• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2014 |OT| Kay Hagan and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad News

Status
Not open for further replies.

Chichikov

Member
Regarding the Israel discussion on the previous page, I think it's important to note that the territory of Palestine was not the only area in consideration for creating the state. IIRC, an area of Texas and Argentina were also under consideration (this was before WW2). My opinion is that, with the advantage of hindsight, the state of Israel probably never should have been created. I'm honestly pretty disturbed at establishing any state with the express intent of having a religiously/ethnically pure population.

I understand the desire, after the revelations of the holocaust, for a save haven and a means to defend themselves against hostile states. And, to be fair, at the time Palestine was a sparsely populated territory without much of a national identity, so some people naively assumed Palestinians would just move to neighboring Arab states, but the people creating Israel knew that wouldn't happen and had already been planning on how to remove the Arabs. I think the best thing to do would have just been for Jews to move to existing countries more friendly to them, like the US (I realize at the time there was still more anti-Semitism in the US than now, but they still had legal protections). Hell, if the Zionists had organized to move a lot of Jews to a sparsely populated state like Wyoming they could still have a political subdivision where they're a majority, similar to Mormons in Utah.

I took a (introductory level) course on the Israel/Palestinian conflict history recently. I went into it with a negative opinion of Israel just based on the modern human rights abuses I see in the news, but I left with an even worse opinion of it, and my professor was a Jewish Rabbi (he was really good at explaining context objectively. I still have no idea what "side" he's on). For almost all of its history, since before its founding, Israel has been led mostly by right wing radical pieces of shit like Begin and Sharon. Israel has never had any intention of making peace with Palestine, and some of the big players in Israel's creation and early governance were literally terrorists, like Begin who was part of Irgun (which I believe is what became the IDF once Israel was created). Irgun was a right wing terrorist group that attacked the British in the Palestinian territory, seeking independence from the colonial powers. It's kinda funny how some of those same people, when in positions of authority in the new State of Israel, mercilessly kill Palestinian terrorists (fighting for independence from what they view as a colonial power) without the slightest hint of acknowledging the irony.

This post ended up being longer than I intended so sorry for the rant. My basic point is that I think creating Israel was a mistake, albeit with understandable and sympathetic reasons. However, the people in charge of Israel throughout history have ranged from being shitty to being cartoon villains. And the government has been consistently engaged in disgusting actions and policies that have made what was already guaranteed to be a bad situation even worse, rather than trying to actually address the problems Israel's creation caused with something other than war and Arab discrimination.
Well, a state in Palestine should have (and would have) been established, decolonization was happening everywhere, and since I think it's hard to argue against getting European jews the fuck out of Europe, might as well send them there.
But it shouldn't been a state that codified Jewish privilege.

Thats a policy that seems destined to create resentment of non-Jewish people living in Israel towards Jews. And even Jews towards the religious Jews since I remember reading that they give religious Jews special priviliges as well
There's plenty of resentment there already.
The only move is to give equal rights to everyone and do the whole peace and reconciliation thing.
Yeah, it's hard, and no, I'm not sure this will work (and that's big part of why I left that part of that world) but I honestly don't see any other option that can work long term.

The early Jews and Palestinians both share a lot of the blame for mistakes during the original founding of Israel, but the British are probably most to blame for playing both sides off each other. The early Jewish settlers had a very colonialist attitude to the Arabs near them: they anticipated no resistance to the creation of Israel from these Arabs because they thought it was obvious that they would be better off living under Jewish rule. The UN partition was also a complete miscarriage of justice as it gave the majority of the land to the Jews even though the Arabs greatly outnumbered them (not to mention stupid borders). The Arabs were to blame though for initiating violence first after the UN partition was announced, though Jewish terrorist groups actually waged war much more brutally than the Arabs did.

After the initial war was over Palestinians were split between Egypt and Jordan so any complaints they have that time period belong with those countries mostly. After the 1967 war though, Israel has been nearly entirely to blame for the suffering in that region. In my opinion any support for Israel after 1967 is entirely misplaced. The PLO's and Hamas's violent tactics aren't the answer,but Israel has been easily worse.
Everybody fucked up the formation of Israel.
From the old colonial habit of randomly drawing lines on the map (and don't get me started about Jordan, ugh, but hey, dude's speak English and was in Star Trek, so it's all good) through the UN making stupid unworkable decisions to the Jews and Arab leaders.

In any case, I think who's fault it was is not as important as who has the power to solve that mess at this point, and that would be unquestionably Israel.
 
Just saying he was 'right' in the spirit (benghazi) and she didn't let him talk about certain things.

The movie really shows that mitt is exactly as you imagine him to be. He really didn't know he was gonna lose...

Edit: hahaha he really thought he had a chance in Michigan, Nevada, Wisconsin

Also I love how he immediately goes on to talking about the food court at LaGuardia or some shit.
 

Mario

Sidhe / PikPok
I still find that all to be absolutely unfathomable.

My guess is every single person around him was telling him he had the election in the bag.

A candidate has got to be very reliant on their team to parse the data and the detail given the demands on their schedule. And it wouldn't surprise me if these days individuals on a Republican campaign team are reluctant to raise red flags in opposition to delusional or career centric individuals.

I haven't seen the movie, but my guess is the immediate family are the ones who dropped the ball there. I'm guessing they were probably a little more aware of troubling polling trends and data fudging but didn't want to undermine Mitt's confidence.
 
Does anybody know how well Chile's pension system works? I tried to find information about it online but everything that comments tends to either be a right wing think tank or some far left blog.
 
Oh my god so fucking many white people in Mitt, I recoil in horror to think that are country was a few milliion votes away from being ruled by some rich white plutocrats and their insane Tea Party followers dictating the agenda.

It's weird thinking of what a Romney presidency would look like, overnight the media would forget about the debt/deficits and talk about how good the economy is. Of course assuming the GOP took control of the Senate as well the filibuster would be immediately abolished, our social safety net would be annihilated and government services would be sold off to private companies for pennies. It would be a literal plutocrat free for all as all the union destroying, wage slave legislation they've been dreaming about for decades would all come to fruition with legislation directly tailored to the rich being passed through Congress at dizzying speed. Think North Carolina and Wisconsin but on a national level, and the sad fact is because of gerrymandering and an unfavorable map in 2014 the GOP would probably still hold both chambers until 2016.

And of course the State and Defense department would be stocked with neocons and the Tea Party would instantly forget about their isolation because it isn't a black man advocating the foreign policy anymore. We'd probably be in Syria right now and beating the drums of war with Iran and the American people/the media would be going along with both because of fucking course they would.


Well anyways it didn't happen, and if you like delicious Republican tears there are plenty in the last 10 minutes of Mitt.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Oh good, Carly Fiorina's on Real Time. Would be nice if someone brought up her dumbass nearly running HP into the ground.

My guess is every single person around him was telling him he had the election in the bag.

A candidate has got to be very reliant on their team to parse the data and the detail given the demands on their schedule. And it wouldn't surprise me if these days individuals on a Republican campaign team are reluctant to raise red flags in opposition to delusional or career centric individuals.

I haven't seen the movie, but my guess is the immediate family are the ones who dropped the ball there. I'm guessing they were probably a little more aware of troubling polling trends and data fudging but didn't want to undermine Mitt's confidence.

Or, Republicans live in their own deluded, fantasy world and Romney's idiot staffers legitimately believed he was gonna win as well because they watch/listed to right-wing media which was reinforcing that assumption every day until the election.
 
Edit: hahaha he really thought he had a chance in Michigan, Nevada, Wisconsin

Yeah, it's funny looking back at the point right before the election and how "math republicans do to make them feel better about themselves" it had gotten. Had a deep R friend on FB, who was casually predicting the night ending early when PA got called for Mitt.

His meltdown that night was pretty legendary, too. Yelling on FB about how we was going to work every minute of every day to insulate his family from the oncoming collapse of America.
 

Mario

Sidhe / PikPok
Or, Republicans live in their own deluded, fantasy world and Romney's idiot staffers legitimately believed he was gonna win as well because they watch/listed to right-wing media which was reinforcing that assumption every day until the election.

Oh I have no doubt Republicans have been sucked in by their own propaganda machine. That's why I mentioned "delusional".

But I'd think there were staffers there who were a little sharper but who either chose not to speak up or who were otherwise shut out.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
If you're curious about more consequences of a Romney presidency, you can see Romney's goals for the first 200 days here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/144955652/Romney-200-Days

There's to many crazy things to list, but an executive order to reduce the workforce of all non-military agencies by 10% is one of my favorites.
 

Mario

Sidhe / PikPok
If you're curious about more consequences of a Romney presidency, you can see Romney's goals for the first 200 days here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/144955652/Romney-200-Days

There's to many crazy things to list, but an executive order to reduce the workforce of all non-military agencies by 10% is one of my favorites.

Got to love how in the plan for Iran, "work out how to negotiate better" comes last as almost an afterthought after, to paraphrase, "deploy more troops", "plan for war", "screw their economy more", and "support rebels".
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
Got to love how in the plan for Iran, "work out how to negotiate better" comes last as almost an afterthought after, to paraphrase, "deploy more troops", "plan for war", "screw their economy more", and "support rebels".

Right, because strong arm negotiations with Iran has worked so well for us in the past.
 
"Create a Reagan economic zone".
Forgot about that shit, much like I forgot about Mitt.

I saw Mitt on Netflix and here are my quick observations from the other thread:
Saw Mitt. Here are my observations.

Mitt Romney was surprisingly well-aware of things. He knew people called him flip flopper and it annoyed him very much. He was well aware of the fact that Obama's flub of a first debate was not extraordinary, and therefore he did not gloat about it. He was aware that Obama will come back strong. Actually the most fearful I've seen him in the entire documentary was right before the second debate. Guy was visibly shaking, whereas before the first debate everyone around him is fretting but he is calm as a cucumber. He knew Obama was coming back to destroy him in the 2nd round. This was counter to what I thought before I saw this documentary. I thought Mitt lived in a bubble and couldn't see beyond his hubris, but again he is cognizant of lot of things.

Mitt Romney is a jovial, spontaneous, witty guy. Having fun and always joking around. He has a very pleasant and endearing personality except when he talks about politics. Then he makes me want to punch him. I never got to see this side of him during the campaign, which is why I always wanted to punch him in 2012. His kids are ok dudes, but they actually live in a bubble. Which reminds me, they live in the fox news bubble as well. That was sad.

The surprising lack of diversity in the documentary. In the crowds, the campaign or the staff. Republican party is toast if this keeps up.

Really wanted to see behind the scenes discussions of 47% comments or superstorm Sandy and Christie-Obama bromance in the documentary. Very disappointed to not see them.

Mitt probably hates McCain more than Obama.
 

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
The early Jews and Palestinians both share a lot of the blame for mistakes during the original founding of Israel, but the British are probably most to blame for playing both sides off each other. The early Jewish settlers had a very colonialist attitude to the Arabs near them: they anticipated no resistance to the creation of Israel from these Arabs because they thought it was obvious that they would be better off living under Jewish rule. The UN partition was also a complete miscarriage of justice as it gave the majority of the land to the Jews even though the Arabs greatly outnumbered them (not to mention stupid borders). The Arabs were to blame though for initiating violence first after the UN partition was announced, though Jewish terrorist groups actually waged war much more brutally than the Arabs did.

?

Something like 75% of the land partitioned for Israel was non-arable and it was something like 90% of the non-arable land in the colony of Palestine, from what I recall reading.
 
Browsing my facebook page when I see this:

QVCnZRJ.png


Had some comments on it. This guy is a diehard liberal (at least he was 3 years ago when I last saw him), but isn't really aware of what happens in Washington.

Too bad Mitt, if you weren't tied down to this recent crazy ass GOP you might have had a shot.

mittsadazdz0.gif
 
Rick fricken Perry just came out in support of decriminalizing weed.

Truly we are living in the end times.

Holy shit. I bet weed legalization blows past gay marriage as far as states falling. The Bible says nothing about weed. And I've actually read about Mormons rationalizing weed due to something in the book of Mormon.

Pat Robertson, Rick Perry . . . its over.
 
Seems like Wendy Davis' campaign has imploded. I didn't believe she was going to win anyway, but I was quite impressed when I heard she raised 12mil last quarter. But the news about her bio being altered seems like it'll secure Abbot. You can't say you worked to pay for your education and then it's revealed your ex husband payed for it - granted, Davis payed for her undergraduate studies, but he sent her to law school.

Is there some sexism thrown into this? Of course. Still...

Well if she is smart, she'll turn this around as a reason why student aid and student loans are so important. She was lucky to have an husband that could help her pay but most students just can't afford the educational costs.
 
Romney would have been much better than Bush. He's not the kind of guy I'd vote for because of the issues and the GOP platform, but at least he is not an idiot like Bush or a crazy loon like Bachmann/Cruz/Gohmert.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
Mitt Romney was surprisingly well-aware of things.

He basically has the ability to look at himself as he would a stranger, but he can't seem to do it through any other lenses than his own.

A lot of Republicans are like this. It's not like 45% of americans are complete psycopaths. It just means that they're honestly good people up to the point where they start talking about issues and segments of the population that they have absolutely no personal experience with. And running for president kind of forces you to talk about those things a lot.
 

sprsk

force push the doodoo rock
I love how the only part of the movie you see black people Mitt basically has no idea what to do. How do I talk to these people
 
So Mitt was a politician through and through. Just said what he wanted to get elected, but a different person all together.

I don't know if that should be a good or bad thing honestly.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Random question, what was Reagan's preferred monetary policy? I'm not asking what policy the fed implemented during his time, I'm asking what he wanted them to do.
 

ISOM

Member
How long before The Heritage Foundation starts taking credit for the healthcare plan they practically invented?

The train to take credit passed a long time ago especially when they were trying to bankrupt the government over obamacare, and before that too.
 

KingK

Member
The train to take credit passed a long time ago especially when they were trying to bankrupt the government over obamacare, and before that too.

I'd say that train passed the minute they decided to deride it as "obamacare." Smart move on Obama's part to embrace the name fairly early on, probably.
 
Romney would have been much better than Bush. He's not the kind of guy I'd vote for because of the issues and the GOP platform, but at least he is not an idiot like Bush or a crazy loon like Bachmann/Cruz/Gohmert.

I agree. He did not appear to be an idiot like W or a doddering fool like McCain. But in the end, the Republican Presidents delegate foreign policy to the military advisors so I'm not sure if we could have avoided Iraq War.
 
Craziest WSJ letter ever? Progressive kristallnatch coming?

Romney would have been much better than Bush. He's not the kind of guy I'd vote for because of the issues and the GOP platform, but at least he is not an idiot like Bush or a crazy loon like Bachmann/Cruz/Gohmert.
No. Policy and governance isn't determined by one man. He would have let others tell him what to do, just like his campaign.
who either chose not to speak up or who were otherwise shut out.
My experience is they buy into it.
 
The problem wasn't Mitt so much, but that he was going up against the best technological campaign and ground game in political history. Obama usually had 2-3 times as many field offices. And I remember reading how Romney was depended on advertising and a faulty computer program for get out the vote on election day. That program's problems make ACA look like a cake walk.
 
I still believe we'd be better off if Romney had won, economically. Nothing is going to get done for the next two years guys. Nothing. Which means the economy slowly strangles while republicans gloat and Obama does nothing.

Unemployment benefits would be extended under a President Romney, as they were under Bush. He'd have to work with democrats in the senate to pass his economic agenda, meaning we could get stimulus spending alongside his tax cuts.

The downside would be social issues obviously, and long term debt thanks to tax cuts. And foreign policy - well pretty much everything would be worse except the economy. I'm not saying I wish he won, hell I wish no one won. But we're stuck with a suffocating economy, obstructive congress, and a completely ineffective president.
 
I still believe we'd be better off if Romney had won, economically. Nothing is going to get done for the next two years guys. Nothing. Which means the economy slowly strangles while republicans gloat and Obama does nothing.

Unemployment benefits would be extended under a President Romney, as they were under Bush. He'd have to work with democrats in the senate to pass his economic agenda, meaning we could get stimulus spending alongside his tax cuts.

The downside would be social issues obviously, and long term debt thanks to tax cuts. And foreign policy - well pretty much everything would be worse except the economy. I'm not saying I wish he won, hell I wish no one won. But we're stuck with a suffocating economy, obstructive congress, and a completely ineffective president.

Long term debt doesn't matter. It means nothing as it can be paid off. the tax cuts have other costs economically (damaging inequality).

And your joking if you would think there would be stimulus. He advocated the Ryan budget. Slashing medicare. reducing the federal work force, etc. How do these help the economy? Because something passed? and passing unemployment? did you miss the 47%?

side note: I was shocked when romeny went on his 'obama is ruining the country, everything's not alright' rant he was still saying the same things he said in the 47% video. He never learned. He's just another rich guy who thinks they're the only thing important in the economic and its so good of them to not treat human beings as disposable things. we should be happy with the pittances they through at us. Its an utterly disgusting and vile ideology.
 

ISOM

Member
I still believe we'd be better off if Romney had won, economically. Nothing is going to get done for the next two years guys. Nothing. Which means the economy slowly strangles while republicans gloat and Obama does nothing.

Unemployment benefits would be extended under a President Romney, as they were under Bush. He'd have to work with democrats in the senate to pass his economic agenda, meaning we could get stimulus spending alongside his tax cuts.

The downside would be social issues obviously, and long term debt thanks to tax cuts. And foreign policy - well pretty much everything would be worse except the economy. I'm not saying I wish he won, hell I wish no one won. But we're stuck with a suffocating economy, obstructive congress, and a completely ineffective president.

This is such a coward's way of looking at politics that I don't know what to say.
 

East Lake

Member
I still believe we'd be better off if Romney had won, economically. Nothing is going to get done for the next two years guys. Nothing. Which means the economy slowly strangles while republicans gloat and Obama does nothing.

Unemployment benefits would be extended under a President Romney, as they were under Bush. He'd have to work with democrats in the senate to pass his economic agenda, meaning we could get stimulus spending alongside his tax cuts.

The downside would be social issues obviously, and long term debt thanks to tax cuts. And foreign policy - well pretty much everything would be worse except the economy. I'm not saying I wish he won, hell I wish no one won. But we're stuck with a suffocating economy, obstructive congress, and a completely ineffective president.
What are you going to do when Hillary is in her second term with a repub congress and dementia.
 

besada

Banned
Holy shit. I bet weed legalization blows past gay marriage as far as states falling. The Bible says nothing about weed. And I've actually read about Mormons rationalizing weed due to something in the book of Mormon.

Pat Robertson, Rick Perry . . . its over.

Texas has specialized drug courts that hand out rehab, rather than jail time, since 2001. Perry was never particularly interested in persecuting weed users, but I don't think it means Texas is going to be the next Colorado.

We DO have a bunch of heads down here, though.
 
I still believe we'd be better off if Romney had won, economically. Nothing is going to get done for the next two years guys. Nothing. Which means the economy slowly strangles while republicans gloat and Obama does nothing.

Unemployment benefits would be extended under a President Romney, as they were under Bush. He'd have to work with democrats in the senate to pass his economic agenda, meaning we could get stimulus spending alongside his tax cuts.

The downside would be social issues obviously, and long term debt thanks to tax cuts. And foreign policy - well pretty much everything would be worse except the economy. I'm not saying I wish he won, hell I wish no one won. But we're stuck with a suffocating economy, obstructive congress, and a completely ineffective president.

10/10 excellent trolling.
 
The Ryan budget wouldn't pass the senate, it would be DOA. And history tells us the opposing party would likely gain seats in the midterm, making the budget even more irrelevant.

The only way Romney could have won is through sneaking by just enough, less than Bush's 2004 win. He wouldn't have a mandate and would quickly realize slashing Medicare isn't a good idea politically. Just as Bush realized slashing Social Security wasn't a good idea in 2005. So economically Romney would have to work within some pretty tight barriers, and would not get to institute his agenda wholesale. Instead I'd be more likely to believe he could work together with democrats than Obama can with republicans.

If you disagree point out where I'm wrong. Romney would be a weak president domestically, compared to Obama or Clinton's first two years.
 
The Ryan budget wouldn't pass the senate, it would be DOA. And history tells us the opposing party would likely gain seats in the midterm, making the budget even more irrelevant.

The only way Romney could have won is through sneaking by just enough, less than Bush's 2004 win. He wouldn't have a mandate and would quickly realize slashing Medicare isn't a good idea politically. Just as Bush realized slashing Social Security wasn't a good idea in 2005. So economically Romney would have to work within some pretty tight barriers, and would not get to institute his agenda wholesale. Instead I'd be more likely to believe he could work together with democrats than Obama can with republicans.

If you disagree point out where I'm wrong. Romney would be a weak president domestically, compared to Obama or Clinton's first two years.

That's assuming that the GOP controlled Senate would've kept the filibuster.
 
I still believe we'd be better off if Romney had won, economically. Nothing is going to get done for the next two years guys. Nothing. Which means the economy slowly strangles while republicans gloat and Obama does nothing.

Unemployment benefits would be extended under a President Romney, as they were under Bush. He'd have to work with democrats in the senate to pass his economic agenda, meaning we could get stimulus spending alongside his tax cuts.

The downside would be social issues obviously, and long term debt thanks to tax cuts. And foreign policy - well pretty much everything would be worse except the economy. I'm not saying I wish he won, hell I wish no one won. But we're stuck with a suffocating economy, obstructive congress, and a completely ineffective president.
Bullshit. And let Republicans swoop in and take the credit, locking in Reaganomics for another 30 years?

Obama's ineffectiveness comes from an obstructive Congress.

This is like the analysts saying Democrats shouldn't have passed healthcare because then they wouldn't have lost the House. If you're too chickenshit to do anything with your majority let's just elect a Republican trifecta right now and get it over with, Jesus Christ.

In any case it doesn't really matter because the Republicans have locked themselves out of the White House. You could give Romney a 5 point handicap in every state and Obama still would have won. That's how strong the blue state coalition is now. Permanent (by permanent I mean for the next decade or so) majority, baby.
 
That's assuming that the GOP controlled Senate would've kept the filibuster.

The GOP was not going to win the senate, they fucked that up months in advance due to Missouri and Indiana. Of course a Romney+GOP senate+GOP house would be horrible, but I don't believe it would happen. Romney's only shot at winning was to barely win, and if he had done that the senate would not have flipped.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
To be fair to PD, a Romney presidency would be rather unpredictable. Republicans can get away with forcing Obama to make stupid cuts in government since they know he'll get blamed for it. But that's a completely different matter when you have a Republican president in charge. We'd most likely have a replay of the Reagan/Bush Jr. years where Republicans don't bother cutting any government programs but manage to get some tax cuts out of it. Bush did back down after his SS privatization scheme turned out to be about as popular as the taliban.

Republicans are fucking tools, but many of them aren't stupid enough to think Keynesian economics doesn't work. Romney himself admitted as much. As did his boy genius VP. So there would most likely be a new stimulus, albeit one that's a lot friendlier to the Republicans via tax cuts, and then when the economy would get better they'd credit it all to the latter, thus perpetuating the myth of Reaganomics.




...on the other hand, this current batch of Republicans is even more fucking insane than at any point in the last 100 years so maybe they would succeed in forcing Mittens to adopt their slash and burn policies, so who knows?
 

Sibylus

Banned
Wouldn't have liked to see what a Romney administration would have done wrt to Libya, Syrian Civil War, and the Iranian nuclear talks. Probably would have imploded on the Snowden leaks, but that isn't exactly fair compensation.
 
I still believe we'd be better off if Romney had won, economically. Nothing is going to get done for the next two years guys. Nothing. Which means the economy slowly strangles while republicans gloat and Obama does nothing.

Unemployment benefits would be extended under a President Romney, as they were under Bush. He'd have to work with democrats in the senate to pass his economic agenda, meaning we could get stimulus spending alongside his tax cuts.

The downside would be social issues obviously, and long term debt thanks to tax cuts. And foreign policy - well pretty much everything would be worse except the economy. I'm not saying I wish he won, hell I wish no one won. But we're stuck with a suffocating economy, obstructive congress, and a completely ineffective president.
If Romney had won, we'd reinstate Bush tax cuts, teaparty getting it's way on the debt ceiling (more cuts), invaded Syria, no nuclear deal cut with Iran and Diablos in ICU. Reid would have folded like a cheap suit. I'm sure others have explained the nightmare scenario much better but to be blunt, no we would not have been better under Romney at all. We'd have been worse in every facet of government's activities from economy to foreign policy to defense. I'm glad Obama won and I would still vote for him over any other contender.
 

pigeon

Banned
The only way Romney could have won is through sneaking by just enough, less than Bush's 2004 win. He wouldn't have a mandate and would quickly realize slashing Medicare isn't a good idea politically. Just as Bush realized slashing Social Security wasn't a good idea in 2005. So economically Romney would have to work within some pretty tight barriers, and would not get to institute his agenda wholesale. Instead I'd be more likely to believe he could work together with democrats than Obama can with republicans.

If you disagree point out where I'm wrong. Romney would be a weak president domestically, compared to Obama or Clinton's first two years.

You're wrong because you don't understand Mitt Romney.

The most important takeaway from that documentary that it clarifies exactly why, even after Mitt's 47% comment was leaked, he didn't walk it back. It's because Mitt Romney is a man who stands by the beliefs that are important to him, and Mitt Romney really, truly believes in the Randian analysis of the American poor. Indeed, according to him, that's the main reason he ran!

Romney is a zealot. Not for the Church of Latter-Day Saints, but for the American class war. Remember this story?

http://nymag.com/news/politics/elections-2012/obama-romney-economic-plans-2012-10/

He doesn't care about political mandates. He has a moral obligation, as he sees it, to destroy the welfare state before it destroys him.
 
If Romney had won, we'd reinstate Bush tax cuts, teaparty getting it's way on the debt ceiling (more cuts), invaded Syria, no nuclear deal cut with Iran and Diablos in ICU. Reid would have folded like a cheap suit. I'm sure others have explained the nightmare scenario much better but to be blunt, no we would not have been better under Romney at all. We'd have been worse in every facet of government's activities from economy to foreign policy to defense. I'm glad Obama won and I would still vote for him over any other contender.
The only Republican who would conceivably be okay is Jon Huntsman.

Policy-wise, at the moment I don't think there'd be much difference between him and Obama.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom