XenoBlade, on 10 November 2012 - 11:50 AM, said:
Wanted to continue from what sent replied to me, when I said obama curbstomped Romney. Popular vote? Goodness no. It was mad close. Electoral college? No, it was a sound thrashing. Romney only won one battleground state. Not really close like that.
Speaking on foreign affairs, I feel at ease, because Romney was quite possibly the worst person ive seen with foreign relations. Seriously, give him an achievement for being barred from entering parliament. Tho not throwing salt at Romney fans.
True, the electoral college was a pounding we haven't seen in awhile, especially after Romney lost Florida. Romney only took two states from Obama from 2008 (Indiana, which was suspected would go Republican this year, and North Carolina). In the battleground states, though, the vote margin was less than 4%. It's looking now that, had voters not stayed home, Romney might've edged it. The Electoral College is a winner-take-all deal, so often blowouts aren't quite as telling as they might be.
All that said, there's no question Obama trounced Romney. The way he did so should be studied by parties and political scientists. Obama skillfully built a solid coalition and got out the vote much better. Did he run a negative campaign? Sure, but that's politics. Romney probably should've hit Obama harder. That first debate nearly sank Obama. But there's no denying that Obama is probably the most skilled campaigner this nation has seen since Bill Clinton.
Foreign affairs? Not so much. Iran sure looks intimidated by Obama--must be why Ahmadinejad endorsed him
. Israel feels that they've been basically abandoned. While I don't think Obama would actually abandon Israel, he's showing weakness in a region that respects only force and the willingness to use it. That makes war more likely rather than less. An Israel that feels abandoned is one that's going to say "Screw it, we're on our own" and go after Iran. The Gulf Kingdoms can't be feeling good about rumors of negotiations with Iran, either.
China doesn't seem to be bothered by Obama either--though that may change if we end up with a trade war with them, something both parties agreed on (I don't, personally). I do think China is overrated as a threat, but again, showing some toughness would be helpful in bolstering our allies. Talking about defense cuts is not showing toughness.
If Obama kills missile defense with Russia, something he's promised them to be "more flexible" on, it will not only leave this nation more vulnerable, Eastern Europe will no longer trust us, and be right to. That will damage NATO, which is about the only stable alliance the world has going now.
And I don't think we want to start talking about Benghazi--where Obama and his aides watched a consulate get overrun for nine hours, had a military response ready to go...and did nothing. Four Americans died as a result, one of them an ambassador. I really want to know why Obama decided they weren't worth the trouble, and I'm really hoping it wasn't so his administration could keep up the fiction that the terrorists were pissed off about a stupid YouTube video, rather than al-Qaeda.
And speaking of al-Qaeda, they're not dead, but still very much active and in Mali...the next stop on the US military's Whack-A-Mole Tour. I'm okay with Obama going after AQ wherever they may be. I'm not okay with him claiming that he's the man who killed AQ during the campaign then planning a major military operation to kill the thing that's supposed to be dead.
Would Romney have been any better? Hard to tell. Foreign relations is always a tricky business. But I can tell you he wouldn't be any worse. If you're afraid of the evil Romney getting us into a war, then you should be doubly terrified of an incompetent Obama who all but guarantees it.
I do think we should probably stick to debating this on the "Crazy World" thread, though. I love talking politics, but we shouldn't overrun Chit-Chat with them.
Ben Da Mad Irishman