As voters, Why are we excepting either Romney or Obama as presidential candidate

1. 68

   davenmidtownposted 11 years ago

   As voters, Why are we excepting either Romney or Obama as presidential candidates for 2012.
   
   The argument over leadership and leadership abilities, lost job, jobs sent overseas, economic policy, foreign policy, national and foreign debt, national banking and international banking issues, has raged... In listening to the candidates speaking, attacking, pointing fingers, I wonder why we accept either for the office of presidency?  Consider:
   1) How would you send a message to both parties?
   2) What would you say... answers can be like open letters.
   3) What characteristics are you looking for in a President?
   4) Why do you dislike either candidate or both?
   So have at it. rant, rave, debate

   replyreport
2. 74

   Reality Bytesposted 11 years ago

   I would like to point out that Gary Johnson will be on the ballots in all fifty states.  Every voter should become acquainted with all choices available.  Gary Johnson's message, IMO, is exactly what this nation needs at this time in history!

   replyreport
   1. 68

      davenmidtownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Reality Bytes: Great point that there are really more than two candidates... why not take this op to tell us MORE about Gary Johnson, how to vote for him.... and whatever else pops into your head....within reason of course.

      replyreport
   2. 68

      Nathan Orfposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Jill Stien as well, for the Green Party, and her message is a lot more realistic than Gary Johnson's.

      replyreport
   3. 68

      davenmidtownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      @Nathan Orf: Can you offer a comparison? Tell us why Jill Stein is the go to person?

      replyreport
   4. 68

      Nathan Orfposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Stien wants to break up the big banks, increase funding for small, local banks, limit the role of Wall Street and corporations in government, and advance policies that protect the environment. She wants to take the money out of politics.

      replyreport
   5. 81

      Attikosposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Wasn't it the Green Party that nominated Cynthia McKinney a time or two back? They lost my attention with that one.

      replyreport
   6. 60

      umbertoobrianposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      And Gary Johnson will get less than 3% of the vote because most Americans do not believe what Gary Johnson believes.

      replyreport
   7. 78

      junksellerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Limited and efficient government, fiscal responsibility, personal freedom? Ya, nobody believes in that stuff.

      replyreport
   8. 0

      Larry Wallposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I live in Louisiana. I have never heard of him. If I never heard of him, and since qualifying for the November elections in Louisiana ended this week, how am I suppose to know about him.

      replyreport
3. 54

   whonunuwhoposted 11 years ago

   As voters we are making a statement and exercising a right guaranteed under the constitution. If we give up these rights, we give over the same to those who may try to totally dominate our every move and thought. We should vote, even for the act itself.

   replyreport
   1. 68

      davenmidtownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Good point... Voting is important... Why? Can you explain to readers why it is important... and maybe list a few alternatives to vote for...

      replyreport
4. 78

   junksellerposted 11 years ago

   Green party candidates Jill Stein and Cheri Honkala went to jail earlier this month for protesting Fannie Mae's foreclosure proceedings against two Philadelphia citizens. That to me is something that I can vote for and seems like the kind of thing that most ordinary people could at least relate to and have respect for, if they ever actually heard the story.
   
   Cheri Honkala had a brother commit suicide for mental health issues and the inability to get him necessary care. For a time she and her son were homeless. Is this a reason alone to vote for them? No, of course not, but at least it is a familiar story and it's a heck of a lot more interesting than watching Mitt ride around on his horse sipping champagne. People should at least give these candidates a few minutes of time.
   
   It is simply amazing to watch and listen to people who are so completely dissatisfied with politics continue to listen to and watch the exact same politicians and news programs over and over again. Turn off your damn TV! We literally have access these days to thousands of different streams of information. It isn't hard to find information on the Green party or Libertarians. I have Jill Stein on my twitter feed and she puts out about 10 posts a day.
   
   Gary Johnson is also a very interesting candidate. Issues-wise he is very similar to Ron Paul, but to be honest, I think, is actually much more sensible than Paul. So, why hasn't the Ron Paul/Libertarian crowd paid more attention to him? Who knows. Heck, I think he would even make a lot more sense to Tea Party folks than Romney does. I am only somewhat Libertarian on a few issues, so he wouldn't be my first choice, but I'd still vote for him over Obama or Romney.

   replyreport
   1. 68

      davenmidtownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      can you provide links or web information for people who may want to read up on either person?

      replyreport
   2. 78

      junksellerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Gary Johnson is here: http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/record check out his principles of good government at the bottom. And here is Jill Steins official site: http://www.jillstein.org/ Both campaign pages are a good starting point for the candidates.

      replyreport
   3. 60

      umbertoobrianposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Very unlikely anyone will ever see Mitt sip champaigne or drink tea.

      replyreport
5. 68

   Nathan Orfposted 11 years ago

   My reason for voting in 2012 is simple; keep the Democrats in the White House. I don't really care who controls Congress, but if Republicans control Congress, Obama acts as a check on them, and they act as a check on Obama. That is why we have a two party system. Our government is only really designed for two parties.
   
   Having said that, I also think Obama's policies, had they been allowed to work, would have helped the economic recovery along better. The Republicans put "jobs bills" on the table that were only ever symbolic, and had no chance of passing. Obama has displayed leadership, but no one can lead when half of Congress refuses to go along with anything you want to get done.
   
   Obama has done a lot more for this country than you might think. His stimulus (yes, I dare use the dreaded word) put between 1.3 and 3 million people back to work. That very stimulus saved the country from the Great Depression, round two. Obama has also proven that he can make a very risky, tough decision; imagine how he would be doing now if the raid that got Bin Laden had gone wrong?
   
   Mitt was Governor of Massachusetts for one term. He has never gotten elected to anything else, and he is not Washington savvy, although Ryan is. Speaking of Ryan, his plan adds billions to the debt and fails to balance the budget until 2030. Romney has the same exact health care plan that Obama gave us, minus the individual mandate. If you think Romney would get rid of "ObamneyCare" if elected, than you are sadly mistaken.
   
   Obama has a record I can look at, and I trust him far more than I trust Romney. Remember, Obama got where he is today through his own sheer hard work and determination. He was born in a single parent household, and was sometimes raised by his grandparents. Romney was born in the lap of luxury, to a father who would be a Governor and who would run for the Presidential Nomination. Romney got where he is today through birth and good luck.
   
   No doubt both are smart, capable men. But Obama at least knows what it is like to live paycheck to paycheck, having lived that way, once upon a time.

   replyreport
   1. 68

      davenmidtownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      It is the constant battle that has held back progress... if that battle is a tool, then control of the congress is essential for movement to go forward. Part of the problem I see in fixing the economy is the speed in which the government moves.

      replyreport
   2. 79

      Mitch Alanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Obama had a Democrat controlled Congess for 2 years...and he did implement his plans and they have failed. How can you say, "had they been allowed to work"?

      replyreport
   3. 68

      Nathan Orfposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Obama's plans did work, as far as they have gone. He saved the auto-industry, in case you hadn't noticed. I didn't see any Republicans on his side then, and they have just stood in the way ever sense.  The Republicans don't have a stellar record.

      replyreport
   4. 79

      Mitch Alanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      GM bailout was a farce. Tax payers are still on the hook, to the tune of over $42 Billion. A legal backruptcy would have allowed for either a restructuring or selling off. Ford & other would have picked up for the demand. Shell game is what it wa

      replyreport
   5. 68

      Nathan Orfposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Tell all of that to the millions who would have been unemployed if GM and Chrysler went into bankruptcy. It is apparent that you do not live in Ohio.

      replyreport
   6. 68

      davenmidtownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I find the whole auto bail-out interesting... we scream american made products...but those products are not really made in the USA... we can look at FLint MI to see that...Yes there are US workers but there should have been a lot more US workers.

      replyreport
   7. 79

      Mitch Alanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Dealerships were closed. We still have a million less people working than when Obama took office. It bailed out the AUW and put Americans on the hook for $42 B. Bailouts failed. We are worse than 4 years ago.

      replyreport
   8. 68

      davenmidtownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Part of this is tied to the banking world too... much like the housing market where people are given loans they do not qualify for with high interest rates... either way the banks win....

      replyreport
   9. 68

      Nathan Orfposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Actually, I think its interesting that the stimulus was signed by George W. Bush. Typical Republicans. Blaming Obama for something that Bush did. Indeed, the individual pieces and parts were not American made, but the automobiles were.

      replyreport
   10. 68

       davenmidtownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       assembled in America by foreign parts is not American made in my book. When I buy a Ford and it says Made in Mexico, Made in Canada... I want to send it back to the factory for something made in America...

       replyreport
   11. 77

       Kathleen Cochranposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       When people say Obama has no record to run on, I wonder where they have been the last four years?  I'm not voting for any more governors either, and I'm not willing to hand the government back to a party that has been only obstructionist.

       replyreport
   12. 79

       Mitch Alanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Nathan, I was against both bailouts; those under Bush and under Obama, as there was more than one. The government doesn't have the Constitutional authority to do what was don't and to boot...it failed. $42 billion still on the tax payer.

       replyreport
   13. 0

       Larry Wallposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I have to disagree. I think Congress is the big problem facing our country right now. They are too partisan, too selfish and do not work hard enough at solving problems. The rules are ridiculous and need a complete overhaul.

       replyreport
   14. 61

       ib radmastersposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Nathan
       
       I have to disagree with all your argument here because none of them are true.
       
       Neither stimulus package that added up to over 1.5 trillion dollars did anything useful. It was suppose to stimulate the economy, and the economy is not stimulated

       replyreport
6. 79

   Mitch Alanposted 11 years ago

   The time to speak loudest on this point would have been during the primary races. The people, by and large, did just that. Now it comes down to which of those, that are on the ballot, will be best (or less bad) for the country. Vote for who will most conform to the Constitution and it's guidelines for the federel government and vote for State and local officials that will do the same.  Don't look at campaign slogans, but instead at actual records. And then, hold them all accountable with their collective feet to the fire every day AFTER the election and not just right before the next election. Due dilligence is needed year round and year after year.

   replyreport
   1. 68

      davenmidtownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Hello Mitch Alan! I guess I don't want to vote for which ever is the least horrid... I would rather vote for someone I believe can make a difference and I do not see that in either candidate. I don't see much power in the pres. I see it in congress.

      replyreport
7. 0

   Nancy's Nicheposted 11 years ago

   That’s because Romney and Obama are the two main candidates for the position at this time and they no doubt will be on their respective party’s ballot. However, a strong third challenger --- Ron Paul --- could be a write in vote and possibly “win” the coming election.
   
   WOW! Just imagine what could happen if people studied the agendas of Romney, Obama and Ron Paul. Then, for example, used the write in vote to elect Ron Paul. What a surprise victory that would be!
   
   Check here to learn more about Ron Paul http://www.ronpaul2012.com/

   replyreport
8. 81

   lrc7815posted 11 years ago

   Do you mean "accepting" or "expecting"?  The only way to not accept Obama or Romney is to not vote and that's just plain stupid.  I think I've probably answered your question in a recent hub.  See what you think.
   
   http://lrc7815.hubpages.com/hub/2012-El … -the-Media
   
   Ron Paul or a green party candidate are the only other choice but until there is more widespread support for them, a vote for them is risky.  I've made the mistake of voting green before only to have the election won by the least qualified candidate because of the votes missed by those of us who voted green.  I wish it wasn't this way but until those other candidates have the same financial backing, it's a wash.  The infuriating part for me is the dollars spent on campaigns that could be spent to create jobs.  Check the links in my hub for details.  Notice the difference between what Romney has spent and what Obama has spent.  Think it won't be the same way in Washington if Romney gets elected.  Think about it.

   replyreport
   1. 68

      davenmidtownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Sorry... I mean accepting... not excepting.. though I prefer the later in scrabble... I think there are options available before the election that is where the key to accepting comes into play... both assume we will just vote come Novemeber.

      replyreport
   2. 61

      Chuck Bluesteinposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Ron Paul not running until 2016. Jill Stein M.D. is the Green Party. Gary Johnson is the Libertarian Party nomination. He is a Ron Paul revolutionary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrU6hTWyj6s
      Johnson was governor of New Mexico for 8 years!

      replyreport
9. 81

   Attikosposted 11 years ago

   I don't make exceptions for either of them.

   replyreport
   1. 68

      davenmidtownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      How about acceptions? I mispelled the word in my original question..

      replyreport
   2. 81

      Attikosposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      At this point, I can't accept the duplicitous, corrupt Obama, and I haven't yet been able to bring myself to accept the vaporous, ambiguous Romney.

      replyreport
10. 0

    Larry Wallposted 11 years ago

    You can vote for one of the other candidates, that is your right. However, you need to consider how it will impact the race. If you accept the idea that someone from one of the major parties is going to win because they get the contributions, the media coverage, etc. then what does a vote for another candidate do.
    
    When Bill Clinton defeated George H.W. Bush, there was a third candidate, who attracted a lot of votes. He took the conservative vote away from Bush. If you add the popular votes received by Bush and Perot, they exceed what Clinton got. I have not analyzed the vote to determine the impact on the Electoral College delegates. Clinton possibly still could have won. Also, the Perot-Bush battle confused many conservative voters and they stayed home and did not vote.

    replyreport
    1. 81

       Attikosposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       That's the argument we hear every four years, the one that keeps us in thrall to the two-party system. It's always that we have to take one or the other, that we have to accept the dismal choice of the lesser of two evils. We should rebel against it.

       replyreport
    2. 68

       davenmidtownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Some of what I wanted to fuel here was that there is still time for the voters to say NO... we are not taking another loser to the white house. Personnally I do not see either candidate as leadership material... able to fix the current mess. I say NO

       replyreport
    3. 87

       aethelthrythposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I want to rebel against the two-party system, but the closest thing I've ever seen to an effective rebellion is the Tea Party, which I really hoped would become an independent party.  Got any specific suggestions?

       replyreport
    4. 78

       junksellerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I think a lot about Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party) would appeal to Tea Party types. Jill Stein (Green Party) maybe not so much, but both are interesting candidates who will be on the ballot in most states.

       replyreport
    5. 79

       Mitch Alanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       The rebellion would be during the primaries...I agree things need shaking up, but now the biggest impact will be local and State elections.

       replyreport
    6. 68

       davenmidtownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I think the election could be delayed... six month or 1 more year of OB would be better then 4 more years of wichever one of them...  not doing anything more than has been done. This is going to take someone who can deal with all of Washington...

       replyreport
    7. 0

       Larry Wallposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I wish we had no parties. If we are going to have parties, two is enough.

       replyreport
11. 77

    Kathleen Cochranposted 11 years ago

    There has been more than once that I wrote in Colin Powell for president.  I think we have the right to vote for whoever we think would make the best president, no matter whose names are on the ballot.

    replyreport
    1. 68

       davenmidtownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I always forget about Colin Powell... hmmm this bears consideration.

       replyreport
12. 64

    iamageniusterposted 11 years ago

    There are other candidates such as Ron Paul and Gary Johnson. However, usually only someone from the Republican or Democratic party will win. Every other party is not popular enough.

    replyreport
    1. 68

       davenmidtownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Why do you think only a democrat or a republican always wins? Can we change that or create a party that is both and yet neither?

       replyreport
13. 61

    ib radmastersposted 11 years ago

    did you mean Accepting or Excepting?
    If you mean Accepting, then my answer would be it is too late at this stage of the election do to anything except vote for the lesser of two evils.
    
    To make a change in elections so that better candidates exist, we would have to stop voting Row A or Row B and vote out incumbents that failed, and send the message to those new candidates that we elect, that they will not be reelected if they fail.

    replyreport
    1. 68

       davenmidtownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Lol@ myself... yes... I meant accepting... damn my brain. I say it is never too late...I think we should stop voting row A and row B... and really start to think about what we want in terms of representation.

       replyreport
14. 60

    umbertoobrianposted 11 years ago

    Because there are only two viable choices.  No 3rd party has ever been successful at electing a President and a sufficient number of legislators to make that President relevant .  The last "new" political party to successfully enter the fray was the Republican Party and it was the resurrected, reformed and renamed Whiggs.
    
    There are only two competing philosophies in American politics.  One wishes to make the Federal Government the primary authority, the other wishes to keep that power reserved for the citizens and the states.  There have been refrom movements in each party that have, ostensibly, sought to facilitate one or the other.  It is this simple division, which dates from the founding, that drives politics in America.  Where is there room for a real 3rd party that doesn't dilute the vote without replacing one of the other two paries?
    
    It would be more effective to start a reform movement at the grass roots and change locla and state politics within a party first rather than start a new party.

    replyreport
    1. 68

       davenmidtownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Just because it has never happened is not a reason to think it can not happen... dilution of the voting populations would reduce the power the each camp have over the citizens and force comprimise in exchange for support.

       replyreport
15. 68

    onegoodwomanposted 11 years ago

    Dearest DaveMidTown..........
    
    
    The issues are huge, and the problems are large and complex..........
    
    
    I, fear, and accept that no single  man can resolve them................and most certainly not to the liking of every US citizen.
    
    
    The " person" that I would perfer......................................would say.........
    
    
    
    No work..............no pay.............. ( vets, seniors and disabled, aside)........we, ARE a humane nation......
    
    
    Education..............yes
    
    discipline in the classroom...............A MUST...........no respect, no free ride
    
    
    
    Let the little man or woman build a business from the ground floor upward...........no immediate taxes, license fees, registration..............let his or her LOCAL  gpv't address this..............it should not cost 300 billion to start up a 300 thousand dollar business!    Release the regs.........
    
    
    STOP thinking that because, I believe " pro" this, then I must be " anti" that.
    
    
    LET the people speak................STOP voting on a passing legistation on our behalf!     
    ASK us.......on the issues that coming up on the congressional vote............
    
    
    JUST STOP twisting my views, sentiments or words.........so that YOU can tell me what I think.....................
    
    Stop talking, long enough to hear my voice, my concerns and my views............It IS, afterall what You are PAID to do.
    
    
    ASK US.

    replyreport
    1. 68

       davenmidtownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       awesome! I always love it when you visit and comment!!!!

       replyreport
16. 0

    danielabramposted 11 years ago

    These are who the people have chosen. They were voted in by the American public.

    replyreport
    1. 68

       davenmidtownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       chosen in primary elections that, again offer only limited choices. Do you feel that either of these candidates will make a difference following their election? The premise behind the original question is why do we allow the best poor choice?

       replyreport
    2. 79

       Mitch Alanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       davenmidtown, There were many option in the primary...I did not vote for Romney in the primary, but will in the general election.

       replyreport
17. 61

    Chuck Bluesteinposted 11 years ago

    I am promoting both Dr Jill Stein (M.D. just like Dr Paul) of the Green Party and Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party. Johnson is part of the Ron Paul revolution. Jill is creating her own revolution. Both want to bring all the troops home just like Ron Paul wanted to. Both want to severely cut government spending. Both want to legalize marijuana.
    
    Johnson wants to abolish the IRS. Find out which candidate that you agree the most with taking the quiz: http://www.isidewith.com/

    replyreport