Enter Shikari: 'Mitt Romney Is The Most Dangerous Person In The World'

Singer Rou Reynolds is also anti-Obama after he broke his promise to shut down Guantanamo Bay. Is politics doomed, or is real change possible with the right government? Join the debate here.

Ultimate Guitar

British band Enter Shikari have stepped into the US election debate, branding Mitt Romney as "dangerous" and President Obama as a "liar."

They raised the topic when NME asked them who the most dangerous man in the world is. Vocalist Rou Reynolds singled out Mitt Romney, and added: "With the US elections, I can't believe Mitt Romney is a possibility to run a country that size. Or any size."

Reynolds says he was originally swept up in Obama-fever after his election, but has since retracted his support and is disillusioned with politics as a whole:

"I'm starting to realize that politics just repeats itself. People get elected. They lie. They say they're gonna do this, that they won't do that.

"One of the big Obama things for me is he was gonna close Guantanamo Bay but he hasn't done anything. And he's increased the foreign wars the US are leading, and introduced drone warfare, which is a new beast terrifying Pakistan. So many civilians killed."

Is Rou right about politics? Will the US have to vote for the lesser of two evils, or is real change possible with the right government? Share your opinions and hopes in the comments.

Trending stories

130 comments sorted by best / new / date

comments policy
    i cant wait for the election be over
    Me to but you gotta admit mitt has said some incredibly retarded things so far! We live in fear of george bush III
    Obama is george bush 3. Romney will be bush 4 if he gets elected.
    I'm sorry but what the hell does that mean? They are all completely different people with completely different views. How can they all be like bush? You obviously know very little about politics and your posts show that.
    I can see your point, kind of. Neither Bush nor Obama have held to the promises that they made. Look at Obama's signing of NDAA.
    If you do ANY research you would see that Obama actually did A LOT of what he said he was going to do. He has also helped the country quite a lot in a first term which is REALLY impressive since it's nearly impossible to make a difference in the first term. Romney is a ****ing retard who doesn't know what he is doing. I wouldn't vote for him just based on his personality and personal vendettas he has against homosexuals.
    And if you do ant research OTHER than MSN, or just look around yourself, you'll see Obama KILLING the middle AND upperclass, and keeping the poor on life support so they will vote for him! Reagan turned it around in 1 term. If Obama was competent, he could have as well. The fact that he makes up stories to appease our enemies, when they KILL our people should be enough for ANYONE to see Obama isn't fit to be Commander in Chief of a row boat!
    Unemployment is still higher than when he took office. The deficit, which he promised to cut in half, has almost doubled. Our national credit rating has been downgraded twice. Gitmo is still open. He did get some version of his healthcare system rammed through, but without a real plan to pay for it. What exactly has he done to "help" that counteracts all of that? And as for Romney being a "retard", anyone who thinks that is one themselves. An individual of dubious integrity and character, sure, but he didn't get where he is by being stupid.
    Where does he call mitt romney the most dangerous person in the world? I didn't see it in either article.
    Oh, your band is liberal. Tell me again how unique and well developed your political views are.
    My Last Words
    In all seriousness tho, I rather have people voting for a tool like romney than to say "I'm not voting, politics are bullshit" . And sadly, there are plenty of people who think that way..
    Aries Phoenix
    The fact this has a negative 10 rating is disgraceful. Liberty is a gift, and its your job as a citizen to educate yourself on the different positions either candidate has in regards to running the country, and then vote according to your beliefs. Obviously because there are only two possible choices now for president that you won't agree with everything they say but you should still vote for the person you would rather represent you. No one would be aloud to bitch about politics on this form without the foundation of voting and freedom, and that people would just dismiss that is an embarrassment.
    I can honestly say that I would rather have people not vote if they have no idea what's going on.
    My Last Words
    Yeah but if they choose not to vote then they shouldn't be the ones bitching about how ''the system'' ruins their lives either, agree ?
    Liberty is a gift, but voting is right. Just like how I have the right to not vote. Yeah, I can educate myself on who to vote for, but I don't think it's my job. The only "job" that I feel I have to commit to is my job to life; and that's to enjoy it, no matter who takes office.
    My Last Words
    What I am trying to say, you lovely folks: People in America, are talking bad about [insert politician here] you know what? Shut the f**k up! You don't know a thing about running a country! If there would have been a better man to run the States right now, we would have picked him, it's a democratic process. There are a couple of guys who run for office, everybody picks him, he goes to the next level. Shut up, he's the f**king president! There's gonna be an election, if you don't like him go for the other guy. Don't sit back there and just piss and moan."
    So you have the right to choose from a preselected list of candidates. And before you say anyone can run, that is not true for the two major parties. There is a process in which they screen the candidates and choose them. And before you mention third party candidates, name the last time someone has even come close to getting any large amount of votes. What a lot of people feel is futility. It doesn't matter which of the two candidates get in, nothing is going to change. The US is going to continue bullying countries through violence and force, (a role the rest of the world shakes their head at. NO ONE WANTS YOU TO DO THAT.), the drone strikes which kill approximately 50 civilians per hit will continue, the large corporations will continue to steamroll over other peoples rights while lobbying to be aloud to act as such, the war on drugs will continue to be a massive waste of money and lives (not to mention putting many innocent people in jail for as little as selling marijuana), and a multitude of other terrible things. So tell me why I should vote? The whole thing is a farce. But I don't have a right to complain unless I vote? Even though the results would be exactly the same either way. Either candidate A or B gets elected. What is the solution? I know apathy won't change anything, but I'm just biding my time something better comes. It's hard to summarize my political views in such a short thing so I won't even bother here, but I will say that the course needs to change. I will end by saying I do vote, but typically either make my throwaway ballot or vote for some small independent with 0 chance of making it.
    The politicians that do finally make it as far as running for president have normally worked their way up the ladder by first being voted into positions like governor or senator. I strongly disagree with our two party system but we still have a very large say on who becomes a presidential candidate. The lack of attention voters put on positions other than president should be addressed more.
    lol thats why when world war 3 we have no allies, that means were ****ed with your beloved politics you poor brainswashed man, if you really cared about your politics you wouldnt want to vote either, there is alot of shit about your beloved country you don't know about.
    Al Gore needs your support folks. Manbearpig must be stopped. I'm super cereal.
    Obviously, more empty opinions from high school drop outs. For all the other points on here, power divided is power checked. The US federal government was designed to defend from invasion, foster commerce and protect individual rights. 100 years of progressivism is culminating in insurmountable debt created by politicians selling whatever program they need to get elected. Power needs to be in the hands of the state and local governments. Want to solve poverty and other socio-economic issues? Do it in your own neighborhood with your own money. People are a lot less conscious of taxes solving the nation's problems when always spending someone else's money. When everyone has some skin in the game, waste will drop and lives will improve. Take away everything from the rich, you still don't make it better for the poor.
    Does agreeing with this mean I'm actually a Republican? I'm only voting in my local/state/congressional elections where party affiliation isn't concerned as much as the candidates' proposals and track record. I'm glad I'm not the only one that realizes that the results of the presidential election aren't going to have any significant effects on anyone's life. The damn media makes it seem as though this decision will seal the fate of the universe. The people are distracted and argue amongst themselves over the president, a position that is attributed more power than it actually holds, and meanwhile the legislative branch which is actually in charge of making laws and domestic policy is full of crooks who sit on their hands and get paid a small fortune in taxpayer money.
    Le Fantome
    After the endless idiocy and mindless following of a party-line, that is all I ever see on the internet, you two have restored my faith in humanity. Props for thinking for yourself.
    If we had left everything to states than we would still have segregation in all Southern institutions. And I don't think progressivism is responsible for all that debt, ever heard of George W. Bush and his Republican Congress' two unpaid-for wars?
    I propose bringing more power back to the states, not advocate for it in the past. Republicans are just as guilty of overspending as Democrats, just for different reasons. So I reiterate my point: people are always quick to spend money that doesn't belong to them, especially when they pay no income tax at all. A bloated, ineffecient, on-the-take Federal government is taking us quickly to ruin. The pain is coming, get ready.
    Third party libertarian presidential candidate gets 5% of the vote, it ends the two party system. Gary Johnson 2012.
    I will probably vote in Jill Stein, but I like Gary Johnson as well. More importantly, I'm very supportive of 3rd party candidates
    As stupid as I generally think this band's politics are, they are completely right about every word of this. All they really said is that Romney lies and so does Obama. How can any of you disagree with that? And by the way, not being American doesn't make their opinions any less valid. They've demonstrated more knowledge of our political system than most American voters have.
    "'I'm starting to realize that politics just repeats itself. People get elected. They lie. They say they're gonna do this, that they won't do that.'" If this guy is just starting to realize politics is a sham, tell me why anyone should take his political views seriously.
    I would have said the Iran president is the most dangerous person in the world.
    a country with a failing economy, no leverage, at mercy to strikes from israel and the USA. But because its an islamic fanatical regime its dangerous. Iran is no more a danger than north korea, they are pantomime villains. In the wrong hands america is the most dangerous country to the rest of the world as it has the leverage and military to be dangerous.
    First off, the president of Iran has far less power than you would think. There is also a position called "Supreme Leader of Iran" who has the real power. Second, N. Korea is dangerous as hell because they have nukes and China(who has lots more nukes) has their back. Furthermore N. Korea sells weapons and planes to Iran, so Iran gets their danger from them. And soon if Iran gets nukes they could be in bunkers too deep to be penetrated by bunker-busters.
    China isn't as supportive of North Korea as you think. They support them in principal because they're both communist governments, but if North Korea tried to start a war in the region, China would step in the stop them because A) the destabilization it would cause would negatively impact them, and B) their economy is heavily reliant on the US, and they realize that America is a far more valuable ally than North Korea.
    recent north korean long range 'space program' tests absolutely flopped. north korea is stuck in the 30's technologically, it cant even support itself. its modelled that in the event of war north korea would last less than a month before it ran out of oil and food to keep the country and let alone army going.
    Ah good points. I realized right after I said they have nukes that they have no means of using them on anyone except S. Korea or Japan as of yet. And a war so close would be bad for China's economy. Still, they have parts of the equation and sell to unsavory folks the same as Iran.
    I agree about Iran. I firmly believe that the instant they become a real nuclear threat, which is unlikely to ever happen, Israel will wipe them off the face of the Earth. I won't get into the issue on whether that's a good or a bad thing, but it does mean no one has to worry about a large scale nuclear strike from them.
    Iran has ZERO Nuclear weapons. ZERO.... Lets do some math here Israel=300 Nuclear weapons vs. Iran=0