9 votes

What's worse: a second Obama term or the election of Mitt Romney?

This question has been eating away at me for a little while now.
What's worse? A second Obama term or the election of Mitt Romney?

Before I go into details as to why I question this, let me say this: I know who I advocate and support. I know who I will vote for in November. Paul is my boy til the end.

That being said, there are some interesting points regarding the establishment candidates that I'd like for folks to consider.
"How on EARTH could a 2nd Obama term be a good thing?"
Because Obama policy already has a bad rap. Folks are rapidly catching on to his failed Foreign Policy, his deceitful Drug policies, Fast & Furious, his 'domestic terrorism' liberty-revoking orders, among other things. You can only push this type of platform around for so long, before people get 'mad as hell, and can't take it anymore!'

Now, in the instance Romney is instead elected, no doubt we will see these same policies being followed; only instead under the guise of a new Cabinet. As these policies CONTINUE to fail, we will hear the pro-partisan media declare 'Obama's mess', and how we let the Dems spend too much money.

The truth is, this is OUR mess and it is our responsibility to fix it, not Romney's, not Obama's, not Paul's. I guess to rephrase my questions: Wouldn't the election of Mitt Romney further distract the general populace from the real core issues our nation faces, in the wake of Bush and Obama, and maintain the focus on partisan politics?

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Obama would have

a republican controlled house to contend with. That is not well oiled.

fireant's picture

What does that have to do with "well oiled administration"?

I'm refering to his administration, not his relationship with CONgress. Executive administrations are wielding more and more power. To ignore that is to set yourself up for mis-informed decisions. Besides, he has shown his ability to go around CONgress when he needs to.

Undo what Wilson did

Simple answer......

....Mitt Romney election would be worse. Here is why. There is no way a liberty candidated runs as a Democrat in 2016. There is plenty of reason to think a liberty candidate runs as a Republican in 2016 if Romney isn't the incumbant and automatically has the spot. If Obama wins this year, a "Ron Paul Republican" still has a chance in 2016. If Romney wins this year, we don't have a prayer until 2020.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

fireant's picture

That's a huge assumption..

You should be able to see that the "old rules" are a changin'.
I have a feeling that after a few years of Mitt, everyone will be saying Gore is loose as as a goose.
But so what? Everyone says they are one and the same, so let's just churn. Keep it mixed up until we get the one we want. Don't give either one the chance to get rooted.

Undo what Wilson did

not trying to be rude...

Screw both of them. Either way we end up with the policies of G.W. Bush. New boss, same as the old boss.

'Peace is a powerful message.' Ron Paul

I totally agree with you but

I totally agree with you but I have to point out something about that common phrase "new boss same as old boss" Just a reminder-he's not our boss, he's our employee.

fireant's picture

I want romney.

I want the hypocrite "anti-war" demorats to display their hypocricy for all to see. They'll be out in droves.

Undo what Wilson did

Isn't this what happend

last election? Those droves gave us Obama.

I still think

that a Romney win will just open that many more peoples eyes to the fact that there is no difference between the two parties. But an Obama win will further degrade the liberal left and cause a wave of support for the next GOP candidate in 2016 regardless of who it is. If we make it to 2016.

I think for Romney to be elected and continue the same policies that Obama is doing, who in turn has continued the same policies that Bush has done, will do more for the cause of educating people.

An Obama win has no good outcome directly or indirectly.

Election of Mitt Romney Delays the R3VOLution 8 years

Obama is the liberty killing poison we already know and he's out in 4 years.

Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

fireant's picture

But what can he do in 4 years of a second term?

That combination is lethal.

Undo what Wilson did

No much with a republican controlled house

and in two years, Obama will be a lame duck.

I fear a Romney presidency

The difference that matters in my mind is that Republicans in general value civil liberties less than Democrats, and would not hold Romney's feet to the fire if he, and congress, began to sign away our rights aggressively. While I do believe that Obama, too, is careless about civil liberties, I don't perceive him to be as aggressive about it. Four more years of Obama might pave the way for some future republican to take office and violate the law of the land to no end, like Bush did, but I don't see Obama being the one to pull the trigger on FEMA camps, or removing citizenship.

This may be wishful thinking on my part, but if Obama started throwing people in FEMA camps, his base would rebel, because they just value personal rights more than republicans do. So then we would have republicans rebelling because they hate Obama, and liberals rebelling because they value human rights. I think this would keep Obama in check for another 4 years. A Romney presidency, on the other had, would only have liberals rebelling, and a minority within the republican party (us for instance). The rest of the R party would look away, and probably say "good riddance" if we were hauled off.

The reason I think Liberals are not up in arms about Obama's civil rights violations is because he is very low key about it. He doesn't want to rile his base, so the laws that are passed are passed quietly without much fanfare. The republicans on the other hand would be applauding a republican president for doing the same thing, and a republican president would be in front of the TV day in and day out telling us why we need to take away citizenship in the name of national security.

Even though both Obama and Romney are equally dangerous to our rights and just about everything else American, I feel that 4 years of Obama will buy us 4 more years: 1) of just plain normal living as Americans, which I would like to enjoy while it lasts (supposing the country can make it that far). 2) of time to nurture and prepare the liberty movement for the next round of elections. A Republican presidency would just hasten the process of American civil liberty destruction, and deprive the liberty movement of direction and future.

both would destroy . . .

what remains of America.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

The way I explained it to a Democrat coworker

The way I explained it to a Democrat coworker:
You can vote for Obama and crash the economy in 4 years, or vote for Romney and crash the economy in maybe 6-8 years.

Obama, without having to worry about reelection, will let his true colors show even more than he already has. This means even more explosive spending and debt.

I only give Romney an extra couple of years because we'll probably be engulfed in a region-wide Middle East military conflagration once his neocon campaign contributors/puppet masters get to finish what they started 10 years ago...and a massive, national mobilization for war would limp the economy along for a short amount of time before the trap door of the gallows finally drops beneath us.

Not much of a choice huh?

Giving the republicans a win

Giving the republicans a win would be rewarding them for rejecting Ron Paul. And the ridiculous sham of the one party with two different names just continues.

Cut off your right arm or cut off your left arm?



Romney will be worse

because the 'R' people will go back to sleep happily knowing there's an 'R' in the White House.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

Equally bad...

for all the reasons mentioned herein...but 4 more years with Ocommie is better than a potential 8 strapped to the Rominee.

When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign: that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. ~J. Swift

I see Obama and Romney as

I see Obama and Romney as kindred and analogous; they agree on all the basic assumptions that engross governmental policy, which is the Total State, all-custodial, all-watchful, and all-powerful. But like any familial linkage, there is a slight difference, and in this case it’s mainly rhetoric. For this reason, Obama would be preferred over Romney. Why? Simple: Romney will mask his policies in free market rhetoric, though its manifestation will be anything but. This will cause grave harm to those who actually believe in the market, for, at minimum, we will have to remedy four years of claims that the market is the villain when in reality it is governmental policies scarcely resembling freed markets. Of course I’m prognosticating here, but I see no reason to believe otherwise.

This doesn’t mean I will be voting for Obama, however.

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

I am an aristocrat. I love liberty; I hate equality. - John Randolph of Roanoke

I actually believe Romney will be worse. (Explaination below)

Right now the tea party hates Obama and is willing to be active and buck the Republican establishment and/or government offices. That will all change with the election of Romney. With Romney in office, they will stop criticizing attacks on American's liberty by the presidency. The Republican party will become complacant and push for more debt and war with Iran to try to establish another "war presidency" like with Iraq.

Romney winning will be the biggest blow to turning around the growth of the government. All of those campaign promises to get rid of departments and cut spending will die as soon as he is elected as he is a typical politician and does not want to be seen in a bad light and anger the moderate left.

What we do need however is republican wins in the house and senate to de-fang Obama's anti-liberty policies.



Equally Bad

Both parties are to blame, you can't try to decide which one may be slightly worse, they are BOTH HORRIBLE! Ron Paul or no one... The lesser of two evils thinking is what has destroyed this country. Can you imagine our framers thinking that way!!!! ?

Should I perish by fire or by

Should I perish by fire or by ice?

stop speaking out of both sides of your both. it doesn't matter

if it is romney or obama. they are virtually the same as stated as george soros and numerous others. and if you had any understanding of the two parties and how they operate, it doesn't matter. they function the same, like a cons judge ruling for obamacare.

drop it about romney.


lindalsalisbury's picture

Lay down with dogs, wake up with fleas

I have watched politics in this country for the past 50 years, and my conclusion is that both parties are corrupt to their very core. I had to hold my nose to registure republican to vote for Ron Paul, but it would have been the same if I had to have been forced to registure democrat.

We do not belong in the republican party, but now we have good people elected as republicans. Everybody knows we don't belong to this group of people, especially the republicans. We need our own party.

Despite the fact that I have no love for the British (they have led us into the pits of hell on occasion), I have found the United Kingdom Independent Party gaining favor in English politics. They are not afraid to speak the truth and they have a passionate spokesman in Nigel Ferage, (the only Englishman I have ever liked) They have come from 6% to about 12% in popularity recently and they are a 4th party in England.

We could do better! Maybe we needed the republican party to advertise Dr. Paul's message, but we have certainly outgrown them. And, wouldn't it be nice not to have worry about whose toes we are stepping on! If we had our own party, people who hate republicans could join us. I could imagine occupy people, libertarians, democrates and apathetic people joining us.

We are strong enough to change the course of history. We won't be able to do it under the "trickle down economics", war mongering republican banner. Our time is now!!

I will never vote for either of these men. I, also, do think a division of power is the best option, with the exception of our power.

The argument that Romney would be in power for 8 years is


Because Romney would take us down the same path as Obama is, except that Romeny favors DOUBLING the size of the military.

Revolution or revolt will occur due to voter anger or at least the economic path we are going down.

There is a greater risk, if Romney was elected, that four years from now, this country would swing VERY HARD left toward extreme Socialism or Communism if Romney was elected - but there is no chance in hell that the people would take a Romney Presidency for eight years.

I stopped asking myself that question over 30 years ago

and I've been voting with a third party protest vote ever since.

Second that Shootist, it's a moot question. It's like

asking if you want firing squad or lethal injection. Either way you are dead.

I always vote third party. And unless Ron Paul is the GOP nominee POTUS, this year will be no different.

Me too.

In fact, that's EXACTLY the analogy that I use when answering people why I do that.