A serious question to the GOP supporters....?

[wellendowed1911]

I know this is mere hypothetical conjecture, but had Romney been elected how do you think things would be right now....?

A. Would ISIS still be a threat in Syria and Iraq?
B. Would UE rate be lower?
C. Would there be a solution to the border crisis?
D. Would all of your lives be so much better off that you guys would be posting positive threads of how problem free your life has become with a Republican POTUS?

The only thing I could see that would be remotely different is that Congress(GOP) and Senate would be wasting tax payer dollars and time trying to repeal Obamacare.

The big picture I am trying to make you guys see is that most of you would be in the same position you are right now had Obama NOT been re-elected and that many of you are using Obama as a scapegoat!

[Mr MojoRisin]

Well you're right your thread is hypothetical. If Romney was elected things might even been worse, then again they maybe so much better too. The world may never know. So lets stick with what we do know. Obama is juggling a whole lot of shit at once and his administration leaves a lot to be desired. in making sound decisions in dealing with it effectively. I don't think the problems were facing in this country are hopeless, it's our government officials that are hopeless. Maybe as American citizens we should stop giving them eight years of our lives. Nothing good seems to come of two term presidents anymore.



Jim

[wellendowed1911]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Well you're right your thread is hypothetical. If Romney was elected things might even been worse, then again they maybe so much better too. The world may never know. So lets stick with what we do know. Obama is juggling a whole lot of shit at once and his administration leaves a lot to be desired. in making sound decisions in dealing with it effectively. I don't think the problems were facing in this country are hopeless, it's our government officials that are hopeless. Maybe as American citizens we should stop giving them eight years of our lives. Nothing good seems to come of two term presidents anymore.



Jim

Good analogy, but don't you blame Congress for most of this debacle?

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Well you're right your thread is hypothetical. If Romney was elected things might even been worse, then again they maybe so much better too. The world may never know. So lets stick with what we do know. Obama is juggling a whole lot of shit at once and his administration leaves a lot to be desired. in making sound decisions in dealing with it effectively. I don't think the problems were facing in this country are hopeless, it's our government officials that are hopeless. Maybe as American citizens we should stop giving them eight years of our lives. Nothing good seems to come of two term presidents anymore.

Jim

I don't think the problem is 2-term presidents so much as the fact that our last two presidents--covering 16 years by the time we are finished with this one--essentially walked into DC and the world stage essentially clueless about the world outside of the US. Clueless about most of political life/reality. I'm sorry, but being the son of a very experienced former president doesn't suffice, nor does a couple years as a very junior member of congress--especially when you spend most of that time worrying about a presidential run rather than learning about the national level problems. And when will we learn that being governor of a state--even a big population one--is NOT de facto adequate prep for being president (at least it was Texas, not some place like Alaska). Neither Bush-2 nor Obama had (has) a clue about international diplomacy--probably the most critical single thing the president needs to be able to handle with at least a C. And both were too young--not sufficiently experienced in LIFE. And both--obama even worse than Bush--surrounded themselves with some very bad key staff people. At least Bush had a competent--if completely sleazy --VP.

Up the min age to 55. Make a presidential candidate show their proposed list for the cabinet level positions (fine with me if multiple people have a certain individual on their list, we see that with companies bidding key personnel all the time).

[Jewish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by Old-T

I don't think the problem is 2-term presidents so much as the fact that our last two presidents--covering 16 years by the time we are finished with this one--essentially walked into DC and the world stage essentially clueless about the world outside of the US. Clueless about most of political life/reality. I'm sorry, but being the son of a very experienced former president doesn't suffice, nor does a couple years as a very junior member of congress--especially when you spend most of that time worrying about a presidential run rather than learning about the national level problems. And when will we learn that being governor of a state--even a big population one--is NOT de facto adequate prep for being president (at least it was Texas, not some place like Alaska). Neither Bush-2 nor Obama had (has) a clue about international diplomacy--probably the most critical single thing the president needs to be able to handle with at least a C. And both were too young--not sufficiently experienced in LIFE. And both--obama even worse than Bush--surrounded themselves with some very bad key staff people. At least Bush had a competent--if completely sleazy --VP.

Up the min age to 55. Make a presidential candidate show their proposed list for the cabinet level positions (fine with me if multiple people have a certain individual on their list, we see that with companies bidding key personnel all the time).

Excellent post Old-T.

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Good analogy, but don't you blame Congress for most of this debacle?

Well now that you mentioned it. Of course Congress is to blame as well. The blame I give to them is they are concerned with appeasing their respective parties rather than attending to the tasks at hand. Everyone wants to be a hotdog and a hero. Plus they get paid way to much.

Jim

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by Old-T

I don't think the problem is 2-term presidents so much as the fact that our last two presidents--covering 16 years by the time we are finished with this one--essentially walked into DC and the world stage essentially clueless about the world outside of the US. Clueless about most of political life/reality. I'm sorry, but being the son of a very experienced former president doesn't suffice, nor does a couple years as a very junior member of congress--especially when you spend most of that time worrying about a presidential run rather than learning about the national level problems. And when will we learn that being governor of a state--even a big population one--is NOT de facto adequate prep for being president (at least it was Texas, not some place like Alaska). Neither Bush-2 nor Obama had (has) a clue about international diplomacy--probably the most critical single thing the president needs to be able to handle with at least a C. And both were too young--not sufficiently experienced in LIFE. And both--obama even worse than Bush--surrounded themselves with some very bad key staff people. At least Bush had a competent--if completely sleazy --VP.

Up the min age to 55. Make a presidential candidate show their proposed list for the cabinet level positions (fine with me if multiple people have a certain individual on their list, we see that with companies bidding key personnel all the time).

Yes they appeared to just waltz right in. It seemed very easy for them.


Jim

[Yssup Rider]

I guess we'll never know WE. Mittens was not the best face for the GOP then, but the only face they had. Ultra rich, religious and, er, arrhythmic.

If we had a do-over, Obama would still kick his ass.

[CuteOldGuy]

It wouldn't be much different if at all.

[JD Barleycorn]

Completely hypothetical but lets look at what Romney said were his concerns. Romney recognized the threat of Russia towards Ukraine. Where Obama did nothing but talk, Romney may have taken some action before Russia started trouble to support Ukraine. The hope would be that Russia would back down and bide their time to the next democratic president.
Romney also recognized that the threat of terrorism had not died down. It was still there and needed the might and leadership of the US to fight it. I imagine that the US would have tried again to get an agreement with Iraq and may have succeeded this time. I think Romney would have already taken action against ISIS so that the loss of American lives was not going to be in vain.
The economy would be better because Romney would have changed out the leadership of the IRS and the EPA. Two of the biggest regulatory offenders which Romney recognized in the debates. When you talk about unemployment, are you talking about the cooked numbers of less than 7% of the real numbers of about 13%? Once the economy gets moving and money changes hands, Obamacare is gone, then companies will feel safe to expand and jobs will be created. Unemployment would have been lower.
We wouldn't care about golf games and vacations at the moment. Michelle Obama's "healthy food" iniative would be dead and children would be eating at school again. Romney was wishy on this but I think he would give the three GOP governors on the border what they need to control it but then again, Obama's promise to not send back children would be dead and most of those "children" would still be in their home country.

I think things would be different and if Romney had won, Harry Reid would probably not be in control of the Senate and that would be priceless. A minor thing, no showdown at the Bundy ranch in Nevada. Instead of Ferguson, MO we would be talking about the bloodshed in Chicago, IL.

[heinz5710]

Blame Congress? I surely do. Without the majority in the Senate, Mr. Obama might have compromised with congress. As it is, Obama never saw a bill he didn't like. I'm still holding my breath about November. Republicans have a way of blowing things at the last minute. If Romney had won, and the Senate were Republican, Obamacare would be on its last legs. The democrats forced it through as a financial matter and it could be repealed in the same way. Some changes in our health care law would be offered but Romney is a businessman. Our economy would have been freed to grow and expand. Missiles would be in Poland, and a leader would be in the WH. The election was fair and democrats won. As Obama stated, "Elections have consequences!" Americans made the choice.

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

I know this is mere hypothetical conjecture, but had Romney been elected how do you think things would be right now....?

A. Would ISIS still be a threat in Syria and Iraq?
B. Would UE rate be lower?
C. Would there be a solution to the border crisis?
D. Would all of your lives be so much better off that you guys would be posting positive threads of how problem free your life has become with a Republican POTUS?

The only thing I could see that would be remotely different is that Congress(GOP) and Senate would be wasting tax payer dollars and time trying to repeal Obamacare.

The big picture I am trying to make you guys see is that most of you would be in the same position you are right now had Obama NOT been re-elected and that many of you are using Obama as a scapegoat!

With the additional hypothetical that the Repubs took the Senate
A. No one would care with the war in Iran raging
B. The US/Iranian/Russian war would provide near full employment
C. With nuclear attacks from both Iran and Russia, Mexicans fear coming to the country
D. The EMPs took out most of the electrical and com grids. We are hunkered down in our bunkers. NO you can't come in.




Is that the response you were looking for?