Which Presidential candidate is better for the economy if elected?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by chaosclarity, Sep 30, 2011.

Who is better for the economy?

  1. Herman Cain

    15 vote(s)
    30.6%
  2. Mitt Romney

    8 vote(s)
    16.3%
  3. Rick Perry

    10 vote(s)
    20.4%
  4. Barrack Obama

    16 vote(s)
    32.7%
  1. Which Presidential candidate is better for the economy if elected?

    bachman. she has jezus on her side.
     
    #11     Sep 30, 2011
  2. Humpy

    Humpy

    The guy with the biggest slush fund has won the election the last umpteen times.
    With what policies you may well ask ?
    With those sort of bribes who the hell cares.
    Then you got their dummy to put up with, for the next 4 years ! What a crummy system. If it gets half as bad as for Greece then watch out for mega trouble !
     
    #12     Sep 30, 2011
  3. It really doesn't matter who is president, we could elect Joe the Plumber, what we really need is a plan.

    I'm telling you, for a President that spends time talking about a Sputnik momemt he cancels the space program. WTF?
     
    #13     Sep 30, 2011
  4. rew

    rew

    The people funding Ron Paul's campaign are mostly ordinary people who want their country back. The guys with big money who want a politician who will comply with their interests will fund any politician but Ron Paul.
     
    #14     Sep 30, 2011
  5. JamesL

    JamesL

    Space shuttle program phaseout was begun under Bush with his "Vision For Space Exploration":

    http://history.nasa.gov/sep.htm
     
    #15     Sep 30, 2011
  6. MKTrader

    MKTrader

    +1

    In the field listed, I guess I'd have to choose Cain. Some of his recent comments (including his admiration for Gingrich) suggest he's much more of an status quo Republican than I hoped, though.
     
    #16     Sep 30, 2011
  7. zdreg

    zdreg

    Roark

    Registered: Jul 2010
    Posts: 658



    09-30-11 09:09 AM

    Quote from zdreg:

    I am glad you recognize bush's contribution to the current mess. when ask why he allowed paulson to go ahead with bailouts bush said he gave up his free market principles to save the system.
    obama took the ball and ran with it.
    God help America to wake up.


    So your're the idiot that voted for Obama?

    your idiotic response shows that you can't read properly. your handle(roark) can't hide your level of literacy.
     
    #17     Sep 30, 2011
  8. You'll have to define "better" more specifically before I can cast a vote. More jobs? Lower deficits? What, exactly?

    And it might be useful to add a "it won't make any real difference" choice.
     
    #18     Sep 30, 2011
  9. +1

    If I were to start voting again, it would be for Obama. Yes, Paul has the right idea(s), but they will never be implemented by anyone, even Jesus Christ himself. No, I would vote for the asshole that will bring it all to a conclusion, however ruinous the quickest. With Obama in the hot seat for another four years people just might get angry enough to do something...revolt. Anything else is just prolonging the pain.
     
    #19     Sep 30, 2011
  10. Humpy

    Humpy

    I know it's a bit of a liberty from a foreigner but US guys think carefully this time please. You really haven't done too well so far - for instance :-

    Obama - vastly overspent. Sounds good but has little substance
    G.W.Bush - moronic warmonger. Spent America for Israel
    Clinton - womaniser and should not have revoked controls on bankers
    Bush - not too bad
    Reagen - he was sensible enough to hire in good help
    Carter - clueless backwoodsboy
    Nixon - lying crook
    Johnson - saddled with a disastrous war
    Kennedy - vastly overated. Lost Cuba and enterred Vietnam war
    Eisenhower - steady
    Truman - failed to use nuclear advantage, lost Arab sympathy

    etc.
     
    #20     Sep 30, 2011