Mitt Romney is a schmuck and he is going to lose.

Post Reply New Topic

Even so, Romney is his own worst enemy. The ironic thing is that he would make a much better president than the Obamanation. Romney, whatever you think of his politics, has executive skills honed doing business for decades. And he was also governor of Massachussetts. He could get his sh*t together much better than the incompetent we currently have as head of state.

I fully understand how Obama's politics may be more appealing to meany, but his skills as leader and executive are virtually non-existent.

ruveyn

Imagine that! The Center right continuing to govern 4 more years! The extreme right is so doomed!

As is our economy.

ruveyn

Can you please name an 'Bama economic measure that would not have happened the exact way in a republican government?

Frankly, this all seems to me to be a tempest in a teacup.

In my county, our Head of Government has virtually unlimited power. Unless his caucus turns against him, he is unchecked between elections. On the other hand, your constitution has created a country that is domestically ungovernable--and you have done very well for the last 223 years, so one really must step back and give credit for that.

The president has no affirmative legislative competence. He can stop legislation, but he can't enact it. (Although the Executive Order mechanism does create some capacity to create subordinate legislation). He cannot enact a budget--he can only shut down government, he cannot fund it. He is commander-in-chief, which carries a certain amount of power, but the only power that can be projected domestically is military spending power, which is generally tied up in Congressional pork before the President gets his hands on it.

The Presidency matters for one reason, and one reason only: the power to nominate; and in particular the power to nominate Supreme Court justices. But even this power is limited.

Claiming that the election of either Obama or Romney will doom the United States all seems a bit hollow.

Obama is not likely to help much. But then again, I have little hope that a candidate of the Capitalist Cronies will do much better.

What we need is an Anti-Crony.

ruveyn

Of course he'll lose, that's been the plan all along. It doesn't matter to the powers that be regardless since they'll pursue exactly the same policies. The whole argument that about voting Romney for the judges was put on its head when John Roberts showed his true colors.

Obama wins, at least then we have a chance at a real candidate in 2016 but knowing the GOP, they'll probably use their dirty tricks once again to stop that from happening.

Could be worse for Romney. He could actually get a window of a passenger plane open while in flight.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Obama's been President for almost four years, now. I think that counts for something in the way of executive experience.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Compare 4 years to nearly an adult lifetime. Obama never had a real job until he was elected to the Senate.

ruveyn

Don't expect to ever get anywhere with the Republican party. They pay a lot of lip service to "freedom" but are really about conservatism/regressivism. They only support trickle-down free-market ideology because it's seen as a part of their "traditional values", i.e the poor should always be grateful and subservient to their wealthier betters. It's about unconditional loyalty, subservience, and preservation of the traditional power hierarchy (i.e. going back to the late 1800's). This is why the republican party will never accept anyone 100% consistent with libertarian values. They are not for libertarian values. They are for a mixture of deregulation and crony capitalism, both of which benefit their wealthy donor owners. They are for the wealthy and a hierarchical society, period.

LOL, Romney just advocated for teachers unions being decreased in their power for bargaining. First it's that 47 percent of Americans are schmucks to Mitt and now he thinks that the teachers ought to shut up. This election is Obama's to lose.

Well, actually he had been a member of the Illinois state senate. That, and he had taught constitutional law. Sounds like he held jobs to me.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Not real jobs where he had to meet a payroll and pay attention to costs and the balance sheet. He held government jobs, few of which are real. Maybe the technical/scientific jobs are real, but Obama is non-scientific. He went to law school which proves he was a scientific imbecile. I doubt if he can write a simple program in BASIC.

ruveyn

Most of us would consider what he did for a living prior to becoming president "real jobs."
And dare I ask, what is BASIC?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

He's just making up excuses to tell us why Obama sucks now. His focus on 'real jobs' pretty much means retail stores, McDonalds, offices etc. like the rest of us, something which Romney never had to do since he inherited his business.