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.
So, is it a strategy of, "let's nominate Romney so we don't lose as bad to Obama as with Gingrich" or what? What kind of strategy is that? As of now, no side can claim who is more popular, because one week Obama is beating Romney in the polls, the other Romney is.
I'm surprised even "conservatives" would go for Romney, considering that when this primary race started, the liberal press was already saying nominate Romney, he's your best chance. Romney is not going to win. He has the personality of a paper bag, and is inconsistent with many of his positions. Romney is going to be caught with his pants down in debates, it's not even funny. Romney is the Republican John Kerry of 2012
Unfortunately, there's not a lot of strategy. They're defining themselves basically as just being the opposite of whatever Obama decides to say. When people do things like that they come across as void of ideas and disingenuous.
The debates during the nomination process were almost completely void of any specifics with the exception of Newt's manned moon base in 8 years idea.
Quote:
Yep, and that is the reason Oblama is going to get fired in about 200 days.
I take it that you're selling everything you own and betting it all on Romney then since you seem to see the future. The last time I checked, Romney wasn't ahead in any polls and Obama hadn't started his race.
Of course, that begs the question of what Romney would do differently. I've not heard much from him during his debates other than holding China accountable (which will cause pain in the short run) and a few other things which he can't do by himself and thus shouldn't really promise.
I'm not sure why any of you think that an Massachusetts centrist is going to be any different from one of the Illinois variety. Of course one has (R) after his name and that appeals to your heart strings.
Unfortunately, there's not a lot of strategy. They're defining themselves basically as just being the opposite of whatever Obama decides to say. When people do things like that they come across as void of ideas and disingenuous.
The debates during the nomination process were almost completely void of any specifics with the exception of Newt's manned moon base in 8 years idea.
I take it that you're selling everything you own and betting it all on Romney then since you seem to see the future. The last time I checked, Romney wasn't ahead in any polls and Obama hadn't started his race.
Of course, that begs the question of what Romney would do differently. I've not heard much from him during his debates other than holding China accountable (which will cause pain in the short run) and a few other things which he can't do by himself and thus shouldn't really promise.
I'm not sure why any of you think that an Massachusetts centrist is going to be any different from one of the Illinois variety. Of course one has (R) after his name and that appeals to your heart strings.
Marxists aren't "centrists" and the most recent FOX poll has Romney beating your Lord and Savior by 4 points.
Unfortunately, there's not a lot of strategy. They're defining themselves basically as just being the opposite of whatever Obama decides to say. When people do things like that they come across as void of ideas and disingenuous.
The debates during the nomination process were almost completely void of any specifics with the exception of Newt's manned moon base in 8 years idea.
I take it that you're selling everything you own and betting it all on Romney then since you seem to see the future. The last time I checked, Romney wasn't ahead in any polls and Obama hadn't started his race.
Of course, that begs the question of what Romney would do differently. I've not heard much from him during his debates other than holding China accountable (which will cause pain in the short run) and a few other things which he can't do by himself and thus shouldn't really promise.
I'm not sure why any of you think that an Massachusetts centrist is going to be any different from one of the Illinois variety. Of course one has (R) after his name and that appeals to your heart strings.
I am afraid no amount of argument would sway someone who describes Obama as a centrist.
I disagree and the proof is this website. On this site you will find plenty of Indes and Dems that will agree that President Obama has not been perfect and will also admit that everything that has not gone well was the fault of the GOP bu that the Dems share in the mess. Try finding posts where Repubs are willing to say their Party is partly at fault and willing to agree that the Dems have not been always wrong, you will be hard-pressed to do so. We see what we want to see
Agree, we do see what we want to see.
From my standpoint, its hard to see anything from the amount of blame going on... The republicans do not have a monopoly on the blame game.. They are very good at it, but the Dems are not slouches..
I think the country would be much better off with an Independent in the white house. I wont hold my breath!
From my standpoint, its hard to see anything from the amount of blame going on... The republicans do not have a monopoly on the blame game.. They are very good at it, but the Dems are not slouches..
I think the country would be much better off with an Independent in the white house. I wont hold my breath!
An Inde President would be a lameduck from day one. What is needed is a new Party that represents the moderates in this Nation and it as to start at the local then state then federal levels before one is elected.
Marxists aren't "centrists" and the most recent FOX poll has Romney beating your Lord and Savior by 4 points.
He's far from my lord and savior. The point of topic here is the GOP 2012 strategy. Thus, if you're too immature to post on topic, perhaps you can find another place to troll.
Quote:
I am afraid no amount of argument would sway someone who describes Obama as a centrist.
Should I take that to mean you don't have the intelligence or capacity to argue the matter? The guy has followed through on many of the policies put in place by Bush. Do you really consider Bush to be a leftist or something? We have guns in national parks now. That's not exactly leftist.
In terms of deficits, I'm guessing that the typical right wingers think that the President controls most spending and the increase is due to legislation being passed and not just more existing programs being used. Romney's proposal during the debates would add $200B to the deficit.
In terms of Healthcare reform, what was sign by Obama and deemed Obamacare by the right actually follows proposals suggested by Republicans in the 90's and it largely follows much of what was included in the healthcare reform that Romney passed.
They're peas in a pod. I'm sure plenty of people will vote for Romney on the right, but it's an emotional response. There's nothing in record or that he's proposed that would really change anything.
He's far from my lord and savior. The point of topic here is the GOP 2012 strategy. Thus, if you're too immature to post on topic, perhaps you can find another place to troll.
Should I take that to mean you don't have the intelligence or capacity to argue the matter? The guy has followed through on many of the policies put in place by Bush. Do you really consider Bush to be a leftist or something? We have guns in national parks now. That's not exactly leftist.
In terms of deficits, I'm guessing that the typical right wingers think that the President controls most spending and the increase is due to legislation being passed and not just more existing programs being used. Romney's proposal during the debates would add $200B to the deficit.
In terms of Healthcare reform, what was sign by Obama and deemed Obamacare by the right actually follows proposals suggested by Republicans in the 90's and it largely follows much of what was included in the healthcare reform that Romney passed.
They're peas in a pod. I'm sure plenty of people will vote for Romney on the right, but it's an emotional response. There's nothing in record or that he's proposed that would really change anything.
If Romney isn't any different from your Lord and Savior Obama, then why are you shilling so much for The One?
So, is it a strategy of, "let's nominate Romney so we don't lose as bad to Obama as with Gingrich" or what? What kind of strategy is that? As of now, no side can claim who is more popular, because one week Obama is beating Romney in the polls, the other Romney is.
I'm surprised even "conservatives" would go for Romney, considering that when this primary race started, the liberal press was already saying nominate Romney, he's your best chance. Romney is not going to win. He has the personality of a paper bag, and is inconsistent with many of his positions. Romney is going to be caught with his pants down in debates, it's not even funny. Romney is the Republican John Kerry of 2012
The GOPs strategy?
Apparently it is to run a bunch of clowns, RINOs, ignore the one true Conservative and hope that the American people are stupid enough to buy it yet again, this election season. Which, it looks like the American people indeed are stupid enough to buy it again this election season.
And the GOP will lose, just like they did last time, because they've pissed off enough of their own, like me, who refuse to vote "the lesser of the two evils"...which Mittens is only slightly less evil than St. Hope and Change, otherwise, they're basically the same. Liars. Say whatever they think the audience at that time wants to hear. Flip floppers. And they sure do love them some mandated healthcare. Actually, St. Hope and Change gets one point up for adopting a dog while Mittens leaves his on the top of a car for a 12 hour road trip.
Apparently it is to run a bunch of clowns, RINOs, ignore the one true Conservative and hope that the American people are stupid enough to buy it yet again, this election season. Which, it looks like the American people indeed are stupid enough to buy it again this election season.
And the GOP will lose, just like they did last time, because they've pissed off enough of their own, like me, who refuse to vote "the lesser of the two evils"...which Mittens is only slightly less evil than St. Hope and Change, otherwise, they're basically the same. Liars. Say whatever they think the audience at that time wants to hear. Flip floppers. And they sure do love them some mandated healthcare. Actually, St. Hope and Change gets one point up for adopting a dog while Mittens leaves his on the top of a car for a 12 hour road trip.
Seems like we are on the same page. Yes I'm a registered Republican, no Mittens or the Wife Swapping global warmist won't get my vote if they win. I'm not one who, as described earlier on this page, votes R because that letter pulls my heartstrings. I want honesty in government. Mittens is the same as Obama, the same liar and flip flopper. I voted for Obama because I thought he was gonna be different from Bush, I was sure wrong. That's when I realized all "mainstream, electable" presidents are the same. The window dressing is what's different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trace21230
If Romney isn't any different from your Lord and Savior Obama, then why are you shilling so much for The One?
Because the D pulls on his heartstrings just as much as the R pulls on yours
Quote:
Originally Posted by noexcuseforignorance
Unfortunately, there's not a lot of strategy. They're defining themselves basically as just being the opposite of whatever Obama decides to say. When people do things like that they come across as void of ideas and disingenuous.
I'm not sure why any of you think that an Massachusetts centrist is going to be any different from one of the Illinois variety. Of course one has (R) after his name and that appeals to your heart strings.
That's exactly true. Just like how John Kerry was in 2004. His whole campaign strategy was "I'm not Bush, vote for me". Bush won in a landslide as a consequence. There seems to be too many parallels between 2004 and today. There's a wildcard in there now, Ron Paul, but the establishment GOP is basically running with Romney and running with a "Vote for Mittens, because I'm not Obama" that is very likely to lead to failure just like in 2004.
The same goes for Obama and most of his followers. But you are essentially right. There is no difference other than the party initial. Sure, the Dems throw the occasional bone to the liberal base with ObamaCare (that itself the offspring of RomneyCare) or the Brady crowd, just like the GOP throws a bone every now and then to the NRA crowd. But, let's not forget both parties created, endorsed, and/or passed laws such as the Patriot Act, Emergency Centers Act, SOPA, PIPA, NDAA. Both parties are just as warmongering as the other, etc. That's why I'm an independent voter at heart, and probably going to not vote in future elections (besides state and local) after 2012
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.
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.
The last time I checked, Romney wasn't ahead in any polls and Obama hadn't started his race.
Fine work
