The great debate
-
bigbellydude
- Posts: 86
- Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 12:21 am
- Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Maybe one of you "old-timers" can enlighten me... Why does everyone keep saying that Romney is worse than Obama? Obama is liberal, and Romney is conservative, and has expressed conservative points of view. Just curious...
Some people are like a Slinkie. They aren't good for anything but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs.
Yoda: "Do or do not; there is no try, just do." Qui-Gon Jinn: "Your focus determines your reality."
Yoda: "Do or do not; there is no try, just do." Qui-Gon Jinn: "Your focus determines your reality."
'Worse' is subjective. Generally people that favor liberal ideals will favor the liberal candidate and conservatives the conservative candidate.bigbellydude wrote:QUOTE (bigbellydude @ Aug 11 2012, 12:11 AM) Maybe one of you "old-timers" can enlighten me... Why does everyone keep saying that Romney is worse than Obama? Obama is liberal, and Romney is conservative, and has expressed conservative points of view. Just curious...
Beyond that, Romney may be considered worse than Obama because he is currently being vetted by the media and public. He won't release his tax returns, he has recently pissed off a lot of foreign counties, and he flip flops on major issues (more than Obama did/does). To a large extent Obama already went through this vetting and passed. Unless the incumbent president makes a massive mistake (perceived or real) he usually holds an advantage over challengers.
-
Spunkmeyer
- Posts: 2013
- Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 7:00 am
- Location: Contact me regarding: CC, Slayer and AllegWiki.
It's one of those self-evident things, boils down to character. Obama is a politician, so has all the warts to go along with that. At the same time, it's not hard to believe he is basically of good character. McCain likewise is a man of solid character. Unfortunately he picked a retard to run with him.bigbellydude wrote:QUOTE (bigbellydude @ Aug 11 2012, 02:11 AM) Maybe one of you "old-timers" can enlighten me... Why does everyone keep saying that Romney is worse than Obama? Obama is liberal, and Romney is conservative, and has expressed conservative points of view. Just curious...
OTOH, W is scum. He has proven this several times over. Romney is in the same boat. He's been basically lying his ass off ever since the beginning of the campaign. For example, he has the audacity to claim it's not necessary for him to release his tax returns, when he himself has accused his opponent of wrongdoing because her HUSBAND had not released HIS tax returns. WTF much?
Want bigger games? Log on to play at the official game time: 9pmET/8pmCT/7pmMT/6pmPT every day of the week. Also Saturdays 8pm UTC.
If the choice is simplified toHellsyng wrote:QUOTE (Hellsyng @ Aug 11 2012, 06:13 AM) Let's vote Obama again because he's black...
a) half black lawyer
vs.
b) White venture capitalist
A sane non-millionaire will vote for the half-black guy, as somebody who will represent his or her interests. Word. It's not a great choice, but it's miles better than Mr Moneybags.
Last edited by Adept on Sat Aug 11, 2012 1:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
<bp|> Maybe when I grow up I can be a troll like PsycH
<bp|> or an obsessive compulsive paladin of law like Adept
-
fuzzylunkin1
Will probably choose Johnson, if anything just to break out of the two-party system.Camaro wrote:QUOTE (Camaro @ Aug 11 2012, 12:07 AM) Johnson dropped from the Republican nomination.
He is now the Libertarian Presidential candidate, along with a former Judge named Jim Grey from California as his VP candidate.
The Republican National Convention might be messy this year.
Neither Romney or Obama will represent the interests of the people, caring more for the special interests of various businesses or non-profits. Both of them are warmongers who are quite content with severe deficit spending.Adept wrote:QUOTE (Adept @ Aug 11 2012, 04:48 AM) If the choice is simplified to
a) half black lawyer
vs.
b) White venture capitalist
A sane non-millionaire will vote for the half-black guy, as somebody who will represent his or her interests. Word. It's not a great choice, but it's miles better than Mr Moneybags.
Obama isn't exactly poor you know.
Last edited by Camaro on Sat Aug 11, 2012 7:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
It'd be nice if Ron Paul got in for a term, just to shake things up a little (much like a bomb shakes things up). You've had successive presidents take away your rights and freedoms with things like the patriot act etc, and Ron Paul seems like someone who would actually sort it out (instead of saying they're going to but then decide to keep it once they get in). Unfortunately he won't win because people think he won't win so think voting for him is a waste of their vote, so therefore he won't win, which means that voting for him would be a waste of their vote so they had better not vote for him...
When Obama came in the world was relieved that bush was gone and you had actually got a president who wasn't an idiot. I had hope that Obama would start to undo the damage Bush did and get rid of the various anti-terrorist laws which are largely used to spy on innocent people (I'm talking Americans here, not just people who aren't American). Instead Obama seems more like Senator Palpatine in the star-wars prequels - a nice respectable politician for whom having people assassinated is a normal daily activity (and then tries to argue that "targeted killings" aren't "assassinations" which are illegal, IMO "targeted killing" is the very definition of "assassination"). You could do worse than Obama though, in particular Mitt Romney.
Romney, oh dear. He'll do the same for foreign feelings towards America as Bush did*, except he's a bit smarter than bush which makes him more dangerous and less funny to watch (which was Bush's redeeming feature).
*ok, maybe not quite as bad as Bush, as long as he doesn't start any more wars (not sure you could afford them anyway), but he's already done some damage internationally and he's not even president. The easiest way to stop the terrorists attacking you is to not create terrorists by bombing places uninvited to get some oil or something and killing their families in the process (this antiterrorism method is also known as minding your own business).
It's amusing people are talking about the candidate's genealogy and pointing out non-American ancestors (and making a fuss about immigration). With the exception of the American Indians you're all descended from immigrants. America was a country built on immigration, which has now decided it's a bad thing and tries very hard to stop it. Should the candidates not be judged on their policies rather than where people they are related to were born or their fashion sense?
When Obama came in the world was relieved that bush was gone and you had actually got a president who wasn't an idiot. I had hope that Obama would start to undo the damage Bush did and get rid of the various anti-terrorist laws which are largely used to spy on innocent people (I'm talking Americans here, not just people who aren't American). Instead Obama seems more like Senator Palpatine in the star-wars prequels - a nice respectable politician for whom having people assassinated is a normal daily activity (and then tries to argue that "targeted killings" aren't "assassinations" which are illegal, IMO "targeted killing" is the very definition of "assassination"). You could do worse than Obama though, in particular Mitt Romney.
Romney, oh dear. He'll do the same for foreign feelings towards America as Bush did*, except he's a bit smarter than bush which makes him more dangerous and less funny to watch (which was Bush's redeeming feature).
*ok, maybe not quite as bad as Bush, as long as he doesn't start any more wars (not sure you could afford them anyway), but he's already done some damage internationally and he's not even president. The easiest way to stop the terrorists attacking you is to not create terrorists by bombing places uninvited to get some oil or something and killing their families in the process (this antiterrorism method is also known as minding your own business).
It's amusing people are talking about the candidate's genealogy and pointing out non-American ancestors (and making a fuss about immigration). With the exception of the American Indians you're all descended from immigrants. America was a country built on immigration, which has now decided it's a bad thing and tries very hard to stop it. Should the candidates not be judged on their policies rather than where people they are related to were born or their fashion sense?
Last edited by madpeople on Sat Aug 11, 2012 7:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Why Obama is viewed favorably by the international community is well beyond me. You think Obama cares any more for the rest of the world than Bush or Romney?
Hell no, this man has gotten us involved in, what, 3 additional conflicts?
His "withdraw" from Iraq was an amazing accomplishment... I mean, its pretty damn hard to follow the Bush implemented draw-down timeline as well as Obama did.
Last I checked we are still in Afghanistan despite having eliminating Bin Laden.
We will never have a globally friendly President until we get a non-interventionist in office, and even then I am sure that most of you Euro types won't like that policy since we won't be backing you up in any sort of international affairs.
Hell no, this man has gotten us involved in, what, 3 additional conflicts?
His "withdraw" from Iraq was an amazing accomplishment... I mean, its pretty damn hard to follow the Bush implemented draw-down timeline as well as Obama did.
Last I checked we are still in Afghanistan despite having eliminating Bin Laden.
We will never have a globally friendly President until we get a non-interventionist in office, and even then I am sure that most of you Euro types won't like that policy since we won't be backing you up in any sort of international affairs.
-
fuzzylunkin1
Ignoring the world is not the way to go, either. We're all human, we should start acting like itCamaro wrote:QUOTE (Camaro @ Aug 11 2012, 02:43 PM) Why Obama is viewed favorably by the international community is well beyond me. You think Obama cares any more for the rest of the world than Bush or Romney?
Hell no, this man has gotten us involved in, what, 3 additional conflicts?
His "withdraw" from Iraq was an amazing accomplishment... I mean, its pretty damn hard to follow the Bush implemented draw-down timeline as well as Obama did.
Last I checked we are still in Afghanistan despite having eliminating Bin Laden.
We will never have a globally friendly President until we get a non-interventionist in office, and even then I am sure that most of you Euro types won't like that policy since we won't be backing you up in any sort of international affairs.
.