The "Romney has no details" meme

D

Dixie - In Memoriam

New member
Repeatedly, we've been hearing the pinhead masses argue that Romney hasn't articulated any specific details for his ideas. If this sounds familiar, it's because the very same thing was said about Obama by his detractors, as has been said about every presidential candidate through the years. The reason this tired old meme keeps resurfacing, is because it is largely true and can't really be refuted. Presidential candidates never have specific details of what they are going to do, because they don't yet know the specific details.

You see, we have a representative republic form of government, not a dictatorship. If we were electing a dictator, he could give us specific details of what he plans to do, because in a dictatorial system, the dictator decides those details. However, in a representative republic like ours, the details and specifics have to be ironed out by Congress. This long and arduous process involves a lot of give and take on the specifics, and there is also a lot of nuance in the details. How can Romney possibly tell us what a majority Democrat Senate is going to pass? If he were certain he would have a super-majority in both houses, perhaps he could boldly proclaim details and specifics, but that's just not the case. He will likely be faced with a split Congress whose Democrat side won't be any more cordial and accepting of his ideas as they have been, there isn't some miracle going to happen to cause the Democrats to suddenly start going along with Republicans. Therefore, it is impossible for Romney to give you specifics and details at this time. But again, it's been this way since we started electing presidents, and it isn't going to change.

You will note, Obama lacked detailed specifics regarding Obamacare, in fact, when the 2,200-page bill passed, even those who voted for it, couldn't tell us the specifics and details. Also noteworthy, is the fact that Obama isn't currently laying out details and specifics for his next 4 years. All he has advocated is raising taxes and cutting defense spending. No specific details on what defense cuts he wants to make, or how much he wants to raise taxes on whoever... those 'details' are not given. Everytime he speaks of these things, it is wrapped in platitudes and rhetoric and lacks any specificity whatsoever. But of course, this is normal and expected from presidential candidates, because the president is not a dictator, and he doesn't know what Congress is going to do. The recent failure of libtards to grasp this age-old concept and cling to the "no details" meme, is indicative of their mindlessness.
 
ironically, we know more about the plans of the "no details" Romney than we do about the guy who's been in control of the government for the last four years......all I know for sure is that Obama intends to complain for the next four years about the same Congress who's been refusing to enact his intent for the last four years......
 
Give some specifics in the tone of "this is what I support and generally will negotiate for as an ideal position", not as "this is going to happen". It's also amazing that your rebuttal to "Romney has no specifics!" is literally "he has no specifics!" It's worth pointing out that the main point is that few of the things he claims he can do simply don't seem to work out. We want to know how he can increase spending, lower taxes, and reduce the deficit. That would truly be a boon.
 
Underworld King Star said:
Give some specifics in the tone of "this is what I support and generally will negotiate for as an ideal position", not as "this is going to happen". It's also amazing that your rebuttal to "Romney has no specifics!" is literally "he has no specifics!" It's worth pointing out that the main point is that few of the things he claims he can do simply don't seem to work out. We want to know how he can increase spending, lower taxes, and reduce the deficit. That would truly be a boon.
Click to expand...


Romney says he intends to eliminate whole agencies of government, but won’t say which ones, except in closed-door meetings with donors, and even then, details are scarce. (All together now: Just trust me.)



Both Romney and Ryan have already confirmed in interviews that they see no need to share details of how his tax cuts would be paid for until after the election, when it all can be worked out with Congress.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/romney-advisers-confirm-it-were-running-a-just-trust-me-campaign/2012/08/17/6235b23e-e88d-11e1-936a-b801f1abab19_blog.html

 
Fluttershy said:
Give some specifics in the tone of "this is what I support and generally will negotiate for as an ideal position", not as "this is going to happen". It's also amazing that your rebuttal to "Romney has no specifics!" is literally "he has no specifics!" It's worth pointing out that the main point is that few of the things he claims he can do simply don't seem to work out. We want to know how he can increase spending, lower taxes, and reduce the deficit. That would truly be a boon.
Click to expand...

Okay, so when you go buy a car, do you tell the salesman what amount you are willing to negotiate up to in price before you begin negotiations? Because that is essentially what you seem to be asking of Romney, and I don't see why he would be inclined to tell Democrats what he would ideally like to get in negotiation. Such a thing tends to negate the reason for negotiation. Secondly, Romney as president, can't really 'negotiate' anything, that is the role of his party in Congress. In every speech he is giving, he is laying out general ideas and things he would like to make happen, the complaint is, the lack of detail and specificity. Again, no presidential candidate has EVER been specific in detail, because they simply don't know what the Congress they have will ultimately send them.

You can't argue that things he want's to do, don't work... you can say you don't believe they will work, but you're not Kreskin, so you can't say they DON'T work. He has not said anything that I am aware of, about increasing spending on anything, or lowering taxes. He has talked about reducing the deficits and debt, by cutting spending and reducing government waste. He has talked about increasing revenue by growing the tax base through new jobs. He has talked about helping small businesses by eliminating onerous government regulations and mandates, like Obamacare. He says he doesn't think we should RAISE taxes, and you have apparently spun that into his advocation of a tax cut.

He can't come out and say, "I want to do X, Y, and Z!" Because, he is not a king or dictator, and will have to depend on a starkly divided Congress to send him legislation to sign... presidents do not write bills. The moment he articulates a specific detail, that specific detail instantly becomes the very thing that Democrats will go to their grave fighting against and preventing from ever happening, so they can claim political victory. Why would he do that, even IF he could?

\\((|))// said:
Romney says he intends to eliminate whole agencies of government, but won’t say which ones, except in closed-door meetings with donors, and even then, details are scarce. (All together now: Just trust me.)

Both Romney and Ryan have already confirmed in interviews that they see no need to share details of how his tax cuts would be paid for until after the election, when it all can be worked out with Congress.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/romney-advisers-confirm-it-were-running-a-just-trust-me-campaign/2012/08/17/6235b23e-e88d-11e1-936a-b801f1abab19_blog.html
Click to expand...

Again.... No presidential candidate in the history of presidential candidates has EVER laid out specific details of ANY idea. NEVER HAPPENED! It didn't happen with Obama and health care, it isn't happening with Obama's reelection campaign, it hasn't happened with ANY presidential candidate in all of American history, because the president simply doesn't have the ability to give you details on bills yet to be written by Congress. Romney says he intends to eliminate whole agencies of government... Well, the president simply doesn't have Constitutional authority to eliminate whole agencies! It just fucking can't be done in America by a President! This has to be done by Congress and Congress alone, and the president can sign it into law if that happens, or veto it if he doesn't like it. You're depending on people being completely ignorant of how government works and how things are eliminated, etc.

Yes, they are indeed running a "trust me" campaign, just as Obama ran in 2008... just as Obama is running in 2012, and just as every presidential candidate in history has run.
 
He is not negotiating for legislation. He is trying to attract voters. Nobody, is buying the Pollyanna nonsense anymore. Anybody, with a functioning brain knows that he can't cut taxes, increase spending in specific areas, like defense, and lower the debt all at once. He does not have to give every explicit detail but he could, honestly, present his priorities.

Yes, most people here know that these are just his plans and that it depends on Congress. Did you really think you needed to "inform" everyone of that?

If people feel they cannot trust either they will be more likely to stick with Obama.
 
Last edited:
why does it not surprise me that Watermarxist is a brony.......

sorry, when I posted this I didn't know there was an entire thread devoted to the mystery....
 
Last edited:
TheRocketSurgeon said:
He is not negotiating for legislation. He is trying to attract voters.
Click to expand...

So why do you seem to think he is negotiating legislation? Why should he be giving you specific details? Attracting voters is about conveying an essence of who you are and what you believe, not specific details. Most any "specific detail" is going to attract some voters and turn off some voters, because nothing pleases everyone.

Nobody, is buying the Pollyanna nonsense anymore.
Click to expand...

That's good, maybe it means "Hope and Change" are DEAD? Maybe it means we've grown up a little and don't just cling to fancy speech and rhetoric from someone telling us what we want to hear? Maybe we're tired of having smoke blown up our asses?

Anybody, with a functioning brain knows that he can't cut taxes, increase spending in specific areas, like defense, and lower the debt all at once.
Click to expand...

Anybody with a functioning brain knows he hasn't promised all these things. The Ryan budget plan called for $400 billion in cuts to military spending over 10 years, that's not a fucking INCREASE in defense spending. No one is talking about a tax cut! Romney is opposed to a tax INCREASE, he has said absolutely NOTHING about a TAX CUT! So where are you getting this shit? Lower the debt, yes... he has said we need to do that, and he has proposed how he would go about it.

He does not have to give every explicit detail but he could, honestly, present his priorities.
Click to expand...

He HAS! In every speech he gives, he has laid out his priorities and ideas. The complaint is, he hasn't given details.

Yes, most people here know that these are just his plans and that it depends on Congress. Did you really think you needed to "inform" everyone of that?
Click to expand...

Obviously! Since the meme continues that he hasn't laid out specific details.

If people feel they cannot trust either they will be more likely to stick with Obama.
Click to expand...

Well you can 'predict' this, but I don't think you are right. People generally don't vote for politicians they don't trust. If they don't trust either, they most likely won't vote, or they'll vote for a third party they feel they CAN trust. But that being said, is it a 'smooth move' to go out there promising specifics you know Congress is likely not going to pass? Or is it markedly better to simply state what you believe in and what you'd like to accomplish as president, and leave the details for Congress to iron out, like it always has been?
 
hazlnut said:
Which tax loophole will he be closing?

END OF THREAD.
Click to expand...

Presidents don't close tax loopholes. This is something done by Congress. They vote on whether or not to have a loophole, or close a loophole, after committees have met and all aspects considered and debated, and a bill forged by elected representatives. This bill might ultimately pass the House and Senate, at which time, the President can sign it into law or veto it. There is no precedent in US history for a President doing anything more than this, regarding tax loopholes.
 
Dixie said:
Presidents don't close tax loopholes.
Click to expand...

FAIL.

FAIL.

FAIL.

The executive branch submits a budget with line items which include tax code modifications.

Obama has asked that the carried interest tax for the super rich be eliminated in several line items. The teabags in congress ignored this.
 
hazlnut said:
This thread is ended as the OP has failed to prove anything or make any valid points.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but you don't get to decide when threads are ended here. The president simply can't change the US tax code to his liking. As you say, he can "REQUEST" something from Congress, but then, it's entirely up to Congress.... not the President. That's a valid point, and one you just confirmed yourself, so stop trying to claim it has been refuted and accept that it's a valid point you can't refute.
 
hazlnut said:
FAIL.

FAIL.

FAIL.

The executive branch submits a budget with line items which include tax code modifications.

Obama has asked that the carried interest tax for the super rich be eliminated in several line items. The teabags in congress ignored this.
Click to expand...

As I said, President's don't close tax loopholes, Congress does!

Thank you for confirming my absolutely VALID point! Well done!
 
Dixie said:
As I said, President's don't close tax loopholes, Congress does!

Thank you for confirming my absolutely VALID point! Well done!
Click to expand...

And after congress finalizes a budget and votes on it.... what happens?

(hint: 1 man has to sign it)

You really suck so bad at this. However, I better you suck more at other things, so... keep your chin up.
 
hazlnut said:
And after congress finalizes a budget and votes on it.... what happens?

(hint: 1 man has to sign it)

You really suck so bad at this. However, I better you suck more at other things, so... keep your chin up.
Click to expand...

I think that is what I said, the president can sign or veto legislation sent to him by Congress, he can't change US tax codes or eliminate government agencies. He can "request" and he can "recommend" but he simply doesn't have the authority to change it. Thank you again for confirming this most valid point. I don't need for you to admit you were wrong, confirmation of my point is validation enough for me. Interjecting your attempts at personal insult to ice the cake, doesn't bother me either. I understand how humiliating this was for you, and I don't blame you for lashing out. Now go soak your well-used ass in a tub of hot water, and get ready for tomorrow, because the ass reamings will keep coming in the days ahead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top