Romney: Debates won’t be about ‘winning or losing’

BIV

I'm Biv Dick Black, the Over Poster.
Apr 22, 2002
78,633
27,395
898
Seattle
#1
DENVER—Two days before his first face-off with President Barack Obama, Mitt Romney said on Monday that the presidential debate won't be about "winning or losing" but instead it will be a chance for the candidates to describe the "pathway" on which they'd like to take the country.
"People want to know who's going to win, who's going to score the punches, and who's going to make the biggest difference in the arguments they make," Romney told supporters at a rally inside a local air and space museum here. "There's going to be all the scoring of winning and losing and, you know, in my view, it's not so much winning and losing or even the people themselves, the president and myself, it's about something bigger than that."
"These debates are an opportunity for each of us to describe the pathway forward for America that we would choose and the American people are going to have to make their choice as to what kind of America they'd want," Romney continued.
In his final public rally before Wednesday's debate, the Republican presidential nominee said he was "delighted" to have the chance to meet his opponent on a debate stage—especially in Colorado, a state he said could very likely determine the outcome of the presidential election.
"I believe the people of Colorado will choose a better way forward for our country," Romney said.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANob21lBHB0A3NlY3Rpb25z;_ylv=3


 

Lord Zero

Viciously Silly
Aug 25, 2008
54,149
12,926
373
Atlanta, GA
#3
Bullshit.
"These debates are an opportunity for each of us to describe the pathway forward for America that we would choose and the American people are going to have to make their choice as to what kind of America they'd want," Romney continued.
If it's all about offering pathways, why are you trying to keep the pathway offered by Gary Johnson covered up and out of sight?
 

Buster H

Alt-F4
Wackbag Staff
Dec 6, 2004
12,244
2,725
678
Lower Bucks Co, PA
#4
Bullshit.

If it's all about offering pathways, why are you trying to keep the pathway offered by Gary Johnson covered up and out of sight?
because he's a mere blip on the radar and it doesn't matter what his pathway is when he'll probably pull less than 5% of the vote.
 

Buster H

Alt-F4
Wackbag Staff
Dec 6, 2004
12,244
2,725
678
Lower Bucks Co, PA
#6
So that morally absolves Mitt from trying to silence a competitor through electoral fraud?
at what point did I say that? Oh wait, I didn't.

What happened in Iowa was wrong... it still doesn't matter. Your boy still doesn't warrant enough attention to be invited to a national debate. Sorry.
 

Lord Zero

Viciously Silly
Aug 25, 2008
54,149
12,926
373
Atlanta, GA
#7
at what point did I say that? Oh wait, I didn't.

What happened in Iowa was wrong... it still doesn't matter. Your boy still doesn't warrant enough attention to be invited to a national debate. Sorry.
I'm not talking about the debates, I'm talking about Mitt trying to get Gary thrown off the actual ballots. And Gary does warrant enough attention

And by the way, when you say, "it still doesn't matter," that is a statement of tacit acceptance of the practice of shutting out voices competing with the Republican and Democratic Parties. It doesn't how much support Gary would have going into the debates; what matters is how much support he could (and would) gain by speaking at them. That's our whole point and that's why it does matter and that's why the RNC-DNC-controlled debates commission refuses to let him speak there. And how is Gary supposed to get enough support to get into the debates when 95% of the mainstream political press deliberately shuts him out?
 

Pigdango

Silence, you mortal Fuck!
Donator
Jun 22, 2004
76,351
49,267
788
#8
I'd like a balanced budget too. Can I be in the debate?

And by the way, when you say, "it still doesn't matter," that is a statement of tacit acceptance of the practice of shutting out voices competing with the Republican and Democratic Parties.
Yes, this is the way it's been for the past 200 or so years. Everyone pretty much accepts that now. If you want to win, you need to do so through the structure of one of the two existing parties. If you don't think people with radical ideas can rise to power within an existing party, check out this dapper young fellow:



I (and a lot of other people) would have a lot more respect for folks like Gary Johnson if they could comprehend the system they are trying to change. Pick a party, even if they don't align 100% with your ideals, and CHANGE THE PARTY. And don't be a schmuck like Ron Paul and say "You're all a bunch of retards, I'm the only one who reads the constitution, blah blah blah." Compromise. Build support for your ideas.

The national debates and the national elections are not the proper forum for Gary Johnson and his ideas. By failing to understand the system, failing to understand that government in this country is based on negotiation and compromise, not wagging a piece of paper in people's faces as the answer to every single question, (The constitution is a document built out of negotiation and compromise, it's not the 10 fucking Commandments.) Johnson has alienated 97% of the population. When 97% of the people don't give a shit, it's time to step aside and let the two party system do it's best/worst.

It doesn't how much support Gary would have going into the debates; what matters is how much support he could (and would) gain by speaking at them.
If he goes from 3% to 8%, it's not good enough. There's no way you can say with a straight face that him speaking at the debates would shift 30% of the population in his direction.
 
Last edited:

Lord Zero

Viciously Silly
Aug 25, 2008
54,149
12,926
373
Atlanta, GA
#11
but, the rest of us are. Look at the thread title.
Fortunately, I covered that too.
And by the way, when you say, "it still doesn't matter," that is a statement of tacit acceptance of the practice of shutting out voices competing with the Republican and Democratic Parties. It doesn't how much support Gary would have going into the debates; what matters is how much support he could (and would) gain by speaking at them. That's our whole point and that's why it does matter and that's why the RNC-DNC-controlled debates commission refuses to let him speak there. And how is Gary supposed to get enough support to get into the debates when 95% of the mainstream political press deliberately shuts him out?
 

Lord Zero

Viciously Silly
Aug 25, 2008
54,149
12,926
373
Atlanta, GA
#13
government in this country is based on negotiation and compromise
And that, my friend, is how we've ended up in this shitty economy in the first place and that's why a Republican POTUS isn't going to do shit to help the situation.
 

Buster H

Alt-F4
Wackbag Staff
Dec 6, 2004
12,244
2,725
678
Lower Bucks Co, PA
#14

Lord Zero

Viciously Silly
Aug 25, 2008
54,149
12,926
373
Atlanta, GA
#15
and then right back off topic.
That wasn't off-topic. It goes to the heart of my argument of why Romney is part of the problem, which is leads to why Gary Johnson is the more ideologically attractive candidate, and that illustrates the motive for him trying to push Gary (and every other third party candidate) muscled out of the Presidential election process all together, which goes to proving why his statement about pathway offerings is an outright lie.

By the way, are any of you guys receiving duplicate alerts? I keep getting at least one (and sometimes two) of them.
 

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Donator
Jan 12, 2010
36,407
22,042
398
Northern California
#16
Johnson is not going to win this election... however he pretty much needs to be in the debates to force these two drones to answer the really tough questions they will hem and haw around.

Also, how is Gary Johnson going to change the party when they pushed him out of the primary debates? They're scared of him, and that's why he needs to be getting more attention. Mitt will absolutely be better for this country than Obama... by maybe 5%. I'm not happy with that number... if people are serious about fixing problems we need someone who wants to change the system, not work inside of it.
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,628
5,081
568
Wyoming
#17
There's nothing preventing Johnson from staging his own debate. The major political parties can do whatever they want with the debates that they run.

I find it humorous that libertarians want to force other people to do something.

As for this story, Romney is just proactively minimizing the damage done by the media that will jizz in their pants over every lie Barry tells.
 

Begbie

Wackbag Generalissimo
Jul 21, 2003
17,905
5,300
838
Wilmington, NC
#18
Hey look, a thread about the debates turning into a "if all of you dumbasses would open up your eyes and support my 3rd party guy...he would have a chance at gaining traction" thread.

whiskeyguy said:
Johnson is not going to win this election... however he pretty much needs to be in the debates to force these two drones to answer the really tough questions they will hem and haw around.

Also, how is Gary Johnson going to change the party when they pushed him out of the primary debates? They're scared of him, and that's why he needs to be getting more attention. Mitt will absolutely be better for this country than Obama... by maybe 5%. I'm not happy with that number... if people are serious about fixing problems we need someone who wants to change the system, not work inside of it.
Romney being only 5% better than Obama is your opinion, of course. We already know what Obama is capable of as POTUS. This fumbling his administration did during the recent Libya attacks is one good example. The fact that he will buy off the votes of senators in order to get his shit legislation is another good example of what we can expect. The fact that he rails against the rich and successful entrepreneurs is another example. The amount of bold-faced lies he spouts these days is another example. He is a terrible leader...arguably in the bottom 8 worst POTUS' ever. Yet, you think Romney will maybe only be 5% better? I don't agree. With all of the Romney's flaws I see already...I don't see a guy capable of being only 5% better than the shithead in office now. And that's my opinion.
 

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Donator
Jan 12, 2010
36,407
22,042
398
Northern California
#19
Romney being only 5% better than Obama is your opinion, of course. We already know what Obama is capable of as POTUS. This fumbling his administration did during the recent Libya attacks is one good example. The fact that he will buy off the votes of senators in order to get his shit legislation is another good example of what we can expect. The fact that he rails against the rich and successful entrepreneurs is another example. The amount of bold-faced lies he spouts these days is another example. He is a terrible leader...arguably in the bottom 8 worst POTUS' ever. Yet, you think Romney will maybe only be 5% better? I don't agree. With all of the Romney's flaws I see already...I don't see a guy capable of being only 5% better than the shithead in office now. And that's my opinion.
I don't see Romney making significant cuts to get this country back on financial track. Also, I hate some of his morally conservative views. Our deficit will continue to grow under Romney... albeit slower than it has under Obama. Like I said, I'd rather have Romney in there than Obama... but that's not saying much considering I'd rather have Hillary Clinton over Obama.
 

jnoble

Lingering longer for a longering linger
Dec 4, 2005
8,486
4,211
566
New Jersey
#20
Doesn't matter if Obama never shows up to the debate and Romney has to awkwardly stand there alone and answer questions across from an empty podium. Most of the media will still immediatly declare Obama brilliant and the clear winner of the debate and don't bother voting if you're a Republican, this election is over.

Btw, you can tell if Romney won the debate if it's called a tie or a draw by the usual networks, ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN etc etc.
 

Begbie

Wackbag Generalissimo
Jul 21, 2003
17,905
5,300
838
Wilmington, NC
#21
Exactly. Obama won this debate before it even started. And he won the next one...and the next one...and the next one. Just ask Stephanopoloulolololos. It's by design.
 

peewee

Registered User
Aug 10, 2003
1,835
169
628
NY
#22
Exactly. Obama won this debate before it even started. And he won the next one...and the next one...and the next one. Just ask Stephanopoloulolololos. It's by design.
That's what Romney and Republicans want you to think. This way as long as Romney doesn't shit himself on stage he "exceeds expectations" and wins.
 

MayrMeninoCrash

Liberal Psycopath
Dec 9, 2004
24,435
8,604
693
Silverdale, WA
#23
Plus it's in the media's best interest to keep hopes alive that this is still a "horse race". Couldn't have you tuning out the whole affair for the next five weeks, it's bad for business.
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,628
5,081
568
Wyoming
#24
Plus it's in the media's best interest to keep hopes alive that this is still a "horse race". Couldn't have you tuning out the whole affair for the next five weeks, it's bad for business.
Their agenda is more important than ratings. They've proven that over the years.