You can say the simulus failed all you want, but the CBO says you're wrong. As for Obamacare, it's a foot in the door that will eventually lead to a national health care system, which is exactly what I want. I've had it with paying the 30% 'administrative' mark-up to the providers and insurance companies so they can jet between big parties.
Anything would be better than those two corporate arse clowns. A fresh dog turd wouldn't stink up the office of the presidency as much as either of those choices.
Gingrich has a list of screw-ups a long as my arm, but Republicans (even the religious ones) would gladly overlook those petty foibles for a chance to stick it to somebody. THAT, not policy, is their motivation. And Gingrich is the best sticker they've got.
Nobody reads those things, and the president was probably already predetermined by the two party scam, months ago. We simply will not know what they decided until next December, or the courts have the final say. Counting the citizens votes are so antiquated if it was ever a common practice at all.
Sadly, I agree with you. Even if the citizens' votes were counted properly, those votes are meaningless so the issue is irrelevant. The Electoral College appoints the president and the popular vote is nothing more than a tranquilizer for the citizenry. Still, I'll be voting for Ron Paul no matter who is nominated. Better to have a good feeling from the tranquilizer than a bad one.
I pick Obama; I haven't voted for a Democratic POTUS since '92, but Gingrich would be even more personally and professionally ethically challenged than that guy I voted for in '92.
Yep it's 2008 all over again, voting for the lesser of the two evils. I'll write in Paul again too, doesn't mean I will expect it to be counted though..
raderag; My curiosity is peaking...Why on earth would you sanction, by voting for Obama, the policies of the past three years.
Its a valid question, but I think the policies of Obama are probably better than the corruption and political deafness of Newt. At least that is my guess now.
The stimulus created millions of jobs and bottomed out the recession. Every economist agrees with this, yet the right keeps repeating this myth. Obamacare didn't devastate the economy. Wall Street and massive financial institutions did. Obamacare hasn't even fully been implemented yet. Obama isn't much like Bush at all. Bush was a reckless spender. He made pretty terrible decisions. He took our economy from a high point to near depression. He led us into wars that didn't need to be fought. etc. Bush reigned over one of the worst decades in American history. Obama has reigned over a country in recovery.
You think Obama is less corrupt and politically deaf than Newt? I'd say they are equal in both categories if nothing else. Thus, I would rather have a high turnover rate of presidents than one who sits there for 8 years and is able to let their corruption ferment and solidify into something truly dangerous.
Newt will never even make the nomination because he stands no chance against Obama. Newt would stand a chance if he were the only one running. The American people think he's a lunatic.
Yes, I do think that, but its certainly a judgement call. I have to sit and think this through as I haven't thought about voting for a democrat for POTUS for a long time. I may still vote R, not sure.
The stimulus didn't create millions of jobs or 'bottom-out' the recession. Every economist does not agree with this. Read More Here. Obamacare is devastating the economy. Just ask anyone in business or the medical profession. There are so many uncertainties right now, nobody wants to invest any money. Hospitals can't hire doctors because of this uncertainty. And above all, Obamacare will make healthcare more expensive, although I believe this is by design so eventually the government can 'swoop in and save the day' by taking it over. Bush was a reckless spender. So was/is Obama. Bush made terrible decisions. So does Obama. Bush led us into wars approved by Congress. Congress declares wars. Remember? Obama is reigning over the worst recoveries in history. Why? Because of his policies.
Fare enough raderag, but I think you'll come around when Gingrich becomes the nominee. After all you are probably aware of his accomplishments during the Clinton Administration, which were second only to his conservative work accomplishments during Reagan's terms. Obama care, Cap, Trade, 5T$ added debt, just doesn't make sense for someone with the slightest doubt...my opinion.
I'm also aware of how he handled the government shutdown as well as all of the political infighting. My vote doesn't matter anyway. I live in TX, and if an R doesn't win TX he is toast.
raderag, your remembering media's account of the shutdown, but that's another topic. Frankly infighting has been around since the Constitution was ratified and Obama has no shot in taking Texas...I'm also from South Texas although retired 5 miles from Texas in NM, cheaper living conditions!!!
Newt Gingrich is about the worst possible Presidential candidate the Republicans could pick. Obama is almost guaranteed to be defeated with any one of four or five Republicans running for the Presidential nomination (especially Romney), so why on earth would the Republicans saddle themselves with the equivalent of a 30 pound overweight jockey to ride their presidential horse? The Democrats have a knackered horse in the race, but it might still have the speed to pass a badly handicapped Republican nag.
