Wow. Michigan is the big automobile industry state. And Obama's only polling at 41% against Romney's 46% in this state that he won in 2008---just 3 years ago. Poll: Romney leading Obama in Mich The poll showed 46 percent supporting Romney and 41 percent backing Obama if the 2012 presidential election were held now. The difference is just past the poll's 4 percent margin of sampling error. Thirteen percent are undecided. Obama carried Michigan in 2008. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57328448/poll-romney-leading-obama-in-mich/ With 13% still undecided, however....that tells me that there's quite a few who haven't yet made up their minds and a lot might change during the next year. Could get even worse for Obama.....or possibly better.
Yeah, and that percentage will go up for Romney once he officially becomes the Republican nominee. Did you see where Romney also leads obama in the crucial state of Florida? Looks like we Americans have something to feel optimistic about...eh?
Maybe it won't differ down under, but a Romney presidency will spark a revolution in our economy the likes of which America has yet to see, and he'll keep us strong, unlike a sissy foreign affairs leadership of a Ron Paul.
If you knew Ron Paul's libertarian position, you'd realize its the most moral and logical. Outside of that though, what "revolution" of Romney's are you referring to?
I understand Paul's libertarian position quite well. While I do agree with him on most things fiscally, I have serious reservations concerning his foreign affairs views--especially with his total surrender to any and all threats coming from Iran. He's weak on foreign affairs, period. The revolution from Romney is an economic revolution as would come about from Romney's success as a businessman. What we need is leadership and jobs for the people, and Mitt is the man to bring those wants and needs to fruition.
He doesnt want to "surrender" (surrender what exactly) to Iran. He wants to pull back American military industrial complex. This position is brilliant. Period. LOL! So if you are a business man running for President this makes you the leader of a revolution? Sorry that's a pretty weak argument. Based on what economic platform?
Not sure why that is. Perhaps many are rather disillusioned, realizing that the "Obama money from Obama's stash" wasn't as free flowing as expected? No, I am not saying that holds true for all, and I am not trying to stir up a hornets nest, but lets face it, its why so many up yonder did vote for the man.
Pulling back the American military complex is just what our enemies look for in which to exploit. Duh, that is taught in basic training 101 of our military. A strong defense only comes about by having a strong offense. When Romney's policies as president take affect and we see extra ordinary job growth and business surges--then yes, as CIC we would naturally give the kudos to Romney as being the leader of suich a revolution. Perhaps you didn't read or hear about any one of Romney's 56 plans to get our economy running at jet speed. One in particular where he would unleash America's energy reserves; those are energy reserves that the libs/dems have been stalling on and playing environmental protection sissies for decades now. Under Romney we as Americans would no longer be held hostage to foreign oil and their price increases at their whim. America would be independently energy sufficient, and the price of gas would go down exponentially as well.
Which enemies? If you didnt make bases in Australia and pulled out of Japan, or stopped extending bases down around South America, who would or could exploit that? Nice to see you have forced yourself into the imaginary vice of total fear. Yes overextend yourself to protect yourself. Invade, exploit and dominate in order to achieve your defence. Yep sounds like a great lesson Is that why the Nazis invaded Poland? That was their justification, as it was with the Japanese in Manchuria, or the Russians in Czechoslovakia, not to mention every other immoral intervention in the name of self defence. American empire building hampers American safety. Enter 9/11. Which ones? Yes but to be a revolution would require a massive overhaul. Something I doubt he seeks. You've already shown he will keep the American empire which is only expanding its fiscal burden. Such concerns are "sissy". Dont be a child. They may be wrong but their concern may be valid. I;d like a link to some of his plans. I frankly have not heard of them, let alone heard of them as 'revolutionary.' Why not? LOL Any evidence for that? I guess there is no point mentioning the environment since you are clearly on the total denial bandwagon. Given the overwhelming scientific consensus, I'm surprised America's position is such.
