It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Secret Plan To Nominate Mitt Romney From The Convention Floor

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Daedal

All Romney did was throw softballs at Obama, in 2012. He handed him the election. Instead of taking him to task on Benghazi, they bickered about whether or not Obama actually used the words “act of terror” or “act of terrorism...”

...which he did, so Romney came out looking wrong on Benghazi.

Ridiculous, silly, orchestrated election. But then, this election is being orchestrated, too.




posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

"When was the last time that even happened?"

You had to be bating for this response, cause I can think of one:
"Hitler's "rise" can be considered to have ended in March 1933, after the Reichstag adopted the Enabling Act of 1933 in that month; president Paul von Hindenburg had already appointed Hitler as Chancellor on 30 January 1933 after a series of parliamentary elections and associated backroom intrigues. The Enabling Act—when used ruthlessly and with authority—virtually assured that Hitler could thereafter constitutionally exercise dictatorial power without legal objection."

Source: en.wikipedia.org...


Sorry, what does any of the above have to do with a brokered convention??? Hitler got to power because he had one of the largest parties in Germany, not because he had a majority. And he was appointed Chancellor by a group of idiots who thought that they could control him.



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 11:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: deckdel
a reply to: Daedal

How would anybody with atleast some common sense to qualify for a minimum IQ contest Hilary Clinton - with Romney?

So far, Trump has shown popularity and resilience far beyond any recent GOP candidate - and to be honest, GOP should be darn happy about that, and jump on that train!


He's also a bloviating buffoon who's alienated a large number of the key demographics you need to become President. You know, Hispanics, Jewish people, minorities, Muslims...



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 12:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

"When was the last time that even happened?"

You had to be bating for this response, cause I can think of one:
"Hitler's "rise" can be considered to have ended in March 1933, after the Reichstag adopted the Enabling Act of 1933 in that month; president Paul von Hindenburg had already appointed Hitler as Chancellor on 30 January 1933 after a series of parliamentary elections and associated backroom intrigues. The Enabling Act—when used ruthlessly and with authority—virtually assured that Hitler could thereafter constitutionally exercise dictatorial power without legal objection."

Source: en.wikipedia.org...


That entire post was irrelevent, because that is Germany.

Not the US.



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing
Except Romney can't beat Clinton and probably not Sanders either. Thoughts on that?


The GOP knows they will not win the national election but, they do want to save the party. With Trump as the face of the party they will lose a good 60% of the party who would likely splinter and form a new Reagan style moderate GOP. Their best bet right now is to continue to attack him and threaten to not allow him to take the nomination so he leaves and creates a new party. While they would lose members it would not be to bad. 35% of GOP backs him, of that 68% say they would support Trump if he left the GOP so your only talking losing 15% of the party. On the plus side you would in the future again be able to attract independents which you need to survive as a national party. And they want to survive.



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Daedal

If the voting public make it clear they want Trump, a brokered convention where all the delegates flagrantly ignore the wishes of their electorates to bypass Trump and any other top vote getters in order to suddenly pull Romney out of their butts would finish the GOP.

Nothing else would do more to signal that someone's vote really doesn't matter.


edit on 11-12-2015 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Daedal

If the voting public make it clear they want Trump, a brokered convention where all the delegates flagrantly ignore the wishes of their electorates to bypass Trump and any other top vote getters in order to suddenly pull Romney out of their butts would finish the GOP.

Nothing else would do more to signal that someone's vote really doesn't matter.



I 100% agree. So many Americans today are not really represented by either party. In the past, you were more squarely aligned with either or.

Perhaps NOW really is the time for an Independent thinker to take over.



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Daedal

Trump would have a conniption fit if they stole the nomination from him and gave it to Romney.

He would probably then do a third party.



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 10:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: NowWhat
a reply to: Daedal

The day that Romney makes it as their nominee is the day I put a I Heart Hillary sticker on the bumper of my car.


- although its too bad it won't read Feel The Bern


Why, you hate America and want it's economy to fail? Or you are looking for an excuse to put a proven liar who has shown she puts herself above her duty and country in office?



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 10:09 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

The "neutral" moderators ganged up on Romney saying he was wrong, when he was right. You have it wrong on what they bickered about. Obama said he immediately called it terrorism, Romney said that was a lie, Obama did no such thing. the moderator sided with Obama.

It's a proven fact Obama was not talking about Benghazi, but 9/11, when he used the words terrorism. The moderator admitted they knew Obama was wrong, but could not help themselves.



posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 03:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: MotherMayEye

The "neutral" moderators ganged up on Romney saying he was wrong, when he was right. You have it wrong on what they bickered about. Obama said he immediately called it terrorism, Romney said that was a lie, Obama did no such thing. the moderator sided with Obama.

It's a proven fact Obama was not talking about Benghazi, but 9/11, when he used the words terrorism. The moderator admitted they knew Obama was wrong, but could not help themselves.


No, you're wrong. He mentioned 9/11 but he used the term 'acts of terror' in relation to the attack in Benghazi.
Here's the full quote for context:

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Every day, all across the world, American diplomats and civilians work tirelessly to advance the interests and values of our nation. Often, they are away from their families. Sometimes, they brave great danger.

Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi. Among those killed was our Ambassador, Chris Stevens, as well as Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith. We are still notifying the families of the others who were killed. And today, the American people stand united in holding the families of the four Americans in our thoughts and in our prayers.

The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. We're working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats. I've also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world. And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.

Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.

Already, many Libyans have joined us in doing so, and this attack will not break the bonds between the United States and Libya. Libyan security personnel fought back against the attackers alongside Americans. Libyans helped some of our diplomats find safety, and they carried Ambassador Stevens’s body to the hospital, where we tragically learned that he had died.

It's especially tragic that Chris Stevens died in Benghazi because it is a city that he helped to save. At the height of the Libyan revolution, Chris led our diplomatic post in Benghazi. With characteristic skill, courage, and resolve, he built partnerships with Libyan revolutionaries, and helped them as they planned to build a new Libya. When the Qaddafi regime came to an end, Chris was there to serve as our ambassador to the new Libya, and he worked tirelessly to support this young democracy, and I think both Secretary Clinton and I relied deeply on his knowledge of the situation on the ground there. He was a role model to all who worked with him and to the young diplomats who aspire to walk in his footsteps.

Along with his colleagues, Chris died in a country that is still striving to emerge from the recent experience of war. Today, the loss of these four Americans is fresh, but our memories of them linger on. I have no doubt that their legacy will live on through the work that they did far from our shores and in the hearts of those who love them back home.

Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.

As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers. These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity. They should give every American great pride in the country that they served, and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity.

We grieve with their families, but let us carry on their memory, and let us continue their work of seeking a stronger America and a better world for all of our children.

Thank you. May God bless the memory of those we lost and may God bless the United States of America.

END



posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 03:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
No, you're wrong. He mentioned 9/11 but he used the term 'acts of terror' in relation to the attack in Benghazi.

No, he did not. He had plenty of opportunity to do so, and did not mention terror until after he talked about 9/11.

He never once said it was an act of terror. He said no act of terror will shake us after talking about 9/11, then went on to say it was a terrible act. Maybe you can show me exactly where he said it, I see LOTS of opportunity ...


The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack.

we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.

But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.

No mention of terror.

Here is the context for the ONLY mention of terror, which is 9/11.

Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.

As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.

edit on 12-12-2015 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 04:12 AM
link   
You do realize Crowley even admitted she thought Romney was right.


“It was one of those moments, and I could even feel that here, you know, when you say something you’re not expecting,” Crowley insisted, admitting she simply couldn’t help herself from unprofessionally inserting herself into a heated dispute between presidential candidates.

“He was right in the main, I just think he picked the wrong word,” Crowley said, echoing the extremely legalistic reading of the facts about what President Obama meant when he said “acts of terror” in reference to the Benghazi attack.

www.newsbusters.org...

www.theblaze.com...



posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 05:26 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

No, again I have to disagree. He mentioned 9/11, then he mentioned Benghazi and then he said 'these acts of terror'. And frankly given the fact that he was speaking the day after the attack, when there was still a lot of confusion, I really think that this is making a mountain out of a molehill. Sadly, this is what I came to expect from many on this website when talking about their own President.
Now, can we please stop drifting off-topic?



posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: MotherMayEye

The "neutral" moderators ganged up on Romney saying he was wrong, when he was right. You have it wrong on what they bickered about. Obama said he immediately called it terrorism, Romney said that was a lie, Obama did no such thing. the moderator sided with Obama.

It's a proven fact Obama was not talking about Benghazi, but 9/11, when he used the words terrorism. The moderator admitted they knew Obama was wrong, but could not help themselves.


No, you're wrong. He mentioned 9/11 but he used the term 'acts of terror' in relation to the attack in Benghazi.
Here's the full quote for context:



Your comment and the one you replied to underscore my point. Romney allowed the 'debate' to devolve to bickering about semantics and not Obama's failures.



edit on 12-12-2015 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join