Second R Debate

#101
#101
nbakerld said:
But he's the same person as Obama. There's really no difference. A completely wishy-washy, big-smiling politician who favors big government, war, and spending. If "winning" is what this is about and not actual change then I guess Romney is my guy.
Click to expand...

i'd say he's about as conservative as clinton. still better than obama, but not be a wide mile certainly.
 
#102
#102
golfballs03 said:
You live in a cave if you think he's as liberal as Obama.
Click to expand...

Their rhetoric is different. Their actions are the same.

I live in Utah. Romney's been in the spotlight here for a decade. I went to school and church with his son (nice kid), so I especially paid attention to Mitt. I've watched him flip flop on abortion, gay marriage, and government mandated health care. You have no idea what you are going to get when you elect Mitt.

He can't make his mind up about anything. In the debate Monday he said Libya is a bad move because it's not up to US troops to fight for the liberty of others. That's the exact opposite stance he took when he campaigned in 2008.
 
#105
#105
golfballs03 said:
flip flopping does not equal extreme liberalism
Click to expand...

What has he done to earn the title "conservative"?

Like I said, in rhetoric, he and Obama are (currently) very different. In action they aren't. The most liberal thing Obama has done is Obamacare. Ever heard of Romneycare?
 
#107
#107
utvolpj said:
yep, getting O out is the real task. I can hold my nose in the booth if I have to
Click to expand...

This is why we always end up with guys like Bush I and II, Dole, McCain, etc. If we refused to vote for bad candidates we might actually get a new breed of candidate.
 
#108
#108
nbakerld said:
This is why we always end up with guys like Bush I and II, Dole, McCain, etc. If we refused to vote for bad candidates we might actually get a new breed of candidate.
Click to expand...
No idea how you put Bush I in that category. The guy was a former CIA director, Congressman and sitting VP. He was one or the most qualified candidates ever.

The whole "they all suck" argument holds no water with me.
 
Last edited:
#109
#109
nbakerld said:
This is why we always end up with guys like Bush I and II, Dole, McCain, etc. If we refused to vote for bad candidates we might actually get a new breed of candidate.
Click to expand...

so how does keeping Obama in office change that? There are still tens of millions of voters who think they are voting for American Idol instead of the Pres. The number of idiots waiting in line to receive the gov't cheese is rising every day. I know whose ideas I could really get behind but there's no way they get a sniff. It may not be drastic change but I'll take incremental at this point
 
#110
#110
GAVol said:
No idea how you put Bush I in that category. The guy was a former CIA director, Congressman and sitting VP. He was one or the most qualified candidates ever.

The whole "they all suck" argument holds no water with me.
Click to expand...

So you think Bush I was a good president? Neither of the Bushes are true conservatives. Maybe he had a great resume, but I'm more worried about principles.
 
#111
#111
utvolpj said:
so how does keeping Obama in office change that? There are still tens of millions of voters who think they are voting for American Idol instead of the Pres. The number of idiots waiting in line to receive the gov't cheese is rising every day. I know whose ideas I could really get behind but there's no way they get a sniff. It may not be drastic change but I'll take incremental at this point
Click to expand...

Bush II grew domestic government more than anybody since LBJ. That is drastic change. But in the wrong direction.
 
#113
#113
utvolpj said:
Not really my point but what would the result have been with Gore/Kerry?
Click to expand...

It's hard to believe they could've spent more money than Bush. There's no reason to believe that. Gore was with Clinton, and they didn't spend nearly as much.
 
#115
#115
utvolpj said:
no reason at all? Come on now
Click to expand...

They possibly could have, but Bush II was completely out of control. To assume they would have been worse is to assume they would have been the biggest spenders ever. You can't assume that. There's no logical reason to believe they would have outspent him. They could have, but it's not likely.
 
#117
#117
utvolpj said:
Obama is proving it's a definite possibility
Click to expand...

Obama's rhetoric was always a lot more socialist than Gore and Kerry, and it's easier to get away with wild spending now that Bush II has set the precedent. We're not going the other direction until we elect somebody who is serious about reigning in the budget (Paul, Johnson).
 
#118
#118
agree and I've said I would love to vote for Johnson but he doesn't have a shot in hell
 
#119
#119
utvolpj said:
agree and I've said I would love to vote for Johnson but he doesn't have a shot in hell
Click to expand...

So are you voting for him in the primaries?

He seems kind of effeminate and I was wondering if he is gay. Turns out he's engaged to a woman. Anyways, do y'all think Republicans (or even America) would elect a gay candidate?
 
#122
#122
utvolpj said:
yes I will
Click to expand...

That's cool. I don't think there's much of a difference between him and Paul. He might be a little more willing to compromise than Paul. I like them both a lot, but will vote for Paul because I think he has a much better chance. If they both lose the primary I'll probably end up writing Paul in. I'm open to voting for Bachmann or somebody else possibly, but I'm not sure I like any of them enough, yet. "Winning" to me is getting my guy in, not simply electing somebody who is not named Obama.
 
#123
#123
nbakerld said:
That's cool. I don't think there's much of a difference between him and Paul. He might be a little more willing to compromise than Paul. I like them both a lot, but will vote for Paul because I think he has a much better chance. If they both lose the primary I'll probably end up writing Paul in. I'm open to voting for Bachmann or somebody else possibly, but I'm not sure I like any of them enough, yet. "Winning" to me is getting my guy in, not simply electing somebody who is not named Obama.
Click to expand...
that a little defeatist. You hardly ever get exactly what you want in politics so you take as much as you can.
 
#124
#124
nbakerld said:
That's cool. I don't think there's much of a difference between him and Paul. He might be a little more willing to compromise than Paul.
Click to expand...

GJ has actually done it in the real world. Couple that with building a successful business from the ground up and I would say he's more qualified
 
#125
#125
GAVol said:
that a little defeatist. You hardly ever get exactly what you want in politics so you take as much as you can.
Click to expand...

I am socially and economically liberal (in the true sense of the word, meaning I am for freedom). Republican rhetoric tends to be economically liberal and socially authoritarian. Democratic rhetoric tends to be socially liberal and economically authoritarian. I value social and economic freedom, so I don't really identify with most republicans or democrats. Once in office they do basically the same things (Obama and Bush = bailouts, wars, torture, Gitmo, Patriot Act, spend spend spend, general disregard for constitution, etc.).

Really I only respect a few individuals in the republican party and one in the democratic.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top