MANY VOTERS KNOW LITTLE ABOUT
THEIR COUNTRY OR CANDIDATES

The saddest aspect of the democratic process in America is that so many people don’t know—and don’t seem to care—about facts. It is not Truth that matters, it is ideology. And when Truth flies in the face of what a person believes, many people insist that the Truth is a lie, thus making it possible for them to stick with their beliefs no matter what.

For instance, U.S. President Barack Obama recently said: “After a decade of decline, this country has created over half a million new manufacturing jobs.” The Truth: Since he took office, the country has lost about a million such jobs, and has regained more than half of them during the economic comeback. When a football team loses 15 yards of first down, then regains 8 yards on  second down, that is not exactly called progress.

For instance, Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney said in the second debate: “We have fewer people working today than we had when the president took office.” The Truth: the economy was losing 800,000 jobs a month when Mr. Obama took office as a result of 8 years of President Bush’s administration—so holding Mr. Obama to a net job creation standard means he would have to have made up for massive losses that were out of his control entirely. AND….he has done it. The Bureau of Labor statistics show that across the four years of the Obama Administration there has been created a net positive 125,000 jobs.

Item 1 above was taken from a fascinating article in Time magazine’s Oct 15 issue, titled Blue Truth/Red Truth. The second item came from a story by reporter George Nornick published Oct 17 by The Nation headlined Romney’s Seven Biggest Debate Lies. Here’s another…

Mr. Romney said in the second debate: “I don’t believe employers should tell someone whether they could have contraceptive care or not. Every woman in America should have access to contraceptives.” But back in March, when Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri introduced a bill that would allow employers to deny contraceptive coverage to employees based on the employer’s religious beliefs, Mr. Romney said: “Of course I support the Blunt amendment.”

Mr. Romney also said in that second debate: “As a matter of fact, oil production is down 14 percent this year on federal land.” And, reporter Nornick points out, it is true that drilling on public lands dropped 14 percent in 2011. But it went up 15 percent the year before. So overall, oil production on federal lands is up under Mr. Obama. Says The Nation article: “Romney is being extremely dishonest in singling out the one year that it dropped.”

Meanwhile, the Time magazine article pointed out that Mr. Obama has asked on the campaign trail, “What rights would Romney deny (for gay couples)?” Then he has answered his own question: “Adopting children together.” The magazine points out that this is simply false. The article in Time corrects the record, pointing to the fact that Mr. Romney “supports adoption rights for same-sex couples.”

But the problem is about more than what the candidates say. It’s about what the American public actually knows. In the Oct 17 issue of USA TODAY writer Katrina Trinko, a member of the paper’s Board of Contributors, reports that “only 34% of Americans can name even one Supreme Court justice,” citing an August survey by FindLaw.com. She also reports that in 2011 Newsweek magazine asked 1,000 Americans to take a citizenship test—and 38% failed.

And a 2006 study by the McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum “discovered that only 28% could identify even two of the First Amendments five freedoms,” Trinko continued.

But it’s not only constitutional provisions or civic questions that too many voters know little about, it’s “what’s so” in American life itself. For instance, Trinko reports, “a 2011 CNN survey found that the median estimate for the percentage of the budget that was foreign aid was 10%. In reality, it was then under 1% of the total federal budget.”

The writer says that “it’s the same story with public broadcasting,” touted by Mr. Romney in a debate as a place where he would cut expenditures, saying he “loves Big Bird,” but the cost of PBS had to go. The public’s median estimate of the PBS portion of the federal budget was 5%, “while actually it was 1/100th of 1%,” Ms. Trinko’s article said.

It’s becoming sadly clear that many people don’t like it when “fact checkers” take the sting out of their candidate’s charge, or the lift out of their candidate’s claim.

They like it when Mr. Romney says he wants to “keep our Pell Grant program growing,” allowing young people who might not otherwise be able to afford it to go to college, and they hate it when fact checkers like Mr. Nornick point out that the budget of Mr. Romney’s own running mate, Vice-Presidential Candidate Paul Ryan, would cut Pell Grants for up to one million students.

They like it when Mr. Romney responds to a debate question about where he stands on equal pay for women by saying that he actively sought to bring more women into his cabinet when he took office as governor of Massachusetts, and they hate it when fact checkers point out that he actively and vocally opposed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act.

(And they totally despise it when Mr. Nornick reports on a Boston Globe story revealing that there were no female partners at Bain Capital during the 1980s and 1990sand that even today only four of forty-nine of the firm’s managing directors are women.)

People like it when Mr. Obama’s campaign charges that the way Bain Capital reorganized “cost the government and the American taxpayers $10 million,” and they hate it when fact checkers at Time magazine point out that “Bain wrote off $10 million in debt to a failed bank at the expense of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the FDIC)—which is funded by banks. Taxpayers paid nothing.”

In just a few days now the people of American will decide: What part should Truth and Facts play in their decision regarding who shall be the next President of the United States? But the real question is, are there enough people with enough intelligence to even care?

A few days ago, when Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers showed that the unemployment rate in America is now lower than it was when Mr. Obama took office, right wing Republicans ran around claiming on all the talk shows that the latest statistics where artificially skewed in a vast internal conspiracy within the Obama Administration. These are the same statistics that those same Republicans considered extremely reliable when for the 43 previous months they showed a high unemployment rate.

The conclusion of the Far Right: When the numbers support us, embarrassing the President for 43 straight months, the Administration could do nothing to hide them or skew them, and so those numbers are reliable and you can stake your life on them. When the numbers oppose us, showing the President has made some gains on the problem, the Administration must have at last found a way to secretly pressure or force the Bureau of labor Statistics to report false numbers, and so the new stats are the result of a conspiracy.

People believe what they want to believe. The New Spirituality calls for complete transparency in all matters, public and private. Will we ever see that in our political campaigns? Not in 2012, apparently. And worse yet, not enough people seem to care.

Please Note: The mission of The Global Conversation website is to generate an ongoing sharing of thoughts, ideas, and opinions at this internet location in an interchange that we hope will produce an ongoing and expanding conversation ultimately generating wider benefit for our world. For this reason, links that draw people away from this site will be removed from our Comments Section, a process which may delay publication of your post. If you wish to include in your Comment the point of view of someone other than yourself, please feel free to report those views in full (and even reprint them) here.
Click here to acknowledge and remove this note:
  • mewabe

    Before debating, candidates should be sworn as if in court, and prosecuted for contempt of the American public (to the full extent of the law) when caught lying.

    This would eliminate all political con men really fast!

    Their entire past political choices, votes, attendance, accomplishments and failures should be part of a personal resume they should submit to the public, their employer, for review.

    Indeed rather than relying exclusively on promises, on “style” and “personality”, on “winning” or “loosing” a debate, wouldn’t it make more sense to look at a track record, and not just a couple of things here and there but the complete record?

    Would it make too much sense?

    The system take more care when hiring a bank teller than a president, as far as background checking.

    They should also disclose all of their personal investments without exception, because for example if one of them has personal investment that is tied to oil development, he or she will favor oil over alternative energy.

  • mewabe

    I agree with you Neale, intelligence does not seem to be part of the process of voting, generally speaking…beliefs, emotions, and a kind of loyalty towards one’s team and adversarial attitude towards the competing team as in football, with about the same amount of rationality displayed, are the factors that appear to influence voting decisions among the public…or a focus on one issue to the exclusion of all others.

    This is why I call it a circus…and politicians and their handlers know how the public reacts (rather than thinks) and exploit this knowledge to the hilt.

    This is also why I find the whole process insulting to anyone with a minimal IQ.

  • mewabe

    In other words to they really think we are stupid? Yes they do.

    Are they correct in this assumption? hhmmmm….

  • Frank

    I have always thought in a similar vein mewabe. I could never understand why someone didn’t sue a Politician for abandoning their promises. After all, it’s a verbal contract right? Abandoning a promise makes it a lie to get elected. Rhetoric is just a fancy way to say it.

    Transparency will be the undoing of all machinations of power. It’s why we don’t have it yet. Regular folks, most likely, would favor the model put forth in CwG. But there are those who intend on not just making a living, but taking advantage of others. They will do everything they can to keep things opaque. The only way I see to start leveling the playing field is for regular folks to go there, to transparency, without the elite and, in effect, shame them by juxtaposing rhetoric with action. That would take some courage though.

    With Love

    FSP

  • Frank

    One thing though about some of this political maneuvering. It is hard to attribute it just to the candidates. A glass half full and a glass half empty are both accurately describing a situation from different perspectives. Just the same, the media, pundits, bloggers etc. Speak from their own perspective and can purposely frame a statement to appear to mean something else. The intent of who we listen to is always at issue. The most important thing is to do your own research and make your own decision. Read the bills they discuss – sometimes a daunting task, but even the effort will bring clarity. Look at the actual information, and not what is presented to you by editors. The disparity is often shocking.

    I do wish this process was a little less labor intensive.

    Love Always

    FSP

  • mewabe

    More thoughts…

    It has become obvious that the entire political process is controlled by skewing facts (n other words lying or not telling the whole truth, omitting critical factors to distort reality).

    For example, in California, we have Proposition 37 to label GMO products. These products are labelled in Europe and many other nations, and a vast majority of the American public favors labeling.

    However the GE industry is spending one million dollars a day on ads etc that are blatant distortions of the facts…bold face lies…and the supporters of this proposition, not having the same kind of resources, are fighting back with signs in people’s yards, pamphlets distributed in the street, etc…

    Here is the problem: it is not a mystery to anyone that industry, politicians and almost anyone in a position of power lie. The only thing that that seems to be up for debate is who is the worse liar, “my” team or “your” team. When a politician or an industry lies and gets away with it, the public admires the cleverness of the lying entity it supports. It’s called “winning”.

    The acceptance of this universal situation is a really negative reflection of who we think we are. Would we enter into an intimate relationship with another knowing he or she has repeatedly lied to us, and will continue to do so? Some do…

    How can we put up with the powerful lying to us? What does it say about us, that we deserve nothing better? That we cannot envision anything better because it has been part of our history for so long? Do we expect all human beings to be dishonest? Is it an accepted part of the “game”?

    Are we all liars at heart, therefore sympathizing with the liars who lead us?

  • Sebastian Peters

    The solution = Education.

    Education all the way up to the highest university should be paid for by the government through taxes. You might even want to consider paying the students to go to school.

    That’s what we do in Denmark.

  • mewabe

    Sebastian, unfortunately education in the US is not well rounded but focused on extreme specialization…that’s why we have lawyers and doctors who know very little about history, geography or correct English grammar.

  • MC in CA

    So this article attempts to clarify objectivity inaccuracies when it precludes facts. The job reports over the last 43 months had reportedly included complete data BUT the latest omitted numbers from CA’s unemployment claims. (NEALE WRITES: Proof? This would be important to show proof of. Can you give us a cite, MC?) This also does not take into consideration that many of us who lost employment but regained it took lesser positions providing lower salary and trimmed benefits. (From Neale: This did not happen in just the last four weeks, MC. So the numbers from the months before ALSO included this fact. Therefore, the unemployment rate is still DOWN. Apples to apples comparison, MC. That’s fair.) The number also does not take into consideration the growing number of workers that have given up looking and lost unemployment. (This, too, did not “just happen” in the final measuring period, MC. This was true before just the final four weeks of the year-long survey. The measure for the latest of those 43 months when the unemployment figures favored the Republican argument was the same as for the time when the figures supported Democratic claims of a comeback. Be fair, MC. This condition did not suddenly arise in the past 30 days. The fact is, by the same measurement used before the unemployment rate dipped, the latest news does not support the GOP contention that the President has made no progress at all on unemployment. And I know that the Right hates, just hates, those new, better and lower unemployment numbers, and just has to find a way to discredit them, but those are the facts, ladies and gentlemen. The unemployment rate is lower than when Mr. Obama came into office–inheriting an economy that was then losing 800,000 jobs a month.

    Regarding oil drilling, production may be up slightly but federal approval of applications is down. (If Mr. Romney had said that, I would have agreed with him. But he didn’t say that, MC. He said that oil production was down by 14%. A simple and sad misleading of the public.)

    Yet again, another left leaning article claiming to be fact based! Sad!

    (What is sad, MC, is that neither campaign can seem to tell “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” I also pointed out the misleading or false statements of the Obama campaign…so how is this story “another left leading article” MC? For instance, did I not point out that Mr. Obama’s campaign was claiming, in seeking to garner the votes of gay Americans, that Mr. Romney was opposed to adoption by same sex couples, when in fact Time magazine claims that Mr. Romney supports it? This is another example of the kind of truth that all Americans should know. And I reported that in this case it was Mr. Obama’s campaign that was allegedly obfuscating the facts. So exactly how is this article “left leaning?”

    Gee willikers…looks like if you say anything against the GOP candidate, you’re “left-leaning.” Wow.)

  • Therese Wilson

    MC…or maybe just another indication that no one can give a guaranteed correct opinion until there is a whole lot more transparency than there is today?

    T.

  • sunseed

    well said, my dear friend!!!

  • Michael L

    So why pick one over the other, when lying is a prerequisite for being a lawyer and politician.

    Oh sorry there is only one lawyer in the race.

    Even Neale’s cherry picking what he deemed objectionable was milk toast compared to some of the whoppers told.

    Like one side only wants dirty air and dirty water and they have thrown granny over the cliff and Rommey’s Co. killed someones wife.
    And that we were hemorrhaging 800,000 jobs a month is misleading because those jobs never came back, business just got more efficient and do not need those workers, as 25 million unemployed and underemployed can attest. And one more misnomer, GM was bailed out and if they had just gone bankrupt which they eventually did, we could have saved 20 million. Some smart move.

    (NOTE from NEALE: You are wrong here, Michael. They did not just go bankrupt “eventually,” as Romney suggested they should do. They filed for bankruptcy protection, with a multi-million-dollar bailout loan from the government, which allowed them to keep operating until they could PAY BACK the bailout money–which they did to the last cent. To the last cent, Michael. Actually, with interest. So the taxpayer’s actually MADE money on the bailout. Meanwhile, with the government’s bridge-loan, GM was able to keep making cars, thereby saving the jobs of thousands, not just at their plants, but in dozens of allied industries and companies–all of whom would have been hugely negatively affected, with many employees thrown out of work, had Mr. Obama just let GM simply go belly up, as Mr. Romney suggested.

    Why do you not mention the whole story, Michael? Does it sound too good? It’s utterly amazing to me how so many people can stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that the auto bailout worked. (None of those people are auto industry workers, however. Interesting to notice…)

    And how could we have “saved 20 million” if GM has just gone bankrupt, without the bailout? You can’t save what you never lost. GM PAID BACK the bailout money. So there was nothing to “save” that was not totally recouped. So what is this invisible $20 million that we supposedly lost that we could have “saved”? What we SAVED was the AUTO INDUSTRY…and several thousand jobs.)

    And his source material is mostly left leaning, ah the shades of gray we weave.

    I heard a study recently that said, for every job created 10 have disappeared
    And the jobs are not even keeping up with the population growth.

    (Don’t know what “study” that is, Michael, but this is not true. Over the years of the Obama Administration there has been a net gain of jobs, not a loss. And the current unemployment rate is lower than it was when Mr. Obama took office. I know these numbers are galling to the Right, but you know…”dems da facts, man.”)

    Now with a majority of the people in the US not even knowing the date of the voting, maybe, because someone comes and picks them up (when ever) and gives them breakfast as they pre-election vote. Money if you’re in Chicago.

    Ok I’m through with my rant, but that’s what is happening right now in this county and others watching all over the world. We as a species are holding this horse race in place as both men promise the moon and deliver stinky cheese.(no offense to the French)

    Each side can not possibly feel comfortable voting for the other side that has been demonized. Often the ones behind in the polls often do, or when their policies are not working,,,,”the other guy is even more out of touch with you.”

    Fortunately we get what we choose, and elections have consequences.

    Maybe it’s time to pick the worst possibility for the country in each of our eyes, and take 4 more years on the chin. By then we will be throwing folks into the boiling pot and it will take an Honest Person to get us out!!

    We make the decision as to what we are creating here (our thoughts). So enjoy!!! Because life is to be Joyful and I will Love whatever shows up. Why? Because I know that it is the way to evolution, which is benevolent.

  • mewabe

    The problem with being led is…being led. This implies a certain amount of passivity.

    The public must demand (as in forcefully, not a request but an order) an honest and transparent government. You would think that honesty in politics would be a bi-partisan issue on which all people could agree without exceptions…an essential prerequisite to being given the responsibility of running the government.

    Again, as in an intimate relationship…if there is no honesty, what else is there? Nothing in the end, just game playing, and a winner and a loser.

    We the public are losing because we dot not dare being the boss, and dealing with the government as if it was our employee (and it is, no more no less). We look up to our dear leaders as if we were under them. We are taken because we put ourselves in the position to be taken, and have no one but ourselves to blame.

    Are we sheep, to be lead to slaughter over and over again? When will we take our power back? Do people know that they have the power, both by law and in terms of numbers? There is something wrong in the mind of most here…perhaps it is habituation…after centuries of being peons and enduring abuse and oppression by church and lay authorities, submission and passivity may have become part of the collective consciousness of our human race…to the point that questioning authority is seen as a very daring act, when it is actually a basic requirement to healthy living.

    Many American Indians remember freedom, because theirs was only taken away recently. Freedom is still part of their psychological dna. That’s why they cannot fit well in our systems, and do not want to. I can relate to that.

  • Carol Skelton

    I just don’t understand how any middle class person can vote for Romney who made some of his millions by shipping companies to China just to make more money. How people can be ok with people losing their jobs, pensions and benefits? We are all connected. Just because it didn’t happen to me, and I’m still ok, how can I just ignore other struggling so a few can have so much? Romney and people like him would still be rich if they wouldn’t have shipped all those American jobs to China. It’s just so sad.

  • Tina

    I don’t know what to think anymore. My unemployment benefits ran out two weeks ago and I finally got a menial pt job. I am exausted trying to figure out me and if somehow I brought this on myself. Now, I have to filter all the infor mation from the media so I can makea logical decision. When does it end? I don’t understand society or politics. Everything seems backwards. Do we have to lose everything to finally know something?? Because I have read and searched. I know nothing.

  • Tina

    Let me rephrase that…lol I know we are all connected….but I am not understanding how the universe works. I know nothing unless I know everything. This is why I am overwhelmed. I cant give what I don’t have….which is answers or a solution. Because I am unaware of the full problem. How can we as a society fully function without all the facts?? So, we can make a logical step that makes sense?? Speaking of sense, am I making any at all?? Lol

  • mewabe

    Tina, I think we are coming to a point where the individual and the global are merging…we can no longer say “this situation I have in my life is just my own problem”, no, I think that personal problems are global problems, and we have to start imagining personal solutions that are also global solutions.

    In other words, we either choose to change the world together, to define and create what it means to be together and interconnected and interdependent, or we suffer individually and en masse. That’s the nature of the storm that has overtaken the world, to force us to come together, to birth a new world. It is a good thing, but like most births, it creates discomfort for a while.

    Politicians are lost…because the necessary changes are beyond the scope of their power, and perhaps their training and understanding. They are trying to stir a boat that is stuck on a sand bar, and they are using the same old tools, mostly. It is up to all of us to come up with a new vision for our lives and the world, and to manifest it, from the bottom up…Neale knows this, and many others have been given similar messages. Change is right around the corner…but we have to make it happen, it will not come from our leaders. We need to lead them and ourselves.

    Do not loose hope, millions are in the same situation, have the same questions, and seek answers. This is a time like no other. Humanity be forced to manifest a new paradigm, because the old cultural story no longer works, more and more of us know it, and are actually sick and tired of it. It’s a good first step, to feel that something has become unacceptable, unbearable.

    Yes it all seems backwards, upside down, inside out…because it no longer fits us…our collective consciousness has overgrown its former social, cultural, religious constructs…hopefully humanity will opt for a gentle transformation, rather than a violent and brutal change. Hopefully we will navigate wisely between fear and love, choosing love and trust as our common guides.

  • Bstarsister

    I’m a Kiwi living in GB and taking the time to educate myself about the candidates. Whomever succeeds here as the USA’s leader indeed influences the entire globe.

    This insight illustrates the need to set aside precious time to educate ourselves, to read between the lines and to be our own investigative journalists. The debates are a disgrace, with snippets of distorted facts shared only for the purpose of discrediting the other. Thankfully the vast resources of the www allow us access to information, and its up to us to establish fact from fiction.

    Thank you for sharing.

  • Darien

    I’m all for transparency. Not just in our presidential candidates, but for everyone in the government. Oh, and let’s add the real rulers of our country – Big Business.
    Transparency would show us exactly who has contributed the millions to these men’s campaigns – and to whom they owe their allegiance.
    It would show us just who is profiting from the loss of our children’s lives in the Middle East.
    We would know how much profit the drug companies are making on contraceptives, and how they could make them cheaper without government involvement.
    We would see why never before heard of schools are popping up all over, why universities are on huge building programs, why the cost of going to college has skyrocketed, brought on by the education bubble created by Pell Grants.
    We would see that a smaller government is all that is necessary. We would see that WE the People can take care of our own, much better and much more economically than the government.
    I’m sure there is much more of which we would be made aware.
    As for what is going on right now, politically, we don’t really have much of a choice. Regardless of what they say, the fact that stands out the most is this: Obama Promised to bring the troops home 7 months after he took office. Instead, our children continue to die. We may forgive him for breaking his promise, but how can we forget?

  • mewabe

    So, someone would not vote for Obama because he did not fulfill his promise of bringing the troops home, but would vote for Romney who wants to give more money to the Pentagon that it is asking for, and who wants to declare war on Iran?????????????????

    Here again the American public will be the victim of its own ignorance of history….Iran is nor Iraq…it will not roll over and die, but will fight a bloody war that the US has no chance to win, unless using nuclear weapons.

    Do we want another world war? Vote Republican if you do, they will deliver! The concept of endless war came from Bush, Karl Rove, the neo- conservatives, and the ideology of the Project for a New American Century. Romney’s foreign policy team is jammed-packed with neo-conservatives who have the same ideology.

  • Michael L

    Stop hating mewabe your hurting your self.

    And don’t try to explain it away as ,,,what ever.

    Your words are just that, words that have nothing but passion in them.

    You do not understand what God is doing here right now, your just reacting to how life is showing up. I would call your last rant fear mongering.

    How ever wins this election will have an agenda and for evolutions sake it will be the perfect one for the moment.

  • mewabe

    So according to you Michael, reporting the fact that Romney wants to declare war on Iran (he said it himself) is fear mongering, but for the Republicans to state that Iran is arming itself with nuclear weapon technology (unproven) and will attack Israel or the US is not??????

    I suppose that for Bush to say that Iraq had WMD’s was not fear mongering either?

    Are you saying that Romney’s projected war against Iran is part of “God’s plan” for evolution? Really, God has a plan, and we are all brainless little puppets executing this plan, is this your version of reality?

    You and I are definitively not living in the same reality or dimension Michael.

    But have you noticed that apart from personal attacks (did I attack you personally Michael? Yet you seem to be unable to refain from personal attacks…now who is hateful here?) you have not responded rationally to any of what I wrote which you labelled a rant?

    Have you nothing more to say than “this is God’s plan”? I could find this spurious argument on any Christian fundamentalist blog Michael, do you realize this?

  • Michael L

    Neale Donald Walsch,

    You have called me wrong, so I ask my self can I be wrong, of course not.

    So why did he do it then…………………………………………………………..check you facts, we lost 20 million not going into (bankruptcy naturally). unless we didn’t.

    My last word on this subject. GM… OWES… the People of the USA some millions(30-40) or was it billions…..of dollars in stocks that I now own being part of the USA.
    And the stock has to become like double to ever recoup that money spent by my government.

    But I fail to understand why you think your point of view is “better” then mine?
    By being “right” does it change where we are right now, and where we are going?

  • Michael L

    mewabe,

    I apologize for judging your words, you have a right to to write them.

    I made this pledge before to my self.
    But old habits are hard to break.

    I have not studied the information you speak of, so I’m finished debating political differences with you.

    I don’t have the interest really. Or I would.

    On the main thoughts we agree, just how to get there, gets in the way.

    I believe, because our choices are not very good.

  • mewabe

    Thank you Michael…

    I know we will not go anywhere we want to go with the current candidates, at this point all we can do is limited damage control. We simply differ on what we call damage…

    The system has to change, but it cannot change until the people change…or perhaps it can…perhaps the system will collapse and force the people to change it and themselves.

  • Tina

    Mewabe,
    Thank You for your thoughtful response! Your posts are very inspiring!

  • mewabe

    Thank you Tina!

  • Big Daddy Rich

    You can make numbers “say” anything you want them to say. Just find the right set to quote out of context and away you go. What’s important is values and outlook on what’s important and how to get there. I’ll take the less government approach. I can waste my own money just fine. I don’t need to know the name of a supreme court judge to know who the next president should be.

  • Pat

    The current two-party system is broken. People vote for parties instead of candidates and the parties control what issues will and won’t be debated. A vote for Obamney doesn’t change anything. These parties are far more similar than not. At the last debate, Romney agreed with almost everything Obama said about foreign policy. They pretend to disagree on domestic spending, but they don’t. Take the Stimulus. We had the first one – TARP, and it was hotly debated by Congress. Republicans voted for it, Dems against it, and it passed. Then a bit later we had the Obama Stimulus Plan. There was a huge debate in Congress, and the Reps voted against, the Dems for, and it passed. Recently we started the third Stimulus Plan, but there was no debate in Congress. There was no vote. There was no discussion from either party. The Federal Reserve decided that it was the fourth branch of our government and started a new open-ended Stimulus III program to the tune of $40B per month with no end in sight. What I’d like to know is if Reps and Dems are for or against this one? It seems they are all for it, given that there is no debate or complaint about the Fed usurping their power. So a vote for Obamney gets you the same thing either way.

    Vote for Libertarian, Gary Johnson, or some other third party. The only wasted vote is the one that is not used to vote your conscience. We’re stuck with four more years of the same thing, but we can start working now to change things in 2016 by giving voice to third party candidates. Lobby the media and your politicians to permit more third party participation. If you can get on the ballot in enough states to theoretically win the election, you should be given a chair at the debate.

  • Michael L

    Hi Pat,

    You may have something there.

    You could promote this candidate to all the disenfranchised voters who’s vote doesn’t count. It wouldn’t change anything in the election, but would give the voter a feeling that their vote meant something.

    I mean all those blue voters in red states and all those red voters in blue states. Then their votes would feel good.