So... Mitt Romney

[The Golden Touch]

Obama. -sagenod-

[Swordsman18]

Personally, I would rather have had universal health care, I know Obama could not pull it off without a full blown riot at the White House but all too often I hear of friends and relatives have supremely high hospital bills that leave them in debt for years. I also say that gay marriage should happen as well but I still think we are a couple years or so out about that one and the GOP is going to fight like no tomorrow to stop that from happening.

Also I do not like Mitt's policy of well not disclosing his policies. Just going logically, I could go with the guy that I know where he stands and what he is going to do or I could choose the mystery box. I would choose Obama obviously as I know what I am getting.

I am not even getting into Mister "Casual relationship with the Truth" Ryan who seems to not understand that your religion does not need to dictate your policy as he would seriously want to control the birth and contraceptive habits of millions of Americans when we are facing this one thing called overpopulation. Yes, you may be a Catholic, but I seem to remember a President, went by the name of Kennedy who was also a Catholic and somehow we did not end up subjects of the Vatican.

So I am going to vote for Obama in November in the hopes we have him for another four years so that we can have two new contenders for office and this fight can begin again.

[Callie Del Noire]

"I am not Catholic candidate for president; I am Democratic Party's candidate for president, who just happens to also be catholic"- JFK

That is the MAJOR difference between JFK and Ryan. One knew his faith and his role in office were related but separate. Ryan, I think, will not accept such outlooks.

[AndyZ]

I believe enough examples have been posted to further elaborate my point.

Out of the entire country, we whittle things down to two people, yet most people are more concerned over their dislikes of one person than what they like about their own candidate.

This is nothing new.  It's just an example that negative politics work.  Because it works, politicians will use it, and we can expect more of the same until then.

[OldSchoolGamer]

Before anyone gets too into the whole Romney versus Obama contest, bear in mind neither of these two men decide anything.  They are figureheads, brought out and paraded for the purpose of putting on a spectacle once every four years.  America is actually ruled by an oligarchy, and has been for quite some time.  And the oligarchy does not stand for election.  The oligarchy uses the election to both gauge the overall mood of the electorate...and to shape it via the media they own.

[Callie Del Noire]

I believe enough examples have been posted to further elaborate my point.

Out of the entire country, we whittle things down to two people, yet most people are more concerned over their dislikes of one person than what they like about their own candidate.

This is nothing new.  It's just an example that negative politics work.  Because it works, politicians will use it, and we can expect more of the same until then.

I examine my choices fairly bluntly.

The President has backed measures I think endangers the practice of constitutional freedoms we have, such as the infinite detainment clause of this years NDAA. BUT by and far he has tried to do more good than bad. He has admitted that more of the same trickle down crap won't work and that the ultra rich are getting off without paying their share. More often than not he stays with what he says and when he changes his stand he says so.

Govenor Romney changes with the wind and has done so constantly over the years. Political expediency is his only guideline. Do what I must. PERIOD. He helped build a company that has killed more US business in the pursuit than helped. Bain is a vulture. And his other business ventures are even less visible. Today, even as he stands as the GOP choice we know more about his VPs plans for budgets and fixing the country than his. We have a VP choice who is famous for his lack of compromise or even willing to let the other side in the room. Not the sort of a choice a 'coach' as he referred to himself in Ohio recently as should pick.

[WildCat]

"I am not Catholic candidate for president; I am Democratic Party's candidate for president, who just happens to also be catholic"- JFK

That is the MAJOR difference between JFK and Ryan. One knew his faith and his role in office were related but separate. Ryan, I think, will not accept such outlooks.

See, my issue with the "Ryan just prioritizes his religion" because there are absolutely elements in catholocism and Christianity in general that are dramatically at odds with the positions Ryan is taking. (how telling is it, though, the capitalization choices I just made there?)

Anyway. Faith informs values. And our values can, do and should influence policy. But accepting people who are different from you is a central tenet of Christ's teaching. Caring for the poor is a central tenet of Christ's teaching. Abortion and homosexuality were not major issues in Christ's teachings--and it's not uncontested how to properly interpret his teachings on these issues. And Christ sure as shootin' never said "Thou shalt dismantle medicare and social security with voucher plans."

[MasterMischief]

But accepting people who are different from you is a central tenet of Christ's teaching.

The devil you say!  Everyone knows Jesus marched around with a sign reading, "My Father hates prostitutes and tax collectors"

^^
Sarcasm for anyone a bit slow today.

[kckolbe]

A thousand times no! Religion aside, Romney scares the crap out of me, and the entire GOP bunch worries me more than a little bit. The only republican I had any respect for was Ron Paul... up until I heard his take on the social issues (a woman's right to chose, Gay marriage, etc), and then I suddenly had far less respect for him.

I think you may be misinformed about Ron Paul's abortion stance, but no worries as it will likely not be a factor.  I don't see him running as a third candidate.  I disagree with Ron Paul on other issues, too, but his character is solid, which is more than I can say for either candidate.  I will not vote for Obama.  Granted, Romney is arguably little better/just as bad/worse, depending on priorities and other variables, but I think that if a president violates the nation's trust, then he should be voted out no matter what.  Maybe if we start holding these folks accountable to their actions then elected officials will start paying attention.  It is a slim chance, but that's my strategy.

By the way, the comparison to Kerry is disturbingly accurate.  A president I hate, and a challenger I hate almost as much for failing to make himself more appealing. 

[Trieste]

I think you may be misinformed about Ron Paul's abortion stance

Ron Paul has stated over and over again that he wants to effectively repeal Roe v. Wade and that he believes life begins at conception. He claims that in all his years as a physician, he has never had to terminate a pregnancy to save the life of the mother.

Pretty sure that is diametrically opposed to any right to choose, and yet another example of a rich man trying to moralize at poor women. He's a real knight, he is.

, but no worries as it will likely not be a factor.  I don't see him running as a third candidate.  I disagree with Ron Paul on other issues, too, but his character is solid, which is more than I can say for either candidate.  I will not vote for Obama.  Granted, Romney is arguably little better/just as bad/worse, depending on priorities and other variables, but I think that if a president violates the nation's trust, then he should be voted out no matter what.  Maybe if we start holding these folks accountable to their actions then elected officials will start paying attention.  It is a slim chance, but that's my strategy.

By the way, the comparison to Kerry is disturbingly accurate.  A president I hate, and a challenger I hate almost as much for failing to make himself more appealing.

So I see that you said you won't vote for Obama, but does that mean you'll vote for Romney? What policies of his do you find appealing?

[kckolbe]

He did a couple of interviews later on (one was on The View, don't remember the other) where he admitted that he was not as convinced as he had been, and that he was conflicted as to whose freedoms were impacted more, the child's or the mother's.  I really liked that.  He really does just care about preserving as many freedoms as possible.

And I am unsure whether or not I will vote for Romney.  I am considering Gary Johnson, who I know has no chance, but maybe seeing a few extra votes go his way will give libertarians more ammo in future campaigns.  Sadly, it makes little difference either way, as I am registered in Texas, and I think we all know who will win that state.  Still, if Romney and Obama were the *only* choices, I would vote Romney.  I don't care for any of his policies, though he seems to favor internet privacy more than Obama, but my main reason is that Romney hasn't had the chance to fuck us over yet.  Again, it isn't much, but I feel Obama abused his authority and my trust, so I will not vote for him on principle.  It's kinda like when I get horrible customer service from an internet provider and I switch to the only other company in the area.  I know it won't be better, but that company hasn't fucked me yet.

Also, regarding Romney, at least his lack of character in kinda right out in the open.  It irritates me every time I see a post about how cool Obama is.  At least we can all be disappointed in Romney together.  Also, while I do not care for Ryan's budget, I liked the fact that he at least tried to put something together that cut spending while everyone else just bickered.  In fact, I would take Biden over Obama and Ryan over Romney, kinda weird.

Still, Ron Paul is a damn fine man, and I can't fully explain how much it hurt to see him not make it.  Completely unrelated, I know, but it's important to remember that there are honest representatives out there, and that our current campaign laws and processes seem designed to ensure that they are weeded out.  I wasn't a huge McCain fan, either, but I think he had more character than Obama, and would feel less resentful of seeing McCain fans.  At least he actually did something noteworthy to earn his support base.

Done rambling.

[vtboy]

Romney? The man is utterly rudderless. His course is only as constant as the winds which, now, blow from starboard (i.e., the right).

I don't expect much principle from any politician, but Romney is the worst I can recall. Ironic in one whose most loudly proclaimed qualification for office is business acumen, the man has no bottom line. Obama is a rock, by comparison.

[Callie Del Noire]

Romney? The man is utterly rudderless. His course is only as constant as the winds which, now, blow from starboard (i.e., the right).

I don't expect much principle from any politician, but Romney is the worst I can recall. Ironic in one whose most loudly proclaimed qualification for office is business acumen, the man has no bottom line. Obama is a rock, by comparison.

That is so true...he's changed EVERY p oint to get the nomination. Yet has not CONCRETELY said anything. I'll do this or that and soon but not HOW. Romney will be four years of Dubya again, which means the Rich will get richer, corporate interests will get served and by the time they are done...we will have something worse than CISPA in place and net nuetrality will long be dead.

[OldSchoolGamer]

Romney? The man is utterly rudderless. His course is only as constant as the winds which, now, blow from starboard (i.e., the right).

I don't expect much principle from any politician, but Romney is the worst I can recall. Ironic in one whose most loudly proclaimed qualification for office is business acumen, the man has no bottom line. Obama is a rock, by comparison.

That's why he's there.  If he had a backbone, the Forbes 400 would never have allowed him to win.  They want someone they can easily control.  A willing puppet.

[Callie Del Noire]

That's why he's there.  If he had a backbone, the Forbes 400 would never have allowed him to win.  They want someone they can easily control.  A willing puppet.

Heads up.. he's literally the richest man to ever run for the Office of President. The estimates of his networth (personal) is upwards of 200 million and he's got a good chunk of ownership in companies like Bain and even less visible/tangibly trackable holding companies.

He's not a tool of the 400.. he's part of them.

[OldSchoolGamer]

Heads up.. he's literally the richest man to ever run for the Office of President. The estimates of his networth (personal) is upwards of 200 million and he's got a good chunk of ownership in companies like Bain and even less visible/tangibly trackable holding companies.

He's not a tool of the 400.. he's part of them.

Junior partner, maybe.  To be in the oligarchy, you need to have a net worth in the billions.  These people are richer than Satan Himself.  Romney is on their radar, but if push absolutely came to shove they could have a hole dug for him in the desert.  If he's even invited to the Bilderberg conference, he's far from the most important man in the room.

[Raen234]

Honestly i find a lot of the politics lately to be largely a joke, we spend more fighting each other then getting our shit together. That said i do like what Obama has done in his time and i find it harder and harder to look at Romney's policies with anything other than disdain lately. Hes a fine enough person but all i see from Republican party right now is how much they want to go in and overturn every good thing that has happened with the Obama admin. It really makes me cringe to hear how much they talk about the freedoms but only in so much the ones they agree with. Not to mention we are supposed to be a people with separation from church and state.

But enough about my rantings, i really miss the republican running's the candidates said perhaps some of the most amusing things ive ever heard. Moon colonies and an electrified fence around the border, lols

[Oniya]

So, somewhere along the line, I ended up 'Liking' a page on Facebook titled 'Occupy the Internet'.  Understandable, since I've been following the Occupy movement since last September.  This morning, however, I find my page flooded with Romney-spam.  Rather peeved, I proceed to 'Unlike' the page, but decided to do a little irony-mining.

Remember SOPA/CISPA?  Guess who voted for it!

So, yeah, unless we're talking military occupation, I'm not seeing the connection.

[TheGlyphstone]

Junior partner, maybe.  To be in the oligarchy, you need to have a net worth in the billions.  These people are richer than Satan Himself.  Romney is on their radar, but if push absolutely came to shove they could have a hole dug for him in the desert.  If he's even invited to the Bilderberg conference, he's far from the most important man in the room.

But until he announces his new taxes and tariffs on tinfoil, you're safe.

[OldSchoolGamer]

But until he announces his new taxes and tariffs on tinfoil, you're safe.

Really, now?

http://stopsyjonizmowi.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/bilderberg.jpg

http://rt.com/news/bilderberg-power-us-obama-932/

I'm sure at these secret meetings, they discuss the Kardashians and who will play in the All-Star game. 

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group_Meets_In_Athens_Amid_Tight_Security

I'm sure just anyone could get the militaries of NATO nations to act as their security detail and personal bodyguards, right?

(I don't want to turn this into a discussion of the Bilderbergs, but I think after TheGlyphstone's broadside there, I was entitled to a riposte.)

[Trieste]

I think probably it should stay on topic from here out, please.

[Callie Del Noire]

Romney tax returns for a million bucks

Hmm wonder if the hackers are playing a scam or not?

[Serephino]

What would be funny as hell if this is true is for Romney to pay the money, then the person releases them anyway...

[Callie Del Noire]

What would be funny as hell if this is true is for Romney to pay the money, then the person releases them anyway...

He can't pay.. that is as good as saying that he has something to hide.. the only thing he can do is release ALL his tax returns like most candidates do anyway. He's played really TIGHT with his own returns. Had he matched the other GOP candidates or the President he'd have never gotten this sort of play done against him.

Otherwise.. the only other move is hope the Secret Service gets everyone involved the theft before they can release the key. Ironically the key could come out as part of the court case.

[Trieste]

They're denying that there was a break-in, but I'm not sure anyone realizes that there does not need to be a physical break-in for the information to have been stolen. If the information is stored on computers that have internet access, then they are vulnerable.

Furthermore, just from the teensy tiny bit of stuff I've learned so far in the course of obtaining my computer forensics certification alongside my M.S., I can think of about four ways off the top of my head for those files to have been stolen even if they weren't connected to the 'net. And none of them requires physically breaking in.