Why will you vote for Romney?

[Platapus]

I don't want this thread to degrade into yet another political bashing thread. We have plenty of them.

I made this poll, based on several conversations I have had with my co-workers. There is a good number of them who intend on voting for Romney.

However, upon further conversation with them, it appears that a significant number of them are not voting FOR Romney but voting AGAINST Obama.

I have a great deal of sympathy for this attitude as in the last election I did not vote for Obama but voted against McCain/Palin.

So I would like to know from our Romney voting forum members, are you truly voting for Romney or against Obama. One could substitute the political parties in the place of the names too.

[Armistead]

My views evolve. I will vote often against someone other than for. I did vote for Obama last time as did many from NC and he took our state, but it was more a vote against Bush. I really liked McCain, it was close, but he appeared to be more of the same and Palin was an idiot.

I won't vote for Romney, he is an out of touch elitist, nor do I want to vote for Obama....I would've voted for Paul.

In the past it seems people really don't care who runs, they voted party ethics, it's a numbers game, so you could hate someone in your preferred party and still vote for them to seek a majority. However, people tire so much of the corruption and stupidity they will now vote for someone that they may disagree with on many levels. I couldn't take another Bush, I would vote for a raving gay socialist before I would ever vote for Bush.

Either way I think we're headed for another serious economic crisis, doesn't matter who is in office.

[gimpy117]

so this is only a poll for republican voters?

heck I'm voting for Obama

[em2nought]

I'm either spending the entire depressing day in bed, or I might vote for the moron, oops mormon. I'd rather be voting for Ron Paul. :D

[Sailor Steve]

I will be voting for Ron Paul. It's called a "write-in".

[Skybird]

The most important option is missing in the poll:

"Why should I vote for any of the two?"

Boycott the self-legitimisation of a corrupted, rotten system. Refuse to obey their rules tailored for their interest, not yours. Don'T make yourself subject of well-earned mockery, becasue you think your ballot is of equal value than the handful of dollar notes swung by an economical lobbyists who simply buys the policy or legislation that he wants to have, while you think you can counter that by voting. You are already decided, betrayed and sold away - by your vote you only chose the currency that is used.

Don't vote. You owe it to yourself.

(Not just the US on my mind, but all Western countries. )

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

The most important option is missing in the poll:

"Why should I vote for any of the two?"

Boycott the self-legitimisation of a corrupted, rotten system. Refuse to obey their rules tailored for their interest, not yours. Don'T make yourself subject of well-earned mockery, becasue you think your ballot is of equal value than the handful of dollar notes swung by an economical lobbyists who simply buys the policy or legislation that he wants to have, while you think you can counter that by voting. You are already decided, betrayed and sold away - by your vote you only chose the currency that is used.

Don't vote. You owe it to yourself.

(Not just the US on my mind, but all Western countries. )In other words give power (real or theoretical) to others - those who vote. Your vote's absence doesn't matter at all and I personally have opinion that if you don't vote you have no right to complain. If you don't want to vote either Obama or Romney don't write their name (or number?) into that paper. Instead either write your favourite candidate's name or Donald Duck for example.

I don't know about USA but here in Finland also votes received by those "other" candidates are counted and their share of votes is published as well (and media sometimes takes notice).

Imagine what it would be if Donald Duck would receive more votes than either of those official candidates? :D

[vienna]

I don't know...

Who's his running mate and what are the specifics (not platitudes) of his economic policies? Really need to know before I can make any decision... :hmmm:

...

[Skybird]

In other words give power (real or theoretical) to others - those who vote.

There is no power in that when the system in general is as corrupted as it is today. When you play by rules that are corrupted, then you already got used by agreeing to play by them and you legitimise the corrupt rules themselves, plus those profiting from them.


Your vote's absence doesn't matter at all and I personally have opinion that if you don't vote you have no right to complain.

To make invalid your ballot means that the final turnout is read as being high, becasue invalid balots still yount for the turnout. Only when you bring people to not participating in the show, the turnout at the end falls - and at some time it becomes so low that even the most unscrupulous gangster becomes shy to claim that he still got elected by a significant part of the population. Invalid ballots are still votes that legitimise the system. Making invalid the ballots, or voting for this or for that party does not make a difference - the meaning of the whole excersise is only to legitimise the system and to lure you into agreeing to become a complice - so that you have no moral right to criticise what you helped to install. Why do they push you so strongly to participate in elections, eh? Becasue you shall become a participator, a complice. By that you lose the moral right to complain, because you helped to legitimize what you complain about.

And as I said, the power lies in the closed circles, the close ties between politicians and economical leaders, the lobby groups that bypass people's majority will anyway by influencing policy-making behind closed doors, with money, and biased, balanced expertise that reflects the desires of their paymasters. In Brussel, for every member of the european parliament there is said to 40-60 lobbyists hammering away at them, the ratio between "people's representance" and business lobbies thus is around 1:50. These lobbies bring in new proposals, and they are allowed to cast major influence on how these are turned into laws, often they even are allowed to design the laws. More than half of these lobbyists in Brussel are American lobbyists . I do not expect to see any smaller, more likely even higher lobbyism in the US. Lobbyism is a mission to treacherously assassinate democratic elections. Those financing it think their "vote" shall have miuch more wirght and meanign than that of any other private person giving a ballot.

And you are proud to make a cross on a ballot during elections...? :haha: Wake up and come to your senses. You ballot is nothing more than a ticket for the freak show.

If you don't want to vote either Obama or Romney don't write their name (or number?) into that paper. Instead either write your favourite candidate's name or Donald Duck for example.

I don't know about USA but here in Finland also votes received by those "other" candidates are counted and their share of votes is published as well (and media sometimes takes notice).
Nice. Helps to keep the turnout high and legitimise the system. You just even imply some pride in that.

If I may say that in German, since there is no English equivalent to this idiom: erst läßt du dich durch den Kakao ziehen - und hinterher trinkst Du ihn auch noch mit Begeisterung aus und bettelst nach mehr!


Imagine what it would be if Donald Duck would receive more votes than either of those official candidates? :D
Still can be easier hidden by just saying so and so many votes were invalid, than a low turnout.

Keep that turnout low. Destroy the basis of their legitimation. Do not go to the parade when they call you. Don't vote.

[Blood_splat]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ax15XRL1URQ&feature=endscreen

[Skybird]

I don't know...

Who's his running mate

Mr. Trillions-in-debts.


and what are the specifics (not platitudes) of his economic policies?
High budget deficit, high export weakness, increasing social dysbalance in an already tense social environment, uncompetitive industry branches (especially steel), dumping wages, a trecherous and disloyal finance business dancing on Americans' bodies, and plenty of jobs being exported to other places in the world.


Really need to know before I can make any decision... :hmmm:

Yes, decide on the emperor's next set of invisible clothes! :O:

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

To make invalid your ballot means that the final turnout is read as being high, becasue invalid balots still yount for the turnout. Only when you bring people to not participating in the show, the turnout at the end falls - and at some time it becomes so low that even the most unscrupulous gangster becomes shy to claim that he still got elected by a significant part of the population. Invalid ballots are still votes that legitimise the system. Making invalid the ballots, or voting for this or for that party does not make a difference - the meaning of the whole excersise is only to legitimise the system and to lure you into agreeing to become a complice - so that you have no moral right to criticise what you helped to install. Why do they push you so strongly to participate in elections, eh? Becasue you shall become a participator, a complice. By that you lose the moral right to complain, because you helped to legitimize what you complain about.Its cold day in hell when bolded part happens.

And you are proud to make a cross on a ballot during elections...? :haha: Wake up and come to your senses. You ballot is nothing more than a ticket for the freak show.Am I proud? No. Not really. Unfortunately short of revolution that is only way you may have chance to affect policy. Atleat that is case here in Finland. I don't believe that politicians would suddenly change if people decided not to "play along the rules" and opted not to vote. I just don't believe that would really work.

I'm talking about system we have here in Finland. Its not perfect system but until someone invents better one I think I have to live with it. I don't agree with you on level of corruption within political system (maybe it has something to do with being foreigner?) although its true that money tends to make it easier to get politicians attention. Have this actually ever been different?

[BossMark]

Can someone correct me if I am wrong as I look at American political party's like this

Republican-Conservative
Democrat-Labour

[JU_88]

Can someone correct me if I am wrong as I look at American political party's like this

Republican-Conservative
Democrat-Labour

Yes, at least that how it once was, nowadays its more like this

U.S
Republican = more of the same
Democrat = more of the same

U.K
Conservative = more of the same
Labour = more of the same
Lib dems = LOL

[Platapus]

Republican-Conservative
Democrat-Labour


Yes, on the surface that might work. The tricky issue is what exactly is conservatism?

If you ask 3 people you will get 5 answers. The problem is that everyone knows what conservatism is but can't agree on it. :D

Generally speaking Republicans are in favor of small government for programs they don't like, but large government for programs they do like.

Democrats, on the other hand, are in favor of big government for programs they like and small government for programs they don't like.

That's the difference, these days between the two political parties. :know:

[JU_88]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-FG_BTdGvrRY/TygAAubCAsI/AAAAAAAABVs/MMkL3PQMdLE/s1600/SENATORS-SHOULD-WEAR-UNIFORMS-LIKE-NASCAR-DRIVERS-SO-WE-COULD-IDENTIFY-THEIR-CORPORATE-SPONSORS.jpg

[Sailor Steve]

Generally speaking...
On the surface Conservatives say that government is the problem while Liberals say government is the solution. On the surface I agree with both, depending on the question asked. But everything goes so much deeper, and neither side lives up to their hype, or even tries to.

[Jimbuna]

Shouldn't there be a poll option "I don't particularly care" :hmmm:

:03:

[Oberon]

Yes, at least that how it once was, nowadays its more like this

U.S
Republican = more of the same
Democrat = more of the same

U.K
Conservative = more of the same
Labour = more of the same
Lib dems = LOL


QFT :rock:

[u crank]

In the future you will not vote for a politician or a political party.

You will vote for a corporation.:yep:

[Armistead]

In the future you will not vote for a politician or a political party.

You will vote for a corporation.:yep:

Thought we were doing that now......least we vote for their puppets.

[u crank]

Thought we were doing that now......least we vote for their puppets.

You are. But soon all the pretence will be gone.

[JU_88]

Shouldn't there be a poll option "I don't particularly care" :hmmm:

:03:

Yep, have poll option that says 'does it matter?' Everyone in the US should vote 3rd party, high time you all showed the DEMs, REPs and their sponsors who is really the boss.
Im still intrested to see what happens in Tampa at the Republican convention, No doubt Romney will get the nomination, but the Ron Paul crowd could still have some leverage.

[razark]

<picture snipped to save space>
How about instead of NASCAR uniforms, they wear paper hats and waiter's uniforms to remind them of their jobs?

[CaptainHaplo]

Poll answer.....

Both

Romney is the better candidate and I don't want to see Obama re-elected.

Simply put - Romney isn't an ideal candidate by any means - but he understands that the ONLY way the American economy will rebound is if people have jobs to go to. Obama thinks that giving people unemployment checks makes the economy grow..... :doh:

I am not a Romney fan - he actually was ranked about 5th on my list given the starting group of possible nominees. He has a severe lack of foreign policy credentials and his foreign policy stance is hardly known. However, it does not consists of kissing the tails of those that hate us or running around the world apologizing to everyone, so it will be an improvement. That improvement may be in degrees, but something is better than nothing.

Economically/Fiscally, there is no question Romney is better. A coherent energy policy, a fiscally responsible budget, etc - are things that Obama cannot claim to have - and he now has a 3 and a half year record of failure to defend.

Socially, its a toss up. As long as Romney sticks to his claim that many issues should be "hands off" by the feds and left to the state, he is better than Obama. Will he stick to it? Who knows.

This will not be nearly the close election that most pundits are making it out to be. Romney will win by a significant margin. A few are brave enough to call it a "Reaganesque" landslide. I don't think it will be that huge. Even if it is - Mitt Romney is no Ronald Reagan.

In reality - the bigger issue is the Congress - and I don't know that team R can pick up enough seats to take the Senate. They will retain control of the House regardless.

[JU_88]

Sure the welfare state needs to be cut, as does everything since Americas current over spending is killing it. High time they got their house in order, like it or not, they should listen to Ron Paul on Foreign policy.
Over seas spending should be cut first, it costs way more than anything else and does nothing to benifit the American people. It merely serves the special intreasts.
With a 15 trillion defecit, the U.S can't have its cake and eat it any more... unless its want to become the next Greece. I fear that between Congress and Ben Bernanke, they have already passed the point of no return, in term of destroying the Dollar.
Im not saying Pauls gold standard apporach is the right way either, but printing money and over borrowing to support run way spending is not got going to end well for America and indeed the rest of the world :nope:

[Catfish]

In the future you will not vote for a politician or a political party.
You will vote for a corporation.:yep:


But this has been my proposal for years !
:up:
We can spare all the money for politicians, lobbies would die out, and otherwise it would be all the same.

[Catfish]

Sure the welfare state needs to be cut, as does everything since Americas current over spending is killing it. High time they got their house in order. But like it or not they should listen to Ron Paul on Foreign policy.
Over seas spending should be cut first, it costs way more than anything else and does nothing to benifit the American people. It merely serves the special intreasts.
With a 15 trillion defecit, the U.S can't have its cake and eat it any more... unless its want to become the next Greece. :nope:

Current overspending, and before all else you say that the "welfare state needs to be cut" - the US is not a welfare state in the eyes of other states.
The US has hundreds of military bases all over the world, it is active in a lot of countries militarily or economics-wise (the latter only seldomly getting enough out of ventures, and then only for the real big business like Halliburton) and now intends to buy 2500 fighter jets for a trillion of dollars.
Don't you think the welfare state was working in the 1960ies and 70ies ? Why doesn't it work now then - did the common people bring the US in that situation, not the arms build-up ?

I agree house owners have to pay and cannot buy all on credit cards, but whose fault is that ? Why does a bank give a credit or c. card to people who obviously will never be able to pay it back ? Big credits for houses that are worth almost nothing !

And this money is - despite already being a lot - somewhat ridculous in comparison with the military spending.

[JU_88]

Um catfish, why are you arguing with my post when our arguments are virtually same one? I said - overseas should be cut before welfare did I not? ;)

[Catfish]

Sure the welfare state needs to be cut, as does everything since Americas current over spending is killing it. [...]

Seems i misunderstood that (?) ;)

[Penguin]

I just took a test that Romney is the candidate who I have the least in common with - even less than with Palin :o Well, I can't vote in the Us anyway - good for the Americans :DL


Only when you bring people to not participating in the show, the turnout at the end falls - and at some time it becomes so low that even the most unscrupulous gangster becomes shy to claim that he still got elected by a significant part of the population.

Wishful thinking.

Those crooks would even stick to their position if they would get voted by 2% of the population.
Check out the decline of voter turnout in Europe. Did it change anything? Did it bring more direct democracy? Look up the numbers for the US in non-presidential election years (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html). The members of Congress get voted by 1/3rd of the voters. Does anyone of them care?
If I have a little part of participation, chosing the lesser evil or atr least voting some nonsense party, I do so. If I have so few possibilities to vote like we have in Europe (*cough* EU "parliament" :har: *cough*) I still try to take part in the little participation we get granted as peasants.

If non-voting would change anything it would be forbidden

I think it's even more silly not to vote in the US which has significant more direct participation. On election days, many people not only vote for the candidates, but often on a number of other issues on state and local level.


Yes, at least that how it once was, nowadays its more like this

U.S
Republican = more of the same
Democrat = more of the same

U.K
Conservative = more of the same
Labour = more of the same
Lib dems = LOL

:yeah:

I still think it's not really comparible. In Boss Mark's analogy, the Dems would be more like New Labour, with the Reps more like the Tories under Maggy.
However, we don't have a comparible party to the Democrats in GB or Germany. They don't have any socialistic/social-democratic roots and thus less historic connection to all the labor struggles.

Furthermore there are many issues which don't exist in Europe or are less of a topic here. For example gun laws, illegal immigration, the eternal struggle between state rights vs. federal power - even if you compare the EU with the federal government - which is not really an analogy.
Not even mentioning specialities like the Dixiecrats.
I also think the USAnians put a much greater emphasis on single issues rather than on party lines, less the case in the de-facto 2-party Presidential race, but in local/state elections.

[JU_88]

Romney will just say what ever people want to hear, where he actually stands on most issues is anybodys geuss.
Search for 'Mitt Romney flip-flop' on youtube and you can find dozens clips of him contracdiction himself on just about every subject you can imagine, he has no credibility at all, I really have NO idea how he is winning/won the Republican nomination. What good qualities does anyone see in him?
The only plus side of voting obama that i can see, is that at least you know what you are gonna get :nope: ...more garbage as this guy puts it very nicely.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knrMgeTSrRI

[Ducimus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ax15XRL1URQ&feature=endscreen

NICE! :haha:

[JU_88]

Romney has zero integrity....ZERO!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_pgfWK3sxw

[Catfish]

I guess meanwhile Ron Paul would win, but the whole CNN and Fox liars' media hype and billions spent for Romney .. :nope:

[Hinrich Schwab]

I have no intention to vote for Romney. He is simply a representative of the Megacorporations using the usual "pander to the Fundamentalists" tactic to get elected. He has no intention of bringing any relief to the average citizen, who is repressed by the economic disasters and oppressed by stupidity, such as the Patriot Act.

I refuse to vote for Obama. He is a representative of both Liberalism (the international relations theory, not the strawman political version) and Socialism. The nation cannot handle the government becoming larger without breaching the public trust beyond repair.

I am taking a third option and voting for someone else...even if I have to write myself in on the ballot to do it. People keep thinking that there is no other choice and one should vote for the "lesser of two evils". This is a load of crap and it is why there has been no change in this country. Nothing will change until sufficient people stop voting for these unworthy people and begin placing votes elsewhere.

[Feld Grau]

I am taking a third option and voting for someone else...even if I have to write myself in on the ballot to do it. People keep thinking that there is no other choice and one should vote for the "lesser of two evils". This is a load of crap and it is why there has been no change in this country. Nothing will change until sufficient people stop voting for these unworthy people and begin placing votes elsewhere.


Have you considered voting for Gary Johnson? Consider the Libertarian or another 3rd party that actually has its priorities set straight.

[JU_88]

I guess meanwhile Ron Paul would win, but the whole CNN and Fox liars' media hype and billions spent for Romney .. :nope:

RP might had a chance had the media not blacked him out and condemned him from the start.
Theres no better way to ensure a candiate is unelectable than to misinform the public that he his 'unelectable' from the get go.
MSNBC and CNN were particularly unfair towards him, while FOX had a tendancy to smile to his face and then stab him the back.

[Hinrich Schwab]

Have you considered voting for Gary Johnson? Consider the Libertarian or another 3rd party that actually has its priorities set straight.

While I am a registered Libertarian, I have become utterly incensed with their defeatist attitude. I am exploring other options.

[Catfish]

RP might had a chance had the media not blacked him out and condemned him from the start.
Theres no better way to ensure a candiate is unelectable than to misinform the public that he his 'unelectable' from the get go.
MSNBC and CNN were particularly unfair towards him, while FOX had a tendancy to smile to his face and then stab him the back.

Exactly what i think.
Meanwhile in Chicago, during the NATO summit
US Army Veterans throw away their medals:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CejF2yhP3Oo&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0B-CEdMmwJ4

I am sure they will not vote for Romney.

[CaptainHaplo]

Romney has zero integrity....ZERO!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_pgfWK3sxw

And Obama has any?

"Transparent government"
"I won't hire lobbyists"
"I'll close Gitmo"
"I'll listen to the Generals"
"I am for gay marraige - oh wait I want to be president - no I am not - now I am president - well I am evolving - ok I am for gay marriage again"
"Growing the debt is irresponsible and unpatriotic"

Etc. Etc..

[mookiemookie]

See, in this game, your "team" scores a point each time the other team says something stupid. It lets all of the supporters of your team mock and humiliate the supporters of the opposing team, on Internet message boards and around water coolers and in coffee shops nationwide. "Haha! The supposed 'genius' Obama thinks there are 57 states in the U.S.!" "Oh, yeah? Well, your last president said he was going to help terrorists plan their next attack!"

And it never ends, because if your "team" gives up a gaffe, then you need to dig one up on the other side to even the score. So, last month the Romney campaign was embarrassed when an adviser came off like he was comparing his own candidate to an Etch A Sketch toy. Thus, this month the Romney campaign had to jump on an Obama adviser's gaffe that came off like she was saying that stay-at-home moms don't do work. And on and on it goes.

Oh lawdy...

[geetrue]

Romney will just say what ever people want to hear, where he actually stands on most issues is anybodys geuss.
Search for 'Mitt Romney flip-flop' on youtube and you can find dozens clips of him contracdiction himself on just about every subject you can imagine, he has no credibility at all, I really have NO idea how he is winning/won the Republican nomination. What good qualities does anyone see in him?
The only plus side of voting obama that i can see, is that at least you know what you are gonna get :nope: ...more garbage as this guy puts it very nicely.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knrMgeTSrRI

McCain said the same thing about Obama ... but what if Obma has four more years?

Four more years to do what?

Finish what he has started?

He has started a war of the have's against the have nots and he aims to finish it his way ... his way is not a good way so far.

Why let him have four more years is my question ... if he was quaterback on a NFL team would you keep him?

I don't think so :o

[JU_88]

McCain said the same thing about Obama ... but what if Obma has four more years?

Four more years to do what?

Finish what he has started?

He has started a war of the have's against the have nots and he aims to finish it his way ... his way is not a good way so far.

Why let him have four more years is my question ... if he was quaterback on a NFL team would you keep him?

I don't think so :o

I'm not pro Obama either, but what Romney is going to do that is so different? because at some point or another he has virtually agreed with Obama on everything.
As best anyone can tell, he has the same overall policy of 'lets keeps kicking the can down the road' and expect things to get better.
Expand the wars, expand the debt, expand government, all while there is debt crisis going on and global economic output is shrinking. mathmatics tells us that this is suicide.

Imagine a person who leads luxury life style funded by a meanial job and credit cards. When they cant afford to pay the cards off, they take out more credit cards to pay off the old ones and keep living in luxury... then repeat the cycle over and over, it works for while but then it loses momentum when the credit card companies start to wonder if they will ever see their money again. That is pretty much where America is at right now. Yet people will support this while telling you that Ron Pauls Austrian economics are 'bat-poo crazy'. "What? cut down on spending and balance my budget? why, that is sheer madness, it will never work!"

[Catfish]

And Obama has any?
"Transparent government"
"I won't hire lobbyists"
"I'll close Gitmo"
"I'll listen to the Generals"
"I am for gay marraige - oh wait I want to be president - no I am not - now I am president - well I am evolving - ok I am for gay marriage again"
"Growing the debt is irresponsible and unpatriotic"
Etc. Etc..

Do you really think Romney will do anything else ?
He is already well-paid for his campaign, by Goldman-Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, Bank of America, AIG and so on.
This is a lobby election, or do you think this is a democracy with the president be elected and directly voted for by common american taxpayers ?

At least Obama did listen to some generals, and "he" caught Bin Laden, and numerous other terrorists - if with debatable means, like drones and a lot of collateral damage, as they cynically say.
He will also pull out of Afghanistan, but as arranged with other NATO troops, together in 2014. If you want to pull out instantly, you need a socialist like the french Hollande - do you think this is an alternative.

Regarding the conduct of a country " ... you cannot rely on a president or policy changing every few years ... " as the CIA said, so i take it as soon as some puppet has been elected he is briefed of what is really going on, and he has either to forget his promises or he will be 'overheard' , and not be president for very long.
And this will be the same with Romney - after hearing what he said and then denying in the next interview he is hardly believable (he wants Reagonomics back, right ? More arms, less welfare ...), but even IF he would be wanting to change anything, against lobby and those other secret interests, he would fail. I fear it would be the same with Ron Paul. I think in the current scenario of lobbies and services, it really does not matter much who is president.

Nobody has to be afraid that anything changes. I think the american system of election is not really democratic, but then i was advised the USA is a constitutional republic. Aha.
"If elections really changed anything, they would be forbidden."

[JU_88]

Do you really think Romney will do anything else ?
He is already well-paid for his campaign, by Goldman-Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, Bank of America, AIG and so on.
This is a lobby election, or do you think this is a democracy with the president be elected and directly voted for by common american taxpayers ?

At least Obama did listen to some generals, and "he" caught Bin Laden, and numerous other terrorists - if with debatable means, like drones and a lot of collateral damage, as they cynically say.
He will also pull out of Afghanistan, but as arranged with other NATO troops, together in 2014. If you want to pull out instantly, you need a socialist like the french Hollande - do you think this is an alternative.

Regarding the conduct of a country " ... you cannot rely on a president or policy changing every few years ... " as the CIA said, so i take it as soon as some puppet has been elected he is briefed of what is really going on, and he has either to forget his promises or he will be 'overheard' , and not be president for very long.
And this will be the same with Romney - after hearing what he said and then denying in the next interview he is hardly believable (he wants Reagonomics back, right ? More arms, less welfare ...), but even IF he would be wanting to change anything, against lobby and those other secret interests, he would fail. I fear it would be the same with Ron Paul. I think in the current scenario of lobbies and services, it really does not matter much who is president.

Nobody has to be afraid that anything changes. I think the american system of election is not really democratic, but then i was advised the USA is a constitutional republic. Aha.
"If elections really changed anything, they would be forbidden."

Yeah thats the thing. you never get any real change to any nation when people are still under the spell of apathy. You only get it in a time of major crisis. We are in a terrible crisis that has merely been postponed by bailouts and QE, Trouble is that people tend not wake up to these things until it arrives on their own doorstep. The Greeks are perfect example.

Now is supposed to be a good time to get into gold and silver, precious metals are on the way up (as predicted) while Fiat money is slowly being devalued.
When we reach breaking point, I dont personally think our civilisation will decend in to a zomnie apocalypes (as some of the more er...excentric 'preper' types on Youtube would have you believe), but it might well be 'out of order' for a while, in which case I would expect the usual unpleasentries such as, bank runs, food shortages, power outs, riots and maybe martial law - condisering that welfare systems will likely collapes) but that is a phase that will probably give over to depression conditions. (Thankfully Most people prefer stability over chaos.)
The worst part is that many ordindary people who have spent their lives working hard and saving up during the boom years, could get financially wiped out over a very short period.

No one can realsitically pin down 'when' this might happen on our own shores (or how it will unfold), could be this year or another 2-3 years from now. It depends on so many different factors. But it has to come eventually, A 30 year old debt bubble is one bullet that no country in the developed world will be able to dodge.

[CaptainHaplo]

He is already well-paid for his campaign, by Goldman-Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, Bank of America, AIG and so on.

Which "he"? Obama or Romney? Both have been sucking up Wall Street money. The difference? Obama talks about evil Wall St. even as they grease his palms. Romney doesn't. So which one has more integrity?

At least Obama did listen to some generals,and "he" caught Bin Laden, and numerous other terrorists

With those tactics that he excoriated Bush for - the surge, drone strikes, etc. More Obama integrity..... He listened to "some" generals - the ones who toe his line. Which leads us here....

He will also pull out of Afghanistan, but as arranged with other NATO troops, together in 2014. If you want to pull out instantly, you need a socialist like the french Hollande - do you think this is an alternative.

He was told by the same generals he "listens to" not to set a hard date publicly for withdrawal. How is that for listening. To answer the question - yes - an instant pullout is an alternative. Either we are there to win and kill every single terrrorist we can find - or we shouldn't be there at all. We should not be there for 4 years of his administration and then another 2 under him or someone else before we get out. 6 years? Really?

My issue is you said that Romney had zero credibility. He has more than Obama - who has lied to the American voter on nearly every topic he has spoken on. Romney doesn't take the money with the hand behind his back while speaking ill of the donators like Obama does with Wall St. money. That alone puts Obama well below Romney on "integrity".

[JU_88]

Which "he"? Obama or Romney? Both have been sucking up Wall Street money. The difference? Obama talks about evil Wall St. even as they grease his palms. Romney doesn't. So which one has more integrity?".

The problem here, is that Wall street themselves have no credibility either. Their name is mud right now, so I don't know if your argument casts Romney in more or less favorable light.
The fact that Wall street line pockets of both candiates, would suggest to me that it matters little them which one ends up in the driving seat, just so long as one of them does.

Id imagine what obama says is of little importance to wall street - they know that its just his way of using rehtoric to butter up the little people, its his actions that really count, and his actions do nothing to significantly to rattle their cage. As long as he supports bailouts, he effectively supports Wall street. End of story.

Romneys problem is that he has backpeddled on too many key issues, too many times, to the point that no one really knows what he is about at all. He is pro life one when he speaks to a pro life crowd and he is pro choice when speaking to a pro choice crowd. And that how he is on almost everything, a human Dupe box, stick a quarter in his butt and he'll play you which ever song you want to hear.

Obamas advantage is that his own flip flops only became apparent after he took office, while Romney's are apparent while he is still running! Its the battle of the two-faced president vs the two-faced candidate.

How Americans are supposed to vote in this situation is anyones guess, but you guys have my sympathy.

[Blood_splat]

This sums it up. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjZSCi2MSc4&feature=g-user-a)

[Ducimus]

This sums it up. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjZSCi2MSc4&feature=g-user-a)

Hell, i might just put that in my sig. That video, is sad but true.

[CaptainHaplo]

Romneys problem is that he has backpeddled on too many key issues, too many times, to the point that no one really knows what he is about at all. He is pro life one when he speaks to a pro life crowd and he is pro choice when speaking to a pro choice crowd. And that how he is on almost everything, a human Dupe box, stick a quarter in his butt and he'll play you which ever song you want to hear.

Obamas advantage is that his own flip flops only became apparent after he took office, while Romney's are apparent while he is still running! Its the battle of the two-faced president vs the two-faced candidate.

Both have their weak points. The difference is in RESULTS and ACTIONS.

Obama has ACTED in certain ways - from gay marriage to the economy - and the results are obvious. Overwhelming rejection of his social and fiscal agendas. When it comes to the economic side, even his surrogates are admitting tacit failure - see Clinton's comment of "we might be out of the recession at the end of Obama's next term".

Romney has a record in at least one area where he can point to success. That is his business prowess. Economically - he is a far better choice. THIS is what will decide the election. Americans vote their pocketbook - or as one person put it years ago - "Its the economy, stupid".

*That was not aimed at you - its just the quote.

[Platapus]

Thanks for participating in this little poll. The results and the postings seem to mesh well with my conversations with my co-workers.