Ron Paul - Wait, what?

[mrstickball]

non-gravity said:

mrstickball said:

I agree with everything you said.

I do believe Romney would be slightly better than Obama. However, I think that Obama is just awful and has done quite a bit to damage our economy and continue to set us up for major problems over the next ~5 years.

If Romney gets in office, he will take over a crappy economy and do nothing to really improve the business climate significantly. He'll be a GWB-type that works with both sides on expanding government size and scope, and do nothing to really make our economy better.

Then, by the time his term is up, people will be clammoring, begging for a new Democratic president. And at that point, we're essentially back to the 2008 and 2012 election(s) yet again. Economy in the crapper and people voting for Mr. Electable with no real solid way to guide America into a better state.

I don't know that much about how the political system works, but wouldn't a united Republican House and Senate be able to run the country for him? That is no Democratic president to veto their decisions for the next 2 years.  

Theoretically, yes, if the houses were united and the Republicans decided to ramrod legislation through, regardless of Democrat objection.

The Republicans don't have a good record for that, though. They had majorities in both house and senate under GWB for 6 years, and passed almost no significant legislation that was very republican-tinged. Most of the laws passed during that time were bi-partisan.

So under Romney, a Republican house/senate, I simply don't see a whole lot of good being done. Heck, in the ~20 debates I've seen Romney in, he's never stated what mandate he has to get things done, and in what order. So I, quite frankly, think he'd be a very weak president just like Obama has.