Romney was Better than Obama

[GreecePwns]

Just to be clear: you're saying the rhetoric used by the two is secondary to their actual policies, right?

[Phatscotty]

How will this difference manifest itself in a hypothetical Romney administration? What policies will Romney pursue different to Obama due to his love of America and its founding principles? Do those policies represent your beliefs best compared to all opposition?

I think it's okay to leave the decision at "loves America and values our principles" versus "wants to fundamentally transform America and it's principles". Policy is secondary when the difference is crystal clear at the base.

Just to be clear: you're saying the rhetoric used by the two is secondary to their actual policies, right?

To be even more clear, Romney loves America and believes in our founding principles. Obama wants to fundamentally transform America and "fix" our founding principles.

[GreecePwns]

How does Romneys love for Americas founding principles manifest itself in his policies? How does Obamas hate for Americas finding profiles manifest itself in his policies?

Without enough examples all were left with is rhetoric as the deciding factor.

[Phatscotty]

How does Romneys love for Americas founding principles manifest itself in his policies? How does Obamas hate for Americas finding profiles manifest itself in his policies?

Without enough examples all were left with is rhetoric as the deciding factor.

it's as simple as principles are more important than individual policies.

The end

[GreecePwns]

"I love America, so i'm going to pursue policies A, B and C (even though I have little influence over getting C done)." --Romney

"I hate America, so i'm going to pursue policies A, B and D (even though I have little influence over getting D done)." --Obama

Phatacotty, being a constitutionalist libertarian, promotes policies E, F and G.

Let A = interventionist foreign policy and E = non interventionist foreign policy

Let B = crony capitalism and F = free market capitalism

Let C and D be national solutions to abortion and gay rights issues, and E be states rights.

[Phatscotty]

"I love America, so i'm going to pursue policies A, B and C (even though I have little influence over getting C done)." --Romney

"I hate America, so i'm going to pursue policies A, B and D (even though I have little influence over getting D done)." --Obama

Phatacotty, being a constitutionalist libertarian, promotes policies E, F and G.

Let A = interventionist foreign policy and E = non interventionist foreign policy

Let B = crony capitalism and F = free market capitalism

Let C and D be national solutions to abortion and gay rights issues, and E be states rights.

okay, let me ask you something. How many policies are there? Is there any way that any of those policy discussion won't turn into politics and we do the usual circle jerk only to discover in the end I lean Conservative and you lean Liberal? As if that is not reason enough in itself for me to vote for Romney, and you for Obama (if you can/could)? What does a policy prove? You think if Gary Johnson got elected, that Congress would even let him enact 5% of the policies he promises?

There is a far bigger picture here than voting for a policy. That is to say, you can vote for a policy all your life, but if you don't vote for a WIN in ORDER TO IMPLEMENT that policy, then the policy is meaningless, and your votes have probably been wasted, unless you have also been working on the side through the primary process to get your guy/gal with your policies in a position to WIN, and of course, promote those policies.

[tzor]

I feel like I've asked this question before, but...

COULD YOU PLEASE NAME FIVE REASONS WHY ROMNEY IS DIFFERENT THAN OBAMA

Sure, this is easy ...too easy ,,,

1. Romney has gotten legislation passed when his party was in the minoriry.
2. Romney has balanced the budgets of several companies, the Olympics, and a state.
3. Romney actually believes in this document called the constitution as being a good thing that must be followed.
4. Romney has boys while Obama has girls
5. Romney is a Mormon

[BigBallinStalin]

"I love America, so i'm going to pursue policies A, B and C (even though I have little influence over getting C done)." --Romney

"I hate America, so i'm going to pursue policies A, B and D (even though I have little influence over getting D done)." --Obama

Phatacotty, being a constitutionalist libertarian, promotes policies E, F and G.

Let A = interventionist foreign policy and E = non interventionist foreign policy

Let B = crony capitalism and F = free market capitalism

Let C and D be national solutions to abortion and gay rights issues, and E be states rights.

okay, let me ask you something. How many policies are there? Is there any way that any of those policy discussion won't turn into politics and we do the usual circle jerk only to discover in the end I lean Conservative and you lean Liberal? As if that is not reason enough in itself for me to vote for Romney, and you for Obama (if you can/could)? What does a policy prove? You think if Gary Johnson got elected, that Congress would even let him enact 5% of the policies he promises?

There is a far bigger picture here than voting for a policy. That is to say, you can vote for a policy all your life, but if you don't vote for a WIN in ORDER TO IMPLEMENT that policy, then the policy is meaningless, and your votes have probably been wasted, unless you have also been working on the side through the primary process to get your guy/gal with your policies in a position to WIN, and of course, promote those policies.

PS rejects the adage: 'actions speak louder than words.'

[GreecePwns]

There are a lot of issues that present opportunities for Obama and Romney to differ substantially. I'm not trying to convince you which set of policies to vote for, only to vote for the candidate which best represents your policies (as you said) or vote in a way which maximizes the chance that your policies will be enacted (as I have been saying).

I presented the consequences of voting for different candidates for a libertarian voter. If you vote for Romney, you're not going to have libertarian policies enacted (if you think so, please present the evidence) by a Romney administration; he's going to look at the win as an endorsement of A, B and C. He can't tell that you want E, F and G for obvious reason. So your win does nothing for enacting libertarian policies.

Alternatively, if you vote for Johnson and he doesn't get 5% but Romney loses, the GOP will look at the Johnson vote tally as voters who endorse E, F and G and a rejection of A, B and C. The GOP can either try and get libertarian votes by endorsing E, F and G or some middle point between that and their establishment, or they could just purge them from the party and forget all about them (the convention debacle having already done that at the Presidential candidate level), or they could try to actively suppress the libertarian movement.

Alternatively, if you vote for Johnson and he gets 5%, the Libertarian party will be rolling in the dough (relative to their current position). This means they can actively challenge for Congressional seats in the 2014 midterm elections and eventually the 2016 presidential election. This is the best chance to enact libertarian policies.

So how does voting for Romney help enact libertarian policies exactly?
- Forget foreign policy, since we know Romney will continue wars and other intervention, including war in Iran and unquestioning support for the racist practice of Zionism.
-Economic policies? Romney won't be advancing free markets, he'll just be picking a different set of winners than Obama.
-Social issues? I thought you wanted states' rights. Romney doesn't.

[Phatscotty]

"I love America, so i'm going to pursue policies A, B and C (even though I have little influence over getting C done)." --Romney

"I hate America, so i'm going to pursue policies A, B and D (even though I have little influence over getting D done)." --Obama

Phatacotty, being a constitutionalist libertarian, promotes policies E, F and G.

Let A = interventionist foreign policy and E = non interventionist foreign policy

Let B = crony capitalism and F = free market capitalism

Let C and D be national solutions to abortion and gay rights issues, and E be states rights.

okay, let me ask you something. How many policies are there? Is there any way that any of those policy discussion won't turn into politics and we do the usual circle jerk only to discover in the end I lean Conservative and you lean Liberal? As if that is not reason enough in itself for me to vote for Romney, and you for Obama (if you can/could)? What does a policy prove? You think if Gary Johnson got elected, that Congress would even let him enact 5% of the policies he promises?

There is a far bigger picture here than voting for a policy. That is to say, you can vote for a policy all your life, but if you don't vote for a WIN in ORDER TO IMPLEMENT that policy, then the policy is meaningless, and your votes have probably been wasted, unless you have also been working on the side through the primary process to get your guy/gal with your policies in a position to WIN, and of course, promote those policies.

PS rejects the adage: 'actions speak louder than words.'

PS prevents solid points from being dragged into charybdis of politics.

If they both had similar principles, then I would entertain policy discussions as worth the time

[Phatscotty]

There are a lot of issues that present opportunities for Obama and Romney to differ substantially. I'm not trying to convince you which set of policies to vote for, only to vote for the candidate which best represents your policies (as you said) or vote in a way which maximizes the chance that your policies will be enacted (as I have been saying).

I presented the consequences of voting for different candidates for a libertarian voter. If you vote for Romney, you're not going to have libertarian policies enacted (if you think so, please present the evidence) by a Romney administration; he's going to look at the win as an endorsement of A, B and C. He can't tell that you want E, F and G for obvious reason. So your win does nothing for enacting libertarian policies.

Alternatively, if you vote for Johnson and he doesn't get 5% but Romney loses, the GOP will look at the Johnson vote tally as voters who endorse E, F and G and a rejection of A, B and C. The GOP can either try and get libertarian votes by endorsing E, F and G or some middle point between that and their establishment, or they could just purge them from the party and forget all about them (the convention debacle having already done that at the Presidential candidate level), or they could try to actively suppress the libertarian movement.

Alternatively, if you vote for Johnson and he gets 5%, the Libertarian party will be rolling in the dough (relative to their current position). This means they can actively challenge for Congressional seats in the 2014 midterm elections and eventually the 2016 presidential election. This is the best chance to enact libertarian policies.

So how does voting for Romney help enact libertarian policies exactly?
- Forget foreign policy, since we know Romney will continue wars and other intervention, including war in Iran and unquestioning support for the racist practice of Zionism.
-Economic policies? Romney won't be advancing free markets, he'll just be picking a different set of winners than Obama.
-Social issues? I thought you wanted states' rights. Romney doesn't.

voting for Romney does not help enact libertarian policies exactly. Recognizing Obama actively fights and opposes Libertarian policies is a worthy reason for Libertarians to vote out Obama. Romney is closer to Libertarian policies than Obama, while they both seem miles apart from Libertarian policies, it still remains....

Romney is better for Libertarians than Obama is

[GreecePwns]

And, until you prove otherwise by countering my points, Johnson is better for Libertarians than Romney is, even if he doesn't win.

[Phatscotty]

And, until you prove otherwise by countering my points, Johnson is better for Libertarians than Romney is, even if he doesn't win.

You are free to make that choice, and I won't lambast you or call you names or erase your video links either. I respect your vote and the reasons for it

[saxitoxin]

1. Romney has gotten legislation passed when his party was in the minoriry.
2. Romney has balanced the budgets of several companies, the Olympics, and a state.

These are probably legitimate reasons for a person, generally speaking, to vote for Mitt Romney.

I'm not sure they're legitimate in Scott's case, though. Scott has presented himself as deeply opposed to Obamacare and (to point #1), legislation successfully passed by Romney included Obamacare. Scott has presented himself as against increased taxes and (to point #2), Romney balanced the budget for three of his four years (there was a large deficit in his fourth year) by raising business taxes by 14%.

3. Romney actually believes in this document called the constitution as being a good thing that must be followed.

This is difficult to quantify without an explanation of how "believes in this document called the constitution as being a good thing" manifests itself. On the basis of Romney's support of FISA, the Patriot Act, etc., I would say that is not true, but we'd need more information on what exactly "believes" means.

Romney is better for Libertarians than Obama is

Libertarians have repeatedly disagreed with this view.

Reason has been most horrified by Romney's selection of Robert Bork as his lead legal advisor and have slammed Bork as one of the most anti-libertarian jurists in America. Reason has also been concerned about Romney's pledge to "nominate judges in the mold of John Roberts." (deciding vote to uphold the federal version of Romneycare [also called 'Obamacare']) - http://reason.com/blog/2012/08/28/romne ... supreme-co

As Bork once put it, “In wide areas of life, majorities are entitled to rule, if they wish, simply because they are majorities.”

This is one of many issues on which Libertarian thought leaders are terrified by Romney. I'm unsure of any on which there's agreement.

[Phatscotty]

1. Romney has gotten legislation passed when his party was in the minoriry.
2. Romney has balanced the budgets of several companies, the Olympics, and a state.

These are probably legitimate reasons for a person, generally speaking, to vote for Mitt Romney.

I'm not sure they're legitimate in Scott's case, though. Scott has presented himself as deeply opposed to Obamacare and (to point #1), legislation successfully passed by Romney included Obamacare. Scott has presented himself as against increased taxes and (to point #2), Romney balanced the budget for three of his four years (there was a large deficit in his fourth year) by raising business taxes by 14%.

3. Romney actually believes in this document called the constitution as being a good thing that must be followed.

This is difficult to quantify without an explanation of how "believes in this document called the constitution as being a good thing" manifests itself. On the basis of Romney's support of FISA, the Patriot Act, etc., I would say that is not true, but we'd need more information on what exactly "believes" means.

Romney is better for Libertarians than Obama is

Libertarians have repeatedly disagreed with this view.

Reason has been most horrified by Romney's selection of Robert Bork as his lead legal advisor and have slammed Bork as one of the most anti-libertarian jurists in America. Reason has also been concerned about Romney's pledge to "nominate judges in the mold of John Roberts." (deciding vote to uphold the federal version of Romneycare [also called 'Obamacare']) - http://reason.com/blog/2012/08/28/romne ... supreme-co

This is one of many issues on which Libertarian thought leaders are terrified by Romney. I'm unsure of any on which there's agreement.

and their views on Obama?