Mitt Romney for President - Page 5

And you are sure? I think the vast majority of conservatives and even libertarians will vote for the GOP nominee over Obama. Obama's just that bad.



Returning to the gold standard? Getting rid of Medicaid? Thinking that the world will be better off if we have no foreign military presence.


So you're saying that an American citizen who literally takes up arms agains the nation (on foreign soil) deserves a freaking jury trial? Yeah, we just disagree there. There are special circumstances and exceptions, and this is one of them.


He wants to END the Fed, not just audit it. He wants to return to the gold standard. Both are nuts.


Come on. How can you not see that's out of context? He was talking about bailouts that were to save the financial system. He even talked about his opposition to bailouts for any other reason. And you know what? He's right.


Yes, really. I don't think they should, but they can. The states have (or should have) far more power than the feds do.



I didn't claim that. I said he goes much further, as in he's not JUST for "following the constitution." He's isolationist. He doesn't believe in using American power to protect our interests and security. He wants to end Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security. He goes too far.


Yes, when it comes to foreign policy, it's batshit crazy. The world simply doesn't work that way. His Cuba position is a perfect example. Have things gotten better in Cuba since we started lightening our stance under Obama? No. They've gotten worse. Has Iran started behaving now that Obama has snubbed Israel and all but ruled out military action? No. They've become emboldened. Did the Soviets become weaker when we pursued Détente? No, they became more aggressive. The problem with Ron Paul is he doesn't believe that a strong America is good for world peace. He thinks that we are the provocateur of all the problems we face, from terrorism to Iran. He thinks that the only reason Iran wants a nuclear weapon is because we're threatening them. "If we would just back off, they'd back off. Everyone will leave us alone." That's the general idea, and it's clearly wrong. If all Ron Paul wanted to do is restructure our foreign presence to have it better reflect 21st Century needs (Korea and Germany troop levels come to mind) and argue for less intervention, that would be one thing. But he goes right up the ladder, past the diving board, up to high dive, and takes a flying leap as the pool is empty. He's just wrong.


Oh yes you did. You've argued that there is no difference that matters. That is simply false. There are huge differences. You simply don't care because if it's not RON PAUL (RON PAUL! RON PAUL!) it's not good enough. Mitt Romney does not equal Ron Paul, therefore Mitt Romney equals Obama. Sorry dude...I like you and all, but that's the logic of a true Paul Tard.

And you're both wrong. His position is the most dangerous of any candidate, including Obama. That doesn't mean he's all wrong, of course. We should reduce and restructure our foreign presence. We should definitely not have as much intervention (example: Libya). But the rest of it is simply crazy. We will not be left alone if we bring all the troops home and demilitarize. The world will not be better. That's because American strength is a good thing. As Reagan once said "Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong."

[/quote]

OK. In my opinion, you're both wrong. Better?


See above.


Opinion. And, one not supported by an understanding of history.


Yes he does. He rails against the size of the military, foreign bases, troops on other nations. He has stated that the reason other nations wish to harm the US is because "we bomb them all the time."


It's my opinion. If you want to make the case that I'm wrong, go ahead. I'm listening.


So does Ron Paul. So does Barack Obama. You're entitled to your opinion, but it is my strong feeling you are absolutely wrong. American strength is good for the world. It was good in World War I and World War 2. It was good during the cold war. America, for all its flaws, is basically a force for the good in the world. We need to defend freedom and democracy, because without us, no one else will.

I didn't say "complete demilitarization." But he's close enough to that for it to be dangerous.


Oh COME ON. You're telling me the CIA and "other intelligence agencies" believe the only reason we are disliked by certain nations is because we're "bombing them all the time?" That is completely disingenuous.


We agree there, but not for the same reason. I see us not standing up for our allies and ideals the way we used to. We're snubbing Israel, treating Iran ("the tiny country") with kid gloves, getting walked on by China and Russia, etc. We're not respected. We're seen as weak and in decline. And that has nothing to do with treatment of terror detainees or troops in Afghanistan. It has nothing to do with Iraq. It's about the perception this administration has created...that of a paper tiger. Obama even talks about how we shouldn't be the military and economic leader of the world, but rather one of a "chorus of voices."


We've made mistakes, it's true. We've gotten involved in things we should not have. But, I disagree that we're an "empire." We don't conquer and hold territory. We didn't invade Iraq, make it the 51st state, and wash our hands. Instead, we spent 10 years, a trillion dollars and nearly 5,000 American lives rebuilding and securing the country...then we left. What you see to resent is American global influence and military projection. That's where we really disagree. We shouldn't use the military all the time, but we should be able to if we need to.


Democracy is the only way a country can be free. Democracy cannot be imposed by its very nature. As for "controlling regimes," that's a vague notion. When a regime like NK or Iran is building nuclear weapons, threatening us and our allies, threatening to disrupt global energy supplies, etc...yeah...I think we should absolutely be involved.


What are we doing today that you disagree with?

Trump to endorse Romney.

Not sure endorsements matter all that much, but at least we know the Donald won't be out there slamming the GOP nominee or running as a third party.

Oh boy, now we're playing games. Ron Paul wants to drastically reduce the size and scope of the military. True or false?


I am not arguing blowback doesn't happen. Clearly, it does. What I'm saying is that blowback is not the primary problem. The problem happens long before we get to blowback. Anti-Western sentiment didn't come from us "bombing countries for years." That's just stupid.


I don't. It's because everyone knows we're not going to do a damn thing. Everyone knows we have leadership that resents our superpower status, and thinks America should be less influential. We're not leading. That's the problem. It's not because we waterboarded a few people and invaded Iraq. Interestingly, Libya renounced it's nuclear ambitions shortly after we did that. At least we meant what we said then.


OK. "Little to nothing."


That's not the same as conquering.


Yeah, one does wonder why you resent that.


The best defense is, in fact, a good offense.


Oh look! Condescension and more semantics!


Be specific about what you mean. Examples, please.


You see, this is where Paul supporters become delusional. Iran is doing exactly the things I mentioned and many more. And you flatly deny it because you're blinded by Paul's reality distortion field.


1. Iran: Iran is the provocateur, not the U.S., and not Israel.

2. Libya: I didn't like that either. We should have either been in or out...not both. And there should have been Congressional approval to keep the mission going.

3. Meddling in Pakistan? MEDDLING? Pakistan is a hotbed of terrorism, and isn't doing enough to stop it. We should tell Pakistan that if they don't like us taking out AQ leaders and Taliban leaders with drones, they can pound sand. Literally. Oh, and let's make sure we stop sending them billions.

There you go. See, it's the US that is provoking. If we would only withdraw our forces, close our bases and go home with our tail between our legs, everything would be so much better. Iran wouldn't still see us a threat. They'd renounce terrorism, nuclear ambitions, and their determination to destroy Israel. There would be fewer security problems in the region. There would be more stability. It's just that poor, little, tiny Iran is SO threatened by our military presence. Got it.

Really, there is no way to sugarcoat this: The above view is fucking insane, as is why Paul can't gain real traction politically. Every time he espouses his very popular (and correct) views on Constitutional government, self-reliance, liberty and fiscal sanity, he pollutes them with this completely unrealistic, dangerous foreign policy. Every time he talks about less foreign intervention and restructuring deployments in Germany, Korea and elsewhere, a statement nations not liking us because "we keep bombing them" is not far off. He's Crazy Uncle Paul.




OK. Let's discuss why you think this is a great idea (assuming you do).



No, you were being a condescending jack ass. You took a single statement and presumes it to mean I didn't realize the difference between true Democracy and Constitutional Republic.


It's not my job to "prove" anything, but how anyone can deny the statement I made is beyond me. Here's an interesting article to get you started. It's quite alarming.


Oh boy. I think it's time for a Godwin's Law for the term "Neocon."


Just let me get this straight (and correct me if I've put words in your mouth, so to speak): You believe that the U.S. is the primary provocateur of the problems we have with Iran? And you further believe that if we simply started treating them differently, things would improve greatly in the Middle East?

You "suggested" I need a better understanding of those issues. What DID you mean?


You're using the tactics of the Left now. You're challenging to prove something that has been shown time and time again. Iran has repeatedly threatened the U.S. and Israel. Iran supports terrorism. I really doubt that you need me to go find a bunch of links for you. I think you're just playing games.


I'm fine with disagreement. I'm not fine with obvious denial of reality. When I see that, I'm going to call the person out on it.


I wouldn't say all Paul supporters are that way, nor is all of Paul's platform wrong. However, I have seen a tendency for Paul and his supporters to embrace things that simply don't make sense and are in obvious conflict with the lessons of history. I have seen Paul supporters ignore the obvious problems in Paul's positions and only focus on the ones that actually do make sense. I have seen Paul supporters engage in willing suspension of disbelief in terms of how the world works. When someone states that they want to drastically reduce the size of the U.S. military, or that the reason some nations act badly in pursuing terrorism, nuclear weapons, etc is that "we;re over there bombing them," I'm going to call that how I see it. Sorry if you don't like it.


And you're the one talking name calling? I'm simply saying that "Neocon" has become a standard attack line for those that favor a more hawkish foreign policy than say, Ron Paul does. It's no different than Jazz's reasoning on Mitt Romney vs. Obama. Romney does not equal Paul, therefore Romney is the same as Obama. Take a step back for a second and realize how myopic that sounds. It's Paul or no one. That's what his supporters think.


Blatantly show power? That was the entire reason for Iraq war? Iran does not own the Middle East. In fact, we need to make sure they don't dominate the Middle East, both for the sake of our own national and energy security, but for the citizens of region as well. And yes, every enemy should cower and bow at our military might. Weakness invites attack. Another lesson of history that Paul supporters seem to forget


Who is making assertions now? Let's see some evidence of that.


That much I agree with. Installing and supporting the Shaw is clearly something we should not have done, and it's had lasting consequences. Unfortunately we cannot undo that and now we must deal with the problem. And yes, they have a very long memory and long view of history.

[quote


Back at ya: Disgraceful Reporting by the Boston Herald and Others[/quote]

Do you really believe that the intent of Clapper and Petreaus' statements was to say that Iran was NOT developing a nuclear weapon? Really?


That doesn't show what you're claiming. In fact, it clearly shows that Iran is willing (or may be willing) to attack inside the United States.

I won't bother going point by point. You're clearly on another planet when it comes to Iran and how foreign policy works.

YOUR POSITION MAKES NO SENSE. YOU ARE DENYING FACTS. This is not mere disagreement. You are stating that Iran is not threatening Israel, the United States, etc. You are claiming Iran does not support terrorism. You are claiming that U.S. intelligence believes they are not developing a nuclear weapon.

We can disagree about what should be done wrt Iran. We can discuss military intervention and when/if it's appropriate in general. We can debate having a formal declaration of war for military action. We can talk about troop deployments and base consolidation. But for Jesus H. Christ's sake, don't go all sammi jo on me. You're better and smarter than that.

You are taking quotes out of context and claiming they mean something different than they do. I stated Iran was developing a nuclear weapon and supported terrorism. You countered by offering Clapper's testimony. Now, you say you didn't really mean it, and that you were only trying to claim Clapper was saying Iran may respond to U.S. actions. Right.

As for "bullying," suck it up. You sound like Newt complaining about a negative campaign. I made my point stand out because it was important. You are denying facts, cherry picking statements to support your own views and then accusing me of the same. Notice, however, that I have not denied Clapper's testimony or tried to discredit it. I am simply saying that it does not represent what you say it does. It does not represent sum total of what's going on with Iran.

Edit: By the way this quote:
...does not mean that Iran won't act regardless of U.S. actions.

You're amazing. You crack me up. OK. Let's all pretend Iran is not a threat whatsoever.

It only says that if you intentionally distort it. It says that Iran may react to our actions, real or perceived. That's all it says, and it's nothing surprising. Trying to take that quote and parlay it into "Iran isn't pursuing nuclear weapons" or "US actions are negatively impacting the situation" is fundamentally stupid. If Clapper meant that, he would have said that.


How are we "rattling swords? Isn't Iran the one rattling swords, or do you honestly believe that poor, little Iran is just ready defend itself from the Big Bully?


I'm concerned about Iran...and that makes me...a coward?


OK, so the threat is real. But we (as in the rest of the world) should just ignore it, because we can't do anything about it. We should just let Iran do whatever it pleases, or we might make them mad. Got it.



No. What puts us in more danger is people like you. People that wish to appease dictators, tyrants and extremists.

When did I say it was a major, serious and imminent threat? When have I ever supported military action? What I have said is it may come to that, and that concerns me a great deal. What I've said is that Iran is ultimately the one provoking, not the U.S.

I thought we were;t supposed to use bold, caps or underline because it wasn't nice?


I see we are back to playing semantical games. OK, technically Iran is not "building" nuclear weapons...bad choice of words there on my part, especially considering you're determined to parse every single word. So, with that in mind let me ask this:

Would you agree that Iran has a nuclear weapons program? Would you agree that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon? And further, would Iran be pursuing a nuclear weapon if the U.S. just left them alone?