[Maddog Jones]

(Original post by Made in the USA)
Are the polls you are looking at likely voters or registered voters? The gallop polls are completely idiotic because they are polls of registered voters and half those people won't turn out. I don't know any other poll other than Rasmussen that does likely voters but those polls paint a different picture where Romney is ahead or it's a statistical dead heat (within the margin of error)

Also the undecided vote always breaks for the challenger not the incumbent so I am pretty sure Obama will lose by a massive landslide

All the polls were wrong in Wisconsin and they were off by a whopping 7 points. I don't think this is even going to be close

Lol. I'm just quoting this so come November we can see that you called a landslide for Romney

[123maz]

i hope not, he hasnt done anything significant to help America, look at the economy

[Top Banana]

Am I the only one who quite likes Romney? Compared to the other nut jobs in the Republican party he isnt too bad.

[geetar]

Yeah, I do think he'll win.

[DYKWIA]

Unfortunately, I feel he will win again. It's just sad that Santorum didn't win the republican nomination.

[Made in the USA]

(Original post by Captain Crash)
Gallup has traditionally been the most accurate mainstream pollster in presidential elections whilst Rasmussen has consistently been biased towards the republicans.

In any case, the straight Obama vs Romney polls are misleading - the polls that matter are those in the swing states, which Obama holds by a comfortable margin.

You mean the same polls that said the Scott Walker/Tom Barrett race would be close in Wisconsin? They wound up being off by a whopping seven points.

We've already had a election where the American people had a chance to vote on Obamas policies. It was the 2010 mid term election and Obama and his party got their asses handed to them

[Aj12]

Romney seems to be getting hammed by Obama with all these tax attacks

[Bellissima]

knowing americans, probably not.

[Christianlady]

(Original post by NYU2012)
Critical reading skills, I assume you have them? Use them.

I never claimed the Democratic party was for smaller government. I merely said that the your statement "I want to vote Republican because of small government" was incorrect.



Neither does the Republican Party. Your point?



Do you want a cookie? Maybe a gold star?

Have you ever actually studied politics? Maybe actually read any of the literature on women's reproductive rights? No, of course not.

Not every woman IS knowledgable about birth control; not all of them know how to obtain it; how it works; which forms are best to use; etc.


Yes, you're clearly for 'small goverment'. The point of small government is obviously to force you to remain pregnant if you don't want to be.



Get off your "I'm so much better than all these other women" high horse. You're arrogant and ignorant. It's quite sad.

Maybe someone's condom broke. Maybe they were busy and forgot to take the pill. Maybe their hormonal balance was such that even with the pill, they got pregnant. etc. etc. etc.


You have wonderful observation skills?



You're not very educated on reproductive rights literature, are you?

Did you know that most people who seek government aid for reproductive issues are young people with low SES?

Did you know that studies have been done that have found when education about reproduction, as well as funding for reproductive services has been cut, the cost to the State has actually INCREASED? No, of course you didn't know that because you've never actually read anything related to the subject and you're merely making uninformed, ignorant statements, am I correct?

Why did costs increase? Because now there are a bunch of unwanted children running around, whose mothers are on welfare because they cannot afford to support themselves and a child; or they end up in State custody because their parents did not want them.


Yes, let's stereotype these people! Of course stereotypes are correct!



Maybe they should. But that doesn't mean that you shouldn't provide them with it. Refer to my above point about how not funding such programs actually leads to MORE expenses for the State.




No, the majority of Congress is by far made up of men. It is predominantly men who make decisions as to how you should be able to regulate your own body and your reproduction.



Limiting government also means not prohibiting marriages between members of the same sex (right to individual freedom), especially when doing as such is unconstitutional. It also means allowing people to decide whether or not they want to have a baby.



Are you actually this completely ignorant and uneducated? Because if you are, then you are truly a prime example of what an uneducated American looks like.

There are over 2,000 rights and privileges associated with that "piece of paper" that you seem think means nothing -- including but not limited to things such as oh, I don't know, the right to visit your spouse when they are hospitalized; right to make medical decisions for a spouse; right to open a joint bank account; etc. etc. etc.

Why don't you actually educate yourself on these topics and read the available literature, because all you've done is successfully demonstrate that you have no understanding of American politics, political theory, or other relevant subject matter.

It does not take maturity, intelligence, or integrity to insult another person whose beliefs are different. Because I feel you are merely being insulting, I see no more reason to discuss with you. However, your post does show how many people are not willing to agree to disagree or work with people who are different, sad to say. Possibly, that is why more good is not being done by the legislative office, because there is so much insulting and unwillingness to work with or discuss kindly with people of different views.

Peace and God bless you and Goodbye.

[Christianlady]

(Original post by DYKWIA)
Unfortunately, I feel he will win again. It's just sad that Santorum didn't win the republican nomination.

Yeah. I liked Santorum's views in some areas, but I like Ron Paul the best out of all the candidates. If I could pick however the person I feel would be the best President of the USA, I would pick Gary Haugen, the President and CEO of International Justice Mission. Although granted I don't know everything about him, I love how he strives to make the world a better place for people around the world who are experiencing injustice. He was a Senior Trial Attorney with the Police Misconduct Task Force of the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice beforehand, which I believe is an important job as well.

However, he is too busy helping people experiencing injustice to run for political office. I wish however that he would someday consider running. I think the USA needs a person like him, whether man or woman, to be president.

[Leon Trotsky]

As it stands right now, it looks like he will. Obama, as Romney is finding out, runs an excellent campaign, even though he's behind in fundraising. Romney's time at Bain Capital; his general smug, out-of-touch rich guy air; and the sheer lack of enthusiasm about him means that unless the economy takes a turn for the worst, Obama should take it.

[Captain Crash]

(Original post by Made in the USA)
You mean the same polls that said the Scott Walker/Tom Barrett race would be close in Wisconsin? They wound up being off by a whopping seven points.

Maybe I'm being naive, but I imagine the POTUS polls to a little more accurate than a Wisconsin governer election. '48 excepted, Gallup has historically been the most accurate POTUS election poll.

(Original post by Made in the USA)
We've already had a election where the American people had a chance to vote on Obamas policies. It was the 2010 mid term election and Obama and his party got their asses handed to them

Midterms always go against the incubent, albeit not to the level in 2010. Since then, the economy has been improving, the republicans have been exposed for the self-interested obstructionists they are and people actually have to vote for Romney rather than just against Obama.

[NYU2012]

(Original post by Christianlady)
It does not take maturity, intelligence, or integrity to insult another person whose beliefs are different. Because I feel you are merely being insulting, I see no more reason to discuss with you.

Insulting? If you take it that way. I'm merely pointing out that your political ideologies do not follow from wanting "small government"; in fact, being or voting for the Republican party is contrary to the popular Christianity, but I bet you've never actually taken the time to consider that.

The problem here is that I actually study politics, particularly from a feminist perspective, and it's plainly evident that you have not ever deeply thought about, researched, or read any actual material on these subjects.

(Original post by Christianlady)
However, your post does show how many people are not willing to agree to disagree or work with people who are different, sad to say.

This is not a matter of "people are not willing to agree to disagree". This is a matter of you being called out for not holding a logical position.

The justification you provided for voting for the Republican party was that you want "small government". But, as is plainly evident, the Republican Party is not in favor of small government in any way -- they want to have a huge military (not a small government); they want to regulate morality (abortion, access to birth control, sex ed, who can marry whom, etc; which is not small government).

I'm not sure if you missed basic political theory 101, but small government doesn't have a huge military and it does not try to regulate the morality of its constituents; it provides for a lot more free choice (which is, in a lot of ways, actually what the Democratic party does -- I can choose to have an abortion or not; I can choose to use birth control or not, because I have access to it; etc.).

(Original post by Christianlady)
Possibly, that is why more good is not being done by the legislative office, because there is so much insulting and unwillingness to work with or discuss kindly with people of different views.

Your views aren't just 'different' they don't logically follow from your own reasoning! You're correct, I am unwilling to work with illogical views, because who would want to do that?!

Finally, on the topic of moral regulation -- you're obviously Christian and you vote Republican. This is very strange indeed, as the Republican party likes to restrict free choice and regulate morality by instituting laws which prohibit certain actions. In all of the Bible, nowhere does it say that you, as an individual, should have the right or ability to restrict the free will of others, does it? In voting for the Republican party, which regulates morality and restricts free choice, you DO restrict the free will of others (stipulating of course that the Republican party does get elected).

On what grounds then do you justify restricting access to birth control, abortion, same-sex marriage, etc? Because your religion does not justify infringements on the free will of others.

And this is why I don't accept your 'different ideology' because it's not even a logical one!

[Christianlady]

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
So...You don't have anything against Obama, and I have even read later on in the thread that you don't even necessarily blame him for the state of our country...yet you still won't vote for him to give him more time to help our country? You do understand that by electing a new president we will essentially be starting over, especially since its going to be Romney who would be elected.

Many people would actually like to "start over." However, I disagree with the concept that electing a new president is starting over. It would have been nice, had President Obama started with a clean state and with no federal debt and no issues, but he inherited a mess from former President Bush. I personally believe that mess is due to greed, family (the Bush family) issues with Middle Eastern rulers, and the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.

So, electing a new president does not hit a magical reset button. The new president has to work with the issues and baggage that was left behind by the old president.

But your reason isn't a valid reason as the Republicans aren't actually for limited government. They want a big government, just as much as Democrats, only where it suits them.

What is your definitions of limited government and big government please?

Rather than providing help for people who need it, they would rather tell people how to live their lives.They say government should stay out of the people's business yet most of their social policies push for involvement in people's lives. They are extremely hypocritical.

Their social policies tend to prevent using government funds to pay for the decisions of its citizens' personal lives. For example, I personally agree with the Republican platform that the federal government does not have the responsibility to make sure that a mature woman does not get pregnant if she doesn't want to be pregnant.

As a woman who knows how to make my own living (work in order to get paid), I most definitely have the means to be responsible for my own reproductive goals. My husband, who also knows how to make his own living (We do not depend on the government to provide for us.) buys condoms which we use while making love. The reason we are doing our best to not get pregnant right now is because we want to wait till we feel more financially secure before bringing another precious human life into this world. Now, I am not willing to think that other people are less intelligent than my husband and me. I believe most adults who have sex have the brains and ability to understand how human reproduction works and take the necessary precautions to prevent pregnancy until they feel it is time for taking care of a helpless little human. When birth control doesn't "work" (2 of my sisters used birth control and yet got pregnant), one can welcome their respective "surprise" babies with open arms and make do,striving to live within their means. Or, one can help the couples who cannot have babies by allowing their "surprise" baby to be adopted into another family. For cases of rape and incest, I do believe that there are many wealthy people who would be willing to freely give their money to provide the morning after pill or an abortion, without the government ever paying a cent. Private organizations most definitely can and do help people, and providing birth control and abortion costs is something that can be done on a private level. I am sure many wealthy people would rather freely give their money to help in this area (giving abortions and/or birth control to those in need) than giving more taxes to the government.

And their 'limited government' isn't really limited economically either. They pour loads of money towards the military, and then cut taxes, and expect the deficit to go away. They refuse to raise taxes which means the government will have no income, but they want to cut programs that actually help people who need it but refuse to cut spending to the military. Actually if I remember correctly they want to increase the military budget. Which is just insane.

Raising taxes is pointless because most rich people know how and do get around those taxes. It is not difficult to understand how and why they find/make loopholes. So basically, raising taxes just hurts the middle class who do not pay clever accountants/lawyers to help them find loopholes. Do you get this point?

As for the military budget, I personally believe that it is important to keep the USA safe. However, I disagree with becoming so involved with foreign affairs.

I completely agree with the following quote by the First President of the USA:

"I have always given it as my decided opinion that no nation had a right to intermeddle in the internal concerns of another; that everyone had a right to form and adopt whatever government they like best to live under themselves; and that if this country could, consistently with its engagements, maintain a strict neutrality and thereby preserve peace, it was bound to do so by motives of policy, interest, and every other consideration that ought to actuate a people situated and circumstanced as we are, already deeply in debt, and in a convalescent state from the struggle we have been engaged in ourselves."

-1796, To James Monroe, George Washington Himself, by John C. Fitzpatrick

Personally, I incline more to Ron Paul than to Romney and am hoping that Republicans will see the wisdom in this. I have not heard of a Democrat who is similar in views to Ron Paul concerning the military. If there is one, please let me know. I am an Independent, by the way, though I have friends and family who belong to both political parties.

Voting democrat doesn't have to. However your provided reason for voting republican is just invalid. So...you either need to come up with a new reason for voting republican or find someone else to vote for. Nobody said it should be a Democrat.

You can call it "invalid" all you want, but that does not convince me. What convinces me is seeing positive change, which I am not seeing with Obama. Obamacare has me gravely concerned, because I have friends who are small business owners who will be greatly hurt by this. They will have to lay off more people. They cannot afford Obamacare. Instead of forcing insurance on people, I believe it is best for the government to consider what are the reasonable prices for medical services. Many costs today are ridiculous. Once I went to the ER and was told I needed to get a MRI scan, naively thinking that my university insurance would pay for it. I stupidly didn't ask how much it would cost. I was astounded when I received the bill. Never again will I permit any medical service without knowing the cost. I think it would be good for the government to inspect if the costs are reasonable, because I personally think many are not! Pharmacies in the USA as well also charge ridiculous prices.

I am almost positive that Obama and the Democrats plan to reduce the military budget. Obama also is not out starting 3 wars. He has started pulling us out of them.

What do you think he will do concerning Iran?

While that may be the case for you, what about less fortunate women? To deny that there are women who cannot afford such luxuries is to be ignorant and ill-informed. The programs aren't for people such as yourself who can afford such items, but for those who can't.

Less fortunate how so? (I am not rich.) Again, for those who for whatever reason cannot afford their own birth control, I think it's best for wealthy people who want to freely give their own money (possibly in private organizations they run) to help provide birth control and abortions. It's not the governments' job to make sure people are not having babies. It's ideally the person's job, anyways. If the person doesn't, other people can freely help them, spending their own money to do so.

The constitution is the law of the land, and defines many things. It has been determined that marriage is a constitutional right. I don't remember what it falls under exactly but you can read up on the court decisions if you are really that interested.

Could you please quote where in the U.S. Constitution does it define marriage? Thanks. Also, where does it define having kids? Both getting married and having kids are activities couples typically do.

The democrats don't have to be for limiting government. BUT they are not for killing the police and firemen jobs, rather the republicans are because they want to take away the funding for such things. So...that was a bad point to bring up.

Could you please explain why you think Detroit Mayor Dave Bing, a Democrat, said the following?

"Since I became mayor, I've made public safety my top priority, and I've said I would protect the jobs of police and firefighters, but fiscal realities have made this untenable," Bing said in a statement. "With my administration continuing to work to fiscally stabilize the city and with recent cuts to the city's budget, we're announcing the layoffs of 164 Detroit Fire Department firefighters by the end of July."


http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...ffs/55827788/1

What makes you think that? Why would you think that Republicans somehow know better than Democrats about how to start or run a business? If there are some statistics or evidence to back that claim up I would love to see it. Because as far as I was aware...ability to succeed through business is not limited to one party

My friends who run their own small businesses are all Republicans. I do have friends who are Democrats, but they typically work for the government in some capacity, which is interesting. I personally do not know any Democrat who runs their own small business. So, my observation is based on my personal contacts.

[Christianlady]

(Original post by Addzter)
As it stands right now, it looks like he will. Obama, as Romney is finding out, runs an excellent campaign, even though he's behind in fundraising. Romney's time at Bain Capital; his general smug, out-of-touch rich guy air; and the sheer lack of enthusiasm about him means that unless the economy takes a turn for the worst, Obama should take it.

It's really hard to know which direction the election will go. Much depends on the Spanish-speaking Americans, which is cool. President Obama did make a very smart move when he finally allowed children of illegal immigrants to stay and not get deported. I very much wish he had done this MUCH SOONER. However, his doing so just recently leads me to believe that he only did it to help him with the Spanish-speaking Americans, not because he particularly cares about the hundreds of children who have been scared of being deported. Before this, many children who believe the USA is their home have been deported already.

Anyways, another factor which will help determine the election is the Independent vote. As an Independent, I am very disappointed that Ron Paul will not be the Republican candidate. Many Independents are disillusioned with President Obama and are hoping for greater and faster economic growth, something which many doubt will happen under President Obama's government plan, which gives the government more need for funds instead of helping encourage small businesses to hire more people.

[Leon Trotsky]

(Original post by Christianlady)
It's really hard to know which direction the election will go. Much depends on the Spanish-speaking Americans, which is cool. President Obama did make a very smart move when he finally allowed children of illegal immigrants to stay and not get deported. I very much wish he had done this MUCH SOONER. However, his doing so just recently leads me to believe that he only did it to help him with the Spanish-speaking Americans, not because he particularly cares about the hundreds of children who have been scared of being deported. Before this, many children who believe the USA is their home have been deported already.

Of course he did it to win votes, he's a politician. It's the same reason he announced his support for gay marriage recently.

It's not as if many Hispanics would have voted for Romney anyway, though. He might help that cause by picking Marco Rubio as his running mate, but apparently he's not even being considered which would be a huge mistake. Going with another boring white guy would be a big mistake.

Anyways, another factor which will help determine the election is the Independent vote. As an Independent, I am very disappointed that Ron Paul will not be the Republican candidate. Many Independents are disillusioned with President Obama and are hoping for greater and faster economic growth, something which many doubt will happen under President Obama's government plan, which gives the government more need for funds instead of helping encourage small businesses to hire more people.

I would have liked to see Ron Paul get the nomination, too. I don't agree with him economically, but on just about everything else he's spot on. Do you know who you're going to vote for yet?

[Snagprophet]

http://www.examiner.com/article/rnc-...for-nomination

No, Obama wont win.

[NYU2012]

(Original post by Christianlady)
What is your definitions of limited government and big government please?

The same as anyone else. Limited government has little control over its constituents, there is a lot of free choice and self-determiniation. Big government is regulation of individuals, etc.

It's plainly evident that the Republican party is NOT for limited government.

(Original post by Christianlady)
Their social policies tend to prevent using government funds to pay for the decisions of its citizens' personal lives. For example, I personally agree with the Republican platform that the federal government does not have the responsibility to make sure that a mature woman does not get pregnant if she doesn't want to be pregnant.

Why not?

Free choice is the ability to freely choose, without constraint between any two or more actions.

If the woman cannot afford, or it would be a financial hardship to maintain birth control, obtain an abortion, etc. then she is NOT allowed to exercise free will, is she? No.

(Original post by Christianlady)
As a woman who knows how to make my own living (work in order to get paid), I most definitely have the means to be responsible for my own reproductive goals. My husband, who also knows how to make his own living (We do not depend on the government to provide for us.) buys condoms which we use while making love. The reason we are doing our best to not get pregnant right now is because we want to wait till we feel more financially secure before bringing another precious human life into this world. Now, I am not willing to think that other people are less intelligent than my husband and me. I believe most adults who have sex have the brains and ability to understand how human reproduction works and take the necessary precautions to prevent pregnancy until they feel it is time for taking care of a helpless little human.

This is both presumptive and ignorant on your part. The fact of the matter is that NOT everyone understands how menstruation, pregnancy, etc. work and not everyone knows about birth control methods such as condoms, the pill, patches, etc. This is merely fact -- to refute this is to indicate that you're ignorant on the subject and have never actually read any of the research literature on the subject.

(Original post by Christianlady)
When birth control doesn't "work" (2 of my sisters used birth control and yet got pregnant), one can welcome their respective "surprise" babies with open arms and make do,striving to live within their means. Or, one can help the couples who cannot have babies by allowing their "surprise" baby to be adopted into another family.

Pregnancy itself can and does cause hardship to the mother, why should they be forced to remain pregnant?

What justification can you possibly provide for regulating someone else's uterus?! On what moral grounds do you have a right to regulate someone else's uterus and simultaneously infringe on their free will?

(Original post by Christianlady)
For cases of rape and incest, I do believe that there are many wealthy people who would be willing to freely give their money to provide the morning after pill or an abortion, without the government ever paying a cent.

Then you clearly have not read any of the literature on this subject. Fact of the matter is that such rich people do NOT provide enough funding for such things. Not only that, for many women, even being able to access such things is not possible!

Please, go actually read the plethora of literature on women's reproductive rights because it's plainly evident you have no idea what you're talking about.

(Original post by Christianlady)
Private organizations most definitely can and do help people, and providing birth control and abortion costs is something that can be done on a private level. I am sure many wealthy people would rather freely give their money to help in this area (giving abortions and/or birth control to those in need) than giving more taxes to the government.

You're correct there ARE such organizations, but they cannot support themselves to the needed level on just private funding. If so many people would rather give freely, then why don't they? Fact of the matter, yet again, is that people do not give such money very often or in substantial amounts as to meet the need.

Again, please spend some time actually educating yourself, because yet again, you've merely demonstrated you've never studied or researched women's reproductive rights.

(Original post by Christianlady)
Raising taxes is pointless because most rich people know how and do get around those taxes.

So then prevent exceptions to taxes..... That was hard

(Original post by Christianlady)
It is not difficult to understand how and why they find/make loopholes. So basically, raising taxes just hurts the middle class who do not pay clever accountants/lawyers to help them find loopholes. Do you get this point?

Do you not understand that they can simply not raise the taxes for middle class individuals and merely raise taxes on the wealthy?

(Original post by Christianlady)
As for the military budget, I personally believe that it is important to keep the USA safe. However, I disagree with becoming so involved with foreign affairs.

Yet you freely vote for the party which spends obscene amounts of money on military spending..... That's logical

(Original post by Christianlady)
You can call it "invalid" all you want, but that does not convince me.

So, basically you're saying that you don't care about logic and will freely ignore logic? Clearly you're one we should all look to for political and social opinions. Apparently we don't need to understand them or use logic to support them.

(Original post by Christianlady)
Less fortunate how so? (I am not rich.) Again, for those who for whatever reason cannot afford their own birth control, I think it's best for wealthy people who want to freely give their own money (possibly in private organizations they run) to help provide birth control and abortions. It's not the governments' job to make sure people are not having babies. It's ideally the person's job, anyways. If the person doesn't, other people can freely help them, spending their own money to do so.

People do not give to such organizations on any substantial or significant level though.

Why isn't the government's job to look after the interests and well-being of its constituents? Otherwise, what is the point of a government at all?

(Original post by Christianlady)
Could you please quote where in the U.S. Constitution does it define marriage? Thanks. Also, where does it define having kids? Both getting married and having kids are activities couples typically do.

Go read the relevant Supreme Court cases which have found that Constitution does grant marriage a Constitutional Right, as well as having children. It's not our job to read for you. If you want to know, go look it up yourself. Google this amazing thing on the internet where you can put in something like "US Marriage Civil Right" and then the relevant US Supreme Court cases will come up!

(Original post by Christianlady)
Could you please explain why you think Detroit Mayor Dave Bing, a Democrat, said the following?

"Since I became mayor, I've made public safety my top priority, and I've said I would protect the jobs of police and firefighters, but fiscal realities have made this untenable," Bing said in a statement. "With my administration continuing to work to fiscally stabilize the city and with recent cuts to the city's budget, we're announcing the layoffs of 164 Detroit Fire Department firefighters by the end of July."


http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...ffs/55827788/1

Probably has something to do with budget cuts? That seems oddly intuitive to me.....

(Original post by Christianlady)
My friends who run their own small businesses are all Republicans. I do have friends who are Democrats, but they typically work for the government in some capacity, which is interesting. I personally do not know any Democrat who runs their own small business. So, my observation is based on my personal contacts.

Great, so your observation doesn't not meet methodological standards -- meaning it's not valid.

[Lukfisto]

I'm astonished that everyone rules out a possibility that Romney do not release tax returns, just because it is a political trick. Obama is building his campaign on idea that Romney is a rich men who literally pays no tax. This will make undecided voters vote for Obama. But if Romney release his tax returs in the end of campaign, everyone will find out that he is not tax dodger and possibly will vote for Romney.

[Christianlady]

(Original post by Addzter)
Of course he did it to win votes, he's a politician. It's the same reason he announced his support for gay marriage recently.

Aye. Again, I wish he had done so much sooner in order to help those poor kids who were deported already.

It's not as if many Hispanics would have voted for Romney anyway, though. He might help that cause by picking Marco Rubio as his running mate, but apparently he's not even being considered which would be a huge mistake. Going with another boring white guy would be a big mistake.

I don't know... it seems it basically depends on if the Hispanic individual considers him/herself to be Republican or Democrat. Granted, there are more Hispanic Democrats than Hispanic Republicans. I have Hispanic friends on both political sides.

I hope he is considering Rubio!!! That would be an incredibly intelligent move on his part of he does choose him as his running mate! Yes true another white guy would be fatal, I think. Excellent point lol

I would have liked to see Ron Paul get the nomination, too. I don't agree with him economically, but on just about everything else he's spot on. Do you know who you're going to vote for yet?

I'm leaning towards Romney, mainly because I am for limited government. I do not believe it is the government's place to feed and care for the people. This just puts huge pressure and requires more funds. Rather, I believe the government's job is to protect the country from foreign invasions and make/enforce laws to help the people in the country. The government helping small businesses "make it" will help create more jobs which will in turn help people provide for themselves, instead of making them more dependent on the government to take care of them. I am worried about Obamacare, which my friends who own small business say will cripple them and cause them to lay off people and not be able to hire/expand their businesses.