• 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!

Republicans Presidential Campaigns

It was certainly the most quotable comment, but it was far from the only example of Romney having general disdain or outright contempt for poor people and non-Republicans.

Even though he's lived a lifetime that would belie everything you say.
 
Okay, so you personally did not bring race into it. Have a cookie. Absurd simplifications, including "black people like handouts," have been used to explain their 2012 loss.

If you're going to engage me in discussion, you can keep your crap about race to yourself - the "absurd simplifications" are on the part of posters like you who have no argument and resort back to their base need to see racism in any criticism of this President.
 
Which means that...drumroll....Romney didn't present himself as a superior alternative.

However, which more accurately means....drumroll..... a majority of the electorate were "too stupid" to see him as a superior alternative.
 
Even though he's lived a lifetime that would belie everything you say.

Maybe he has, maybe he hasn't, but he didn't present himself as a man who was particularly interested in non-rich Americans. Every time he commented on or interacted with people of even median income levels he regularly portrayed himself as a goofy alien interacting with earthlings for the first time.
 
Maybe he has, maybe he hasn't, but he didn't present himself as a man who was particularly interested in non-rich Americans. Every time he commented on or interacted with people of even median income levels he regularly portrayed himself as a goofy alien interacting with earthlings for the first time.

Perhaps Romney was a little "awkward" in crowds and had a bit of that "goofy alien" you refer to - had nothing to do with the policies he was promoting and his position on issues. Besides, Obama had the market cornered on the slick con man schtick already.
 
It's a pattern, innit? Every discussion of US federal politics becomes post after post of conservatives mewling to each other about how the White House was stolen from their man by media bias, voter ignorance and/or subterfuge. Somehow they can't see past their own impotence and offended sense of ownership of the presidency to the fact that they (conservatives) have been chipping away at their own constituency and alienating voters in whole blocs.
If the Republican Party comes back to the White House it'll be because they've managed to bring more of the center and center-left into their fold and been able to make the conservatives keep their yaps shut.
 
You're right. That must be it. Romney was a totally awesome candidate. :lol:

I don't believe I said Romney was an "awesome candidate" - Obama was the shallow "Wow" candidate - I said Romney would have been a pretty good President and far better than the dolt currently holding the office.
 
You're right. That must be it. Romney was a totally awesome candidate. :lol:

Watch "Mitt Romney Thinks Famous Bakery Cookies Are from 7-11" Video at New York Magazine Romney Thinks Famous Bakery Cookies Are from 7-11

Perhaps you can also dig up the Obama video where he claims to have visited all 57 American States, or maybe you could dig up that great video where Obama addressed the troops and talked about the "corpse"-men.

If your point is that the liberal argument for everything is racism and ridicule, I'm already fully aware of that.
 
I don't believe I said Romney was an "awesome candidate" - Obama was the shallow "Wow" candidate - I said Romney would have been a pretty good President and far better than the dolt currently holding the office.

I've heard and seen nothing to suggest this would be true. The only major differences in their policies seemed to focus on culture war issues, not larger international, military and economic topics. For instance, while the Right has been quick to jump on Obama for every international decision, remember that during the debates Romney agreed with our international course every single time. No, the only difference is that Romney would have appointed more conservative judges. He probably would have even kept the PPACA and taken credit for it.
 
I see - so one fairly innocuous comment, taken out of context and blown up by a media whose goal was to relelect their man, invalidates your perception of Romney's ability to govern and be a strong President.

I'd hardly call it an innocuous comment. I tend to believe what somebody says when they think the cameras are off rather than what they say when they think the cameras are on. He basically insulted half of the electorate - and you're amazed he didn't win?

I really didn't think Romney would be all that great, I just thought that Obama was a disappointment. After finding out what he really thought of half of Americans, I decided to vote for neither of them.

You're basically blaming everything from the media, to Obama's "Wow factor" (not sure what you mean by that), and when all else fails it's because Americans are dumbfvcks. Nothing about Romney himself.

When he was Gov of Mass, he thought that a mandate to have health insurance was a great idea, and that gays were generally decent people. He suddenly flip-flopped on those issues (just to pick two). Which did he really believe? (Similarly, Obama was against the mandate and gay marriage). It basically came down to "Who is this guy, what does he really believe other than "make money" and "I want to be President?" Why would I vote for that? When the cameras were on, he said what he thought would get him elected, and when he thought they were off he said "You're all a bunch of lazy people." That's why I didn't vote for him - he's Obama with an (R) after his name.
 
I've heard and seen nothing to suggest this would be true. The only major differences in their policies seemed to focus on culture war issues, not larger international, military and economic topics. For instance, while the Right has been quick to jump on Obama for every international decision, remember that during the debates Romney agreed with our international course every single time. No, the only difference is that Romney would have appointed more conservative judges. He probably would have even kept the PPACA and taken credit for it.

Number one - you clearly have no idea what Romney's positions were on things. Romney's campaign had virtually nothing to do with "culture wars" and only tangentially involved them when the media dredged them up to create controversy. It perhaps explains partially why a lot of christian conservatives stayed home, along with their dislike of Mormonism. The "cultural warriors" were not Romney, but several House and Senate candidates who did not speak for Romney and Romney regularly condemned the statements of some in this regard.

Secondly - Romney clearly disagreed with Obama's handling of Egypt, Syria, Russia, the Eastern European defense shield, Israel/Palestine, Libya, and others. The major point in international relations is that America was far more respected under President Bush than under President Obama and President Obama continues to be a virtual non-entity when it comes to moral suasion in the world at large - just like increasingly on domestic policy, Obama is marginalized internationally and virtually ignored. When yesterday, he and his administration warned Russia not to interfere in the Ukraine, you could hear the laughter around the world.
 
It's a pattern, innit? Every discussion of US federal politics becomes post after post of conservatives mewling to each other about how the White House was stolen from their man by media bias, voter ignorance and/or subterfuge. Somehow they can't see past their own impotence and offended sense of ownership of the presidency to the fact that they (conservatives) have been chipping away at their own constituency and alienating voters in whole blocs.
If the Republican Party comes back to the White House it'll be because they've managed to bring more of the center and center-left into their fold and been able to make the conservatives keep their yaps shut.

And they don't understand why "You weren't legitimately raped," or "Half of you are stupid" would turn people off. Hello, McFly!
 
Number one - you clearly have no idea what Romney's positions were on things.

You hit the nail on the head there. Perhaps unintentionally. Nobody had a clear idea of what his positions were. He was a moderate one minute and a TPer the next.
 
I'd hardly call it an innocuous comment. I tend to believe what somebody says when they think the cameras are off rather than what they say when they think the cameras are on. He basically insulted half of the electorate - and you're amazed he didn't win?

I really didn't think Romney would be all that great, I just thought that Obama was a disappointment. After finding out what he really thought of half of Americans, I decided to vote for neither of them.

You're basically blaming everything from the media, to Obama's "Wow factor" (not sure what you mean by that), and when all else fails it's because Americans are dumbfvcks. Nothing about Romney himself.

When he was Gov of Mass, he thought that a mandate to have health insurance was a great idea, and that gays were generally decent people. He suddenly flip-flopped on those issues (just to pick two). Which did he really believe? (Similarly, Obama was against the mandate and gay marriage). It basically came down to "Who is this guy, what does he really believe other than "make money" and "I want to be President?" Why would I vote for that? When the cameras were on, he said what he thought would get him elected, and when he thought they were off he said "You're all a bunch of lazy people." That's why I didn't vote for him - he's Obama with an (R) after his name.

The fact of the matter is that Americans had 4 years of on the job experience under Obama and if you voted to reelect the man hoping he couldn't be worse or had to get better, you were an idiot, period. The first President Bush was a terrific President, well respected in the world, and he was defeated after failing to keep one promise, taxes - and don't try to tell me that the majority of American people thought that Bubba, the serial cheater and rapist, was going to be a great President - they just defeated the incumbent - and of course, Ross Perot had a little say in the matter.

As the old saying goes, to paraphrase - "doing one thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome is the definition of insanity".
 
Romney was a perfectly credible and competent candidate and would have made a fine President. Unfortunately, too many people voted for your "WOW factor" candidate, even after four years of incompetence, and forgot to ask questions like - wow, do I really want to vote for this dolt again? - wow, can he really be as bad in a second term as he was in the first? - wow, does a President really have to have more than just a nice smile? - wow, just wow.


With all due respect CJ, the biggest problem is not at the president level. Regardless who is President, there will still be gridlock in Washington. The senate is democratic lead and the congress is Tea party lead. How would he have handle Ted Cruz? The tea party already look at Romney as a R.I.N.O.

I think if Romney was president today, the civil war in the republican party would be on a much larger scale then it is now. At least right now both have one common enemy in Obama. But what happens when Romney wants to make a deal with the democrats that the tea party would not like?


Unless all that crap we are seeing now is just a show for the base :shrug:
 
You hit the nail on the head there. Perhaps unintentionally. Nobody had a clear idea of what his positions were. He was a moderate one minute and a TPer the next.

Oh he had positions. Lots of them, in fact. You could even say that during the length of the entire campaign he held every position there ever was.
 
The fact of the matter is that Americans had 4 years of on the job experience under Obama and if you voted to reelect the man hoping he couldn't be worse or had to get better, you were an idiot, period. The first President Bush was a terrific President, well respected in the world, and he was defeated after failing to keep one promise, taxes - and don't try to tell me that the majority of American people thought that Bubba, the serial cheater and rapist, was going to be a great President - they just defeated the incumbent - and of course, Ross Perot had a little say in the matter.

As the old saying goes, to paraphrase - "doing one thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome is the definition of insanity".

Given the state of the economy during Clinton's Presidency, I'd actually say he did a pretty acceptable job. I'd take another 8 years of that.
 
With all due respect CJ, the biggest problem is not at the president level. Regardless who is President, there will still be gridlock in Washington. The senate is democratic lead and the congress is Tea party lead. How would he have handle Ted Cruz? The tea party already look at Romney as a R.I.N.O.

I think if Romney was president today, the civil war in the republican party would be on a much larger scale then it is now. At least right now both have one common enemy in Obama. But what happens when Romney wants to make a deal with the democrats that the tea party would not like?


Unless all that crap we are seeing now is just a show for the base :shrug:

You know, Presidents have this thing called the "bully pulpit" and they have the moral suasion that the office of President holds. And strong leaders are able to rise above themselves and bring divergent groups together in order to accomplish things. President Obama is incredibly inept at any kind of negotiation - he is perpetually in campaign mode, critizing and demonizing those who oppose his agenda and therefore incapable of negotiating a truce when one is needed. Presidents Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, and Bush 2 all were superior talents at working with the two parties in congress, often when congress was controlled in part or whole by the other side - President Obama has failed miserably.

Presidents are not called RINOs or DINOs by their party when they make government work and negotiate with both sides - marginal elements may, but that's why they're marginal - the majority both in office and in the public at large see it as being Presidential.
 
Given the state of the economy during Clinton's Presidency, I'd actually say he did a pretty acceptable job. I'd take another 8 years of that.

My comment was not related to President Clinton's term in office, but his standing leading up to his success in his first Presidential election. There was nothing to suggest that he'd be a good President - far less than the background and experience of Romney. I would agree that Clinton was a fine President - except for the personal crap - far better than Obama could ever hope to be. I'm sure upwards of 90% of the American population would swap out Obama for Clinton today, if they could.
 
The fact of the matter is that Americans had 4 years of on the job experience under Obama and if you voted to reelect the man hoping he couldn't be worse or had to get better, you were an idiot, period. The first President Bush was a terrific President, well respected in the world, and he was defeated after failing to keep one promise, taxes - and don't try to tell me that the majority of American people thought that Bubba, the serial cheater and rapist, was going to be a great President - they just defeated the incumbent - and of course, Ross Perot had a little say in the matter.

As the old saying goes, to paraphrase - "doing one thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome is the definition of insanity".

How's this for insanity? Before the campaign begins the conservatives give Black voters to the Democrats, give Latinos to the Democrats, give gays to the Democrats, give atheists and single mothers and pot users and a fair chunk of women and a big part of twenty-somethings to the Democrats and then, after the game for the rest of the popular vote is played out, after they lose, they complain that the playing field wasn't level.
Smart, huh? That's not even insanity, it's stupidity.
 
Thanks for the discussion, gentlemen - I'll check back later, when I get a chance - have a good day.
 
I'm sure upwards of 90% of the American population would swap out Obama for Clinton today, if they could.

I would be down for that.
 
You know, Presidents have this thing called the "bully pulpit" and they have the moral suasion that the office of President holds. And strong leaders are able to rise above themselves and bring divergent groups together in order to accomplish things. President Obama is incredibly inept at any kind of negotiation - he is perpetually in campaign mode, criticizing and demonizing those who oppose his agenda and therefore incapable of negotiating a truce when one is needed. Presidents Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, and Bush 2 all were superior talents at working with the two parties in congress, often when congress was controlled in part or whole by the other side - President Obama has failed miserably.

Presidents are not called RINOs or DINOs by their party when they make government work and negotiate with both sides - marginal elements may, but that's why they're marginal - the majority both in office and in the public at large see it as being Presidential.

And again they never had to deal with a movement like the tea party. You don't like the president fine I expect that from the right, but let not pretend that he has a willing body to negotiate with. On his inauguration, the GOP were already planning a strategy of resistance. members of the GOP said it themselves that compromise is a bad word. How do you start off from there?


I repeat there would have been nothing that Romney could have done in this environment. You have republicans who are more conservative than Romney either retiring or changing parties because they don't like the direction their party is going.

What would Romney do to bring the party back together?
How would he get the tea party to trust him?
How would he had gotten the debt ceiling raised?
 
It's a pattern, innit? Every discussion of US federal politics becomes post after post of conservatives mewling to each other about how the White House was stolen from their man by media bias, voter ignorance and/or subterfuge. Somehow they can't see past their own impotence and offended sense of ownership of the presidency to the fact that they (conservatives) have been chipping away at their own constituency and alienating voters in whole blocs.

They call that "personal responsibility"
 
Back
Top Bottom