ObamaRomney - Two Faces on One Coin: Why You Shouldn't Vote For Romney

Bad Voting Habits...

There are two bad voting habits, that we voters really need to get the hang of. The first is the habit of voting for the president who is the "evil twin" of the president leaving office, which has been a trend for at least the last sixty years.

The second bad habit we need to change, is the habit of not voting and not being involved in the system we rely on to guide our country into the future. Truly positive change won't come until everyone is involved, and constantly shaping our country and helping it grow as we do.

The second change of getting up and going to vote is easy. You just have to do it. The first change - not voting for the ideologically opposite twin - is a bit harder, especially since they are usually the ones who give the illusion of being completely different from the person leaving the office. It's an important habit to break, especially if you are a believer that REAL change needs to come quickly, not the same-old same-old with a new party dress.

Here's your change to break both bad habits...

First, decide to get involved in the current political events. No, I'm not saying you need to dedicate a huge chunk of your life to following beaurocratic behaviors and drama. I'm merely suggesting that you make sure you are well-educated about our current system, political events and important figure heads. Just checking up on current events once a month is probably enough.

Now, to help you change that other bad habit, I would like to show how the current frontrunner of the republican campaign for 2012 president - Mitt Romney - is not an ideal candidate for president, because he won't bring change, he'll bring more of the same. He'll follow in the footsteps of Obama and Bush, but with a different colored bow on top.

Obamacare vs Romneycare

I have yet to find all that many differences between Obamacare and Romneycare, other than the face that endorses the package. Both require you to pay more for the services of others, both give special bargains to larger groups and both make more money for insurance companies and essentially do less for patients or medical staff.

Humanitarianism By Force Vs. Military Strength Building

Obama promised to end the wars overseas that Bush started under the name of defense, though he never said he wouldn't start a few of his own wars. The difference is that Obama's wars focus more on the "humanitarianism" in it all, where as Bush was more focused on flushing out terrorists. Both Bush and Obama used both defense and the "helping hand" to push their brutal foreign tactics, they just focused on different aspects.

What does Romney want to do about the overseas wars? Pretty much the same. He hasn't once said that we should pull back the troops, and in fact has been a supporter of continuing foreign occupations and global policing. The difference is, he's calling it "military strength building", in the sense that he wants to "make our arm so strong that no one could ever mess with us". Setting aside that our armed forces already are the top in the world (maybe Mitt doesn't know that..), I really doubt that anyone wants the continuation of our current wars, or any new wars started in the aim of showing how "buff" we are.

Flippity-Floppity...

No, Easter isn't here. The sound entering your ears is the indecisiveness and inability to hold to any decisions or promises formerly made. Obama has shown that he lacks the ability to stand firm in his beliefs and use the powers vested in him to do what he promised us he would. Romney is a serial flopper, and is not anymore likely to be any stronger in office than Obama has been.

Both have an issue of weakness when it comes to following through with their efforts, which causes them to plunder through their efforts erratically.

Oozing Charm

Out of all the republican candidates attempting to gain favor in 2012, Romney probably has the most charm. He's taller then the rest, has a pleasant voice (most of the time) and he's studied Dale Carnegie and Napoleon Hill (think "How to Win Friends & Influence People). Romney knows what it takes to win someone over, and he's just as articulate as Obama, though maybe not as smooth.

Raising Taxes Doesn't = Cutting The Budget

Both Obama and Romney seem to believe that raising taxes seems to be the same thing as cutting the budget. Both of them have suggested they can save us money through raising taxes in one form or another. Obama says that Obamacare will save us millions over the long run, even though it will cost us trillions in taxes in the short term, just as he says that our current "defense" tactics will "save" us over the long run.. Romney wants to raise taxes on lower income families and build our military up even more. Neither of these plans are going to save any money or cut the budget, and both plans include major funding needs that have to come from somewhere.

Taxing the rich or poor even more, doesn't save any money anywhere and we aren't ever going to balance the budget and get it down to a manageable level by putting more burden on either side of the economic fence. I know it sounds pretty to say "tax the rich to save the poor", sounds pretty, but it just will never do what they want you to believe it will.

The only way we are going to get our economy truly back on track, is by lowering taxes for EVERYONE, closing down taxpayer run services we don't need, opening up the market again and getting the government out of free enterprise, so that everyone has the opportunity to succeed economically. The only national regulations we will ever need, are:

1. No monopolies

2. Harm none (meaning no pollution, toxic products, dumping, fraud, etc...)

It doesn't have to be as complicated as it is, and many people know this, but it will continue to get even more complicated so long as we continue voting in drones of different faces.

Surprise...surprise... bet ya didn't see this coming...

Just like our dear old President O, Romney's dad was not a legit American citizen at the time of Romney's birth. Fleeing from polygamy laws, Romneys family fled to Mexico at the time, and then came back to American during the Mexican revolution. Bringing to question - is Romney eligible to be president? I mean, for as much effort as we put in to check out Obama, shouldn't we give the same scrutiny to Romney?

This is something both O and R have in common with McCain, who was born in the Panama region, yet hardly anyone knew that while he was running for presidency four years ago.

The irony here, is that Romney is against any amnesty for long term immigrants, even though his family and even himself could be considered long term immigrants, since they never officially filed any paperwork when they fled back to America....

They'll Do or Say ANYTHING

We all know that Obama said everything we wanted to hear, and made all the right promises. Well Mitt is from the same breed, and he's willing to say anything, and go along with any majority trends or fashions in order to gain favor and win the election.

Be careful not to be fooled by his rhetoric, as it is likely he's only saying it because it's the popular thing to say, not because he truly believes in it.

Source

Don't get me wrong...

If you like the current track we're on, but just don't like Obama, then by all means, vote for Romney.

Though if you really are looking for fulfilling and lasting change, I would suggest you invest you vote in someone other than Mitt Romney, Obama or other elitist drones.

More by this Author


Comments 6 comments

Moderndayslave profile image

Moderndayslave 4 years ago

Great Hub, People I know seem to get upset when I tell them Mitt will just be more of the same. Let's not forget about putting a Wall Street parasite in the White House. Haven't they caused enough damage?


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 4 years ago

I agree with your comments about Romney but not those about Obama. Obama offers a clearly preferable choice over Romney.

"Pity the Billionaire" Thomas Frank reviewed by Michael Kinsley

"It seems to me that a Democratic president who gets us health care reform and tough new financial protection for consumers, who guides the economy through its roughest period in 80 years with moderate success (who could do better?), who ends our long war in Iraq and avenges the worst insult to our sovereignty since Pearl Harbor (as his Republican predecessor manifestly failed to do, despite a lot of noise and promises); a president who faced an opposition of really spectacular intransigence and downright meanness; a president who has the self-knowledge and wisdom about Washington to write the passage quoted above, and the courage to publish it: that president deserves a bit more credit from the left than Frank is willing to give him.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/08/books/review/pit...


BizGenGirl profile image

BizGenGirl 4 years ago from Seattle Author

Personally, I don't think there would be any difference between Obama or Romney in office, except the face on the poster and party in charge. Neither Obama or Romney are very strong when it comes to dealing with the rest of the mugwumps, and both cave on almost everything. That's how Obamacare came about. It wasn't even Obama's idea to put it through, nor did he appear all that enthusiastic about it. Maybe I'm idealistic, but I want a president who will do what he says he will, with minimal surprises and the ability to compromise without caving.

Either way, if it comes down to Obama and Romney, then I'm gonna write Vivian McPeak in, lol


ib radmasters profile image

ib radmasters 4 years ago from Southern California

Obama has a three year track record to base your vote on whether he should continue to stay in office.

Whether Romney is any better cannot be told by looking at him or by listening to him, nor any other candidate.

Obama has not succeeded with completing any of his 2008 presidential election promises. Voting for him based on 2012 election rhetoric is a mistake. Obama needs to defend his three years in office, and show why the country is still in a economic crisis.

Also any of the presidential candidates need to defend why the government has not reduced its workforce, their benefits, and taxpayer guaranteed defined benefits pensions, while the private sector has done it because of the pressures of the bad economy. Private companies have gone out of business, or reduced their workforce, reduced or eliminated health benefits, cut wages and more, while the government workforce has not only not had any of that done to them, the size of the government workforce actually increased in the last three years.

my opinion


breakfastpop profile image

breakfastpop 4 years ago

I love your comment, "If you don't like the current track vote for Romney. The current track has our debt exploding and our nation on the verge of another recession. I will vote for Romney.


artblack01 profile image

artblack01 4 years ago from New Mexico

Yeah, the debt is surging from 1.2 Trillion to 1.1 Trillion.... wait, that doesn't sound like a surge to me.

Vote for Romney, but don't research the lies Romney states about Obama or what Obama has actually done, Just vote for the liar.... because he's not a Democrat.... that's the reason... right.

Let's also not do our research on what Obama has actually done as compared to what has been said by the lying media, or what Romney has done before coming into office that actually helped ANYONE....

Or how he is planning on stomping on everyone's rights and ignoring the constitution.... but please don't listen to me, I think you should do some actual research before perpetuating lies... but go ahead and call me out, ask me to prove it, name call, etc, but please don't do your own research. Actually I am not following this hub so I probably won't see the response.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working