Maybe this has been discussed and maybe this belongs in the election forum. If so, sorry.
It occurs to me that when Romney proposed an extra $2 trillion to the military that is above their budget request he may have been talking in code. Was he really saying that he was prepared to go to war in Iran? Was he sending a message to the Zionists and its supporters? We saw how he sucked up to Netanayhu.
I never heard it discussed but why else would he talk of fiscal conservatism and cutting budgets while making such a proposal?
None of Romney’s math added up, so it’s pure, wild speculation that in this instance he was talking in “code”. When pressed on the issue, his position on Iran was about 99% in agreement with Obama.
The vultures are circling the carcass. The main battlestar is on an approach vector. The Crips are robbing the liquor store; I repeat, the Crips are robbing the liquor store.
Advocating large increases in military spending with no clear reason or objective is pretty boiler-plate for GOP candidates. I don’t think you need to appeal to any “codes” to explain Romney parroting the same.
I have no evidence, but for all of his talk about the government not creating jobs, I suspect that this was code for his stimulus. Military funding doesn’t just employ the military complex, but it employs factories and researchers including myself. I’m not doing anything close to military armament research, but believe it or not, the military is very interested in many things that peaceful civilians want.
In other words, when Romney stated that the government doesn’t create jobs, I don’t think he believed it himself. I don’t think most economists do either.
I’m not a conspiracy theorist and I’m not talking about any conspiracy. I found Romney’s position very curious.
I guess many of you were on vacation when Romney made his trip to Israel. I guess you were on vacation when there was all of the discussion of Israel making a preemptive strike on Iran before the election. Both parties were scared of that.
Why $2 trillion? Why not just say, “. . . and I will keep the military fully funded”? $2 trillion is a lot of money when we can’t afford the wars we are already fighting.
I think he was telling the Sheldon Adelson’s and the other Zionists that if Israel starts a war with Iran, if I am President, we are all in.
Romney never said $2T. That was inferred by Obama based on his statement that he wanted to put a floor on military spending at 4% of GDP, and later verified by some fact-check sites. There are lots of reasons why he might want to increase military spending.
What would “fully funded” mean? It could mean anything.
He’s had plenty of fundraisers and meetings with pro-Israeli hawks. If Romney wanted to tell Andelson he would follow Israel into a war, I don’t see why he wouldn’t just tell him using words. There’s no reason for super-secret codes.
You are misunderstanding. He wasn’t going to call up every single person that has the single issue of what a candidate’s position on Israel is. I know some people like that.
Politically, there was no way he or Obama wanted to address the direct question of what their policy would be if Israel made a preemptive strike. Therefore, I’m suggesting that he stated his position by talking in code.
The interesting and disturbing thing about the whole campaign was the issues that weren’t addressed by either side. Climate change, Israel/Iran, Syria, the Arab Spring, China’s effort to assert itself in Southeast Asia, North Korea, minimal discussion of immigration, the European financial crisis and a host of other things. This was a sound bite campaign with very little substance.
How could random voters interpret the code if I can’t? And if Bush II and McCain also made increasing military spending parts of their campaign, were they also sending the same code? If not, how did people who were supposed to receive the code know Romney was sending them a code, and not just repeating the same position the GOP has had since 2000.
Really? I’d say almost all those things were addressed pretty frequently.
Climate Change got short-shift, and the European financial crisis isn’t really something the President has a lot of traction over, but the rest was pretty extensively discussed.