« Walk around Manhattan (with visit to AMNH) | Main | Why Bloomberg endorses Obama »

November 06, 2012


Pretty weak arguments, HS.

The SCOTUS argument fell flat on its face with the Roberts Obamacare decision. If even "conservative" justices vote liberal, who cares about the appointees?

Obama's foreign and national security policy is IDENTICAL to that of Bush and there's no reason to think Romney's will be different.

I am skeptical that Romney will curtail immigration and control the border, but it is certain that Obama will not.

Rebellion University had a better argument:

"Vote for Mitt. He is a decent guy even if he is a left leaning big government statist. At least his private life is very much in order and he lives by the same rules the rest of us do. Obama has been living at our expense since he was a child and sneering at the hand that feeds him even as he took the bread. Mitt isn’t perfect. He isn’t conservative. He can’t wipe away a trillion in debt, let alone 16 trillion. It isn’t even mathematically possible for him to keep the deficit from being several hundred billion every year. But at least he won’t keep Eric holder and Sebelius on the payroll and Ann Romney will make a much superior first lady than the Wookie."

HS: do you think it would be better for Staten Islanders to become part of New Jersey? I'm quite serious about this question.

I live in NYC and SI has always been the butt of jokes. The contempt for SI is nasty. Now look. SI has been dissed and ignored during this catastrophe. What if they seceded from NYC and joined NJ?

Is this legally possible?

If that isn't possible, could they just secede from NYC and become their own city? Would that hurt or help the residents of SI?

I voted already. I voted for the Man from Earth, not the Man from Kolub.

Done and done.

Hopefully, Mitt Romney will be the 45th president.

God save the Republic.

I agree with your reasoning. Given the limitations of the federal budget and divided Congress, I don't think there will be too much difference between the kind of presidency the two candidates would conduct in terms of the usual economic and foreign policy issues.

The differences will be most apparent in things like the Holder Justice Department, Supreme Court nominations, amnesty and citizenship paths for illegals, and using Obamacare to direct Cadillac health services for Democratic-leaning demographic groups with premiums paid by Republican ones.

I voted for Obama because Romney is like the Martin Sheen character in "The Dead Zone." he wants to do WWIII on behalf of his BFF Bibi N.

Also, if the supreme court outlaws talking aboutHBD it will make it that more cool. I'd be psyched to go to jail for talking about HBD! I'd be one of the first -- I'd line right up and hold up a sign in front of the Supreme Court:

What if there are average racial differences in intelligence and conscientiousness? Shouldn't we be allowed to do this research?

Done, but I voted for Gary Johnson.

Sigma, why don't you put up a reader poll, it could be interesting.

Also, Obama will win tonight. Start getting over it now. You knew Romney would revert to form and regress to the Republican mean. Ohio is an almost certain loss at this point. If Virginia gets called for the president at 7pm EST tonight, it'll be over quick and the champagne corks will be popping at the local Democratic watch parties.

Losing sucks, to be sure. But it's just one election. There's another in two years!

The fact you support Romney shows that having high general intelligence is no guarantee of acting intelligently.

I vote swapped with some guy in San Fransisco. 1 Ohio vote for Romney.

I'm voting for Gary Johnson. My state is voting for Mitt Romney. Barack Obama will win the election with 300 electors.

I hope Barack Obama wins. Romney will be ineffective, and will make the Republicans look bad.

I voted for Romney this morning. You are right, foreign policy is a wash. For me, the issue was economics. I don't think that Romney will result in much less spending, but our only real hope for reducing our deficit is economic growth. Obama will continue to hamstring our economy with more regulations, more mandates and green bullshit. Romney is far more likely to improve the business climate and get our economy going again.

"[Obama] also means four more years of anti-American foreign policy and a radical pro-immigration policy that will end the America we know."

You hurt your credibility when you cite the two issues where there is NO substantive difference between Obama and Romney. If anything Obama will probably be marginally tougher on immigration than Romney. Romney's strength is that he will bring back social conservatism to the White House, and he will do a better job getting Wall Street and big business to pump money back into the US economy. There is no serious candidate in either party willing to buck the inside-the-beltway "Invade the World, Invite the World" consensus. Clearly HS needs to read Sailer more carefully.

"do you think it would be better for Staten Islanders to become part of New Jersey?"

Yes. You're right. If I lived on SI I would be sick of the contempt and condescension from Manhattanites too.

I'm not sure if those were supposed to be serious arguments or not. The SC take away our rights to talk about HBD? Please. The 1st Amendment has no chance of being altered. Suppression of HBD talk is entirely through conventional wisdom and mainstream thinking. The SC isn't going to do anything.

I'm not sure how bombing the shit out of people with drones is anti-American. That is 100% American.

As for illegal immigrants, there is no way Romney would do anything to damp down on that problem to any appreciable extent. The problem with Romney is that I'm not sure exactly what he WOULD do. I kind of wanted to vote R, but I'm not going to do it just because I'm not a big fan of Obama.

The best reason to vote is for your descendants, however remote they may be. Whatever the outcome, let them read in the history books that people showed up to say "No" to four more years of this clown.

Voted for Romney, early. But I'm in Texas. At best I contributed to the popular vote majority for Romney which will be one more black mark staining Obama's second term.


Why the hell would you vote for the Affirmative Action president a second term?

The Court cannot outlaw the discussion of HBD or anything else. You are getting paranoid.

"four more years of liberal Supreme Court Justices"

Potentially 20-30 years actually.

Reading your article I noticed you indicated that Obama was soft on immigration policy. This is true but what makes Romney any better on this policy? Wouldn't Romney want businesses have a steady supply of cheap labour?

C'mon Half Sigma, better to always vote Republican than waste your vote on a third party candidate.

Wendy Long is also a lawyer and should be encouraged for her support of conservative values.

Usually 80-90% of lawyers are pro-government wealth transference vultures. Ex. Obamas, Woodrow Wilson, Kerry, Clintons, and Elizabeth Warren.

I think the comments sum it up nicely. The clear choice is Obama, and he has my vote.

Very heavy turnout at my rich suburb voting place. And I went at 11 when it should have been slack.

Even if Obama wins the EV I'd love to see him lose the popular vote by a percent or two.

He is such a crybaby he wont be able to accomplish anything unless he can claim to be a transformational figure.

Here's where I think Mitt could make a difference:

1) He'd appoint Supreme Court justices that were much better than Obama's. I don't care about abortion, and I don't think the SupCt would outlaw HBD discussion. What they will do is allow affirmative action to really be ramped up. They'll come up with some really screwed up way of allowing it, so basically companies can openly discriminate, and actually have to openly discriminate. Imagine a SupCt like the 9th Circuit, but with no appeal possible.

2) Less regulation. Well, at least not that much more regulation compared to Obama.

3) The green energy bullshit. I know, it's not that big a percent, but it's really messed up that these connected idiots can get huge government payouts and then take their companies bankrupt without accomplishing much of anything.

4) No soak the rich you didn't build that mentality.

Obama's opinion towards free speech should be clear from his close association with Cass Sunstein. He also scoffed at the idea that political correctness was a problem (or even existed) during his time at HLS.

Maybe he wouldn't be able to get concrete legislation passed even during a second term, but it's certain that he'd love to implement Euro-style protections against any speech he deemed "hateful" (aka contrary to the liberal worldview).

Where are the rational choice theorists? No individual vote will make a difference. Others have already critiqued the far-fetched claims in the OP. On foreign policy especially, there are no substantive disagreements between Romney and Obama. The main difference is that we have a pretty good understanding of Obama's approach, but we're less clear one what policies Romney will pursue.

One of the few redeeming points about Bush in 2000 is that in a debate he explicitly denounced "nation-building," only to later undertake one of the biggest social engineering projects of all time. I'm less likely to believe anything Romney says.

As for outlawing discussion of HBD, that's sheer fantasy given the effectiveness of reigning social mores.

In terms of the deficit, Romney would probably widen it by pushing through dumb tax cuts for the rich.

To "outlaw josey wales":

Forget about illegal immigrants.
At least they are coming to do some work (which Americans would definitely do, if the salary were right.)

According to Wikipedia, total number of
_LEGAL_IMMIGRANTS_ settling in USA per year
was 1,043,000 in 2010, and
"Family reunification" accounts for approximately two-thirds of legal immigration to the US every year.

Has the majority of citizens of the USA chosen, whom to invite for _this_ setteling in the USA ?
I do not think so.

I am surprised at how much you all underestimate Romney and his ability to get the job done. He is as much the real deal as Obama is just a puppet and clueless empty suit. Obama never succeeded at any quantifiable endeavor. He was voted into everything because he was flavor of the month.

Romney is a real success. It is not just image.

I am about to vote for Romney in an hour or so, though I am voting for Democrats for most of the local offices. Obama is guaranteed to grant illegals amnesty if he has nothing to lose in a second term. One more amnesty and we will be indefinitely incapable of enforcing ANY immigration laws. Everyone claiming they won't vote for Romney should take that into consideration.

"Potentially 20-30 years actually."

Even more if anti-aging therapies like rapamycin (http://www.impactaging.com/papers/v4/n8/full/100479.html ), buckyballs (http://www.longecity.org/forum/forum/415-c60health/ ) and others prove effective and start being rolled out soon.

Maybe that's a big if, but it could happen.

For the people who wonder about the possibility of outlawing HBD disussions:

Justice Kagan (pre-SC) wrote to Harvard Professor Derrick Bell, advocating for Critical Race Theory. Which is the legal idea that there exists a due process right to racial healing, and grants special preferred status to the idea that “the racism of whites rather than the deficiencies of blacks causes [their] lowly position in this society.”


Please vote for Romney to preserve free speech and keep a lid on immigration.

In Canada we have hate speech laws so the HBD folks up here are all thought criminals.

Arch-conservative Col. Robert McCormick was one of the great heroes of First Amendment history.


Florida Resident,

Oh I agree with you there. The entire US immigration system is a shambles and a travesty. As Sailer rightly points out, today the US is not the vast and empty land it was back in the Ellis Island days. We don't need the poor and tired masses, I think we got enough of them.

Democrats don't believe in anything Republicans believe in.

1)Dems don't believe in rational choice theory.

2)Dems don't believe voting does not matter.

3) Dems don't believe that Repubs and Democrats are the same.

They don't believe there are similarities between the two parties.

The result? Dems control the government.

What matters is doing whatever you can to wrest control of the government away from Democrats.

Obama could follow in the footsteps of Reagan and pass the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 2012 (or 2013). Wait, what?

Actually this was a pretty lame campaign. Neither candidate really articulated a reason for their (re)-election.

I'm the lonesome guy who voted romney in my family. My dad voted for Bush II in both election, and it has weighted on his decision for voting republican ever since. I hope Mitt will get a chance to show that he is a moderate who governs from the center, but odds are really not in his favor. I don't care much for the social battles of the right, but I also don't want our government pillaged from within so it can hand out entitlements to whoever shouts the loudest, what we need we will not get this election.

We *know* how Obama will govern, but we can only guess as to how Romney will. And how will he? He has a bright intellect, a penchant for tackling problems responsibly, and a stable temperemant.

Could he eff it up worse the W or Zero? Yes, but not likely, and that is all we have to go on.

One thing I think ROmney will do is look atthe immigration numbers and realize there's no way to tackle the problems of high unemployment, high budget deficits, and a shrinking middle class while allowing illegal immigrants to remain and while legal immigration is insanely high.

The fact that so many HBDers here are voting against Romney shows how silly and inane many HBD followers have become.

Neither Romney nor Obama will stop mass immigration: what establishment Republicans want though that Dems don't is that they want to switch the source from Mexico to Asia. That's better than the current system, and Asians are the only non-white group with a chance of voting Republican. Bush 41 won a majority of them in 1988, and the initial polls show that they are tied in their support between the two major candidates within the margin of error. If the GOP will drop it's stupid opposition to abortion and gay marriage, they'll easily swing to the GOP once they get sick (as many of them are already) of subsidizing the bad behavior of blacks and hispanics.

Romney will win.

See youse later when I either gloat or eat crow.

I don't give a bowl of warm piss between the two of them. I voted Gary Johnson from a swing state. I hope it would have made a difference for one of them.

NZ blogger view:

"Obama v Romney

As I said I don’t think Obama has been a terrible President. For someone with just two years in the Senate (before near full-time campaigning) he has performed as about the level you’d expect. He’s made some good calls in quite a few areas. He’s failed to show leadership in quite a few also.

However his fiscal policy is dangerous and wrong. It is vital the US gets onto a path out of deficit. The deficit is massive. To break things down the US spends $121,000 a second. Of that $121,000 it borrows $52,000. This is so far living beyond the means, it is not funny.

Romney is a flip-flopper, and has said some silly things. but he does have a good proven record on financial management – both in government and the private sector. For that reason I would vote Romney. I seriously worry about the US economy with another four years of massive and growing deficits."


@ HS,

Regarding the Supreme Court appointments, I think your post on Ginsburg's dissent in Ricci encapsulates why people should vote for Romney:

"It seems clear to me that Ginsburg doesn’t agree with the idea of race neutrality. She believes that it’s always desirable to discriminate against whites, and presumably Asians as well, in order to benefit blacks and presumably Hispanics. But she dare not say this directly in her opinion, because such a direct statement of what the left really wants is unpopular with the majority of Americans, and it would also make her dissent irrelevant because it would be such an obvious misstatement of the current law, a misstatement of both the text of the statutes and judicial opinions interpreting the statutes. Her actual dissent is a lot more pernicious, because it undermines the holding of the majority by repeating and thus bolstering the standard liberal half-truths and lies."


As that liberal writer noted the communist anti-American rabble were kept in check for most of the USA's history. What happened in the 1960's that was so different? The leftists at the Frankfurt school recognized that to succeed they needed elite help. Then unlike ever before cultural Marxists stopped targeting workers and instead directed their efforts to elite campuses. Beyond the normal crap what really won over the elites was the sexual revolution. No longer would elite men and white women be relegated to one partner or some beta dweeb. You see this in Mad Men where Don and Roger take new younger wives and where Peggy rejects settling down for career/studs.


Romney really isn't a flip flopper.

Being the Governor of probably the most liberal state takes compromises, political maneuvering in the form of quid pro quo and tolerating some issues to gain voters.

If he was the Govener of any bible belt states or Utah, he would be an extremely conservative Christian republican on all issues.

Romney is an alpha winner, while Obama is a beta loser.

Who would you rather trade places with?

I hope the result is a landslide Romney victory, so there's no "conspiracy" or other inane excuses by liberals.

@ Lexus Liberal,

I certainly hope it is a Romney landslide too. Lawrence Auster has some interesting posts about the Democrats seeing such a potential outcome as illegitimate.

"Romney is an alpha winner, while Obama is a beta loser.

Who would you rather trade places with?"

At least Romney's wife was attractive when he married her. Now she is old and all, of course. However, Michelle, ugh, can you imagine having to get into bed with that? No status or reward is worth that.

[HS: One of Obama's most admirable traits is that he genuinely appears to be a family man and loyal to his wife. Unlike Clinton.]

If you voted Gary Johnson you voted Obama. Lets get real.

As far as illegals go, Romney laid down a marker for an increase in take-home pay and real wages. The only way to do this (and he knows it) is to restrict the labor supply. That's it. He's Mr. Economy-Fixit. That's it. Its his only shot to get re-elected. If anything he'll deport MORE illegals while making mealy-mouthed sentiments about hardworking immigrants to make Sandra Fluke and the other SWPL sluts and the media (but I repeat myself) happy.

HS, I think you are dead on in your First Amendment critique. For most of my life the left has been stalwart in defense of the first amendment, but that has faded as they've gotten power, and it's obvious that free expression was only a temporary tool to them.

Columnist Joe Klein was on the Chris Matthews show about 2 years ago advocating that Glen Beck and Sarah Palin be charged with Sedition. Sedition! And this from a liberal journalist!

Years ago I recall reading a quote from lefty writer Susan Sontag, when asked why she didn't speak out for free speech in the Soviet Union replied, "Free Speech? They already have socialism."

[HS: One of Obama's most admirable traits is that he genuinely appears to be a family man and loyal to his wife. Unlike Clinton.]

Yeah, I agree, but so is Romney and Romney's union produced five good looking productive white guys, while Barack's produced two more homely parasite NAM chicks. Anyway the question is who you would want to trade places with. Well 1/2 ∑ ? Would you really rather have had Romney's life or Barack's.

Sorry about the wisecrack supra, was just frustrated by the inanity of romney's campaign.
I don't even like democrats, but the top better get it together.

The comments to this entry are closed.