Posted on 04/20/2019 5:30:45 PM PDT by Moonman62
he certainly puts a lot of energy into tweeting.Some people workout and exercise. He tweets < /sarcasm >
You may not like who they are or what their beliefs are but at least they aren’t using their religion for burning down churches, flying planes into buildings, running people down on the sidewalks, loping off heads, murdering innocent citizens, car bombs to name a few.
Mitt was being spied on by the Obama characters like Trump was. Romney just gave up. Specifically after the second debate where Candy Crowley buttressed Obama’s declaration that he called the Benghazi attack terror. He didn’t, but Romney realized the spying was going on, and the Crowley and the rest of the media was aligned with Obama. The wind came out of his sails that night, and he just gave up. IMHO
Romney needs to apologize for his racist religion. He grew up in a church that would not allow black people to become full members. He still reveres a prophet who claimed that black peoples were cursed by god and that is why they had black skin and that any white person who mixed their seed with a black person should be killed... both of them.
He got his education at a university named for that blasphemous bigot.
And he has the gall to criticize Trump about lying when he has been lying his whole life?
BTW, look up The Danites. Read about the Mountain Meadows Massacre.
When Romney was born it wasn’t only Mormons who were racists. It wasn’t only members of that religion who had racist views and practices.
Romney was a high ranking member of the LDS church when their God was making people black to punish them for sins done before they were born. Romney still reveres Brigham Young. A racist who married 50 or so women. Romney still believes in a founding prophet who created a holy book by peeping at a magic stone inside his hat.
I agree. McCain lost on purpose too.
Both of them are Deep State and the Deep State wanted its long-groomed agent in place.
> I don’t buy the “designated loser” theory. You don’t go through the whole campaign thing because you want to take a dive in the end.
Explain McCain 2008 then. McCain explicitly campaigned FOR Obama! He said more bad things about his own running mate than his opponent!
After the economy crashed, McCain wasn't going to win anyway. He didn't throw the election. It was already lost.
McCain explicitly campaigned FOR Obama!
McCain was a poor candidate. He was the kind of candidate who would rather oppose fear-mongering in his own party than aggressively campaign. It may have been because he already knew he wasn't going to win.
I do admit that McCain wasn't aggressive enough. He was far too concerned with combating kooky theories and exaggerated rhetoric on his own side to effectively attack Obama, but by that point the election had already been all but lost.
He said more bad things about his own running mate than his opponent!
It was a very chaotic campaign, but I'd have to see a timeline to figure out if he said anything bad about Palin during the campaign rather than afterwards. I don't remember that he attacked her during the campaign. In my recollection that came after election day.
My first objection to these theories is the idea that a conservative Republican always wins. I'd say no, it's more that a conservative+ wins, that is to say a conservative candidate who can pull votes from outside the Republican party and outside the conservative movement. If no conservative was strong enough or skilled enough to win the nomination it's extremely unlikely that there was a conservative strong enough to win the general election.
In the last election, Ted Cruz was a very conservative candidate. He would not have won the general election. Trump, who didn't have a long conservative pedigree, could win, and he won in part because he wasn't a typical movement conservative. In 2008, Huckabee, Thompson, Paul, Keyes, Hunter, Tancredo weren't strong enough to beat McCain. How could they have beaten a Democrat? In 2012, Gingrich, Paul, Santorum, Perry, and Cain weren't any stronger than Romney. Gingrich in particular, was a very unlikable guy. I don't see him getting any closer than Romney to the White House.
My second objection is that the theory doesn't take the economy - which is what decides elections - into account. No way was McCain going to win after the banks went bust. It also fails to take into account unique real world factors, like Romney's overconfidence. Sometimes, the reasons a candidate pulls his punches may have more to do with his own psychology than with any conspiracy.
My third objection is that this theory is used to explain all events. If Huckabee or Thompson had won the nomination in 2008, or Gingrich or Santorum or Cain had won the nomination in 2012 and they'd lost the election, they'd be painted as "designated losers" as opposed to some real conservative who could really have won - candidates who weren't conservative and didn't have enough fight in them. In other words, this is a theory that satisfies the needs of the people who advance it as much as it describes what really happened. News flash: the ideal conservative who could win doesn't always exist and in any case, wasn't in the race.
So I reject the idea that McCain and Romney wanted to lose or went into the race intending to lose, all for the greater glory of Obama. It is certainly true that they were weak candidates who didn't put up enough of a fight.
So I suppose it’s just coincidence that the two of them had careers specializing in betrayal.
Sorry, but it just doesn’t pass the laugh test that either one wanted to win.
Both of them had one job - keep Ron Paul off the GOP line - and gave up trying when that job was done and not a moment later.
Like literally just the other day Romney tried to turn a massive GOP victory into a loss AGAIN.
It was obvious enough that POTUS personally razzed him and called him out on it.
It’s not (an astronomically unlikely) coincidence! These people are betrayers and they exist to betray us.
Ron Paul could not have won and wasn’t really much of a contender for the nomination.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.