Can you trust him?

[LoneLaugher]

It is amazing that anyone paying attention to this election could ever suggest that Mitt Romney is a man of integrity.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It is amazing that anyone paying attention to this election could ever suggest that Mitt Romney is a man of integrity.

When did obama have any integrity?

 

[techieny]

I think he can be trusted to represent the interests of the extremely wealthy and powerful.

If I were an American millionaire, a banker or broker, I'd vote for him.

Otherwise, not to much,

more divisiveness...your ONLY stump point!!!

 

[Againsheila]

Can you trust him, if so, why?


Still Voting For 'Mitt Romney'? - YouTube

I know one thing is for sure you cannot trust obama.

You can't trust either of them. Only the sheep will continue to vote for the dems and the reps.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Can you trust him, if so, why?


Still Voting For 'Mitt Romney'? - YouTube

I know one thing is for sure you cannot trust obama.

You can't trust either of them. Only the sheep will continue to vote for the dems and the reps.

I have know doubt you are correct, I'm only going on what I know to be 100% correct and factual with obama.

 

[Plasmaball]

I know one thing is for sure you cannot trust obama.

That depends entirely on who you are.

Politicians don't do things randomly, and they aren't stupid. ALL politicians in ALL democracies work to better the lot of their citizenry, in particular the citizenry that votes for them and their party.

Romney will absolutely do his best by upper class white Christians, conservatives and business owners.

Obama will absolutely do his best by working class people, ethnic minorities and liberals.

They may not succeed, but that is what they are aiming at, anyway.

The question for voters is really only which group am I within, and do I think voting this way is for the betterment of ALL Americans, and not only me.

49% of people are on some form of government assistance, 8.2% unemployment is the "betterment" of this country

if that's your idea of betterment, than vote for Obama AGAIN..The people of this country FORGOT how to better thing for THEMSELVES

thats not obamas fault

 

[Plasmaball]

No. He has taken every position possible in order to further his political career.

its amazing how people can see what he's done in the video and go, MEH dont care.

 

[antagon]

I won't trust a politician.

This video, however, is really loaded. Some of the flip-flops... just weren't. The video is probably less trustworthy than Mitt.

 

[Jackson]

Can you trust him, if so, why?


Still Voting For 'Mitt Romney'? - YouTube

We know we cannot trust Obama.

 

[candycorn]

Constant flip flopping? I haven't seen that. Has he changed positions on some things? Yes he has. Is that because he changed his mind or out of political expediency? I don't know. As I said he is not a saint. He is a man who is putting it all on the line to run for President. You show me ANY politician who has NEVER taken the expedient route and then we can think Romeny is somehow more culpable than any others. One thing that has impressed me, however, is that he cannot be accused of compromising his deepest convictions and that he has changed his positions on things so infrequently.

We have NEVER had a President who has campaigned as one person and then has governed as an entirely different person as we have had in Barack Obama. I cannot trust that.

I do trust Mitt Romney to not do that.

Here he is going from Progressive to Conservative. If you call those "deep convictions" he compromised.

WhichMitt: On Being Conservative... - YouTube

I can post Youtube videos that show Mitt Romney to be salt of the Earth and the greatest thing since sliced bread. Anybody can use selective clips and sound bites taken out of context to create whatever illusion about anybody they want to create.

That's why I don't evaluate a candidate based on edited Youtube clips, especially those put together to attack somebody.

Do you?

They were his own words. They are his own words in a great many of these videos. His flip-flops on nearly every subject are prolific.

 

[Merchant_of_Meh]

Why should we trust any of them? Both sides have made it abundantly clear that they do not have our interests at heart at all. They care for nothing and no one, but themselves. They've just made a great show of pretending to oppose each other over the years. It's the sort of sinister cynicism that we've come to expect from our representatives.

So why should we trust and support ANY of them when they've done nothing to reciprocate that? As far as I'm concerned, that's the question that matters and the one that rarely gets a good answer.

 

[Foxfyre]

Why should we trust any of them? Both sides have made it abundantly clear that they do not have our interests at heart at all. They care for nothing and no one, but themselves. They've just made a great show of pretending to oppose each other over the years. It's the sort of sinister cynicism that we've come to expect from our representatives.

So why should we trust and support ANY of them when they've done nothing to reciprocate that? As far as I'm concerned, that's the question that matters and the one that rarely gets a good answer.

As long as they are allowed to use our money to increase their personal power, prestige, influence, and wealth, the temptation becomes too much to resist. We can trust Romney more than Obama on that front, however, as he has not used his appointed or elected positions to benefit himself. So he may be the closest thing we will find to a true public servant who maybe wants the satisfaction of making a difference, but who is likely going to be focused on making things better. Paying off cronies or enhancing his own position within a machine is not something he has ever done, and is something the current resident in the White House routinely does.

So what we can do is get behind the Tea Party--or better, IN it--and similar groups, and stay committed to candidates who will pledge to fix the system instead of maintain the status quo or make things worse. And then hold their feet to the fire so that they do it despite the damnation and incriminations that will be hurled at them from the status quo quadrant.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It is amazing that anyone paying attention to this election could ever suggest that Mitt Romney is a man of integrity.

And consequently he’ll attract those also devoid of integrity to his administration.

 

[Stephanie]

It is amazing that anyone paying attention to this election could ever suggest that Mitt Romney is a man of integrity.

And consequently he’ll attract those also devoid of integrity to his administration.

If he did it (which your crystal ball seems to say he would), it wouldn't be anything not done by this administration..Not a shred of integrity in the bunch

 

[candycorn]

Why should we trust any of them? Both sides have made it abundantly clear that they do not have our interests at heart at all. They care for nothing and no one, but themselves. They've just made a great show of pretending to oppose each other over the years. It's the sort of sinister cynicism that we've come to expect from our representatives.

So why should we trust and support ANY of them when they've done nothing to reciprocate that? As far as I'm concerned, that's the question that matters and the one that rarely gets a good answer.

Excellent post. I would add that the only thing a President can really do is share your values on a human level. Look at this Medicare debate for example; Both "teams" are going to monkey around with Medicare. The Democrats want to preserve it in it's current form and the Republicans want to start issuing vouchers on the hope that rural folks can find doctors willing to take Medicare reimbursement; remember the ACA would also be out the door so it would be pretty much a screw job if you can't set something up on your own. In cities you have choices, on the courntyside, you don't always do....

My point is though that both sides are more similar than they are different. The only thing a President can do is appoint judges and 3 on the Supreme Court will be turning 80 in the next 4 years. I prefer center-left judges that mirror Obama's political tendencies. You may differ and thats fine but these are things that the election will decide more directly than whether Mr. Obama cuts here and Mr. Romney cuts there; only to be re-funded by the next Congress.

 

[Katzndogz]

Democrats don't want to preserve medicare in its current form. They intend to fold medicare into obamacare.

 

[Merchant_of_Meh]

Why should we trust any of them? Both sides have made it abundantly clear that they do not have our interests at heart at all. They care for nothing and no one, but themselves. They've just made a great show of pretending to oppose each other over the years. It's the sort of sinister cynicism that we've come to expect from our representatives.

So why should we trust and support ANY of them when they've done nothing to reciprocate that? As far as I'm concerned, that's the question that matters and the one that rarely gets a good answer.

As long as they are allowed to use our money to increase their personal power, prestige, influence, and wealth, the temptation becomes too much to resist. We can trust Romney more than Obama on that front, however, as he has not used his appointed or elected positions to benefit himself. So he may be the closest thing we will find to a true public servant who maybe wants the satisfaction of making a difference, but who is likely going to be focused on making things better. Paying off cronies or enhancing his own position within a machine is not something he has ever done, and is something the current resident in the White House routinely does.

So what we can do is get behind the Tea Party--or better, IN it--and similar groups, and stay committed to candidates who will pledge to fix the system instead of maintain the status quo or make things worse. And then hold their feet to the fire so that they do it despite the damnation and incriminations that will be hurled at them from the status quo quadrant.

I like your optimism, but this is almost exactly what was said of Obama when he was campaigning 4 years ago. His supporters accused Bush of everything under the sun and then said "That won't happen under us". It's the chorus of a song on a broken record sadly and based on what I've seen, read and heard from Romney, he has not convinced me otherwise that he's any different. Politicians are all the same in that particular respect Regardless of their beliefs and/or ideologies, their first allegiance is to their financial contributors, who ensure their political survival. They rake in the cash and if they just happen to help poor old Joe Schmuck along the way, well that's merely a bonus for them. It's ridiculous behavior and I just don't see Romney as the end of it. I could be and very much hope I'm wrong, but I don't believe I am. He's as wooden as a cabin, but he seems an affable fella.

Excellent post. I would add that the only thing a President can really do is share your values on a human level. Look at this Medicare debate for example; Both "teams" are going to monkey around with Medicare. The Democrats want to preserve it in it's current form and the Republicans want to start issuing vouchers on the hope that rural folks can find doctors willing to take Medicare reimbursement; remember the ACA would also be out the door so it would be pretty much a screw job if you can't set something up on your own. In cities you have choices, on the courntyside, you don't always do....

My point is though that both sides are more similar than they are different. The only thing a President can do is appoint judges and 3 on the Supreme Court will be turning 80 in the next 4 years. I prefer center-left judges that mirror Obama's political tendencies. You may differ and thats fine but these are things that the election will decide more directly than whether Mr. Obama cuts here and Mr. Romney cuts there; only to be re-funded by the next Congress.

Well this whole debacle over Medicare kinda makes my point. Both sides purport to have the right formula for revamping and improving this system, but will they actually go through with it if push came to shove? Nope. I think this is especially damning on the Democratic side of the aisle considering the power they had with the super majority and how badly they bottled said power. Such indecisiveness with so much power is normally not a bad thing as it shows integrity, but these are career politicians we're talking about here. Integrity is their kryptonite after all.

As for the election itself, It will be an exercise in frustration and yet I will still find myself heading to the polls. Last time, I voted for the lesser of two evils. A naive choice to say the least, but the last 4 years have provided a valuable lesson in such things.

 

[Foxfyre]

Why should we trust any of them? Both sides have made it abundantly clear that they do not have our interests at heart at all. They care for nothing and no one, but themselves. They've just made a great show of pretending to oppose each other over the years. It's the sort of sinister cynicism that we've come to expect from our representatives.

So why should we trust and support ANY of them when they've done nothing to reciprocate that? As far as I'm concerned, that's the question that matters and the one that rarely gets a good answer.

As long as they are allowed to use our money to increase their personal power, prestige, influence, and wealth, the temptation becomes too much to resist. We can trust Romney more than Obama on that front, however, as he has not used his appointed or elected positions to benefit himself. So he may be the closest thing we will find to a true public servant who maybe wants the satisfaction of making a difference, but who is likely going to be focused on making things better. Paying off cronies or enhancing his own position within a machine is not something he has ever done, and is something the current resident in the White House routinely does.

So what we can do is get behind the Tea Party--or better, IN it--and similar groups, and stay committed to candidates who will pledge to fix the system instead of maintain the status quo or make things worse. And then hold their feet to the fire so that they do it despite the damnation and incriminations that will be hurled at them from the status quo quadrant.

I like your optimism, but this is almost exactly what was said of Obama when he was campaigning 4 years ago. His supporters accused Bush of everything under the sun and then said "That won't happen under us". It's the chorus of a song on a broken record sadly and based on what I've seen, read and heard from Romney, he has not convinced me otherwise that he's any different. Politicians are all the same in that particular respect Regardless of their beliefs and/or ideologies, their first allegiance is to their financial contributors, who ensure their political survival. They rake in the cash and if they just happen to help poor old Joe Schmuck along the way, well that's merely a bonus for them. It's ridiculous behavior and I just don't see Romney as the end of it. I could be and very much hope I'm wrong, but I don't believe I am. He's as wooden as a cabin, but he seems an affable fella.

Excellent post. I would add that the only thing a President can really do is share your values on a human level. Look at this Medicare debate for example; Both "teams" are going to monkey around with Medicare. The Democrats want to preserve it in it's current form and the Republicans want to start issuing vouchers on the hope that rural folks can find doctors willing to take Medicare reimbursement; remember the ACA would also be out the door so it would be pretty much a screw job if you can't set something up on your own. In cities you have choices, on the courntyside, you don't always do....

My point is though that both sides are more similar than they are different. The only thing a President can do is appoint judges and 3 on the Supreme Court will be turning 80 in the next 4 years. I prefer center-left judges that mirror Obama's political tendencies. You may differ and thats fine but these are things that the election will decide more directly than whether Mr. Obama cuts here and Mr. Romney cuts there; only to be re-funded by the next Congress.

Well this whole debacle over Medicare kinda makes my point. Both sides purport to have the right formula for revamping and improving this system, but will they actually go through with it if push came to shove? Nope. I think this is especially damning on the Democratic side of the aisle considering the power they had with the super majority and how badly they bottled said power. Such indecisiveness with so much power is normally not a bad thing as it shows integrity, but these are career politicians we're talking about here. Integrity is their kryptonite after all.

As for the election itself, It will be an exercise in frustration and yet I will still find myself heading to the polls. Last time, I voted for the lesser of two evils. A naive choice to say the least, but the last 4 years have provided a valuable lesson in such things.

I agree that Barack Obama campaigned almost 180 from how he has governed and that was a big disappointment for all but his most devoted admirers. But since the media barely vetted him and we knew so little about him at the time he was inaugerated, we really were buying a pig in a poke and we got burned.

We were also disappointed in George W Bush who we so trusted to be a solid conservative, nobody asked him any hard questions during that campaign. So when we got burned by him taking such un-conservative positions on so many things, we again probably have nobody to blame but ourselves.

I think we're paying better attention this time. We know a great deal about Mitt, his style, his temperament, his ability, how he manages, how he governs, and what his colleagues know about him. He is no saint, but he is a honest, decent man. He is imperfect because all humans are. He has made mistakes and he will surely make more. But I trust him to be the man he presents to us. I trust him to govern based on what he presents us in his campaign.

 

[Toro]

good grief, how did Bush spark the global economic crisis? you people act like Bush caused every damn thing like there were NO DEMOCRATS involved.

Firstly, I have absolutely no idea what you mean by "you people"

If you want to say things like that - name names.

Secondly, I am assuming your question about how Bush sparked the global economic crisis is rhetorical. Unless you lived in a cave during 2008, you know full well the events that led up to TARP.

Lastly, Democrats also share blame for the economic crisis through their actions in the Senate and Congress.

I am very familiar with the global financial crisis, and Bush (nor the Democrats) were not primarily responsible.

 

[Samson]

good grief, how did Bush spark the global economic crisis? you people act like Bush caused every damn thing like there were NO DEMOCRATS involved.

Firstly, I have absolutely no idea what you mean by "you people"

If you want to say things like that - name names.

Secondly, I am assuming your question about how Bush sparked the global economic crisis is rhetorical. Unless you lived in a cave during 2008, you know full well the events that led up to TARP.

Lastly, Democrats also share blame for the economic crisis through their actions in the Senate and Congress.

I am very familiar with the global financial crisis, and Bush (nor the Democrats) were primarily responsible.

What did Bush have to do with Greece? Spain? Italy?

Sorry Toro, but the "blame Bush" tactic only works for simple minds.