So what do people think now that Mitt Romney is inevitable?

FWIW, for my voting history, I side with Republicans about 75% of the time.

If Romney wins the nomination, I am actively campaigning in real life against the sod. I will not vote for the turd, and I don't think anyone should.

He reminds me of Herbert Hoover or Richard Nixon, and not in any positive manner. Of all GOP nominees - the major 9 that have fielded candidacies - he is the one I prefer the least. Given a choice between him or Obama, I would be hard pressed to vote for Romney.

Well, since Paul isn't going independent (he said as much IIRC) I'll either vote for Obama or whoever else is out there. I will NOT vote for that greasy man.

Interesting (and this is a response to both you and Mrstickball). I would have figured he would be the candidate of better choice for appeal among independents, although i suppose i'm stating that with Romney being alternative to Santorum or Gingrich

I think that Romney is a typical political opportunist and would work very hard to make as little of any significance happen during his presidency; and as such would be an ideal caretaker president. Unfortunately, I think what is needed at this time is someone who will fundamentally alter the status quo and Romney is (just about) the last candidate I would expect to accomplish that.

Personally, I think he'd be better than Obama simply because he would be held accountable by the media and blogs on both sides of the political spectrum.

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 think ron paul is the most appealing candidate and i find some of his positions downright scary.

Ok, I maybe late, but.. it's better late than never, right? :D

More on this in the post below.

I understand that "rising China" is new world's bugaboo in the mass-hysteria-media among others, but please leave it at that, any military confilct between China and the US will be decided in the South (or East) China Sea no further. Their "hands" are too short for anything else for the time being. Hawaii? Alaska? Who the f**k needs them :D

Stupidest thing to make NOW for the US is sit on the fence (literally and metaphorically).

This activates my hilarity unit :D Here's the best answer to your tirade:

"The English are well known throughout the world for their lack of political scruples. They are experts at the art of hiding their misdeeds behind a facade of virtue. They have been at it for centuries, and it has become such a part of their nature that they hardly notice it any longer. They carry on with such a pious expression and deadly seriousness that they even convince themselves that they are the exemplars of political virtue. They do not admit their hypocrisy to themselves. It never happens that one Englishman says to another with a wink or a smile “We don’t want to fool ourselves, do we now.” They do not only behave as if they were the model of piety and virtue - they really believe that they are. That is both amusing and dangerous."

"Englishman" is obviously a generalized character, so no offence (though the author of the quote did mean exactly what is written here) :D I wonder if you could guess the author not using Google or any other search engine?

Well, it's rather self-explanatory and could be supported by multiple arguments, most of which are rather banal, like:

1) Big changes bring big wars;
2) Why the f**k they should limit oneself and not to use such wonderful political instrument as war?
3) A lot of the US authorities said it multiple times already.
4) Open your eyes and look around for god's sake, etc :D

But let's go in a little details as I see them, if you want.

Let's skip the preface with all whys and whats and get to the current situation. At the moment US financial authorities are forced to choose between two basic scenarios of ongoing crisis: deflationary and inflationary. I don't consider the former as a meaningful option they will choose willingly, since it's the shortest route to default with all expected and rather unpleasant consequences, so let's take a closer look at the latter one, which I believe will be realized in form of "hyperinflation therapy".

Its main goals are: a) drastic financial and economy improvement; b) consolidation of considerable size of national and world's assets in the hands of said authorities. Therefore the list of specific tasks to accomplish should look like this:

- Devaluation of national debt;
- Correction of money supply;
- Devaluation of pension and other social liabilities;
- Serious budget spendings cut;
- Devaluation of households credit liabilities;
- Decrease of real labour cost, rise in business profitability;
- Concentration of national property in hands of said authorities;
- Induction of world economic collapse;
- Acquisition of direct control over considerable size of world's assets.

A good deal of mentioned tasks could be completed by...

...The Long War and Energy Shock

Few truisms for the beginning. Energy resources, mainly oil and gas, are the base of modern world economy. Any serios disbalance of energy transit could provoke serious economic and social crisis, weaken industry and military strength of dozens of countries, lead to big military confilcts between ones and loss of soverignity by the others. In other words, energy market is a perfect instrument for aggression.

Beside the fact that the oil bring warmth to our homes and we make gas out of it to drive cars, it has couple of unique features most products don't:

- Its price is deterimined by anything but demand of real oil and supply of real oil on the commodities exchange, in other words it's higly speculation dependent resource.
- It's geopolitcal resource, because: a) not all have it; b) control over its transit could be more lucrative and important than actually owning it.

One of the working mechanism to make a hyperinflation is to increase oil prices. It could be done by governmental price regulation mechanisms, but will result in additional problems and disbalance in foreign trade. There're better options - good old miliary agression, organization of regional confilcts and subsidizing civil wars in oil producing and transit countries.

Unlike the US where the price increase will lead to hyperinflation, in the most developed and developing countries it will have depressing effect on the economy. It's understandable, since no EU, no China, no Japan aren't prepared for hyperinflation, they'll try to limit rise in prices by decreasing liquidity, which will be the first step to depression.

So realistically it's a potential WW3 scenario, which has been dubbed by the G.W. Bush administration as "The Long War", a new type of war where the US will use direct, though limited, military strength only against the few, mostly secondary, countries. Examples, South Sudan, Nigeria.

This is just one, though main, reason for war, there could be others as long as they fall in the grand scheme of things :D As of today half of US real income is colonial taxation so to speak. Loss of it will  result not only in serious damage to the national and not so national elites, but  direct hit to middle-american standard of life with (again) expected and rather unpleasant consequences.

In other words, today the US need to prove that: a) US is the safest place for your money, i.e. buy US Treasury bonds, USD is the only measure for them; b) US can guarantee it's stability, i.e. inspirate instability in the rest of the world. The chance for any other option died during Clinton administration, which was a point of no return, methinks.

----

Whew, I'm off for a week or two again.

It's going to take me a week or two to respond to all that... and you called my post a tirade!