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
GameOver22 on 23 October 2012
Max King of the Wild said:
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.

No problem. I find these misunderstandings happen quite often. : )

I have no idea what made him think he could win. He did come out of nowhere. From what I remember, most people assumed Hilary had it wrapped up early on (as in a year or two away from the election), and then Obama started racking up delegates.



Around the Network
gergroy on 23 October 2012
yum123 said:
I dont live in the US but go Obama and I think its fair to say most people outside the US are voting him aswell. we dont want WW3


You must have missed the foreign policy debate.  Obama and romney agree on just about everything on foreign policy, if you want to avoid ww3, then you arent any better off with obama...



Kasz216 on 23 October 2012
gergroy said:
yum123 said:
I dont live in the US but go Obama and I think its fair to say most people outside the US are voting him aswell. we dont want WW3


You must have missed the foreign policy debate.  Obama and romney agree on just about everything on foreign policy, if you want to avoid ww3, then you arent any better off with obama...


Hey, the more the rest of the world can ignore how blantatly and awfully warmongering he's been and just how much he's violated other countries soverignty better.

I mean currently... nobody outside of Yemen and Pakistan seem to care we're using drone strikes that are killing multiple children.

If Romney was presdient, people would probably get pissed when he did that.



fordy on 23 October 2012
klystron 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%...


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.

There are ways to still be obstructionist and NOT have the majority power:

http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/03/02/republican-obstruction-at-work-record-number-of-filibusters/

In fact, the only reason why healthcare passed was because after meeting previous republican filibusters and giving them 90% of what they want, they STILL filibustered the plan, so Obama invoked Reconciliation.

This was the Republicans plan all along, to halt congress to a standstill despite being in the minority, and then using it on Obama when up for re-election. I called this way back in 2009. They don't care for bipartisanship. They only care about it if THEY have the white house.



MDMAlliance on 23 October 2012

Almost everyone here, with the exception of a few, have no idea what they're talking about and are just parroting what the media tells us to believe.

Also, fighting with Afghanistan, Iran, etc. is not a good solution as they cost us billions of dollars and potentially only delay the inevitable or puts fuel onto a fire. The best way to handle the situation is most likely something really unpopular and risky, but what we're doing right now and the options we're given are not really helping.



Around the Network
TadpoleJackson on 23 October 2012

I voted for Johnson today!



the2real4mafol on 23 October 2012
Slimebeast said:
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.

I understand that but you should at least try to see things from there view point and then make up your mind about who is right.



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

fordy on 23 October 2012
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.



gergroy on 23 October 2012
Kasz216 said:
gergroy said:
yum123 said:
I dont live in the US but go Obama and I think its fair to say most people outside the US are voting him aswell. we dont want WW3


You must have missed the foreign policy debate.  Obama and romney agree on just about everything on foreign policy, if you want to avoid ww3, then you arent any better off with obama...


Hey, the more the rest of the world can ignore how blantatly and awfully warmongering he's been and just how much he's violated other countries soverignty better.

I mean currently... nobody outside of Yemen and Pakistan seem to care we're using drone strikes that are killing multiple children.

If Romney was presdient, people would probably get pissed when he did that.


Yeah, evidently the rest of the world has partisan blinders as well, who knew?  



Mr Khan on 23 October 2012
Kasz216 said:
Soleron said:
ECM said:
Soleron said:
Can someone who voted Romney in the poll seriously explain why they did so?

Yes, in very simple terms: nobody would re-hire someone for a contract job that didn't actually manage to fulfill the terms of his contract.*

And no, I don't care about the excuses just like i wouldn't care about them from someone I paid to do my roof--you either get the job done, or you don't. If you don't, don't expect me to hire you for more work.

The end.

P.S. If I have to explain it any better than that, you're not listening or, more likely, don't want to listen.

*Except those blinded by ideology.

I understand perfectly why someone wouldn't want Obama back.

However why are you voting FOR Romney?

I wouldn't vote for Romney.  Even so I can see a lot of reasons you would vote for him... off the top of my head.

Economics.  He has a much better grip of it then Obama.  For example, his often untalked about plan to remove capital gains taxes for anyone who makes under 250,000.  Which you would think would greatly increase the personal investment rate, which currently happens to be the area of GDP that we're really lacking in.

He was govonor of Massachuteses - Which shows that he actually knows how to compromise and accomplish legislation with bipratisian support. 

While he agreed with Obama's drone policy he didn't seem overly agressive on it.  Makes me think it might be a poltiical move.  Since by all accounts Mitt Romney is a devout mormon.   So there is at least a chance that he would run a less awful drone campaign then Obama... and hoenstly, it'd be damn near impossible to run a drone campaign that was any worse.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/what-if-mitt-romney-inherits-obamas-killer-drone-fleet/263977/

He's more likely to fix medicare/social security/welfare.

He's more likely to stop the country from going over "The fiscal cliff".

He's more likely to remove the negative parts of regulations while keeping the positive aspects of them.

He wants to simplify the tax codes by getting rid fo a lot of deductions... espiecally evening them in the buisness sector so that all buisnesses play by the same rules.

He's more likely to reduce the deficit, by a small inconsquetential amount... but it would be less small and inconsequential then Obama.

Romney actually probably would close guantanom bay, because Democrats would be mad at him if he didn't....

and the biggest one....


all the neoconservative bullshit stuff that Obama does would get called on by democrats if Romney was doing it instead of them "backing up their guy" and having zero party for civil liberties.

I mean hell, the guy just signed a bill that allows american citizens to be detained INDEFINITLY if they are "suspected of terrorism" and nobody even remotely mentions this.

Reasons that qualify you for being suspected of being a terrorist?   Missing fingers is one... so I guess there will be a lot of shop teacher jobs open.

Having more then a months worth of food.  Guess they're just going to have the CIA arrest everyone who shops at Costco.

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.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.