Would Mitt Romney have been a far better president?

[Kivimetsan]

Well considering presidents are chosen by the corporate elite and are not elected I assume Mitt Romney would be exactly like Obama with a neo-con spin.
He would continue every Obama policy even Obama care - because Romney was the architect in Massachusetts.
Anyone who thinks he would be different has there head in the clouds.
Wake up.

[bobo333]

your republicans would be funny if they weren't terrifying. i think romney would've made things a whole lot worse, for humanity in general, not just americans

[ovm33]

Well considering presidents are chosen by the corporate elite and are not elected I assume Mitt Romney would be exactly like Obama with a neo-con spin.

This X1000. Politicians have to make too many back room deals, owe too many favors, kiss too much ass these days to have any sort of morals left when they get to the point where they can make a serious run at the White House.

The last election people voted for the "Chicago Machine" over the Wall Street's Money. Both Obama and Romney are the so called 1% - they don't give a damn about any of us.

[Deleted]

First off due to you wrote like " but through shady media manipulation" Clearly states you have a tendency and a "goal" with this. So it makes you loose all credibidity due to hey it clearly shows you disslike obama from the start,and is not ready to a real diskussion.

But lets me answer. About 47 % of people would think Mitt Romney would be a better president, since that is how many people voted for him. Do i think so? No, mitt romney would lower taxes for the higher endcome or atleast the high middle income, and people in the US love their taxes cuts. The western economy is not doing well, but i think he is a by far the best one to help the USA out of it. But really, mitt romney could also be a good president, but i alteast do not think he would be as good as Obama

[Uennie]

So Salandrin is a Pro-Romney eh? Huh, that explains *so* much...

Hahaha. I was more thinking "Ooooh so this is the real life issue version of Salandrin". I guarantee you he was either a rabid Obama supporter before or will be in about ... six months (that's usually his average for flip-flopping right?).

[TheronShadowstorm]

It was two terms of Bush that fucked it all up for Obama, you are mad to think he can clear away all the shit in only 4 years.

Always blaming Bush and claiming no responsibilities for the current downhill track. When a big business fires a CEO for their failures and hires a replacement, guess what their job is? It's not blaming their predecessor, it's o take the company and turn it around. Stop being sissy's and using Bush as a crutch. Obama accepted the job knowing what he was getting into and even signed on for a 2nd term knowing what he had.

Liberals and liberal media will also always blame Republicans for stuff not getting done, yet they never look to their own demagoguery.

I mean look at this comparison
Jan 12, 2011, Obama calls out for political civility in the wake of the Tuscon tragedies.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...70-503544.html

Less than a year on October 17, 2011, he demagogues and claims that GOP deliberately want to harm the population.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...insurance.html

Seriously? What politician goes out on the campaign trail with a goal of poisoning people's water supply, air, and just killing American people? Oh wait that would be Obama http://www.paul.senate.gov/files/doc...erResponse.pdf .

After Rand Paul's fillibuster they changed their stance https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...er-to-sen.html

[Deleted]

Always blaming Bush and claiming no responsibilities for the current downhill track. When a big business fires a CEO for their failures and hires a replacement, guess what their job is? It's not blaming their predecessor, it's o take the company and turn it around. Stop being sissy's and using Bush as a crutch. Obama accepted the job knowing what he was getting into and even signed on for a 2nd term knowing what he had.

Liberals and liberal media will also always blame Republicans for stuff not getting done, yet they never look to their own demagoguery.

I mean look at this comparison
Jan 12, 2011, Obama calls out for political civility in the wake of the Tuscon tragedies.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...70-503544.html

Less than a year on October 17, 2011, he demagogues and claims that GOP deliberately want to harm the population.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...insurance.html

Seriously? What politician goes out on the campaign trail with a goal of poisoning people's water supply, air, and just killing American people? Oh wait that would be Obama http://www.paul.senate.gov/files/doc...erResponse.pdf .

After Rand Paul's fillibuster they changed their stance https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...er-to-sen.html

You are quick to point fingers at what Obama has done, how about Bush starting two very costly wars using lies and manipulation as an excuse?

[Sky High]

You are quick to point fingers at what Obama has done, how about Bush starting two very costly wars using lies and manipulation as an excuse?

no no, thats Obama's fault don't you get it? its all his fault that he has to work with a congress/senate that is hell bent of stopping everything he does all for political gain. which is why he brought up how the GOP is out to hurt people, the fact that they rather play politics and not get anything done being why he says such things. but oh no, its not the guys who helped get us in this hole in the first place fault at all, its the guy "trying" to clean it up afterwards.

[Deleted]

Alot of places around the world i seem now a days ppl dont vote for a person because they want that person. but because they dont want the other person.

[Deleted]

no no, thats Obama's fault don't you get it? its all his fault that he has to work with a congress/senate that is hell bent of stopping everything he does all for political gain. which is why he brought up how the GOP is out to hurt people, the fact that they rather play politics and not get anything done being why he says such things. but oh no, its not the guys who helped get us in this hole in the first place fault at all, its the guy "trying" to clean it up afterwards.

Blame the janitor, not the kid that kicked over the bin.

[moremana]

Obama not making people work for welfare makes me say yes to that alone.

Our welfare program is the biggest problem we have in the US.

[Sky High]

Blame the janitor, not the kid that kicked over the bin.

well like my bolded hyphenated underlined "trying" should imply that its in a sarcastic sense. personally i have no reason to think Obama wants to fix things. his track record is a testament to that. but to say that HE is the only one to blame for this shit is so blindly infuriating. people don't get that BOTH SIDES are against you. when we really have an election where it comes to well its not who Im voting FOR but, against should be a tall tell sign that something is fucked up. both political parties have their mouths on the dicks of corporate america.

[Dezerte]

As a non-US citizen, I'm glad Romney didn't get elected. The fact that the OP is conjuring up conspiracy theories to explain why Romney wasn't elected is just one of the reasons why I'm glad Romney didn't win.

[Deadvolcanoes]

After Rand Paul's fillibuster they changed their stance

"Changed their stance" implies that the Obama administration was pro-use of drones against non-combatant Americans. They weren't.

OT: I don't think Romney would have been a terrible President. The economy is going to continue to recover at a slow pace no matter who is President. The housing market will continue to recover, unemployment will continue to go down, private sector hiring is going to continue to go up. The President in power wouldn't have effected those factors all too much.

I'm glad Romney didn't win because I think Republicans are garbage on social issues and taxation policy. Plus, I think Obama has done a fairly good job.

[Orbitus]

Ummmmm your an idiot if you think media can't be shady and manipulate crap for their own ends.

NBC edits 911 clip to make George Zimmerman sound Racist?
Ohh, here's what google can show you about media bias
http://www.westernjournalism.com/top...al-media-bias/


To the opening post, in politics, you choose the lesser of both evils. There are some positives to Romney AND Obama, and negatives to both. Those who say their preferred candidate is infallible, are morons.
That said, Obama failed to live up to various campaign promises. Frankly, he made promises so far fetched and fell so far off the mark I don't think Obama has a clue real world economics.

There were promises to cut the deficit in half and he raised the debt in 4 years more than what Bush did in 8.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...an-under-bush/

Further arguments against President Obama is the direction he is pushing tax increases at the same time increasing federal spending.

Here was a great picture of US Economics simplified to household income terms.
http://imgur.com/gallery/d0RsV

There needs to be a combindation of spending cuts AND moderate and FAIR tax increases as well as closing budget loopholes for big business and the wealthy.

Right now there is to much focus on taxing the rich and not curbing spending.

Crazy taxation on the rich and big business will force them to spend less, cut workforce to hedge their losses to maintain profitability. Because you know, that is what people like to do. If you tell Big Business that to take a risk of investing a billion into the economy to by creating jobs WITHIN the US to manufacture and sell goods, but tell them we will tax you so high your profit margins are razor thin, would they be willing to invest? Big business and the rich are not investing as much as they should because they see no profit to be made for the amount of risk.

If you had a friend who can card count, and kick ass at playing poker, you would want to loan him $1,000 when he goes to Vegas if he can promise you a good return. It's a gamble, if he isn't as good as he thinks, you lose big and may not get much of your $1,000 back. But hey, if he could come back to you and give you $10,000, or maybe $20,000 back as your cut of his winnings, it would be worth the risk right? But wait, taxation time. He made a killing with his winnings but was taxed to high heaven. So he could only give you $1,500 or $2,000. Would you still be willing to gamble?

The 1% pay about as much taxes as the 95% They are already losing a big chunk of their income. Take this article for example if you want to read what happens if you push the rich to far on taxation http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124329282377252471.html

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...t-10-percent-/
To quote from the article: "To figure out what caused the accumulation of deficits over the past decade, CBO tracked the surplus it had projected back in 2001 and compared it to the actual cumulative deficits that resulted instead. Between 2002 and 2011, the government was projected to run a cumulative surplus of $5.6 trillion. Instead, the government ran a cumulative deficit of $6.1 trillion. That’s a swing of about $11.7 trillion."
"Our ruling

Obama said that "over the last four years, the deficit has gone up, but 90 percent of that is as a consequence of" President George W. Bush’s policies and the effects of the recession.

But Obama misstated his own documentation by using four years rather than the 10 that were included in the analysis. At a minimum, that makes him responsible for at least 17 percent. But more importantly, he engages in significant cherry-picking by assigning pricey programs to Bush’s column while ignoring the fact that he supported, or supports, many of them. We rate the statement False."
Over the last 4 years Obama is responsible for 17% of the total spending where Bush is responsible for the other 83%. Again blaming the crap on Obama is wrong and so is CBS.

---------- Post added 2013-03-24 at 11:36 AM ----------

Always blaming Bush and claiming no responsibilities for the current downhill track. When a big business fires a CEO for their failures and hires a replacement, guess what their job is? It's not blaming their predecessor, it's o take the company and turn it around. Stop being sissy's and using Bush as a crutch. Obama accepted the job knowing what he was getting into and even signed on for a 2nd term knowing what he had.

Liberals and liberal media will also always blame Republicans for stuff not getting done, yet they never look to their own demagoguery.

I mean look at this comparison
Jan 12, 2011, Obama calls out for political civility in the wake of the Tuscon tragedies.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...70-503544.html

Less than a year on October 17, 2011, he demagogues and claims that GOP deliberately want to harm the population.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...insurance.html

Seriously? What politician goes out on the campaign trail with a goal of poisoning people's water supply, air, and just killing American people? Oh wait that would be Obama http://www.paul.senate.gov/files/doc...erResponse.pdf .

After Rand Paul's fillibuster they changed their stance https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...er-to-sen.html

Again read what I wrote and quoted from Politifact. I just destroyed your argument with an unbiased fact checker. GSO.

[Deleted]

This discussion could've been interesting if it hadn't been started by the OP, and with the usual ridiculously biased remarks like "shady media manipulation".

[nachoo]

dude lmao, i knew who OP was before i opened this thread.

OT: we'll never know

[Dendrek]

There's nothing wrong with it. It's just how the world works, but it's not necessarily the point.

Your thread stands no chance when the OP itself derails the thread. If you're hoping for a rational discussion about a specific topic, stay only on that topic in the OP. Meandering off with unnecessary and highly debatable ramblings in the OP is an easy way to lose track of the intended discussion.

[KrazyK923]

Well the OP has succeeded in his original point.

[Dendrek]

I don't know. Who he was in primaries and who he was in the general election were two different people, so I don't know which one would be in office.

Neither. We never saw the real Romney.