Reasons to elect Mitt Romney
 

Mitt Romney is a good candidate to vote for because:

His tax policy will add $5 trillion to our deficit over ten years.

He has zero foreign policy experience.

His clumsy and amateur visits to two foreign allies induced scorn and derision from those allies due to Romney actions and words.

He has zero national elected experience.

He promises to take away current insurance company protections from abuse that we were given by Obama.

He promises to end Medicare as we know it in favor of elderly trying to purchase private insurance.

His fiscal policies will massively increase current wealth inequality between poor and rich.

His state was 47th in the country in job creation during his one term as governor.

He promises he's readily go to war with Iran.

Any of you "Romney, Romney! Yay!" folks have anything else?

He's not Barack Obama. Sold.

war with Iran

Do you view that as a plus, or a minus?

So you would rather choose a proven liar, with zero predictable core convictions about how the country should be run, with zero international experience?

:eek: :zz:

And are you proud of that? Do you have any core convictions about this country and how it should be run?

I've got nothing.

wow easy on the international exp..lol:zz:

:tro:

Efraim Halevy discusses America's history with Israel, Iran; previous presidents, current president, and Romney.
-------------------

Summary:

In an exclusive interview with Al-Monitor, former Israeli spy chief Efraim Halevy said Israel and the US must engage in a dialogue with Iran to understand how their adversaries think, a position rarely heard from top Israeli officials.

He faulted Republican candidate Mitt Romney for making US policy toward Iran an issue in the presidential election.

Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/orig...#ixzz2A4sK3zuH

“The Iranians, in their heart of hearts, would like to get out of their conundrum,” Halevy told Al-Monitor. “The sanctions have been very effective. They are beginning to really hurt.”

... snip ...

“ The perception is that Israel is going through the stages of sanctions, etc., not with the idea or conviction that at the end, the other side will yield. If the purpose was to exert pressure to bring the other side to the table, the rhetoric should be different. […]

Obama has placed emphasis on negotiations. In this current election for the US presidency, his hands are tied. He cannot proceed, because he cannot appear soft on Israel’s security.

Negotiating with Iran is perceived as a sign of beginning to forsake Israel. That is where I think the basic difference is between Romney and Obama. What Romney is doing is mortally destroying any chance of a resolution without war. Therefore when [he recently] said, he doesn’t think there should be a war with Iran, this does not ring true. It is not consistent with other things he has said. […]

Obama does think there is still room for negotiations. It’s a very courageous thing to say in this atmosphere.

In the end, this is what I think: Making foreign policy on Iran a serious issue in the US elections — what Romney has done, in itself — is a heavy blow to the ultimate interests of the United States and Israel.

It is not as if, if he [Romney] wins the election, and gets into the White House, he can back up. The Iranians are listening attentively to what he says. When he says, he would arm the opposition in Iran. They understand.

Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/orig...#ixzz2A4ta75zl