Election Breakdown From A Canadian Viewpoint

[StorminNorman]

Not to mention getting the US into Vietnam out of pure negligence and corruption.



Take out Reagan, and I'd agree.

As for the article, it does gloss over the Republicans.

Rudy, while good economically, monumentally f**ked-up with 9/11.

Romney's comment about "freedom requires faith" still creeps me out and from the recent spat with the AP reporter he looks like he'll snap and turn into Mormon Hulk at the drop of a hat.

McCain, from when Blair left and until very recently, was George Bush's sock puppet.

Huckabee is a completely insane, racist, homophobic piece of crap.

Paul, while definately the smartest guy in the room, was negligent and let racist asswipes write in his newsletter, took dubious donations and screwed over groups after taking their donations (such as the 9/11 Truth Movement).

Really, there's not many canidates on either side that really inspires at this point.

Faith isn't necessarily Religious.

Also - he was interrupted by a reporter who was incorrect about the facts. He even invited the guy for a personal discussion afterwards - which the dumbass could of turned into a very great piece.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Like MaskedMan, I also don't believe Reagan ranks as one of the best presidents in U.S. history. Cold War was ending because Soviet Union was getting bankrupt, and any president at that time would've "ended" Cold War. And Reagan's economic boom was rather short-lived, and he delivered a gigantic deficit that lasted until Clinton took office. He was a very charismatic president, but not one of "the" best.

The Soviet Union went bankrupt because it tried to keep up with the massive increases in American military spending, much of which Reagan initiated.

 

[rdh007]

Reagan is more overrated than Brett Favre.

 

[StorminNorman]

Reagan is more overrated than Brett Favre.

So not at all

 

[sinewave]

Faith isn't necessarily Religious.

Also - he was interrupted by a reporter who was incorrect about the facts. He even invited the guy for a personal discussion afterwards - which the dumbass could of turned into a very great piece.

what was the reporter wrong about? it sounded like he caught romney in a pretty blatant lie to me. that's the media's job, weeding out the bull****.

 

[LuiECuomo]

And most of the time they weed in their OWN bull****.

 

[StorminNorman]

what was the reporter wrong about? it sounded like he caught romney in a pretty blatant lie to me. that's the media's job, weeding out the bull****.

Unless the definition of a blatant lie has changed, I believe you are mistaken.

Kaufman doesn't run Romney's campaign

 

[sinewave]

Unless the definition of a blatant lie has changed, I believe you are mistaken.

Kaufman doesn't run Romney's campaign

he's a major part of it, though. it's just semantics. he claimed he didn't have lobbyists running his campaign and started to say "i don't have lobbyists tied to my..." when he was interrupted by the reporter. ron kaufman is a lobbyists and he's a senior adviser on his campaign. if he's trying to convince people he's a "washington outsider", that sure as hell doesn't help.

 

[SuBe]

what was the reporter wrong about? it sounded like he caught romney in a pretty blatant lie to me. that's the media's job, weeding out the bull****.

EDITED: Never Mind

 

[MaskedManJRK]

Faith isn't necessarily Religious.

Also - he was interrupted by a reporter who was incorrect about the facts. He even invited the guy for a personal discussion afterwards - which the dumbass could of turned into a very great piece.

He said that when he was on a speech on how his religious identity shouldn't be an issue, so I think considering the theme, he was most likely talking about religious faith.

As for the reporter, while I can agree that the reporter probably came on a little too strong (and after hearing nothing but politics for half a year straight, I can't blame him for being a little snappy), there was no problem with what he said. Like Sinewave pointed out, the difference is sematics at best, and really kind-of makes him the opposite of a complete "Washington outsider."

 

[bell110]

Found this interesting...

This is why canadians aren't allowed to vote.

 

[StorminNorman]

He said that when he was on a speech on how his religious identity shouldn't be an issue, so I think considering the theme, he was most likely talking about religious faith.

He has had to defend his faith during his election run. His speech was how Faith IS important, however he wasn't being restrictive to a Christian God, or any God at all.

You can be athiest and still have a "religious-like" faith, be it in humanity, the environment, whatever.

As for the reporter, while I can agree that the reporter probably came on a little too strong (and after hearing nothing but politics for half a year straight, I can't blame him for being a little snappy), there was no problem with what he said. Like Sinewave pointed out, the difference is sematics at best, and really kind-of makes him the opposite of a complete "Washington outsider."

But its not semantics. Kaufman's position is not one of power. He makes suggestions (along with other advisers) and the campaign decides which direction to follow. He is not the one at the end of the puppet strings. The reporter jumping on to him then wasn't right.