U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-02-2012, 10:51 PM
 
Location: Illinois Delta
5,763 posts, read 4,345,051 times
Reputation: 2060

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
Newt once supported a federal individual mandate as well.

Did anyone ever stop to consider that Romney now thinks a federal individual mandate isn't a good idea now that he knows a majority of Americans oppose it?

The thing is, millions of Americans wanted UHC and elected President Obama to implement it, only to be misled with the diverse and powerful propaganda skills available to the GOP...people were scared intentionally with distortions about "Death Panels" and "They'll kill Grandma!" Hardly fair, but that's how it is in America...we do love us some drama and fear.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-02-2012, 10:55 PM
 
17,497 posts, read 10,622,916 times
Reputation: 6745
They say Romney is just to the right of Obama, Oh man this doesn't look good!!
That's okay, maybe, Romney will see he's wrong now and anything to the right of Obama is better than to the left of Obama.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2012, 11:10 PM
 
Location: Illinois Delta
5,763 posts, read 4,345,051 times
Reputation: 2060
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Mon View Post
That's the thing I don't get. Romney is obviously a Republican - seeing that he is running for the party's nomination - but yet he has no real social differences from Obama. Seriously, if this was 1980 or 1988, and it was Romney and (a white) Obama as two of the Republican nominees, they would both be excluded for being to right-wing fringe. It's astounding.

It has been fascinating to watch things unfold...like watching an experiment in Sociology. Mitt is a bit like John Kerry; we Democrats supported him, but he was the candidate only because the party needed to reward him for years of service. The GOP is hell-bent on ramming the policies wanted by only 1/3 of their party down everyone's throats; I know some hard right women who are furious that the GOP is seriously talking about abolishing b.c.; it's unthinkable and would cause the rate of
childbirth to skyrocket, and the country can't afford that. The idea of a Santorum presidency is terrifying, as he strikes me as being sufficiently...
mmm...daft as to start a new Crusade in the Middle East. Or establish a McCarthy-style Inquisition here. ~shudder~ But it is definitely not how I had expected the GOP process to go. As they say, "Why are we in this handbasket and where are we going?" Another term for Obama looks more and more likely, but I'm not going to count my own chickens just yet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2012, 11:12 PM
 
Location: Illinois Delta
5,763 posts, read 4,345,051 times
Reputation: 2060
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
Are suggesting that someone's head was exploding?


Ken

It's a distinct possibility! LOL!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2012, 11:27 PM
 
Location: NC
1,946 posts, read 1,538,289 times
Reputation: 883
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
Did anyone ever stop to consider that Romney might now a federal individual mandate isn't a good idea now that it's known that a majority of Americans oppose it?
Oh, you mean he FLIP-FLOPPED based on what was popular at the time? I didn't see that coming from Romney!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2012, 11:33 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,969 posts, read 14,182,855 times
Reputation: 4558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Mon View Post
That's the thing I don't get. Romney is obviously a Republican - seeing that he is running for the party's nomination - but yet he has no real social differences from Obama. Seriously, if this was 1980 or 1988, and it was Romney and (a white) Obama as two of the Republican nominees, they would both be excluded for being to right-wing fringe. It's astounding.


Obama would not be considered "right-wing fringe." That's absurd.

Romney really wouldn't be either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2012, 11:35 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,969 posts, read 14,182,855 times
Reputation: 4558
Quote:
Originally Posted by moving_pains View Post
Oh, you mean he FLIP-FLOPPED based on what was popular at the time? I didn't see that coming from Romney!
Romney really hasn't flip flopped on anything other than abortion. And I wouldn't consider changing stances on one issue a "flip flop."

If we add a federal individual mandate to the list of issues he's changed stances on, that's two issues.

The other alleged "flip flops" on actual issues have been debunked.

If he changed his opinion on the federal individual mandate because it became unpopular, it would be because he is against something that people don't want. Obviously no one knew how the individual mandate (or Obamacare as a whole) would be received by Americans before it was enacted. It's reasonable for candidates for public office to oppose something that's unpopular even if they supported it before they knew it would be unpopular.

Last edited by afoigrokerkok; 03-02-2012 at 11:50 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2012, 11:47 PM
 
Location: NC
1,946 posts, read 1,538,289 times
Reputation: 883
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
Romney really hasn't flip flopped on anything other than abortion. And I wouldn't consider changing stances on one issue a "flip flop."

If he changed his opinion on this issue because it became unpopular, it wouldn't be a "flip flop" - it would be because he is against something that people don't want. Obviously no one knew how the individual mandate (or Obamacare as a whole) would be received by Americans before it was enacted. It's reasonable for candidates for public office to oppose something that's unpopular even if they supported it before they knew it would be unpopular.
This is not majority rule (democracy). If 51% vote that the 49% should be hung, it doesn't make them right, nor should we modify our positions based on it. When you change your positions based on what is popular, it's exactly what is called FLIP-FLOPPING. You can spin it as something like "he subtly modified the nuances of his opinion on the issue based on further research and intelligence", but it is what it is - FLIP-FLOP.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2012, 11:55 PM
 
Location: Illinois Delta
5,763 posts, read 4,345,051 times
Reputation: 2060
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
Romney really hasn't flip flopped on anything other than abortion. And I wouldn't consider changing stances on one issue a "flip flop."

If we add a federal individual mandate to the list of issues he's changed stances on, that's two issues.

The other alleged "flip flops" on actual issues have been debunked.

If he changed his opinion on the federal individual mandate because it became unpopular, it would be because he is against something that people don't want. Obviously no one knew how the individual mandate (or Obamacare as a whole) would be received by Americans before it was enacted. It's reasonable for candidates for public office to oppose something that's unpopular even if they supported it before they knew it would be unpopular.

Five major flip-flops and counting....

Top Romney Flip-Flops
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2012, 11:58 PM
 
Location: Greater Washington, DC
1,347 posts, read 921,189 times
Reputation: 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by moving_pains View Post
This is not majority rule (democracy). If 51% vote that the 49% should be hung, it doesn't make them right, nor should we modify our positions based on it. When you change your positions based on what is popular, it's exactly what is called FLIP-FLOPPING. You can spin it as something like "he subtly modified the nuances of his opinion on the issue based on further research and intelligence", but it is what it is - FLIP-FLOP.
You're absoutely right, I wish we could get more politicians who have the courage to go against the will of the people. Wasn't that one of the biggest arguments against Obamacare (and rightfully so)? That it was shoved down our throats? I'm glad to know Romney won't do that.

And to the OP - if this was a USA Today OpEd years ago, it is not breaking news. It's pretty much been out there in one of the nations's largest newspapers. Please try to be less misleading. We've all heard that Romney's positions have evolved, just like every politician/regular person ever. This is nothing new
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top