Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<Sincerity is a matter of opinion.>> And opinions regarding matters as important as the Presidency, should be based on previous actions and factual evidence as much as possible. To simply believe that Romney "sincerely" wants to serve his country without being able to cite any of his previous actions in relevant situations is the stuff fairy tales are made of. You can keep hoping and praying and wishing that Romney is the type of politician that "sincerely" wants to serve his country, but that doesn't necessarily make it so.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 Mitt Romney, as far as I can tell, only wants to serve himself. << Never thought I would actually agree with you on something, but yes Mitt Romney wants to be President for purely selfish reasons...
Originally Posted By TomSawyer What evidence is there of Romney's sincerity? Definition of SINCERE <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sincere?show=0&t=1351880319" target="_blank">http://www.merriam-webster.com...51880319</a> 1 a : free of dissimulation : honest <a sincere interest> b : free from adulteration : pure <a sincere doctrine> <sincere wine> 2 : marked by genuineness : true Dissimulation is concealing the truth with half-truths and omissions. Adulteration is adding extraneous elements to something in an attempt to hide its true nature. Genuineness? Come on, Josh - there is nothing sincere at all in Romney's public record. Dissimulation and adulteration are the hallmarks of his political career and especially this campaign. A guy who won't let his campaign be swayed by fact-checkers is not likely to be sincere. He won't talk about his taxes. He won't talk about his specific economic plans. He won't talk about abortion rights. When he talks about economic issues and health care he lies, and when his lies are pointed out he keeps saying them. He might be sincere with his close friends and even with his religion, but those of us outside those groups don't see an ounce of sincerity in him.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>It does. Sincerity is a matter of opinion.<< I disagree. By their fruits you will know them. He was a corporate raider who offshored jobs. He invested in a company that profited from abortions (Stericycle). He's a habitual liar. The man doesn't have a sincere bone in his body.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 He's a phony. I still don't know why the Obama campaign didn't use the "p word," but that's what he is.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Romney's "closing argument" is that if Obama is reelected, the GOP will not raise the debt ceiling and the economy will go over a cliff. Interesting strategy. Is he saying that he WILL raise the debt ceiling? I thought tea partiers were dead-set against that. And yet, they will vote for him? By Monday, he'll be holding a sack of kittens over the edge of a bridge, yelling "Vote for me or else!!!"
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder So he's saying if he loses the GOP will retaliate by ruining the economy? Am I reading that right? Is there a better example that fits the premise of this thread?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Romney supporters- is this what Romney is saying? Let's hear this get spun.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder That's not spinning josh, that's avoiding the question, as usual. Is Romney really saying that? That the GOP will continue to ruin the economy if he loses?
Originally Posted By Tikiduck Now it comes down to thinly veiled threats. Of course, that is typical GOP modus operandi, so this comes as no real surprise. Despicable, yes, surprising, no.
Originally Posted By Tikiduck How can Harry Reid work with a moronic right wing fantasy? Romney's plan is tantamount to Pixie dust.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<Harry Reid is promising not to work with Romneys plans.>> If the Democrats are still holding the majority in the Senate after Tuesday, with Harry Reid still at the helm... give me one good reason why Reid and the Dems *should* bow down to what Romney and the Senate Republicans want to accomplish, given that the Senate majority -- by will of the people -- is still being held by the Democrats, who have a different vision for America? The current crop of Republican Senators under the leadership of Mitch McConnell, have been abusing the filibuster to prevent bills from even reaching the floor of the Senate for a vote. They are the *minority* party and not in charge of Senate business. But they are *preventing* the Democrats from doing what the American people elected these Democrats to do. If -- and it's a big if -- Romney were to win the White House, and the Senate were still in control of the Democrats, the onus falls on Romney to work with the Senate to do what the country wants and expects. Not the other way around. It does NOT fall upon the Democrats to cave in on their principles and give Romney and Mitch McConnell every single thing their little pro-corporate anti-union anti-middle class anti-women hearts desire! BTW, Josh... If the Senate fell to Republican control on Tuesday, with Obama still in the White House, you can bet dollars to donuts that Mitch McConnell would tell Obama to basically go F himself. You're criticizing Harry Reid for promising to not work with Romney, when Mitch McConnell already promised FOUR YEARS AGO to never work with Obama! Would you have a problem with Mitch McConnell refusing to work with Obama if he regained control of the Senate? I'm thinking no.
Originally Posted By utahjosh <Would you have a problem with Mitch McConnell refusing to work with Obama if he regained control of the Senate? I'm thinking no.> Yes. I think both parties need to come together more often and work together. Both need to compromise more often to fix things like health care, immigration, etc.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder >><Would you have a problem with Mitch McConnell refusing to work with Obama if he regained control of the Senate? I'm thinking no.> Yes. I think both parties need to come together more often and work together. Both need to compromise more often to fix things like health care, immigration, etc.<< Then you have to agree that O'Connell has been the problem in the Senate for Obama and the reason things aren't accomplished there as well as influencing the House. It's O'Connell that has been responsible for the utter lack of bipartisanship the last two years, not anything Obama has done. Voting against Obama for his lack of bipartisanship then makes no sense.
Originally Posted By LoyalOrderWaterBufff Excuse me but how in tHe woRld is Romney worse than Nixon. Nixon as president tried to cheat the cOuntry. In fact so bad he coUld not even finish the job. Also how is romney worse than what BuSh did to us. Going to war under a false promise doeS not sit very weLl with us.
Originally Posted By LoyalOrderWaterBufff I mean Romney is preTty bad but not as bad as Nixon and Bush. KErry was not much of a Candidate either. Nixon is still the laughing stoCk of the White House.
