Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Romney, The Inevitable Nominee


Michael Hardner

Recommended Posts

I concur with that.

And, again, it concerns me that what a 19-year-old did in the 1960s has much more chance of being a factor than, say, what the president plans to do about legislative gridlock and campaign finance for example.

I would agree with that but that is the system now I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Romney in his own words just 5 years ago.

"I really don't recall thinking about political positions when I was knocking at the door in France. I was supportive of my country. I longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam and be representing our country there and in some ways it was frustrating not to feel like I was there as part of the troops that were fighting in Vietnam."

Again he is the one who says he put his church above his country. Tell me more about how he didn't support the war Shady.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And once again, I'm failing to see this great support of the Vietnam War by Mitt.

That's because punked equates holding a sign stating that one should speak out against the war instead of occupying parts of the University as support for the actual war itself. It's completely disingenious. But apparently punked has decided to spend Sunday morning trolling. It's pretty pathetic. Especially when this issue is so completely irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's because punked equates holding a sign stating that one should speak out against the war instead of occupying parts of the University as support for the actual war itself. It's completely disingenious. But apparently punked has decided to spend Sunday morning trolling. It's pretty pathetic. Especially when this issue is so completely irrelevant.

Just ignore the quote from Romney above your post Shady. Don't like it when your called on a lie with Romney's own words? No problem you can pretend the post doesn't exist. You are a real class act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just ignore the quote from Romney above your post Shady.

I think you might be a lost cause. Trolling can be fun, but this is getting ridiculous now. :rolleyes:

So first you said he supported the war because he held a sign saying speak out against the war, don't occupy the University.

Once you were proven wrong, you then pivoted to a new supposed quote from 5 years ago. Stating he was frustrated not being able to serve until after 1968, when he then entered the draft, and drew his draft number like everybody else.

Exactly why is this relevant again? :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you might be a lost cause. Trolling can be fun, but this is getting ridiculous now. :rolleyes:

So first you said he supported the war because he held a sign saying speak out against the war, don't occupy the University.

Once you were proven wrong, you then pivoted to a new supposed quote from 5 years ago. Stating he was frustrated not being able to serve until after 1968, when he then entered the draft, and drew his draft number like everybody else.

Exactly why is this relevant again? :rolleyes:

That is not what that quote says Shady sorry. Good try if he wanted to serve all he had to do was walk down to the enlistment office. So he supported the war and wanted to serve but just couldn't find an enlistment office? Nope he had to put his church first. Seriously your spin is ridiculous.

PS. You didn't prove anyone wrong. He held a sign and did an interview saying he supported the draft. That is a fact sorry buddy boy. I am just adding more to prove how silly your lies become as facts are presented to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is not what that quote says Shady sorry. Good try if he wanted to serve all he had to do was walk down to the enlistment office. So he supported the war and wanted to serve but just couldn't find an enlistment office? Nope he had to put his church first. Seriously your spin is ridiculous.

But it's not relevant anyway, or shouldn't be.

I think one can argue almost anything, and we have enough ammunition to do so, but the campaign focus really gets me down sometimes.

Ok, punked, I thank you and Shady for this discussion as it has sparked a question for me. I'm going to start a 'no spin' thread about what the US election SHOULD be about...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But it's not relevant anyway, or shouldn't be.

I think one can argue almost anything, and we have enough ammunition to do so, but the campaign focus really gets me down sometimes.

Ok, punked, I thank you and Shady for this discussion as it has sparked a question for me. I'm going to start a 'no spin' thread about what the US election SHOULD be about...

I am in for a thread on issues for once. Although it will devolve I mean the Republican front runner makes claims like "I created 100,000 jobs" with no accounting for that number and it comes back to "that is a lie.....No it isn't.....Yes it is". At some point Presidential candidates should prove what they claim but they never will so it will always come back to spin.

Edited by punked
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am in for a thread on issues for once. Although it will devolve I mean the Republican front runner makes claims like "I created 100,000 jobs" with no accounting for that number and it comes back to "that is a lie.....No it isn't.....Yes it is". At some point Presidential candidates should prove what they claim but they never will so it will always come back to spin.

I have added a thread to see if we can identify specific issues that Republicans and Democrats need to discuss in the 2012 election and beyond. I don't think that you can escape spin in federal US politics, but maybe we can see if it can happen for at least part of one thread on a Canadian forum. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

Again I can make up motivation about Mitt Romney as well but that does not mean what I "think" Romney believes is what he believes.

Yet you're making up motivation for the Kennedys; you are the one attributing their actions to "love of country." That's my point.

I've read a lot about the Kennedys, and Joseph Kennedy wanted a Kennedy in the White House and would stop at nothing to achieve it. I don't see that as "love of country." I don't admire that above anything the Romneys have done.

I am just going on record on this one. If you are going to compare Kennedy to Romney then you better be ready to defend their different choices in life.

I'm not the one who did compare the two; I've just been responding to what has been said about the two. What has been speculated.

Fact is either Romney is a liar and didn't support the war or he put his Church above his country and war he believed in.

He said he would have gone to war if he had been drafted, so he would not have put his church above the policies of the nation, his duties as an American, and I think that's the bottom line. He was what - 19 at the time? And not in politics. His decisions were personal decisions, and I don't see that as comparable to making decisions for the nation as POTUS - and that's what was being questioned; whether he would put his church above his country as POTUS.

Either way it isn't good for Romney. Unlike Kennedy who we can say fought in a war he may or may not have supported and actually served his country instead of flying to Paris to live in a Mansion. If you want to compare their faiths then you gotta be ready for actual examples of Romney putting his faith before country.

What did Kennedy's faith have to do with his serving in WWII? Nothing. It wasn't a factor. Furthermore, I don't see Romney's choice as "putting his faith before his country" any more than I see a university student who didn't enlist to serve in Vietnam as putting their education "before their country." As I said, WWII and Vietnam were two very different wars. Who of age didn't serve in WWII? - quite a different story for Vietnam. If Romney was now hypocritically criticizing others for not serving, you would have a point, but I don't see that happening.

But most importantly, I don't see basing a personal decision in his teens/early twenties as any basis for questioning whether he's going to put his faith above his duties as POTUS. We've seen nothing in his political career to indicate that he would.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was surprised to read that both Newt and Santorum have been attacking Romney's time with Bain Capital.

He's a "corporate predator". He bought inefficient companies and downsized them.

...uh...

Why do Newt and Santorum hate capitalism?

I could understand that kind of criticism if this were the Democratic primaries, or a Liberal Party of Canada leadership convention or an NDP leadership convention. But these are Republicans. Newt and Santorum are Free Market Warriors. They value marketplace competition. And competitiveness demands that the inefficient be cut, the unproductive be eliminated, and that businesses that aren't profitable die. To me it sounds like Newt and Santorum are attacking Romney for practicing business the way that their own ideology demands.

-k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why...the front runner is always the focus of attacks by other candidates. It matters not what the substance of the attack may be.
In this case, the substance of the attack does matter. First, I agree with Kimmy that it is odd for fellow-Republicans to attack Romney for being a free-enterprise capitalist. Second, the attack is typical of people such as Gingrich, Obama or schoolteachers who have in effect always lived on the public dime.

I thought that the opponents were going to attack Romney for putting a dog on his car roof or putting Grecian formula in his hair. If Obama wants to turn this into a debate about profits vs. government subsidies, I'm sure Romney will be happy to indulge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this case, the substance of the attack does matter. First, I agree with Kimmy that it is odd for fellow-Republicans to attack Romney for being a free-enterprise capitalist. Second, the attack is typical of people such as Gingrich, Obama or schoolteachers who have in effect always lived on the public dime.

Doesn't matter...."odd" has nothing to do with it. Negative campaigning and attack ads are not necessarily logical at such a late hour. Learn how the game is played....review how Romney's SuperPac destroyed Gingrich in Iowa.

I thought that the opponents were going to attack Romney for putting a dog on his car roof or putting Grecian formula in his hair. If Obama wants to turn this into a debate about profits vs. government subsidies, I'm sure Romney will be happy to indulge.

Obama won't attack Romney yet....he has not been nominated!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why...the front runner is always the focus of attacks by other candidates. It matters not what the substance of the attack may be.

I disagree. Criticizing Romneys work at Bain by effectively adopting the language of Democrats and others that have no idea how an economy really works is pretty disturbing to me. More so from Gingrich and that doorknob Huntsman. Santorum thankfully hasn't stooped to that Marxist level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. Criticizing Romneys work at Bain by effectively adopting the language of Democrats and others that have no idea how an economy really works is pretty disturbing to me. More so from Gingrich and that doorknob Huntsman. Santorum thankfully hasn't stooped to that Marxist level.

Santorum is running #2...no need to get desperate yet. Gingrich was blindsided in Iowa and now has to play catch up, but he is too late and his old nasty self has returned to the fore.

The message doesn't matter as much as the hits and response....or lack thereof. Romney can ride high from here on out with a well funded SuperPac to do the dirty work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't matter...."odd" has nothing to do with it. Negative campaigning and attack ads are not necessarily logical at such a late hour. Learn how the game is played....review how Romney's SuperPac destroyed Gingrich in Iowa.
I have no problem with attack ads or negative campaigns. For example, I thought that Romney's (arm's length) SuperPAC ads against Gingrich were smart and effective.

OTOH, I think the Gingrich SuperPAC negative video about Romney/Bain is very short-sighted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem with attack ads or negative campaigns. For example, I thought that Romney's (arm's length) SuperPAC ads against Gingrich were smart and effective.

They were effective because Gingrich disarmed himself going into a knife fight. Not very smart.

OTOH, I think the Gingrich SuperPAC negative video about Romney/Bain is very short-sighted.

Probably, as the calculus just changed with Romney's victory in New Hampsha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...