lol Ron Paul. Talk about driving our nation off a cliff.

As opposed to what is going on now? I actually would have preferred Gary Johnson over Paul, but NO ONE could be as bad as Romney/Barrack.

IMO our nation obviously cannot survive in its current state, so I think tanking a few branches of government might not be so bad.

We only have 3 branches.

I can't foresee the GOP running an actually decent candidate for a few more elections.

Decent in the sense that he'd make a good politician, or decent in the sense that he can make enough people think he'd make a good politician?

[quote]Decent in the sense that he'd make a good politician, or decent in the sense that he can make enough people think he'd make a good politician?[/quote] Thats the real issue at hand isn't it? Obama's success has more to do with his ability to win votes than his ability as an effective politician, and this last election proved more than any before it that much of the general public care more about social issues than the actual problems the US is facing. Considering how close the popular vote was (compared to what was expected) I think it's a reasonable bet that if Republicans weren't so rigid on the social issues we'd be talking about pres Romney right now.

Romney would be a much worse president, fiscally.

How do you figure?

He'd be much more likely to cut funding to important public services.

To my knowledge, Romney never proposed a cut to an important public service. He would definitely aim to reduce spending, but that is geared towards the fact that the government currently (and classically under democratic admin) wastes a lot of money on either poorly regulated or redundant public assistance programs. Fiscal strength was basically the one thing Romney really had going for him. His international plan, as well as his stance on the hot social issues, were the thing that hurt him the most.