reply to post by Taiyed
You raise a similar question to Tw0Sides, it's worth looking at. But remember that the original question was along the lines of "Why would you vote
for someone if it goes against your economic best interests?" And the response was "Because my economic self-interest is not the most important
issue of the election." I listed freedom as one example, although Tw0Sides seemed to mildly object, and there are others, such as the unity of the
For examples of what I object to from the current administration, we can look to the TSA, domestic drones, the Department of Homeland Security with
their lists of possible terrorists, the Obamacare mandates for each individual, the laws like NDAA which ATSers so object to, the religious freedom
issues which are currently being litigated, increased prosecution of whistleblowers, not to mention the regulations and executive orders which seem
to be flooding out of D. C.
Have you seen anybody saying we are more
free after four years of Obama? Now, I don't know what Romney will do with each of these issues, but
I'm reasonably certain they'll just continue and get worse under Obama's second four.
As far as Tw0Sides comment about the freedom of China and Russia, I have to admit I didn't understand the point. They're even worse off than we
are, but I don't know where Tw0Sides wants to go from there.
And, yes, Tw0Sides, I do throw the word "freedom" around a lot. That's because it's vitally important and in danger of being ignored. Especially
in the US, freedom has been historically treasured. Unlike China or Russia.
I guess what I'm asking is do you honestly believe Romney is for the middle and lower class?
For me, that gets off our subject. But I
originally thought Obama was for the poor and middle class, and he may be, but his policies have increased income inequality, increased the number of
poor, and decreased the median family income by thousands of dollars. I can't imagine that Romney could be half as bad.