• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Any Republicans here? What's wrong with Romney?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Jaskalas said:
You referring to supporting men like Bush, McCain, and Romney? F' those 'conservatives' and they are MOST CERTAINLY not what's right for this country.
Click to expand...

All I'm saying is there is a bit of cognitive dissonance with the party today. America's good times under republican Leadership were very much about balancing budgets and rule of law for everyone. And were even jacked taxes to do it. Regan did it 3x after realizing he went too far. Today they just don't give a fuck it seems and seem intent on destruction.

And no I'm not referring to Bush he was very irresponsible but titans like Eisenhower and Reagan all conservatives can look back and say those were some good times. But today the party fails to understand what made them and advances positions contrary.
 
Last edited:
Hugo Drax said:
Huntsman is most reasonable Republican candidate, seems well educated, knows two languages and believes in science.
Click to expand...

In one short sentence you gave four solid reasons why Huntsman will never get the GOP nomination:

-he's reasonable
-he's well educated(look at Cain and Perry, the object to exaggerate what a bumpkin you are),
-he knows two languages (that is a negative in the party of English as USA's sole and official language)
-he believes in science.
 
Thump553 said:
In one short sentence you gave four solid reasons why Huntsman will never get the GOP nomination:

-he's reasonable
-he's well educated(look at Cain and Perry, the object to exaggerate what a bumpkin you are),
-he knows two languages (that is a negative in the party of English as USA's sole and official language)
-he believes in science.
Click to expand...

All those apply to Romney as well. Romney is reasonable from his time in MA, is well-educated (JD/MBA from Harvard), knows French, and probably believes in science, or at least a McKinsey presentation 🙂

You know, I do wonder if Romney actually ran as his governor of MA self, if he could have gone as far as he has already. It would be a lot like McCain in 2000, straight talk and all of that. It is possible that his flip-flopping is to mute any conservative hatred. Keep them confused and keep the red flag out of sight.
 
boochi said:
eva-flip-flops-20838.jpg
Click to expand...

i didn't get it until i read the post below yours lol

my first thought was literally Romney in blue sandals
 
I hope Herman Cain gets it but I will vote for whoever it is because I want the leftist we got in there now gone.
 
I have to somewhat wonder about this thread title? As our OP asks, Any Republicans here? What's wrong with Romney?

As everyone else across the political spectrum, be they democrats, republicans, or independents, ask the more cogent question.

Namely WHAT IS RIGHT ABOUT ROMNEY? A far harder question to answer regardless of who you ask. As ole Mitt is a universal panacea for revulsion across the entire political spectrum.
 
karmypolitics said:
Happily married father of 5 vs guy who divorced his wife while she was in the hospital recovering from cancer and then carried on an extramarital affair during the Clinton years?
Click to expand...
Mr. Gingrich is the new Republican morality; he doesn't get caught in bed with men and he marries (some of) his mistresses.
 
JS80 said:
Why would we want to win in 2012 if we know 2012-2016 will be an economic disaster? Game theory says for Obama to get elected in 2012 and hopefully they will raise taxes which will kill the economy and then blame it on Obama and you dems.
Click to expand...

It's not a game, it's not a team sport, it's not an "us versus them". It's about actually getting somebody competent in office who can do something positive for the country, but you and your ilk on both sides are too goddamned busy pointing fingers and blaming each other to give a shit about doing the right thing. Freaking partisan idiots.
 
Hmmmmm........

Thump553 said:
In one short sentence you gave four solid reasons why Huntsman will never get the GOP nomination:

-he's reasonable <=== matter of opinion.
-he's well educated(look at Cain and Perry, the object to exaggerate what a bumpkin you are), <==== I believe all the candidates have post public school educational backgrounds.
-he knows two languages (that is a negative in the party of English as USA's sole and official language) <======= This is pretty much irrelevant.
-he believes in science.<==== Pretty sure most of the candidates "believe" in science.
Click to expand...
 
JS80 said:
Why would we want to win in 2012 if we know 2012-2016 will be an economic disaster? Game theory says for Obama to get elected in 2012 and hopefully they will raise taxes which will kill the economy and then blame it on Obama and you dems.
Click to expand...

Like the economic disaster in 2008? It's sad your "game theory" scenario has you playing for position, not what's best for the country. In your hypothetical, you'd rather inherit a house of ashes and say "ha we were right" instead of being in a position to cushion the blow and speed the recovery.

4 years of more out of control spending (which both parties share equal blame) only gives a cowardly candidate in 2016 the ability to blame the ineffectiveness of their administration on their prior one.

You have someone who can make a difference? Get him/her in now when a difference can be made, not when we've pushed the dagger in further. But of course, if your only goal was to be in power and not truly what's best for America, your premise makes perfect sense.
 
DucatiMonster696 said:
Hmmmmm........
-he's reasonable <=== matter of opinion.
What do you find so unreasonable about him?
-he's well educated(look at Cain and Perry, the object to exaggerate what a bumpkin you are), <==== I believe all the candidates have post public school educational backgrounds.
He at least does not try to hide his education and erudition.
-he knows two languages (that is a negative in the party of English as USA's sole and official language) <======= This is pretty much irrelevant.
Here we agree
-he believes in science.<==== Pretty sure most of the candidates "believe" in science.
But are willing publicly to deny evolution in order to pander to their theocratic base
Click to expand...
??
 
I am not a Republican but vote that way.
I can't stand a lot of what the repubs do but it is better than the alternative.
 
I am not a republican, but I am conservative and generally vote republican. From my perspective, Romney seems like a good candidate, but there's just something about him I don't trust. I'd still take him over the alternative (Obama) any day of the week, but I don't think many on the right are overly enthusiastic about him, in some ways he's a RINO.
 
eskimospy said:
I agree that he will still get the nomination, I just can't see the Republicans being dumb enough to nominate one of the other guys.

An interesting side note: in 2008 Romney was considered the 'true conservative' alternative running next to the quasi-turncoat McCain. What a difference 4 years makes.
Click to expand...

That is a question many people have asked. What makes Romney not a conservative 4 years later? And I think he has turned more conservative since 2008.

All I can come up with is the party has shifted a lot of the right to make a more conservative romney look more moderate now than in 2008. I agree, what a difference 4 years makes.
 
Anarchist420 said:
Romney is totally unelectable. The Republicans do have a history of chosing moderates though. The last time they chose a conservative was with Calvin Coolidge in 1924. The only time before that was when they chose Warren G Harding 4 years earlier.

Reagan and Goldwater (who was an Eisenhower delegate in '52) were part of the New Right, so they weren't conservative.
Click to expand...

You have to run a moderate in a national election if you want to win. It is plain and simple as that. Non-moderates appeal to your base which represents about 20&#37; of the population. The other 60% are independents that will win you the election. They dont prescribe to ideology like the base, and they like moderates.
 
Double Trouble said:
I am not a republican, but I am conservative and generally vote republican. From my perspective, Romney seems like a good candidate, but there's just something about him I don't trust. I'd still take him over the alternative (Obama) any day of the week, but I don't think many on the right are overly enthusiastic about him, in some ways he's a RINO.
Click to expand...

All sensible candidates are RINO these days. If you're not balls to the wall crazy republicans aren't really interested in you these days. Once the crazy/terrible person has left office they're a RINO too.
 
RedChief said:
Huntsman would be a horrid candidate. He is way to moderate for the GOP base. We found out 08 what happens when you nominate a moderate. If the GOP wants to win, they have to have the base show up on election day and to do that you need a conservative.

Those of you who say the GOP should nominate him (Hugo Drax) are voting for Obama anyways.
Click to expand...

The problem with the nomination system of both parties is that you have to be an extremist to win the nomination, but a centrist to win the actual election.

So you have people who must lie to one group or the other, or both, about their intentions else they cannot win. Refuse to lie a lot and you cannot win.
 
Zebo said:
All I'm saying is there is a bit of cognitive dissonance with the party today. America's good times under republican Leadership were very much about balancing budgets and rule of law for everyone. And were even jacked taxes to do it. Regan did it 3x after realizing he went too far. Today they just don't give a fuck it seems and seem intent on destruction.

And no I'm not referring to Bush he was very irresponsible but titans like Eisenhower and Reagan all conservatives can look back and say those were some good times. But today the party fails to understand what made them and advances positions contrary.
Click to expand...

King Grover Norquist says raising taxes is not allowed. It's that simple.
 
Last edited:
Genx87 said:
You have to run AS a moderate in a national election if you want to win. It is plain and simple as that. Non-moderates appeal to your base which represents about 20% of the population. The other 60% are independents that will win you the election. They dont prescribe to ideology like the base, and they like moderates.
Click to expand...

Corrected you there. BHO ran as some feel good post partisan moderate when he is actually a far left radical (and very partisan).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top