Mitt Romney

RationalGaze said:
He looks like a slimey senator/president from a movie who cheats on his wife and does coke and hookers. I immediately distrusted him and I have never heard one of his speeches.
Click to expand...

Wow, you sound like fair a critical person.

Romney is a nob, but to say you don't like someone based purely on his looks and admit you've never actually heard what he's got to say doesn't make you look good (if that was the intention).
 
Nitefly said:
He responded that it didn't matter anyway because they had the best military so everything else was irrelevant. I replied that's stupid because it's not realistic, but he was adamant that as the US military was the best that nobody could claim back on their debt anyway - US could always so 'no' and reset things.
Click to expand...

That's stupid as well...

The US is well aware that it wouldn't win a war against China...

mp3duck said:
God help america if Romney get's in.
Sad thing is people will vote Republican or Democrat, regardless of who the candidate is.

And there are plenty of Red Neck Americans who'd never vote Democrat
Click to expand...

Not necessarily true, all Red Neck's would have voted Democrats, I think about 40 years ago. I can't quite remember now, but I'm sure one of the presidents completely realigned party interests by geography because of his views on slavery.

I mean your statement is true of the current election to be fair...

kd
 
Having lived in Florida and having spent last week in Texas it is safe to say that the South is populated by idiots who are perfectly capable of voting Romney in.
 
It's worrying, as I really would rather not see a nuclear war in my life-time (or anybody's for that matter) - but the USA is really pushing all the buttons globally to make nations feel like they need a nuclear deterrent (which increases the chance of a nuclear war).

The worst thing is, I can't actually blame Iran for feeling like they need them (if they indeed do) (not that I want them to have them) - but look at a map of Iran & them plot local nations with active American military involvement in them nearby - it doesn't look good.
 
There's an easy rebuttal to the "If America has nukes why can't Iran" question. Firstly, Iran are the only country that have made statements of intent to use them and talking about "wiping" another country off the map. Secondly the US has nuclear weapons due to historical reasons, if they didn't have any right now and was talking about building them they would be put under exactly the same pressure as Iran are now.
 
He needs to be pressed on his religion (i.e. being an elder in the Mormon church before 1978, when it was an officially racist organisation). He needs to explain why cutting spending is the most important thing on his agenda, if he wants to increase military and defence spending.

His hypocrisy over the Affordable Care Act needs to be noted, given that it was based on the healthcare plan he enacted in Massachusetts.

He also needs to answer to question of how I am going to be able to stand watching West Wing Week with him as president, and not Obama... :o
 
estebanrey said:
Wow, you sound like fair a critical person.

Romney is a nob, but to say you don't like someone based purely on his looks and admit you've never actually heard what he's got to say doesn't make you look good (if that was the intention).
Click to expand...

People in the thread were saying he was a nutter who has stated he will nuke Iran. Based on this (if it's true), it turns out my snap judgment about not trusting him was correct. If he stated he wanted to start peace talks with Iran and withdraw from foreign conflicts, I might have started to change my opinion of him (but not completely of course, everyone knows all politicians are snakes).
 
It will be a scary day for the world if this Bush number 2 gets into power, people call Bush a war criminal but this guy could overtake that mantle quite easily.

Hopefully the Americans will see sense and not vote this fool into power.
 
estebanrey said:
There's an easy rebuttal to the "If America has nukes why can't Iran" question. Firstly, Iran are the only country that have made statements of intent to use them and talking about "wiping" another country off the map. Secondly the US has nuclear weapons due to historical reasons, if they didn't have any right now and was talking about building them they would be put under exactly the same pressure as Iran are now.
Click to expand...

I believe there is some substantial evidence showing how the "wiping Israel off the map" quote has been grossly misquoted/twisted.
 
America is too religious - they need to wake up & realise there is no God - Duh & if there was why would he bless them more than anyone else?

Although the EU is just as daft but in other areas
 
elmarko1234 said:
It's worrying, as I really would rather not see a nuclear war in my life-time (or anybody's for that matter) - but the USA is really pushing all the buttons globally to make nations feel like they need a nuclear deterrent (which increases the chance of a nuclear war).

The worst thing is, I can't actually blame Iran for feeling like they need them (if they indeed do) (not that I want them to have them) - but look at a map of Iran & them plot local nations with active American military involvement in them nearby - it doesn't look good.
Click to expand...


time to start shopping here

http://emergencyfoodstorage.co.uk/categories/Emergency-Food-and-Survival-Freeze-Dried-Food/
 
Obama and Romney seem a bit much for much to me. Part of me wishes Romney was just putting on an act to get the nutters on his side. Look at his 1994 debate vs Kennedy, that is the Romney I hope he still is. Obama has done very little in my opinion.

The best candidate, bar his stance on healthcare, is Gary Johnson. He actually has some common sense in his head.
 
WingZero30 said:
I think the cowboy effect finally got to him!!
Click to expand...

Not the only one who thinks he's lost it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19434705

While endorsing US presidential hopeful Mitt Romney on Thursday, the 82-year-old at one point conducted an imaginary conversation with Barack Obama.

"What WAS that thing Clint Eastwood just did?" tweeted actress Mia Farrow. "How could they let it happen?"

Film critic Roger Ebert said the actor had come across as "sad and pathetic".

Adam Levine of pop band Maroon 5 suggested that the veteran Dirty Harry star had gone "nutterbutters".
Click to expand...
 
RationalGaze said:
People in the thread were saying he was a nutter who has stated he will nuke Iran.
Click to expand...

No they are saying he will 'bomb' Iran. Slight difference.

But anyway, I'm not too au fait with how the US system works but I'd be surprised if Romney by himself could declare nuclear war on another country without getting it through the senate and house of representatives (which would be made up of a fair few democrats). I'd suspect the UN would have a few things to say as well.

Don't forget their system is based on ours, ergo despite them having a president, it's actually the three arms of government that have to all agree to get anything done. This is specifically designed to stop a mad man (or party over here) getting into to power and doing bonkers things.

For example, Obama has struggled to get some of his stuff through because of this. The US president doesn't have absolute power in the same way the cabinet don't have absolute power here.
 
Last edited:
estebanrey said:
There's an easy rebuttal to the "If America has nukes why can't Iran" question. Firstly, Iran are the only country that have made statements of intent to use them and talking about "wiping" another country off the map. Secondly the US has nuclear weapons due to historical reasons, if they didn't have any right now and was talking about building them they would be put under exactly the same pressure as Iran are now.
Click to expand...
If I recall correctly the "wiping off the map" is slightly exaggerated by the translation (I'll find the source) - on-top of that the fact the USA is the only country to have used nuclear weapons on civilian targets (which it did so twice) & has invaded countless countries since then, slightly outweighs that point (even if it was true).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom