Sound familiar?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Aerethan**

Mannahnin wrote:Your posts are full of false equivalence, A. Not all politicians are the same, and no, Romney and Obama are not equivalent.

I was mainly pointing out that every president ever made ridiculous promises that were impossible to keep and used them to get votes. That isn't specific to either party.

Romney and Obama are the same in that they are both terrible options. I fear this election will be just as terrible as the last two.

"What would you like for dinner kids?"
"What are the options?"
"Brown gak or green gak"
"Can we just not eat instead?"

If both options suck, then my vote won't matter. When was the last time an independent candidate won? When was the first time?
I'd rather vote for Yoda or Batman.

**Mannahnin**

I don't know for sure if Romney would suck, but I suspect so.

I don't think Obama sucks. He's not as good as I'd like. He's not the president we want. He's the president we deserve.

**d-usa**

Romneys plans so far all consisted of saying "I am going to do things". And when pressed for an actual plan he just keeps on saying "I have a plan..." without ever giving any details.

Obama might have broken a lot of details in his plans, but at least he had details.

**Mannahnin**

Romney's excuse for not telling us his plans is that he doesn't want to give the Obama campaign fodder to rip apart. But that's called a political debate. Both sides get the right to tear apart each other's arguments.

And we need to be able to judge their plans, before we vote for them.

**juraigamer**

If a guy that makes no statement on how he intends to do things better, is as vague as can be and just constantly states "I'll fix X"...

Then there is no hope. Only disappointment.

**DOOMBREAD**

Aerethan wrote:
Huffy wrote:
xole wrote:It's because Ron Paul isn't in the right party. He's not "republican" enough.

I think the cat as an elected official was a step in the right direction.

He is also quite insane on several policies

1. Every president has been "insane" on different things since the history of ever.
2. The definition of "insane" in this context in insanely subjective.
3. Do you really think Romney and Obama are better choices?

Honestly, I think a little insanity might do our country some good. We've been pussyfooting around for too long. Our economy is in the gakker, our foreign policy is a joke, and our military actions are questionable. We're so close to the bottom of the barrel that the odds of going further down are pretty slim.

But then, perhaps bottoming out is what this country needs in order to realize the amount of changes that need to be made. In which case, vote Obama.

1. Paul is, IMO, a better choice than Romney but a worse choice than Obama- my point is not that Obama is automatically better just because that's what I think, but if you just say "Paul is better than Obama or Romney", you must acknowledge that some people will disagree.
2. Yes, our country has many problems. But just listing them does not constitute a pro-Paul argument. How does Mr. Paul intend to fix these problems?

**Aerethan**

I've spent enough time here in OT to not only acknowledge that some people will disagree, but to expect it.

And my rants have really nothing to do with Paul, it was just me ranting.

It is nice to see someone disagree with me on politics in a polite manner. Thank you for that