Jump to content
✨ STAY UP TO DATE WITH THE WORLD TOUR ✨

Obama or Romney?


R's Symphony

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 220
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ok, you want a direct response, I get that. ...Here's the deal. I don't like Romney's taxation policies. He claims that he will lower taxes for everyone,including the class I'm in (middle class) but in order for him to do so, he takes away our deductions that my family personally relies on. He will take away our tax deductions for owning a home and for having 3 children. Every year, my husband and I get these deductions during tax time and it helps us out a lot. You look into the numbers of his ideas and the amount of our taxes he plans to lower does not offset the loss of these deductions. Also, I do not feel we should throw millions of more dollars into our military like he plans to do when I was hopeful we would stop sending our troops into more areas of the world, I feel it's sending the wrong message for our presence to filter into more countries.

I find Romney far too bellicose. Always emphasizing how we must have the most powerful military in the world, when I would rather that money be used for pretty much anything else.

 

 

Also, just to clarify, I do not feel like Obama is like Bush , I simply meant that if you feel that way, or you know of others feel that way, it is what it is, but I do not feel that way.

It's not a matter of feel. From the Bush tax cuts, to spending, to the patriot act, to the war on drugs to foreign policy (libya as parrotdies mentioned), there are several areas of his administration where simply very little has changed (not to say there aren't some big differences as well). That said, I'm more afraid of what Romney openly wants to do than what Obama will probably end up doing if reelected.

 

I can't deny the simple fact that my family is doing well under Obama's time in office. My husband and I built a house during this time and that alone is major seeing that my husband works in manufacturing and I'm a stay-at-home -mom. My husband's company has seen growth during this time frame and it is a small manufacturing company. My husband has even gotten his overtime back, which was very limited during 2007 and 2008.

...I'm not an Ivy League, sophisticated person, and I'm not going to pretend to be a genius when it comes to politics, but Romney being in office will hurt my family in the long run. I know that for a fact. I'm just trying to state why I personally feel Romney is not the best choice for my family.

Cool beans.

That's all I was trying to say. Hope I was specific enough.

Our point was that you didn't say it at all. Naturally we're going to be skeptical of you and your opinion if all you say is

Romney is a wish-washy, out of touch billionaire that is only looking out for rich pricks like himself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest howyousawtheworld
Care to elaborate? Which neo-con told Obama "to lead from behind" in Libya? The Gaddafi regime got toppled with no American boots on the ground.

 

Well said. If people would do their research on Libya they'd find that it was largely led by British and French air forces in enforcing the no fly zone. In fact the very mention of a no fly zone was first put forward by the British Prime Minister in the House of Commons at the end of February 2011. Truth be told Obama and his cabinet was passive on the issue of intervening in Libya. Robert Gates the US defence secretary at the time actually laughed off the Cameron 'no fly zone' talk and called it something like 'loose talk'. The major moves were made by the French and British governments in this case. The US still had a vital role to play (intelligence, drone strikes and other military operations etc ) under their NATO obligations. It was a swift operation and a FAR cry from the foreign policy disasters that blighted the Bush government.

 

To say Obama was being advised by neo-cons is a ridiculous thing to say. He is anything but. If anything the Obama administration was far too passive at the start of the Libyan civil war, as Robert Gates proved. Thankfully that passivity was not too costly (a massacre in Bengazi would not have looked good on the President's CV) but thankfully nor was an administrations thirst for severe action present either which so underlined the Bush doctrine create an almighty mess. Obama ultimately acted with necessary/minimum force and support on Libya and no more....thankfully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes, yes I do.

 

Especially after how Obama handeled Libya.

 

This implies that Mitt Romney would do anything different. We don't know, since he doesn't have any foreign policy experience. That's why I don't buy that argument: We have nothing to go off of.

 

Barack Obama has a great track record with foreign affairs, generally speaking. How would other countries' views change if Mitt Romney came aboard?

 

The problem is that you're not voting FOR Mitt, you're voting AGAINST Obama, which means your logic won't hold up. It's a traditional logical fallacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes, yes I do.

 

Especially after how Obama handeled Libya.

 

We don't know the whole story quite yet. I know 4 very valuable lives were lost during the Benghazi attack, but you can measure it against very many foreign policy successes like the killing of Bin Ladin and many Al Qaeda elements. I'm at peace with Obama as president knowing that America isn't going to start another war somewhere. I respect his very brave approach with Israel. The Israeli prime minister shouldn't be dictating the American foreign policy in the middle east. I can go on and on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...