Mitt Romney vs. Barack Obama

by **Etharnor** » Sat May 14, 2011 8:08 pm

since this is most likely going to be the 2012 presidential battle, who would you vote for and why?

by **Ashmoria** » Sat May 14, 2011 8:09 pm

obama because he's good.

by **Wilgrove** » Sat May 14, 2011 8:10 pm

Obama, mainly because RomneyCare would kill any chance Mitt has of winning.

by **Wikkiwallana** » Sat May 14, 2011 8:11 pm

Obama, because I'm not even going to consider a Republican until they throw the crazy out of their party. The party of Lincoln has fallen so far.

by **Mike the Progressive** » Sat May 14, 2011 8:11 pm

Not vote >_<

In all seriousness, probably Romney.

by **Fatae** » Sat May 14, 2011 8:13 pm

Not Obama.

by **Wilgrove** » Sat May 14, 2011 8:13 pm

Wikkiwallana wrote:Obama, because I'm not even going to consider a Republican until they throw the crazy out of their party. The party of Lincoln has fallen so far.

Face it, it's no longer the Party of Lincoln, it's the Party of Reagan now. Lincoln wouldn't even think of being a Republican if he was alive today.

by **Kalibarr** » Sat May 14, 2011 8:13 pm

I don't think Romney can win the Republican nomination

by **Meowfoundland** » Sat May 14, 2011 8:13 pm

The one who would do a better job, so Obama.

by **Wilgrove** » Sat May 14, 2011 8:14 pm

Mike the Progressive wrote:Not vote >_<

In all seriousness, probably Romney.

Why? He created the same healthcare system for his state as Obamacare.

by **Etharnor** » Sat May 14, 2011 8:15 pm

Wilgrove wrote:
Mike the Progressive wrote:Not vote >_<

In all seriousness, probably Romney.

Why? He created the same healthcare system for his state as Obamacare.

key part in bold

by **Ashmoria** » Sat May 14, 2011 8:16 pm

Kalibarr wrote:I don't think Romney can win the Republican nomination

not with the democrats thanking him for inspiring obamacare every chance they get.

by **Kalibarr** » Sat May 14, 2011 8:18 pm

Etharnor wrote:
Wilgrove wrote:
Why? He created the same healthcare system for his state as Obamacare.

key part in bold

I really don't understand this obsession with "Federal Government= evil, State Government= can do what ever the hell it wants"

If your against big government, shouldn't you be against it at all levels?

by **Wikkiwallana** » Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm

Wilgrove wrote:
Wikkiwallana wrote:Obama, because I'm not even going to consider a Republican until they throw the crazy out of their party. The party of Lincoln has fallen so far.

Face it, it's no longer the Party of Lincoln, it's the Party of Reagan now. Lincoln wouldn't even think of being a Republican if he was alive today.

I know, I just wanted to highlight the irony of the fact that what used to bill itself as a party of radicals has become one of reactionaries.

by **Etharnor** » Sat May 14, 2011 8:20 pm

Kalibarr wrote:
Etharnor wrote:
key part in bold

I really don't understand this obsession with "Federal Government= evil, State Government= can do what ever the hell it wants"

If your against big government, shouldn't you be against it at all levels?

its the lesser of two evils

by **Mussoliniopoli** » Sat May 14, 2011 8:21 pm

Likely Obama I can't stand Romney. He annoys me on all levels especially how he bitched about Illegal Immigrants while employing them.

by **Kalibarr** » Sat May 14, 2011 8:21 pm

Etharnor wrote:
Kalibarr wrote:

I really don't understand this obsession with "Federal Government= evil, State Government= can do what ever the hell it wants"

If your against big government, shouldn't you be against it at all levels?

its the lesser of two evils

How so?

by **Wilgrove** » Sat May 14, 2011 8:21 pm

Etharnor wrote:
Kalibarr wrote:

I really don't understand this obsession with "Federal Government= evil, State Government= can do what ever the hell it wants"

If your against big government, shouldn't you be against it at all levels?

its the lesser of two evils

How so?

by **Vitius** » Sat May 14, 2011 8:26 pm

Sorry for the bitchiness, but if you're going to have a poll, at least be serious :/

Now I will never know whom four people will vote for

However, I'm for Obama. Yeah!

by **Etharnor** » Sat May 14, 2011 8:27 pm

Kalibarr wrote:
Etharnor wrote:
its the lesser of two evils

How so?

its a smaller program that can more easily be tailored for the needs of the state

by **Wamitoria** » Sat May 14, 2011 8:27 pm

Etharnor wrote:
Kalibarr wrote:

I really don't understand this obsession with "Federal Government= evil, State Government= can do what ever the hell it wants"

If your against big government, shouldn't you be against it at all levels?

its the lesser of two evils

I fail to see your reasoning? Is oppression somehow better when it's closer to home?

by **Vitius** » Sat May 14, 2011 8:28 pm

Etharnor wrote:
Kalibarr wrote:

I really don't understand this obsession with "Federal Government= evil, State Government= can do what ever the hell it wants"

If your against big government, shouldn't you be against it at all levels?

its the lesser of two evils

Actually, I usually find the state government to be more idiotic than the federal. At least where I live (Michigan). Our Snyder isn't the greatest of politicians.

by **Wamitoria** » Sat May 14, 2011 8:29 pm

Etharnor wrote:
Kalibarr wrote:
How so?

its a smaller program that can more easily be tailored for the needs of the state

So, if all states but one decided to criminalize homosexuality, institute hanging as a valid method of execution, and bar women from having any job other than a secretary, you would be OK with that?

by **Mike the Progressive** » Sat May 14, 2011 8:29 pm

Kalibarr wrote:
Etharnor wrote:
key part in bold

I really don't understand this obsession with "Federal Government= evil, State Government= can do what ever the hell it wants"

If your against big government, shouldn't you be against it at all levels?

Friedman actually argues that in our country if you don't like a state law or tax, you can move to a different state. If it's required everywhere, you're shit out of luck. Ergo, why it's better on a state level to play around than on the national level, where it can be fucked up for everybody.

by **Switzlanzia** » Sat May 14, 2011 8:29 pm

Mitt. He is a smart MBA lawyer. He was governor of Massachusetts

He reduced Mass. deficit from 800 billion to surplus of 700 million in one term. Mass. unemployment went down 2.3 points w/ him as governor.

He ran Bain Capital, and was very, very successful.

Mitt boosted Mass. education rank in USA from 5th to 1st when he was governor.

Mitt regrets Romneycare.