What Happens If Romney Actually Wins?

Submitted by: piperfawn 4 years ago in

Here are some of the things that might happen...
There are 74 comments:
Male 15,832
[quote]What in there do you find that deems this "unconstitutional crap"?[/quote]
First, federal funding of Planned Parenthood, food stamps, and public broadcasting are not among specifically enumerated powers; therefore, according to the 10th amendment, they`re unconstitutional. Social Security, as a retirement program, was originally ruled unconstitutional till it was repackaged as a tax and a welfare program (the same reasoning used to uphold ObamaCare), which means that you have no Social Security "account," just a tax bill and a vague, nonbinding "promise."

The EPA was originally founded by Nixon to serve a constitutional purpose, but it has long since degenerated into nothing more than a tool -- a truncheon, really -- to be used by a fascist government to punish its enemies, like Obama`s Region VI Administrator Al Armendariz, who bragged about how he liked to "crucify" innocent oil companies to terrorize the others.
0
Reply
Male 37,803
[quote]Actually the labor participation rate is a much clearer assessment of the jobs problem. Yes it`s gone down under Obama.[/quote]
@Cajun - that`s true, and I`m glad you mentioned it!

But before the IAB-Liberal team claims victory: this is a BAD THING! lolz!

It`s really, very bad indeed. Not that the MSM would ever mention it, let alone criticize Obama for it... it`s :-) "funemployment" :-) after all!
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]the actual unemployment rate (which is much higher), [/quote]

Actually the labor participation rate is a much clearer assessment of the jobs problem. Yes it`s gone down under Obama.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]he`s a sociopathic plutocrat who`s been bought outright by the one percent[/quote]

Goldman Sachs also backed Barack Obama, just sayin`.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
patchgrabber: I don`t know exactly what McCain would`ve done and it`s a hypothetical anyways. We do however know what Obama has done and it hasn`t helped. The economy is virtually stagnate and when you factor in inflation and the actual unemployment rate (which is much higher), we are still in a depression.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]Better by what? A few percentage points? That`s not really `Better` is it?[/quote]
Variation on a heap paradox. Even you admitted it is better, even if only a bit. But I`m sure McCain would have led you all into the black with ferocity, right? *eye roll*
0
Reply
Male 2,670
Romney isn`t going to win, because most voters understand he`s a sociopathic plutocrat who`s been bought outright by the one percent.

Eff all you stupid Repub Romneybots. If you any brains at all you`d know your precious Mormon has every intention of throwing all your asses under the nearest bus, should he steal the election.
0
Reply
Male 28
"The Constitution (1776-2013)"

History 101, man. The Constitution wasn`t created until 1787.
0
Reply
Male 37,803
[quote]World peace will never come, environmental issues never go away completely but should we then stop trying?[/quote]

@CreamK: A valid question! And the band 10 Years After faced a lot of heat for those lines I quoted (fun historical note!).

The key-word in you question is "we". We should not give up! But many people simply lay back and think "Oh, the Government will fix it for me!".

Why should we do anything - THEY will do it for us! = liberal Democrats.

WE cannot stop helping others, it ought to be human nature to do so!
Taking care of our environment in order to pass a better world to our children = mandatory!

Obama wants to pass 10+ TRILLION in debt to the children of the USA and has already added 60% to the debt! THAT is hardly something WE (the key-word) should allow!

"Better to light a single candle than curse the darkness"
0
Reply
Male 17,512
HG: Better by what? A few percentage points? That`s not really `Better` is it? Our economy is virtually stagnant if you factor in inflation.

Four more years of this? Hell no!
0
Reply
Male 8,132
AvatarJohn

"If Obama wins, the following will die:
The American economy (1776-2013)
The Constitution (1776-2013)
The Last Best Hope of the Earth (1776-2013)

Check and Mate."


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. That isn`t even remotely hyperbolic. The economy is better today than it was 4 years ago. Don`t make me post all the data again.
0
Reply
Male 1,059
That`s it? That`s all you`ve got??? The EPA and Big Bird? Wow, talk about out of ideas!

If Obama wins, the following will die:
The American economy (1776-2013)
The Constitution (1776-2013)
The Last Best Hope of the Earth (1776-2013)

Check and Mate.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
madest: Keep telling yourself that.

madest, late night on Nov. 6th.



Tears of unfathomable sadness.
0
Reply
Male 2,603
i wish a few of those would go away.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
It`ll never happen.
0
Reply
Male 1,421
"I honestly doubt ANY government ANYWHERE EVER can or could solve the problem of `rich vs poor`. "

World peace will never come, environmental issues never go away completely but should we then stop trying?
0
Reply
Male 8,132
OldOllie

"unconstitutional crap"

I`ve read the Constitution. What in there do you find that deems this "unconstitutional crap"?
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Agreed bcanddc. Even if Roe v. Wade was overturned, abortion would still be legal and available in most states.

The rhetoric, like the coat hanger picture posted above this post, is scaremongering taken to the level of absurdity.
0
Reply
Male 14
This is sooooo stupid. Even if Romney ended funding for Planned Parenthood and PBS, they would not go away. They would simply have to find private donors to fund them and they would. Did you know that in 2011, just the Sesame Street franchise alone made a net profit of a little more than $420,000,000.00? You never hear that on TV do you? Only that Big Bird will go away.....total Bravo Sierra spread by the left to scare voters. I for one hope they end the funding, I will invest in Sesame Street immediately and get rich on the stock.

As for Planned Parenthood, they will find PLENTY of donors. There are tons of filthy rich liberals out there. It`s time they pony up some money to fund it if it`s so important to them. Half the population does not want tax dollars funding abortion. Imagine if the government funded mandatory handgun ownership with tax dollars. The libs would absolutely come unhinged. It`s always OK when it`s something they want.
0
Reply
Male 560
0
Reply
Male 37,803
@Draculya: "Tax the rich, feed the poor
`Til there are no rich no more..."

Even Jesus couldn`t `solve` the problems of the poor. Muhammed said being poor was a `blessing`! I honestly doubt ANY government ANYWHERE EVER can or could solve the problem of `rich vs poor`.

Ten Years After
One of the 10 best songs ever! With images from Koyaanisqatsi, one of the 10 best films ever!
0
Reply
Male 2,737
I hope he does.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
I wish he actually WOULD do away with all that unconstitutional crap and a whole lot more, but I`m not counting on it.
0
Reply
Male 3,310
Would it also mean the end to melodramatic drama queens? Is that what has this video creator worried?
0
Reply
Male 14,834
We don`t need food stamps. The poor people can always eat the rich.
0
Reply
Female 1,515
I bet if Romney takes office, none of the BS stuff he wants will actually happen. People will smack some sense into him if he`s elected. Real-life presidental decisions are different than the political fantasy land scenarios in his head. If he even believes half of what he is saying(which might just be pandering for votes).
0
Reply
Male 8,132
5 cats

I disagree with you about lots of things. However I would never take away your right to think it or say it. I want everyone to have equal rights, even if I disagree with them. I would fight for the kkk to have rights, even if I hate them. Understand?

You don`t have to respect someone to want equality for them.
0
Reply
Male 554
epa should go.. but so should the UN
0
Reply
Male 13,624
Looking at the opinions on here either the world dies
or it lives, that`s how fundamentalist this lot of posters are getting
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]We both know any fact can be skewed and if a source has an agenda they only post information that furthers that agenda.[/quote]

How is THIS article in particular doing it?

HERE is a FACT from the article:
[quote]six recent Presidents took office within a few months of the start of a recession: Obama (recession began December 2007), H.W. Bush (July 1990), G.W. Bush (Mar 2001), Reagan (July 1981), Nixon (Dec. 1969) and Ike (July 1953). As it happens, four of the five were Republicans.[/quote]

Is there spin or bias in this statement?
0
Reply
Male 37,803
"Equal rights for everyone..."

@HG Your constant attacks on people who disagree with your "not a viewpoint" belies that idea.
You ALWAYS attack Christians or Republicans, even if they`re not involved with the post!!! You go out of your way to hate-spam them!

[quote]I occasionally play devil`s advocate or argue semantics just for kicks,[/quote]
This word you use: "occasioanlly"? It does not mean ALL the freaking time; rather it means the opposite. Just fyi...
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Okay I just did a T-test using every President since Truman in regards to unemployment.
For the sake of equal samples (important):
Democratic sample: last 5 years of Truman`s term and every year thereafter.
Republican sample: Eisenhower`s last year and every year thereafter.

Since we`re working in hindsight I do not predict either sample will be greater, and I do not know the standard deviations.

I get a p-value of .0781, which means there is no significant relation between presidential party and unemployment. So yes HG to me it`s simply a coincidence.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
HG: I`ve never voted for a democrat president, but have voted for democrats in other local positions.
0
Reply
Male 8,132
%Cats

"VV You`ve mentioned those things before, but your actions repeatedly do not follow those words... "

I`m pretty consistent I think. I would challenge you to find a comment I have made contrary to my listed points.

I occasionally play devil`s advocate or argue semantics just for kicks, but my core beliefs are pretty strong.
0
Reply
Male 8,132
5Cats

"He sure as S.HIT would not vote Republican."

Don`t know why you are bringing that in here, but I will reply on the correct thread.
0
Reply
Male 37,803
"He sure as S.HIT would not vote Republican."
[email protected]

@HolyGod: Aaaand there he goes AGAIN!
Slandering Christians? check!
Political bias? check!
Politicizing a NON-political thread? check!
Not making any sense? Double Check!!
Just-Like-He-Does Every-Freaking-Time...

(hint: Jesus was born in the Middle East...)
(At least the first time...)

HEY! @HG! Is this the ONLY thing you do here at IAB?

VV You`ve mentioned those things before, but your actions repeatedly do not follow those words...

Just my opinion, observation, not meaning to offend or anything.
0
Reply
Male 8,132
5Cats

"You spout the "official Democrat line" on EVERY topic imaginable! Like it was Gospel! "

We have been through this before:
I want smaller government.
I want lower taxes.
I want less welfare.
I am pro life.
I support the death penalty.
I want stronger crime laws.

However I want:
Less military spending.
Less American imperialism.
A separation of church and state.
Equal rights for everyone, including gays.
I want morality based laws eliminated (drugs, prostitution, gambling).

Nobody represents me in this election. So I base it off of who is closer.
0
Reply
Male 8,132
CrakrJak and 5Cats

"BULLSH|T SIR! You`ve made your viewpoint quite clear"

I should have been more clear. I meant I had no viewpoint when I gathered that data. I just gathered the data. Of course I have a viewpoint. Everyone does. However my viewpoint changes. I don`t believe either of you would allow your viewpoint to change.

I voted for Bush the first time. I considered voting for McCain. If Ron Paul was the republican nominee I would vote for him this year. When have either of you voted for or seriously considered voting for a democrat?
0
Reply
Male 37,803
[quote] If you want averages give me a few minutes and I will come back with averages.[/quote]
Don`t bother on my account! Unless you factor in the House, Senate and global events too.

But specifically for MY point, which was Bush vs Obama? You can do that if you like! You can even note how:
% got worse under Bush after the Dems took the House.
% got better under Obama when the Repubs too the House.
But that doesn`t fit your theory now does it? So you`ll ignore it, change the subject or some other Dem-tard tactic.
Oh, sorry: "I have no viewpoint" tactic... :-)
0
Reply
Male 37,803
[quote]I have no viewpoint.[/quote]
Well now you`re just straight-up lieing!

You spout the "official Democrat line" on EVERY topic imaginable! Like it was Gospel!

You support the Dems 90%+
You HATE the Repubs 90%+

Finding one or two times (out of hundereds - see? context IS important!) you "sort of" criticised Obama, or "kinda" supported a Repub doesn`t make you "unbiased, OK?

To explain it for your donkey-brain:
2-3 times out of 5 would indeed be unbiased.
2-3 times out of 100 is highly biased!
Guess which catagory you fall into? Or me for that matter BUT I DON`T PRETEND OTHERWISE.
Mr "I have no viewpoint"...
0
Reply
Male 17,512
HG: [quote]I have no viewpoint.[/quote]

BULLSH|T SIR! You`ve made your viewpoint quite clear and believe everyone else that doesn`t share your viewpoint to be stupid.

You`re not just a Narcissist you`re a Liar.
0
Reply
Male 8,132
5Cats

"And agian, you take the % at the very end of the term, utterly ignoring the AVERAGE throughout the term."

Would you like average? It will make republicans look even worse. I can tell you that by looking at the chart. If you want averages give me a few minutes and I will come back with averages.
0
Reply
Male 37,803
@HG: And agian, you take the % at the very end of the term, utterly ignoring the AVERAGE throughout the term.
And AGAIN you use ONE method when it suits you, but a completely DIFFERENT method when it doesn`t!
It`s getting OLD! Really big guy! That horse you`re flogging has been dead for quite some time...

[quote]@HG: He`s not dead! He`s pining for the fjords![/quote]
0
Reply
Male 8,132
5Cats

"Because when you take simplistic numbers, from FIFTY YEARS AGO, without CONTEXT, and IGNORE numbers which don`t suite your viewpoint? It`s just gobbledygook."

I have no viewpoint. I simply gave the unemployment numbers from when they took office to when they left. There is no viewpoint. I gave no context. Wouldn`t you agree that "context" is where someone can skew data to support their opinion? They shift blame or credit to support their view like you just did. If it was good under a democrat it was because of a republican if it was bad under a republican it was someone or something else`s fault. Context is the role of punditry.
0
Reply
Male 37,803
Once again I remind you: I do not watch "FoxNews" ever. It`s a PAY channel here.
I watch CNN and BBC World to get news, otherwise I read blogs. Occasionally the CBC TV or radio.

[quote]How are hard data numbers from the bureau of labor statistics[/quote]
Because when you take simplistic numbers, from FIFTY YEARS AGO, without CONTEXT, and IGNORE numbers which don`t suite your viewpoint? It`s just gobbledygook.

"There are lies, damned lies, and statistics."
0
Reply
Male 8,132
5Cats

"You`re going back 50YEARS "

Well if you want to take a sampling on how unemployment behaves under democrats and republicans you have to go back a ways since they are in office for 4, 8, 12 year spans at a time.

"You`re COMPLETELY ignoring things like: "

Hahahaha. You just listed almost every excuse I said at the end of my statement. Twist the data however it works for you. I`m just giving you data.

"Clinton inherited Reagan`s BOOM and rode it."

Clinton inherited unemployment at 7.3% 4 years AFTER Reagan left office then the economy got better. Are you saying "REAGAN`S BOOM" skipped 4 years and started back up under Clinton? You are a joke.
0
Reply
Male 8,132
Cajun247

From your article. "the president usually “deserves less credit for the good times — and less blame for the bad times.” And he added that job figures can be driven by outside factors"

I completely agree. However are you telling me you believe it is a complete coincidence when unemployment goes up or stays the same under republicans and goes down or stays the same under democrats for 50 straight years. COME ON!

Also you keep posting to the opinion pieces of one guy on a blog with a stated agenda. That is not proof of anything. We both know any fact can be skewed and if a source has an agenda they only post information that furthers that agenda.
0
Reply
Male 37,803
You`re going back 50YEARS to justify your bull-sh*t arguements?
You`re COMPLETELY ignoring things like:
Who controls the House and Senate?
World events?
Policies started by the previous administration that were positive OR negative for the next?

Carter`s policies = DOOM!
Reagan inherited them and turned the econoomy around!
Clinton inherited Reagan`s BOOM and rode it. No fault in that.
Sept 11 2011, ring a bell?
Obama PROMISED to fix it ALL in one term! Remeber that?

It`s useless to point out little, trivial things like FACTS or REALITY to you @HG. You have fun flogging your dead elephant, or choking your chicken, or whatever it is you ACTUALLY DO while you IMAGINE you`re making sense...
0
Reply
Male 8,132
5Cats

"As usual, you completely miss the point and then go on to stab "strawmen" with imaginary factoids."

I did miss that point. I have never heard the term "funemployment". I don`t watch MSM. I don`t condone the reporting of data differently. But please don`t tell me you think FOX news provides unbiased information. Everyone has an agenda. That is why I avoid punditry all together. I base my opinions solely off data.

How are hard data numbers from the bureau of labor statistics "strawmen" and "imaginary factoids"?
0
Reply
Male 37,803
@HolyGod: As usual, you completely miss the point and then go on to stab "strawmen" with imaginary factoids.
It`s getting OLD dude!

When unemployment was 5.5% for 4 years of Bush`s Presidency, the MSM crowed EVERY DAY how the "real" unemployment was 7% or even 8%! And how Bush should DO SOMETHING to help!
BUT!
When Obama`s unemployment numbers soared to 10%+ (really 15% or more) did the MSM take him to task?
HELL NO!
They ran `fluff pieces` on how great being unemployed was! Like a vacation! FUNEMPLOYMENT was coined!
Get it yet?
Didn`t think so.
You are exactly like the MSM @HG, entirely one-sided, biased, bigoted and drunk on kool-aide.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Here`s another fact: The CRA, courtesy of Clinton, caused the housing bubble which did huge damage to the economy during Bush`s term. So no Democrats != good for economy.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote"> I want facts. So back up what you just said.[/quote">

Statistics regarding unemployment is dominated by the business cycle not election cycles
0
Reply
Male 557
I wouldnt consider services by the government to be "cultural icons", just Big Bird. Non wealthy conservatives are so funny though, voting for their death and destruction. Also CrakrJak, I`m going to attempt not to get into a political debate, buuuuuuuuuuut how do you expect the worlds largest economy to turn around, completely, in 4 years from near destruction and previous flushings down the toilet. We were already in debt, yet you blame a guy who didnt get us there. Your`re damned lucky you arent living in a box somewhere. No, not because of your conservative work ethic, but because things were done that needed doing. Since Fox News straight up lies about things then you`d know that despite our debt and fears of us being controlled by China. China owes us a hell of a lot more then we owe them. I could go on for days, but I need to pee and look towards the future.
0
Reply
Male 8,132
Cajun247

"Adjusted for the effects of the previous admin`s policies you`ll notice no net change overall in employment."

Prove it. You are making a statement, back it up with facts. My list is only facts. Facts is all I`m interested in debating. I don`t want your opinion, or FOX News`s opinion, or Reason.tv`s opinion. I want facts. So back up what you just said.
0
Reply
Male 8,132
CrakrJak

"HG: You`ve spammed us with your list a half-dozen times now. All it real it proves is that Obama is an abysmal failure. The economy is in the toilet and Obama is about to flush it with another $4 trillion in debt. "

Way to prove you ignore facts put in front of you. This is a completely different list that has NOTHING to do with info that I have posted before. IT DOESN`T EVEN MENTION OBAMA. Ignorance is bliss eh?
0
Reply
Male 5,190
"What Happens If Romney Actually Wins?"

Then the puppet on the right wins instead of the left.

Also it`s funny watching the usual IAB tards argue.

Special Olympics you guys. Even if you win.....
0
Reply
Male 17,512
HG: You`ve spammed us with your list a half-dozen times now. All it real it proves is that Obama is an abysmal failure. The economy is in the toilet and Obama is about to flush it with another $4 trillion in debt.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote] I`m just presenting straight up facts with no spin.[/quote]

Adjusted for the effects of the previous admin`s policies you`ll notice no net change overall in employment.
0
Reply
Male 8,132
Let`s do a quick summary of unemployment for my conservative friends who have revisionist history.

Democrats take office Jan 20, 1961
Unemployment: 6.6%
They hand it back over to Republicans Jan 20, 1969
Unemployment: 3.4%
Unemployment goes DOWN 3.2% under Democrats

Republicans take office Jan 20, 1969
Unemployment: 3.4%
They hand it back over to Democrats Jan 20, 1977
Unemployment: 7.5%
Unemployment goes UP 4.1% under Republicans

Democrats take office Jan 20, 1977
Unemployment: 7.5%
They hand it back over to Republicans Jan 20, 1981
Unemployment: 7.5%
Unemployment goes unchanged under Democrats

Republicans take office Jan 20, 1981
Unemployment: 7.5%
They hand it back over to Democrats Jan 20, 1993
Unemployment: 7.3%
Unemployment goes unchanged under Republicans
0
Reply
Male 8,132
Democrats take office Jan 20, 1993
Unemployment: 7.3%
They hand it back over to Republicans Jan 20, 2001
Unemployment: 4.2%
Unemployment goes DOWN 3.1% under Democrats

Republicans take office Jan 20, 2001
Unemployment: 4.2%
They hand it back over to Democrats Jan 20, 2009
Unemployment is: 7.8%
Unemployment goes UP 3.6% under Republicans

Lets summarize that:

DOWN 3.2% under Democrats
UP 4.1% under Republicans
Unchanged under Democrats
Unchanged under Republicans
DOWN 3.1% under Democrats
UP 3.6% under Republicans

You can spin that lots of different ways. Conservatives say the measurements are different. Or give credit to a republican congress or blame a democrat congress. Or it was because of 9/11, or the internet, or because of the previous administration.

I`m just presenting straight up facts with no spin.

How could anyone be dumb enough to give the reigns back to a Republican?
0
Reply
Male 132
The only reason the unemployment rate is at ~7.5% is because of the staggering number of individuals whose benefits have ran out and who have stopped looking. The REAL unemployment rate when factoring those people in is actually closer to 11.5%.
Obama hasn`t created jobs. And those jobs which did happen to get created were in spite of Obama`s policies. He nixed the Keystone pipeline for God`s sake. How can you do that with the economy the way it is? Oh right, he needed the tree hugger vote.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
HG: I recall GHW Bush handing Clinton the next boon to our economy, The internet. The internet created the jobs, not Clinton, Not Gore either.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
This video was so pathetically wrong, I couldn`t help myself from laughing.
0
Reply
Male 363
Such a load of crap.
0
Reply
Male 8,132
5Cats

"if the Dems are responsible for it!!"

Yes. Absolutely. The Dems are responsible for high unemployment. Thanks for correcting me.

See I remembered things wrong. I recall Bush 1 handing Clinton unemployment of 7.3%. Then Clinton took it down to 3.9%. He hands it off to Bush 2 who takes unemployment to 7.8% then gives it to Obama while it is in the process of skyrocketing to 10%. Then Obama decreases it for the next 35 months finally getting it down to 7.8%.

You are right 5Cats. Dems are responsible for unemployment. Let`s give the country back to a Republican!


0
Reply
Male 7,123
.: THIS is the best shot the Democrats GOT?
THIS?`

I suspect not. It`s an unimpressive little video, I doubt they spent all that money on this as their best shot.

0
Reply
Male 10,339
You said it bowski.

You must be thinking it.
0
Reply
Male 37,803
Political trolling, again? Chez Suprise!

Lots of anti-Romney propoganda on IAB lately...

And: THIS is the best shot the Democrats GOT?
THIS?

Obama will surely enjoy his unemployenmet, eh? Oh sorry, it`s "FUNemployment" if the Dems are responsible for it!!
0
Reply
Male 4,395
I am so glad this was not one of Barack`s ads.
0
Reply
Male 140
Dude, I`m no Romney supporter, but that`s not even close to accurate. Big-Bird will survive privately, for sure, and most of those things would continue, even if diminished.

Seriously, that`s an embarrassingly bad video and way over-dramatic.
0
Reply
Male 536
Not quite as good as the Daisy Girl, but still a fine piece of political propaganda.

(Propaganda being that which seeks actively to limit the possible interpretations of a text down to one in order to achieve a specific aim. There are other aspects to it, but basically - propaganda doesn`t want the receiver to think, only to receive; a monologue vs. a dialogue.)
0
Reply
Male 3,364
The conservatives will argue that privatizing SS, and subjecting it to the Wall St. rollercoaster is a good thing, that 97% of the services that Planned Parenthood provide suck because they also provide abortion, that Big Bird should be fired because Sesame Street teaches kids it`s polite to share 9socialism), and that only lazy black people who won`t work need food stamps or any other kind of assistance. Isn`t that right, Crakrjak?
0
Reply
Male 1,442
Eh... Just a debate sparking video. Nothing interesting or new here.
0
Reply
Male 5,081
Link: What Happens If Romney Actually Wins? [Rate Link] - Here are some of the things that might happen...
0
Reply