Sen. Cruz: Today’s Events Show the McConnell-Reid Leadership Team Operates for One Party:...

cruz.senate.gov ^ | July 26, 2015

[Windflier]

If you really believe there is no difference between 0 and Romney you are no where near as savvy as I thought you were.

Ok. Going by Mitt's record alone, tell me what policies he would have advanced during his presidency, that would have substantially differed from what Obama has advanced during his.

Make me a believer. Going by his record alone, show me even one conservative policy position or executive action that Mitt would have taken, had he won the race.

And please don't regurgitate any of his campaign promises. You and I both know those aren't worth the hot air it takes to produce them. Base your answers on his record, as that is the only reliable indicator of what any candidate will do, once in office.

[Nuc 1.1]

I think Mitt’s record exists as it is because he chose Mass as the state to use to establish a foundation, that is an office, of high enough stature to run for the presidency. If he had lived in another state his record would have been different. His is a record of expediency nothing more nothing less. I think his record is essentially meaningless as a forecaster for how he would have governed. You and many others use the record argument as an excuse to walk away from bad choices. Your right of course, but don’t believe it is anything noble.

[Windflier]

I think his record is essentially meaningless as a forecaster for how he would have governed.

By your logic, the folks in Ohio may as well vote for John Boeher in the next election. Why bother with his record? It's meaningless as a forecaster for how he'll perform in office --- right?

And how about that guy who wants to date your daughter? Never mind the fact that he never went to high school, never held a job for more than a couple months, has been in and out of drug rehab half a dozen times, and has a lengthy criminal RECORD.

I'm suuuure he's A-OK, because he told you he's "severely" responsible. I'll bet you're ready to give him your vote of confidence right now. You'd never judge a man by his past performance, right?

My friend, yours is about the worst case of logic fail I've seen in a while.

[Nuc 1.1]

No my friend. Boehner has an actual record to judge him by. We are simply trying to prognosticate whether Mitt would have been a better president than 0. In this reply your logic is flawed.

[Windflier]

No my friend. Boehner has an actual record to judge him by. We are simply trying to prognosticate whether Mitt would have been a better president than 0.

Are you seriously arguing that Mitt Romney has no record in political office by which to judge him? Seriously?

Mitt was Governor of a U.S. state for a full term, ergo, he's got a record of accomplishment/failure that anyone can check, if they want to take the measure of the man.

Speaking of that...I just happen to have it right here:

Mitt Romney’s Dismal Liberal Record

"As U.S. real output grew 13 percent between 2002 and 2006, Massachusetts trailed at 9 percent.

* Manufacturing employment fell 7 percent nationwide those years, but sank 14 percent under Romney, placing Massachusetts 48th among the states.

* Between fall 2003 and autumn 2006, U.S. job growth averaged 5.4 percent, nearly three times Massachusetts' anemic 1.9 percent pace.

* While 8 million Americans over age 16 found work between 2002 and 2006, the number of employed Massachusetts residents actually declined by 8,500 during those years.

"Massachusetts was the only state to have failed to post any gain in its pool of employed residents," professors Sum and McLaughlin concluded.

In an April 2003 meeting with the Massachusetts congressional delegation in Washington, Romney failed to endorse President Bush's $726 billion tax-cut proposal."

[Cato Institute annual Fiscal Policy Report Card - America's Governors, 2004.]

Romney's "accomplishments".

1. Implemented/created Gay Marriage in MA

2. Supported and forced Gay Adoption in MA

3. Supported Abortion wholeheartedly

4. Raised taxes/fees over 300% while being Governor of MA

5. Implemented a state-level Cap and Trade system.

6. Supported Man-Made Global Warming

7. Supported the Brady Bill

8. Implemented a state level “Assault” Weapons Ban after the Federal AWB was allowed to expire.

9. Supported TARP

10. Supported Amnesty for Illegal Aliens (Citizenship for those already here)

11. Supported McCain-Kennedy (Amnesty)

12. Implemented a socialized medicine program in MA called RomneyCare, complete with an Individual Mandate and $50 abortions.

13. Nominated 27 Democrats (out of 36 nominations) for judgeships in MA, many of them extreme left-wingers.

[Nuc 1.1]

Seriously? Perhaps you should re-read the post. The speaker has an actual in the office record. Mitt doesn't have any time in the presidential office. Thus your comment about my reasoning is incorrect. The issue we are considering is whether Mitt would be a better president for America than 0. And that a vote for Mitt was better than not voting. You don't think so based upon his record as gov of Mass. I believe Mitts record in Mass is not necessarily informative as to Mitts probable positions and actions in office as president. I believe Mitt did what he had to do in Mass to get elected. He had to get elected to have a foundation upon which to run for national office. You justify your non-participation by constantly regurgitating Mitts record in Mass. I can only conclude that you think Mitt would have governed the nation the way he governed Mass. I honestly believe your position is incorrect. You can choose not to vote as is your right. But justifying that position by stating Mitt would be as bad a president as 0 is self deceptive. Neither principled nor noble. Just your decision.

[Windflier]

The speaker has an actual in the office record. Mitt doesn't have any time in the presidential office.

Good grief. Are you so dense that you fail to see that Mitt has a record as chief executive of a U.S. state - which is much the same job as president, but on a smaller scale?

He was a Governor. He governed, i.e., we can draw forecasts as to how he would have governed, had he been elected to be the chief executive of the United States, based upon his prior record of governing.

If this is all over your head, please stop wasting your time attempting to engage in adult conversation on this site. Enough, already.

[Nuc 1.1]

I’m dense? What is it going to take to keep you from turning this country of to democrats? I honestly believe we are not far from the socialist for life situation Venezuela is in. The dim’s will move to dictatorship. I don’t believe the Pubbies will, at least not soon. So what is it going to take to admit you are wrong and that you shouldn’t ever turn the country over to a marxist muslim.