RE: And what I’m saying is that to my POV the difference isn’t a mere 35 MPH, it’s 2 MPH when you’re talking about bullet-trains [~185 MPH] over a 50 Mile stretch — so little difference compared to everything that for practical end-user usage there’s little point in distinguishing it.
Again, a corporate tax cut from 35% to 25% is HUGE, so is the elimination of a death tax. So is the willingness to sign a repeal of Obamacare.
From my POV it isn’t a small difference. It is a REVERSAL of the train’s direction.
RE: You’re “assuming things not in evidence” to use the legal phrase, the scenario was only whether an Obama/Romney election-win would have altered things — I said nothing about Akin/Murdock/West winning as well. (Granted I do think that they’d be against the gun-control if they had, West especially, but that’s not what we’re talking about.)
I believe it is a valid assumption. The tide of country went with the President and his party. A Romney victory would have carried the republican party with him. It has been like this in most cases. There is seldom a case where the president wins and his party loses. Most people vote along party lines.
RE: Not really, it’s like comparing Mao and Stalin mass murderers
Now you’re really stretching it.
One wants to cut taxes, the other one wants to raise them. No comparison whatsoever.
>> RE: Not really, it’s like comparing Mao and Stalin mass murderers
>
> Now you’re really stretching it.
Of course — because you will not hear when it is plainly stated I have to use hyperbola. Notice that you did not really refute the comparison, only said that I’m “stretching it” (which I admit), this means that there *is* something there to be stretched: that is, the comparison is not utterly invalid.
> Again, a corporate tax cut from 35% to 25% is HUGE, so is the elimination of a death tax.
Looking back at the Abortion issue, you were perfectly willing to endorse Romney, even though he is against your view on abortion [which you said carries on even into rape]... and why? because of a willingness to cut the tax rate. So then, how much is a human life worth to you in terms of tax-rate percentage points?
My point is that you are validating my observation: there is [apparently] nothing where you would say “this is unacceptable” and you would always vote for “the lesser of two evils.” — In such a system there is never any need to field anyone good, and indeed you can set whatever policy you want so long as the two presented have very similar stances.