Romney VS Obama: The Megathread

[PapaJacky]

Ron Paul's most notable attribute as a politician is his consistency, unlike Romney, he hasn't turned a coat in 20 years.

Bullshit.

As I mentioned, it's an hyperbole.

[Wikkiwallana]

Bullshit.

As I mentioned, it's an hyperbole.

Sorry, you don't get to betray the thing you constantly say is supremely important and then call yourself consistent, even if it's one of the only things you've ever flip-flopped on.

Also, there's the matter of the newsletters, but other people know the links to prove that issue better than I do.

[PapaJacky]

As I mentioned, it's an hyperbole.

Sorry, you don't get to betray the thing you constantly say is supremely important and then call yourself consistent, even if it's one of the only things you've ever flip-flopped on.

Also, there's the matter of the newsletters, but other people know the links to prove that issue better than I do.

Is that a rule or is that the exception?

[Wikkiwallana]

Sorry, you don't get to betray the thing you constantly say is supremely important and then call yourself consistent, even if it's one of the only things you've ever flip-flopped on.

Also, there's the matter of the newsletters, but other people know the links to prove that issue better than I do.

Is that a rule or is that the exception?

It's a pretty strong rule.

[PapaJacky]

Is that a rule or is that the exception?

It's a pretty strong rule.

Then mostly consistent would be accurate.

[Wikkiwallana]

It's a pretty strong rule.

Then mostly consistent would be accurate.

No, it wouldn't, that's my whole point.

[Alien Space Bats]

God, why are people still showing up here and begging for Ron Paul?

Ron Paul's made his last run for the White House. He's done. He'll never be President.

Deal with it.

[PapaJacky]

Then mostly consistent would be accurate.

No, it wouldn't, that's my whole point.

Your point was proven, that's not your point.

[Wikkiwallana]

God, why are people still showing up here and begging for Ron Paul?

Ron Paul's made his last run for the White House. He's done. He'll never be President.

Deal with it.

His career may be dead, but the dream lives on.

I will continue doing my best to stop that, but you know how dreams are…

[Norstal]

God, why are people still showing up here and begging for Ron Paul?

Ron Paul's made his last run for the White House. He's done. He'll never be President.

Deal with it.

You just gotta have faith ASB.

RON PAUL 2020!

[Wikkiwallana]

No, it wouldn't, that's my whole point.

Your point was proven, that's not your point.

You're saying you know my point better than I do? Do tell.

[PapaJacky]

Your point was proven, that's not your point.

You're saying you know my point better than I do? Do tell.

Ron Paul isn't consistent.

There's a difference between that and mostly consistent.

[Wikkiwallana]

You're saying you know my point better than I do? Do tell.

Ron Paul isn't consistent.

There's a difference between that and mostly consistent.

No, he is not consistent in any meaningful way, except consistently crazy and consistently bad.

[PapaJacky]

Ron Paul isn't consistent.

There's a difference between that and mostly consistent.

No, he is not consistent in any meaningful way, except consistently crazy and consistently bad.

I'd suggest you read the link I've presented on him.

[New Chalcedon]

I'm voting Jill Stein since she seems the most sane of them all, and isn't part of the two mainstream parties that have been bought by the rich elite. Anyone who's not a Social Conservative (AKA anyone who's not a religious fundie lunatic) would make an OK president to me out of our candidates.

A vote for Jill Stein is half a vote for Mitt Romney.

Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

[Wikkiwallana]

No, he is not consistent in any meaningful way, except consistently crazy and consistently bad.

I'd suggest you read the link I've presented on him.

And I suggest you read mine.
Or your own:

Abortion laws should be a state-level choice. (Apr 2011)
Get the federal government out of abortion decision. (Nov 2007)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)

No legislation to counteract the homosexual agenda. (Sep 2007)
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)

The people, not government, are supposed to run the economy. (Jan 2008)
Government out of regulating economy & out of our bedrooms. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on letting shareholders vote on executive compensation. (Jul 2009)
Voted NO on allowing stockholder voting on executive compensation. (Apr 2007)

Ban federal funding for needle-exchange programs. (Mar 1999)
Distribute sterile syringes to reduce AIDS and hepatitis. (Jan 2009)

Competition helps, but vouchers invite bureaucratic control. (Apr 2011)
Voted NO on allowing vouchers in DC schools. (Aug 1998)
Voted YES on vouchers for private & parochial schools. (Nov 1997)

Big Oil profits ok; Big Oil subsidies are not. (Jun 2007)
Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007)

US must obey human rights treaties abroad. (Dec 2007)
Sponsored bill invalidating International Criminal Court. (Mar 2003)

All spending should be designated by earmarks. (Jan 2012)
No on all earmarks, even those he proposes for his district. (Dec 2007)

Ease procedures on the purchase and registration of firearms. (Nov 1996)
Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)

I'm tired, there could very well be more that I missed.

[TaQud]

God, why are people still showing up here and begging for Ron Paul?

Ron Paul's made his last run for the White House. He's done. He'll never be President.

Deal with it.

Ron Paul is the Herpes of The Election...

[PapaJacky]

I'd suggest you read the link I've presented on him.

And I suggest you read mine.
Or your own:

Abortion laws should be a state-level choice. (Apr 2011)
Get the federal government out of abortion decision. (Nov 2007)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)

No legislation to counteract the homosexual agenda. (Sep 2007)
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)

The people, not government, are supposed to run the economy. (Jan 2008)
Government out of regulating economy & out of our bedrooms. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on letting shareholders vote on executive compensation. (Jul 2009)
Voted NO on allowing stockholder voting on executive compensation. (Apr 2007)

Ban federal funding for needle-exchange programs. (Mar 1999)
Distribute sterile syringes to reduce AIDS and hepatitis. (Jan 2009)

Competition helps, but vouchers invite bureaucratic control. (Apr 2011)
Voted NO on allowing vouchers in DC schools. (Aug 1998)
Voted YES on vouchers for private & parochial schools. (Nov 1997)

Big Oil profits ok; Big Oil subsidies are not. (Jun 2007)
Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007)

US must obey human rights treaties abroad. (Dec 2007)
Sponsored bill invalidating International Criminal Court. (Mar 2003)

All spending should be designated by earmarks. (Jan 2012)
No on all earmarks, even those he proposes for his district. (Dec 2007)

Ease procedures on the purchase and registration of firearms. (Nov 1996)
Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)

I'm tired, there could very well be more that I missed.

"Mostly consistent". I've gone through the first handful of categories on Mitt Romney, already beat out Paul.

[Ashmoria]

do you suppose that mr obama agreed to support mrs clinton in the next election in return for mr clinton putting in an extreme effort?

Yes.

that must have been the easiest promise to make. mrs clinton has done such a good job as SoS that it improves mr obama's image as president. he ought to support her no matter what she decides to do in the future. ("want me to help you move your sofa? what time do you want me to be there?")

[Tmutarakhan]

"Mostly consistent". I've gone through the first handful of categories on Mitt Romney, already beat out Paul.

"More consistent than Mitt Romney" is a very low bar. Ron Paul has no principles that he will not betray, so a phrase like "mostly consistent" does not apply, anymore than you could speak of a food being "mostly healthy" except, you know, for the cyanide.

[PapaJacky]

"Mostly consistent". I've gone through the first handful of categories on Mitt Romney, already beat out Paul.

"More consistent than Mitt Romney" is a very low bar. Ron Paul has no principles that he will not betray, so a phrase like "mostly consistent" does not apply, anymore than you could speak of a food being "mostly healthy" except, you know, for the cyanide.

You can fact check yourself on that site, it's not true if you have read.

[Inyourfaceistan]

Gary Johnson would be great, except foreign policy. But he's never going to win... So lesser of the two evils, Romney.

[Salandriagado]

And I suggest you read mine.
Or your own:









I'm tired, there could very well be more that I missed.

"Mostly consistent". I've gone through the first handful of categories on Mitt Romney, already beat out Paul.

"Mitt Romney is less consistent" is not equivalent to "Ron Paul is mostly consistent". That's pretty well every one of his supposed core values he's gone against at one point or another. In no possible way is that "mostly consistent" (except that he is mostly consistent in his pattern of being inconsistent on issues).

[New Chalcedon]

Gary Johnson would be great, except foreign policy. But he's never going to win... So lesser of the two evils, Romney.

Yes, because the man who chooses 9/11 to attack the President who ordered Bin Laden's death (not to mention lying about the President's statements before they're even made), utters so many lies that even the feckless media are cluing themselves in and has demonstrated all the empathy of a robot is vastly preferable to President Obama. /sarcasm

Also, before you say "but, but, but....deficits!", please bear in mind that the Romney "plan" to cut deficits relies for 90%+ of its effect on the magic asterisk - a place where he'll cut spending (without saying on what), cut tax loopholes and tax breaks (without specifying which ones) and raise taxes on the rich (except where he'll cut them instead). What's more, the arithmetic on Romney's budget "plan" is literally impossible, as noted by a host of analysts (both partisan and non-partisan) who have worked on the (sparse) details released - there is no way that Romney's policies can all happen, being as he's promised $5trn in tax cuts, no tax hikes on the middle class, big military spending hikes and deficit reduction. These goals are mutually exclusive - not all of them can happen together. Yet Romney's plan assumes they will due to the magic asterisk, the confidence fairy and the trickle-down effect, and the vast majority of the media peddles the line that he and his partner in prevarication, Paul Ryan, are somehow "serious" about deficit reduction.

As a crowning matter, now Romney's claiming that he'll keep "parts" of Obamacare, after spending years being for it (back when it was Romneycare and he signed it into law for Massachusetts), then against it (when running for President in 2008), then for it again (when he was writing op-eds in 2009 urging Congress to model Obamacare after Romneycare - and they did, even picking Romneycare's author to write Obamacare), then against it again(the moment he started running seriously for 2012). Now, apparently, he's sort-of-for it again.

There is literally not a single policy area that Romney has not been on both sides of (abortion rights, LGBT rights, social policy, affirmative action, education, etc. etc.) , with the sole exception of foreign policy. Romney is constantly, unthinkingly belligerent, to the extent that during his visit to the UK, the British Prime Minister - the Conservative leader of your closest ally - had to publicly smack him down. Also to the extent that Vladimir Putin has thanked him for "validating" the Russian opposition to US anti-missile batteries in Eastern Europe. Even Bush managed to get along with the Russians enough that Putin grudgingly agreed to the missile defense shield.

It's an indictment of the media that two people such as these still allowed to say they're serious about budgetary matters - or anything else - without getting laughed out of town.

But forget about all that. Go put your silly tricorne hat on, attend the next Tea Party rally, and take comfort that you'll be able to vote against that horrid black man who's getting the government involved with your Medicare. Meanwhile, the adults will have to somehow soldier on fixing America's problems - caused largely by the last Republican President's policies, combined with unprecedented obstructionism from the congressional GOP - without you. I'm sure they'll manage somehow.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Gary Johnson would be great, except foreign policy. But he's never going to win... So lesser of the two evils, Romney.

Yes, because the man who chooses 9/11 to attack the President who ordered Bin Laden's death (not to mention lying about the President's statements before they're even made), utters so many lies that even the feckless media are cluing themselves in and has demonstrated all the empathy of a robot is vastly preferable to President Obama. /sarcasm

Also, before you say "but, but, but....deficits!", please bear in mind that the Romney "plan" to cut deficits relies for 90%+ of its effect on the magic asterisk - a place where he'll cut spending (without saying on what), cut tax loopholes and tax breaks (without specifying which ones) and raise taxes on the rich (except where he'll cut them instead). What's more, the arithmetic on Romney's budget "plan" is literally impossible, as noted by a host of analysts (both partisan and non-partisan) who have worked on the (sparse) details released - there is no way that Romney's policies can all happen, being as he's promised $5trn in tax cuts, no tax hikes on the middle class, big military spending hikes and deficit reduction. These goals are mutually exclusive - not all of them can happen together. Yet Romney's plan assumes they will due to the magic asterisk, the confidence fairy and the trickle-down effect, and the vast majority of the media peddles the line that he and his partner in prevarication, Paul Ryan, are somehow "serious" about deficit reduction.

As a crowning matter, now Romney's claiming that he'll keep "parts" of Obamacare, after spending years being for it (back when it was Romneycare and he signed it into law for Massachusetts), then against it (when running for President in 2008), then for it again (when he was writing op-eds in 2009 urging Congress to model Obamacare after Romneycare - and they did, even picking Romneycare's author to write Obamacare), then against it again(the moment he started running seriously for 2012). Now, apparently, he's sort-of-for it again.

There is literally not a single policy area that Romney has not been on both sides of (abortion rights, LGBT rights, social policy, affirmative action, education, etc. etc.) , with the sole exception of foreign policy. Romney is constantly, unthinkingly belligerent, to the extent that during his visit to the UK, the British Prime Minister - the Conservative leader of your closest ally - had to publicly smack him down. Also to the extent that Vladimir Putin has thanked him for "validating" the Russian opposition to US anti-missile batteries in Eastern Europe. Even Bush managed to get along with the Russians enough that Putin grudgingly agreed to the missile defense shield.

It's an indictment of the media that two people such as these still allowed to say they're serious about budgetary matters - or anything else - without getting laughed out of town.

But forget about all that. Go put your silly tricorne hat on, attend the next Tea Party rally, and take comfort that you'll be able to vote against that horrid black man who's getting the government involved with your Medicare. Meanwhile, the adults will have to somehow soldier on fixing America's problems - caused largely by the last Republican President's policies, combined with unprecedented obstructionism from the congressional GOP - without you. I'm sure they'll manage somehow.

1....2....3! Ring the bell! New Chalcedon wins.