Who Should Be President?

[waldo]

Mitt Romney.

really? Just how well do you know your Romney - which Mitt?

say what? Romney Advisers Helped the White House Draft Health Care Reform - oh my, tea-bags exploding!

go Rick, go!!!

[Shady]

Just how well do you know your Romney

I know that he'd be a better President than the current whiner-in-chief. Although, that's not really hard. Almost anybody would be better than the current disaster and economic illiterate occuppying the White House. I never thought I'd wish for Hillary Clinton!!!

[GostHacked]

Agreed...after the 2000 election, what mattered wasn't so much who would win, but that the integrity of the process was preserved. It is the biggest and most expensive election spectacle in the world, laid out for all to see.

Who should be president? The winner.

The integrity of the elections are about as good as the computerized voting machines. Which are quite easily hackable.

[wyly]

Personally I'm cheering for herman cain, and yes I know I can't vote for him, but I hope he wins just like I can hope the LA kings finally win the pacific division.

after telling 10% of americans that it's their fault they're unemployed he's done...and do americans tally those who have run out of unemployment benefits in the unemployed numbers? if not those now on welfare would raise that 10% figure... Edited October 11, 2011 by wyly

[bush_cheney2004]

...and do americans tally those who have run out of unemployment benefits in the unemployed numbers?

A sure winner for dumbest question of the day!

[Shady]

A sure winner for dumbest question of the day!

You're being too kind. It's the dumbest question of the year. At the very least.

[Bob]

Yes. I'm sure the best candidates for the presidency were Bush family members for 16 years out of the period from 1989-2009, with the president immediately preceding that (from 1981) an actor. I would say for at least the last 30 years, the White House indeed went to the candidates with the highest bidders.

Obviously you didn't understand what I was saying. Big money goes towards candidates that the donors think can win. They donate to the candidate(s) they think is/are most likely to win. It is irrelevant who you think would've been better to lead America between 2004 and 2008. People don't donate money to candidates that they don't think can win the election.

Basically, this leftist mythology that money determines the winner doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Let's take you, for example, if I gave you five times the budget of the CPC to run a campaign in Ontario with you as head of the new party that you'd form, do you think you could win? Of course you wouldn't. Moreover, in the real world, nobody would ever give you a dime unless you had the talents required to do well in a campaign.

This leftist mythology that you subscribe to is just predicated on a more primal resentment of money and wealth, which forms your worldview and ideology.

[Bob]

Yes I did.

Tripping over himself in what respect? Dodging which questions?

If you followed the 2008 campaign then you shouldn't need me to illustrate all of Romney's inconsistencies and how he didn't have a shred of integrity. he was terrified of actually having an opinion and speaking his mind, and was obviously a Frankestein candidate put together by moronic campaign managers and "experts". I really, really, really don't want to revisit that and go into specific details. He still engages in non-answers and evasion, and strikes me a fake conservative, much like Hudak.

Yes, he's a much stronger candidate this time around, if you can pretend 2008 never happened. Of course he's also much better than Obama, but that's certainly nothing to be proud of.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Obviously you didn't understand what I was saying. Big money goes towards candidates that the donors think can win. They donate to the candidate(s) they think is/are most likely to win. It is irrelevant who you think would've been better to lead America between 2004 and 2008. People don't donate money to candidates that they don't think can win the election.

This is most certainly true for a US presidential election. The election process is not necessarily about who would be best, it is about who can garner the most support (votes) in 50 states to get nominated and win an Electoral College majority. The ability to raise the most campaign money is directly related to the perceived chance for a candidates victory as party nominee, and as president-elect.

Senator Obama raised more money than any previous candidate, and laughed at federal campaign finance laws. No campaign money = loser!

Edited October 12, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[Bob]

This is most certainly true for a US presidential election. The election process is not necessarily about who would be best, it is about who can garner the most support (votes) in 50 states to get nominated and win an Electoral College majority. The ability to raise the most campaign money is directly related to the perceived chance for a candidates victory as party nominee, and as president-elect.

Senator Obama raised more money than any previous candidate, and laughed at federal campaign finance laws. No campaign money = loser!

Exactly. Obama is a perfect example of this phenomenon. He certainly didn't start his process of running for President with a lot of money. As he became more and more popular, however, marketing himself everywhere he could, he started making a name for himself and the money began to flow in. If the world operated according the cybercoma's leftist vision, then anyone with a lot of money could and would win elections. That's just not how it works. Money is certainly crucial to a successful campaign, but the question that needs to be asked is what determines which candidates successfully raise money? The answer is - the strength of the candidate and his or her perceived likelihood of success from the prospective donor(s).

[Shady]

If you followed the 2008 campaign then you shouldn't need me to illustrate all of Romney's inconsistencies and how he didn't have a shred of integrity.

So nothing? Not one example? Not one issue? The reason I ask is because I disagree with your assessment.

he was terrified of actually having an opinion and speaking his mind

I see. So now that's he has an opinion and speaking his mind, you're penalizing him for it?

[Bob]

So nothing? Not one example? Not one issue? The reason I ask is because I disagree with your assessment.

I see. So now that's he has an opinion and speaking his mind, you're penalizing him for it?

He's rehearsed, now. That's all. He's an empty suit, a potential emperor without clothes. Just like Obama, but this time with a supposedly conservative flavour.

[Michael Hardner]

He's rehearsed, now. That's all. He's an empty suit, a potential emperor without clothes. Just like Obama, but this time with a supposedly conservative flavour.

Empty suit ? This is a fiscally aware governor, who was a success in business ?

A candidate like this provides a great alternative for American voters, and he will generate an excellent debate, I'm sure.

[Argus]

Empty suit ? This is a fiscally aware governor, who was a success in business ?

A candidate like this provides a great alternative for American voters, and he will generate an excellent debate, I'm sure.

Or as MSNBC described him: the only grownup at a table full of clowns.

[Shady]

He's rehearsed, now. That's all. He's an empty suit, a potential emperor without clothes. Just like Obama, but this time with a supposedly conservative flavour.

You still haven't mentioned a single issue. That's great that you have an opinion. But it doesn't necessarily mean anything. He's rehearsed? Good. You have to be.

[punked]

You still haven't mentioned a single issue. That's great that you have an opinion. But it doesn't necessarily mean anything. He's rehearsed? Good. You have to be.

How many you need Shady? Here are first two youtube results but it seems there are MANY MANY examples of Mitt the flip flopper who has different answers for each different group he talks to.