I don't think the economy will do anything different over the next few months, but you never know. The R's and D's have a propensity for screwing the pooch.

But you shouldn't be so shocked at Steve's utter faith in Romney. He's not alone.

Guapo wrote:I was really disappointed with RayJ's attempt, but at least he tried.

But being fair, Ray Jay is not really a full-on Republican, and certainly hasn't expressed much support for Romney in the past.

I think that the Republicans are hoping that Romney wins by default. That Obama loses due to the economy and enough people wanting to get him out. Of course, the reality is that the election in November is not simply a referendum on Obama, it's a comparison between Obama and the other candidate. In that respect, it's not whether people like/disike Obama, it's whether they like Obama more/less than Romney.

Apart from the starry eyed certainty that Romney will, through some handwavium, do what his supporters want him to, there doesn't seem to be a much 'there' there with Mitt.

Which says quite a lot about all the people he beat in the Primaries!

theodorelogan wrote:I dunno...on one hand Romney strikes me as a Republican John Kerry (remember when Republicans used to denounce flip-floppers?)...so boring and samey that people won't care enough to vote for him. I don't think dislike for Obama is enough to overcome Romney's lack of a personality or principle. At least Obama has principle. Frankly, anyone claiming (like Steve) to have any clue what Romney will do in office is kidding himself (true for any politician, but particularly for Romney
...
Personally, I hope Romney wins. I can't wait to see the Democrats start caring about wars and civil liberties again (and see the Republicans bending over backwards to explain why Romney couldn't cut spending). It'll be good for a laugh.

Unfortunately, I think you may be right. I don't think that either candidate has the stuff to get us out of our current malaise. We may look back at this period as Bushbamaromney which at least has a nice ring to it.

As to the original post...

1) Assassinating US citizens without due process (Romney won't change this)
2) continuing to imprison people for owning a plant (Romney won't change)
3) Increasing the US debt (Romney won't change this)

One thing I know for sure: Romney won't recruit Diplomacy players to form a team and then abandon them by declaring a game hopeless, sticking his teammate with the spot, who will then turn in a tied-for-board-top performance.

As for the rest of this, I could argue with you, but it's a bit like arguing with bricks. You guys "know" everything and can't wait for the other 99.5% of us rubes to catch up.

He probably won't play a tourney game without making any attempt to contact players, attack all three neighbours in 1901 and end up totally unbalancing the game by putting in odd orders to the inevitable end.

Ok, so as one of those neighbours it gave me an advantage because I basically had an ready made ally and we had easy dots to grab, but I think it sucked for other players.

If the libertarians who play diplomacy are any guide to how they see society, I want no part of it. Luckily, it'll never fly.

Still, Romney and his supporters could perhaps provide better evidence of his betterness for office than just saying he will be better. Who can know which Romney would be President?

danivon wrote:If the libertarians who play diplomacy are any guide to how they see society, I want no part of it. Luckily, it'll never fly.

QFT!

Still, Romney and his supporters could perhaps provide better evidence of his betterness for office than just saying he will be better. Who can know which Romney would be President?

Which Obama is President? The one who was for gay marriage before he was against it before he was for it?

danivon wrote:He probably won't play a tourney game without making any attempt to contact players, attack all three neighbours in 1901 and end up totally unbalancing the game by putting in odd orders to the inevitable end.

Ok, so as one of those neighbours it gave me an advantage because I basically had an ready made ally and we had easy dots to grab, but I think it sucked for other players.

As one of those other players, yes it did suck. particularly because I have to cover against one of the armies getting those odd orders. I was really looking forward to an EOG to explain it. Alas.....

Doctor Fate wrote:Which Obama is President? The one who was for gay marriage before he was against it before he was for it?

I'm aware that he's moved from supporting civil partnerships but opposing gay marriage to the current support for gay marriage. Can you point to where he supported actual gay marriage before that?

By the way, 'Obama/The Democrats do it too' is still a lame argument, whichever thread you play it in.

Archduke Russell John wrote:As one of those other players, yes it did suck. particularly because I have to cover against one of the armies getting those odd orders. I was really looking forward to an EOG to explain it. Alas.....

I wrote one, as did RJ. It was a massive let down, I was so hoping to have a good banter with Vince, and whether we'd been allies or enemies I thought it would be fun. Not sure I'd want to be in a game with him in it now. With Guapo, there are other issues I won't go into, but it goes double.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Which Obama is President? The one who was for gay marriage before he was against it before he was for it?

I'm aware that he's moved from supporting civil partnerships but opposing gay marriage to the current support for gay marriage. Can you point to where he supported actual gay marriage before that?

Here

So, he's not only a flip-flopper, but did it in the pike position with 1 1/2 twists.

By the way, 'Obama/The Democrats do it too' is still a lame argument, whichever thread you play it in.

Maybe, except when it is part and parcel of the thread. And, "Obama/The Democrats are worse" is always: 1) true; and 2) not lame.

Guapo wrote:But you shouldn't be so shocked at Steve's utter faith in Romney. He's not alone.

Weak, even by your standards.

Doctor Fate wrote:One thing I know for sure: Romney won't recruit Diplomacy players to form a team and then abandon them by declaring a game hopeless, sticking his teammate with the spot, who will then turn in a tied-for-board-top performance.

As for the rest of this, I could argue with you, but it's a bit like arguing with bricks. You guys "know" everything and can't wait for the other 99.5% of us rubes to catch up.

Ha!

Steve, oh, Steve. Still bitter because I quit RG? Please. You benefited from it, and that was specifically part of the reason I left. The main reason, however, was because of the disgraceful management and subjective, biased rulings. As you can see from the recidivism rate, I wasn't alone.

I wonder if that's why Russ made a bet he had no intention of paying up on.

I know everything? Apparently not. I can't see any relevant difference between Obomney and Rombama. I've asked for some help, and non of you Romneypublicans seem to be able to. But, again, I'm not alone. Take a look outside. How many Romney signs do you see on lawns. I am proud to say that I've NEVER seen one in Arizona. How's that for support?

Face it. Because you decided to give up on your principles, you're going to have a candidate that is going to get destroyed in November.

danivon wrote:By the way, 'Obama/The Democrats do it too' is still a lame argument, whichever thread you play it in.

Yes and no. While I see your point, the fact that both major candidates are flip-floppers helps incumbency. That said, Obama's flip-flopping is neutralized by Romney's.

danivon wrote:If the libertarians who play diplomacy are any guide to how they see society, I want no part of it. Luckily, it'll never fly.

Ah, so now we're getting to your neurosis. Perhaps you should look at facts, rather than declaring me or somebody else a living embodiment of an ideology. This is the silliest, non-intellectual (sometimes you at least try) argument you've ever made.