*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Monday, September 17th, 2012 7:17pm PDT - promote requested by seltar.

Ass.

What can you really say about this guy... Romney is as he is... He's known nothing but extreme wealth his entire life... and in these private moments you really do see what he thinks of... well just about HALF the entire country who wasn't...

Amazing that a guy whos lived his entire life as a defendant can say that about tens of millions of extremely hard working people without pause.

Well said Mitt.

I think the same way and I'm not rich, never been rich, and will never bee rich. But Mitt is right. There are too many people that will take advantage of the system and and become freeloaders, voting for who ever keeps the money flowing to their pockets.

The greatest enslavement is government warfare. The greatest freedom is self reliance.


>> ^Januari:

What can you really say about this guy... Romney is as he is... He's known nothing but extreme wealth his entire life... and in these private moments you really do see what he thinks of... well just about HALF the entire country who wasn't...
Amazing that a guy whos lived his entire life as a defendant can say that about tens of millions of extremely hard working people without pause.

Mitt is a complete buffoon. He's a rich, entitled prick who is parroting exactly what his target audience of millionaires (both actual and imaginary) have been told for years by neocon pundits.

That @bobknight33 agrees with his sentiment is just confirmation of what Santorum has being saying. Smart people just aren't his target audience.

I don't care what type of system you put in place there will always be people taking advantage of the system rich people take advantage of the system. What this is really about is do you want to help the poor? Or do you want to help the rich? Are we all in this together as equals? Or do we bow down to the American aristocracy? Luckily at this point in time we still have a small choice.

"The greatest enslavement is government welfare."

By your logic 55% of corporations are enslaved to the government because they got hand-outs from the government (i.e. while all the other good corporate citizens were paying taxes, they did not.) We should free these poor, enslaved corporations by forcing them to pay their fair share of the corporate tax burden.

>> ^bobknight33:

I think the same way and I'm not rich, never been rich, and will never bee rich. But Mitt is right. There are too many people that will take advantage of the system and and become freeloaders, voting for who ever keeps the money flowing to their pockets.
The greatest enslavement is government warfare. The greatest freedom is self reliance.

>> ^Januari:
What can you really say about this guy... Romney is as he is... He's known nothing but extreme wealth his entire life... and in these private moments you really do see what he thinks of... well just about HALF the entire country who wasn't...
Amazing that a guy whos lived his entire life as a defendant can say that about tens of millions of extremely hard working people without pause.

Apparently reading into this "47 percent" that Mr. Romney is referring to, most are living in red states, pay payroll taxes, are retired, elderly, or work for less than $20,000 a year.

Only a mere 6 percent could be possibly considered "entitlement" moochers, and I doubt all of them are.

I like pie.

Hey Mitt, maybe if you and your rich buddies spent sometime growing the middle class instead of shrinking it then the number of people too poor to pay federal taxes would get smaller.

To me, it's a bit of a relief to have tape of Mitt Romney talking like your average far-right Randian asshole.

The biggest thing Romney had going for him was that the press was never going to try to push him to speak plainly about what he really believes, and let him just fill the airwaves with platitudes and sneers.

Even in his "press conference" he held last night to respond to this, he said that basically this is what he's meant by his public comments thusfar. In other words, that his opponents are all parasites and leeches who must be burned off the face of the earth in order for America to prosper.

You know, conservatism.

2 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

I'm happy that Romney is already making excuses for his inevitable loss.

Someone should strap him to the top of a car and take him for a road trip. Maybe he'd learn some empathy.

I've been doing this fun experiment when I see something Romney says and it gets a reaction. I open up CNN, BBC, some other sites and at last I open Fox News. On the CNN and BBC there will be some analysis, maybe politely saying he's making a bit much of what he's saying and then citing some statistics and what have you. Fox News will have two articles ready when you open the page. One will be the News article that reports on what happened and very much misreports it. Then there will be the Opinion article which will agree completely with what Mitt has said.

The opinion article always agrees with what Mitt says...that doesn't make sense to me. Opinions seem to me to be fickle things, how can they always be in lock step with someone else. Especially a candidate going for the presidency. You should try my game it's fun.

I don't consider people living on < $20,000/y "entitled" or "moochers." I think Mitt needs to look in the mirror and see how his privileged life is simply unattainable by people in these circumstances. They're just getting by. By taxing the most vulnerable segment of society, he is inviting increased crime and fraud in the future.

If he was serious about paying his "fair share" he'd disclose all those years of tax returns. And his Swiss and Cayman Island bank accounts while he's at it. He's probably avoided much more total tax revenue personally than the Reps stand to get out of that 47%.

*doublepromote
*quality

Human, fucking, garbage.

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by JiggaJonson.

Double-Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Monday, September 17th, 2012 7:17pm PDT - doublepromote requested by JiggaJonson.

"I want everybody to experience the abundance and the greatness of this country. I want everybody to be told how to do it, not told that it can't be done, which is what Obama does. If anybody ought to be under the microscope, it's Obama. Obama's tamping down expectations. Obama's ratcheting up fear. Obama's the guy whose foreign policy is falling apart. Obama's the guy who's watching our economy disintegrate. Obama's the guy whose policies are making it tougher and tougher and tougher for excellence to matter in one's pursuit of life.

Mitt Romney hasn't done anything to anybody.

--Rush

>> ^alcom:

I don't consider people living on < $20,000/y "entitled" or "moochers." I think Mitt needs to look in the mirror and see how his privileged life is simply unattainable by people in these circumstances. They're just getting by. By taxing the most vulnerable segment of society, he is inviting increased crime and fraud in the future. All
If he was serious about paying his "fair share" he'd disclose all those years of tax returns. And his Swiss and Cayman Island bank accounts while he's at it. He's probably avoided much more total tax revenue personally than the Reps stand to get out of that 47%.


You'll never get that kind of perspective out of Mitt. He's one of those people who believes he is one of the chosen few. He seems to honestly believe he was chosen by god. He seems to honestly believe that we all live in a vacuum and he got to where he is on his own merits alone and he had zero assistance.

These things are provably wrong. you can demonstrate that he's just like everyone else, you can demonstrate that he had help from his parents, you can demonstrate that he lives in a nation that has the government-created environment to allow people to succeed.

Mitt lost this election before he even won the primary. Even most republicans know this. They spent 4 years trying to obstruct Obama and hinder American growth just to make him a one term president and they're going to fail. So two things:

1. Obama better be awesome to his Secret Service people because I'm predicting an assassination attempt during the 2nd term.

2. What's going to be interesting to see is the 2016 election. If the rational republicans cannot reclaim their party back from the religious nutbags and the teabaggers and lose the 2016 election as well, then I'm going to say Republicans as a serious party are done. They're going to be relegated to the fringe. I still think a 2nd Civil War in our lifetimes is a serious possibility. And if Republicans are unable to persuade people with words anymore, I suspect elements will resort to other ways of persuading people. It's going to get worse before it gets better.

there was another one of these hidden videos of Mitt that surfaced on the sift a few weeks ago -- the one about working conditions in China...

Comparing the two national conventions alone should be enough to convince anyone that the Republican party as we currently know it is in its last years.

RNC: by and large, mostly old white people

DNC: Actual cross-section of America and vastly more diverse.

If you feel so strongly about it, stop paying your taxes ala' Thoreau's Walden. Thoreau went to jail because he didn't pay his taxes and got mad at Emerson when he bailed him out. Not because he didn't like his freedom, because he believed so strongly in his principles.

I personally like paying my taxes. I feel a sense of patriotism knowing my money has contributed to the whole of society, including those who are part of any welfare system and are suffering from bad tidings.

The bottom line here is that you lack the courage for your convictions. Take the license plate off of your car, cut up your social security card, and stop paying your taxes. Otherwise, you're just contributing to a system that you believe is impinging on a majority of the populace's freedoms (a hypocrite).

>> ^bobknight33:

I think the same way and I'm not rich, never been rich, and will never bee rich. But Mitt is right. There are too many people that will take advantage of the system and and become freeloaders, voting for who ever keeps the money flowing to their pockets.
The greatest enslavement is government warfare. The greatest freedom is self reliance.

>> ^quantumushroom:

"I want everybody to experience the abundance and the greatness of this country. I want everybody to be told how to do it, not told that it can't be done, which is what Obama does. If anybody ought to be under the microscope, it's Obama. Obama's tamping down expectations. Obama's ratcheting up fear. Obama's the guy whose foreign policy is falling apart. Obama's the guy who's watching our economy disintegrate. Obama's the guy whose policies are making it tougher and tougher and tougher for excellence to matter in one's pursuit of life.
Mitt Romney hasn't done anything to anybody.
--Rush

>> ^JiggaJonson:

The bottom line here is that you lack the courage for your convictions. Take the license plate off of your car, cut up your social security card, and stop paying your taxes. Otherwise, you're just contributing to a system that you believe is impinging on a majority of the populace's freedoms (a hypocrite).

Actually, the reductio ad absurdum goes a little further. If you think the government "owns" the people because it can collect taxes from them with impunity, and you claim to really believe in the idea that liberty is indistinguishable from the unfettered exercise of property rights, then really, you should be defending any government exercise of power over its property, because it owns the people, and anything it does to its subjects is a legitimate exercise of liberty.

You already see them trotting out a form of this argument anytime there's a major management/labor dispute in the press. From there, you only really need to change a few words, and you wind up with almost exactly the rationale given by royalists in favor of hereditary monarchies in middle-age Europe.

Conservatives are more or less living out the final chapters of Animal Farm now. Their supposed dedication to principles born from a rebellion against authoritarian monarchies has, over the ensuing decades, been slowly twisted until it's become a rationale for establishing a new monarchy on this side of the Atlantic.

I keep waiting for the day I see a clip of some wingnut on Fox News declaring four legs good, two legs better that monarchy is a superior form of government to democracy because then those undesirable people we're always bitching about would truly know their place...

Your Obama is an empty chair.>> ^quantumushroom:

"I want everybody to experience the abundance and the greatness of this country. I want everybody to be told how to do it, not told that it can't be done, which is what Obama does. If anybody ought to be under the microscope, it's Obama. Obama's tamping down expectations. Obama's ratcheting up fear. Obama's the guy whose foreign policy is falling apart. Obama's the guy who's watching our economy disintegrate. Obama's the guy whose policies are making it tougher and tougher and tougher for excellence to matter in one's pursuit of life.
Mitt Romney hasn't done anything to anybody.
--Rush

class warfare

debt (which MOST Americans have to get into, to get by) is a slave's collar

the American Dream and Freedom are political propaganda that don't actually exist

if you get riled up about someone "attacking" Freedom or the American Dream... but don't get riled up about the living conditions/opportunities available to your fellow citizens... you've drank the Kool-Aid and have sold your own freedom for fanaticism

for all you religious Republicans... instead of worrying about handouts, instead of not even bothering to consider them handups.... read some scripture : Matthew 25:31-46

when considering that passage, and the religious nature of the party... where do you think the real priority lays? Christianity or Capitalism? which God do they pray to? The one up in heaven or the one on the dollar bill?

Oh look, a video proving Mitt's a conservative. How is this news? Another distraction from the liberal media away from the high unemployment, high national debt and failed Middle East policies. All brought to you by Obama, blamer in chief.

The truth about American welfare is that it is surprisingly untargeted. In contrast to Australian welfare, which actually does go to the poor, American welfare goes just anywhere. Being rich doesn't disqualify you from receiving welfare in the US.

Then you get the poor working stiffs who have bought the lie that you just need to pull yourself up with your own bootstraps, actively voting against their own best interests.

It's incredible.

That's because he hasn't had the chance to...and it's looking more and more like people aren't willing to give him that chance. Says more about him then Obama if Obama is such an aweful President.
>> ^quantumushroom:


Mitt Romney hasn't done anything to anybody.
--Rush

The average age (mean) of the speakers at the DNC was 58.66 while at the RNC it was 49.92.

From modicum of insanity:

Of the speakers in the DNC, there were 9 current governors and 5 former governors. 22 members of the House of Representatives, 2 candidates for the House, and 1 former House member spoke. 5 current senators and 2 former senators also spoke.

Of the current governors that spoke, the average age was 57.44. Of the current House members that spoke, the average age was 62.64. Of the current senators that spoke, the average age was 67.2.

Of the speakers at the RNC, there were 10 current governors and 5 former governors. 9 current members of the House of Representatives, 1 candidate for House, and 2 former House members spoke. 7 current senators, 4 former senators, and 1 candidate also spoke.

Of the current governors that spoke, the average age was 50.3. Of the current House members that spoke, the average age was 50.67. Of the current senators that spoke, the average age was 52.83.

I wouldn't count 'em out just yet when it looks like the DNC is the party that's getting a little long in the tooth.


>> ^VoodooV:

Comparing the two national conventions alone should be enough to convince anyone that the Republican party as we currently know it is in its last years.
RNC: by and large, mostly old white people
DNC: Actual cross-section of America and vastly more diverse.

http://www.sv.uio.no/iss/forskning/aktuelt/arrangementer/disputaser/2012/van-der-wel.html

new research shows: people in welfare countries are anything but lazy. on the other hand they are much more healthy and motivated than anticipated.

of course there will always be someone scamming a system... we are humans, some of us always seem to do that.. but would you not help out 1000 people because a 1 among them is not deserving of the help? so just up yours to the 999 others?

"Of the speakers in the DNC ... 22 members of the House of Representatives" well they just blew the curve.

As for the RNC convention, I think what we saw was either a conscious effort to "go younger" and entice younger voters, or a symptom of the greater problem with modern conservatism: namely that serious, mature conservatives don't want anything to do with these lunatics.>> ^silvercord:

The average age (mean) of the speakers at the DNC was 58.66 while at the RNC it was 49.92.
From modicum of insanity:
Of the speakers in the DNC, there were 9 current governors and 5 former governors. 22 members of the House of Representatives, 2 candidates for the House, and 1 former House member spoke. 5 current senators and 2 former senators also spoke.
Of the current governors that spoke, the average age was 57.44. Of the current House members that spoke, the average age was 62.64. Of the current senators that spoke, the average age was 67.2.
Of the speakers at the RNC, there were 10 current governors and 5 former governors. 9 current members of the House of Representatives, 1 candidate for House, and 2 former House members spoke. 7 current senators, 4 former senators, and 1 candidate also spoke.
Of the current governors that spoke, the average age was 50.3. Of the current House members that spoke, the average age was 50.67. Of the current senators that spoke, the average age was 52.83.
I wouldn't count 'em out just yet when it looks like the DNC is the party that's getting a little long in the tooth.

>> ^VoodooV:
Comparing the two national conventions alone should be enough to convince anyone that the Republican party as we currently know it is in its last years.
RNC: by and large, mostly old white people
DNC: Actual cross-section of America and vastly more diverse.

And how is that an authoritative source? It's from a stupid blog...an obviously very biased blog.

none of which even touches my argument about diversity.

>> ^silvercord:

The average age (mean) of the speakers at the DNC was 58.66 while at the RNC it was 49.92.
From modicum of insanity:
Of the speakers in the DNC, there were 9 current governors and 5 former governors. 22 members of the House of Representatives, 2 candidates for the House, and 1 former House member spoke. 5 current senators and 2 former senators also spoke.
Of the current governors that spoke, the average age was 57.44. Of the current House members that spoke, the average age was 62.64. Of the current senators that spoke, the average age was 67.2.
Of the speakers at the RNC, there were 10 current governors and 5 former governors. 9 current members of the House of Representatives, 1 candidate for House, and 2 former House members spoke. 7 current senators, 4 former senators, and 1 candidate also spoke.
Of the current governors that spoke, the average age was 50.3. Of the current House members that spoke, the average age was 50.67. Of the current senators that spoke, the average age was 52.83.
I wouldn't count 'em out just yet when it looks like the DNC is the party that's getting a little long in the tooth.

>> ^VoodooV:
Comparing the two national conventions alone should be enough to convince anyone that the Republican party as we currently know it is in its last years.
RNC: by and large, mostly old white people
DNC: Actual cross-section of America and vastly more diverse.

ahahahahhahaha good gracious what a moron. what an insipid fool. holy shit that's such funny shit.
his handlers must be doing backflips

and yeah, roughly 47% of the population doesn't pay taxes... and the over 65 crowd and the under 18 crowd make up about 40% of that.

So far, there's nothing here said by anyone that justifies a second Obama term. The facts don't support his policies, nor do results. The idea that we need to give Ears "more time" is a joke. Are you going to say the same thing in 2016 when 4 more years of obamafail have brought us to the brink?

@VoodooV, you're right about a 2nd Civil War, which is imminent. All Romney can do is buy us a little more time. This tyrannical government won't be stopped and can wait out even 8 years of a Romney presidency. The borders are still open, the regulations are piling up and people are enraged by the lack of fair play, and by people I mean producers of any kind, not the parasites.

Sometimes blood in the streets is the only way to get rulers' attention, regardless of party.

@quantumushroom I think if you'd stop listening to Rush for a second and look at Obama's record, you'd see he's been a pretty good president.

Maybe read a newspaper or something. I dunno, whatever you gotta do. I mean, yes, I agree, he does have ears, that's true, but I'm not sure why that would disqualify him from another term.

>> ^criticalthud:

ahahahahhahaha good gracious what a moron. what an insipid fool. holy shit that's such funny shit.
his handlers must be doing backflips
and yeah, roughly 47% of the population doesn't pay taxes... and the over 65 crowd and the under 18 crowd make up about 40% of that.


Then there's folks in the 35-50+ age range who stopped giving a fuck about federal income taxes because they make most of their $$ off any books, the government is full of crooks, and should they come for property or possessions....They'll get DICK!

....The environs may not shine as pastoral as Walden, but the food and company is great-

I agree, every one should pay a flat tax.

Corporations should also pay a flat tax.

>> ^KnivesOut:

"The greatest enslavement is government welfare."
By your logic 55% of corporations are enslaved to the government because they got hand-outs from the government (i.e. while all the other good corporate citizens were paying taxes, they did not.) We should free these poor, enslaved corporations by forcing them to pay their fair share of the corporate tax burden.
>> ^bobknight33:
I think the same way and I'm not rich, never been rich, and will never bee rich. But Mitt is right. There are too many people that will take advantage of the system and and become freeloaders, voting for who ever keeps the money flowing to their pockets.
The greatest enslavement is government warfare. The greatest freedom is self reliance.
>> ^Januari:
What can you really say about this guy... Romney is as he is... He's known nothing but extreme wealth his entire life... and in these private moments you really do see what he thinks of... well just about HALF the entire country who wasn't...
Amazing that a guy whos lived his entire life as a defendant can say that about tens of millions of extremely hard working people without pause.

At least he's keeping it real.

If Romney wins this election there really is no god, he's done everything possible to get Obama elected.

The Daily Show pretty much destroyed this situation and his numbers.

flat tax is another giveaway to the rich. Which is precisely why the rich and the ignorant tend to be the ones advocating it.

Either the tax rate is too low and you don't have enough revenue to pay the bills, or it's too high which yeah, the rich can afford, but completely fucks over the middle/lower class

progressive tax is the only actual fair tax since the wealthy have much more need of gov't services than the poor ever will.

The rich depend on infrastructure and education so that their workers can do the job, they depend on diplomacy and the military to ensure profitable and safe overseas commerce.

The poor do not, thus, the rich should pay more.

>> ^VoodooV:
progressive tax is the only actual fair tax since the wealthy have much more need of gov't services than the poor ever will.


But do you not think the benefit of the government's services to a person is in proportion to their income?

>> ^frosty:

>> ^VoodooV:
progressive tax is the only actual fair tax since the wealthy have much more need of gov't services than the poor ever will.

But do you not think the benefit of the government's services to a person is in proportion to their income?


If incomes were proportional, I might agree, but they're not. The ratio of the highest pay to the lowest pay in the 20s was about 30 to 1 If I recall, but now it's 300 to 1. I could be wrong, but I think I've heard some report that might say it was 400 to 1 20 percent of a poor person's income is felt FAR more profoundly than 20 percent of a wealthy person's income. Even though it's the same percentage, it hurts the poor person WAY more.

And yes, that is part of the argument. A wealthy person tends to just sit on their money and not put it into the economy. and so a higher percentage just simply doesn't hurt them the way it would hurt the lower/middle class.

If incomes were more proportional, a flat tax might work, but they're simply not so a flat tax doesn't work. That's part of the problem, the huge income disparity.

didn't this leak a while ago but disappeared? guess they pulled it and wanted to wait for a better time to hit Romney with it would be very interested to know who videoed it as it looks like someone bumped the camera (or re-positioned it) during his speech. Probably one of the waite staff.......reminds me of Fight Club. Do not fuck with us

>> ^VoodooV:
If incomes were proportional, I might agree, but they're not. The ratio of the highest pay to the lowest pay in the 20s was about 30 to 1 If I recall, but now it's 300 to 1. I could be wrong, but I think I've heard some report that might say it was 400 to 1 20 percent of a poor person's income is felt FAR more profoundly than 20 percent of a wealthy person's income. Even though it's the same percentage, it hurts the poor person WAY more.
And yes, that is part of the argument. A wealthy person tends to just sit on their money and not put it into the economy. and so a higher percentage just simply doesn't hurt them the way it would hurt the lower/middle class.
If incomes were more proportional, a flat tax might work, but they're simply not so a flat tax doesn't work. That's part of the problem, the huge income disparity.


You make a fair argument, but I don't think you addressed my original question because we are assuming two different income tax structure paradigms. Your paradigm is one which attempts to equalize the pain inflicted on those taxed, whereas mine attempts to tax based on the value of the services rendered by the government to the taxed person. With your model, you're right, a progressive system is going to be the way to go. But I will argue that under such a system the rich are paying more than the government is giving them in return, and the poor are paying less. In essence, wealth is redistributed. Whether that is okay or just is another argument entirely.

>> ^frosty:

>> ^VoodooV:
If incomes were proportional, I might agree, but they're not. The ratio of the highest pay to the lowest pay in the 20s was about 30 to 1 If I recall, but now it's 300 to 1. I could be wrong, but I think I've heard some report that might say it was 400 to 1 20 percent of a poor person's income is felt FAR more profoundly than 20 percent of a wealthy person's income. Even though it's the same percentage, it hurts the poor person WAY more.
And yes, that is part of the argument. A wealthy person tends to just sit on their money and not put it into the economy. and so a higher percentage just simply doesn't hurt them the way it would hurt the lower/middle class.
If incomes were more proportional, a flat tax might work, but they're simply not so a flat tax doesn't work. That's part of the problem, the huge income disparity.

You make a fair argument, but I don't think you addressed my original question because we are assuming two different income tax structure paradigms. Your paradigm is one which attempts to equalize the pain inflicted on those taxed, whereas mine attempts to tax based on the value of the services rendered by the government to the taxed person. With your model, you're right, a progressive system is going to be the way to go. But I will argue that under such a system the rich are paying more than the government is giving them in return, and the poor are paying less. In essence, wealth is redistributed. Whether that is okay or just is another argument entirely.


Are you arguing that the government should issue you an itemized bill for all the services you used? because that would be a logistical nightmare and would cost even more taxpayer dollars.

Taxes aren't perfect, they never will be, unless you want to strictly regulate who gets paid what and introduce some sort of tracking system for who uses what gov't service. Besides, a lot of these services benefit everyone, either directly or indirectly. As a non-business owning citizen, I may not require an interstate system and a well maintained set of roads to ship my products on. But it benefits me all the same. I get to use it for recreation and traveling, and I use it to travel to my job.

Quite frankly, I did answer your question, but now it seems you're changing your question.

Strictly speaking, I would agree that every citizen should be taxed, even the poor who would normally be exempt, Every little bit helps, but I think what happens is that the government looks at the cost of what it takes to enforce that 47 percent to pay their tax vs what they actually give in return because they're so poor and it probably just isn't cost effective. That's my guess anyway. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the poor aren't jumping up and down and saying "nyah nyah, I don't have to pay taxes and you do" They have other problems...like the fact that they're poor.

It's another situation where the solution is worse than the problem. One argument I hear from my conservative friends is that they want drug testing for welfare recipients. Sounds great right? all things being equal It's an argument that I might even support. But the reality is, drug tests aren't cheap. They cost a fuckton of money. Compare that to the money actually lost and in the end, it just costs us even more money just so we can pat ourselves on the back and say see! our money isn't going to make people high. Oh wait, why are my taxes higher?

Closing corporate loopholes is one of the few things I've heard both the left and right agree upon. Problem is, it won't happen because behind each and every one of those loopholes is a business who benefits from it and some of those businesses lean left, and some of those businesses lean right and NEITHER want their particular loopholes closed. That's why you'll always see people say they're for it, but are never specific on which ones.

Gov't isn't perfect, but if you've got a problem with it. vote. or else leave, or just STFU

We treat the office of the president as if one person can solve our problems..they can't. The two party system is a failure and only divides our country.