Mitt Romney VS President Obama (1 Viewer)

[MarkK]

Double FacePalm

 

[Steve R.]

 

[MarkK]

OMFG that's funny.

 

[G37Sam]

They all should have term limits. If you can't get the job done in 4 years get the hell out and none of this full pay crap after you get out.

Just when is enough is enough, you have way to much of the good old buddies going on. If you get NEW blood in there, you won't have this I owe you crap.

just my 2 cents

You're saying all this mess that Bush left behind him can be fixed in 4 years? No way. I work for a big corporation and fixing our ex-manager's mess took quite some time.

 

[Steve R.]

You're saying all this mess that Bush left behind him can be fixed in 4 years? No way.

There is no denying that blame Bush left quite a mess behind. The problem is that Obama is NOT fixing the mess. His economic policies are nothing more than unfunded largess ("Bread and Circuses") to entice the electorate to vote for him.

Obama made some promises when running for office which he has not been able (or willing?) to keep. It is my belief that he never meant to fulfill those promises. Based on that credibility gap and lack of performance, he should not be be re-elected.

The projected deficit spending for FY2012 is expected to total: $1,326,948 Billion with the National debt projected to reach: $16,350,885 Billion by the end of FY 2012. Which leads me to this Alexis de Tocqueville quote: "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.".

 

[MarkK]

Based on that credibility gap and lack of performance, he should not be be re-elected.

But this, to me, does not form a compelling reason to vote for the Romnoid, the Rominator, the Rhombus. Like can you imagine Romney at the G8 with other world leaders? What a dork.

But this is still partisan left-right he-said-she-said.

The economic problem is Reagan's. He deregulated the financial industry paving the way for derivatives. We went for 30 years spending the money we were going to make tomorrow, and it went crunch. OK. Again a case of institutionalized corruption by the rich, for the rich, not a partisan issue, and not part of the debate, right?

The problem is that Obama isn't fixing it fast enough? Hmmnn. I don't buy it.

 

[Steve R.]

But this, to me, does not form a compelling reason to vote for the Romnoid, the Rominator, the Rhombus.

You caught me while I was editing.

Absolutely true. Romney, in short, will simply continue blame Bush's failed economic policies. Romney's "grow the economy" assertions are particularly disingenuous based on the Republican premise of getting the government out of the private sector.

Romney also proposes to balance the budget, refuses to consider tax increases, but wants to have a "big" military. If that is the case, what will he cut? He has yet to really disclose what that means in concrete terms. The implication is that the cuts will have to some out of (Federal) social service/environmental/science type programs. I also do not agree with Romney environmental message.

Which is the lesser of two evils? Obama or Romney?

 

[MarkK]

On the right...

...we have the lesser of two weevils.

 

[Steve R.]

Now that's priceless!! Reminds me of MAD Magazine.

 

[pono1]

No, but it's a difference of who's money is influencing the political parties today vs 200 years ago. We even have international banks and their subsidiaries donating to Presidential candidates. That's a far cry from Washington and Jefferson using their own wealth to spread their agenda.

In the scheme of history, 250 years is a close cry. Today's world order did not spontaneously arrive on the scene: it's inherited from the institutions and events of the past. Washington and Jefferson are two examples of people who lived and participated in a time and place shaped through colonialism and the human slave trade. In their day, both W and J owned slaves...a day when big organizations (like GB and France--rather than GE or ExxonMobil) had a great deal of power.

 

[MarkK]

In the scheme of history, 250 years is a close cry. Today's world order did not spontaneously arrive on the scene: it's inherited from the institutions and events of the past. Washington and Jefferson are two examples of people who lived and participated in a time and place shaped through colonialism and the human slave trade. In their day, both W and J owned slaves...a day when big organizations (like GB and France--rather than GE or ExxonMobil) had a great deal of power.

I feel like you state a series of facts here with no conclusion. People grow vertically, kids get older over time, the way things are is the result of cause and effect. The founding fathers drank lemonade and are good examples of people who knew a thing or two about how to deal with their thirst. OK. So?

 

[pono1]

You're correct...there is no conclusion...

 

[MarkK]

...cool...

 

[Adam Caramon]

There is never a perfect candidate. But you have to ask yourself what is most important to you, and then figure out which candidate better reflects those values. Personally, I don't like religion in government. Republicans cater to the religious, so that's 1 strike against them.

I think there should be more controls on companies that hire workers, more power to the workers themselves, and as Republicans cater to corporations and big business (and thus, the executives in those businesses), that's another strike.

I'm against the USA being the world police and building military bases all around the world. I'm especially against politicians trying to "spread democracy". Republicans are the party of big military and wars, strike 3.

There are actually even more strikes I have against them, but these are the big 3.

 

[Vassago]

But ultimately, the corporate puppet mentality that both of these parties have make it impossible for me to continue voting for either one of them. Ron Paul, although running as a Republican, obviously is far from the current "Republican" mindset. He also won many delegates because of the people voicing their opinion. More people are waking up. This trend needs to continue. With Mittens or Nobama, we will get more of the same. More spending, larger government, less rights, and more two party bickering with nothing getting done.

 

[Vassago]

I hate when people say "gotta vote for the lesser of two evils." Why? Screw that! I refuse to vote for someone that I see being more damaging for this country than not. Gary Johnson will get my vote.

 

[MarkK]

A cool dynamic in Canadian politics: three parties! So the big two fight it out, but the third can propose new stuff that the other two are aren't fighting about yet. If the third party gets too many votes, one of the big two parties usually co-opts the popular policies that the third party brought to the national conversation. This vastly reduces the polarization of the conversation, because issues are almost never bi-polar. To me it always seems odd that the US national conversation doesn't embrace the possibilities that the third voice brings. It would be cool to see voters in the US, en masse, abandon the Dems & Reps.

 

[Adam Caramon]

But ultimately, the corporate puppet mentality that both of these parties have make it impossible for me to continue voting for either one of them.

What do you feel the Democrats have done that indicates that they are a corporate puppet?

I'm all for 3rd (or 4th, or 5th) parties, its just that so far they have only ever been able to shift presidential elections one way or the other.

Ron Paul, although running as a Republican, obviously is far from the current "Republican" mindset. He also won many delegates because of the people voicing their opinion. More people are waking up.

True, and while I applaud some of his stances, he has many that are so out there that they could cause serious problems (particularly ending the Fed).

With Mittens or Nobama, we will get more of the same. More spending, larger government, less rights, and more two party bickering with nothing getting done.

Well, if more of the same can be defined as all of Obama's accomplishments in his first term, sign me up. Affordable Care Act? Not perfect, but quite amazing considering all the money lined up against its passage.

Legislation requiring credit card companies to display in plain language how much you pay in interest each month, and how long it will take to pay off your balance if you only pay the minimum payment? Huge.

Again, you're not going to like everything about a candidate, but IMO, Obama has earned a second term. What he has been able to accomplish in face of such obstruction and hatred is frankly amazing.

It would be cool to see voters in the US, en masse, abandon the Dems & Reps.

I agree. But the way our system is set up, many people take the view that a 3rd party candidate is a "wasted" vote. I'd like to see a system where we can vote for the candidate we actually want, and if they don't win, our vote would then move to our 2nd choice candidate. Everyone still only gets 1 vote, but you wouldn't be wasting your vote if you voted Johnson (secondary Obama), for example. If Johnson doesn't win, your vote counts for Obama.

On a somewhat related line of thought, there needs to be secure online voting. That would increase the number of voters dramatically.

 

[Vassago]

What do you feel the Democrats have done that indicates that they are a corporate puppet?

Bailouts, CISPA, he would have passed SOPA and PIPA, as evidence by his stance and lack of talk prior to denying them. Of course, the corporations were quick to point out they were "deeply disappointed" that the President they gave so much money to didn't "protect them" by taking away more rights than Bush ever did. He would have, make no mistake about it, if it weren't for the people en masse. This needs to happen more often.

I'm all for 3rd (or 4th, or 5th) parties, its just that so far they have only ever been able to shift presidential elections one way or the other.

This is because of the mindset that people have that they have to vote for a Dem or Pub to even have a shot at voting for the winner. People need to stop being afraid to vote where their heart really leads them. They need to stop compromising. There is no such thing as the lesser of two evils.

True, and while I applaud some of his stances, he has many that are so out there that they could cause serious problems (particularly ending the Fed).

Why? Ending the Fed is BRILLIANT! Have you ever looked into the Fair Tax? Do you know how many people get away without paying taxes today because of the Fed? Just ask Romney, if he'll ever show his tax records that every other Presidential candidate has show in the past 20+ years. Our country only the Fed because our Federal government has grown TOO large. It was never supposed to be this large. We didn't even have Federal tax until the last century.

Well, if more of the same can be defined as all of Obama's accomplishments in his first term, sign me up. Affordable Care Act? Not perfect, but quite amazing considering all the money lined up against its passage.

Legislation requiring credit card companies to display in plain language how much you pay in interest each month, and how long it will take to pay off your balance if you only pay the minimum payment? Huge.

Again, you're not going to like everything about a candidate, but IMO, Obama has earned a second term. What he has been able to accomplish in face of such obstruction and hatred is frankly amazing.

Pretty small things at face value. AHA was amazing and long overdue. The healthcare industry has been in shambles for years.

The credit card legistlation was long overdue, but still should not have been quite that necessary. People need to be held accountable for their own screw-ups. People need to start paying attention to what they sign and over-extending themselves with debt. That is a behavior that needs to be fixed at the source.

 

[Adam Caramon]

This is because of the mindset that people have that they have to vote for a Dem or Pub to even have a shot at voting for the winner.

Actually, I think most people vote for one guy because they can't stand the other guy. So they vote D or R because they really don't want R (if they voted D), or D (if they voted R). A 3rd party candidate essentially "doesn't count" in that context.

Why? Ending the Fed is BRILLIANT! Have you ever looked into the Fair Tax? Do you know how many people get away without paying taxes today because of the Fed?

Yes, I have looked into the Fair Tax. On paper it sounds good, but when you run the numbers, you'll see that the beneficiaries of such a tax plan are the rich and the incredibly poor. The middle class would take a hit compared to the current tax plan, and with all the years of draining the middle class to feed the rich, I don't think additional screws to the middle class is the way to go.

As far as individuals getting away without paying taxes, I'd be all for doing away with all sorts of taxes, and then instituting a VAT. That way, necessities would be not taxed or taxed at a low rate, while luxury items would be taxed heavily. That would capture all dollars legally spent, which would get the vast majority of individuals paying taxes.

Pretty small things at face value. AHA was amazing and long overdue. The healthcare industry has been in shambles for years.

If AHA was all he has gotten through, I would still consider him a successful president. I guess it is all in what is important to you.

The credit card legistlation was long overdue, but still should not have been quite that necessary. People need to be held accountable for their own screw-ups. People need to start paying attention to what they sign and over-extending themselves with debt. That is a behavior that needs to be fixed at the source.

People should be held accountable, I agree. But banks and other institutions should be as well. They shouldn't be able to take your credit card payment and apply it to your low-interest debt before they apply it to your higher interest debt. They shouldn't be able to bury hidden fees in small print.

The common person should not have to be a lawyer in order to be able to understand the rules/regulations.