I find this kind of thinking really interesting. I always think of things as relative. If you ask an Obamaite Romney is a radical right wing zealot. If you ask a moderate Romney is just a right winger. However, ask a far right person and Romney is a socialist.
OK, point and criticism taken. I may use a bit of absurdity in my rants to make a point, but only a little.
Obama’s answer is to pump more fake money into the system. He has no desire to slow spending. He has no desire reduce the size of government. He desires to dictate, through government power, our lives: what to buy, what not to buy, speech, religion, etc…
Well, jiggering around with the money supply is the job of the Fed. We could go on about the pluses and minuses of what Keynesianism has morphed into, but it may be a OT for this thread. Bottom line, POTUS cannot tell the Fed chairman what to do.
Romney on all fronts is opposite, and his track record as governor shows it. He managed a balanced budget. He lowered unemployment. He reduced taxes for EVERYONE. I am adamantly against universal healthcare even at the state level, but I agree that it should be left up to the states to decide these things; and Romney has stated this as well.
Can't say I have much to disagree with you on here.
Romney believes life begins at conception. Obama doesn’t even believe life is viable after it’s born.
OK, abortion has no place at the table at the national level. Like health care, it belongs to the states. And while you may be correct that Romney thinks that life begins at conception, to say he is pro-life is not correct. Just ask him how he feels about the NDAA, and the right to kill Americans at-will without due process. I don't call myself pro-life because the term seems to have religious connotations, and I leave my faith out of public discourse. I am however, against women killing fetuses. I am also against the death penalty, and I am anti-war. In short I believe in non-violence towards all, a point that BOTH Romney and Obama fall far short on in my book.
Romney has promoted energy intendance. He wants to open up domestic drilling on nearly every front. He promotes alternative energy source by stimulating the PRIVATE sector rather than pump billions into failing ‘alternative energy’ companies. Obama shows no desire to get us off foreign oil, is against new drilling and exploration in the US, and wants to abuse our taxes by throwing billions trying to stand up government-run ‘clean’ energy companies.
I believe your argument is flawed.
We are already pretty close to energy independent, as long as you say "North American energy independence" and not "United States energy independence". Somewhere between 88% and 90% of our oil consumption comes from Canada and Mexico, ie, North America. Both candidates are identical on this, make no mistake. I am absolutely not against a sovereign nation drilling on her own land for oil, but we just don't have that much. The light sweet crude is gone, and as for the rest, think sucking molasses through a straw on a cold January day. It doesn't matter if there are a bazillion barrels of oil in the ground. The only thing that matter is that you can extract at a rate that meets or exceeds wells that are drying up and dying off.
Both candidates have changed their language of late to say "North American" vs. United States energy independence.
Point taken about Obama picking winners and losers, or whatever you want to call that. I'm not an Obama apologist.
Romney believes there must be tax incentives that don’t punish any class of American. He believes the economy grows through stimulating job growth through lower taxes, especially to those that are trying to start up businesses, those already running small businesses, and those running large businesses (the one’s that provide the largest base in jobs. Romney believes our economy grows from the top down. Obama wants to punish the success of these people with higher taxes. He believe our economy grows from the bottom up.
I think the tax argument presently before us is a red herring. We are a consumer-based economy, and as soon as citizens aren't scared sh!tless about the future, they will start consuming again. Low taxes doesn't stimulate business growth or demand, consumer spending does. I don't care how much tax Romney does or does not pay. It's irrelevant.
BTW, I personally believe in a model of zero corporate taxation, so I suspect we can find some common ground here.
The only difference I see between the two on foreign policy is Romney wont apologize for what American does or has done. Obama seems to think we are the reason for the world’s problems.
I'm from the Ron Paul school of foreign policy: "Free trade with all, entangling alliances with none." I suspect we're pretty far apart on that, and I am OK with that.
This is not an attempt to sell Romney. I’m only pointing out that Obama and Romney, on nearly every issue, are hugely different. If you don’t see this then you live your life in a far, FAR right wing bubble.
I hope you now see how I can see them as the same candidate. I'm not trying to unsell you on Romney, but I hope you'll at least have a better idea where I'm coming from.
: 
You’re an educated guy. Most Americans do not dig this deep into the trenches. They are going to make their decision based on their wallets in more simple terms: taxes, government spending, government programs, etc… That’s just how it is. I don’t like it and it’s obvious you don’t like it.
