I personally prefer Ron Paul but unfortunately he gave up. But know I have no choice but to choose Obama. What about you?

Views: 1206

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Jerry Wessner "Jay H, if you define "intimidated" as "far more scared of one outcome than the other," then yes. "

This is what they are counting on. This is why the party betrays you, because they CAN and they can GET AWAY WITH IT.

"And I fail to see how protest voting for a third party and thereby installing the far worse of the two evils accomplishes anything. And I said "many" of the worst policies; by no means all. Not enough difference, but some."

Well, I am not guilty of installing anyone. My vote has NEVER, EVER, changed the outcome of an election and it never will. But at least when I vote third party that's one more visible vote for 'none of the above'.

The Republicans want to regulate your sex life, the Democrats want to regulate everything else. Some choice.

The major problem facing the country—the domination of the legislative and executive functions by lobbyists, preventing real solutions—cannot be dealt with effectively by either party since they are both dependent on campaign contributions. What's more, that same dominance prevents the rise of any third party to challenge them.

At this point the GOP has abandoned any pretence of working for anyone but the rich and powerful, so I have to go with the Democrats and Obama, but I don't see them capable of solving the economic problems either. Wall Street and the big banks are doing their best to gut any regulations on the financial industry and that is likely to lead to another crisis that will be worse. Glass-Steagall needs to be reinstated and fortified with new restrictions. Without a separation of investment and commercial banking, we are all at risk.

One of the many scary things about Romney is his serious (if that is not a contradiction in terms) Mormonism.As such he would swear greater fealty and loyalty to the Mormon Church than to the USA if elected President.So logically he would have to make decisions which had a precedence of being favourable to the Mormon Church over being favourable to the USA.

I'm not sure that is the case.  I'm no fan of Romney, but from what I've seen in interviews, he takes a view that what the Mormon church teaches applies to him, but is not for him to apply to everyone else.  For example, when he was pro-choice (and people thought John Kerry was a flip-flopper!), he stated that although the church was against abortion and he was personally against it, he would allow others to make their own choices.  Then he changed his opinion (and claimed the change was for secular reasons).



Good video exchange. I hope Romney gets this spirited in the debates.

Changing a position over time is not flip-flopping. If it was then Obama would be the biggest flip-flopper of the three (Kerry, Romney, Obama). "I was against the individual mandate, but am now in favor of it".  "I was for gay marriage when I was running as a liberal state senator in Illinois, against it when I was running for President, and now am for it as I run for re-election". This is pretty close to flip-flopping, but I will accept his "evolution" of position. You are allowed to change your position over time. If you want to define flip-flopping as changing a position than Obama wins the prize. (one more- "raising taxes in a recession is bad for the economy", now he wants to raise taxes even as we are dangerously close to another recession).  

I define 'Flip-flopping' as "I was actually for this legislation, before I was against it" a famous quote that hurt Kerry in his run against Bush. He was trying to position himself on both sides of the issue at the same time. To me - the time frame affects more whether somebody is flip-flopping (If Romney went somewhere today and said he was prochoice, and then the next day went somewhere else and said he was pro-life.)

I will vote for Obama.  As many point out. He's not a "perfect" expression of my needs or aspirations.  On the other hand, he's the closest I have.  Maturity requires that I not expect, or even want, "perfect".

My hope is that, freed of the need for another re-election, if he is re-elected this time, he will be able to achieve much more.  We'll see.  Maybe.

I agree, but much depends on the outcome of the battle for the Senate. Should the Senate go to the GOP and they retain the House, the script is written for another four years of stalemate. My best bet is that the Senate stays Democratic and the GOP loses some seats in the House, which could make them more agreeable to compromise.

Obama has been a good President on the whole—the stimulus, saving the auto industry, the healthcare law, and withdrawing from Iraq are all good things. He could be a better President in a second term, having learned a lot.

Romney wants to be CEO of the country and that is not what's needed. He has shifted too much to the right and might be a prisoner of the Tea Party if elected.

You forgot to mention Libya.

If he does get reelected (please, god) I hope he finally sends a thoughtfully worded message to those I laughingly refer to as the Congress. And I hope he specifies that this same missive applies equally to the high horses on which they rode into the District.

"... freed of the need for another re-election, if he is re-elected this time, he will be able to achieve much more."

THAT is what I fear.

I don't think there's one sensible reason to vote for Romney, I mean, come on! So, no, Obama it is. 

Sure we can complain about the two party system but this is what we got.



© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service