FOUR MORE YEARS!

[patrickaa317]

I heard that Hitler, Moa Tse Tung, Joseph Stalin, and the Zetas Cartel in Mexico all endorse rMoney.

I don't follow the Mexican cartels much but from your comment, I must assume the Zetas are not the ones that got free guns from the Eric Holder and the Obama Administration. Is that correct?

Wasn't that a Bush administration policy? Sure it continued under Obama, who cancelled it when the news of it came out, but still, bit harsh to blame Obama for a Republican policy he ended.

Fast and Furious was launched in 2009, Bush wasn't in office at that time (a smaller scale of gun-walking was done under his watch though). Fast and Furious greatly increased the volume of gun-walking weapons and 1700 of 2000 guns that were allowed across the border between 2009-2011 are unaccounted for. To give Obama any positive credit for such a horrible policy, where both him and Bush are to blame is completely ridiculous.

I misunderestimated your attempt to derail the thread, and assumed that you were talking about the Bush era policy of selling guns to drug cartels.

Fast and Furious, was, of course an Obama era policy name for the ATF gunwalking scandal. I'd give Obama credit for shutting the thing down. Not fast or furiously enough, but shut it down he did.

Derail the thread? I was stating why one group of cartels may endorse Romney as bedub suggested. You followed and started praising Obama for a bad policy under his administration that was only pulled because there was American blood on his watch. It was a bad policy and to give one credit for it would be crazy. If you wish to respond further, please start another thread entitled "Bad Policies by the Obama Administration that I support because they were done by the Obama Administration".

[Juan_Bottom]

[Neoteny]

Kenya and Pakistan seem to like Romney. Amusing.

[Juan_Bottom]

Pakistan is sick of being bombed by invisible drones, I understand that and I think that they are right. But don't they know that Romney likes those Drones?

[Nobunaga]

... Those poll numbers are easy to believe. I don't see it as any plus for Obama, however. I'm curious as to why you, or any American, would.

... I guess it makes sense.The social democracies, with close to zero probability of being in a confrontation with the US, like the direction Obama has pulled us - more resembling their own socialist democratic systems with huge government involvement and near total dependence in all sectors. They understand it.

... China, that's obvious. We don't know yet if Romney has the balls to declare them a currency manipulator and enact those tariffs and taxes he spoke of... but if he should, that would suck for them. It's funny, the Chinese message boards after the last debate were tearing Romney up over what he said... You could smell the fear.... What's funny is the debate wasn't telecast in the PRC... I also wonder how that poll data was collected in the PRC, where folks are questioned by the police for public political discussions... The smart Chinese would walk away from a pollster. (wandering into a tangent.... pulling myself back..)

... As for all the others... I suppose they see a weaker US as less likely to involve itself in conflict generally.. ? But who here knows the mind of an Indonesian or a Kenyan... or a Panamanian?

...

[Juan_Bottom]

It may also be the size of our economy and our involvement in every nation on the globe.

[thegreekdog]

It may also be the size of our economy and our involvement in every nation on the globe.

The president has not given any indication he would reduce our involvement in every nation on the globe. I wish that was one campaign promise he would have kept.

[Symmetry]

It may also be the size of our economy and our involvement in every nation on the globe.

The president has not given any indication he would reduce our involvement in every nation on the globe. I wish that was one campaign promise he would have kept.

You mean economically? That's kind of a weird thing to say.

[thegreekdog]

It may also be the size of our economy and our involvement in every nation on the globe.

The president has not given any indication he would reduce our involvement in every nation on the globe. I wish that was one campaign promise he would have kept.

You mean economically? That's kind of a weird thing to say.

No, I mean militarily.

[Symmetry]

It may also be the size of our economy and our involvement in every nation on the globe.

The president has not given any indication he would reduce our involvement in every nation on the globe. I wish that was one campaign promise he would have kept.

You mean economically? That's kind of a weird thing to say.

No, I mean militarily.

Ah, then that's fair comment. Might be very tough for any president to accomplish though. I think Obama has done a pretty good job shifting toward soft power on foreign policy (not that that's his sole take on foreign policy), compared to the Bush years.

I think that Romney's strengths lie only in domestic economic policy. I can't see him as effective on any kind of international front, militarily or economically.

[thegreekdog]

It may also be the size of our economy and our involvement in every nation on the globe.

The president has not given any indication he would reduce our involvement in every nation on the globe. I wish that was one campaign promise he would have kept.

You mean economically? That's kind of a weird thing to say.

No, I mean militarily.

Ah, then that's fair comment. Might be very tough for any president to accomplish though. I think Obama has done a pretty good job shifting toward soft power on foreign policy (not that that's his sole take on foreign policy), compared to the Bush years.

I think that Romney's strengths lie only in domestic economic policy. I can't see him as effective on any kind of international front, militarily or economically.

I don't know enough about Romney to know what he would be like dealing with foreign policy (similar to then-candidate Obama four years ago). So I don't think it's far to say he wouldn't be effective on the international front (unless you believe ever first time presidential candidate wouldn't be effective due to lack of experience). I mean, President Obama was a senator for like two years before he ran for president (that was it).

And what do you mean by "soft power on foreign policy?" I know we focus a lot on the Middle East in the U.S. but it appears he has involved us in a number of conflicts recently and has not stopped the conflicts we inherited.

[Symmetry]

By soft power I mean those elements of American power that don't necessarily involve military engagement. It's more nebulous than military intervention, but involves diplomacy, economic ties, and cultural expansion.

Experience wise I think Obama has the edge now- four years as commander in chief kind of trumps governor of Massachusetts and business experience at Bain Capital when it comes to foreign policy experience.

The old trope of a neophyte congressman Obama doesn't really play out. Romney is the neophyte on foreign policy now. I can understand why someone would see him as strong domestically, but abroad he's seen as weak and easily manipulated.

His recent foreign visits kind of cemented that view. In the UK he was seen as a bit of an ass, and the current Israeli government seem to see him as a pawn.

These are not the seeds of a strong foreign policy.

[BigBallinStalin]

I know, right? He needs to continue two wars and bomb some country of brown people. Only then people will take him seriously and regard him as Diplomatic and Strong.

[Juan_Bottom]

It may also be the size of our economy and our involvement in every nation on the globe.

The president has not given any indication he would reduce our involvement in every nation on the globe. I wish that was one campaign promise he would have kept.

I meant that globally, people would rather have Obama running the world's largest military & economy than Romney.

[thegreekdog]

It may also be the size of our economy and our involvement in every nation on the globe.

The president has not given any indication he would reduce our involvement in every nation on the globe. I wish that was one campaign promise he would have kept.

I meant that globally, people would rather have Obama running the world's largest military & economy than Romney.

I'm not so sure there is that big a difference.