So What Changes if Romney is Elected?

• O-Trap

  

  Con_Alma;1213138 wrote:The "Drug War" isn't decisions that based on money...but we've discussed that before.

  Does it not cost money to engage in? If it does cost, then finances should play a part in the discussion.
• Con_Alma

  O-Trap;1213153 wrote:Does it not cost money to engage in? If it does cost, then finances should play a part in the discussion.

  Discussing it is one thing. Discuss away. It's existence isn't based on money, however. How to implement it and manage it may be.
• O-Trap

  

  Con_Alma;1213155 wrote:Discussing it is one thing. Discuss away. It's existence isn't based on money, however. How to implement it and manage it may be.

  It's existence is based on those things which make it possible, and finances are indeed a lynchpin for it existing at all. If you mean that finances are not the "basis" or "motivation," then of course I agree, but on that note, I'd say a lot of things aren't, and I'm not sure it matters.
• Con_Alma

  O-Trap;1213179 wrote:... If you mean that finances are not the "basis" or "motivation," then of course I agree, but on that note, I'd say a lot of things aren't, and I'm not sure it matters.

  Indeed it is what I mean.
• O-Trap

  

  Con_Alma;1213189 wrote:Indeed it is what I mean.

  Fair enough. What we had there was a failure to communicate.
• Footwedge

  Con_Alma;1213155 wrote:Discussing it is one thing. Discuss away. It's existence isn't based on money, however. How to implement it and manage it may be.

  Many will argue it is all about money. Many will argue that war is all about the money. Many will argue that having the largest prison population per capita is all about the money.
  
  And so it goes. We have a lot of institutional/industrial complexes out there that generate a copious amount of millionaires. Lot of private industry making a bigger nut offshore. Wanna get rich here? Join a tax payer supported complex of some sort. Best bet, I reckon.
• pmoney25

  

  Well one thing that won't change is the fact that whoever the president is thinks they can go to war whenever they want and not worry about any sort of approval or declaration of war. Mitt Romney just recently saying that he won't really worry about that stuff, just that the president already has the power to use military action whenever they want.
• believer

  

  pmoney25;1213539 wrote:....just that the president already has the power to use military action whenever they want.

  That's actually true....so what's your point?
• O-Trap

  

  believer;1213578 wrote:That's actually true....so what's your point?

  WHENever they want, yes. HOWever they want, no. War still requires a declaration from Congress.
• pmoney25

  

  believer;1213578 wrote:That's actually true....so what's your point?

  Point being , congrats on ignoring the point. Unfortunately a lot of conservatives have been doing that by nomimating this guy.
• majorspark

  

  pmoney25;1213539 wrote:Well one thing that won't change is the fact that whoever the president is thinks they can go to war whenever they want and not worry about any sort of approval or declaration of war. Mitt Romney just recently saying that he won't really worry about that stuff, just that the president already has the power to use military action whenever they want.

  When I first read your post I thought surely you took his words out of context. Because as commander in chief the president does have the authority at times to use military force without getting prior approval of the legislative branch. I figured that is what he was referring to. Then I looked it up. Willard is off his rocker on this one.
  
  [video=youtube;oTQsqfNlk_s][/video]
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTQsqfNlk_s
• O-Trap

  

  majorspark;1213628 wrote:When I first read your post I thought surely you took his words out of context. Because as commander in chief the president does have the authority at times to use military force without getting prior approval of the legislative branch. I figured that is what he was referring to. Then I looked it up. Willard is off his rocker on this one.
  
  [video=youtube;oTQsqfNlk_s][/video]
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTQsqfNlk_s

  It's hard to believe this guy's foreign policy is what tipped some Republicans into his corner.
• I Wear Pants

  Con_Alma;1213155 wrote:Discussing it is one thing. Discuss away. It's existence isn't based on money, however. How to implement it and manage it may be.

  It's existence should be based on causing the least societal damage. Unfortunately the policy you support (assuming you're cool with the drug war) causes just about the greatest amount of societal damage outside of perhaps the government forcing all citizens to shoot heroin. It does not reduce drug use (at best it shifts it around to different types and it has very much increased heroin use), it does not decrease crime/violence due to drugs (increases this as well, creates much of it), it does not prevent health problems associated with drug use (again, increases them), and it does not save us money but costs us hundreds of billions of dollars.
  
  There is nothing at all good about the drug war. Nothing. It is absolutely ineffective unless the goal of the program is to increase drug abuse, violence, and waste billions.
  
  It isn't just the money thing but when you consider that it is absolutely ineffective the money thing becomes a pretty obvious problem with it.
  
  Drug use/abuse is a health issue, not a criminal issue and it's time we treat it as such.
  
  Also it's pretty funny how quiet you "rabble rabble the gubmint is telling me how to live" people are when it comes to this topic. You get so upset at massive waste in government and intrusion into private affairs except on issues like this that actually cause a big effect unlike some small town banning soda from their park vending machines or something like that.
• majorspark

  

  O-Trap;1213631 wrote:It's hard to believe this guy's foreign policy is what tipped some Republicans into his corner.

  Willard:

  I don't believe at this stage, therefore, If I am president that we need to have a war powers approval or a special authorization of military force. The president has that capacity now.

  Willard needs to be called on this. When did the president get this capacity? Under what authority? Bill Krystol was at least making a solid legal argument. Willard's vapid response was quite telling. We are rapidly becoming a government of men and not laws. The legislative branch is allowing its balls to be snipped. They fail to defend the rule of law and their own power. Yeah they bitch but that is it. No action. Throwing the rule of law under the bus in the name of party politics. Because that is what really matters. Political power. The current leader of the executive branch has told congress when they are in recess and made appointments outside of the rule of law. No action. The current leader of the executive branch has he said will not enforce certain laws passed by the legislative branch. Though he is on record as saying he has no legal authority to do so. Again no action. God save the republic.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  "Drug use/abuse is a health issue, not a criminal issue and it's time we treat it as such."
  
  Depending on the SCOTUS decision coming up, I may or may not agree with this. If I'm on the hook to pay socialist taxes for the lifestyle of others, their lifestyles become an issue - criminal or civil - to anyone that pays taxes. At some point our ineffective, inefficient, and incompetent government is going to have to listen to the people that pay their salaries. This might be a starting point.
  
  A bit of an aside, I've been "fighting" the IRS over a US$1,500 tax issue that shouldn't have been an issue in the first place. To be fair to the very good IRS agents that helped out over the last few months (or more than a year now) we resolved the issue - until again an incompetent government sent a check to me in error. They apologize for the "inconvenience", but want the money back (I don't disagree) by a certain date or else I'm charged interest. Incompetence.
  
  I called the IRS to inquire if the issue was finally resolved. I'm a customer trying to pay a vendor money and all I get is sheer attitude from someone that would be fired if they worked in the private sector. I'm not arguing about the charge - I'm trying to pay it - I did pay it through a third party vendor that the Treasury uses - yet the U.S. taxpayers are on the hook for all of the certified mail I'm receiving overseas and I'm on the hook for the "inconvenience" payments and we have a federal worker blaming me for their mistakes.
  
  Going forward, the issue isn't GOP vs. DEM, or liberal vs. conservative (although possibly indirectly), it is an increasingly bloated and incompetent public sector that can't chew bubble gum and walk at the same time - and when questioned gripe that they aren't being funded properly. Boo freaking too. Tell that to the millions of private sector taxpayers that have been hurting in the Obamaconomy.
• majorspark

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;1213656 wrote:A bit of an aside, I've been "fighting" the IRS over a US$1,500 tax issue that shouldn't have been an issue in the first place. To be fair to the very good IRS agents that helped out over the last few months (or more than a year now) we resolved the issue - until again an incompetent government sent a check to me in error. They apologize for the "inconvenience", but want the money back (I don't disagree) by a certain date or else I'm charged interest. Incompetence.

  Been there. A mistake on my company's end that resulted in undo tax liability and penalties. What a pain in the ass initially to correct the problem. Dealing with the low level cocky pricks left me so frustrated I told them they were driving me to the dark side. Eventually I got to an intelligent individual who could do math and I could communicate with and the issue was quickly resolved.
• BoatShoes

  majorspark;1213654 wrote:Willard:
  
  
  Willard needs to be called on this. When did the president get this capacity? Under what authority? Bill Krystol was at least making a solid legal argument. Willard's vapid response was quite telling. We are rapidly becoming a government of men and not laws. The legislative branch is allowing its balls to be snipped. They fail to defend the rule of law and their own power. Yeah they bitch but that is it. No action. Throwing the rule of law under the bus in the name of party politics. Because that is what really matters. Political power. The current leader of the executive branch has told congress when they are in recess and made appointments outside of the rule of law. No action. The current leader of the executive branch has he said will not enforce certain laws passed by the legislative branch. Though he is on record as saying he has no legal authority to do so. Again no action. God save the republic.

  I think that the parties have in a lot of ways become akin to the "factions" that the founders warned about. It seems that congressmen have no qualms about the president usurping their power if he belongs to the same party. Party goals are more important than constitutional procedure. The founders were wise but these types of problems haunt presidential systems.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  A bit off topic but OMG Joe Biden is an idiot of idiots:
  
  "http://news.yahoo.com/obama-biden-strike-romney-overseas-jobs-215734544.html"
  
  Hey Joe (with apologies to Jimi Hendrix), Singapore hires more upper middle class to upper class Americans then your POS state of Delaware does. It's an ex-pat homeland for nearly half of the island. Who do you think handles American businesses' operations in SE Asia? Does this administration have even the first idea of how business works? It gets worse and worse every day. What are people thinking supporting it? This makes Jimmy Carter and his failed administration look halfway smart.
• Con_Alma

  I Wear Pants;1213644 wrote:It's existence should be based on causing the least societal damage. Unfortunately the policy you support (assuming you're cool with the drug war) causes just about the greatest amount of societal damage outside of perhaps the government forcing all citizens to shoot heroin. It does not reduce drug use (at best it shifts it around to different types and it has very much increased heroin use), it does not decrease crime/violence due to drugs (increases this as well, creates much of it), it does not prevent health problems associated with drug use (again, increases them), and it does not save us money but costs us hundreds of billions of dollars.
  
  There is nothing at all good about the drug war. Nothing. It is absolutely ineffective unless the goal of the program is to increase drug abuse, violence, and waste billions.
  
  It isn't just the money thing but when you consider that it is absolutely ineffective the money thing becomes a pretty obvious problem with it.
  
  Drug use/abuse is a health issue, not a criminal issue and it's time we treat it as such.
  
  Also it's pretty funny how quiet you "rabble rabble the gubmint is telling me how to live" people are when it comes to this topic. You get so upset at massive waste in government and intrusion into private affairs except on issues like this that actually cause a big effect unlike some small town banning soda from their park vending machines or something like that.

  The laws we put in place are to support and reflect that which we are seeking to become. We may never get there. When these laws were put into place it was a reflection of the desire of the masses of people to move towards a culture which was without drug use. We seem to be going in the opposite direction now with our desire. I believe there will be a day when the masses are not interested in moving towards a drug free society. When the masses are at that point, drugs will be decriminalized or not made to be illegal.
  
  Our society is what we want it to be so long as defined rights are not violated.
  
  You don't see me rabble about government spending when it comes to the military or law enforcement....infact you have seen me post in great support of such use of resources. I am not suggesting we look aside and be inefficent with regards to our tax usage. I am for governemnt spendingn on those things we need and "want" as a culture. I don't, however need, them and it's important to express to them what I want from them, to spend money on ridiculous non-governemnt items that we should be doing in the private sector.
  
  If the drug war is ineffective, I say lets fight to increase it's effectiveness as opposed to simply ending it.
• believer

  

  O-Trap;1213593 wrote:WHENever they want, yes. HOWever they want, no. War still requires a declaration from Congress.

  Not entirely accurate.
  
  As Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States of America, the POTUS has Constitutional authority to use military action at his or her discretion. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 does require that the POTUS to seek "Congressional authorization" OR an official declaration of war within 48 hours of committing troops.
  
  However, that authorization or declaration of war from Congress need not occur for up to 60 days. If it does not occur, the POTUS has an additional 30 days to withdraw the troops.
  
  Basically the POTUS can unilaterally wage war at his or her discretion for up to 90 days without Congressional approval.
• O-Trap

  

  believer;1213666 wrote:Not entirely accurate.
  
  As Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States of America, the POTUS has Constitutional authority to use military action at his or her discretion. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 does require that the POTUS to seek "Congressional authorization" OR an official declaration of war within 48 hours of committing troops.
  
  However, that authorization or declaration of war from Congress need not occur for up to 60 days. If it does not occur, the POTUS has an additional 30 days to withdraw the troops.
  
  Basically the POTUS can unilaterally wage war at his or her discretion for up to 90 days without Congressional approval.

  Fair enough. I suppose I was assuming that a war would last more than 90 days, which still does need approval. Technically, I didn't say he needs approval FOR war, though I think that to be the wisest use of the office, as going to a war you can't finish would accomplish nothing and be a huge financial drain, not to mention the risk of American troops dying without the possibility that we'd even be in a war for the long haul.
  
  But I digress, it is permissible. Thanks for the clarification.
• QuakerOats

  What changes? ..... a president will sign congressional legislation completely overturning obamacare.
  
  
  
  For that alone, every real American should be voting for Mr. Romney.
• O-Trap

  

  QuakerOats;1213876 wrote:What changes? ..... a president will sign congressional legislation completely overturning obamacare.
  
  
  
  For that alone, every real American should be voting for Mr. Romney.

  Nothing else is of significance, then?
  
  And Romney has a history against such a mandate? Yes, he did it at the state level, but the man has been recorded, even on film, as saying he was proud to have had the blueprint for what the president is now doing.
  
  Obama railed against the wars we're in while campaigning. Now, he has not only continued them, but he's started new ones. Why do you think Romney, who has ANYTHING but a consistent track record, is going to be more resolute in maintaining the positions on which he's campaigning?
• stlouiedipalma

  QuakerOats;1213876 wrote:What changes? ..... a president will sign congressional legislation completely overturning obamacare.
  
  
  
  For that alone, every real American should be voting for Mr. Romney.

  A couple of things...
  
  First of all, it takes 60 votes in the Senate to get ANYTHING done. Even if Mitt wins, he'll have to deal with a Democratic minority that has learned from their Republican brethren how to block anything and everything from getting done.
  
  Second, if someone votes for Obama or even a third-party candidate I suppose that makes them less of an American in your slanted view. Not exactly in keeping with the very ideals of our country, wouldn't you say?
• O-Trap

  

  stlouiedipalma;1213888 wrote:First of all, it takes 60 votes in the Senate to get ANYTHING done. Even if Mitt wins, he'll have to deal with a Democratic minority that has learned from their Republican brethren how to block anything and everything from getting done.

  You don't think this has been crafted exclusively by the Republicans during the last four years, do you?