Is the fact that there are some (if not many) on the “right” who are willfully ignorant of science really worse than the fact that there are some (if not many) on the “left” who are willfully ignorant of basic math and of their candidate’s lies and war crimes?
Don’t get me wrong (those who don’t already know this about me) - I think they’re all scumbags. Just playing devil’s advocate here.
You have no place denouncing Obama’s drone campaign if you are planning on voting for Romney next week.
[…] Post fact checker Glenn Kessler decided to take Romney’s plan at face value. And he’s made an important discovery. It turns out Romney’s plan is an even more absurd exercise in flim-flam than we thought: The studies the Romney camp itself cites in defense of the plan don’t back up the plan’s promises.
Romney’s 12 million jobs promise is based on the idea that achieving energy independence will create three million jobs; tax reform will create seven million more; and that expanding trade and cracking down on China takes us to 12 million. But, incredibly, when Kessler asked the Romney campaign to back up these claims, this is what he got back:
We asked the Romney campaign and the answer turns out to be: totally different studies … with completely different timelines.
For instance, the claim that 7 million jobs would be created from Romney tax plan is a ten-year number, derived from a study written by John W. Diamond, a professor at Rice University.
This study at least assesses the claimed effect of specific Romney policies. The rest of the numbers are even more squishy.
For instance, the 3-million-job claim for Romney’s energy policies appears largely based on a Citigroup Global Markets study that did not even evaluate Romney’s policies. Instead, the report predicted 2.7 million to 3.6 million jobs would be created over the next eight years, largely because of trends and policies already adopted — including tougher fuel efficiency standards that Romney has criticized and suggested he would reverse.
There you have it. Ten million of those jobs in Romney’s plan represent an entirely bogus promise. As for the remaining two million jobs that would be supposedly created by Romney’s trade policies, the report supplied by the Romney camp bills itself as “highly conditional” — and also doesn’t evaluate any of Romney’s policies. Kessler dubs Romney’s plan “bait and switch.”
Let’s recap what Kessler has discovered here. The plan that is central to Romney’s candidacy on the most important issue of this election — jobs — is a complete sham. This is every bit as bad — or worse — than Romney’s claim to have created 100,000 jobs at Bain, or his vow to cut spending by eliminating whole agencies without saying which ones, or his refusal to say how he’ll pay for his tax cuts.
"[Obama] is great at describing his vision, but his record doesn’t match his rhetoric."
I certainly am no fan of Romney, but he’s right on target here.
Obama sucks, Romney sucks, Biden sucks, Ryan sucks. Pass it along.
I have something to say that may shock some people.
Both Obama and Romney are dismantling/have dismantled/will dismantle human rights. They’re both awful. Let’s not choose either of them.
Can we just get one thing out of the way, here, before we continue?
Criticism of Obama does not imply support for Romney, or vice versa.
Paul Ryan loves free markets so much he supported a bailout of banks in 2008
maxvoluntarist, I have already asked you to explain to me how Romney is the same as Obama, as you so persistently insist. You have yet to enlighten me.
I’ll go ahead and answer this.
They are both:
- Pro-Federal Reserve
- Pro-Patriot Act
Those are just a few specifics. They’re also both disingenuous; do you really think that any conservative stance that Romney claims now is real? Romneycare is also a big deal; the fact that he argues for state-run healthcare systems still means that he thinks it’s acceptable for a state to run such a system.
Understand that most libertarians are thinking in terms of fundamental principles rather over practical considerations (as you seem to be doing). If Politician A thinks that your income should be taxed at 50% and Politician B thinks it should be 55%, there is no fundamental difference between them. They both think that the government should tax your income; therefore they are both statists and are not worth supporting. When you say “vote for A because he wants to tax less”, you’re effectively consenting to the idea that your income should be taxed at all, especiallyif there’s another candidate who is correct. Mitt Romney doesn’t believe in freedom; therefore anyone who loves freedom has no business supporting him.
I just reblogged this quote from LALiberty, and it’s relevant here:
If you endorse or vote for “lesser evils,” don’t be surprised when evil claims your consent.
I restate that the reason we have a candidate as lousy as Mitt Romney is because Republican voters have shown that they will unthinkingly vote for and defend any presidential candidate with an (R) next to his name. Please don’t be one of those people.
Mitt Romney vows to ban pornography by installing a filter on every U.S. PC
Before he was the presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney was just a guy giving a speech, trying to woo conservative voters. In 2007 Romney exposed some of his more extreme positions while speaking during a town hall meeting in Ottumwa, Iowa at the Hotel Ottuma. One such position which Mitt rarely discloses now is his deep desire to make it mandatory for pornography filters to be added to all new computers entering The United States.via megalextoria.com
I thought this was a joke until I saw the video.