Past the noise, the difference between Obama & Romney is obvious

I’m a simple person and tend to try sort thru noise and complexity to find the core bottom line. The distinction between Obama and Romney is perfectly clear by their adult life histories. YOU KNOW A PERSON BY THEIR HISTORY, not their promises and words.


Despite all the “issues” and the FACT that both Obama and Romney will say ANYTHING to win, the difference between them is OBVIOUS by their histories. A person need look no further.

Obama attended Columbia – one of the most liberal universities in the USA
Obama then attended Harvard, an honors law student and editorial of the law review – highly impressive
Obama then became a “community organizer” and other areas of social justice.
His associates were all social liberals and he skyrocketed in power thru liberal networks.

Romney attended Brigham Young U – one of the most conservative universities in the USA.
Romney then attended Harvard – earning degrees both in Law and in Business administration – highly impressive.
Romney then went into business and finance highly successfully.
His associates were in the economic community and he skyrocketed thru business networks.

Those two histories tell 1.) the priorities of each and 2.) what the focus of each is.



OBAMA: His priority and focus is SOCIAL JUSTICE for America.


ROMNEY: His priority and focus is ECONOMIC WEALTH for America.

It is THAT simple. That is what both are skilled at. That is what each is able to accomplish. SO... Pick YOUR priority and focus. Forget partisan association, all the noise, promises, attacks and media talking head. That is how you should vote. While you can pick apart either candidate positively or negatively as you wish, that is the bottom line to it all.


I openly acknowledge I prefer Obama on social issues, but prefer Romney on the economy. SO I have to decide which I think matters more at this point in time: Pursuit of Social Justice or Pursuit of National Wealth? I pick National Wealth.


Since I believe a country cannot be charitable at home or in the world without wealth and jobs, I am voting for Romney as I believe the priority now needs to be the economy, jobs and the wealth of the nation. However, if the country was in a strong economic and jobs situation, I would be voting for Obama.

BOTH Obama and Romney clearly are BRILLIANT individuals with incredibly awesome histories. BOTH highly successful in their areas of priority and focus both in their personal pursuits and government focus. Those histories clearly tell who each is and what each will focus upon and accomplish.

Obama: Social Justice. Romney: National wealth

How do you disagree with the analysis about both candidates?

For the most part I agree with your assessment. But I also think a President has more, and longer lasting power over influencing social justice than he has over the economy.

Name a single law the President could sign or an executive order he could pass that could immediately turn around the economy? In the social justice arena it is easy to come up with possibilities, but the economy is bigger than the power of any one President. And who the President appoint the the Supreme Court will have much more influence over social justice and individual liberties than it will have over the economy.

So weigh your priorities, and then judge the candidates ability and power to actually meet those priorities.

joko104 said:

ROMNEY: His priority and focus is PERSONAL WEALTH for HIMSELF.

Click to expand...

^Edited for accuracy^
You can and (actually I will) cite examples where Romney has given away-charity, Olympics, etc but when it comes to come...it's pretty obvious Romney was and still is obsessed with personal wealth.
Not to mention that being good in business is not necessarily the magic bullet into being the "savoir" of the U.S. economy.

Fruityfact said:

^Edited for accuracy^
You can and (actually I will) cite examples where Romney has given away-charity, Olympics, etc but when it comes to come...it's pretty obvious Romney was and still is obsessed with personal wealth.
Not to mention that being good in business is not necessarily the magic bullet into being the "savoir" of the U.S. economy.

Click to expand...

That's kind of where I was going to go. His skills were about getting wealth FROM American, not FOR America.

joko104 said:

I’m a simple person and tend to try sort thru noise and complexity to find the core bottom line. The distinction between Obama and Romney is perfectly clear by their adult life histories. YOU KNOW A PERSON BY THEIR HISTORY, not their promises and words.


Despite all the “issues” and the FACT that both Obama and Romney will say ANYTHING to win, the difference between them is OBVIOUS by their histories. A person need look no further.

Obama attended Columbia – one of the most liberal universities in the USA
Obama then attended Harvard, an honors law student and editorial of the law review – highly impressive
Obama then became a “community organizer” and other areas of social justice.
His associates were all social liberals and he skyrocketed in power thru liberal networks.

Romney attended Brigham Young U – one of the most conservative universities in the USA.
Romney then attended Harvard – earning degrees both in Law and in Business administration – highly impressive.
Romney then went into business and finance highly successfully.
His associates were in the economic community and he skyrocketed thru business networks.

Those two histories tell 1.) the priorities of each and 2.) what the focus of each is.



OBAMA: His priority and focus is SOCIAL JUSTICE for America.


ROMNEY: His priority and focus is ECONOMIC WEALTH for America.

It is THAT simple. That is what both are skilled at. That is what each is able to accomplish. SO... Pick YOUR priority and focus. Forget partisan association, all the noise, promises, attacks and media talking head. That is how you should vote. While you can pick apart either candidate positively or negatively as you wish, that is the bottom line to it all.


I openly acknowledge I prefer Obama on social issues, but prefer Romney on the economy. SO I have to decide which I think matters more at this point in time: Pursuit of Social Justice or Pursuit of National Wealth? I pick National Wealth.


Since I believe a country cannot be charitable at home or in the world without wealth and jobs, I am voting for Romney as I believe the priority now needs to be the economy, jobs and the wealth of the nation. However, if the country was in a strong economic and jobs situation, I would be voting for Obama.

BOTH Obama and Romney clearly are BRILLIANT individuals with incredibly awesome histories. BOTH highly successful in their areas of priority and focus both in their personal pursuits and government focus. Those histories clearly tell who each is and what each will focus upon and accomplish.

Obama: Social Justice. Romney: National wealth

How do you disagree with the analysis about both candidates?

Click to expand...

You failed to access how much of the other's main trait does each candidate have. Regardless, I will choose social justice over national wealth every time. That's why I am a Liberal. Money and material trappings don't mean **** to me. Never have, never will. Is Romney going to trickle down some national wealth to the have-nots?


I didn't think so.

Sarcogito said:

Name a single law the President could sign or an executive order he could pass that could immediately turn around the economy?

Click to expand...

Defunding ObamaCare.

Partisan hacks are like drunks at a football game shouting to kill the other team - just because they are the other team. They work themselves into a raging, fighting tizzy. Mindlessly. Stupidly.

Unfortunately, the news media runs on advertisers. Advertisers recognize people with such a personality are also easily sold products by merely implanting some little slogan or jungle in their heads, which then are truisms that control that person. For that reason, there is little reporting news left and instead only partisan hacks acting like football team cheerleaders for one team or the other - grabbing hold of weak-willed partisan hack personalities.

Mickey Shane said:

You failed to access how much of the other's main trait does each candidate have. Regardless, I will choose social justice over national wealth every time. That's why I am a Liberal. Money and material trappings don't mean **** to me. Never have, never will. Is Romney going to trickle down some national wealth to the have-nots?


I didn't think so.

Click to expand...

Liberals who have money declare that money is irrelevant. But to understand what that means in real terms is to look at Joe Biden's level of personal charity - which is none. Such liberals as him argue that equality means that everyone should have the same qualify coffin when they die of starvation or the cold.

The great boom of social programs and social justice came after WWII, though initially pioneered by super-rich FDR. The post-WWII "great generation" was not liberal. They were conservative, white and business/work ethic oriented. However, the nation also was exorbitantly wealthy. Charity easily comes from wealth. Severe poverty leads to looting and an everyone-for-themselves attitude.

The growing national debt is a far greater harm to "the poor and needy" than lack of jobs. The national debt is inflation. It reduces the value of the few dollars the poor have. It reduces the value of food stamps, social security benefits disability payments, old-age pensions and retirement accounts and the value of meager paychecks.

I guess because of how I grew up I put a great deal of value on "money" and "material items," being that I had exactly none and most of the time I was hungry for lack of food. In most of my adult life until about 5 years ago, 100% of my values were around SURVIVAL questions - shelter, food, clothing, and physical safety. I didn't have the luxury of your "money and material trappings don't mean ****" priorities. I see that as liberal arrogance. Extreme arrogance actually.

By social justice, I see two meanings. 1.) Economic fairness and 2.) civil rights - ie abortion, equal pay, gay rights. I am entirely onboard with Democrats on #2. However, I believe #1 is a sham and always is a failure as an economic system - because economic fairness is impossible without excess wealth.

While I actually believe Obama is a shill for the super-rich - the reason Obama adamently opposes putting a cap on personal tax deductions because the rich write the tax code, that claim starts to fall into partisan hackery talk. And that goes nowhere.

I believe the national priority now is economic wealth, the national debt and jobs. I believe the priority, focus and skills for doing so are with Romney. However, I will agree that Obama will do more for social justice, but having less and less to do it with. Get the money first. Then we can afford more humanitarianism for our own people and abroard.

Mickey Shane said:

You failed to access how much of the other's main trait does each candidate have. Regardless, I will choose social justice over national wealth every time. That's why I am a Liberal. Money and material trappings don't mean **** to me. Never have, never will. Is Romney going to trickle down some national wealth to the have-nots?


I didn't think so.

Click to expand...

I don't think whether national wealth "trickles down" is even relevant. Either there is or isn't national wealth. Money goes where it goes and a president or politician - despite all their words - can't change that. Either the wealth exists or it doesn't.

Fruityfact said:

^Edited for accuracy^
You can and (actually I will) cite examples where Romney has given away-charity, Olympics, etc but when it comes to come...it's pretty obvious Romney was and still is obsessed with personal wealth.
Not to mention that being good in business is not necessarily the magic bullet into being the "savoir" of the U.S. economy.

Click to expand...

Pursuit of personal wealth used to be the American ideal and work ethic, for at least 200 years. What would seem to matter is not that Romney was "obsessed" by it, but that he was successful at it. I doubt there is 1 in 100 people on this forum if they could have Romney's wealth would turn it down. They just don't know how to get it. He did - and no, he didn't get it from his father. That also revealing. He could have, but decided to go get it himself - and did.

I think his success with the Olympics - broke and wallowing in graft and fraud - demonstrated it can do so and is willing to do so without personal benefit. I don't know if his motive was "to help," or just if he saw it as an interesting money-project challenge or because his wife asked him to? The measure that matters is that he succceeded - and didn't put a dollar into his own pocket doing so. athough likely could have.

Just look at how successful Romney was at Bain Capital. He can do that with America.

Romney realized blue collar Americans were overpaid. He had to send those jobs to China.

Poverty is the greatest social injustice of all in modern society but keeping people on welfare instead of creating jobs for them is not the answer, so as counter-intuitive as it is to the left, they should be supporting Romney if they truly want people to be able to get off welfare rolls.

johnny_rebson said:

Just look at how successful Romney was at Bain Capital. He can do that with America.

Romney realized blue collar Americans were overpaid. He had to send those jobs to China.

Click to expand...

The auto bailout money is being used to send jobs to China. Obama has personal investment in China. Michelle Obama praised WalMart, the #1 exporter of jobs to China. You have no point. ALL business at any scale goes thru China now. For most industries, it is too damn difficult to do business in the USA anymore. It is easy to do business in China. And easier every year.

My wife learned that the short time she was in business. She preferred to buy American, but it was often impossible to do - and even if not it was not only cheaper but vastly easier to obtain inventories from China - primarily due to regulations. She could get product from inventory and thru customs 10 times faster than getting it from 100 miles away thru domestic regulations and regulators. She quickly shut the business down, laying everyone permanently off course, because she was not willing to spend her whole life being hassled by government people. So have over half the other businesses around here and most for the same reason.

Although her business was highly lucrative, it wasn't worth sacrificing all the time of her life dealing with government people doing nothing more than make-busy work to justify their generally pointless jobs other than to protect their goverment jobs.

I agree with a lot of what the OP said in his original statement but most of the NOISE was centered around "Yes he did no he didn't" which shows the depth to which or stupidity over elections have gone. As stated the party hacks on both sides are simply trying to out yell the opposition and thats just proves the point.

Romney has "issues" so does Obama, but whose worse or better? The only way to get concensus on this is for ALL of us to get in there cut down all the dead wood rhetoric and facts the facts when they are shown to us. This does not include FOX or MSNBC "facts".

But the video evidence and printed information whether it be from 2 days ago or two years ago.

If necessary that means to put it all out on the table and look at it. Perhaps this should be a topic for a debate. Have the moderator ask the candidate about thier stated positions now and then and using facts have them try and explain the variance. The one that does the poorest job loses.

There are two saying that should be the hallmark of each election. The pen (Facts) is mighter than the sword (hackery) and Ac tion speak louder than words.

wolfman24 said:

I agree with a lot of what the OP said in his original statement but most of the NOISE was centered around "Yes he did no he didn't" which shows the depth to which or stupidity over elections have gone. As stated the party hacks on both sides are simply trying to out yell the opposition and thats just proves the point.

Romney has "issues" so does Obama, but whose worse or better? The only way to get concensus on this is for ALL of us to get in there cut down all the dead wood rhetoric and facts the facts when they are shown to us. This does not include FOX or MSNBC "facts".

But the video evidence and printed information whether it be from 2 days ago or two years ago.

If necessary that means to put it all out on the table and look at it. Perhaps this should be a topic for a debate. Have the moderator ask the candidate about thier stated positions now and then and using facts have them try and explain the variance. The one that does the poorest job loses.

There are two saying that should be the hallmark of each election. The pen (Facts) is mighter than the sword (hackery) and Ac tion speak louder than words.

Click to expand...

There are a hundred ways to call Obama a liar and the same for Romney if "variances" from the past to present count as dishonesty. The CORE of Obama's 2008 campaign was DOMESTICALLY that he would not extend the Bush Tax cuts and he promised to close Gitmo. The tax cuts would have ended by him literally doing nothing and it would have taken a 1 page executive order to close Gitmo. Then after the election he endorsed the Bush tax cuts - making them now the Obama tax cuts - and he left Gitmo open.

Everyone knows these "variances." No one cares.

Flexibility is a Romney plus in my opinion - and there is a huge difference between a person changing his stances during the election process and doing exactly opposite what was promised after the election.

To the contrary, I think moderators should stay out of it. It is not up to "moderators" to decide what topics the candidates should place priority on - just like that is not a role of moderators in this forum. The only thing moderators should do is be time keepers. It is up to the candidates to say what each candidate says is the priority to the candidate him/herself, not moderators to dictate what the moderator says are the priority topics. I also do not believe moderators should be the "judge" of "the facts" - as we saw with Crowley, when what is the "fact" is disputable.

Sadly the whole "Obama history" conspiracy crap and magical thinking won't end if Obama is reelected.

megaprogman said:

Sadly the whole "Obama history" conspiracy crap and magical thinking won't end if Obama is reelected.

Click to expand...

Where'd that come from on this topic???

joko104 said:

Where'd that come from on this topic???

Click to expand...

The OP goes into the evil obama history that many like to scare themselves with and pretend it matters one whit.

joko said:

I guess because of how I grew up I put a great deal of value on "money" and "material items," being that I had exactly none and most of the time I was hungry for lack of food. In most of my adult life until about 5 years ago, 100% of my values were around SURVIVAL questions - shelter, food, clothing, and physical safety. I didn't have the luxury of your "money and material trappings don't mean ****" priorities. I see that as liberal arrogance. Extreme arrogance actually.

Click to expand...

My heart bleeds for you joko. The problem is that I've mostly been flush in life. You know, having food all of the time, and gas money. Elitist that I am, I must practice my exteme Liberal arrogance so that you have something to bitch about. No thanks necessary.

megaprogman said:

The OP goes into the evil obama history that many like to scare themselves with and pretend it matters one whit.

Click to expand...

It does not, unless YOU read that history as evil. I don't. I see it as "impressive."

Mickey Shane said:

My heart bleeds for you joko. The problem is that I've mostly been flush in life. You know, having food all of the time, and gas money. Elitist that I am, I must practice my exteme Liberal arrogance so that you have something to bitch about.

Click to expand...

We are in agreement about you. Agreeing is good.

joko104 said:

Pursuit of personal wealth used to be the American ideal and work ethic, for at least 200 years. What would seem to matter is not that Romney was "obsessed" by it, but that he was successful at it. I doubt there is 1 in 100 people on this forum if they could have Romney's wealth would turn it down. They just don't know how to get it. He did - and no, he didn't get it from his father. That also revealing. He could have, but decided to go get it himself - and did.

I think his success with the Olympics - broke and wallowing in graft and fraud - demonstrated it can do so and is willing to do so without personal benefit. I don't know if his motive was "to help," or just if he saw it as an interesting money-project challenge or because his wife asked him to? The measure that matters is that he succceeded - and didn't put a dollar into his own pocket doing so. athough likely could have.

Click to expand...

So, you're telling me Romney did not get a fat hunk of $ from his dad to invest? Wrong, yes, he did get it from his father. getting handed 40,000$ in 1970 was a lot of money to invest. Getting handed 40,000$ now is a lot of money to invest, with 42 years of inflation wattering it down. This is no self-made businessman

joko104 said:

We are in agreement about you. Agreeing is good.

Click to expand...

yes, now say: Obama good, Romney bad.

excellent!

roflpublican said:

So, you're telling me Romney did not get a fat hunk of $ from his dad to invest? Wrong, yes, he did get it from his father. getting handed 40,000$ in 1970 was a lot of money to invest. Getting handed 40,000$ now is a lot of money to invest, with 42 years of inflation wattering it down. This is no self-made businessman

Click to expand...

Tell that to Bill Gates and about 100 other billionaires.

$40,000 is chump change.

Here is my main problem with Romney. It's not about how he made millions while he was at Bain, buying companies and making mad profits while he screwed the employees. Bain was successful at growing several companies, all of which I no longer do business with (mainly Staples and Guitar Center). Romney cannot stand still on any issue. With Obama, you know exactly how you are going to get screwed. Romney makes a tall order promise, but we have no idea if/when/how he is going to change his mind after he is elected.

I am being completely honest and non-partisan about this. Today, he might be the best thing for America. After the election, is a big question mark. If you go off his past political speeches, you don't know what he is going to do. We know for sure what he is telling us right now, and I do believe that could help America. There is no guarantee he'll wake up the day after he is sworn in and decide to do something else.

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. We are better off with Obama. We know what he is going to do. Obamacare is not going to kill our economy. I'm only going to pay $20 per month more for my healthcare insurance next year (my company revises our healthcare plan every year to adjust for changes). I can't say for sure how much of an increase the rest of America is going to pay, but it won't be the end of the world. It's better than waiting until 2015 to see if you're in the tax bracket that gets a $4300 tax break or paying $900 more than what you currently pay.