• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Why obama?Dems. want Romney to win nomination

Help Support Ranchers.net:

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
the Dems. know that they can attack Romney on is Bain Capital relationship during the general.......if they were not saving these attacks, they would be putting them out there now.....so as to have a candidate win that they think does not have a chance of beating obama.......


People like OT are falling for this strategy.....

Oldtimer said:
And like I said before- if I was doing this to support Obama- I'd be praising Santorum and/or Gingrich-- as just like the Dem party believes I don't think they stand a chance of winning against Obama in a general election... The reason they are putting all their money into fighting Romney already...


the best thing that could happen at this point is for at least one more of the conservatives that are splitting the vote to drop out and for the other 2 left to expose Romney for what he is......take over the strategy that the obama campaign is hoping to use later on.....

obama will have to campaign on his record against a true conservative, instead of personal attacks against a liberal republican later.......


the occupy movement that groups that are campaigning for obama are spearheading are all part of the same strategy.....

"Romney is part of the 1%, for big business, and part of the collapse of 2008"

they'd rather campaign against someone like romney and continue their class warfare, than campaign against a Tea Partier
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Dream On-- I know the DNC has a lot of money- but don't think they have enough they would waste it on a fake campaign... :roll:

Romney will be the toughest for Obama to beat...

All the Dems have to do with Santorum is bring up his speechs where he believes religious law should take precedence over all other civil law (sort of like the Muslim's belief in Sharia Law)- and let the women of the country know that as a Roman Catholic he follows church doctrine and opposes birth control- and would support laws banning such--- and he will lose the majority of the women and the Independents...

Besides all the corruption- ties to lobbyiests- pork barrel earmarking- and cronyism that is now just coming out in the vetting--- his social platform is 50 years behind where the majority of the voters thinking is now...

The young Republicans group at a New Hampshire college booed him out of the building a couple days ago when he was questioned about his statements that he believed homosexualism was on the same level as beastiality...

With Newt- the Dems would have a hayday- from hypocritical family values- corruption convictions- Beltway insider- Fannie Mae Lobbyist- etc., etc.

The biggest worry the Repubs have right now is how can they make Ron Paul happy-- as he hinted again today that he was still undecided about running as an independent...
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
Anybody still in the field of candidates can beat obama.......but the discussion has to be on obama's record......what will the discussion be like when "Romneycare" comes up?

"So you, Mitt, would be in favor of the same type of system, correct?"

"Well um, yes, but...."

and that's when the voters will say, "what's the difference"


the obama campaign saw the influence the Tea Party had in 2010, they don't want to campaign against that in 2012, better to campaign against "obamalight"
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
Anybody still in the field of candidates can beat obama.......but the discussion has to be on obama's record......what will the discussion be like when "Romneycare" comes up?

"So you, Mitt, would be in favor of the same type of system, correct?"

"Well um, yes, but...."

and that's when the voters will say, "what's the difference"

the obama campaign saw the influence the Tea Party had in 2010, they don't want to campaign against that in 2012, better to campaign against "obamalight"

Big difference- its a STATE program... Even many Repubs opposing Obamacare- believe the STATES need to do something to reform Health Care Insurance costs...
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Oldtimer said:
Dream On--

The young Republicans group at a New Hampshire college booed him out of the building a couple days ago when he was questioned about his statements that he believed homosexualism was on the same level as beastiality...

FACT said:
For the most part, they booed him, particularly when he compared same-sex marriage with polygamy.

I am not sure how you compare Polygamy to beastiality.. ? but since you did feel free to prove your accusation..

Santorum initially welcomed the exchanges with several students. Then he tried to move on to other subjects as the audience interrupted and cheered the questioners. He said he welcomed the state’s legalization of same-sex marriage because it was decided by the legislature.

so no answer even one showing support to the States' action on the issue was good enough.. ?


Some attendees didn’t take this too well, and let Santorum know it. When he left he received some cheers,

so you have a few who wanted to make a point. . but not the point you made..
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
Anybody still in the field of candidates can beat obama.......but the discussion has to be on obama's record......what will the discussion be like when "Romneycare" comes up?

"So you, Mitt, would be in favor of the same type of system, correct?"

"Well um, yes, but...."

and that's when the voters will say, "what's the difference"

the obama campaign saw the influence the Tea Party had in 2010, they don't want to campaign against that in 2012, better to campaign against "obamalight"

Big difference- its a STATE program... Even many Repubs opposing Obamacare- believe the STATES need to do something to reform Health Care Insurance costs...

a mandate form the state or a mandate from the fed.. is still a mandate..
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve said:
Oldtimer said:
Dream On--

The young Republicans group at a New Hampshire college booed him out of the building a couple days ago when he was questioned about his statements that he believed homosexualism was on the same level as beastiality...

FACT said:
For the most part, they booed him, particularly when he compared same-sex marriage with polygamy.

I am not sure how you compare Polygamy to beastiality.. ? but since you did feel free to prove your accusation..

Santorum initially welcomed the exchanges with several students. Then he tried to move on to other subjects as the audience interrupted and cheered the questioners. He said he welcomed the state’s legalization of same-sex marriage because it was decided by the legislature.

so no answer even one showing support to the States' action on the issue was good enough.. ?


Some attendees didn’t take this too well, and let Santorum know it. When he left he received some cheers,

so you have a few who wanted to make a point. . but not the point you made..

You are right Steve- in the NH deal it was polygamy...The beastiality claim was in a speech from a few years ago... So much new stuff coming out on him its hard to keep them straight... My understanding tho is that many of these speechs are on video- and will be appearing in the future when/if needed...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve said:
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
Anybody still in the field of candidates can beat obama.......but the discussion has to be on obama's record......what will the discussion be like when "Romneycare" comes up?

"So you, Mitt, would be in favor of the same type of system, correct?"

"Well um, yes, but...."

and that's when the voters will say, "what's the difference"

the obama campaign saw the influence the Tea Party had in 2010, they don't want to campaign against that in 2012, better to campaign against "obamalight"

Big difference- its a STATE program... Even many Repubs opposing Obamacare- believe the STATES need to do something to reform Health Care Insurance costs...

a mandate form the state or a mandate from the fed.. is still a mandate..

The draft and draft registration is a mandate - is it unconstitutional too... :???:
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Oldtimer said:
Steve said:
Oldtimer said:
Big difference- its a STATE program... Even many Repubs opposing Obamacare- believe the STATES need to do something to reform Health Care Insurance costs...

a mandate form the state or a mandate from the fed.. is still a mandate..

The draft and draft registration is a mandate - is it unconstitutional too... :???:

where do you get all the extra stuff you come up with in your resonse?..

but yes a state draft and a federal draft are both drafts.. as for the unconstitutional.. it wasn't part of your original argument..

since when has there ever been a state draft registration?

if you can follow along and remember what you are debating.. the answer is they are both mandates.. (NO difference)

if a federal program/mandate is found unconstitutional often similar state programs/mandates are as well..
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
So Steve- you believe all mandates are unconstitutional- correct?...

The US governments draft and requirement that all register for the draft is a mandate.. A Federal Mandate....

So is the US draft registration requirement and draft unconstitutional :???:
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Oldtimer said:
So Steve- you believe all mandates are unconstitutional- correct?...

The US governments draft and requirement that all register for the draft is a mandate.. A Federal Mandate....

So is the US draft registration requirement and draft unconstitutional :???:

where did you make that up from?

Where in any post did I say all and unconstitutional?

this is something you pulled out of your @$$ and want to argue.. and it will not work..

Draft registration/conscription was ruled on years ago.. and was upheld..


the point i made that you can't seem to understand is that a mandate form any level of government is still a mandate..

just because the level of government changes it doesn't change the definition of a mandate..

any one with an understanding of the English language would understand that..


so a state mandate is NO different then a federal mandate.




Definition of MANDATE
1
: an authoritative command; especially : a formal order from a superior court or official to an inferior one
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve said:
Oldtimer said:
So Steve- you believe all mandates are unconstitutional- correct?...

The US governments draft and requirement that all register for the draft is a mandate.. A Federal Mandate....

So is the US draft registration requirement and draft unconstitutional :???:

where did you make that up from?

Where in any post did I say all and unconstitutional?

this is something you pulled out of your @$$ and want to argue.. and it will not work..

Draft registration/conscription was ruled on years ago.. and was upheld..


the point i made that you can't seem to understand is that a mandate form any level of government is still a mandate..

just because the level of government changes it doesn't change the definition of a mandate..

any one with an understanding of the English language would understand that..


so a state mandate is NO different then a federal mandate.




Definition of MANDATE
1
: an authoritative command; especially : a formal order from a superior court or official to an inferior one

And like I'm trying to explain to you- there are precedents of Federal Mandates that have been upheld by SCOTUS... Namely the Draft- and Draft Registration- and Seat Belts come to mind first..
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
Someone must be reading my posts here at Ranchers..... :wink: :lol:

Obama’s Campaign Strategy Against the Mittster Beginning to Take Shape; Updated; Second Video Added

Posted on January 07 2012 - 11:15 AM - Posted by: Doug Brady




I’ve argued many times that Team Obama will have a field day with Mitt Romney should Republicans be dumb enough to make him their nominee. He’ll fit in perfectly with Obama’s “us versus them”, Occupy Wall Street campaign strategy. Indeed Obama couldn’t ask for a better face of the opposition for his class warfare campaign if he called Hollywood central casting. Our esteemed Republican Establishment, evidently, is more than willing to assist the Obama campaign by doing everything possible to smooth the way for the Mittens to win the nomination and give Obama the perfect foil. Not that Obama’s campaign will need any help given the billion dollars they’ll have to spend on ads to paint Mitt Romney as, well, Mitt Romney. In a post yesterday, Dan Riehl discussed just how easy — and effective — this will be:

I get it. Romney’s world was one of high-finance, creating efficiencies, thereby freeing up capital – while raking in hefty profits. But try and sell that to blue collar conservatives in swing states still suffering high unemployment and doing it on the part of an unlikeable guy who looks to have been born with a silver spoon in his mouth, spending the Vietnam years in a French villa on a religious mission. Oh yeah, Team Obama is going to have a blast painting Republicans like Romney as part of their alleged greedy 1% that doesn’t care about people, or American industry. Good luck with that. Lacking in charisma, Mitt will look like a deer in the headlights in some critical swing states and both Democrats and blue collar conservatives love to hunt. Video below. Now, stack Perry’s bio against that, or those of the other more genuine conservatives still in the race, and it all goes away.

Reuters published a blockbuster story today on GS Technologies, a steel mill in Kansas City that was acquired by Bain Capital, leading to the layoffs of some 750 workers. In this case, the workers lost promised severance pay and health insurance; their pension benefits were slashed. and a federal government insurance agency had to bail out the company’s pension plan — even as Bain raked in millions and millions of dollars in profits.

Now a man who says he worked at the plant for 34 years — a self-described conservative — is speaking out about Romney.

To be sure, we don’t know how accurate the video is as it was produced by Obama surrogate Moveon-org. But does it really matter? Political ads are not measured by accuracy, but by effectiveness. Ask Newt Gingrich, who bore the brunt of Romney’s multi-million dollar negative ad campaign in Iowa. I would also note that factories do (and should) close, that being a natural economic process to which the great Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter referred as creative destruction. It’s a good thing we no longer have factories which produce buggy whips and typewriters, for example. But that said, in this anemic Obama economy abstract economic theories, regardless of how sound they may be, are no match for people’s insecurities, especially for those who are unemployed or know someone who is.

As Riehl notes, this devastating line of attack for Obama would disappear if his opponent were anybody but Romney. Why, then, do the Republican powers that be insist on giving it to Obama on a silver platter? Obama’s two biggest vulnerabilities are ObamaCare and the economy/unemployment. We already knew a Romney nomination would take ObamaCare off the table. Now it’s becoming increasingly clear that it would also make an attack on Obama over unemployment a dicey proposition, as the above ad illustrates. Any other Republican candidate could go after Obama with both barrels on these issues. Not the Mittster. In short, he will be unable to credibly go after Obama on two huge issues. How does this make him the “electable” candidate?

Update: (h/t blackbird) Here’s a similar ad with the same basic them:

Effective? No question. Fair? Probably not. But that really doesn’t matter, does it?

Update II: The video in the update above, “When Mitt Came to Town”, has been removed by the user. I’ll leave the link intact in case they put it back.

http://conservatives4palin.com/2012/01/obamas-campaign-strategy-against-the-mittster-beginning-to-take-shape.html
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Oldtimer said:
Steve said:
Oldtimer said:
So Steve- you believe all mandates are unconstitutional- correct?...

The US governments draft and requirement that all register for the draft is a mandate.. A Federal Mandate....

So is the US draft registration requirement and draft unconstitutional :???:

where did you make that up from?

Where in any post did I say all and unconstitutional?

this is something you pulled out of your @$$ and want to argue.. and it will not work..

Draft registration/conscription was ruled on years ago.. and was upheld..


the point i made that you can't seem to understand is that a mandate form any level of government is still a mandate..

just because the level of government changes it doesn't change the definition of a mandate..

any one with an understanding of the English language would understand that..


so a state mandate is NO different then a federal mandate.




Definition of MANDATE
1
: an authoritative command; especially : a formal order from a superior court or official to an inferior one

And like I'm trying to explain to you- there are precedents of Federal Mandates that have been upheld by SCOTUS... Namely the Draft- and Draft Registration- and Seat Belts come to mind first..

Most seat belt legislation in the United States is left to the states.

New Hampshire is the only U.S. state that does not by law require drivers to wear safety belts while operating a motor vehicle.


wrong again...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve said:
Oldtimer said:
Steve said:
where did you make that up from?

Where in any post did I say all and unconstitutional?

this is something you pulled out of your @$$ and want to argue.. and it will not work..

Draft registration/conscription was ruled on years ago.. and was upheld..


the point i made that you can't seem to understand is that a mandate form any level of government is still a mandate..

just because the level of government changes it doesn't change the definition of a mandate..

any one with an understanding of the English language would understand that..


so a state mandate is NO different then a federal mandate.

And like I'm trying to explain to you- there are precedents of Federal Mandates that have been upheld by SCOTUS... Namely the Draft- and Draft Registration- and Seat Belts come to mind first..

Most seat belt legislation in the United States is left to the states.

New Hampshire is the only U.S. state that does not by law require drivers to wear safety belts while operating a motor vehicle.


wrong again...

The Federal Mandate is that all motor vehicles sold in all 50 states must have seat belts.....That is the direct federal mandate that costs you every time you buy a vehicle...Than the Feds withheld Federal Highway funds from states until they passed seat belt laws.... Mandate :???:
And past SCOTUS rulings have ruled those actions Constitutional...
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2006
Messages
8,019
Reaction score
0
Location
Az.
Doesn't makes it right though to be forced into doing something that affects only you, and harms no one else!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
Pretty sure that SCOTUS has never ruled whether seat belt laws/regulations were unconstitutional or not. Not per se.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
Pretty sure that SCOTUS has never ruled whether seat belt laws/regulations were unconstitutional or not. Not per se.

Historically the SCOTUS seldom does rule on the direct issue- usually skirting around it to give their rulings/opinions... But for years they have shown favor to the law by upholding the Federal and State laws/regulations/criminal cases involving seat belts...

And I'm no fan of the seat belt laws.. They are another example of Big Industry bucks- in this case the Insurance Industry- controlling D.C....

The SCOTUS tho has ruled several times on the Federal mandate requiring registration with the Selective Service- and the Draft....
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Historically the congress seldom makes rules on the direct issue- usually skirting around it to give their rules/opinions




I guess I wasn't clear enough...

Legislation
Federal

There is no federal seat belt law; such laws are left to the individual states
(Encyclopedia of Everyday Law)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve said:
Historically the congress seldom makes rules on the direct issue- usually skirting around it to give their rules/opinions




I guess I wasn't clear enough...

Legislation
Federal

There is no federal seat belt law; such laws are left to the individual states
(Encyclopedia of Everyday Law)


Check the laws/rules requiring the automakers to install seat belts in every vehicle made (with some exemptions-ex bus's)-- even with specifications the seat belts and their installation have to meet..... FEDERAL MANDATE

While there is no law requiring states to pass seat belt laws- they did withhold federal highway funds from any state that didn't meet the Federal minimum requirements... I remember it well- as Montana was one of the states that opposed a seat belt law- but with the lack of population and huge amount of highways finally had to acquiesce... Mandate ?

Not much different than if you can afford it you have to buy health insurance or in the alternative pay a fine/tax if you don't....
 

Latest posts

Top