• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Mitt Romney is beneath the office of Presidency

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
571
126
You're wrong about that

http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html




Comparing Bush to John Kerry is simply dishonest, Kerry was nowhere NEAR as bad as Romney. Politicians can 'evolve'. But flipping on EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YORU BELIEFS is quite unprecedented for a Presidential Candidate.
Uh, did you read your own link?

No only does it validate my claim, but it also commits democrat heresy. It points out the fact that Clinton, contrary to liberal claims, never once ran a surplus.
 
Last edited:

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
0
0
Obama said if he didn't turn it around in his first term then he deserved to be a one-term president.
Yes, he did. And if the Republicans had been able to nominate an alternative worthy of the White House, Obama would be.

But they weren't, and so he won't.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,995
774
126
Uh, did you read your own link?

No only does it validate my claim, but it also commits democrat heresy. It points out the fact that Clinton, contrary to liberal claims, never once ran a surplus.
Yes, i read my own link and what you said was bullshit and was contradicted by my link:

Bush, despite starting 2 wars, didn't run trillion dollar deficits per year.
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
I'm sorry I just have to say this.

Look ALL politicians are dishonest to a degree about what they promise and what they think they can achieve. We've been conditioned to accept some amount of that, even if it's bullshit. But never in my life time have I seen a man so devoid of principles run for so high an office. There is simply no position he won't flip flop on. Even worse, he does not care about lying. He will sit there and lie repeatedly with a straight face.

That has to scare you. This man is simply beneath the office of Presidency. America needs to not just reject him, they need to send a message to both parties that no such candidate will ever be acceptable from either side.
Doesn't scare me - it merely reminds me of the Clinton years.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,061
494
126
You're wrong about that

http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html




Comparing Bush to John Kerry is simply dishonest, Kerry was nowhere NEAR as bad as Romney. Politicians can 'evolve'. But flipping on EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YORU BELIEFS is quite unprecedented for a Presidential Candidate.
Again why is this a surprise to you? This is nothing but faux rage that a politician is pandering to voters. Like I said to the original poster. Were you born yesterday? All of these guys pander and switch sides on an issue to get a vote. The whole point is to get elected so the actions of these guys like I said before is a no brainer.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
571
126
Yes, i read my own link and what you said was bullshit and was contradicted by my link:
Your link shows Bush's final year that he ran a trillion dollar deficit. Since then, Obama has not run a single year where he didn't.

If it makes you happy I'll change my statement. Bush, despite starting two wars, didn't run trillion dollar deficits every year of his presidency.
 
Last edited:

woodie1

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2000
5,947
0
0
After Clinton I've come to accept that there is no dignity in the USA. I expect whoever holds the office of President to sell favors, give high level appointment's to friends relatives and high bidders, and use the office to get laid.
Yep, just when you think things can't get any worse they do.
 

Pens1566

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 2005
7,557
671
126
Your link shows Bush's final year that he ran a trillion dollar deficit. Since then, Obama has not run a single year where he didn't.

If it makes you happy I'll change my statement. Bush, despite starting two wars, didn't run trillion dollar deficits every year of his presidency.
He would have. If the wars had been on the books.
 

Smoblikat

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 2011
5,184
107
106
Look who brought up bush. We didn't. If you think obama is worse than bush, then you are fucking retarded. Obama did not start 2 wars that cost trillions of dollars. He did not oversee the collapse of the US economy. You fucking imbecile.
Then who was in office for the past almost 4 years overseeing the US economy?
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
571
126
He would have. If the wars had been on the books.
You have proof that they weren't?

Even if this is true, the total cost of BOTH wars since 2001 has been about 1.3 trillion. Obama burns through that nearly every year.
 
Last edited:

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
He would have. If the wars had been on the books.
I hear this all the time, how were the wars off the books? They had to be paid for somehow, either with current funds or defecit spending. It's not like you can hide it completely.

What Bush and congress did do was push the economy into overdrive via loose credit, creating the bubble that we're going to be recovering from for quite some time. Bush can be blamed for the bubble that burst, Obama can be blamed for attempting to reinflate it with massive deficit spending rather than letting the economy recover naturally.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,995
774
126
Your link shows Bush's final year that he ran a trillion dollar deficit. Since then, Obama has not run a single year where he didn't.

If it makes you happy I'll change my statement. Bush, despite starting two wars, didn't run trillion dollar deficits every year of his presidency.
Thank you for changing your blatantly dishonest statement.

The more honest way of looking at it is that bush fucked the economy in the ass and the deficit exploded under him. And the deficit increased every single year under Bush. At the very least, it looks like the deficit went down from one year to the next under Obama though.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,995
774
126
Then who was in office for the past almost 4 years overseeing the US economy?
The economy didn't collapse under Obama though, it was a steaming piling of shit handed to him day 1 of entering the office.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,995
774
126
Again why is this a surprise to you? This is nothing but faux rage that a politician is pandering to voters. Like I said to the original poster. Were you born yesterday? All of these guys pander and switch sides on an issue to get a vote. The whole point is to get elected so the actions of these guys like I said before is a no brainer.
Because if you can't see the distinction between changing a few of your position to changing everything you believe in, then this country is fucked, because there are many people like you that are too intellectually lazy to do any critical thinking and just spout, "well, all politicians are the same".

That's why shit like this doesn't even get a peep out of you
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,061
494
126
Because if you can't see the distinction between changing a few of your position to changing everything you believe in, then this country is fucked, because there are many people like you that are too intellectually lazy to do any critical thinking and just spout, "well, all politicians are the same".

That's why shit like this doesn't even get a peep out of you
So for you it isnt they are pandering and flipping sides. It is some arbitrary line in the sand when they do it too much. I have done the critical thinking to realize politicians are lying scumbags. When are you going to do the same?
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,995
774
126
So for you it isnt they are pandering and flipping sides. It is some arbitrary line in the sand when they do it too much. I have done the critical thinking to realize politicians are lying scumbags. When are you going to do the same?
It's not arbitrary when one politician is WORSE than everyone else, historically speaking. I can't even think of who the hell would be '2nd worst' because the falloff from Romney to that person is absolutely GIGANTIC, and there have been a LOT of shitty politicians. Basically you don't mind that this particular politician is taking lying and pandering to unprecedented levels and is making things worse than they already are.

YOU ARE WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS COUNTRY
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,061
494
126
It's not arbitrary when one politician is WORSE than everyone else, historically speaking. I can't even think of who the hell would be '2nd worst' because the falloff from Romney to that person is absolutely GIGANTIC, and there have been a LOT of shitty politicians. Basically you don't mind that this particular politician is taking lying and pandering to unprecedented levels and is making things worse than they already are.

YOU ARE WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS COUNTRY
It is arbitrary when you are attacking one flip flopper vs the next. Why is that hard for you to understand?

And I absolutely never said I didnt mind. I said it shouldnt be a surprise to you or the OP that a politician is pandering to voters. This is what politicians do to gain votes. One day for, the next against depending on the politician winds.

So what you are saying it Romney is the line in the sand for you and what broke the back on your view of pandering? But all the other politicians out there being lying scumbags is ok because they havent done it to the degree of Romney? Who is intellectually dishonest again?

You can scream that last line all you want. Just like I can scream partisan douchebags who cant get their lips on the asshole of a party fast enough are the problem in this country. It doesnt make it any more or less true.
 
Last edited:

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,995
774
126
It is arbitrary when you are attacking one flip flopper vs the next. Why is that hard for you to understand?

And I absolutely never said I didnt mind. I said it shouldnt be a surprise to you or the OP that a politician is pandering to voters. This is what politicians do to gain votes. One day for, the next against depending on the politician winds.

So what you are saying it Romney is the line in the sand for you and what broke the back on your view of pandering? But all the other politicians out there being lying scumbags is ok because they havent done it to the degree of Romney? Who is intellectually dishonest again?

You can scream that last line all you want. Just like I can scream partisan douchebags who cant get their lips on the asshole of a party fast enough are the problem in this country. It doesnt make it any more or less true.
You're the intellectually dishonest one. You lump all politicians together as if they're one homogenous group.

DETAILS MATTER

Would you say Mitt Romney is the same as Bernie Sanders or Ron Paul?

Give me a fucking break.

You know how i know that you don't care about reducing the size of government even though you claim you care about it? Because your intellectual laziness is how shit like this gets slipped under your radar:


http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/bait-and-switch-gop-leaders-renege-on-debt-limit-deal-defense-cuts.php

You're too busy denouncing how both parties as 'being the same' that you don't pay attention when someone does something more egregious than the norm.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
571
126
Thank you for changing your blatantly dishonest statement.

The more honest way of looking at it is that bush fucked the economy in the ass and the deficit exploded under him. And the deficit increased every single year under Bush. At the very least, it looks like the deficit went down from one year to the next under Obama though.
Yeah, that's quite an accomplishment. Obama ran a 1.8 trillion dollar deficit in FY 09. He only ran a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit in FY 11. Wow.

And since you want to be stickler, I'll call you out on the bolded "blatantly dishonest statement".

Bush's deficit went down, according to your own link, from 595 billion in FY 04 to 553 billion in FY 05, as well as from 575 billion in FY 06 to 500 billion in FY 07.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY