It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Santorum: Romney v Obama? Vote for Obama!

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
I hope I'm not too off-topic here, but I have an honest question.

If Obama is no dfferent than Bush and Romney is no different than Obama, then why vote? Why worry? Why care?

I think there is a difference. That's why I vote.

I'm not trying to troll. It's an honest issue.


The voting block that consists of citizens who carefully and informatively make decisions is being marginalized more and more with each passing election. Whether or not you vote the same as I do, I definitely value any American who honestly votes for his/her beliefs and not be swayed (100%) by propaganda.

Thanks for voting, man.




posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
I don't know if the GOP has lost its way or lost its mind. Times change. Policy has to as well. I find this interesting:


The Republican presidential candidates love to point to President Reagan as the inspiration for everything they do.

And that's understandable. Given the passage of time, President Reagan is almost universally loved.

But this new wholesale worship of The Gipper ignores an inconvenient truth, as the Economist pointed out this weekend:

Today, Ronald Reagan could never win the GOP nomination.

Why not?

Because he was too reasonable.


articles.businessinsider.com...

What does it say when the beacon of conservatism couldn't get his party's nomination today? Think about that.

What is amusing, and not in a good way, is that several former Presidents would never be elected today in our World of 30 second sound bytes and looking good on TV.

We can start with Franklin Roosevelt. He would never be President today because he was in a wheelchair. He would be viewed as weak. Not to mention his Foreign Policy at the time would have people today outraged. After all we are talking about a population that cheered the Invasion of Iraq because Saddam "killed his own people" 30 years earlier.

At the time of the Munich Agreement in 1938 – with the U.S. not represented – Roosevelt said the U.S. would not join a “stop-Hitler bloc” under any circumstances, and he made it quite clear that in the event of German aggression against Czechoslovakia, the U.S. would remain neutral


But such a stance today would make him "Ron Paul like crazy" and he would be labeled an "isolationist" instead of a non interventionist.

John F. Kennedy is proclaimed to be one of the US's greatest Presidents, but would he be elected today? I don't think so. For instance, let us look at the circumstances which brought about the Berlin Wall.

On June 4, 1961, the president met with Khrushchev in Vienna and left the meetings angry and disappointed that he had allowed the Premier to bully him, despite the warnings he had received. Khrushchev, for his part, was impressed with the president's intelligence, but thought him weak. Kennedy did succeed in conveying the bottom line to Khrushchev on the most sensitive issue before them, a proposed treaty between Moscow and East Berlin. He made it clear that any such treaty which interfered with U.S access rights in West Berlin would be regarded as an act of war.

Shortly after the president returned home, the U.S.S.R. announced its intention to sign a treaty with East Berlin, abrogating any third-party occupation rights in either sector of the city. Kennedy, depressed and angry, assumed his only option was to prepare the country for nuclear war, which he personally thought had a one in five chance of occurring.[57]

In the weeks immediately after the Vienna summit, more than 20,000 people fled from East Berlin to the western sector in reaction to statements from the USSR. Kennedy began intensive meetings on the Berlin issue, where Dean Acheson took the lead in recommending a military buildup alongside NATO allies.[58] In a July 1961 speech, Kennedy announced his decision to add $3.25 billion to the defense budget, along with over 200,000 additional troops, saying an attack on West Berlin would be taken as an attack on the U.S. The speech received an 85% approval rating.[59]

The following month, the Soviet Union and East Berlin began blocking any further passage of East Berliners into West Berlin and erected barbed wire fences across the city, which were quickly upgraded to the Berlin Wall. Kennedy's initial reaction was to ignore this, as long as free access from West to East Berlin continued. This course was altered when it was learned that the West Berliners had lost confidence in the defense of their position by the United States. Kennedy sent Vice President Johnson, along with a host of military personnel, in convoy through West Germany, including Soviet armed checkpoints, to demonstrate the continued commitment of the U.S. to West Berlin.[60]


Today, Kennedy would be viewed as weak because he was waiting to see if the Soviets would attack West Berlin. He added money to the defense budget and additional troops in preparation for a possible attack. What he did not do was attack based on a perceived threat. If we look today at Iran, people want to strike Iran based on what the might do. Today Politicians are called "naive" and "weak on defense" for not wanting to attack preemptively.

Even Bush 2 in 2000 ran on a Foreign Policy of no Nation building. It was one of the things he attacked Clinton on saying they were "too interventionist"

Of course Ron Paul says this and he is called crazy. Others say it and we called them "Mr. President".



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
I don't know if the GOP has lost its way or lost its mind.

Well ... Newt and Santorum have lost their minds .... IMHO.
Romney is a GOP 'moderate' and is riding the wave to the election.
(Still wish it was Jon Huntsman!)


Originally posted by beezzer
If Obama is no dfferent than Bush and Romney is no different than Obama, then why vote?

I probably won't be.
I honestly don't see enough daylight between Obama and Romney to make the effort to vote.
Even with the ballot coming to me at my house ... (I vote absentee all the time now).



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Looks like Rick just lost any chance for the VP nomination............ Bonehead move if you ask me. Sounds like he started to believe his own hype, typical of politicians. "If it's not me, then you are all doomed!!!!".



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 



I only wish I could give someone faith in the system. To lose that, loses alot.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   
IMHO If it comes down to those two candidates I will either throw away my Vote for Paul, or vote for Obama.
My reason is Iran. I believe that the Obama Administration is too frightened to charge headlong into a war defending Isreal. Thank God for that!
We are far too broke to go try and "handle" the Middle Eastern situation. We did that once before and are still doing it now. The only reason I see for us too have a presence in the region is for intelligence and Oil. UNLESS we are pumping that country dry and not getting charged outrageously for the gas then we dont need to get involved.
I would never vote for Romney.

Ron Paul 2012



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


I think Santorum is more sour grapes than anything. If Santorum was seriously planning a second run in 2016, he would not have said this. Romney need not worry, GOPers, tea partiers and the like, will all flock behind him in their hatred of Obama.... they'll suck it up and the GOP establishment knows this. The Romney campaign probably laughs off the media claims that Romney looses touch with 'very conservative' and 'tea party' folks, he clearly doesn't need them to get the nomination, and he clearly won't need to make any effort to get them to come November 2012.

Now whether this will be enough for Romney to win the elections is questionable. I mean the GOP certainly has lost a significant number of brownie points with Paulers over the primaries, but just how significant is the Paul vote and just how many will vote against Romney? My guess is not very much.

Santorum, Gingrich and Paul supporters will eventually get over their losses and suck it up, Romney knows this already.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 06:14 AM
link   
Check this out ...
Santorum flip flops .. now says he'll support GOP nominee
TOO LATE buddy ... your ship has sailed. You can't unring a bell.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join