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

Forums - Politics Discussion - Election time, who did you vote for?

 

Which presidential candidate will you vote for?

Barack Obama 356 55.89%
 
Mitt Romney 137 21.51%
 
Gary Johnson 38 5.97%
 
Jill Stein 15 2.35%
 
Somebody else 87 13.66%
 
Total:633
Slimebeast on 24 October 2012
fordy said:
Slimebeast said:

No, Im not facetious.

Yes, America absolutely is powerful! But Obama is too weak in his foreign policies. He's a bad negotiator, giving away American interests for free without getting something in return, not even much respect. America needs to be tougher against rogue states, tougher against Russia and China and against corrupt institutions such as the UN. And America needs to take back the global initiative, to become pro-active again in international conflicts.


So in other words, you want America to tell other countries what to do, right? The UN is suddenly corrupt because China and Russia's voices count, too. Well how about we remove their veto power from the security council, as long as America loses theirs, too. It's only fair...

You're talking as if America decides things without an agenda, but this is far from the case. they have just as much of an agenda as China and Russia do. Russia defends the Syrian reigime because it's their last air base in the middle east. America opposes the Syrian reigime because it's Russia's last air base in the middle east. You can go ahead and say it's all about human rights all you want, but where was America when Egypt were in the process of evicting Mubarak, who was in Israel's (and therefore America's) pocket? America only enacts when it's in THEIR interests.

First, American interests happen to be my interests .

Second, American interests are much more often morally right than Chinese and Russian interests, no matter the original motive.

Same with the UN. More than half of its members are dictatorships or very primitive democracies who don't know right from wrong. Their barbaric thinking is "blame America first" and condemn Israel no matter what.

So yes I want America to tell other countries what to do when it comes to important matters where they're right.

America stopped the genocide in Bosnia.

America tried to stop the genocide in Somalia.

America crushed the Talibans of Afghanistan.

America eliminated Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

America stopped the genocide in Kosovo.

America stopped the genocide and eliminated Muammar Khadaffi in Libya.

America eliminated Usama Bin Ladin.

And with Mitt Romney in power America would also eliminate Assad in Syria and prevent Iran from getting nukes.

None of these things would have been achieved without America. The EU and the UN have done nothing to solve international conflicts.



Around the Network
binary solo on 24 October 2012

I figured Jill Stein wasn;t getting any love so I ticked her, and I was right. Also in some online "who are you ideologically closest to" thing I did a while back it ended up being that I was 92% like Stein.

I can't vote of course so I've biased the result.



“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."

Jimi Hendrix

 

binary solo on 24 October 2012

Funny thing is the Ppundits are saying Ohio or Florida are key battleground states, but if the states that look fairly locked in for Obama all go his way then of the toss up states Obama only needs Colorado and New Hampshire to get over the line. This means he can lose Ohio and Florida and still become president.

There are really 5 toss up States. Obama can win with one or 2 of those states falling to him. Romney needs 4 of those 5 to fall for him. Iowa is pretty marginal for Obama, so if that's too close to call then the number of toss up states each candidate needs evens out a bit. But Romney still needs more of those too ups than Obama.

Interestingly the so-called Missouri bellwether didn't go with Obama last time and it's definitely not going with Obama this time, so if Obama wins then it's barometer reputation is severely weakened.



“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."

Jimi Hendrix

 

leatherhat on 24 October 2012

I just want to say before I go to bed that if you don't live in a swing state vote third party.



ǝןdɯıs ʇı dǝǝʞ oʇ ǝʞıן ı ʍouʞ noʎ 

Ask me about being an elitist jerk

Time for hype

fordy on 24 October 2012
Slimebeast said:
fordy said:
Slimebeast said:

No, Im not facetious.

Yes, America absolutely is powerful! But Obama is too weak in his foreign policies. He's a bad negotiator, giving away American interests for free without getting something in return, not even much respect. America needs to be tougher against rogue states, tougher against Russia and China and against corrupt institutions such as the UN. And America needs to take back the global initiative, to become pro-active again in international conflicts.


So in other words, you want America to tell other countries what to do, right? The UN is suddenly corrupt because China and Russia's voices count, too. Well how about we remove their veto power from the security council, as long as America loses theirs, too. It's only fair...

You're talking as if America decides things without an agenda, but this is far from the case. they have just as much of an agenda as China and Russia do. Russia defends the Syrian reigime because it's their last air base in the middle east. America opposes the Syrian reigime because it's Russia's last air base in the middle east. You can go ahead and say it's all about human rights all you want, but where was America when Egypt were in the process of evicting Mubarak, who was in Israel's (and therefore America's) pocket? America only enacts when it's in THEIR interests.

First, American interests happen to be my interests .

Second, American interests are much more often morally right than Chinese and Russian interests, no matter the original motive.

Same with the UN. More than half of its members are dictatorships or very primitive democracies who don't know right from wrong. Their barbaric thinking is "blame America first" and condemn Israel no matter what.

So yes I want America to tell other countries what to do when it comes to important matters where they're right.

America stopped the genocide in Bosnia.

America tried to stop the genocide in Somalia.

America crushed the Talibans of Afghanistan.

America eliminated Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

America stopped the genocide in Kosovo.

America stopped the genocide and eliminated Muammar Khadaffi in Libya.

America eliminated Usama Bin Ladin.

And with Mitt Romney in power America would also eliminate Assad in Syria and prevent Iran from getting nukes.

None of these things would have been achieved without America. The EU and the UN have done nothing to solve international conflicts.


Happy with your informative media? All you need are a few alertist reports stating that the leader of a country you've probably never even heard of before is bad, and does bad things, and you're right on board. What happened to those Iraqi WMDs huh? And let's not forget who SUPPORTED Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war. I'll give you a hint, it's the same people you're talking up right now.

Yeah just what we need. You didn't think that if America gets more involved with Syria, Russia's last ally of the middle east that it would be a good precursor to WW3? Tell me, were you for or against the Occupy movements in Washington, because you appear to have taken sides with Syria already. And what if the revolutionaries of Syria that you're willing to support decide to adopt a theocratic government like Egypt did? Would you still be behind them?

Keep reading that alarmist news that Iranian nukes are just around the corner, or perhaps it was Netanyahu's intricate diagram that persuaded you?



Around the Network
xS7SxSNIPER on 24 October 2012

I wouldn't vote for any of them, they are both the same. But if Ron Paul was there then it will be him.



                          

HappySqurriel on 24 October 2012
binary solo said:
Funny thing is the Ppundits are saying Ohio or Florida are key battleground states, but if the states that look fairly locked in for Obama all go his way then of the toss up states Obama only needs Colorado and New Hampshire to get over the line. This means he can lose Ohio and Florida and still become president.

There are really 5 toss up States. Obama can win with one or 2 of those states falling to him. Romney needs 4 of those 5 to fall for him. Iowa is pretty marginal for Obama, so if that's too close to call then the number of toss up states each candidate needs evens out a bit. But Romney still needs more of those too ups than Obama.

Interestingly the so-called Missouri bellwether didn't go with Obama last time and it's definitely not going with Obama this time, so if Obama wins then it's barometer reputation is severely weakened.


In my opinion, realclearpolitics has a better electoral college map than fivethirtyeight because of how it handles toss-up states; any state where the two candidates are closer than 5% is considered a toss up, and this works better because in this range poll methodology, voter enthusiasm, and likely-vs-unlikely voters make a huge difference.

At the moment there are 10 toss up states, 8 of which both candidates are within 3% of eachoter, and 5 of which the candidates are within 2% of eachother.

Basically, if party turnout matched 2008 it is likely that Obama will win, if it is closer to 2004 it is likely that Obama will lose ...



curl-6 on 24 October 2012
Slimebeast said:

Obama tries to convince Iran to abandon its nuclear program through negotiations, which is absolutely laughable when not even sanctions would work. War is the only option.

And thousands more innocent civilians are blown up by US bombs and missiles, spawning another generation of terrorists who want to avenge their murdered parents, grandparents, siblings, and countrymen.



Kasz216 on 24 October 2012
fordy said:
Slimebeast said:
fordy said:
Slimebeast said:

No, Im not facetious.

Yes, America absolutely is powerful! But Obama is too weak in his foreign policies. He's a bad negotiator, giving away American interests for free without getting something in return, not even much respect. America needs to be tougher against rogue states, tougher against Russia and China and against corrupt institutions such as the UN. And America needs to take back the global initiative, to become pro-active again in international conflicts.


So in other words, you want America to tell other countries what to do, right? The UN is suddenly corrupt because China and Russia's voices count, too. Well how about we remove their veto power from the security council, as long as America loses theirs, too. It's only fair...

You're talking as if America decides things without an agenda, but this is far from the case. they have just as much of an agenda as China and Russia do. Russia defends the Syrian reigime because it's their last air base in the middle east. America opposes the Syrian reigime because it's Russia's last air base in the middle east. You can go ahead and say it's all about human rights all you want, but where was America when Egypt were in the process of evicting Mubarak, who was in Israel's (and therefore America's) pocket? America only enacts when it's in THEIR interests.

First, American interests happen to be my interests .

Second, American interests are much more often morally right than Chinese and Russian interests, no matter the original motive.

Same with the UN. More than half of its members are dictatorships or very primitive democracies who don't know right from wrong. Their barbaric thinking is "blame America first" and condemn Israel no matter what.

So yes I want America to tell other countries what to do when it comes to important matters where they're right.

America stopped the genocide in Bosnia.

America tried to stop the genocide in Somalia.

America crushed the Talibans of Afghanistan.

America eliminated Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

America stopped the genocide in Kosovo.

America stopped the genocide and eliminated Muammar Khadaffi in Libya.

America eliminated Usama Bin Ladin.

And with Mitt Romney in power America would also eliminate Assad in Syria and prevent Iran from getting nukes.

None of these things would have been achieved without America. The EU and the UN have done nothing to solve international conflicts.


Happy with your informative media? All you need are a few alertist reports stating that the leader of a country you've probably never even heard of before is bad, and does bad things, and you're right on board. What happened to those Iraqi WMDs huh? And let's not forget who SUPPORTED Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war. I'll give you a hint, it's the same people you're talking up right now.

Yeah just what we need. You didn't think that if America gets more involved with Syria, Russia's last ally of the middle east that it would be a good precursor to WW3? Tell me, were you for or against the Occupy movements in Washington, because you appear to have taken sides with Syria already. And what if the revolutionaries of Syria that you're willing to support decide to adopt a theocratic government like Egypt did? Would you still be behind them?

Keep reading that alarmist news that Iranian nukes are just around the corner, or perhaps it was Netanyahu's intricate diagram that persuaded you?

See... this is what i find funny about assumptive comments.

Slimbeast is from Sweden.



Kasz216 on 24 October 2012
Mr Khan said:
Kasz216 said:
Soleron said:
ECM said:
Soleron said:

 

 

 

The only reason we even have the fiscal cliff is because of that wrecker Grover Norquist (likely the one person i hate most in this world) and a bunch of grandstanding Republicans who'd work with Romney in a split second once he's president.

So you agree.  Romney is much more able to save us from the fiscal cliff.

Though I would arue we have the fiscal cliff for two reasons.

The first is debt.  We have a shit ton of it... at ti's getting worse.

The second is... the average american.  The average american is much more worried about the debt then they were before the financial crisis.

It routinly ranks in the top 3... for voters when it comes to issues.

It's why Obama is painting Romney as someone who would make national debt worse.

 

You could put Obama as a strong third for why there is still a fiscal cliff though.  All the reporting on the grand deal suggests a deal was in place, then Obama bumped up his sides requirements at the end of the day.  The Woodward book is a good example.