"Mitt wants to send our troops to war..."

He does? When did he say that? Any President might be REQUIRED to send troops to war, but I don't believe Romney ever said he WANTED to sent troops to war. Show me the quote.

"“It was not my desire to go off and serve in Vietnam, but nor did I take any actions to remove myself from the pool of young men who were eligible for the draft,” Romney told the newspaper."

Yes - it is unfortunate that many of our recent Presidents have NEVER served in the military. As I recall, Bill Clinton - who never served - was quoted as saying he "loathed the military" during his draft-dodging and pot-smoking days. And President Obama never served in the military - and now according to the left he has done a terrific job as Commander-in-Chief.

Personally, I believe that every single elected official should have military service. But we'd have to have a system like Israel to make that happen. And in this country - the rich and powerful ON BOTH SIDES of the political aisle would never let that happen. It would expose their own sons and daughters to the consequences of their (the rich and powerful's) actions.

As for paragraph 2 of the basic blog post, it is unworthy of comment. Pure propaganda.

...I wonder if President Obama will soon be required to "send our troops to war?"

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/0...

Note especially the comments at the end in which Ahmadinejad says:

"If someone insults, what would you do? ... Is insulting other people not a form of crime?"

Hmmmm....the President of Iran thinks that "insulting" somebody is a "crime." I wonder what kind of a webmeister he would make around here?

Mitt stated he's willing to go to war with Ira in a debate with newt Gingrich (Nov 2011)... Romney relies on so-called "neoconservative" advisers like those who championed the war in Iraq under President George W. Bush.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_16...

Our Prisdent Obama called the killing of our ambassador and the others a "BUMP IN THE ROAD".

http://www.loudobbs.com/b/Obama-Takin...

I guess your Medicare is more important than their lives, in your point of veiw!

@Sheran...You and I both know that was taking out of context...Mitt said he didn't care about 47% of people in America..That would include veterans, elderly, poor, middle class, minorities and etc...President Obama has done more for the Veterans than most. He passed VRAP, VOW act and veterans are now receiving the care they deserve at the VA. Their claims are also being resolved in a timely manner-its not perfect but its better. Also, he ended the war in Iraq, set a date to bring the troops home.

I would rather have Mitt Romney "Mormon" for president than "Muslim Obama".

http://www.loudobbs.com/b/Obama-Caugh...

@ Sheran. That's your choice and I respect that. That's why America is great. Good luck with that.

He didn't say he did't care! He said he knew he couldn't get their vote... If I was on welfare I'd vote Obama myself... I work.

PoliticsNation, the title of your blog and you baseless accusations about Govenor Romney has nothing to do period, with his experience and ability to lead the Nation which has already been exposed by Chief MVB and Sheran!

@Funkentelecky...your entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine. If your going to post on my blog-leave the childish attacks behind and deal with the facts...The name I chose has nothing to do with the the discussion.

@Funkentelecky.You were referring to the title of my blog...I understand. However, you decide what's important to you-when you cast your vote and I will decide what's important to me...What am I saying? Mitt dodging the draft 4 times is important to me- when I cast a vote for President of the United States!

Funkentlecky, was not childish..... He spoke the truth! You choose to jump into these blogs. We all take our share of not agreeing."Your turn" PoliticsNation. We all agree, Not to agree at some point and time.

@Sheran..I agree.."we all agree, not to agree at some point and time"...For the record-while your were typing-I was clearing the air...I welcome different views because it can bring about a change. Thanks for sharing.

No offence! I've had enough "Change"

I understand, no offense..I'm going to give him 4 more years..

That's the problem Politics, you give I feel you should earn what you get in life; therefore you respect it!

And the most important fact of all, Barack Hussein Obama hasn't earned another term in regards to his RECORD!
He has one that he's trying to run from.

Romney did not dodge the draft anymore than a college student doesn't interrupt his studies to be drafted. Romney was obser nissonary duty during this period of time. Duty which is a requirement of his faith. If the draft had not ended, he would have been drafted like everyone else. To even make this an issue is a back door response to his religion, which is the real reason most will not vote for him.

Up2sumptin-I don't care about his religion. I care about where this country is headed. We can't not afford to go back to the policies that put us in this mess. Before President Obama took office we were losing thousands of jobs a month were no longer using jobs....were gaining. They left the President with 2 unpaid wars, and unpaid tax cuts. The right put us in this mess and they want to put us back in a bigger mess..

And what exactly ha BHO done. Nothing but drive us deeper into debt. And don't blame GWB. Happened on Obama watch so he is responsible. He can't take credit for the good things that was started under another president and then leave the bad things on that president's doorstep.

Exactly up2.

"Mitt stated he's willing to go to war with Ira in a debate with newt Gingrich (Nov 2011)..."

And President Obama has said repeatedly that the United States will not "allow Iran to have nuclear weapons." He will repeat that statement again today at the United Nations, to wit:

"The United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”

See: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012...

How do you think he intends to do this, with diplomacy or pen and ink? Does that mean that he "doesn't care about" the lives of our military?

No - the premise of this blog is a canard. In the current Congress, only about 20% of our elected representatives have served in the military. That number dwindles at each election cycle. To criticize Romney for lack of military service and claim therefore that " Mitt doesn't care about the soliders or our country" is a talking point you'd hear coming out of the Obama reelection crowd.

Pure propaganda.

God Bless you Politics! You are a dynamic voice here on these pages.

BHO by a nose at the wire.

LOL, Jimmy. You were just starved for company. Though I do like Poltics being here too. Nice to have a debate without any mud slinging. :)

I don't have a problem with Mitt not going to war..I have a problem with him hiding behind his religion and not being honest about it.
Mitt said out of his own mouth that he didn't care about the 47%..Veterans, elderly, poor, students and minorities fall in this group..I'm not putting words in his mouth he said it! Mitt doesn't get it...He has no idea what life is like in America for the majority of us nor does he care.

"Nice to have a debate without any mud slinging. :)"

Amen.

Again I saw the video and he was talking about people who were not going to vote for him because of the entitlements they were receiving. He NEVER said he didn't care about them.

Each side has a pack of "slimers" who are paid to ferret out and spin anything the opponent says to gain an advantage for their guy. You really have to be suspect of everything that's being put out by everybody. The bottom line is this:

*Obama has his "base" - who are going to vote for him even if it were exposed (1) that he was not REALLY a natural born citizen; (2) that he cheated his way through Harvard; and (3) that they caught him on tape admitting that he was a full-fledged socialist who helped the Weather Underground make Molotov cocktails back in the day. The apologists would say (in sequence): big deal, who cares, and so what.

*The same goes for Romney - he supposedly is a gay-bashing, animal-abusing, tax-cheating, polygamy-loving, money-grubbing, wife-killing, job-outsourcing son-of-a gun. But he'll get the votes of the hard-core GOPers, and you can add in a lot of anti-Obama votes that he'll get just because he's "the other guy" - the UN-Obama.

*Also factor in that the media is in Obama's pocket, so that they will enable his slimers and facilitate their message. The conservative media (FNC, talk radio, righty blogs, etc.) will spin FOR Romney, and preach to their choir.

It's all a battle for the "uncommitted" votes, of course. Supposedly there are some. These have their leanings, but the story goes that they can be swayed one way or the other in the period just before the election when they are "paying attention."

A lot is made about the debates being able to change minds, but I'm not sure how true that really is. The believers will see and hear what they want to see and hear, and most of the rest will already have strong leanings one way or the other. I suppose the debates might have a significant effect if one of the them really comes off poorly, which is what each side is hoping the opponent will do. Even if they don't, the post-debate spin from the slimers will make it sound like they did.

And the beat goes on and on and on and on and on,,,Til the second Tuesday in November.

BHO by a nose at the wire because he will carry Ohio.

See I've never understood the idea behind certain states being (more) important to an election. Is the rest of the country suppose to follow their lead? What makes them so important?

It's based upon the current state of the country - as far as voting trends and their stand on the issues. Here's a pretty good "electoral map" which purports to show the current status of the eletion as far as electoral votes go:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epol...

The individual states are shaded to reflect how those states are expected to vote on election day. The projections are based on polls and how the states have voted in the past (Republican or Democrat). The "importance" of a particular state lies in the fact that it's the electoral vote that really decides the presidential election.

Here's my attempt at the "short version" of how the electoral vote goes:

*Each state has a number of electoral votes based on population.

*On election day, the voters in each state actually vote for "electors" - people who are designated to represent the state and cast their votes based upon the way the popular vote goes in that state.

*Generally, the electoral vote is an "all or nothing" vote - that is, if the popular vote in a particular state goes for Obama (by even the slightest margin over 50%), all electors for that state cast their votes in the "electoral college" for Obama. Vice-versa for Romney.

*When the electoral votes are totaled, the candidate with the highest number wins the election.

*Since the populations of each state vary widely - and consequently so does the electoral vote count for each state - projecting a likely winner for a presidential election where the popular vote seems very close can be tricky.

Here's the long version of how the electoral college works - if you want to wade through it and get a headache:

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects...

The map linked to above shows state-by-state projections on how the majority of voters in that state are likely to vote. Those projections are reflected in the shading on the map. Once you tally up all the "likely" Obama and Romney states, you are left with the "swing" or "toss-up" states - those states with popular vote projections too close to call for the election.

These are the states you see the candidates spending a lot of time campaigning in during the weeks and months leading up to the election. They are "more important" because in many cases they hold the key to the entire election.

Example: In the case of Georgia (Romney) and California (Obama) - these two states appear to be pretty solidly in the electoral vote "column" for the respective candidates, so they don't spend as much time there trying to persuade voters to vote for them. It's not that they aren't important, it's that they are already assumed to be "in the bank" for their respective candidate. (Kind of like Obama taking the black vote for granted and not showing up at the NAACP convention this year, only applying the concept to a state).

Thanks Seb. Sometime in the past I knew this and in my old age forgot. Thanks for the info. :)

\m/