why is Romney better?

[Foxfyre]

One reason why Romney is better is that Paul has a zero chance of winning.

That is the heart of the answer in a nutshell.

It isn't going to be any picnic for Romney, but he was pretty well vetted in his last attempt and the same old tired mantra re "Romneycare" and 'silver spoon' and 'out of touch' etc. etc. etc. are all wearing thin and seem almost inconsequential when you put those things up against real issues. But if the economy continues to be flat or worsens in areas a lot of people care about and the misery index continues to intensify, Romney has a chance. He has a good track record of succcess in managing large projects and problem solving, appears to be pretty squeaky clean with no ugly scandals or mysteries on his sheet, and he has finally settled on a message that people can relate to.

Ron Paul has never been vetted and has never been a media target because most people see him as a sweet old man with some really quirky ideas who is not to be taken seriously. Most of us who have researched him all mostly like him, but backed off seeing him as presidential material. Many of his followers have come across as wild eyed fanatics and a looney toons fringe engaging in manipulation and spoiled brat rhetoric. Oddly Paul himself has been largely untouched by all that, but his admirers haven't done him any favors.

Still if Paul should become a threat or a contender, there is enough ammunition there that the media would easily make him look like his looney tunes fringe followers. It is not unfeasible to think that he would not win a single state. (And no, I am not saying that ALL his admirers here on USMB are looney tune fringe. I'm just saying a lot of his followers give that impression.)

And still, if it came down to Ron Paul vs Barack Obama, I would vote for Ron Paul.

 

[bugs]

One reason why Romney is better is that Paul has a zero chance of winning.

That is the heart of the answer in a nutshell.

It isn't going to be any picnic for Romney, but he was pretty well vetted in his last attempt and the same old tired mantra re "Romneycare" and 'silver spoon' and 'out of touch' etc. etc. etc. are all wearing thin and seem almost inconsequential when you put those things up against real issues. But if the economy continues to be flat or worsens in areas a lot of people care about and the misery index continues to intensify, Romney has a chance. He has a good track record of succcess in managing large projects and problem solving, appears to be pretty squeaky clean with no ugly scandals or mysteries on his sheet, and he has finally settled on a message that people can relate to.

Ron Paul has never been vetted and has never been a media target because most people see him as a sweet old man with some really quirky ideas who is not to be taken seriously. Most of us who have researched him all mostly like him, but backed off seeing him as presidential material. Many of his followers have come across as wild eyed fanatics and a looney toons fringe engaging in manipulation and spoiled brat rhetoric. Oddly Paul himself has been largely untouched by all that, but his admirers haven't done him any favors.

Still if Paul should become a threat or a contender, there is enough ammunition there that the media would easily make him look like his looney tunes fringe followers. It is not unfeasible to think that he would not win a single state. (And no, I am not saying that ALL his admirers here on USMB are looney tune fringe. I'm just saying a lot of his followers give that impression.)

And still, if it came down to Ron Paul vs Barack Obama, I would vote for Ron Paul.

^Obumba or Ron Paul.. yeah.. that really is a easy choice.

 

[bugs]

It isn't going to be any picnic for Romney

^ you got this right! the guy looks and sounds like a used car salesman..

 

[LA RAM FAN]

please give me a reason to vote for this guy.. (not that he's NOT Obumba!) why is he Better than Ron Paul????

Romney is not better than Ron Paul. Out of all the candidate it seems that only Ron Paul puts the United States first. Unless RP runs third party, I doubt we will even get a chance to vote for him.
So you are left with the choice of the lesser of two evils. That gives Romney the edge.
He may turn out to be a more fiscal conservative but he still clings to those RINO ideas of spreading peace by way of war. Remember he disagreed with removing the troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Unfortunately the lesser of two evils is still evil.

exactly.excellent post.Nothing will change if Obama is out of office and Romney gets elected because of what you just said.Romney like Obama is just a willing puppet for the establishment willing to do what they tell him.

Both are members of the CFR so that says it all right there.you cant become president if you are not a member of the CFR so Paul has no chance.Just like Obama continued everything that Bush got started when elected and lied about everything he said he would do.Flip Flop Romney will do the same if elected.Romney and Obama are two birds of a feather.Romney is little different than Obama.same agenda.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

One reason why Romney is better is that Paul has a zero chance of winning.

Every time I hear this lunacy repeated, I hear it in a Donald Trump voice.

You just got to love Totos logic.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Uh, I know what is going on inside while you look in from the outside with your fellow kooks.....

Anyone that thinks 9/11 could be an inside job and then kept a secret, has never held a security clearance.

You're a nutjob.

No your just afraid of the truth and in denial.

yep afraid of the truth as always.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

please give me a reason to vote for this guy.. (not that he's NOT Obumba!) why is he Better than Ron Paul????

Romney is not better than Ron Paul. Out of all the candidate it seems that only Ron Paul puts the United States first. Unless RP runs third party, I doubt we will even get a chance to vote for him.
So you are left with the choice of the lesser of two evils. That gives Romney the edge.
He may turn out to be a more fiscal conservative but he still clings to those RINO ideas of spreading peace by way of war. Remember he disagreed with removing the troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Unfortunately the lesser of two evils is still evil.

^ the lesser of two evils is STILL EVIL! Fucking Aye RIGHT!

These blind sheep just dont get that. They are willing to settle for the lesser evil of the two so they go out and vote for the lesser evil putting someone in evil in office in EVERY election every cycle after the cycle.Meanwhile we go on the same merry go around over and over everytime in each election and nothing ever changes.No wonder america has gone down the toilet.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Only a moron who is unhappy with Obama would vote for Romney.They are just voting for a white Obama if they do so.There isnt one reason on earth why he is better than Paul. If they vote for Romney,nothing will change.

Like Obama,he also has ties to terrorists,like Obama,he does not believe in the constitution and will also be the newest willing puppet for the establishment serving them instead of us.same with Gingrich.

Like Obama,he will also spit on the constitution.Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who believes in the constituiton and the government serving the people instead of us serving them like we do now.NOTHING will change if Romney gets in.Idiot sheeps like Pale Retard who has a sig saying anyone but Obama,just dont get that.Idiots like him who will vote for Romney is why america will continue going down the toilet it has gone down.

Idiot sheep like Pale have been brainwashed into thinking that they should vote for the lesser evil of the two and they are thinking Romney is the one they should vote for and thats why nothing ever changes because by voting for the lesser evil of the two,you are still voting for evil to remain in the office.Paul is the only candidate not evil.

Does Ron Paul believe 9/11 was an inside job?

good question..

Like I saie eariler,he said on alex jones radio show before the 2008 elections that there needs to be a new investigation into it.Jimmy Carter has said the same thing as well.So you got to ask yourself the question,if he believes the official version,why was he saying back then that there needs to be a new investigation and why has Jimmy Carter said the same thing? Gives you something to think about.

 

[Foxfyre]

One reason why Romney is better is that Paul has a zero chance of winning.

That is the heart of the answer in a nutshell.

It isn't going to be any picnic for Romney, but he was pretty well vetted in his last attempt and the same old tired mantra re "Romneycare" and 'silver spoon' and 'out of touch' etc. etc. etc. are all wearing thin and seem almost inconsequential when you put those things up against real issues. But if the economy continues to be flat or worsens in areas a lot of people care about and the misery index continues to intensify, Romney has a chance. He has a good track record of succcess in managing large projects and problem solving, appears to be pretty squeaky clean with no ugly scandals or mysteries on his sheet, and he has finally settled on a message that people can relate to.

Ron Paul has never been vetted and has never been a media target because most people see him as a sweet old man with some really quirky ideas who is not to be taken seriously. Most of us who have researched him all mostly like him, but backed off seeing him as presidential material. Many of his followers have come across as wild eyed fanatics and a looney toons fringe engaging in manipulation and spoiled brat rhetoric. Oddly Paul himself has been largely untouched by all that, but his admirers haven't done him any favors.

Still if Paul should become a threat or a contender, there is enough ammunition there that the media would easily make him look like his looney tunes fringe followers. It is not unfeasible to think that he would not win a single state. (And no, I am not saying that ALL his admirers here on USMB are looney tune fringe. I'm just saying a lot of his followers give that impression.)

And still, if it came down to Ron Paul vs Barack Obama, I would vote for Ron Paul.

^Obumba or Ron Paul.. yeah.. that really is a easy choice.

No, actually Romney vs Obama is a very easy choice. Mitt Romney is fully qualified to be President and he would do none of the more dangerous stuff that Obama has done and willl almost certainly do more of in a second term.

Ron Paul vs Obama a much less easy choice. I really would flinch pulling the lever for Paul as I do not believe he is a reasonable choice to be President. But all things considered, with all his negatives, he would still be less dangerous than Obama.

 

[Sunshine]

That is the heart of the answer in a nutshell.

It isn't going to be any picnic for Romney, but he was pretty well vetted in his last attempt and the same old tired mantra re "Romneycare" and 'silver spoon' and 'out of touch' etc. etc. etc. are all wearing thin and seem almost inconsequential when you put those things up against real issues. But if the economy continues to be flat or worsens in areas a lot of people care about and the misery index continues to intensify, Romney has a chance. He has a good track record of succcess in managing large projects and problem solving, appears to be pretty squeaky clean with no ugly scandals or mysteries on his sheet, and he has finally settled on a message that people can relate to.

Ron Paul has never been vetted and has never been a media target because most people see him as a sweet old man with some really quirky ideas who is not to be taken seriously. Most of us who have researched him all mostly like him, but backed off seeing him as presidential material. Many of his followers have come across as wild eyed fanatics and a looney toons fringe engaging in manipulation and spoiled brat rhetoric. Oddly Paul himself has been largely untouched by all that, but his admirers haven't done him any favors.

Still if Paul should become a threat or a contender, there is enough ammunition there that the media would easily make him look like his looney tunes fringe followers. It is not unfeasible to think that he would not win a single state. (And no, I am not saying that ALL his admirers here on USMB are looney tune fringe. I'm just saying a lot of his followers give that impression.)

And still, if it came down to Ron Paul vs Barack Obama, I would vote for Ron Paul.

^Obumba or Ron Paul.. yeah.. that really is a easy choice.

No, actually Romney vs Obama is a very easy choice. Mitt Romney is fully qualified to be President and he would do none of the more dangerous stuff that Obama has done and willl almost certainly do more of in a second term.

Ron Paul vs Obama a much less easy choice. I really would flinch pulling the lever for Paul as I do not believe he is a reasonable choice to be President. But all things considered, with all his negatives, he would still be less dangerous than Obama.

I agree with all that. BUT the reality is that 'green' has never even come close to winning. Only a Republican can beat Obama.

 

[dblack]

Only a Republican can beat Obama.

So, in others words, there's no point. Nothing will ever change.

Nah.. not ready to give up just yet.

 

[bugs]

Only a Republican can beat Obama.

So, in others words, there's no point. Nothing will ever change.

Nah.. not ready to give up just yet.

well, if voting does not solve anything.. why should we keep voting?

 

[dblack]

Only a Republican can beat Obama.

So, in others words, there's no point. Nothing will ever change.

Nah.. not ready to give up just yet.

well, if voting does not solve anything.. why should we keep voting?

Voting could solve quite a lot, if people would only do it. If they'd stop voting out of fear and ignorance.

 

[bugs]

So, in others words, there's no point. Nothing will ever change.

Nah.. not ready to give up just yet.

well, if voting does not solve anything.. why should we keep voting?

Voting could solve quite a lot, if people would only do it. If they'd stop voting out of fear and ignorance.

and who do you like?

 

[Avatar4321]

Only a Republican can beat Obama.

So, in others words, there's no point. Nothing will ever change.

Nah.. not ready to give up just yet.

well, if voting does not solve anything.. why should we keep voting?

Because it's your civil responsibility. And by doing nothing you ensure that evil wins by default.

 

[bugs]

So, in others words, there's no point. Nothing will ever change.

Nah.. not ready to give up just yet.

well, if voting does not solve anything.. why should we keep voting?

Because it's your civil responsibility. And by doing nothing you ensure that evil wins by default.

even if i vote for Bob Barr?

 

[bugs]

well, if voting does not solve anything.. why should we keep voting?

Because it's your civil responsibility. And by doing nothing you ensure that evil wins by default.

even if i vote for Bob Barr?

how about if i write in Dr. Paul?

 

[Katzndogz]

Romney is better because I"m not Julia.

 

[Contumacious]

So, in others words, there's no point. Nothing will ever change.

Nah.. not ready to give up just yet.

well, if voting does not solve anything.. why should we keep voting?

Because it's your civil responsibility. And by doing nothing you ensure that evil wins by default.

So it is better when evil is elected ? Have you forgotten that Adolf Hitler was elected?

.

 

[bugs]

well, if voting does not solve anything.. why should we keep voting?

Because it's your civil responsibility. And by doing nothing you ensure that evil wins by default.

So it is better when evil is elected ? Have you forgotten that Adolf Hitler was elected?

.

good point. Vote for me.. (or Else!)