Romney Looks Like the Next Pres

I'm assuming that since you posted that on more than one thread around here, you think it's a really good ad. Perhaps your expectations have been lowered somewhat after the debate last week?

I love how "fellow Republicans" mentioned in there include McCain campaign folks. LOL!

 

I'm STILL voting Romney next month.

Who you voting for, brASS hole?

 

Vote for Romney.

Bet on Obama.

Never argue with money.

 

They were both Romney threads, so it seemed appropriate. As for the first debate, I had already noted that I was surprised by Romney's solid performance. (And, of course, I refer to performance as compared to content, but even so, nicely done.)

As I had noted some time ago, well before the debate, and as I continue to hold as a possibility, perhaps Obama is the better chess player of the two and has opened the debates with a gambit. The middle- and endgame will help clarify. But everyone seems to agree that the opening went to Romney.

 

I read somewhere the idea that maybe Obama was caught off guard by Romney's near complete reversal of everything he's been advocating. Romney is the scum of the earth. You may vehemently dislike Obama's "socialism", but it is consistent, and thus can be managed and adapted to. That's more like the consistency of capitalism, actually, you at least always know what they're about. On the other hand, perhaps Romney is consistent on one sense, he will always say whatever he thinks the market, I mean the voter, will buy.

 

First, let me say that it is refreshing to hear a more balanced argument from you rather than the "nyah nyah" type posts you, RCG and AK were putting forth - insisting it was so one sided.

I have no idea who is going to win, and that's how I look at it. I doubt seriously that Obama is any type of chess player whatsoever, and more likely simply underestimated Romney the first time. I agree, however, it will likely not occur again.

 

I have asked folks to show one point that was inconsistent in the debate from what Romney had earlier advocated post primary. No one has yet to do it. Instead, the typical horseshit about Romney changing his position gets thrown around without specifics. If there was an inconsistency between the Romney that showed up, and the Romney portrayed in the Liberal Media, then I can guess where the incorrectness lies.

If one only gets their news from Krugman and MSNBC, then one cannot complain when one invariably stumbles on more accurate footing later on.

 

It is horseshit, pro choice then not pro choice, pro gun control then no gun control, pro government run healthcare then against gov. health care, pro distribution then against distribution then for it again, lower taxes for the wealthy then no keep what they pay the same. I don't know how anyone can say Romney was changing his positions, pure horseshit.

 

Again, what I said was his positions post primary. Now, if you want to talk about pre-primary Romney, the only issue I am aware of is the abortion flip. He was once pro-choice, but he stated that he had a life changing moment while working in hospitals in Mass that changed his mind. But to be fair, regardless, it's still a flip flop.

Please show me the changes in his platform since winning the primary (all the things he's been campaigning on).

If you'd like, we can then discuss all the changes Obama made since becoming President. I've got a whole host of videos from him saying things like how he was against raising the debt ceiling, or Gitmo, etc...

 

Easy enough google;
Presidential Debates 2012: Romney May Have Won on Word Count, But Left a Web of Lies Behind

http://www.policymic.com/articles/1...ft-a-web-of-misstatements-and-contradictions.

Here are two from the list of 27
"1) “[G]et us energy independent, North American energy independent. That creates about 4 million jobs”. Romney’s plan for “energy independence” actually relies heavily on a study that assumes the U.S. continues with fuel efficiency standards set by the Obama administration. For instance, he uses Citigroup research based off the assumption that “‘the United States will continue with strict fuel economy standards that will lower its oil demand.” Since he promises to undo the Obama administration’s new fuel efficiency standards, he would cut oil consumption savings of 2 million barrels per day by 2025.
2) “I don’t have a $5 trillion tax cut. I don’t have a tax cut of a scale that you’re talking about.” A Tax Policy Center analysis of Romney’s proposal for a 20 percent across-the-board tax cut in all federal income tax rates, eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax, eliminating the estate tax and other tax reductions, would reduce federal revenue $480 billion in 2015. This amounts to $5 trillion over the decade."

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2...ts-debate-romney-told-27-myths-in-38-minutes/