• 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!

America's Fed Up: Obama Approval Rating Hits All-Time Low, Poll Shows [W:256]

TheNextEra said:
The same reason you supported Bush Con. Tell us WHY WOULD A LIBERAL VOTE FOR ROMNEY? He represented MANY social views that were conservative. Maybe if the economy is the NUMBER ONE priority for you and other cons you shouldn't put social conservatives up.

I didn't vote for Obama, but it is clear in this country the duopoly system is prevalent so please tell us why someone on the left would vote for a social conservative like Romney was?
Click to expand...
...to avoid national suicide.
 
solletica said:
Conservatives are proud of bush because bush dropped more bombs than Obama. Conservatives measure the value of a politician by how many bombs he drops, and bush is leading.
Click to expand...
If that were true wouldn't I adore Roosevelt? Instead I recognize him as the tyrant second most responsible for the state of the nation today.
 
Conservative said:
What is absolutely amazing to me is revisionist history on the part of those who claim that Bush started a war that wasn't authorized by Congress totally ignoring that the Gulf War cease fire was violated and the entire intelligence organization all over the world said that Saddam Hussein had WMD. What we have here are people who are never proactive on any issue continuing to blame Bush for something they truly don't understand or want to understand.
Click to expand...

History accurately records that bush initiated the invasion of Iraq.

History also accurately records that militant Islam was nearly powerless under Saddam's Baathist (secular) regime, the regime that bush decimated w/his invasion.

No revisionism there.
 
TheNextEra said:
The same reason you supported Bush Con. Tell us WHY WOULD A LIBERAL VOTE FOR ROMNEY? He represented MANY social views that were conservative. Maybe if the economy is the NUMBER ONE priority for you and other cons you shouldn't put social conservatives up.

I didn't vote for Obama, but it is clear in this country the duopoly system is prevalent so please tell us why someone on the left would vote for a social conservative like Romney was?
Click to expand...

Romney was a social conservative?
 
Misterveritis said:
I see liberalism/progressivism/socialism/Marxism/statism/fascism as a continuum of totalitarians whose main differences involve their tools of tyranny and implementation speed. All run counter to the ideal of individual liberty and freedom this nation was founded upon.
Click to expand...

Fascism is mostly supported by conservatives, as evidenced by their support for such policies as warrantless wiretapping, extrajudicial detention, funding of overseas wars via taxation, . . .
 
solletica said:
History accurately records that bush initiated the invasion of Iraq.

History also accurately records that militant Islam was nearly powerless under Saddam's Baathist (secular) regime, the regime that bush decimated w/his invasion.

No revisionism there.
Click to expand...

History also show that Saddam used WMD on his own people, History also shows he violated the Cease Fire Agreement ending the Gulf War, history also shows him violating UN resolutions including 1441, history also shows the British Butler Commission report stating that Bush and Blair did nothing wrong, and I could go on but it doesn't matter. GW Bush won the war in Iraq and Obama lost the peace, that is history.
 
TheNextEra said:
The same reason you supported Bush Con. Tell us WHY WOULD A LIBERAL VOTE FOR ROMNEY? He represented MANY social views that were conservative. Maybe if the economy is the NUMBER ONE priority for you and other cons you shouldn't put social conservatives up.

I didn't vote for Obama, but it is clear in this country the duopoly system is prevalent so please tell us why someone on the left would vote for a social conservative like Romney was?
Click to expand...

I don't expect low information voting liberals to vote for anyone based upon facts and data, just emotion. Romney believes in state's rights not a one size fits all Federal Program. The economy should be the number one issue for ALL Americans because without a strong economy nothing else really matters.
 
Conservative said:
History also show that Saddam used WMD on his own people, History also shows he violated the Cease Fire Agreement ending the Gulf War, history also shows him violating UN resolutions including 1441, history also shows the British Butler Commission report stating that Bush and Blair did nothing wrong, and I could go on but it doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

Correct, it's irrelevant. The only relevant issue is that if bush hadn't invaded, ISIS wouldn't be what it is today.

Conservative said:
GW Bush won the war in Iraq and Obama lost the peace, that is history.
Click to expand...

False. History records that militant Islam increased in Iraq during bush's term following the invasion, along w/the worsening of security, and that the trend continues to this day.
 
Misterveritis said:
...to avoid national suicide.
Click to expand...

That is your opinion that Romney would have done better. Just like it is the opinion of liberals that Gore or Kerry would have done better.

We know the results of the second term of Bush were DISASTEROUS. Maybe if you care about the economy so much you cons should stop putting up social conservatives. Until then, get used to Dems in the office.
 
Conservative said:
I don't expect low information voting liberals to vote for anyone based upon facts and data, just emotion. Romney believes in state's rights not a one size fits all Federal Program. The economy should be the number one issue for ALL Americans because without a strong economy nothing else really matters.
Click to expand...

Then stop putting up social conservatives, because as you said ECONOMY is the number one priority. The fact you guys keep putting social conservatives up for election PROVES you don't think the economy is the number ONE priority. You think preventing gays from marrying, abortion bans, and wars are more important each time you put a GOP candidate up for election. You can spin all you want, but the FACT remains that you cons don't think the economy is the number one priority.
 
solletica said:
romney was just an overpriced Wall St. pawn that malfunctioned.
Click to expand...

Yet he wowed the GOP enough to be their candidate. Talk about low information voters.
 
TheNextEra said:
Yet he wowed the GOP enough to be their candidate. Talk about low information voters.
Click to expand...

The lowest information voter is one who votes on skin color or sex of the candidate.
 
Ockham said:
The lowest information voter is one who votes on skin color or sex of the candidate.
Click to expand...

Nice deflection, but the fact remains Romney was a lousy candidate. Low information voters chose Romney as their GOP mouthpiece. I will agree with what you said though about voting for skin color or sex.
 
TheNextEra said:
Nice deflection, but the fact remains Romney was a lousy candidate.
Click to expand...
That's your opinion - I believe he'd be an improvement over our current president.
TheNextEra said:
Low information voters chose Romney as their GOP mouthpiece.
Click to expand...
The RNC chooses who to back as to donors. Voters have a limited effect on who is chosen.
TheNextEra said:
I will agree with what you said though about voting for skin color or sex.
Click to expand...
A shred of honesty goes a long way.
 
Ockham said:
That's your opinion - I believe he'd be an improvement over our current president.
Click to expand...

And that's YOUR opinion.
The RNC chooses who to back as to donors. Voters have a limited effect on who is chosen.
Click to expand...

There is this thing called the primaries is there not? The low information voters picked Romney.
 
TheNextEra said:
And that's YOUR opinion.
Click to expand...
What else would it be?


TheNextEra said:
There is this thing called the primaries is there not? The low information voters picked Romney.
Click to expand...
Both parties designate who will run, put money behind them, fund advertising and propaganda to LEAD their voters to vote. You deny this?
 
solletica;1063735192]Correct, it's irrelevant. The only relevant issue is that if bush hadn't invaded, ISIS wouldn't be what it is today.
Click to expand...

That is your opinion but you ignore the brutal regime that was there and one that was seeking WMD. Had Obama done his job ISIS wouldn't be what it is today. Bush won the war, Obama lost the peace



False. History records that militant Islam increased in Iraq during bush's term following the invasion, along w/the worsening of security, and that the trend continues to this day.[/QUOTE]
 
TheNextEra said:
Then stop putting up social conservatives, because as you said ECONOMY is the number one priority. The fact you guys keep putting social conservatives up for election PROVES you don't think the economy is the number ONE priority. You think preventing gays from marrying, abortion bans, and wars are more important each time you put a GOP candidate up for election. You can spin all you want, but the FACT remains that you cons don't think the economy is the number one priority.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but Romney was and is a business person with executive leadership skills, something Obama can only dream about. The support for Obama is strictly about social issues and ignores the most important, the economy. I know the economy is number one which is why I voted for Romney and his background. Further I know that without a liberal Congress social programs cannot be implemented nor should they. Social programs are state and local responsibilities.
 
Conservative said:
Sorry, but Romney was and is a business person with executive leadership skills, something Obama can only dream about. The support for Obama is strictly about social issues and ignores the most important, the economy. I know the economy is number one which is why I voted for Romney and his background. Further I know that without a liberal Congress social programs cannot be implemented nor should they. Social programs are state and local responsibilities.
Click to expand...

So you are against ALL social programs and want people on the street got it. These are YOUR comments not mine.
 
TheNextEra said:
So you are against ALL social programs and want people on the street got it. These are YOUR comments not mine.
Click to expand...

You will never get it, but social programs belong in the state and local communities, not being run by a bureaucrat in D.C. who is running for the next election and not doing their current job. Local politicians are closer to the people and that is where social programs belong, closer to the people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom