Who And What Do You Believe?

**UffDa** · 07-09-2012, 06:50 PM

I have a simple rule. If a politician's lips are moving, he or she is lying. So, the Dems are making a big deal about Romney's off-shore investments and his alleged tax avoidance. Of course, the Romney camp denies the charges. Personally, I believe that it is an attempt to distract the voters from the dismal economy and jobless reports. The same goes for the hoopla about eliminating the tax breaks for the "rich". Even if the IRS collected $100B more a year, it would have very little effect on our financial problems. ($16T in the hole so far!) The thing is that the wealthy can move. They can go just about anywhere they please and take their money with them. How many of the so-called wealthy business owners will just close their doors? How many more people will be out of work? I think it's just another smoke screen. Oh! Wait! It's Bush's fault.

Just wait until we get closer to Nov. 4. I can hardly wait.

**Noctis3880** · 07-09-2012, 09:37 PM

Between Romney and Obama, I don't believe in either one of them, and I firmly believe we'll be screwed either way. As for the lesser evil, perhaps Romney might be less lethal to the country compared to Obama in much the same way a knife to the chest is slightly less lethal compared to a bullet to the head. I believe middle-class citizens will be screwed either way. I can only hope that Romney would represent businesses in general as common sense dictates that a wrecked economy is bad for business.

**tvranesic** · 07-09-2012, 10:49 PM

Originally Posted by Noctis3880

Between Romney and Obama, I don't believe in either one of them, and I firmly believe we'll be screwed either way.

The middle class would certainly not suffer from an improved economy. On the other hand, I think it could be argued that a dismal economy probably has the greatest impact on the middle class.

**eyeeatingfish** · 07-09-2012, 11:41 PM

Originally Posted by Noctis3880

Between Romney and Obama, I don't believe in either one of them, and I firmly believe we'll be screwed either way. As for the lesser evil, perhaps Romney might be less lethal to the country compared to Obama in much the same way a knife to the chest is slightly less lethal compared to a bullet to the head. I believe middle-class citizens will be screwed either way. I can only hope that Romney would represent businesses in general as common sense dictates that a wrecked economy is bad for business.

You could vote 3rd party. If enough people didn't have that attitude that you only have two choices we could shake up the system and elect someone not the lesser of two evils.

**UffDa** · 07-10-2012, 01:33 AM

Originally Posted by eyeeatingfish

You could vote 3rd party. If enough people didn't have that attitude that you only have two choices we could shake up the system and elect someone not the lesser of two evils.

That's wishful thinking. You know that will not happen in our lifetime. (Mine anyway) The American people are just too polarized. Most of half will vote for anyone running as a Democrat and most of the other half will vote for anyone running as a Republican.

The main reason that I hope Romney wins is that several of the SCOTUS justices will probably die or retire in the next 4 years. How many Kagans and Sodacrackers can this country stand?

**eyeeatingfish** · 07-10-2012, 01:35 AM

Originally Posted by UffDa

That's wishful thinking. You know that will not happen in our lifetime. (Mine anyway) The American people are just too polarized. Most of half will vote for anyone running as a Democrat and most of the other half will vote for anyone running as a Republican.

The main reason that I hope Romney wins is that several of the SCOTUS justices will probably die or retire in the next 4 years. How many Kagans and Sodacrackers can this country stand?

It is only wishful thinking because too many Americans are idiots, at least when it comes to politics

**quietmike** · 07-10-2012, 05:46 AM

Originally Posted by UffDa

So, the Dems are making a big deal about Romney's off-shore investments and his alleged tax avoidance.

Yet, they seemingly have no issue with following George Clooney to Switzerland for a fundraiser. Corporate donations are bad, but donations from foreign countries are good????

**MVF** · 07-10-2012, 07:02 PM

Even aside from the SCOTUS issue, Romney has a history of "turning things around". I think Romney's ego will be all about being the one who turned this around (if for no other reason). Obama's ego (IMO) is just about "I'm the President" and "look what I can do in spite of what the people want".

**timcsaw** · 07-10-2012, 09:26 PM

Originally Posted by MVF

Even aside from the SCOTUS issue, Romney has a history of "turning things around". I think Romney's ego will be all about being the one who turned this around (if for no other reason). Obama's ego (IMO) is just about "I'm the President" and "look what I can do in spite of what the people want".

Between Romney and Obama which one must step lightly during the next 4 years in order to secure himself a second term?

One of them will be cautious... the other has nothing to lose.

**Noctis3880** · 07-11-2012, 03:48 AM

Originally Posted by eyeeatingfish

You could vote 3rd party. If enough people didn't have that attitude that you only have two choices we could shake up the system and elect someone not the lesser of two evils.

Is that possible? Pardon my ignorance, but I never actually voted before, but I was under the impression that each party would have one candidate. How that candidate is chosen for that party is beyond me.

If possible I'd like to put my vote in for Ron Paul even if he doesn't have a chance in hell. I figure he might run a close 3rd, something that might be brought up at the end so everyone can keep him in mind in 2016.

Originally Posted by eyeeatingfish

It is only wishful thinking because too many Americans are idiots, at least when it comes to politics

^^^This. EXACTLY this.

My family has been pushing me to vote for Obama, apparently because they "like" him. What precisely they like about him I'm not sure. That he's black? That he has good speechwriters?

I pushed for details. Do you know what his plans are? Do you know how he plans to go about getting them done? Do you know if he can even do it? Do you know what he's been doing? I just got some vague muttering about having a healthcare system like Canada does? What? Obamacare? That's the only healthcare related thing he did, and the evidence suggests that healthcare costs will RISE because of it.

I pointed out to my brother that Fast & Furious pretty much armed the Mexican drug cartels with assault weapons and got US Border Patrol agents killed. He then asked me if that's reason enough to vote for "the other guy". Let's see, getting our troops killed and making an international enemy out of the country of Mexico for the purpose of undermining 2nd amendment rights? Yes, I'd say that's plenty reason to vote for the other guy. Because if Obama did this while "threading lightly" for reelection, I hate to think what he'll do on a 2nd term when he has nothing to lose.

**timcsaw** · 07-11-2012, 08:15 AM

Originally Posted by eyeeatingfish

You could vote 3rd party. If enough people didn't have that attitude that you only have two choices we could shake up the system and elect someone not the lesser of two evils.

In that case (3rd party) then you will be casting a vote for the lesser of THREE EVILS. And essentially help elect the EVILEST of 3 evils (Obama). It's a vote for someone who CANNOT win, it's a vote for the GREATER of the two evils that have a chance to win, and you might as well just vote for the GREATER EVIL (Omama) to begin with.

"All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do NOTHING! "

A vote for a 3rd party IS a vote for Obama.

**quietmike** · 07-11-2012, 12:08 PM

Originally Posted by timcsaw

In that case (3rd party) then you will be casting a vote for the lesser of THREE EVILS. And essentially help elect the EVILEST of 3 evils (Obama). It's a vote for someone who CANNOT win, it's a vote for the GREATER of the two evils that have a chance to win, and you might as well just vote for the GREATER EVIL (Omama) to begin with.

"All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do NOTHING! "

A vote for a 3rd party IS a vote for Obama.

I can't believe so many have forgotten the lesson of Ross Perot.

**Rick in KY** · 07-11-2012, 12:38 PM

In 2016, Ron Paul would be starting his presidency at the tender age of 81.

Might do well to keep that in mind.

**Triton** · 07-11-2012, 12:41 PM

Originally Posted by quietmike

I can't believe so many have forgotten the lesson of Ross Perot.

THIS in spades. Do all you idealists really want another 4 years of the obama?

**eyeeatingfish** · 07-13-2012, 02:53 AM

Originally Posted by Noctis3880

Is that possible? Pardon my ignorance, but I never actually voted before, but I was under the impression that each party would have one candidate. How that candidate is chosen for that party is beyond me.

If possible I'd like to put my vote in for Ron Paul even if he doesn't have a chance in hell. I figure he might run a close 3rd, something that might be brought up at the end so everyone can keep him in mind in 2016.

.

I have voted for Nader before because he was arguably the next strongest candidate after the Dems and Repubs.

**eyeeatingfish** · 07-13-2012, 02:56 AM

Originally Posted by timcsaw

In that case (3rd party) then you will be casting a vote for the lesser of THREE EVILS. And essentially help elect the EVILEST of 3 evils (Obama). It's a vote for someone who CANNOT win, it's a vote for the GREATER of the two evils that have a chance to win, and you might as well just vote for the GREATER EVIL (Omama) to begin with.

"All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do NOTHING! "

A vote for a 3rd party IS a vote for Obama.

Not necessarily. People blamed Nader when Al Gore lost in Florida because Nader had more votes than was the difference between Gore and Bush. This is a stupid argument though because it assumes that if Nader were not to have run that Gore would have gotten the Nader votes. I voted for Nader once, and if Nader were not around I would have voted republican not Democrat.

**timcsaw** · 07-13-2012, 07:59 AM

Originally Posted by eyeeatingfish

Not necessarily. People blamed Nader when Al Gore lost in Florida because Nader had more votes than was the difference between Gore and Bush. This is a stupid argument though because it assumes that if Nader were not to have run that Gore would have gotten the Nader votes. I voted for Nader once, and if Nader were not around I would have voted republican not Democrat.

We'll just have to disagree .... IMO a vote for a 3rd party THIS time, IS as good as a vote for the greater of two evils. If you think Obama has skrewed this country up in his first four years, just wait... during the next four years he'll go hog-wild since he won't need to "play nice" and won't be constrained by a need for reelection.

**Nordic Viking** · 07-13-2012, 08:11 AM

Originally Posted by timcsaw

We'll just have to disagree .... IMO a vote for a 3rd party THIS time, IS as good as a vote for the greater of two evils. If you think Obama has skrewed this country up in his first four years, just wait... during the next four years he'll go hog-wild since he won't need to "play nice" and won't be constrained by a need for reelection.

How has Obama "skrewed" the country up?