Romney says any Democrat would be ‘an upgrade’ over Trump in 2024
Category: News & Politics
Via: tig • 6 months ago • 110 commentsBy: Norah O’Donnell, CBS Evening News
I’d be happy to support virtually any one of the Republicans — maybe not Vivek [Ramaswamy] — but the others that are running would be acceptable to me, and I’d be happy to vote for them.
Just amazing watching how the GOP has degraded from a successful, grounded, statesman with character like Romney to Trump.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Tags
Who is online
41 visitors
A bit surreal noting that at one time the GOP provided the US electorate a nominee with the character, intelligence and experience of Romney and now it offers Trump.
Surreal is understating it, it's more like we've moved into a parallel universe inhabited by a life form that should not exist.
I'm no fan of romney, but at least he hasn't tossed out basic morality and american democratic ideals like the maga cult has in fealty to their asshole demigod.
I can't stomach Romney or Christie or Haley, because although they are a 'thousand' times better than Trump it is unacceptable to me that they see freedom and liberty and privileges as revolving around a conservative worldview alone. That is, their tired old rhetoric seeking a place to realized remains intact, and is a firm reminder of why before MAGA arrived to takeover the GOP, conservative policies still were non-inclusive and lacking in diversity.
Interesting how those who are not inclined to vote for a Republican have no problem determining that it is obvious that Romney would be vastly superior to Trump. Even those, like you, who cannot "stomach" Romney can easily see how one bad (Trump) is profoundly worse than another bad (Romney).
Why is it (apparently) so difficult for GOP members to acknowledge this simple truth?
The answer, I submit, is party loyalty. GOP members understand that Trump is their likely nominee. So we are again at a point where truth is sacrificed for partisanship. They just cannot, even with something as mild as this comparison, offer anything that would seem negative against Trump.
This irrational support / defense of Trump is the root cause of the GOP's ongoing dysfunction.
IMO
Largely, I think it is indicative of internet troll farming. My view is we are suffering with a few of those 'today.' In spite of the fact that some have been 'hanging around' for years. Their 'work' online is likely evaluated. Consequently, they tow the "company" line. It's how they eat. . . or retirement 'funds.' —In my opinion.
What is happening within the Republican Party should tell everyone that Ronald Reagan cannot hold the center any longer. A sleazeball like Mitt Romney (or Barack Obama, for that matter) can't hide his Big Government neoliberalism behind a facade of free market libertarian pander. What status quo Democrats and Republicans fear most is the Republican base turning their backs on phony supply-side free market politics introduced by Reagan.
If the Republican base won't remain loyal to Reagan bullshit then they will undermine Democrats' bullshit, too. Democrats telling voters they support Romney Republicans is nothing more than surreal gaslighting. Democrats are trying to convince voters that Joe Biden could be replaced with Mitt Romney and Democrats wouldn't notice. Democrats are trying to hide their awful record of duplicity by dividing Republicans.
Trump has changed Republican politics and there ain't any way back. Democrats can't revive Reagan by attacking Trump. And Democrats won't remain politically relevant by defending a status quo that has become obsolete.
Incredible. You label one of the few remaining statesmen a 'sleazeball'.
Trump has clearly changed the GOP for the worse (much worse) but over time the GOP most definitely can right its course.
Democrats portraying vulture capitalism as statecraft is unsurprising. Even less surprising is Democrats attempting to gaslight the public into believing a sleazeball is a statesman.
The change in the GOP is definitely much worse for neoliberal Big Government Republicans. (And neoliberal Democrats, too.) The Republican base seems to be expressing a desire for more than just unfettered financial finagling. The military can't even rely on the Republican base to supply its ranks of canon fodder any longer. But, hey, we've got hoards of illegal immigrants to do the neoliberal work that Americans won't do.
Reagan can't hold the Democrats' center any longer, too. The Democrat base has turned its back on the neoliberal bullshit. Why should the Democrat base be interested in job creation or financial performance when its only necessary to flash mob the Federal government like a Nordstrom? The Democrat base has turned its back on the United States and now relies on importing the oppressed. How else can the rich become richer?
First, I am not and never was a Democrat. Second, do not make this personal.
Romney is a statesman based on his behavior as a politician. If you are going to label Romney a 'sleazeball' then what do you label the politicians who are there only to pursue their personal interests and not try to do what they believe is right for the people?
The GOP is a grand mess. The party is all in for Trump (poster child for unethical abuse of capitalism) as their nominee. This is bad for everyone.
You are starting to remind me of an Ezra Pound minus the talent.
You have not been the topic of discussion so there hasn't been any attempt to make it personal from my side of the discussion.
Mitt Romney is a neoliberal vulture capitalist and has utilized politics to advocate for that worldview. Neoliberal Republican politics has directly benefited Mitt Romney so his advocacy shouldn't be surprising. It's true Mitt Romney wouldn't steal candy from a baby. But Mitt Romney would steal from the candy maker and blame the candy maker for no more candy.
The GOP is in process of abandoning the neoliberal status quo. That is making the politics of the last 40 years obsolete. What's happening with the Republican Party is messy but is also making the party stronger. The Republican Party really has begun appealing to minority voting blocs without resorting to traditional identity politics.
Well, Ezra Pound did advocate for a Jewish state in Palestine.
The gop needs to be renamed the GOM - for Grand Old Mess - very good tig - that's what they should be called until they regain their senses, which I don't see happening for quite a while.
Romney made millions at Bain while destroying small investors. Not really a nice guy.
Even with your belief, who is better for the USA, a guy like Romney or Trump?
Don't much care for making a lessor of the evils choice.
Just wish i could vote for Obama again.
probably because the Media and democrats treated Romney the same as they do trump. Many took the lesson from Romney's treatment that Republicans had to support someone who fights the Democrats on their level.
Democrats still are currently lined up to support a racial arsonist who claimed Romney, of all people, was going to put black people back in chains if he was elected.
There is no comparing Romney as a politician to Trump as a politician in terms of character, demeanor, and statesmanship.
Yet Democrats and their media allies treated them the same. It's why the attacks on Trump fall flat. They've been used over and over for voters entire lives.
One of the few in the gop with a spine to stand up against the former 'president'.
Because Trump keeps doing the same things that demonstrate he is utterly unfit to hold office. What do you expect people to do, give up on trying to convince others the asshole doesnt deserve to be within a thousand miles of the White House?
The complete ridiculousness of trump defenders and followers is off the charts, and has been for years.
If the opposition gives up now, we are in danger of elevating a known mentally disturbed traitor to the nations highest office. Is that something you could tolerate ?
If true, then the majority of the GOP is not thinking for themselves and are thus manipulated by talking heads.
Amazing that someone is unable to see the stark difference between Romney and Trump in terms of character, demeanor, and statesmanship.
By doing the oppoisite of what they're told to do they aren't thinking for themselves? What a bizarre argument.
amazing that someone can't read.
Can you miss the point by any wider a margin?
Read the boy who cried wolf again and see what lesson you take from it. Because you seem to be think the moral was it was a great idea to spend decades falsely crying wolf.
[Deleted]
Trump is a "victim" ? [Deleted]
Are you actually suggesting that those who are supporting Trump for the GOP nomination are thinking for themselves rather than simply believing what Trump and his minions tell them??
What do you claim I did not read? My not agreeing with you does not mean I did not read and comprehend your comment.
On the day Donald Trump announced his candidacy in 2016 he was already the most unfit for office presidential candidate in American history.
They are certainly more independent minded than Biden voters. Our entire cultures pushes the message "Trump is bad" through mass media whie propping up Biden.
My not agreeing with you does not mean I did not read and comprehend your comment.
Obviously you didn't. You are arguing against some strawman of your own creation.
Unfit like putting black people back in chains? Or a fascist who would start WWIII? Every election this century has supposedly been the most important in hostory because the Republican of the day was the most unfit candidate for office ever etc. etc..
Historonics have a shelf life and the every single Republican is a "Fascist nazi who's going to bring back Jim Crow" line of attack was played out well before 2016.
Cease with the vague allegations. State what you think I did not read and I will respond accordingly.
He formally announced in the summer of 2015.
Nope. The so-called 'attacks' on Trump come, because he is an egotistical 'bastard' who thinks he can WILL himself into control over all the lives of this country without regard for the Rule of Law, respect for the constitution, or social-political-legal stoppage.
So since we can not stop Trump (yet) from breaking this nation's 'eggs' . . . we can open our mouths and express our dissatisfaction, disgust, and outrage that some conservatives consider the rest of us so easily 'cooked'!
For sure, Trump already knew that his background included "grabbing women by their "me-too." And, that he had assaulted E. Jean Carroll in the 'early years.' Oh, has he improved since that time of 'growth and development' - Not. All. All. (Nowadays, Trump is probably painfully aware that young women can knock his lights out if he tries to sexually assault them or buy their "me-too" like cheap lingerie.
Of course it is! [deleted] We all already know how he feels about abortion. There is something like chewing on tin foil when it comes to hearing the views of people like that. It's irritating and dangerous because you feel like you could lose control and go ahead with the wall to wall counseling
[deleted]
You made me throw up a little in my mouth with that statement.
Don't like Romney, never has, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. The fact that he said that out loud just shows that he does indeed plan on retiring from the political life, otherwise, as a republican, he would have just committed political suicide.
Let's explore that statement...
Okay, what is on your mind?
There are two Mitt Romneys. One is the vulture capitalist that raided vulnerable companies for their assets and put people out of their jobs and their health and pension benefits. That Romney is a bad man.
The other Romney is someone who is a traditionalist regarding American politics and that is needed right now.
I would call him a mixed bag in terms of being an admirable person.
Yeah, I wouldn't say I admire him but I have gained some respect for him for daring to stand up against the former 'president'
You forgot the one that helped to stand up Staples and improve Domino's Pizza, stood up Sports Authority, Brookstone, Sealy mattresses. While Romney was at Bain, they had far more winners than losers. More for their investors and more for the companies that they invested in. We can never know if the losers would have lost regardless of Bain or not.
Bain was never the Gordon Greco of Wall Street.
Winners for who?
Bain put Toys R Us out of business.
Why Private Equity Firms Like Bain Really Are the Worst of Capitalism
By placing his career at Bain Capital at the center of his presidential campaign, former buyout artist Mitt Romney has put the private equity industry on trial.
About time.
Romney wants us to believe that critics of private equity are against capitalism. They’re not. They’re against a predatory system created and perpetuated by Wall Street solely to pump its own profits.
Defenders of private equity say firms like Bain, which Romney co-founded in 1984, exist to build businesses, creating jobs and prosperity all the while. “We started Staples, we started the Sports Authority, we started Bright Horizons children centers,” Romney said at one of the GOP presidential debates last year. “Heck, we even started a steel mill in a farm field in Indiana. And that steel mill operates today and employs a lot of people.”
And Romney also touts Bain’s success at taking struggling companies and putting them on a path to profitability. “Sometimes we acquired businesses and tried to turn them around — typically effectively — and created tens of thousands of new jobs,” he said at the same debate.
Romney’s whole election pitch turns on the story he tells about his time at Bain, which goes like this: I, Mitt, have a record of building businesses and creating jobs, and what I did for floundering companies, I’ll do for the U.S. economy.
There’s only one problem with Romney’s story: It doesn’t describe most of what private equity firms actually do. The companies Romney holds up as successes – Staples, Sports Authority et al. – were not Bain private equity deals; they were venture capital investments in companies that Bain neither owned nor ran. All well and good: Venture capital is a good thing – essential for funding the growth of new and developing companies. But Romney didn’t make his fortune through venture capital; he made it through private equity – and private equity, as President Obama pointed out this week, is a very different proposition. “Their priority is to maximize profits,” the president said of PE firms, and “that’s not always going to be good for businesses or communities or workers.”
Editor’s picks
Here’s what private equity is really about: A firm like Bain obtains cheap credit and uses it to acquire a company in a “leveraged buyout.” “Leverage” refers to the fact that the company being purchased is forced to pay for about 70 percent of its own acquisition, by taking out loans. If this sounds like an odd arrangement, that’s because it is. Imagine a homebuyer purchasing a house and making the bank responsible for repaying its own loan, and you start to get the picture.
O.K., but what about this much more virtuous business of swooping in and restoring struggling companies to financial health? Well, that’s not a large part of what private equity firms do, either. In fact, they more typically target profitable, slow-growth market leaders. (Private equity firms presently own companies employing one of every 10 U.S. workers, or 10 million people.)
And that’s when the fun starts. Once the buyout is completed, the private equity guys start swinging the meat axe, aggressively cutting costs wherever they can – so that the company can start paying off its new debt – by laying off workers and cutting capital costs. This process often boosts operating profit without a significant hit to the business, but only in the short term; in the long run, the austerity approach makes it difficult for companies to stay competitive, not least because money that would otherwise have been invested in expansion or product development – which might increase revenue down the line – is used to pay off the company’s debt.
It takes several years before the impacts of this predatory activity – reduced customer service, inferior products – become fully apparent, but by that time the private equity firm has generally resold the business at a profit and moved on.
But what happens to the companies after they’ve been resold? It’s not a pretty picture, as I discovered while researching my book The Buyout of America . Consider a few numbers:
• Of the twenty-five companies that private equity firms bought in the 1980s that borrowed more than $1 billion in junk bonds, more than half went bankrupt.
• Of the ten biggest buyouts of the 1990s, six, including Saks Department Stores, fared much worse than they likely would have had they not been acquired in leveraged buyouts. Three of the 10 produced mixed results. Only one business performed better than its peers.
• As for the 2000s, four of the companies acquired in the ten biggest buyouts of this decade, including Dallas utility Energy Future Holdings, are already in considerable distress.
• Private equity-owned companies reduce jobs over their first two years of ownership by 3.6 percent more than their competitors, and that the worst job cuts come in the third year after a buyout, according to a study by the World Economic Forum.
Related
And let’s take a look at the record specifically of Bain Capital, which Romney owned from 1992 to 2001.
• 1988: Bain put $10 million down to buy Stage Stores, and in the mid-’90s took it public, collecting $184 million from stock offerings. Stage filed for bankruptcy in 2000.
• 1992: Bain bought American Pad & Paper, investing $5 million, and collected $107 million from dividends. The business filed for bankruptcy in 2000.
• 1993: Bain invested $25 million when buying GS Industries, and received $58 million from dividends. GS filed for bankruptcy in 2001.
• 1994: Bain put $27 million down to buy medical equipment maker Dade Behring. Dade borrowed $230 million to buy some of its shares. Dade went bankrupt in 2002.
• 1997: Bain invested $41 million when buying Details, and collected at least $70 million from stock offerings. The company filed for bankruptcy in 2003.
Romney owned 100 percent of Bain Capital making him involved in all these deals, which represented more than 20 percent of the money Bain made from its investment funds between 1987 and 1995. Bain’s focus during all this time was leveraged buyouts, and it had not made venture investments since its earliest days.
All of this is bad enough. But leveraged buyouts don’t only hurt businesses, workers, and the economy generally – they also short-change taxpayers, via a giant loophole in the tax code that enables companies to deduct loan interest from taxes. The provision was originally intended to encourage borrowing to build new factories, not to finance leveraged buyouts. But, according to Notre Dame Professor Brad Badertscher, private equity-owned companies paid a 22 percent tax rate before being bought, and only 10 percent the year after being acquired. That adds up to a savings of $130 billion in taxes since 2000.
Trending
Private equity has legions of defenders, from Wall Street to Washington (the industry is very well connected; four of the past eight U.S. Treasury Secretaries have worked in it); but when they point to the relatively modest venture capital investments of companies like Bain, don’t be fooled. Look instead to the way Bain and its peers made the bulk of their money – through leveraged buyouts – and see who made out best in most of the deals: the businesses or the private equity guys, like Mitt Romney.
Josh Kosman is the author of ‘ The Buyout of America: How Private Equity Is Destroying Jobs and Killing The American Economy’ .
Romney left Bain in 1999.
Toys "R" Us' had hudge debt problems before Bain. Its debt was downgraded to junk bond status in January of 2005.
That is overly simplistic. Toys R Us was in a long decline and it eventually got weak to the point that private equity groups got involved. Private equity companies get involved when a company is in decline. They are basically opportunistic scavengers of capitalism. Sometimes they can restructure and save a company. Much of the time, they find ways to exact value before the company dies.
Toys R Us was dying. It was going out of business and its employees were going to lose their jobs. Bain, et. al., likely hastened the demise, but they did not come in and destroy a healthy company. They did not put Toys R Us out of business, that is the fault of the Toys R Us executive team.
By the way, this is veering well off the point of this seed:
The focus was intentionally on the GOP and how it has moved from supporting a political stateman into supporting a demonstrable traitor.
That is unethical. Bain went in and bought struggling companies, loaded them up with more debt (in order to pay the PE company exorbitant "management" fees.)
It is unethical and a pity people dont simply see and undestand that.
Private equity firms go after struggling companies. You can deem it unethical, but then you would need to pretty much condemn the practices of most of our large corporations. And I might not disagree, but this would be very much off topic.
There is, however, a major difference between exploiting failing companies and engaging in hostile takeovers of healthy companies and then turning around and killing jobs, etc.
Venture capital has been a significant source of financing and coaching for high-growth start-ups. It not only accounts for market capitalization but also musch of the research and development spending of U.S. public companies.
It's a pity that people don't see and understand that.
I am reminded that Romney states he supports cleaner emissions standards on jet aircraft while he himself flies around on a fuel guzzling, dirty emissions big jet.
I have yet to find a human being who is perfect in every way. There are practical realities that will cause ALL of us to contradict our grander objectives to some degree. Those who support cleaner emissions, for example, are not necessarily hypocrites if they fail to take every conceivable opportunity to avoid fossil fuel usage.
I support cleaner emissions standards yet when I fly it is on a conventional jet which guzzles fuel and emits emissions. I also drive an ICE car (although my next car will likely be EV).
I suppose once we have commercially available EV jets (or equivalent), I will seek to use them instead. However, if the price for a seat is outrageous, I will stick with the dirty jets until economically feasible.
Does that make me a hypocrite?
"Does that make me a hypocrite?"
Not in the least. My apologies if I implied otherwise.
I was not suggesting you were implying I was a hypocrite. Sorry, did not mean to give you that impression.
I was using my own views as an example of how someone like Romney could be for a greater good even though he did not always act in the best possible way as an individual in pursuit of the goal.
In short, one can be a champion for renewable energy, conservation, etc. even though one will not always make the best personal decisions in support of those causes.
The hypocrisy of celebrities and politicians advocating for a cleaner environment while traveling on private jet is pretty low hanging fruit. These are awfully damn pickaune accusations to be making against Romney now as compared with Donald Trump's high crimes, felonies and assorted misdemeanors...
Then it seems that would make Romney the hypocrite would it not?
It is extremely easy to argue that anyone is a hypocrite. Nobody is perfect. And it is near impossible for someone to take a stance on something like renewable energy, etc. pushing for good practices in the aggregate while as an individual be perfect in one's own practices.
In short, if you feel compelled to tag Romney with the label hypocrite then using that same level of unfair categorization, you would be able to label most everyone else a hypocrite.
Another example (although I thought my @4.1.2 was sufficient), if you are an advocate for recycling then if you fail to always dispose of items properly then you would technically be a hypocrite. I personally think that is grossly unfair, but it would be technically (nit picky) correct.
I don’t know anything about the majority of Mitts flights, but he has been seen flying commercially coach frequently and since 2020 taunted for his position on Trump.
Romney owns a McDonnell Douglas MD-83 that is 80's and 90's vintage. He uses that frequently.
The Romney family also owns a Prius and assorted Teslas...
The Horror!
Good grief, Ed. This article compares Trump with a person like Romney for the presidency yet not a word about the outrageous hypocrisy of Trump and a laser focus on Romney's failure to be a perfect exemplar for using exclusively renewable energy.
If you had a choice of either Romney or Trump, would there be a need to even think about that?
I know for certain that I would absolutely not vote for Trump, but I am just not so certain I want Romney either.
Imagine Romney as a candidate for the GOP nomination in 2024. What would motivate people to vote for Trump over Romney?
Insanity?
I don't know what else you call such blind devotion and undeserved defense, endless defense.
Unless the Democrats can come up with a plan "B" shortly, and get rid of Biden, Trump is likely to be elected again. I think the left should concentrate on that instead of being panicked about Trump's increasing chances of being elected for a second term.
You ignored my question.
[Deleted]
racism, xenophobia, religious fanaticism, transphobia, paranoia of "communists" , etc
[Deleted]
I would imagine because they think Trump would be a better president or they felt Trump had a better chance to beat Biden.
How could anyone possibly think that Trump, a traitor, given all we have seen him do in office, would be a better PotUS than someone like Romney?
Obviously because there are people that don't think like you.
Do you think that Trump, a traitor, given all we have seen him do in office, would be a better PotUS than someone like Romney?
Have never given it a thought.
It is not obvious to you that someone with character, experience, statesmanship like Romney would be better for this nation than Trump??
You need to ponder this??
[Deleted]
Like I have said countless times before, not everyone thinks like you. Not everyone ponders the same things you do according to your time line. Not everyone makes decisions without at least thinking about them.
It does make me wonder why some people have so much trouble understanding or at least accepting it.
[Deleted]
We all know that people think differently. That is why questions are asked.
You, however, refuse to offer an opinion on whether someone with character, experience, statesmanship like Romney would be better for this nation than Trump.
You are right, I refuse to offer an opinion on something I have not thought about.
Why do you have such a problem accepting the answer?
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
He says he didnt have enough time to think about it.
How much time does one need? Five seconds ought to do it.
See 5.4.7
Why do you have such a problem accepting the answer?
[Deleted]
It doesnt matter whether I accept your answer, or not. But I dont believe it. What are you doing, weighing the pros and cons? There are no "pros" to putting Trump back in office.
Do you understand what not thinking about it means?
You are welcome to your opinion
[Deleted]
I myself try to give Trump as little thought as possible. Same with Biden.😏
[Deleted]
I keep asking myself the same question. I also ask the same about Biden. Imo neither one are even close to fit for a second term as POTUS.
I'm not really a huge fan of Romney. For me, it was a toss-up between him and Obama. Too much flip-flopping by Romney. I felt like I didn't really know what I'd be voting for.
But I'd take him over Trump in a heartbeat.
I thought Romney was a decent presidential candidate, and thought that he should have been the Republican nominee when Obama's second term ended.
Reading Romney's book, people tried to get him to run but he declined with the firm belief that the American people had already stated that they do not want him as PotUS.
He has too much class and integrity for American politics. IMO he's in the same boat as Liz Cheney.
I'll be honest, I have lost respect for nearly all republicans—including the females in the party. Maybe ESPECIALLY the females in the GOP. Because I can't believe anybody can have gone through so much 'lack' and 'loss' at the hands of a political organization and then continue to belong to it. Girls and women really can't AFFORD to be tied to an ideology which keeps them held in stasis as second-class citizens and which tosses out GOOD people based on the misshapen idea that unless a GOP member should be inclined to what I will term as "acceptable Corruption."
Subsequently, I would not vote for a GOP candidate right now, not even the good 'ones, ' because I don't accept their arrogance choosing to not listen to liberals or RESPECT that we are all Americans (if only because we're stuck 'here.') I would miss the election cycle if the GOP was the strong suit or the 'only game in town.'
And I always vote in presidential elections. But that time around I would not.
Interesting, but understandable - I feel the same way about both of the majorparties time to time.
Would you agree that when we choose not to vote, we forfeit our right to complain about the result of the election, since we did not care enough to participate?
Just wondering
poor mitt, looks like another couple LDS generations before the white horse prophecy gets another shot...
We see the most recent "upgrade" is not working out.
"Romney says any Democrat...."
Yep, especially as long as it's not Kamala Harris or any of the "Squad"!
I would not support "any" Democrat, nor would I support "any" Republican but there are certainly better choices out there than Trump or Biden - but there are a couple of each party that I would consider. I am still waiting to see what happens with Joe Manchin and "No Labels" and to see whether Kennedy will be a factor at all.
Perhaps, the time has come or soon shall be revealed, when Independent voters shall realize that Republicans are not really the economic "geniuses" they and some independent voters imagine them to be (republicans raise the national debt in the billions and trillions too).
Also, independent voters should not be allowed to continue in a false sense of cultural and economic matters being rectified by having an INDEPENDENT PRESIDENT. It is clear that governing is hard and the needs, wants, and demands of a diverse people are many. Thus, government will still be required/requested/mandated to do more for its poor, its wealthy, and corporate (business entities) constituencies.
I agree that there is little basis on which to base a claim that Republicans are financial/economic geniuses or oracles of success, but neither is there any reason to believe that Democrats are ready to slow out of control spending and return to a balanced budget scenario. It is also time for a long held Democratic Party myth that taxing the rich into poverty is the answer to our economic woes.
That being said, I do not believe that a 3rd Party or Independent President is the answer to all the country's woes but I and millions of Americans have lost all or nearly faith that either of the two major parties have anything but their own best interest in their hearts and minds.
I would certainly give consideration to a third party candidate, as I have held my nose and voted for either Democrat or a Republican in too many of the elections in the past few decades.
Third party votes will make a traitor president again.
Every citizen has the right to vote for whomever they see fit, Democrat, Republican, Green Party, No Labels or none of the above - since Biden won the popular vote against Trump are you suggesting that t would be Biden that loses votes to a 3rd Party candidate?
Are you suggesting that moderate democrats and independent middle of the road voters are that displeased with Biden's performance that they would flock to a third party candidate?
Trump will surely lose votes to a third party candidate but you seem to be aying that Biden will lose significantly more votes than Trump does
Interesting