http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...pen-again.html

LoL love it!

Excellent article!

I have roughly the same problem with both candidates. They speak exclusively in talking points and apparently dedicate roughly 0% of their time to actually proposing solutions. Obama seems to have spent the last year campaigning and who knows what the rest of the time. I don't think I've heard any actual plans from Romney, besides getting rid of Obamacare. The only guy in either party who seemed to actually attempt to answer the hard questions was Ron Paul.

Of course, the office of the President is not nearly so big of a deal as its made out to be, because it's really Congress that holds most of the power. Unfortunately, Congress is so partisan and corrupt that it's been rendered mostly useless. The whole system is broken.

All this being said, I don't know who to vote for in November. I will definitely not be voting for Obama. I don't think Romney has much substance to him, but he couldn't possibly be worse than Obama, right? Maybe I will vote for an independent.

Very good read!

Good read - Telegraph is a good paper (unlike the Daily Fail...) - nailed it with this!

"when Mr Romney enjoys a 19-point lead on economic competence, the election ought to be a walkover. Why isn’t it?

Largely because, so far, the campaign hasn’t really been about the economy. Before the Republican convention, the main news story was about a Republican senate candidate called Todd Akin who had made some idiotic remarks about rape – remarks which he immediately withdrew, which were universally condemned by the rest of his party and which concern a subject that is, in any case, wholly beyond the remit of the White House. The week before, the main issue had been gay marriage – again, a topic that has nothing to do with the federal government, being within the jurisdiction of the 50 states.
"

Originally Posted by ENGINETORQUE

Good read - Telegraph is a good paper (unlike the Daily Fail...) - nailed it with this!

"when Mr Romney enjoys a 19-point lead on economic competence, the election ought to be a walkover. Why isn’t it?

Largely because, so far, the campaign hasn’t really been about the economy. Before the Republican convention, the main news story was about a Republican senate candidate called Todd Akin who had made some idiotic remarks about rape – remarks which he immediately withdrew, which were universally condemned by the rest of his party and which concern a subject that is, in any case, wholly beyond the remit of the White House. The week before, the main issue had been gay marriage – again, a topic that has nothing to do with the federal government, being within the jurisdiction of the 50 states.
"

Obama said it best; "If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from. You make a big election about small things".


He certainly can't run on his economic record.

There is also the idea of tactical patience. I would say that spending September and October hammering Obama on his failed economic policies is plenty. Six months would be too much.

Originally Posted by WingNut64

Obama said it best; "If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from. You make a big election about small things".

Dubious quote. Source???

Wow, googling it leads to an eye full of hypocritical quotes from O.

Flashback: Obama: "You Make a Big Election About Small Things" (0 min 24 sec)

Originally Posted by m4rs

Wow, googling it leads to an eye full of hypocritical quotes from O.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B18lXQDGwpg

Thanks for this I forgot..

Originally Posted by FrogChief

Dubious quote. Source???

Obama's acceptance speech.

Here's page 5; http://uspolitics.about.com/od/speec...a_accept_5.htm


Now what?

Originally Posted by WingNut64

Obama's acceptance speech.

Here's page 5; http://uspolitics.about.com/od/speec...a_accept_5.htm


Now what?

The sound of silence

Originally Posted by aerogel

The sound of silence

It can not be important to Mr Obama's supporters who Mr. Obama is, it is not about what is best for America, it is about party affiliation, jealousy and greed. Not a single Mr Obama supported here ever talks about what Mr. Obama has accomplished for America, they can only how they do not like the alternatives. Very sad.

Originally Posted by BE77 Pilot

It can not be important to Mr Obama's supporters who Mr. Obama is, it is not about what is best for America, it is about party affiliation, jealousy and greed. Not a single Mr Obama supported here ever talks about what Mr. Obama has accomplished for America, they can only how they do not like the alternatives. Very sad.

True I have noticed this...but truly the UN really only has his most rapid supporters and the party line voters...as for the rest and the ones that will change this election...know they have been shafted...