I just don't like mitt Romney

[GhostWriter16]

Would you rather have Obama's views instead? I most certainly don't want to have them. When voting for a politician it is not about whether they are likeable or not, but it is al about their policies. Obama is most definitely a social liberal and for me that is no-no.

Really, who cares? If you're a social conservative, fine; vote for social conservatives in Congress. They make the laws. But the Presidency is something else entirely. For the President you're ultimately voting for a person more than anything else. And I honestly don't know how anyone looks at Romney and how he's behaved over the course of this campaign and says, 'That's the guy I trust to effectively run my country.'

Some people would consider me a social conservative, while other people would laugh at me if I claimed to be one. I stand with Ron Paul about 90% of the time, so that should generally give you an idea of where I stand socially.

I wouldn't absolutely and totally say "Who cares?" But Mitt Romney and Obama honestly have almost the same policies anyways. Obama is basically Romney from Massachusettes. Maybe I'm just dumb but I can't really see the difference.

Mitt Romney is playing the right wing game now, but he really doesn't believe any of it, except the war hawk foreign policy.

I haven't met a single person (In real life) as of yet who "Likes" Romney. They either vote for Romney because they hate Obama, or they don't Most people I know will just say "Well, Obama is worse." True. But I'd rather have four years of bad than eight years of slightly less bad. I'm not playing games with the Republicans anymore.

Plus I'm a Ron Paul supporter, and based on how the Republicans have treated Ron Paul and his supporters, I can't in good conscience support Romney.

I don't support Obama either BTW. If I could vote I'd vote Libertarian, unless Ron Paul ended up on the ballot for some reason (Like say he changed his mind and voted indendent.) But I at least don't have a huge problem with Obama personally [as opposed to politically, where I have huge problems with him](Well, other than the ridiculous amounts of taxpayer money he spends on vacations, which is enough for me to dislike him but not hate him.) I honestly hate Mitt Romney.

I'm just a young, ticked off voter. I honestly don't matter much in the grand scheme of things. But I intend to endorse candidates based on my conscience, not because they are "Just barely better than Obama."

Disagree. These issues can break either way.

Progress has to be earned. We can't sit back on our asses, "vote the economy" and expect social issue progress.

I disagree with AlpsStranger on what issues specifically are important, but he's right here.

I'd say that it is possible that, if society is moving in a direction, eventually the issues will flip anyway, but the process can be slowed down or sped up. Gay marriage is going to be legalized in this country eventually (Whether you like it or not, which I really don't, but its still going to happen) but will it happen in 2020 or in 2050? How you vote may well affect it. (Do NOT vote based on gay marriage though, its barely worth the time. The only time your vote should be "Based on gay marriage" is in cases where gay marriage is specifically being discussed in a referrendum.)

I'll simply disagree with you on that.

Speaking of international affairs....this week hasnt been that great for Obama has it? And our nation is more polarized now than its ever been it seems.

There is a reason a vast majority feels our nation is headed in the wrong direction. The people in charge arent doing a very good job. We certainly dont need 4 more years of what we just had.

They may feel that way, but they are going to vote for Obama anyways. I think Romney barely has a chance at all, and in an election where Romney can barely win by 10EVs, the fact that some EC members MAY NOT VOTE FOR ROMNEY makes the chances even lower. And honestly, I don't see "Republicans" getting 270, regardless of whether a handful of electors actually do decide to protest and vote for Ron Paul or not.

I'll take four years of what we just had over eight years of it with Mitt. We need to wait for a GOP candidate that will actually change something.

 

[choxorn]

What makes you so sure that Mitt Romney will win re-election in 2016 if he wins this year?

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Are you enjoying talking to yourself pizza?
I'm surprised you can even make out the computer screen infront of you with the growing froth at the mouth

When this is all you have left to contribute to a discussion thread, it means you are bereft of ideas.

Not that you had any to begin with.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I honestly hate Mitt Romney.

At least we can agree on this point, albeit for vastly different reasons.

I'm just a young, ticked off voter.

Don't get ahead of yourself, youngster. You're young, and I won't dispute your claim to be ticked off (since only you know how you feel). But you're not a voter yet.

Gay marriage is going to be legalized in this country eventually (Whether you like it or not, which I really don't, but its still going to happen) but will it happen in 2020 or in 2050? How you vote may well affect it. (Do NOT vote based on gay marriage though, its barely worth the time. The only time your vote should be "Based on gay marriage" is in cases where gay marriage is specifically being discussed in a referrendum.)

Come on... isn't it about time your country GREW UP about this? There will be LOTS of people who are basing their votes on the gay marriage issue, whether they happen to be gay and want to have the option of being married, or whether they know somebody else in that situation, or even if they just think it's the right thing to do.

 

[classical_hero]

@GW16. You can't always get what you want. Mitt Romney is not my favourite Republican either, but it is about the choice of the lesser of two evils.

 

[choxorn]

In which case, Obama is clearly a lesser evil than Romney.

 

[Traitorfish]

It's not theft because you can't "steal" a person or time.

If you can't steal time, does that imply that you can't own time, and therefore cannot sell time? If so, the system of wage-labour on which our whole society pretty much turns would seem fatally undermined...

 

[El_Machinae]

I can kind of see the pro choice side of things to the death penalty.

The convict has consented to live in a world where people are killed by those with greater power for their purposes. They helped create such a world

 

[Leoreth]

If you can't steal time, does that imply that you can't own time

I don't think so.

 

[GhostWriter16]

What makes you so sure that Mitt Romney will win re-election in 2016 if he wins this year?

Honestly, I don't expect to get a Democrat that I will particularly like. I am willing to be proven wrong on this in 2016 IF Mitt Romney is the Republican nominee, but I seriously doubt it.

I'm not saying that there will never be a democrat that I like at all, I've met one running for state senate in NY that I kind of liked who was a Democrat, but at the Presidential level I seriously doubt it. I somewhat doubt I'll get a Republican that I like either, but at least hopefully they won't be a flip flopper.

Don't get ahead of yourself, youngster. You're young, and I won't dispute your claim to be ticked off (since only you know how you feel). But you're not a voter yet.

True. Next year No wait, in four months.

You are right, technically

Come on... isn't it about time your country GREW UP about this? There will be LOTS of people who are basing their votes on the gay marriage issue, whether they happen to be gay and want to have the option of being married, or whether they know somebody else in that situation, or even if they just think it's the right thing to do.

Well, I meant on BOTH SIDES here. I'm not a fan of it, admittedly, I believe in civil unions but not marriage, but come on, it is honestly not the biggest issue our country is dealing with right now.

Honestly, the people I am most annoyed with are the conservatives who are suddenly attacking Obama for his "new stance" on gay marriage. He now supports it, whereas he formerly opposed it, but for the entire time, and still now, he supports the state's right to decide (Which is the same position I have, the only difference between us is that I personally would have voted for Prop 8 while Obama would not.) I have huge issues with Obama, but not this.

What I meant by "Voting based on gay marriage" was voting for a candidate SOLELY BECAUSE OF THEIR STANCE ON GAY MARRIAGE.

Honestly, I was addressing conservatives more than liberals there though, since that's really the only issue where Romney has a conservative viewpoint. Well, that and he's a war hawk

@GW16. You can't always get what you want. Mitt Romney is not my favourite Republican either, but it is about the choice of the lesser of two evils.

Its not just "Not my favorite Republican." It has to do with how the Republican Party DID treat my candidate, and how Mitt Romney is barely a lesser evil than Obama. I'd rather wait till 2016.

I know you're about as anti-libertarian as you can get for a conservative so you'll never understand why exactly I support Ron Paul, but you can certainly sympathize with the fact that it is WRONG to change the voting rules after they have been established to take away delegates from them.

I'm a conservative that won't be voting Republican until they get their act together.

 

[Crezth]

I don't think so.

Then whence come the time you own?

 

[Leoreth]

Then whence come the time you own?

Huh?

I generally don't think that not being able to steal a thing makes it impossible to own a thing.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

It really is a mystery. We have time, but didn't have to buy it. I don't like the socialist attitude of physics.

 

[GhostWriter16]

In which case, Obama is clearly a lesser evil than Romney.

You know what, in some ways he is. Libertarians get this while conservatives do not. Both candidates want the Patriot Act, but Obama at least wants to limit it a bit while Romney seems to not care at all. Both want the War on Drugs, but Obama seems willing (Or at least, last I checked he did) to allow California to ignore it. Romney, on the other hand, is unwilling to give a break even to those who want to use it for medical purposes. I'm honestly not even really sure who the more pro gun control candidate is, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were Romney. Both have way too imperialist a foreign policy, but if I trust Obama on anything at all, I don't think he'll start a war with Iran.

On the other hand, I do think Romney will be better for the economy. Slightly. That's ultimately what I'm afraid of with him. If the government is going to keep wiretapping our phones and arresting people for victimless crimes, I don't WANT them to succeed on the economy. Eventually they will learn.

Romney will probably appoint better SCOTUS judges (IMHO.)

And he probably will sign an anti-abortion law if it comes on his desk. I don't really think he's "Pro-life" by any means, but political pressure might force him to play the part. I don't necessarily think any such bills will even hit his desk, however.

So, meh. Its ultimately pretty much a wash for me. I'm rooting for Obama primarily because he didn't cheat Ron Paul. Romney did

That and that four years of crap is better than eight.

 

[MobBoss]

They may feel that way, but they are going to vote for Obama anyways.

Then they are stupid.

I'll take four years of what we just had over eight years of it with Mitt. We need to wait for a GOP candidate that will actually change something.

I think this is a fairly irresponsible way to think. People like you are literally cutting off your noses to spite their face (politically speaking). The last 4 years have been some of the worst economically in the last 40 to 50 years. Making a concious choice to continue in that direction is just stupid imho.

 

[warpus]

I think this is a fairly irresponsible way to think. People like you are literally cutting off your noses to spite their face (politically speaking). The last 4 years have been some of the worst economically in the last 40 to 50 years. Making a concious choice to continue in that direction is just stupid imho.

That's something Obama inherited when he took over office...

 

[Crezth]

Huh?

I generally don't think that not being able to steal a thing makes it impossible to own a thing.

Then how can it be ownership?

Ownership is, in some sense, predicated on defensibility. Otherwise, what does it mean to "own" anything? In any sense, it demonstrates that the concept of ownership can only be nebulously applied to implied qualities - such as our bodies or free will or "time" - on the understanding that we don't have any choice in the matter. It seems rather tautological to assume that one owns themselves and so it becomes important to outline what is meant by "ownership."

 

[GhostWriter16]

I think this is a fairly irresponsible way to think. People like you are literally cutting off your noses to spite their face (politically speaking). The last 4 years have been some of the worst economically in the last 40 to 50 years. Making a concious choice to continue in that direction is just stupid imho.

You can't say "literally" when using a metaphor

I honestly do not think Romney is going to be any better. I know everyone likes to say "Obama is the most leftist President ever" but I have yet to see anything that makes him any more than a "Normal" lefty. Which I hardly agree with. I supported Ron Paul for goodness sake. Socially I'm not always in agreeement with Republicans, but economically I will almost never agree with the Democrats.

That said, I have yet to see anything from Mitt Romney to say that he will be a real change to the status quo.

Here's something I realized over the last year, foreign policy. War is expensive. You cannot possibly talk about balancing the budget while at the same time talk about starting another war.

Honestly, if Obama will keep us from going to war with Iran, and Romney won't, that's enough reason not to vote for Romney. Another war will kill our budget as much, if not more than, anything else Obama is capable of doing.

The thing is, we have two choices BECAUSE PEOPLE THINK WE HAVE TWO CHOICES. Period. If every single person wrote in Ron Paul, he'd be the President. Now, that's implausible, obviously, and I agree with you that either Mitt Romney or Barack Obama will be our President in 2013, but that doesn't mean we have to just lie down and accept the fact.

In fact, honestly, if you want to say we have two choices, we really only have one. If you compare ANY two candidates this election, heck, even if you compare Gary Johnson with Ron Paul, they are still farther from each other than Obama is from Romney. I honestly see no difference between the two.

Now I'll admit I'm still young and idealistic. I may be wrong about this. But I REALLY don't see the difference between the two. Both will continue the status quo on nearly everything. And so I cannot in good conscience endorse either of them.

In addition, I cannot in good conscience support ANY Republicans for ANY national offices this year simply because of the way they are treating grassroots movements within the party.

I'd vote for a rock over Obama. But not Mitt Romney.

 

[choxorn]

Geez, guys, I only meant to point out that, legally speaking, wrongly imprisoning someone is not the same thing as theft. I didn't mean to start a debate on physics and the possibility of physically stealing time!

Well, I meant on BOTH SIDES here. I'm not a fan of it, admittedly, I believe in civil unions but not marriage, but come on, it is honestly not the biggest issue our country is dealing with right now.

Honestly, the people I am most annoyed with are the conservatives who are suddenly attacking Obama for his "new stance" on gay marriage. He now supports it, whereas he formerly opposed it, but for the entire time, and still now, he supports the state's right to decide (Which is the same position I have, the only difference between us is that I personally would have voted for Prop 8 while Obama would not.) I have huge issues with Obama, but not this.

If you don't support civil liberties, can you please stop calling yourself a libertarian?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Geez, guys, I only meant to point out that, legally speaking, wrongly imprisoning someone is not the same thing as theft. I didn't mean to start a debate on physics and the possibility of physically stealing time!

Don't be silly. This is OT, and threads morph in ways that defy predictability and logic.

But have none of the wrongly convicted in the U.S. ever sued for wrongful imprisonment and reached a settlement? There have been several cases in Canada where the wrongly-convicted man was awarded millions (considering one of them spent 23 years in prison, I don't blame him for suing).