Listen, I consider my grasp on the issues of this election largely inadequate - due to my limited (if not pathetic) cognitive ability and the lack of any substantive coverage of the issues in main stream media (printed press seems a bit better). Even so, the choice is a pretty clear one for Obama, because his policies make sense and Romney's... well he doesn't have any really - just rhetoric, seemingly random numbers he pulled from the back of a cereal box, and talking points.
But the only reason I came to this conclusion is because I have actively pursed the facts. However, as Frustrated lady pointed out, Willard's a con man... and in my opinion a pretty good one. He might not seem like it to me or many of the posters here, but we aren't the ones that need convincing are we?
And it doesn't help that mainstream media has by and large dropped the ball when it comes to reporting the facts, or that distrust in media is at an all time high. Sure we see fact checks and pinocchio nose faces popping up all over Romney's statements, but more often then not they just regurgitate talking points, or talk about "body language", "who won the debate", how people perceived the candidates, or whatever trend they thing will sell.
"So wtf is this this 30 post wannabee saying" you ask? It's this:
Screw the polls, the chase for Mitty's hankie, our obsession with debate performance or w/e. What we have is substantive, what we have is facts. I have been witness - in under a month - to see this forum propel issues into the national spotlight. And as much as I would like to see Rom get busted for a cheatsheet at the debate or own up to his Spandering with his brownface... we don't need to rely on speculative attacks when we have facts - hard facts that everyone care about, hard facts that everyone needs to know.
Ezra's take on Romney's plan is so brilliant in its simplicity and understanding, yet i fear it will go under the radar because lets face it - not everyone watches The Last Word, nor do they actively participate in seeking the truth - if this were true the whole nation would of been screaming at Mittens during the debate. It touches on so many issues - the lies, reduction of medicaid for a large protion of the populuos, pre-existing coverage, and the larger issue of effective governance vs corporate governace. Romeny's argument at face value almost looks like the classical small government vs big Gov't debate, but its a ruse for his corporate, de-regulation, trickledown, go f-yourself poor leeches agenda
I'm sorry for taking the soap box approach, and in all honesty this is a bit intimidating for me - I'm new to the forums, feel inferior in my understanding of the issues when i read a lot of the posts, and generally am just so happy to of found this community. I have been out of the country for close to 3 years working in South America, and feel helpless to do anything except through some money here and there. Just watching what was going on back int he US has been frustrating, and I have been so glad to find this community.
= new reply since forum marked as read
