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 said:
the2real4mafol said:
Slimebeast said:
sperrico87 said:
Slimebeast said:
sperrico87 said:
Slimebeast said:
sperrico87 said:
Slimebeast said:
I'll vote for Mitt Romny. So that America will become a powerful empire and a strong force for good in the world again.


Are you being facetious?

No, not at all. I'm a conservative and I love America.

I still can't tell if you're being facetious.  You don't think right now we're already a powerful global empire?

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.

We spend more money in our Defense budget now than at any time under GWB. You want us to spend even more?  We have enough weapons to blow up the world like 30 times over, more than all other nations combined.  I'm no fan of Obama, believe me, but I really don't see how Romney and Obama's foreign policy is any different in the ways that matter.  They both support intervention in the internal affairs of other nations, they both support foreign aid, they both support staying in Afghanistan indefinitely, taking orders from the military instead of actually being the Commander in Chief and making a real decision.

I don't think it's about the money, it's about the attitude.

Romney has the right attitude. The current administration is too soft.

All these dictatorships, China, Iran, Russia, North Korea, the Palestinians, and actually most members of the UN, won't thank America if America is soft and overly fair. You need to wear hard gloves against these type of nations. History never thanks the soft.

Obama betrayed Czech Republic and Poland by abandoning the European missile shield in his pathetic attempt to suck up to Russia, only to gain nothing in return.

Obama is too soft on illegal immigrants flooding the USA and if he wins he will implement a huge moratorium about illegals gaining US citizenship.

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.

The current administration has been embarrasingly passive on Syria.

And Obama's strategy of offering food to North Korea in exchange for collaboration with the IAEA hasn't worked (The Koreans have just lengthened their program, realizing how benficial it is). Romney has promised to punish North Korea if they don't stop their missile program.

Romney is a stronger friend of Israel than the Democrats. He supports a stronger Israeli position in negotiations with Palestinians and he supports strong American backup for an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilites. We can't wait when it comes to Iran. North Korea aquiring nukes taught us we can't wait.

I also believe it's too early to withdraw from Iraq (and Afghanistan too for that matter). Chaos will follow.

Are you actually serious? America is going bankcrupt, it can't afford anymore pointless and wasteful wars! Be honest with me, what would going to war with Iran, North Korea, The assad regime in Syria or palestine achieve. If you look back on history, you will realise interveneing in this many wars will achieve nothing. Remember, Iraq? very little has been achieved there, even though the war was over 2 years ago, there is little stability there than under Saddam Hussein. Suicide bombers are still a common sight in Baghdad. Proving, America's intervention did little. And what makes you think America alone,can intervene in all this countries? and do you think of the consequences either? Going into syria, will piss off Russia and going into North Korea will piss off China, so it's just foolish to go there. While going into Iran, will only form another anti-Israel/US government afterwards just like in 1979.

America should be a country that pushes it's weigh around a little, but not constantly starting wars all the time, especially if you can't afford it! America should not be an interventionist power any more

That's why I used the words 'powerful empire' and 'strong force for good in the world' in my first post. It's a sacrifice.

i think the age of empires will never happen again, it lead to constant conflict. 

Also, please define "strong force for good in the world". What's good in the world to america is quite different to what's good in the world for russia or china.

For example, is the american- israeli relationship right? I don't think so, because the palestinians are losing their livelihoods and dying, fighting for them. What Israel is doing is wrong, they need peacefully co-exist. not favour the jews over the arabs in everything.



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

Around the Network
spaceguy said:
gergroy said:
I have been undecided mostly because i dislike all the choices. However, I have decided I am going to be one of those people that votes against somebody instead of for them. So i have decided to vote for Mitt Romney.

My reasons mostly stem from the early portion of Obamas term when he had a super majority in congress. The economy was in the tank and instead of working on that, he pushed for healthcare that ultimately ends up being a large tax on small businesses. He also didnt bother with bipartisan efforts during this time either.

Basically, I dont like how obama handled his term, and im not a fan of Romney, but I think it I would rather see somebody else get a chance then another term of Obama.

A little caveat here, I live in Utah so my vote doesnt actually matter. Utah will go for romney by over 70%...

I get your cause but atleast vote for rocky anderson or some one worthy of your vote. Jill stein. Waste it in a meaningful way. Now if you where in a swing state I would say think about the supreme court. They have life long terms. Don't allow mitt to destroy us with more reckless judges.

Ugh, I hate rocky anderson, he was my mayor, one of the worst politicians in the world.  Like I said earlier though, I dont like voting 3rd party as it feels like abstaining to me.  My vote doesnt really matter though, because i live in utah.

Biggest reason im even going to vote this year is to reelect jim matheson over mia love for the house.  That race may be a lost cause with romney on the ticket, but we will see.



gergroy said:
GameOver22 said:
gergroy said:
Augen said:
klystron said:

Thank you for reminding people of something Obama would like us all to forget... his two years with a supermajority and getting only health care done. He can't blame the Republicans for an "obstructionist" congress when they had no power. In fact, there has not been a budget passed in Obama's presidency. This is a first. So yeah, you can blame the GOP for the last two years... but in the first two years they did nothing, either.

Just to clarify.  Minority still has fillibuster as mechanism to stop legislation, you need 60 seats in the senate all on the same page to force through bills.  Minority has not been powerless.

They had that until ted kennedy died... That is why it is called a super majority...

The Democrats actually never had a supermajority, unless we're thinking of different elections. The split was 57-41 if you include the independents who caucused with the Dems as Dems.

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=2008&f=0&off=3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2008

No, the 57 to 41 is without including the independents, who are both actually democrats anyway.  So dems had 59 to 41, then a couple months after the election arlen spectre of pensylvania switched to democrat, giving democrats a super majority.

Didn't know about Specter. I'm pretty sure 57-41 includes the independents though. At the beginning of the Congress, Obama's seat was vacant, as was another one because of a special election, so factoring those two in, as well as Spectre would have given them a supermajority.



GameOver22 said:
gergroy said:
GameOver22 said:
gergroy said:
Augen said:
klystron said:

Thank you for reminding people of something Obama would like us all to forget... his two years with a supermajority and getting only health care done. He can't blame the Republicans for an "obstructionist" congress when they had no power. In fact, there has not been a budget passed in Obama's presidency. This is a first. So yeah, you can blame the GOP for the last two years... but in the first two years they did nothing, either.

Just to clarify.  Minority still has fillibuster as mechanism to stop legislation, you need 60 seats in the senate all on the same page to force through bills.  Minority has not been powerless.

They had that until ted kennedy died... That is why it is called a super majority...

The Democrats actually never had a supermajority, unless we're thinking of different elections. The split was 57-41 if you include the independents who caucused with the Dems as Dems.

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=2008&f=0&off=3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2008

No, the 57 to 41 is without including the independents, who are both actually democrats anyway.  So dems had 59 to 41, then a couple months after the election arlen spectre of pensylvania switched to democrat, giving democrats a super majority.

Didn't know about Specter. I'm pretty sure 57-41 includes the independents though. At the beginning of the Congress, Obama's seat was vacant, as was another one because of a special election, so factoring those two in, as well as Spectre would have given them a supermajority.

See my edit, your numbers dont add up to 100 and i told you why in my edit.



the2real4mafol said:
Slimebeast said:
the2real4mafol said:
Slimebeast said:

I don't think it's about the money, it's about the attitude.

Romney has the right attitude. The current administration is too soft.

All these dictatorships, China, Iran, Russia, North Korea, the Palestinians, and actually most members of the UN, won't thank America if America is soft and overly fair. You need to wear hard gloves against these type of nations. History never thanks the soft.

Obama betrayed Czech Republic and Poland by abandoning the European missile shield in his pathetic attempt to suck up to Russia, only to gain nothing in return.

Obama is too soft on illegal immigrants flooding the USA and if he wins he will implement a huge moratorium about illegals gaining US citizenship.

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.

The current administration has been embarrasingly passive on Syria.

And Obama's strategy of offering food to North Korea in exchange for collaboration with the IAEA hasn't worked (The Koreans have just lengthened their program, realizing how benficial it is). Romney has promised to punish North Korea if they don't stop their missile program.

Romney is a stronger friend of Israel than the Democrats. He supports a stronger Israeli position in negotiations with Palestinians and he supports strong American backup for an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilites. We can't wait when it comes to Iran. North Korea aquiring nukes taught us we can't wait.

I also believe it's too early to withdraw from Iraq (and Afghanistan too for that matter). Chaos will follow.

Are you actually serious? America is going bankcrupt, it can't afford anymore pointless and wasteful wars! Be honest with me, what would going to war with Iran, North Korea, The assad regime in Syria or palestine achieve. If you look back on history, you will realise interveneing in this many wars will achieve nothing. Remember, Iraq? very little has been achieved there, even though the war was over 2 years ago, there is little stability there than under Saddam Hussein. Suicide bombers are still a common sight in Baghdad. Proving, America's intervention did little. And what makes you think America alone,can intervene in all this countries? and do you think of the consequences either? Going into syria, will piss off Russia and going into North Korea will piss off China, so it's just foolish to go there. While going into Iran, will only form another anti-Israel/US government afterwards just like in 1979.

America should be a country that pushes it's weigh around a little, but not constantly starting wars all the time, especially if you can't afford it! America should not be an interventionist power any more

That's why I used the words 'powerful empire' and 'strong force for good in the world' in my first post. It's a sacrifice.

i think the age of empires will never happen again, it lead to constant conflict. 

Also, please define "strong force for good in the world". What's good in the world to america is quite different to what's good in the world for russia or china.

For example, is the american- israeli relationship right? I don't think so, because the palestinians are losing their livelihoods and dying, fighting for them. What Israel is doing is wrong, they need peacefully co-exist. not favour the jews over the arabs in everything.

For me it is simple. I agree with USA and disagree with China and Russia on all matters.

Same with Israel - Palestine. I agree with Israel on everything. USA should retain its warm relationship and strong support to Israel. USA is Israel's only true friend and ally.



Around the Network
Max King of the Wild said:


But you isolated the presidential election. I was talking about the whole process for Obama. Including being named the Democratic nominee. You say there were more prominent things at work but only list the republican party's image... How did he win the nomination?  None of those people were republicans. What made him stand out from the rest was his charism

I thought it seemed pretty clear from the topic and your previous quotes that we were talking about the general election. My general point was that these explanations that tend to contribute election results to one or two factor oversimplify an incredibly complex process.



Romney.

Obama has a proven record of absolute failure. How anyone can support him is beyond rationalization. To each his own.



As far as I remember both candidates in general lines offer the same thing; so.....who gives a shit?



GameOver22 said:
Max King of the Wild said:


But you isolated the presidential election. I was talking about the whole process for Obama. Including being named the Democratic nominee. You say there were more prominent things at work but only list the republican party's image... How did he win the nomination?  None of those people were republicans. What made him stand out from the rest was his charism

I thought it seemed pretty clear from the topic and your previous quotes that we were talking about the general election. My general point was that these explanations that tend to contribute election results to one or two factor oversimplify an incredibly complex process.

Oh. I was talking about Obama running in general. I even stated that I don't know what gave him the idea he could win before he decided to run given his inexperience and generally not being qualified for such a position.



gergroy said:
GameOver22 said:
gergroy said:
GameOver22 said:
gergroy said:
Augen said:
klystron said:

Thank you for reminding people of something Obama would like us all to forget... his two years with a supermajority and getting only health care done. He can't blame the Republicans for an "obstructionist" congress when they had no power. In fact, there has not been a budget passed in Obama's presidency. This is a first. So yeah, you can blame the GOP for the last two years... but in the first two years they did nothing, either.

Just to clarify.  Minority still has fillibuster as mechanism to stop legislation, you need 60 seats in the senate all on the same page to force through bills.  Minority has not been powerless.

They had that until ted kennedy died... That is why it is called a super majority...

The Democrats actually never had a supermajority, unless we're thinking of different elections. The split was 57-41 if you include the independents who caucused with the Dems as Dems.

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=2008&f=0&off=3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2008

No, the 57 to 41 is without including the independents, who are both actually democrats anyway.  So dems had 59 to 41, then a couple months after the election arlen spectre of pensylvania switched to democrat, giving democrats a super majority.

Didn't know about Specter. I'm pretty sure 57-41 includes the independents though. At the beginning of the Congress, Obama's seat was vacant, as was another one because of a special election, so factoring those two in, as well as Spectre would have given them a supermajority.

See my edit, your numbers dont add up to 100 and i told you why in my edit.

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=2008&f=0&off=3

Don't know if you checked the link. Scroll down and look (55-41-2) at the beginning of the Congress. I'm not sure, but as I said, I think Obama's empty chair and one from a special election are why it doesn't add up to 100.

Hang on,-better break-down. It was Obama's and Minnesota's seat that were vacant.

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/seats.php?year=2008&off=3&elect=0&f=0