Neither. Why is it that we never get a legitimate third choice?

Because the far left and right love extreme candidates, and 99% of the people in the middle have convinced themselves that their vote (their voice) is wasted if they don't vote for a Democrat or Republican. In a world where we're teaching our kids that they can do anything and should dismiss the naysayers in the world, it's astounding that people have the attitude that their vote, their democratic voice, is a waste if they don't use it to say that they want someone with a shot of winning to win. I've beaten this horse over and over, but if even half the people that are disgusted by both candidates and the constant negativity decided to vote for a third party, or even write in "None of the above", both parties would snap to attention. Sure, they'd still be conniving, self-centered liars, but at least they'd pay more attention to the center because they would actually need to work for those votes rather than just not sucking as much as the other guy.

Good lord, we're a bunch of optimistic hippies. :P

Those are good ideas, if you want to make bad things legal.

I have watched Obama the last 4 years, and while he was president, the country has fallen over 6 trillion dollars deeper into debt since he took office. This coming from a guy who whailed on president Bush about us being 10 trillion in debt, saying something to the effect that that was "unpatriotic". So if he goes by his OWN measure, he should just drop out of the race.

All the "hope" and "change" talk was just that, TALK.

Now i see "FORWARD!" The new "word of the day!" What exactly does that mean? I think lemmings have that same motto.

Unemployment is higher, the national debt is higher, and he has shown nothing about how he's going to "change" any of it.....for the BETTER, i mean. Yes, there HAS been "change". Not any GOOD change though.

I see all these ads about Romney "only" paying 14% taxes on his income of 20 million dollars. "Only?" Figure it out.....14% of 20 million is WHAT? That's right, 2 million 800 thousand dollars. Tell me, how many years would the average person have to work to pay out almost 3 million dollars in taxes?

Tax the hell out of the "rich" guys, and what will happen? They will move out of the country. And who could blame them?
Plus the unreported fact that Romney paid out more then that in charitable contributions, many of which he didn't even take credit for on his taxes.

Yes, the guy is rich. But he EARNED it. So we should just take it away from him, because the damn bastard shouldn't have money, right?
I guess then we should hit up guys like George Clooney, and all the other rich hollywood types, cause THEY are rich TOO~!
How about the Clintons while we are at it? THEY have WAY too much money as well!

Being wealthy has been the way the democrats make the "average" person hate the republicans. Even though the ones out in the forefront that are spouting the hate speech are usually the rich democrats.
I'm a rebublican, and POOR. VERY poor in fact. I don't even know where next month's rent payment is coming from.

Romney's residing over Bain Capital, help founding the realm of leveraged buyouts, should be a telling tale of his plans once in office.

Layoffs, closures, a massive profits for for the investment firms itself.

Additionally,Romney resided upon the board of directors over the Damon Corporation, they were found guilty of defrauding the government when new owners took over. Yet the Bain Capital company pocketed triple their investment.

Yes, this is the type of leadership that we need in power. Obama, I am sure is no better.

Why we prop up these type with deep pockets as the answer I will never know. We want success as a country, but feed the reins to those with wolf traits.

My vote will be None of the Above.

Well, if this thread is any indication, None of the Above will win the election, and some son or daughter of two crazy parents with the same name will unexpectedly find him/herself in the oval office.

And they'll be an improvement.