[ukip72]

(Original post by unclej)
label him what you want his policies are dangerous.

Which are dangerous?

[cl_steele]

(Original post by Cephalus)
Well I would argue Romney would be better placed than Obama. I would argue that he certainly knows more about business and economics than Obama. He is more qualified academically than Obama, as he has two college degrees, one of which was in business. Likewise, he has demonstrated he is very good at running a business, he helped to bring Bain & Company out of a financial crisis when he was CEO for example.

Need i remind you that running a country is not running some potty little company? and on top of that being el presidente does not give him the unilateral authority to manage the economy on any whim he has many many aids and senior officials who do that for him... and once again he can manage the economy as much as he likes in the best way possible but if the USA's to largest trading partners go under America is up the proverbial **** creek without a twig let a lone a paddle.

[ESPORTIVA]

Romney needs to be hanged from a tree. For the greater good.

[sugar-n-spice]

(Original post by unclej)
he is against abortion
he is against carbon caps
he is against free healthcare
he will increase military spending and troops whilst while allowing a contolled bankrupsy of Detroit
he is against a transparent wall street
he is against nuclear weapon reductions in russia and america
he hates pallestine and loves israel
he supported war on afghanistan and vietnam
he wants to increase the power of guantanamo bay
he wants abstinence only sex education
and we will inevitably end up at war with iran

You can disagree with him but you can't refuse to recognise him as leader for those reasons. I don't understand the Detroit thing

[Cephalus]

(Original post by tufc)
Since when is he against abortion? He's gone on record several times to say that, whilst he's personally opposed to it, he is still pro-choice.

Indeed, he is not against abortion. He just wants to give each state the choice to decide whether or not it is allowed in that particular state

[Cephalus]

(Original post by cl_steele)
Need i remind you that running a country is not running some potty little company? and on top of that being el presidente does not give him the unilateral authority to manage the economy on any whim he has many many aids and senior officials who do that for him... and once again he can manage the economy as much as he likes in the best way possible but if the USA's to largest trading partners go under America is up the proverbial **** creek without a twig let a lone a paddle.

No, it's not a company. But given the choice, would you rather we had a president did some economics or not?

[callum9999]

(Original post by Happydude)
I know! His steadfast morals that he demonstrated in his aggressive tax evasion habit will come in handy, as well as his knowledge of what life is like for the average American.

While I fully agree with the first bit, I absolutely despise the argument that rich people shouldn't be allowed to be president/prime minister because they don't "understand" how poor people live.

That argument is absolutely rubbish and completely baseless (it's hardly rocket science, absolutely anyone can understand how poor people live - they may not be sympathetic, but that doesn't rule them out as a leader). Following the same logic, should we discourage poor people from wanting to become a leader by blasting them as they couldn't possibly understand how rich people (i.e. the people actually contributing more to the country (in fiscal terms) than they take) live?

I take it men don't understand how women live, and white people don't understand how black people live as well?

[Cephalus]

(Original post by callum9999)
While I fully agree with the first bit, I absolutely despise the argument that rich people shouldn't be allowed to be president/prime minister because they don't "understand" how poor people live.

That argument is absolutely rubbish and completely baseless (it's hardly rocket science, absolutely anyone can understand how poor people live - they may not be sympathetic, but that doesn't rule them out as a leader). Following the same logic, should we discourage poor people from wanting to become a leader by blasting them as they couldn't possibly understand how rich people (i.e. the people actually contributing more to the country (in fiscal terms) than they take) live?

I take it men don't understand how women live, and white people don't understand how black people live as well?

Very valid point. I always tire at the 'you don't know how the average person lives' argument

[Steezy]

Kinda pathetic.... The build up to the olympics HAS been disconcerting...

[ESPORTIVA]

Romney, if he becomes president will be americas biggest mistake, he will create more problems and run america further into the ground.

He flip flops all the time, he says one thing then says something else which contradicts what he just said

Romney is a disgrace, i dont understand how anyone with a BRAIN could vote for this guy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_pgfWK3sxw

He needs putting down like a dog before its too late

[unclej]

(Original post by ukip72)
Which are dangerous?

mainly his policy towards Iran

[ForKicks]

Why would anyone vote to cut ties with the US if he became President, purely because he expressed concerns that actually exist and then soon after back pedaled? Am I right in assuming that the yes votes are purely those who dislike Romney anyway?

[Hewitt]

Mitt Romney is a prat. However if the American people decide to elect him Britain has no choice but to recognise him unless they wish to lose their largest ally.

[Skip_Snip]

(Original post by cl_steele)
True its more the fact that you dont go over to someones house then lecture them on how its kept, everyone knows theirs been a few issues but you dont need them pointed out by your guest do you ?

Doesn't mean we should be above critisism for the "efforts" made

[barnetlad]

There are US voters who live in this country. Maybe they should be reminded of Mitt Romney's remarks just before the US presidential election.

Didn't he run the 2002 Winter Olympics, won after bribery?

[AspiringGenius]

I don't care, I don't respect him anyway. If the US elect him, I will personally think of them as a rogue state with backward ideologies.

[LETSJaM]

Just place him in the same catergory as George W Bush. Republican fail

I think Cameron and Johnson have firmly put him in his place!

<3 x

[RtGOAT]

He didn't say anything unfair.

It was a reasonable assessment.

[Made in the USA]

(Original post by Dobermory)
If Romney is elected US President, should the UK refuse to recognise him as President due to his insult against the UK?

I think you shouldn't recognize Obama due to his insults. He's been going out of his way to **** all over you for years now. He returned the bust of Winston Churchill that was in the oval office, he disparaged the Churchill-Roosevelt management of the joint war effort, he insulted Brown with some DVDs as a gift that weren't even compatible with UK DVD players, he told an astonished world “We don’t have a stronger friend and stronger ally than Nicolas Sarkozy and the French people,” and he has never thanked britain for their sacrifices in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Made in the USA]

(Original post by unclej)
label him what you want his policies are dangerous.

More dangerous than obama's policies? The economic ruin we have experienced in the last four years under Obama is mind blowing. I think staggering levels of debt, unemployment, bankruptcies, people losing their jobs, losing their homes, their businesses, ect is dangerous. Unless Romney is the architect of some kind of terrorist plot against the US, it's hard to imagine that his policies could be more dangerous than obamas