She can surely get any country pretty tight.

 

Wubya. He is making fun of George W. Bush. he is often referred to as dubya and wubya, sinci his middle initial starte popping up as bumper stickers.

I'm not exactly sure if that's the best reason to vote for Romney. The Republican party is dominated by neo-cons and big government cronyism. It's the soup of the season for politics these days, and voting republican certainly isn't going to make that go away. Not sure what will, actually.

I'd hardly call those complicated. 

You sly dog you. 

Liquidate the **** and we'll break even.

I do happen to think that Romney will get elected though, and I'm afraid that would be the worst thing to happen to America in several decades. I just can't see how people could possibly be ok with the fact that he might lead your country. I dread to think where you'll be in 4 years.

Obama? I'm not sure. He seems like an awful lot less of an idiot than Romney. He won't f*** over the poor as much (still will), and might do some good stuff. I can't see the US going places in that time though. It's almost like delaying the election 4 years.

I would vote Obama if I was American but I'd also curse the idiotic state of our politics and wonder why people haven't picked up that being so right wing is moronic and their needs to be left wing politics for social development.

One European

 

 

 

Many Europeans

 

 

 

Many + One Europeans

Can some one please give me an example of a presidential race when both party presidental candidates where not idiots...

Can you explain to me how social democracy would be a winner for the United States and how it would better it, I'm curious...

Although Bush had enough idiocy for both of them so it doesn't really count...

 

My comment wasn't to suggest people should or shouldn't vote for Mitt because of his religious beliefs. I agree it's irrelevant. I'd happily vote for an atheist, a muslim or a mormon. I just find it suggestive of hypocrisy given his recent comments on the 47% of voters (that number must have been a throw away) that he feels he needn't worry about given they're a bunch of dependent, work-shy worthless scroungers?! Perhaps he didn't mean this at all (which I'm not sure I believe).

 

Religion aside, it comes down to political values. This ne-con libertarianism with its redistribution upwards would be the big turn off for me. Good job I don't have a vote then!

It's no secret that I have zero respect for anyone who votes for either Obama and Romney. Sharing their proclaimed beliefs is foolish enough but taking the extra step of ignoring that they are just blowing smoke up your ass about said beliefs is just loathsome.  Obama has ruled as George W. Bush II and Romney would simply be an extension.  Both are owned by bankers and carry foreign and civil-rights policies that are the stuff of Dick Cheney's wet dreams.  Obama has killed more people, though, if you're into that sort of thing.

 

Was hoping when this poll popped up (had to eventually) it would read like the ballot in 48-50 states (b*****d republicans still pushing to remove Johnson in a few states):

Barack Obama

Mitt Romney

Gary Johnson

 

Will be voting for Gary Johnson and collecting on a few bets when Obama wins re-election.

Why them? What are your reasons?

Do you mean Bush the elder, George H.W. Bush?  1992?

 

Romney's recently exposed comments reveal something about his view of the world that most of us already knew, and he will have a tough time hiding from those views as we near the finish line.  It will only take a few days for the press to dissect his 47% comment and point out that nearly half the 'deadbeat' non-taxpayers he refers to are elderly, retired folks who don't pay taxes because they are on Social Security and/or are poor with little or no income.  Another one-third are people who do work, but don't make enough money to justify their paying federal income taxes, although they do have payroll taxes deducted and they pay state, county and local payroll taxes as well as property taxes if they own homes. 

 

The Social Security / Medicare bunch should certainly not be considered deadbeats on the government dole since they are simply reaping the benefits of the taxes they paid into those programs for decades.  And Romney is a moron if he doesn't realize that huge numbers of those people are conservatives who will probably vote for him despite the fact he took a verbal piss on them.

 

As for the working poor who get their payroll taxes refunded at the end of the year, blame the Republicans if blame is necessary.  They're the ones who passed the child tax credit act that led to people being able to claim significant income deductions based on the number of kids they have.

 

Kind of hypocrisy for Romney to debase people who legally don't pay taxes when he won't reveal his own tax history and openly stashes money in offshore accounts to avoid paying more taxes himself.  All politics aside, I couldn't stomach voting for someone of such questionable and sociopathic character.

 

Ruff Ruffffff  (Not Romney)

 

It's probably gauche to quote oneself, but something occured to me after posting this that's worth pointing out.

 

I'm a 12-year military veteran (Marine Corps), who attained the rank of Gunnery Sergeant during my tour.  Why is this relevent?  Because for 9 of those 12 years one of those working poor slackers who didn't pay taxes and felt the government 'owed him a living' was me, thanks to low pay for my service and the fact I had the gall to start a family.  And after 12 years of loyal service I walked away with no vested pension thanks to the U.S. military's 20-years-or-nothing retirement plan. 

 

My eldest son falls into the 47% as well, even though he is working full-time in the Peace Corps representing his country and trying to make life better for poor and underprivileged children in Africa. So do my parents, who both worked (and paid taxes) for half a century before retiring.  And there are undoubtedly millions more like us that Romney counts among the 47% he has written off as unworthy.

 

The point I guess is that it's pretty presumptuous of Romey to make broad claims about the character and work ethic of those who don't pay enough taxes to justify his approval.  He doesn't know and we don't know the stories and situations behind why those folks are in the situations they are in, and it's pretty callous of him to dismiss this huge portion of our citizenship simply because he doesn't think they'll take the time to advance his ambitions by voting for him.

 

 

That wasn't my intent, but in fact my parents (like many older Americans) are pretty conservative and will probably vote for him anyway.

 

The original question of the thread was 'who will you be voting for?'.  In my case - not Romney, for many, many reasons but not the least of which is because of his complete lack of understanding of, or empathy for, the vast majority of Americans.

 

 

I do believe that a big reason that the Republican party carries the South has little to due with economic policies and more to due with the Social policies.  Same reason that I generally vote Democratic.  Economically, I do tend to be more conservative, but socially, I am extremely liberal.  I have generally let my social feelings decide how I vote, and I believe that this is also true in the South.

Not liking either of the choices. Big money has ruined the electorial process for everyone.

 

 

 

...well for starters his view on abortion is strongly affected by him being religious (I´m not saying all religious people are like him. I´m only commenting on his views). In my country a man like him would be the subject of ridicule. He would quite frankly be considered sligthly mad.. Would I trust a man I consider mentally unstable to rule one of the world´s super powers? It´s bad enough the world had to endure Bush, but this seems even worse to me.

 

...his plan to roll back Obamacare is socially irresponsible too. Finally the poor and the needy are able to receive qualified health care, and of course the "good Samaritan" (that would be Romney) with his big Christian heart wants it rolled back because it´s oh so bad that the filthy rich 1% of the American population has to pay a little extra tax for it to work. Where´s the Christian ideals, the human dignity and unity in that?

 

It´s "to each his own" and I can´t stand that egocentric idiology. How about a broader perspective on the society where you live.

Romney is not a Christian, he's a Mormon.  Completely different!

Yes. Finally some common sense

I dearly hope that exclamation point indicates sarcasm.

 

I'm saving the whole question about whether the rich pay their "fair share" and whether tax rates on rich people are somehow indexed to GDP or job creation for a later discussion.

 

This one about how Obama is forcing people to engage in commerce buy compelling them to buy health insurance does bother me a bit though.  The premise is that by mandating universal coverage, the shared burden will be more evenly borne and not as heavy on any one person, and also that the government and the people are better protected from having to bail those who don't have coverage and get themselves into serious debt due to healthcare issues.  This is not a new concept.

 

First there are the precedents:

 

 - 'government' forces us to purchase auto insurance, which is as much to protect the public from financial loss as to protect the insured.  And of course part of what we all pay with that insurance is a fee for uninsured motorists.  How is this different than healthcare markups insured patients pay to offset hospitals' losses in caring for uninsured patients, which we all pay today?

 

- 'government' forces those who engage in scores of licensed and regulated practices to obtain liability insurance and/or bonding to protect the public in the event that person/firm malpractices or commits financial malfesence. Everyone from lawyers to plumbers are required to do so.  This is perfectly legal and acceptable yet is another example of the government mandating that someone 'participate in commerce' by purchasing the insurance/bond whether they want to or not, because it is in the public interest.

 

And let's look at a situation where government does not require people to insure themselves as a way to protect others from having to share in their losses.  Floods and other natural disasters for example.  What happens when a flood wipes out a town and nobody in the town has flood insurance?  There is a declaration of natural diaster and our tax dollars are used to bail those people out.  Same goes for tornados, hurricanes, droughts, earthquakes and even dust storms.  And yet every time this happens there are inevitably those who complain that tax dollars are being used to bail people out even though those people should have had the good sense to either buy insurance or not live where they live.  Of course in these situations where we choose to live is not a simple issue since there isn't a state in the country that hasn't had a flood, earthquake, tornado, drought, hurricane, dust storm or combinations of these at some point in their history.  And insurance isn't always an option since in many cases these people couldn't buy insurance if they wanted to since it isn't offered or is prohibitively expensive.

 

So we already have precedent in the government having a role in caring for people who are afflicted by tragedy, and we have precedent in the government mandating that (where feasible and possible) people take some personal and civic responsibility by insuring themselves against the risk of becoming a public burden.  So by logical extension why is it such an egregious assumption by Obama that those who can should likewise insure their health to protect the rest of us from having to bail them out when they contract a lengthy and expensive illness?

 

And BTW I don't see how this makes healthcare more expensive by 'increasing demand'.  This is actually a pretty old and conservative business model.  That's how Planet Fitness undercuts other gyms, but selling cheap memberships to hundreds of people while knowing full-well that only a small percentage of those people will actually show up and use the equipment.  Prepaid legal services and many other types of subscription and service businesses work the same way.  All Obama did was take a well-proven business model and apply it to solving a social problem,  Isn't that what Romney continually argues our government should be doing to solve more of our problems?  At least Obama isn't kicking this one down the road for the next President to deal with.

 

 

 

 

I'm saving the whole question about whether the rich pay their "fair share" and whether tax rates on rich people are somehow indexed to GDP or job creation for a later discussion.

 

This one about how Obama is forcing people to engage in commerce buy compelling them to buy health insurance does bother me a bit though.  The premise is that by mandating universal coverage, the shared burden will be more evenly borne and not as heavy on any one person, and also that the government and the people are better protected from having to bail those who don't have coverage and get themselves into serious debt due to healthcare issues.  This is not a new concept.

Not really. The premise is more that there's no way for insurance companies to afford to cover people who are already sick unless you force people who don't need insurance to buy it.

First there are the precedents:

 

 - 'government' forces us to purchase auto insurance, which is as much to protect the public from financial loss as to protect the insured.  And of course part of what we all pay with that insurance is a fee for uninsured motorists.  How is this different than healthcare markups insured patients pay to offset hospitals' losses in caring for uninsured patients, which we all pay today?

 
But the government doesn't force you to buy a car.

- 'government' forces those who engage in scores of licensed and regulated practices to obtain liability insurance and/or bonding to protect the public in the event that person/firm malpractices or commits financial malfesence. Everyone from lawyers to plumbers are required to do so.  This is perfectly legal and acceptable yet is another example of the government mandating that someone 'participate in commerce' by purchasing the insurance/bond whether they want to or not, because it is in the public interest.

 
But the government doesn't force you to practice those professions.

And let's look at a situation where government does not require people to insure themselves as a way to protect others from having to share in their losses.  Floods and other natural disasters for example.  What happens when a flood wipes out a town and nobody in the town has flood insurance?  There is a declaration of natural diaster and our tax dollars are used to bail those people out.  Same goes for tornados, hurricanes, droughts, earthquakes and even dust storms.  And yet every time this happens there are inevitably those who complain that tax dollars are being used to bail people out even though those people should have had the good sense to either buy insurance or not live where they live.  Of course in these situations where we choose to live is not a simple issue since there isn't a state in the country that hasn't had a flood, earthquake, tornado, drought, hurricane, dust storm or combinations of these at some point in their history.  And insurance isn't always an option since in many cases these people couldn't buy insurance if they wanted to since it isn't offered or is prohibitively expensive.

 

So we already have precedent in the government having a role in caring for people who are afflicted by tragedy, and we have precedent in the government mandating that (where feasible and possible) people take some personal and civic responsibility by insuring themselves against the risk of becoming a public burden.  So by logical extension why is it such an egregious assumption by Obama that those who can should likewise insure their health to protect the rest of us from having to bail them out when they contract a lengthy and expensive illness?

That is the whole problem with government bailing people out when they act irresponsibly. It makes their behavior everyone's problem, and allows government to justify laws that control behavior. Let everyone be responsible for his own health and the problem goes away.

And BTW I don't see how this makes healthcare more expensive by 'increasing demand'.  This is actually a pretty old and conservative business model.  That's how Planet Fitness undercuts other gyms, but selling cheap memberships to hundreds of people while knowing full-well that only a small percentage of those people will actually show up and use the equipment.  Prepaid legal services and many other types of subscription and service businesses work the same way.  All Obama did was take a well-proven business model and apply it to solving a social problem,  Isn't that what Romney continually argues our government should be doing to solve more of our problems?  At least Obama isn't kicking this one down the road for the next President to deal with.

It makes coverage more expensive because insurance companies are required to pay for people who are already sick, so that it is no longer insurance against a possible future event, but flat out paying for someone else's medical care. The only way they can afford to do that is to raise prices on everyone else.

 

According to some sources, Barack Hussein Obama is in truth a muslim. If that is true, ye US citizens can choose between a muslim and a mormon.

 

That  is my favorite comeback to the whole Muslim charge.

 

...oh don´t worry they would

 

...well we have a couple of moderate muslim members of parlament, who have been known to drink alcohol, so it´s not completely unlikely.

 

OK so the choice to use the word "ridicule" might have been a bit too strong. Let´s just say the majority of the population in Denmark probably consider people with an opinion like that slightly odd. Does that work better for you?

 

...again the ridicule word might be a bit too strong. Se me post above.

 

I am a second language English speaker, so my choice of words sometimes disturbs people a bit more than I´m aware of when I post them.

 

...of course I stand by my personal opinion that I wouldn´t trust a man that probably has God in mind every time he makes a decision. In my world that´s not a natural way of thinking.

 

 

It's confusing enough without confusing it futher.