The Illusion of Choice: Romney vs Obama

[JoeRider]

See, this is antithetical to me.

Hundredth monkey effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As long as we stick by your advocated construct, the 100th monkey will never get it, and we'll never have a chance at taking our country back. But once the 100th monkey figures it out, we're all good. I think we might be around the 59th monkey, but it's not a linear scale.

I have friends that think the same way I do, but their strategy is to stay part of the GOP and move it slowly, bit by bit toward their particular flavor. I simply can't abide that; I don't think there's a snowball's chance.

Gee, this is getting good, the internet and Wikipedia tell me how to live and vote. As for a snowballs's chance, all politics is local. Get involved and you will change the system.

 

[JoeRider]

I've never called Romney a socialist. What I said is that he is a collectivist also known as a statist. Wherever you place Romney on the sacle of left to right, it doesn't matter. Socialism, fascism, communism are just different forms of collectivism. Yes, those ideologies have differences, but all share the same fundamental idea of big government.

I understand that you are not specifically making the case for Romney. But again, the power doesn't need to be shifted to the right, it needs to be shifted away from government and to the people. Voting the "other guy" out of office will do nothing to promote any real change. We must educate the voters and lead by example by voting based on the Constitution of the USA. These politicians, both Republican and Democrat, take an oath to support and defend the Constitution, but instead disgrace it. That is treason in my mind. The line in the sand must be drawn. They must be held accountable.

Futhermore, if you supported Ron Paul, you should be disgusted with how he was treated by the GOP. They demonized him, stole some of his elected delegates and gave them to Romney, and then changed the nomination rules on the spot at the convention with a clear dissention among the people in attendance. How can you support them after that? The GOP is corrupt and shifting power their way will do nothing but perpetuate a corrupt system.

Chicken little, the sky is falling. the POTUS is committing treason! Gosh, it is almost as bad as the devil with the blue dress with Clinton. It is the end of the world as we know it. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.........

Sorry, Ron Paul has some wacky ideals just like the rest of them. The game of life is about power plays (in your eyes corrupt). Educating the voting pool, well there was a reason for the electoral college, eh.

As for the GOP, here in Maryland, it is the Demorats that control. Their damage done is not at the government level (except against me via taxes and such) but what their business ventures have been behind the scene, which has impacted me (property development, gambling,etc...) That is very little to do with politics and more to do with their associations and personal interests - kinda like the founding fathers and why they were motivated to release England.

 

[JoeRider]

Make a case FOR Romney. What will he get done on the major issues?

Housing crisis/Wall Street too big to fail model/GSE's

Energy prices

The wars

Immigration reform

Health care

If he wins, what should we reasonably expect two years from now?

It depends on the makeup of Congress. It also depends on how many votes he has. More votes, even from the states he losses, gives him more influence from a policy prospective (one reason Bush II has problems). A mandate from the voting population means change.

As for these topics here is what I think:

Housing crisis/Wall Street too big to fail model/GSE's

It will work its way out either way. Obama will just prolong it.

Energy prices

Won't matter if the economy improves. Best chance of that happening is a change in office. Obama policy's are not working. Allow him back in will only extend if not worsen things. In worst case, Romney will only extend.

The wars

The Afghan surge was a waste. I think if Romney is serious on budget, he has little choice but to scale back. Obama's policies have gotten us farther in to international conflict not less. We are threaten more my China, Russia and the middle east because of Obama's Détente type approaches. Conclusion, Romney will appear stronger to the international communities, thus will be a stabilizing force in the world if the Obama damage has not already went too far.

Immigration reform

I have no hope for this one. Last President that got it right was Truman.

Health care

Better chance of getting the law changed to something more reasonable. I don't think anyone can undo it completely (SC missed that chance). I think there is a better chance to get the SC more conservative, but then look at Souter and Kennedy.

 

[JoeRider]

how is it a liberal failure to refuse to vote for either of the LIBERALS in the race?

Again, you make good justification for you to vote for Romney since his positions will allow for comprise.

 

[JoeRider]

This has to be put to rest. While an 'outsider' will, clearly, have a difficult time with unfriendly D's and R's in congress, that is not to say an 'impossible' time. Anyone who wins the presidency, Gary Johnson, Ralph Nader, Ross Perot, will have ENORMOUS public support and to suggest that it won't phase the major parties is absurd. They will be confronted with the reality that enough people have had it with them, D or R, that their local existence will them be at risk unless they change and, to change, they will have NO choice but to play ball with the new president at least on some issues even if it is to only co-opt the issue which, in effect, will be the change we all seek. If not in name then in practice. Thereby, in the next election, if Gary Johnson succeeded in, say, reforming the Fed and it made things better, it will be with the help of both parties to some extent or one party to a large extent who will then stand to benefit.

Point is, they, the D's and R's, having lost the Big One, could not afford to stand pat. One or the other is going to try and cozy up. All a Johnson need do is stick to his platform. The other parties will come to him or go out of existence.

I think the biggest impact would be more money spent on the Congressional races. The change has to come from either local or within the parties themselves. Look at Lincoln - the republicans were made of of several different parties including Free Soiler (Anti Slavery,) and the Whigs.

If any group has a chance, it is the Tea Party. I think they are more federalist based and probably has appeal to conservative principle that appeal to many libertarians.

In reality, both the Democrat and Republican parties come from the Democrate-Republican party of Jefferson. Some Federalist carried over in to the Whigs which worked it way into the Lincoln Republicans. The time has probably not been better in the last 200 years for a stronger 3 party, but it has to happen at a Congressional level first.

 

[SamSpade]

See, that whole post is spot on except the end. For one thing, Lincoln went to great lengths in all his speeches to make clear he was not running for office to, in any way, harm slavery where it was legal.

The man was a life-long abolitionist. Lincoln was to slavery what Nixon was to Communism. You just couldn't find someone more determinedly opposed. He was a part of the Free Soil movement, which believed, in a nutshell, if you could contain slavery, it would die on its own. This is in contrast to the abolitionists, who wanted it outlawed, period. He believed that slavery was degrading, repulsive but also ultimately self-defeating. Wherever it went, people *eventually* grew to completely hate it, free or slave.

I'm guessing you're referring, obliquely, to the Horace Greeley letter. Lincoln recognized that as President, it was never his job or privilege to stand up and declare it illegal. This is why to me, a candidate's position on abortion is almost irrelevant, because they are in the same position - they're powerless to do anything about it.

I'm of a similar opinion about a lot of things as Lincoln was - until the people as a whole decide, we're disgusted by bigotry and racism - you're not going to have a lot of success just outlawing it. It has to arise from the people.

-
-
-
-

In any event, I wasn't trying to talk about Lincoln so much as, as Hugo once put it, "an idea whose time has come". When the people themselves decide, this is how we want it to be, then you can enact the people's will.
When the people decide, we're going to live within our means and stop grabbing money from Uncle Sam, then it will happen.

As much as the Democrats decry Republicans for moralizing and railroading issues on moral grounds above the people's wishes, it's projection; they do it MUCH worse. They're just so used to declaring themselves right on issues, they don't realize they're doing it. Remember that scene, in "An American President" where Michael Douglas announces a gun control program, saying "but I'm gonna convince Americans that I'm right, and I'm gonna get the guns". I've heard way too many times from their side that when you're right, it doesn't matter if the people largely disagree.

 

[JoeRider]

Well, there is a constitution on it.

Yes there is and I am not sure where it said we want a smaller government. The concept behind Federalism is to create a big enough government to protect our interests (such as getting England off our backs). What that interest is and how we protect that is the question of the day.



We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

[thatguy]

Wirelessly posted

how is it a liberal failure to refuse to vote for either of the LIBERALS in the race?

Again, you make good justification for you to vote for Romney since his positions will allow for comprise.

No, I make a good justification to not for for romeny or Obama. I don't want either of the big government liberals in office.


Your argument for Romney is pitiful; he might not be as bad as Obama, and worst case scenario he will only be just as bad.

 

[JoeRider]

I've heard way too many times from their side that when you're right, it doesn't matter if the people largely disagree.

There is a fine line between being a leader and a loser. Reagan with "Take Down That Wall" and Obama - "Take a back Seat".

I am still on the fence with Nixon. His China relationship is questionable, but then maybe he understood comprise a little better in his old age.

 

[SamSpade]

There is a fine line between being a leader and a loser. Reagan with "Take Down That Wall" and Obama - "Take a back Seat".

I remember rolling my eyes with the Tear Down This Wall comment. I guess I thought, Ron, Gorbachev will take down that wall when he damned well feels like it. It just sounded like a lot of bluster that wasn't going to do anything.

 

[FoundingFather]

so you are for no government ?

I am for minimal constitutional government.

 

[FoundingFather]

Spoken like a true liberal. Give me a break.

Liberal? Give ME a break. You are clueless about my perspective. A modern day liberal is not someone who wants limited consitutional government.

 

[FoundingFather]

So tell me again, where did the founding fathers want anti-government (oops - small government) - is there a Federalist paper on it?

Yes, individual freedoms are been lost to PC liberal agenda using the government as a tool to get them taken away. Reality has it that we have one of the best systems in the world and we need to continue to tweek it.

As for fall victim to left versus right, doubt it. I think it is more a matter of how you think we should change things.

No, but there is this piece of paper called the Constitution, which sets limits on the scope of government.

 

[FoundingFather]

Why don't I believe your intention?

I really don't know why, but it is sincere.

 

[FoundingFather]

Gads, it gets worst. What idealistic BS. Tyranny enslaves American people.
Definitely a liberal OWS or a warped Progressive.

Occupy Wall Street? Really? Come on, you have not been paying attention.

Occupy Wall Street thinks that the corporations are the problem. They actually want more government to regulate. OWS thinks more government is the answer. I am saying govermnent is the problem!

 

[FoundingFather]

Give me a break, Ryan is not in a position of power, so why does it matter. He has more influence now than he will as VP, so you should take that as a bonus.

In the context of the discussion at the time I posted this, it was an important point to make because a reason people are voting for Romney is because they think Ryan as the VP pick will solve the budget problems. It won't.

 

[PsyOps]

Liberal? Give ME a break. You are clueless about my perspective. A modern day liberal is not someone who wants limited consitutional government.

So you're a conservative?

 

[FoundingFather]

I don’t think he’s a fraud. I think he has ideals like anyone else and aims to sell them to the rest of us. What I take exception to is his persistent bashing that his thinking on what these different philosophies is superior to the rest of us. What’s also pretty insulting is believing his choice in candidate is superior ro ours. Well if Johnson or Paul are so superior they should be the nominee. He said he’s for smaller government but isn’t a right winger. Well, that is a core tenet of the right. But if he’s not right or left, what is he?

I think everyone believes their choice of canidate is superior, isn't that the point of voting?

Again, in the modern right wing, small government is not a core tenant. How do I know? Just look at what has happened over the last decade. The government has consistently grown, regardless of who is in power, has it not? How can it be a core tenant then?

I think that Republicans pander to your desire for small government during election season, but they never actually deliver on it, and for some reason you continue to believe them.

 

[PsyOps]

In the context of the discussion at the time I posted this, it was an important point to make because a reason people are voting for Romney is because they think Ryan as the VP pick will solve the budget problems. It won't.

So, what specifically is in the Ryan budget that makes you believe this?

What would YOU do to solve the budget problems?

 

[FoundingFather]

So you're a conservative?

I don't like to use that word because its true meaning has become lost. I am not a modern day conservative, also known as a neo-conservative. The neo-conservatives are not for limited constitutional government. In the traditional meaning of the word, yes I am conservative.