Presidential Election November 6th, 2012

[pacapcop]

46 million of food stamps,actually (SNAP) then disability,election is bought and paid for.Out sourceing of jobs over who knows how long,what would one expect.Ugly.When takers out do producers,game over.This has been ongoing,by the way both sides of the isle.

[sqlbullet]

Looking at the super-pacs major contributor lists, Obama was bought and paid for by big media (Cox, Dreamworks, NewsWeb), Unions (Air traffic and Pipe Fitters), and banks (hedge funds).  Romney was bought and paid for by big oil, banks and media.

I am not in favor of campaign finance reform.  It is a direct assault on free speech in my view.  America needs to wake up and ask why people are spending billions of dollars on national elections.  These guys didn't get rich by giving money away.  They clearly see these expenditures as investments.  What are they buying?

[The_Shadow]

If Obama's scheme was to use the Government Bailouts to finance his re election, and those same institutions would have the finances to give back...Therefore it was like he paid himself with public funds and bought votes! 
Slicker than Slick Willie!

[sqlbullet]

Looking at the funds source just confirms, in my mind, the jaded suspicions I have had for many years.  Choosing between a republican and a democrat is like picking whether to be mauled by your neighbors Rottweiler or German Shepherd.  It really isn't much a choice as far as what we need.

I was reading a thread on a different site yesterday and several people were surprised at how many votes Romney actually got. My response was neither candidate got a majority of votes for them.  Many of us voted against Obama, and I am sure many who voted for Barack were actually voting against Romney.  Be interesting results if for two candidates you have four options:  Vote - Candidate 1 (I want Candidate 1), Vote - Candidate 1 (Better than candidate 2), Vote - Candidate 2 (I want candidate 2) and Vote - Candidate 2 (Better than candidate 1).

I personally bet half the votes or more each candidate got were actually votes for "the lesser of two bad choices)".  My take is over half the country is not happy about the results.

[REDLINE]

I think it's all about perception (which money can buy) in terms of who votes for who.  The vast majority of voters never have a clue of the big picture, let alone substance.  Anyone who will even acknowledge who they'ld most like to sit down and have a beer with shouldn't be voting as it's beside the point of hiring another to lead the United States of America.  At that point and others similar it's no wonder that and how we end of with the choice of candidates we do.

Does that mean I think we should limit who's allowed to vote?  No.  I'm only making the point it makes any kind of comprehensive success difficult, even among various party lines.