• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

So, which presidential candidate would be the worst for America and why?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
No he doesn't.:) War is anti-market. Governments engaging in trade treaties is anti-market. Having a higher corporate tax rate than the world average is anti-market. Adjusting the min wage for inflation is anti-market. Protectionism is anti-market. Budget deficits are anti-market.
As Governor of Massachusetts Romney had a perfect record of not going to war against anyone. Obama can't say that.

I don't disagree that trade treaties, high taxes, minimum wage, protectionism and budget deficits are anti-market. But while the free market is an important thing, it's not the ONLY important thing. It's not even the MOST important thing. Even what I consider the most important thing, individual liberty, isn't an absolute. Freedom isn't worth much without a reasonable level of opportunity and security, and it's not worth sacrificing our environment. Everything must be in balance - an absolutely free market would be as bad as Red China's situation.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
As each decade of my life has passed my approach to Presidential elections has changed more and more toward one controlling factor... Not local nor State elections... but Presidential ones...

Upon self examination I have concluded that if two candidates say the same thing about the same thing I will look to the charismatic qualities of the utters...

I actually and for no apparent reason don't like Romney while I find Obama quite likable... He is a Clinton Reagan type...

I will therefore vote my conscience... Obama in 2012...
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,408
2
0
Romney. His specialty is liquidating jobs and would open a whole host of slave labor countries to sell shit here and get rid/cut services for natives that were displaced.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,408
2
0
As Governor of Massachusetts Romney had a perfect record of not going to war against anyone. Obama can't say that.

I don't disagree that trade treaties, high taxes, minimum wage, protectionism and budget deficits are anti-market. But while the free market is an important thing, it's not the ONLY important thing. It's not even the MOST important thing. Even what I consider the most important thing, individual liberty, isn't an absolute. Freedom isn't worth much without a reasonable level of opportunity and security, and it's not worth sacrificing our environment. Everything must be in balance - an absolutely free market would be as bad as Red China's situation.
Until we grow our tax base we are doomed. The wealthy sure aint gonna let their wealth get taxed with control they have over both parties and there is not enough there anyway. But put 20 million ppl online as payers much of these debt problems will be solved because those 20 million turn from govt liabilities into govt assets erasing deficit. Neither candidate is talking about how to do that in real terms.
 

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,936
1
0
A Romney loss could drive the Republican Party off the cliff, as the Tea Party Faithful and their fellow travelers convince themselves that Mitt lost because he, like Senator McCain before him, simply wasn't "Conservative Enough". They would push the GOP candidates in 2016 to where Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann look downright liberal by comparison.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,583
430
126
The Romney tax plan is far worse for middle America. Obama's isn't "good", but it's not as bad.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
Until we grow our tax base we are doomed. The wealthy sure aint gonna let their wealth get taxed with control they have over both parties and there is not enough there anyway. But put 20 million ppl online as payers much of these debt problems will be solved because those 20 million turn from govt liabilities into govt assets erasing deficit. Neither candidate is talking about how to do that in real terms.
Because nobody really knows how to do that without taking a hit in our standard of living. Right now we enjoy cheap consumer goods which as a nation we buy on credit. We're like the farmer who discovers that instead of eking out a living farming, he can more profitably sell off bits of land. But eventually he runs out of land, at which point he can no longer farm either. We're going to run out of credit and we'll have little expertise in manufacturing left to fall back on.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
16,340
4,308
136
A Romney loss could drive the Republican Party off the cliff, as the Tea Party Faithful and their fellow travelers convince themselves that Mitt lost because he, like Senator McCain before him, simply wasn't "Conservative Enough". They would push the GOP candidates in 2016 to where Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann look downright liberal by comparison.
Yep. Typical conservatives unable to recongnize fail over their ideology.
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,215
13
81
A Romney loss could drive the Republican Party off the cliff, as the Tea Party Faithful and their fellow travelers convince themselves that Mitt lost because he, like Senator McCain before him, simply wasn't "Conservative Enough". They would push the GOP candidates in 2016 to where Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann look downright liberal by comparison.
:cool:
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
10,909
1,057
126
A Romney loss could drive the Republican Party off the cliff, as the Tea Party Faithful and their fellow travelers convince themselves that Mitt lost because he, like Senator McCain before him, simply wasn't "Conservative Enough". They would push the GOP candidates in 2016 to where Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann look downright liberal by comparison.
Who the hell could you even nominate that would make Crazy Eyes and Frothy Man look liberal? I think you'd have to nominate the dude from Westboro Baptist Church or perhaps spidey to even compete there.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
11,806
1,123
126
I'm a firm Obama supporter-he stepped into a situation where the country was f*cked nine ways till Sunday. Due to his hard work, and despite the best efforts of the Congressional GOP to torpedo anything that he supported, we are now better off and on the way to recovery. We could be a lot better off, but we need something more than a do-nothing Congress to accomplish that.

Romney, OTOH, who can honestly predict with any certainty how he would do when the man's values shift minute to minute, day to day. It's like the emperor has no clothes-doesn't the GOP realize this man is the absolute epitomy of slick, slimy politician? That's waht the tea party revolution brought us?
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,471
423
126
You knew when he mentioned Trayvon Martin, you knew what we would say, even if you didn't agree with it.
Obama probably wouldn't have mentioned the Trayvon Martin case if the question wasn't asked by a reporter. He tried to answer in the most innocuous way possible (given the blow up over the situation in England that led to the beer summit who can blame him), if he tried to say no comment he would have had a group of people jumping down his throat. Even with a non-answer answer people are still jumping down his throat.

I have to ask this. Which Governor Romney are we talking about? The one who governed MA. or the Presidential candidate Romney?

In my opinion the former would probably be about the same as President Obama getting reelected the latter would probably be worse...

As Governor of Massachusetts Romney had a perfect record of not going to war against anyone
Of course states generally don't have any military forces to use to go to war with anyone...
 
Last edited:

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
Obama probably wouldn't have mentioned the Trayvon Martin case if the question wasn't asked by a reporter. He tried to answer in the most innocuous way possible (given the blow up over the situation in England that led to the beer summit who can blame him), if he tried to say no comment he would have had a group of people jumping down his throat. Even with a non-answer answer people are still jumping down his throat.

I have to ask this. Which Governor Romney are we talking about? The one who governed MA. or the Presidential candidate Romney?

In my opinion the former would probably be about the same as President Obama getting reelected the latter would probably be worse...



Of course states generally don't have any military forces to use to go to war with anyone...
That was of course somewhat tongue in cheek due to the accusations that Romney would go to war if elected - which is somewhat ironic since Obama has expanded our war in Afghanistan, allowed the Bush timeline in Iraq to play out, not closed Gitmo, launched another war in Libya, and is expanding our drone operations in Yemen. Don't get me wrong, I support him in all those things. But given what Obama has done, accusations of Romney as warmonger are as amusingly transparent as are accusations that the Republicans will loot Medicare after the Democrats just blatantly did exactly that.

As far as Romney, I'm assuming that we'll get Governor Romney. Candidate Romney is of course all things to all people, as is any serious Presidential candidate; we can't get Candidate Romney because it's impossible to actually govern on both sides of all (or any) issues.
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,471
423
126
which is somewhat ironic since Obama has expanded our war in Afghanistan, allowed the Bush timeline in Iraq to play out, not closed Gitmo, launched another war in Libya, and is expanding our drone operations in Yemen. Don't get me wrong, I support him in all those things.
If you listened carefully to his campaign speeches President Obama never said anything about opposing Afghanistan as he opposed Iraq.

He allowed it to play out because if he withdrew American forces out of Iraq sooner then any violence that has occurred since then would've been attributed to him.

Since Iraq wouldn't give American Forces immunity after the withdrawal date it gave him the cover to withdraw troops without being castigated by Fox News.

As for Gitmo... well let's just say that there was opposition to closing it.

I knew it was facetious... I forgot the smiley face

"Of course states generally don't have any military forces to use to go to war with anyone... :p"

As for getting Governor Romney? I doubt it... If he won two terms I'd expect him to be candidate Romney until after the election for the second term.
 

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,936
1
0
...As far as Romney, I'm assuming that we'll get Governor Romney. Candidate Romney is of course all things to all people, as is any serious Presidential candidate; we can't get Candidate Romney because it's impossible to actually govern on both sides of all (or any) issues.
President Romney could emulate Candidate Romney by governing as a Conservative Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, a Moderate Tuesdays and Thursdays, and a Liberal on the weekends...
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY