The man is truly embarrassing,he is incapable of answering a single question on any topic because of the fear of the extreme right which makes him give nonsensical answers and look like a mumbling fool when asked even the simplest of questions.
Walter Mondale has to be on your list somewhere. To quote Dennis Miller:
"Reagan had five hundred ninety-eight electoral votes, Mondale had three. You know, if you think about it, that's only three more than I had; I didn't even run, you know? This guy spent forty million dollars and I almost tied him. Talk about not havin' a date for the prom"
mondale is right up there, he was a terrible candidate but so far romney seems to be even worse, he can't get out of his own way and whenever he receives a political gift where he has a chance to hit a home run he strikes out.
Romney isn't all that bad, he's just caught in a "no win" situation. The RNC is doing their best to tank the Presidential election, and Mitt is caught in the middle.
The next Republican President is going to have to "re-brand" the Republican Party, and believe me, Mitt Romney is not who they want as the new "face of Republicans". Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Nikki Haley, these are the ones that the RNC is going to be looking to for the future.
Besides, if President Obama wins in November, the GOP will basically have a fund raising bonanza for the next four years. The President is more valuable to the Republican Party right where he is.
While all of this is going on however, the GOP still has to try and gain some ground in the Senate and hold on to the house. Congress is going to be the interesting election this year in my opinion, not the White House.
I'm so glad you brought this up. Romney bungled the opening of the Olympics today by criticizing how his British Hosts were conducting things. Then he compared it to how he ran it in Utah. No less than the Prime Minister, Cameron, came down on Ronmey for being pretentious. Then, the mayor of London fired off next.
So, I must say, I really don't get it. Rommey has a high IQ, was able to beat out Wall Street rip-offs at their own game, but comes across at times as a bungling idiot. Best I can say is that he forgets who his audience is and then cuts loose with what he really thinks.
Mondale or Dukakis--yawn--and Barry Goldwater--"extremism is no vice" were worse than Romney. You have to remember, Mondale was running against Reagan, whose poll numbers were off the charts. Then, the idiot says something like he's gonna raise taxes on everyone in a debate with Reagan. I admit, that's dumber than either candidate this year.
Miller is like a long winded Mark Twain - so sharp and funny.
President Obama isn't a "candidate", he's the President.
In 2008, he took zero executive experience, and minimal national political experience, and parlayed that into a successful Presidential campaign. I'm a Republican, and even I will admit that, from a political standpoint, that was impressive.
And Joe"whatever I say tastes just like my foot" Biden.
I think your comments are best exemplified by the unit of time known as the "Romney". True, I am using material from Jon Stewart here but can you find me even one topic (other than money and mormonism) that the presidential hopeful hasn't made completely contradictory statements about?
Granted a lot of this comes with the territory. You are going to contradict yourself at some point in your life and if you look back over the years your opinions have changed, but I personally have never seen anyone so opportunistic that they would compromise their integrity just to say what they think other people want to hear at that particular moment in time.
I am completely open to be proven wrong and welcome argument but this is my analysis and I'm sticking with it.
Depends on your perspective. From the coporate oligarchy's perpective, he's wonderful; he's one of them. Unfortunately, social issues, not economic ones, are the hot button issues, and he's got some trouble with those. But on the economic ones, he and Obama are almost identical.
So I don't think he's the worst. John Kerry was pretty bad (and Romney reminds me of him), Mondale, and let's not forget Dukakis!
How about specifics? I hate when generalities are tossed out like they have substance. This is from either side of the isle. What specific questions did he not answer? I'm not saying he did or didn't, but if we are to have real discourse on a topic, then we need to know what we are discussing.
If asked about immigration he can no longer answer as in the primaries he would make life so miserable for illegal aliens that they will self deport, because his percentage of the hispanic vote right now is about twenty percent and declining, which his advisors are telling him is devastating, but he can't walk back and offer any kind of negotiated solution because his base will eat him alive mainly in the talk shows and the teapartiers, so he is left to saying"I like marco rubio and he is hispanic, but offering no coherent answer.on healthcare reform he is stuck with repeating he will repeal and replace obamacare but he won't say what he will replace it with and most of all he won't say what he will do with the parts that are overwhelmingly popular like the preexisting condition etc. and the reason is if he says he will keep them it will anger the base if he says he will repeal them it will anger the coveted independent/undecided vote.on foreign policy he just says we'll stand by israel but if asked specifics about his position on what action he would take on any given confrontation he just says i'll consult with the military experts, which is a cop out a way of saying i got no clue what i would do.china is off his vocabulary now since he said he would be so hard on china and some pretty damning video and declarations surfaced that contradict that .on the economy he can't give a straight answer because in his famous and criticized even by the right fifty nine point plan which is basically lower taxes on the rich, deregulate so is just a continuation of the bush policies which is not popular among independents that still dislike bushonomicsalso includes some revenue increases and some mentions of favoring lower and middle class in some instances that are unacceptable for the extreme righties.there are more but these are just a few answers he doesn't give because he is captive of the righties.
Actually Romney said, “Yeah. Well, people who have been continuously insured, let’s say someone’s had a job for a while but insured, then they get real sick and they happen to lose a job, or change jobs, they find, gosh, I’ve got a pre-existing condition, I can’t get insured. I’d say, no, no no. As long as you’ve been continuously insured, you ought to be able to get insurance going forward. See, you have to take that problem away. You have to make sure the legislation doesn’t allow insurance companies to reject people.”
And his own site http://www.mittromney.com/issues/immigration speaks strongly against illegal immigration.
So, I think he will speak his mind...
You are stating that he can't, for political reasons, speak his mind, but he is...
And, he is not my first choice, buyt better than Obama.
i think you are proving my point.the question is about the thirty or forty million people who are uninsured , who do not have insurance, he can't answer that so he bamboozles about the people who already have insurance.
No, later in the interview he said that if you did not have insurance and then wait til you get sick to try to get it, that insurance companies (private companies) should not be forced to insure you. To me, that makes perfect sense...otherwise why wouldn't everyone wait til they were sick to pay for insurance. You can't wait til your house burns or your car crashes to insure those things. We need to think logically here.
Of course, they would have to somehow prove that your condition existed before you sought insurance, or at least that you were aware of it. I'm in my mid-40s, overweight, and spend more time on Hub Pages than exercising, so it's quite possible I have early stage heart disease. If I was to call an insurance company right now, would they be claim that I had a pre-existing condition? There's a difference between that and calling for insurance between a heart attack and when the ambulance arrives.
Or in my case that I'm healthy now but if i were to buy health insurance for me and my wife in new jersey it would cost us about 1200 dollars per month and we simply can't afford it.that is the reason why we don't have health insurance so really in my case and in the case of most people who don't have health insurance at least here in new jersey it's because we can't afford it, and in our case the republicans' do nothing policy wouldn't make it possible for us to get health insurance,and I don't mean free i mean affordable health insurance that a family earning under 100,000 dollars could buy.
I live in Jersey as well. I have insurance because my employer offers it. I had it when I was self employed because I paid a lot to have it. The Conservative (not all Republicans are) answer is not a do nothing as you have stated, but to allow the free-market to truly work. If insurance companies were allowed to compete across State lines like car ins., and there was real tort reform we would see an immediate drop in costs. Also, if insurance companies could offer more options on plan, more easily, it would lower costs. Offering major medical only and a number of different policies to individuals as well as companies. This is the real answer. By forcing pre-existing, not allowing competion etc, we will only see higher costs and worse care. If companies are competing for your dollars they will offer more options and better pricing. It works in every other industry, whether it be cars, electronics, food etc...competition, less regulation and real choices are what we need, not government control.
You have obviously not "shopped" health insurance recently. There is a dizzying array of product offerings dangled out there. Even my HMO offers about 25 different plan options. It's mind boggling tryin to select the right plan.
The insurance companies market heavily, dangling prices as low as $60 a month.
But by the time you finish the application -- about 20 pages of health questions -- you already know you'll never get that rate. Not even remotely close.
By the time you debate whether you should reveal that yes, you have gotten dermatology care for ACNE, you start getting the sinking feeling that you might not be able to purchase insurance at any cost.
Sure enough. DENIED.
Locking people out of purchasing insurance is not the answer.
Nor is the answer to tell every person who wants insurance to go get a job with an employer who offers it.
I don't know what allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines will actually accomplish. Raiding the healthiest citizens of the state next door still leaves the sickest SOL.
Perhaps you have a better solution?
Tort reform would make a huge difference. A doc who makes $450,000.a year and spends $150,000 for malpractice insurance and then has to hire people to run his office who are insurance experts , not to mention a nurse or two, doesn't have much to pay off school bills let alone live.on.
I set up my own business, after resigning from a position that had healthcare. At 50 years old, no company in Oregon would offer me health insurance. I was not sick, I was 50. There were 25,000 other people in Oregon over 50 trying to buy insurance at the time. None could get it.. 13 years later. Obamacare has allowed me to BUY insurnace. This is not a hand out. It's just fairness. At least from my point of view. I know, I've got friends here that I respect who see it differently. There's two sides to every strory. A pre-existing condition was not the issue. In Oregon, the insurance company did not need to give a reason for denial.
And he could have done that without telling me that I have to have insurance, or be penalized. I mean taxed.
you're right he should have gone for a single payer system instead of thinking by going with a system republicans had advocated for in the past they would support it.at least now he knows better and is not naive enough to expect any bipartisan approach from the republicans.
So, you do not have insurance? And you don't want it? That's OK.
I agree that the whole thing should have been for people who couldn't buy insurance, and excluded those who don't want insurance. Yet--
They say I'm now paying an extra $1400 per year to cover ER room costs of people who do not have insurance. I'm not sure I get it. Why is it so much?
The presumption is that health insurance is a net plus and that it operates in a free market. Neither of these is entirely true. Insurance may not be a net plus for those who earn enough to self insure against everything but the most catastrophic health events and the very healthy young - both of which make up a large protion of the existing uninsured.
There is no free market in health insurance. Insurance is full of mandates, limited and restricted markets, crazy paper work, regulation and bureaucracy. 47% of all medical spending is already inefficient government mandated spending. The vigorous and competative markets in many other complex industries, i.e. automobiles, funerals, auto insurance, etc... are nonexistent in medical insurance. If every individual was perfectly empowered to purchase his own insurance the cost of medical care and insurance would be lower.
If a voucher system were created for the least capable to purchase insurance in the free market costs would still be held down without blowing the doors off the debt.
So why don't you have a look at periods in history when the healthcare industry was completely free market driven, utopian periods like the industrial revolution when all healthcare was private... and so costly most people never saw a doctor in their lives, when the poor lived more than a third less because their medical care was terrible etc... What a wonderful reality that was. Why wouldn't we want that!
Utopian is not a conservative concept, industrialization and the accompanying urabnization themselves had a deleterious effect on health. I thought progressives are forward looking, optimistic and courageous yet many seem to look backward in despair and fear rather than recognize how far we have come they fear how far we will fall depsite a history of continued social evolution.
Not at all, I don't look at the past or the future with despair, I have seen in my lifetime how thins have improved due to progressive policies, I have experienced in other countries the consequences of faith in the free market, both my step parents were born without a doctor present, it was too expensive, my grandfather was blind in one eye for forty years because the simple surgery was too expensive, the process doesn't work is all, the fee market is good at a lot of things but it is by design an amoral system one designed on competition not cooperation. If you want that system you have to accept that tens of thousands will die every year because they can't afford healthcare (before Obamacare it was still 4500 a year) I am not OK with that.
Your story is illustrative of the problem and the solution.
People who want and are willing to pay for health insurance have been denied insurance.
People who work hard but work for themselves, or for a small business.
Not poor. Not slackers. Not looking for any handout.
To me, FINALLY being able to get coverage for my family is the heart and soul of Obamacare.
Obama is far worse. A liar and incompetent.
YES ! Hillary Clinton of course! Far , far worse .
I understand, not much more to say about the man
Personally, I'm not too thrilled with any politician.
you must recognize they make for some good entertainment at times.
I hope there will be some debates. Some of those have been true gems in the past.
you are right, since boxing died back in the eighties I started watching political matches and some of them are just as good.
There are 3 Presidential debates scheduled at the moment (October 3rd, 16th, and 22nd), and one VP debate on October 11th.
Thanks. I wonder which one will put their foot in it first...
I think it's going to depend on the coin toss and who gets to go first. I swear it's depressing, American Presidential Politics has turned into one really bad, really long, sick joke.
I keep hoping that, at some point, Ashton Kutcher is going to run out with a camera crew and tell us that we were just getting punked.
As an aside, you may or may not have heard about the "omnishambles" that was George Osbourne's Budget. Hats off to Romney though, who, in just a few short days, has created a splash in the UK as the Romney shambles (and that is some achievement given that the Olympic games are about to be hosted here) The British Press have well and truly turned their nose up at him, even the right wing press. He referred to the leader of the Labour party as Mr Leader. Duh! lack of research! Is flagrantly and unashamedly schmoozing the bankers (yes, Barclays) despite the Libor scandal, for donations. And THAT gaffe, and I don't mean the Anglo- S non sense!
Romney's embarrassing talents know no frontiers he managed to go to europe and make an a- - of himself just a few hours after arriving.
I am speechless. You're nation and mine have elected their fair share of fools, but this guy, this guy makes Bush look almost intelligent. He's also taken advantage of a photo op with Tony Bliar, Tony Bliar?! Romney's either deliberately portraying himself as an ass, or he really is that stupid??
Yes. Just discovered that one and have duly noted it in my thread on Romney's Olympics gaffes. But the gaffes go far beyond his criticisms of the Olympics. Saying he met with MI-6, poo-pooing his own horse in the Olympics, the Anglo-Saxon heritage comments (admittedly by an adviser, not him).
Brits are declaring him worse than W and even Sarah Palin.
Is he really this dense? Or could it possibly all be calculated?
Never know with Tricky Mitty.
Considering the history of poor political choices available for the electorate - it would be Alan Funt, not Ashton Kutcher.
And there are 2 that I absolutely, positively despise. So as not to start a riot, I won't name them.
My all time favorite.
"Lloyd Bentsen puts down Dan Quayle"
I'm a Republican and was forced to vote for Obama last time. I cried a little. I cry more now that he's mandated I have to buy healthcare crap I can't afford rather than fixing the usury that the whole insurance system is, which proves he doesn't get it at all, or that he's just another corrupt piece of system crap, and that the whole system is retarded.
The fact that my party can only come up with this dipsh%t Romney only proves that the U.S. is pretty much done. How many idiot candidates are we going to endure from either side? Are we really that helpless to choose candidates? Can nobody else see that the parties don't exist? These morons are all clones of each other with only the tiniest differences, like "I'm for abortion," or, "I'm for gun control." Are we really that unfathomably stupid and easy to draw off point? It's like the whole political system revolves around whoever can come up with the best 'your mom' joke. Seriously, is that it for us? Is America that f-ing stupid?
Obviously we are, because it just keeps happening.
It's going to take a miracle to save us. We're all so pissed off (and most of us also uneducated, and there's nothing like ignorance to help dumb crap play out fabulously), and the power base is so meticulously laid in outside of "democracy" <cough>perverted joke that it is now<cough>, that there really is very little hope that we can save ourselves. Everyone with real power in America is playing a global game now, so, this puppetry that remains of the great ideal that was the U.S. for two centuries is now just like all the rest of the corrupt quasi-feudal <cough>hegemony<cough> whatever crap that infects the rest of the third-world globe.
You kinda have it somewhere among the rights and wrongs of your justifiable rant. What you seem to have overlooked is that your candidates from either side will only ever come from a small club of people who have global ambitions and no interest in the US except control of its armed forces and other instruments of power around the world.
They will no more represent the people of the US than they care about them.
Without a new system these few people are going to control everything about you, and everyone else, within the next few years.
That's pretty much how I see it too. Way past "in a few years" though. Way underway already.
We're actually so far down the road that Marx's whole point is actually proving itself through what we call "democracy" and totally without needing any reference to that perversion of his point that the Soviets and the Chinese call "communism."
Of course Marx only pointed out how the system works and reasoned how it might be changed - and he has been proven to be mostly correct in every respect - you are referring more to Engels who put it into an 'action plan' and gave birth to communism. It should also not be forgotten that communism was the way out of total tyranny and slavery for the countries you point to, whether you agree with it or not.
No, I agree. "Capitalism" has forced "Communism" on the U.S. We call it "unions" and "social security" and "health care reform" but it's really just a whole lot of sad attempts to keep wealth from collecting at the top of a pile of people who are so greedy they don't even recognize they have so much more than they can ever enjoy and yet they are willing to continue grabbing up more to the point the whole system that put them into their orgasmic state of success is going to collapse. Marx charted this perfectly. It doesn't matter what we call it. We could call it "mayonnaise" or "furblepurgle." It changes nothing.
That's what bothers me, the global ambitions and the up-and-coming invasion of Iran.
Yes the funding of insurgents into Syria to destabilise that country is just preparation for an attack on Iran I suspect. I guess we won't see the thugs and local gang leaders unless that country collapses like Libya and Iraq.
I suppose China has clean hands. The "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq made their way to Syria when the media broadcast the intent of the USA. This is a fact.
You can't fool all of the people all of the time.
If one wanted to collapse the Iranian government the time was ripe in 2009/10 when the Iranian people were filling the streets and getting killed on YouTube. I doubt there will be an invasion of Iran while its government's hold on authority is erroding. I would expect covert actions, money, communication hardware, trained assets all being added to the pro-Western and popular movement toward a liberated Iran.
The difference between Iraq and Iran is that Saddam was easier to topple through arms and Iraq, Afghanistan, the Gulf States and Turkey encircle Iran. Encirclement and the internal opposition make Iran look like the Warsaw Pact and the USSR circa 1990. Time and an active policy by the US will save Iran an invasion - one that would do little more than kill pro-Western Iranians.
Have you learned your lesson? A poor Republican is better than a poor Democrat. Not much of an endorsement.
By the way, I have been convinced of our rapidly approaching end for sometime now. The biggest difference is how soon we arrive. Are we on the Democrat bullet train or the Republican Hooterville Cannonball.
Would you know a good candidate if you saw one ? If you want one who will give you everything you have already had the perfect candidate. He has said he would give you all you need. He is all talk and no show. If you re-elect him the likelihood of another presidential election in 2016 is slim to none. We will look just like every other country. But I have met many Americans that know America is different. Who sends medical teams, rescue teams, money for aid, to the US? Nobody. Who sends those teams around the world. America. Do I think Mitt Romney is splendid, No! But at least we know for certain he meets the specifications for the office. I want to see the president, Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinestine, and Harry Reid's tax returns for the last 10 years. I actually believe the current President was the best thing that has happened to this country. It's alive for the first time since 911.
Who sends aid to the US well a few countries actually, Venezuela regularly insures that over a million Americans can keep their homes warm in winter through heating oil donations. There are actually quite a few countries that receive less aid than we do.
The estimation of a 2016 election being unlikely is senseless, baseless and pointless fear mongering.
There are people interested in politics for the first time in their lives, and not as Democrats, thanks to Obama. His catastrophic destruction of the Democrat party continues apace and is a delight to see. The sad part is the cost of his failure to young black politicians. Though his Presidential hopes were already over, if Harold Ford were still a viable prospect Obama's failures would cast doubts in the minds of the benighted as to Ford's abilities.
It isn't fair, it isn't reasonable but few things are,
I must remind you that Harold Ford was defeated by a bigoted campaign portraying him as having some kind of love affair with some blonde bimbo.
Has there ever been a worse presidential candidate than Mitt Romney? I'm sure there has, and I'm just as sure they probably won also.
I think if I was a US citizen I'd be particularly concerned, not only about Romney's ineptitude diplomatically, but the way in which he is unashamedly raising donations from dodgy banks which have been involved in the LIBOR scandal. If he becomes President, who will be pulling his strings?
http://www.channel4.com/news/london-cal … pics-visit
"Has there ever been a worse presidential candidate than Mitt Romney?"
Sure there has - doesn't anybody remember Ross Perot?
Ross Perot was awesome!! The entertainment value he brought to National Politics was great. When Dana Carvey used to play him on SNL, I would have tears in my eyes from laughing so hard ("Don't worry 'bout ol Ross, it's just sand off a beach, I've got 3 billion in the bank back home").
On a serious note, you can thank Ross for Bill Clinton's first term.
Oh yeah, no denyin' that Ross was great TV, but could you imagine THAT guy with his finger on "the button?" Yikes. He'd wake up one morning and go "Dangit, I suspect that them pesky Uruguayans is puttin' mercury in my sammiches! Time to drop the Big One!"
Perhaps It is not that there has ever been a worse candidate, but that Romney is the worst candidate for this country right now.
He can't even go to the UK, without offending his hosts before he even gets through customs. He's a train wreck and an offense to his nation every week of his life.
At least he didn't try to give the Queen a back rub or bring her an iPod. It seems there is a train of train wrecks.
Wait till Mitt puts on a Yarmulke at the Wailing Wall and starts talking about Jesus being a good Christian.
Mitt doesn't get customs and does not undertand the crowd he is addressing. But he'll sure make a great downsizer-in-chief. Good bye Medicare. I'm waiting for my voucher already.
Well Mitt and Boris (Mayor of London) seem not to have taken to one another and it looks like even Call Me Dave has waded in with a few snide comments.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … c-odd.html
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timst … d-america/
It takes talent to get every single British journalist and politician offside in only a couple of days, it even took Bush longer than that.
But Tony Blair is looking for a comeback to mainstream politics, so if we could cook up an American birth certificate for him we would be more than willing to ship over to you at a knock down price?
And the repercussions about his MI 6 blunder will go on through the rest of the campaign, as an example of moronic foreign relations
I am looking forward to the debates. They should be entertaining.
I have no doubt the debates will achieve big audiences , although he seemed to have gotten pretty good at it by the end of the primaries thanks to gingrich mainly,and what sounded fine in the context of a group of candidates trying to out right each other might not sound so good when addressing the whole country that is in it's majority moderately right but not extreme right wing loons, as the teapartiers or the talking head followers and dittoheads. so i guess we'll have to wait eagerly for those games to begin , i hope we have at least four or five of them.
Ah, come on guys, you know that Mittens is a ....
1. Governmental take over of private industry?
2. We have less of a world presence militarily?
3. Abortion is preventative?
4. Governmental control over private industry?
5. Most have failed and taken tax payers money with them...if there is a market (and there is) it will be supported by businesses who can profit and citizens who CHOOSE to purchase it.
6. Agreed we should scrap NCLB, but why is this a federal issue, should be local and State issues that are decided by parents...as to, college aid, why federal issue?
7. Define "fair share"...the lower 50% of wage earners pay little to no net federal taxes...the top 50% pay 90% of the federal taxes.
8. He campaigned and sought the job...and net jobs are one million less when you look at the real numbers...labor participation is WAY down. And, it's been almost 4 years, not a day...and the Titanic sunk, so where are you going with that analogy...
While we don't usually agree, I do enjoy the debate.
The stupider, the better! Bush was made with the same ingredients, wasn't he?
The GOP is looking to get another figurehead in place much as they did with "W". A mindless egomaniac is all they need to complete the corporate domination they seek. When Romney makes a statement his big mouth has already been on the opposite end of the issue in the past. Flip Flopper is something that is coming with regards to his credibility and how about that historic trip to Europe and Israel? I guess he showed them what foreign policy will look like under his watch.
To be fair, though, the Dems are corporate stooges too. Look at the stuff that passes Congress with bipartisan support. It's always stuff that benefits the coroporate oligarchy.
I did not mean to pick on the GOP but I was keeping in line with the thread. I agree absolutely that this government is bought and paid for on both sides of the isle. The wall street rapists that trashed the economy in 2007 were never brought to account for their greedy glutinous spree of gambling leaving the economy in shambles. Obama half heartedly went and passed some ridiculous legislation that couldn't even keep banks like Morgan/Chase from continuing in their greedy ways.
As long as we argue over the idiology of the party platforms and other made up issues and not concentrate on the big issue which is the money that runs the country we will be left with more and more catastrophies while the perpetrators walk away scott free.
Ugh, for the first time in my life I literally have no idea who to vote for.
I voted Obama last time simply because Sarah Palin was a greaaaaaaaat representation of (uh oh, what was his name again? McCann? They're all the same to me after the years go by)'s judgement in making choices.
But now, both candidates seem to be making a mochary of the US. Did anyone else notice your healthcare premiums going up after the 'Affordable' Care Act? Now that we all have to pay for Jane Doe's pap smear, we our rates go up. Wooooohoooo. Affordable, my ass!
And Romney? As soon as I saw an ad with him saying something along the lines of "if gays can get married, prayer should be done in schools" I about laughed out of my a-hole, because I was under the impression that America was formed on the premise of church and state being separate and independent from eachother? Yay, public state-sponsored schools making our children pray!
Seriously, who is the lesser of two evils here? I figure, my kids can either pray in school, or we can keep having these social "Acts" (like Student Loan Forgiveness? Whose gonna want to pay for someone else's college?) forced upon us and our tax dollars. Wooooohooooo! It's the same ol' bullcrap all over again!
I will not only vote for Obama but I will work to add a few more votes to mine, for the democratic candidate, but if you have irreconcilable difference with both candidates maybe you should check out Gary Johnson.
funny you would use that word, you know more than i thought perhaps?
I noticed that you came from Ecuador and assumed you speak Spanish. My family lived in Bogota for several years, and I learned a little Spanish.
Yo tambiem creo que Ralph entientdes mas de algos personas creer!
well i didn't come from ecuador I'm from uruguay but it caught my attention that you would use that word because in certain countries it has sort of a political connotation .
You're not trying very hard. Here here, tell me why you will vote for Obama? I might, simply because he is the lesser of two evils.
I have many reasons , but there is one reason that on it's one is enough for me to vote for Obama and it is the fact that I'm a wetback, and the republican party's current position on immigration reform is to either put them all on a boat and ship them out or make their life so miserable that they will self deport, meanwhile obama issued the order to stop deporting people brought illegally by their parents sort of a mini amnesty which is not enough but is a step in the right direction from my point of view of course.
Correct me if I am mistaken, but illegal immigrants can't vote. Really, you have to be an American citizen to have a say in American votes.
*Edit: Though to add, I do believe those brought by illegally by their parents should be shown amnesty.
I am now an american citizen, but I was once an illegal alien, I know by personal experience the plight of the illegal alien, and I am the same person today,that i was when i was illegal, so i feel I have the moral obligation to stand up and speak out in favor of those with no voice, the weakest in our society, those who whether it is known or not have very few rights, the illegal aliens,and i do it proudly and openly, because I'm not another person today because i'm a US citizen, I'm a wetback.
There not only has never been a worse candidate than Mitt Romney, there have never been so many rotten voters to vote for him!
From the NYTimes forum today;
POLITICO ran an article today about Republican mega-donors. Here is the link to the website: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79413.html
The "rogue's gallery" includes:
Sheldon & Miriam Adelson: $36.3 million total contributions
Harold & Annette Simmons: $15.8 million total contributions
Bob & Doylene Perry: $12.8 million total contributions
Peter Thiel: $3.8 million total contributions
John & Marlen Childs; $2.8 million total contributions
Foster & Lynette Friess: $2.8 million total contributions
Jerrold & Margaret Perenchio: $2.7 million total contributions
William & Kay Dore: $ 2.3 million total contributions
Kenneth & Anne Griffin: $2.3 million total contributions
Robert & Diana Mercer: $2 million total contributions
Jon & Karen Huntsman: $2.2 million total contributions
Paul Singer: $2.1 million total contributions
Joseph W. Craft III: $1.9 million total contributions
John Ramsey: $1.9 million total contributions
Philip H. Geier Jr.: $1.5 million total contributions
America, meet your oligarchy!
And let's not forget the Koch brothers.
One - if not for the internet manipulation of Howard Dean , DNC, Obama - would not be president ! Two , He was comepletely un- vetted- meaning no usable political experience . Three - he has nor had absolutely NO bussiness experience what so ever ..............and here's the thing , liberals practically ejaculated at the chance to dance to the music of political correctness . A black man with a perfect smile and a good game of basketball , Come on people ........stop buying into the "bubble gum" cool -aid music of the left . THINK ! decide for yourself ........can you handle it ? Thats the real question .
That is your opinion, but the majority of the american people did not agree with you in 2008 and only time will tell if they will agree with you in 2012 or not, I will work very hard so that us the stupid working people again defeat in the upcoming election the smart and politically aware right wing nuts that want to defeat, the unions , the working class, the immigrants, the minorities , the poor so that millionaires ,billionaires and corporations can keep becoming richer in detriment of the poor the working class and the country.
There you go again , see ! Chewing on the bubble gum and drink the cool-aid of leftist rhetoric! Please , please if for no other reason , learn to think .......for yourself ! I don't care , at this point who wins , we are doing the same insane thing over and over and over ! Electing the same mindless empty politicians with no real sense of a normal life to lead us out of the fog! Nothing is going to ever change if we don't stop driveling the same nonsense , And" clean up our house ", My vote ?........remove all incumbants and start over untill someone "gets it " !
I agree with you on all accounts but what will it take for the electorate to put aside their polarized views and think outside the box. Money is the corruption and it feeds the misdirection, lies and rhetoric, that is what is crucial to the current political machines for success. Cut the money life line and give all candidates an equal presentation and soon you will see a leader emerge that is focussed on the issues and not the peripheral attacks to defray the facts.
Wow. Remember when Mitt Romney seemed like the worst presidential candidate ever?
Good times, good times.
by mio cid 7 years ago
I try to think back and I can't remember a worse candidate than Mitt Romney.
by David Stillwell 7 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......
by Skarlet 6 years ago
Why does the mainstream media continue to attack Mitt Romney?Now that we know Mitt Romney has paid MORE than his fair share of taxes and donated millions to charities, why do people keep demonizing him? Obama came out after four Americans were murdered and said, "well, we've had a bad...
by Sheila 5 years ago
Should Romney run for President again in 2016? Why or why not? Who should be his running mate?
by Eric L. Andrews 6 years ago
Who won the presidential debate last night, Barack Obama or Mitt Romney?
by Dr Billy Kidd 7 years ago
Presidential candidate Mitt Romney said last week that Obama has a secret agenda for his second term. I'm wondering what that is. Romney did not say. Or is this the old psychological trick of projecting your fault on the other guy. Is it Mitt who has the secret agenda? I surely don't know. Perhaps,...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|