Originally Posted By fkurucz >>With the neocons he has advising him, I think it's not definite, but a definite possibility.<< Which is why I said "I believe" as opposed to "I am certain".
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf <<You know Tom... you said something there that triggered a lightbulb. I know why Romney didn't mention the troops. To him, they're tools, not people. Tools don't need recognition. Think about it. What are front line workers to top executives? They're tools. They don't need to be acknowledged. This is why we should NEVER have CEO's as president. We're just tools to an end.>> Wow, what a sweeping statement. Do you really believe that? If so, you clearly don't know any CEOs then. There are numerous terrific ones.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 < He will be forced to move futher to the middle if he wants to govern> See, I disagree. I think the tea party will hold the specter of a primary challenge in 2016 over his head and force him to the right. After all, if he wins this year, he will have run to the right for 2 years and back to the center for only 1 month... and won. He will no doubt figure he can do so again. But he'll know he won't even get on the November '16 ballot if he's challenged (and beaten) in the primaries. And he has no real core convictions other than making money, so I think he'd bend whatever way the tea party wanted him to. That's who he'll fear, not moderate Americans.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>If Romney wins people can predict doom and gloom but I suspect it will be more of the same.<< I'm hoping that the Dems will filibuster any crazy legislation. Unfortunately, they will have a hard time stopping military interventions.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer The last guy we put in office with the same advisers that Romney has got us involved in an unnecessary war that cost at least 100,000 lives, put us into the worst economic crisis this country has seen since the 1930s, and took us from a budget surplus to a massive debt. Worst case scenario? The Bush Administration already showed us what the worst case can look like. We're in trouble if Romney listens to his advisers and we do the same thing again.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf <<See, I disagree. I think the tea party will hold the specter of a primary challenge in 2016 over his head and force him to the right.>> You might be correct of course, but I think Romney would actually end up butting heads with the teabaggers in the House. Similar to Obama with the Dems in his first two years. I think down deep he is more of a moderate but has been forced to the right to rally the base (in part because of his religion). Look at Obama, he has turned out to be a lot more moderate than expected, no?
Originally Posted By fkurucz " If so, you clearly don't know any CEOs then. There are numerous terrific ones." I would say that these days you'll be hard pressed to find a CEO who won't order a mass layoff just so the company can meet its quarterly profit targets.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer A CEO president might just accept a buyout offer from another country if he thinks he and the shareholders will make money from it.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Look at Obama, he has turned out to be a lot more moderate than expected, no?<< Don't tell that to the GOP faithful. As far as they are concerned, he's a Marxist Communist.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Everyone always likes to throw out the worst-case scenarios (god knows the right-wingers did it 4 years ago) but they are rarely likely to happen." Hmmm... if only we could go back in time and redo the 2000 election. Talk about worst case scenarios. The second term of the Bush administration was a nightmare.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I think down deep he is more of a moderate but has been forced to the right to rally the base (in part because of his religion).> I think he seems a moderate because that's how he governed in MA. But all the prevailing winds in MA come from the left. Would he have governed as a moderate if he were governor of Utah? I doubt it, frankly. Part of the trouble with him is that, other than making money, we truly don't know WHAT the hell he stands for. <Look at Obama, he has turned out to be a lot more moderate than expected, no?> I always thought he was a moderate. As I always say when people pine for a centrist or moderate party: "We've got one. It's called the Democrats."
Originally Posted By EdisYoda Eighth Dwarf... the CEO's you talk of, would, most likely, NEVER run for President in the first place.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf <<...got us involved in an unnecessary war that cost at least 100,000 lives, put us into the worst economic crisis this country has seen since the 1930s, and took us from a budget surplus to a massive debt.>> That's a little exaggerated but I know where you're coming from. From my perspective, it is unlikely that Romney could "put us into" another major economic crisis like what occurred a few years back. Not sure anyone could quite frankly, thankfully those are rare events. And regarding Romney going to war, I think the difference now is the country largely supported Bush going into both Afghanistan and Iraq. However, the country in my opinion would not support the president doing anything like that again anytime soon. There are a lot of folks even on the right that view those wars as a waste of life, money and time.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf <<I would say that these days you'll be hard pressed to find a CEO who won't order a mass layoff just so the company can meet its quarterly profit targets.>> You must not understand that a CEOs job is to make money for shareholders. Shareholders are people who put their capital at risk for the chance to make profits. CEOs are hired (and fired) depending on their success of doing so. If it makes economic sense to hire people, they do. If not, they let people go. It's Capitalism 101 and has worked very well for our economy for a long time. If you can think of a better system let's hear it. Companies do actually hire people now and again....or was that last jobs report a bunch of garbage?
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf <<Eighth Dwarf... the CEO's you talk of, would, most likely, NEVER run for President in the first place.>> True. My point is that they are not all the devils that they are often portrayed as.
Originally Posted By DyGDisney >>>The last guy we put in office with the same advisers that Romney has got us involved in an unnecessary war that cost at least 100,000 lives, put us into the worst economic crisis this country has seen since the 1930s, and took us from a budget surplus to a massive debt. Worst case scenario? The Bush Administration already showed us what the worst case can look like. We're in trouble if Romney listens to his advisers and we do the same thing again.<<< I'm posting this again because I think it's right on. Not an exaggeration at all...unless you don't think civilian Iraqi and Afghan lives count.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf <<"Everyone always likes to throw out the worst-case scenarios (god knows the right-wingers did it 4 years ago) but they are rarely likely to happen." Hmmm... if only we could go back in time and redo the 2000 election. Talk about worst case scenarios. The second term of the Bush administration was a nightmare.>> Yes, it certainly was. But remember he had 9/11 to deal with it in his first term and the country went a little bananas after that. It seemed like everyone wanted to go to war. I remember being in a hotel lobby with a large crowd watching CNN as "Shock and Awe" was released. There were a lot of smiles on people's faces as the explosions went off. Like fireworks going off. Pretty sick if you think about it.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>I'm posting this again because I think it's right on. Not an exaggeration at all...unless you don't think civilian Iraqi and Afghan lives count.<< Who cares about a bunch of "rag heads" anyway? We're Americans and we're exceptional. Not let's get out there and kick some butt!
Originally Posted By Dabob2 What I wrote in #52 just made me think. You know those sound bites we've all seen of Romney running for Gov. of MA? Where he says "I will protect and defend a woman's right to choose?" And "I'll be a bigger advocate for gay rights than Ted Kennedy?" And the others? Does anyone here - seriously, anyone? - think he'd have made those statements if he'd been running for Governor (or Senator) of Utah in the same years? And if not, doesn't that tell you something about the man's convictions, or lack thereof? It's one thing to change positions. But if you don't think he'd have made those statements when running in Utah, you're really saying that he either lied to the people of MA about what he believed, or he would have lied to the people of Utah about them, if he really believed what he said in MA. You can't trust a phony.
