• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How Would Romney Govern?

How Would Romney Govern?

  • He'd side 90% or more with Republican conservatives

    Votes: 16 44.4%
  • He'd challenge conservatives and/or compromise with moderate democrats

    Votes: 7 19.4%
  • He'd take positions based on polling data

    Votes: 13 36.1%

  • Total voters
    36
Can you point out the part where Romney says "I want to go to war with Iran"? I don't see it.

In fact, what I see is this: "And if all else fails, if after all of the work we’ve done, there’s nothing else we could do besides mil — take military action, then of course you take military action." That doesn't sound like someone saying they WANT to go to war...rather someone making it clear that we WILL go to war if necessary. Big difference there, don't you think?

I forgot to quote your post, samsmart...sorry.
 
Last edited:
I think Romney would govern better than Obaminous ... but we don't know yet.
 
Many will vote for Romney because he does want to stop Iran.
 
Many will vote for Romney because he does want to stop Iran.

Most of the foreign policy apparatus want to stop Iran from having a nuclear weapon. The disagreement is centered on the means and confidence of the outcomes from the various options presented.
 
Can you point out the part where Romney says "I want to go to war with Iran"? I don't see it.

In fact, what I see is this: "And if all else fails, if after all of the work we’ve done, there’s nothing else we could do besides mil — take military action, then of course you take military action." That doesn't sound like someone saying they WANT to go to war...rather someone making it clear that we WILL go to war if necessary. Big difference there, don't you think?

Except you have to keep in mind who Romney's policy advisers are.

Romney Wants War in Iran | Veterans News Now

Today, Cohen is among Republican presidential front-runner Mitt Romney’s top campaign advisers. He is the primary author of Romney’s foreign policy white paper, which attacks Obama for “currying favor with [America’s] enemies” and “ostentatiously shunning Jerusalem.”

The paper urges a policy of regime change in Iran including possible coordination with Israel on military strikes to prevent the Iranian regime from developing a nuclear weapon. It is an aggressive Republican election season document presenting a concoction of post-9/11 unilateralism and unvarnished neo-imperialism as the antidote to a sitting president Cohen accused of “unilateral disarmament in the diplomatic and moral sphere.” More importantly, it suggests that a Romney administration’s foreign policy might look remarkably similar to – and perhaps more extreme than – that of the Bush administration.
 
Many will vote for Romney because he does want to stop Iran.

And I would love to hear how Romney will pay for it when he's going to cut taxes across the board, reduce government spending, fight the Global War on Terror, fight the Global War on Drugs, and continue dealing with the insurgency in Afghanistan.
 
And I would love to hear how Romney will pay for it when he's going to cut taxes across the board, reduce government spending, fight the Global War on Terror, fight the Global War on Drugs, and continue dealing with the insurgency in Afghanistan.


we will have to wait and see... wont we
 
What do you think?

Pretty crappy IMHO


Especially compared to Obama who has had to deal with not only with the great recession but also one one of the the partisan Congress's in history.
 
Pretty crappy IMHO


Especially compared to Obama who has had to deal with not only with the great recession but also one one of the the partisan Congress's in history.

Obama was crappy BEFORE he had to deal with a partisan Congress.
 
Obama has his secret agenda, in my opinion.

Even I who is not American can see that!

Do not like it.
 
It has become incredibly cliche for a piece of journalism or a newsletter, to focus on one or two policy advisers, and then map out what the policy advisers believe before placing that trajectory onto the incoming or current administration. I think I see it nearly every week. Each time, it's someone different, but plug in the same formula. Just a tiny bit ago Robert Zoellick was given credit for a realist revival in the Romney campaign set to pit up against the neoconservatives http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/08/26/on_foreign_policy_an_enigma_115211.html. See also http://www.policymic.com/articles/12639/romney-appoints-realist-robert-zoellick-to-policy-team-risking-neocon-revolt

One flaw: Romney's team has numerous advisers-many similar, but also some dissimilar. As the Bush administration has shown (though, conveniently not mentioned in the article), it would be likewise dangerous to presume to that the advisers he has will entirely guide his foreign policy.
 
Last edited:
Well, that's all a fine read, but I still don't see Romney on record saying he wants to go to war with Iran.

So far, dude...you are batting zero.

Fine then. Vote for him. And we'll see what he does once in office.

But the record for the GOP to pursue military force when in office doesn't put the chances in your favor.
 
When a President starts to sound like an annoying used car salesman.... (no offense to cars salesmen) it's time to stop and think.
 
Obama was crappy BEFORE he had to deal with a partisan Congress.

Yeah I guess rising up out of Kenya to get a Harvard law degree with Communist parents makes one crappy:roll:
 
He'd pivot the discussion to the Right, but you have to remember in governance, you only get so lucky to run Right or Left with a set number of issues before you run into the necessary roadblock that is known as political opposition.
 
When a President starts to sound like an annoying used car salesman.... (no offense to cars salesmen) it's time to stop and think.

That's exactly what I think when it comes to Romney's rhetoric.
 
They both concern me one is an idealist and the other a mergers and acquisitions guy. One wants to build on dreams the other wants to tear down nightmares without thought of it's repercussions. The part that I find bothersome is there is no balance between either position and the two candidates.
 
He'd pivot the discussion to the Right, but you have to remember in governance, you only get so lucky to run Right or Left with a set number of issues before you run into the necessary roadblock that is known as political opposition.

It's for that reason I don't see Romney doing any major harm to the US. While I don't exactly agree with his policies, I won't be the only one who doesn't, so I think we're pretty safe.

You could probably argue that by citing some of the Republican social policies, but I seriously doubt the worst of them will go anywhere. I suspect we may have a halt in progress, but I doubt we'll go backwards that far - if at all.
 
It's for that reason I don't see Romney doing any major harm to the US. While I don't exactly agree with his policies, I won't be the only one who doesn't, so I think we're pretty safe.

You could probably argue that by citing some of the Republican social policies, but I seriously doubt the worst of them will go anywhere. I suspect we may have a halt in progress, but I doubt we'll go backwards that far - if at all.

Hell, most Presidents do not do dramatic harm or change. Even the hostility connected with the Reagan administration could not match with what the budgets of each program area were really like. In foreign affairs we usually see a continuation of the predecessor's policies in large measure. In some measure, certainly Sam (addressing him now), it is no surprise that neoconservatism of the late 90s and early 2000s will remain influential, but Obama's posture of what portions he did change, will likely continue.
 
There is no such thing as excessive military spending.

yes, there is....the budget process demands that they spend all given to each department or risk losing budget in subsequent years.....stoopid, stoopid, stoopid....
Congress forcing hardware on the military that the generals do NOT want and do not Need, but the congress needs to make points with the voters, so we get brand new hardware that sit in fields until they get scrapped.
 
Back
Top Bottom