Who will win the Debate Mitt Romney or Barrack Obama?

The mob choosing leaders instead of choosing policies directly doesn't make a democratic republic exempt from the problems of democracy. The mob is the mob. While limitations on the power of mob rule is preferable, the authoritarian nature of democracy is present regardless. The only places where democratic countrieshave freedoms is where those freedoms are guaranteed, and can't be taken away by the mob or those the mob chooses to lead.Rhazakna

And that is the flaw of our democratic features, and what the founders warned against. was it Washington who said that tyranny would come to this country through the guise of a foreign war? Which ever founder that was was genuinely onto something, holy s**t.

Only watched the last 20 minutes or so of the debate, but from what I watched, speaking as a liberal, Mitt won. Obama seemed disinterested, and in particular, I do not like how he constantly held his head down when Mitt spoke. He looked like a school kid being lecture by his teacher, or something.

Mitt, on the other hand, clearly seemed more energetic, and was much better about keeping eye level with Obama.

Blue_Shield

You should have seen the first 20 minutes. It was like Mitt was driving an SUV with his high-beams on, and Obama was the deer.

Obama actually got better near the end.

It wasn't pretty.

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"]The mob choosing leaders instead of choosing policies directly doesn't make a democratic republic exempt from the problems of democracy. The mob is the mob. While limitations on the power of mob rule is preferable, the authoritarian nature of democracy is present regardless. The only places where democratic countrieshave freedoms is where those freedoms are guaranteed, and can't be taken away by the mob or those the mob chooses to lead.organic_machine

And that is the flaw of our democratic features, and what the founders warned against. was it Washington who said that tyranny would come to this country through the guise of a foreign war? Which ever founder that was was genuinely onto something, holy s**t.

[QUOTE="VendettaRed07"]

Honestly haven't been paying attention to politics at all these last few years, because I hate the media and I don't trust anything they report about politics. I just got tired of all the lying misinterprating and stupid people ranting about stuff they don't even understand.

I was going to vote for Obama by default really because I feel like America at the very least has been calmer ever since Obama came into office and there isn't this consistant outrage by everyone like there was when Bush was president and I really don't wanna go through anything like that again..I knew little to nothing about Romney other than the fact that he said some things that democrats had a problem with I guess.

However I just watched the debate and what I got from it was that Romney made sense, Obama didn't. I was impressed. I think I may vote for him now, but I dunno.

Person0

That's what scares me. When I think Republican, I think of Bush and I really don't want that again. Romney seems very snake like, always changing view points and not holding on to anything firm. That to me is a red flag.

[QUOTE="Person0"][QUOTE="VendettaRed07"]

Honestly haven't been paying attention to politics at all these last few years, because I hate the media and I don't trust anything they report about politics. I just got tired of all the lying misinterprating and stupid people ranting about stuff they don't even understand.

I was going to vote for Obama by default really because I feel like America at the very least has been calmer ever since Obama came into office and there isn't this consistant outrage by everyone like there was when Bush was president and I really don't wanna go through anything like that again..I knew little to nothing about Romney other than the fact that he said some things that democrats had a problem with I guess.

However I just watched the debate and what I got from it was that Romney made sense, Obama didn't. I was impressed. I think I may vote for him now, but I dunno.

dream431ca

That's what scares me. When I think Republican, I think of Bush and I really don't want that again. Romney seems very snake like, always changing view points and not holding on to anything firm. That to me is a red flag.

[QUOTE="Person0"][QUOTE="Rhazakna"] My god, you sure are one sided. "Obama didn't perform badly, he was just confused and didn't know how to answer because Romney's just such a dishonest meanie!" It would physically hurt me to be as partisan, inconsistent and anti-intellectual as you.Rhazakna

[QUOTE="dream431ca"]

[QUOTE="Person0"] And Romney lying or changing his position on most things for the debate is working!cslayer211

That's what scares me. When I think Republican, I think of Bush and I really don't want that again. Romney seems very snake like, always changing view points and not holding on to anything firm. That to me is a red flag.

[QUOTE="dream431ca"]

[QUOTE="Person0"] And Romney lying or changing his position on most things for the debate is working!cslayer211

That's what scares me. When I think Republican, I think of Bush and I really don't want that again. Romney seems very snake like, always changing view points and not holding on to anything firm. That to me is a red flag.

No I never said Romney would be like Bush. What I meant was after Bush, the Republicans were tainted for me personally. It's hard for me to trust any of them after Bush. Obama is a little better, but nothing has really changed that much.

[QUOTE="cslayer211"] Romney has constantly showed that he is personally more left than rightAce6301

Again, based on polls, this election is base vs. base. It has been from the beginning. Romney's ultra conservatism is an act. We don't actually know what he believes since he's changed his mind conveniently on every F***ing issue.

Do any of you know how close the campaign is between these 2? is it really close or is Obama on a roll?

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="Person0"] What Romney put on a good show i agree he looked confident while Obama looked distracted and bored, but what Romney actually said was full of lies and inconsistencies with past polices/ideas.-Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="cslayer211"] Romney has constantly showed that he is personally more left than rightorganic_machine

Again, based on polls, this election is base vs. base. It has been from the beginning. Romney's ultra conservatism is an act. We don't actually know what he believes since he's changed his mind conveniently on every F***ing issue.

Do any of you know how close the campaign is between these 2? is it really close or is Obama on a roll?

dream431ca

[QUOTE="cslayer211"][QUOTE="dream431ca"]

That's what scares me. When I think Republican, I think of Bush and I really don't want that again. Romney seems very snake like, always changing view points and not holding on to anything firm. That to me is a red flag.

dream431ca

No I never said Romney would be like Bush. What I meant was after Bush, the Republicans were tainted for me personally. It's hard for me to trust any of them after Bush. Obama is a little better, but nothing has really changed that much.

Even at his most left Romney is not more left than right. I don't really believe anymore that Romney really has any hard believed in things other than the whole God living on a planet somewhere in space thing. On that note maybe he'd give some damn funding back to NASA even if it is just to find God.Ace6301

All we can do is look at his job as governor. Look at the democrat state, and look at the healthcare bill he passed. The fact he managed to work with democrats at all on a controversial issues (to Republicans that is), means that he *can* lean to the left.

He can negotiate.

Which cannot be said of Obama. Again, not voting for Romney. But I can understand the argument that Romney leans left. He's lying through his teeth with this "true conservative" act.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]Even at his most left Romney is not more left than right. I don't really believe anymore that Romney really has any hard believed in things other than the whole God living on a planet somewhere in space thing. On that note maybe he'd give some damn funding back to NASA even if it is just to find God.organic_machine

All we can do is look at his job as governor. Look at the democrat state, and look at the healthcare bill he passed. The fact he managed to work with democrats at all on a controversial issues (to Republicans that is), means that he *can* lean to the left.

He can negotiate.

Which cannot be said of Obama. Again, not voting for Romney. But I can understand the argument that Romney leans left. He's lying through his teeth with this "true conservative" act.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]Even at his most left Romney is not more left than right. I don't really believe anymore that Romney really has any hard believed in things other than the whole God living on a planet somewhere in space thing. On that note maybe he'd give some damn funding back to NASA even if it is just to find God.organic_machine

All we can do is look at his job as governor. Look at the democrat state, and look at the healthcare bill he passed. The fact he managed to work with democrats at all on a controversial issues (to Republicans that is), means that he *can* lean to the left.

He can negotiate.

Which cannot be said of Obama. Again, not voting for Romney. But I can understand the argument that Romney leans left. He's lying through his teeth with this "true conservative" act.

[QUOTE="organic_machine"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] Oh god I'm laughing so hard now.Ace6301

Again, based on polls, this election is base vs. base. It has been from the beginning. Romney's ultra conservatism is an act. We don't actually know what he believes since he's changed his mind conveniently on every F***ing issue.

Doubt it. Last I remember, Romney/Ryan apparently want more clear/precise goals for NASA rather than more funding. Not to mention, I am sure Romney will cut anything that isn't Defense spending when he/if gets into office.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"] Yeah, and Obama didn't govern anything like what he campaigned on You seem to be unfamiliar with just what it is that these guys do for a living,Rhazakna

Not only is that very hard to prepare against (because who knows what he's going to say), but I think to most voters, when his bullsh!t is juxtaposed with Obama's policies on the debate stage, he comes off just as credible and specific as the president if not more, because most voters don't understand the actual specifics behind these issues. To quote Proverbs 26:4, "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him." Due to Leher's complete inability to establish a reality-based paradigm for the candidates to argue within, Romney was able to get the President to engage him within his alternative reality.

[QUOTE="organic_machine"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]Even at his most left Romney is not more left than right. I don't really believe anymore that Romney really has any hard believed in things other than the whole God living on a planet somewhere in space thing. On that note maybe he'd give some damn funding back to NASA even if it is just to find God.Ace6301

All we can do is look at his job as governor. Look at the democrat state, and look at the healthcare bill he passed. The fact he managed to work with democrats at all on a controversial issues (to Republicans that is), means that he *can* lean to the left.

He can negotiate.

Which cannot be said of Obama. Again, not voting for Romney. But I can understand the argument that Romney leans left. He's lying through his teeth with this "true conservative" act.

As I said I don't think Romney has beliefs. I think he's willing to do whatever benefits him the most, that isn't exactly a trait that is desired in a candidate. The heritage foundation drafted the ideas for these healthcare plans which are more centrist than many policies they would ever desire but lean more right than left. Obama is capable of negotiation as well, he's tried in the past. Obamacare was a a negotiation and in fact the Republicans got quite a bit of what they wanted in it. However the Republican congress doesn't want anything to do with Obama and wont vote on things that they want to pass because it's been brought up by him. If Romney starts acting in ways that they dislike they'll lock him out just like they have Obama, party name or not. Romney also has an anchor to the ultra conservative side of things, his VP hopeful Ryan.Ace6301

I don't think Romney has beliefs either.

Saying Obama's capable of negotiation, and that he's tried are different statements. He's tried, sure, but he's failed. You then say, well republicans, republicans will reject him blah blah blah!

But somehow, Clinton got down and dirty and managed to negotiate and work with Republicans. Obama can't. That's a fact at this point. Romney HAS at one point worked with deomocrats.

Now, will he work with them again? I don't know. He might not. You're right, we don't KNOW what the hell he believes.

But history has a tendency to repeat itself. So Obama's failure to get Republican support and Romney's success at getting democrat and republican support really seems to lend credibility to Romney. Maybe Obama will do a great job next term, I don't know. But history repeats itself.

[QUOTE="Blue_Shield"]

Only watched the last 20 minutes or so of the debate, but from what I watched, speaking as a liberal, Mitt won. Obama seemed disinterested, and in particular, I do not like how he constantly held his head down when Mitt spoke. He looked like a school kid being lecture by his teacher, or something.

Mitt, on the other hand, clearly seemed more energetic, and was much better about keeping eye level with Obama.

flazzle

You should have seen the first 20 minutes. It was like Mitt was driving an SUV with his high-beams on, and Obama was the deer.

Obama actually got better near the end.

It wasn't pretty.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="organic_machine"]

All we can do is look at his job as governor. Look at the democrat state, and look at the healthcare bill he passed. The fact he managed to work with democrats at all on a controversial issues (to Republicans that is), means that he *can* lean to the left.

He can negotiate.

Which cannot be said of Obama. Again, not voting for Romney. But I can understand the argument that Romney leans left. He's lying through his teeth with this "true conservative" act.

Rhazakna

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]As I said I don't think Romney has beliefs. I think he's willing to do whatever benefits him the most, that isn't exactly a trait that is desired in a candidate. The heritage foundation drafted the ideas for these healthcare plans which are more centrist than many policies they would ever desire but lean more right than left. Obama is capable of negotiation as well, he's tried in the past. Obamacare was a a negotiation and in fact the Republicans got quite a bit of what they wanted in it. However the Republican congress doesn't want anything to do with Obama and wont vote on things that they want to pass because it's been brought up by him. If Romney starts acting in ways that they dislike they'll lock him out just like they have Obama, party name or not. Romney also has an anchor to the ultra conservative side of things, his VP hopeful Ryan.organic_machine

I don't think Romney has beliefs either.

Saying Obama's capable of negotiation, and that he's tried are different statements. He's tried, sure, but he's failed. You then say, well republicans, republicans will reject him blah blah blah!

But somehow, Clinton got down and dirty and managed to negotiate and work with Republicans. Obama can't. That's a fact at this point. Romney HAS at one point worked with deomocrats.

Now, will he work with them again? I don't know. He might not. You're right, we don't KNOW what the hell he believes.

But history has a tendency to repeat itself. So Obama's failure to get Republican support and Romney's success at getting democrat and republican support really seems to lend credibility to Romney. Maybe Obama will do a great job next term, I don't know. But history repeats itself.

I don't think Romney has beliefs either.

Saying Obama's capable of negotiation, and that he's tried are different statements. He's tried, sure, but he's failed. You then say, well republicans, republicans will reject him blah blah blah!

But somehow, Clinton got down and dirty and managed to negotiate and work with Republicans. Obama can't. That's a fact at this point. Romney HAS at one point worked with deomocrats.

Now, will he work with them again? I don't know. He might not. You're right, we don't KNOW what the hell he believes.

But history has a tendency to repeat itself. So Obama's failure to get Republican support and Romney's success at getting democrat and republican support really seems to lend credibility to Romney. Maybe Obama will do a great job next term, I don't know. But history repeats itself.

organic_machine

[Clinton worked with the Republicans when they were sane. The Republican party of even 5 years ago is a very different thing than it is now. The current Republican party has no interest in getting things done unless it's getting it's way 100%. As such Romney will either be shut out by the dems for being too far right or being shut out by the Republicans for being a traitor. Congress is a larger issue than presidency at the moment as they're a bunch of useless c*nts who couldn't get anything done if their lives depended on it.Ace6301

Come on, that's rediculous. It's the same s**t people have been spouting about the opposing parties for years. I agree things have changed somewhat, but for BOTH sides. S**t got massively messed up since 9/11. BOTH Republicans and Democrats supported NDAA and expansion of unconstituional war, for example.

BOTH parties are useless at this point. I agree. But to say that Democrats and Republicans cannot work together is rediculous and is incredibly semantic and there's simply no factual basis in it. There has been a lot R & Ds agreement in these last four years. Obama is just terrible at getting both to see his way. That is a fact. Romney may or may not be terrible at it. Hell, it's likely he might be. But you've gone a bit overboard here.

somehow, Clinton got down and dirty and managed to negotiate and work with Republicans. Obama can't.

organic_machine

What's the domestic legacy of the Clinton administration? NAFTA, DADT, DOMA, welfare reform, and the .com bubble. That was not what a Clinton administration was suppose to look like to a democratic voter back in 1992. The election of Clinton was suppose to be the end of the Reagan era, instead it was a continuation of it.

Obama hasn't triangulated in the way that Clinton did to maintain power in the 90's. Like Clinton, he campaigned on things like health care reform and ending discrimination in the military. Unlike Clinton, he's actually done these things while in office.

And this fetish with bipartisanship is annoying. What's the point of having two parties (as similar as they may be, there are still meaningful differences between the two) if they're suppose to agree and compromise on every issue with each other?

The election of Clinton was suppose to be the end of the Reagan era, instead it was a continuation of it.-Sun_Tzu-

You bring up an interesting point. It seems for a while now that each president has been a bigger version of their previous. Bush continued where Clinton's foreign policy left off. Obama expands on Bush's. Whoever comes after Obama, I think, will surely be even worse than all combined in terms of war mongering and eroding civil liberties.

It's a genuinely disturbing trend. BOTH Bush and Obama ran as anti war canidates. Then, when taking office, do the opposite. Just what the hell goes on in the Oval office? What convinces these men to change their minds?

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]The election of Clinton was suppose to be the end of the Reagan era, instead it was a continuation of it.organic_machine

You bring up an interesting point. It seems for a while now that each president has been a bigger version of their previous. Bush continued where Clinton's foreign policy left off. Obama expands on Bush's. Whoever comes after Obama, I think, will surely be even worse than all combined in terms of war mongering and eroding civil liberties.

It's a genuinely disturbing trend. BOTH Bush and Obama ran as anti war canidates. Then, when taking office, do the opposite. Just what the hell goes on in the Oval office? What convinces these men to change their minds?

[QUOTE="organic_machine"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]The election of Clinton was suppose to be the end of the Reagan era, instead it was a continuation of it.-Sun_Tzu-

You bring up an interesting point. It seems for a while now that each president has been a bigger version of their previous. Bush continued where Clinton's foreign policy left off. Obama expands on Bush's. Whoever comes after Obama, I think, will surely be even worse than all combined in terms of war mongering and eroding civil liberties.

It's a genuinely disturbing trend. BOTH Bush and Obama ran as anti war canidates. Then, when taking office, do the opposite. Just what the hell goes on in the Oval office? What convinces these men to change their minds?

[QUOTE="organic_machine"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]The election of Clinton was suppose to be the end of the Reagan era, instead it was a continuation of it.-Sun_Tzu-

You bring up an interesting point. It seems for a while now that each president has been a bigger version of their previous. Bush continued where Clinton's foreign policy left off. Obama expands on Bush's. Whoever comes after Obama, I think, will surely be even worse than all combined in terms of war mongering and eroding civil liberties.

It's a genuinely disturbing trend. BOTH Bush and Obama ran as anti war canidates. Then, when taking office, do the opposite. Just what the hell goes on in the Oval office? What convinces these men to change their minds?

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="organic_machine"]

You bring up an interesting point. It seems for a while now that each president has been a bigger version of their previous. Bush continued where Clinton's foreign policy left off. Obama expands on Bush's. Whoever comes after Obama, I think, will surely be even worse than all combined in terms of war mongering and eroding civil liberties.

It's a genuinely disturbing trend. BOTH Bush and Obama ran as anti war canidates. Then, when taking office, do the opposite. Just what the hell goes on in the Oval office? What convinces these men to change their minds?

Rhazakna

There are also some pretty notable differences when it comes to South Asia. Bush did a lot to improve relations with India (something that's controversial in the region when we're at war in Afghanistan), whereas Obama has become much more dependent on Pakistan. I also don't know how Bush would've dealt with Pakistan's sovereignty when it comes to going after Bin Laden and other high-value terrorists. McCain was very critical for Obama's position on that issue in 2008.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]Clinton worked with the Republicans when they were sane. The Republican party of even 5 years ago is a very different thing than it is now. The current Republican party has no interest in getting things done unless it's getting it's way 100%. As such Romney will either be shut out by the dems for being too far right or being shut out by the Republicans for being a traitor. Congress is a larger issue than presidency at the moment as they're a bunch of useless c*nts who couldn't get anything done if their lives depended on it.organic_machine

Come on, that's rediculous. It's the same s**t people have been spouting about the opposing parties for years. I agree things have changed somewhat, but for BOTH sides. S**t got massively messed up since 9/11. BOTH Republicans and Democrats supported NDAA and expansion of unconstituional war, for example.

BOTH parties are useless at this point. I agree. But to say that Democrats and Republicans cannot work together is rediculous and is incredibly semantic and there's simply no factual basis in it. There has been a lot R & Ds agreement in these last four years. Obama is just terrible at getting both to see his way. That is a fact. Romney may or may not be terrible at it. Hell, it's likely he might be. But you've gone a bit overboard here.

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Well Obama didn't exactly run as an anti-war candidate. A lot of anti-war liberals certainly were hoping he would be that, but he ran on things like building up the war in Afghanistan and ignoring Pakistan's sovereignty if necessary when going after high-level terrorists. But you are right in the sense that he has been about as much of a civil libertarian as Bush was.

-Sun_Tzu-

There are also some pretty notable differences when it comes to South Asia. Bush did a lot to improve relations with India (something that's controversial in the region when we're at war in Afghanistan), whereas Obama has become much more dependent on Pakistan. I also don't know how Bush would've dealt with Pakistan's sovereignty when it comes to going after Bin Laden and other high-value terrorists. McCain was very critical for Obama's position on that issue in 2008.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"] Very true, but he did run as a candidate that wanted a shift in philosophy from the Bush Doctrine and neoconservative foreign policy.Rhazakna

There are also some pretty notable differences when it comes to South Asia. Bush did a lot to improve relations with India (something that's controversial in the region when we're at war in Afghanistan), whereas Obama has become much more dependent on Pakistan. I also don't know how Bush would've dealt with Pakistan's sovereignty when it comes to going after Bin Laden and other high-value terrorists. McCain was very critical for Obama's position on that issue in 2008.

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] I would say there has been a shift, maybe not so much from neoconservatism as it is understood as a political ideology (which is basically just center-right liberal interventionism), but while the two administrations share the same broad objective of democracy promotion, there is a pretty big tactical difference between the foreign policies. The Bush administration completely disregarded multilateralism, whereas Obama has embraced it almost to a fault. It's hard to imagine Bush dealing with Libya and Syria the same way Obama has.

There are also some pretty notable differences when it comes to South Asia. Bush did a lot to improve relations with India (something that's controversial in the region when we're at war in Afghanistan), whereas Obama has become much more dependent on Pakistan. I also don't know how Bush would've dealt with Pakistan's sovereignty when it comes to going after Bin Laden and other high-value terrorists. McCain was very critical for Obama's position on that issue in 2008.

-Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="organic_machine"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]Clinton worked with the Republicans when they were sane. The Republican party of even 5 years ago is a very different thing than it is now. The current Republican party has no interest in getting things done unless it's getting it's way 100%. As such Romney will either be shut out by the dems for being too far right or being shut out by the Republicans for being a traitor. Congress is a larger issue than presidency at the moment as they're a bunch of useless c*nts who couldn't get anything done if their lives depended on it.Ace6301

Come on, that's rediculous. It's the same s**t people have been spouting about the opposing parties for years. I agree things have changed somewhat, but for BOTH sides. S**t got massively messed up since 9/11. BOTH Republicans and Democrats supported NDAA and expansion of unconstituional war, for example.

BOTH parties are useless at this point. I agree. But to say that Democrats and Republicans cannot work together is rediculous and is incredibly semantic and there's simply no factual basis in it. There has been a lot R & Ds agreement in these last four years. Obama is just terrible at getting both to see his way. That is a fact. Romney may or may not be terrible at it. Hell, it's likely he might be. But you've gone a bit overboard here.

One of the more bewildering things to me is that more people don't see this. Even Republicans that didn't outright state that there main goal was to make Obama a one term president still all have actions that point directly to that conclusion.

Obama is used to his friends on - The View, Ellen, Letterman, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, NPR, CNN, CNN Headline, MSNBC, BET, MTV, VH1, the Comedy Channel, and the Stepford wife liberal voters that get their "news" from these organizations, all kissing his arse.

Last night, for the first time in 4 years, his pathetic record was challenged. He had no idea how to handle it.

The question for republicans do you what you are getting with Willard?

Obama is used to his friends on - The View, Ellen, Letterman, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, NPR, CNN, CNN Headline, MSNBC, BET, MTV, VH1, the Comedy Channel, and the Stepford wife liberal voters that get their "news" from these organizations, all kissing his arse.

Last night, for the first time in 4 years, his pathetic record was challenged. He had no idea how to handle it.

Born_Lucky

Even Michelle Obama is disappointed.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]As I said I don't think Romney has beliefs. I think he's willing to do whatever benefits him the most, that isn't exactly a trait that is desired in a candidate. The heritage foundation drafted the ideas for these healthcare plans which are more centrist than many policies they would ever desire but lean more right than left. Obama is capable of negotiation as well, he's tried in the past. Obamacare was a a negotiation and in fact the Republicans got quite a bit of what they wanted in it. However the Republican congress doesn't want anything to do with Obama and wont vote on things that they want to pass because it's been brought up by him. If Romney starts acting in ways that they dislike they'll lock him out just like they have Obama, party name or not. Romney also has an anchor to the ultra conservative side of things, his VP hopeful Ryan.organic_machine

I don't think Romney has beliefs either.

Saying Obama's capable of negotiation, and that he's tried are different statements. He's tried, sure, but he's failed. You then say, well republicans, republicans will reject him blah blah blah!

But somehow, Clinton got down and dirty and managed to negotiate and work with Republicans. Obama can't. That's a fact at this point. Romney HAS at one point worked with deomocrats.

Now, will he work with them again? I don't know. He might not. You're right, we don't KNOW what the hell he believes.

But history has a tendency to repeat itself. So Obama's failure to get Republican support and Romney's success at getting democrat and republican support really seems to lend credibility to Romney. Maybe Obama will do a great job next term, I don't know. But history repeats itself.

That is hardly Obama's fault, Clinton didn't have a house majority leader saying that their goal was to get him out of office.. This is not even the same.. The Republicans in these past 10 years have become batsh!t crazy and have been hijacked by the tea party.. This is not the same Republican party in office than the one during the 90s..