FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


2012: Barack Obama (D) vs Mitt Romney (R)





dcn1989
With Rick Santorum finally ending his bid for the Presidency, and with both Gingrich and Paul many points behind Mitt Romney, it is now certain that Mitt Romney is going to be the Republican nominee for President of the United States.

So now who do you plan on voting for?
Afaceinthematrix
I plan on voting for the libertarian candidate as I always do because I feel that they are the only one that will truly believe in freedom. Of course I should vote for Romney because he's the only one with a chance of beating that idiot Obama. So I'll highly consider voting for Romney because he is infinitely better than Obama and look where my voting for the libertarian in the last election got us?

People always bitch about both the Republicans and Democrats however never consider real change - a third party. Furthermore, Americans are very stagnate and have this habit of electing a president into a second term more often than not. Obama is a terrible president and hopefully we can do something about it.

Although on second thought, I highly doubt I will vote for Romney because he does not even support medicinal cannabis yet alone making drugs legal and so therefore, he does not believe in freedom.
ocalhoun
Yep, third party, likely Libertarian, though I'll have to see who they have for this election and judge for myself, of course.

I don't choose the lesser of two evils anymore: you're still choosing evil when you do that.
Afaceinthematrix
ocalhoun wrote:
Yep, third party, likely Libertarian, though I'll have to see who they have for this election and judge for myself, of course.

I don't choose the lesser of two evils anymore: you're still choosing evil when you do that.


It does not matter if you're choosing an evil by voting for the lesser of two evils. The point is that you're minimizing damage where you can. I know that if I vote for a libertarian (which I do often but not always - for instance, I hated the libertarian running for California governor last election) then I am essentially throwing away my vote. However, if I vote for Romney - who has a chance - then I am helping against the cause of another possible Obama disaster. I am simply minimizing damage where I can.
catscratches
Except you're also contributing to a two-party state.
Afaceinthematrix
catscratches wrote:
Except you're also contributing to a two-party state.


I have to, though. My point is that if I am positive that the third party candidate does not stand a chance but that the two represents of the major parties both stand a chance, then the responsible thing is to vote for the better of those two. Now if I didn't think that it made any difference which one was elected because they were both equally bad (the glass is really half empty in this case) then I will vote for the third party candidate because they probably are the best candidate and also it gets their numbers and up and makes them more noticeable among the public. Hopefully someday we can have a change in the positive direction for once.
Mr_Howl
ocalhoun wrote:
I don't choose the lesser of two evils anymore: you're still choosing evil when you do that.


Unfortunately, you're really just letting someone else choose when you do that. Sad I think First Past the Post voting is one of the biggest problems in the US, and one that we should fix as soon as possible...But, of course, those already in power enjoy having two very similar parties to leave voters with almost no choice. Sad

Quote:
Obama is a terrible president and hopefully we can do something about it.


Care to elaborate? I mean, Obama's certainly not my favorite President, but I don't think I would go so far as to call him terrible...Maybe it's just because Bush set such a low bar for "terrible" that I feel that way.
Afaceinthematrix
Mr_Howl wrote:

Quote:
Obama is a terrible president and hopefully we can do something about it.


Care to elaborate? I mean, Obama's certainly not my favorite President, but I don't think I would go so far as to call him terrible...Maybe it's just because Bush set such a low bar for "terrible" that I feel that way.


Well this isn't really the place to elaborate on this. But basically, he's just as bad as every politician when it comes to catering to lobbyists. Lobbying is really destroying this country. He's wasted money with failed bailouts. He's well overstepped the boundaries of what the federal government constitutionally can do. He's a big bully when it comes to trumping states' rights. For instance, he threatened California with legal action if we passed proposition 19 (which would have legalized marijuana for recreational use). He had absolutely NO right to do that. He also sent feds to shut down medicinal marijuana dispensaries in California despite the fact that he had no right to do that. Despite the fact that it's unconstitutional, he forced through his Obamacare which, for the first time ever in U.S. history, actually FORCES people to buy something. That is unconstitutional.

To sum it up: he is a puppet for lobbyists like every other politician. He plunders money with his "suit projects" and other crap. He has zero regard for states' rights or the constitution. He has even less regard for personal rights and personal freedom. He takes credit for stuff that he really didn't do (the death of bin Laden was because of an operation started by Bush and finished by some brave navy seals). In this is just the tip of the ice berg. I could go on for years about why I don't like him - but that is off topic. We really need an honest president who will do the right thing despite lobbyists. We need a libertarian that will stick up for personal freedoms, get rid of all morality laws that are unconstitutional and that interfere with personal liberty, and get the damn government out of all our lives except for the few places they belong.

I'd run for president but I wouldn't stand a chance. I'm not a Christian so I'd lose every vote from the Bible belt and most votes elsewhere and I am too blunt (I'd be the guy on television having to have a middle finger blurred out and beeps covering half of what I say).
handfleisch
Mr_Howl wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
I don't choose the lesser of two evils anymore: you're still choosing evil when you do that.


Unfortunately, you're really just letting someone else choose when you do that. :( I think First Past the Post voting is one of the biggest problems in the US, and one that we should fix as soon as possible...But, of course, those already in power enjoy having two very similar parties to leave voters with almost no choice. :(

Quote:
Obama is a terrible president and hopefully we can do something about it.


Care to elaborate? I mean, Obama's certainly not my favorite President, but I don't think I would go so far as to call him terrible...Maybe it's just because Bush set such a low bar for "terrible" that I feel that way.


Mr Howl, you might want to get second, third and fourth opinions and then make up your own mind. Describing Obama's work so far as "terrible"? Let's think about this. How to define "terrible"... Let's make it easy and compare Obama to the president before him before we set the bar for "terrible". Bush inherited a balanced budget and a booming peacetime economy. When he finished he left the US with two wars, one he was totally responsible for starting, and a banking and housing crisis that was cratering the economy and sending shockwaves around the world. I think that would better fit the definition of "terrible". If you compare Obama to that standard, I think he would get a "pretty good" for slowly getting the economy back up to speed and getting us out of Iraq.

Mr Howl, I agree with you about the two party system, too. It's unfortunate but we have got to work with the system we have, not the one we wish we had. At this point, the lesser of two evils is perfectly clear -- the Republican party hasn't changed one bit, never expressed regret for what they did while Bush was in office, and if anything they are worse than they were before.
Afaceinthematrix
I'm sorry but St. Clinton (as every democrat treats him as) didn't balance the budget; he was in office during a convenient time. The only part he really took place in was the soaring of taxes that he brought on. It had little to do with him. Clinton really didn't do much in office. The main highlights of his presidential career were a few good trade agreements.
gandalfthegrey
I am seriously disappointed with Obama for failing to force through universal health and generally stand-up to the Republicans neo-conservative agenda. Mitt Romney is just a white Obama and a vote for the status quo.

As a left-leaning libertarian, hopefully, I will get a change to vote for a Jesse Ventura / Ron Paul ticket. If not, I will vote for Ralph Nader if he decides to run again. Failing that, I will vote for the Libertarian or Green Party candidate.
coolclay
While I strongly disagree with the OP, about the opinion that Romney won the nomination. I think it is interesting to note that one of the Rasmussen polls a few days ago showed that in an election with Romney vs Obama they came out tied, while Paul came out one point ahead. Certainly not statistically significant, especially considering the standard error was +-3 but it certainly means that the nomination is far from decided. Also keep in mind that delegates to the RNC still have the freedom to choose whomever they what and that Ron Paul doesn't have to back down. There are still many variables.

I am horrified by the lesser of two evils opinion. Let's go back to the day's when the Declaration of Independence was written. You would be the folks that said "though the Brits are bad and we have no rights, maybe the French are better and we should all become French colonies instead of fighting and dieing for our rights".

Let's all agree that the President really doesn't have that much say in what goes on around us especially the economy. They can only make choices based upon what they know, and what their advisers advise. Any President will do the best they can (just some better at playing with others and listening). I'd hate to see you psychotically biased folks run another post into the ground.
Mr_Howl
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Mr_Howl wrote:

Quote:
Obama is a terrible president and hopefully we can do something about it.


Care to elaborate? I mean, Obama's certainly not my favorite President, but I don't think I would go so far as to call him terrible...Maybe it's just because Bush set such a low bar for "terrible" that I feel that way.


Well this isn't really the place to elaborate on this. But basically, he's just as bad as every politician when it comes to catering to lobbyists. Lobbying is really destroying this country. He's wasted money with failed bailouts. He's well overstepped the boundaries of what the federal government constitutionally can do. He's a big bully when it comes to trumping states' rights. For instance, he threatened California with legal action if we passed proposition 19 (which would have legalized marijuana for recreational use). He had absolutely NO right to do that. He also sent feds to shut down medicinal marijuana dispensaries in California despite the fact that he had no right to do that. Despite the fact that it's unconstitutional, he forced through his Obamacare which, for the first time ever in U.S. history, actually FORCES people to buy something. That is unconstitutional.

To sum it up: he is a puppet for lobbyists like every other politician. He plunders money with his "suit projects" and other crap. He has zero regard for states' rights or the constitution. He has even less regard for personal rights and personal freedom. He takes credit for stuff that he really didn't do (the death of bin Laden was because of an operation started by Bush and finished by some brave navy seals). In this is just the tip of the ice berg. I could go on for years about why I don't like him - but that is off topic. We really need an honest president who will do the right thing despite lobbyists. We need a libertarian that will stick up for personal freedoms, get rid of all morality laws that are unconstitutional and that interfere with personal liberty, and get the damn government out of all our lives except for the few places they belong.

I'd run for president but I wouldn't stand a chance. I'm not a Christian so I'd lose every vote from the Bible belt and most votes elsewhere and I am too blunt (I'd be the guy on television having to have a middle finger blurred out and beeps covering half of what I say).


Well, reading that, I don't know why you'd want to vote for Romney. Especially the "honest politician" bit.

I agree strongly about lobbying.

The bailouts I don't think you can really blame on Obama. That was all of Washington, I think. Although, I do think you can blame Republicans for creating a situation where bailouts would be needed.

As for the medical marijuana, Obama is following a precedent. The Federal government claims that marijuana (and all drugs) fall under "interstate commerce", therefore their actions are constitutional. It's BS, of course, since marijuana grown in California and then consumed in California is definitely not "interstate," but that's where it comes from. So although I disagree with it and with Obama, this isn't something new, and it's not something Obama started.

Obamacare being unconstitutional...Well, for one thing, it was based off of Romneycare, so keep that in mind. Smile But you're right, they are definitely pushing it. However, I'm glad Obamacare was passed, since health care in America is in such an awful state, at least it was an attempt to do something, and I've read enough stories about it helping people that I'm convinced it was a pretty good idea. I consider it a shaky first step. Obama also got that law passed wherein health insurance companies have to actually spend the money they receive on health care, not just executive bonuses or whatever other BS they were wasting it on. I think we can all agree that's a good thing.

Anyway, I know it now seems like I'm defending Obama, but I don't think he was "terrible," and I'm just not convinced Romney will do any better.

Quote:
Mr Howl, you might want to get second, third and fourth opinions and then make up your own mind. Describing Obama's work so far as "terrible"? Let's think about this. How to define "terrible"... Let's make it easy and compare Obama to the president before him before we set the bar for "terrible". Bush inherited a balanced budget and a booming peacetime economy. When he finished he left the US with two wars, one he was totally responsible for starting, and a banking and housing crisis that was cratering the economy and sending shockwaves around the world. I think that would better fit the definition of "terrible". If you compare Obama to that standard, I think he would get a "pretty good" for slowly getting the economy back up to speed and getting us out of Iraq.


Um...I agree with you? I think there may have been a misunderstanding somewhere.

Quote:
Mr Howl, I agree with you about the two party system, too. It's unfortunate but we have got to work with the system we have, not the one we wish we had.


I don't agree with that. I think if we can get enough people to care about this, and get enough people to realize that this, the stupid voting system, is one of the biggest problems facing America, then we could get some real change. If people are on the news talking about an anti-gay Amendment to the Constitution, then we should be able to get people on the news talking about a "let's get some actual democracy" Amendment to the Constitution.
Afaceinthematrix
I agree, Howl. Although I just think that there is a possibility that Romney will be slightly less bad than Obama. It's really hard to say but I'm just hoping that at any rate he isn't any worse. I know that if I vote for the libertarian candidate then I am just throwing my vote away and I'd rather vote for the only guy with a chance of beating Obama. Even if he turns out just as bad, I'll get one ass out in order to give another ass a chance. One day a good president will come and I'll actually vote for him/her to have a second term. Obama has done nothing to earn that second term.


Quote:
Anyway, I know it now seems like I'm defending Obama, but I don't think he was "terrible," and I'm just not convinced Romney will do any better.


I am under the impression that the government's primary job is to protect the rights of its citizens. So until a president does something that gets the government out of my damn life and quit telling me how to spend my own money (since you know, gambling is illegal because the government was the one that spent 12 hours at my job making my money and so therefore it is their decision how I spend my own money, right?), telling me who I can sleep with (the only reason prostitution is illegal is that some people believe that it is immoral and so therefore they believe that no one should be able to do it... It's one of the oldest professions around... Just go almost anywhere in Europe and you'll see that having it legal doesn't cause all these problems people claim it will... In fact, if you're ever in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, go to their red light district; it's quite fun), who I can marry, and what I can put into MY OWN F***ing body, then that politician is terrible IMO. If you do nothing to protect my rights or even further take them away (such as when Obama threatened legal action against California if they passed Prop 19 which would have legalized marijuana for recreational use or how the feds have shut down our medical marijuana dispensaries) then I think you are terrible. Romney is just as bad but we, quite frankly, haven't given him a chance. Obama has done nothing to earn a second term and maybe he won't blow so much money on stupid social programs (like buying suits for people in Detroit) so I'll give him a shot...


Quote:
I am horrified by the lesser of two evils opinion. Let's go back to the day's when the Declaration of Independence was written. You would be the folks that said "though the Brits are bad and we have no rights, maybe the French are better and we should all become French colonies instead of fighting and dieing for our rights".


It is absolutely nothing like that. It is just cutting your losses. If you know that one potential candidate is absolutely terrible and you vote for someone with no chance of beating that person then you are essentially making it easier for the terrible candidate to get into office. I don't want to make it easy on Obama.
coolclay
No, your giving up on America. I'd say 9/10 of my acquaintances this election year have said the same thing, maybe if all those people that say it actually voted for someone else, something would actually get done but it won't, because of the "groupthink" mentality. You can rationalize all you want but you are a part of the problem.
handfleisch
Mr_Howl wrote:

Quote:
Mr Howl, you might want to get second, third and fourth opinions and then make up your own mind. Someone describes Obama's work so far as "terrible"? Let's think about this. How to define "terrible"... Let's make it easy and compare Obama to the president before him before we set the bar for "terrible". Bush inherited a balanced budget and a booming peacetime economy. When he finished he left the US with two wars, one he was totally responsible for starting, and a banking and housing crisis that was cratering the economy and sending shockwaves around the world. I think that would better fit the definition of "terrible". If one compares Obama to that standard, I think he would get a "pretty good" for slowly getting the economy back up to speed and getting us out of Iraq.


Um...I agree with you? I think there may have been a misunderstanding somewhere.


Oh, when I wrote "you", I meant people in general, as in "one" (see slightly changed version above). I know you didn't make those wild claims that I was dispensing with.
rjraaz
I am really very interested in political career of Obama. Does he proved himself as successful President or not. What are the mistakes that he did while during his session.
handfleisch
rjraaz wrote:
I am really very interested in political career of Obama. Does he proved himself as successful President or not. What are the mistakes that he did while during his session.

President Obama has done a lot of things for working Americans while saving the economy from collapse. He has also failed to do some things he promised to do.

When Obama came into office, the country was in economic crisis, near collapse, and some of the country's largest banks did collapse. It was the worst situation since the Great Depression. Obama successfully prevented another depression. He has helped stabilize the economy and raise the unemployment rate. Millions of Americans have jobs thanks to the economic measures. Obama's moves kept US auto companies from collapsing, and this was very successful since those companies have recovered and millions of jobs were saved. He increased tax credits to millions of working Americans, which put more money in people's hands to help stimulate the economy.

Obama was a proponent of, and signed into law, the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act which is an equal-pay-for-equal-work, very important for American women.

Important health care reform was started, which is saving lives and personal finances. Obama made a law prohibiting insurers from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions or canceling the insurance coverage of someone who gets sick. The reform increased the number of people who are able to afford insurance by 32 million.

Pell grants for students were increased with funds from ending bank subsidies, which has helped students go to university.

The president oversaw the US withdraw from the disastrous and tragic occupation of Iraq.

The US has much better international relations and a better image abroad since Obama came into office after lots of hard work by the president.

Obama presided over the military operation which killed arch-terrorist Osama Bin Laden, making important decisions both in general and in detail (sending two helicopters instead of one) that ensured the success of the mission.

His mistakes or failures would include the failure to close Guantanamo Bay prison camp, which he promised to do, but he has been blocked by Congrss in doing anything about it. Some blame Obama for the fact that the economy isn't improving faster. Some say that continuing the stimulus measures of the Bush administration was a mistake due to the budget deficit and questionable effectiveness. The increase of the national debt in general is a negative mark on the Obama presidency. Obama has been criticized for not penalizing or prosecuting bankers or Wall Street executives after the housing and banking crisis. Obama's use of drone strikes in the War on Terrorism is controversial, and Obama signed a defense act, with objections, that increased state powers over civil liberties.
Afaceinthematrix
^^Handfleische: Obviously I don't like Obama for reasons that I mentioned but I do believe in giving credit where credit is do. Therefore, you forgot to add that he did end the DADT policy and allowed homosexuals to serve in the military. This was a major step towards fixing a major discrimination. He also encouraged states to allow homosexual marriage although I really believe this should have been done at a federal level because you shouldn't be allowed to vote for something that has the potential to take away the rights of people... The federal government should just protect our rights regardless.
handfleisch
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
^^Handfleische: Obviously I don't like Obama for reasons that I mentioned but I do believe in giving credit where credit is do. Therefore, you forgot to add that he did end the DADT policy and allowed homosexuals to serve in the military. This was a major step towards fixing a major discrimination. He also encouraged states to allow homosexual marriage although I really believe this should have been done at a federal level because you shouldn't be allowed to vote for something that has the potential to take away the rights of people... The federal government should just protect our rights regardless.

Thanks, AFitM, I forgot about the important achievements by Obama for gay rights and to end DADT, and I'm sure I overlooked more things, pro and con.

Maybe everyone can add to the list of concrete successes and failures of the president to help rjraaz understand. In the manner of catscratches' "policies" threads, keeping the discussion to policies, concrete measures, actual decisions.
rjraaz
handfleisch wrote:
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
^^Handfleische: Obviously I don't like Obama for reasons that I mentioned but I do believe in giving credit where credit is do. Therefore, you forgot to add that he did end the DADT policy and allowed homosexuals to serve in the military. This was a major step towards fixing a major discrimination. He also encouraged states to allow homosexual marriage although I really believe this should have been done at a federal level because you shouldn't be allowed to vote for something that has the potential to take away the rights of people... The federal government should just protect our rights regardless.

Thanks, AFitM, I forgot about the important achievements by Obama for gay rights and to end DADT, and I'm sure I overlooked more things, pro and con.

Maybe everyone can add to the list of concrete successes and failures of the president to help rjraaz understand. In the manner of catscratches' "policies" threads, keeping the discussion to policies, concrete measures, actual decisions.


Yes, definitely help to me understand little bit and to understand more searching all the points that you guys mentioned above.

Actually politics is really very difficult to understand that is why generally people say that Politics is not good and keep themselves away from it.
coolclay
Quote:
Pell grants for students were increased with funds from ending bank subsidies, which has helped students go to university.


Wait a second you list this as a good thing! This coming year subsidized loans are no longer being offered to students like myself, and which leaves me with no other options but regular educational loans! Instead this administration thinks it's better handing out free money that never needs repaid, teaching students that money does indeed grow on trees!

I feel like going to college is a privilege that I have worked my @ss off to afford since my freshman year in high school. I am getting something (an education and a degree), and I should be responsible for paying for it, that's how our country used to work anyway!

Do I want free money? Of course I do, but I was taught from a very early age that you have to work hard if you want something in life. So many youngsters of today have no concept of that equation and it's really sad.

Sorry for my rant, carry-on.....
ocalhoun
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
catscratches wrote:
Except you're also contributing to a two-party state.


I have to, though. My point is that if I am positive that the third party candidate does not stand a chance but that the two represents of the major parties both stand a chance,


And WHY do they not stand a chance?

Because of millions of people thinking the same way you are right now.


We'll never get rid of the evil politicians until people stop voting for the lesser evil... Doing it that way only guarantees that we'll always have a 'lesser' evil in office.
coolclay
Amen brother!
busman
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
Yep, third party, likely Libertarian, though I'll have to see who they have for this election and judge for myself, of course.

I don't choose the lesser of two evils anymore: you're still choosing evil when you do that.


It does not matter if you're choosing an evil by voting for the lesser of two evils. The point is that you're minimizing damage where you can. I know that if I vote for a libertarian (which I do often but not always - for instance, I hated the libertarian running for California governor last election) then I am essentially throwing away my vote. However, if I vote for Romney - who has a chance - then I am helping against the cause of another possible Obama disaster. I am simply minimizing damage where I can.


No offense dude but Romney IS HORRIBLE. He is Obama Light who favors the rich. Its really that simple, he has already made promises to continue sky-rocketing our military expenses why not leveying taxes to pay for it in a speech to the naval academy (I wonder who did that...). HE WILL continue the health care plan, he drafted one that was almost identical to it in his state (even tho healthcare isn't the worst thing its all the bylaws that get thrown in-check it out at usa.gov) which will bankrupt us further and he will not curb spending AT ALL. I can make a 99% sure bet of it. [/i]
tingkagol
I do not follow American politics at all, and what I do know I pick up from the newspapers. That said, I commend Obama for actually having the balls to publicly support gay marriage.

It's funny that Mr. Romney was quick to react by vehemently opposing it. By now, politicians opposing gay marriage are making nothing more than a clever political stance (unless they're downright still crazy) - appealing to the masses that still think gay couples do not deserve equal rights as 'normal' couples.

Do the majority of Americans still oppose gay marriage? I've no idea of America's social climate, but if most still oppose it, then I cannot say the same for Obama. He has real balls of steel to be really open about it. Or perhaps he misread Americans, thinking more have become liberal over the years. Or, perhaps, he's just being honest.
handfleisch
Romney's retirement deal from BAIN Capital mandates that he gets a percentage of all profits after he left, which means at this very moment he is making money off of people being fired. It's amazing anyone is considering voting for the King of BAIN in our current situation. He is literally one of the rich that profits off of other people's misery. What this vid
coolclay
I don't trust any info that Moveon.org puts out, because they are about as biased as biased can be. Private equity is nothing new, this same BS has been occurring for years, and is part of the puzzle that got us into the mess we are today.

The only reason Moveon.org gives a crap, is because it's something they can hold against Romney. I am not saying they shouldn't because they should, but I am sure there are just as many democrats involved in the private equity trade.

Obama certainly seems to have no issues taking their dirty money!
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/15/usa-campaign-idUSL1E8GF99M20120515


[ Snipped by Vanilla ]
Iceaxe0410
Lately, I've been thinking I have to vote for the lesser of the two evils. My current feelings about Obama is that he hasn't really done much to back up his claim that he was the right one for change. I suppose the one accomplishment that is notable is that he became the first African American U.S. president. That however, was determined by the people and delegates. Not necessarily a personal accomplishment he obtained on his own.

I can't really see any other candidate winning than Obama. I feel as though I should probably just vote for a third party candidate since I don't like any of the two main ones. That's probably what I will do. I know it will be throwing my vote away, but perhaps if more people think like I do, there might be a chance for an upset. That would be amusing if one presidential election forces a shift in power away from Democrats and Republicans. I know enough to know that won't happen, but it's a nice thought.
coolclay
Quote:
I know enough to know that won't happen, but it's a nice thought.

Have faith man! It's that "oh it'll never happen" attitude that makes it never happen!
handfleisch
Iceaxe0410 wrote:
Lately, I've been thinking I have to vote for the lesser of the two evils. My current feelings about Obama is that he hasn't really done much to back up his claim that he was the right one for change. I suppose the one accomplishment that is notable is that he became the first African American U.S. president. That however, was determined by the people and delegates. Not necessarily a personal accomplishment he obtained on his own.

I can't really see any other candidate winning than Obama. I feel as though I should probably just vote for a third party candidate since I don't like any of the two main ones. That's probably what I will do. I know it will be throwing my vote away, but perhaps if more people think like I do, there might be a chance for an upset. That would be amusing if one presidential election forces a shift in power away from Democrats and Republicans. I know enough to know that won't happen, but it's a nice thought.

Hi IceAxe, maybe you should reconsider. Though the Democrats are not in sync with many of my beliefs in the way things should and could be, I will definitely vote for them on the national level. First of all, there are tons of achievements of the Obama admin (if you want me to mention a few I will). Plus, the election of 2000 showed what a disaster it is to think both parties are the same, with the Republican's unprovoked war put on a credit card, institutionalization of torture as policy, "heck of a job" to describe total failure of New Orleans disaster relief, presiding over one of the worst changes from prosperity to near economic collapse we have ever seen (are you aware Bush inherited from Clinton a balanced budget and a budget surplus, which he turned into a $10 trillion + debt?)...and they never even expressed regret or admitted a mistake. With the current GOP saber-rattling toward Iran and still preaching the exact same economic policies as in the last GOP admin (tax breaks for the rich, deregulation of Wall St. and the banks), it's just plain dumb, against common sense for us to let them back into office.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jun/02/steny-hoyer/steny-hoyer-says-george-w-bush-inherited-56-trilli/
Quote:
Bush came into office with a rosy fiscal outlook and left with one that was far less so. And he’s pretty close when he says that Bush left an "$11-plus trillion debt" when he departed the Oval Office.
coolclay
This has little to do with a party and more to do with a person.
Quote:
think both parties are the same

They are the same at least in spirit, it's the person that's running, and who they choose as cabinet members that makes all the difference. Do you really believe that a president can completely change the course of a country (they can change things but they can't do it alone)? That is why the founding fathers set up checks and balances so they one bad seed can't single handedly destroy a nation. Of course both Repub, and Dems have attempted and succeeded in dismantling the checks and balances system that was setup to balance our government. As well as starting wars, without actually "declaring war" and getting approval through the proper routes (Bush). Not to mention illegal military strikes and murder of US citizens (thanks Obama).
handfleisch
Then there is the issue of Mitt Romney, when he was about to graduate high school, leading a gang of bullies to assault a gay teenager. While the gang tackled and pin the crying boy down, Romney personally took a pair of scissors and cut the kid's hair off, as the kid wept and screamed for help. Romney has apologized for doing such things in general while claiming he can't recall this incident specifically. But plenty of his friends remember Romney's gang assault on the kid who was "different" and many felt guilty about it for years. The victim, who has since died, was reportedly haunted by the incident for decades.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romneys-prep-school-classmates-recall-pranks-but-also-troubling-incidents/2012/05/10/gIQA3WOKFU_story.html

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/former-romney-classmate-describes-bullying-supreme-a-pack-of-dogs-who-targeted-differentboy/

The more I have thought about this story, the more it bothers me. Some say Romney has changed and is no longer a bully. But has he? Isn't being a CEO of Bain Capital's vulture capitalism, traveling the country beating up on companies, firing people to make yourself rich, just a form of financial bullying? Isn't his campaign of repeating intentional, aggressive lies about Obama ("apology tour", "Obama made the recession worse", "reverse President Obama's massive defense cuts" etc.), his attempt to claim credit for Obama's saving of Detroit (after he wrote "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt) -- isn't this rhetorical bullying?

I don't think Romney's changed. He is still the elite that thinks he can hurt and badmouth anyone he wants, to his own benefit, and get away with it. I think his sense of entitlement is so deep he doesn't even realize it.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2012/01/12/mitt-romneys-lies[/url]
Bikerman
It doesn't bother me too much for the simple reason that I was a crap-head at school also - not a bully but a prat in other ways. I'm not the same person as I was then and I won't judge anyone else because of what happened a long time ago. If he really had NOT changed - and I guess only Romney himself, and maybe those closest to him can know that - then that WOULD worry me, but I'd be wrong to assume it, so I won't.
gandalfthegrey
I'd easily vote for Ron Paul if he were running. Since he is not running - there is no way I am voting for Romney. I would vote for Obama if I was in a close state. I like the Libertarian candidate, former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson - not as scary and right-wing as Bob Barr (2008 Libertarian candidate and former Republican congressman). Though, I'd still prefer to vote for someone more progressive like Ralph Nader, should he run again for the Green Party or as an Independent.
Related topics
US democrats Obama vs Clinton?
Barack Obama vs John McCain
Barack Obama got Nobel peace prize..... share your views.
Mitt Romney for President
President Barack Obama And Paul McCartney
Asesinan a Barack Obama... virtualmente.
Republican New Hampshire Primary - Competition
Obama WON!
Finally the President Barack Obama takes action in guns
Finalmente, o presidente Barack Obama toma medidas em relaça
Por último, el presidente Barack Obama toma medidas en las a
Barack Obama Visists Israel this week
Barack Obama Visita Israel nesta semana.
Barack Obama Visita Israel esta semana
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.