Now, PS, we just going to have a little conversation here, all right? I'll start by saying I get it, you care about your country and you don't want to see her come to harm. You don't want to see your countrymen go through greater toils than they have to. If you really are honest with yourself, everyone feels basically the same way, even those who you'd consider political opponents and who you think are wrong in what direction or what should be done.
So that's where the real disagreements come, disagreements over what to do.
BBS always brings up the excellent point of unrealistic expectations of government. And this point in mind is where I diverge from some of your thinking in regards to if Romney would be better than Obama. Of course he wouldn't! Why? Because we are talking about government. Romney is as much a statist as Obama. Republican, democrat, they are worship at the alter of government. So there is no way one can objectively state that Romney would have been better than Obama. It would have just been different, and not that much different even. All that changes is different jockeys on the horses which still run around the exact same racetrack.
Phatscotty wrote:I see your point, but I think there is something to say in the realm of soft power. I think Putin/Russia is much more aggressive and more bold with Obama because he does not respect Obama, and Obama certainly does not command respect, he's a total pushover.
See, from your perspective you say that, but is that objective? You say Obama doesn't command respect, but why should he be able to command anything other than what he is allowed in the Constitution? Why should the US president be commanding anything from any other country?
And I don't think Russia is any more aggressive because of Obama. If you remember Russia gave Georgia a good beating (Georgia deserved that beating as well, IMO) and it was Bush in charge. Would you say Bush is the same pushover as Obama?
Bush and Obama both had the same objectives, but just different methods is all. And not all that different either. Bush preferred overt methods mainly while Obama prefers covert efforts, but they both engaged in both, did they not? And with about the same success. Romney would have been the exact same, using overt and covert efforts to manipulate geo politics with the same lack of foresight to the future. And still using the exact same justification- "The US can do what she does because we are the US and the sole superpower". It's a horrible circular argument, that we do things and say it's for good but condemn others for doing the exact same things themselves. We pay lip service to such things and "spreading freedom" and such, when it's all done with cold, calculated national interest concerns (and an argument can be made for corporate interests more so than national interests). Russia is doing what she is doing because it's in her interests. If it's ok for us, then why isn't it ok for them?
The US definitely stirred up the pot in the Ukraine and we were involved up to the hilt in their coup. That coup forced Russia's hand and we still refuse to acknowledge our own hand in the current so called "crisis". It's all theater.
PS wrote: Not that I am for the USA drawing red lines in other people's (Syria) business, but there is something to be said about the error of making threats if a line is crossed, and then when it is crossed, Obama balks.
Thank goodness Obama balked! Ignoring for a moment the idiocy of drawing red lines, what is worse- Drawing red lines and eating crow by not following up, or, drawing red lines and then instead of admitting that it was a bluff, opt for violence instead of losing face. That's a hell of a reason for war, isn't it? To save face?
Now, do you think Romney wouldn't draw red lines as well? Of course he would! And Romney might have been the type to fight a war just to save face, I don't know though. Politicians do manage to blunder themselves and their nations into disastrous wars. History is filled with such examples, the US included. If we keep on with your- "His side"/"my side" way of thinking, we will get a politician who will badly blunder into another such war.
PS wrote: And the same goes for terrorist organizations, they too are more aggressive and more bold. They see the USA as a paper tiger. I know it's better to not be seen as a paper tiger, at least on paper.
Ha! The terrorists organizations don't see the US as a paper tiger, no matter who the POTUS is, they see the US as the greatest recruiting tool they've ever had. What you would advocate to do, what you think Romney would do that makes him a better POTUS would only accomplish one thing, more recruitment for the terrorists.
There are few things the average Jihadist fighter fears more than US predator drones cruising the skies above them. But that doesn't deter them, does it? They know how strong the US is and just as Sun Tzu suggested, use your enemies strengths against him. These guys aren't stupid, even though we try to propagandize the enemy as such. There is method to their madness and we best start thinking about that before we turn to our main strength, our military. Sure, the jihadists lose some fighters when we bomb them, but our bombs also kill anyone else who may be nearby. Women, children, sons, daughters, and there you go. You kill one fighter and make sure that 10 more will be willing to fight because we just blew up their grandma or baby or other. There are other options, better options, ones that people like Obama and Romney can't consider because it's not politically viable.
PS wrote: Of course Romney would be making errors too, maybe even the same errors.
So with this in mind, then the line "Romney would have been a better POTUS than Obama" really starts to sound pretty bad, doesn't it?
PS wrote: And concerning the 'we don't have a strategy' statement Obama made to the world a couple weeks ago, that's like announcing over the loudspeaker on the first day of highschool that ya don't know how to fight.
No, it's not like that at all. And I bet you a dollar to a doughnut that there are plenty of kids (a majority) that don't know how to fight. It's not a big deal. As far as Obama is concerned, I don't think I'd be holding much value in what he says. Obama is a liar, would you agree with me on that? If so, then why would you assume he is telling the truth when he says something like that?
Obama has a strategy, he knows what he wants
to do, all he has to figure out is how to trick
get the American public to go along with what he wants to do.
PS wrote: I don't think Romney is incompetent as I do Obama.
I guess it all matters on how you measure such a thing, don't ya think? Obama is a competent politician, he got himself elected didn't he? Romney, on the other hand, hasn't seemed to figure out that the US voter just isn't going to accept him as POTUS. Ever. That brings up some question in my mind about certain competencies.
Obama on the other hand has been wildly successful. You'll even agree with me about that before the end of our conversation I'd bet-
PS wrote: And based on my preference for less taxes, less spending, less government, I would have to go with Romney over Obama.
Of course you would! But Obama believes in more taxes, more spending, more government. And in that he's been quite successful, don't ya think? Haha! Obama is doing everything he wanted to do. I'm not convinced that Romney would eliminate government power, he'd just shift it to other focuses is all, same with spending and taxes.
Obama has been so successful in implementing his agenda that there is absolutely no way you can say he's incompetent or unsuccessful. It's just that you think that what he's doing is wrong. I agree with you on that, but man, has he not increased the power of his office? To levels that unheard of. Man, that's some feat isn't it? He and his administration can break law with impudence, he can lie with no consequences to himself or his cronies. He can tell outright falsehoods to the American people and no one bats an eye. Holy hell that's some major chutzpah! Obama's success boggles my mind. Romney could never have gotten away with the things Obama does/did.
So, regardless on one's point of view, Obama has succeeded very well. He may have succeeded in only hastening the US' demise but he did what he set out to do. To transform the US, and so he has. Foreign policy the US is as schizophrenic as ever, but domestically PC dominates and US values are changed forever. A remarkable feat if I do say so myself.
PS wrote: Sure, it might only be a small step towards the right direction, but to me, that is better than any step in the wrong direction. Assad the lesser of two evils? Sure. And Obama gave money and guns illegally to the greater of two evils, and now ISIS is driving around in American vehicles sporting American weapons beheading/banishing Christians and anyone else who will not immediately convert to Islam. Romney the lesser of two evils? Sure.
Nope. Evil is evil, man. First off, Assad serves a purpose, just as ISIS does. Romney would certainly keep with the arming of rebels to destabilize specific nations. It's part of a strategy founded in the mid 90's and we've been pursuing it ever since. Not necessarily for the benefit of the US, mind you. But that's another subject to long to go into right now.
PS, you, like many other US voters, are stuck in the circle of when voting are not voting for
someone, but rather voting against
someone else. The whole US political process is based on this. As long as you keep voting for "the lesser of two evils" we will still keep on stepping-
PS wrote:in the wrong direction.
PS wrote:All I'm sayin is, given the choice, I don't choose the dipshit. I admit we did not have a great choice, and have been fully aware the entire time we as a people did not earn a fair choice. That is why I'm ALL about the primaries and caucuses. People think they are just gonna be handed a real choice, and that's why Republicans and Democrats get away with it all the time. People sit out voting altogether, they get away with it all the more. We have to earn a real choice. Honestly, if even 5% more Americans got involved in the primary process, it would have a tremendous impact on our choice for president.
The POTUS doesn't operate in a vacuum. Honestly, we are past being able to change anything through the political process. There are already too many benefiting on the current process to be able to do that. Don't you understand that, PS?
We keep on with the- "If we could only get the right person in office". That's a fantasy. Wishful thinking at best.
What's a Gary Johnson going to be able to do? What is a Ron Paul going to be able to do? Or a Rand Paul? Nothing, because even if they truly were the "right person to have in office", even they can't deny the power of the State. No one can change the coercive nature of government. It wouldn't be government without that threat of violence, would it?
It's not a politician that is ever going to change anything, it has to be removing the power of government in the first place. So that no matter who gets into office they just don't have the authority or power to go around mucking up things to begin with. The corporate power brokers behind the scenes won't bother manipulating the government when the government doesn't have the power give those corporations greater influence. And a whole host of other things.
But there is a downside to that as well. People are always trying to compel others, that just won't ever end anytime soon, will it? When people fail to convince others to do things voluntarily then they will turn to coercive means, won't they? It's human nature.
I think it may be better for us in the long run to go ahead and go through the trauma we are heading. If we get through it, and we will get through it most likely, then we will have relearned that which we have forgotten. Or we'll live in a totalitarian hell, but that won't last for very long either. It never does, something those bastards ISIS have yet to learn, but learn they will. The hard way, which is all right by me, and we'll learn the exact same way.
So, in conclusion, PS, I say keep fighting the good fight but make sure you have a backup plan for yourself and your family. Don't rely on our politicians or the US voter to come to his/her senses. Because that, my friend, isn't going to happen.