No matter who wins in November.....

[TakeAStepBack]

Noone's vote has an impact on this election. It's already been decided. Obama will be re-elected. So there goes my chance to spend four years poking fun at Mitt Romney. In fact, there wont even be a reason to show how awful Obama policies are. The only reason I see concern on that is if he pulls an FDR and goes for a term three. And this arrogant man will likely do just that.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

And his supporters will follow him to the bitter end. He's liek the second coming of jesus.

 

[toomuchtime_]

....what do you really think will change? Obama, Romney.....does it really matter?

What changes do you actually expect to see after the election. Not what you hope to see but what is your expectation in that if it doesn't happen, you'd be surprised and disappointed.

Does any of this shit really matter? Democrat, Republican. It's all one muddled mess of shit at this point that goes nowhere. It's actually embarrassing how inefficient our government is.

If Obama is elected we have reason to expect continuing gridlock, soaring deficits and high unemployment. If Romney is elected we have reason to expect easing of partisan gridlock, lowering deficits and lower unemployment rates. Here's why.

When Romney became governor of Massachusetts, he faced exactly the same situation Obama now whines about, soaring deficits, high unemployment and a hostile legislature dominated by the other party.

While Obama continues to whine that the Republicans are preventing him from doing anything about the deficits or unemployment, when Romney was governor of Massachusetts, he persuaded a hostile Democratic legislature to pass austerity packages they had just campaigned against to successfully bring down deficits; while Obama continues to whine that banks and corporations won't invest in our economy, Governor Romney persuaded private investors to invest in Massachusetts' depressed economy and that private investment brought down unemployment and set Massachusetts on the road to recovery.

 

[RDD_1210]

I'll vote again when we abolish the two party system and/or remove all private financing from campaigns. Until then, corporate interests will continue to own both parties.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

It's government and corporations. Working together to secure THEIR interests. There is really one party. the federal government party. they just divide up, choose a mascot and parade around for the plebs as if their are two. Yet nothign ever changes. Nothing.

Nothing has changed in almost 100 years except more government and bigger corporate influence upon legislation.

 

[The Rabbi]

I'll vote again when we abolish the two party system and/or remove all private financing from campaigns. Until then, corporate interests will continue to own both parties.

Good. Some people are too stupid to vote anyway.

As to the question:
There is a world of difference between them, despite what the narco-libs want to whine about. Romney campaigned on repealing Obamacare. It will happen. Or at least it will be emasculated by budget cuts and waivers.
Romney's tax changes will make for a tax system which is better balanced and more competitive. We now have a higher corporate tax rate than Sweden. He will not churn out thousands of new pages in regulations. He will rein in the EPA from all the destruction they are causing. Businesses will not feel like they are in the cross hairs anymore and will start expanding and hiring. UE will go down within 18 months of Romney being inaugurated. Possibly sooner. No more targeted tax breaks, unless he has to compromise with the Dums in Congress to get other things through.
You will see economic growth and a big sigh of relief.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I think the only major difference could be how quick we go to war with Iran, but I could be wrong on that.

Who the hell knows?

If Obama was going to war with Iran, he would have kept at least one military base in Iraq, but he didn't.

He tried. He was rejected by the Iraqi govt.

I don't believe for a minute that he tried.

 

[Seawytch]

If Obama was going to war with Iran, he would have kept at least one military base in Iraq, but he didn't.

He tried. He was rejected by the Iraqi govt.

I don't believe for a minute that he tried.

But you have zero proof of that, do you?

http://m.guardiannews.com/world/2011/oct/21/iraq-rejects-us-plea-bases?cat=world&type=article

 

[nodoginnafight]

....what do you really think will change? Obama, Romney.....does it really matter?

What changes do you actually expect to see after the election. Not what you hope to see but what is your expectation in that if it doesn't happen, you'd be surprised and disappointed.

Does any of this shit really matter? Democrat, Republican. It's all one muddled mess of shit at this point that goes nowhere. It's actually embarrassing how inefficient our government is.

If Obama wins, maybe Republicans will get the message that they can't just trot out anyone and expect to win. Even when the deck was stacked in their favor.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's government and corporations. Working together to secure THEIR interests. There is really one party. the federal government party. they just divide up, choose a mascot and parade around for the plebs as if their are two. Yet nothign ever changes. Nothing.

Nothing has changed in almost 100 years except more government and bigger corporate influence upon legislation.

Must suck to be you, out of step with the rest of the country, politically castrated, economically neutered. No wonder you're a wookie suiter.

 

[The Rabbi]

He tried. He was rejected by the Iraqi govt.

I don't believe for a minute that he tried.

But you have zero proof of that, do you?

m.guardian.co.uk

That's not really trying. The Bush Framework, which Obama followed, called for leaving troops there. Had Obama actually tried or exhibited some negotiating skill he could have achieved that.

 

[chikenwing]

He tried. He was rejected by the Iraqi govt.

I don't believe for a minute that he tried.

But you have zero proof of that, do you?

m.guardian.co.uk

Do we have one there?

 

[toomuchtime_]

I don't believe for a minute that he tried.

But you have zero proof of that, do you?

m.guardian.co.uk

That's not really trying. The Bush Framework, which Obama followed, called for leaving troops there. Had Obama actually tried or exhibited some negotiating skill he could have achieved that.

Exactly so. Obama's utter incompetence in managing our foreign policy has destroyed the peace process in the ME, alienated an essential ally, Pakistan, in our fight in Afghanistan and raising tensions with Russia to near Cold War levels.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

But you have zero proof of that, do you?

m.guardian.co.uk

That's not really trying. The Bush Framework, which Obama followed, called for leaving troops there. Had Obama actually tried or exhibited some negotiating skill he could have achieved that.

Exactly so. Obama's utter incompetence in managing our foreign policy has destroyed the peace process in the ME, alienated an essential ally, Pakistan, in our fight in Afghanistan and raising tensions with Russia to near Cold War levels.

What peace process?

 

[toomuchtime_]

That's not really trying. The Bush Framework, which Obama followed, called for leaving troops there. Had Obama actually tried or exhibited some negotiating skill he could have achieved that.

Exactly so. Obama's utter incompetence in managing our foreign policy has destroyed the peace process in the ME, alienated an essential ally, Pakistan, in our fight in Afghanistan and raising tensions with Russia to near Cold War levels.

What peace process?

Final status talks between the PA and Israel.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Exactly so. Obama's utter incompetence in managing our foreign policy has destroyed the peace process in the ME, alienated an essential ally, Pakistan, in our fight in Afghanistan and raising tensions with Russia to near Cold War levels.

What peace process?

Final status talks between the PA and Israel.

Yeah, that was going somewhere.

 

[Dissent]

I will help you finish your title...


No matter who wins in November the people lose.

No nothing really would change except maybe Willard sucking on Netanyahu's cock a little more than Obama has done and I expect to be at war in Syria and Iran within 6 months if Willard is elected...but see 1. Willard is losing in the swing states. 2.Gary Johnson is polling well enough in these states to swing them to Obama because Willard isn't a real republican he is a progressive like Obama. 3. Virgil Goode is on the ballot in Virginia will pretty much make sure Willard loses there...so I am just waiting for the election to prove me correct. Willard will not be the next president of the US.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If Obama wins he will have to learn many things,he will not have ether the house or the senate on his side. If he really learns the art of compromise things could go well,if not look for 4 more years just like the last 4.Slow economy lots of anger and a nation even more divided.

Dream on!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peECAPrA_2g]Barack Obama "Bypass Congress" Dictator? YOU DECIDE (Original) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[PoliticalChic]

He tried. He was rejected by the Iraqi govt.

I don't believe for a minute that he tried.

But you have zero proof of that, do you?

m.guardian.co.uk

Sure do....two forms that you won't understand: insight and experience.


But...on the slim chance that learning is not beyond you....I am the eternal
optimist!....here:


Obama has constructed a plan based on removing American influence in the Middle East.
The success of said plan is largely based on a really, really dumb constituency.
Raise your paw.


1.Obama supported the arrest of Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak- a long-time friend of the United States. Now, we will probably see Shariah law being imposed in once-secular Egypt by the violent Muslim Brotherhood.

2. Obama has taken credit for the killing of Ghadafi, who, evil as he was, seemed not to be an enemy of America, and made accommodations with Bush.

a. President Obama confirmed the death of Libya's Moammar Gadhafi in a brief Rose Garden speech, welcoming the lifting of "the dark shadow of tyranny" in Libya and the definitive end of the Gadhafi dictatorship. "Without a single U.S. service member on the ground, we achieved our objective," …
Is Obama hogging credit for Gadhafi's death? - Yahoo! News


3. “When the mullahcracy that seeks the nukes rigged their presidential election even more clumsily than usual in order to return Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to office, Iranians poured out into the streets in protest for months. Curiously, Barack Obama made no public overtures for weeks to the opposition, and the White House at one point even confirmed the results of the rigged election.
“Did Obama ignore plea for help from Iranian opposition in 2009? « Hot Air

4. The US under Obama seems strangely impotent with respect to Bashar al-Assad in Syria, a puppet of Iran.

5. Obama willfully delayed negotiations wieth Iraq on keeping troops inthat country as a counterbalance to Iran. As a result of his intentional dithering, all American troops are to be withdrawn from Iraq.

6.As a pro-American Western bastion, the neutering of Israel fits the plan.



For a person of normal intelligence, the above would be a fairly powerful argument re:Obama's intentions....

....but somehow, Liberals never seem able to connect the dots.


Go ahead....prove me correct.

 

[Seawytch]

Yup, no proof as expected.