Surely you’ve seen the wikipedia link for tu quoque, right? Your argument is nonsense.
ETA: removed unhelpful snark about how the link is posted here “thirty-seven times a day.”
No, cite something uniquely bad about Romney, or at least worse, and I’ll accept that for what it is. Otherwise, these threads are just attempts to distract from a failed incumbent’s record.
Obama is like the QB who may throw an INT once or twice a game. Romney is like the QB who heaves it up in the air every down and honestly doesn’t give a fuck who catches it.
tu quoque is an ad hominem. I have not made an ad hominem. I have compared the criticisms of Romney to the actions of the president. Given that they are running against each other, this is entirely fair.
You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
It is an opinion, and I am willing to back it up with facts and more opinions of why I think he’s been a poor President. I have also backed up on this thread why Romney is a well qualified candidate who will probably be successful in the Presidency.
It’s a thread about whether anybody likes him not whether he lies.
Actually you keep using the specific words ‘failure’ and ‘failed’ and asserting it as established fact. That’s what I’m asking about. Now you say poor. Nice switcharoo attempt there.
So which is it? Poor or failure? I’ve asked you to explain how he failed and what you are basing this inflammatory remark on, but you haven’t as yet. So you can keep calling him a failure, of course, since its a free country. But if you won’t back it up, then don’t expect anyone to take you seriously.
Yep.
You make a convincing case.
Yes. I stand corrected.
What you cannot do is defend one person against an accusation by asserting that the “other guy” does it too. You might be correct, but this does nothing to absolve the person whom you support of the guilt of doing the same thing.
Um, half the voters take me seriosly, but if you want me to cite examples, um, unemployment, the deficit, economic growth, Fast and Furious, a general inability or unwillingness to perform the basic tasks of the Presidency, his extremely cynical manipulation of the political process, and his unwillingness to move to the center after losing in 2010.
The intention is not to absolve Mitt Romney of guilt. I have acknowledged his flaws and most of his supporters acknowledge his flaws. Thus the existence of this thread.
An election is a choice. The President is making the case that Romney is a really bad choice, not that he’s a really good choice. I think it’s legitimate to point out exactly why the President is also not a good choice and in my opinion, a worse choice. Starting with the fact that all of Romney’s weaknesses are also Obama’s weaknesses, but ROmney’s strengths are not shared by Obama.
I believe that knowingly attacking a candidate for flaws shared by your candidate is dishonest. It says that the person doesn’t actually care about those flaws, it’s just a useful attack, to be discarded as soon as the guy you like gets caught doing it. I’m going to charitably assume that those who attack Romney for flaws shared by the incumbent don’t know it, so that’s why I’m explaining it.
What qualifications? Repeatedly asking Congress for money to bail out the Salt Lake Olympics? Buying all the computers in the governor’s office before leaving so that they couldn’t be searched? Robbing people of their pensions and health benefits? Running away from his signature achievement as governor? Saying “how high?” every time Rush Limbaugh bellows “JUMP!”? Ignoring the precedent for transparency set by his own father? Being able to beat the weakest field of candidates in the history of the galaxy? Cackling like a goon everytime bad economic news comes out? Having an Insult Tour of Europe and the Middle East? Taking $20K in deductions for a dancing horse? Come on, you’ve got to help us out here.
Those are legitimate criticisms of Mitt Romney ,mostly. And what i cited about Romney’s record that is positive is also legitimate. No candidate is perfect. I cited a bunch of things I hate about Obama’s record, but I’m sure you could come back with good stuff and I could too(he’s been surprisingly effective at killing terrorists.)
I’d rather have John McCain running in 2012, of course, or better yet, Jon Huntsman, but that didn’t happen. At least we didn’t get Rick Santorum or Newt. Romney has very real accomplishments which are especially useful in today’s situation.
WTF? Ok, you’re going to have to explain this one chief. Talk about an inflammatory statement devoid of any content whatsoever. You might as well say that he’s a big poopyhead too.
Obama was elected in 2008 by a wide margin in favor of his agenda. Did the republicans move to the center as a result of that? Talk about having different standards for the two sides. Jeez. The democrats are supposed to bow down to the republicans when they win an election, but the republicans get to double down on the obstinance and refusal to compromise when they lose? Come on, try to at least have a little intellectual honesty in your arguments.
I was hoping you’d ask.
First, the budget. the President is supposed to submit a budget to Congress. This involves more than just technically complying with the law, it involves making very real choices and giving Congress something you actually expect them to pass. The President has steadfastly refused to present a written down, scored plan to reduce the deficit to sustainable levels. He refuses to lead on the budget.
Second, there’s basic management of the executive branch. With the biggest problem being politicization of basic government functions:
More damning than the dry statistical data are the descriptions of federal employees of Obama’s team. According to one manager the political appointees are far more involved in day-to-day affairs, but “the effectiveness, skill and knowledge has dramatically decreased” since January 2009. Some said Obama’s appointees attempt to “break organizations.” One said the administration’s overseers “have a divide-and-conquer strategy, and there are way too many industry fingers allowed in decision-making.” Another said this led to “politicization of normal agency functions.”
The Republicans believed, correctly or incorrectly, that they lost because of corruption, not conservatism. 2012 will be a great test of that, because the Tea Party has been much less corrupt than the Delay Congressmembers, but also far more right-wing.
Why do Democrats think they lost in 2010? Corruption wasn’t more than usual in that Congress, so it couldn’t have been that.
Give me corruption any day over yokels who don’t believe in honoring debts already incurred.
Okay, forget the word guilt. Can you not see the point I’m trying to make? Accusing another of something doesn’t lend support to your guy. You have to support him on his own merits.
Yet you said, “When making an accusation against a candidate, it’s fair play to determine if his opponent has the same problem.” Is this not contradictory?
Now that’s an argument I have a counter to.
Republicans proposed a bill to pay debts first should the government not be able to borrow. Democrats rejected the bill, calling it the “pay China first” bill. So Republicans offered a bill to pay off our debts, Democrats decided that our debts were not as high a priority as current spending.
The Treasury Department calls it default by another name, but that sounds to me like snivelling. The debt of the United States government is in Treasury bonds. Payments to Social Security recipients is not debt, that’s a benefit program created by Congress that can be changed or even repealed by simple majority vote. Our debt on the other hand, is protected by the Constitution. The US is obligated to pay debts over all other spending. the Treasury Department tried to make the constitutionally dubious claim that pretty much all spending is equal, and if we don’t spend on schedule, it’s still not “meeting our commitments”.
I understand your point, and I am supporting him on his merits, which I listed early in the thread.
I also would not attack the President for something that was equally flawed in Mitt Romney. If I called the President a flip-flopper, that would sound absurd, would it not? Not because he isn’t, he is an incredible flip-flopper, but because if that sort of thing really bothers me, then why am I supporting Romney?