Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why I am Voting for Mitt Romney

Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2012 12:50:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Here are some points as to why I will be voting for Mitt Romney over Gary Johnson in 2012

1) It is virtually certain that Gary Johnson will not win even 1 percent of the vote in this November election

2) Although Romney is certainly not the best candidate, I am more afraid of a second Obama term than anything else;

3) Romney's tax returns are not important;

4) I am a Capitalist and fear that a second Obama term may bring in something unprecident that we have ever seen;

5) Under the Obama administration we have seen businessmen denigrated, demonized, punished, smothered by 60,000 new rules and regulations, threatened with massive new taxes, and attacked by the IRS. That"s why there are no jobs. That"s why, in my opinion, the economy is in freefall. That"s why America is facing economic collapse and disaster.

These are just five of the reasons I'm voting Mitt Romney.
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2012 1:02:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
So it really has nothing to do with Romney? I can respect that.

Either way, Maryland's going blue.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2012 1:11:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/26/2012 1:02:31 PM, Maikuru wrote:
So it really has nothing to do with Romney? I can respect that.

Either way, Maryland's going blue.

True. Maryland is a very blue state.
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2012 1:11:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/26/2012 12:50:52 PM, Microsuck wrote:
Here are some points as to why I will be voting for Mitt Romney over Gary Johnson in 2012

1) It is virtually certain that Gary Johnson will not win even 1 percent of the vote in this November election

Thanks to you and the millions who believe the same thing.

2) Although Romney is certainly not the best candidate, I am more afraid of a second Obama term than anything else;

They're both funded by Goldman Sachs and endorsed by the Bilderberg Group.

3) Romney's tax returns are not important;

Agreed.

4) I am a Capitalist and fear that a second Obama term may bring in something unprecident that we have ever seen;

I don't care that youre a Capitalist. Obama is more of the same except he is continuing the old path to a new extreme. Bush started a war, Obama started 3, Bush made Patriot Act, Obama made it worse.

5) Under the Obama administration we have seen businessmen denigrated, demonized, punished, smothered by 60,000 new rules and regulations, threatened with massive new taxes, and attacked by the IRS. That"s why there are no jobs. That"s why, in my opinion, the economy is in freefall. That"s why America is facing economic collapse and disaster.

These are just five of the reasons I'm voting Mitt Romney.

I wish somebody could convince me to vote Romney, but there's too many red flags. Intuitively, it does feel and seem like if the economy was in the hands of Romney, he would be able to steer it right back into a recovered and thriving economy given his successful background and strong Capitalist principles (he doesn't truly support a real free market). However, he says he wants to spend even more on an already over-funded military, he probably won't make any real cuts, and he will continue the same ol' usual Bilderberg agenda.

.
.
.
.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2012 1:29:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is exactly the attitude that will change America for the better....
Lesser of two evils is still evil
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2012 1:30:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Plus your vote for Romney doesn't matter, you're voice is insignificant no matter who you vote for.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2012 1:30:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Oddly enough, I would have supported this a few months ago, but now I'm vaguely unsettled by it.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2012 1:35:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
My two cents~
Your vote is insignificant with regard to the people whose votes actually matter: the electoral college. By voting for one of the two main parties, you implicitly support the Keynesian/Socialist, militarism, and police state sh!t that got us into this mess. By voting for Gary Johnson or no one, it is an effective protest against the political machine of the US.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2012 1:47:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Idk. Going under the stance that your single vote is the slightest bit significant (which it's not), voting for Gary Johnson might be better. The more votes the libertarian party get the more likely it is they'll become a bigger party in the future. I think I'll vote for Romney though. The economy's in to big a mess to vote according to the distant progress of libertarianism.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2012 2:03:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If your reasoning for not voting for Gary Johnson is that he won't win, then there's no reason to vote for Mitt Romney either.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2012 2:09:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/26/2012 2:03:33 PM, FREEDO wrote:
If your reasoning for not voting for Gary Johnson is that he won't win, then there's no reason to vote for Mitt Romney either.

this. Especially If your not living in a swing state. Not like your vote matters anyways.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2012 2:14:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/26/2012 1:47:35 PM, phantom wrote:
Idk. Going under the stance that your single vote is the slightest bit significant (which it's not), voting for Gary Johnson might be better. The more votes the libertarian party get the more likely it is they'll become a bigger party in the future. I think I'll vote for Romney though. The economy's in to big a mess to vote according to the distant progress of libertarianism.

Your vote doesn't matter though, so throw it away on the distant progress of libertarian ism
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2012 2:27:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
@CirKk, Microsuck, and Phantom

You don't understand anything. Voting for Mitt Romney is a wasted vote and is even more insignificant than voting Johnson. Use some critical thinking and math.

Will Romney win/lose regardless of whether you stay home and not vote? Yes. Your vote will literally do nothing but misrepresent your political position.

If Romney gets 55,000,000 million votes, your vote is worth 1/55,000,000th of value/significance.

If Gary Johnson gets 1,000,000 votes, your vote is worth 1/1,000,000th of value/significance.

Voting for Gary Johnson makes a statement and his high numbers will show that he has support. If all the Johnson supporters went voted for Mitt Romney, their vote will be thrown into a diluted pool of more dishonest votes who have the lesser of two evils line of thought.

Your vote for Romney is meaningless and changes nothing, your vote for Johnson is a meaningful statement and does make a real change.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2012 2:31:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Romney believes in the "Patriot Act" and also believes in indefinite detention of US citizens. Does that sound any bit creepy to you inside?
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
CiRrK
Posts: 670
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2012 2:40:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/26/2012 2:27:49 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
@CirKk, Microsuck, and Phantom

You don't understand anything. Voting for Mitt Romney is a wasted vote and is even more insignificant than voting Johnson. Use some critical thinking and math.

Will Romney win/lose regardless of whether you stay home and not vote? Yes. Your vote will literally do nothing but misrepresent your political position.

1. Universalization.

2. Im not a libertarian so Im not misrepresenting my position -> Im a straussian.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2012 2:42:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Romney's stance on foreign policy and civil liberties is worse than Obama's from a libertarian point of view. Just saying. Vote for Romney if you think America should engage in full scale war/regime change in Iran. In terms of international reputation, Romney would be one of the worst Presidents in American history, if the people he'd surround himself with and the things he's said on the campaign trail are any indication. 4 years of Romney as commander-in-chief and America would be more isolated and friendless than ever before. Can you imagine Romney engaging in successful diplomacy? He'd just insult other countries and expect them to comply with his belief in American exceptionalism and American leadership of the free world.

The world just can't handle another Bush style, neoconservative, American exceptionalist. While Obama is all those things in most respect, he's simply not as bad or extreme. I could see America becoming as "rogue" and unrestrained by international law in terms of foreign policy as it was during the Bush years, under a Romney administration. This is a guy who thinks American military power has always been used for good and noble purposes, to fight the bad guys and bring peace where there was tyranny. At least that's what he said. I can think of no instance where he said that the American military was engaged in a practice with which he did not think was laudatory and worth it. He has called for an American century with American leadership where it will be perceived as a failure if America's economy and military are not the absolute strongest, most dominant in the world. He would be a dangerous commander in chief. Only vote for him if you don't care what the rest of the world thinks about America.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2012 2:48:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/26/2012 2:42:09 PM, jat93 wrote:
Romney's stance on foreign policy and civil liberties is worse than Obama's from a libertarian point of view. Just saying.

Liberal Democrats are for the most part letting Obama go free with his policies regarding civil liberties. He has done much to violate them and continued the Patriot Act, while liberals have done nothing, not even complaining. If we had Romney as President, liberals would be howling at anything against Romney did against civil liberties. So, there would be a side advocating towards protecting our inherent rights.

Vote for Romney if you think America should engage in full scale war/regime change in Iran. In terms of international reputation, Romney would be one of the worst Presidents in American history, if the people he'd surround himself with and the things he's said on the campaign trail are any indication. 4 years of Romney as commander-in-chief and America would be more isolated and friendless than ever before. Can you imagine Romney engaging in successful diplomacy? He'd just insult other countries and expect them to comply with his belief in American exceptionalism and American leadership of the free world.

Not a bad perspective on Romney. Though I don't think he would put American soldiers back in Iraq, he would just put the ones in Afghanistan and keep them there, and continue the drone strikes. Probably.

The world just can't handle another Bush style, neoconservative, American exceptionalist. While Obama is all those things in most respect, he's simply not as bad or extreme. I could see America becoming as "rogue" and unrestrained by international law in terms of foreign policy as it was during the Bush years, under a Romney administration.

Ok.

This is a guy who thinks American military power has always been used for good and noble purposes, to fight the bad guys and bring peace where there was tyranny. At least that's what he said. I can think of no instance where he said that the American military was engaged in a practice with which he did not think was laudatory and worth it. He has called for an American century with American leadership where it will be perceived as a failure if America's economy and military are not the absolute strongest, most dominant in the world. He would be a dangerous commander in chief. Only vote for him if you don't care what the rest of the world thinks about America.

I think Romney will be more focused on domestic policy. Though I don't think the world would like another neocon.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
CiRrK
Posts: 670
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2012 2:53:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/26/2012 2:42:09 PM, jat93 wrote:
Romney's stance on foreign policy and civil liberties is worse than Obama's from a libertarian point of view. Just saying. Vote for Romney if you think America should engage in full scale war/regime change in Iran. In terms of international reputation, Romney would be one of the worst Presidents in American history, if the people he'd surround himself with and the things he's said on the campaign trail are any indication. 4 years of Romney as commander-in-chief and America would be more isolated and friendless than ever before. Can you imagine Romney engaging in successful diplomacy? He'd just insult other countries and expect them to comply with his belief in American exceptionalism and American leadership of the free world.

The world just can't handle another Bush style, neoconservative, American exceptionalist. While Obama is all those things in most respect, he's simply not as bad or extreme. I could see America becoming as "rogue" and unrestrained by international law in terms of foreign policy as it was during the Bush years, under a Romney administration. This is a guy who thinks American military power has always been used for good and noble purposes, to fight the bad guys and bring peace where there was tyranny. At least that's what he said. I can think of no instance where he said that the American military was engaged in a practice with which he did not think was laudatory and worth it. He has called for an American century with American leadership where it will be perceived as a failure if America's economy and military are not the absolute strongest, most dominant in the world. He would be a dangerous commander in chief. Only vote for him if you don't care what the rest of the world thinks about America.

oh how I love long forum rants. I'd love to have a debate with you in the debate section, but I'm sure you will scape goat around time constraints. Anyway I diverge:

Romney's official position on Iran is not regime change through military force nor a full scale war -> he advocates for the potential use of small scale strikes against nuclear facilities by air and sea. From what I recall are ballistic missiles in the region can target even the farthest Iranian nuclear site. In terms of regime, he advocates for support for the Green Movement but not through use military intervention.
imabench
Posts: 21,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2012 3:19:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/26/2012 2:48:28 PM, Contra wrote:
At 9/26/2012 2:42:09 PM, jat93 wrote:
Romney's stance on foreign policy and civil liberties is worse than Obama's from a libertarian point of view. Just saying.

Liberal Democrats are for the most part letting Obama go free with his policies regarding civil liberties. He has done much to violate them and continued the Patriot Act, while liberals have done nothing, not even complaining. If we had Romney as President, liberals would be howling at anything against Romney did against civil liberties. So, there would be a side advocating towards protecting our inherent rights.

^ This is true, those liberals would be dumba**es. However I wouldnt be protesting these things under Obama OR Romney so where exactly does that put me then?

Vote for Romney if you think America should engage in full scale war/regime change in Iran. In terms of international reputation, Romney would be one of the worst Presidents in American history, if the people he'd surround himself with and the things he's said on the campaign trail are any indication. 4 years of Romney as commander-in-chief and America would be more isolated and friendless than ever before. Can you imagine Romney engaging in successful diplomacy? He'd just insult other countries and expect them to comply with his belief in American exceptionalism and American leadership of the free world.

Not a bad perspective on Romney. Though I don't think he would put American soldiers back in Iraq, he would just put the ones in Afghanistan and keep them there, and continue the drone strikes. Probably.

I also dont think Romney would send troops back into Iraq either but I do protest adding more troops to Afghanistan. There isnt anything else we can accomplish in Afghanistan in the next few years that we couldnt previously accomplish in the last 10.

The world just can't handle another Bush style, neoconservative, American exceptionalist. While Obama is all those things in most respect, he's simply not as bad or extreme. I could see America becoming as "rogue" and unrestrained by international law in terms of foreign policy as it was during the Bush years, under a Romney administration.

Ok.

This is a guy who thinks American military power has always been used for good and noble purposes, to fight the bad guys and bring peace where there was tyranny. At least that's what he said. I can think of no instance where he said that the American military was engaged in a practice with which he did not think was laudatory and worth it. He has called for an American century with American leadership where it will be perceived as a failure if America's economy and military are not the absolute strongest, most dominant in the world. He would be a dangerous commander in chief. Only vote for him if you don't care what the rest of the world thinks about America.

I think Romney will be more focused on domestic policy. Though I don't think the world would like another neocon.

I agree he would be more focused on domestic policy but that doesnt excuse him from having to exercise his foreign policy at all, and there could be some parts of it that could screw us over quite a bit (War in Iran)
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2012 3:52:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/26/2012 2:53:10 PM, CiRrK wrote:
At 9/26/2012 2:42:09 PM, jat93 wrote:
Romney's stance on foreign policy and civil liberties is worse than Obama's from a libertarian point of view. Just saying. Vote for Romney if you think America should engage in full scale war/regime change in Iran. In terms of international reputation, Romney would be one of the worst Presidents in American history, if the people he'd surround himself with and the things he's said on the campaign trail are any indication. 4 years of Romney as commander-in-chief and America would be more isolated and friendless than ever before. Can you imagine Romney engaging in successful diplomacy? He'd just insult other countries and expect them to comply with his belief in American exceptionalism and American leadership of the free world.

The world just can't handle another Bush style, neoconservative, American exceptionalist. While Obama is all those things in most respect, he's simply not as bad or extreme. I could see America becoming as "rogue" and unrestrained by international law in terms of foreign policy as it was during the Bush years, under a Romney administration. This is a guy who thinks American military power has always been used for good and noble purposes, to fight the bad guys and bring peace where there was tyranny. At least that's what he said. I can think of no instance where he said that the American military was engaged in a practice with which he did not think was laudatory and worth it. He has called for an American century with American leadership where it will be perceived as a failure if America's economy and military are not the absolute strongest, most dominant in the world. He would be a dangerous commander in chief. Only vote for him if you don't care what the rest of the world thinks about America.

oh how I love long forum rants. I'd love to have a debate with you in the debate section, but I'm sure you will scape goat around time constraints. Anyway I diverge:

The reason I won't debate you is that you're a much, much better debater than I am, so you could almost certainly beat me even if the reality of the situation was not on your side. It wouldn't even be a contest, it would be rather pointless for both of us.


Romney's official position on Iran is not regime change through military force nor a full scale war -> he advocates for the potential use of small scale strikes against nuclear facilities by air and sea. From what I recall are ballistic missiles in the region can target even the farthest Iranian nuclear site. In terms of regime, he advocates for support for the Green Movement but not through use military intervention.

You think that a President Romney could pursue American strikes against Iranian facilities, support the Israelis who would presumably be joining in the fun, and support regime change diplomatically/economically without it eventually escalating into a full scale war between at least America, Iran, and Israel? I think that's naive. Eliot Cohen, a top Romney adviser, and the primary author of Romney's foreign policy white paper, said the following:

"Pressure, be it gentle or severe, will not erase that nuclear program. The choices are now what they ever were: an American or an Israeli strike, which would probably cause a substantial war, or living in a world with Iranian nuclear weapons, which may also result in war, perhaps nuclear, over a longer period of time." He advised that "US actively seek the overthrow of the Islamic Republic"through every instrument of U.S. power, soft more than hard."

John Bolton, another Romney foreign policy adviser, and a neoocon like Cohen, said "We are not prepared, have not been prepared, although we should be prepared to take down the regime in Tehran."

Romney himself has stated he would use "blockade, bombardment and surgical military strikes" against Iran if necessary.

Given these statements and how much Romney has said he would depend on (predominantly neoconservative) advisers and consultants in making foreign policy decisions, it is simply naive to believe that Romney would enthusiastically support regime change via diplomacy/weapons/money, while striking nuclear facilities via land and sea, yet it would not escalate into anything bigger and more long-term than that.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2012 4:35:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/26/2012 3:52:24 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 9/26/2012 2:53:10 PM, CiRrK wrote:
At 9/26/2012 2:42:09 PM, jat93 wrote:
Romney's stance on foreign policy and civil liberties is worse than Obama's from a libertarian point of view. Just saying. Vote for Romney if you think America should engage in full scale war/regime change in Iran. In terms of international reputation, Romney would be one of the worst Presidents in American history, if the people he'd surround himself with and the things he's said on the campaign trail are any indication. 4 years of Romney as commander-in-chief and America would be more isolated and friendless than ever before. Can you imagine Romney engaging in successful diplomacy? He'd just insult other countries and expect them to comply with his belief in American exceptionalism and American leadership of the free world.

The world just can't handle another Bush style, neoconservative, American exceptionalist. While Obama is all those things in most respect, he's simply not as bad or extreme. I could see America becoming as "rogue" and unrestrained by international law in terms of foreign policy as it was during the Bush years, under a Romney administration. This is a guy who thinks American military power has always been used for good and noble purposes, to fight the bad guys and bring peace where there was tyranny. At least that's what he said. I can think of no instance where he said that the American military was engaged in a practice with which he did not think was laudatory and worth it. He has called for an American century with American leadership where it will be perceived as a failure if America's economy and military are not the absolute strongest, most dominant in the world. He would be a dangerous commander in chief. Only vote for him if you don't care what the rest of the world thinks about America.

oh how I love long forum rants. I'd love to have a debate with you in the debate section, but I'm sure you will scape goat around time constraints. Anyway I diverge:

The reason I won't debate you is that you're a much, much better debater than I am, so you could almost certainly beat me even if the reality of the situation was not on your side. It wouldn't even be a contest, it would be rather pointless for both of us.


Romney's official position on Iran is not regime change through military force nor a full scale war -> he advocates for the potential use of small scale strikes against nuclear facilities by air and sea. From what I recall are ballistic missiles in the region can target even the farthest Iranian nuclear site. In terms of regime, he advocates for support for the Green Movement but not through use military intervention.

You think that a President Romney could pursue American strikes against Iranian facilities, support the Israelis who would presumably be joining in the fun, and support regime change diplomatically/economically without it eventually escalating into a full scale war between at least America, Iran, and Israel? I think that's naive. Eliot Cohen, a top Romney adviser, and the primary author of Romney's foreign policy white paper, said the following:

"Pressure, be it gentle or severe, will not erase that nuclear program. The choices are now what they ever were: an American or an Israeli strike, which would probably cause a substantial war, or living in a world with Iranian nuclear weapons, which may also result in war, perhaps nuclear, over a longer period of time." He advised that "US actively seek the overthrow of the Islamic Republic"through every instrument of U.S. power, soft more than hard."

John Bolton, another Romney foreign policy adviser, and a neoocon like Cohen, said "We are not prepared, have not been prepared, although we should be prepared to take down the regime in Tehran."

Romney himself has stated he would use "blockade, bombardment and surgical military strikes" against Iran if necessary.

Given these statements and how much Romney has said he would depend on (predominantly neoconservative) advisers and consultants in making foreign policy decisions, it is simply naive to believe that Romney would enthusiastically support regime change via diplomacy/weapons/money, while striking nuclear facilities via land and sea, yet it would not escalate into anything bigger and more long-term than that.

And even if it was true that Romney would limit military operations at the point you say he intends to limit them, I highly doubt it would make a difference in terms of anti-American sentiment and protests and terrorism and a very nearly isolated America on the world stage. Which was my entire point to begin with (Romney as commander in chief = dangerous, if you give a damn about international relations.) If one anti-Islamic video can set off the anti-Americanism it has set off, just imagine a joint U.S.-Israeli pre-emptive strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. Dangerous in terms of blowback from Iran and all across the Middle East, and ironically it might even convince Iran once and for all that a nuke is the only thing that will stop U.S.-Israeli bullying via sanctions and bombing. Many in the Obama administration share these concerns.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2012 4:39:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is the point at which I can't respect Libertarians. If you're going to chide against the status quo, and the authoritative evils of government,....and then you go ahead and vote for someone is in no way shape or form better than the incumbent, that just makes you a liar now doesn't it?

Republicans and Democrats are quite similar on hawkishness in foreign policy, and yet on domestic policy Democrats are more Libertarian. I find it irredeemably stupid for any person that calls himself a Libertarian to vote for Mitt Romney.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2012 4:42:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Either way, your vote in Maryland means nothing if you don't vote Democrat. That way, you can either vote Romney, who you know won't win that State, or you can vote Johnson, who also won't win that State but it is more likely to influence the paradigm of politics.

Your choice: status quo vote, or change the paradigm of politics.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2012 4:42:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/26/2012 4:39:25 PM, 000ike wrote:
This is the point at which I can't respect Libertarians. If you're going to chide against the status quo, and the authoritative evils of government,....and then you go ahead and vote for someone is in no way shape or form better than the incumbent, that just makes you a liar now doesn't it?

Republicans and Democrats are quite similar on hawkishness in foreign policy, and yet on domestic policy Democrats are more Libertarian. I find it irredeemably stupid for any person that calls himself a Libertarian to vote for Mitt Romney.

socially more libertarian*

and in any case, Republicans and Democrats quite equal on economic policy,...you could point to how much Reagan and the Bushs raised the deficit. In fact, the only place where there is a clear demarcation line between our parties is with social policy! And yet the person that calls himself a libertarian is voting for the socially authoritarian, everything else equal candidate! It's ludicrous
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2012 4:48:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/26/2012 4:39:25 PM, 000ike wrote:

Republicans and Democrats are quite similar on hawkishness in foreign policy, and yet on domestic policy Democrats are more Libertarian. I find it irredeemably stupid for any person that calls himself a Libertarian to vote for Mitt Romney.

However Republicans are generally more aligned with the Republicans in regards to business and economics. I can't speak for other Libertarians, but I find economic matters of more importance, especially since Social Conservatism is waning anyway.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2012 5:15:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/26/2012 4:48:40 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 9/26/2012 4:39:25 PM, 000ike wrote:

Republicans and Democrats are quite similar on hawkishness in foreign policy, and yet on domestic policy Democrats are more Libertarian. I find it irredeemably stupid for any person that calls himself a Libertarian to vote for Mitt Romney.

However Republicans are generally more aligned with the Republicans in regards to business and economics. I can't speak for other Libertarians, but I find economic matters of more importance, especially since Social Conservatism is waning anyway.

That's bullsh!t. Republicans and Democrats are equally as sh!tty on economics and business policy.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2012 5:23:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/26/2012 4:42:24 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/26/2012 4:39:25 PM, 000ike wrote:
This is the point at which I can't respect Libertarians. If you're going to chide against the status quo, and the authoritative evils of government,....and then you go ahead and vote for someone is in no way shape or form better than the incumbent, that just makes you a liar now doesn't it?

Republicans and Democrats are quite similar on hawkishness in foreign policy, and yet on domestic policy Democrats are more Libertarian. I find it irredeemably stupid for any person that calls himself a Libertarian to vote for Mitt Romney.

socially more libertarian*

and in any case, Republicans and Democrats quite equal on economic policy,...you could point to how much Reagan and the Bushs raised the deficit. In fact, the only place where there is a clear demarcation line between our parties is with social policy! And yet the person that calls himself a libertarian is voting for the socially authoritarian, everything else equal candidate! It's ludicrous

I think Republicans, especially neocons, tend to be just a bit more "trigger happy"/ignoring international consensus when it comes to foreign policy... But this, along with social policy, would seem to lead the libertarian to voting for Obama over Romney, not vice versa. Ludicrous indeed...
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2012 5:33:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/26/2012 4:42:05 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Either way, your vote in Maryland means nothing if you don't vote Democrat. That way, you can either vote Romney, who you know won't win that State, or you can vote Johnson, who also won't win that State but it is more likely to influence the paradigm of politics.

Your choice: status quo vote, or change the paradigm of politics.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.