mccumcumber
Well-Known Member
88% Green
72% Democratic
66% Libertarian
25% Rpeublican
72% Democratic
66% Libertarian
25% Rpeublican
Who do you side with, politically... Quiz
- Thread starter desert dude
- Start date
Johnny Retro
Well-Known Member
So, you want a president to represent the people and their wants. But when you find someone that does so, hes called a flip flopper. Man, some people are dumb.
Btw, I don't necessarily support Romney.
lifegoesonbrah
Well-Known Member
No, we want someone that is a demagogue, someone who actually has principles and doesn't adjust them based on the voting block.
Johnny Retro
Well-Known Member
So you don't want a president to represent the morals and values of "the people"?
lifegoesonbrah
Well-Known Member
Mitt Rmoney only represents the morals and values of big banks, the easiest way to see this is looking at his shifting rhetoric and voting records. If he honestly has a clear vision for America then he wouldn't be changing his mind all the time. The morals and values of the people can be shared with someone that isn't a panderer, a liar, a demagogue. Clearly he adjusts his rhetoric to whomever he is talking to, anyone that keeps up with politics knows this. He has no morals or values.
Johnny Retro
Well-Known Member
lifegoesonbrah
Well-Known Member
Mitt Romney can give a 45 minute speech and not say anything.
Top Contributors:
Goldman Sachs $564,580
JPMorgan Chase & Co $400,675
Bank of America $364,850
Morgan Stanley $363,550
Credit Suisse Group $316,160
Citigroup Inc $286,015
Kirkland & Ellis $235,802
Barclays $229,650
PricewaterhouseCoopers $208,750
HIG Capital $191,000
Wells Fargo $183,100
UBS AG $182,500
Blackstone Group $179,550
Bain Capital $151,500
EMC Corp $129,200
Citadel Investment Group $125,625
Bain & Co $122,800
(opensecrets.org)
Johnny Retro
Well-Known Member
So, because he gets donations from big banks, now all his values and morals revolve around them?
But you fail to mention Obama's support from big banks. In fact, Jamie Dimon and Ken Griffin were HUGE supporters of Obama. http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638
So are Obama's values and morals only to help big banks?
tomahawk2406
Well-Known Member
are you attempting to say he is anything but a flip flopper?
Johnny Retro
Well-Known Member
I'm "attempting" to say, the American people want someone to represent them, if you represent someone else, OF COURSE they will be a "flip flopper" from their own beliefs. For some reason, people don't seem to understand this.
I'm pointing out the ridiculous contradiction that I encounter day in and day out.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
That seems like a no-winner. A public servant should never be a rigid ideologue, because that would support the absurd idea that he would learn nothing new while in office. Can there be no middle ground between rigidity and flip-flopping? cn
lifegoesonbrah
Well-Known Member
Yep, money talks brah, quit listening to Politicians.
People that have true morals and values will be consistent and straight edged, not adjusting their beliefs to attain a powerful position. Rmoney is part of the political elite, he is part of the system that we all hate. Watch as he moves his platform from conservative to moderate again for the general elections. Please explain what Rmoneys or Obama's morals or beliefs are? I can rattle off Ron Paul's philosophy in about 10 seconds,which he has stood by his entire life. That is how you know when someone isn't bought by special interest, when they stand by principle. Mittens and Obama's election platforms do NOT match their actions, they say one thing and do another. Do you think that represents the morals of our society, to lie to people? I don't
This thread has gotten awfully lame, as it always does when Mittens is involved. You are either trolling me because:
A) You secretly love Rmoney and wish for him to be POTUS so he can continue to rape and pillage. You would never admit this because the hypocrisy of arguing in favor of Mitt Romney on an MMJ board is too astounding that nobody would ever admit to it.
B) You have a blind hatred for Ron Paul and are nitpicking at what I say because of my Ron Paul swag.
You are failing sir.
Johnny Retro
Well-Known Member
I think the president is suppose to listen to the American people, not his own beliefs. If you want something else than that, you want a dictatorship, not a democracy.
I guess you are considered a "troll" if you point out facts to people who can't respond justifiably. Go on and post your presumptions, you are just showing your true self.
"This thread has gotten awfully lame, as it always does when Mittens is involved"
Did you forget, YOU were the one who posted the picture of Mitt. I guess you forget your own post's when you can't produce a sensible argument to your own actions.
I was just simply showing you the contradiction that you are too blind to see.
Is everyone who doesn't agree with you a "Ron Paul hater"? Or are you just bitter because he doesn't have chance at winning?
lifegoesonbrah
Well-Known Member
That's called a Democracy (Majority rule), we are a Republic. We elect Representatives based on shared beliefs, we don't mold them into a mutant ideologue which evolves their philosophy to match that of the majority of the people.
You are doing it wrong.
You have to learn 2 quote before you can learn 2 troll.
The standard Mitt joke usually met by minimal response has turned into A Mitt Romney defense thread. Your fault
The contradiction is you failing to realize that Politicians mutate their platform based on opinion polls then do whatever the hell they want when they get into office regardless of what they said to get elected.
Option A in my previous post was my alternate conclusion.
Try harder
Johnny Retro
Well-Known Member
We are a liberal democracy.
Doing what wrong? Can you not respond directly to that statement cause you feel its true?
The irony in this statement is laughable
Yes, you are used to posting bullshit and not being called out on it. "my fault"? Man you are getting defensive here..
You may want to learn the definition of a contradiction. And I am not disagreeing with you on that statement. That doesn't change the fact that you cannot accurately represent the people without being a "flip flopper"
More presumptions cause you have no other defense.
Another defensive tact. Are you feeling a little beat here?Try harder
lifegoesonbrah
Well-Known Member
Your mom is a liberal democracy, the United States is directly known as a Representative Republic.
Say the Pledge of Allegiance. do it.
Bullshit that William Mittington Romney XXVII is a flip flopper?
So the President has to conform to whatever popular agenda the majority rule has in line for him regardless of what he thinks is best? Why not just make this a direct democracy? What is the purpose of electing Representatives if the elected Representatives just mirror the majority?
You aren't very good at this.
Johnny Retro
Well-Known Member
Your mom is a liberal democracy, the United States is directly known as a Representative Republic.
Say the Pledge of Allegiance. do it.
Bullshit that William Mittington Romney XXVII is a flip flopper?
So the President has to conform to whatever popular agenda the majority rule has in line for him regardless of what he thinks is best? Why not just make this a direct democracy? What is the purpose of electing Representatives if the elected Representatives just mirror the majority?
You aren't very good at this.
The reason we are not a direct democracy is because before internet, overnight mail and TV, information could not travel as fast as it does today. The people of the individual states would put trust in their state representatives. I think we SHOULD be a direct democracy, but because of the constitution we cannot change this. Times have changed and there are certain things that should accommodate this. Your hero and savior obviously wouldn't change this.
And the irony continuesYou aren't very good at this.
And proven by the 2 statements above you are a kid, so do you support this whole Kony 2012 movement?
lifegoesonbrah
Well-Known Member
lololol. Really that's the reason? It wouldn't be to protect minorities or the constitution? You have some reading to do sir. Good luck in liberal direct democracy fantasy land where robot conforming flip-floppers are cherished and the government has your bests interests at heart.
I don't fall for the Kony propaganda, but your dreamland direct democracy would.
Johnny Retro
Well-Known Member
I guess you are not aware that a liberal democracy is widely considered a republic.
And yes, that is the reason. Farmers living in bum-fuck North Carolina had no way of knowing what exactly the presidential candidates stood for. That was the purpose of state representatives, to act in the best interest of the farmer who had no idea what was going on. Also because there was signifiactly less voters in the south. Maybe it's you who should do the reading.
"Protect minorities or the constitution" So you're saying we have the electoral college so we can protect the constitution? LOL wow, that may be one of the stupidest statements I've heard all day. And so, by saying "to protect minorities" you are saying even though the popular opinion is to elect this guy, we need to protect the minority of votes and put the other guy in. Again, lol wow.
"There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections." - James Madison
So, is that why we still have the electoral college?