Romney was Better than Obama

[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?

[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

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?

pretty damning - and in almost every case they editorialize on, they note that Romney would mirror Obama's actions to the letter: war, judicial appointments, PATRIOT Act, FISA, etc.

[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?

pretty damning - and in almost every case they editorialize on, they note that Romney would mirror Obama's actions to the letter: war, judicial appointments, PATRIOT Act, FISA, etc.

I'm sure he would on those issues, maybe not as badly, maybe worse.

How about other issues, such as religious Liberty and economic Liberty? Does Romney score a few more points than Obama?

[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

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?

pretty damning - and in almost every case they editorialize on, they note that Romney would mirror Obama's actions to the letter: war, judicial appointments, PATRIOT Act, FISA, etc.

I'm sure he would on those issues, maybe not as badly, maybe worse.

How about other issues, such as religious Liberty and economic Liberty? Does Romney score a few more points than Obama?

Based on his 14% tax hike on businesses as Governor of Massachusetts I'd say no on economic liberty.

I'm not familiar with any times Romney confronted a religious liberty question while Governor of Massachusetts so any comment would be speculative. The ACLU gave Romney 0-out-of-23 points and Johnson 20-out-of-23, but I'm not sure the criteria used.

Were there any other areas besides war, judicial appointments, civil rights, economic liberty, religious liberty? It seems like we're not looking good on these fronts.

[Woodruff]

Won't the Tea Party need to find the guy who is programming the teleprompter first? They weren't able to track him down in August.

Yeah, the GOP fucked my guy over, but we live to fight another day. It's still either Romney or Obama

I try not to get too emotionally involved with the politics of winning the nomination, as just about every politician will do whatever they can to win. It's not like I'm never going to vote again or dropping out of politics because of the Convention.

But that's just it. How does this not tell you PRECISELY what the Republican Party thinks of the Tea Party and Libertarianism in general? How does this NOT drive you away from the Republican Party and toward Gary Johnson UNLESS you don't actually believe all the bullshit you spout in these fora about only caring about fiscal issues? I think the answer is pretty clear. You don't actually believe in Libertarianism. You're a Republican at heart.

The Tea Party and Libertarian candidates still have a lot of work to do to get a majority in the Republican party in the House of Representatives, and hopefully the cocoon laid in 2011 will become a beautiful butterfly in 2013.

The Republican Party thinks the Tea Party and Libertarian Party don't even need to be bothered with. You're proving them correct. You are supporting them in the position that the Tea Party and Libertarian Party are not worth their time.

[Woodruff]

I'm not a quitter just because the candidate is not perfect in every way. I'm all in

Well...you're all BOUGHT in, anyway. Bought and paid for.

[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?

pretty damning - and in almost every case they editorialize on, they note that Romney would mirror Obama's actions to the letter: war, judicial appointments, PATRIOT Act, FISA, etc.

I'm sure he would on those issues, maybe not as badly, maybe worse.

How about other issues, such as religious Liberty and economic Liberty? Does Romney score a few more points than Obama?

Based on his 14% tax hike on businesses as Governor of Massachusetts I'd say no on economic liberty.

Was this all Romney? Or was 85% of Massachussettes government at the time held by the Democratic party have more say in what legislation was sent to the Governors desk? I think they originally wanted a 19% increase....

FYI: I view the houses of Representatives as closest to the voice of "the people"

[Woodruff]

Romney is a better liar than Obama
Romney is a better douchebag than Obama
Romney is better at screwing over companies than Obama.

There are many ways Romney is better than Obama, just none of them good.

Who understands religious Liberty better?

First of all, this simply proves that Phatscotty is Republican for the social issues, not for fiscal ones.

As to the question...honestly? Between Romney and Obama, I would suggest that Obama probably does. At best, they are equal. That is my honest opinion. What is it that leads you to believe that Romney understands religious liberty better than Obama?

[Woodruff]

And neither has really proven to be betterin any meaningful way. My previous post listed the reasons you give for Romney being better, but none of them actually are true.

perhaps they were sarcastic and inside jokes between me and TGD???? did the i added to it not give it away enough?

Except that TGD is asking you the very same question, so I don't think that really applies very well.

Being serious: I believe Romney deeply loves America and understands and appreciates our principles, and I honestly believe Obama hates America's founding principles

Partisan bullshit.

That is why I think he is turning things upside down every chance Obama gets. Specializing in division and taking abrasive positions against the majority of Americans

So you think Obama does this more than Romney does? Why do you think that? Do you pay any attention to the thinks Romney says?

[Woodruff]

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.

If you actually believe that, you can ONLY vote for Gary Johnson or possibly Virgil Goode. A vote for anyone else proves you a liar.

[saxitoxin]

]

Was this all Romney? Or was 85% of Massachussettes government at the time held by the Democratic party have more say in what legislation was sent to the Governors desk? I think they originally wanted a 19% increase....

Then it seems you'd agree with the Libertarian idea that gridlock is most what Libertarians want. The fewest expansions of government and violations of rights happen when no one can get anything done. With the GOP poised to take control of the Senate, a Libertarian who doesn't want to vote for Gary Johnson has a tactical case for voting for Barack Obama.

In any case, both Obama and Romney agree with Al-Qaeda foreign policy. Those who "will never forget" may not be able to resign themselves to voting for one of the pro Al-Qaeda candidates. Others, who believe America has a lot of buildings and a lot of people, and can afford to lose a few of each every now and then, may have a cogent case to view Obama/Romney/Zawahiri as logical options. So, I can respect both viewpoints, the anti-alQaeda view of GreecePWNS or Player and Scott's more alQaeda-tolerant view.

[MegaProphet]

What is everyone trying to accomplish here? Get PS to change his vote?

[Phatscotty]

Gary Johnson failed to grab a nomination on a winning ticket. Ron Paul came much much closer. You will probably never be able to see things the way I do, but it doesn't bother me.

[Woodruff]

Gary Johnson failed to grab a nomination on a winning ticket. Ron Paul came much much closer. You will probably never be able to see things the way I do, but it doesn't bother me.

True, being on the winning team isn't more important to me than my views of what the country should be.

[saxitoxin]

Gary Johnson failed to grab a nomination on a winning ticket.

So if Obama is re-elected, you'll switch to supporting him because he's the winner and Romney's the loser?

[Woodruff]

Romney is a better liar than Obama
Romney is a better douchebag than Obama
Romney is better at screwing over companies than Obama.

There are many ways Romney is better than Obama, just none of them good.

Who understands religious Liberty better?