Would Mitt Romney be a better president than Barrack Obama.
No
Side Score: 158
|
 |
Yes
Side Score: 167
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign Policy: During the Bush administration our popularity around the world hit an all time low, no time in history has so much of the world rooted against us, and this was a direct result of 1. "cowboy diplomacy" which basically meant we do whatever we want and to hell with everyone else. 2. simply our President was an idiot, and while this is funny to some, most Westernized nations see this as a serious character flaw, not his character, ours for electing him. While Romney seems much brighter than Bush Jr. there's no reason to believe he would not have continued the "cowboy diplomacy" that has crippled our world influence. In comparison, just in the few months since Obama has been President, and Clinton Secretary of State, our popularity has risen dramatically. This is a direct result of actually talking and listening to other nations, friends and enemies alike. This has been the foreign policy theory of every great President that we have ever had. Yet of course conservatives call it "apologizing" and get all bent out of shape. The fact is though, American stock is rising, and in the long run that means less hatred for America, which means less terrorism, and more international help with the necessary wars and other crisises in the future. Economy: I'm constantly amazed at humans' capacity to rewrite history, often before it is even written, to ignore the real problems, while clinging and agonizing over side-shows and talking points and terms like socialism or communism. The indisputable facts are that, all of these economic crisises; banks, housing, cost of health care, wage discrpencies, rapant corruption on wall street, etc, all, all of them are a direct result of a lack of oversight Now, say what you will about what the solution to this is, whether Obama is taking the right path, etc. Argue that until you're blue in the face and as long as you have an answer that isn't exactly what we did to get into the mess - then you're part of the conversation. Unfortunately many Republicans, and Romney can count himself as part of it, have opted to 1. say there's nothing wrong and it will correct itself, 2. pay lip service to change, when really they only want to keep the status quo, and keep their contributors and personal business interests happy, 3. pretend the last 8 years didn't happen and preach less oversight like the crazy guy on the corner talking about the sky falling. Well some don't like Obama's plan, but I can tell you it's better than nothing, and yeah, nothing is exactly what Romney would be doing at this point. Environment: That pollution is bad is an inescapable fact. If you want to believe there's no such thing as global warming, or in the easter bunny, or that the earth is flat, fine whatever. But on some basic level even crazy people can believe that it would be nice to have less pollution right? Clean energy, even if global warming really is a myth, would at the least cut down on pollution, create jobs here in the US that cannot be exported, keep the trillions we send overseas every single year to countries like Saudi Arabia right here in the US. There are only 2 kinds of people against clean energy, the ignorant, and people who have a bunch of stock in oil and don't give a rat's ass. Unfortunately Romney definitely falls in one of those two groups, while Obama most certainly does not. Social: Obama has recently replaced one Liberal leaning justice with another Liberal leaning justice. Romney would have nominated an anti-abortion, far right judge. This may or may not have over time allowed religion to become an integral part of our government (even more so) which means less science and less acceptance of all people and cultures. It also would have given anti-abortion proponents another shot at making it illegal, which history has shown over and over and over and over and over... means more young mothers dying in dirty basements because of unsanitary abortion procedures performed by people who may are may not have a medical degree, and the exact same number of abortions being performed every year While you have Faux and Rush and Savage and whoever else screaming bloody murder at things like the firemen issue with Sotomayor or the thing with the cops arresting the black professor, the fact is, the US does have race issues, that's why these small cases that actually no one should even hear about, constantly make national news. Old white people think they're not racist but really are, old minorities think the white man's out to get them whether they really are or not, and these two views collide and you get two otherwise intelligent and good people like the prof and the cop in crazy race driven situations. Meanwhile the young people of all races are looking around at these situations and saying "wtf is going on?" And they can grow up just like their parents did, or not, and we'll see. Because for 50 years probably now one has said a word about about race, and things stay pretty much the same with small problems and improvements here and there and an occassional riot to difuse all the tension until we do it all over again. Meanwhile no one says a word about it, at least no one that anyone is listening to. Now guess what, we have a black president who I think surprised the hell out of everyone by answering as a human and taking the prof's side publically. As 99.9 percent of black men would. He was being a real person and got a lot of crap for it for a couple days. And what happened? Was there a race war? No. Did Jesus come down and Rapture all the good Christians and let the devil take over? Was there plague and pestilence? Nope, there was a mature conversation. The prof and cop came together in the middle somewhere, which is where it had always really been, and people grew a little and became better people. Obama wasn't elected because of his race, or in spite of it, he was elected because he was far and away the best candidate at this time. but I will say that having a President who isn't a white male, and who wasn't born with a silver spoon, and who was from a broken home like so many people today, and who apparently is very ready to talk about race whenever it is brought up, is just about the best thing for us right now. Side: No
2
points
Mitt Romney is good on the Environment: Quotes from Governor Mitt Romney on the "environment" Romney said, “Summer is right around the corner, and so our thoughts naturally turn to the outdoors and, most especially for those of us in Massachusetts, long days spent at the beach and on the water. It’s also a reminder to all of us that we have a special obligation to our children and future generations to be active stewards in protecting our beaches, waters and coastline.” (Taken from a 06-13-2003 Press Release) Romney said: “Massachusetts has been a national leader in the effort to clean up our oldest and dirtiest power plants. The implementation of these new mercury standards, coupled with major reductions in other air pollutants now underway, will ensure that the citizens of the Commonwealth will breathe the cleanest air possible.” (Taken from a 09-19-2003 Press Release) Romney said: “Economic success and environmental protection go hand in hand. The steps we are taking today will ensure a cleaner environment and a brighter future for generations to come.” (Taken from a 05-06-2004 Press Release) Romney said: “Last year’s oil spill in Buzzards Bay was a black menace on the sea. It was an insult to our environment, damaging habitats for endangered species, jeopardizing the livelihood of citizens employed in the local fisheries and interrupting our tourism and recreation industries. We must do everything in our power to reduce the likelihood of a future spill. This legislation is our best defense,” he added. (Taken from a 08-04-2004 Press Release) The Commonwealth of Massachusetts cracked down on environmental violators at a record pace in the last fiscal year, hiking enforcement actions by 54 percent and assessed penalties by 49 percent. These results were achieved even as costs were reduced by nearly one-third at the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). "Innovative programs and cutting-edge technologies are being used today to protect our environment,” Governor Mitt Romney said. “Massachusetts will continue to be a national leader in environmental protection by utilizing these new tools to target environmental scofflaws.” (Taken from a 09-27-2004 Press Release) Romney said: “Combining affordable housing and environmentally-friendly smart growth isn’t just about dollars and cents. It’s about promoting common sense,” said Romney. “By simultaneously investing in affordable housing and smart growth, Green Communities will help support our economy while maintaining the kind of diversity and healthy environment that makes Massachusetts such a great place to work, live and raise a family.”(Taken from a 07-07-2005 Press Release) “The Buzzards Bay oil spill had a profound impact on the environment and quality of life here on the South Coast, and we vowed at that time to do all we could to prevent such disasters from happening again,” Romney said. “We have delivered on that promise. Our vessel safety requirements are stronger, financial penalties have been significantly increased, and now Buzzards Bay coastal communities have the emergency equipment they need if disaster strikes again.” (Taken from a 11-04-2005 Press Release) “Massachusetts continues to be committed to improving air quality for all our citizens. These carbon emission limits will provide real and immediate progress in the battle to improve our environment,” Romney said. “They help us accomplish our environmental goals while protecting jobs and the economy.” Massachusetts is the first and only state to set CO2 emissions limits on power plants. The limits, which target the six largest and oldest power plants in the state, are the toughest in the nation and are designed to lower emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and mercury from power plant smokestacks. (Taken from a 12-07-2005 Press Release)
Governor Mitt Romney Environmental Press Releases 2003 01-22-2003, ROMNEY TIES JOB GROWTH TO CLEANER ENVIRONMENT 02-06-2003, ROMNEY, HEALEY ENFORCE POWER PLANT REGULATIONS 03-25-2003, ROMNEY ANNOUNCES OCEAN MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE 05-20-2003, ROMNEY PROPOSES TOUGHER PENALTIES FOR OIL SPILLS 06-13-2003, ROMNEY TEAMS UP WITH EPA TO PROTECT MASS COASTLINE 09-19-2003, ROMNEY ANNOUNCES NEW MERCURY EMISSION REGULATIONS 10-31-2003, ROMNEY SIGNS BILL TO RESTORE INLAND FISH AND GAME FUND
2004 05-06-2004, ROMNEY UNVEILS CLIMATE PROTECTION PLAN FOR MASSACHUSETTS 08-04-2004, ROMNEY SIGNS LEGISLATION TO PREVENT OIL SPILLS 08-20-2004, ROMNEY ADMINISTRATION SIGNS ANIMAL CRUELTY LEGISLATION 09-27-2004, COSTS ARE DOWN, BUT ENVIRONMENTAL ENFORCEMENT IS UP 12-20-2004, ROMNEY REACHES AGREEMENT TO CLEAN UP CAPE COD POWER PLANT
2005 02-10-2005, ROMNEY AWARDS SMART GROWTH ASSISTANCE GRANTS TO 12 CITIES 03-18-2005, ROMNEY FILES LEGISLATION TO PROTECT STATE'S OCEAN WATERS 03-16-2006, ROMNEY ANNOUNCES $516.5 MILLION TO SUPPORT SMART GROWTH IN MASSACHUSETTS 07-07-2005, ROMNEY ANNOUNCES MASSACHUSETTS GREEN COMMUNITIES INITIATIVE 10-07-2005, ROMNEY AND U.S. ENERGY SECRETARY BODMAN JOIN TO PRESENT EASY WAYS TO SAVE ENERGY THIS WINTER 11-04-2005, ROMNEY DELIVERS OIL SPILL EMERGENCY RESPONSE TRAILERS TO BUZZARDS BAY COMMUNITIES 11-04-2005-, ROMNEY SIGNS NICOLE'S LAW 12-07-2005, ROMNEY ANNOUNCES STRICT NEW CLEAN AIR REGULATIONS TO TAKE EFFECT JANUARY 1 For actual facts, instead of just listening to David, who is obviously an Obama shill, check out Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Which is more trustworthy? David, the Obama shill, or Wikipedia? Side: yes
David says that Romney would "allow religion to become an integral part of our government (even more so) which means less science and less acceptance of all people and cultures". This is stupid. Romney has advocated much more effectively for the separation of Church and State than Obama. Don't believe me? You have fallen into the trap that says that Democrats are always for the separation of church and state? Well all you need to do is look into the facts, which I will try and provide below: He has explained many times that he would not be ruled by his religion. He said: "Almost 50 years ago another candidate from Massachusetts explained that he was an American running for President, not a Catholic running for President. Like him, I am an American running for President. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith. "Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin. "As Governor, I tried to do the right as best I knew it, serving the law and answering to the Constitution. I did not confuse the particular teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the Constitution – and of course, I would not do so as President. I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law. "As a young man, Lincoln described what he called America's 'political religion' – the commitment to defend the rule of law and the Constitution. When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I am fortunate to become your President, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States. ... No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes President he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths. "I believe that every faith I have encountered draws its adherents closer to God. And in every faith I have come to know, there are features I wish were in my own: I love the profound ceremony of the Catholic Mass, the approachability of God in the prayers of the Evangelicals, the tenderness of spirit among the Pentecostals, the confident independence of the Lutherans, the ancient traditions of the Jews, unchanged through the ages, and the commitment to frequent prayer of the Muslims. As I travel across the country and see our towns and cities, I am always moved by the many houses of worship with their steeples, all pointing to heaven, reminding us of the source of life's blessings. http://myclob.pbworks.com/w/page/ He also got into an argument about this very issue, and debated the issue for 20 minutes. The whole thing was recorded in 2007 without Romney knowing: Here is a link to a video of the argument: http://myclob.pbworks.com/w/page/ Romney has explained many times that he separates his religious beliefs from his political beliefs. Reasons to agree: Romney said in an Interview with Jan Mickelson: “You know the great thing about this country is that individuals who run for secular office are not implementing the policies of their church, they are doing what they think is right for the nation. And I came to the position by virtue of my leadership of a state, that I had been wrong, and that I needed to be pro-life.” He also said: “Because that’s not the nature of the office I’m running for. And there are people in my Church who are pro-choice. That is not against my Church’s view to allow people to have their own positions on political issues…” He also said: "For instance my Church says that if you have sex outside marriage that you could be excommunicated. Now, do we make a law that says that? No. My Church says I can’t drink alcohol, right? OK. That’s what my Church says. Mitt you can’t drink alcohol. OK, should I say that, as Governor of Massachusetts, we are stopping all alcohol sales? If you're not going to separate your religion. You better make everyone not drink alcohol. No. MY RELIGION IS FOR ME. And how I live my life. My Church, the leaders of my Church, who I know well, and who I have been, a leader of my Church, says with the same vehemence that we have our own beliefs; we also vehemently believe other people should be able to make their own choices.” Has Obama ever defended separation of Church and state like this? He said; “I accept all my faith, but I don’t impose all my faith’s beliefs on you. My view is that I should be able to practice my religion . You should have the right to practice your religion.” He also said: “Let me help you understand. And you don’t understand my faith like I do. And so give me for a moment, the benefit of the doubt, that having been a leader of my Church, a bishop and a stake president, I understand my Church better than you do. My Church has very strong beliefs that Mormons should not participate in, encourage, in any way support abortion...but the Church does not say that a member of our Church has to be opposed to allowing choice in society. Therefore there are Mormon democrats. There is a democratic party in Massa… in Utah, filled with Mormons, and the Church doesn’t say their wrong, their being excommunicated, no because it says we are vehemently opposed to abortion, ourselves, and for ourselves but we allow other people to make their own choice." Side: yes
The problem with Obama and his ideology which is based more on socialism we can't affor. The problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples money. All of these things cost money and go against the grain on free market the rest of the world is going to eat us up if we go this route we are going that Obama wants. The rest of the world didn't hate Bush as much as you think, you should be more concerned about what we think here. How about Congress 22% approval rating right the lowest in history that concerns me more right now. Side: yes
The problem with Obama and his ideology which is based more on socialism we can't affor. Do you have proof of this? He did not run on, does not support, and has done nothing to lead a semi-conscious person to believe he is in any way a socialist. Sounds like you're a victim of the corporate owned right wing smear machine to me. All of these things cost money and go against the grain on free market the rest of the world is going to eat us up if we go this route we are going that Obama wants. All of what things? Reagan was the first to triple the national debt. Bush lead us to the greates recession since the Great Depression. Since Obama took office our GDP has increased, the rate of job loss has slowed, and you haven't paid one red cent more in taxes. I have the feeling that you actually have no idea what you are talking about. Do you have any sources? Have you done any research? Or are you just a right wing cheerleader rooting for your team no matter what they do? The rest of the world didn't hate Bush as much as you think Again, proof. you should be more concerned about what we think here. How about Congress 22% approval rating right the lowest in history that concerns me more right now. Um, my comment about Bush's popularity was in light of world opinion - that low world opinion makes it easier for terrorists to recruit and harder for us to get help with necessary wars and whatnot specifically - therefore, it would not have made any sense at all for me to have "worried" about purposefully misleading stat you spewed for no apparent reason. The reason Congress has a low approval has just as much (and I would even say more) to do with Congress not passing Obama's Healthcare yet. I mean, since Obama is so much more popular than any Congressman right or left, it makes sense doing more of what Obama wanted would increase that approval huh? I know, logic is really annoying to Right Wingers. Here are some facts for fake fiscals like yourself. Bush and the Bush run congress passed Medicare Part D for a cost of 389 Billion without even blinking and with no plan to pay for it. They also passed a 1.2 Trillion dollar tax cut with absolutely no plan to pay for it, again without even blinking. I'm not even talking about the Iraq war which Bush and his Congress didn't bother figuring out how to pay for. The Healthcare Bill has an estimated cost of 138 Billion Let me repeat that 138 Billion On top of that, it is going to lower our national debt! This fiscal argument against Healthcare reform is literally retarded (look up retarded it really is) Now, now all the sudden Conservatives are "fiscal" out of nowhere. Conservatives have never balanced a single budget. Nixon didn't, Reagan didn't, Neither Bush balanced the budget. Clinton is the only president in recent history to have balanced the budget. He is the only President to leave the country with more money than he found it. And Clinton is a left wing liberal in case you didn't notice. I'll bet by the end of Obama's 8 years, he'll have a balanced budget. Then right wingers will need to fall back on ethics or something like they had to with Clinton. The fact is, you have no idea what you are talking about. You base your opinions on lies and pre-determined notions with absolutely nothing to back it up. Historically, and currently, Liberals are far, far more fiscally sound than conservatives. Side: No
Your foreign policy criticism of Romney seems very generic. You say that all republicans are guilty of cowboy diplomacy, and you try (unsuccessfully) to extend that to Romney. You say that we have become more popular over seas, and that that proves that Obama will have a more successful foreign policy than Romney would. Popularity over seas is not the only measurement of foreign policy success. Reagan was very unpopular overseas, but he was very important in bringing down the soviet union. He was very successful in "foreign policy". Bush was much more popular in Israel than Obama. Bush should be vastly more popular in Africa than Obama, because Bush gave vastly more money to Africa than Obama. Obama has had some major foreign policy gaffs. Wiki leaks indicates that he asked the prime minister of Japan if he could apologize for bombing them during WWII. They said no, indicated that the idea of Obama patting himself on his back for how wonderful he was on the aniversary of the bombing was a "non starter". Obama's Gimmicks (e.g., reset buttons) have not helped with Russia. Obama's declarations of utopian aspirations (e.g., the abolition of nuclear weapons) have not made us look serious, and has made us look like pussies to our enemies. Obama's confessions of lack of staying power (e.g., proclaiming a date certain for leaving Afghanistan) should have been done in secret. Obama has undermined our allies (e.g., waffling on trade agreements with friends like Colombia, or visiting Israel’s neighbors but ostentatiously shunning Jerusalem). Obama should not have tried to currying favor with our enemies (e.g., the abortive outreach to Syria’s Assad). This view of America in decline, and America as a potentially malign force, has percolated far and wide. It is intimately related to the torrent of criticism, unprecedented for an American president, that Barack Obama has directed at his own country. In his first year in office alone, President Obama issued apologies for America in speeches delivered in France, England, Turkey, and Egypt not to mention on multiple similar occasions here at home. Among the “sins” for which he has repented in our collective name are American arrogance, dismissiveness, and derision; for dictating solutions, for acting unilaterally, for acting without regard for others; for treating othercountries as mere proxies, for unjustly interfering in the internal affairs of other nations, for committing torture, for fueling anti-Islamic sentiments, for dragging our feet in combating global warming, and for selectively promoting democracy. The sum total of President Obama’s rhetorical efforts has been a form of unilateral disarmament in the diplomatic and moral sphere. A President who is so troubled by America’s past cannot lead us into the future. Side: yes
If Cowboy diplomacy is defined as doing something unilateral, then Romney may be more Cowboy than Obama. However, more specifically there are some situations when we should take the lead, or be willing to act alone, after we have exhausted every effort to convince, and persuade the international community. If, in your stupid immature oversimplifying world, you want to define Cowboy diplomacy as doing bad diplomacy, then the guy who was able to work with people on both sides of the isle, negotiate behind closed doors, and get things done is Romney. Side: yes
Romney is more likely to achieve a good balance between jobs and our environment. The environment is not the greatest threat the we face. The sun will eventually engulf the earth and destroy everything on it. At this time we need to ensure that the future of this planet is led by democracies that respect the rule of law, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and human rights. These things need America to have a strong economy. We can recover from environmental damage, but we will not recover if totalitarian countries, like Iran, Cuba, China, North Korea, and Venezuela are able to gain power and influence, and America and the free world loose power and influence. Side: yes
Wow, you're scared of all kinds of things. You really think those places are that much of a threat? You sound like a pussy. I say that because I'm tired of right wing nutjobs demonizing a perfectly legitimate U.S. president whose done none of the things you keep wetting your bed about. Man up, quit being a pussy, and quit hating America so much. Side: No
Mitt Romney is more likely than Obama to spend the appropriate amount of money fighting global warming Why is warmer worse than colder? We want the earth temperature to never change? It has always changed. Change is the only constant. Sure it can be scientifically proven that spitting in the ocean raises the ocean levels, but by HOW MUCH? How much money should we spend guarding the shore line to prevent people from spitting into the ocean? Do we spend 1 trillion US dollars to prevent 1/2 a degree in 5 years? Do we spend 10 trillion? 100 trillion? A trillion trillion? This argument is so stupid. People on the left never think that a business cost benefit analysis should be done. To them this is religion. We are just supposed to turn off our brain, take our marching orders, and repeat after me: Global Warming is caused by man, and we should do whatever it takes to stop global warming, no matter what. This is religion to Obama and his environmental backers, this is a long term business decision according to Romney. Romney is right. Side: yes
3
points
3
points
2
points
1
point
Ron Paul is the only republican candidate I would actually consider worth researching into rather than just automatically voting against him. He might not have as large of a base as the other republicans with republicans, but he has a larger base then the other republicans when you consider non-republicans. Side: No
1
point
1
point
My god. You haven't given the man a chance. How can you say after one year in the position that he will make a bad president. No one should say he will be the worst president because right now he's done a whole lot better than Bush. Who got us into the mess in the first place. Side: No
1
point
|
9
points
8
points
Of course, Mitt Romney would be a better president. 1) He loves America and the Judeo-Christian ideals on which it was founded. 2)He has real world experience in running businesses, states, the Olympics. He understands economics at a time when our country needs a stready hand and an experienced leader at the helm. 3)He is a positive and decent role model who believes the best days of our country are still ahead. He would not be leading an apology tour throughout Europe and elsewhere dragging us down and demoralizing us. 4)He can speak without the assistance of a teleprompter. 5)He believes in free market principles, individual rights and understands that the American people should be in charge not the government. 6) He's not only perceived as competent, he IS competent. I could go on..... http://thecompetentconservative. Side: yes
6
points
1. Obama loves America as well, and I'm not sure that merely loving your country makes someone competent as a leader. In addition, America was founded on Enlightenment ideals. Most of our founding fathers weren't really Christian. (Thomas Jefferson actually went through the bible and cut out the passages he didn't like. His final edit is still sitting in Congress today.) 2. Running a nation is not like running a business, and I doubt that Romney would have passed the necessary legislation to stimulate the economy (Free market ideals would dictate that he allow the economy to self correct). 3. Seeing millions of people cheer for an American president is the last thing I'd describe as demoralizing. In addition, Obama wasn't apologizing to anyone. I guess it must be weird hearing people cheering something other than Bush sucks, after our past 8 years. I find it funny though that you think that an improved opinion of us overseas is somehow a negative. 4. Relevance? 5. Does he understand that government regulation is often necessary to control the boom and bust cycles that a purely free market economy causes? Does he want to avoid economic policies that would lead us towards another depression....oops too late, that already happened. 6. Not competent enough to run a successful political campaign. Side: No
5
points
4
points
Yes of course Romney would. It is now painfully obvious that Obama lacks any real world leadership or management skills. He is an ideological driven academic elitist that has not had a legitimate job in his life. His fortunes have risen by good looks, charm and the ability to speak well. All necessary skills for the best leaders but such cannot be the substitute for hard experience solving demanding, complex problems. Its like eating frosting with no cake, tasty for second of two but one grows quickly tired and sick of it. On the contrary, Romney spent a long private career solving exactly those kind of problems. He knows success and failure. Name Obama's biggest failure. Can't? Did he not have any? That should tell you loads. Romney lost a Senate race and a Presidential campaign. And I guarantee he saw many failures and mistakes in the private investing world. You know more about a person from failures than successes. The US government is the largest, most complex enterprise in the history of mankind. Romney has accumulated long experience diagnosing and solving such problems. What is needed now more that anything is a leader with experience and skills. Romney has it, Obama doesn't. Side: yes
4
points
"ideological driven academic elitist that has not had a legitimate job in his life" Well hello, FOX News, glad you could join us. A United States Senator (as well as State Senator) is kind of a - how you say - a legitimate, democratically-elected, will-of-the-people kind of job. Elitist? Elitist???? Come on. If my President is an elitist, well then fine: "Doesn’t elite mean good? Is that not something we’re looking for in a president anymore? … The job you’re applying for — if you get it, and it goes well, they might carve your head into a mountain. If you don’t actually think you are better than us, then what the f--k are you doing? … Not only do I want an elite president, I want someone who is embarrassingly superior to me. I want someone who speaks sixteen languages and sleeps two hours a night hanging upside down in a chamber they themselves designed." -- Jon Stewart Side: No
But what did he do in the US Senate? Sure he sponsored 121, but only 115 even made it out of their committee. It's one thing to have a job, but it is another to do it well. It is no question that it was his charisma and not his accomplishments, which is really sad when you think about it. Side: yes
Thank you and Jon Stewart for making my point! Please show me Obama's chamber he designed and built himself. That's the point..he's never actually done anything. Designing and building requires lots of skill and experience that comes from trying and failing and trying again. People make the constant mistake of assuming that because one looks good and speaks well they have capabilities to lead and manage. They often don't. For those of of us who have spent decades in careers where results matter and if you don't produce you get fired its very easy to spot someone who has never had to. Obama has never been accountable for results...Romney has. Your point that a professional politician qualifies as a legitimate job is so absurd it simply cannot be commented on. Side: yes
He is an ideological driven... You're either ignorant or a liar. Obama has been very centrist. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan or his management of the economy. not had a legitimate job He was a professor of constitutional law for twelve years. Is that not a legitimate job? You know more about a person from failures than successes. This is an illogical statement. What is needed now more that anything is a leader with experience and skills. Exactly, which is why when 2012 roles around, Obama will be the ideal candidate. What experience could better prepare you for the presidency than actually being President for four years? Side: No
He is an ideological driven... I will certainly give him credit for not closing Guantanamo and following the Bush policies in Iraq and Afghanistan. He is also following the Bush policies of massive deficit spending on a staggering scale. Ideologues adhere to arguments that are contradicted by reality. Obama's initiatives with cap and trade, health care and all the bail outs clearly show he is ideologically driven in his policies and choices. Realist's would never pose or support such nonsense. not had a legitimate job... I do not consider jobs where one is not held accountable for results to be legitimate. No better example on planet earth could be found than a university professor. What is needed now more that anything is a leader with experience and skills... So how bankrupt will this nation be while Obama figures how to lead? And by the way, if you're 48 years old and haven't figured it out, it ain't happening.... Side: yes
Sorry, I just could not resist... "...He is an ideological driven... You're either ignorant or a liar. Obama has been very centrist. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan or his management of the economy." PULLEAZE!!!!!! This in itself proves he is anything but centrist. Nationalizing industry, banks, newspapers....not exactly centrist now is it. Sounds like LEFT…WAY LEFT to me. Chavez type stuff. "...not had a legitimate job He was a professor of constitutional law for twelve years. Is that not a legitimate job?" Glad you asked! No! Any working man can tell you that anyone that has made their living as a professor has NEVER worked a day in his career! Shoving your opinions down the throat of young people, who dare not argue at the risk of being given a failing grade for disagreeing, cannot be called work. “Indoctrinate U” "....you know more about a person from failures than successes. This is an illogical statement." To a degree I agree....it’s actually seeing how people react to failure that exposes their character. "....What is needed now more that anything is a leader with experience and skills. Exactly, which is why when 2012 roles around, Obama will be the ideal candidate. What experience could better prepare you for the presidency than actually being President for four years?" Does this mean Obama did not qualify for his first term? Of course not! Maybe we should ask Nixon! The first four years he spent in the WH did not seem to help him! Hell, he had a few as VP as well! There is NO job in the world that TRULY prepares a person to be the leader of the greatest and most powerful nation on the face of the planet. As our founding fathers showed through example, an upbringing that includes a deep respect and admiration of the character and values of Judeo –Christian principles is the only way to raise men capable of leading others to freedom. Easy all you Atheists out there! I did not say religion, I said PRINCIPLES. Side: yes
You said it best. Romney is a failure. Like George Bush was a failure. How did he end up in Boston, by the way? Isn't he from Michigan, where unemployment is at 17%? And can you really, really, with a straight face, say the Obama has no world leadership or management skills????? Even after 6 months, he has kept us from falling into Bush's depression hole. He has insured 11 million children!. He is by far the only choice for those citizens of the USA who care about others as much as themselves. I am so glad Obama is President. Side: yes
Hell ya! Obama hasn't done anything good for this country yet people still worship him! Why is this? I assure you with complete and total certainty it's because he is black. No matter what anyone says the truth is Obama is black and since we don't want to seem like a racist country and boo our first black president, we let him get away with all sorts of bull shit that we wouldn't allow anyone who was white to get away with. That and the fact that almost all colleges teach liberal eticit and even now they are spreading the liberal mindset in public schools too I am starting to observe! When will this madness end?! Side: yes
Romney does have real world business experience, while Obama only knows politics. They are both arrogant, but Obama speaks in a very vague and comforting way that people like. So I think people like Obama more from his personality and stage presence, although Romney might be better at doing the job. Side: yes
No president in the U.S ever apology for his own people and around the world like Obama attack,blame,critic,and anti America in the history,even Mrs.Clinton,sorry,where is America value? Obama is the wrong man for the wrong job,the wrong person for the wrong place,and the wrong leader for the wrong country. Wake up, America! you still have better leader,most experience leader, smarter leader,stronger leader, America loving leader,and true America leader Mitt that can lead America to prosperity and will lead the world,in his leadership,he protect America, carry America value,and represent America principle,he is the hope of America,he is the America dream,he is the man that met the need of America now, America will rally with him in 2012,and they will replace Obama by Mitt in 2013, and sent Obama back to Illinois,so he can takes some vacation to Kenya. Mitt can be a great president,and so America will lead the world as Reagan did. Side: yes
3
points
First, that was an insanely painful passage to read. Second, admitting your own mistakes is an admirable quality. Do you not apologize or take responsibility for yours? That's all Obama has been doing. He's working to make us the country we pretend to be, so that we can actually model what great things democracy can do for a country. BUT, we can't fulfill that role unless we own up to where we've failed at this and change these things first. Side: No
People in general, and the world opinion, may like Obama, and I admit he is a likable guy. But his personal likability, or his apologies, have not produced any tangible results in foreign policy. I don't believe him to be all that respected by foreign leaders, and he certainly is not feared. He is not even feared in his own party. Nations act in their own self interest, not because their populations happen to like our president. Witness the lack of real cooperation in Afghanistan by our NATO allies. Yes they sent support troops to work in the offices, be police, clean the latrines and cook. But put them out front to pull triggers on the bad guys? Not a chance. And no amount of Obama charm will make them do it. Side: yes
3
points
2
points
This argument does not state "at what" would Mitt Romney be a president than Barrack Obama. First of all, Barrack Obama (it's Barack) does not exist so I would win the argument right there. But I will ignore this fact and move on. I choose that the "what" be the Stormin' Mormon Deuce of Clubs book club. Being that Mitt Romney is a Mormon and Obama not, Mitt would be a better president of the club. Argument resolved. Side: yes
0
points
Mitt Romney before he was in Government had and created his business that created thousands of jobs boasted 15 billion dollar profit in the private sector. He has insight to how hard it is for business to start up and thrive and believe me it's not easy. If any of you are employed by someone other than a government or state job you need to look at small and large business and say thank you because we are the ones making your paycheck. Or if you work for a private business or corporation and rely on them for a paycheck your welcome. Obama has never done any of this so how would we expect him to know how to fix it. We need to wake up and realize that in order to run a strong country we need someone who understands business. So the answer is a overwhelming yes that Romney would have been a better leader and president. Side: yes
Romney is more likely to balance the budget than Obama Romney balanced the budget in 2003, as Governor Massachusetts. Romney balanced the budget in 2004, as Governor Massachusetts. Romney balanced the budget in 2005, as Governor Massachusetts. Romney balanced the budget in 2006, as Governor Massachusetts. Romney was able to leave money in the rainy day fund, even though he faced a 3 billion dollar budget deficit when he came into office. Romney turned around budget problems at the Winter Olympics, which was $239 million dollars short (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Romney has promised to only spend money on things that we can justify borrowing money from China for to pay for. Side: yes
Romney would be less likely than Obama to offend our allies: It is hard to think of a more derogatory message to send to the British people within days of taking office than to fling a bust of Winston Churchill out of the Oval Office and send it packing back to the British Embassy – not least as it was a loaned gift from Britain to the United States as a powerful display of solidarity in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. Obviously, public diplomacy is not a concept that carries much weight in the current White House, and nor apparently is common sense. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ Gordon Brown was however treated shabbily when he visited the White House in March 2009, and denied a Rose Garden press conference as well as a dinner. To cap it all, the decision to send him home with an assortment of 25 DVDs ranging from Toy Story to The Wizard of Oz – which couldn’t even be played in the UK – was a breathtaking display of diplomatic ineptitude that would have shamed the protocol office of an impoverished Third World country. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ The mocking views of a senior State Department official following Gordon Brown's embarrassing reception at the White House in March last year says it all: There’s nothing special about Britain. You’re just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn’t expect special treatment. One would have thought that this kind of monumentally shallow insult would have resulted in at least a formal apology and a reprimand for the official involved, but unfortunately Obama administration apologies are strictly reserved for the French and assorted enemies of the United States. Despite Nicolas Sarkozy’s distinctly unflattering opinion of Barack Obama, the US president has gone to great lengths to appease French interests, even going as far as apologising to the French people in Strasbourg for hurting their feelings over the war in Iraq. The Obama administration has also done its best to give Paris a lead role in the NATO alliance at Britain’s expense, granting it one of two supreme NATO command positions – Allied Command Transformation (ACT). This, despite the fact that France has for decades been ambivalent and obstructionist over NATO, and is failing to carry its weight in Afghanistan. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/ Nicolas Sarkozy branded Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu 'a liar' while Obama retorted: 'You're fed up with him - I have to deal with him every day!' Read more: Side: yes
Romney would be more likely to improve efficiencies within the federal bureaucracy than Obama. Romney succeeded in Massachusetts, the Olympics, and in business by improving the efficiencies of the organizations that he led. Romney is aware of, speaks out, and has good proposals to make government more efficient. He said: "President Obama’s approach to human capital is, here as elsewhere, to let government take the lead. The federal government has been pouring money into retraining programs. In fiscal year 2009, the sum total was $18 billion for 47 separate employment and job training programs administered by nine different federal agencies. Seven of the 47 programs account for three-fourths of the spending, but all except 3 of the 47 programs overlap with at least one other program. Only 5 of the 47 programs have had their results thoroughly evaluated since 2004. According to the General Accounting Office (GAO), “little is known about the effectiveness of most programs.” It also turns out that the little we do know has not been particularly heartening. A 2008 study found that one of the five, the Workforce Investment Act Adult and Dislocated Workers program, produced only “small to nonexistent” results. This is the kind of government waste, political horse-trading, and administrative chaos that has brought discredit on the federal government. We cannot afford to squander taxpayer money in this way. President Obama’s job retraining record is a live, ongoing demonstration of why federal spending in so many areas needs to be scaled back." Side: yes
A Mitt Romney candidacy would help the republican party maintain sanity. We need our political parties to be sane. Our political parties should be open to moral people of all religions. A Mitt Romney presidency would do for religious minorities, what Obama has done for black people. Our political parties should be based on ideas, and not based on identity politics based on income or class warfare. Too often people with lots of education are not made to feel welcome in the Republican party, and a Romney presidency would help that. Our political parties should be based on ideas, and not based on identity politics based on region of origin. Currently the republican party is very strong in the south and rural areas, but very weak in the cities, the North East, and on the coasts. The republican party should stay a party of ideas, and reach out to non-rural candidates. Our political parties should be based on ideas, and not based on identity politics based on lack of education (anti-intellectualism). The republican party must reject the notion that we are going to hate, despise, and not vote for those uppity college educated candidates that think they are smarter than us, and keep embracing no-nothings like Sarah Palin. We should all aspire to be more educated, and prefer candidates who have done really well in school, instead of prefer candidates who where their lack of education as a badge of honor. This will be better for the long term success of the party to project a sophisticated image that is able to attract aspirational young people. Our political parties should embrace rich businessmen who are out of touch with the middle class, but want to help make the rest of us more prosperous, our federal government more efficient. It is stupid of us to require that our politicians be good at kissing babies, and making friends with millions of complete strangers. Side: yes
Romney is a better leader than Obama Romney has had more years of leadership than Obama. He was a leader at Bain Consulting for 25 years (many of these as the chief operations officer), and then started his own Business as its leader. Romney has had more success in leadership than Obama. Romney, who graduated at the top of his Harvard Business Management School, has learned more managment techniques than Obama. Romney, who met weekly with the opposition in Massachusetts, has shown a willingness to engage in the issues that Obama has not. Romney has been thinking about what he would do as president for the last 5 or 6 years. Obama swept into the presidency after only 1 partial term in the US senate, and was considered an underdog. Romney has been reaching out to people to help him figure out what to do, and everyone says that Obama has sort of locked himself in the white house and hid from everybody, not even calling or meeting with democratic leaders. Side: yes
Obama incorrectly wants to create an entitlement society: Obama has inserted the federal government more deeply into health care (Obamacare), finance (Dodd-Frank), energy (XL Pipeline, Solyndra), environment, and labor (removal of the secret ballot, giving GM to the labor unions) Federal spending under Obama is now nearly a quarter of our GDP. Federal spending under Obama as a percentage of GDP has risen to the highest level since the national emergency of World War II. When the federal government takes more power, the free economy has less power to reward hard work, good business plans, education, and risk taking. The federal government gives out rewards inefficiently, and wastes a countries wealth. Side: yes
Building ever costlier government entitlements is not the way to grow our economy: The dead hand of bureaucratic Washington can only stifle entrepreneurship. Government dependency can only foster passivity and sloth. We need to rein in government and unleash the extraordinary vitality and creativity of the American people Side: yes
Romney is more likely to balance the budget than Obama. Greece has problems because their public sectors unions have bankrupted the nation, demanding higher wages than the tax revenues can support. Obama is totally controlled by the unions. Romney is not controlled by the public sector unions. Chris Christie, someone who has been very effective at confronting excesses from public sector unions, has supported Romney. Romney, as a republican from a very blue state, learned how to deal with sane policies, and will be trusted by independents to make needed reforms. Greece and Portugal were able to hide their debt. Romney wants to be fully transparent, and publish a balance sheet each year along with the federal budget. Romney's experience fixing broken companies will help him fix the finances of the federal governments. Romney's experience balancing the budget in Massachusetts without raising taxes prepared him to keep America from going bankrupt. Romney's experience preventing the 2002 winter Olympics from going bankrupt will help him prevent America from going bankrupt. Side: yes
If trade laws are burdensome and antiquated, enterprise will stall: This is obvious, but easier to say than do. Romney, as a businessman with 25 years in business consulting, and almost that means years leading organizations as their CEO. Romney knows better than any other candidate how to keep our trade laws from becoming burdensome and antiquated. He is not just a social crusader responding to popular culture, but understands all the little boring details of making our economy successful. They are not very sexy issues, but these little boring things will help more Americans have jobs, if our president actually understands. Side: yes
We have to balance environmental needs with business needs Some ideas might help the environment only just a little bit, but hurt our economy a lot. Poverty is usually bad for the environment. American bankruptcy would be bad for the environment. If we don't care about how much our environmental programs cost, we will go bankrupt. We should first focus our money on environmental solutions that don't cost very much for the amount of benefit they produce. We should do a cost-benefit analysis for expensive government programs. Each large government program should receive a score for how cost efficient it is. We could then sort the programs, and prioritize which ones we should proceed with. There is a very algorithm, wiki based way of running a government. We could use online debate forums that generate arguments in a structured way that allows algorithms to promote better ideas One EPA ozone regulation has been estimated to cost over 90 billion in new cost, and the loss of 7 million jobs. There are actual laws that forbid cost assessment with respect to environmental laws. This is anti science, ant-logic, and insanity. Cost should always be considered. Nothing is free. We could spend billions of dollars saving one peanut plant, sounds good if it is a great plant, but even Homer Simpson realizes that money can buy more peanut plants. The clean air and clean water act should be modified so that each stage of the regulatory process involves cost accounting, to see if we can help the environment in better ways. A strong America can prevent wars. Wars are bad for the environment. If American businesses are unsuccessful, american power will diminish, and the world will be less stable, and more likely to go to war. We should care more about the environment when our economy is healthy. Because the sun will burn out destroying all life on earth, we should ensure that the long term survival of our species is more important than the long term survival of plants or other animals, as we are the only life form that can take other life forms off the planet. We should seek for environmental balance, but not before we have vanquished those who would deny human rights. We can't spend 100% of our money on the environment, and 100% of our money on other priorities. We have to choose. Poverty is usually bad for the environment Reasons to agree: When people can't affording plumbing their urine and feces end up in drinking water. When people are desperate, they don't care about the environment as much. The most polluted places are in the poorest places, and so poverty is bad for the environment. It takes money to invest in green energy. Every country is beginning to recognize the value of a clean environment for tourism, quality of life, health of their population, and efficiency. While it is true more money results in more consumption, we are getting better at producing products and energy in an environmentally sustainable way. Poor native Americans used to set fire to the prairie, running bison off cliffs, so they could eat a small portion of the meat. This is a good example of the bad affects of poverty on the environment. Poor people cook their meat with fire. That is much worse for the environment than natural gas, or electricity. Poor people burn garbage to keep warm releasing toxic chemicals into the environment. Nothing that happens to the environment matters, except to the extent that mankind is able to take ourselves and as much biodiversity off this planet with us, because the sun will burn out, and destroy all life on this planet. Reasons to disagree: Wealth can lead to more children. More people are bad for the environment. Wealthy people export their pollution, and so just because poor places It takes money to invest in weapons of war. War is bad for the environment. It takes money to invest in products. The production of bigger houses, and more consumables such as TVs, computers, cars, electronics, beauty products, steaks, lobster all result in damage to the environment. Japan is raping the ocean, and they are some of the richest people on the planet. Conclusion: This argument can help us organize our thinking, but most of these assumptions must be tested by scientist, and economist. Side: yes
1
point
1
point
The current state of America is increasingly progressing with greater economic gains an the unemployment rate SLOWLY decreasing. Obama's slogan for the 2012 campaign is "forward"(the one for 2008 was "change"). Obama's advocates and himself have been pushing these great achievements they have seemingly triumphed in the last 4 years when in reality we are just climbing out of the hole Barack Obama dug us in 2008 and the subsequent time he has been president. I acknowledge Obama does not, in any way, deserve all is blame. Part is attributed to bush and his decision to enter the war we are still not put of people! Over a decade! However, with all this happening, Obama did not have the resources to spend trillions and trillions of our money on programs that will see failure sooner than social security and many other "government programs". Obama has dug us into more debt than every other American president combined. FACT. Mitt Romney is not the warmest of people nor the smoothest, socially, to say the least. But what Romney has is real economic and business experience which is what America needs to get out of its slum. The media and liberals criticize Romney for his Swiss bank accounts and offshore banking ventures when in reality this is the type of person we need.m America needs to turn profit and that is exactly what will happen with mitt Romney. Although I see the treatment of dogs as a large deciding factor in the upcoming election, if elected, Mitt Romney will prove to be a better president than Obama will be in his second term. Side: Yes
1
point
For one thing, Mitt is a TRUE AMERICAN. He has no other agenda but to perfect this nation. He loves the country. He has morals. Don't listen to all of the propaganda put out by the Muslim, LYING, TYRANT ASSama Hussein Obama and his band of JOKERS. It's true, most people who live in OUR country are not for what is good for all. Most are PARASITES. No matter if you are Republican or Democrat, you should want a better country. With all of the GARBAGE on TV and at the movies, WE will never be GREAT again. Most don't seem to care. Well, it is my opinion that sooner or later, WE will have a REVOLUTION. It can't possibly keep going this way. Blacks have more than anyone in this country as far as opportunity. Take a look at TV and commercials. See any blacks?? I think there are too many. Anyway, Mitt is honest and Obama is a LIAR. He has no political sense. Only sense he has doesn't many any. He carries his cents in his pockets. He should be, ARREST, TRIED, CONVICTED and EXECUTED, NOW. My humble opinion of course. Soon, if the LYING PUNK gets his way, WE will not have the right to OUR opinion. My name is Larry Velasco, AMERICAN and Hispanic who despises Barry Boy and everything he is and does. You can include the BEASTY Meshall too. Side: Yes
|
