If it comes down between Mitt Romney (R)/Obama 2012...Who will you vote for.

[Lakhota]

Tea-Tards can't have it both ways: If Clinton was a draft dodger - so was Romney and Cain. A deferment was a deferment. Evasion was evasion. Dodging was dodging.

Trump also dodged Vietnam.

 

[francoHFW]

"However, I understand why people would think that it's Obama, due to his belief in keeping the economy afloat by more spending now and putting off doing anything about the deficit."

Except he offered 4.1 trilon in cuts. Guess that didn't make it on Fox etc

 

[Amelia]

I don't think either is evil.

I just think Romney is anti-labor.

We can't afford another big "de-regulation, low tax" cowboy.

That's what got us into this mess.

And why it's taking so long to get us out.

I mean..what the heck is congress arguing over. A couple of lousy points on taxes for the rich? Seriously?

The want to repeal Dodd/Frank?

How many more times we gotta bail out the whole thing before conservatives realize that Reagan voodoo economics..suck.

Along with Milton Friedman.

Anyone paying attention? Greenspan said it on his way out. Bernanke, hardly a liberal, said it today as well.

Gosh.

It's too bad that Obama didn't spend his political capital on righting the economic situation and showing that there was a better way than "Reagan voodoo economics".

If he had paid attention to making sure his stimulus and HAMP were working and to whatever it took to make those not-quite-shovel-ready infrastructure jobs a little closer to ready, then I think the recovery would have taken hold in a dramatic way and Obama would deserve reelection.

But instead he took his eye off the ball and scared us to death by focusing on his healthcare project instead of the economy. A project which promised to unsettle the economy for years to come with uncertain changes and wrinkles to iron out lurking around every corner.



Sooooo ... maybe Obama could have been the man to implement whatever you think is good economic policy .... but he didn't do it.

And I'm not willing to give him the chance to try to get it right over the next four years. He blew it big time. And I think it's time to let someone with a little more economic gravitas take the seat to help restore confidence.

The psychology of the economy is very important too, and that's one thing Obama doesn't get at all.

 

[earlycuyler]

For all those people who are saying there's not a dime's worth of difference between Obama and Romney ---

There is at least a dime's worth of difference.

Even if the difference is only marginal, as some claim, it's a very important margin. Like the difference between slightly overfishing and slightly underfishing a tuna population. (Picture vector fields from your differential equations class.)

The question is who keeps us on the safe side of the equilibrium line in this very fragile economy. I think one does and the other doesn't.

Generally I think it's the Republican candidate who will be found on the safe side because generally the Republican won't be so tempted by unaffordable social programs.

However, I understand why people would think that it's Obama, due to his belief in keeping the economy afloat by more spending now and putting off doing anything about the deficit.

I understand why people would be afraid of a Republican president making the economy contract too sharply under the influence of the Tea Party and Grover Norquist.

That's why I take heart in Romney's version of conservatism. I think he will make sound decisions, decisions influenced by promises he made to the Tea Party, but not too radical. "Conservatives" who want to veer sharply toward the ideal are a little too radical for me. Moderation is more truly conservative than "conservatives" these days. "Conservatives" seem to want big changes and they want them now. I don't want the boat to be rocked too fast.

Make progress in the margins. Don't make seismic changes. Implement a few good fundamentals like in Romney's plan for Day 1 and then let people get to work. Don't keep tinkering tinkering tinkering like Obama is inclined to do.



That's why I'm not just choosing Romney over Obama as the lesser of two evils. I'm choosing Romney over anyone as the most reasonable candidate in the field on either side, with the right skill set for the challenge facing this nation.

Ok this is a warning. You incite my mind to cypherin one more time you will receive a mega-neg. rep. this is a political message board, not math class.

 

[Salt Jones]

Whomsoever the LP nominates.

Love the signature.

 

[Lakhota]

Well, at least Romney would probably give us Single-Payer health care. That would be good.

 

[Amelia]

Well, at least Romney would probably give us Single-Payer health care. That would be good.

Day One:

An Order to Pave the Way to End Obamacare: Directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services and all relevant federal officials to return the maximum possible authority to the states to innovate and design health care solutions that work best for them


Fact Sheet: Mitt Romney's Plan to Turn Around the Economy | Mitt Romney for President

 

[Sallow]

I don't think either is evil.

I just think Romney is anti-labor.

We can't afford another big "de-regulation, low tax" cowboy.

That's what got us into this mess.

And why it's taking so long to get us out.

I mean..what the heck is congress arguing over. A couple of lousy points on taxes for the rich? Seriously?

The want to repeal Dodd/Frank?

How many more times we gotta bail out the whole thing before conservatives realize that Reagan voodoo economics..suck.

Along with Milton Friedman.

Anyone paying attention? Greenspan said it on his way out. Bernanke, hardly a liberal, said it today as well.

Gosh.

It's too bad that Obama didn't spend his political capital on righting the economic situation and showing that there was a better way than "Reagan voodoo economics".

If he had paid attention to making sure his stimulus and HAMP were working and to whatever it took to make those not-quite-shovel-ready infrastructure jobs a little closer to ready, then I think the recovery would have taken hold in a dramatic way and Obama would deserve reelection.

But instead he took his eye off the ball and scared us to death by focusing on his healthcare project instead of the economy. A project which promised to unsettle the economy for years to come with uncertain changes and wrinkles to iron out lurking around every corner.



Sooooo ... maybe Obama could have been the man to implement whatever you think is good economic policy .... but he didn't do it.

And I'm not willing to give him the chance to try to get it right over the next four years. He blew it big time. And I think it's time to let someone with a little more economic gravitas take the seat to help restore confidence.

The psychology of the economy is very important too, and that's one thing Obama doesn't get at all.

His big mistake was thinking that he could somehow make Republicans "like" him.

They impeached Clinton over nothing..they sure as heck weren't going to like a Black Democrat with a funny name.

Even if he used their ideas and incorporated everything they wanted into bills.

But riddle me this. Why is it we are always bailing out Republican economics?

Eh?

Hoover, Reagan, George W. Bush.

It's ridiculous.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Are there any "conservatives" here who believe that a major component of getting our economy in order is finding a way to deliver health care at a much lower cost?

The claim that Obama was not thinking of jobs from the start is kind of odd. It is clear to thinking adults that he was attempting to do more than one thing at a time. Knowing that the economy could not recover fully in a few years from where it was when he took over, he understood that he would not have enough political capital to get something done on health care if he waited.

The incredible misinformation campaign that has was waged regarding the ACA , a plan modeled after "conservative" plans previously proposed, contributed more to the jobs issue being perceived as "tabled" than the pursuit of the act itself. What we ended up with was a plan that contained some sorely needed shit.....like an end to lifetime caps and pre-existing clauses.......but fell short of what is really needed ( single payer ) to make this nation healthier at a lower cost.

Now.......the "Day 1" BS that Romney is spouting off about is just pandering politics AND it a genuine example of how that dude would NOT PUT JOBS FIRST.

 

[JoeB131]

Or what you have not re posted here from town hall, or quoted from anti-Mormon propaganda films and conspiracy web sites as well as coast to coast AM and south park . And they will get him in the media kill zone, but it will not do any good. Thats because most of the country is sick of Obama, and they just are not as bigoted as you are.

Hey, doggy-boy, if the country is that sick of Obama, then why do we have to pick Romney?

This is where I find the whole position kind of laughable. Here you have this president who is soooo massively unpopular, but to hear the Romney Cultists tell it, THEIR guy is the only one who can beat him.

So massive unemployment, massive unhappiness, massive incompetence, and the ONLY WAY Republicans can win is with a squishy, vanilla liberal RINO who can fool the mythical "independents" into voting Republican. Unless, of course, anyone points out his religion is batshit crazy.

Seriously, if you think Conservativism is such a weak message that you have to wrap the pill in bacon to feed it to the dog, then you might as well wrap it up and go home.

 

[JoeB131]

You don't know any actual mormons do you? You should meet some. Generally mormons are very nice people and quite tolerant. Other groups (evangelical, southern baptist, catholic in some areas) could stand to learn a few things.

Actualy, I have met Mormons. Met a bunch of BYU students when I was in college ROTC. Never before - or since - have I met a snakier bunch of back stabbing mothers in my life. And that was before I actually bothered to actually research how crazy their belief system is.

So, yeah, I'll vote for Obama, I'll send him money, before I ever take the chance one will get into the White House.

But this isn't about me, at the end of the day, is it? I live in IL. Obama will carry his home state no matter what happens. My point is that you can whine and snivel all day about how "intolerant' and "mean" Evangelicals (whom I don't have much use for, either) are, but the fact is, you can't get a Republican elected without them. If they stay home or vote third party, Obama carries a bunch of Southern states the GOP needs to win.

So why are you willing to chance it?

I mean, if you are willing to lose an election in order to show how tolerant and understanding you are, nominate Herman Cain.

 

[JoeB131]

Both Romney and Cain were DRAFT DODGERS.

Since I know that is a false statement about Romney, I will assume it is also false about Cain until someone provides proof.

When John McCain and John Kerry were in Vietnam, Mittens was in France on missionary work.

Draft Dodger.

I list that as reason #312 people should despise him.

 

[JoeB131]

He must really have issues that Obama never served. Oh, wait....that's completely different.

Obama was not a DRAFT DODGER. The military draft ended in 1973 - when Obama was about 12 years old.

Why did you get your panties in a wad about Mitt's children not serving?

I'm angry that all the politicians who didn't serve themselves and didn't send their own kids.

That's why I kind of respected McCain and Palin. They both had kids over in Iraq. they were putting their money where their mouth is.

Mitt, however, had the nerve to say that his spawn working on his campaign was serving the country on the same level as serving in Iraq.

Oh, wait, I think we just found reason #313 to despise him.

 

[asterism]

You don't know any actual mormons do you? You should meet some. Generally mormons are very nice people and quite tolerant. Other groups (evangelical, southern baptist, catholic in some areas) could stand to learn a few things.

Actualy, I have met Mormons. Met a bunch of BYU students when I was in college ROTC. Never before - or since - have I met a snakier bunch of back stabbing mothers in my life. And that was before I actually bothered to actually research how crazy their belief system is.

So, yeah, I'll vote for Obama, I'll send him money, before I ever take the chance one will get into the White House.

But this isn't about me, at the end of the day, is it? I live in IL. Obama will carry his home state no matter what happens. My point is that you can whine and snivel all day about how "intolerant' and "mean" Evangelicals (whom I don't have much use for, either) are, but the fact is, you can't get a Republican elected without them. If they stay home or vote third party, Obama carries a bunch of Southern states the GOP needs to win.

So why are you willing to chance it?

I mean, if you are willing to lose an election in order to show how tolerant and understanding you are, nominate Herman Cain.

That's a very odd view. My first choice is Cain and has been since before he jumped in the race. He's a genius with a proven track record. He's not a professional politician, and that's what I think we need right now. I don't vote according to some standard of tolerance, my vote is not a statement about me. My vote is my choice for whom I want to elect.

Obama vs. Romney is an easy choice in my opinion. Obama's way has not worked, time for someone new.

 

[xotoxi]

My vote is for anyone who has implemented universal healthcare.

 

[asterism]

Obama was not a DRAFT DODGER. The military draft ended in 1973 - when Obama was about 12 years old.

Why did you get your panties in a wad about Mitt's children not serving?

I'm angry that all the politicians who didn't serve themselves and didn't send their own kids.

That's why I kind of respected McCain and Palin. They both had kids over in Iraq. they were putting their money where their mouth is.

Mitt, however, had the nerve to say that his spawn working on his campaign was serving the country on the same level as serving in Iraq.

Oh, wait, I think we just found reason #313 to despise him.

Very strange. Having served in combat myself, I'd never "send" any of my kids off to war. It's their choice to make. I'm raising my kids to be adults, not to be old children that do what daddy says. They are properly informed and I make no bones about the fact that joining the Marine Corps was the best decision I ever made. But there will be no pressure from me to join.

Would you "send" your grown kids off to a war you support just to make a statement?

 

[earlycuyler]

Or what you have not re posted here from town hall, or quoted from anti-Mormon propaganda films and conspiracy web sites as well as coast to coast AM and south park . And they will get him in the media kill zone, but it will not do any good. Thats because most of the country is sick of Obama, and they just are not as bigoted as you are.

Hey, doggy-boy, if the country is that sick of Obama, then why do we have to pick Romney?

This is where I find the whole position kind of laughable. Here you have this president who is soooo massively unpopular, but to hear the Romney Cultists tell it, THEIR guy is the only one who can beat him.

So massive unemployment, massive unhappiness, massive incompetence, and the ONLY WAY Republicans can win is with a squishy, vanilla liberal RINO who can fool the mythical "independents" into voting Republican. Unless, of course, anyone points out his religion is batshit crazy.

Seriously, if you think Conservativism is such a weak message that you have to wrap the pill in bacon to feed it to the dog, then you might as well wrap it up and go home.

Well hammer head, the thing is this, there is over a year to go before we even know WHO will face Obama. On top of that all the odd magic underwear and pasta monsta stuff you post, repost, and post again does not mean anything other then that's what YOU believe. And unless you and the other bigots can put Romney at the little massacre there or find his extra wives, or find ONE indecent where he let his religion influence his policy, you guys are not much more then haters.

 

[Si modo]

For all those people who are saying there's not a dime's worth of difference between Obama and Romney ---

There is at least a dime's worth of difference.

Even if the difference is only marginal, as some claim, it's a very important margin. Like the difference between slightly overfishing and slightly underfishing a tuna population. (Picture vector fields from your differential equations class.)

The question is who keeps us on the safe side of the equilibrium line in this very fragile economy. I think one does and the other doesn't.

Generally I think it's the Republican candidate who will be found on the safe side because generally the Republican won't be so tempted by unaffordable social programs.

However, I understand why people would think that it's Obama, due to his belief in keeping the economy afloat by more spending now and putting off doing anything about the deficit.

I understand why people would be afraid of a Republican president making the economy contract too sharply under the influence of the Tea Party and Grover Norquist.

That's why I take heart in Romney's version of conservatism. I think he will make sound decisions, decisions influenced by promises he made to the Tea Party, but not too radical. "Conservatives" who want to veer sharply toward the ideal are a little too radical for me. Moderation is more truly conservative than "conservatives" these days. "Conservatives" seem to want big changes and they want them now. I don't want the boat to be rocked too fast.

Make progress in the margins. Don't make seismic changes. Implement a few good fundamentals like in Romney's plan for Day 1 and then let people get to work. Don't keep tinkering tinkering tinkering like Obama is inclined to do.



That's why I'm not just choosing Romney over Obama as the lesser of two evils. I'm choosing Romney over anyone as the most reasonable candidate in the field on either side, with the right skill set for the challenge facing this nation.

There is, indeed, a huge difference between Romney and Obama. Romney has an actual track record as an executive. Obama does, too, now; but in no way is it successful - rather it is a disaster. Romney also has a business and economic background, which obviously this country needs. Right now, we have a buffoon who is taking shots in the dark trying to fix something. And, in doing so, he makes it worse.

Sorta like night and day.

Just off the top of my head.

 

[saveliberty]

I'll vote third party AGAIN.

 

[Si modo]

I'll vote third party AGAIN.

I respect that.

I did the same and voted for Ross. Then Clinton won.

I had regrets.