suppose Romney or Obama

mikepegg44

are elected? what do you all who plan on supporting one or the other think will truly be different the next four years?

I keep hearing how awful the world will be if the other guy wins, but can anyone tell me how or why they think that? How much damage will be done. Hopefully we can get away from political hyperbole and really focus on actualities. Maybe we can't, but hopefully those on the right will learn a little something about the effects of their policies, and those on the left will realize they are wrong ....wait I mean those on the left will learn a little something of the effects of their policies.

and just so keeping it real doesn't go wrong here, let's take the Dalton approach to this thread.
Be Nice.

fife

To be honest, i don't think anything will change.

Until the government remember that they are working together to make a positive change everything will be the same.

The biggest issue facing the US is the inability for a compromise. Its why again your credit rating may drop again due to the politics involving your debt ceiling.

inlet13

mikepegg44 wrote:

are elected? what do you all who plan on supporting one or the other think will truly be different the next four years?

I keep hearing how awful the world will be if the other guy wins, but can anyone tell me how or why they think that? How much damage will be done. Hopefully we can get away from political hyperbole and really focus on actualities. Maybe we can't, but hopefully those on the right will learn a little something about the effects of their policies, and those on the left will realize they are wrong ....wait I mean those on the left will learn a little something of the effects of their policies.

and just so keeping it real doesn't go wrong here, let's take the Dalton approach to this thread.
Be Nice.

I don't think the world will be that much different if Romney wins.

I suppose if you're really looking for specifics that will be different - I'd say healthcare will probably move back to pre-Obamacare (although this may happen anyway via the Supremes) under Romney. I think we'll be more likely to engage in a war with Iran under Romney, but that isn't to say Obama isn't capable either. I think the economic policy (debt, the market performance) would be ever so slightly better under Romney due to his "saying" he'll side with the free market, but honestly that could be smoke and mirrors.

The one thing I would say is (if Obama wins) - he'll think he has a mandate and in a way, he will. I don't think that would be good. Because once the economy implodes that will mean more bailouts and Keynesian policy than would be implemented under Romney. This is all guesswork though.

All in all - very little difference. I really don't care too much either way, because we'll be f'd if we go with the guy who's got the job or the guy with nice hair. There's really not that much difference and if you read between the lines of the differences I did mention, that fact is underscored.

inlet13

I was just thinking about it. I would not want this job at all.

I mean people who want to be President of the US have to be really messed up individuals. Think about the stress of their daily decisions, and how much they can actually impact life on earth. Moreover, sometimes I think the situation is so grave that no matter who we put in there, they're pretty much going to be fed to the wolves.

bigdvs

most are hoping Romney is more Reagan post Carter then Bush2 post Clinton. But we don't really know he was a very liberal spender in Massachusettes and grew the government. In comparison Obama says a bunch of stuff about fiscal responsiblity and then presents a budget that doesn't get anywhere close to balanced for 10 years (and has not recieved a single vote in a 2 years) and we are currently 8 trillion in new debt since he took office.

so the devil you can only guess is going to suck vs the devil you are sure sucks? what a choice.

mikepegg44

inlet13 wrote:

I was just thinking about it. I would not want this job at all.

I mean people who want to be President of the US have to be really messed up individuals. Think about the stress of their daily decisions, and how much they can actually impact life on earth. Moreover, sometimes I think the situation is so grave that no matter who we put in there, they're pretty much going to be fed to the wolves.

yep, it isn't a job I would want, and I don't think I could handle it...having a bunch of guys like me ragging on every little thing... ...no thanks

But I to your other points, you are right, not much will be different in terms of the American people's lives. Romney wins we will just increase spending less than we would under Obama...it won't stop the increase, and it won't stop the bickering and partisan politics. We need a bridge builder with a vision. Anyone see one? I would love to say it is Paul, but I cannot call him a bridge builder. Sitting here at a convention, board out of my mind and realizing that if republicans can't agree on tiny party rule amendments to the point of shouting, what chance do opposite parties ever have on agreeing on anything...I am all for federal gridlock, but I cannot stand it at the state and local level.

usamamasan1

mikepegg44 wrote:

are elected? what do you all who plan on supporting one or the other think will truly be different the next four years?

Let's start with day one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... zK3ZX7hvzg

Woot

JD108000

What exactly did that Day 1 ad tell you about Romney's policies?

usamamasan1

Growth resulting from lower taxes and over regulation
Exact

Woot

STAYSEA

No BAMA . Anyone else. Kermit the Frog?

JD108000

Ha Ha Ha Thats a funny one, not really. Yeah lower taxes but not for the middle class. For the record I am not a fan of either.

CH156378

inlet13 wrote:

I think we'll be more likely to engage in a war with Iran under Romney, but that isn't to say Obama isn't capable either.

jimc3

mikepegg44 wrote:

Romney wins we will just increase spending less than we would under Obama...it won't stop the increase, and it won't stop the bickering and partisan politics. We need a bridge builder with a vision. Anyone see one? I would love to say it is Paul, but I cannot call him a bridge builder.

totally agree.

and no, I don't see one. Nobody does. that's the problem

the Ron Paul thing is just so disappointing. Imagine he wasn't loopy-consipircacy-Alex Jones-crazy, didn't have the racist baggage, and just seemed even a little flexible about droppin bombs when really need be. i mean, he'd have won in a landslide.

acutejam

All the local newspapers have gone belly up or drastically cut staff -- so the result is that NOBODY is keeping a serious eye on Congress anymore. It's the Congress that is real problem and nothing either candidate could really do about it. Districts are so gerrymandered across the nation that we're left with extremists from both sides, running to the left and right of centrists and catering to their bases back home. They get to tell their own tales of grandeur and nobody is there to contest them.

It's like the baseball strike in the 90s. All fans were pissed that the season got cut. Nobody was going to go to the parks the next year, we'll show 'em! Screw us out of a season and there's no way you can get me back in a park! But then, the new season began, and people recalled how much they really liked watching "their" guys -- ok, maybe one or two games jsut to watch our boys beat up those awful other teams that f'd us over last year! And the stadiums filled up and baseball continued....

So we keep voting in the local nuts, I mean who in their right mind would vote for Pelosi or Reid? Boehner or Cantor? Often times, their competition is simply a joke, and then folks think, well our gal isn't part of the problem, she's there fighting for us!

No. No she's not. She's in cahoots with the rest of them to just ... stay ... in ... power.

We're screwed.

brianlux

inlet13 wrote:

I was just thinking about it. I would not want this job at all.

I mean people who want to be President of the US have to be really messed up individuals. Think about the stress of their daily decisions, and how much they can actually impact life on earth. Moreover, sometimes I think the situation is so grave that no matter who we put in there, they're pretty much going to be fed to the wolves.

I totally agree. It's a wonder anyone wants this job anymore.

STAYSEA

Question? Was Ben Franklin ever a U.S. president?
How many times did he say "NO"?

his excuse.. He was busy.

brianlux

STAYSEA wrote:

Question? Was Ben Franklin ever a U.S. president?
How many times did he say "NO"?

his excuse.. He was busy.

But you wouldn't believe how many times I have to pull bios on Ben Franklin OUT of the presidential biography section. Why are they there in the first place? Night-time bookstore elves.

mickeyrat

brianlux wrote:

STAYSEA wrote:

Question? Was Ben Franklin ever a U.S. president?
How many times did he say "NO"?

his excuse.. He was busy.

But you wouldn't believe how many times I have to pull bios on Ben Franklin OUT of the presidential biography section. Why are they there in the first place? Night-time bookstore elves.

would that be because he graces a US bank note along with those that actually were presidents?

hedonist

Ben was the fuckin man! Smart as hell.

"If you would have a faithful servant, and one that you like, serve yourself."

and, conversely -

"There is no kind of dishonesty into which otherwise good people more easily and frequently fall than that of defrauding the government."

Yup.

peacefrompaul

inlet13 wrote:

I was just thinking about it. I would not want this job at all.

I mean people who want to be President of the US have to be really messed up individuals. Think about the stress of their daily decisions, and how much they can actually impact life on earth. Moreover, sometimes I think the situation is so grave that no matter who we put in there, they're pretty much going to be fed to the wolves.

After taking a class on the presidency I can confirm that I also would also not want the job.

badbrains

Same shit different party NAME. When will the sheep WAKE UP?!?!?!

Jason P

There will be huge implications on the direction of how this country moves forward, based on whether Barrack Romney or Mitt Obama are elected.

pandora

I'm still picturing it will be our President getting a second term.
I feel the strings are in place for that.
Whomever is in though I think the economy will continue to improve
in the next four, however precariously.

But taxes have got to come down for everyone and spending to match.

More whistle blowing as to the misuse of Federal welfare aid here in our neck of the woods.
There is no accountability and the working man is getting ripped off.

badbrains

Jason P wrote:

There will be huge implications on the direction of how this country moves forward, based on whether Barrack Romney or Mitt Obama are elected.

Sorry jay, but I think it's already decided. I'd love to hold onto hope and believe that everything I know is bullshit and that the system really works........but I know better then to believe in something that's a complete scam.....And in no way am I implying that u dnt know. I'm speaking of myself

mikepegg44

Jason P wrote:

There will be huge implications on the direction of how this country moves forward, based on whether Barrack Romney or Mitt Obama are elected.

I initially was replying to question you on specifics and when I re-read your post I finally got it...nicely done.

unsung

jimc3 wrote:

the Ron Paul thing is just so disappointing. Imagine he wasn't loopy-consipircacy-Alex Jones-crazy, didn't have the racist baggage, and just seemed even a little flexible about droppin bombs when really need be. i mean, he'd have won in a landslide.

I worked for the campaign so sometimes statements like this have me wanting to bang my head into the wall. However I've realized that doesn't do anything other than give myself a headache.

So he is flexible about an attack on another sovereign nation. He wants us to do the right thing and follow the Constitution and have Congress declare war. It's really such a simple process that the last X amount of Presidents have complicated. His stance is the Presidency is not a dictatorship, he would not be King. That's what the Founding Fathers died for.

ComeToTX

Whoever is elected will choose the next supreme court justice. So that's a pretty big deal when you're talking about Romney wanting to overturn Roe v Wade and leave it up to the states.

jimc3

unsung wrote:

jimc3 wrote:

the Ron Paul thing is just so disappointing. Imagine he wasn't loopy-consipircacy-Alex Jones-crazy, didn't have the racist baggage, and just seemed even a little flexible about droppin bombs when really need be. i mean, he'd have won in a landslide.

I worked for the campaign so sometimes statements like this have me wanting to bang my head into the wall. However I've realized that doesn't do anything other than give myself a headache.

So he is flexible about an attack on another sovereign nation. He wants us to do the right thing and follow the Constitution and have Congress declare war. It's really such a simple process that the last X amount of Presidents have complicated. His stance is the Presidency is not a dictatorship, he would not be King. That's what the Founding Fathers died for.

notice I used the word "seemed". Didn't say he was or wasn't.

in both '08 and this year, on defense/foreign policy in the debates he came off as harshly rigid against virtually any intervention. His 9/11 attitudes came off terribly. Combo that with some of his consipiracy statements / Alex Jones linkage, and I'm sorry, that's not what people are looking for in the Commander-in-Chief department.

Everyone is down with following the Constitution and having Congress declare war. I totally agree with the Presidency is not a King thing - more people need to understand that. This is why I said his campaign has been "so frustrating". I feel like there are tons of more people out there like me who really, really wanted to get behind him, because he is spot on about so many important things. But in the debates he consistently came off as whiny and holier-than-thou on defense, boiling down complex geopolitical situations into simple "we should just leave other people alone".

the problem with Dr. Paul isn't his positions, it's his fierce, virtually radical RIGIDITY on those positions, combined with a smug attitude about them that for most people is a real turn-off. Even his positions that the majority of people like, for example examining and re-evaluating the role of the Fed, he takes those too far too. His campaign was never really about winning an election, it was about igniting a revolution. That may have made sense in a scenario where there were at least a couple of decent candidates out there. But if he cared so much about instituting real change, in this time in American politics, he should have played the game and actually tried to win.

UpSideDown

I don't think it will really have much of an impact on my daily life.

Can't think of anything major going from Bush to Obama for me directly.

inmytree

unsung wrote:

That's what the Founding Fathers died for.

really....?

unsung

inmytree wrote:

unsung wrote:

That's what the Founding Fathers died for.

really....?

Yeah, do you need a history lesson?