There have been numerous instances this year of leaders of companies forcing their employees to show up at political rallies or making it clear which candidate they prefer – just recently the CEO of Westgate Resorts wrote an email informing his employees that their jobs were on the line if Obama got re-elected. Of course, David Siegel has no way of knowing which way his employees voted but made it clear in his email that Obama’s policies have damaged his company’s bottom line and that he’d rather retire than lead a company through four more years of Obama’s leadership.
I don’t think it’s wrong that corporate leaders make it known which way they are voting and why certain candidates would be better for their company than others, its covered under free speech. I think it’s important that employees know how the political climate will effect their jobs just as it is important that they know based on their own research how different candidates will affect them on all issues of importance. There are more and more instances of these emails popping up this election based on a clear cost employers will have to pay for the Affordable Care Act (sometimes dubbed Obamacare). In an email Lacks Enterprises CEO sent to employees, it was noted that employee salaries would not be as high under an Obama administration. After being questioned whether Obama’s bailing out of the auto industry helped his business, he responded that his company did not benefit from the auto bailout.
On the other hand, as a note to the employees of these companies whose leadership is sending out these emails, many CEOs would be classified under the group of people that would be taxed at a higher rate than if Romney is elected. Anyone making more than $250,000 would not be extended a continuation of the Bush-era tax cuts under Obama, and that would certainly affect small business owners and those Obama considers rich. Every day we are inundated with suggestions to vote one way or the other, be it commentary by the media or signs across the street. CEOs certainly can voice their opinions as well but if such is the case employees should have the same opportunities to have their voice heard, unfortunately this is not the case as it is rare that a entry level employee would email his/her entire company with a political view.
So, in short, yes – employers should be able to make political suggestions. On the other hand employees should have that same right.
Mitt Romney views the rest of the world as an enemy – today he used Memorial Day to attack Barack Obama for proposed spending cuts on the military. Our military is gigantic, and has been spread over the entire world like a small cup of butter over an entire pizza. To continue to exert force on countries around the world at the expense of American lives and our safety (people don’t like it when their civilian family members get killed by drones) we will need a gigantic army, perhaps even bigger than the one we currently have. However, our military has transformed into one that can deal with small issues around the world and third world opponents (such as ones who deploy IEDs, drive technicals, and use AK-47‘s. We have gained nothing from taking over Afghanistan and Iraq except for the enmity of their people – even our puppet President Karzai is fed up with the unnecessary deaths of civilians in Afghanistan.
In the 2008 election Romney claimed he wanted to “double Guantanamo“, even after the prisoner abuse photos were released. He is someone who cannot think beyond “enemy”, and as a bully in his college years he has retained the attitude which has been apparent in his incivility during the presidential debates of 2008 and 2012. I will give Obama credit for being a more civil person than Romney and would likely get along better with him if we happened to grow up together. While I disagree with Obama on his stance on gun control, healthcare, and other social issues, I can’t say that I disagree on his 2008 election promises to get our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Romney, on the other hand, is what people like to call a “hawk”. He would remain in all occupied countries and start a fight with Iran, who at this point is not a threat to the United States.
Sure, he would increase the size of the military, but unfortunately his leadership style would plunge us into war with more countries and further destroy America by driving it further into debt. I’m having a hard deciding whether I’m going to vote this season given that Romney was one of my least favorite candidates ever to run – not to mention his diametric opposition to Ron Paul and the cause of liberty.
The primaries are not officially over, and the election is certainly not going to be given to two candidates who are both puppets. My vote will be going towards Ron Paul this election year even if I have to scribble the name on the ballot. Things have got to change.
The state of the union is troubling, to say the least. Last night Obama gave a speech full of promises and plans to bring America forward, one particular topic may bring America backwards and to its knees economically. The hint of another war in the Middle East should frighten anyone, but the economic implications of sending hundreds of thousands of troops back into Iran after leaving Iraq and Afghanistan would mean less domestic recovery and a deeper debt to other countries. Deeper government debt would be passed on to none other than you, the taxpayer. James Madison once wrote the following:
“Of all the enemies of true liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded…War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes. …No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”
Unfortunately the political winds seem to be pointing towards a war with Iran, perhaps because it makes the Republican candidates (excluding Ron Paul) and President Obama seem stronger – to me it makes them weak. Iran does not have nuclear capability, and if it were to become a nuclear power Israel has more than enough nuclear stockpiles to prevent Iran from ever using them.
I’ve had enough of this warmongering, it is not morally justified. I feel it is my duty to inform others that a war with Iran is not a war for America, and will not benefit America – It will further weaken America’s standing in the world and be another nail in our national deficit coffin.
There is only one candidate who has spoken for his opposition for this war, or what others call an “option on the table”, and that candidate is Ron Paul. Avoid war hawks, or risk paying $5.00 for gas and not being able to take a restroom break without being watched.
I’m astonished by the number of people I run into who are planning on voting for someone they don’t really like in order for someone else not to win. They might have a favorite candidate in mind, but they are not voting for him because they are afraid he isn’t going to be able to beat their most hated candidate be him from the Republican party or the incumbent Barack Obama. This kind of mentality should not plague the Republican primary, since it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If everyone has this mentality then sure enough, they will get what they are predicting will be the case. This mentality has been constantly enforced by the entire spectrum of the mainstream news media, but has been challenged by smaller online news websites. Take a look at Ron Paul or Rick Santorum, both of these candidates were shunned by the media but it turns out Ron Paul (who is not mentioned as a ‘top-tier’ candidate) has been getting the second most number of votes throughout the primaries (as of today 22.4%, behind Romney’s 34.4%) comfortably beating Gingrich’s 10.7% standing. Santorum was able to take Iowa by surprise, and currently has 14.4% of the primary votes so far. Looking at the statistics the real top-tier candidates have been Romney, Paul and Santorum (not Gingrich). Take a looks at news articles covering the election, and you will find Romney and Gingrich disproportionally mentioned all over – this is probably because Obama is their favorite and in my opinion Obama will beat either of these candidates based on their overly hawkish attitude on foreign policy and their backgrounds which make them out of touch with most Americans. If one of the candidates above is your favorite then by all means vote for them, but don’t vote for someone because the media tells you they can’t win.
3,2,1 Liftoff! After placing third in Iowa and second in New Hampshire, I predict and would be strongly encouraged by a first place win by Ron Paul in South Carolina. Romney, being the former Governor of Massachusetts, was able to eek by Paul in the New Hampshire primary but his rank and file style may not fit so nicely in South Carolina. After South Carolina the primaries go to Florida and then Maine (a full GOP primary/caucus schedule can be found below). We are exactly 1 year and 10 days away from when the oath of office is taken, provided that Obama is defeated.
January 3, 2012 Iowa (caucus) – Ron Paul Places A Narrow Third January 10, 2012 New Hampshire (primary) – Ron Paul Places a Safe Second January 21, 2012 South Carolina (primary) -??? January 31, 2012 Florida (primary) -??? February 4, 2012 Nevada (caucus) -??? February 4–11, 2012 Maine (caucus) -??? February 7, 2012 Colorado (caucus) -???
Minnesota (caucus) -???
Missouri (primary) – ??? February 28, 2012 Arizona (primary)
Michigan (primary) March 3, 2012 Washington (caucus) March 6, 2012
(Super Tuesday) Alaska (caucus)
North Dakota (caucus)
Virginia (primary) March 6-10, 2012 Wyoming (caucus) March 10, 2012 Kansas (caucus)
U.S. Virgin Islands (caucus) March 13, 2012 Alabama (primary)
Mississippi (primary) March 17, 2012 Missouri (GOP caucus) March 20, 2012 Illinois (primary) March 24, 2012 Louisiana (primary) April 3, 2012 District of Columbia (primary)
Texas (primary) April 24, 2012 Connecticut (primary)
New York (primary)
Rhode Island (primary) May 8, 2012 Indiana (primary)
North Carolina (primary)
West Virginia (primary) May 15, 2012 Nebraska (primary)
Oregon (primary) May 22, 2012 Arkansas (primary)
Kentucky (primary) June 5, 2012 California (primary)
New Jersey (primary)
New Mexico (primary)
South Dakota (primary) June 26, 2012 Utah (primary)
I find this hilarious, NBC news states that Romney is in first place and fails to mention the person in second place in a recent poll! This is something I haven’t seen in any poll result news article to date! Check out the article yourself (if it still exists).
It does mention Santorum’s bounce from the Iowa result, but leaves out any inkling of Ron Paul who is posed to grab second place in New Hampshire.
Tonight we will get a first glimpse of what Republicans and independents are looking for in a president in the upcoming election. Currently polls are showing Ron Paul tied with Mitt Romney in the lead, with Santorum taking third after showing a recent gain in popularity. As expected, very few news organizations are taking Ron Paul seriously even though he is most likely going to take first or second in the Iowa Caucus.
Recently Sarah Palin, an employee of Fox News, has been spreading rumors about the possibility of her entering the race for president under the Republican banner. If this is the case, it will surely be because Ron Paul is currently in the lead as indicated by the latest poll.
“It’s not too late for folks to jump in: Who knows what will happen in the future?” Palin, the Republicans’ 2008 vice presidential nominee, told the Fox Business Network on Monday night. Sarah Palin, who quit her tenure as Governor of Alaska to become a top paid commentator on the Fox News Network, may just be throwing these words out to get a Christmas bonus but may also be used as a tool to attempt to thwart Ron Paul.
Hopefully, intelligent-minded people will see through this and vote for Ron Paul. We shall see what transpires in the next few weeks.
During tonight’s CNN debate, Gingrich supported increasing the powers of the Patriot Act. Ron Paul opposed the Patriot Act since it compromises our freedoms and privacy. What do you think? I’m personally on the side of Paul on this, how much will the United States sacrifice in terms of protection of privacy to keep us safe?
The problem I see is that the United States has its fingers in so many international affairs that there are definitely threats against our nation and lots of people who resent us. Newt also has made his point on this, if ever a nuclear device was smuggled into the country it would be a disaster. Unfortunately the Patriot Act was one biggest victories of terrorists, it has drained billions of dollars through funding and reduction of productivity based on more stringent searches be them apparent or covert. In fact, who knows, maybe you are now being investigated for reading this post!
Ron Paul is also the only Republican candidate that does not support water-boarding, in this Ron Paul and Senator McCain share a mutual belief. I’d rather live in a country that does not engage in torture and spying on their citizens while looking for new wars to start while borrowing the money for these wars from China, in essence selling the children of the country into economic slavery. Each and every Republican candidate except for Ron Paul is running to support the short-term well being of corporate executives – a long term plan would be more beneficial to corporations and individuals within the United States and elsewhere. No one wants to face a impending depression.
In order news, B. Bernanke declared another round of quantitative easing will be underway shortly. This means in essence an injection of new money into the system where interest for this new money will be owed to the Federal Reserve by our Federal Government, where the Federal Reserve is not owned by the Government but by a collection of families who were part of banking monopolies over 100 years old.
Commerce, Education, and uh whats the third one there?
Rick Perry forgets the third agency he would do away with: Education, Commerce, and Unknown. This is quite embarrassing for a Presidential candidate, and gives the impression that Perry is not as mentally capable as Ron Paul or others on stage.