Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'd rather see Ron Paul win. He is the only candidate that actually has a plan that will realistically reduce spending enough to balance the books and thereafter start paying down the debt. You can't get it done without deep cuts in spending.
But since Mitt Romney actually an intelligent human being and stands an excellent chance of beating Obama in the general election, I can live with him getting the nomination.
If I can't have exactly what I want, I'll settle for whoever has the best chance of kicking the biggest deficit spender in US history out of the White House.
And anyone saying "Romney and Obama are exactly the same" is an idiot and needs to go do a little research. Parroting whatever you hear from his opponents and haters does not make you seem intelligent, it makes you look incredibly gullible.
But since Mitt Romney actually an intelligent human being and stands an excellent chance of beating Obama in the general election, I can live with him getting the nomination.
If I can't have exactly what I want, I'll settle for whoever has the best chance of kicking the biggest deficit spender in US history out of the White House.
While I am not a Ron Paul supporter, I agree 100% with this part of your post.
His foreign policy views, on the other hand, are assinine. Don't get me wrong - I do NOT like what has been going on, but I also think it's crazy to think we can just "talk with" countries like Iran and "make everything OK." We need to be somewhere in between. I like Jon Huntsman a lot for that reason - I think he is the most in the middle and rational on foreign policy.
Use diplomacy? What the hell is he thinking?
Actually making the congress declare a war and specific objectives in order to go to war and win and get it over with is scary to you?
Do you work for Halliburton or something?
I have a question for you, if we go to war with Iran - considering the price of the war would likely be exponentially greater than Iraq and Afghanistan combined - what do you think the the objective would be?
And anyone saying "Romney and Obama are exactly the same" is an idiot and needs to go do a little research. Parroting whatever you hear from his opponents and haters does not make you seem intelligent, it makes you look incredibly gullible.
I have formed my view of Obama and Romney with my own research. There is a lot more to it than just their spoken views. One has to consider the Washington Consensus and the sources of campaign money. If Romney wins, I expect his policies to be very similar to Obama's. There will be little in the way of meaningful change. Thank you for calling me an idiot, I have come to expect nothing less from some members at C-D.
Romney is not "little different from Obama." Do I like Romney that much? No. But he is the only one who has any chance of beating Obama, he will be a hell of a lot better than Obama, and he's less scary to me than Ron Paul.
How is Romney different from Obama? They're both big government corporatists. Both believe in government health care. Both are anti-Second Amendment. Their similarities far outnumber their differences.
The R after Romney's name does not make him a conservative. His history paints him as an opportunist that changes his professed opinion as needed to further his political career.
He may be the most electable candidate but that does not make him a good candidate. Republicans followed the party line and in large part endorsed the last crappy candidate the Republican party offered, he was unsurprisingly defeated. Rather than learn from that experience the party elite are counting on their diehard partisans to turn out and support yet another crappy candidate. Sadly, it seems a substantial number of voters are not only prepared but anxious to do just that.
There's a great deal of truth in the statement "We get the government we deserve".
How is Romney different from Obama? They're both big government corporatists. Both believe in government health care. Both are anti-Second Amendment. Their similarities far outnumber their differences.
Romney believes in government health care on the state level, Obama on the federal level. I thought you libertarians were all about states' rights. You should know more about the difference than anyone else.
Also, did it ever occur to you that Romney's pro-government health care and anti-Second Amendment stance could have simply been based on the reality of what he had to deal with in Massachusetts? Sometimes you have to work within the system and compromise your ideals. That's REALITY, something that the Ron Paul lovers have a hard time accepting.
Romney wants to make the tax codes fairer and flatter, he wants to reform entitlements, he wants to actually do something about illegal immigration, and he has real, private sector business experience. He will not spend like Obama and I don't believe he will be as big on war as W.
He may be the most electable candidate but that does not make him a good candidate.
It makes him the best choice. Sometimes people have to accept that there are a limited number of options and you have to choose the best one. I don't like it, but I live in the real world.
Romney believes in government health care on the state level, Obama on the federal level. I thought you libertarians were all about states' rights. You should know more about the difference than anyone else.
Also, did it ever occur to you that Romney's pro-government health care and anti-Second Amendment stance could have simply been based on the reality of what he had to deal with in Massachusetts? Sometimes you have to work within the system and compromise your ideals. That's REALITY, something that the Ron Paul lovers have a hard time accepting.
Romney wants to make the tax codes fairer and flatter, he wants to reform entitlements, he wants to actually do something about illegal immigration, and he has real, private sector business experience. He will not spend like Obama and I don't believe he will be as big on war as W.
you obviously dismissed his past as the mass governor.
everything you just said is from all those romney ads your watching.
Romney believes in government health care on the state level, Obama on the federal level. I thought you libertarians were all about states' rights. You should know more about the difference than anyone else.
Also, did it ever occur to you that Romney's pro-government health care and anti-Second Amendment stance could have simply been based on the reality of what he had to deal with in Massachusetts? Sometimes you have to work within the system and compromise your ideals. That's REALITY, something that the Ron Paul lovers have a hard time accepting.
Romney wants to make the tax codes fairer and flatter, he wants to reform entitlements, he wants to actually do something about illegal immigration, and he has real, private sector business experience. He will not spend like Obama and I don't believe he will be as big on war as W.
Signing a law that infringes on 2nd Amendment rights when he had the authority to veto that law is in my opinion inexcusable. Even if that veto were to be overturned he would have taken a stance in support of a fundamental Constitutional right. Additionally Romney was shown to be lying on his claims of having been a lifelong hunter in an attempt to gain the pro-gun vote.
Gun Owners of America does a good job of summing up Romney's actual stance on the Second Amendment;
Quote:
“The Second Amendment protects the individual right of lawful citizens to keep and bear arms. I strongly support this essential freedom,” Romney assures gun owners these days.
But this is the same Mitt Romney who, as governor, promised not to do anything to “chip away” at Massachusetts’ extremely restrictive gun laws.
“We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them,” he said during a gubernatorial debate. “I won’t chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety.”1
Even worse, Romney signed a law to permanently ban many semi-automatic firearms. “These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense,” Romney said in 2004. “They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”2
Romney also spoke in favor of the Brady law’s five day waiting period on handguns. The Boston Herald quotes Romney saying, “I don’t think (the waiting period) will have a massive effect on crime but I think it will have a positive effect.”3
Mitt Romney doesn’t seem to understand the meaning of “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”
I'm huge on state's rights. I also seriously doubt Romney will hesitate to push his health care ideas on a national level if he is elected to office. To be fair I can no more prove this than you can convince me he won't so I'm willing to call this point a draw.
Romney has already made noises about military action against Iran. I'm not at all willing to assume he won't make good on his statements.
As far as Romney's claims about making the tax codes more fair and based on his less than stellar history with regard to sticking to his promises I believe his comments deserve as much credibility as Bush 1's "Read my lips, no new taxes" promise.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
