2012 Election Thread

Watching the Scott Brown-Elizabeth Warren debate. Loving Scott Brown in this.

Warren subscribes to the Goebbels approach, repeat a lie enough times and it becomes the truth, and it got old in the first 5 minutes, trying to paint him as pro life and in favor of raising taxes on the middle class. She often comes off as a complete cuntbag and thats why they took her out of her ads.

Brown took a chance by being aggressive out of the gate, attacking her directly on the Indian issue, referencing it later with regard to the Massachusetts alternative minimum tax, 'the box she didn't check', and slamming her for representing Traveler's Insurance against asbestos victims. Brown's favorability rating is pretty high, in part due to the softer approach in his campaign and lack of attack ads, being more aggressive now could hurt him there.

Brown tried to paint himself as bipartisan and representative of Massachusetts while Warren tried to make it more of a national campaign about control of the Senate.
 
[quote name='dohdough']I don't know if I'd say that. If anything, I'd say he's worse. At least Palin comes off as sorta folk-sy and has some utility. Ryan is just a straight up douchebag that has used douche water coming out of his pores...and that's putting it mildly.[/QUOTE]
Dude, there NO WAY he's worse than Palin. I've read places McCain's approval with women went down after she was chosen and started opening her trap...
 
Anyone who co-sponsored both the Blunt Amendment and the Women's Right to Know Act are pro-life as far as I'm concerned. I dont know where his heart is, because he's trying to have it both ways with both sides at the same time. You dont get to try to put bullshit obstructions to the procedure and then claim pro-choice.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']Anyone who co-sponsored both the Blunt Amendment and the Women's Right to Know Act are pro-life as far as I'm concerned. I dont know where his heart is, because he's trying to have it both ways with both sides at the same time. You dont get to try to put bullshit obstructions to the procedure and then claim pro-choice.[/QUOTE]
Then your definitions of pro life and pro choice are incredibly skewed away from the question of whether or not abortions should be legal. Have you read those two bills?
 
[quote name='dafoomie']Then your definitions of pro life and pro choice are incredibly skewed away from the question of whether or not abortions should be legal. Have you read those two bills?[/QUOTE]
And your perception of the issue is less than paper thin. You don't have to make abortions illegal if you can apply personhood to a 2 week old fetus.

And Warren used to be a Republican, which coincides with a lot of the timing of things that people are hitting her on. Not that it matters to most people of course because they're dumb. Shit, I'm not even a fan of Warren's, but at least I know her history and not buy into Brown stupid Carhart jacket and freshly detailed truck that's his winter beater for his Porsche.
 
Oh, we've moved on to abortion now? This reminds me of something I've been wanting to ask pro-lifers. If a fetus is a person at conception doesn't that mean that having sex with a pregnant women is also sexual misconduct with a minor? I mean, there's clearly another "person" involved in the transaction and that person's a "pre-infant"...
 
It is probably the case that I draw the line in a different place than many people. Its a spectrum. Very few people want to make abortion illegal in all circumstances and very few people are for abortion being available in any circumstances and at all times. Simply the question of whether someone thinks abortion should be legal is not a very useful prism in which to look at the issue.

Pointless obstructions like waiting periods, extraneous procedures and informed consent 'consultations' are simply not things that someone that claims to be pro-choice should be in favor of. These are things that are done to either gain favor with the pro-life crowd or if you are in that crowd yourself. What you say or think in your heart doesnt matter at the point where you are conducting actions that are clearly against choice.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Oh, we've moved on to abortion now? This reminds me of something I've been wanting to ask pro-lifers. If a fetus is a person at conception doesn't that mean that having sex with a pregnant women is also sexual misconduct with a minor? I mean, there's clearly another "person" involved in the transaction and that person's a "pre-infant"...[/QUOTE]

what?
 
[quote name='dohdough']And your perception of the issue is less than paper thin. You don't have to make abortions illegal if you can apply personhood to a 2 week old fetus.

And Warren used to be a Republican, which coincides with a lot of the timing of things that people are hitting her on. Not that it matters to most people of course because they're dumb. Shit, I'm not even a fan of Warren's, but at least I know her history and not buy into Brown stupid Carhart jacket and freshly detailed truck that's his winter beater for his Porsche.[/QUOTE]
Which of those two bills that Brown supported has anything to do with fetal personhood?
 
[quote name='dafoomie']Which of those two bills that Brown supported has anything to do with fetal personhood?[/QUOTE]

I didn't realize that those two bills were the only two things that exist in the abortion debate especially when you expanded the discussion to include the legality of it and pro-life/choice definitions.:roll:

But I guess I shouldn't expect much from someone that compared Warren to fucking Goebbels.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']It is probably the case that I draw the line in a different place than many people. Its a spectrum. Very few people want to make abortion illegal in all circumstances and very few people are for abortion being available in any circumstances and at all times. Simply the question of whether someone thinks abortion should be legal is not a very useful prism in which to look at the issue.

Pointless obstructions like waiting periods, extraneous procedures and informed consent 'consultations' are simply not things that someone that claims to be pro-choice should be in favor of. These are things that are done to either gain favor with the pro-life crowd or if you are in that crowd yourself. What you say or think in your heart doesnt matter at the point where you are conducting actions that are clearly against choice.[/QUOTE]
There is the death of a thousand cuts approach that pro lifers have taken, make it so onerous for the patient and provider that its almost impossible to get. But all we're really talking about here is providing the patient with a pamphlet, web address or toll free number 24 hours before the procedure, which can easily be done over the phone when the appointment is made. Brown was one of 40 co-sponsors, of which 17 were Democrats.
 
[quote name='dohdough']I didn't realize that those two bills were the only two things that exist in the abortion debate especially when you expanded the discussion to include the legality of it and pro-life/choice definitions.:roll:

But I guess I shouldn't expect much from someone that compared Warren to fucking Goebbels.[/QUOTE]
I was talking about Scott Brown. You either misunderstood his position or you just wanted to talk about something else.
 
[quote name='dohdough']And Warren used to be a Republican, which coincides with a lot of the timing of things that people are hitting her on.[/QUOTE]

Geesh - it's like becoming a Democrat is the political equivalent of being "Saved by Jesus" - all the sins of your past are washed away...
 
[quote name='KingBroly']what?[/QUOTE]

I said

[quote name='RedvsBlue']Oh, we've moved on to abortion now? This reminds me of something I've been wanting to ask pro-lifers. If a fetus is a person at conception doesn't that mean that having sex with a pregnant women is also sexual misconduct with a minor? I mean, there's clearly another "person" involved in the transaction and that person's a "pre-infant"...[/QUOTE]
 
[quote name='RealDeals']Dude, there NO WAY he's worse than Palin. I've read places McCain's approval with women went down after she was chosen and started opening her trap...[/QUOTE]
Palin and Ryan were never meant to appeal to independents, hence my reasoning.

[quote name='dafoomie']I was talking about Scott Brown. You either misunderstood his position or you just wanted to talk about something else.[/QUOTE]
I didn't misunderstand anything. I'm criticizing your understanding of the issue, and lack thereof, while talking about Brown and Warren. Don't blame me because you can't follow replies to your post from the previous page.

I guess calling her a cuntbag is your substitute for knowing about the issues.

[quote name='UncleBob']Geesh - it's like becoming a Democrat is the political equivalent of being "Saved by Jesus" - all the sins of your past are washed away...[/QUOTE]
Strawman.

Are you saying that there are no Native Americans that look white or that Warren represented Traveler's Insurance for the entire case?

"Just look at her," right? Go fuck yourself.
 
[quote name='RealDeals']Dude, there NO WAY he's worse than Palin. I've read places McCain's approval with women went down after she was chosen and started opening her trap...[/QUOTE]

They're awful in different ways. Palin was just blatantly incompetent and quite frankly not very intelligent. The thought of her as president (which you had to think about with McCain being so old--even those he's still alive and kicking obviously) was terrifying just because she was clearly not competent for the job.

Ryan is a smart guy. He's competent. He just has very extreme ideas and would be a terrifying (if you're not a tea party type) thought as president given the direction he'd take the country. His record of blatantly lying about even things like marathon times is bothersome as well. Not that I expect honesty from politicians, but there's always the matter of degree...

In terms of helping the party when the presidency, they're probably about equally bad. They were both people that fired up the base, but that's not what you need to win an election. It's the few independents and undecided voters in swing states you need to woo. Neither Palin or Ryan fit that bill as they both only appealed to tea party types.

Also, the women voter thing is applicable to both. Ryan is very strongly prolife, doesn't want contraceptives coverage in Obamacare etc. etc., so he hurts Romney with the female vote too, where he was already weak.

So it's really just as baffling a VP selection as Palin was. It doesn't help Romney at all, other than maybe getting some more support among tea party and far right types that weren't hot on him. But those people are mostly in red states and thus have no real impact on national elections anyway. Obama wasn't winning those states even with lukewarm turnout from the far right.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']So it's really just as baffling a VP selection as Palin was. It doesn't help Romney at all, other than maybe getting some more support among tea party and far right types that weren't hot on him. But those people are mostly in red states and thus have no real impact on national elections anyway. Obama wasn't winning those states even with lukewarm turnout from the far right.[/QUOTE]

Seems to me that the republicans have several right-wing extremist viewpoints that they're always trying to appease. It looks like a baffling choice to any rational outsider, but it's probably hard to get perspective inside the echo chamber.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Strawman.

Are you saying that there are no Native Americans that look white or that Warren represented Traveler's Insurance for the entire case?

"Just look at her," right? Go fuck yourself.[/QUOTE]

So... are you trying to say that she didn't partake in actions of questionable moral ground, or that those actions only reflect upon her during her time as a Republican?
 
[quote name='camoor']Seems to me that the republicans have several right-wing extremist viewpoints that they're always trying to appease. It looks like a baffling choice to any rational outsider, but it's probably hard to get perspective inside the echo chamber.[/QUOTE]

I get that. You'd just thing some people in the party would be smart enough to realize that you have to move to center to win the general election. Not move further right/left.

Picking Palin/Ryan would have been like Obama picking Kucinich (sp?). You can't go after the far left/right in the general election as then you're just catering to red/blue states and fucking yourself in swing states unless your opponent makes the same mistake.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I get that. You'd just thing some people in the party would be smart enough to realize that you have to move to center to win the general election. Not move further right/left.

Picking Palin/Ryan would have been like Obama picking Kucinich (sp?). You can't go after the far left/right in the general election as then you're just catering to red/blue states and fucking yourself in swing states unless your opponent makes the same mistake.[/QUOTE]

You're absolutely right, but this fact means that in order to win an election, candidates have to lie about their positions on issues. Nobody honest will ever win the presidency.
 
44209_10151070508615197_1131972347_n.jpg
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I get that. You'd just thing some people in the party would be smart enough to realize that you have to move to center to win the general election. Not move further right/left.

Picking Palin/Ryan would have been like Obama picking Kucinich (sp?). You can't go after the far left/right in the general election as then you're just catering to red/blue states and fucking yourself in swing states unless your opponent makes the same mistake.[/QUOTE]

It could be an attempt to appeal to the high rollers. The current incarnation of the Republican party is bankrolled by callous libertarians and self-interested anti-regulation businessmen, and Paul Ryan is their idea of a dream date. Choosing Ryan could be a way of trying to get the rich folk to open their coffers, especially now that the Romney campaign is going broke.
 
Libertarians do not like Romney or Ryan. The fact that you morons keep mentioning that shows you wouldn't know a libertarian if they sat on your face and farted.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']Libertarians do not like Romney or Ryan. The fact that you morons keep mentioning that shows you wouldn't know a libertarian if they sat on your face and farted.[/QUOTE]

what the fuck
 
Obama's biggest regret is not pushing through immigration reform...while he's talking to Spanish-language TV?

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-blames-...tion-reform-215329106--abc-news-politics.html

I do wholeheartedly get his point about McCain being vocal on this issue pre-campaign, and a bit during the campaign, but I don't remember a lot of other Republicans supporting it, rather they were cringing because they hated the idea.

But Obama's response when pressured on not getting immigration reform moved forward was about as weak as my son's when I ask why he didn't clean his room when he said he was going to:

"I am happy to take responsibility for the fact that we didn't get it done," Obama said. "But I did not make a promise that I would get everything done a hundred percent when I was elected as president. What I promised was that I would work every single day as hard as I can to make sure that everybody in the country, regardless of who they are, what they look like, where they come from, that they would have a fair shot at the American dream. And that promise I kept."

Translated: I understand that I did not clean my room dad, but I didn't promise to clean the whole thing, but the entire time I was up here, I was cleaning...except for when I was playing. But some of those toys on the floor are my sister's. I blame her for not cleaning my room. I cleaned all of my room. Can I have a cookie now?

Well, there was also this biggest regret:
On “Meet the Press” December 26, top White House adviser Valerie Jarrett said President
Obama’s “biggest regret” is that the severity of the economic crisis
forced him to “spend almost every waking hour in Washington focusing
very hard on solving that crisis” and thus kept him from traveling the
country to connect with the American people.

So, immigration reform, his sincere regret, or his appeasement for the Univision audience in order to secure the hispanic vote? And I fully agree, and support his view that the Republican(s) who were vocally supporting immigration reform pulled a 180 on him for purely political reasons.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So... are you trying to say that she didn't partake in actions of questionable moral ground, or that those actions only reflect upon her during her time as a Republican?[/QUOTE]
Neither. I'm telling you to go fuck yourself.

[quote name='camoor']what the fuck[/QUOTE]
Libertarians tend to be holier-than-thou toolbags that think they're above the fray, but they're just tools of capital. It's pretty obvious that tscars is just a fucking prick and a troll.

[quote name='berzirk']Obama's biggest regret is not pushing through immigration reform...while he's talking to Spanish-language TV?

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-blames-...tion-reform-215329106--abc-news-politics.html

I do wholeheartedly get his point about McCain being vocal on this issue pre-campaign, and a bit during the campaign, but I don't remember a lot of other Republicans supporting it, rather they were cringing because they hated the idea.

But Obama's response when pressured on not getting immigration reform moved forward was about as weak as my son's when I ask why he didn't clean his room when he said he was going to:

"I am happy to take responsibility for the fact that we didn't get it done," Obama said. "But I did not make a promise that I would get everything done a hundred percent when I was elected as president. What I promised was that I would work every single day as hard as I can to make sure that everybody in the country, regardless of who they are, what they look like, where they come from, that they would have a fair shot at the American dream. And that promise I kept."

Translated: I understand that I did not clean my room dad, but I didn't promise to clean the whole thing, but the entire time I was up here, I was cleaning...except for when I was playing. But some of those toys on the floor are my sister's. I blame her for not cleaning my room. I cleaned all of my room. Can I have a cookie now?

Well, there was also this biggest regret:
On “Meet the Press” December 26, top White House adviser Valerie Jarrett said President
Obama’s “biggest regret” is that the severity of the economic crisis
forced him to “spend almost every waking hour in Washington focusing
very hard on solving that crisis” and thus kept him from traveling the
country to connect with the American people.

So, immigration reform, his sincere regret, or his appeasement for the Univision audience in order to secure the hispanic vote? And I fully agree, and support his view that the Republican(s) who were vocally supporting immigration reform pulled a 180 on him for purely political reasons.[/QUOTE]
LOLZ...you forgot to mention how he'd do something about weed too.:roll:

Btw, that's a shitty fucking analogy. Are you going to ask your kid to make all the stuff he needs to clean his room from scratch as well?
 
[quote name='dohdough']LOLZ...you forgot to mention how he'd do something about weed too.:roll:

Btw, that's a shitty fucking analogy. Are you going to ask your kid to make all the stuff he needs to clean his room from scratch as well?[/QUOTE]

Not sure I follow. I thought the McCain-Kennedy proposal was the foundation for the DREAM Act, although admittedly, immigration is a rather low priority issue for me so I'm not up to date on a lot of it. My lulz were really from the significance he placed on not pushing through reform, his BIGGEST regret...because he's talking to Univision. His response to the general question that many are asking him of "what about _____ broken promise?" struck me as one that a 5yr old would tell to try and get out of trouble. My comparison was definitely more intended to reflect his response, than the issue as a whole.
 
[quote name='berzirk']Not sure I follow. I thought the McCain-Kennedy proposal was the foundation for the DREAM Act, although admittedly, immigration is a rather low priority issue for me so I'm not up to date on a lot of it. My lulz were really from the significance he placed on not pushing through reform, his BIGGEST regret...because he's talking to Univision. His response to the general question that many are asking him of "what about _____ broken promise?" struck me as one that a 5yr old would tell to try and get out of trouble. My comparison was definitely more intended to reflect his response, than the issue as a whole.[/QUOTE]
The Dream Act has been around in various forms for quite a while and has always been voted down. I don't think it's a valid indictment of Obama just because he said he'd promise as if it were solely up to him no matter how cynical it looks because it was on Univision. It's more akin to a parent promising a kid anything they want if they get good grades and then welching when the kid says they want to smoke meth and get drunk everyday. Sure that's hyperbolic, but I'm not going to hold him accountable when he got totally shit on while pushing a Republican plan in PPACA...and that was a gift to insurance companies.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Libertarians tend to be holier-than-thou toolbags that think they're above the fray, but they're just tools of capital. It's pretty obvious that tscars is just a fucking prick and a troll.[/QUOTE]

Yeah but that farting quote, smh

Tscars - I don't debate with 13 year-olds, kthxbye
 
[quote name='dohdough']


Libertarians tend to be holier-than-thou toolbags that think they're above the fray, but they're just tools of capital. It's pretty obvious that tscars is just a fucking prick and a troll.


LOLZ...you forgot to mention how he'd do something about weed too.:roll:

[/QUOTE]

Oh boo hoo. People call you out on your shit and you turn into the belligerent moron you've proven yourself to be time and time again. Why try to defend you positions when you can just call someone a troll and tell them to fuck off? King of Cop Outs reigns.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']Libertarians do not like Romney or Ryan. The fact that you morons keep mentioning that shows you wouldn't know a libertarian if they sat on your face and farted.[/QUOTE]
People are, whatever they say they are. Otherwise you're getting into no true scotsman territory.

Well, no true libertarian likes romney or ryan...

See?

Just like how some democrats are socially conservative. I could say they aren't really democrats, but who am I to say that?
 
Romney is releasing his 2011 Taxes

Income: 13.7 million
Fed Income Tax: 1.9 million
Effective Rate: 14.1%

The interesting part is this tid bit.

"In addition, the Romney campaign said Romney's tax filings from 1990 to 2009 show that the couple paid 100% of the federal and state income taxes they owed and that their overall average annual effective federal tax rate was 20.2%. Annually they never paid an effective rate below 13.66%."

http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/21/pf/taxes/romney-tax-return/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
 
[quote name='Clak']People are, whatever they say they are. Otherwise you're getting into no true scotsman territory.

Well, no true libertarian likes romney or ryan...

See?

Just like how some democrats are socially conservative. I could say they aren't really democrats, but who am I to say that?[/QUOTE]

Where did I say true? On a whole, libertarians don't like them. Are there exceptions to the rule? Sure. Are there some teabaggers who claim to be libertarians (until you start questioning them about specifics)? Sure. But look at some of the larger libertarian groups; The Cato Institute, YAL, etc. You'll find nothing but disdain for Romney. I sure as hell won't vote for him.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']Where did I say true? On a whole, libertarians don't like them. Are there exceptions to the rule? Sure. Are there some teabaggers who claim to be libertarians (until you start questioning them about specifics)? Sure. But look at some of the larger libertarian groups; The Cato Institute, YAL, etc. You'll find nothing but disdain for Romney. I sure as hell won't vote for him.[/QUOTE]
You said libertarians don't like them, therefore no true libertarian likes them, just because you didn't say "true" doesn't mean it's not implied. Look at my example again, I could say no democrat is conservative in any way, but we both know that's bullshit.

You can't say we don't know libertarians, because you can't concretely define a libertarian.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']Oh boo hoo. People call you out on your shit and you turn into the belligerent moron you've proven yourself to be time and time again. Why try to defend you positions when you can just call someone a troll and tell them to fuck off? King of Cop Outs reigns.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, it's not like you boasted about being here to break up the "liberal circle-jerk," right?:roll:
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I get that. You'd just thing some people in the party would be smart enough to realize that you have to move to center to win the general election. Not move further right/left.

Picking Palin/Ryan would have been like Obama picking Kucinich (sp?). You can't go after the far left/right in the general election as then you're just catering to red/blue states and fucking yourself in swing states unless your opponent makes the same mistake.[/QUOTE]

The problem Romney has had, however, is that he's not seen as being far to the right enough. There are those in the Religious Right who believe he's part of a cult, the Tea Party has been lukewarm on him because of his previous incarnation as Governor Romney, etc. Romney has had enough trouble shoring up his own base. He's been stuck in this perpetual juggling act where he tries to reference the good things from his past while trying to ignore the parts that are at odds with the GOP. It's like he's so intent on convincing the Right that he's the guy for them, that any move to grab some of the middle would mean having to loosen the reigns on the Right.

[quote name='cancerman1120']Romney is releasing his 2011 Taxes

Income: 13.7 million
Fed Income Tax: 1.9 million
Effective Rate: 14.1%

The interesting part is this tid bit.

"In addition, the Romney campaign said Romney's tax filings from 1990 to 2009 show that the couple paid 100% of the federal and state income taxes they owed and that their overall average annual effective federal tax rate was 20.2%. Annually they never paid an effective rate below 13.66%."

http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/21/pf/taxes/romney-tax-return/index.html?hpt=hp_t1[/QUOTE]

Romney is smart to try to change the news cycle, but doing it like this just seems destined for failure. To begin with, the Democrats have repeatedly been hammering him on the fact that he'll only release his tax records during the years he was gearing up for this election, which meant he could clean things up enough, and now he's just gone and given another year which he almost assuredly knew he was going to run again. On top of that, he's putting out all of these unverifiable figures and just saying, "No, really. Trust me!"

Also, having an income of $13.7 million in 2011? I think there's going to be an ad any day referencing that number while using this clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezraTH3K6_w

And, of course, saying they paid all of the taxes they owe is a really specious argument. While it may be technically true, it really does nothing to refute the argument that he's using various tax shelters and loopholes. And anyways, what presidential candidate is going to say, "Oh yeah, we only payed like 60% of the taxes we were supposed to. Oopsy!"
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']kthxbye? Who's the 13-year-old here? Coward.[/QUOTE]

Offer up a coherent response and I'll be glad to reply.

Sitting and farting in people's faces? FFS man.
 
[quote name='Clak']You said libertarians don't like them, therefore no true libertarian likes them, just because you didn't say "true" doesn't mean it's not implied. Look at my example again, I could say no democrat is conservative in any way, but we both know that's bullshit.

You can't say we don't know libertarians, because you can't concretely define a libertarian.[/QUOTE]

Exceptions do not a rule make. Besides, the claim was that libertarians were funding Romney's campaign. I guess I'd be expecting too much for some evidence that such an act was taking place?
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']What do you want from him Cantatus? To not be successful in the business ventures and investments that he has made throughout the years?[/QUOTE]
I unironically have no problem with this. He's fucked more people than he's helped.
 
[quote name='camoor']Offer up a coherent response and I'll be glad to reply.

Sitting and farting in people's faces? FFS man.[/QUOTE]

So what, I can't crack a joke? You're deflecting over a finite crime.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']What do you want from him Cantatus? To not be successful in the business ventures and investments that he has made throughout the years?[/QUOTE]

And where do you get that I've said anything of the sort? You're being ridiculous.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']What do you want from him Cantatus? To not be successful in the business ventures and investments that he has made throughout the years?[/QUOTE]

I have no issues with his success (although how you got there is important right?) but I take issue with a tax system that allow someone to make that much money and only pay 15% when I make far less and pay more than that. I understand he will pay more in taxes than I will ever even make in my lifetime but it does not change the fact the tax system is messed up. It is not so much a ding on Romney but rather the tax system as a whole.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']Exceptions do not a rule make. Besides, the claim was that libertarians were funding Romney's campaign. I guess I'd be expecting too much for some evidence that such an act was taking place?[/QUOTE]
I didn't make the claim so I won't bother, there is an issue with your argument though. Because no matter what evidence is shown, those people won't be libertarians, because as you've already stated, libertarians don't like romney. You see the problem with that argument? I could show you that Ron Paul himself donated to Romney's campaign, but then he wouldn't be a libertarian, because libertarians don't like Romney, and unassumingly wouldn't give him money.
 
[quote name='Clak']I didn't make the claim so I won't bother, there is an issue with your argument though. Because no matter what evidence is shown, those people won't be libertarians, because as you've already stated, libertarians don't like romney. You see the problem with that argument? I could show you that Ron Paul himself donated to Romney's campaign, but then he wouldn't be a libertarian, because libertarians don't like Romney, and unassumingly wouldn't give him money.[/QUOTE]

You're putting words in my mouth. I get what you're saying, you claiming that I'm doing that old Christian trick. "Oh, but those people aren't REAL Christians."

I've already acknowledged that there are exceptions to every rule, but my claim that, in general, libertarians do not like Romney or Ryan. The claim made was that libertarians are taking an active role in getting Romney or Ryan and to that I'm calling bullshit.
 
No I understand your intent, I just think that original statement is seriously flawed. By the logic of that statement, even the libertarians who do like Romney aren't libertarians, because they like Romney.
 
Depends on your criteria for what makes one part of a political party. Is it the position they hold on policy or is it their voter registration card?

I would err on the side of caution and say that as long as you're registered to the party, then you're a member, regardless of who you vote for.

My point was that if Romney wins the crown in November, you won't have libertarians to blame, even if a couple of our ranks did vote for him. I have no way of proving this, but I bet just as many, if not more will also vote for Obama.
 
[quote name='Cantatus']Romney is smart to try to change the news cycle, but doing it like this just seems destined for failure. To begin with, the Democrats have repeatedly been hammering him on the fact that he'll only release his tax records during the years he was gearing up for this election, which meant he could clean things up enough, and now he's just gone and given another year which he almost assuredly knew he was going to run again. On top of that, he's putting out all of these unverifiable figures and just saying, "No, really. Trust me!"

And, of course, saying they paid all of the taxes they owe is a really specious argument. While it may be technically true, it really does nothing to refute the argument that he's using various tax shelters and loopholes. And anyways, what presidential candidate is going to say, "Oh yeah, we only payed like 60% of the taxes we were supposed to. Oopsy!"[/QUOTE]

I couldn't agree more. This is an absolutely terrible strategy for his campaign. All they are doing is dredging up a topic that had started to recede to the back burner in a way that isn't even going to resolve the issue. The only resolution to the issue is to release the full tax returns which he's not gonna do. Once again though, this will restart the obligatory Ann Romney response of "we've given you people enough."

As far as the video, this happened in the buildup to him officially running I'm assuming? Hence the "I have my eye on a job." This video really highlights how just doesn't get it when it comes to relating to an average/middle class American. Someone who's really out of work struggling to make ends meet isn't gonna think a guy making this comment who made $13 million dollars in 1 year while "unemployed" provides for a very funny quip.

Romney has shown himself time and time again as someone who wants to be President but doesn't want to be bothered to have to run for President.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top