Why should Romney be president?

[Zacha341]

Romney aside ala election year [[and no I don't hate the president), the first three photos - used in general news stories covering the visits san the parody stuff - do IMO, convey a bit of 'over-doing' it on the part of the POTUS.

The expressions, and body language of those he's bowing to even looked a bit off/ strained if you recall the photos shown large during the visits.

That fourth photo is obviously in the realm of Photoshop composing with that silly icon thrown in to overstate and brand the action/ presidentation of the president. That particular photo is easy to dismiss.

Anyway, it's gonna be close folks and I still feel president Obama will be given another chance. Romney is not the best candidate and the repubs know it. It's going to be tight and the Michigan numbers should prove interesting.

You guys dare talk about Romney's balls when you your idol bows to everyone and their brother? Haha.



Romney may not be the best guy in the world to pick, but Obama's had his 4 years. He couldn't turn it around. Next!
The healthiest thing you can do for a democracy is bring in new leadership every 4 years.

[Zacha341]

Precisely! Witness the game! What Bush et al got started, president Obama is continuing as he bends over 'backwards'... pardon the pun. Did/ do we not learn anything?

Politicians... eh... SMH.

lest anyone forget Bush's hot date...

[Jimaz]

... That fourth photo is obviously in the realm of Photoshop composing with that silly icon thrown in to overstate and brand the action/ presidentation of the president. That particular photo is easy to dismiss....

I'm pretty sure that icon is Bat Boy of the defunct Weekly World News.

The Weekly World News published patently fabricated stories which were purported to be factual.

Using material from WWN is not unlike citing The Onion as a factual source.

[[And yes, I am aware that I just cited Wikipedia. At least they sincerely try to be credible.)

[Zacha341]

Oh, ok. The icon is somewhat small, thanks for the clarification of its origin. I made no comment regarding WWN. Every news or information has an agenda, then there's 'what you see is what you get!' [[unless Photoshop is involved)

I'm pretty sure that icon is Bat Boy of the defunct Weekly World News.Using material from WWN is not unlike citing The Onion as a factual source.

[[And yes, I am aware that I just cited Wikipedia. At least they sincerely try to be credible.)

[jackie5275]

Yes... but he has more balls than the current "thing" Just my opinion... as we are entitled to. Lesser of two evils??!

Whenever you choose the lesser of two evils, you are still choosing evil.

[rb336]

Why did Debbie call the President a "thing"? smacks of blatant racism

[Whitehouse]

[oladub]

Whitehouse, I don't know who Jeremy Clarkson is but if he would have suggested that with respect to President Obama, he would at least have had an intimidating visit from the FBI. Is suggesting killing Romney supposed to be funny?

Switching topics; we have a couple of poor choices with regards to foreign policy; that is if one is not a neocon. The Israeli paper Haaretz has decided that the difference between Obama and Romney with regard to Iran policy is more in nuance than substance. From that perspective, the choice is a draw. http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/the-axi...emium-1.454743

Meanwhile, Romney hasn't said anything about Mali while the Obama administration is considering action in Mali.

Michael Sheehan, the Pentagon’s assistant secretary for special operations said that

“All options are being considered” against “a looming threat.” “There have been no decisions.”

“We cannot allow Al Qaeda to sit in ungoverned places.” He equated Mali with Somalia and cited Somalia as a success story. -quotes from LATimes

"Mali would welcome a West African military intervention force, not just to help recapture the north from rebels enforcing strict Islamic law but also to assist in other parts of the country.""Mali's decision to accept the troops means the only remaining hurdle is approval from the U.N. Security Council, said Sumaila Bakayoko, chief of staff of Ivory Coast's armed forces."

http://abcnews.go.com/International/...3#.UBbAd6m8d8s
There was no mention about which countries were pushing for the UN resolution but we have a precedent in Libya about interpreting UN resolutions and overriding the War Powers Act. It would be ironic if certain factions of the US government were pushing for resolutions that would be used by the same faction to go to war without congressional approval again. Many of these rebels and their weapons spilled over from the actions in Libya so they are related.

Getting back to the topic of why Romney should be president: If Romney and Obama have similar foreign policy stances toward Iran as the Israeli newspaper contends and using Mali as a tie breaker, Obama seems to be edging toward war in Mali while Romney doesn't seem to have expressed an opinion. It could be that Romney would be every bit as much of a neocon with regards to Mali too but I couldn't find record of it. Until Romney opens his mouth with respect to Mali, he at least hasn't suggested getting into another mess there.

Possible point Romney.

[Papasito]

Both candidates are bought and paid by the military industrial complex, and are gladly going to feed the beast at the cost of the lives of our sons and daughters.

The entire "Peace" movement got behind Obama in the last election, thinking he was some guy who was going to bring the peace they so desired. What we got was more war, more death, more confrontations around the world.

Maybe the Peace movement will show their anger and disappointment by not getting out this election day to vote for the man who never kept his campaign promises.

[coracle]

The reason Romney should be President is that he isn't Obama.

[rb336]

Coracle: 1st -- can't read your aol mail. 2nd, that is the stupidest reason to vote for someone
Papa: Obama has probably kept more of his promises than any president in recent history, inspite of republican obstructionism.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me.../promise-kept/

[ghettopalmetto]

The reason Romney should be President is that he isn't Obama.

Last I checked, coracle, you're not Obama either [[and neither are 310 million other Americans). So why don't you run? I have reason to think you're far less delusional and self-important than Mitt.

[TKshreve]

The reason Romney should be President is that he isn't Obama.

Spoken like a lost soul with no idea of who or what they want for their country.

Applying this hollow logic, one could say that since you don't like brussel sprouts, you will therefore settle for whatever is behind door #2. How on earth can you apply that logic? You'll be lucky if a turd sandwich is waiting for you. Mmmm-mmm.

You just don't get it, do you?

Mitt the Twit is as disingenuous as they come. I think the fact that he does not want to invest his wealth in our Country [[the one he wants to lead) is a premier red flag for anyone to see.

Don't you see anything wrong with the fact that Mitt Romney condones and practices siphoning wealth out of this country? Probably never to re-enter our economy again?

[ghettopalmetto]

Don't you see anything wrong with the fact that Mitt Romney condones and practices siphoning wealth out of this country? Probably never to re-enter our economy again?

Whatever. Mitt was just raised with a better culture than you. ;-)

[oladub]

TKshreve, Romney may be siphoning wealth out of this country as a private individual making legal choices regarding profits. But how does one explain an elected official who promised to address NAFTA but instead signed three new NAFTA type agreements into law and was recently caught regarding TPP the NAFTA on steroids agreement he is trying to pass? Or what of the "stimulus" and "cash for clunkers" money that left the country and headed toward China to build wind generators, and to put Korean cars on our roads? Romney had a fiduciary responsibility toward others at Bain Capitol while Obama had a responsibility toward those who elected him. Romney did his job, making money for his investors, while Obama betrayed his supporters by sending their jobs overseas.

[oladub]

Of note to the Catholic community, Polish-Americans, and supporters of freedom everywhere, Lech Walesa endorsed Mitt Romney.

[ghettopalmetto]

Of note to the Catholic community, Polish-Americans, and supporters of freedom everywhere, Lech Walesa endorsed Mitt Romney.

Well, Pan Walesa is entitled to his opinions. But I still respect him for taking on the Soviet-controlled government, and fighting to establish Solidarnosc and rights for workers. My personal opinion is that Walesa has a case of the Cold War nostalgia, and dislikes Obama primarily for withdrawing support of a Poland-based missile-defense shield. But then again, Walesa has experienced Russian oppression firsthand. Mitt wouldn't know the first thing about oppression now, would he?

So Mitt lauded Solidarnosc--When do you think Mitt is going to stand up for trade unions and support workers--the workers who made him so wealthy--in his own country?

Oh, he was just grandstanding, you say? Why, I never!

[TKshreve]

TKshreve, Romney may be siphoning wealth out of this country as a private individual making legal choices regarding profits. But how does one explain an elected official who promised to address NAFTA but instead signed three new NAFTA type agreements into law and was recently caught regarding TPP the NAFTA on steroids agreement he is trying to pass? Or what of the "stimulus" and "cash for clunkers" money that left the country and headed toward China to build wind generators, and to put Korean cars on our roads? Romney had a fiduciary responsibility toward others at Bain Capitol while Obama had a responsibility toward those who elected him. Romney did his job, making money for his investors, while Obama betrayed his supporters by sending their jobs overseas.

Please Oladub. Don't justify Mitt's treasonous ways [[btw - they're only legal because those laws were crafted by the wealthy, for the wealthy - Did I really need to explain that?) by deflecting.

I think everyone knows that Free Trade [[as much as I do not agree with it) was designed to ride on a two way road. And even as much as some countries take advantage of it, there is still the fact that other countries buy our items as much as we provide employment and a market to them in return. It's a two way street. I don't like the fact that as an externality, we outsource jobs [[free of charge) and import poverty, but that's where we're at, aren't we?

And why shouldn't he pursue wind technology? The right and the special interests for oil and natural gas have fought the alternative energy agenda every turn of the page. Even with all the subsidies that the fossil fuel industries receive, they still ahve to spend equal amounts of $$ propagandizing this alternative market. It's sad, and I condone Obama [[or whoever) pursues these markets. It's obvious that the special interests of oil will fight that technology tooth and nail. Don't deny it either.

And in no way is that comparable to Mitt and his grinch like ways of scooping $$ out of the system. The more he does it, the more his gold collared friends are going to follow in his foot steps.

Basically what you're saying to me is:

Because the government, under the watch of President Obama has invested in other countries...... that it is ok for the uber-wealthy to continue their process of off-shoring Americas wealth and capital. Wealth that should otherwise be grinding through our economy.

I've never heard such inane reasoning in my life....... er, wait. Yes I have. From you actually.

[oladub]

TKshreve: Please Oladub. Don't justify Mitt's treasonous ways [[btw - they're only legal because those laws were crafted by the wealthy, for the wealthy - Did I really need to explain that?) by deflecting.

My point exactly. Obama has signed three new free trade policies instead of addressing the NAFTA policy as he promised in 2008. Now he is working on the TPP free trade agreement. How do you explain Obama acting like that? Romney was living withing the type of laws that they likes of Clinton, Bush, and Obama instituted. So who is more guilty of economic treason, those who make the laws for the rich or those who legally operate within those laws?

I think everyone knows that Free Trade [[as much as I do not agree with it) was designed to ride on a two way road. And even as much as some countries take advantage of it, there is still the fact that other countries buy our items as much as we provide employment and a market to them in return. It's a two way street. I don't like the fact that as an externality, we outsource jobs [[free of charge) and import poverty, but that's where we're at, aren't we?

Yes, but those other countries are not taking "advantage of it". Those laws were just poorly written from the standpoint of US workers.

And why shouldn't he pursue wind technology? The right and the special interests for oil and natural gas have fought the alternative energy agenda every turn of the page. Even with all the subsidies that the fossil fuel industries receive, they still ahve to spend equal amounts of $$ propagandizing this alternative market. It's sad, and I condone Obama [[or whoever) pursues these markets. It's obvious that the special interests of oil will fight that technology tooth and nail. Don't deny it either.

I didn't oppose wind technology. I was addressing outsourcing jobs which was your topic. I opposed using stimulus money to import Chinese technology instead of hiring Americans which is what I thought was the purpose of the stimulus was. I just paid homage to new wind generators near where I live. The nacelles were built in Iowa, the blades in Brazil, and the 320' tower in China. Assuming some of the money to be federal, it just doesn't make sense to extend unemployment benefits to Americans if Obama's stimulus money enriched China instead. The 320' of Chinese steel was trucked in six sections across the US while steel mills in Gary, remain dead. California, to it's credit, turned down two big pieces of stimulus money because it's new bridges would of had to been prefabricated in China using Chinese steel.

And in no way is that comparable to Mitt and his grinch like ways of scooping $$ out of the system. The more he does it, the more his gold collared friends are going to follow in his foot steps.

Basically what you're saying to me is:

Because the government, under the watch of President Obama has invested in other countries...... that it is ok for the uber-wealthy to continue their process of off-shoring Americas wealth and capital. Wealth that should otherwise be grinding through our economy.

I've never heard such inane reasoning in my life....... er, wait. Yes I have. From you actually.

TK, You're losing it. Now you are defending Obama investing in other countries. I am not saying that "Because the government, under the watch of President Obama has invested in other countries...... that it is ok for the uber-wealthy to continue their process of off-shoring Americas wealth and capital." I am instead saying that business interests operate as best they can under the system that politicians allow them. If, for instance, the choice is between building a facility in a country with expensive regulations, labor, and health insurance costs or another with without, most executives will opt for the latter. That is one reason we have to bring down NAFTA and all these other free trade agreement which put US workers into direct competition with foreign labor. Romney operated legally within bad law. Obama made more such bad laws. There is a qualitative difference.

[Papasito]

those other countries are not taking "advantage of it". Those laws were just poorly written from the standpoint of US workers.

If a representative Government does not write laws to the advantage of US workers, they are no longer being representative of the people.

Both parties are guilty of breaking down our sovereignty for the 'new world order' 'global government' era. What is good for Americans has not been priority of the elected. There is an underlying agenda here.

[ghettopalmetto]

If a representative Government does not write laws to the advantage of US workers, they are no longer being representative of the people.

Both parties are guilty of breaking down our sovereignty for the 'new world order' 'global government' era. What is good for Americans has not been priority of the elected. There is an underlying agenda here.

One of the two major parties is actively engaged in union-busting, ensuring that workers have no voice whatsoever.

That's quite different than simple neglect.

[rb336]

Well, Pan Walesa is entitled to his opinions. But I still respect him for taking on the Soviet-controlled government, and fighting to establish Solidarnosc and rights for workers. My personal opinion is that Walesa has a case of the Cold War nostalgia, and dislikes Obama primarily for withdrawing support of a Poland-based missile-defense shield. But then again, Walesa has experienced Russian oppression firsthand. Mitt wouldn't know the first thing about oppression now, would he?

So Mitt lauded Solidarnosc--When do you think Mitt is going to stand up for trade unions and support workers--the workers who made him so wealthy--in his own country?

Oh, he was just grandstanding, you say? Why, I never!

Solidarnosc, however, came out AGAINST Romney. http://thinkprogress.org/security/20...and-distances/

And it would be incredibly stupid for people to think a has-been polish leader, who felt snubbed by Obama, whose political actions have essentially been the opposite of Romney's, is giving his endorsement out of anything other than pettiness and sour grapes

[firstandten]

I think everyone knows that Free Trade [[as much as I do not agree with it) was designed to ride on a two way road. And even as much as some countries take advantage of it, there is still the fact that other countries buy our items as much as we provide employment and a market to them in return. It's a two way street. I don't like the fact that as an externality, we outsource jobs [[free of charge) and import poverty, but that's where we're at, aren't we?

And why shouldn't he pursue wind technology?

To add to your point here is an interview with Joseph Stiglitz and Tavis Smiley where he talks about Obama trying to increase exports and why.

"Stiglitz: Well, a European slowdown inevitably will hurt us. The problem in America today is lack of demand. One of the reasons for that lack of demand is our high level of inequality, one of the ways in which we’re paying a high price for this inequality.
President Obama talked about the possibility of exports filling in the gap, but if our export partners are going into recession – and Europe is already in recession – it’s going to be impossible for us to export our way out of this recession, out of this downturn. That means we’ll have to turn to what we can do at home.
Tavis: Exporting is one thing. The president, though, has been talking certainly earlier this year about insourcing. What do you make of that and are we having any success with that notion?
Stiglitz: Well, it is true that there is some possibility of expanding manufacturing. Manufacture has been in a strong decline and there are some indications that it can be slightly arrested.
But let’s be frank about it. The total number of jobs in the world in manufacturing is going down. We saw it in the success we’re having, success in increasing productivity faster than the rate of growth in demand for manufacturing goods. So global employment in manufacturing is going to go down.
Our share of that global employment is going to go down and therefore that can’t be the basis of the restoration and strength in the American economy. We’re going to have to restructure our economy. There’s no two ways about it.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/tavissmiley/...seph-stiglitz/

Thats where the alternative energy agenda plays a role.

This is why I say the economy is not coming back anytime soon. There needs to be structural changes made. The Repubs agenda of tax cuts for the job creators is nothing but a hollow statement which is not going to solve anything

[TKshreve]

Thats where the alternative energy agenda plays a role.

This is why I say the economy is not coming back anytime soon. There needs to be structural changes made. The Repubs agenda of tax cuts for the job creators is nothing but a hollow statement which is not going to solve anything

Very interesting look f&t.

The rights agenda does afford them some last important hours at the trough while the barn continues to burn. And I think that ulterior agenda is exactly why so many of the wealthy elite continue to sell this pipe dream [[bomb) to the American public. So much $$ is spent on propaganda and disinformation it's sad. They know there is a weak minded population who are waiting to be told what to do. It's really disheartening to think that so many people have lost their way of free thinking. And that media [[among so many other industries) have lost any sense of ethical conduct. Not that those industries were ever "angels" in the first place. But were we not supposed to be the society which would move civilization forward? Expunge greed? Put mankind in front of such trivial things as possessions and money? It seems to me our country was on that path and somehow jumped off.

*Bear in mind I am a believer that this accusation does not fall solely on the right wing of politics. I fully accept the idea that many liberal public servants play ball with their corporate/private sponsors at the expense of the American citizenry. However, the right has proven time and again they are willing to stack the deck in the favor of the gold-collar wealthy elite. That, I declare, was the first shot fired in class warfare.

Back to your point firstandten, why are these alternative energies not being embraced here like they are in Europe? I know the campaign against them is fierce, however truth always triumphs. Subsidies congruent with what the oil industry receives would make these technologies equally competitive. Why has a market not been born through demand of such logical solutions? I guess I'm asking when will the majority come to their senses?

[firstandten]

why are these alternative energies not being embraced here like they are in Europe? I know the campaign against them is fierce, however truth always triumphs. Subsidies congruent with what the oil industry receives would make these technologies equally competitive. Why has a market not been born through demand of such logical solutions? I guess I'm asking when will the majority come to their senses?

My guess is that its about money and market share.

The Corporatist who run the traditional energy companies are the same ones who provide campaign cash for Repub [[and sometimes Dem) causes. They see the investments in alternative energy as something that will damage their market share over time,maybe even put them out of business. These younger entrepreneural types aren't part of "the club" and because many are getting government subsidies for their R&D the Corporatist are trying to hold on thru mis and dis information strategies.