I think many people felt that either Obama or Romney were absolutely the "lesser of two evils" however in my research I was unable to actually find a single factual explanation why.
Overall, I think that Obama has a mostly pragmatic approach, but that he has bad advisers and that he is too afraid to fight for change. He allows himself to be too limited by the political climate, a climate caused by politicians where many are corrupt. The Republicans seem to be ruled more by ideology than common sense.
The downturn in economy was caused by a systemic failure in the financial system which stems back to the '80s, with a reliance on flawed macroeconomic theory and a string of bad decisions made by Reagan, Clinton and "Dubya" that allowed high finance to cause the trouble that the economy is in. High finance wants to keep the current system, so that it can conduct business as usual.
Obama has a guy from high finance as his top advisor on the economy, but I don't think that Obama is completely convinced. Romney is
part of high finance and has been outspoken about wanting to apply the values of high finance to the US gov's. economy.
What USA and the world needs is a US president that has a critical eye and is willing to reform. Don't expect the economy to recover any time soon.
Obama does not have a clue about Afghanistan but it looks like his heart is at least in the right place. The Afghan government is corrupt and the war is escalating. I don't think that Romney even cares.
Obama got Osama Bin Ladin shot instead of brought to trial. Bad move if you want to get people in that region on your side. I would not be surprised if Romney would have bombed the house instead.
Obama, as a president of one of the countries that emits most carbon into the air does practically nothing against climate change. USA has never been part of the Kyoto Protocol, and the current negotiations at Doha have not produced anything of value mainly because of the US and China. The US government could have taken a leadership position, but doesn't.
In ten-twenty years, you should expect a disaster at the scale of Katrina every year. There will be more draught
and floods causing problems with food production. Bad weather will halter trade. The economy will turn worse in the long term
because of climate change caused by the want for short-term profits. Don't expect FEMA to have many resources for helping the Bay Area (overdue for an earth quake) or Seattle (when Mt Rainier erupts).
On the other side, Romney is from a cult (Mormons) that welcomes Doomsday and does not think that it could come soon enough.
Obama is critical of Israel's conduct in Gaza and on the West Bank. Romney is from a cult (Mormons) that would do everything to help Israel, because.. again, a strong Jewish state in Israel becomes right before Doomsday according to their belief.
Which is how I realized that not voting is actually still a viable vote, depending on one's moral and ethical character.
There is not only the notion of voting for the candidate with the right views. The candidate must also have a chance of having influence, or otherwise your vote would be wasted.
If I was a US citizen, I would have voted for Obama only to help
keep the other guy away.
Well, at least it was not Obama vs Palin. Palin would have been much worse.
