Politics Romney - Is he ready?

I am not sure I understand the difference. In my view he is the commander-in-chief and he issues orders to the military that the military is obligated to follow.

Every "black" American church I am aware of supported President Obama in 2008. Here is a breakdown by religion:



In the US when we speak generally about Christians and religion it is not monolithic. In some ways they cancel each other out. I know some like to isolate some religious groups and they kinda consider one group more or less religious than another. For example "unaffiliated believers" compared to "less-observant white Evangelical Protestants" - in terms of a voting class they may have equal impact.
--- merged: Sep 25, 2012 at 6:12 PM ---

What is a political leader who orders what some could easily justify as assassinations? What is the word?

I would not put US policy in this regard on par with what has occurred in other nation throughout history - I just point out there is a basis. Just like there is a basis for the Muslim argument - what do conservative Muslims think president Obama's religion is? Just like there is an argument for the Kenyan thing - has President Obama ever reported he was born in Kenya? I am just saying there is a basis, I am not saying I agree or even want to engage in the argument.

 

there are racists who have a basis for their racism.
there are homophobes who have a basis for their homophobia.
there are serial killers who have a basis for serial killing.
maybe there are people who believe the earth is a cube who have a basis to believe that the earth is a cube.
there are people who believe that evolution did not happen who have a basis to believe that evolution did not happen.
there are people who believe all kinds of stupid and destructive shit.
that there is "a basis" for stupid and destructive shit means nothing.

that is why i characterized the post as among the stupidest i had ever seen.
repeating the same position doesn't make it any less stupid.
it's still just as stupid. it's just further down on a page.

as for your arguments about drone usage--i might take you seriously had i not seen you on your knees in front of the bush administration vigorously moving your head back and forth in one or another form of assent on the same kind of policy questions when it suited your sense of political purpose to do so. now it doesn't, so you expect people to believe that you suddenly developed some moral compass on questions of the "war on terror." i think that's funny.

the use of drones is an extension of the neo-con "war on terror"...the troubling things are both the uses themselves and the surreal arguments that somehow or another such usage is "ethical" simply because it reduces exposure of american troops, whose lives are obviously worth more than those of the wedding guests and funeral attendees vaporized because they happened to conform to the wrong "pattern of life" analysis. it is an extension of the entire policy logic that was put into place right after the trade center attacks. that the obama administration accepted the legitimacy of this isnt a surprise--he campaigned on the matter. that this administration has continued this *conservative* policy is disturbing. but the right offers nothing but a more pathological version of the same, a more ham-handed policy, more ignorance in the advisors. so the right constitutes nothing remotely like an alternative.

 

Your failure is in the next logical step. In order to change, there has to be an understanding of the basis. When I encounter views that differ from mine, understanding the basis of that difference is the first step, once there is understanding then a real dialog can occur.

Yes, that is a good method for solving problems - just call'm stupid. How has that been working for you?

You calling President Obama a neo-con? Really?

 

Obama -- borderline neo-con, but with a far greater appreciation of diplomacy.

And certainly not embracing the Bush doctrine of preventive war by invading and occupying a sovereign nation.

 

ace--you act as though i am interested in arguing with you seriously. but i don't take either your premises or your mode of argument seriously at all.

insofar as obama's foreign policy is concerned, in the main his adminstration is a continuation of neo-con policy, particular in the idiot "war on terror"...he's (tragically) been as ineffectual as the republicans insofar as israeli colonialism in the west bank is concerned. he's followed the same policy logic on iran. his administration has talked a different game with respect to the "arab spring" but effectively the administraton has not broken anywhere near hard enough with the stupidity of neo-con foreign policy. hell, you've even had some of the criminals from the bush administration crawl out from under their rocks to praise obama's "war on terror." obviously, that makes the right a little crazy because they can't find a rational basis for opposing him in this area that's to his right. there have been some real problems as well---libya at the moment is a quite bad thing for the state department in particular. and given that there are people who would love to see hillary clinton run for president in 2016, that's not great for them.

but, like dux says, there's no iraq debacle.

the obama administration is very much clinton-style centrism.
and like clinton, he makes the right---already in significant trouble thanks to the bush administration---a little more crazy than they already are.

but who knows--maybe the conservative voter suppression campaign will enable the right to steal an election they cannot win on arguments.

 

you know this is what really concerns me, and it's not just the voter suppression, but why didn't the democrats do anything about the voting machines when they had the chance? we have to deal with another election with these republican diebold machines.

they are easily hacked and have it programmed to be able to flip votes. there really is no integrity in voting. i suppose they can't steal a landslide like with mccain vs obama though.

 

An issue in it's own right but a distraction from the Republican effort to suppress voter turnout via photo ID requirements. Two wrongs don't make a right, samcol.
--- merged: Sep 25, 2012 at 9:05 PM ---

Providing you can dig down deep enough to understand the basis behind believing Obama is a socialist/communist/nazi/muslim/foreign born/anti-Christ, and get the believers to dig down deep as well and honestly admit to why they believe all this to be true in the face of evidence to the contrary, what sort of dialog could you hope to have with them?

Tell them they are misinformed?
Run the facts by them again?

For a smart guy, you can be so naive.

 

a distraction? we are talking about the ability to flip the votes of entire precincts. it doesn't matter who or how many people are voting or who's being suppressed when the machines can do that.

voter turnout means nothing if you can just flip all the democrat votes to republican.

the photo ID is a distraction if anything. the machines are a far bigger threat. does it really matter if you can vote or not when they can just push a button to flip the results? Black Box Voting - America's Elections Watchdog Group if you feel like jumping down the rabbit hole. it's not a left vs. right issue on this site.

 

Google Diebold voting machines and prepare to immerse yourself in a swamp of conspiracy theories. This is not to say that it's a non-issue but I don't believe it warrants the fear that all votes in a precinct can or will be switched from one party to another.

If that were truly the case, logic tells me that someone would have already been on it. I believe most states run these machines through a periodic security audit anyway. States would have to ignore the finding of any large security gaps and someone would have to be inclined to take advantage of them, in order for this "flip all the votes" scenario to work.

I perused the website you linked to and failed to see anything about the Diebold machines. If it's as dire as you suggest, why isn't it right at the top, in plain view?

 

There were big debates and investigations into the voting machines, and I'm a supporter of electronic voting, but I also think that once the polls close, 99% of the votes should be 'in' a few seconds after. (Including all the early voters and mail-in votes).

Ohio has a paper trail that you can see for what it is worth. Although if there is a massive vote changing operation, I would hope that there are random checks of the paper tape and what the machine said was the tally.

And I like the drones. I understand the arguments against targeted assassination, but if there is evidence that they will be trying to kill innocent people, they should be taken out before they can carry that out.

 

This is the one distinction that Obama has going for him over Romney. While Romney hasn't said as much, I feel, given who his advisers are, that if he wins, there will be another invasion (e.g. Iran).

Put another way, Obama talks softly (diplomacy) and carries a big stick (drones).

 

Can one make a case for President Obama being a borderline socialist?

I simply say embrace what you are. When people came up with the phrase cowboy diplomacy when describing George Bush's approach to foreign policy. I say doggone right! Sign me up too. I am a cowboy diplomat! If I call President Obama a borderline cowboy diplomat (because there is basis for it) you folks would have conniption fits.
--- merged: Sep 27, 2012 at 12:01 PM ---

As they say - it do what it do. Translated - I will post what I post weather you take me seriously or not.

You start by suggesting you don't take my posts serious, then write all this stuff above??? Do you want me to read it or not? I stopped reading after your first sentence. Remember what I suggested to you - calling people stupid is not a good way to start a dialog. Again, how is that working for you?

 

Not a cowboy! Yippee ki yay.

 

mitt's got bush people retreads advising on foreign policy. and we all know what a triumph the bush people were:

After Making a Mess of Iraq, Bush Advisers Join Team Romney

meanwhile, rove's sleaze machine arrives in massachusetts:

LISTEN: Rove's Crossroads GPS Attacks Elizabeth Warren in New Robocalls | Mother Jones

 

Yeah after signing on J. Bolton to his team I completely lost faith that Romney is anything but a danger to the US.

 

Bolton and Wolfowitz were enough to convince me as well.

Those clowns are just spoiling to invade Iran.