2016 Polls: Republican Candidate

[RGCheek]

Precisely. I have always perceived Romney as a morally empty shell, an impression dramatically confirmed by his revulsive “47 %” comments. As for abortion, he would say anything to capture the gullible ‘social conservative’ vote.

I totally agree with that.

A statement born from run-of-the-mill unthinking, uncritical rightwing ideology.

I think the phrase ‘unthinking, uncritical PARTISAN ideology’ to be more accurate in this case. The two parties are playing each other off as ‘bogeymen’ to generate campaign contributions and guilt trip people into keeping their voting within the duopoly of Democrat and Republican parties. So to strengthen this ploy they agree to demonize one another and castigate any independents as ‘friends of the Devil’ and ‘if you vote for anyone other than our guy you are voting for the Devil’ sorts of smears.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I am not making this up. Romney has stated that he is personally opposed to abortion but is against making it illegal. This is almost identical to Pelosi’s view on the subject.

Are you really surprised that pro-life organizations that have supported every Republican nominee since 1973 would endorse the 2012 Republican nominee even if it was Romney?

Romney won’t run, so it’s academic anyway. But it’s wrong to say his position is the same as that of Pelosi. Romney has said he would oppose, through legislation if possible, all abortion other than rape, incest and the life of the mother BUT if he had a chance to get Roe overturned through appointments to the bench, he would. He said if he could sign a bill outlawing all abortion, he would. He supports the Hyde Amendment for all federal programs and opposes any kind of government funding of Planned Parenthood.

That’s very different from Pelosi’s position.

I do realize, though, that it’s to Democrats’ advantage at present to make people believe there is no difference between the parties, so people would despair of reversing the awful policies of this administration and just give up.

 

[RGCheek]

How so?

A short summary is that while Obama worked to strengthen communities as a community organizer and getting help to people locally that needed it, Romney was a corporate raider, doing hostile take overs of companies and stripping them down to sell off. Thousands of people lost their jobs and careers due to Romneys business practices. His comment about 47% of the public being unwilling to consider voting GOP due to their receipt of federal funds would have to include retired military and people on social security none of which are entitlements or welfare. But to Romney it doesn’t matter; all he cares is that they are bills he would have to shed to strengthen the bottom line of the United States Incorporated.

And ending social security will not work and privatizing it after the 2008 financial debacle will not happen.

 

[RGCheek]

Yes, Romney can’t hold a candle compared to “ISIS is JV”, “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor”, voted 3 times for infants born alive (BAIPA - Illinois) to be left alone to die. Oh, yes, we see who is so moral!

:rotfl:

Yes, Obama and most of our career politicians are professional liars, I agree.

But Romney’s lies are so fast and thick and spun so well he ups the game to a whole new level. Romney is apparently talking his way into the GOP nominating him again, solid proof of how well this guy can lie and spin anything to anyone to do any sort of nonsense.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I think the phrase ‘unthinking, uncritical PARTISAN ideology’ to be more accurate in this case. The two parties are playing each other off as ‘bogeymen’ to generate campaign contributions and guilt trip people into keeping their voting within the duopoly of Democrat and Republican parties. So to strengthen this ploy they agree to demonize one another and castigate any independents as ‘friends of the Devil’ and ‘if you vote for anyone other than our guy you are voting for the Devil’ sorts of smears.

Actually, I don’t think Repubs or other conservatives are castigating independents as “friends of the devil”. What they often do is simply point out that failing to oppose evil when one can, is participation in that evil; a truism so obvious that it hardly deserves debate.

“Independents” are simply people who don’t have a party affiliation. Some are leftist, some are rightist, and some are just not party people for other reasons.

But it really is just a left Democrat ploy in the face of such total moral and policy failure on their part, to argue that “there is no difference” between their candidates. I think A.S. Solzhenitsyn called it “wiping one’s (um, rear) with one’s own flag”. If one’s own party is thoroughly repulsive and failing, and if all one can do to blacken the other party is to equate the other party with one’s own, then that’s the tactic one uses.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Yes, Obama and most of our career politicians are professional liars, I agree.

But Romney’s lies are so fast and thick and spun so well he ups the game to a whole new level. Romney is apparently talking his way into the GOP nominating him again, solid proof of how well this guy can lie and spin anything to anyone to do any sort of nonsense.

The DNC must think Romney is going to run, or we wouldn’t be seeing them attack him nowadays. I think they’re wrong. he won’t run. But, as with 2012, they smear every potential candidate in advance, so such attacks probably shouldn’t be surprising.

If Romney says he definitely won’t run and they believe him, they’ll turn on somebody else.

 

[RGCheek]

Romney was honest, score him for that per the 49-47% comment, actually, because of the entitlement crowd, we get some things shoved on us so Obama and the Democrats can do the work of the Hollywood-elite, those aren’t American values.

So you think Romney is unaware that his 47% included retired military (solid pro-Republican normally) and social security recipients, who are not getting that as welfare but as an entitlement due to them having paid into the system all their lives.

So does Romney think that our military retirees wont vote for him because they are so greedy that they want the government to keep paying for their retirement? Does he think that Social Security recipients are just so greedy that they wont take reductions to their benefits?

No, the greedy person here is Romney who is selling his policies as best for the country and are slash and burn tactics he learned as a corporate raider, and he sees the pay off for him as elected office and the patronage he can generate from it.

 

[RGCheek]

Actually, I don’t think Repubs or other conservatives are castigating independents as “friends of the devil”. What they often do is simply point out that failing to oppose evil when one can, is participation in that evil; a truism so obvious that it hardly deserves debate.

A truism that doesn’t apply when BOTH sides are evil.

And in this case of a choice between voting for Romney or Obama it is a choice between evils.

“Independents” are simply people who don’t have a party affiliation. Some are leftist, some are rightist, and some are just not party people for other reasons.

Agreed.

But it really is just a left Democrat ploy in the face of such total moral and policy failure on their part, to argue that “there is no difference” between their candidates.

The observation that there is little difference between the tow parties far predates the Obama administration, FYI.

If one’s own party is thoroughly repulsive and failing, and if all one can do to blacken the other party is to equate the other party with one’s own, then that’s the tactic one uses.

Show me a democrat that does this. Link or it is just made up.

 

[RGCheek]

The DNC must think Romney is going to run, or we wouldn’t be seeing them attack him nowadays.

Where is the DNC targeting Romney? Link or it is made up.

I think they’re wrong. he won’t run.

I pray to God that you are right, but methinks he more likely will try than wont.

But, as with 2012, they smear every potential candidate in advance, so such attacks probably shouldn’t be surprising.

Well then that would be Karma for all the smears Romney has done to every other republican candidate that has led Romney in polls during the primaries.

If Romney says he definitely won’t run and they believe him, they’ll turn on somebody else.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Where is the DNC targeting Romney? Link or it is made up.

False choice.

The DNC doesn’t tell me who its people are or who it sends out to do its bidding in websites. But if it looks like a duck…

 

[RGCheek]

False choice.

The DNC doesn’t tell me who its people are or who it sends out to do its bidding in websites. But if it looks like a duck…

Not a false choice. Show a link to someone who is a Democrat who is working on behalf of the DNC then who is trashing Romney.

I get the feeling you are referring to me, essentially calling me a liar and a fraud.

Is that what you are doing here? Speak frankly or stop it.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Not a false choice. Show a link to someone who is a Democrat who is working on behalf of the DNC then who is trashing Romney.

I get the feeling you are referring to me, essentially calling me a liar and a fraud.

Is that what you are doing here? Speak frankly or stop it.

Oh, I think you most likely believe what you’re saying. You’re just deceived. One would have to be deceived in order to really believe there’s no difference between the parties on issues of importance. There is a great deal of difference.

Do you see no difference between Roberts/Alito and Kagan/Sotomayor? If you do, then you can’t maintain there are no differences between what the parties do. If you don’t, then it is you who, in effect, is calling two good men liars and frauds.

 

[SunnyslopeIII]

Really, I don’t think you have to worry so much about how I vote if you cant understand what a protest vote is.

I fully understand what a “protest vote” is…a wasted vote. If your views are closer to the Republican side, then your “protest vote” removed a vote from the Republican Party candidate, which helps the Democratic Party candidate. If your views are closer to the Democratic side, then you helped the Republican Party candidate. That is the practical side of it, because you knew that the Green Party had no chance. Oh, and the greater effect of your “protest vote?” There isn’t one.

 

[SunnyslopeIII]

So you would vote for a man that voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, BAIPA, i.e. Infanticide 3 times. You would rather that man, Obama win?? Okay, case closed. We see where your views are.

Exactly.

 

[SunnyslopeIII]

I would far rather vote for a third Obama term before I would vote for Romney.

SunnyslopeIII:

But, again, you clearly stated that you thought Obama was better than Romney, so you got what you wanted. You should be pleased.

RGCheek:

No,** Obama is not what I wanted**. You don’t seem to read English very well.

Irony. My English skills seem to be pretty decent.

 

[RGCheek]

Oh, I think you most likely believe what you’re saying. You’re just deceived.

Yes, anyone not in with one of the major parties is deceived by the other party, which is the party of the Devil. /sarc

One would have to be deceived in order to really believe there’s no difference between the parties on issues of importance. There is a great deal of difference.

What are the issues of importance?

I would say it is gun rights, growth of good paying jobs for middle class Americans, stopping or reducing abortion, opposing gay marriage, and reducing the power of scope of government in our lives.

Romney fails on all those issues IMO and there is no difference, therefore based on these issues, between Obama and Romney.

Do you see no difference between Roberts/Alito and Kagan/Sotomayor? If you do, then you can’t maintain there are no differences between what the parties do. If you don’t, then it is you who, in effect, is calling two good men liars and frauds.

Judicial appointments are the critical issue, is that right? Then how do you essplain Blackmun, Burgher, Potter Stewart, Powell, all Republican appointments, voting for abortion in Roe v Wade in a 7-2 majority?

Republicans in office is no guarantee of a conservative appointment ESPECIALLY if the man in office is a RINO like Romney.

 

[RGCheek]

Quote:
Originally Posted by RGCheek View Post
I would far rather vote for a third Obama term before I would vote for Romney.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SunnyslopeIII
But, again, you clearly stated that you thought Obama was better than Romney, so you got what you wanted. You should be pleased.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RGCheek
No, Obama is not what I wanted. You don’t seem to read English very well.

Irony. My English skills seem to be pretty decent.

Yeah, pretty poor. I would never vote for Obama in real elections, but put into a hypothetical scenario I would rather have Obama than Romney but I would not vote for either one, nor do I want either one.

 

[RGCheek]

I fully understand what a “protest vote” is…a wasted vote.

In your partisan opinion.

If your views are closer to the Republican side, then your “protest vote” removed a vote from the Republican Party candidate, which helps the Democratic Party candidate.

Bull. When the party nominates people like Romney that are the exact opposite of who I want to vote for then I am not ‘closer’ to the Republican party, kind sir.

If your views are closer to the Democratic side, then you helped the Republican Party candidate.

Nope.

That is the practical side of it, because you knew that the Green Party had no chance. Oh, and the greater effect of your “protest vote?” There isn’t one.

Yes, there is; you really don’t think that there are pros who watch these numbers closely and look for trends?

 

[RGCheek]

Exactly.

No, not exactly.

 

[powerofk]

Okay, here’s the thing, and I don’t know if it’s a trend or coincidence or whatever. But… in many states, at least it’s seemed this way in recent history - the party that loses the White House often gains the majority of governor’s mansions and state legislatures 2 years later. Seriously - I don’t know if it’s due to the base of the opposition being more fired up in the midterms or what, but it seems interesting.

For instance, Obama, for all his “pro-choice” stuff, has actually done more to mobilize pro-life groups than GWB ever did. More pro-life legislation has been passed at the state level during Obama’s tenure (and especially since 2011) than during the entire period from Roe v. Wade until Obama’s election. Seriously. Scott Walker would have never been elected governor of WI had Obama not won in 2008 - because people would have still been blaming the problems of the country on the GOP. The same goes for Christie in NJ, and even possibly Susana Martinez of NM, not to mention the governors of MI, NV, OH, IA, VA (the list goes on and on).

Now, I don’t know who I would prefer in the general election. Probably someone like Christie or Martinez - who stays true to issues about life and other non-negotiable moral issues, but on other items, notably budgetary issues, is willing to accept something that’s not necessarily perfect, but gives him/her much of what he/she wants.

“My way or the highway” (Obama & Bush & most Dems and GOPers) has gotten us nowhere. This garbage of the party that wins the Presidency and/or House and/or Senate punishing the minority party has got to stop. It’s part of the reason why we’re in the mess we’re in - both parties seeking power for the sake of power and nothing else. I am a proud - a VERY proud independent. I vote for the person, who, at the time, I believe will be better for America as a whole. And I cannot stand either party. My political party is, and forever will be, the Catholic Church. My platform is, and forever will be, the Catechism and the Bible. Period. We are Catholics first, Americans second, husbands/wives/singles/priests/religious third. And we must always remember that.