I believe either one of them will do what they are told, like good little politicians. As Bill Hicks said, the moment any 'President' gets it into their head that they are in charge, they get shown into a small, smokey room, where a projector is playing, cutting through the smoke, and showing a black and white movie of Kennedy getting whacked from a totally new angle indeed. The movie rolls to a close, the projector comes to a stop, the reel flicking around and around, like baseball cards on a bicycle wheel, and the door opens quietly, ushering the Presidential departure.

  It's a movie that doesn't need showing twice.

pretty simple u want a free market system its romney u want socialism its obama

1  16 trillion in debt

2   look at demcratic states ca ny ma broke

3 look at republican states tx ut fl flourishing

4 look at wisconsin ran by democrates it was insolvent till they elected a republican govnor it now has a surplus

5 if you like people like pelosi that brought obama care before congress and told her people that you had to pass it to find out whats in it is this a way to run a goverment

6 pelosies sf is exempt from obamacare oklahoma exempt from obamacare in a side deal or bribe really its not rocket science

Actually, being soft never made the world a better place. History has shown that appeasement does not work, but only makes totalitarian governments and individuals bolder and more reckless. It is weakness which starts war, not strength, as in, when an enemy perceives vacillation or preoccupation with other issues, it moves. 

Governments, by their nature, are not nice entities, but that being said, I'd rather have a strong bitch with teeth on my side than a weak mama cow.

I think that either President will be okay for China. The U.S. and China are wrapped up in, as John Mayer said, a "slow dance in a burning room."

Romney..he likes to talk tough on China but made a career out of shutting down factories and shipping those jobs to China while investing in Chinese companies....hmmm.

If Romney had won in 2008 the cars GM and Chrysler are making now would be made in China...and owned by Chinese companies that bought them for pennies on the dollar through receivership.

neither. north korea is waiting for the election results. they will start talks to open up maybe secretly. 

companies will leave china anyway, after seeing what china is doing to japanese companies.

china is heading for a collapse (5-10 years). and there is no outside force that can save them. china must make changes herself.

It won't really matter, in regards to China anyway. American foreign policy has been the same in East Asia since the end of the Cold War, and I frankly don't see that changing. Will the US strengthen economic ties to China regardless of which ever candidate is elected? Barring an armed conflict the answer is yes. Will the US continue to pursue a foreign policy that isolates China diplomatically, again regardless of who is elected President? Once again, the answer is yes. 

Mind you, I'm not really one that thinks that both candidates are the same, or that they will both do what their corporate masters tell them. There is a fairly obvious difference between a saying we need to print more money to use inflation to balance unemployment (the President's position) and saying we need to cut spending, in other words stop printing money, to control inflation, unemployment be damned (Mitt Romney's position.) That said the finer points of fiscal policy are lost on some people, and I can hardly blame them for thinking that two candidates have the same position if they take money from the same banks. Although to those people I would recommend doing a little more research. 

As far as deciding what the US should do about China is concerned, the issue has been settled.

I honestly don't think Obama or Romney has the spine to stand up to China and force them to play fair on the trade front.