Mitt Romney for President - Page 3

Originally Posted by SDW2001

What an in-depth, balanced analysis. Goodbye.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Mass. is his home state.

Beyond that, your stat is meaningless. You're celebrating because he did BETTER than McCain did, and had nearly 40% of the vote? What happened to Romney the 25 percenter?

Here's a little factoid for you: Every person to win the GOP nomination has won Iowa or New Hampshire. Romney won both. Have a nice day.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

So the GOP started class warfare?



Yes, yes, jimmac. The GOP is for the evil rich, and the Democrats just want to help the poor and we average joes. Good lord.



Why, because he's rich? How "in touch" is Obama? At least Romney's had to make a payroll in his life. At least his evil Bain Capital created more jobs as it raped and pillages the land than Obama has in the last 3 years across the nation.



We've been through this. No, Obama does not want a "socialist" society. But he does want a more progressive, European-style system, from increased social welfare benefits, to universal healthcare, to a smaller military and less American involvement and influence in the world. Oh, and jimmac...please tell me you know there will ALWAYS be haves and have nots. Even the most stringent communist societies in the world had (and have) "haves and have nots."



Yeah, because that what he was talking about.





"I see your true colors, shinin' through...."

Your idiocy and cognitive dissonance have reached new highs! First, you decry class warfare. Then, you blame thje GOP for it. Meanwhile, YOUR PRESIDENT has been the one running around stoking the flames. He's the one that is constantly slamming "millionaires and billionaires." YOUR GUY is the one engaging in the very class warfare you claim to despise. YOUR GUY. And now you're blaming the the guy who CONDEMNS class warfare.

Let's feed that through the jimmac-a-tron 10,000 to see what it comes up with:

Condemning class warfare = you are pro-class warfare

Engaging in class warfare = you just want things to be more fair

SYNTAX ERROR!

Originally Posted by BR

Here's Newt's movie about Mitt.

http://www.kingofbain.com/

Nice little screenshot at the end:

Originally Posted by jimmac

Hey! Haven't we already had a president who proved early in his career before becoming president that he tended to run things into the ground? Who was that? It was someone SDW liked.



Oh yeah!

Originally Posted by trumptman

Going back to the good old days of when everyone was employed and you complained that they all had two jobs at McDonald's and the deficits were only $250b a year instead of a trillion plus?

Mitt Romney can probably get elected just by promising to run all the same wars, but do it for $750b less a year.

Going back to the good old days of when everyone was employed and you complained that they all had two jobs at McDonald's and the deficits were only $250b a year instead of a trillion plus?

Originally Posted by jimmac

now under who's watch did this all start becoming very apparent again as we watched the bottom almost fall out from underneath everything? And could have done much more than just taking vacations in the begining to avert all of this?

Winky winky!

Originally Posted by SDW2001

He never said he did.



Why? Because he has money?



Name three issues he's changed his position on.



So saying that unions are bankrupting our manufacturing industry is a "cheap shot?"



I don't even know what that means. Obama just implied he was the fourth greatest President of all time, and you're calling Romney a "bragging person." Got it.




No, he was talking about firing insurance companies. He was talking about a person's ability to fire an insurance company. Please pay attention.



So what?



Nice specific criticism.



He's far, far better than what he have.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

FDR's

Originally Posted by jimmac

Yes I know it was a joke and yes I was very careful how I put this because yes it goes back farther but Dubbya had the best chance while this was becoming apparent ( 8 years in office ) and did nothing until it blossomed into a real problem. Obama got stuck with it afterwords ( no matter what your position is on his actions ). After it happened does anybody really think it something that took more than 4 years to make would be gone now if McCain had won? Really? Also did FDR take a lot of vacations? Sorry but Bush really needs to take some heat on this one.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

My position on what?



Spin what? I'm really asking.



How has he done that...by the act of being rich?



You have no idea who I am.



Best chance to do what?



It is true that he inherited a bad situation. However, two things: 1) He's unquestionably made it worse and 2) You've never been able to show what Bush did to cause the problem.




Strawman. I've never claimed that...nor has anyone else here of whom I'm aware. I do think McCain would have at least not made things worse, but that's obviously speculation.



Yes, actually.





Bush vacationed at his Texas ranch, where he was able to work. Obama has now played nearly 1,600 holes of golf (something Bush gave up doing because he didn't feel it was appropriate during war). Obama went to Hawaii to vacation, the estimated cost of which is $4 million. His wife's travel to Spain and Africa has cost millions.

Now, go ahead: Make the case that Bush's vacations were inappropriate compared to Obama's...or FDR's. Good luck.




Prosecuted, you dolt. Not persecuted.



Prosecuted for what?



Trying does not equal succeeding. He's made it worse. Unquestionably.



Palin did extremely well as governor and had an 80% approval rating before being nominated. McCain is an experienced Senator and bona fide war hero. Yeah...they're a joke, especially when compared to a former Community Organizer who was a US Senator for 180 days before running for President. The man has never held a job in the private sector, nor served in the military, nor had had any meaningful experience. Yeah...a joke.

SDW your position on this is indefensible.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

That's not a "position"...it's a statement of opinion. You are entitled to it, but that doesn't make it factual.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

CNN Poll: Obama tied with Romney & Paul in November showdowns

Originally Posted by Frank777

It's easy for Paul to score highly when few are openly attacking him. Because everyone wants his supporters in November.

But there isn't a liberal or even slight leftie in the country that will vote for the dismantling of six whole federal departments.

Anybody who knows anything about world affairs understands why U.S. troops must be left in Korea.

Look, I agree with several of Paul positions. But he has no chance at all of becoming president.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Speaking of the race, I thought Romney was a little off last night. Newt actually had a greate debate, and would likely still be in the lead he ran the way he sounded last night. Romney got better over time, and closed well. I thought Santorum scored some points, but came off as a prosecutor. Paul was erratic. Perry had a good debate, but he's too far behind. Overall, Newt won. The question is whether it matters. I doubt it.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

CNN Poll: Obama tied with Romney & Paul in November showdowns

Originally Posted by Frank777

I don't get why you guys bother. 2011 was a great year for me on AI, in large part because I just ignore certain people now.

It's easy for Paul to score highly when few are openly attacking him. Because everyone wants his supporters in November. But there isn't a liberal or even slight leftie in the country that will vote for the dismantling of six whole federal departments. Anybody who knows anything about world affairs understands why U.S. troops must be left in Korea.

Look, I agree with several of Paul positions. But he has no chance at all of becoming president.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

They want his supporters, but I doubt they'll be getting enough of them to defeat Obama. Ron Paul has the overwhelming support of the younger generation of voters and we aren't so willing to pull the lever for a big government candidate. We can't be intimidated or scared into voting for a big government candidate just because he has a certain letter next to his name or some other such nonsense.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

He's tied with Romney against Obama in head-to-head matchups. He has a chance, the GOP establishment just doesn't want to give it to him. He's a threat to their power.

Originally Posted by Frank777

Yes, because the younger generation of voters are completely reliable as a voting bloc. And the older voters, who watch the news, will completely ignore the gutting of six federal departments and an American isolationist policy that utterly failed in WW II.

The establishment is horrified at the prospect, but they were just as horrified with Bachmann or Cain.

The libertarian wing of the Republican party cannot win an election on their own. You just don't get to make up the math portion of the electoral equation. And if Paul wins the nomination, neo-cons and evangelicals will bail (for two different sets of reasons.) Actually, the neo-cons will probably vote for Obama, and Evangelicals will split between GOP, protest votes and stay at homes. And Obama will win.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

the only GOP candidate who doesn't represent the status quo is Ron Paul.

Originally Posted by Frank777

That is simply untrue. Just because Paul represents extreme change does not mean everyone else is for the status quo.

Originally Posted by Frank777

Yes, because the younger generation of voters are completely reliable as a voting bloc. And the older voters, who watch the news, will completely ignore the gutting of six federal departments and an American isolationist policy that utterly failed in WW II.

The establishment is horrified at the prospect, but they were just as horrified with Bachmann or Cain.

The libertarian wing of the Republican party cannot win an election on their own. You just don't get to make up the math portion of the electoral equation. And if Paul wins the nomination, neo-cons and evangelicals will bail (for two different sets of reasons.) Actually, the neo-cons will probably vote for Obama, and Evangelicals will split between GOP, protest votes and stay at homes. And Obama will win.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

The older voters are spoon-fed distorted or outright false information from the TeeVee and mainstream media. And yes, even Fox News is a part of that.

The younger generation doesn't want to pay for the older generation's ignorance. We understand that the status quo is unsustainable, and the only GOP candidate who doesn't represent the status quo is Ron Paul. We also understand that non-intervention is not isolationism and that non-aggression is not pacifism.

Because they had both demonstrated that they would stand up to the establishment and go against it on certain issues.

The establishment cannot win without the libertarian wing of the Republican Party. The only way they get our vote is if they nominate Ron Paul, or if the eventual nominee suddenly flip-flops on some major issues and can convince us he's sincere, which isn't going to happen.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Extreme change is required in order to get us back on the right track. Tinkering around the edges and trying to treat the symptoms rather than the cause may delay the failure for a while, but the outcome will be the same.

We don't need more government, we need less. But none of the GOP candidates, save Paul, wants to reduce government in any meaningful way. Paul is the only true conservative running for president between the two major parties.

All they talk about is in what ways they plan to use government to fix things. Some of the ways in which they want to grow government may be different from Obama, but in all the ways that matter, they are virtually the same.

Can the president wage war without an official declaration of war from Congress? Obama, Romney, Santorum, Perry, and Gingrich say yes.

Can the president kill or detain any American he wants without trial? Obama, Romney, Santorum, Perry, and Gingrich say yes.

Can the government artificially manipulate the money supply and interest rates and print money out of thin air? Obama, Romney, Santorum, Perry, and Gingrich say yes.

Can the government tell you what you can and cannot put in your own body under threat of violence? Obama, Romney, Santorum, Perry, and Gingrich say yes.

Should America police the world and bully other nations into submission to our ideals and interests? Obama, Romney, Santorum, Perry, and Gingrich say yes.

There is no difference among them in the areas that really matter, and more people every day are waking up to this reality.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

If there ever was a time for a serious third party run, it is now. I don't think either of the major parties realizes just how fed up people are with them.

But I think there already is a strong third party candidate running: Gary Johnson. I think it's more probable that Ron Paul would endorse GJ than run as a third party candidate himself.

Originally Posted by Frank777

Any libertarian third party run is going to elect Obama. Even BR can see that.