is about these days. I saw it in the introduction to politics I had back in 1990, before I was even allowed to vote, and it hasn't gotten any better since.
 
MaggieD said:
You've done a poor job of explaining what this rule does. The Obama Administration has made the mistake of doing the same thing. When you allow states a waiver on work requirements? Just exactly what does that mean? On its face, it sounds like a very bad thing.

But I guess when unemployment is so high, we don't want those welfare recipients to actually look for a job.
Click to expand...

I did provide a link, but I guess with unemployment so high it's too much work to click on it. :lol:

Here's an explanation from a Forbes editorial:

Contrary to the hysterics of the Obama opposition, the modification, which allows the Department of HHS to waive certain state requirements under the law, does not make any significant change in the substance of the law. Rather, the modification—which comes in the form of the occasional waiver— is a response to the many states seeking more control over how they administer their welfare program. These states have discovered that the federal requirements are tying up too many welfare workers and resources with cumbersome paperwork, resulting in less time being spent by welfare workers on actually helping those getting assistance find the work they need to keep, and ultimately no longer need, the government aid.

The waiver would also permit states to tighten up on some language in the federal law that allows welfare recipients to claim unpaid internships and other such endeavors as qualifiers for welfare rather that getting actual, paying jobs.

So, the states ask for more power to operate their welfare programs in a way they believe will produce a better local result than the system required by the federal government…the Obama Administration agrees to this request in the understanding that the states are in a better position than the central government to determine what works for them….and the Republicans go nuts.

Are you starting to grasp the concept of pretzel logic?

Romney Claims Obama Guts Welfare Work Requirements By Doing Precisely What Romney Requested in 2005! - Forbes
Click to expand...
 
Tigger said:
I haven't seen anything other than a negative ad in more than 20 years, Adam. This is, unfortunately, what American Politics is about these days. I saw it in the introduction to politics I had back in 1990, before I was even allowed to vote, and it hasn't gotten any better since.
Click to expand...

Again, negative ads aren't inherently dishonest and hypocritical. For example, Romney could come out with an ad slamming Obama by citing unemployment and GDP figures, Solyndra, etc. That's entirely different than making **** up and taking **** out of context and then turning those fictions into negative attacks.
 
Daktoria said:
Romney is a serial killer.

- Stephen Colbert
Click to expand...

Stephen Colbert is a comedian. Get back to me if Obama approves an ad calling Romney a serial killer and I will absolutely denounce him.
 
AdamT said:
I did provide a link, but I guess with unemployment so high it's too much work to click on it. :lol:

Here's an explanation from a Forbes editorial:
Click to expand...

If its such a good thing then he needs to have it pass through congress. He doesnt get to decide what laws to enforce. Its a passed law, he has zero business nullifying a portion of a law.

Full disclosure here is the rules and regs regarding changes to TANF workforce requirements, read it for yourself.
TANF-ACF-IM-2012-03

It invites states to issue waivers and has no set limits on the number of waivers involved and can ostensibly be used to circumvent the entire workforce participation through those waivers.
 
OpportunityCost said:
If its such a good thing then he needs to have it pass through congress. He doesnt get to decide what laws to enforce. Its a passed law, he has zero business nullifying a portion of a law.

Full disclosure here is the rules and regs regarding changes to TANF workforce requirements, read it for yourself.
TANF-ACF-IM-2012-03

It invites states to issue waivers and has no set limits on the number of waivers involved and can ostensibly be used to circumvent the entire workforce participation through those waivers.
Click to expand...

Your own link contradicts your assertion. The purpose of the waivers is to IMPROVE the welfare to work component. As your link says, states are required to submit detailed plans that include benchmarks to demonstrate that the plans are working. There is nothing in the regulation that would permit a state to drop welfare to work.
 
AdamT said:
Your own link contradicts your assertion. The purpose of the waivers is to IMPROVE the welfare to work component. As your link says, states are required to submit detailed plans that include benchmarks to demonstrate that the plans are working. There is nothing in the regulation that would permit a state to drop welfare to work.
Click to expand...

LOL what exactly do you think the waivers are going to do? They will lower workforce participation in paying jobs. Im not talking about what they have as stated goals, Im saying what an incompetent bureacracy could do with them. The possibility of abuse of the waiver system is certainly there. To ignore and not prepare for a worst case scenario is foolish.
 
OpportunityCost said:
LOL what exactly do you think the waivers are going to do? They will lower workforce participation in paying jobs. Im not talking about what they have as stated goals, Im saying what an incompetent bureacracy could do with them. The possibility of abuse of the waiver system is certainly there. To ignore and not prepare for a worst case scenario is foolish.
Click to expand...

So your argument is that that big-nanny federal government has to keep herd over those irresponsible states which are incapable of doing what's best for their citizens?
 
No my argument is to obey the passed law and if needs to be changed, it is changed legally through congress. Not changed illegally through executive order.
 
OpportunityCost said:
No my argument is to obey the passed law and if needs to be changed, it is changed legally through congress. Not changed illegally through executive order.
Click to expand...

Why don't you file a lawsuit if you think it's illegal? Or point me to the lawsuits that have been filed, since you claim it's illegal?

Any idea how many waivers have been granted to date? Hint: zero.
 
AdamT said:
Why don't you file a lawsuit if you think it's illegal? Or point me to the lawsuits that have been filed, since you claim it's illegal?

Any idea how many waivers have been granted to date? Hint: zero.
Click to expand...

Hey AdamT. I think you finally shut him up!
 
AdamT said:
Unbelievable! Romney strikes again with another lying, absolutely hypocritical campaign ad. This time Romney starts:



So first, this is a lie. In fact the rule change by itself doesn't change a thing with respect to work requirements. What it in fact does is provide states with the opportunity to apply for waivers that would give them more flexibility in implementing the work requirement. The work requirement is in no way "dropped".

Second, this is a change that Romney LOBBIED FOR when he was governor of Massachusettes! :doh
He and every other Republican governor in the United States signed a letter to President Bush requesting the implementation of just such waivers. Obviously the idea of giving more responsibility to the states is a quintessentially Republican notion.

"Romney 2012: I'm a lying hypocrite -- won't you vote for me?"
Click to expand...


He changes his mind like other people change socks.

I'm not sure he really 'changing' his mind, just trying to appeal to the broadest base possible.
 
AdamT said:
Unbelievable! Romney strikes again with another lying, absolutely hypocritical campaign ad. This time Romney starts:



So first, this is a lie. In fact the rule change by itself doesn't change a thing with respect to work requirements. What it in fact does is provide states with the opportunity to apply for waivers that would give them more flexibility in implementing the work requirement. The work requirement is in no way "dropped".

Second, this is a change that Romney LOBBIED FOR when he was governor of Massachusettes! :doh
He and every other Republican governor in the United States signed a letter to President Bush requesting the implementation of just such waivers. Obviously the idea of giving more responsibility to the states is a quintessentially Republican notion.

"Romney 2012: I'm a lying hypocrite -- won't you vote for me?"
Click to expand...

Agreed. Anything to make Obama look like he supports a welfare state. To hell with what's real. These Idiots should be celebrating a victory for states rights...
 
Back in the old days, they used to accuse opposing candidates of far worse

Thomas Jefferson was our 3rd president from 1801 to 1809. The chief attack on Jefferson was in a book written by Thomas Hazard in 1867 called "The Johnny Cake Papers." Hazard interviewed Paris Gardiner, who said he was present during the 1796 presidential campaign, when one speaker states that Thomas Jefferson was “a mean-spirited son of a half-breed Indian squaw and a Virginia mulatto father.”
Click to expand...

Black People And Their Place In World History

Woodrow Wilson, famed for his role in the progressive movement and World War I, was not without scandal. His sin, however, was not sex per se but simply an engagement. His first wife, Ellen Louise Axson, died in August of 1914. The next spring Wilson met Edith Galt and by May they were engaged. This was seen as scandalous at the time, rumors began to fly about the President including that he had even murdered his first wife in order to marry Galt
Click to expand...

Top Ten U.S. Presidential Scandals - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com
 
The title of this thread makes me laugh.
 
Carleen said:
Hey AdamT. I think you finally shut him up!
Click to expand...

I don't know whether he shut him up or not, but I know Adam's wrong . . .

For example, welfare mothers with children under age six will not have to work if they cannot find day care. About 60 percent of current single-parent Aid to Families with Dependent Children households have at least one child under age six, so the size of this loophole is readily apparent. Moreover, at least 30 states have been granted waivers exempting recipients from the full impact of the law's work requirements. In many cases, states have defined work to include job search activities, job training and, in at least one case, drug rehabilitation.
Click to expand...
 
I agree... Obama and his operatives are running the absolute least honest campaign in history...

Constantly with the attack ads, saying they hate negative campaigning... yet there are not any ads out there that are pro-Obama... He has no vision, or at least not a vision for this country that anyone would share...

They seek to constantly distract the real issues of the campaign with side story distractions... Attempting to misguide the voters to the real issues of the campaign...

You can add up a mountain of baseless and useless attacks about tax returns, birth control pills, european trips, gay marriages, etc. and it wont take one penny off the massive $16T debt, lower the 8.3% unemployment a single percentage point, or drop the price of gasoline below $3.50/gal in most areas of the country...

Obama has the country currently on the road to ruin, people are losing their jobs daily... after dropping from 8.2% to 8.1% earlier this year, the unemployment rate stayed steady at 8.1%, then rose to 8.2%, and not 8.3%... as the GDP growth rate dropped to lower than the rate of inflation...

Right track or wrong track there?

This isn't about Mitt Romney, as much as I would like it to be, as a major proponent of the man's work as my governor, turning things around... This is about whatever monkey in a suit is running against Obama...

Anybody but Obama 2012 bumper stickers are the ones youll be seeing most often... We can't wait to be rid of his failed and divisive leadership...
 
AdamT said:
I did provide a link, but I guess with unemployment so high it's too much work to click on it. :lol:

Here's an explanation from a Forbes editorial:
Click to expand...

After reading your post from Forbes it says the states have more flexibility, but it does not say the work rule remains in tack. It seems to me the federal law is now basically void and the states can do what they want. Meaning no work requirement we'll just keep sending you a check, provided by the federal government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom