This conversation is closed.

Obama vs Romney

Who would you vote for?
Obama?
Romney?

Why?

Please, expose your posture and convince me and the rest of our colleagues.

  • Oct 2 2012: Barack Obama has destroyed civil liberties and hasn't done much of anything he promised. Obama didn't prosecute the scumbags at Goldman,but is prosecuting whistleblowers, more so than any other president in the past. Obama didn't end Guantonamo, is still drone stroking in the middle east, has attempted to pull rulings on detention out of the judicial branch and into the executive. So its safe to say I could never vote for Barack Obama if I wanted to sleep at night.

    Now, lets take a look at Romney. Comes from privilege, still believes in trickle down economics, opposes marriage for gays, wishes to deregulate the financial sector, seems to believe in manifest destiny, supports massive defense spending, etc...

    So now we have America pigeonholed by the two party system, which isn't really two parties, its two sects of the same party. This is the same old, same old, conservatives playing demagogue to the religious right and angry upper middle class citizens, who think because they did fine in the free market everyone should and therefore shouldn't have to help anyone who hasn't been as fortunate as them. Democrats play demagogue to the college student progressives and pseudo intellectuals by pretending to stop coroporate corruption and promote civil liberties, yet Obama had more funding from wall street than Mccain did in 2008, while he simultaneously attempts to proliferate powers of the "patriot" act.

    So who do I vote for? I wish there was a candidate worthy of a vote, I like Ron Paul but i hate his economic policies as he seems to be an Ayn Rand looney.

    The problem here in America is that the candidates are selected by the people, who by the vast majority, get their information from news sources who are controlled by major corporations who, like everyone, have interests they wish to see realized. The entire framework for how politics works in the US needs to be examined, I don't know about other voters, but a lot of my generation is disillusioned.
    • thumb
      Oct 4 2012: When was it every ever differ? Where is it any better?
      • Oct 4 2012: I think by and large its worse in other countries and other places past as well as present. Is that a reason for me to be grateful? Was it ever different in the United States, my answer, a resounding no. However, at least in the italian political system you have a large array of parties, they may end up pooling their base in order to win a national election, but at least certain ideologies are still represented. America has two parties, both seem to support a foreign policy of American Imperialism, both seem to support the destruction of our civil liberties, both grow government, both increase national debt, when is the media going to allow another candidate a shot at introducing a new ideology? Or is the problem deeper in the sense that presidents can't do anything because of a mix between limited executive powers, as you suggest in your comment below, or because they have made and kept promises? Want a glimpse at the future occupant of the white house? securities and investments donations is a good predictor.
        http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/index.php
    • Oct 4 2012: Ron Paul is not an Ayn Rand loony. Ayn Rand loonies are war-mongers... just like mainstream American politicians. As for his economics, I'd ask you if you have studied the Austrian Business Cycle Theory. In particular, its reasoning, and its past predictions of what came to be current affairs. Contrast with Krugman's success. How often have you heard Ron Paul reference Ayn Rand, and how often have you heard him offer cogent arguments instead? He cannot teach you an entire field of economics in brief TV interviews and debates, but no one can do that. You'll have to study economics (or whatever) on your own.

      By the way, Ayn Rand hated libertarians.
      • Oct 4 2012: John, notice I said I disliked Ron Pauls economic policies. If i were an advocate of unchecked capitalism then sure id be all about Ron Paul. Ive never heard Ron Paul reference Ayn Rand, that doesn't mean anything. He has offered very intelligent and interesting arguments especially in regards to ending the Federal Reserve, I just believe that you will see corporate tyranny under Ron Paul. He makes a great argument about returning to the gold standard. Theres a lot I like about him but i'm sorry when someone asks you about a hypothetical where an individual is going to die because they don't have health insurance and his answer is, charities will take care of him, thats just crude. I love Ron Paul on civil liberties and foreign policy just not economics. Your right by the way, ill concede i kind of flagrantly used Ayn Rand as a way to make an analogy to extreme capitalism, but is her economic philosophy of extreme selfishness not what Ron Paul stands for?
        • Oct 4 2012: Many kids I know study medicine or psychology because they care about people. Not all, of course. Many doctors care deeply about the plight of their patients.

          I don't want to give away personal details for various reasons, but I have stayed in a few countries, some without universal healthcare. I don't suppose that relating my own experiences there would help convince you. In short, I'll say that voluntarism is very common there. I have retired relatives (in one such country) who mobilize drugs that are close to their expiry date to patients who need it immediately. These people are not doctors themselves, but they are in close contact with doctors who volunteer some of their time for the poor. The mobilizers talk to pharmacies and pharmaceutical companies, to get these drugs. These relatives also help out in other (non-medical) ways too. I have also come across hospitals that offer free surgery for the poor. I have friends who have well-paying jobs, but still volunteer at hospitals (as something below nurses). I have also come across doctors who charged very high rates to those who earned well. One of them made it clear why: he was treating poor people for free. So I did not mind paying him double what other doctors charged.

          Libertarians aren't against helping the poor. They just think that government is an awful place to do it. Why? Because whether you want to or not, you're forced to pay for it. That's the trouble with regulations: you obey or you get jailed. And because government officials are never close to the problem. They sit in their comfy chairs and make regulations that usually do more harm than good. Unless they are in the pockets of Big Business, of course, which is the situation now in most countries. Libertarians (miniarchists or anarchists) don't want any agency to have this kind of power to ruin their lives.

          Ayn Rand did extol selfishness, and it was often weird. But to her credit, she was open to the idea of individuals giving to charity too.
        • Oct 4 2012: And these are Ron Paul's words, in case you haven't seen them: http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/health-care/

          My objective here is not to convince you to vote for Ron Paul. I only aim to prevent misunderstandings of libertarian ideas.
  • thumb

    R H

    • +2
    Sep 25 2012: I don't know much more about economics or the Constitution/Bill of Rights than any average American. I can't debate the fine points of theory and law. All I can do is look at results. How anyone can consider a Republican candidate is beyond me in this day and age. The greatest economic expansion (in recent times) was under democrats (Bill Clinton's) watch. The two republican Bush's method of econ expansion was foreign war. 9/11 happened under republican (W's) watch - and they couldn't get the guy that they said did it in 7 years. Dems (Obama) found him in less than 3. Republicans (W), as 'leader of the free world' left us basically bankrupt, with crumbling infrastructure, desparate social services, increased prison population, impotent education reform, union busting, and an attitude and atmosphere of hate and anger. Now, under dems, we have a new hospital practically on every corner, roads being rebuilt, stablizing international economy and markets, a focus on education, a national health care program, and a cry for unity, accountability, and self-reliance - again, in 3 years. What do we hear from the republicans? Economic policy! Union labor needs to be squelched! Can't afford social programs! Let everyone fend for themselves! The powerful will 'trickle down' their resources to the little people! Back to the basics of God and country! Well, the 'basics' I've seen are racism, crimes against women, economic exploitation, environmental rape, class warfare, one world gov't, and the politics of fear, all wrapped up with being a good Christian. I don't think Christ would agree. Repubs have failed miserably lately. They don't have a prayer.
  • Sep 23 2012: It does not matter who you vote for, ultimately it is the government that gets in power.

    Seriously, conservative ideas of less government and less welfare are good but last time we had a Republican president he did not work that way.

    They complain that half the country does not pay tax. I tell you why. They do not make enough money. Increase minimum wage, then they will have taxable income. Republicans do not want to do it.

    When Health care reform passed, they complained that the president imposed heavy tax-burden on middle class. Until now they were complaining that the middle class does not pay it's fair share of taxes. They should have been happy with taxation in form of health care reform.
  • thumb
    Oct 2 2012: None of the two.

    Why? well, the way i see it, is very much like me asking you: "who do you want me to give $10,000 (that oh by the way, includes your generous contributions) ? my sister?, or my grandmother?" In both cases you are completely left out of the equation and have no control whatsoever on what your contribution will be used for.

    I know i am exaggerating... but that is my take on the matter. I usually put more in taxes that i get in services... and i've been doing that for decades. I have never seen any real option to affect the way my tax dollars are spent.
  • thumb
    Oct 2 2012: Part of the problem with government, as I see it, is that "we the people" have stopped participating in the effort of "forming a more prefect union."
    Presidents are incorrectly blamed for the failures of government, but presidents have very little executive authority. Who we elect to serve in Congress (and we continue to elect many of the same people) is as important is who we elect for president. We cannot be expecting a president to lead without the consent of the Congress. Yet this is the gridlock WE have created in Washington for decades.
    America is a nation of individual states and the rights of the states are many, and in fact, except for the rights that are specifically granted to the federal government by the Constitution, states retain all other rights to govern citizens.
    America is also a very divided country; red states and blue states, farming states and large urban cities, populated states and less populated states. One size does not fit all, and the federal government cannot be expected to implement laws and programs that are the answer to everyones problems. State and local government must fill this role. But currently the federal government uses tax revenues as leverage over states to conform to "national standards." This is how the federal government has co opted the right of the states.We must recognized this and start to reverse this trend.
    Who will you elect as the governor of your state?

    Regarding the election of the president this year, I will give serious consideration to whom the candidates would nominate to the Supreme Court?
  • Sep 23 2012: I would write in Ron Paul.
    Romney, Obama and most of the rest are all Manchurian Candidates.
    Most of American citizens are Manchurian Citizens.
    Why would I, or you for that matter, vote for a Manchurian Candidate?
  • Sep 23 2012: Personally I find .. and have noticed of the USA, it seems nice as next leader to hire as Leader a team what just focusses as Creative Experts what and whom know the Nation's problems' and now is special they react to not in the name of the Government but for the Nation's people and theirs. Their aim is to be able to come up with surpricing brilliant (naturally realistic) suggestions.
    For instance :
    Schools to be renovated/Renovations
    Prisons a hell/suggestions to solve the prison problem
    Foreign countries hate America or are dangerous/Suggestions how to undone these problems.

    Etc.
    What should be long extended list to make as many as nice, well at best.
    Statistics react with the country's department 's potentials.
    Give them time what de potential for the country become 'Possible' ..


    A presentation starting by explaining what they have been able theoreticly let make sense.

    High Culture opportunities for all involved.

    Validated siticens in need for a healthy nutritional absorbation life style -in any case here is being typed after smoothies .. Rich Soups ..variety of meals a diet, etc, to make possible. /Sugesstion: Raise tax on alcohol slightly, preserve it for the cost of buying nutrition, and centralizing or mailing diet.

    Answer: Where the many best solutions of solvers are solved, at ease, slow dynamic documentaries on laptop what (with subtitles) what pauzable, ',scriptioning: 'the worktitles-
    Result: Global, Own-Continent+The Nation = Who're classes :
    Global :

    brainstorms:
    Nations, 'How by what to do to their leaders what make them so to speak 'the leaders happy family men and women.
    Just like their siticens should be able to be happy with their new situations.

    Care = What you must eradicate at best (fysical and mental harm)
    of - agressive or Angry/Difference


    Own Continent :
    who're capital,

    I am of opinion USA's complexity is about health, wealth, care and development, and do prestigeous business and honnest go
  • Sep 22 2012: On this issue I will choose to Vote for Barack Obama. I just don't like the direction that Mitt Romney would try to put us in as president. Romney has never known what it feels like to be middle class since he was born with a silver spoon. I don't like his views on abortion and same sex marriage. I think abortion should be made legal because I believe that the government should have no right to tell a woman what to do with her body. I also believe same sex marriage should be legal because I believe that it would be unconstitutional if it were made illegal, it is against Civil Rights.
  • thumb
    Sep 22 2012: I'd vote Obama on this one. I think the main goal of the republicans has been to get Obama out of office, and haven't put too much thought into what they're going to try and accomplish if they win the election. Romney wants to keep healthcare the same as it is now(BAD) while Obama wants to make healthcare social, which i agree with on the most part, because last time i checked no one is immune to injury so instead of paying $1000 a month on health insurance, we'll pay tax on healthcare(less than $1000 a month). Social healthcare has its flaws but i think its benefits justify them.
  • thumb
    Sep 22 2012: I contend that the most, read almost all, citizens of the U.S., do not understand the Constitution and the Bill of Rights which is why there is so much useless verbiage on this subject.
  • thumb
    Sep 21 2012: I am reluctant to expose my posture, but I will vote for Romney because he is a Conservative who will make an effort to reduce the excessively high ratio of government-to-private sector employees in the U.S. Obama will continue to promote growth of government. Romney will make an effort to reduce the number of people on some form of taxpayer funded entitlement or aid programs. Obama will continue to add to the number of beneficiaries. Romney will make an effort to convince the world that assaulting American citizens is always going to have a swift, severe reaction. Obama will continue to apologize for whatever we Americans did to upset our aggressors. Romney will apply his impressive experience in fashioning profit-making businesses. Obama has no experience in watching the bottom line. Romney will make an effort to curb excessive labor union power. Obama will continue his friendship with labor unions. Romney will do things quite differently than Obama does. Obama will continue leading America on the same path that got us where we are today. Obama was elected on his promise to change conditions in America and has failed to deliver anything but Obamacare and other such upsizing of government control. People voted for Obama in 2008 because they wanted Change. I am voting for Romney in 2012 for the exact same reason.
    • thumb
      Sep 21 2012: I understand your perspective, on most of these issues. You are certainly accurate that Obama will continue to support public labor unions, and we are both against these things, they are public servants, and they shouldn't have better jobs than people in the private sector. However, the number of federal employees under Barack Obama, has gone down. Nowhere near enough, but under Bush, they rose.

      On government benefits, I understand your perspective, but I disagree, simply because no human being would rather have people on benefits than paying taxes, this, in my opinion, is where the traditional republican perspective goes a bit awry. I think you assume the democrats are evil, when in reality, they are stupid, and they actually believe this nonsense that they can help people... They aren't actually hoping to put more people on these programs, though I agree it seems like that sometimes. Also, to be fair, there's crazy people in both parties, I'm sure some democrats really are that evil.

      "Romney will make an effort to convince the world that assaulting American citizens is always going to have a swift, severe reaction. Obama will continue to apologize for whatever we Americans did to upset our aggressors" How can you say that after George Bush was quoted while president, as saying "I'm not really worried about Bin Laden", and Obama killed him... Obama isn't apologizing for anything he doubled down on Afghanistan, and sent people into two new mini wars... building a third.

      The idea that he is weak, is greatly exaggerated. I wish he was a turn the other cheek kinda guy. I don't like wars of revenge. Also, Romney has never run a business. A business produces a product, and then sell it to consumers. He has never done that. Just something to think about.

      It's a bit embarrassing for me to root for a democrat who put us 5 trillion more dollars in debt though. So it doesn't effect my opinion of you either way.
      • thumb
        Sep 21 2012: 1). Your assertion regarding number of federal employees under Barak Hussein is inaccurate. The Washington Times quote: "The era of big government has returned with a vengeance, in the form of the largest federal work force in modern history. The Obama administration says the government will grow to 2.15 million employees this year, topping 2 million for the first time since President Clinton declared that “the era of big government is over” . . . Most of the increases are on the civilian side, which will grow by 153,000 workers, to 1.43 million people, in fiscal 2010. The expansion could provide more ammunition to those arguing that the government is trying to do too much under President Obama."2). Your insistence upon basing the definition of "business" on whether the enterprise in question produces a physical product is unreasonable in that it denies the existence of the entire service industry.3). Your statement that "no human being would rather have people on benefits than paying taxes" is at variance with Obama's campaign to get more people on the rolls of "free" meal programs, food stamps, etc. Note that this is part of item 1 above. Someone whose paycheck comes from the coffers filled by tax payer dollars cannot "pay taxes" using that money. Even though the accounting maneuver of "withholding taxes" from their check is performed, the net effect on the treasury is a reduction in funds. Government employees do not add money to the IRS collection plate.4). Your reference to George Bush is irrelevant. I believe Romney will respond-in-kind to acts of aggression against America's people, friends, and interests. The recent killing of our embassy employees has been met with nothing but inaccurate, constantly evolving rhetoric by Barak Hussein Obama, hardly a swift, severe response-in-kind.5). As a Gary Johnson supporter you should not have been given the microphone in this debate. 6). We agree it is embarrassing to support a Democrat.Be well.
        • thumb
          Sep 21 2012: 1) Your own numbers betray you here. Moving to contract employees eliminates pensions and saves the goverment money, lots of money. Not enough to make up for the fact that the government is hugely made up of baby boomers about to retire and let their pensions go to work on our economy.

          2) Fair point about the service industry, but he wasn't in that either. Mitt Romney is practically a 1980's guy stereo type. He bought failing companies cheap, fired all the employees that the owner had personal relationships with, dropped pensions, and saved the company. It is a way to make money... but it is not building a buisiness. I like private sector pensions and unions, we may disagree on that.

          3) Again, they're stupid, not evil. They think that by providing healthy lunches, more children will get off food stamps... They may be wrong, and I may agree with you... but they don't "want more people on food stamps", as is often insisted.

          4) No it is not. Bush was the GOP's last candidate, and Romney never criticized him. Fair game.

          5) Still have an opinion on the two. I believe in civil liberties, and I know for a fact that if you carefully examine the Romney Ryan plan, you will see quite clearly, they plan to do exactly as much economic damage as Barack will. Therefore, the only difference is civil liberties.

          I think the free world is so important, I'm actually supporting a candidate that wants to live in one, rather than the lesser of two evils. I would love others to join me.
      • thumb
        Sep 21 2012: One last try on this David:1) Obama has not decreased the number of people on the payroll of the U.S. Government, he has increased the number.2) We need someone experienced at taking over a poorly managed enterprise that is hemorrhaging cash and perform life-saving measures like downsizing employees, paying down debt, balancing income with outflow, and making it a profitable, fiscally healthy concern. God Bless America!3) If Obama does not want more people dependent on the government why does he have so many plans underway to increase the number of people who depend on the government?4) Romney "never criticised" Bush so that makes him a Bush clone? That is faulty reasoning.5) This post asks for a very specific response. Your remarks about someone other than Romney or Obama disregard that request. Rather than diverting this post you might offer a revised question, "Romney-Johnson-Obama. Which would you vote for?" Good luck with that.
        • thumb
          Sep 21 2012: 1) Obama dropped 100,000 official government employees, who make 50k a year + pensions, and can't be fired, and replaced them with 150,000 10-15 dollar an hour contractors, who get no benefits, and no pension, and can be fired at will.. As a conservative, who cares about economics, you can pretend that is a bad thing... but it's not, it saved us boat loads of money. We have far less impossible to fire pensioneers now.

          2) Romney didn't do that. Really look into what Bain Capital does... What they do is say "Hey, you know who would do that job cheaper? A 16 year old Chinese boy... Fire this guy, and move." Anyone could have said that. It doesn't take business sense, it takes sympathy for evil.

          3) He see's it as an investment. He believes people are basically good, you and I believe they are evil. He thinks if you give men fish, they will live long enough for you to teach them to fish... and when they are fisherman, they will pay taxes... Again, you can disagree with the strategy, as I do... but the whole "He wants us to fail" thing is nonsense.

          4) He supported the most violent, insane, and fiscally irresponsible president in American history... It doesn't make him a clone... It makes him a sheep.

          5) The fact that anyone would vote for either of these idiots after the last 4 years, and Johnson wouldn't even be mentioned in a presidential debate. Is exactly why I must be outspoken.
      • thumb
        Sep 21 2012: George Will:

        "For those who toil in the ambit of the federal government, virtue may be its own reward, but Louis Vuitton luggage is not to be sneezed at."

        http://www.ocregister.com/articles/washington-359190-political-elementary.html
      • thumb
        Sep 22 2012: Outspoken is one thing David but to me it sesms you are being uncharacteristically recalcitrant. Words like " idiot" make you sound vituperative and your refusal to acknowledge statistical facts makes you seem unreasonable.
        • thumb
          Sep 22 2012: It's not about avoiding statistical facts Edward, it is about defining words. Government employees, are the long term, impossible to fire, pension getting, free healthcare having, 6 weeks of vacation louts destroying the country... Contractors, outside of the military, actually make about what a public servant should make. Obama reduced the number of government employees and in doing so saved us a boat load of money. Nowhere near enough to make up for the last 40 years... but, this is a conservative strategy.

          Switching from government employees to contractors, to save money, was a conservative strategy under George Bush, because it worked, unlike almost everything else the man did. Now that Obama is doing the same thing he's "growing government employees", it's double speak.

          As you and Pat both know, my generation faces almost a hundred million dollars in unfunded mandates... Neither candidate has any plan to deal with it. They are pathetic idiots, or evil psychopaths, who will make the next 30 years of my life a living hell, one or the other, objectively, take your pick.
        • thumb
          Sep 23 2012: Just so you know I'm not blowing smoke about the public sector job numbers... While spending is still going through the roof... Government payroll, contractors included... has gone down dramatically under president Obama. This is the weakest recovery in history, and we also shrank government payroll spending more than any other time in history, during a recession...

          Which is why everyone outside the US see our liberals as moderate conservatives... While our conservatives see them as evil socialists. We actually practiced austerity... but instead... we fight against fantasy world Obama. Washington Post, and Bureau of Labor statistics.

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/public-sector-austerity-in-one-graph/2012/06/11/gJQAv89NVV_blog.html

          http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/06/01/493849/obama-bush-jobs-record/?mobile=nc

          Because, a certain generation... which shall remain nameless, refused to increase social security, or medicare contributions, for 50 years, as life expectancy tripled the time the program was expected to pay out... Our economy is still going to collapse, or my generation will be taxed like crazy to pay for social securty, that adults in their 30's in the 80's, the "me" generation... Will soon, feel very entitled to.
  • thumb
    Sep 21 2012: It really does not matter, the polls that are real touchstones say O is not going to be the POTUS by a wide margin.


    If you have a modicum of understanding of economics the choice is obvious, incidentally it ain't O. There are infinite reasons, not that I'm a fan of Romney but....
  • Sep 21 2012: Obama because in general the usa is too individualistic for my taste.

    Imo it is better to give everyone a fair chance and to support those who can for some reason not be able to utilize that fair chance or perhaps goes through several failed attempts before he/she finaly gets it.
    On the other side I'd say that people that make the best out of their chance should be rewarded for that (Romney).
    However you have to find some equilibrium and at this point in time to get there (in my opinion) the usa should move more towards Obama because usa is already too much like Romney.
  • thumb
    Sep 21 2012: Gary Johnson... Obama and Romney, are both fundamentally against the bill of rights, and paying debts.

    If you were to boil it down between one ore the other though, Obama. I believe in a families right to choose the time of conception. I believe in equal rights under the law for homosexuals. I also believe that Romney wants to invade Iran, and has no interest in promoting peace in the middle east.

    Recently Romney suggested, and this is a direct quote "If I were Iran, a crazed fanatic, I'd say let's get a little fissile material to Hezbollah, have them carry it to Chicago, and then if anything goes wrong, or America starts acting up, we'll just say, 'Guess what? Unless you stand down, why, we're going to let off a dirty bomb'. He's practically describing a blueprint for the next lie based build up to an American war the citizens do not want..

    Obama, quite simply, despite all the mistakes he has made, and all the horrible policies still in place from George Bush... Is a better human being. He's a better speaker, and he cares not just about his own people, but about all people. Whether he is competent enough to pull it off or not, I believe Barack Obama actually wants as peaceful a reign as he can possibly muster. Even that, may be hopelessly naive, but it's my perception.

    Romney has already suggested, that he will lower taxes on the rich, and the cuts he's suggesting are minimal... He plans to raise the national debt, and screw over his children, just like Obama. The difference is, he thinks the reason America is failing, is because rich people here, don't have enough money.

    It's a simple choice, if you boil it down to one or the other. It's an embarrassing choice if you analyze it further.
    • thumb
      Sep 21 2012: I wish you would learn the basics of economics.
      • thumb
        Sep 21 2012: I wish you would learn the basics of both economics, and rational argument. Then you might actually be able to point out a flaw in my argument. Unfortunately, as you have learned neither, all you can do is throw mindless insults...
        • thumb
          Sep 21 2012: If i understand two things they are Logic and Economics, you do not. I'm going to point out some things:

          "If you were to boil it down between one ore the other though, Obama. I believe in a families right to choose the time of conception. I believe in equal rights under the law for homosexuals. I also believe that Romney wants to invade Iran, and has no interest in promoting peace in the middle east. "

          You would put family rights to choose the time of conception and gay rights above a myriad of problems that threaten the very survival of the U.S. This is an example of the inability to determine what is important.

          You believe that is more important to have the apparency of peace in the middle east than to stop a bona fide mad man from having nuclear weapons. Again this the inability to determine what is important.

          You place O as a better speaker and that is more important than the substance of the speech. Seriously?


          Since you clearly do not understand economics you do not realize that if investment is not encouraged pontificating is moot.

          Like I said you do not understand basic economics and worse you do not know that you do not know.
      • thumb
        Sep 21 2012: "You would put family rights to choose the time of conception and gay rights above a myriad of problems that threaten the very survival of the U.S."

        Provide a shred of evidence for this statement. Give me one example, of a single solution Mitt Romney has put forward, to solve the myriad of problems that threaten the very survival of the US. One of them, is that the international community thinks we're full of war mongering idiots, like Mitt Romney. Have you heard of something called consumer confidence in a world market?

        If you think "investment is not encouraged" enough at a 15% tax rate, and the lowest tax revenues in US history, you live in a fantasy world, and have no understanding of the concept of risk. So, no, I'm sorry you've been given some credential at some time in your life which suggests you understand logic or economics... but America survived a 90% income tax on the top bracket of earners... We can survive 15% income tax on investment capital.

        Romney already said he would leave Bernanke chairman of the fed by the way, a guarantee of a stimulus under both administrations.
        • thumb
          Sep 21 2012: We have 23 million people unemployed in the U.S., we have had 43 months of unemployment above 8%(which is grossly under reported), the debt for the current budget is 16 trillion dollars. The unfunded liabilities are 100 trillion dollars plus . This is not a thread this is an avalanche. If things don't change BIG TIME this country and the other countries that will get sucked under WILL NOT SURVIVE. I'm not opining this is a FACT.

          I don't think investment is not encouraged, it absolutely is not encouraged. You do not understand this and I will not waste my time trying to explain the obvious. Perhaps if you actually had to make a payroll you would understand.
        • thumb
          Sep 21 2012: pat gilbert and David Hamilton why are you arguing like this way? I really learn many things from both of you especially from David by reading your comments. So calm down please :)
      • thumb
        Sep 21 2012: I already endorsed Johnson Pat... I agree things need to change BIG TIME... I want a third party. Romney is the status quo, so is Obama.

        The reason we are arguing like this Noveed, is that politics are like team sports. Pat has been on team Republican his whole life, I don't like sports that kill people. So, when I talk to him from a perspective outside of team a, or team b... He's used to people saying "The Republicans are evil, and the democrats are awesome"

        Thus, defense like "you just don't know economics", or "your guy is even worse". I understand basic economics however, and I'm voting for Gary Johnson, someone who actually believes in limited government and civil liberties, things the Republican party used to stand for.

        So talking about how bad Obama is, and how the democrats don't know economics... doesn't work on me... I'm not a Democrat. In the game of politics, you have been able to hurl nothing but insults, for the last 2 decades. You don't even need a platform. So Pat has no idea how to argue with me, because i'm not interested in insulting Mitt Romney, or him. I'm not on a team.

        There are objective, easy to look up, verifiable platforms, from both major candidates, which will put America further in debt for the next 4 years... I refuse to accept either platform, and find them both embarrassing. I understand if Pat is insulted by my embarrassment, but I can't help it.

        For me, watching Mitt Romney debate Barack Obama, will be like watching two five year olds throw a fit, it's torturous to imagine that either of these men will hold power over my life... I'm a bit eccentric, to say the least... Thank you though, Noveed, and I assure you I'm not as angry as I sound. This stuff is fun to write for me... I feel a bit bad that it probably offends some other people, but I don't censor. I like to write like I'm screaming at the end of a dystopian novel. I apologize for any discomfort I may cause.
        • thumb
          Sep 21 2012: I think the future of the Free World is more important than "having fun writing this stuff."
  • thumb
    Oct 4 2012: Any articulate conservative will win a debate over a liberal, because no matter how you slice the liberal agenda is a ponzi scheme, which most voters get
  • thumb
    Oct 4 2012: Well David, Pat, thank you for your comments. It's interesting to read US citizens' points of view.
    In Europe there is a big cliché about Dems and Reps, and this helps to nuance that.

    @Edward
    I really don't believe electing a President is choosing a future. It seems to me that if the US do not have both a president and a congress on the same side, Congress will block every measure promoted by the president and vice versa.
    Next to that, I'm always interested in the idea of the Free World by some US citizens. It's true that the power of the US to act on the international scene remains IMHO unmatched, but US action abroad is no longer black & white. It was for WWII, wasn't for Vietnam, was in a way for Koweit (although do not tell me it was to free the people, other countries were invaded and people massacred without US interventions. Syria is just a painful example). Certainly not true for Irak (one of the biggest lies in recent history) etc.
    In Europe some people say the US political debate is held hostage by people with extremist views (powerful religious groups for example, or the NRA) which doesn't help the candidates to share some common views that could benefit the people, it lacks finesse (nuance). In a nutshell it's polarized with nothing in between.
    I still believe politics is an art where compromises must be made and where one must try to understand and agree on some points with the other side. It seems to me it's become impossible and that the most ugly tactics are used against each other, the kind that tarnish the image of politicians and keep bringing common people further away from the politicians.
  • thumb
    Oct 2 2012: Obama already won.
  • Sep 23 2012: Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton for CO-PRESIDENTS!
    • thumb
      Sep 23 2012: PU
      • Sep 23 2012: Presidents Union? I don't think we really need a Presidents Union, but thanks for the suggestion.
  • Sep 23 2012: PART2 of my comment:

    .. honnest good businesswith best does not depend on slow moving small changes only, such compromises without 'humanitarian' genius experts and visionairs in persue of (perfect) brilliant, engenius, universally inspired righteous, 'humanitarian', theoretic prestigeously esteemed practical masterplan-s, in order to inventually present their very joyful revelation-s what literally reveal political generalizings wisdoms, (I was just lucky crucial essential 'humanitarian' succeses, government prosperity, business prosperity and employment by creative 'detailed' tax reforms(collecting spcificly more) what help and what don't hurth and whom all say OK OK, etc.
    I have been developping theory and one of the things I mention is about political responsibilities reflected in applying the lets say standarding working out what must support departments their basic efficient duties.
    Not depending on the leader. But made with simple state of the art scientific society functionalities.

    Anyways,

    ('Humanitarian') overall solvers go for overall well being and have the urge to get harm rates down the way they could go down at best, but also mentality issues occurences, issues, implementing fine basics to professions or sectors what they found were missing as specifics to be made by prestigeous creation of covering functional vision(-s) to the diversed society and global reliability wishes as to change those having problems with the nation.


    ..

    D.G.
  • Sep 22 2012: Obama, because the republican party are a bunch of medieval theocrats who, curiously enough, have formed an alliance with economic libertarians/plutocrats, representing the worst of two worlds, while the democrats would still, with some effort, be seen as moderates in countries like Canada, the UK, Germany or Australia. It's really sad that American politics has devolved into a choice between voting for batsh*t crazy (miles to the right of what their party used to be) and voting against batsh*t crazy. If you don't like batsh*t crazy you only have something to vote against, not something to vote for.
    • Oct 4 2012: Who told you that Romney or his cohorts are economic libertarians? Do you even know what the word means? In what ways do the economic policies of Obama and Romney differ?
  • thumb
    Sep 21 2012: America needs a revolution. No matter who you vote for, your going to get screwed over in some way no matter who you vote for or what path you take. Politics is a very dirty thing now days.