Prediction, Romney will get nominated then lose to obama in 2012.

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by noob_trad3r, Jan 13, 2012.

  1. Mark this prediction down. GOP screwed up, they should have chosen Huntsman.

    Here is what will happen.

    #1 Romney wins.

    The problem with Romney is he will come off as a slick LBO Liquidator from the 1980s who travelled through time and decided to run for president in the 21st century.

    People will just see him as a quick buck lemon socialist who makes a killing liquidating US companies/ and of course a believer in offshoring jobs to communist china for fat profit margins. He will be off-putting and will lose to Obama.

    GOP fails again to bring up a good candidate. Huntsman would have been a perfect choice to go up against Obama.

    Instead they choose the quick buck lemon socialist and another permawar president, sending Americans to die for private companies needs.
  2. Lucrum


    Sorry I got no room left. My predictions folder is full.
  3. I will bump it when Obama wins. Sticking your head in the sand is not going to save you from the truth.

    You failed in choosing Romney instead of Huntsman.
  4. Tsing Tao

    Tsing Tao

    Yeah, Lucrum. You, personally, failed when you chose Romney. We all know how you've been touting him non-stop on this forum.
  5. Lucrum



    Actually my state primary is March 6th. Technically I haven't "chosen" anyone yet.

    I plan to vote Ron Paul though. If it helps put the fire in your panties out, my second choice would be Huntsman.
  6. 377OHMS


    Panty fire!

    I'm going to vote in the general election for the republican candidate.

    Certainly a damned yankee moderate from Massachusetts isn't my first choice but compared to Barrack Obama any of the remaining republican contenders would be more capable. If left to choose between Romney and Ron Paul I would vote for Ron Paul in the primary. I agree with his economic policies but disagree with his foreign policy. Still, he would be vastly better than Obama.

    My guess is that if Ron Paul were elected some reality would be injected into his foreign policy after he was briefed on what is really going on around the world.
  7. Wow... you're really going out on a limb predicting Romney.

    Intrade pegs him at an 80% chance of winning the nomination.

    Incumbent presidents get re-elected over 70% of the time, so that's not much of a prediction either.

    If you're going to dazzle us with your predictions, please predict something that isn't so obvious that the entire world already knows it.
  8. Lucrum


    I think it's safe to say congress would definitely impede Paul from accomplishing everything he'd like to do. But at least there would be some real CHANGE, and in the right direction to boot.
  9. 377OHMS


    He has been very frank about it and said himself that he would need congress to go along for his policies to work. He said he didn't think congress would do that. I could see him being in a major battle with congress almost from the start.

    In trying to better understand Ron Paul I've dwelled on a small thought experiment. Instead of trying to speculate about what would happen worldwide I just concentrate on one small example.

    Take the Korean penninsula. What would happen there if Ron Paul were president assuming he had sufficient congressional support to implement his policies.?

    He has said he would bring all troops and equipment home from South Korea. If he did that what would happen?

    I'm convinced that nothing would happen. I don't believe North Korea would immedietely attack South Korea or overrun Seoul. I don't think North Korea would attack Japan or really do anything they aren't already doing. If that is true then maybe he is right and we don't need to keep a single soldier there. I think probably South Korea would try to develop nuclear technology but part of me thinks they already have. The South has a large industrial base and produces some very good scientists and engineers. They probably already have their own nukes or we may have supplied them. It is likely the status quo would remain intact.

    That makes me considerably less dismissive of Paul. It at least makes me wonder "what if he is right?".

    I guess it is obvious I'm not liking Romney. :)
  10. Think about it, we are protecting South Korean interests and corporations on our dime.

    So what if South Korea gets invaded by North Korea. That means now more corporations will think about outsourcing work to these countries.

    Our free global security services on the backs of middle class taxpayers is a way to provide a subsidy to private corporations.

    Also if we spent less on protecting these interests we would be able to lower are expenditures.
    #10     Jan 13, 2012