I hope Romney wins the election

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Andeavor, May 26, 2012.

  1. Andeavor macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    #1
    Although he's the worst choice for president (judguing by his complete ignorance on life outside his white, rich, Mormon bubble), I really, really wish he wins the election, just so everything tips over way past the nonsense-limit so that even the most ignorant **** will snap out of it and realize you can't go back to livin' like it's 1955.
     
  2. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #2
  3. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #3
    I don't think some people ever learn.

    Remember three-and-a-half years ago, when the economy was really headed south? It seemed the rubes had finally woken up and realized how out of control capitalism had become. The Republicans were really on the ropes, having a hard time defending themselves.

    I think that lasted about two months. Now things are back to "normal", with conservatives telling us that the cure for their recklessness is...hair of the dog.

    I think a Romney presidency would just precipitate more poverty for the bulk of us as wealth continues to migrate upward. By the end of his term we might be talking about the 1/2%.

    If you think this would "wake up" the general population, remember this scene from one of Bill Maher's videos:

    [​IMG]
     
  4. jackc macrumors 65816

    jackc

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    #4
    I've got news for you -- policy under a Romney or Obama administration will not be much different. You think Romney is going to deregulate everything? There is an establishment in place, special interests will give to both parties, and voters will watch the horserace on TV as if it makes a difference.
     
  5. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #5
    That line really made me laugh:D. I've read pretty much every article I can find on Bain Capital. Given his methods of generating money in the private sector, I hope we don't see him holding office. Essentially running companies into the ground really doesn't add anything to the economy in terms of infrastructure or growth. It's just leaching funds off subsidiaries.

    Sometimes I'll watch a bit of it, but if it's a debate where everyone just gives a fuzzy meaningless answer (which is quite frequent), I turn it off. I've made peace with the fact that they're scripted, but I won't watch anything that provides little to no information under the guise of being something meaningful.
     
  6. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #6
    OP= no, that would be terrible. Do have any idea what could happen to civil rights in this country, while you sit back and go, "See, I told you so?" Not cool. We're not just talking about gay rights, but women's rights too. Romney would untold damage that would take years to repair.
     
  7. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #7
    He would, if he could, but vested interests would still have their way.

    He would be watered-down too, just like Obama, although far less effective for it.

    IMO.
     
  8. 184550 Guest

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    #8
    I don't think Roberts/ SCOTUS would let him get away with anything too terrible.

    That said, I still won't be voting for Mitt.
     
  9. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #9
    If Romney wins it will be the end of this country as we know it.

    Everyone will be crying for George Bush to come back. He's that bad.
     
  10. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #10
    The less GOPers around the better. I'd rather have a party in power who seems sympathetic to average citizens instead of outright hostile towards us.
     
  11. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #11
    With people like Scalia on the court? Sure they would. Look what happened with eminent domain and Citizens United.
     
  12. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #12
    30 years ago I rationalized Ronald Reagan's victory by thinking that his policies would re-energize the left. Much of the country instead moved further to the right, lured by the almighty dollar and the chance to cash in and live large.

    Rule #1 - be careful what you wish for.

    Rule #2 - never underestimate the greed and stupidity of the American people.
     
  13. AP_piano295, May 26, 2012
    Last edited: May 27, 2012

    AP_piano295 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    #13
    While I certainly don't think it will be good I don't know about the whole :

    "It'll be the end of the world as we know it"

    Sentiment, the democratic party already lacks the balls to stand up for:

    -Civil rights
    -More reasonable tax code
    -Heath care law
    -Personal liberties and/or the right to privacy

    The R's are way worse but we're already living with many of their policy's today due to the ineffectual nature of the D's.
     
  14. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #14
    Thing is, 1955 was far better in some ways. The top tax bracket was around 90%, though no one ever really paid that much, and big business was mostly under control. I would expect Rawmoney to be more like trying to drag us back to 1491.

    I think things are pretty bad as it stands. The current administration is holding it all together with bubblegum and twine. A catharsis could, possibly, be a positive thing – or a catastrophe.
     
  15. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #15
    Good God no. The next Presidential term could likely be the one to fill a few SCOTUS vacancies. The court has already decided that corporations are like people. Do you want even more of that nonsense? Considering Supreme Court justices are lifetime appointments, if Romney picks people young enough, a Romney term could have negative effects for DECADES to follow, long after his Presidency has ended.

    And as other people have pointed out, people's memories are quite short. Even with Youtube, you have to keep reminding them about the policies that got us here in the first place. People clamored for change in the first place, but now consider returning to these failed polices. Like a bunch of lambs being led to the slaughter.

    The next election is way too important to leave up to chance.

    To a gay person and people who care about equality and civil rights they sure will be. No thanks.
     
  16. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #16
    Fixed this for you:

    Rule #2: never underestimate the selfish, short-sighted, self-defeating greed of people in general.
     
  17. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #17
    I know Americans tend to think that they ARE the World, but zoix did say "country", and you can't deny the "as we know it" applies.
     
  18. NickZac macrumors 68000

    NickZac

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    #18
    This. Romney or Obama as President is still only one person. While the direction of policy support may vary, much of the future depends on the rest of the system within place. When I say the rest of the system, that would be how other elected officials act and vote, and so there is importance of no just caring about the presidential race, but all politics. No matter how good of an idea either of the two may have, those ideas can't become policy without house and senate support. And then of course current events will also have significant effect. The exception to the above is if you have a substantial majority within and house and senate that is the same party as the President...however, that seems to rarely happen.
     
  19. AP_piano295 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    #19
    I was using the term world more in the figurative sense.

    I'm just saying that even if Romney gets elected, it's unlikely that we'll be rounding up gays for execution right away.

    That being said it would certainly be a step in the wrong direction, and all you need is the right (or wrong) set of events and it can be hard to predict what could happen.
     
  20. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #20
    It would take him at least 6 months or maybe he'd use it to get re-elected.
     
  21. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #21
    And therein lies the danger. While I know that people aren't fond of congress in general, I am not sure how they feel about a GOP vs. a Dem majority right now...or if they even contemplate the whole picture (probably not) and just focus on the individual race in their district instead.

    I worry about what a GOP majority congress would look like combined with a GOP President and conservative SCOTUS. I'm thinking a Christian theocracy or at the very least a government that caters to the rich even more then it already does. No thanks.
     
  22. NickZac macrumors 68000

    NickZac

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    #22
    Oh I think a GOP majority would probably not benefit the nation...even the GOP party itself for that matter. But I'm not sure if any majority across the board in government is necessarily a good thing, if for no other reason than party groupthink. At the same time, it seems that both Bush and Obama have had at least some of their ideas (for better or for worse) hindered by a house/senate that their party does not have a majority in, and so you could also say the lack of a majority is an issue as well. I guess there is something to say about the way the UK does politics as having some distinct advantages over how we do them in the US.
     
  23. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #23
    Be careful there. They still have Jeb Bush, and people are stupid enough to care about lineage due to familiarity. Overall an election of a somewhat supreme leader is fundamentally flawed. There's just no way to have such a position without it taking on a figureheaded nature.

    It's a distinct problem with a two party system. Part of the goal is simply to appear diametrically opposed to the other guys and damage their credibility. Much of the time that takes priority over completing actual work.
     
  24. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #24
    This is the difference, right here. NO GOP jerk would ever have the balls to do this.

    To those of you who say, "Oh, gay rights are not important. I'm worried about the economy" I say this:

    Would you vote for someone who denied blacks equal rights? Would you vote for someone who denied people of different races the right to marry? Would you vote for someone who denied women the right to contraception? Would you vote for someone who told Rosa Parks to sit at the back of the bus? No? Well, Look at what Obama has done. Progress, folks. Obama has done a lot. Romney would undo all of this.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tb60nFeJsNc&feature=player_embedded
     
  25. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #25
    We are a two party system because that's how everyone votes. The last Presidential ballot I looked at had about 6 parties listed as candidates.
     

Share This Page