Why should I vote for Romney...?

sad but true...

because you don't want your tax dollars being used for govt programs which result in handouts

I don't love either candidate. obama hasn't done a good job and romney is a game show host. we are screwed either way.

christie '16 :thumbup:

You should vote for Mitt because it now appears he has become a 10 Club member and joined the discussion here on AMT! ... :eh:

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

So, a leader who can't lead is going to use the fact that he can't lead as a battle cry? That's ALMOST worse than using raising taxes as a campaign platform.

Do you understand how American politics work?

The Republicans would have to table a jobs bill for him to support it and try to get it passed.

All they've done is defund planned parenthood, block anti-bullying legislation, insist that the Bush Tax cuts get extended and apologize to BP that the president got mad at them for killing all that gulf wildlife... can you think of anything else?

Very familiar. Are you?

In general Congress is held by the "opposing" party. This has been the case for most of the last 50+ years. It's actually a curious circumstance because it's not like the White House hasn't changed parties over that time. Yet, no President has enjoyed 4 full years of control. It's also one of the beauties of the US system over many other democracies where the ruling part of the legislature gets to pick the country's leader. It is a perfectly designed check and balance that doesn't necessarily have to play out the way it has. Yet, I'm sure if they were alive, the constructers would say that this was EXACTLY what they had in mind when they built the 3 separate but equal branches. Sure, power sways back and forth over the years and depending on the issue (Supreme Court seemed to have the most power just recently, for example).

So, the President generally doesn't get to have it all his way. He can't stamp his feet like a little child and point fingers to shame the legislature into doing things. He must be a leader and find ways to presuade. And, failing that, compromise (or maybe both!!! What a novel idea!!!!).

But, ultimately it is the Speaker's perogative to set the agenda for the House. Just like it's the Senate leader's perogative to set the Senate's. So, instead of pointing fingers, a true leader would find out what the issues are, and try to do his best to get the best possible outcome for the country (not himself - but the country) while still allowing folks to read the actual legislation being proposed. So, maybe he should go back to the drawing board and write up a proposal that the House would consider. Just because everyone doesn't use the media to be a whiny little bitch like Obama doesn't mean they haven't presented ideas in closed talks to reach a solution.

And, sure. Perhaps that ends in what some folks might think is an imperfect solution. But, that's what makes our system the best in the world. Democracy reigns every day instead of just on election day.

I also find it hilarious the talk of the rich Romneys or that his good looks is all he has, so on and so forth. Meanwhile, Michelle dresses in far more expensive garb at tax payer expense, mind you, the Obamas were and are plenty rich (even if not Romney rich b/c they never actually did anything in their lives) and Obama was pretty much elected based on skin deep issues and the fact that he's a good speaker. Hysterical.

Again - who has actually run a successful economic entity? Who has created jobs? Who before being elected President actually led a large governmental body? Who led a successful international enterprise (the Olympics or such)?

It's kind of funny that the deniers and apologists are ignoring the real credentials by using labels of left and right (or blaming Congress, or some other made up reason). Romney has the credentials. Obama does not. I am not the biggest Romney fan. I have other choices I'd prefer. But, between the 2, I don't even see how it's a competition (and that's knowing full well that Obama is getting re-elected because our electorate is too stupid to understand this - and yes, I realize I just insulted a lot of folks here. If this were a job interview, Obama wouldn't have even been invited in for an initial interview based on his resume (your top leadership activity was community organizer, and you want to be the so called leader of the free world? You're joking, right? We have an Executive Admin Assistant job available for you if you'd like an entry level job to get some of the experience you might need.) Yet somehow folks are rationalizing giving him 4 more years after failing for 4 years because they're afraid of some made up boogey man.).

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Who has created jobs?

In what country?

Is opposed (on record) to hiring more police officers, firefighters & teachers (or hiring them back, actually).

Is opposed to wind power industry jobs, but supports continuing corporate welfare for oil & gas industry (he calls this an "even playing field" or something like that).

Keeps money in overseas bank accounts.

Talking points all of them.

First - yes, he put jobs over seas. But, he ALSO created jobs here. 10 years ago we were celebrating the World Economy. Now, we are supposed to be territorialists because folks don't want to compete with the World?

Second - He did say the Federal Gov't should stop bailing out local governments. Perhaps, that will teach local governments to be more fiscally responsible for themselves. If a locale does not think their local fire fighter is necessary, why should someone half way across the country pay for it?

Third - yes, he does support continuing certain business tax advantages. That keeps jobs local. Sure, it seems distasteful on the surfact to give big oil and the like tax breaks. But, if the alternative is they move those jobs if they don't, isn't the trade off worth it? (though the extent of which is certainly debatable. And, as a successful business man, I would think he would have the acumen to negotiate such things on my tax dollar's behalf more successfully).

So what if he keeps money over seas? Is there a law against that? Again, I thought we were a World Economy. And, I'm guessing he still has more money in US banks than you, me and everyone else on this board combined. When he starts threatening to close Guantanamo without knowing its purpose, let me know. Until that time, I'm fine with him being involved in the international community.

You should really go more than surface diving on the issues. Taking them from a skin deep level while fun and easy does not really reveal the true meaning of what folks are saying.

So, keep laughing. Quite frankly, I do better in Obama's wallowing economy. Prices and interest rates are kept down, so his unemployed can afford more. At least he's not Jimmy Carter..... That being said, I'd prefer everyone prosper. Hand outs via Robin Hood technique don't do that. It's as different as David Dinkins and Rudy Giuliani.

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Second - He did say the Federal Gov't should stop bailing out local governments.

http://www.businessinsider.com/barack-obama-mitt-romney-firefighters-police-teachers
"He wants another stimulus, he wants to hire more government workers. He says we need more firemen, more policemen, more teachers. Did he not get the message of Wisconsin? The American people did. It’s time for us to cut back on government and help the American people.”


So, yes, 10 years ago we were trumpeting the world economy, with the US enjoying a booming service based economy. Well, guess what, it's become clear our service based economy has faltered. We are not going to prosper as a nation without making stuff. So how does it help when a couple billionaires buy your company, close your factories, and move all the jobs to China?

I have more than a skin deep knowledge on all these issues, thank you. Your assumptions are insulting.

I'm not making any assumptions, so if you're insulted, you only have your own writing to blame. I'm following the conclusions you are drawing. Again, you are taking a quote at it's most literal. He is indicating Gov't needs to get smaller. Bravo. Without the stop to the spending spree, you can tax everyone and it's not fixing anything. We should stop worrying about who's the better speaker and spend more time understanding what they mean. That quote was in response to Obama's desire to bail out certain local economies that were cutting things back due to budgetary concerns. It wasn't said in a vacuum. So, yes, he literally said - no more Firemen, policemen, etc. Well, guess what? Firemen are not Federal employees. So, why should the Federal Gov't be worrying about that? Basically, the insinuation you are making is that local governments would be smart to stop all local taxes and lay off all firemen, policemen, etc because Obama will just come in with Federal monies to fund it. Why should any local gov't fund anything when they can get someone on the other coast to pay for it via their Federal taxes?

Where does it stop?

cincybearcat wrote:

If I vote for Obama, and I'm 99% sure I won't, it would be for gay marriage and doing something with health care (specifically the provisions that remove being denied health care for pre-existing conditions) even if it is far from perfect. Those are 2 pretty good reasons to vote for Obama I think.

Who's being denied health care for pre-existing conditions? And everybody already is insured. It's called indigent care. It is a complete misnomer that folks are denied health care in this country. As a matter of fact, it's illegal.

You may not get the best money can buy. But, Canada's system (for example) doesn't assure that either.