Why Romney?

[givemeliberty2010]

Why do some in the liberty movement say that Mitt Romney would be an improvement on President Obama or that Romney is somehow the better choice? Although my particular political views may differ from those of others here (we're not all libertarians), there are many things most of us agree on. Yes, Romney is better on particular policies here and there. However, so is Obama.

When all is taken into account, how can we quantify policy differences to compare Romney's generally (marginally) worse foreign policy to Obama's (marginally) worse fiscal, tax and monetary policies?

[ShaneEnochs]

I think Obama's fiscal policy is a disaster. Romney's is probably quite a bit better. However, you're right, Obama's foreign policy is marginally better than Romney's.

Edit for clarification - Romney sucks balls.

[cindy25]

its the old fascism vs socialism battle; just watch a doc on History, on how middle class Germans in 1932 chose Hitler to avoid
communism.

the reasons why I prefer Obama to Romney are:
1) if Obama wins 2016 is open
2) Obama can do little damage with a Republican congress; I might think differently if Pelosi was speaker. but the House and probably the senate will be Republican.

[heavenlyboy34]

its the old fascism vs socialism battle; just watch a doc on History, on how middle class Germans in 1932 chose Hitler to avoid
communism.

the reasons why I prefer Obama to Romney are:
1) if Obama wins 2016 is open
2) Obama can do little damage with a Republican congress; I might think differently if Pelosi was speaker. but the House and probably the senate will be Republican.
Problem is, the Obama regime has adopted plenty of fascist policies. Two wings of the same bird, as always. ;)

[Xhin]

Romney's foreign policy will lead to economic meltdown.
Obama's fiscal policy will lead to economic meltdown.

Tough choice.

[ProIndividual]

Why do some in the liberty movement say that Mitt Romney would be an improvement on President Obama or that Romney is somehow the better choice?

Because they don't know what they're talking about. Both are Keynesians in economics, clearly. We already KNOW the FED caused the collapse, and the people who don't know that think one Keynesian Party's rhetoric matters more than stopping the cause of the problem; the FED. Neither will start to end the FED. Educate yourselves people...Austrian business cycle theory!

Also, a vote for a Republican Presidency that isn't Ron Paul is a vote for 8-12 years of no liberty candidates for that office instead of just 4 years. If Obama wins, we get another shot in 2016. If Romney wins, we have to set back the liberty movement for the Presidency until 2020 or 2024.

No one who knows what they're talking about would advocate voting for Romney, with or without Rand. Only the weak-minded would allow Rand being VP change that. Unfortunately, it seems many of the people in this movement are easily bought which such cheap trinkets. I just hope they don't get Rand on the Romney ticket or this movement may just go into full hypocrite mode.

[Victor Grey]

*I would rather have Obama, and I hate him with a passion. In truth I hate him much more than Romney.


If Obama is president, and the nation has a republican house or senate, nothing will get done. They'll stay in gridlock for political appearances, the GOP political regulars will put their little trash fascade of being fiscally sane, and things will go on the same as they have.

If Iran is invaded, maybe more democrat robotic idiots, will stop supporting the democrats and living in zombiepig land, thinking they are part in a party for peace.
I've sort of resolved by now that the invasion of Iran is an inevitability, really.

I WANT it to be on Obama's shoulders, and not a GOP establishment figure. That would only strengthen the animalistic foolishness that democrats are for peace in any way.
After seeing Obama invade, maybe more Republicans will switch on that peculiar monkeybrain function they got, and automatically switch into "everything democrats do always is bad" mode, only this time toward more war.

Hopefully some few number of them who fanatically love it so much, would switch over to the dems due to them supporting it.

Again, I'm resigned that it's going to happen, the invasion of Iran. So I'm not beating myself up over it. To me it's now just a question of how many trillion gets wasted before we leave in my mind. How many people get bombed, and how many limbs get left over there.

America needs a good jar to reality. Iran might be our Vietnam that wakes people up. Led again, by democrats.
I can only hope that this time it doesn't take as long, and we won't wind up with Nixon out of it.

In the meantime, we can work on increasing political seats/influence in 2014. Then 2016 will arrive.

Obama sets a much better stage for us politically, in terms of growth.

~~~


If Romney becomes president, I believe t's open season. It's Bush III. It's Obama II. Same difference.

Then it's either Romney again for a Obama III style term, or some yet to be seen democrat joke for another bout of fiscal insanity.
Democrats don't even take the courtesy to try and BS us about fiscal sanity. So I know that would be a class-warfare platform.

If Romney had a Democrat house or senate, he's already proven what he does. He does what is politically helpful to him. He doesn't care about the results. Romney always leads to more government.

Romney under a democrat house and senate would be the most liberal republican in american history. What are the usual GOP chump voters gonna do? Nothing. They'll vote for him in 2016 again, simply because he isn't a democrat. He could sell their grandmother up the river. They'll vote him. He'd secure his reelection by appeasing to voters on the left, as has been his way.

The dems, would push all they could in 2016, to elect somebody so liberal against him he'd might at well be the lovechild of Stalin and John Lennon's FDR buttbaby. Because no matter what, they still win anyway. A liberal wins on either side.

If he has a Republican house or senate, he gets to roll around like a piggy pig in spending just like Bush did. All the mentally retarded Bush-style "conservatives" wallow roll around in the mud puddle from having their "Republican" as president, and squeal with delight every time he passes some massive social spending bill.

By that I mean they won't do anything but be complacent little porkers, who prove repeated they never learn or else don't care.
Just like they have with both Bushes.

I despise them.

And I can tell you exactly why they will go along with anything Romney does...

Because Romney will invade Iran. As we know, by experience when a Republican president invades any mighty third world country, those hardcore straight-ticket ABD's republicans, those faithful GOP core voters, all roll over like an inhuman unrespectable animal. True ideological lightweights.

They will ignore ANY domestic spending from Romney no matter how large, so long as Leader is protecting them from whatever scary electricity-challenged 'threat' abroad is in question. Bush proves it. Both of them. He proves they're nothing but liars to every principle they claim, so long as there's a war somewhere to wave a flag toward. That's all it takes for the GOP base. They're too **** busy letting those little hearts flutter with romantic love listening to those old Toby Keith songs, cussing france and putting a yellow ribbon on their cars and such in genuine fellow-patriot's concern for our military volunteers, and for our national safety support of war and of childlike global feelgood glory hounding, to do anything else. I wouldn't doubt if he pushed a watered-down "Obamacare" style move, that the GOP doofuses, wouldn't roll over so long as the war in Iran is going on.

They will bow their face to the party, just like they've done before, and smear it in dirt if there's a war on. Democrats naturally won't pose a challenge to more delicious domestic spending in the meantime. Paul Krugman will rub his own breasts if a wartime Republican was elected. The dems then, would continue the old bull cycle of saying they're for peace, while the others aren't. It's a winning talking point that doesn't require much to back it.

Obama flying drones raids over half of asia currently, will be just a happily forgotten memory by then.

~~~

With Romney as a President we're boned domestically with at least 4 trillion as bottom barrel added to the debt, we're boned abroad, and we are for many years to come. The environment for growth politically, isn't as good under a GOP president Romney.

With Obama we're the same, but for less time, and in an environment that is more helpful to us.

Both of them will push horrible executive orders, both of them have little concern for liberty. Both of them are in support of market interventions on other people's dime.

*So I would prefer, for the sake of the movement and quite particularly that being specifically in mind, Obama over Romney.

[paulbot24]

It depends on whether you see a financial collapse as soon as many on here and zerohedge are forecasting on the horizon. If that collapse is coming in a couple years max, I fear for this country with Obama at the helm. Deer in headlights comes to mind. I know Romney seems spineless and oddly incapable of making a crisis decision but he's proven he at least knows how to stockpile money as opposed to handing it around to whining faces groveling for spare change. Maybe I spend a little too much time at zerohedge, but they are rarely wrong and their outlook is dark, financially speaking. The trick is knowing when the collapse will occur. If Obama can kick the can down the road for four more years and we make it out without a dollar collapse I like our chances in four years. If the collapse comes soon, I think it will take drastic action from the President, which I actually trust Romney to handle more effectively over Obama. Obama is wildly incompetent when the chips are down, especially fiscally, which is obvious.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

It depends on whether you see a financial collapse as soon as many on here and zerohedge are forecasting on the horizon. If that collapse is coming in a couple years max, I fear for this country with Obama at the helm. Deer in headlights comes to mind. I know Romney seems spineless and oddly incapable of making a crisis decision but he's proven he at least knows how to stockpile money as opposed to handing it around to whining faces groveling for spare change. Maybe I spend a little too much time at zerohedge, but they are rarely wrong and their outlook is dark, financially speaking. The trick is knowing when the collapse will occur. If Obama can kick the can down the road for four more years and we make it out without a dollar collapse I like our chances in four years. If the collapse comes soon, I think it will take drastic action from the President, which I actually trust Romney to handle more effectively over Obama. Obama is wildly incompetent when the chips are down, especially fiscally, which is obvious.

For everyone else: Take away from this your classic hegelian dialectic at play. There's no reason or logic to this post, and it presumes a situation confined to only an either or choice. I can confidently say that I completely trust Romney to be the oligarch's oligarch, and like the other bought and paid for oligarch Obama, the plutocrats win with either 'choice'. Expand your horizons. It still amazes me the numbers of people who cannot seem to ever understand that they're stuck in a dialectic whose purpose is to continue the plunder, the looting, and the enslaving for the plutocrats -- in our supposed own movement no less. It seems to me we have a lot more education that needs to be done.

[paulbot24]

For everyone else: Take away from this your classic hegelian dialectic at play. There's no reason or logic to this post, and it presumes a situation confined to only an either or choice. I can confidently say that I completely trust Romney to be the oligarch's oligarch, and like the other bought and paid for oligarch Obama, the plutocrats win with either 'choice'. Expand your horizons. It still amazes me the numbers of people who cannot seem to ever understand that they're stuck in a dialectic whose purpose is to continue the plunder, the looting, and the enslaving for the plutocrats -- in our supposed own movement no less. It seems to me we have a lot more education that needs to be done.

Your assumption that I am unaware of this illusion of choice is as false as the illusion. They are both wings on the same bought and sold "Approved by Sachs of Shit" bird plummeting to the ground. The way I read the OP was how to quantify them from the two-party paradigm point of view, in speaking to the two-party mindset public. Perhaps I misread the original intent of the OP. I know how much they enjoy their rounds of golf together on Sundays. They play their parts well in making most feel they not only have a choice but they are also represented in Congress. The OP is comparing the two and only the two if I read correctly.

[Fort Lauderdale]

Vice President Rand Paul or Ron Paul will make Mitt Romney end the fed, close all U.S. military bases around the world, bring all the troops home, close the Departments of Energy, Commerce, Interior, Education, and Housing and Urban Development, which would cut $2 trillion in spending. Paul to Romney: You do what I tell you to do! ...And when all U.S. military bases around the world have been permanently closed, and all the U.S. troops have been brought back home, there will be a parade on the streets New York City for the troops. Leading up to the parade, all networks will show a video montage of U.S. troops in action and then troops boarding planes and ships heading home to the U.S., with Mama, I'm Coming Home by Ozzy Osbourne playing in the background. The U.S. troops will then be sent to patrol our air and sea ports and our borders with Canada and Mexico. That is how terrorism will be defeated!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvNXF7aGP2s

[givemeliberty2010]

It depends on whether you see a financial collapse as soon as many on here and zerohedge are forecasting on the horizon. If that collapse is coming in a couple years max, I fear for this country with Obama at the helm. Deer in headlights comes to mind. I know Romney seems spineless and oddly incapable of making a crisis decision but he's proven he at least knows how to stockpile money as opposed to handing it around to whining faces groveling for spare change. Maybe I spend a little too much time at zerohedge, but they are rarely wrong and their outlook is dark, financially speaking. The trick is knowing when the collapse will occur. If Obama can kick the can down the road for four more years and we make it out without a dollar collapse I like our chances in four years. If the collapse comes soon, I think it will take drastic action from the President, which I actually trust Romney to handle more effectively over Obama. Obama is wildly incompetent when the chips are down, especially fiscally, which is obvious.Okay, that's a decent argument. However, I don't expect a sudden world-wide financial collapse soon, and I don't know if Romney would remain in any way fiscally responsible in such an extreme situation.

[givemeliberty2010]

Your assumption that I am unaware of this illusion of choice is as false as the illusion. They are both wings on the same bought and sold "Approved by Sachs of Shit" bird plummeting to the ground. The way I read the OP was how to quantify them from the two-party paradigm point of view, in speaking to the two-party mindset public. Perhaps I misread the original intent of the OP. I know how much they enjoy their rounds of golf together on Sundays. They play their parts well in making most feel they not only have a choice but they are also represented in Congress. The OP is comparing the two and only the two if I read correctly.Yes, I am only comparing the two. Fortunately, in actual voting, we have more than two choices. I'll be voting for Gary Johnson.

[Indy Vidual]

Why Romney?
Romney/Paul would make for an exciting election, no matter what you really think about it. :p
Anything else is a sick rerun not worth watching, IMO.

[Indy Vidual]

Vice President Rand Paul or Ron Paul will make Mitt Romney end the fed, close all U.S. military bases around the world, bring all the troops home, close the Departments of Energy, Commerce, Interior, Education, and Housing and Urban Development, which would cut $2 trillion in spending. Paul to Romney: You do what I tell you to do! ...And when all U.S. military bases around the world have been permanently closed, and all the U.S. troops have been brought back home, there will be a parade on the streets New York City for the troops. Leading up to the parade, all networks will show a video montage...

...That is how terrorism will be defeated!


+100 for enthusiastic positive spin. :)
-1 for choosing Ozzy instead of Rand's favorite band Rush:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cu1UIEQ5QGs

[pcosmar]

Why do some in the liberty movement say that Mitt Romney would be an improvement on President Obama or that Romney is somehow the better choice?

He's not black,
and he has an "R" next to his name.

go team.
:(

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Problem is, the Obama regime has adopted plenty of fascist policies. Two wings of the same bird, as always. ;)

I think it's reasonable to change that to "Two wings of the same drone" at this point.

[PierzStyx]

*I would rather have Obama, and I hate him with a passion. In truth I hate him much more than Romney.


If Obama is president, and the nation has a republican house or senate, nothing will get done. They'll stay in gridlock for political appearances, the GOP political regulars will put their little trash fascade of being fiscally sane, and things will go on the same as they have.



You assume that the Republicans and Democrats do not have the same goals. There I believe you are wrong. Plenty will get done along the welfare/warfare state. None of it will be good.

[Victor Grey]

You assume that the Republicans and Democrats do not have the same goals. There I believe you are wrong. Plenty will get done along the welfare/warfare state. None of it will be good.

I assume no such thing.

I don't however assume they want the Exact to the letter, same thing. My actual presumptions are backed by their own actions.

Establishment Republicans, want a state consisting of constant warfare, where every extra penny goes to more military spending.
They want a high degree of social control, and a high degree of money invested into government.

Establishment Democrats want only an irrelevant fraction less of constant warfare and the money invested in it, where the difference in that spending goes to cradle to grave welfare. If the republicans want to spend more than the next 20 countries do on their militarism, democrats simply want to spend more than the next 18.

No the specifics pertaining to their goals, the method and intent isn't the same. The outcome in practice, that is what is the same.

Republicans want We, Handmaid's Tale, and 1984 . Democrats want Anthem, Logan's Run, & Brave New World.

[AngryCanadian]

Romney's foreign policy will lead to economic meltdown.
Obama's fiscal policy will lead to economic meltdown.

Tough choice.

Romney fiscal policy is the same as Obama's what makes you think its any different?

[Vanilluxe]

If Romney wins, Netanyahu, Romney's "best" pal would bomb Iran and we will go along.
If Obama wins, it would be the same as the last four years.
So, Obama would be a safer bet for me.

[Anti Federalist]

Anybody that does not understand that of the decisive and major issues facing the nation, that Romney or Obama represent no significant change in the status quo, is nuts, as far as I'm concerned.

[John F Kennedy III]

Anybody that does not understand that of the decisive and major issues facing the nation, that Romney or Obama represent no significant change in the status quo, is nuts, as far as I'm concerned.

Agreed. IMO it's enough to have them committed to the booby hatch.

[seyferjm]

The fact that he's best buddies with Netanyahu is reason enough for me to never vote for Romney.

[Anti Federalist]

On the upcoming Supreme Court decision on the constitutionality of Obamacare, Rand Paul said he’s been “exhorting my colleagues to say we need to be ready because I think there’s a good chance it’s struck down.”

“When Obamacare’s struck down, the next time we go to tackle these problems we need to talk about how capitalism could fix these problems, how freedom, how competition, how price competition, would work to keep health costs down, instead of just saying ‘Let’s do Obamacare light,’ he said.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Rand-Paul-backs-Romney/2012/06/09/id/441769

He opposes the law that was created by the man that he now endorses for president.

Mind = Blown

[paulpwns]

I think most people that think there is no difference have a very limited understanding of how government is setup. I can give a few examples of differences in the administration.

1. cabinet positions ( think of the cabinet under Obama, DOJ, EPA, HHS(Obamacare), Secret Service, DEA,)
What if we have some liberty people in cabinet positions?
2. supreme court justices
There will another two next term most likely.
3. Treaties
Start Treaty, etc.
4. Veto power


The question is who is more friendly in these scenarios to the liberty movement? The Obama admin or the Romney admin?

[jj-]

He opposes the law that was created by the man that he now endorses for president.

Mind = Blown

There is a case to be made to defend Rand. I made it here (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?380192-The-Evangelist-and-the-Infiltrator.-Ron-and-Rand-Paul-are-right.).

[kahless]

I think most people that think there is no difference have a very limited understanding of how government is setup. I can give a few examples of differences in the administration.

1. cabinet positions ( think of the cabinet under Obama, DOJ, EPA, HHS(Obamacare), Secret Service, DEA,)
What if we have some liberty people in cabinet positions?
2. supreme court justices
There will another two next term most likely.
3. Treaties
Start Treaty, etc.
4. Veto power


The question is who is more friendly in these scenarios to the liberty movement? The Obama admin or the Romney admin?

As much as I do not like it and have been outraged at Romney over the years in these forums, the fact is there are some differences like you provided that cannot be ignored . Yet, I still have a hard time dealing with it and are still leaning towards voting for Johnson or not voting. NOBP was never an option since it is a protest that no one will see and figured people are going feel pretty foolish with that once Ron endorses Romney.

Besides Supreme Court justices and what you mention above here are a few things he is running on that come to mind that separate him from Obama.

- Allow consumers to purchase insurance across state lines.
- Repeal of Obamacare if you can believe it from the father of Romneycare. He cannot win a second term in 2016 by not repealing it.
- Repeal of SOPA



from mittromney.com

Taxes

Make permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates
Maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains
Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains
Eliminate the Death Tax
Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)

Corporate Taxes

The U.S. economy’s 35 percent corporate tax rate is among the highest in the industrial world, reducing the ability of our nation’s businesses to compete in the global economy and to invest and create jobs at home. By limiting investment and growth, the high rate of corporate tax also hurts U.S. wages.

Cut the corporate rate to 25 percent
Strengthen and make permanent the R&D tax credit
Switch to a territorial tax system
Repeal the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax