POLL! Who would you vote for president in 2012...Barack Obama or Sarah Palin?

Palin makes a great Vp candidate, but is too controversial/dividing to be a good presidential candidate.

If its those 2 in 2012, I would skip voting and pick up a latte.

dercoo

Her candidacy for vice president is probably the second biggest thing that torpedoed McCain's campaign.

[QUOTE="Vennligsinnet"]

[QUOTE="peaceful_anger"]

Between those two, Sarah Palin, but I would pick anyone over Obama. That even means Mitt Romney (yuck).

"The appeal of Palin is illuminatd by many of the images/perceptions of both her and President Obama. Palin the badass hunts, fishes, climbs mountains, shoots caribou, rides in small planes often; the Democrats are represented by Obama, a man who flinches while watching a judo exhibition and wears a safety helmet for a leisurely bike ride. Fair or not, this perception exists. Palin is Theodore Roosevelt in a size 6 suit, American flag pin, and some kick ass black leather boots. Obama is an academic who looks uncomfortable in jeans, throws like a girl, and can't name his alleged baseball heroes from childhood." Mike Metroulas

peaceful_anger

What does any of that have to do with running a country though? I'm a Judoka myself but I couldn't care less if Obama flinches at a match. I'm not asking for a president who can go out and nail Bin Laden with a hip throw. I want someone who can fix this country before it completely falls apart.

LOL, no she doesn't. She comes across as a whiny victim with thin skin. I've never seen a candidate cry persecution as much as she does. Tough politicians are ones that don't let partisan political attacks bother them. Obama shows more toughness by simply brushing off all the nastiness. It doesn't matter if he doesn't look comfortable in jeans or whatever. Those are superficial things.

If Obama has the perception problems, why is he viewed so much more favorably than Palin?

[QUOTE="dercoo"]

Palin makes a great Vp candidate, but is too controversial/dividing to be a good presidential candidate.

If its those 2 in 2012, I would skip voting and pick up a latte.

789shadow

Her candidacy for vice president is probably the second biggest thing that torpedoed McCain's campaign.

Its the only thing that made his campaign news worthy.

I would vote for Palin if I had to, but Limbaugh for president! :D

Between those two, Sarah Palin, but I would pick anyone over Obama. That even means Mitt Romney (yuck).

"The appeal of Palin is illuminatd by many of the images/perceptions of both her and President Obama. Palin the badass hunts, fishes, climbs mountains, shoots caribou, rides in small planes often; the Democrats are represented by Obama, a man who flinches while watching a judo exhibition and wears a safety helmet for a leisurely bike ride. Fair or not, this perception exists. Palin is Theodore Roosevelt in a size 6 suit, American flag pin, and some kick ass black leather boots. Obama is an academic who looks uncomfortable in jeans, throws like a girl, and can't name his alleged baseball heroes from childhood." Mike Metroulas."peaceful_anger

This is extremely superficial thinking.

And nobody sees Palin as a Theodore Roosevelt since she can't even handle a softball Katie Couric interview and she is a constant victim.

Obama was obviously seen as being tough enough to handle the job as he got elected by a substantial margin.

[QUOTE="789shadow"]

[QUOTE="dercoo"]

Palin makes a great Vp candidate, but is too controversial/dividing to be a good presidential candidate.

If its those 2 in 2012, I would skip voting and pick up a latte.

dercoo

Her candidacy for vice president is probably the second biggest thing that torpedoed McCain's campaign.

Its the only thing that made his campaign news worthy.

But it also undermined his campaign's credibility and made people question his judgment, which is not a good trade-off for publicity.

[QUOTE="dercoo"]

[QUOTE="789shadow"]

Her candidacy for vice president is probably the second biggest thing that torpedoed McCain's campaign.

GreySeal9

Its the only thing that made his campaign news worthy.

But it also undermined his campaign's credibility and made people question his judgment, which is not a good trade-off for publicity.

I wonder how many times McCain lost votes when people thought "I like McCain, but if he is elected, Palin is Vice President."

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="dercoo"]

Its the only thing that made his campaign news worthy.

789shadow

But it also undermined his campaign's credibility and made people question his judgment, which is not a good trade-off for publicity.

I wonder how many times McCain lost votes when people thought "I like McCain, but if he is elected, Palin is Vice President."

I would say this was the case for a huge chunk of the Independents he failed to win over.

[QUOTE="peaceful_anger"]

[QUOTE="Vennligsinnet"]

What does any of that have to do with running a country though? I'm a Judoka myself but I couldn't care less if Obama flinches at a match. I'm not asking for a president who can go out and nail Bin Laden with a hip throw. I want someone who can fix this country before it completely falls apart.

789shadow

She also comes off as a complete dumbass.

[QUOTE="789shadow"]

[QUOTE="peaceful_anger"] Nothing really, but whether people like it or not, perception plays a BIG part in politics which was my point. Palin comes off as a tough lady, whereas, Obama comes off as weak. Every politician should pay attention to the image they present to the public. The optics of a situation can changea person'sperception...just look at the first televised debate between Kennedy and Nixon.

And how is Obama fixing the economy working for ya??

peaceful_anger

She also comes off as a complete dumbass.

Why the hell would I want to increase her chances of becoming president? :|

, and can't name his alleged baseball heroes from childhood."

peaceful_anger

Another thought:

It's kind of ridiculous to take Obama to task for not being able to name something so trivial as "baseball heroes" when Palin can't name magazines/newspapers she reads (which shows a lack of intellectual curiosity) or name any court cases she's familiar with, which also shows a lack of intellectual curiosity or knowledge of the history of this country's government/laws.

[QUOTE="789shadow"]

[QUOTE="peaceful_anger"] Nothing really, but whether people like it or not, perception plays a BIG part in politics which was my point. Palin comes off as a tough lady, whereas, Obama comes off as weak. Every politician should pay attention to the image they present to the public. The optics of a situation can changea person'sperception...just look at the first televised debate between Kennedy and Nixon.

And how is Obama fixing the economy working for ya??

peaceful_anger

She also comes off as a complete dumbass.

How is she driving political debate in Washington?

[QUOTE="789shadow"]

[QUOTE="peaceful_anger"] Nothing really, but whether people like it or not, perception plays a BIG part in politics which was my point. Palin comes off as a tough lady, whereas, Obama comes off as weak. Every politician should pay attention to the image they present to the public. The optics of a situation can changea person'sperception...just look at the first televised debate between Kennedy and Nixon.

And how is Obama fixing the economy working for ya??

peaceful_anger

She also comes off as a complete dumbass.

1. People relentlessly attack easy targets because they are easy. Not necessarily because they are scared of them. The other potential candidates you mentioned aren't perpetually placing their necks on the chopping block, so to speak. (i.e. aren't making profoundly idiotic statements on a regular basis)

2. I and a fair number of other Republicans expressly desire to not win the Republican nomination, not only because she would force me to vote third party, but because she would also drag the Republicans down in elections nationwide.

TL;DR version: she is a catastrophe.

[QUOTE="peaceful_anger"]

[QUOTE="789shadow"]

She also comes off as a complete dumbass.

789shadow

Why the hell would I want to increase her chances of becoming president? :|

[QUOTE="789shadow"]

[QUOTE="peaceful_anger"]Well if she's a dumbass ignorant moron, then you should vote for her if you live in a state that has an open primary. According to the left, she has no chance of winning against Obama, so you might as well help her win the GOP nomination. Right? What could go wrong?

Now the only thing I don't get is why the left concentrates ALL their attentionon someone they consider dumb as rocks that supposedly has no chance of winning. It doesn't make any sense. It seems like the left would be attacking Mitt Romney, the man who they say could beat Obama, yet no arrows are coming his way. They're all directed at Palin. Maybe the reason the left attacks her is because for over 2 years now, Palin has been the one driving the political debate in Washington. It hasn't been Romney, Gingrinch, Huckabee, Pawlenty, Thune, Barbour, Daniels, but Palin. The little hockey mom that people consider to be a dumbass.

peaceful_anger

Why the hell would I want to increase her chances of becoming president? :|

Two points:

1. Anything is possible. It is not impossible that Palin wins, just unlikely. She has close to a 60 percent negative rating. That will be extremely hard to undo, and based on her latest behavior, she doesn't seem to be doing anything to address her flaws as a candidate.

2. I would rather Palin not become the Republican nominee even if Obama will crush her. Obama should NOT get a free ride to a second term. He should have to actually persuade the American people instead of looking good by contrast.

I'm hoping they pick a better candidate for the republican party. I really like McCain, but his nomination happened about 20 years too late.UT_Wrestler

Between those two, Sarah Palin, but I would pick anyone over Obama. That even means Mitt Romney (yuck).

peaceful_anger

I've always wondered how deep the partisan divide has to be in someone when they'd rather pick an uneducated attention whore like Palin over someone more qualified, grounded in reality, and sane on the other side.

[QUOTE="peaceful_anger"]

[QUOTE="789shadow"]

She also comes off as a complete dumbass.

coolbeans90

1. People relentlessly attack easy targets because they are easy. Not necessarily because they are scared of them. The other potential candidates you mentioned aren't perpetually placing their necks on the chopping block, so to speak. (i.e. aren't making profoundly idiotic statements on a regular basis)

2. I and a fair number of other Republicans expressly desire to not win the Republican nomination, not only because she would force me to vote third party, but because she would also drag the Republicans down in elections nationwide.

TL;DR version: she is a catastrophe.

Here is an article that pretty much amplifies this point:

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/12/24/palin_gop_criticism

[QUOTE="peaceful_anger"]

[QUOTE="789shadow"]

She also comes off as a complete dumbass.

coolbeans90

1. People relentlessly attack easy targets because they are easy. Not necessarily because they are scared of them. The other potential candidates you mentioned aren't perpetually placing their necks on the chopping block, so to speak. (i.e. aren't making profoundly idiotic statements on a regular basis)

2. I and a fair number of other Republicans expressly desire to not win the Republican nomination, not only because she would force me to vote third party, but because she would also drag the Republicans down in elections nationwide.

TL;DR version: she is a catastrophe.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="peaceful_anger"]Well if she's a dumbass ignorant moron, then you should vote for her if you live in a state that has an open primary. According to the left, she has no chance of winning against Obama, so you might as well help her win the GOP nomination. Right? What could go wrong?

Now the only thing I don't get is why the left concentrates ALL their attentionon someone they consider dumb as rocks that supposedly has no chance of winning. It doesn't make any sense. It seems like the left would be attacking Mitt Romney, the man who they say could beat Obama, yet no arrows are coming his way. They're all directed at Palin. Maybe the reason the left attacks her is because for over 2 years now, Palin has been the one driving the political debate in Washington. It hasn't been Romney, Gingrinch, Huckabee, Pawlenty, Thune, Barbour, Daniels, but Palin. The little hockey mom that people consider to be a dumbass.

peaceful_anger

1. People relentlessly attack easy targets because they are easy. Not necessarily because they are scared of them. The other potential candidates you mentioned aren't perpetually placing their necks on the chopping block, so to speak. (i.e. aren't making profoundly idiotic statements on a regular basis)

2. I and a fair number of other Republicans expressly desire to not win the Republican nomination, not only because she would force me to vote third party, but because she would also drag the Republicans down in elections nationwide.

TL;DR version: she is a catastrophe.

Why do you assume they would say idiotic statements if they talked more? You don't think it's possible they wouldn't say idiotic statements simply because they are better grasp of history and policy and are actually making an effort to appear Presidential and not extreme?

how isi she's getting so many votes here anywys? It can't all be beause of morbid curiosity. Anyways yeah Obama for me.

No contest: Palin. She was such a great Governor of Alaska, she finished in just 2 years when everyone else takes 4.

how isi she's getting so many votes here anywys? It can't all be beause of morbid curiosity. Anyways yeah Obama for me.

Serraph105

[QUOTE="peaceful_anger"]

Between those two, Sarah Palin, but I would pick anyone over Obama. That even means Mitt Romney (yuck).

HoolaHoopMan

I've always wondered how deep the partisan divide has to be in someone when they'd rather pick an uneducated attention whore like Palin over someone more qualified, grounded in reality, and sane on the other side.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

[QUOTE="peaceful_anger"]

Between those two, Sarah Palin, but I would pick anyone over Obama. That even means Mitt Romney (yuck).

peaceful_anger

I've always wondered how deep the partisan divide has to be in someone when they'd rather pick an uneducated attention whore like Palin over someone more qualified, grounded in reality, and sane on the other side.

Simply having a high school diploma or college degree does not make one educated. The actual knowledge is what makes one educated.

Obama, obviously.

[QUOTE="peaceful_anger"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

1. People relentlessly attack easy targets because they are easy. Not necessarily because they are scared of them. The other potential candidates you mentioned aren't perpetually placing their necks on the chopping block, so to speak. (i.e. aren't making profoundly idiotic statements on a regular basis)

2. I and a fair number of other Republicans expressly desire to not win the Republican nomination, not only because she would force me to vote third party, but because she would also drag the Republicans down in elections nationwide.

TL;DR version: she is a catastrophe.

GreySeal9

Why do you assume they would say idiotic statements if they talked more? You don't think it's possible they wouldn't say idiotic statements simply because they are better grasp of history and policy and are actually making an effort to appear Presidential and not extreme?

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

[QUOTE="peaceful_anger"]

Between those two, Sarah Palin, but I would pick anyone over Obama. That even means Mitt Romney (yuck).

peaceful_anger

I've always wondered how deep the partisan divide has to be in someone when they'd rather pick an uneducated attention whore like Palin over someone more qualified, grounded in reality, and sane on the other side.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="peaceful_anger"] Yeah the reason they aren't making idiotic statements every now and then is because they rarely say anything at all. Either they're too afraid, or they are sticking their finger in the wind to determine which way the political winds are blowing. Give me someone who has the courage to speak (bravery).

And as much as I dislike Romney, if he won the GOP nomination, I would suck it up and vote for him just like I didn McCain. Too bad some in the Rep party couldn't do the same if Palin won the nomination fair and square. Maybe I should join your thinking and just vote third party or stay home and give Obama a 2nd term if my candidate doesn't get the nomination.

peaceful_anger

Why do you assume they would say idiotic statements if they talked more? You don't think it's possible they wouldn't say idiotic statements simply because they are better grasp of history and policy and are actually making an effort to appear Presidential and not extreme?

There is quite a difference between inevitable gaffes as a public speaker and the constant stream of silliness that comes from Palin's mouth. Much of Palin's ridiculous statements aren't even gaffes. After all, do you remember her comments about death panels?

Palin's stupid statements are simply not normal gaffes. It goes much deeper than that.

[QUOTE="peaceful_anger"]

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

I've always wondered how deep the partisan divide has to be in someone when they'd rather pick an uneducated attention whore like Palin over someone more qualified, grounded in reality, and sane on the other side.

GreySeal9

Simply having a high school diploma or college degree does not make one educated. The actual knowledge is what makes one educated.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="peaceful_anger"] Um last time I checked, Palin had a highschool diploma, and a college education. She helped run her own business, she was a mayor, chaired the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, and a Governor. And she did all that without the help of a rich family/family dynasty, without riding the coattail of her husband, and without a political machine backing her. She doesn't sound uneducated at all. She sounds like an accomplished woman. But I guess well educated to a lot of people merely means that they were expensively educated.

peaceful_anger

Simply having a high school diploma or college degree does not make one educated. The actual knowledge is what makes one educated.

I didn't say that it did.

[QUOTE="peaceful_anger"]

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

I've always wondered how deep the partisan divide has to be in someone when they'd rather pick an uneducated attention whore like Palin over someone more qualified, grounded in reality, and sane on the other side.

HoolaHoopMan

[QUOTE="peaceful_anger"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Simply having a high school diploma or college degree does not make one educated. The actual knowledge is what makes one educated.

GreySeal9

I didn't say that it did.

Is something wrong with majoring in Journalism?? Can only lawyers be politicians? God I hope not.

And if Palin is so dumb, how did she manage to sit in a room with $750 an hour lawyers from BP, Royal Dutch, Shell, and Exxon, and negotiate a natural gas pipeline deal that had languished for 30 years? Let me guess, she flashed her boobs.

And you know, I'd rather be called dumb and have it be patently false, instead of try to prove my intelligence all the time (like some do) and have it continually fall short.

peaceful_anger

There's nothing wrong with majoring in Journalism, I just don't think it qualifies you to be in any type of office. It's not as rigorous as say, going to Law school and serving as the head of the Harvard law review board as Obama did.

However I don't need to pick apart her academic credentials, or lack there of, to see how uneducated she is. We have the 2008 presidential campaign for that. The woman is a back woods attention whore who just knows how to play the system to make money.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="peaceful_anger"] And just because you go to Harvard doesn't mean you'll make a great President or leader for that matter.

peaceful_anger

I didn't say that it did.

I don't think that on people left say that going to Harvard makes one a great leader. I think that the argument is that going to Harvard is a testament to his intelligence rather than his leadership.

Obama he is a great.

I'm glad I live in Canada

Console_Gamer93

me too.

A vote for palin is a vote for disaster

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="peaceful_anger"]Well if she's a dumbass ignorant moron, then you should vote for her if you live in a state that has an open primary. According to the left, she has no chance of winning against Obama, so you might as well help her win the GOP nomination. Right? What could go wrong?

Now the only thing I don't get is why the left concentrates ALL their attentionon someone they consider dumb as rocks that supposedly has no chance of winning. It doesn't make any sense. It seems like the left would be attacking Mitt Romney, the man who they say could beat Obama, yet no arrows are coming his way. They're all directed at Palin. Maybe the reason the left attacks her is because for over 2 years now, Palin has been the one driving the political debate in Washington. It hasn't been Romney, Gingrinch, Huckabee, Pawlenty, Thune, Barbour, Daniels, but Palin. The little hockey mom that people consider to be a dumbass.

peaceful_anger

1. People relentlessly attack easy targets because they are easy. Not necessarily because they are scared of them. The other potential candidates you mentioned aren't perpetually placing their necks on the chopping block, so to speak. (i.e. aren't making profoundly idiotic statements on a regular basis)

2. I and a fair number of other Republicans expressly desire to not win the Republican nomination, not only because she would force me to vote third party, but because she would also drag the Republicans down in elections nationwide.

TL;DR version: she is a catastrophe.

I frankly have little respect for people who say everything that runs through their mind without lengthy reflection upon the ramifications of their statements. Given the amount of damage that Palin has done to the image of conservatism in the past two years, I am led to believe that either she doesn't care about the success of the conservative side of politics in the U.S., or that she simply doesn't grasp the consequences of her actions.

There are many Republican candidates that I dislike, and very few that I do genuinely like. I felt rather sick after voting for McCain in 08. Not quite what I imagined my first time voting would feel like, but I digress. However, Palin would be a bit too far. Unlike McCain or any of the other likely Republican presidential candidates, her experience is limited, (and she quit on her only noteworthy office) her intelligence in my opinion is highly questionable, her education and knowledgeability expected of president is suspect and finally the depth of her highly rhetorical speeches seem to be even less substantive than the campaign slogans reiterated by the Obama camp in '08. I do not have confidence in that woman to be able to properly handle an office as important as the Presidency of the United states. I could not justify voting for her, and I'd rather waste my vote on a third party candidate than support her bid for office.

Neither, but if i had to vote, palin, 2012 will be the first time i can vote for pres

I think obama has done a horrible job and have just driven this country into more of a mess.

Both are horrible but Sarah Palin is borderline retarded so I would have to vote Obama.

I kind of gave up carrying about voting since the whole government system is corrupt so using that system will only lead to more corruption.

Rather than just voting a new person in who will make things worse or never get much good done we need to change the whole system.

Starting with making it a rule that you can only add things in a bill that are based on the title of the bill.

Politicians stuff a bill full of pork until the bill isn't even about the what it originally was based on.

This is how they waste millions to billions of dollars.

Also politicians should be barred for many years from working for a company which they were responsible for regulating.

And they should be barred from making regulations to a company which they previously worked at.

In order to make the system less corrupt we must take away power from the corporations which bribe politicians to work for them.

Politicians should be working for the people and not some corporation that will later pay them off or give them a high position once they retire from their government position.

There are many other things that should be changed but I doubt they will since the government never seemed to be for the people.

If it came down to those two, I'd vote for Arnold.

Both are horrible but Sarah Palin is borderline retarded so I would have to vote Obama.

I kind of gave up carrying about voting since the whole government system is corrupt so using that system will only lead to more corruption.

Rather than just voting a new person in who will make things worse or never get much good done we need to change the whole system.

Starting with making it a rule that you can only add things in a bill that are based on the title of the bill.

Politicians stuff a bill full of pork until the bill isn't even about the what it originally was.

This is how they waste millions to billions of dollars.

Also politicians should be barred for many years from working for a company which they were responsible for regulating.

And they should be barred from making regulations to a company which they previously worked at.

In order to make the system less corrupt we must take away power from the corporations which bribe politicians to work for them.

Politicians should be working for the people and not some corporation that will later pay them off or give them a high position once they retire from their government position.

There are many other things that should be changed but I doubt they will since the government never seemed to be for the people.

Hakkai007

How does not voting accomplish any of the change you you outline here? Wouldn't such change require things such as voting outside of the two major parties, getting grass roots support from others to do the same, and informing current legislators that you demand campaign reform legislation? Simply taking yourself out of the system due to exasperation does nothing but give those who want the system to stay the same a louder voice.mattbbpl

Using the same corrupt system would achieve nothing.

Just look at Obama who bends over for Republicans.

His actions seem more to the right than Reagan.

One of the main reasons we had this economic depression was because of the banks risky gambling with our money and yet Obama did nothing to regulate them from causing the same problem again.

Banks can still do what they have done before.

No matter who you vote in things will never change if the system that was used to vote them in is the same.

You are not going to beat multi billion dollar corporations

I have done my talking to people and they don't care. As long as the people don't care nothing I do as an individual will change anything for good.

We have criminals like CountryWide's CEO Angelo Mozilo who conned the people out of hundreds of millions of dollars and he got away with it.

As long as you are rich and have powerful connections and as long as you do not rob from the rich and powerful then you can almost get away with anything.

There is so much corruption going on that it is impossible for the people not to notice.

It's just they don't care.

[QUOTE="peaceful_anger"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

1. People relentlessly attack easy targets because they are easy. Not necessarily because they are scared of them. The other potential candidates you mentioned aren't perpetually placing their necks on the chopping block, so to speak. (i.e. aren't making profoundly idiotic statements on a regular basis)

2. I and a fair number of other Republicans expressly desire to not win the Republican nomination, not only because she would force me to vote third party, but because she would also drag the Republicans down in elections nationwide.

TL;DR version: she is a catastrophe.

coolbeans90

I frankly have little respect for people who say everything that runs through their mind without lengthy reflection upon the ramifications of their statements. Given the amount of damage that Palin has done to the image of conservatism in the past two years, I am led to believe that either she doesn't care about the success of the conservative side of politics in the U.S., or that she simply doesn't grasp the consequences of her actions.

There are many Republican candidates that I dislike, and very few that I do genuinely like. I felt rather sick after voting for McCain in 08. Not quite what I imagined my first time voting would feel like, but I digress. However, Palin would be a bit too far. Unlike McCain or any of the other likely Republican presidential candidates, her experience is limited, (and she quit on her only noteworthy office) her intelligence in my opinion is highly questionable, her education and knowledgeability expected of president is suspect and finally the depth of her highly rhetorical speeches seem to be even less substantive than the campaign slogans reiterated by the Obama camp in '08. I do not have confidence in that woman to be able to properly handle an office as important as the Presidency of the United states. I could not justify voting for her, and I'd rather waste my vote on a third party candidate than support her bid for office.

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]How does not voting accomplish any of the change you you outline here? Wouldn't such change require things such as voting outside of the two major parties, getting grass roots support from others to do the same, and informing current legislators that you demand campaign reform legislation? Simply taking yourself out of the system due to exasperation does nothing but give those who want the system to stay the same a louder voice.Hakkai007

Using the same corrupt system would achieve nothing.

Just look at Obama who bends over for Republicans.

His actions seem more to the right than Reagan.

One of the main reasons we had this economic depression was because of the banks risky gambling with our money and yet Obama did nothing to regulate them from causing the same problem again.

Banks can still do what they have done before.

No matter who you vote in things will never change if the system that was used to vote them in is the same.

You are not going to beat multi billion dollar corporations

I have done my talking to people and they don't care. As long as the people don't care nothing I do as an individual will change anything for good.

We have criminals like CountryWide's CEO Angelo Mozilo who conned the people out of hundreds of millions of dollars and he got away with it.

As long as you are rich and have powerful connections and as long as you do not rob from the rich and powerful then you can almost get away with anything.

There is so much corruption going on that it is impossible for the people not to notice.

It's just they don't care.