By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Vgchartz Poll: Who do you want to win the 2012 election Obama or Romney?

 

Who do you want to win the 2012 election?

Barack Obama 186 61.59%
 
Mitt Romney 56 18.54%
 
See Results 53 17.55%
 
Total:295

Wheres the Nathan Drake option?



Around the Network

Since Romneys' foreign policy scares me I'll go for Obama. (among other things)

How on earth can a president who is not backed up by congress clean up the incredible mess that was and is America in 2 to 4 years?
Let's keep faith in that Messiah like most of the Americans did 4 years ago. Anything other will make things worse. I promise ;P.



Why cant we get a good libertarian candidate?

Also why cant the libertarian party be taken more seriously?



This is the Game of Thrones

Where you either win

or you DIE

So my choices are between George W Bush 2.... and Mitt Romney.

I don't really care. I find the election interesting... but as for who wins... it doesn't really matter.



As an outsider looking into America; Obama. As most non-Americans would agree due to his charisma and the fact his policies aren't as wafer-thin as Romney's.

It will be an interesting few days...



 

Here lies the dearly departed Nintendomination Thread.

Around the Network

Obama but if Hilary were running: HILARY :)



SlayerRondo said:
Why cant we get a good libertarian candidate?

Also why cant the libertarian party be taken more seriously?


Gary Johnson isn't a good libertarian candidate?

 

The only reason the libertarians aren't taken more seriously is because people aren't stepping up and moving away from voting for (and getting) the lesser of two evils. If people decide to change that, then things will change a lot.

But I do believe Gary is going to get a huge portion of the vote - more than any other 3rd party candidate since Ross Perot in the 90s. That will be huge for the party.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

I would prefer for Obama to win the election, and while it is true he didn't reach all of his goals. Most presidents in recent times haven't been as ambitious or accomplished half as much. Most of which took place in the first half of his term. Think about that he did more in two years then most do in eight. He established a national healthcare policy, instituted major financial reforms, rescued the auto industry, killed off two of Americas most wanted, fixed our international reputation, promoted democracy abroad, and substantially increased our energy efficiency. All in the midst of a global recession.

I want to know what would have satisfied some of you. I hate to shatter any illusions you might have, but deficit spending was going to happen regardless of whoever was in office. In a recession you have just two good options either you spend your way out, or you bottom your way out. The Republican notion of cutting Government just wouldn't have happened, because it would have been pure political suicide. If the employment rate is your big problem you don't exacerbate it by firing off workers. That doesn't just make the initial problem worse. It actually delays a recovery by years. Not only does it undermine public confidence when you do that it drives down plain every day household spending. In other words it would have never fucking happened.

That said it wouldn't have been such a big issue in the first place if someone hadn't done the exact same thing in the previous eight years when the economy was largely in better shape. Bush basically went bumming cash to fuel an extravagant lifestyle. Obama went bumming cash to keep the heat on in the house. Excuse me if I don't discount the man as being wasteful.

Be honest who do you hold a dimmer view of in real life. The guy who borrows money to fix a leaky roof, or the guy who borrows money to buy shit to impress people. Who would you have more faith in the long run to handle their finances. The leaky roof may not be sexy, but it sure as hell offers more long term benefits. Oh and before you say that was Bush no it wasn't. It was Bush plus the Republican party. The team is just as responsible as the coach. The fact that they have trotted out the same tax cutting line this election cycle as the previous three. Is just plain damning evidence that they haven't learned. This is literally the only idea that they have, and they don't have any others.

Seriously its almost like a dog that has learned a trick. Give a Republican a penny, and they run around looking to just give it to someone to buy their vote. Give a Democrat a penny, and they debate how they are going to get the most out of that money. The point being that cutting taxes can't possibly be the solution to every fucking problem under the sun. The thing is the Republicans are just doing the same trick over and over to get the reward, and its just plain sad. It shows they aren't thinking anymore. They just intend to do the same thing no matter what the consequences may be.

Look what really pisses me off is we have one party doing the job of both, and the other party is just a repeating record. I want a more liberal Democratic party, and a more centrist Republican party. I want one party to be in a rush to move forward, and another party demanding that we look both ways before we cross the street. That is the way it is supposed to work. That is the most important reason why Obama needs to get reelected. That just might bring the Republican party back to Earth. Force them to think about legitimate ways to earn votes, and you know to have a real fucking platform.



Obama. Hands down. I'll be voting tomorrow morning.



Ask stefl1504 for a sig, even if you don't need one.

I would vote for Obama if I were an American. He seems the best choice globally. The republicans have got kinda" if at first you dont succeed, bomb it!" reputation. And I just dont trust a man whos name is Mitt. Obama for the win,bin Mitt the dim wit.