Who you think will win pres. Obama or Romney

I agree with you on this

everyone is still in love with obama.. hes not messed up quite enough .... yet

Wow I guess more people need to pay attention to what he's doing then cause IMO he has messed up everything he has touched

i HAVE STILL NOT seen nor HEARD of any kind of LEGACY "worth discussing or pointing-out" as to Reason-Why BH deserves a 2nd Term. If someone can just mention ANYTHING in the line of "Yeah, but BH has done this or BH has dones that . . . Or BH has accomplished MOST IMPORTANTLY . . . What!!!!?" . . . Anything! Like what? Just tell me. As far as Pelosi's "sign-it & pass-it now and we'll read it later" goes . . . There are so many flaws in that needless, useless, worthless health-care fiasco, that it's not worth discussion any longer. So, what else? What has BH done? Osama Bin Laden's fast-ass burial @ Sea? . . . What else? . . .

Everything is in his favor.

Right now I think it's Romney but that can change in a heartbeat .

We can only hope that Obama wins so that our Country can continue to move forward..

LOL with more taxes?

It will be this kind of forward,

Thankfully you're not too bright and it shows in your comments.. Taxes are at a 50 year low..

LOL! THE LARGEST MIDDLE CLASS TAX INCREASE IN OUR HISTORY HAS JUST BEEN LEVIED ON THE MIDDLE CLASS.

70% of our GDP is DEBT because of the 0WEbama 6.5 TRILLION in spending in 3 1/2 years........If I am not bright, you sir are certainly a complete MORON.

No because Obama hasn't spent 6.5T. that is a flat out lie and most of our deficit is due to the GOP but why argue I think you're a moron and you think I am to bad so sad..

You CHEER tax increases.

THE LARGEST MIDDLE CLASS TAX INCREASE IN OUR HISTORY HAS JUST BEEN LEVIED ON THE MIDDLE CLASS.

Who will ultimately suffer? Those who depend on their income tax returns.....They wont get them anymore.

By the end of his first and only term we will be 6.5 TRILLION IN DEBT.

Duh and none of that is interest right.. How dumb are you.. Oh I have several graphs that prove yours wrong is that the little game you want to play?

A right winger that doesn't want his taxes going to guardrails?

Too bad your walking backwards.

LOL if that's all you've got why do you waste your time and the time of others?

It's my job, herding you little sheepies. Not a good job but someone has to do it.

Later like I said waste of time, my 12 granddaughter could do better...

Does she date younger men??? I got a 9 year old grandson???

That's totally uncalled for..

Why????? I do have a 9 year old grand son.

It's not based on who you want to win, but in all honesty..... who WILL win.

You are so right .... Lmao ..

But honestly, judging by the tenor on this site, it's really any one's game.

I miss Ron Paul.

What leader???

depends on your vote

If Romney has any chance , he will take a strong stance on something. It cannot be health care reform. He is the godfather of the national plan we now have..... down to the letter. It has Romney's fingerprints all over it.

So what else does he have? Nothing except dissing Obama. He has no clue about foreign policy. He knows this . This is why he is going to Israel later this month. Romney is trying to look presidential. It will be a great photo op. Immigration? He trails Obama by double digits. Women's vote ? HA !!! Transvaginal probes aren't very popular . How about the youth vote? They are looking for jobs in a Koch Industry dominated nation. You really think they will vote for a guy who has a quarter of a billion in the bank and has car elevators? Whose wife "exercises " on a $ 100,000 Olympic prancing horse? Really? Military? He rode his bicycle during the VietNam War, passing out Mormon leaflets in the pastoral French countryside.

Romney has about as much chance as a one legged man in an azz kicking contest.

He does have one thing going for him, tons and tons and tons of corporate $$. And a 24 hour "news" network advertising for him constantly. (as you can see by some of the responses here).

Romney can certainly use healthcare as an issue. States are permitted to have healthcare while the federal government is not. (10th Amendment) Also, Romney can now tell how bad government run health care is. He knows first hand. Other than that he can certainly beat-up on Obama about the economy, energy, wasteful spending and crony capitalism. We'll see what happens at the debates.

Romney made a Senate run in '94. He laid out his platform. No one was buying. He lost. Romney ran for the Presidency in '08, praising his health care plan with mandate in Mass.( that plan is now Obamacare) He tried to sell his business experience. At that time, John McCain had lousy poll numbers. Mitt thought he and his national health care plan would edge him out. We know how that turned out. Voters just couldn't relate to Mitt. Eight million out of his own pocket, and 8 weeks later, Mitt dropped out. No Citizens United to save him.

Mitt has the same problem now. He has an image consultant ( three actually) , trying to make Mitt into Every Man. Dressing him in casual jeans and open shirt. Hair is mussed up a little. But it's not working. In an interview, Mitt appears with lovely wife Ann, who is wearing a $975 blouse. It gets worse. Mitt couldn't even identify a donut. What he does have going is casino mogul Adelson and 100 million here and there and , of course, the Koch Boys. So Mitt doesn't have to dig into his own fortune .

Doesn't matter. Obama will chew him up and spit him out in the debates.

4 years and nothing ---Democracts controlled everything from 2007-2010. To blame Republicans means the democrats (with complete control) are inept policy makers. If Bush left a mess, well then democrats are terrible at cleaning up messes (after spending $600,000,000 of poor peoples money to "inherit" the mess they didn't see while running to solve it) even when they own the house, senate, and potus to boot.

Democrats didn't control jack s#$# during that time. They had a tiny majority and EVERYTHING they tried to pass got filibustered by the pubs. If anything got past that, Bush vetoed it. Pubs filibustered more than any other congress ever. So literally those Dems you're saying "controlled everything" were in fact literally the most obstructed majority in the history of Congress. Pubs had a majority on the Supreme Court, most governerships, and the presidency and all agency heads, so what were these massively obstructed Dems supposed to do exactly?

But Bush didn't us his veto power but once during ringhis Presidency , thats just how misinformed you are. And yes the Dems had a super majority and needed not one vote from the GOP to pass anything from 2008 till 2010

Huh? Obama was elected in November 2008 and wasn't even sworn in until January 2009. His policies on the economy didn't even go into effect until the FOLLOWING YEAR. So what in 2008-2009 are you blaming him for? And the DEMS NEVER HAD A SUPER MAJORITY. Nope that takes 60 votes.... and one of those was Joe Lieberman. Pubs filibustered more than any minority IN HISTORY during that time so what was Pelosi supposed to do?

However what you negelected to mention is that Bush wouldn't sign the 2008-2009 budget. remember that they held out the budget until Obama became President and that he then added $1.5 TRILLION dollars in spending above and beyond tax revenue. As for a super majority the Democrats have held that in 1932, 1976 and 2008, If you would look things up with an open mind instead of looking for positive reinforcement, you wouldn't be an Obam voter
When Obama took office, he swore to halve the deficit. Republican deficits while fighting two wars went up to $400 billion, but reduced over time to about $160 billion. After being elected to control Congress, the first Democrat deficit in 2008 tripled that. Then Obama was elected with a Super-Majority, “inheriting” only one war, and tripled it again

what part of Obama policy over the last 4 years have you noticed working? trickle up? never worked in the history of man, maybe the 5 trillion spent in 3 and a half years with NO results? maybe is
t is that 7% unemployment he Promised in 2009, however what it went to 115 and has remained above where it was in 2009. what part of his failure do you need to look up? oh I forgot, you don't read facts only left wing talking points

Again Huh? Bush vetoed 12 times (all during the last 2 years when Dems were "in control") It took me 10 seconds to look that up. Look things up yourself enough and you'll be an Obama voter. You obviously don't know what a "super majority is" look that up too.

I was an Obama voter until I started looking things up lol, Bush used his veto once however it encompassed 12 bills, so yes he did veto 12 bills in one veto.