• 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.

Wouldn't it be wonderful . . .

I think we'd get 30 minutes of "I'm going to create jobs, balance the budget, and bring about a wonderful new era in America" without giving a single detail about how any of those wonderful things are going to be accomplished.


Now Ditto, come on, you know better I hope....Is any one President able to unilaterally implement things on his own?
 
. . . if each major candidate was given 30 minutes of airtime on Election Eve to delineate exactly what they plan to do if they are elected?

. . . The only rule being that one could NOT reference the other candidate or his policies. Rigidly enforced.

What do you think?

I think this would be a great idea_ Maggie- '' if that is the only time they were allowed, during the whole process,
well maybe
ok give them 30 mins at the beginning of the campaign_
no ads, no tv appearances,
except one debate
the night before the election,
No phone calls, Nuttin except what was listed' then, vote your choice, what you think ? then they could donate all the campaign Money to charities.
 
Now Ditto, come on, you know better I hope....Is any one President able to unilaterally implement things on his own?

Of course not, but he is able to go on and on about all of the wonderful things he'll do if elected, without giving any details about how these miracles can be accomplished.

What would be even more useful to the voters would be putting all of the logos of the candidates' donors in the background. That way, we'd be able to determine who is sponsoring him.
 
Of course not, but he is able to go on and on about all of the wonderful things he'll do if elected, without giving any details about how these miracles can be accomplished.

Because the details of these things are done in negotiation with congress, that can't happen until they happen. You have a general path that he wants to follow. BTW, what is Barry's plan?

What would be even more useful to the voters would be putting all of the logos of the candidates' donors in the background. That way, we'd be able to determine who is sponsoring him.

Does George Soros have a logo?
 
Because the details of these things are done in negotiation with congress, that can't happen until they happen. You have a general path that he wants to follow. BTW, what is Barry's plan?
Barry's plan is more of the same, of course.
and Romney said exactly what you just said about his tax plan, and was bashed for it.


Which is why we'd get a whole lot of vague promises with nothing solid, probably including promises that the president couldn't keep if he wanted to, like closing Gitmo and repealing Obomneycare.

But we still wouldn't get anything about a "general path" except promises of wonderfulness to come.



Does George Soros have a logo?

Probably not, so we'd have to add names as well as logos.
 
Barry's plan is more of the same, of course.
and Romney said exactly what you just said about his tax plan, and was bashed for it.


Which is why we'd get a whole lot of vague promises with nothing solid, probably including promises that the president couldn't keep if he wanted to, like closing Gitmo and repealing Obomneycare.

But we still wouldn't get anything about a "general path" except promises of wonderfulness to come.


So I guess one has to rely on ideals and principles then right? That along with previous record should give you a pretty good idea.
 
I hear this all the time. But I know exactly what Romney will do. He said what he would do -- cut taxes on Paris Hilton, cut deductions for working people, give energy policy over to Exxon, destroy unions where possible, drill without regulation, deregulate the financial industry so it's Bush Meltdown time, repeal Obamacare and invade or attack Iran.

The issue is, do you really want this melange of retrograde and odious policies. Conservatives do. Normal Americans don't.

Got any links showing those comments? Or are you just flying off the partisan handle?
 
I hear this all the time. But I know exactly what Romney will do. He said what he would do -- cut taxes on Paris Hilton, cut deductions for working people, give energy policy over to Exxon, destroy unions where possible, drill without regulation, deregulate the financial industry so it's Bush Meltdown time, repeal Obamacare and invade or attack Iran.

The issue is, do you really want this melange of retrograde and odious policies. Conservatives do. Normal Americans don't.

OK, now we know where the exact edge of the cliff is.
 
So I guess one has to rely on ideals and principles then right? That along with previous record should give you a pretty good idea.

The previous record speaks loudest. As for ideals and principles, that seems to vary according to what the candidate thinks the audience wants to hear.
 
The previous record speaks loudest. As for ideals and principles, that seems to vary according to what the candidate thinks the audience wants to hear.


Do you then think that Obama's previous record deserves a second term?
 
Do you then think that Obama's previous record deserves a second term?

In a word, no.

and I think Romney's record speaks volumes about his character and qualifications

What I don't think is that anyone is going to be able to work miracles, nor is the country going to go in the crapper regardless of the outcome of the presidential election.
 
Doh! wrong thread....
 
You never rebut the facts.

Are you REALLY at at loss at what Romney plans to do? I mean really? He said what he'd do: lower taxes on the rich, eliminate deductions for working people, deregulate back to Bush era fiasco levels, invade or bomb Iran, let Exxon determine energy policy, destroy unions where possible.

Don't you believe your own guy?

He never said he was going to lower taxes on "the rich." Cite, please.
He never said he was going to eliminate tax deductions for "working people." Cite, please.
Oh, I could just keep listing. Please cite the whole baloney sandwich.
 
In a word, no.

and I think Romney's record speaks volumes about his character and qualifications

What I don't think is that anyone is going to be able to work miracles, nor is the country going to go in the crapper regardless of the outcome of the presidential election.


*j-mac throws hands up into the air* Then what the hell are we even talking about? I swear trying to have a conversation with an academic sometimes is headache inducing.

Don't worry dude, I still like ya, but it is frustrating.
 
*j-mac throws hands up into the air* Then what the hell are we even talking about? I swear trying to have a conversation with an academic sometimes is headache inducing.

Don't worry dude, I still like ya, but it is frustrating.

LOL. It can be confusing.

Here's where I stand on the election: Romney is better qualified than Obama because of his business experience, his history of working with the opposing party successfully, and his track record of bringing economically failing entities back from disaster. He has a history of personal achievement and of generosity. He gave away his inheritance, for heaven's sake, instead of sitting back and living the good life on Daddy's money as he could easily have done.

Romney is a huge flip flopper of you listen to what he's said. The reason for that is he had to relate to the conservative base of the Republican Party in order to be nominated. Had he not done that, the Republicans would have likely nominated a real loser like Perry, Bachmann, or Cain. If you watch what he's done, however, he's pretty consistently a middle of the road pragmatist.

If Romney is elected, he's not going to repeal Obamacare on day one, or ever. He actually agrees with most of it. Hopefully, he will start with it and build on it until we have a health care system we can actually afford. He also agrees with Obama pretty much line for line on foreign affairs.

Obama, on the other hand, is not a socialist, not nearly as left wing as he's been portrayed. He has been less than satisfactory mainly due to partisan opposition from the Republicans whose main goal was to make him a one term president. Much of what has been said about him is total, absolute nonsense.

He has messed up a couple of times, most notably on the handling of the terrorist attack on the embassy at Bengazi. More than likely, Romney will also mess up more than once if he is elected. When he does, the Democrats will scream bloody murder, just like the Republicans do when Obama messes up.

I'm no Democrat partisan. I'm a registered Republican, but only so I can vote in the primary. Otherwise, I'd be either an independent or a Libertarian. I have no use for partisan politics.

There. Clearer?
 
I hear this all the time. But I know exactly what Romney will do. He said what he would do -- cut taxes on Paris Hilton, cut deductions for working people, give energy policy over to Exxon, destroy unions where possible, drill without regulation, deregulate the financial industry so it's Bush Meltdown time, repeal Obamacare and invade or attack Iran.

The issue is, do you really want this melange of retrograde and odious policies. Conservatives do. Normal Americans don't.

Most Americans are more Conservative than "Progressive"
 
Back
Top Bottom