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
Kasz216 on 24 October 2012
Kantor said:
Kasz216 said:

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

Slimbeast is from Sweden.

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.

Sweden is sneaky conservative in a lot of areas.  Not quite so much as say... France but still.

People focus so much on Welfare and Healthcare...

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/01/11/the_conservative_europe.html

is a fun piece.



Around the Network
kingwandymion on 24 October 2012

THEN TELL ME WHY IS MITT ROMNEY GOING TO WIN?



kingwandymion on 24 October 2012

the la-li-lu- le-lo favors the candidate that can please their agenda of depopulating the earth.



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

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.

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? 

You mention the Occupy movement and compare it with the uprising in Syria and question if it is representative of something larger. I do not know much about the Occupy movement but do you imply that the Occupy movement is staged?

Now you seem to imply that the uprising in Syria is staged. It is not staged.

Of course the Syrian uprising doesn't represent the whole people. Uprisings almost never do. But it represents the Syrians far better than Assad does.

I do not like muslim theocracies and how Christians and other minorities are increasingly being forced out of the ME and how these post-Arab Spring nations are becoming increasingly hostile towards Israel. But it's the nature of the region. I don't like this artificial situation where we've had dictators run these countries for so long. Let them show their true colors. Let them be religious societies if they wish.

I wish America would invade Saudi-Arabia and put an end to some of the civil wars and genocides in Africa. But that won't happen. But at least America does something while the UN and EU do nothing. I don't deny that America acts upon its selfish interests. I am saying that these interests happen to align with my own interests because I'd rather have America rule the world than a bunch of backwards thinking third world countries, Russia, China and even the EU.



gergroy on 24 October 2012
kingwandymion said:
THEN TELL ME WHY IS MITT ROMNEY GOING TO WIN?


Who are you talking to?



Around the Network
fordy on 24 October 2012
Slimebeast said:

You mention the Occupy movement and compare it with the uprising in Syria and question if it is representative of something larger. I do not know much about the Occupy movement but do you imply that the Occupy movement is staged?

Now you seem to imply that the uprising in Syria is staged. It is not staged.

Of course the Syrian uprising doesn't represent the whole people. Uprisings almost never do. But it represents the Syrians far better than Assad does.

I do not like muslim theocracies and how Christians and other minorities are increasingly being forced out of the ME and how these post-Arab Spring nations are becoming increasingly hostile towards Israel. But it's the nature of the region. I don't like this artificial situation where we've had dictators run these countries for so long. Let them show their true colors. Let them be religious societies if they wish.

I wish America would invade Saudi-Arabia and put an end to some of the civil wars and genocides in Africa. But that won't happen. But at least America does something while the UN and EU do nothing. I don't deny that America acts upon its selfish interests. I am saying that these interests happen to align with my own interests because I'd rather have America rule the world than a bunch of backwards thinking third world countries, Russia, China and even the EU.

Don't put words into my mouth. There has to be a point where disgruntled protestors are suddenly classed as the "repsressed" of a government, democratic or otherwise. The occupy movement was to demonstrate the use of corporate money in politics, and how it's being used to influence government decisions. They had everyone against them, including the media and corporate entities, who pressured the mayor of New York to shut down the park that they were demonstrating in for "cleaning". Despite protestors taking ont he task and cleaning the park, they still shut it down. It's exactly the same as riots in Syria. The difference? Government control to silence these groups, whether it's through media, force or any other means.

You're missing the point. America does SOMETHING, but that something is purely agenda-based. Who's to say that the new reigimes in Iraq and Afghanistan are not dictatorial (or turn out to be)? America doesnt care. The only thing they care about is whether the new reigime continues to support them or not. So if you're all for removing dictatorial actions of Saudi Arabia, how about America invades Israel and puts a stop to illegal settlements being built? Oh right, you're all for repression of people that you don't agree with..



TheShape31 on 24 October 2012

Jill Stein!

By the way, the debates aren't completely over. Next Tuesday on freeandequal.org will be the second debate between the 3rd party candidates. Yesterday was the first, which featured the top 4 (watch the whole things here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDqkenIayAI). There's a runoff vote happening on the website to narrow it down to 2 candidates for next week. Judging by the audience's reactions, it'll be Jill Stein and Gary Johnson.

The top 2 candidates are a complete joke, in my opinion. Nothing will change with either of them in office.



Slimebeast on 24 October 2012
fordy said:
Slimebeast said:

You mention the Occupy movement and compare it with the uprising in Syria and question if it is representative of something larger. I do not know much about the Occupy movement but do you imply that the Occupy movement is staged?

Now you seem to imply that the uprising in Syria is staged. It is not staged.

Of course the Syrian uprising doesn't represent the whole people. Uprisings almost never do. But it represents the Syrians far better than Assad does.

I do not like muslim theocracies and how Christians and other minorities are increasingly being forced out of the ME and how these post-Arab Spring nations are becoming increasingly hostile towards Israel. But it's the nature of the region. I don't like this artificial situation where we've had dictators run these countries for so long. Let them show their true colors. Let them be religious societies if they wish.

I wish America would invade Saudi-Arabia and put an end to some of the civil wars and genocides in Africa. But that won't happen. But at least America does something while the UN and EU do nothing. I don't deny that America acts upon its selfish interests. I am saying that these interests happen to align with my own interests because I'd rather have America rule the world than a bunch of backwards thinking third world countries, Russia, China and even the EU.

Don't put words into my mouth. There has to be a point where disgruntled protestors are suddenly classed as the "repsressed" of a government, democratic or otherwise. The occupy movement was to demonstrate the use of corporate money in politics, and how it's being used to influence government decisions. They had everyone against them, including the media and corporate entities, who pressured the mayor of New York to shut down the park that they were demonstrating in for "cleaning". Despite protestors taking ont he task and cleaning the park, they still shut it down. It's exactly the same as riots in Syria. The difference? Government control to silence these groups, whether it's through media, force or any other means.

You're missing the point. America does SOMETHING, but that something is purely agenda-based. Who's to say that the new reigimes in Iraq and Afghanistan are not dictatorial (or turn out to be)? America doesnt care. The only thing they care about is whether the new reigime continues to support them or not. So if you're all for removing dictatorial actions of Saudi Arabia, how about America invades Israel and puts a stop to illegal settlements being built? Oh right, you're all for repression of people that you don't agree with..

So why do you bring up Occupy Wallstreet in the first place if you believe both (that and Syria) are legitimate uprisings that should be recognized as such?

Oh wait, I think you assumed I would be the hypocrite and think the Occupy movement was illegitimate while Syria uprising is legit. And actually you are right. I don't have much sympathy for the Occupy movement in its current form. Because in the West we have democracy and ordered means for the people to show their will. I hate street protests as a means of expressing political opinions in the West. It's primitive and unfair and doesn't belong in an advanced civilzed democracy. While in a dictatorship it's the only way possible.

Yes, everything America does is agenda-based. I already admitted that. But you don't understand my point - it's the best we can get at the moment in this world. Because everyone has an agenda, everyone takes sides. And I prefer America's agenda over the rest.



gergroy on 24 October 2012
TheShape31 said:
Jill Stein!

By the way, the debates aren't completely over. Next Tuesday on freeandequal.org will be the second debate between the 3rd party candidates. Yesterday was the first, which featured the top 4 (watch the whole things here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDqkenIayAI). There's a runoff vote happening on the website to narrow it down to 2 candidates for next week. Judging by the audience's reactions, it'll be Jill Stein and Gary Johnson.

The top 2 candidates are a complete joke, in my opinion. Nothing will change with either of them in office.


The top 2 may be a joke, but one of them will be president.  Voting for one of this years 3rd parties is essentially abstaining as none of them even have a remote chance of even taking one state.  

I respect your choice of voting 3rd party, but dont pretend they actually have a chance.



the2real4mafol on 24 October 2012
gergroy said:
TheShape31 said:
Jill Stein!

By the way, the debates aren't completely over. Next Tuesday on freeandequal.org will be the second debate between the 3rd party candidates. Yesterday was the first, which featured the top 4 (watch the whole things here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDqkenIayAI). There's a runoff vote happening on the website to narrow it down to 2 candidates for next week. Judging by the audience's reactions, it'll be Jill Stein and Gary Johnson.

The top 2 candidates are a complete joke, in my opinion. Nothing will change with either of them in office.


The top 2 may be a joke, but one of them will be president.  Voting for one of this years 3rd parties is essentially abstaining as none of them even have a remote chance of even taking one state.  

I respect your choice of voting 3rd party, but dont pretend they actually have a chance.

I know people always like to say voting 3rd party is a waste of time, but what's worse voting between 2 people who don't represent your political beliefs or "wasting" your vote for someone who wants real change? If people who didn't want democrats or republicans elected, all voted for a 3rd party. I'm sure it would eventually make a dent in the top 2 parties. People just need to stop thinking it's a waste to vote for a 3rd party now. This is a democracy afterall, people can vote for anyone, so they should



Xbox One, PS4 and Switch (+ Many Retro Consoles)

'When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the people's stick'- Mikhail Bakunin

Prediction: Switch will sell better than Wii U Lifetime Sales by Jan 1st 2018