i am thinking Romney would've been less hawkish despite his campaign rhetoric. several reasons:
1. romney really was self-sacrificing and more polite than the MSM made him seem. obama is defending himself from the CIA... he really cant be that hard especially given what a nice lady his mother and grandmother seemed to be and given that he is too cute and goofy to be like me and joseph stalin (i.e., obama doesnt get pleasure just from seeing people suffer and his harry peter doesnt get that hard). he just wants to live the life he has always wanted to and that can happen only after he beats the CIA. in other words, obama has something to lose if he is not a hawk while romney was not the same.
2. he was like that "old rockefeller stooge" Bush 41 who was probably the last president whose wars were terrible without being waged like general sherman was president.
3. since wilson inclusive, the Democrats have been much, much more hawkish and wage more sherman-style total warfare. the outgrowth of Wilson's World War was only rivaled by the french revo. truman and FDR need no explanation. eisenhower started criticizing the MIC (although he was a war criminal as general). JFK got killed before he could officially be seen as part of the New Left. LBJ thought he was being cute staying here while he sent his fellow citizens to die in vietnam. Gerald Ford was relatively anti-war all things considered. clinton is my friend for life and he was advised by hawks like albright to allow the State's worst agents to starve the fuck out of as many iraqis as bush 43's boots on the ground on the ground murdered. clinton shouldnt feel ashamed though because he was trying to be a humanitarian and he is a true friend of mine no matter that i just cant take him up on his request to always exercise my right to vote. he sent me a personal letter back in the day so i worship him like i do dr. paul even if i cant vote because all people running for public office support centralization of arms while disallowing a safe and painless way to commit suicide.
4. the most hardcore neocons were not satisfied with mitt romney... they wanted newt gingrich instead.
then there are several other reasons that arent "right at the top of my richard cranium".
anyway, i started this thread because i wanted to know who agrees and/or disagrees with me on this.
1. romney really was self-sacrificing and more polite than the MSM made him seem. obama is defending himself from the CIA... he really cant be that hard especially given what a nice lady his mother and grandmother seemed to be and given that he is too cute and goofy to be like me and joseph stalin (i.e., obama doesnt get pleasure just from seeing people suffer and his harry peter doesnt get that hard). he just wants to live the life he has always wanted to and that can happen only after he beats the CIA. in other words, obama has something to lose if he is not a hawk while romney was not the same.
2. he was like that "old rockefeller stooge" Bush 41 who was probably the last president whose wars were terrible without being waged like general sherman was president.
3. since wilson inclusive, the Democrats have been much, much more hawkish and wage more sherman-style total warfare. the outgrowth of Wilson's World War was only rivaled by the french revo. truman and FDR need no explanation. eisenhower started criticizing the MIC (although he was a war criminal as general). JFK got killed before he could officially be seen as part of the New Left. LBJ thought he was being cute staying here while he sent his fellow citizens to die in vietnam. Gerald Ford was relatively anti-war all things considered. clinton is my friend for life and he was advised by hawks like albright to allow the State's worst agents to starve the fuck out of as many iraqis as bush 43's boots on the ground on the ground murdered. clinton shouldnt feel ashamed though because he was trying to be a humanitarian and he is a true friend of mine no matter that i just cant take him up on his request to always exercise my right to vote. he sent me a personal letter back in the day so i worship him like i do dr. paul even if i cant vote because all people running for public office support centralization of arms while disallowing a safe and painless way to commit suicide.
4. the most hardcore neocons were not satisfied with mitt romney... they wanted newt gingrich instead.
then there are several other reasons that arent "right at the top of my richard cranium".
anyway, i started this thread because i wanted to know who agrees and/or disagrees with me on this.
maybe he even would've been like james buchanan and not willing to use terrible amounts of force to stop secession. i would ultimately attribute his loss to the fact that he talked tough when he wasnt good at it... he behaved phony but in the opposite way i do. i wish i had realized he was kind of like a concrete (i.e., not quite as quick to see what cant be done) dr. paul (caring) and potentially could've been 1/2 of what dr. paul's policies would've been.
Facebook
Twitter