Next best thing for the US (and perhaps the world)

[Minuteman308]

A vote for Romney is a vote for Obama.

A vote for Obama is a vote for Romney.

 

Obamacare is Romneycare, the Massachusetts health care reform, with a new flyleaf. And Romney always said he wants to reform Obamacare but not abolish it. He will abolish nothing Obama did. And he will also not allow the US-Canadian Oil pipline to continue.

 

And by the way, watch the film "Dreams from my real father".

 

 

Thats why i voted for the 4th opinion.

[Kendo 2]

I'm voting anti-Obama. He's a hack. We all know it.

 

Chicago called. They want their village idiot back.

[marharth]

If people actually looked at Obama's policies you would realize he is pretty much the same as Bush. And Romney is the same as Obama.

 

Pretty much what minuteman said.

[bben46]

First quit listening to the hack party fanbois that say not voting for one of the two major party candidates is wasting your vote. THINK!! what they are trying to do is get you to stay home if you are not voting for their clown. That means one less vote against him and one less vote not cast for the opposition - equivalent value - 2 votes! That means that every person who is not going to vote for their guy that they can get to not bother gains them 2 votes on polling day. If you do vote, no matter who for, that changes it to One vote whether for or against.

 

VOTE, but vote for the candidate you dislike the least. If that is a third party candidate vote for them. That way you show your displeasure with the two ruling parties even if your candidate doesn't win.

 

Not voting, in my own opinion, loses you the right to complain about the winner. Why should you have the right to whine if you didn't bother to vote? My first question when someone starts whining is did you vote against them? If No then STFU. If you didn't care enough to vote your opinion doesn't matter.

 

A Republic can only work if the people actually care enough to vote. I'm not going to tell you who to vote for just to Vote.

[Beriallord]

 

1) We remove minimum wage laws and reduce regulations to allow American companies to compete.

 

2) We adopt protectionist policies and only allow 'free' trade with countries with similar labor laws. Others like China we would allow no trade or trade only with high tariffs.

 

I'll take option 1, option 2 ofter leads to very bad results.

 

The above ignores the myriad of other things that need to be done to restore liberty to the US.

 

Actually I prefer option #2. Because option #1 leads to the American working class gradually becoming poorer over time due to having to compete with an abundant and cheap Chinese labor force. For option #2 to actually work, MASSIVE restructuring of the American manufacturing industry would have to be done. Basically we make what we need and use what we make. Also, we could form a coalition with other countries in the world with similar labor forces, like Canada, Europe, Japan, and make an economic stand against China. China isn't big enough or powerful enough to challenge the entire rest of the world, militarily or economically if we all tell them where they can shove their cheap quality products. The reason this probably won't ever happen because our government is so rabidly corrupt, the politicians are in the pockets of business, and no longer care about the interests of the people, or the American worker for that matter. This is both Republican and Democrat.

 

Capitalism starts to fail in consumerist countries, and is great for growing economies like China. The reason its failing in America because we are being taken advantage of, and our elected officials are allowing it to happen without fighting back. In 20 years America will have next to no industry, and we will be a full fledged consumerist/service based economy. If we don't produce anything we will gradually lose our economic power and wealth. Because consumerist/service based economies aren't sustainable because they don't actually generate any wealth.

Edited August 30, 2012 by Beriallord

[Beriallord]

First quit listening to the hack party fanbois that say not voting for one of the two major party candidates is wasting your vote. THINK!! what they are trying to do is get you to stay home if you are not voting for their clown. That means one less vote against him and one less vote not cast for the opposition - equivalent value - 2 votes! That means that every person who is not going to vote for their guy that they can get to not bother gains them 2 votes on polling day. If you do vote, no matter who for, that changes it to One vote whether for or against.

 

VOTE, but vote for the candidate you dislike the least. If that is a third party candidate vote for them. That way you show your displeasure with the two ruling parties even if your candidate doesn't win.

 

Not voting, in my own opinion, loses you the right to complain about the winner. Why should you have the right to whine if you didn't bother to vote? My first question when someone starts whining is did you vote against them? If No then STFU. If you didn't care enough to vote your opinion doesn't matter.

 

A Republic can only work if the people actually care enough to vote. I'm not going to tell you who to vote for just to Vote.

 

You basically highlighted the reason so many people are disgruntled with the system. People are tired of choosing between the lesser of evils, and want someone that actually stands behind real and honest principles and is really for America, and not the corporate empire that dictates most of the policy.

[Ghogiel]

Not voting, in my own opinion, loses you the right to complain about the winner. Why should you have the right to whine if you didn't bother to vote? My first question when someone starts whining is did you vote against them? If No then STFU. If you didn't care enough to vote your opinion doesn't matter.

 

A voters personal opinion doesn't matter either because they gave consent for a 3rd party to speak for them. Giving your voice away so some idiot can speak for you is the way of it though it seems.

[marharth]

First quit listening to the hack party fanbois that say not voting for one of the two major party candidates is wasting your vote. THINK!! what they are trying to do is get you to stay home if you are not voting for their clown. That means one less vote against him and one less vote not cast for the opposition - equivalent value - 2 votes! That means that every person who is not going to vote for their guy that they can get to not bother gains them 2 votes on polling day. If you do vote, no matter who for, that changes it to One vote whether for or against.

 

VOTE, but vote for the candidate you dislike the least. If that is a third party candidate vote for them. That way you show your displeasure with the two ruling parties even if your candidate doesn't win.

 

Not voting, in my own opinion, loses you the right to complain about the winner. Why should you have the right to whine if you didn't bother to vote? My first question when someone starts whining is did you vote against them? If No then STFU. If you didn't care enough to vote your opinion doesn't matter.

 

A Republic can only work if the people actually care enough to vote. I'm not going to tell you who to vote for just to Vote.

Romney and Obama are equally bad. They have extremely similar policies. People don't seem to realize that voting doesn't matter. You vote for Obama because you liked what he ran for. He didn't do a damn thing he said he would do, and just kept going on the same policies Bush did. Now Obama/Romney are essentially the same person. Why do you think voting makes a difference?

 

If you vote for a third party then you take away votes from the two major parties. There will never be enough people that vote for a third party to actually make that candidate win. The republicans and democrats dominate the media.

 

I am getting tired of people saying it is acceptable to vote for the lesser of two evils. You are still voting for a evil, and you shouldn't consider that morally correct.

[ginnyfizz]

I think HeyYou earlier higlighted the concern that I have about Obama and certainly would if I were a US citizen facing the unedifying prospect of a second term of him. He is an inexperienced man who comes from a background of privilege and has spent his career dabbling with either academe or politics and self aggrandisement. And we have a load of similar hacks in power in the UK at the moment, and the Blair years before that where we had more of the same. A load of privileged toffs with their heads up their behinds. And look where it got us.

 

So be warned, USA....

 

From a British point of view we find Obama totally baffling as a (supposed) ally, determined to visit the sins of the fathers on the broadly supportive Brits whilst sucking up to the French who have a very bad case of Europhilia and USAphobia. It just highlights his political naivete. Now which US Allies are the first to put boots on the ground when they need support in the latest war?...oh right, that would be good old Britain, Barack. :facepalm:

[marharth]

He is an inexperienced man who comes from a background of privilege and has spent his career dabbling with either academe or politics and self aggrandizement.

So every politician ever. Okay.