Sigma Posted January 2, 2012 at 07:43 PM Posted January 2, 2012 at 07:43 PM My link I didn't know there is a Video clip of Romney speaking: "I do not support any new legislation of an assault weapon ban nature." Check out my link and tell me what you think. hey that rhymes.
NakPPI Posted January 2, 2012 at 07:54 PM Posted January 2, 2012 at 07:54 PM Romney said in the debates that he signed the Massachusetts aw ban because it contained provisions supported by the gun lobby. That is probably half true. The other half is that Massachusetts is liberal land and the AW ban was popular, so Romney went with it, like most politicians would. Thankfully the federal AW ban was so unpopular, I doubt that it will ever come back. I would rather hear Romney opinion on the CCW reciprocity act. Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk
oneshot Posted January 3, 2012 at 01:59 AM Posted January 3, 2012 at 01:59 AM Don't worry, he's better than Obama...right? Right?
pyre400 Posted January 3, 2012 at 03:00 AM Posted January 3, 2012 at 03:00 AM For or against? Its hard to say - he's taken both sides of every major issue. He's essentially the obama of the Republicans...He has lots of actions to contradict his words, and not enough consistent history to instil any confidence... The fact that most of Romney's major campaign donations come from big banks, pretty much affirms my belief that he's a business as usual candidate. The most significant issue for me though, would be that Romney would likely lose against obummer. If he were to win the nomination, he'd take some of obama's biggest mistakes off of the table. Its hard to criticize someone else for doing something you invented. Thats my opinion, anyway.
SFC Stu Posted January 3, 2012 at 04:29 AM Posted January 3, 2012 at 04:29 AM Romney is Obama Lite! He is a RINO!
NakPPI Posted January 3, 2012 at 05:00 AM Posted January 3, 2012 at 05:00 AM I am hardly a big Romney supporter, I maintain that Huntsman would still be the best candidate to go against Obama. Due to his conservative history, business, and foreign policy experience. Combine that with being the only pro civil union candidate, you get all the "moderation" that independent voters want. In other words if you want to steal the independent vote from Obama, vote for Huntsman. It's truly sad that he screwed up in the early debates. Given the choice of Romney or Obama, I still take Romney solely on economic policies. Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk
Tompo Posted January 3, 2012 at 04:14 PM Posted January 3, 2012 at 04:14 PM I don't know if I trust anything that comes out of Romney's mouth. At one time or another, he's taken 3 sides to every issue.
Xwing Posted January 3, 2012 at 04:18 PM Posted January 3, 2012 at 04:18 PM Romney will not the best friend to the 2nd amendment policies, but he won't be our worst enemy either. Obama is itching to stamp out gun ownership, and is just waiting for any excuse or a little public support to really hit where it hurts. (He's tried a lot so far, but not been able to accomplish what he wanted.) Romney won't go out of his way to protect the 2a, but he won't go out of his way to oppose it either. He'll just do whatever is popular at the time. He'd be a neutral, which is not great, but is still better than a raging anti.
RUGERMAN Posted January 3, 2012 at 06:06 PM Posted January 3, 2012 at 06:06 PM Romney is Obama Lite! He is a RINO!Maybe, but what's the choice? If Obama gets back in it;s a disaster. Fast and Furious? Can't see Mitt doing that. Two hard left rabid anti gun radicals on the Court? Admitted Communists in the administration? No, he's not my 1st choice but he's a far cry from a complete Socialist that hates business and has no use for the COTUSA.
Patriots & Tyrants Posted January 3, 2012 at 06:45 PM Posted January 3, 2012 at 06:45 PM I don't see how Romney could be any worse than Obama but I agree he is somewhat Obama Lite. The fact of the matter is he ran in and served as Governer of one of the most liberal states in the Union. You don't stay in state wide office in a place like MA, CA, or NY runniing on ALL "conservative" ideas. I think Romney will support whatever gets Romney elected and keeps him in office for both terms. The good news is I don't see him supporting any sort of AWB or anti 2a policies while he is in office. The bad news is I don't see him making gun rights a "top priority".
pyre400 Posted January 3, 2012 at 06:59 PM Posted January 3, 2012 at 06:59 PM Again, it would be difficult for Romney to stand next to Obama.I've made no secret about who I'm voting for, but putting that aside to be objective, Romney would take away some of the most critical attacks on obama.Its an annoying fact that the media is all too willing to overlook, but one which should be pretty obvious to anyone willing to look at Romney's record.Why wait for the general election to ask these questions?
NakPPI Posted January 3, 2012 at 07:02 PM Posted January 3, 2012 at 07:02 PM Gun rights is not the top issue for any candidate for president, nor should it be. Obama has been covertly anti gun-- see fast and furious and judicial appointments. If all we get on gun rights from Romney are a few good judges or justices, I would consider that a win. Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk
papa Posted January 3, 2012 at 08:10 PM Posted January 3, 2012 at 08:10 PM Gun rights is not the top issue for any candidate for president, nor should it be. Obama has been covertly anti gun-- see fast and furious and judicial appointments. If all we get on gun rights from Romney are a few good judges or justices, I would consider that a win. Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk I agree ! This is the reason I will vote for whoever is running against Obama. Even if it were a monkey up against him , the monkey would get my vote.
Xwing Posted January 3, 2012 at 09:43 PM Posted January 3, 2012 at 09:43 PM I agree ! This is the reason I will vote for whoever is running against Obama. Even if it were a monkey up against him , the monkey would get my vote. +100% The monkey might not do any good for our country, but certainly woudn't do as much harm as Obama has.
sctman800 Posted January 4, 2012 at 06:44 PM Posted January 4, 2012 at 06:44 PM I would vote for John Wayne Gacy with Charlie Manson as VP before I would vote for O'B. That is if they get on the "R" ticket, no third party for me. Yes, I have voted third party before years ago and it got me nothing except the party I wanted least ended up winning. Jim.
rott Posted January 4, 2012 at 06:52 PM Posted January 4, 2012 at 06:52 PM I would vote for John Wayne Gacy with Charlie Manson as VP before I would vote for O'B. That is if they get on the "R" ticket, no third party for me. Yes, I have voted third party before years ago and it got me nothing except the party I wanted least ended up winning. Jim. And this is what I hope all of us remember....it scares me tot thnk that the conservatives will be so divided that they stay home because their first pick didn't make it...
Bob1911 Posted January 4, 2012 at 07:28 PM Posted January 4, 2012 at 07:28 PM I have just decided to vote for the Republican candidate whomever it is. 1. This will not waste a vote on any third party candidate. 2. Whoever gets the election (other than Obummer) will be in their 1st term and hopefully they will wish another term and will rule accordingly. I hope that this strategy will be simple enough too succed. Bob
Xwing Posted January 4, 2012 at 08:37 PM Posted January 4, 2012 at 08:37 PM And this is what I hope all of us remember....it scares me tot thnk that the conservatives will be so divided that they stay home because their first pick didn't make it... I share that same fear. I can't even recall how many times (here, with friends, and on other boards) I hear about people who say they'll go 3rd party or stay home if a mediocre candidate wins the Republican primary. Doing so ensures an Obama win.
Patriots & Tyrants Posted January 6, 2012 at 05:12 AM Posted January 6, 2012 at 05:12 AM I agree with a lot of others when they call Mitt "Obama Lite". The difference is Obama has some real strong convictions that he has let be known, mostly on your typical liberal/socialist issues though. Obama said what he had to say to get elected and he will say and do what he has to say and do to get re-elected. Mitt; values aside/whatever they might really be said and did what he had to inorder to get elected Governor of MA and he will do the same to beat Obama and become President. The good news and bottom line is any sort of re-newed AWB has absolutely NO traction in the republican "right leaning" base, or the moderates of either party. Romney has nothing to gain from ever supporting any sort of AWB, it would only piss off his party when he has much bigger fish to fry. All that being said, I would vote for Mitt over Obama in a hear beat. He might end up being Obama lite but thats better than "Obama Classic". My main fear is you are going to have a republican who doesn't really energize the base like Mitt WIN this election; only opening the door to someone like Hillary or worse in 2016. IMO the Economy would do better under Mitt but it will still not recover overnight like some have diluted themselves into thinking. I think Gas prices will go up well above 5 or even 6 dollars a gallon and I think inflation is probably going to start really getting ugly.Much as Obama is learning now and whoever is in 2013 will learn; you can only blame the other guy for so long before people start looking hard at the other party.
belercous Posted January 6, 2012 at 07:25 AM Posted January 6, 2012 at 07:25 AM It's well known that I'm a liberal. The only GOP candidatre who has a chance against Obama is Romney. Romney, if elected (which I doubt will happen) won't worry me too much as a president since he's a moderate. We're now in the primary season, and candidates tend to lean toward their base (liberal or conservative) in order to win the nomination. Once they have the nod, they then turn towards the center (Romney's starting point is only a bit right of center) to gather votes. A true liberal or conservative running as such in the general will never win. Reagan didn't win by being a true conservative, nor did Obama by being a true liberal, both went centrist. That's why they got elected. Both governed as moderates, Reagan leaning right, Obama left. But both had the center as their base. The public doesn't go to extremes in elections because both parties have their bases turning out to equalize the other, and independent voters decide elections. (In 2012 moreso than ever) Independent voters see both as having similar views. This will help both, although it gives an advantage to the incumbent. Put somebody like Santorum or Paul up against Obama & make it a clear choice of ideologies, Obama wins certain & big. I'm not too worried if Romney wins in `12, just like I wasn't too worried when GHWB won in `88. Neither would be my first pick, but neither is an ideolouge. If Mitt somehow should win the W.H., He'll be a centrist fo sho. A President isn't bound by party, his/her reelection prospects are not often reliant upon partisan politics. In fact, they rely upon his/her being a President for everyone. This means the center where most votes are.
Tompo Posted January 6, 2012 at 01:37 PM Posted January 6, 2012 at 01:37 PM It's well known that I'm a liberal. The only GOP candidatre who has a chance against Obama is Romney. Romney, if elected (which I doubt will happen) won't worry me too much as a president since he's a moderate. We're now in the primary season, and candidates tend to lean toward their base (liberal or conservative) in order to win the nomination. Once they have the nod, they then turn towards the center (Romney's starting point is only a bit right of center) to gather votes. A true liberal or conservative running as such in the general will never win. Reagan didn't win by being a true conservative, nor did Obama by being a true liberal, both went centrist. That's why they got elected. Both governed as moderates, Reagan leaning right, Obama left. But both had the center as their base. The public doesn't go to extremes in elections because both parties have their bases turning out to equalize the other, and independent voters decide elections. (In 2012 moreso than ever) Independent voters see both as having similar views. This will help both, although it gives an advantage to the incumbent. Put somebody like Santorum or Paul up against Obama & make it a clear choice of ideologies, Obama wins certain & big. I'm not too worried if Romney wins in `12, just like I wasn't too worried when GHWB won in `88. Neither would be my first pick, but neither is an ideolouge. If Mitt somehow should win the W.H., He'll be a centrist fo sho. A President isn't bound by party, his/her reelection prospects are not often reliant upon partisan politics. In fact, they rely upon his/her being a President for everyone. This means the center where most votes are. I agree with the above. The longer and more protracted the GOP primary is, the more people like Santorum and Gingrich stay in the race, the more it will force Romney to the far Right. Which will make it harder in the general election, when he needs to appear more moderate to attract independents.
gravyboy77 Posted January 11, 2012 at 06:31 PM Posted January 11, 2012 at 06:31 PM It's well known that I'm a liberal. The only GOP candidatre who has a chance against Obama is Romney. Romney, if elected (which I doubt will happen) won't worry me too much as a president since he's a moderate. We're now in the primary season, and candidates tend to lean toward their base (liberal or conservative) in order to win the nomination. Once they have the nod, they then turn towards the center (Romney's starting point is only a bit right of center) to gather votes. A true liberal or conservative running as such in the general will never win. Reagan didn't win by being a true conservative, nor did Obama by being a true liberal, both went centrist. That's why they got elected. Both governed as moderates, Reagan leaning right, Obama left. But both had the center as their base. The public doesn't go to extremes in elections because both parties have their bases turning out to equalize the other, and independent voters decide elections. (In 2012 moreso than ever) Independent voters see both as having similar views. This will help both, although it gives an advantage to the incumbent. Put somebody like Santorum or Paul up against Obama & make it a clear choice of ideologies, Obama wins certain & big. I'm not too worried if Romney wins in `12, just like I wasn't too worried when GHWB won in `88. Neither would be my first pick, but neither is an ideolouge. If Mitt somehow should win the W.H., He'll be a centrist fo sho. A President isn't bound by party, his/her reelection prospects are not often reliant upon partisan politics. In fact, they rely upon his/her being a President for everyone. This means the center where most votes are. I agree with the above. The longer and more protracted the GOP primary is, the more people like Santorum and Gingrich stay in the race, the more it will force Romney to the far Right. Which will make it harder in the general election, when he needs to appear more moderate to attract independents. It's looking like Romney might have this sewn up is he wins in SC (where he's already ahead) and FL where he is also the frontrunner. I don't agree with you about Romney swinging too far right for the general though, we have Obama who ran in the center, promised a new era in politics, hope & Change and all that other BS in '08 then made a hard left turn for the last 3-years. Whoever wins will get my vote. ABO
Buckfarrack Posted January 11, 2012 at 09:34 PM Posted January 11, 2012 at 09:34 PM It's well known that I'm a liberal. The only GOP candidatre who has a chance against Obama is Romney. Romney, if elected (which I doubt will happen) won't worry me too much as a president since he's a moderate. We're now in the primary season, and candidates tend to lean toward their base (liberal or conservative) in order to win the nomination. Once they have the nod, they then turn towards the center (Romney's starting point is only a bit right of center) to gather votes. A true liberal or conservative running as such in the general will never win. Reagan didn't win by being a true conservative, nor did Obama by being a true liberal, both went centrist. That's why they got elected. Both governed as moderates, Reagan leaning right, Obama left. But both had the center as their base. The public doesn't go to extremes in elections because both parties have their bases turning out to equalize the other, and independent voters decide elections. (In 2012 moreso than ever) Independent voters see both as having similar views. This will help both, although it gives an advantage to the incumbent. Put somebody like Santorum or Paul up against Obama & make it a clear choice of ideologies, Obama wins certain & big. I'm not too worried if Romney wins in `12, just like I wasn't too worried when GHWB won in `88. Neither would be my first pick, but neither is an ideolouge. If Mitt somehow should win the W.H., He'll be a centrist fo sho. A President isn't bound by party, his/her reelection prospects are not often reliant upon partisan politics. In fact, they rely upon his/her being a President for everyone. This means the center where most votes are. Well,i DO respect your honest opinion but,i am gonna have to give you a "B-" for spelling.The word i believe you are trying to spell is "for sure". Not "fo sho". Thanks you in advance for understanding.
Sigma Posted January 11, 2012 at 10:08 PM Author Posted January 11, 2012 at 10:08 PM The biggest thing that sticks in Americans mind that Obama did was healthcare. I believe it started the Tea Party. We cant use that against Obama if Romney gets the nomination. Of course there are other things but I would love to see Obama defend himself with that one. Noticed how he nor any democrat even talks about it anymore?
belercous Posted January 12, 2012 at 05:55 AM Posted January 12, 2012 at 05:55 AM Buck; Fair enough, but I'll have to deduct points from you as well for not capitalizing "I" (twice), improper word spacing (thrice), for grammar (thanks you) and again for mis-counting (Fo sho/for sure is 2 words. Need an "s" on "word). I will give you points for brevity however, 7 errors in 40 words is impressive.
moparcardave Posted January 12, 2012 at 02:24 PM Posted January 12, 2012 at 02:24 PM It depends which Mitt you are talking about. I don't trust that guy at all.
moparcardave Posted January 12, 2012 at 02:30 PM Posted January 12, 2012 at 02:30 PM Personally I think of all the candiates Romney is the most beatable. I agree standing by obama, he will look like a used car salesman. He gets angry, grits his teeth and head piviots like a nervous dog. Obama can be stabing a grandma in front of us and tell the sheeple it's just fine and folks believe him. My opinon is not so much who the presidential candidate is but who the VP will be. We do have a runaway freight train here and first need someone that will start applying the brakes. Then we need a second in command that is more to our values. In Illinois, it will go Democrat here were I am at it will go Republican. It's just in those swing states where people really need to look at what's going on and change it.
pyre400 Posted January 13, 2012 at 04:25 AM Posted January 13, 2012 at 04:25 AM Mitt's word is as good as a golden shower http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVA2Tr_GTlk
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.