• The upgrade to XenForo 2.3.7 has now been completed. Please report any issues to our administrators.

The Official Mitt Romney Thread II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not that a Republican had ANY shot in2008, but mcCains campaign was equally weak.

No bias, I wonder how much longer until the Republicans realize they simply current win with their platform. They're in a similar position to the Democrats of the late 70s and the entire 1980s. They're waiting for their Bill Clinton to come along. They need to look in the mirror; their base is simply costing them elections.

Moderate Mitt Romney, maverick John McCain...those guys would have been 10x more competent on the campaign trail if they weren't being pulled by the radicals right wingers of their party.

In politics, nothing is more popular than popularity, not even money. Npone of these guys they have been hyping, like Rubio or Ryan or whoever, are going to generate any real enthusiasm. They have nobody with any sort of mass appeal.

The "base", the "establishment" is entirely what is wrong with the party.

You can't really compare the two....

McCain was up against "Eloquent Rhetoric" in a time where ALL PEOPLE WANTED, was a change from what we had....with a little hope thrown in. We knew very little of this young man, but we knew that he "sounded" like what we wanted....

Romney is up against one of the weakest Presidential records I have seen in my close to 25 years of studying the political system, and it actually should be a slam dunk......he and his campaign haven't even made to half court, much less the free throw line.... :dry:

Obama took HORRID ECONOMIC NUMBERS OF A BUSH ERA....AND ACTUALLY MADE THEM WORSE....anyone, with the right people running their campaign should be able to defeat that.....but probably not gonna happen. Oh well.....
 
Romney is up against one of the weakest Presidential records I have seen in my close to 25 years of studying the political system, and it actually should be a slam dunk......he and his campaign haven't even made to half court, much less the free throw line.....

I still say the Republican party has gone so far right, that it turns people off and that a big issue Romney has to deal with(although he has done it very poorly).

I do think a moderate Republican with a party in line would easily win this election, problem is the Republican party is not in line and that basically makes Obama the default choice for those who can't decide which is worse
 
I still say the Republican party has gone so far right, that it turns people off and that a big issue Romney has to deal with(although he has done it very poorly).

I do think a moderate Republican with a party in line would easily win this election, problem is the Republican party is not in line and that basically makes Obama the default choice for those who can't decide which is worse

I think people, as a whole, are sick of politics from both sides of the aisle, and I will be surprised if we get anywhere near the % voting that we did in 2008, 2004, or 2000....in fact, it wouldn't surprise me a bit if this election came close or hit a new record of lowest voter turn out....
 
:doh: 1st of two bad news for Romney...this clip, where the crowd chats RYAN, but refuses to CHANT ROMNEY.

[YT]SclDiN-lcYE[/YT]


http://race42012.com/2012/09/25/pol...-correspondent-ohio-2012-presidential-survey/

Gravis Marketing/Captiol Correspondent polled 594 likely voters. Gary Johnson JUMPS from 4.5% to 10.6%!!!! Mittens...I know this is a lesser known polling firm...but even Ohio is willing to vote Libertarian than Republican over you.

OUCH, OUCH, OUCH.
 
I think people, as a whole, are sick of politics from both sides of the aisle, and I will be surprised if we get anywhere near the % voting that we did in 2008, 2004, or 2000....in fact, it wouldn't surprise me a bit if this election came close or hit a new record of lowest voter turn out....

My bet is 52% voter turnout(which would be down about 6% from 2008, but roughly the same as 2000 and 2004)
 
You can't really compare the two....

McCain was up against "Eloquent Rhetoric" in a time where ALL PEOPLE WANTED, was a change from what we had....with a little hope thrown in. We knew very little of this young man, but we knew that he "sounded" like what we wanted....

Romney is up against one of the weakest Presidential records I have seen in my close to 25 years of studying the political system, and it actually should be a slam dunk......he and his campaign haven't even made to half court, much less the free throw line.... :dry:

Obama took HORRID ECONOMIC NUMBERS OF A BUSH ERA....AND ACTUALLY MADE THEM WORSE....anyone, with the right people running their campaign should be able to defeat that.....but probably not gonna happen. Oh well.....

The problem is Romney & the Republican party as a whole has been presented as another branch from the same tree of Bush. Regardless of what Obama did, nobody wants to go back to that.

I think in mosts eyes, what obama is doing may or may not be the answer; the early returns have been mixed at best.... but more trickledown certainly is not the answer. The only place the dollars seem to be trickling down to are the bonuses for the execs at firms which are laying off hundreds and thousands of people; the only place jobs seem to be trickling down to are areas outside of the United States.

Romney's biggest mistake was solely campaigning on the message that Obama has not been a competent mess cleaner-uppers, while forgetting to distance himself from the mess maker.

Class warfare, to be honest, is REAL. The radical right have personal problems with anybody on welfare, food stamps, etc, or who supports gay marriage or abortion, who have benefited from affirmative actions, etc. Similarly, the lower class hate on the upper class for seemingly using their wealth to their advantage.

I was a big O supporter in 2008, and I find myself now wondering why I should trust him, not his intentions, but his judgement in 2008 seemed quite off. Why should i believe him now? Serious question. My enthusiasm for O has plummeted.

Regardless, the republican party, somehow, has become known as the party of ignorance. The party of Lincoln, who want less government and greater rights, the party of realism and honesty...has became the party of ignorance.

It doesn't matter how the dems are doing, the current brand is simply toxic to most voters outside of the obvious red states. It's unreal the amount of damage the Tea Party & all the other right wing bigots do the partys mainstream appeal.

I like Scott Brown, but the whole native American thing is just so silly and irrelevant. A waste of time, a waste of breathe, and just plain immature. Don't even get me started on the whole birth certificate thing, or budget debacle.

This was going on way before Romney; his party screwed whoever the nominee was by acting so unprofessional ever since Obama took office.

The Republican party, to put it mildly, is in disarray. I think it will be a while before they return to prominence. There is a lot of political opportunity there, at the moment. They need a response to the Tea Party; a centrist faction of the party closer to their origin values. That would be overwhelmingly popular.
 
I think people, as a whole, are sick of politics from both sides of the aisle, and I will be surprised if we get anywhere near the % voting that we did in 2008, 2004, or 2000....in fact, it wouldn't surprise me a bit if this election came close or hit a new record of lowest voter turn out....


You think the CPD would take the hint and lower back the 15% 3rd party needs in 5 polls back to 5% (Yes, those R and D bastards up it 10% after Perot got to debate) so a 3rd party can get to the debates.
 
I think in mosts eyes, what obama is doing may or may not be the answer; the early returns have been mixed at best.... but more trickledown certainly is not the answer.

Exactly. After 30+ years of supply side/trickle down economics failing the middle class they're finally coming around to see that jobs are not created because rich people just have cash on hand. Demand drives jobs. The consumers with money are the job creators. Employers don't hire because their taxes are lower. They hire because people have money to buy their goods and services and they need the labor to produce them. This idea that we can take all the money and put it in the hands of a few people and let them invest wherever in the world they want (or not) will create jobs here is insane. We need to put that money into the local economies. and we need some trade regulations to protect our jobs. Even if it does cost us some inflation. The idea of globalization was to bring everyone up to our level. Not bring us down to theirs.
 
:doh: 1st of two bad news for Romney...this clip, where the crowd chats RYAN, but refuses to CHANT ROMNEY.

[YT]SclDiN-lcYE[/YT]

That is truly one of the most pathetic attempts at salesmanship I've ever seen. Still can't believe this guy got the nomination.
 
You can't really compare the two....

McCain was up against "Eloquent Rhetoric" in a time where ALL PEOPLE WANTED, was a change from what we had....with a little hope thrown in. We knew very little of this young man, but we knew that he "sounded" like what we wanted....

Romney is up against one of the weakest Presidential records I have seen in my close to 25 years of studying the political system, and it actually should be a slam dunk......he and his campaign haven't even made to half court, much less the free throw line.... :dry:

Obama took HORRID ECONOMIC NUMBERS OF A BUSH ERA....AND ACTUALLY MADE THEM WORSE....anyone, with the right people running their campaign should be able to defeat that.....but probably not gonna happen. Oh well.....

Do you believe Obama has achieved anything in this first term? And what other Presidents' first terms were equally as weak? I'm just curious.
 
Last edited:
The problem is Romney & the Republican party as a whole has been presented as another branch from the same tree of Bush. Regardless of what Obama did, nobody wants to go back to that.

I think in mosts eyes, what obama is doing may or may not be the answer; the early returns have been mixed at best.... but more trickledown certainly is not the answer. The only place the dollars seem to be trickling down to are the bonuses for the execs at firms which are laying off hundreds and thousands of people; the only place jobs seem to be trickling down to are areas outside of the United States.

Romney's biggest mistake was solely campaigning on the message that Obama has not been a competent mess cleaner-uppers, while forgetting to distance himself from the mess maker.

Class warfare, to be honest, is REAL. The radical right have personal problems with anybody on welfare, food stamps, etc, or who supports gay marriage or abortion, who have benefited from affirmative actions, etc. Similarly, the lower class hate on the upper class for seemingly using their wealth to their advantage.

I was a big O supporter in 2008, and I find myself now wondering why I should trust him, not his intentions, but his judgement in 2008 seemed quite off. Why should i believe him now? Serious question. My enthusiasm for O has plummeted.

Regardless, the republican party, somehow, has become known as the party of ignorance. The party of Lincoln, who want less government and greater rights, the party of realism and honesty...has became the party of ignorance.

It doesn't matter how the dems are doing, the current brand is simply toxic to most voters outside of the obvious red states. It's unreal the amount of damage the Tea Party & all the other right wing bigots do the partys mainstream appeal.

I like Scott Brown, but the whole native American thing is just so silly and irrelevant. A waste of time, a waste of breathe, and just plain immature. Don't even get me started on the whole birth certificate thing, or budget debacle.

This was going on way before Romney; his party screwed whoever the nominee was by acting so unprofessional ever since Obama took office.

The Republican party, to put it mildly, is in disarray. I think it will be a while before they return to prominence. There is a lot of political opportunity there, at the moment. They need a response to the Tea Party; a centrist faction of the party closer to their origin values. That would be overwhelmingly popular.

Check out the current issue of Newsweek.

The cover story feature is about Obama being the Democrat's Reagan. There are striking similarities between the two men's first terms--Ronald had mixed reviews in his as well. The article states that Obama winning reelection could be the item that shocks the GOP back to reality. A second defeat could cause Republicans to really take a hard look at what they've become and fix it (much like Reagan pulled the extreme left Dem party back from the edge to balance in 1980s).
 
Seems rather premature to discount the Republican party as a whole. They have the house, and have a good chance at taking control of the senate.

The chance was better before the Akin controversy, but he could still win.
 
My favorite Obama accomplishments is the "surge" in Afghanistan (look how well it is doing aka NOT), raising health premiums for families as a part of his health reforms, encouraging young people not to buy insurance, increasing inequality, and NOT PROSECUTING ONE SINGLE MOTHER****ER AFTER THE 2008 FINANCIAL CRISIS.
 
Seems rather premature to discount the Republican party as a whole. They have the house, and have a good chance at taking control of the senate.

The chance was better before the Akin controversy, but he could still win.

I hope they die and rot off. No opposition at all. Have an official "single party Democracy", just to show how much of a joke the system is.
 
I hope they die and rot off. No opposition at all. Have an official "single party Democracy", just to show how much of a joke the system is.

The last thing we need is a single rich party running with no competition. I may not like the republicans but they do keep the democrats in check. A singular party would just keep going further and further to one end of the spectrum with no opposing party to force them back. This country needs more options not fewer.
 
Paradoxium,

Whose side are you on honestly? Are you Independent? Your posts confuse me everyday. LOL
 
Paradoxium,

Whose side are you on honestly? Are you Independent? Your posts confuse me everyday. LOL

He's on the side that believes the two party system is a giant facade to distract the public from what's really going on. It's the same small group of people at the top controlling everything regardless of which puppet politician happens to be in office.
 
I'm the lunatic Distributed Republic / Neo Cameralist guy. I am in favor of something different in meta terms. Elections in this system is nothing but a pressure valve.

I think we are all better off with more regional governments with a variety of flavors. Each caters to the needs of a demographic. If a region wants something heavy handed and authoritarian? Go a head. Another wants small government? Go a head. Democracy, no Democracy? Go right ahead. As the saying goes, let a thousand flowers bloom. Perhaps only from trial and error, we will find out what works and what doesn't.
 
I'm the lunatic Distributed Republic / Neo Cameralist guy. I am in favor of something different in meta terms. Elections in this system is nothing but a pressure valve.

I think we are all better off with more regional governments with a variety of flavors. Each caters to the needs of a demographic. If a region wants something heavy handed and authoritarian? Go a head. Another wants small government? Go a head. Democracy, no Democracy? Go right ahead. As the saying goes, let a thousand flowers bloom. Perhaps only from trial and error, we will find out what works and what doesn't.

This would destabilize everything and smaller regions would get swallowed up by the power of larger regions. Small regions would be prosecuted for ideas and beliefes. The crazies would merge into one region and wed have a state of crazies. Some regions would have more access to the natural resource and would tax other regions put the ass for them. You'd still need an overseeing government to ensure regions don't try to interfere in other regions, extort, and wage wars. Trade would be a mess due to the wildly differing ideas and policies. No that system wouldnt work. Its like a hand. One finger cant do much but unite them into a fist and you have a powerful tool. If anything this world needs to unite under one large system not fracture more.
 
Last edited:
This would destabilize everything and smaller regions would get swallowed up by the power of larger regions. Small regions would be prosecuted for ideas and beliefes. The crazies would merge into one region and wed have a state of crazies. Some regions would have more access to the natural resource and would tax other regions put the ass for them. You'd still need an overseeing government to ensure regions don't try to interfere in other regions, extort, and wage wars. Trade would be a mess due to the wildly differing ideas and policies. No that system wouldnt work. Its like a hand. One finger cant do much but unite them into a fist and you have a powerful tool. If anything this world needs to unite under one large system not fracture more.


Basically.

That sounds like chaos Dox. Really??? :csad:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,262
Messages
22,074,437
Members
45,876
Latest member
kedenlewis
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"