Would Mitt Romney have been a far better president?

[Felya]

Well, 1. as I said, a "socialist" government wouldn't need a patriot act because it's an economic plan. So, again, his argument doesn't even work 2. Who said I'm a republican? Assuming aren't you?

Yeah, you change the subject to talk about communism. He was talking about an economic policy, irrelevant to it's government.

I am not assuming, you told everyone as much in your cave in post. You think I am delusional enough to wait for your confirmation?

[kivipää]

And with the exception of Germany, they are all going bankrupt, and Im sure Germany will be in the same boat in the not too distant future

Tell me, how's the US credit rating doing tehse days? heard it's in danger of getting knocked down another peg. But don't worry, this european socialist country which still holds the top rating will gladly loan you some for a fair interest (for your credit rating, at least) if you just ask really, really nicely.

[Deleted]

He would not be, he's ignorant and xenophobic to other nations and/or cultures like any other fascist.

[Buckwald]

Yeah, you change the subject to talk about communism. He was talking about an economic policy, irrelevant to it's government.

I am not assuming, you told everyone as much in your cave in post. You think I am delusional enough to wait for your confirmation?

Again, you are assuming. I can confirm to you that I'm a Conservative Libertarian. But okay, you can think what you want. Also, just to answer you:

Obama said he'd veto ANY BILL that did not have the sequester in it. So, the GOP caved and voted so advert the debt ceiling. Also, the house passed two different pieces of legislation to get the sequester out, didn't pass the senate. A bill was passed in the house to allow Obama to direct where the budget cuts would go in the departments, he didn't want them. The sequester rests on both, but the blunt end of everything should be solely placed on Obama (as seen with a dip in approval rating). Also, the senate did not pass or put forth a budget for 4 years. Obama's budgets did not receive 1 vote from either Dems or GOPs. Also, he's late with his budget again.

The GOP budget put forth by Paul Ryan is a piece of crap and would never pass. It was stupid to think it would. The Senate budget actually increases taxes, again, and doesn't cut spending. Even if you tax the top 10% at a rate of 100% it would have no effect on the US debt. It needs to be a mix of spending cuts and a smarter tax code, not just higher taxes.

Don't ever assume anything about me again. Thanks.

[Noomz]

I'm fairly certain it was not due to voting (obviously), that Obama got re-elected, but through shady media manipulation, but what's done is done.

Now, this is entirely hypothetical, but do you think Romney would arguably be better than Obama as a leader? Considering his lack of progress (Obama), it made me wonder.

The real way I want to respond to you will be deemed trolling, but let's just say I disagree with you.

[Deleted]

Rights and happiness of many are not more important than the rights of individuals. Even if it was true and the average happiness of socialist countries is greater, they achieve that by stomping on individual rights in the name of "greater good" as well as at the cost of limited freedom and liberty.

Care to provide us with an example? Because I can't think of any compared to the states, beyond gun ownership.

Since socialism is an economic policy and communism is the political policy equivalent and you normally find that both go hand-in-hand, she has a point. In socialism everything is owned by the state, your money, your clothes, your home, your time, etc. It values the group over the individual, it oppresses any freedom of individual growth or opportunity. That's a fact. Communism has no need of anything similar to the patriot act, as it does what it wants, when it wants, with out regards to law. So, saying a country whose government controls everything doesn't have "the patriot act" doesn't really say anything. A communist government doesn't need an "act" to spy on or gather information of its people, it just does it.

I've seen you elaborate to this sentiment on later posts, but communism has absolutely nothing to do with modern socialism. I think the whole red scare-thing is getting kind of old, even though I know you guys are ever so fond of it.

And with the exception of Germany, they are all going bankrupt, and Im sure Germany will be in the same boat in the not too distant future

Whatnow? Most of us are in far better economical shape than USA for example.

I dont consider Nordic countries part of Europe, they are Scandanavia

Too bad geography doesn't care of your personal opinion (seriously what is up with this, just making stuff up now to back your arguments?), Nordic countries are part of Europe, and aside from Norway all of us are even in the EU. Also quite convenient of you to leave out the true representers of modern socialism who've actually made the system work.

[Anowyn]

In my honest opinion, it isn't going to make a significant difference who wins presidency until we find a way to dismantle the two party only system and get some real candidates into the running, instead of candidates who are just chosen by the far left and the far right for their respective nominee. While we do have far left and far right voters, it is my impression that the majority of the population (and I could be wrong) are somewhere much closer to the middle, or are perhaps not even sure where they are. The media only truly focuses on the two "main" candidates and the debates don't even include the other guys. That may not even make a difference though, because voters often do not care about true qualifications.

Unfortunately, political debates and elections have boiled down to two candidates, bashing on "the other guy," and playing on the voters' emotions. The debates this year, to me, felt more about telling me why I shouldn't vote for the other guy instead of why I should vote for whomever was speaking at the time. And it was almost always jabs for emotional connection -- "Obama is trying to bring socialism. Obama wants to take away your money. Obama is not a patriot," or "Romney hates women. Romney is going to take away abortions. Romney hates gays." Or whatever other thing people get scared of or identify with emotionally. Yes, I know that the emotional topics obviously work, but it's rather sad that emotion is why we elect people. Emotion isn't really the best judge of character, or the most sound train of thought. (Which is displayed when the average citizen vastly under performs in the stock market if they manage their own stocks, or when someone does something they regret after a big fight with someone they care about -- emotional decisions).

[Vyxn]

The real way I want to respond to you will be deemed trolling, but let's just say I disagree with you.

if you don't think that the majority of the media is bias in favor of the left and they don't influence elections then you live in an alternate reality

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=...r=yfp-t-900-14

http://thehill.com/polls/173173-the-...hical-and-cozy

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/64261.html

[Buckwald]

I've seen you elaborate to this sentiment on later posts, but communism has absolutely nothing to do with modern socialism. I think the whole red scare-thing is getting kind of old, even though I know you guys are ever so fond of it.

You guys? Americans? Naw, again you're projecting. Stop doing that. I know that modern democratic socialism has nothing to do with communism. Again, the original post claimed that a socialist government doesn't have a patriot act, I corrected it and said, Socialism is economic. Communism would be the political, and communism doesn't need an act to spy on it's citizens.

Again, I'm not saying that it actually happens or the whole "Red-Scare" is still a thing that's big in America, because it's not.

[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?

To repair the damage. But then complaining when the new CEO hasn't fixed the problem in a few months when the damage took years to cause is stupid. Then the idea to look to replace the new CEO with someone who is almost a carbon copy to the first CEO is even more ridiculous.
Give any idiot something to ruin, then get a genius to (find a way to) repair it (depending on the task) and it takes longer to fix than to ruin.

I said "advance an education."
The Unites States has the best college in world, MIT, and Harvard ranks 3rd. Of the top 20 colleges worldwide, the US contains 13.
http://www.usnews.com/education/worl...s-in-the-world

US has 13 in the top 20 out of the 2680 Universities in the US. That means 0.49% of the US Universities are highly rated
UK has 4 in the top 20 out of the 109 universties in the UK. That means 3.67% of the UK universities are highly rated.
Meaning its more likely you will get a highly rated Education in the UK than US
Data can be processed in manners to change what its used for.

Probably.. and if Obama starts another war with Iran, absolutely.

So Romney who gave the impression of being oblivious to the rest of the world, who while on tour pissed of a fair few countries would not of started one. An army in his hands would be more worrying than the spoilt pubescent boy leading NK having a nuke.

I dont consider Nordic countries part of Europe, they are Scandanavia

Dezerte
Location:Sweden.
Swedish opinion or Americans opinion of what sweden is.....Think the swedih guy has more of an idea on his country.
Scandanvians i believe are the most left wing in Europe (other than france). Even then The main raight wing parties in the rest of the european countries are still left wing when viewed from the American system.

[Garnier Fructis]

if you don't think that the majority of the media is bias in favor of the left and they don't influence elections then you live in an alternate reality

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=...r=yfp-t-900-14

http://thehill.com/polls/173173-the-...hical-and-cozy

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/64261.html

People's opinions don't determine reality. If it did, the Earth would still be flat.

[Deleted]

You guys? Americans? Naw, again you're projecting. Stop doing that. I know that modern democratic socialism has nothing to do with communism. Again, the original post claimed that a socialist government doesn't have a patriot act, I corrected it and said, Socialism is economic. Communism would be the political, and communism doesn't need an act to spy on it's citizens.

Again, I'm not saying that it actually happens or the whole "Red-Scare" is still a thing that's big in America, because it's not.

Pardon for the projection, and it might not be in the every-day life, but these forums have shown time and time again how fast people connect words like socialism and left-wing straight to communism.
And calling communism the political side of socialism is ignorant, because socialism is social, political and economical in itself.

[Buckwald]

And calling communism the political side of socialism is ignorant, because socialism is social, political and economical in itself.

If you talk about the baseline of both systems, they are the political/economic equivalent. Baseline being the keyword. That's what I argued. We probably could discuss, at great length, how each of those systems are actually broken down.

[Cthulhu 2020]

if you don't think that the majority of the media is bias in favor of the left and they don't influence elections then you live in an alternate reality

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=...r=yfp-t-900-14

http://thehill.com/polls/173173-the-...hical-and-cozy

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/64261.html

Vyxn, it wasn't too terribly long ago that you were linking studies that showed that Fox News was the most "trusted" news network (but luckily for us, not the most correct). It's funny how your perception of reality can change so rapidly.

[matters]

ANYONE would be better than Obama, that is if they don't share the same pseudo socialist views that Obama clearly has for Americas future. But on the topic of specifically Mitt Romney my answer is surely. Community organizer VS. a person who actually knows something about how capitalism works and why America became as great as it once was because of it? The answer is plain and simple, yet we are stuck with another term of Obama oh well.

[Buckwald]

Vyxn, it wasn't too terribly long ago that you were linking studies that showed that Fox News was the most "trusted" news network (but luckily for us, not the most correct). It's funny how your perception of reality can change so rapidly.

In terms of "correct" that is heavily biased based on your opinions. The pew research poll, which is run by a non-bias organization, showed that MSNBC reports based on opinions. Those opinions are heavily skewed left. That's not an opinion, most of which its viewer agree with. I watch, now, 2 actual news reporting shows. 1 on CNN and 1 on Fox News. Both of which, when polled by viewers of all parties, are balanced. I can't watch anything on MSNBC because it's so disgustingly bias that it makes me laugh. At the same time, I will never watch Hannity or O'Rielly. Ever.

All you are proving is that the confirmation bias exists and you heavily fall into that.

[Deadvolcanoes]

US has 13 in the top 20 out of the 2680 Universities in the US. That means 0.49% of the US Universities are highly rated
UK has 4 in the top 20 out of the 109 universties in the UK. That means 3.67% of the UK universities are highly rated.
Meaning its more likely you will get a highly rated Education in the UK than US
Data can be processed in manners to change what its used for.

How is that relevant at all? I didn't make the statement "you're more likely to get a higher rated education in the US."

I made the statement that the US is one of the top five places to advance an education. Then I point out that we have the best universities on earth.

Lots of Europeans have tried to either claim I was wrong, attack the sources as biased, claim that they're too expensive, and then as you just did, twist the data in a way that isn't relevant to the initial statement.

Are you guys upset that the United States has the best universities in the world?

[Vyxn]

Vyxn, it wasn't too terribly long ago that you were linking studies that showed that Fox News was the most "trusted" news network (but luckily for us, not the most correct). It's funny how your perception of reality can change so rapidly.

And? so what does Fox news being polled as the most trusted news network have anything to do with it?

First i said the majority of the media. second being voted the most trusted doesn't mean you are trustworthy it just means you are trusted more then the others

---------- Post added 2013-03-24 at 01:55 PM ----------

In terms of "correct" that is heavily biased based on your opinions. The pew research poll, which is run by a non-bias organization, showed that MSNBC reports based on opinions, most of which its viewer agree with. I watch, now, 2 actual news reporting shows. 1 on CNN and 1 on Fox News. Both of which, when polled by viewers of all parties, are balanced. I can't watch anything on MSNBC because it's so disgustingly bias that it makes me laugh. At the same time, I will never watch Hannity or O'Rielly. Ever.

All you are proving is that the confirmation bias exists and you heavily fall into that.

http://stateofthemedia.org/2013/spec...ews-landscape/ here is the study you referred to

[Seranthor]

elections have consequences and obama won in a landslide no bigger reelection margin for a democratic party president in generations.

Actually, miss, Obama 51.1%, Romney 47.2% = 3.9% differential; Clinton (last democrat president to be re-elected) 49.2%, Dole 40.7% = differential 8.5%. Clinton was re-elected in 1996 (16 years ago, definately NOT 'generations')

So, your statement is either uneducated, uninformed, or willfully false and misleading... Which is it?

---------- Post added 2013-03-24 at 01:05 PM ----------

Exactly it have been 30 years of trickle down economics in washington and that error doesnt repair itself overnight

Correct me if I'm wrong Miss, but hasn't Obama been president for 4 of the last 30? and as I recall wasn't Bill Clinton president for 8 of those 30 as well?

Now I could be wrong, but is this yet another of your statements that is either uninformed, uneducated or willfully misleading?

---------- Post added 2013-03-24 at 01:08 PM ----------

oh yes, the "parasites" I'm sure he is talking about overwhelmingly vote republican and live in the poorest and most money draining states in the union. which of course are all...you guessed it overwhelmingly conservative.

Are you trying to tell me that the amount of money that goes to the 24 states that voted for Romney is overwhelmingly higher than the money that goes to states like Calif, NY, Illinois, Washington, NJ and the other 21? I"m going to call bullshit on that. I await your evidence to back up your claim.

[Roose]

Romney would have pretty much been the same president. They both represent the same people, and it ain't the American people.