What are you trying to say, that the Iranian regime are good people and we should respect their decision to ignore the IAEA and aquire nukes?

It's a fact that Iranian nukes are around the corner, less than five years and there's no going back.

The Syria-Russia issue. Obama is making the wrong analysis here. He's too soft on Russia. Russia is flexing its muscles and being angry because it lost so much of the respect it once had and because Russia's opinion was ignored about the Kosovo war in 1999 and Libya in 2011. But it's just a show because Russia's muscles are in reality very thin. USA could easily bully Russia back into submission (with the help from the EU) like they were pre-Putin. Instead Obama is giving the Russians much more space than they deserve.

Any talk about a WW3 is laughable. Russia is far too weak. They're just using strong words but in reality they don't have any muscles. Obviously they don't have any interest in a conflict, but I mean weak in the sense that they wouldn't even try to scare. The Russia show is all about words and obstruction in the Security Council, they don't have the resources to send aircraft carriers to show true strength. They will never become a huge geo-political power again, even though they are very determined to try.

It's not about Russia's military base in Syria because it's lost already and in reality it has no big strategic importance (because Russia's influence in the Middle East is already so small compared to the past). Russia too knows that Assad's days are numbered and that the base is lost, they just want to lengthen and obstruct the process and not make it too easy for the West, like it was in Libya. The Syria issue and Russia's veto is all about Russian pride and how Russia is working to get its respect back in world politics.

About Syria and the revolution. Yes, the Sunni muslims will come to power and retaliate on the Alawites and Christians and we will get a second humanitarian crysis, and the future state will resemble a theocracy, and that's all very unfortunate, but I still support that process because it reflects the true will of the people in Syria. It's the nature of that region. We in the West can deal with that when that time comes. Dictatorships to keep unstable societies in check is an artificial solution that needs to end.

I got 88% with Ron Paul. Funny thing, Romney was i think like 58% while Obama was like 51%. Those were my top 1, 2, and 3...

looking forward to the election,i'd be voting right if i was an american

You know, i hear liberal posters on here complaining all the time about vgchartz is just full of conservatives. I think this poll is a good indicator of just the opposite...

Oh definatly. Before the debate even started on Monday night Obama had close to 50 votes which made up of 75% at the time.

of course it's more liberal,people are more young and wide eyed,i don't get how people think it's more right wing on here

edit-people want 16 year olds voting where i am,i wouldn't let 16yr olds do anything more than get out of bed let alone direct where a country should go,i find it astonishing

Here is the way I see it all:

1. Obama has not been a good president. Debates will always be made between Obama and Bush on who was worse. Both have increased the debt immensely. Both ran massive budget deficits. Both have made questionable decisions abroad in foreign policy and use of force. Obama has done an amazing amount of pandering to different groups and electioneering. Whether you blame Republicans in Congress or Obama for the debt ceiling, tax increases, fiscal cliff is beside the point. The fact is fiscal problems have not been solved and they have gotten worse on the long term scale and to the point where there isn't much time left before a debt crisis. Obama did not get a deal done. Who really believes he is going to become more moderate when its his last term and knows that he doesn't have to worry about re-election. He is in fact a Leftist big government spending politician. Thats just simply who he is. He is no moderate when it comes to Government spending. His 2nd term agenda is a best vague and we can't expect any serious changes. Obama and his administration is in the midst of a possible "cover up" or serious miscommunication failure in the situation that happened in Benghazi. There was so much conflicting information coming from White House officials and Obama himself when we have recently learned that the White House knew within Hours that a terrorist organization claimed responsibility for the attack. Yet they seemed to keep bringing up a anti Islam video as an excuse. The State Department had LIVE feed from a drone of what was taking place in Benghazi. When asked about the video from that an official claimed they no longer were in possession of it. The whole situation is a mess and there are so many unanswered questions. This is only going to get worse. All that to say This President no matter how "likeable" he may be he has been a failure to bring real fiscal change and be transparent as he suggested he would be in 08.

2. There are other candidates that I think would do a much better job at tackling debt, the deficit, and entitlements to at least get America back on track. the problem is none of them will even have a chance at winning. Everyone realizes that is just a fact of how this process is going to turn out. This means we are essentially forced to make the ultimate choice between two candidates again. This is frustrating but its the way it is in this election.

3. Mitt Romney while I am not fond of in certain terms and not sure how he will handle foreign issues seems to be the only other choice than Obama. I at least think Romney would at worst be like Bush or Obama on foreign issues. Not sure he could really be much worse. In the debates he seems to claim he will use different strategies in connecting with the Muslim world but we will see. What I am most concerned about is the Deficit, Debt, and entitlements. It is truly getting out of hand. All I can see is the past record of Romney. He has balanced budgets in Business, Olympics, and as Governor. You can question is social views, and foreign policy views, but I do think he will be better than Obama about applying some brakes to the fiscal problems. He is the only one that seems to be willing to do something about out of control entitlements.

4.  I am not just going to sit back and not vote this election, because I don't fully agree with the two main guys. I am also not going to just throw my vote at a 3rd candidate that has no chance. One thing that sticks out in my mind is that Obama cannot have a 2nd term because I do believe that the problems WILL get much worse. If my overall view is that I KNOW Obama will be destructive then I have to try to push him out of government with my vote. Really the only way to have a chance at that is to vote for Romney. Honestly in my opinion many of Obama's decisions have been horrible. I don't think its worth it to allow a chance for him to have another term. In my mind he would be much worse in terms of fiscal issues and I could definitely see us going over the cliff with his 2nd term because no proof has shown that he can get serious things done. Spending MUST be cut. I KNOW what Obama has done and so I know what he likely will do. With Romney he has a history of balancing budgets. Thats enough for me.

 I care about my country too much to risk it on giving a 2nd term to a President that I KNOW is a hard leftist who's core beliefs reside in growing government, and more spending in the belief that it will fix problems. With a Debt Crisis on the horizon there is no way I can risk that with the evidence on his lack of progress. At Obama's core he is a redistributionist with socialistic views who does not like capitalism and thinks it needs to be burdened with immense government restrictions.

You do realise that a lot of the theocratic rule over in the middle east is a response to Zionist activities around the area, right? How exactly do you know the "true will of the people in Syria"? For all we know, it could be their version of the Occupy movements. The point of this is, both America AND Russia picked their sides before this conflect grew to such a size, and they did it based on what they think was best for them. As such, the media of both countries is working freverently to create theis image of Syria to suit the respective agendas of America and Russia. Would you still be for the rebels if there were fewer of them? How many are needed to declare a state is "out of control", or are you basing this on something else? Should East Timor have NOT become independent because of the few rebels who were still fighting to keep it as part of Indonesia? By your reasoning, that's the will of the people, the ones who are fighting.

Dictatorships need to end, huh? So you're all for America invading their ally Saudi Arabia and relieving people of the dictatorship there? Remember that there were protests there, except their government had a lot more control over the situation and quickly silenced it. We can't go cherry-picking on who we want to liberate, right? If America wants to look like a selfless country, they should liberate countries that they also have alliances with, not just ones they believe will create a western-friendly leadership there.

What about Africa? Plenty of dictatorships there, but for some reaosn, America doesn't seem as concerned with liberating those. Why could that be? 

I know. I'm from Australia. What's your point?

Are you saying that people outside of America are not entitled to an opinion on how the world is going?

Which is doubly awesome because liberal Americans (especially on Reddit) love to talk about how Sweden is a paradise and the USA is a dump by comparison.