God damn internet, my medium-to-long post is gone.

Anyways, ultimately, you CAN blame the people. Not one or two individually, but the entirety of the collective that makes up the country. Cause the people "r us" as it were. It's the people's fault:
1) They are so easily swayed by advertising and campaigning
2) They choose to stay uninformed even with the existence of the internet and easily available information from all over the world
3) They depend on leaders (political, religious and other) to make decisions for them because they're so indecisive
4) They choose not to participate directly in the process (join a party, I'm a card-carrying Canadian Liberal)

So yes, no one "single" person can make a "difference" but collectively "The People" are to blame. Everyone needs to look themselves in the mirror.

Re: Wealthy Barons / Elite manipulating the poor masses .. My white-collar "Republican" boss genuinely hates Obama not for any reason other than he actually believes Obamacare and other policies will bankrupt the U.S. He hates the religious nutjobs but accepts that the leaders will need to give them lipservice to win the nomination. It's rather cynical, but he believes those idiots and nutjobs are just a part of the fabric of american society.

tl;dr version -- People are dumb, naive and lazy. There are many non-crazy Republicans.

So uh

are we sure that he deliberately lied and that he isn't just a) misunderstood b) has his own perspective on things that he genuinely believes is the truth c) being unfairly demonized by people (He said that his plan won't add $5,000,000,000 to the deficit, but I don't remember him claiming that he never proposed such a thing, and hell, who knows if someone just misconstrued something he said a long time ago and he never in fact supported such a thing)

Sorry, people are absolutely fucking horrible and unfair judges of characters by and large, I'll need some linkage to support the 'Romney is a dirty liar' notion because I just don't have faith in other people not to be unfairly vicious pieces of shit

Not trying to move the people and whining about it is what I'm getting at. I will listen if people did something first and talk later, but the mass majority is "do nothing and then use all kinds of nasty names to attack the supposed underminers of the system".

In the end, those who did nothing have no one but themselves to blame, and that is what I'm looking at for most people, who say they can do nothing and that it isn't within their power. No, it is within their power to do whatever little they can do, and if they don't do that little part they have no right to complain about it.

This is why I don't know what are valid criticisms of Obama a lot of times. A lot of Obama haters really are just "unfairly vicious pieces of shit" with that guy. I mean, I remember seeing people writing things like "Impeach that evil jerk Obama" in comments sections of news articles back in 2009 and 2010, when he first started his presidency. I remember seeing some people calling for him to be impeached in mid 2009 when he barely had six months worth of time served in office.

That's what a leader does. They make decisions. What else do you think they do?

No, only those who you described in 1, 2, and 4. The problem is there's enough of them to allow this crap to happen. How does that make everyone at fault?

I don't see how this has anything to do with anything.

That's the same thing as lying. It just would mean it isn't intentional, but it would still be lying (assuming his perspective is wrong, which seems to be the intention of the statement being made here).

He says a lot of things. And he doesn't back them up with anything. If he says his plan won't add five trillion to the deficit, we're supposed to believe him... because he said so?

People have been linking to fact checkers for a while now. I'd suggest starting at politifact.org. Though I find it ironic that you don't believe when people call someone a liar, but believe/give the benefit of the doubt to someone who constantly flip flops on his positions and then denies it. Or that you think people are "unfairly vicious pieces of shit" yet Romney is just misunderstood, when Romney's the one who said that, as President, it wouldn't be his job to care about 47% of the population, and strongly alluded to the notion that food is a privilege. Not good food, or expensive food, mind you, but just food in general that is required to live.

Last time people peacefully protested against the corruption, they got maced, tear bombed, and beaten by the police, while the 1% watched and laughed. Literally, there were videos of them doing so, it isn't an exaggeration. So what do you suggest the people do? Rebel? You'd need a very LARGE percentage of America to rebel, all at once, to overcome the firepower that the corrupt can muster up.

I am sure someone in Obama's campaign is making a video of Romney debating himself as we speak.

Look, Romney was a Democrat during the debates. That's how bad it was. It made it look like there is no policy difference between them, because Romney just reverted every single one of his positions in two hours. It is about as crazy as me claiming to be an African Princess.

Do you even KNOW what was Romney's stance, by any chance? Because the only way you would not realise he lied in the debate, is if you had no idea what he said all election.

Definitely, I have a hard time telling what's true or what's not also because criticisms flying in both directions are always so hyperbolic and vitriolic (and the American political scene has been ugly for ages, really). Sorry about my fit of misanthropy just then, but people do a lot to frustrate me.

Vallen, GDB - Not interested in a political debate, sorry, I was just asking for elaboration on the alleged dishonesty Romney demonstrated in the debate. I asked not because of any particular faith in Romney, but an extreme lack of faith in the masses. Thanks for the links.

No, I do not listen to brats "protesting" when they should be doing something else. These days "protests" are nothing but shows by the privileged that needs to be first stamped out and brought back to their sense. Peaceful protesting only applies to what should be protested against, and certainly not done to the extent it hinders others. How anyone can call those "peaceful" is beyond me.

Post-initial OWS was the biggest piece of idiocy I've seen next to Tiananmen and the 2012 Quebec Student Riots.

I don't agree... I'm with you that peaceful protests shouldn't hinder other people, but you can't pick and choose which protests are 'worthy' and which deserve to be silenced. Peaceful protest is a basic constitutional right, you should be able to peacefully protest whatever in the world you want.

See, "alleged dishonesty" is not what we are dealing with here. Romney LIED. In capitals. For those of us who have been keeping up with the news every week, we know what Romney said and didn't say. It's all on record, on-line, on youtube; What he said in the debates were the exact opposite of his position a week ago.

"Faith in the Masses"?
What does masses got to do with it? I am sorry, but you still haven't answered my question; did you know what Romney's political positions were last week?

Romney kept changing positions when it suited his needs. While it might be stretching the point by saying he lied, he is not trustworthy.

No, Vallen, I didn't have a clue, I haven't paid attention the whole election. My post was basically just saying "Hey guys it's a big internet out there and people are often full of shit, please point me in the direction of some reputable sources."

Look up fact checking sites, like Factcheck.org, or Politifact. That will get you started in sizing up what's bull and what isn't.

Fair enough.

But still, it should not be hard to find out what Romney's platform was. Just look up his own speeches. Then compare that Romney to this Romney you see in the debate.

I'll just requote my previous post here because I think you shouldn't take this debate as something that serious :

And it definitely is. Ultimately, it's about the battle for voters in the field, besides the already existing social momentum. The debate shouldn't bother people so much other then presenting the fact that neither candidate is a smart speaker. While it's true that Obama has been digging his own ground lately, and a few times previously, I'm still skeptical he can be budged by someone like Romney with just this.

But that's exactly why I am mad; that the nation as a whole now are fine with outright plain lies broadcasted on national television.

I gave up on Romney a long time ago; I am now judging the American People for how they give a charlatan legs to run on. This is reinforced by constant online reminders that Romney "won the debate because the undecided voters are just that stupid".

America cannot survive if nearly half the voting population choose Romney. That kind of mental ineptitude implies imminent Ancient Rome style social collapse. And I have yet to see evidence to the contrary.

I believe a significant portion of people that support the GOP today still support them despite their steep decline because they'll pretty much always back the GOP so long as they oppose abortion and gay marriage. You know, because they think those are always the top two matters concerning America these days...

That would include two specific examples I'm related to, among others. gotta "save the babies" and "stop the gay" but after the baby is born, tough, and all that adultery/divorce doesn't seem to bother them because they aren't advocating the returning of stoning (at least out loud).

Two easy buttons to manipulate the herds that our version of the "barony" uses with abandon.

Also the Socialism thing...can't forget the rabid hate on for that as well.

I remember in early October of 2010 I rode by a billboard in Kansas that had a picture of Obama with a Hitler mustache and it said "President Obama: Evil Marxist Dictator". Yeah...