If Romney Is Elected....

[Ernie]

A question for those here who will not be voting for Romney.

If he wins election, will you support him? Will you hope that his policies work even if you think they won't? Will you expect the Democrat members of Congress to work with him to benefit the country?

This is a serious question, try to give serious answers.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by Ernie

A question for those here who will not be voting for Romney.

If he wins election, will you support him?

If he earns it, as I see it, based on my ideals.

Will you hope that his policies work even if you think they won't?

Depends on the policy.

For example, if 100% wealth redistribution "works" to solve X, no, I still wouldn't support it.

Will you expect the Democrat members of Congress to work with him to benefit the country?

I expect them to "work with" Romeny in the exact same way the (R) House "worked with" Obama.

I.e. when they disagree on policy, there is in unbreakable impasse and Government does nothing (as it should).

This is a serious question, try to give serious answers.

Serious as a heart attack.

[JoeyStylez]

The question is, which Romney will we get? The centrist Romney who was Governer of Mass. and implemented a state-wide healthcare system shockingly similar to Obamacare, who believed a woman had the right choose and who wasn't trying to kill Big Bird? Or will we get Romney the Severe Conservative, who wants to kill Planned Parenthood and kill health care reform and SS and Medicare, and who believes that half the country doesn't want to work to make their lives better?

If it's Centrist Romey, he'll get my support. If it's teabagger Romney, then no. Either way, I won't root for my country to fail.

[JoeyStylez]

Originally Posted by Ernie

A question for those here who will not be voting for Romney.

If he wins election, will you support him? Will you hope that his policies work even if you think they won't? Will you expect the Democrat members of Congress to work with him to benefit the country?

This is a serious question, try to give serious answers.

Since I was obviously the inspiration for this thread you started, the least you can do is give your own answer.

[Ernie]

Originally Posted by JoeyStylez

Since I was obviously the inspiration for this thread you started, the least you can do is give your own answer.

After your eloquent response, anything I say would pale in comparison.

[OCCH]

Originally Posted by JoeyStylez

The question is, which Romney will we get? The centrist Romney who was Governer of Mass. and implemented a state-wide healthcare system shockingly similar to Obamacare, who believed a woman had the right choose and who wasn't trying to kill Big Bird? Or will we get Romney the Severe Conservative, who wants to kill Planned Parenthood and kill health care reform and SS and Medicare, and who believes that half the country doesn't want to work to make their lives better?

If it's Centrist Romey, he'll get my support. If it's teabagger Romney, then no. Either way, I won't root for my country to fail.

There's you answer. By your own admission there's a difference between "not supporting your president" and "wanting your country to fail".

Under no circumstances will I ever "support" someone who pushes an entitlement agenda -- even if it serves as a short-term band-aid, I think it's THE most destructive attitude a country can adopt. But having said that, I certainly hope we're better off four years from now regardless of who is in office. It's the definition of "better" that will cause the greatest debate . . .

[Trades]

Originally Posted by JoeyStylez

The question is, which Romney will we get? The centrist Romney who was Governer of Mass. and implemented a state-wide healthcare system shockingly similar to Obamacare, who believed a woman had the right choose and who wasn't trying to kill Big Bird? Or will we get Romney the Severe Conservative, who wants to kill Planned Parenthood and kill health care reform and SS and Medicare, and who believes that half the country doesn't want to work to make their lives better?

If it's Centrist Romey, he'll get my support. If it's teabagger Romney, then no. Either way, I won't root for my country to fail.

Romney the Gov made a decision at the state level which is where he believes health care reform belongs, not at the federal level. Obviously you can see the difference. He isn't looking to "KILL" anything. He is looking to reform, fix and make them work.

You guys love the kill Big Bird line don't you. PBS will exist with our without our tax dollars. If you think that is really an issue rather than an example of leaving no stone unturned you and Rachel Maddow are lost causes.

[JoeyStylez]

Originally Posted by Ernie

After your eloquent response, anything I say would pale in comparison.

I agree.

[JoeyStylez]

Originally Posted by Trades

Romney the Gov made a decision at the state level which is where he believes health care reform belongs, not at the federal level. Obviously you can see the difference. He isn't looking to "KILL" anything. He is looking to reform, fix and make them work.

You guys love the kill Big Bird line don't you. PBS will exist with our without our tax dollars. If you think that is really an issue rather than an example of leaving no stone unturned you and Rachel Maddow are lost causes.

Yeah I love the Big Bird line because before Romney made mention of it, I don't believe a single Repub voter said, "We should get rid of PBS, it's a waste of tax dollars!" And I also believe that if Obama had proposed that instead of Romney, you guys would've killed him for it. But because the GOP guy said it, then it's a good idea. Which it isn't, BTW. See, I pay taxes too, therefore I also have a say in how my tax dollars are spent, and I'm OK with PBS taking 0.012% of the budget.

[piney]

funny, both presidencies will probably be as similar as these two threads....

[JoeyStylez]

Originally Posted by OCCH

There's you answer. By your own admission there's a difference between "not supporting your president" and "wanting your country to fail".

Under no circumstances will I ever "support" someone who pushes an entitlement agenda -- even if it serves as a short-term band-aid, I think it's THE most destructive attitude a country can adopt. But having said that, I certainly hope we're better off four years from now regardless of who is in office. It's the definition of "better" that will cause the greatest debate . . .

Where is the entitlement agenda? Do you mean the bailout? Which was started under Bush BTW, no one ever mentions that. Otherwise, please explain this agenda.

Let me ask you this: would SHOULD have Obama done? In the face of the worst economic meltdown since 1929, what steps would you have wanted the President to do?

[Buster]

Part of me thinks the Democrats in the Senate should do to Romney what the Republicans in the Senate did to Obama. Be an obstructionist body that ALWAYS requires 60 votes to get anything done.

But the other larger part of me wants the USA to be successful. I imagine Romney will be willing to "cut deals" and they should be examined.

I also think the economy will be in high gear again by 2014. The business cycle is about to come around. Lots of folks are getting paychecks again and the folks who never lost their jobs have been sitting on their cash for a long time.

[Trades]

Originally Posted by JoeyStylez

Where is the entitlement agenda? Do you mean the bailout? Which was started under Bush BTW, no one ever mentions that. Otherwise, please explain this agenda.

Let me ask you this: would SHOULD have Obama done? In the face of the worst economic meltdown since 1929, what steps would you have wanted the President to do?

I have said this before on this board but I think that rather than handing money directly to the banks we could have directly paid off approximately 90% of primary home mortgages in the country. This would have helped the home owners that are under water and people that were making their payments. It woudl also have given the money to the banks to cover those loans so everyone would have won, the companies and our neighbors. Granted it still wouldn't have been "fair", it is still wealth redistribution, but if that money had to be spent I think this would have been the responsible win that would have rescued the real estate market as well. Sadly it wouldn't have allowed for the necessary correction for the artificially inflated house prices that government intervention and corroding of the free market caused as an unintended consequence in the first place.

[southparkcpa]

Originally Posted by Ernie

A question for those here who will not be voting for Romney.

If he wins election, will you support him? Will you hope that his policies work even if you think they won't? Will you expect the Democrat members of Congress to work with him to benefit the country?

This is a serious question, try to give serious answers.

Romney will force inefficient teams like the METS out of business.

[Rexipus Rex]

Originally Posted by Trades

Romney the Gov made a decision at the state level which is where he believes health care reform belongs, not at the federal level. Obviously you can see the difference. He isn't looking to "KILL" anything. He is looking to reform, fix and make them work.

I don't think the average voter/citizen truly realizes how fundamental of a difference that is.

Obama tried to hammer away in the first debate about how Obamacare is based off Romneycare, as if it is some sort of indictment on Romney vacillating his beliefs. There is a HUGE difference between implementing programs on a state level versus federally.

On healthcare, I think the best move would be for the Feds to mandate that each state establishes their own system. That way each state can tailor the system to better fit its own demographics and resources.

[WestCoastOffensive]

If he wins election, will you support him? Will you hope that his policies work even if you think they won't? Will you expect the Democrat members of Congress to work with him to benefit the country?

Would I be a Good American? jeepers, E...

[JoeyStylez]

Originally Posted by Trades

I have said this before on this board but I think that rather than handing money directly to the banks we could have directly paid off approximately 90% of primary home mortgages in the country. This would have helped the home owners that are under water and people that were making their payments. It woudl also have given the money to the banks to cover those loans so everyone would have won, the companies and our neighbors. Granted it still wouldn't have been "fair", it is still wealth redistribution, but if that money had to be spent I think this would have been the responsible win that would have rescued the real estate market as well. Sadly it wouldn't have allowed for the necessary correction for the artificially inflated house prices that government intervention and corroding of the free market caused as an unintended consequence in the first place.

Interesting proposal. Do you think McCain would have done something like that had he been elected?

[Trades]

Originally Posted by JoeyStylez

Interesting proposal. Do you think McCain would have done something like that had he been elected?

No he is just another side of the same coin. As Bush showed the republican party just isn't as fiscally responsible as we would like it to be which is how the tea party and libertarian party gained ground. There are not really any fiscal conservatives in the race though I think Paul Ryan, if given the chance, would be the closest thing of the 4 (P+VP) in this race.

[MnJetFan]

Romney has actual Business Skills, Obama as a Community Organizer?

[WestCoastOffensive]

Originally Posted by MnJetFan

Romney has actual Business Skills, Obama as a Community Organizer?

What do you know about LBJ's ability to do run the country?