We have more to fear from mitt romney than we do from Obama?

jeffrey890

Hey guys this is the motion we are proposing in my next concern debate (i:e anti-romney) so If anyone has any useful information on his homeland and foreign policies it would really be appreciated. (as its concern they like when you focus a bit on third world countries so any effect his election may have on any third world country would be appreciated)

Min

Obama has done no more than what Bush did, so having Romney will make little difference.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2012/oct/03/us-aid-little-choose-romney-obama

In effect if you want to have anti-Romney debate based on how it affects poorer countries, well the point is there will be no noticeable difference and would be a mute debating point.

jeffrey890

thanks im not personally disagreeing with you its just that for the debate I need some points to make the arguement.

Amerika

Well, if you haven't already, you should probably first familiarize yourself with Romney's position's on foreign policy, and know how to counter them, and also guess how your opponent will counter your points. You don't want to end up looking like a empty chair do you?

Here:

http://www.mittromney.com/collection/foreign-policy

Here is a little help along those paths.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/09/17/3007496/romney-vs-obama-on-foreign-policy.html

And here is something from a media group that is about as anti-romney as they come. (I consider it some bad partisan analysis... but that's just me.)

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2012/06/mitt_romney_s_foreign_policy_ideas_can_t_be_taken_seriously_.html

Good luck... hope your side looses.

jeffrey890

haha thanks....I think

poeticseraphim

Honestly to the rest of the world it makes little difference who wins or loses.

Atlantis50

I have the exact opposite - specific Obama policies that would seriously damage Ireland's economy:

"PRESIDENT Barack Obama took aim at US companies based in Ireland and other low-tax countries yesterday, prompting fears that his measures may deter foreign direct investment here."

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/obama-corporate-tax-reforms-may-hinder-fdi-into-ireland-3029060.html

"A US economist and tax expert who recently gave evidence to the ways and means committee in the US House of Representatives, Martin Sullivan, told The Irish Times last night that Ireland had benefited more than any other country from the fact that US corporations don’t pay US tax unless they repatriate their profits.

“So Obama’s proposals to significantly curtail those benefits are a serious threat to the Irish economy.”

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0223/1224312240386.html

Obama's full policy document is here: http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/Documents/The-Presidents-Framework-for-Business-Tax-Reform-02-22-2012.pdf

asherbassad

poeticseraphim wrote: »

Honestly to the rest of the world it makes little difference who wins or loses.

You really think that? Dream on.

Obama vowed to end the war in Afghanistan. He escalated it.
Obama vowed to close Guantanamo. Still there.
Obama welched on every promise he made.

Romney will do the same. He'll welch.

jeffrey890

asherbassad wrote: »

You really think that? Dream on.

Obama vowed to end the war in Afghanistan. He escalated it.
Obama vowed to close Guantanamo. Still there.
Obama welched on every promise he made.

Romney will do the same. He'll welch.

Every promise? Thats jumping to a conclussion a bit isn't it? Obama has already commited to leaving afghanistan in 2013 yet Romney wants to stay till a minimum of 2014? Just because he hasn't fulfilled all his promises neither means hes fulfilled none or that he won't fulfill them in the future.

joseph brand

New Revelation At '47%' Dinner - Romney Was Hoping For Something Like Iran Hostage Crisis (VIDEO)

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/18/1146402/-New-Revelation-At-47-Dinner-Romney-Was-Hoping-For-Something-Like-Iran-Hostage-Crisis-VIDEO

In the video, Romney is caught hoping for an Iran hostage type situation to help propel him into the White House. Is it any surprise that he has tried to make political hay out of the Benghazi terror attacks?
As you watch the video, notice the man (is that a British accent?) asking Romney how he can “duplicate” an Iran hostage type scenario. Instead of dismissing the question as going against American interests, Romney agrees that the strategy would be beneficial. The entire video is worth a listen but at the end, Romney says, “if something of that nature presents itself, I will work to take advantage of the opportunity.”

He actually wants to see Americans taken hostage? It'll be good for him?

Manic Moran

No, he doesn't. It doesn't take a creative reading of the words to understand that he's not hoping that the Iranians take anyone hostage, but that he would take advantage of an opportunity to refocus attention onto Iran: Eagle Claw brought the Iranian hostage crisis front and center into the American limelight, he's commenting that the Iranian nuclear program issue is nowhere in the public attention, and it should be.

Speaking of Iran, we've just had a slight Biden whoopsie.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/biden-says-gop-has-bullets-aimed-at-you-confuses-afghanistan-and-iran/

Duck Soup

Well, we know what we're getting with Obama. He's ended major military engagement with Iraq. He's committed to a complete withdrawal from Afghanistan by 2014. What Republicans are happy to call "daylight" between Israel and the US is a rational distance from a potentially trigger-happy right-wing Israeli administration that lets them know not to expect unflinching support for unilateral military action. Obama believes in letting sanctions on Iran do their work.

Romney wants to keep troops in Afghanistan should events arise, so they could be there indefinitely. He's in lockstep with Netanyahu, which means he would probably publicly back up whatever Netanyahu decides to do, therefore making it easier for the Israelis - for example - to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities.

Romney is already committed to a 'get tough' with China policy, starting with currency and trade, but it's unclear what will happen should China start to rattle sabres, which is a good bet in the aftermath of economic sanctions.

So yes, Romney is a worry.

jeffrey890

Thanks for all the input guys! even those who disagreed helped with rebuttling technique. We won btw so once again thanks.

ChoralClam

asherbassad wrote: »

You really think that? Dream on.

Obama vowed to end the war in Afghanistan. He escalated it.
Obama vowed to close Guantanamo. Still there.
Obama welched on every promise he made.

Romney will do the same. He'll welch.

Much of this is to do with republican obstructionism, fear of AIPAC, the power of ALEC and the duopoly madness that is American 'democracy'

Will it change? not by much, does it still matter.. only slightly, and is more of a lesser evil vote in the end.

MadsL

asherbassad wrote: »

Obama vowed to close Guantanamo. Still there.

He said very clearly, quite recently on the Daily Show, that he still wishes to achieve this - and that he has been obstructed at every turn to achieve this.

FatherTed

Also, it depends on which Romney we get. Is it the one who bowed to the far right Republicans during the primaries in order to get the nomination or the one who now agrees more or less with Obama on all foreign policy issues?

cyberhog

If you want to know who to fear most just check who the neocons are endorsing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/washington-post-endorsement-four-more-years-for-president-obama/2012/10/25/6ca309a2-1965-11e2-bd10-5ff056538b7c_story.html

Manic Moran

Neocons? The Washington Post endorsed Obama last time around as well. Are you sure you're not mixing up with the Washington Times, which is a little more right-leaning than the Post?

Akrasia

Romney appears to be a double high on the Altemeyer RWA scale.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism
Some of the charactaristics of the Double high RWAs are:
Overconfident in their own abilities
Think they are more moral than everyone else, and are willing to forgive themselves almost any transgression
Prepared to manipulate others for their own gain
Is more likely to over-react to threats
Is more likely to cause conflict (would favour a first strike policy and would escalate hostilities rather than back down)
Is prepared to say almost anything if he thinks it will be to his advantage
Is not good at processing information that is challenging to his world view
Is willing to persecute almost anybody

In Bob Altemeyer's book, the Authoritarians, when people with high Right Wing Authoritarian personality traits engaged in geo-political simulation games, they always brought the world to destruction because of a refusal to cooperate an compromise and a willingness to dominate others.


If he is elected, it will be very bad for America and for the world. we barely survived 8 years of the last double high that got into office (Bush)

cyberhog

Manic Moran wrote: »

Neocons? The Washington Post endorsed Obama last time around as well. Are you sure you're not mixing up with the Washington Times, which is a little more right-leaning than the Post?

If Robert Parry says the Post is a neocon rag that's good enough for me.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/031509.html

Manic Moran

cyberhog wrote: »

If Robert Parry says the Post is a neocon rag that's good enough for me.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/031509.html

I shall simply let that statement stand as a testament to your abilities or willingness to conduct your own research in order to form your own conclusions to act as a somewhat informed observer.

NTM

cyberhog

Manic Moran wrote: »

I shall simply let that statement stand as a testament to your abilities or willingness to conduct your own research in order to form your own conclusions to act as a somewhat informed observer.

NTM

And what research of your own have you conducted to support your view that the editorial board of the Post are not neocons? care to share?

asherbassad

jeffrey890 wrote: »

Every promise? Thats jumping to a conclussion a bit isn't it? Obama has already commited to leaving afghanistan in 2013 yet Romney wants to stay till a minimum of 2014? Just because he hasn't fulfilled all his promises neither means hes fulfilled none or that he won't fulfill them in the future.

And which one of them will hold a victory parade for the war(s)?
Bush was painted into a corner (easy enough for that cretin) to vacate Iraq in 2011.
Combat troops fled under cover of darkness but a few thousand remain in Baghdad.
With Afghanistan, there will be no withdrawal. If Obama vowed to end the war, then why did he escalate it and have it spill over into the current US led massacres in Pakistan?
Smacks of Nixon's Cambodia genocide to me.

That's like saying "I'll stop beating the sh!t out of you next week" and then I go raping your kids cos I got time.

Manic Moran

cyberhog wrote: »

And what research of your own have you conducted to support your view that the editorial board of the Post are not neocons? care to share?

Perhaps one need not go further than to inquire as to the probability of a neocon endorsing Obama both elections.

Of course, the term neocon has, granted, been thrown around a lot the last few years and common usage (especially in today's polarised society) may not equate to the definition of the word.

However, a simple search for "Is the Washington Post biased" (to include simply reading the 'political stance' section of its Wiki entry, albeit nothing these is less than four years old), indicates that it seems fairly centrist, with accusations of both left and right leaning, depending on which article and reporter is being commented upon, and who is doing the commenting appearing even if one confines the results to those with dates of this year.

Oddly enough, I even read some of the articles they put out over the years... I don't just read the newspapers during election season.

NTM

cyberhog

Manic Moran wrote: »

Perhaps one need not go further than to inquire as to the probability of a neocon endorsing Obama both elections.

So your view is based on what you think is probable and not on any actual research you have conducted yourself. I gotta say you've got some neck criticising others when you can't even be bothered to do your own research.

Going back to Parry's article

The Post editors stacked their influential editorial section with notorious neocons like Charles Krauthammer and Robert Kagan, along with other Iraq War enthusiasts such as David Ignatius, Jim Hoagland, Michael Kelly and Richard Cohen.

So, in September 2002, when former Vice President Al Gore objected to the rush to war, the Post let loose their columnists to distort and mock what Gore had said.

Kelly called Gore’s speech “dishonest, cheap, low” before labeling it “wretched. It was vile. It was contemptible.” Krauthammer added that the speech was “a series of cheap shots strung together without logic or coherence.” There was no countervailing opinion published.

...

The Post’s own editorials treated the Bush administration’s false allegations about Iraq’s stockpiles of WMD as indisputable fact and trashed even long-time American allies who dared disagree.

The sad truth appears to be that the Washington Post can no longer be counted on to be anything like an honest broker, especially when it comes to issues near and dear to the hearts of neocons. Rather the Post’s role is now to set the parameters for whatever debate the neocons find acceptable.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/031509.html

I'll tell you one thing, Parry's research carries far more weight than anything you have to say on the topic, that's for sure.

joseph brand

Romney Donating Sandy Supplies To GOP Swing States — Not NY.

Nice guy Romney. :rolleyes:

Mitt Romney is sending the supplies he asked supporters to bring to his “non-political” campaign event today — to which Romney invited NASCAR driver Richard Petty — in the battleground state of Ohio, only to victims of Hurricane Sandy in swing states that the GOP candidate has a chance of winning: Virginia, North Carolina, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania — not the two areas hardest hit by Hurricane Sandy: New Jersey and New York.

Considering Romney's plans for FEMA, this video is interesting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIsEXWpv7MM

Be like Nutella

I'm not usually a Christie fan but he'll get a lot of props for ignoring the politics right now while he's gettin on with his job prob around the clock fair play to him

jank

Definately going to make a run for 2016 and you know what if he was running right now he would win hands down.