jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (23 posts)

Romney Endorses Democratic Platform in Speech

  1. profile image0
    Sooner28posted 4 years ago

    Toward the end of Governor Romney's convention speech, he claimed:


    "That united America will care for the poor and the sick, will honor and respect the elderly, and will give a helping hand to those in need."

    Food for the starving, universal health care for ALL, and guaranteed college education to those who desire to go and are intellectually able.

    My question is: why is Romney a Republican?

    1. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      ...

    2. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I wasn't going to bother, but oh well.

      1 - Do Democrats have a corner on the market of 'helping people'? That would be news to me.
      2 - You seem to criticize Romney when he says something you disagree with and when he says something you agree with.
      3 - Did he say anything about universal healthcare, or universal college education?

      1. profile image0
        Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Haha.  No.

        He said nothing about universal healthcare, or universal college education; however, his principles are perfectly in line with most liberals.  He just isn't following them for some reason!  It's quite odd really :p

        1. habee profile image90
          habeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, he DOES follow them. He not only talks the talk, he walks the walk. He gives of his money AND his time to help others.

          1. profile image0
            Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            No.  He does not follow them.  If you are a Republican in favor of gutting the social safety net, increasing defense spending, opening up every square inch of the earth to oil tycoons, giving huge tax cuts to the wealthy, and are a homophobic bigot (though he just recently became this when he decided to run for President), no, you do not follow those principles.

            1. habee profile image90
              habeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              So, you're saying that Romney has NOT helped the poor, the sick, or those in need, which you quoted in your original post? I guess the IRS and all those folks Mitt helped are lying. Please tell me how many times Obama has visited the sick and counseled those in need. And Biden's charitable contributions are a joke. Dems are always generous with OTHER people's money, but when it comes to their own cash, they can be pretty stingy. Have you really read Romney's plan? I can't find where it says it does away with safety nets and social programs. You do know that the number of Americans in poverty is higher now, right?

              1. profile image0
                Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                If I have 500 million dollars, and I hoard 300 million of it in offshore accounts to avoid paying taxes on it, give 5 million to my church, and support cutting my own taxes and others that are wealthy, cutting social programs, and privatizing medicare, no, he has not helped to the extent that he should.

                The government policies he supports have nothing to do with wealthy.  There are middle class voters who want to screw the poor also, at least until they lose their job, then they want unemployment insurance and food stamps...  But I digress.

                Do you understand we have this massive amount of poverty when there is a safety net AND charities.  It's nothing for you to donate money to charity if you are filthy rich thanks to your daddy's connections, and your ability to skim off the work of others.  Why does he need all that money, while people are starving to death, can't afford a college education, or are being poisoned by corporations? 

                Democrats aren't much better, but they aren't openly advocating taking steps to begin the destruction of the social safety net, which is what the "Path to Prosperity" does.  Romney has said he and Paul Ryan agree on the vast majority of the points within it.

                1. habee profile image90
                  habeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  You just answered my question with your "privatizing Medicare" comment.

        2. profile image0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Do Democrats have a corner on the market of 'helping people'?

          Do you approve or disapprove of Romney being socially moderate?

          1. profile image0
            Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Democrats have a corner when it comes to government programs.  Most Republicans want SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and Pell Grants gone.  It's just not politically possible to do so right now.

            As for being socially moderate, what do you mean by that?

      2. habee profile image90
        habeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I was thinking the same thing you said in point #2, but I think you meant for that second "disagree" to be "agree."  lol

        1. profile image0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Yes I did, lol. Thanks Habee wink

          1. profile image0
            Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I didn't say anything cause I'm a nice guy and knew what you meant.  Typos are silly to quibble over.

            1. habee profile image90
              habeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I wasn't quibbling. I just wanted to make sure I understood the post correctly.

        2. profile image0
          screamingposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          It must be a political thing, as the Republicans do the same to Democrats.

    3. internpete profile image92
      internpeteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Romney is not a Democrat because Democrats want more food stamps, more welfare, more free healthcare, bigger government and oh, they want someone else to pay for it.

      This stops working when those who are paying for all these programs realize it is better to live in a different country.

      A united America can do all the things Romney said, but America will never be united as long as Obama is pushing a cultural war between the rich and the poor, the young and the old, man and women.

      1. profile image0
        Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks for proving my point, for any of those who were in doubt.

  2. Mighty Mom profile image93
    Mighty Momposted 4 years ago

    Now hold on just a minute.
    Romney said "a united America."
    He did not say "The United States of America' (meaning government).
    One could (if so inclined) interpret the comment to mean that until America unites, those feel-good things for her citizens will not happen.
    In other words, given the extremely divisive partisanship in evidence today, it will be a cold day in hell before the  poor, sick, elderly and needy are cared for here!

    Cynical much, MM?
    Yep.
    smile

    1. habee profile image90
      habeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Have you been listening to Rush again, MM??

    2. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      MM is talking to herself again on HP...

      Don't worry MM, the nice people will be along with your jacket shortly big_smile

      But good point, there was quite a bit of rhetoric about united Americans/communities/churches helping each other out, and not just in Romney's speech.

  3. internpete profile image92
    internpeteposted 4 years ago

    Your're welcome! Happy to clear things up.

  4. knolyourself profile image59
    knolyourselfposted 4 years ago

    "Mitt Romney, it turns out, is the perfect frontman for Wall Street's greed revolution. He's not a two-bit, shifty-eyed huckster like Lloyd Blankfein. He's not a sighing, eye-rolling, arrogant jerkwad like Jamie Dimon. But Mitt believes the same things those guys believe: He's been right with them on the front lines of the financialization revolution, a decades-long campaign in which the old, simple, let's-make-stuff-and-sell-it manufacturing economy was replaced with a new, highly complex, let's-take-stuff-and-trash-it financial economy. Instead of cars and airplanes, we built swaps, CDOs and other toxic financial products. Instead of building new companies from the ground up, we took out massive bank loans and used them to acquire existing firms, liquidating every asset in sight and leaving the target companies holding the note. The new borrow-and-conquer economy was morally sanctified by an almost religious faith in the grossly euphemistic concept of "creative destruction," and amounted to a total abdication of collective responsibility by America's rich, whose new thing was making assloads of money in ever-shorter campaigns of economic conquest, sending the proceeds offshore, and shrugging as the great towns and factories their parents and grandparents built were shuttered and boarded up, crushed by a true prairie fire of debt."
    From Matt Taibbi

 
working