Would the country be better off today if Romney had won?

[OKTexas]

Yes or no, and why.

Anyone who says they know one way or the other, with certainty, is a fool.

 

[pismoe]

yeah maybe , but my choice is to try to HURT moderates . Voting 3rd party just gives my vote to 3rd party losers ST.Micheal .

 

[regent]

During the campaign, Romney claimed his five sons were working off their military obligation by helping him get elected. I wonder now if the five boy's military obligation was fulfilled even though Romney lost, or did the boys just have to help during the campaign?

 

[RandallFlagg]

During the campaign, Romney claimed his five sons were working off their military obligation by helping him get elected. I wonder now if the five boy's military obligation was fulfilled even though Romney lost, or did the boys just have to help during the campaign?

Funny, I never heard such a thing. I am pretty sure that there is no "military obligation" since the military became voluntary in 1973. link?

 

[Skylar]

some silly measurement scales to measure a conservative and the scale says that the Rino is really conservative and I and other conservatives are supposed to take that seriously ?? I don't think so Skylar !!

As I said, ignore as you will. Evidence clearly has nothing to do with your process. So I'd be wasting both of our times by presenting you with more of it.

 

[auditor0007]

Yes or no, and why.

ISIS would be on the run. We would be winning the war in Iraq. 5000 to 10,000 American soldiers would have come home or be on their way home in body bags. 50,000 more would have come home or be on their way home with severe disabilities. Total cost would be another $6 trillion in current and future liabilities. As for the economy, it would be the same as it is now, so I guess it depends on your priorities. If you believe the defeat of ISIS right this second is worth the price in American casualties and another $6 trillion added to our debt, then I guess it would be better under Romney. If not, then it would be worse. Or you could argue that Romney would not have done anything different than Obama, and then it would be neither.

We will never know for sure, but I do agree that ISIS would be much weaker than it is today, and much less of a threat to the world. Romney would also not be trying to make a stupid deal with Iran that will result in them getting nukes and further destablizing the mid east. Your numbers of american casualties are very inflated.

As to the economy, Obama has done more damage than any previous president. A head of cabbage would have done a better job.

The only thing that really would have helped the economy more is if we had put a substantial amount of money into infrastructure spending. I'm pretty certain Romney would not have led the way on that. Obama has overseen a complete turnaround of the economy after the debacle of 2008/2009.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"Who let the dog out?"

 

[regent]

During the campaign, Romney claimed his five sons were working off their military obligation by helping him get elected. I wonder now if the five boy's military obligation was fulfilled even though Romney lost, or did the boys just have to help during the campaign?

Funny, I never heard such a thing. I am pretty sure that there is no "military obligation" since the military became voluntary in 1973. link?

Do some simple homework. Romney was asked this by the wife of an army major at some campaign stop. She didn't mention the obligation just why none of the five boys never served, including Romney himself.

 

[paulitician]

Yes, but only slightly. Romney wouldn't be promoting a divisive Anti-American Communist Organizer agenda. This current President has divided the People so much. He's incited hate and violence in our streets. But that is what Communist Organizers do, no?

But overall, Romney wouldn't be doing things much different than this current dunce is. One's a Communist/Progressive, the other's a Big Government Neocon. It would still be more Big Government abuse and War.

 

[Darkwind]

Yes or no, and why.

No.

Romney is a liberal.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Yes or no, and why.

There's not really any way of knowing considering Romney never did a good job of actually explaining what his plans were. His tax plan, for instance - he just made it up on the fly never gave exact numbers. During the campaign I could actually sit down and figure out what my change in tax liability would be under Obama's plan - but not Romney's.

 

[g5000]

WASHINGTON (CNN) - In response to the recent riots in Ferguson, President Romney today asked for binders full of negroes to be brought to him as candidates for the Supreme Court.

 

[pismoe]

the things that YOU people focus on is pretty funny G5000 !!

 

[Redfish]

Yes or no, and why.

There's not really any way of knowing considering Romney never did a good job of actually explaining what his plans were. His tax plan, for instance - he just made it up on the fly never gave exact numbers. During the campaign I could actually sit down and figure out what my change in tax liability would be under Obama's plan - but not Romney's.

So you knew exactly what obozocare would do to your tax bill? I call bullshit.

 

[Redfish]

Yes or no, and why.

ISIS would be on the run. We would be winning the war in Iraq. 5000 to 10,000 American soldiers would have come home or be on their way home in body bags. 50,000 more would have come home or be on their way home with severe disabilities. Total cost would be another $6 trillion in current and future liabilities. As for the economy, it would be the same as it is now, so I guess it depends on your priorities. If you believe the defeat of ISIS right this second is worth the price in American casualties and another $6 trillion added to our debt, then I guess it would be better under Romney. If not, then it would be worse. Or you could argue that Romney would not have done anything different than Obama, and then it would be neither.

We will never know for sure, but I do agree that ISIS would be much weaker than it is today, and much less of a threat to the world. Romney would also not be trying to make a stupid deal with Iran that will result in them getting nukes and further destablizing the mid east. Your numbers of american casualties are very inflated.

As to the economy, Obama has done more damage than any previous president. A head of cabbage would have done a better job.

The only thing that really would have helped the economy more is if we had put a substantial amount of money into infrastructure spending. I'm pretty certain Romney would not have led the way on that. Obama has overseen a complete turnaround of the economy after the debacle of 2008/2009.

tell me, where does money for infrastructure spending come from? do you have any idea?

 

[Redfish]

WASHINGTON (CNN) - In response to the recent riots in Ferguson, President Romney today asked for binders full of negroes to be brought to him as candidates for the Supreme Court.

and obama called the cops racist.

 

[regent]

Yes, but only slightly. Romney wouldn't be promoting a divisive Anti-American Communist Organizer agenda. This current President has divided the People so much. He's incited hate and violence in our streets. But that is what Communist Organizers do, no?

But overall, Romney wouldn't be doing things much different than this current dunce is. One's a Communist/Progressive, the other's a Big Government Neocon. It would still be more Big Government abuse and War.

I guess it all started with those communists rioted in the streets when Washington was president. Washington sent the militia to quell them. And what of those communists pretending they were WWI veterans and wanted their bonuses paid early because they had lost their jobs during the Great Depression? Protesters are Communists.

 

[sealybobo]

Yes or no, and why.

The middle class would not be getting the raises we are now. The unions and labor would be under attack. Corporations and the rich would pay even less taxes. We'd be at war with Iran. Need I continue? Tarp would have went much worse. You think we got hosed under Elizabeth warren? Imagine a Romney crony in charge.

 

[RandallFlagg]

During the campaign, Romney claimed his five sons were working off their military obligation by helping him get elected. I wonder now if the five boy's military obligation was fulfilled even though Romney lost, or did the boys just have to help during the campaign?

Funny, I never heard such a thing. I am pretty sure that there is no "military obligation" since the military became voluntary in 1973. link?

Do some simple homework. Romney was asked this by the wife of an army major at some campaign stop. She didn't mention the obligation just why none of the five boys never served, including Romney himself.

.....And what branch did Obama serve in?

 

[regent]

During the campaign, Romney claimed his five sons were working off their military obligation by helping him get elected. I wonder now if the five boy's military obligation was fulfilled even though Romney lost, or did the boys just have to help during the campaign?

Funny, I never heard such a thing. I am pretty sure that there is no "military obligation" since the military became voluntary in 1973. link?

Do some simple homework. Romney was asked this by the wife of an army major at some campaign stop. She didn't mention the obligation just why none of the five boys never served, including Romney himself.

.....And what branch did Obama serve in?

Obama is the Commander in Chief of all the military.