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.

Romney would be worse

for the simple reason that if he wins it means that the liberty movement has not gathered enough support to destroy the old Republican guard and keep the status quo from continuing in at least one of the parties. If either of these two dips win then things just go as before, but if Obama wins we have four more years to say: "See, you guys? You need us to win." I would never vote for Romney or Obama, and they're both the same, but I think a Romney win would be a loss for the movement.

Either way, we'll get 4 more

Either way, we'll get 4 more years of burning the house to the ground. Both of these guys are lieutenants in the same crime syndicate.

They're not the same

Obama hates white people but he also hates Israel. A second term of Obama might stop our foreign aid to them and give Israel less control.

It's something that's tough to weigh for some but I'll never vote for Obama.

Obama hates Israel? You've got to be kidding.

You are buying into him being a secret clandestined closet Muslim.

Israel has its hand up Obama's butt, like the sock puppet that he is.

samo samo

Both are usurpers who are not elibible, both are sold out whore puppets of the Rothschild owners to the Federal Reserve crime bank. Both give not a care about the rest of humanity. Both are in it to engorge themselves with riches and power like pigs. Both are warmongering chickenhawk cowards. Both are vile low scum and owned by the same criminals.



If either is elected, soon it will seem that the other was preferable. It has been that way as long as I can remember.

Ĵīɣȩ Ɖåđşŏń

"Fully half the quotations found on the internet are either mis-attributed, or outright fabrications." - Abraham Lincoln

Romney is an illegitimate

Romney is an illegitimate candidate and to assent to his candidacy is should be impossible for people who have watched this debacle.

Election of Mitt Romney would be worse.

First as many have pointed out, there is no difference between the two. Mitt is bought and paid for by big banks. Under Romney, maybe a few things will be changed, but I seriously doubt that his administration would turn the economy around. The biggest horror of a Romney presidency, would be the collapse of any GOP credibility. Why? Because the independents who thought Mitt would make things better will think again before electing another Republican to the presidency. McCain was a horrible nominee 4 years ago, and Mitt makes McCain look like Ronald Reagan. If I had to choose between the Obama and Mitt, I'd have to go with the evil I know, rather than the evil I don't know.

4 vs 4-8

4 years of wrong < 4-8 years of wrong

Sidestepped the question!

Almost every response pointed out something I already said in my OP, and sidestepped the more controversial part. I know; Obama/Romney policy are extremely similar. I'm not debating that. I'm not voting for either, so please don't try and convince me not to! It's redundant.

What I'm asking is if people agree that an Obama re-election will lead to more people waking up. I think so, because if Romney made office the problems would remain, but media (and the ignorant) would all claim it is a PARTY'S fault things are so bad and not the SYSTEM that's corrupt.

However it plays out, I want to see MORE people talking about liberty and freedom! I want to hear more people discussing the many issues we talk about here.

I don't know

It is becoming more apparent to people that there is no difference between the two parties. I think if Romney wins and nothing changes it may just be the catalyst we need. You need to remember that alternatives to the MSM for information is growing and eyes are starting to open up. The electorate is changing.

I think four more years of Obama would practically destroy the Democratic party and next election would usher in a Republican revival. But a Romney win that just continues the same ole direction would just hammer home the fact that they are the same and may be the catalyst that brings down the two party system.

But then again it may not matter one way or the other because people can surprise you with their ignorance.

Don't vote for the lesser of two evils

It only encourages them. If Obama wins just because voters think Romney is worse, Obama won't say to himself "Thank you...I understand that the only reason I won instead of Romney is because you hate him more than you hate me." No, instead, Obama will look at his vote totals and say "They love me. They love everything I say and do! I can't wait to give them more of what they love!

What's more, other candidates will look at the vote totals and say "Look! Voters voted for more government, more war, more taxes, more surveillance...if we want to win we need to offer these things, too!"

If the choice is between Obama and Romney, you don't send a message of disapproval by voting for either one. If you want to let them know they suck, vote third party (if there is a reasonably good candidate) or abstain.

Given that I think it's more

Given that I think it's more likely that the Senate could switch from D to R control than the House from R to D control, I'll likely be more inclined in Nov to root for another 4 for the current warlord.

The worst legislation comes when one party controls both the legislative and executive branches, and now that the chief justice has been revealed to be one who will bend over backwards to support lawfully passed legislation, having the Rs fully in charge would be a scary time indeed.

Until we have libertarians in control of at least one of the 4 fedgov power bases, give me divided govt. please.

I must be willing to give up what I am in order to become what I will be. Albert Einstein

Is there really a meaningful

Is there really a meaningful or substantive difference between Romney and Obama? Yes, but that difference is simply propaganda, a lie, a delusion driven into our minds by the Neoconservatives. In my opinion, Romney is actually much worse a candidate than Obama because Obama is constitutionally limited to two terms. Bush was bad, Obama is worse, and Romney would be worst. What plan does Romney have to get this country back on a direction to lead it out of the present decay? "Vote for me because I am a Republican and Rush Limbaugh is a reliable and honest source of information." Read the Constitution and vote for what's right, not what's popular.

"The founders would be ashamed of us for what we're putting up with." Ron Paul

"For the country to get better, it needs more than just politicians. Politicians aren't enough. It needs a resurgence through churches, through revivals, through a spiritual

Who cares?

Between Obama and Romney, it does not matter.
You will get the same kind of administration. Oh, I know the establishment republicans like to think Romney will actually do some good in terms of fixing the economy, but that's pure delusional thinking on their part.

Im over this question. I sont

Im over this question. I sont have time to post my interviews and videos here that should be posted. Just saying that. If anyone wants to be a doll and help out wiith the 25 girls4ronpaul networks Im running. A gals gotta sleep. click my links, its not hard to see what im asking. Peace. Working right now too, dont worry i wont be sleeping till Rons elected. Think Carol Paul ill have on again next week. Poreter Davis, Mass delegates, spread some of that shit around please. I mean the content. disregard my name, thats not imp and i dont even give it. RPG, thanks. Just in case anyone is bored....

“Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy...." Adams. http://ronpaulgirl.com http://blogtalkradio.c

and DO NOT insult my

and DO NOT insult my spelling. I can feel that coming. Grow up. Work

“Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy...." Adams. http://ronpaulgirl.com http://blogtalkradio.c

Would I rather be drowned or

Would I rather be drowned or burned alive? why can't i have both?

I was going to ask, would you

I was going to ask, would you rather die in the gas chamber or from electrocution?

I must be willing to give up what I am in order to become what I will be. Albert Einstein

Moving forward..

Thank you for your thoughts on how to decide between the two faces on the same coin of tyranny.
Do you think the time might be better used promoting the cause of Liberty, the RP Intellectual Revolution and supporting the upcoming Tampa delegates convention.

To answer your question.

"Hell is empty, and all the devils are here" (Shakespeare)
RP 2012~ Intellectual Revolution.

Black Hitler or White Hitler.

Still fascist Hitler.

And the "Hitler" reference is not alarmism.

Both promote National Socialism. Both advocate periods of required national service and taking over other countries (just like Hitler).

Obama has us militarily involved in eight countries that even BUSH didn't have us involved with, while Romney wants to DOUBLE the size of our already ridiculously oversized military.

same big picture agenda with either

I think looking forward is where there may be a difference. If it HAS to be one or the other, our Ron Paul Republicans will fare better in elections after a disastrous Obama 2nd term than a disastrous Romney 1st term imho

A second Obama term would definitely

be worse than a Romney presidency. Elena Kagan is just a small taste of what Obama will dish out to the courts if he gets a second term. Romney would most likely appoint moderate John Roberts types on the other hand. If Obama happens to get a second term, the only thing stopping him from completely running this country and its Constitution in the ground is if Republicans can take over the Senate and at least two of those new GOP Senators can be Ron Paul-endorsed, such as Kurt Bills and Ted Cruz. If the Democrats keep the Senate and Obama gets a second term, it's pretty much over.

I've thought about this for awhile

and I've come to the conclusion that an Obama 2nd term would probably be less bad than a R-money presidency. Clearly, I'm not going to be voting for either of those a$$clowns; it's kind of like saying I'd prefer being ruled by Sauron rather than Voldemort.

Anyway, my first reason for preferring the current banker puppet to the proposed replacement is that nobody will say that Obama's free market policies are responsible for the tsunami of hurt that is coming, whereas even though we know that Mitt Romney is a fascist, anti-market type, he will be portrayed as a solid capitalist by the media, and a lot of people will (amazingly) believe this. Getting people into any higher office won't matter if we can't win the war of ideas, and Romney will hurt more than help on this front.

The second thing is the outright hostile rhetoric that Romney has toward Iran, China and Russia. Not that Obama has any special preference for peace, but if he's too bellicose, he might wake up some of his supporters. When he starts fights, he has to go through the slow and cumbersome machinery of the UN and NATO in order to provide a fig leaf for his militarism. This bureaucracy is so inefficient and slow that it can give people time to work things out, and if not completely avoid conflict, then at least delay the destruction and give the citizens of whatever country a few more days/weeks/months of going about their lives. See what's going on in Syria for the past 6 months as an example. Obama would love to get involved there, but China and Russia have been blocking the UN from acting. Romney on the other hand, would have the same jokers giving him advice that Bush II had, and he could start world war III with unilateral action. More probably he'll start a trade war with China, which isn't nearly as bad, but still a suck-fest for the average American.

tasmlab's picture

Why in the world are you being down-voted?

For writing a cogent, sensible post?

I believe the wholesale bodycount would be lower under Obama by a margin, even though he has a bad track record of actual war under him and Romney only has promises to war.

Oddly, I'm taking Romney's word on this despite not believing much else he is selling.

Currently consuming: Morehouse's "Better off free", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football

Romney Trolls

They're here, they're scared, and they downvote everything that might motivate us against joining them "for the good of the party"

Now, there are legitimate arguments why Romney would be better than Obama, namely that all that local GOP machinery that we've been taking over from the neocons (or retaking, if you prefer), would be a lot more effective in getting local issues/candidates forward if we had "our guy" (I know he's not *our* guy, but you understand what I mean) in office, as has been pointed out here by a number of people. There are also arguments that the pressure exerted on Romney from within the party might provide some fiscal restraint, particularly on domestic spending.

However, I think that anything that's a step back for liberty within the party is a step back for all, and 4 years is shorter than 8 years (as a nomination fight with a sitting president is nearly impossible), and obama's tyranny is a good tool to have at our disposal to show people the sham of the two-party system.

So, I guess neither. :-) But that doesn't mean that a post should be downvoted simply for sensibly arguing one side of an unwinnable situation.

Sauron was fighting for the

Sauron was fighting for the freedom of the orcs!! :P