Britain Declares Romney is Worse Than Sarah Palin

[s_stabeler]

yeah... when "Worse than Sarah Palin" is one of the kinder verdicts... if Romney gets elected, you can probably say goodbye to the special relationship. if he can't even be bothered to remember the names of our leaders ( even if I personally think Miliband's an utter idiot himself ( the guy's a deficit denier who think we should keep running up debt rather than fix our economy. That and he's in the union's pockets, which isn't what we need right now. ( we need someone who can create a happy medium. tell the businesses to sod off when they claim data protection legislation is red tape that should be repealed, but tell then unions to sod off when they demand triple time for working holidays plus a day off in lieu, thus working out as quadruple time. yes, unions have tried industrial action for that. that was one case where they got roughly zero support amongst the working public.)) then I shudder to think of what he'd be like as an ally.

[Jaden]

I am a straight white male, though not wealthy. Perhaps that makes my case weaker, simply by virtue of who I am. I do not gain anything specifically from having a Republican in office - hence why this election cycle, as I said, I'm almost certainly not going to vote for Romney, because I don't like him. I think he's, at best, a robot, and at worst conniving and deceitful. Fiscally, I like a decent amount of Republican principles - smaller government, lower taxes, etc., etc. There are some things that I agree with the Democrats on, mainly socially - I'm heavily supportive of gay rights, for example, although if you wants a fiscal example, I think giving subsidies to oil companies is, well, the wrong way to go about solving the problem of high gas prices.

And then there are some things on which I can see both sides - unions are a good example of that. I see what the Republicans mean when they say they drive up a lot of prices and some of their demands are over the top, but on the other hand, I see where the Democrats are coming from in that the management of the corporation can't be trusted to care for the needs and safety of their workers, as has already been proven in history. Thus, the unions are necessary.

At any rate, I am technically a registered Republican, though I've been seriously considering changing parties to Independent or Libertarian due to my current frustrations with the Republicans. They've been doing mostly shit that just pisses me off for the past couple of years, and it's made them basically lose my vote for the time being. The reason why I was anticipating voting Republican this November was because I'm just not a fan of Obama, and I thought that surely the Republicans could come up with somebody - anybody - who was at least as good/better than Obama. They couldn't, and thus they do not have my support for at least this election.

So yes, I can sometimes vote Republican (and sometimes not) and still be a good person. I don't know why I had to defend that assertion, but there it is.

[Nekojin]

Fiscally, I like a decent amount of Republican principles - smaller government, lower taxes, etc., etc.

In case you haven't noticed, Republicans talk big about "smaller government, lower taxes," but what they actually mean by "smaller government" is "less regulation for businesses" and "get rid of the social safety net." And what they mean by "lower taxes" is "starve the beast" - make it so that the government can't actually afford to pay for the things we've voted on and enacted.

I'm not a fan of Obama - I'm not really a big fan of ANY Republican or Democrat, but especially not ones with transparent ties to big business. When the '08 elections rolled around, I did a little mathematics (the exact details of which I can no longer remember), and came up with: Obama, 40% - Biden, 20% (Big business, but seems to be a straight shooter and consistent) - McCain 10% (Corrupt to the bone, only interested in self-serving, especially if he can go higher than Daddy did) - Palin 0% (also corrupt and self-serving, but less competent about it).

I honestly think that if Romney is voted in, we'll see a big push for deregulation and favors for big companies, and anything else that feeds money to corporations and rich folks - an even bigger Estate tax exemption (currently at 5 million), lower taxes for the rich and tax forgiveness for offshored funds, all in the name of "job creation," and an utter dive into the financial crapper for the middle and lower classes.

I'm hoping we don't have to find out whether I'm right.

[mikoyan29]

Republicans say they want to balance the budget but it has been under Republican Presidents when the deficit really balloons. We elect Romney and it will make the economic policies of Bush look like pure genius.

[Gravekeeper]

Republicans say they want to balance the budget but it has been under Republican Presidents when the deficit really balloons. We elect Romney and it will make the economic policies of Bush look like pure genius.

Yeah, frankly its a miracle Obama's managed to keep the country afloat in the face of all the obstruction. Romney getting into office now would just finish the country off.

[Duelist925]

What will I gain from either party being elected?

Wait for it...
Wait for it...
Nothing.

I'm not going to make more money no matter who runs the country. Crime isn't going to magically disappear. Etc. etc. etc. It's the same shit with just different names.

SSDD doesn't fly. Yeah, if obama wins sparkly magical unicorns aren't going to shit gold into your hands, but an improved economy (or at least one thats not actively getting worse) is far better for any possible monetary or criminal issues than one that's heading further and further up shit creek.

Just because all problems arent magical fixed doesn't mean you won't either gain or lose, one way or the other, down the line

[TheHuckster]

And then there are some things on which I can see both sides - unions are a good example of that. I see what the Republicans mean when they say they drive up a lot of prices and some of their demands are over the top, but on the other hand, I see where the Democrats are coming from in that the management of the corporation can't be trusted to care for the needs and safety of their workers, as has already been proven in history. Thus, the unions are necessary.

This, to me, encapsulates the frustration I have over the two parties we have right now in the USA. I have to choose between a party who wants to give unions, IMO, too much power and a party who thinks every single instance of a union is evil and corrupt.

I won't go into a huge OT rant about the two sides of this debate, but it's just one of many examples of annoyance I have against democrats and republicans who I feel are simply looking at each side and taking the extreme of each just to be contrarian to eachother, when the truth is the best solution is indeed somewhere in the middle of the two extremes or might even need a completely different perspective all together.

And, sadly, I don't see an end to this madness anytime soon. It's this kind of thing, though, that really undermines American democracy. The average joe didn't pick Obama or Romney. A bunch of powerful organizations and businesses with an agenda did. Now we're left having to choose between them when many voters really don't care for either candidate. Sure, we can vote for a third-party but as Kang and Kudos said, "Go ahead, throw your vote away!"

[daleduke17]

Sure, we can vote for a third-party but as Kang and Kudos said, "Go ahead, throw your vote away!"

Two words: Jesse Ventura.

Third party candidate who won the Minnesota Gubernatorial election. It proves that a third party needs the right candidate and enough R/D frustration from voters to get the win.

Also, if the "big four" (CNN, Fox, NBC News and CBS News) gave 3rd party candidates an equal footing, that might help out a lot as well.

[TheHuckster]

Third party candidate who won the Minnesota Gubernatorial election. It proves that a third party needs the right candidate and enough R/D frustration from voters to get the win.

Third parties win congressional and governor spots all the time. I'm talking about a presidential spot, which is a totally different animal for the following reasons:

a.) When you're running for governor or congress, you only need enough money to publicize yourself in that state. This is something that could be afforded by a very wealthy individual, such as Jesse Ventura. If you're running for president, you need enough money to publicize yourself nationally, something that very few people have by themselves. Instead they need to convince external donors to contribute to their campaign. Most of these donors won't spend that kind of money on a third party (partially for the same reason voters won't vote for a third party; they feel like it's a hopeless cause).

b.) Running for governor or congress requires press time in the local media. Local media is far more willing to give you microphone time than the national media. Although the local media are owned by the same "big four" for the most part, they are often managed by franchisees which are less biased.

I can say with much confidence that Jesse Ventura wouldn't have made much of an impact in a presidential race... unless he decided to put a little (R) or a (D) next to his name, regardless of his character or platform.

[Andara Bledin]

Also, if the "big four" (CNN, Fox, NBC News and CBS News) gave 3rd party candidates an equal footing, that might help out a lot as well.

They need more than that.

Not being locked out and denied entry to Presidential debates would be part of it.

^-.-^

[crashhelmet]

In case you haven't noticed, Republicans talk big about "smaller government, lower taxes," but what they actually mean by "smaller government" is "less regulation for businesses" and "get rid of the social safety net." And what they mean by "lower taxes" is "starve the beast" - make it so that the government can't actually afford to pay for the things we've voted on and enacted.

Exactly. It's "smaller government" when it comes to taxes, corporate regulations, and social programs like nationalized health care, medicare, social security. But when it comes to the rights of women, gays, and racial minorities, it's "WE NEED LAWS!!!!!!"

That hypocrisy has always irked me.

[HYHYBT]

They need more than that.

Not being locked out and denied entry to Presidential debates would be part of it.

^-.-^

A bigger problem is the constitutional requirement that if nobody in the presidential race gets a majority, then the House of Representatives gets to pick. And guess what, they're going to go with the guy from their party. (There's an oddity about each state, rather than each congressman, getting a vote, but for third party purposes, if anything that makes it worse.)

[mikoyan29]

There are so many factors that are weighted against third parties in this countries that allowing them in the debates is pretty low on that. If I seem to remember correctly, in order for a third party to be on the next ballot automatically, they have to get a certain percentage on the current one. But that probably varies from state to state.

And the majority you're referring to is in the electoral college. If I recall, Bush actually lost the popular vote but won enough delegates to win the Presidency. Clinton certainly didn't get a majority in either of his elections.

[Hyena Dandy]

Two words: Jesse Ventura.

He had an advantage, he was already pretty damn famous from his wrestling career.