There's only going to be ONE person that will replace him. And he will be FAR better that the current disaster that is in the whitehouse now.
Originally Posted by TheDaliLama
Santorum is not "FAR better" than Obama. I'm not Obama's biggest fan but come the hell on. The "war on porn"? Anti-birth control because it leads people to do bad things in the bedroom? Are you fucking kidding me? He was my state representative and he was absolutely abysmal at his job.
Romney is not much better, and one of the biggest flip floppers I've EVER seen. People say Kerry was a flip flopper but Romney is against EVERYTHING he used to SUPPORT. That doesn't sound like president material to me.
Gingrich is just a joke, and I don't even have to elaborate.
Ron Paul, well the Republicans would never let him have a shot. Someone might make him their vice though.
As far as this "list" goes:
21. Assassinated an American citizen without due process (link) (Yes I know he was a terrorist who wanted to kill me, but the government can make mistakes and I don’t want the government having the power to make mistakes about killing American citizens with no limits)
Are they kidding with that italic part? Is that a joke?
36. Supports mandatory DNA testing of those arrested for crimes, regardless of whether they have been convicted (link)
This is a reason not to vote for him? Why is this even a problem? If there's enough for an arrest warrant, a judge will probably sign a forced DNA warrant anyway.
73. Cut a benefit program from health care reform that was supposed to reduce the overall cost after realizing it would actually dramatically increase it
So he realised it would cost more instead of costing less and got rid of it. How is this a bad thing?
105. Plans to sue Apple and other publishers over e-book pricing (link)
The e-book thing is something I've been following for awhile. And it's (spoilers) not a bad thing. They're price fixing and there's hard evidence of it. This is a good thing. The DOJ isn't after them for something fair or reasonable they're doing. It's not just Apple either. It's Apple and 5 major publishing companies.
Among the reported gripes the Justice Department has with the way Apple and publishers are doing business is a move toward setting standard prices and giving Apple a 30% cut of revenue for e-books sold on its devices. The business model, which Apple rolled out with the launch of its first iPad tablet in 2010, differs from what publishers offer to traditional bookstores, which is to sell books to retailers for about half of the suggested cover price and let the booksellers charge whatever they'd like.
As e-books have become more popular and brick-and-mortar bookstores have struggled, the industry has moved to the "agency model" Apple dictated with the iPad and, the Justice Department believes, publishers have acted in concert to replicate Apple's model with Amazon and others. Publishers have denied such collusion, the report said.
"Apple also stipulated that publishers couldn't let rival retailers sell the same book at a lower price," the Journal said.
Apple's e-book prices, for the most part, line up with the digital book prices offered by rivals such as Amazon, Barnes & Noble and Kobo, with most titles selling at about $9.99.
The Journal report notes that the words of the late Steve Jobs as related in Walter Isaacson's biography of the Apple co-founder, could be used to back up accusations of publishers working together to set prices.
In "Steve Jobs," published in October, Isaacson quotes Jobs as saying: "We told the publishers, 'We'll go to the agency model, where you set the price, and we get our 30%, and yes, the customer pays a little more, but that's what you want anyway.'
Jobs continued, "They went to Amazon and said, 'You're going to sign an agency contract or we're not going to give you the books,' " Isaacson wrote.
Well, thanks for reading (or at least skimming) this far. I sort of padded the list with lobbyists and fundraisers
Wow.
As I said before, this is certainly not an endorsement of Romney or even Santorum or Gingrich. If anything, this post is also a list of reasons not to vote for any of them, as I believe each of them would likely continue the ethical, transparency, budgetary, and civil liberty abuses perpetrated by Bush and continued by Obama.
This guy supports Ron Paul, which is fine, but doesn't make him much of a realist eh?
In the general election I will most be likely be promoting a third party candidate or third party voting in general; the greater percentage of people we can get to stop voting between two power abusers, the greater chance we can have of reform.
Thumbs up on that - one day, maybe, we'll have a real system.