62 posts in this topic

Posted

 

As the Republican Party searches for a way to win back the White House after Barack Obama leaves the stage, could the nation be turning towards Mitt Romney?

Recalling one of Mr Romney's biggest blunders during his doomed 2012 presidential bid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

These threads are hilarious.

14 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

This is an unhealthy obsession.

11 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Be very afraid of WWIII if Mitt has his way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Not even zombie Reagan could rescue the Republican Party.

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Considering they may well take both houses of Congress in November, reports of their demise are greatly exaggerated. Also remember that they run most state governments.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I didn't vote for Romney once, and I certainly won't vote for him again. I won't vote for people so lost in their bubble, they can't see two feet in front of them. I'd rather set myself on fire than vote for any of the Republican goons that were running in the last election.

 

Plus, the ground war in Iraq is over. We're done there. We should have never gone in there in the first place, why would anyone want to go back?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

No.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Mr. 47%?? 

 

Not a chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

TBH, I'm surprised Mitt hasn't set up a 2016 transition website yet. :rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Plus, the ground war in Iraq is over. We're done there. We should have never gone in there in the first place, why would anyone want to go back?

To put a halt to ISIS, who wouldn't have got started if we had 1) intervened in Syria sooner as our allies wanted to, and 2) had left a stabilization force in Iraq instead of pulling out prematurely.

Now we have a group worse than AQ rampaging through the ME and making outright threats to attack both Europe and North America. No one paying attention doubts them one bit.

Obama's policy of pulling out as fast as possible was wrong, even stupid, and even some Dem policy types are now agreeing.

This is what happens when you hire rank amateues.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Obama's policy of pulling out as fast as possible was wrong, even stupid, and even some Dem policy types are now agreeing.

 

 

You mean Obama pulling out according to the SOFA agreement signed by Bush? The right is always complaining about how Obama is lawless and then complains when follows the law. It's just ridiculous.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

439.gif

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

- obama is not only weak, i really think he just has no interest to use americas power, influence and good stuff all arround the world for what it should be used. his place is the golf-course! leading from behind?! wtf?!?! if i had a boss, telling me he wants to lead from behind i either immediately quit work or tell him to lead you need to be on the front 24/7. this is not about delegating work, but the fact that the president is the last decider. bush was much better there and independent former defense minister robert gates thinks the same.

 

Where and when did I hear that? The American interventionism to do good in evil countries. Ah, yes, I remember. It was in 2002: it was the Bush doctrine, or actually the Dick Cheney lies.

I remember the 'Axis of Evil', 'the campaign of Irak will be short and swift', the 'we will be greeted as liberators'.

 

Of course, it is required to have a frontal right brain lobe that was working ten years ago. Actually, no, but old cyber Darth Cheney is still spewing the same lies and ignoring his awful track record.

Or Obama could intervene in any part of the globe: what about Tibet? or Egypt? or Mali? Or Pakistan? or Erythrea? Or Liberia? Or Scotland?

 

Let's face it, GOP created wars in Afghanistan and Iraq under GWB are EPIC FAILS: they made thousands of causalities, cost billions of dollars and failed to achieve any form of stability in these countries whatsoever.

And you would want more of them?

 

 

To put a halt to ISIS, who wouldn't have got started if we had 1) intervened in Syria sooner as our allies wanted to, and 2) had left a stabilization force in Iraq instead of pulling out prematurely.

Now we have a group worse than AQ rampaging through the ME and making outright threats to attack both Europe and North America. No one paying attention doubts them one bit.

Obama's policy of pulling out as fast as possible was wrong, even stupid, and even some Dem policy types are now agreeing.

This is what happens when you hire rank amateues.

 

Oh yes! Damn You, Obama!

Damn you Obama, of taking into consideration the cost and repercussions of doing a military intervention in a foreign country! 

Damn you Obama, for not invading sovereign countries while blatantly lying to and ignoring the UN security council!

Damn you Obama for failing to build a stable Iraq between 2003 and 2008 where you were US senator of Illinois

Damn you Obama of having the Iraqi prime minister refuse an extension of the US military presence on Iraq soil while Bush was president

Damn you Obama for respecting the contracts, agreements and treaties signed by the previous republican administration.

 

Thank you, Obama, for not being George W. Bush or Dick Cheney

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

You mean Obama pulling out according to the SOFA agreement signed by Bush? The right is always complaining about how Obama is lawless and then complains when follows the law. It's just ridiculous.

The Bush era SOFA had a set date to expired, as is the norm, and the standard practice In international law is to negotiate a new SOFA before the old one expires.

Obama failed to follow through on negotiating a new SOFA, intentionally, so he could withdraw forces with the lame ass cover story you just regurgitated. It was a huge mistake.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

To put a halt to ISIS, who wouldn't have got started if we had 1) intervened in Syria sooner as our allies wanted to, and 2) had left a stabilization force in Iraq instead of pulling out prematurely.

The instability in the region wouldn't exist were it not for the failed US interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush collapsed the Iraqi government and disbanded the military without any long term plan for the country - billions of dollars were lost, hundreds of thousands of people died, weapons flowed into the hands of rebels and it was declared mission accomplished. As for Syria, the instability there is a direct result of the flow of weapons from Iraq, as well as those supplied by the CIA to 'approved' rebels. With regards to the Iraqi withdrawal, that was a result of the US demanding that their troops be granted immunity from prosecution - basically, they didn't want the law there applying to them.

 

Now we have a group worse than AQ rampaging through the ME and making outright threats to attack both Europe and North America.

Just like Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, right? It's interesting that North Korea can threaten the US with nuclear annihilation and not be considered a concern yet ISIS makes a threat and we should be sending in ground troops.

 

Obama's policy of pulling out as fast as possible was wrong, even stupid, and even some Dem policy types are now agreeing.

Even if the US had troops there for the next twenty years, which is what some experts had suggested was necessary, it wouldn't have made the region stable. Nothing the US has ever done has improved the stability of the Middle East - it has only ever made things worse.

 

Obama was right to withdraw the troops and is wrong to be interfering in the region again. I mean, imagine if a second US civil war were to happen today and China declared the current government illegitimate and started supplying arms to Southern States and conducting airstrikes against the North - that could literally redefine the very future of the US. Imagine if the same had happened the first time around - the US wouldn't exist as it does today. The only appropriate intervention is humanitarian, to protect civilians caught up in the conflict - it must also be applied consistently internationally. The US shouldn't be dictating to the Middle East which governments or movements are valid or not.

 

Obama has been a terrible president, continuing the United States' meddling in other countries and achieving little of note domestically, but Romney would have been worse, with his talk of expanding the military and cutting taxes. I imagine he'd have sent troops into Ukraine and he was talking about sending troops into Syria - he would have massively overextended the US military without the tax revenue to pay for it. Bush's reckless policies led to one of the most dramatic economic collapses in modern history and Romney's policies were absurd at face value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

If Romney's foreign policies were absurd then why are so many policy analysts on both sides now saying, with 20/20 hindsight, he was correct?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

What's he going to ride in on? A donkey? :p There's no way Romney could do anything useful for the US, that'd be like having Nick Clegg in charge of the UK, things would fall apart!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

If Romney's foreign policies were absurd then why are so many policy analysts on both sides now saying, with 20/20 hindsight, he was correct?

 

you know, when the polls for mitt were up and down for obama, many european analytics speculated about what a romney presidency would look like and its implications to europe and the world. while they said that he is conservative, they saw him not as an hardliner, most expected something like bush 41, but with more focus on get the economy going.

 

also i like his approach of the private sector, he has no big ideology going, if he makes a mistake, he admits and changes and fixes.

obama is just stubborn (like many teachers), they can only stand in front of a class and preach their ###### and dont wanna be even contested, because in their own narrow-minded view, they are always right, even if results look different.

 

remember george romneys quote? you cant be too right, too soon and win elections. so true!

 

with jeb bush not going for it, as it seems, mitt needs to give it a try again. this might also considerably weaken the teaparty leftovers, which is another good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

obama is just stubborn (like many teachers), they can only stand in front of a class and preach their ###### and dont wanna be even contested, because in their own narrow-minded view, they are always right, even if results look different.

So true. There's a huge difference between academia and the really real world, and Obama is one of those who cannot bridge it. That's why so many in his own party can't wait to show him the door.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I can't see Romney winning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

This cartoon always struck me as being the most accurate in conveying what Mitt was about.  IMO   :p

 

GQiJuy2.jpg

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I didn't vote for him ( I didn't vote for Obama either ), and wouldn't vote for him in the future for two main reasons.

 

1) He is a multi-billionaire who has never had to get his hands dirty in his life.  Personally, I think the president should have an honorable discharge from the military before being eligible for office, and preferably somebody who was not born into money.  He might be intelligent, but anybody with that much money is out of touch with the every day working American.  He's never had to worry about whether or not he can pay one bill or the other, or whether or not he has the gas money to get to work and back.  He's never had to do what I did and cut up cars and haul off scrap metal to pay the bills over the summer until work picks back up in the fall.  I would like to see somebody like a coal miner or construction worker in office, somebody who has had to work up a drop of sweat once or twice in their life.

 

2) He openly stated that he wanted to use military action to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.  Read that as "another war", something the US doesn't need right now.

 

Next election I will vote for Mr. Rand Paul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I didn't vote for him ( I didn't vote for Obama either ), and wouldn't vote for him in the future for two main reasons.

 

1) He is a multi-billionaire who has never had to get his hands dirty in his life.  Personally, I think the president should have an honorable discharge from the military before being eligible for office, and preferably somebody who was not born into money.  He might be intelligent, but anybody with that much money is out of touch with the every day working American.  He's never had to worry about whether or not he can pay one bill or the other, or whether or not he has the gas money to get to work and back.  He's never had to do what I did and cut up cars and haul off scrap metal to pay the bills over the summer until work picks back up in the fall.  I would like to see somebody like a coal miner or construction worker in office, somebody who has had to work up a drop of sweat once or twice in their life.

 

2) He openly stated that he wanted to use military action to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.  Read that as "another war", something the US doesn't need right now.

 

Next election I will vote for Mr. Rand Paul.

 

hmm.. im about going to bed so i just had a very quick look on rand paul on wikipedia, but he is born in a family of (eye?) doctors and there is no single line about him doing some higher grade of military service either.

hardly convincing imho, but i guess you might vote for him more because of his political positions.

 

ubuntu wikipage? nice one! i did not know about this. gonna check this tomorrow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

hmm.. im about going to bed so i just had a very quick look on rand paul on wikipedia, but he is born in a family of (eye?) doctors and there is no single line about him doing some higher grade of military service either.

hardly convincing imho, but i guess you might vote for him more because of his political positions.

 

ubuntu wikipage? nice one! i did not know about this. gonna check this tomorrow.

There aren't any candidates, that I'm aware of anyway, that fit the criteria I mentioned in bullet 1, so I'm going with Rand Paul because he seems to me to be a very pro constitution libertarian candidate.  If somebody comes along that I like better, I'll go with them.  Right now, as far as I know though, there are no military veterans running for office.  Being a veteran wouldn't instantly win my vote though.  Dick Cheney is a veteran, but would not get my vote because he's a war-monger.  Being a veteran helps though, I think, because if somebody is going to run the military, I think they should at least have a basic understanding, and some personal experience, as to how it works.

 

Have a good night, :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.