|
|
|||||
|
130 votes
|
|
40% | ||
|
130 votes
|
|
40% | ||
|
17 votes
|
|
5% | ||
|
46 votes
|
|
14% | ||
Who ever comes out the winner in November is going to be under immense pressure from the right wing evangelical nut cases to start a war with Iran. I see Romney being the more mature adult to say No. I know many here will not agree with me but we all do have an opinion.
Because the GOP-led house won't cooperate with the Pres - you get rid of the better country leader/Commander in Chief?? And hire a guy who will absolutely take us back to Bush Doctrine On Steroids??? Talk about a Friday the 13th scenario!!
Oh my, doxie....sorry, that is 100% illogic in my book.
1) As you state: legislative gridlock. And yet - Obama is still managing to get things done. His drone policy has taken out the guys who are plotting against us - and they have the resources to get it done. He's ending wars - and whether you agree with it or not - he is pushing to reallocate war spending to domestic programs. Even if you disagree with the domestic programs - spending money at home beats the hell out of spending money on useless wars and more and more money going to defense contractors.
2) Another GOP loss - including losses in swing states - sends a message to GOP legislators to get with the program. And we start to see more cooperation.
Yep - 1) is more likely than 2). But either of these scenarios is preferable to going back to a 3rd round of George W. Bush. That includes the gridlock scenario.
2) I do not see many if any Dem gains come November. The country is in a serially mood and has no patience for long term incumbents. I see Bill Nelson here in Florida having if not loosing his 30 year plus incumbency.
3) The claim that a Romney administration would be nothing more then a third Bush term carries no more water then the claims by the RWNJ's that Barack Obama is a secret socialist bent on the destruction of the United States. Both claims are nothing more then fear mongering in my opinion. But that is me, right.
I have given you links to solid web links that fly directly in the face of your words. Articles that: 1) contain Romney's own neocon statements with respect to Iran, and...Russia, for god's sakes! 2) report that Romney has hired 17 former Bush policy advisors/cabinet members, 3) contain statements from one of the most respected former national security advisors who looks at both Romney's own words - and his cadre of Bush foreign policy advisors - and comes to the same, unavoidable conclusion.
Welp - Doxie - as the ol' saying goes, "you can lead a horse to water...but you can't make him drink".
Best of luck.
Well we each have to make our own decisions. I could post all the RWNJ stuff about Obama as well but it would make no more sense.
And then there are the Paulistas and there off world answer to all our ills.
We could not disagree more on this point. Romney is the sabre rattler. Romney is the guy talking tough, and talking about ensuring that military spending increases - and does not suffer the mandatory cuts. Not Obama.
1) "How I would check Iran’s nuclear ambition"
By Mitt Romney, Published: March 5
http://www.washingtonpost.com...
"Most important, I will buttress my diplomacy with a military option that will persuade the ayatollahs to abandon their nuclear ambitions. Only when they understand that at the end of that road lies not nuclear weapons but ruin will there be a real chance for a peaceful resolution.
My plan includes restoring the regular presence of aircraft carrier groups in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf region simultaneously."
2) "Experts Skeptical of Romney's Defense Budget Plans"
http://www.usnews.com/news/ar...
"Mitt Romney's campaign plans for increasing military spending while reducing the deficit are being met with skepticism by industry experts..."
This still does not get around the problem of the three branches of government not cooperating with each other. Congress is simply not going to work with Barack Obama. There is not a chance in Hades that the Democrats will gain control of the House and are in all likelihood may loose the Senate as well. So, four years of Washington deadlock or the alternative?
You are either misjudging - or you are not seeing the news on this topic. This is one of thousands of articles on the web re: Romney loading up with former Dubya advisors on foreign policy and national security:
"Romney Hires G.W. Bush Advisors"
http://my.auburnjournal.com/d...
"Former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski said in an interview on Bloomberg that Mitt Romney lacks a grasp of foreign policy and would return the U.S. to the policies of George W. Bush."
Q: So it would be a reprise of the George W. Bush administration foreign policy?
BRZEZINSKI: "Yeah. You know, he seems to have a lot of people around him from that administration who are generally described as neocons."
"Among the 22 members of Mitt Romney’s foreign policy staff, 15 were foreign policy advisers under George W. Bush. Six are former members of Project For A New American Century (PNAC)."
"PNAC stressed a doctrine that "American leadership is both good for America and good for the world," and supported "a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity."
This would be akin of me believing all the right wing loons who make their outrageous claims. You deeply believe that another four years of Barack Obama is the best thing for the nation. I just don't see it. All I see with a reelected Barack Obama is four more years of the same. My patience, my company and financial situation will not go through that. Another four years of this and my company will be closed and the 40 people left working will be out of a job. Is the Republican party the god send? Oh hell know but I do not like the current situation.
Look - bubbe.....never mind. Pet your dachshund, or something. It's more productive than writing more here.