Posted on 11/08/2012 11:34:11 AM PST by Kevmo
Romney hates guns and wouldn't need a UN treaty; he'd do it domestically.
He would do nothing to face China economically-his friends make too much money on China.
On domestic policy, he would not do anything different.
The childish "troll-boy" comment makes you look like you're not old enough to have whiskers, nevermind grey (gray) ones.
Don’t they already. Would there be any more so called vote fraud with direct election of the President than we have now.
Why do so many red states have one or two Donk Senators or at best a RINO squish, but true conservatives in the House?
Broad-based vs. local voting.
Nice try, troll boy.
Both Iowa and New Hampshire went Democrat. Until the first primaries are moved, nothing changes.
On ALL points : Romney would not have tried "Fast And Furious" in an abortive attempt to ban guns.
Of course he'd face China economically: he would not try for US economic dominance over them, unfortunately, but he would try for the economic equivalent of detente as opposed to Obama's surrender or Clinton's literal treason in giving them the guidance system for ICBMs through Loral, reassigning responsibility for oversight of the transfer to Commerce instead of Defense.
On Domestic Policy, he would not have pushed for massive tax increases, he would have supported small business, and would not have continued the war on coal or restricting oil recovery and exploration on Federal lands.
And aside from all that, the difference on nukes is both necessary and sufficient to override ALL other factors.
You are lying through your foul teeth.
Troll.
please read my post 23 on this thread
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.