It Isn't About the Candidates - It's About the Policies Behind the Candidates

[George Costanza]

The issue really should not be Obama v. Romney. It isn't about the men - it's about the ideas and policies behind the men.

I don't care that much for Obama as a person. I didn't like him in the primaries and I don't like him that much as our president. HOWEVER, it isn't about Obama with me. Rather, it is about Democratic programs v. Republican programs, whoever is in the oval office.

Like Obama or not, one can be reasonably sure that with him in the White House, most Democratic ideas and programs will be supported and, hopefully, enacted. Conversely, with Romney in there, what are we going to get - regardless of the type of person Romney is? Republican policies and programs.

I vote policies and programs rather than individual candidates. I think most people do the same - or they damn well should.

 

[Warrior102]

The issue really should not be Obama v. Romney. It isn't about the men - it's about the ideas and policies behind the men.

I don't care that much for Obama as a person. I didn't like him in the primaries and I don't like him that much as our president. HOWEVER, it isn't about Obama with me. Rather, it is about Democratic programs v. Republican programs, whoever is in the oval office.

Like Obama or not, one can be reasonably sure that with him in the White House, most Democratic ideas and programs will be supported and, hopefully, enacted. Conversely, with Romney in there, what are we going to get - regardless of the type of person Romney is? Republican programs.

I vote policies and programs rather than individual candidates. I think most people do the same - or they damn well should.

You've been an Obama ass-sucker from Day 1
Fact

 

[toomuchtime_]

The issue really should not be Obama v. Romney. It isn't about the men - it's about the ideas and policies behind the men.

I don't care that much for Obama as a person. I didn't like him in the primaries and I don't like him that much as our president. HOWEVER, it isn't about Obama with me. Rather, it is about Democratic programs v. Republican programs, whoever is in the oval office.

Like Obama or not, one can be reasonably sure that with him in the White House, most Democratic ideas and programs will be supported and, hopefully, enacted. Conversely, with Romney in there, what are we going to get - regardless of the type of person Romney is? Republican policies and programs.

I vote policies and programs rather than individual candidates. I think most people do the same - or they damn well should.

Not at all. It doesn't matter what policies the candidate is endorsing if he lacks the competence to deal effectively with Congress, and the fact is that Obama lacks that competence and Romney has it. The key issues are unemployment, the stagnant economy and soaring deficits. We have four years of proof that Obama can't deal effectively with these issues, but when Romney became governor of Mass., these were the exact issues he faced and he was strapped with an very hostile Democratic legislature. He did exactly what he is proposing to do in Washington, he cut spending and encouraged new business investment and the result was a sharp uptick economic activity leading to a sharp decline in unemployment and billions of dollars of deficits turned into billions of dollars of surpluses.

Obama has spent the last four years putting politics and ideology ahead of positive outcomes for the American people and then hunting for some one to blame for his failures. Romney's entire career in both the public and private sectors has been about producing positive outcomes. The election is all about the men. One man, Romney, has proven to us that he can do what needs to be done, encourage new business investment that will produce new jobs that will lower unemployment and create new tax revenues that along with spending cuts will lower the deficits, and the other man has spent four years proving to us that he can't deal effectively with the nation's problems.

 

[AquaAthena]

"It Isn't About the Candidates - It's About the Policies Behind the Candidates"

It IS about the candidates for they support those policies they embrace.

 

[blastoff]

"It Isn't About the Candidates - It's About the Policies Behind the Candidates"

It IS about the candidates for they support those policies they embrace.

Oh, c'mon now. That's waaay too technical, logical, sensible, etc., etc.

 

[George Costanza]

"It Isn't About the Candidates - It's About the Policies Behind the Candidates"

It IS about the candidates for they support those policies they embrace.

Precisely my point, sweet thing. Suppose that Romney dropped dead tomorrow, and Hulk Hogan stepped into his shoes. Now you must choose between voting for a Hulk Hogan who is vowing to embrace and support every policy that Romney embraced and supported, or voting for Obama, who is prepared to go opposite to every policy which Hogan would implement.

Who you gonna vote for?

Obviously, this is an absurd example, but it illustrates the point. As I said before, personally, I find Romney much more appealing than Obama so, if I was voting only on that basis, I would vote for Romney in a minute. But the "policies he embraces" are something I am strongly opposed to, so I will vote for Obama, who supports policies with which I aqree.

 

[George Costanza]

"It Isn't About the Candidates - It's About the Policies Behind the Candidates"

It IS about the candidates for they support those policies they embrace.

Oh, c'mon now. That's waaay too technical, logical, sensible, etc., etc.

Actually, she totally missed the point - which it would appear, so have you.

 

[peach174]

"It Isn't About the Candidates - It's About the Policies Behind the Candidates"

It IS about the candidates for they support those policies they embrace.

Oh, c'mon now. That's waaay too technical, logical, sensible, etc., etc.

Actually, she totally missed the point - which it would appear, so have you.

So now you see the big problem we have and why we got to where we are now.
I agree, it is about the policies.

 

[George Costanza]

The issue really should not be Obama v. Romney. It isn't about the men - it's about the ideas and policies behind the men.

I don't care that much for Obama as a person. I didn't like him in the primaries and I don't like him that much as our president. HOWEVER, it isn't about Obama with me. Rather, it is about Democratic programs v. Republican programs, whoever is in the oval office.

Like Obama or not, one can be reasonably sure that with him in the White House, most Democratic ideas and programs will be supported and, hopefully, enacted. Conversely, with Romney in there, what are we going to get - regardless of the type of person Romney is? Republican policies and programs.

I vote policies and programs rather than individual candidates. I think most people do the same - or they damn well should.

Not at all. It doesn't matter what policies the candidate is endorsing if he lacks the competence to deal effectively with Congress, and the fact is that Obama lacks that competence and Romney has it. The key issues are unemployment, the stagnant economy and soaring deficits. We have four years of proof that Obama can't deal effectively with these issues, but when Romney became governor of Mass., these were the exact issues he faced and he was strapped with an very hostile Democratic legislature. He did exactly what he is proposing to do in Washington, he cut spending and encouraged new business investment and the result was a sharp uptick economic activity leading to a sharp decline in unemployment and billions of dollars of deficits turned into billions of dollars of surpluses.

Obama has spent the last four years putting politics and ideology ahead of positive outcomes for the American people and then hunting for some one to blame for his failures. Romney's entire career in both the public and private sectors has been about producing positive outcomes. The election is all about the men. One man, Romney, has proven to us that he can do what needs to be done, encourage new business investment that will produce new jobs that will lower unemployment and create new tax revenues that along with spending cuts will lower the deficits, and the other man has spent four years proving to us that he can't deal effectively with the nation's problems.

As a side issue - a lot of people (yourself included) conveniently overlook the rather obvious point that, yes - Obama has not solved our economy, unemployment and deficit problems as successfully as most would like. He has made some progress but, regardless, which is better - to continue with someone who is trying to solve these problems, or return to a Republican administration WHEN IT WAS EIGHT YEARS OF A REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION THAT BROUGHT THE PROBLEMS ON TO BEGIN WITH?

When the fox kills almost all of the chickens in the hen house and is then replaced by an electronic alarm system, would the farmer be making a smart move to put the fox back to watch the hen house once again merely because the number of chickens did not increase fast enough for him while the electronic alarm system was in effect?

 

[George Costanza]

Oh, c'mon now. That's waaay too technical, logical, sensible, etc., etc.

Actually, she totally missed the point - which it would appear, so have you.

So now you see the big problem we have and why we got to where we are now.
I agree, it is about the policies.

So who do we elect now, in your opinion? (Sorry - not that clear to me from your post here.)

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The issue really should not be Obama v. Romney. It isn't about the men - it's about the ideas and policies behind the men.

I don't care that much for Obama as a person. I didn't like him in the primaries and I don't like him that much as our president. HOWEVER, it isn't about Obama with me. Rather, it is about Democratic programs v. Republican programs, whoever is in the oval office.

Like Obama or not, one can be reasonably sure that with him in the White House, most Democratic ideas and programs will be supported and, hopefully, enacted. Conversely, with Romney in there, what are we going to get - regardless of the type of person Romney is? Republican policies and programs.

I vote policies and programs rather than individual candidates. I think most people do the same - or they damn well should.

Yet, for some reason, Obama wants to make this election about Romney, not about issues. The only explanation I can come up with for that is that he doesn't have any policies.

Given that Romney has said he would sit down with both parties in Congress, and Obama has spent the last 4 years ignoring both parties, I would think that anyone who really wanted to see Democratic policies enacted would vote for Romney, which is why I am not voting for him.

 

[George Costanza]

The issue really should not be Obama v. Romney. It isn't about the men - it's about the ideas and policies behind the men.

I don't care that much for Obama as a person. I didn't like him in the primaries and I don't like him that much as our president. HOWEVER, it isn't about Obama with me. Rather, it is about Democratic programs v. Republican programs, whoever is in the oval office.

Like Obama or not, one can be reasonably sure that with him in the White House, most Democratic ideas and programs will be supported and, hopefully, enacted. Conversely, with Romney in there, what are we going to get - regardless of the type of person Romney is? Republican programs.

I vote policies and programs rather than individual candidates. I think most people do the same - or they damn well should.

You've been an Obama ass-sucker from Day 1
Fact

No, I have not. I have been a strong supporter of his POLICIES from Day 1. Don't presume to tell me how I feel about someone or some thing.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The issue really should not be Obama v. Romney. It isn't about the men - it's about the ideas and policies behind the men.

I don't care that much for Obama as a person. I didn't like him in the primaries and I don't like him that much as our president. HOWEVER, it isn't about Obama with me. Rather, it is about Democratic programs v. Republican programs, whoever is in the oval office.

Like Obama or not, one can be reasonably sure that with him in the White House, most Democratic ideas and programs will be supported and, hopefully, enacted. Conversely, with Romney in there, what are we going to get - regardless of the type of person Romney is? Republican policies and programs.

I vote policies and programs rather than individual candidates. I think most people do the same - or they damn well should.

I'll translate for everyone...

"I'll be voting for anyone with a (D) by their name, no matter how much they suck and fuck things up because yes, I am that stupid."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"It Isn't About the Candidates - It's About the Policies Behind the Candidates"

It IS about the candidates for they support those policies they embrace.

What policies does Obama embrace?

 

[Uncensored2008]

You've been an Obama ass-sucker from Day 1
Fact

He's a democrat sheeple. He'd vote for a toad, if it had a "D" after the name. Union tells him to vote democrat, so he votes democrat - end of story.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"It Isn't About the Candidates - It's About the Policies Behind the Candidates"

It IS about the candidates for they support those policies they embrace.

Precisely my point, sweet thing. Suppose that Romney dropped dead tomorrow, and Hulk Hogan stepped into his shoes. Now you must choose between voting for a Hulk Hogan who is vowing to embrace and support every policy that Romney embraced and supported, or voting for Obama, who is prepared to go opposite to every policy which Hogan would implement.

Who you gonna vote for?

Obviously, this is an absurd example, but it illustrates the point. As I said before, personally, I find Romney much more appealing than Obama so, if I was voting only on that basis, I would vote for Romney in a minute. But the "policies he embraces" are something I am strongly opposed to, so I will vote for Obama, who supports policies with which I aqree.

The only policy I have seen Obama embrace is spending more money. Quite frankly, that is absurd, which is why I won't be voting for him either.

 

[George Costanza]

The issue really should not be Obama v. Romney. It isn't about the men - it's about the ideas and policies behind the men.

I don't care that much for Obama as a person. I didn't like him in the primaries and I don't like him that much as our president. HOWEVER, it isn't about Obama with me. Rather, it is about Democratic programs v. Republican programs, whoever is in the oval office.

Like Obama or not, one can be reasonably sure that with him in the White House, most Democratic ideas and programs will be supported and, hopefully, enacted. Conversely, with Romney in there, what are we going to get - regardless of the type of person Romney is? Republican policies and programs.

I vote policies and programs rather than individual candidates. I think most people do the same - or they damn well should.

Yet, for some reason, Obama wants to make this election about Romney, not about issues. The only explanation I can come up with for that is that he doesn't have any policies.

Given that Romney has said he would sit down with both parties in Congress, and Obama has spent the last 4 years ignoring both parties, I would think that anyone who really wanted to see Democratic policies enacted would vote for Romney, which is why I am not voting for him.

Oh, yes - of course. Both candidates want to make the campaign about the other guy, because they both know that this is largely why people vote for one or the other - which is the whole point of this thread. That is the wrong criterion, but that's what people do in general.

How many times has a friend of yours recommended a professional person such as a doctor, with: "You really need to go see Dr. Smith. He's a REALLY good doctor." In point of fact, they don't have the slightest idea what kind of a doctor Dr. Smith is. All they know is that they had some brief contact with him which did not involve anything really serious, and he seemed like a NICE GUY.

 

[PredFan]

The issue really should not be Obama v. Romney. It isn't about the men - it's about the ideas and policies behind the men.

I don't care that much for Obama as a person. I didn't like him in the primaries and I don't like him that much as our president. HOWEVER, it isn't about Obama with me. Rather, it is about Democratic programs v. Republican programs, whoever is in the oval office.

Like Obama or not, one can be reasonably sure that with him in the White House, most Democratic ideas and programs will be supported and, hopefully, enacted. Conversely, with Romney in there, what are we going to get - regardless of the type of person Romney is? Republican policies and programs.

I vote policies and programs rather than individual candidates. I think most people do the same - or they damn well should.

The issue really should not be Obama v. Romney. It isn't about the men - it's about the ideas and policies behind the men.

I don't care that much for Obama as a person. I didn't like him in the primaries and I don't like him as our president. HOWEVER, it isn't about Obama with me. Rather, it is about Democratic programs v. Republican programs, whoever is in the oval office.

Like Obama or not, one can be reasonably sure that with him in the White House, most Democratic ideas and programs will be supported and, enacted. Conversely, with Romney in there, what are we going to get - regardless of the type of person Romney is? Republican policies and programs thankfully.

I vote policies and programs rather than individual candidates. I think most people do the same - or they damn well should.

 

[George Costanza]

"It Isn't About the Candidates - It's About the Policies Behind the Candidates"

It IS about the candidates for they support those policies they embrace.

What policies does Obama embrace?

Universal health care - I agree with that.
Pro choice - I agree with that.
Getting us out of the Middle East by 2014 - I basically agree with that, if that's the earliest he will do it. I would prefer NOW.
Discontinuing the Bush tax breaks for the wealthy - I agree with that.

That's just off the top of my head.

 

[peach174]

The issue really should not be Obama v. Romney. It isn't about the men - it's about the ideas and policies behind the men.

I don't care that much for Obama as a person. I didn't like him in the primaries and I don't like him that much as our president. HOWEVER, it isn't about Obama with me. Rather, it is about Democratic programs v. Republican programs, whoever is in the oval office.

Like Obama or not, one can be reasonably sure that with him in the White House, most Democratic ideas and programs will be supported and, hopefully, enacted. Conversely, with Romney in there, what are we going to get - regardless of the type of person Romney is? Republican policies and programs.

I vote policies and programs rather than individual candidates. I think most people do the same - or they damn well should.

Not at all. It doesn't matter what policies the candidate is endorsing if he lacks the competence to deal effectively with Congress, and the fact is that Obama lacks that competence and Romney has it. The key issues are unemployment, the stagnant economy and soaring deficits. We have four years of proof that Obama can't deal effectively with these issues, but when Romney became governor of Mass., these were the exact issues he faced and he was strapped with an very hostile Democratic legislature. He did exactly what he is proposing to do in Washington, he cut spending and encouraged new business investment and the result was a sharp uptick economic activity leading to a sharp decline in unemployment and billions of dollars of deficits turned into billions of dollars of surpluses.

Obama has spent the last four years putting politics and ideology ahead of positive outcomes for the American people and then hunting for some one to blame for his failures. Romney's entire career in both the public and private sectors has been about producing positive outcomes. The election is all about the men. One man, Romney, has proven to us that he can do what needs to be done, encourage new business investment that will produce new jobs that will lower unemployment and create new tax revenues that along with spending cuts will lower the deficits, and the other man has spent four years proving to us that he can't deal effectively with the nation's problems.

As a side issue - a lot of people (yourself included) conveniently overlook the rather obvious point that, yes - Obama has not solved our economy, unemployment and deficit problems as successfully as most would like. He has made some progress but, regardless, which is better - to continue with someone who is trying to solve these problems, or return to a Republican administration WHEN IT WAS EIGHT YEARS OF A REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION THAT BROUGHT THE PROBLEMS ON TO BEGIN WITH?

When the fox killed almost all of the chickens in the hen house and was then replaced by an electronic alarm system, would the farmer be making a smart move to put the fox back to watch the hen house once again merely because the number of chickens did not increase fast enough for him while the electronic alarm system was in effect?

It was both parties that caused the melt down. But the Dem's blocked any of Bushes polices.
In 2002 the Enron Scandal uncovered that Freddie Mac was dealing in illegal hedge funds.
Republicans moved swiftly to enact a stronger GSE regulatory framework… Democrats dug trenches and defended. Please recall – if investors become more skeptical about Fannie’s health, they would not purchase as many of Fannie’s repackaged mortgage securities, at least not at market-low interest rates. That situation would reduce Fannie’s ability to buy mortgages, particularly in the risky subprime market. This was something Democrats wanted to avoid, at severe cost if necessary.
3 Dems stopped all of the Repubs bills coming out the Houseing and banking committee.They could not get any bills out to go to the floor to be voted on.
And we have all paid severely for it.