Romney Wants to Bring Back Torture

[General Zod]

Take for example his actions on domestic and international security concerns. Both are in support of increasing military spending, the quibble is on how much we should increase it. Both support leaving the indefinite detention centers open, which was a promise of Obama's to end. Both supported expanding the provisions for indefinite detention to include American citizens. Both supported expanding the Patriot Act to allow the President to summarily execute American citizens. Both refuse to meet with the Iranian leaders without precondition, despite Obama promising to do so. Both oppose executive transparency, despite this being another of Obama's campaign promises.

In taxes it's not a matter of whether we should cut taxes, but how much should we cut taxes. On healthcare it's not a matter of whether we should have healthcare reform, it's an argument on whether it should be at the State or Federal level. The only real difference I can find is Obama's okay with gays and Romney isn't. This criticism also extends to Dems as a whole.

So, you think they're identical in national security, therefore they're identical in everything else? Or do you think national security is the only thing that matters enough to determine your vote?

[Ritterin Sophia]

So, you think they're identical in national security, therefore they're identical in everything else? Or do you think national security is the only thing that matters enough to determine your vote?

It's like you didn't bother to read my post beyond "As an example". I gave national security as a specific example and focused on it, then a number of other matters as well.

[Channel72]

How about: Romney denies (or ignores) climate science. Obama doesn't. Romney is more likely to appoint another conservative to the Supreme Court, whereas Obama would likely appoint a liberal. Obama supports same-sex marriage (which you mentioned), but Romney doesn't.

These alone are enough to consider Obama a far superior candidate. The fact that he's acting like an authoritarian shithead when it comes to national security is unfortunate, but it doesn't make him equivalent to Romney.

[Spyder]

"Vote for me and I'll torture your enemies."

Could whoever keeps voting for these people please start holding your party to a higher standard? You really shouldn't encourage this sort of thing, it promotes bad behaviour in your elected officials and to be honest I think you all deserve better representation then that.

[Irbis]

http://www.politicalcompass.org/charts/us2012.php

Can I please have a link to the methodology of this chart? Not only it has unlabelled anything, it looks like whoever made it was either idiot or deaf.

In taxes it's not a matter of whether we should cut taxes, but how much should we cut taxes. On healthcare it's not a matter of whether we should have healthcare reform, it's an argument on whether it should be at the State or Federal level. The only real difference I can find is Obama's okay with gays and Romney isn't. This criticism also extends to Dems as a whole.

Yes, because there is absolutely no difference if we cut the taxes to the middle and lower class (Obama) or rich cronies (Romney)

Ditto for other issues, with Obama making small effort to close Gitmo being compared to Romney's not giving a damn, "minor" matter of pretty big group being denied basic rights being unimportant to you, Romney's abysmal environmental record, etc. etc.

Let me sum up the above for you: "I have got mine, fuck the others"

[Simon_Jester]

"Vote for me and I'll torture your enemies."

Could whoever keeps voting for these people please start holding your party to a higher standard? You really shouldn't encourage this sort of thing, it promotes bad behaviour in your elected officials and to be honest I think you all deserve better representation then that.

The Republicans no longer care, and the Democrats... well, suffice to say that in 2008 Obama promised a lot more basic decency on rights issues than he delivered.

Power is corrupting, and as long as power is only exercised to allow the president to get off on fighting 'enemies of the state' who pose an utterly tiny threat no matter what we do or don't do to them... all the huge mountain of other issues at stake make it very difficult to mobilize anything on this one issue.

[General Mung Beans]

Can I please have a link to the methodology of this chart? Not only it has unlabelled anything, it looks like whoever made it was either idiot or deaf.

Well considering the guy who wrote that chart also claimed that Ron Paul would be the best candidate for the Republicans to run...

[Elfdart]

Look, there is a real choice in the upcoming election:

One candidate wants to

• screw Social Security and Medicare based on the Simpson-Bowles panel's recommendations (AKA The Catfood Commission)
• grant general amnesty to torturers, war criminals and corporate swindlers while persecuting the whistleblowers who exposed them
• lynch American citizens
• carry on Bush's regime of warrantless wiretapping
• double the size of Guantanamo
• renege on the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq agreed to by Bush & Cheney
• persecute pot growers more than Bush & Cheney

And the other candidate is Mitt Romney.

Seriously, why shouldn't Romney's would-be lackeys announce that they can't wait to torture again? It's clear that the government and media support torture so even though it's a death penalty offense it's not like anyone will end up in the dock for it, aside from a few disposable grunts.

The real story here is that Obama also supports torture, which is why his Justice Department has covered for Dubya's Willing Executioners at every turn. Paul Krugman quoted an economist whose name escapes me, but he said something to the tune of "The difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats show more concern for the people harmed by their policies". He was referring to economic policies, but this holds true for human rights as well. Democrats pretend to give a shit about war crimes and torture and so on, but they really don't because if they did they'd try to do something about it.

[Simon_Jester]

Again, Romney also supports all these things, only more so with an extra side-order of bad.

I'm looking forward to 2016, but I don't get to time-jump to the America I wish I had.

[Broomstick]

^ What he said.

I understand that many think Obama is horrible... but it's ludicrous to think Romney would be any better simply because he is not Obama. I see absolutely nothing to support the idea that Romney would be any better on the points ticked off.

[Blayne]

The healthcare reform law passed is also significantly more progressive than anything the Republicans were proposing at the same time correct? Even if it isn't singlepayer?

[NecronLord]

Which Republican candidate who had a real shot at presidency has ever opposed torture (and I mean for real, not "I oppose torture but you see it's not torture when we do it to our enemies")?

Lincoln, Eisenhower, Reagan. Since then...

Frankly I've seen no evidence to suggest Nixon, or any other Republican president before him, would approve.

And then we arrive at Reagan.

"The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention . It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.

The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called 'universal jurisdiction.' Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution."

Who would, frankly, have none of this shit.

[Irbis]

I understand that many think Obama is horrible... but it's ludicrous to think Romney would be any better simply because he is not Obama. I see absolutely nothing to support the idea that Romney would be any better on the points ticked off.

This. If Obama differed from Mittens on his gay stance only, I'd vote for him. Ditto for healthcare. And environment. And economy. But, he differs on all 4 and more, so really, any comparison stating the two are the same due to one issue is really taking the cake.

And then we arrive at Reagan.

"The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention . It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.

The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called 'universal jurisdiction.' Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution."

Who would, frankly, have none of this shit.

Yeah, he would have so little of it he only sold arms to Iran so the Contras did it for him. Oh, also Pinochet and the rest of his puppet SA cronies, trying to weaken Polish government by fucking blocking child healthcare supplies as part of embargo (I can tell you something about that from my own personal experience), really, he did more shit during his 8 years than Obama and Dubya IInd term combined. If the Reagan was in charge of Afghanistan/Iraq, we wouldn't see even pretence of democracy, but Saddam 2.0 disappearing people until there was peace

So, nice words, I bet he used all of his acting experience to say them convincingly, too.