• 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!

How Would Romney Govern?

How Would Romney Govern?

  • He'd side 90% or more with Republican conservatives

    Votes: 16 44.4%
  • He'd challenge conservatives and/or compromise with moderate democrats

    Votes: 7 19.4%
  • He'd take positions based on polling data

    Votes: 13 36.1%

  • Total voters
    36
As long as he works with the Republicans in Congress to reduce the size, scope and power of the government...and doesn't do any worse than Obama when dealing with the world (don't think he really CAN do worse), I don't care HOW he governs.

You mean like how he raised taxes and fees as well as enacting Romneycare in Massachusetts?

Apparently it was irrational to put hope in Obama, but it's not to expect Romney to do the exact opposite of what he did in Massachusetts.

And people call me crazy.
 
You mean like how he raised taxes and fees as well as enacting Romneycare in Massachusetts?

Apparently it was irrational to put hope in Obama, but it's not to expect Romney to do the exact opposite of what he did in Massachusetts.

And people call me crazy.

I don't care what he did in MA. That was a State...not a nation. He had a quite different State Congress to deal with than he will as President...and quite different issues to deal with. And, the demographics of the Citizens of MA is quite different than the demographics of the Citizens of the U.S. There just is no correlation.

Now, Obama...we have a record of his actions as President for almost four years. We have a VERY good idea how he would govern in another term. Thanks, but no thanks.
 
I don't care what he did in MA. That was a State...not a nation. He had a quite different State Congress to deal with than he will as President...and quite different issues to deal with. And, the demographics of the Citizens of MA is quite different than the demographics of the Citizens of the U.S. There just is no correlation.

I'm sorry. Are you serious?

You cannot be serious. That HAS TO BE A JOKE.

You just argued that nothing a candidate has done in the past matters because the Presidency is different. Therefore, we cannot actually judge Romney because nothing he did before the Presidency matters. Which then leads to the obvious problem of how are we to decide if Romney is a good candidate as per your logic, nothing he did before matters?

Are you okay? Your posts are becoming less and less coherent everyday.

Now, Obama...we have a record of his actions as President for almost four years. We have a VERY good idea how he would govern in another term. Thanks, but no thanks.

Granted that is true, but you seem to think Congress has no impact upon Government or the economy.

Okay, seriously, you're joking about that "nothing he did before matters" comment right?

Right? That has to be joke.
 
You mean like how he raised taxes and fees as well as enacting Romneycare in Massachusetts?

Apparently it was irrational to put hope in Obama, but it's not to expect Romney to do the exact opposite of what he did in Massachusetts.

And people call me crazy.

I've already answered that in other threads...you know, the other threads where you...with your partisan anti-Romny attitude...keep attacking him and my position on him.

Go read it there.
 
I'm sorry. Are you serious?

You cannot be serious. That HAS TO BE A JOKE.

You just argued that nothing a candidate has done in the past matters because the Presidency is different. Therefore, we cannot actually judge Romney because nothing he did before the Presidency matters. Which then leads to the obvious problem of how are we to decide if Romney is a good candidate as per your logic, nothing he did before matters?

Are you okay? Your posts are becoming less and less coherent everyday.



Granted that is true, but you seem to think Congress has no impact upon Government or the economy.

Okay, seriously, you're joking about that "nothing he did before matters" comment right?

Right? That has to be joke.

Again, you display your inability to read...or at least, to understand what you read.

I didn't say what he's done in the past doesn't matter. I said what he did as Governor of MA doesn't matter.

Do you understand the difference?
 
I've already answered that in other threads...you know, the other threads where you...with your partisan anti-Romny attitude...keep attacking him and my position on him.

Go read it there.

Jesus H. Christ. You aren't joking.

Wow.

Once again, rejecting 1 candidate does not make one partisan. Unless you define Mitt Romney to BE the Republican Party. Which you are seemingly doing so right now.

Again, you display your inability to read...or at least, to understand what you read.

I didn't say what he's done in the past doesn't matter. I said what he did as Governor of MA doesn't matter.

Let's go over what you said:

"I don't care what he did in MA. That was a State...not a nation. He had a quite different State Congress to deal with than he will as President...and quite different issues to deal with. And, the demographics of the Citizens of MA is quite different than the demographics of the Citizens of the U.S. There just is no correlation."

Your argument is that because things were not the same as the current Presidency, what he did in MA does not matter. Except that nothing he has ever done is the same as the current Presidency. Therefore, since you argued that because the governor job was different, it doesn't matter what he did. When we apply YOUR LOGIC, nothing Romney did matters because it was "different."

You in fact did say that what he's done in the past doesn't matter. Your argument was because it was different from the presidency, it doesn't matter. But nothing he did was the same. Therefore, the subset of activities that were the same as the current presidency excludes everything Romney did, nothing Romney did matters.

Logic again for the win.

Do you understand the difference?

One must question if you even understand what you write.

Let's use some simple diagrams.

Governorship = Different From Presidency
Everything Romney has done = Different from presidency.
Different from presidency = Doesn't Matter
Everything Romney has done = Doesn't Matter
 
Last edited:
Let's use some simple diagrams.

Governorship = Different From Presidency
Everything Romney has done = Different from presidency.
Different from presidency = Doesn't Matter
Everything Romney has done = Doesn't Matter

HOT DAMN!!!

Finally!!

You are not so oblivious after all!

The only thing I care about Romney is that he has an "R" after his name. Heck, I would have been happy with any other Republican Primary candidate getting the nod. Any of them would have gotten my vote for President.

And...before you go off some deep end with that, I'll mention that every thing I've said this evening has pointed to my stated position...which is to give the Republicans the chance to reduce the size, scope and power of the government and to boot that failed Obama.
 
HOT DAMN!!!

Finally!!

You are not so oblivious after all!

This is rather poor way of admitting you got bested. Considering you're effectively abandoning everything you said earlier.

The only thing I care about Romney is that he has an "R" after his name. Heck, I would have been happy with any other Republican Primary candidate getting the nod. Any of them would have gotten my vote for President.

This is an even poorer way of arguing you're not a partisan.

And...before you go off some deep end with that, I'll mention that every thing I've said this evening has pointed to my stated position...which is to give the Republicans the chance to reduce the size, scope and power of the government and to boot that failed Obama.

Except that the candidate of choice has a history of not doing that. But you freely admit how he behaved doesn't matter. Nor does anything he did matter. What matters if the fact he's not a Democrat. And that somehow makes you not a partisan. Okay.

How is choosing a candidate with a recorded history of big government, big intrusion and tax raises the " the chance to reduce the size, scope and power of the government?"
Know what, I don't actually expect an answer.

Have a good night Mycroft.
 
This is rather poor way of admitting you got bested. Considering you're effectively abandoning everything you said earlier.



This is an even poorer way of arguing you're not a partisan.



Except that the candidate of choice has a history of not doing that. But you freely admit how he behaved doesn't matter. Nor does anything he did matter. What matters if the fact he's not a Democrat. And that somehow makes you not a partisan. Okay.

How is choosing a candidate with a recorded history of big government, big intrusion and tax raises the " the chance to reduce the size, scope and power of the government?"
Know what, I don't actually expect an answer.

Have a good night Mycroft.

LOL!!!

You know what? I have my own definition of a blind partisan. One that you most assuredly meet.

A person who...once they understand another's position...ignore that position and continue to repeat what they want to THINK the other person is saying.

Cya.
 
LOL!!!

You know what? I have my own definition of a blind partisan. One that you most assuredly meet.

I know. You define it as anyone you do not like.

You admitted you are wholly and totally against the Democrats and that you are not a partisan.

I criticize both parties and praise politicians from both parties, but because I dislike one candidate, I'm a partisan to you.

Therefore you are clearly not using the actual definition of a partisan but instead your own definition of anyone who you dislike.

A person who...once they understand another's position...ignore that position and continue to repeat what they want to THINK the other person is saying.

Show me where I did that. Furthermore, by that definition, you are a partisan due to your constant ignoring the tax logic behind why Romney won't release 2009. You are guilty by your own definition.
 
Back
Top Bottom