Moderator: Andrew
Behshad wrote:Monker wrote:artist4perry wrote: Good luck with that Monker If he becomes President I hope he is the great HOPE he has always touted to be. So far the hope is running thin...my son is still working only part time and can't find a decent job. My brother in law was laid off from his good paying job due to cut backs in the economy in the last 2 years. And where are all those unemployed soldiers going to find work when guys who have been pounding the pavement for the last couple of years can't find anything? People are losing their homes, gas prices are up, food is up, utilities is up....up and up we go. Still waiting for that HOPE, and empty promises...I am sick of promises and explanations and excuses. How about fixing things then you won't have to make any excuses? You cannot feed a family on excuses, and promises. We need jobs, real jobs now. Those displaced soldiers he will be cutting back on are coming home where little to no jobs are to be found.
Useless conversation... We will watch and see...so far it has been 4 years of this guy and I am not LOVIN it. I am not feeling the manure and roses he promised the last time. Your party loyal...I am sorry I am not. I don't want to blindly follow any of these guys. Lemmings never live long I am afraid...hopefully you will look at him with objective eyes. I am more scared of lemmings on either side than anything. That cliff can be a doosey.![]()
I'm not a Democrat.
If you believe lofty promises from EITHER party, you are naive at best. I knew going in that Obama was over-hyped...but he was MUCH better then a McCain who was acting senile and unable to grasp any drastic situation presented to him...going from "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" to going all loopy and suspending his campaign and calling for some weird economic summit with W, Obama, etc....just plain stupid.
But, I give him credit that he TRIED to bring the sides together ..The FACT is that Republicans became uncompromising obstructionists. I've repeated that many times here...the Republicans can not be allowed to win for that one reason alone.
Now you have Romney...I really do not see how ANYBODY can vote for him. All he does is market himself like a product...shifting his views to whatever gets him the most votes. That's how he operates. It's how he has been since he entered politics. He has no real principals that he stands for even against popular opinion. If the last debate had happened during the primaries, he would have NEVER been nominated...he positioned himself to the LEFT of Obama, as some kind of peace monger. He's back and forth on almost EVERY SINGLE ISSUE...and then denies that he shifted. The scariest thing is, he believes his own lies that didn't shift.
Then there are the empty promises he is making. Repeal Obamacare? First of all, it's just not going to happen. He will never get the votes to do it. But, lets say he goes for that fight...do you really think any Democrat is going to compromise with him on ANY issue? After obstructionism is a proven strategy to win the White House, and the new President acting like a partisan ass? His 20% is tax cut is DOA for that reason alone. He wants to close loopholes FOR THE WEALTHY, which is a backhanded tax increase. Do you think REPUBLICANS are going to vote for that? NONE if this has any possibility of happening...but he is out there preaching his own version of empty 'hope'. He has no realistic plan after he gets elected...all this 'stuff' (as the VP would say) is to get elected. He hasn't even talked about what he will 'really' do after the election.
And, quite honestly, I think more people are starting to realize this....right at the end of the game.
steveo777 wrote:Obama simply does not possess the business acumen to get us out of this mess, nor is he capable of working with others to do so. There is nothing worse than a fiancially inept leader who refuses to accept any help, ie., working with bi-partisan congressional and house members to come up with solutions. That has clearly not been his focus or concern during his presidency. Why will it change with another term? Bottom line is, those are going to be the core issues that people are going to vote on. Our security and safety, as a nation should come first, then the financial well being for our country should be a close second. Barack is not getting the job done and it's time to move on. Obama hates our constitution and wants to desecrate it, therefore, he doesn't cherish American values. No way in hell anyone who understands this could vote for him. I can't! I don't like many things about Romney either, but he's a far sight better at financial business than Obama is.
artist4perry wrote:[Honestly B I am not having a problem with Monker viewing his take on things. We all have our own way of looking at it. And I have been quite aware you are hoping Obama wins so it is not like your unbiased in your own opinion.I happen to disagree with both of you and still find you both to be great guys. Look I just gave my take on the election and explained why I am not Obamazed by the great one.
I forgot to mention 3 members of my immediate family all men who have lost a job or cannot find more than part time minimum wage jobs. I lucked into my job when I did because half of the people I graduated with are struggling to find employment. They are subbing to keep some job in the school markets and are afraid their temporary teachers licenses will run out before they find work.
Teachers are not retiring at the rate they used to around here and I know why for the most part because I have talked with them. They are afraid of falling on hard times and think their retirement won't be enough if the economy tanks.
People are giving up on looking for jobs because they have looked for a couple of years now with no hope.
The price of gas has tripled and goes up and down like a yo-yo slowly getting us used to the higher prices so right now we think we are getting it so cheap if it goes down to three dollars. They cook us like a frog in a skillet slowly with these prices so we get used to lining their greed filled pockets.
Congress is a joke regardless of who runs it. The last thing we need to do is give those spend thrifty idiots any money till they get real on not spending it like a spoiled rich girl with her first credit card.
As I said Romney would not have been my first choice at all but he is better in my eyes than Obama on economics. I am sure you have your reasons to disagree, and you have that right.
This will be one of the closest elections we have ever seen. This nation is divided conservative/ liberal right down the middle. I am I guess a more moderate conservative. I do not embrace the ideals of the Democrats at all. You just cannot spend on entitlements if you are broke! We are owned by China now. If they ever called the debt we would be in trouble. Serious trouble. Now there are things about the Republican party I don't like either, but as I said...lesser of the evils. Honestly I have always favored Huckabee for President. I know what a great Governor he was for our state. Perfect no, but an honest man at best. I am sick of dishonesty and spin. I wished he had never dropped out.
Personally these are my feelings and I don't really care who likes or doesn't like them. Your entitled to your own take. But I am going to vote my own way, and sleep quite well for my choices. After all, if I vote I have a voice. It doesn't have to be the voice that gives you guys the warm and fuzzies all night.
Somehow I feel regardless of how we feel we will all survive regardless of the final decision by our country. We just have to go on about our lives as best as we can regardless of political preening and posturing.
conversationpc wrote:Looking forward to starting a "President Mitt Romney - Term One Thread" in about three months.![]()
Behshad wrote:conversationpc wrote:Looking forward to starting a "President Mitt Romney - Term One Thread" in about three months.![]()
too late !![]()
http://forums.melodicrock.com/phpBB/vie ... hp?t=55828
Memorex wrote:I kind of brought this up some months back. If you watch the news, you'd think nothing was wrong out there. I remember toward the end of the Carter years and into the Reagan years the TV screen was constantly filled with shots of unemployment lines, soup lines, homeless people, etc. It's true, the media today would rather focus on dish washing and gaffes and such and not on the reality of where things are at. I think all the disability/food stamp/welfare claims have eased a lot of the pain that was felt in the late 70's/early 80's. But it also probably prevents the problem from being focused on as well.
Forget 1%, 99% Or 47%: It Is The Turn Of The 70% To Be Pissed
Whoever expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization expects what never was and never will be.
-Thomas Jefferson
Bipartisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out.
-George Carlin
The Seventy Percent
People are going to be pissed off no matter who wins this election and that is a very important social dynamic I believe is vastly under appreciated by the majority of mainstream pundits and analysts out there. This is also very distinct from the environment that prevailed in 2008. Four years ago, the financial markets were crashing and the economic future of America was circling the toilet bowl, yet a majority of Americans embraced the potential of a young, inexperienced biracial politician from Illinois who was saying all of the right things. Despite the gigantic disappointment he has proven to be as President, there is no denying that he had all of the Democrats and most Independents under his spell on this day four years ago.
Fast forward to 2012 and the country isn’t “divided” as mainstream media talking heads like to say. The country is pissed off. Genuine and legitimate frustration permeates the land from sea to shining sea and rightly so. Ever since the banker coup of 2008, crony capitalism has been institutionalized as the only real way to make money. If you aren’t connected or “too big to fail,” sorry but America isn’t the place for you. What makes the economic nightmare so much worse is that it is being coupled with a complete and total decimation of civil liberties. One by one the Bill of Rights is being ignored and indeed trampled on systemically by the political and economic oligarchs emboldened by their successful takeover of the executive, legislative and for the most part judicial branches of government. Many Independents disagreed with Obama’s economic philosophy but gave him a pass because he promised to end the wars overseas and restore civil liberties. Instead, what we got was a President who signed the NDAA on New Year’s Eve 2011, which included section 1021, allowing for the indefinite detention of American citizens without trial until the “end of hostilities.” Well, because now know the Orwellian “war on terror” is never-ending, the indefinite detention is forever. The worst part is that Obama claims he didn’t want these powers yet when a group of high profile plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against section 1021 and won a ruling deeming it unconstitutional, what was the President’s response? He appealed it to death until he found a panel of judges to agree with him. Not only did he want this power, he seems to crave it. Another well deserved Noble Peace Prize.
The above is just one example of many. His kill list, which the Administration now refers to as the “disposition matrix,” grows by the day to include people with zero affiliation with Al-Qaeda, and Obama seems to relish in the absolute power of being judge, jury and executioner. Tragically, a President Romney will be no different. He is already on record supporting the NDAA, war without Congressional approval and we heard his complete and total support of Obama’s drone strategy during the third and final debate. Sure, people that care about civil liberties will vote for Romney saying that he will at least be better on economic policy, yet that is the exact same thing people did with Obama in reverse. They ended up being disappointed with him and Romney will disappoint as well. These guys are both big government, crony capitalist puppets and that’s the bottom line.
Another thing that must be considered is basic math about the U.S. political landscape. According to the latest Gallup poll, 32% of Americans identify themselves as Democrats, 28% as Republican and 38% as Independents. Now of course, amongst the Independents a majority lean more toward one party or the other, but this is much less the case today than it was in 2008 or in any election prior. Furthermore, the mere fact that so many choose to identify in this manner makes it clear that they are unhappy with either of these political gangs. These Independents want legitimate third, fourth or fifth party options but instead end up herded into the mainstream parties by a sophisticated corporate scam, part of which centers around the Commission on Presidential Debates, the gatekeeper of these circuses which ensures no alternative candidates can debate and excludes any difficult or uncomfortable questions.
There was a fantastic article written in the Huffington Post yesterday that examines the rampant frustration within the Republican Party titled: Frightened Republicans Try to Close Down Election Competitors, Such as Gary Johnson. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/doug-band ... 13482.html I thought the most powerful quote was:Both the Republican and the Democratic presidential candidates talk about liberty, freedom, fiscal responsibility, free enterprise, choice and the Constitution. But neither candidate believes in those principles. Elect either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney, and government will be bigger, spending will be higher, regulation will be more intrusive, the military will be fighting more wars, more service personnel will be dying, more money will be wasted abroad, civil liberties of more people will be violated, and more privacy of more citizens will be invaded. Overall, the free society will continue to retreat.
The above is invariably true and brings me to the key point of this article.
Should Romney win, the 28% of Americans that identify as Republican will be thrilled, and the remaining 72% will be largely upset and on edge. Should Obama win, similarly, the 32% registered Democrat with be thrilled and the remaining 68% will be upset and on edge. Hence, the 70% referred to in the title of this article. This is a recipe ripe for social unrest and it will be coming to our shores as I outlined recently in The Global Spring.
Personally, I am done with the two part system and will be voting for Gary Johnson. I am not playing their games any longer and I will not fall for any more of their scams. In my brief voting years I have pulled the lever for both Republicans and Democrats, but I do not think I will vote for any one of them ever again. I implore everyone to do the same, no matter who you vote for, vote third party. The only wasted vote I see is one for either Mitt Romney or Barrack Obama.
- Our Benghazi facility was not a consulate; it was the largest of our CIA operations centers in the Middle East which served as the logistics headquarters for arms and weapons being shipped out of post-Qaddafi Libya.
- Our personnel there, aside from other routine things they may have been doing, were engaged in covert arms and weapons running from Libya to anti-Assad rebels in Syria via Turkey.
- Russia was aware of the operation and warned America against working to destabilize Syria because (a) it would endanger Russia’s own national security interests, and (b) they knew that as demonic, despotic and tyrannical as Assad may be, his forced ouster would leave yet another Mubarak-like and Qadaffi-like vacuum, and that the Muslim Brotherhood would move in and orchestrate more Islamic chaos across the region. (And Putin would be right about that.)
- Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 to meet with his Turkish counterpart, who reportedly warned Stevens that the operation was compromised. The reason they met in person was so that his Turkish colleague could show Stevens overhead satellite images, taken by the Russians, of unmistakable surveillance footage of the anti-Assad “rebels” being shown how to load chemical payloads onto missiles inside Turkey near the border of Syria—weapons that were shipped from Libya by the CIA in conjunction with various Muslim Brotherhood rebel groups; —weapons that could be used as a “false flag” type of operation to “set-up” Assad by making it appear that he was using these weapons on forces dedicated to his overthrow. In that scenario, the projected collective reaction of the international community would be swift and punishing, and the world would demand Assad’s overthrow. NATO would then be used to expedite his ouster, and Russia’s moral position within the international community would be weakened. So, the purpose of that Turkish diplomat’s in-person meeting was to show Ambassador Stevens that the operation was compromised and that they had to stop. You can bet that Panetta and the highest levels of the administration knew that the operation was compromised; Stevens would have reported that to them after the Turkish diplomat left.
- The attack started not too long after the Turkish diplomat’s departure—no doubt the timing of which wasn’t a coincidence.
- The Obama administration asserts that the attack in Benghazi was conducted by a group of rebels acting alone. If that was true, our military assets, located just an hour or two away by air, could have easily handled them in short order and rescued our personnel. So why was there no rescue operation?
- No rescue effort was made because the attack was not conducted by a group of rebels; it was a nation/state coordinated and sponsored attack in response to our covert operation in Libya and arming the anti-Assad Syrian opposition—and Panetta and everyone else knew it. They also knew that the nation/state sponsored attack teams were lying in wait for U.S. rescue forces to arrive, which is the reason the fight did not end sooner. From signal communication intercepts, they knew those nation/state attack teams were present but didn’t know exactly where all of them were and that was the Obama administration dilemma. So, now, that gives deeper meaning to Panetta’s statement about why no rescue attempt was made, and why Dougherty/Woods was told three times to stand down: “…the basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on…” Would Obama-the-weak risk deploying a rescue team to Benghazi, only to end up with another Black Hawk down type scenario, especially so close to an election? Remember, this is the president who for months kept wavering and vacillating on giving the OK to get OBL, and even with all that time STILL couldn’t do it (Panetta had to make the call). So, c’mon .. you don’t think he’s capable of actually making a tough call to deploy military assets in such a tight and fast-moving time frame, do you? I mean, Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod could never allow that, don’t you know? After all, what’s ‘just’ 4 lives when you compare it to the possibility of another 4 years?
- As daylight approached with no response from the U.S. and no aid to the Americans under fire, the nation/state attack teams completed their mission in the remaining cover of darkness … killing four patriots.
Bottom line:
1. We were using anti-Assad forces to advance our objectives in Syria.
2. Russia was using Iranian-backed forces to protect theirs.
If you’re keeping score, put a check-mark in the Russian/Iranian column.
Fact Finder wrote:Boom...
Des Moines Register Endorses Mitt Romney
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/articl ... ck_check=1
that'll leave a mark.
Fact Finder wrote:Here is Obamas Winning Electoral 2008 map.
Mitt now has Fla, NC, Va, Co, In, and (probably) Iowa, that's 257. Throw in Oh or Pa and possibly Wisc and it's done.
Rick wrote:Fact Finder wrote:Here is Obamas Winning Electoral 2008 map.
Mitt now has Fla, NC, Va, Co, In, and (probably) Iowa, that's 257. Throw in Oh or Pa and possibly Wisc and it's done.
Get some sleep. It's all gonna be better in the morning.
AMES, Iowa (AP) — President Barack Obama is poised to eke out a victory in the race for the 270 electoral votes needed to win re-election, having beaten back Republican Mitt Romney's attempts to convert momentum from the debates into support in all-important Ohio, according to an Associated Press analysis a week before Election Day.
While the Democratic incumbent has the upper hand in the electoral vote hunt, Romney has pulled even, or is slightly ahead, in polling in a few pivotal states, including Florida and Virginia. The Republican challenger also appears to have the advantage in North Carolina, the most conservative of the hotly contested nine states that will determine the winner.
While in a tight race with Obama for the popular vote, Romney continues to have fewer state-by-state paths than Obama to reach 270. Without Ohio's 18 electoral votes, Romney would need last-minute victories in nearly all the remaining up-for-grabs states and manage to pick off key states now leaning Obama's way, such as Iowa or Wisconsin.
To be sure, anything can happen in the coming days to influence the Nov. 6 election.
The AP analysis isn't intended to predict the outcome. Rather, it's meant to provide a snapshot of a race that has been stubbornly close in the small number of competitive states all year. The analysis is based on public polls and internal campaign surveys as well as spending on television advertising, candidate visits, get-out-the-vote organizations and interviews with dozens of Republican and Democratic strategists in Washington and in the most contested states.
The analysis shows that Obama probably would win with at least 271 electoral votes from 21 states, including Ohio, Wisconsin and Iowa, and the District of Columbia. Romney seems on track for 206 from 23 states, including North Carolina. Obama won that state in 2008 and campaigned aggressively there this year. But Obama's team acknowledges it is the most difficult state for him to win, and he's paid less attention to it recently.
Colorado, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire and Virginia, with a combined 61 votes at stake, could go either way.
"I'm counting on Iowa! Iowa may be the place that decides who the next president is!" Romney said on one of two visits to the state last week. In Ohio last week, a hoarse Obama reminded a Cleveland audience near the end of a six-state marathon: "I need you, Ohio. America needs you, Ohio."
Romney is banking on what his supporters say is late momentum. Obama is betting that his aggressive effort to register and lock in early voters, mainly Democratic-leaning younger and minority voters, will give him an insurmountable advantage heading into Election Day, when more Republicans typically vote than Democrats.
About 35 percent of voters are expected to cast their ballots before Nov. 6, either in person or by mail. More than 5 million people already have voted. No votes will be counted until Nov 6, but some states report the party affiliation of people who have voted. Democrats have the edge in Iowa, Nevada and North Carolina, according to state figures and data collected by the United States Elections Project at George Mason University. Republicans have the early edge in Colorado.
Obama, who won in 2008 in places where Democrats had not for a generation, continues to have several routes to electoral victory. His easiest: win Ohio, Iowa and Wisconsin, which are leaning his way. He could keep the White House with victories in Ohio, Wisconsin and Nevada. If he loses Ohio, he could prevail by sweeping New Hampshire, Iowa, Wisconsin, Nevada and Colorado.
Romney has fewer options. He must carry Florida and Virginia, where Republicans are feeling good about his standing, as well as wrest control of Ohio, and then also win Nevada, Colorado or New Hampshire. If he loses Ohio, Romney must make up for the state's 18 electoral votes by cutting his way through Obama-leaning territory.
At the top of that target list are Wisconsin, carried by Democrats in six straight presidential elections and where Obama has the edge, and Iowa, a perennial swing-voting state.
Romney's campaign began airing advertisements last week in Minnesota, arguing he was staking a claim in likely Obama territory. But even GOP strategists acknowledged the move was aimed at hitting voters in western Wisconsin and pressuring Obama to follow suit. By Friday, Obama's campaign had done just that, although the president has a healthy lead in both polling and organization in Minnesota.
"We have to keep working those other states, in case Ohio doesn't come through," said veteran GOP presidential strategist Charlie Black, who is advising Romney's campaign.
Ohio is a lynchpin for both candidates.
Obama was in strong standing in the state before the three presidential debates. But Romney's strong performance in the debates helped him gain ground. But Republicans and Democrats alike now say that any momentum Romney had in Ohio from those debates has run its course, and the state gain is leaning toward Obama. New public polls show a tight race.
Operatives in both parties point to the last debate six days ago, and Obama's criticism of Romney's opposition to the automotive industry bailout. They say the criticism was effective in branding Romney as out of touch with working-class voters in a state whose manufacturing economy relies heavily on the car and auto parts industries.
The president started running a new TV ad in the state assailing Romney's position on the aid. Obama's internal polling in Ohio has shown a slight increase in support from white, working-class voters, an important part of Ohio's largely blue-collar electorate.
"That is a killer,'" Tad Devine, a top aide to 2004 and 2000 Democratic nominees, said of the heat Romney is taking for his bailout position. "And it's going to have the biggest impact in the decisive state in the outcome of the election."
Out of necessity, Romney is refusing to cede ground in Ohio, where no Republican has lost and then gone on to win the presidency. He hunkered down in the state for two days last week, and running mate Paul Ryan headlined eight events in the state over the weekend. The impending storm that's set to hit the East Coast led Romney to cancel Virginia campaigning on Sunday and join Ryan in Ohio.
In Ohio alone, Romney and allied groups were spending nearly $9 million on television ads, compared with Obama and his allies' $6 million, and showed no signs of letting up in the final week.
Elsewhere, Obama is looking to stunt any Romney inroad with suburban women, a pivotal constituency, in Colorado and Virginia, by casting the Republican as an extremist on abortion and hammering him on his opposition to federal money for Planned Parenthood.
In Nevada, Romney is banking on the support of fellow Mormons, and noting the high unemployment and foreclosure rates, to overtake Obama. But the president's team is appearing ever more confident of winning the state, partly because of the backing of a booming Hispanic population.
Florida, the biggest battleground prize with 29 electoral votes, is viewed by both sides as a tight. Democrats acknowledge that Romney's standing has improved because of his debate performances and could move out of reach for Obama in the coming days.
slucero wrote:
I think this is pretty on the mark... interesting perspective from a more independent thinking source.
Forget 1%, 99% Or 47%: It Is The Turn Of The 70% To Be Pissed
Whoever expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization expects what never was and never will be.
-Thomas Jefferson
Bipartisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out.
-George Carlin
The Seventy Percent
People are going to be pissed off no matter who wins this election and that is a very important social dynamic I believe is vastly under appreciated by the majority of mainstream pundits and analysts out there. This is also very distinct from the environment that prevailed in 2008. Four years ago, the financial markets were crashing and the economic future of America was circling the toilet bowl, yet a majority of Americans embraced the potential of a young, inexperienced biracial politician from Illinois who was saying all of the right things. Despite the gigantic disappointment he has proven to be as President, there is no denying that he had all of the Democrats and most Independents under his spell on this day four years ago.
Fast forward to 2012 and the country isn’t “divided” as mainstream media talking heads like to say. The country is pissed off. Genuine and legitimate frustration permeates the land from sea to shining sea and rightly so. Ever since the banker coup of 2008, crony capitalism has been institutionalized as the only real way to make money. If you aren’t connected or “too big to fail,” sorry but America isn’t the place for you. What makes the economic nightmare so much worse is that it is being coupled with a complete and total decimation of civil liberties. One by one the Bill of Rights is being ignored and indeed trampled on systemically by the political and economic oligarchs emboldened by their successful takeover of the executive, legislative and for the most part judicial branches of government. Many Independents disagreed with Obama’s economic philosophy but gave him a pass because he promised to end the wars overseas and restore civil liberties. Instead, what we got was a President who signed the NDAA on New Year’s Eve 2011, which included section 1021, allowing for the indefinite detention of American citizens without trial until the “end of hostilities.” Well, because now know the Orwellian “war on terror” is never-ending, the indefinite detention is forever. The worst part is that Obama claims he didn’t want these powers yet when a group of high profile plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against section 1021 and won a ruling deeming it unconstitutional, what was the President’s response? He appealed it to death until he found a panel of judges to agree with him. Not only did he want this power, he seems to crave it. Another well deserved Noble Peace Prize.
The above is just one example of many. His kill list, which the Administration now refers to as the “disposition matrix,” grows by the day to include people with zero affiliation with Al-Qaeda, and Obama seems to relish in the absolute power of being judge, jury and executioner. Tragically, a President Romney will be no different. He is already on record supporting the NDAA, war without Congressional approval and we heard his complete and total support of Obama’s drone strategy during the third and final debate. Sure, people that care about civil liberties will vote for Romney saying that he will at least be better on economic policy, yet that is the exact same thing people did with Obama in reverse. They ended up being disappointed with him and Romney will disappoint as well. These guys are both big government, crony capitalist puppets and that’s the bottom line.
Another thing that must be considered is basic math about the U.S. political landscape. According to the latest Gallup poll, 32% of Americans identify themselves as Democrats, 28% as Republican and 38% as Independents. Now of course, amongst the Independents a majority lean more toward one party or the other, but this is much less the case today than it was in 2008 or in any election prior. Furthermore, the mere fact that so many choose to identify in this manner makes it clear that they are unhappy with either of these political gangs. These Independents want legitimate third, fourth or fifth party options but instead end up herded into the mainstream parties by a sophisticated corporate scam, part of which centers around the Commission on Presidential Debates, the gatekeeper of these circuses which ensures no alternative candidates can debate and excludes any difficult or uncomfortable questions.
There was a fantastic article written in the Huffington Post yesterday that examines the rampant frustration within the Republican Party titled: Frightened Republicans Try to Close Down Election Competitors, Such as Gary Johnson. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/doug-band ... 13482.html I thought the most powerful quote was:Both the Republican and the Democratic presidential candidates talk about liberty, freedom, fiscal responsibility, free enterprise, choice and the Constitution. But neither candidate believes in those principles. Elect either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney, and government will be bigger, spending will be higher, regulation will be more intrusive, the military will be fighting more wars, more service personnel will be dying, more money will be wasted abroad, civil liberties of more people will be violated, and more privacy of more citizens will be invaded. Overall, the free society will continue to retreat.
The above is invariably true and brings me to the key point of this article.
Should Romney win, the 28% of Americans that identify as Republican will be thrilled, and the remaining 72% will be largely upset and on edge. Should Obama win, similarly, the 32% registered Democrat with be thrilled and the remaining 68% will be upset and on edge. Hence, the 70% referred to in the title of this article. This is a recipe ripe for social unrest and it will be coming to our shores as I outlined recently in The Global Spring.
Personally, I am done with the two part system and will be voting for Gary Johnson. I am not playing their games any longer and I will not fall for any more of their scams. In my brief voting years I have pulled the lever for both Republicans and Democrats, but I do not think I will vote for any one of them ever again. I implore everyone to do the same, no matter who you vote for, vote third party. The only wasted vote I see is one for either Mitt Romney or Barrack Obama.
Fact Finder wrote:Ohio Gov. John Kasich declared Sunday that GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney is now poised to beat President Barack Obama in his critical battleground state.
Appearing on NBC's “Meet the Press,” Kasich cited internal campaign polling that shows Romney with a lead in The Buckeye State.
Return to Snowmobiles For The Sahara
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests