How Come You Teabaggers Didn't Like Mittens in 2012?

[EnlightenedChosenOne]

He was an extremely successful private equity guy who obviously knows how to run a business, yet many teabaggers here were not thrilled with his nomination.

 

Was it because he was a Mormon?

[stevenash]

Who is it you believe did not like Romney?  Maybe the folks you refer to were "offended" when the integrity laden Harry Reid told everyone on the Senate Floor that he had "heard" that Mr. Romney did not pay taxes for the past ten years.  Naaa- that was probably only accepted by the low info voters and kool aid gulpers.

[EnlightenedChosenOne]

A good amount of you teabaggers in this political section were not fans of Romney, and still aren't to this day.

 

Who is it you believe did not like Romney?  Maybe the folks you refer to were "offended" when the integrity laden Harry Reid told everyone on the Senate Floor that he had "heard" that Mr. Romney did not pay taxes for the past ten years.  Naaa- that was probably only accepted by the low info voters and kool aid gulpers.

[stevenash]

1.  You have no earthly idea who is and who is not a member of the tea party.

2.  You also have no earthly idea what the tea party actually stands for.( you have simply accepted what the left believes defines tea party members)

3.. You have no earthly idea who supported and who didn't support Mr. Romney.

4.  It isn't/wasn't hard to support Mr. Romney when comparing him to the competition.

[EnlightenedChosenOne]

So the teabaggers didn't like him because he was a Mormon?

[stevenash]

What leads you to that conclusion?  Why would religion matter to a voter?  If you look at his opponents religious affiliation, it would suggest what the candidate did at church or who he  associated with at church does not matter at all.

[EnlightenedChosenOne]

I'd need the teabaggers to answer that question, they're the ones who also claimed obama was a muslim :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

Why would religion matter to a voter?

[stevenash]

Let me know who the teabaggers are and I will ask them for you.  Once again, spewing words and insults.  Maybe you should try " the Republicans want to take your social security away" or " the Republicans think they shouldn't have to support the potential consequences of Sanda Flukes sex life.  That ought to really make them mad.  Go on, yank their chain,  They can't handle you.

[EnlightenedChosenOne]

Stevenash, Smitty, 77, Lumraiderfan and a few others

 

Let me know who the teabaggers are and I will ask them for you.  Once again, spewing words and insults.  Maybe you should try " the Republicans want to take your social security away" or " the Republicans think they shouldn't have to support the potential consequences of Sanda Flukes sex life.  That ought to really make them mad.  Go on, yank their chain,  They can't handle you.

[stevenash]

I cant answer for the others.   But I can tell you I am not a member of the tea party although, if my understanding of their basic philosophy is lower taxes and smaller government is correct, I believe deeply in both of those.  I think you have simply accepted the lefts "branding" of the tea party as extremists.  I think that branding is a result of some mid term elections a few years ago in which the Dems basically were slaughtered.  When that happens, the left rushes in and attacks hoping to discredit the individual or organization just as it did with Herman Cain, who I felt had the best resume of all of the Republican candidates.  I would suspect that you hold the Occupy Wall Street Movement to a degree of high esteem just as you hold the tea party to the lowest degree of esteem.  And yet,  tea party members have never defacated on public property, or  been arrested for breaking drug laws among several other issues.  But, somehow, people such as you hate the Tea Party but regard the Occupy Wall Street Movement as a noble cause.

[TROJANSWIN]

He was an extremely successful private equity guy who obviously knows how to run a business, yet many teabaggers here were not thrilled with his nomination.

Was it because he was a Mormon?

Ok, I'll bite. I would consider myself a teabagger in its ghetto meaning. Based on that meaning I would think EnlightenedChosenOne would agree since it was his momma that initiated me to the club! Boom, I can act like a 12 year old moron too.
However to answer your question, I was not happy with romneys nomination because I supported a different candidate that seemed more interested in following the constitution than the other candidates.
Grow up and quit wasting everyone's time playing word games and trying to entice an angry response. Your actions on this board are just like a politicians. Never a straight answer or anything with meaning. Just trying to bait people and cause confusion.

[EnlightenedChosenOne]

Hey man I'm just learning from Stevenash and Smitty, gimme a break sheesh! :( :( :( :( :(

 

Your actions on this board are just like a politicians. Never a straight answer or anything with meaning. Just trying to bait people and cause confusion.

[stevenash]

Well stated, Trojan.  Do not worry.  If enlightened/chosen adheres to his heretofore conduct under several other banned identities, his visit will be a short one.  One of the most interesting contentions he has provided us is that he was for Romney and supported lower taxes, less regulation, and the elimination of Obamacare.  Give him credit, its very difficult for an avowed leftist to try that stuff.

[EnlightenedChosenOne]

Oh look, blatantly making stuff up again

Right out of the teabagger internetz debatez strategy vol.3 manual

Well stated, Trojan.  Do not worry.  If enlightened/chosen adheres to his heretofore conduct under several other banned identities, his visit will be a short one.  One of the most interesting contentions he has provided us is that he was for Romney and supported lower taxes, less regulation, and the elimination of Obamacare.  Give him credit, its very difficult for an avowed leftist to try that stuff.

[stevenash]

What part of my statement is wrong?  Is it about you having been banned before?  Is it the inference that you lean to the left?  Let me know and I will apologize on this board immediately.  I made that assumption because, under your other multiple identities, you made no bones about being a lefty.  But if you have changed, just say so and I will retract my statement.

[smitty]

He was an extremely successful private equity guy who obviously knows how to run a business, yet many teabaggers here were not thrilled with his nomination.

 

Was it because he was a Mormon?

Romney is 1,000% better than obama.  But he's no Ronald Reagan.  And yes, I voted for him.  BTW -- his religion never entered into the picture. 

[NorthoftheBorder]

I'd need the teabaggers to answer that question, they're the ones who also claimed obama was a muslim :lol: :lol: :lol:

The facts clearly show he is a radical Muslim sympathizer!!

[NorthoftheBorder]

Oh look, blatantly making stuff up again

Right out of the teabagger internetz debatez strategy vol.3 manual
 

Please produce this manual. I haven't seen it yet!!!

[stevenash]

My feeling that he is no longer with us is strengthening.

[tvc184]

Mitt Romney got one million more votes than McCain did in 2008 or before the Tea Party movement even started. No matter what else happened and with the Tea Party out there, Romney got more votes with a Tea Party in existence than McCain got before they were even formed. Hmmmmm.......

 

Obama on the other hand lost almost 5 million of his supporters in his reelection. In fact, you have to go back 70 years to a 3rd and 4th term of FDR before finding any reelected president that did not gain votes. 

 

Since then Eisenhower gained 1.5 million votes in his reelection. Nixon while being beaten up in the press and faced the beginning of the Watergate Scandal and gained more than 10 million votes in his reelection for the largest landslide in history to that point. Reagan gained 10 million in his reelection and surpassed Nixon in the largest landslide in history and Clinton (while he never got 50% of the vote) gained 2 million. G W Bush after being slammed by the left who were particularly still angry after the 2000 election and Florida contested election, gain 12 million votes. 

 

Then along comes Obama who lost almost 5 million in support from his first election and Romney gain 1 million...... and the question was about the Tea Party being thrilled? A better question would be how a sitting president for the first time in almost 4 generations and only the second president in history to lose any votes in a reelection. 

 

The question about the Tea Party has some basis in that Romney was not their main person to support but if we are talking popular vote, Hillary got more votes than Obama in the 2008 Democratic primary and only internal rules of the Democratic party gave him the primary, not popular vote. Let's sit on that for a few moments. Obama did not even win the popular vote in his own party in getting nominated. Meanwhile Romney won by 6 million popular votes over his closest Republican challenger. So it seems that the enlightened person's question is based merely on trolling rather than some historical basis or true political question. With all the claimed non-support of the Tea Party, Romney won his nomination by 6 million votes and Obama when he had a challenger in 2008, lost the popular vote in his own party and as an incumbent president in 2008 won with a bare majority of 51% of the vote and in doing so lost 5 million of his own supporters. 

 

Of course, that is just looking at facts. 

[LumRaiderFan]

BOOM!   :D

[stevenash]

DOUBLE BOOM- It would appear to me that when it comes to "enlightenment".  TVC, rather than " you know who" is the truly enlightened one.  I would expect many to concur with the exception of Big Girl, PamFam, and Newtobie.

[NorthoftheBorder]

Mitt Romney got one million more votes than McCain did in 2008 or before the Tea Party movement even started. No matter what else happened and with the Tea Party out there, Romney got more votes with a Tea Party in existence than McCain got before they were even formed. Hmmmmm.......

 

Obama on the other hand lost almost 5 million of his supporters in his reelection. In fact, you have to go back 70 years to a 3rd and 4th term of FDR before finding any reelected president that did not gain votes. 

 

Since then Eisenhower gained 1.5 million votes in his reelection. Nixon while being beaten up in the press and faced the beginning of the Watergate Scandal and gained more than 10 million votes in his reelection for the largest landslide in history to that point. Reagan gained 10 million in his reelection and surpassed Nixon in the largest landslide in history and Clinton (while he never got 50% of the vote) gained 2 million. G W Bush after being slammed by the left who were particularly still angry after the 2000 election and Florida contested election, gain 12 million votes. 

 

Then along comes Obama who lost almost 5 million in support from his first election and Romney gain 1 million...... and the question was about the Tea Party being thrilled? A better question would be how a sitting president for the first time in almost 4 generations and only the second president in history to lose any votes in a reelection. 

 

The question about the Tea Party has some basis in that Romney was not their main person to support but if we are talking popular vote, Hillary got more votes than Obama in the 2008 Democratic primary and only internal rules of the Democratic party gave him the primary, not popular vote. Let's sit on that for a few moments. Obama did not even win the popular vote in his own party in getting nominated. Meanwhile Romney won by 6 million popular votes over his closest Republican challenger. So it seems that the enlightened person's question is based merely on trolling rather than some historical basis or true political question. With all the claimed non-support of the Tea Party, Romney won his nomination by 6 million votes and Obama when he had a challenger in 2008, lost the popular vote in his own party and as an incumbent president in 2008 won with a bare majority of 51% of the vote and in doing so lost 5 million of his own supporters. 

 

Of course, that is just looking at facts. 

When the ultra liberals were consorting in 2008 on how they could be most effective in advancing their war on Christian values and advance their beloved social issues, they knew that Obama would be their best bet as he would be "bullet proof" against any criticism on advancing the radical liberal agenda.  They knew that they could frame the debate as "Complain about Obama's policies and you are complaining against him for one reason, and one reason only"!!!!

[stevenash]

PamFAm, Newtobie, and Big Girl are not going to like that statement.

[baddog]

Mitt Romney got one million more votes than McCain did in 2008 or before the Tea Party movement even started. No matter what else happened and with the Tea Party out there, Romney got more votes with a Tea Party in existence than McCain got before they were even formed. Hmmmmm.......
 
Obama on the other hand lost almost 5 million of his supporters in his reelection. In fact, you have to go back 70 years to a 3rd and 4th term of FDR before finding any reelected president that did not gain votes. 
 
Since then Eisenhower gained 1.5 million votes in his reelection. Nixon while being beaten up in the press and faced the beginning of the Watergate Scandal and gained more than 10 million votes in his reelection for the largest landslide in history to that point. Reagan gained 10 million in his reelection and surpassed Nixon in the largest landslide in history and Clinton (while he never got 50% of the vote) gained 2 million. G W Bush after being slammed by the left who were particularly still angry after the 2000 election and Florida contested election, gain 12 million votes. 
 
Then along comes Obama who lost almost 5 million in support from his first election and Romney gain 1 million...... and the question was about the Tea Party being thrilled? A better question would be how a sitting president for the first time in almost 4 generations and only the second president in history to lose any votes in a reelection. 
 
The question about the Tea Party has some basis in that Romney was not their main person to support but if we are talking popular vote, Hillary got more votes than Obama in the 2008 Democratic primary and only internal rules of the Democratic party gave him the primary, not popular vote. Let's sit on that for a few moments. Obama did not even win the popular vote in his own party in getting nominated. Meanwhile Romney won by 6 million popular votes over his closest Republican challenger. So it seems that the enlightened person's question is based merely on trolling rather than some historical basis or true political question. With all the claimed non-support of the Tea Party, Romney won his nomination by 6 million votes and Obama when he had a challenger in 2008, lost the popular vote in his own party and as an incumbent president in 2008 won with a bare majority of 51% of the vote and in doing so lost 5 million of his own supporters. 
 
Of course, that is just looking at facts.

All I can say is wow.