Ed.A wrote: jpete wrote:
Dann757 wrote:Did you watch the debate? He'll explain it two more times.
That was last night. His history says he will change his tune at least half a dozen more times before the election. How do you know which Mitt you are voting for?
Jeff, tell us all why RP wouldn't be any different? He's a career DC insider just like the rest except he's got a different ideology. I must say Ron ( and alot of Libertarians) mirror the majority of members on this forum except for his foriegn policy which pretty much negates him to the rubber room. Personally I'd want him in Mittens cabinet as Financal Guru but that's prolly a pipe dream too.
Here's the issue, politics are not linear, they are circlular. As you keep going around towards Libertarian you bypass it and meet Leftist /Communism...Jeff you have to draw a line across that path and decide, what's best for our country, your ideology or handing it off to destruction. I really believe you have the best intentions at heart but you realize we've alot more in common than you give us credit for.
Or I could be completely off the mark and you're so far past the Political curve that you've more in common with leftist Che' Guevara types like... Sam.
Because RP has a 30 year history of being consistent and Mitt has a history of saying whatever is politically expedient?
Maybe you'd prefer I was like Paul Ryan who was at least honest when he begged Congress to pass TARP by saying he was putting his principles aside.
Isn't that what the world needs more of? People who wear their ideals like a spring jacket that can be easily slipped off the moment things heat up?
If peaceful coexistence, non aggression and the "Just War Theory" qualify you for the rubber room, why do we demonize guys like Hitler? He was just doing what he thought was best for his country. Right? We admire guys like that, right?
And while it would be nice to see RP in Mitt's cabinet I can't see a die hard Austrian living in a Keynesian administration.
And that's really the point here. Mitt isn't going to move away from Keynesian economics which is the root of the problem.
He told you all straight out. His criteria is whether or not a program is worth borrowing money from China. If it is, then he'll keep it. How is that different than what we have now?
And will China loan us the money if Mitt actually keeps his promise and labels China a currency manipulator?