Scratch

  Why! jk, but I'm going with Romney on this one. He definitely has the appearance of being a lot more competent and experienced with economics and politics in general, if this election were decided on experience alone, Romney would win. But, it's up to the general populace to decide.

Last edited by sonicfan12p (2012-10-05 17:02:20)

jukyter wrote:

If it were up to experience alone Onama would win
Because he's been president for four years and Romney for none

Presedential experience isn't really relevant. I was refering to economic and political experience. Romney has that, because he was governor for a while, and other stuff. Obama's rise to presidency was frighteningly quick, as he'd only been senator two years before being elected.

Experience is irrelevant. Here's a hypothetical situation to show that:Would you prefer the man with 20 years of experience who wants terrible policies or the new candidate who has good policy? If you vote based on experience you are a fool. Votes should be cast on policy, professionalism, and honesty.

I never base who I support on experience, talking or even if they seem nice or not. I base it on their policies.

illusionist wrote:

http://i.imgur.com/kFdlv.png

as amusing that may be, i think you need to explain how that relates to the discussion (and i think it does! but i'm not sure that everyone else would get it without an explanation)

Last edited by veggieman001 (2012-10-06 22:51:58)

illusionist wrote:

http://i.imgur.com/kFdlv.png

It's very well edited. :3
Have you seen the tiny face ones?

CN12 wrote:

16Skittles wrote:

CN12 wrote:

The media NEVER covers any mistake that the Democrats make, and yet, every stinking slip up that the Republicans make, the media makes it sound like the worlds going to end tomorrow or something.

Name three cases of mistakes made by the dems that were ignored by the media?

I got one thing that the media went nuts over that the Republicans said: Mitt Romney mentioned cutting PBS, and later that week I was at a Jasons Deli and on the news on the tv, the headline was "Big cuts to Big Bird". I'm sure that if Obama had said that, no one would care.

Your argument is completely invalid and based off of assumptions. It is a part of Mitt Romney's economic plan to cut funding to PBS, 0.01% of the federal budget, and what the Pentagon spends every six hours. [source]
You can't make an assumption about that, because Obama DIDN'T say something stupid like that. Come back when you have a valid case of something a democrat has said (recently) that was ignored by the media.
PBS is a program that people learn from, use, and benefit from every day. Why cut that when we could cut wars in Afghanistan,or some other things on this list and save BILLIONS of dollars each year? For example, the Joint Strike Fighter program is basically an inferior version of the F-22 Raptor, being developed at the same time and using over ten billion dollars each year. And that's small change compared to the wars we're actually fighting - Operation Iraqi Freedom cost over 800 billion dollars. I'm not a big fan of the F-35/F-22, basically a plan to replace the best jets in the world with newer, more expensive best jets in the world, but I wouldn't be opposed to continuing research and development if we were saving that much money from stopping the wars in the middle east. Go after the big programs that aren't important, not the little programs that are actually used.

Last edited by 16Skittles (2012-10-08 19:56:19)

not really
as i understand it, the bbc plays a much larger role over there than pbs over here
though i could be wrong

16Skittles wrote:

Romney lies about how Obama has signed no free trade agreements, Obama has actually signed six.
[Source]

Romney lies about lots of stuff.

bbc is epicer

good reasoning

Considering how disappointed the public has been with Obama, i'd expect Romney to win this time. How long he'll last? Probably 4 years.
Note that i'm not even pretending to vote.