US Presidential Elections 2012

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9657592/US-Election-day-live.html

http://www.iaza.com/work/121107C/iaza13789148800600.png

So the election is tonight, pretty much a non-choice considering that either Romney or Obama will win... the the American people will lose with more debt, more war, more state and so on and so forth. The same story as usual I guess. But anywho, I thought it'd be interesting to have a vote and see why and who people on this forum are backing. As it is multiple choice you can pick more than one candidate, and i've included Ron Paul as a write in candidate as there is expected to be a big turnout of his supporters who will write him in on the ballot.

My thoughts are basically summed up here;


19.35 (14.35) Remember Ron Paul, the libertarian Texan congressman who fought Romney for the nomination? Even if with only a few hours til polls close he is still refusing to endorse the Republican standard bearer. He was asked whether it was finally time to back Romney and replied:


Oh not quite, because I don't think there's enough difference between the two candidates. I assume the victor today will be the status quo because the status quo has been up and there's been no competition and so we'll continue with basically the same policies that we've had for a long time.

Thoughts? who would you vote for/are voting for? will this election make much of a difference?

[Kardan]

Personally I'd vote for Obama, staying up tonight to watch the coverage, hopefully he just clinches it...

[Futz]

Barrack Obama has to win, Mitt Romney is just plain bad for everybody. However, if Gary Johnson had a chance I'd probably be rooting for him

[-:Undertaker:-]

A part of me wants Obama to lose as i'd be overjoyed to see his puppy eyed supporters (and the man himself) absolutely outraged, but then i'd like Romney to lose for the same reasons but also in that if Romney loses this election then Rand Paul will have a shot at the nomination in 2016.

That's if America isn't completely bankrupt by 2016, a scenario that will happen under either Obama or Romney as they're identical.

[xxMATTGxx]

What time (our time) do we find out who has won the election?

[-:Undertaker:-]

What time (our time) do we find out who has won the election?

The early hours, I think last time we had an idea at around 4am (as I sat up watching) but as this time it seems much closer then it'll all fall down to the results in the likes of swing states such as Ohio and Florida... so I think it's going to be a late night one.

[GommeInc]

What time (our time) do we find out who has won the election?
Isn't it something like 5 in the morning when the final result is announced?

I voted Obama, simply because Romney is an idiot PR wise.

[Kieran]

Well Ohio is the big one at 12:30. They go on until 6am though.

[FlyingJesus]

I'd have voted Gary Johnson as he actually plans to do what opinion polls have suggested people want done... and he isn't a murderous villain. The only difference I can see between Obama and Romney (other than their charisma, which is just a cloak so Obama gets away with everything he's done) is the healthcare deal, where one wants to force everyone to buy mandatory healthcare even if they can't afford it or don't want it and one doesn't.

It's almost certainly going to be Obama again I think, but I'd like to see Romney take it just so that the blind Democrat supporters turn against the decisions that Obama's made - all the wars, drones, personal assassinations, NDAA, Guantanamo, "war on drugs", the list goes on. I don't really care who the scapegoat is as long as enough people are able to put pressure on them to stop it

[-:Undertaker:-]

Somebody posted this on the Telegraph comments section and I think it's more or less the truth (not exactly sure), here;


This election will be decided in the swing states by turnout! If the GOP turns out 4% more voters than it did in 2008, OR, if 2% less Democrats and 2% more Republicans vote than in 2008 in six key states, Romney will win!

I find it hard to believe that Democrats will be as motivated to vote this election as they were in 2008. They don't have to "vote" for Romney. All that matters is that they don't vote for Obama. There are certainly many conservative democrats who were both disgusted and embarrassed by the Obama, Reid, Pelossi trio.. This was demonstrated clearly in the ass kicking received by the democrats in the 2010 House elections. It is that simple!

Steve Forbes (of Forbes) is calling it for Romney (http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveforbes/2012/11/06/steve-forbes-romney-will-win-decisively/), interesting anyway as he seems confident and is a big name.

......& couldn't agree more with what FlyingJesus just wrote.

[GommeInc]

The Guardian seems to have an interesting page dedicated to it, including a PBS news feed.

[Kardan]

Obama 3,393,471
Romney 3,393,664

Current votes in Florida, this is the biggie once again...

[-:Undertaker:-]

I'm ready to call it for Goldman Sachs and go to bed.

Goodnight.

[ForgetMe86]

Obama needs to win i think Mitt Romney is just a little too crazy like Bush... dont need another Bush if you ask me lol.

[Kardan]

Obama wins Ohio and wins the election!

274-201 currently.

[Kardan]

Romney refuses to concede as he still believes he can get Ohio, both have 2.24M votes, Obama leads by 2,000 - with 77% of the votes counted for that state.

Romney would still need to win Florida and Virginia which Obama leads.

[Mathew]

Spent the evening in the college bar watching the results unfold. It was always going to be down to the swing states, and things were beginning to get interesting when the Florida percentage kept on fluctuating. My parents are in Florida at the minute too - they saw plenty of people going out to vote. :)

Interesting race.

[Sloths]

I don't know all that much about politics and such but I'm so glad Obama won from the things I've heard about Romney, even if they weren't all that true.

[FlyingJesus]

I don't know all that much about politics and such but I'm so glad Obama won from the things I've heard about Romney, even if they weren't all that true.

Most of them are probably true but they're true of Obama as well - their policies are almost identical

[Grig]

projection is Obama wins and it is declared by most already.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The fact that 17 people on this forum have picked one man over another based on personality shows just why we are in the mess we are. When are people going to take notice and stop voting based on a) what they sound like when they deliever an empty speech & b) what promises they make in the run up to election ... and start making a choice based on voting records? I just don't understand it.

Both of these candidates had the same sponsers and the same policies - the status quo wins of more debt, more war and more state whilst we all lose.

[Grig]

The fact that 17 people on this forum have picked one man over another based on personality shows just why we are in the mess we are. When are people going to take notice and stop voting based on a) what they sound like when they deliever an empty speech & b) what promises they make in the run up to election ... and start making a choice based on voting records? I just don't understand it.

Both of these candidates had the same sponsers and the same policies - the status quo wins of more debt, more war and more state whilst we all lose.

You know what also annoyed me is people on FB having no knowledge whatsoever and saying "woo Obama" or "Thank God Obama".

It won't matter.

[lawrawrrr]

What annoys ME most is people in the UK saying that the American president doesn't affect them at all. Yeah there might not have been much difference policy-wise; but HOW they present them is crucial.

Even in the UK we don't really have a choice (although it seems like we do); it's a choice between one Eton-educated toff or another Eton-educated toff. It's just the way they present themselves. Romney made a few massive ****-ups along the way, that's why he lost.

[Grig]

What annoys ME most is people in the UK saying that the American president doesn't affect them at all. Yeah there might not have been much difference policy-wise; but HOW they present them is crucial.

Even in the UK we don't really have a choice (although it seems like we do); it's a choice between one Eton-educated toff or another Eton-educated toff. It's just the way they present themselves. Romney made a few massive ****-ups along the way, that's why he lost.

That's silly, you can't base a loss on some "massive ****-ups". It was a much more complex interplay of factors than that.

You guys in the UK should be worried about your dummy, Mr. Cameron flying to Syria to try drum up support for the opposition. Yet, even America and France have more or less given up.

[lawrawrrr]

That's silly, you can't base a loss on some "massive ****-ups". It was a much more complex interplay of factors than that.

You guys in the UK should be worried about your dummy, Mr. Cameron flying to Syria to try drum up support for the opposition. Yet, even America and France have more or less given up.

Sorry for not using so complex terminology, but everyone knows the main factors - I didn't think I'd have to spell it out. He made some mistakes - during the campaign trail and before. Even his adverts on TV were god-awful (talking about how many companies he'd driven into the ground, but it's okay because he made the big companies even bigger).

I don't really understand what you mean with the second bit at all. Not really massively 'in' to UK politics, all I know is the 2 main parties don't really have a solid policy between them. Well, not one that's been effective and actually implemented anyway.

[Grig]

Sorry for not using so complex terminology, but everyone knows the main factors - I didn't think I'd have to spell it out. He made some mistakes - during the campaign trail and before. Even his adverts on TV were god-awful (talking about how many companies he'd driven into the ground, but it's okay because he made the big companies even bigger).

I don't really understand what you mean with the second bit at all. Not really massively 'in' to UK politics, all I know is the 2 main parties don't really have a solid policy between them. Well, not one that's been effective and actually implemented anyway.

I wasn't mocking your remark, I was echoing the point that you saying he mucked up is a huge understatement to simply say he mucked up so he lost.

And Obama's TV ads were better? LOL, nice joke. His were also cynical and aggressive with no solid policies.

[lawrawrrr]

I wasn't mocking your remark, I was echoing the point that you saying he mucked up is a huge understatement to simply say he mucked up so he lost.

And Obama's TV ads were better? LOL, nice joke. His were also cynical and aggressive with no solid policies.

Well he did muck up in a big way, so he lost, can't really put it any other way. It's not like he's lost anything else though, seeing as he had nothing anyway.

Yes they were actually, you don't put massive policies in TV adverts, you just need to make them persuasive and with *just* enough information to not be called useless. All US politicians adverts are cynical and aggressive so there's no point attacking Obama for that.

[Grig]

Well he did muck up in a big way, so he lost, can't really put it any other way. It's not like he's lost anything else though, seeing as he had nothing anyway.

Yes they were actually, you don't put massive policies in TV adverts, you just need to make them persuasive and with *just* enough information to not be called useless. All US politicians adverts are cynical and aggressive so there's no point attacking Obama for that.

Obama was the worst culprit. His were plain old attacks. No idea why you're trying to defend Obama when you yourself probably know very little about his politics and what he'll do going forward.

It wasn't him alone who mucked up. He flip-flopped, but the Republican Party itself helped him to lose. I can reply here more extensively of some other factors if you like.

Let me re-direct you to what Dan said earlier on here:


The fact that 17 people on this forum have picked one man over another based on personality shows just why we are in the mess we are.

and this is exactly why. It's darn right foolish. You seem to be repeating the same point without backing yourself up.

[Red]

The fact that 17 people on this forum have picked one man over another based on personality shows just why we are in the mess we are. When are people going to take notice and stop voting based on a) what they sound like when they deliever an empty speech & b) what promises they make in the run up to election ... and start making a choice based on voting records? I just don't understand it.

Both of these candidates had the same sponsers and the same policies - the status quo wins of more debt, more war and more state whilst we all lose.

Most people on here are from the UK though and haven't followed the election so of course they are going to base their decisions on personality. Obama presidency hasn't made me think what an absolute idiot like I did for Bush, but if I was American and was voting, I would have followed the debates etc to make an informed decision.

[xxMATTGxx]

Anyone who questions or jokes about why windows don't open on passenger jets is going to lose.

[lawrawrrr]

Obama was the worst culprit. His were plain old attacks. No idea why you're trying to defend Obama when you yourself probably know very little about his politics and what he'll do going forward.

It wasn't him alone who mucked up. He flip-flopped, but the Republican Party itself helped him to lose. I can reply here more extensively of some other factors if you like.

Let me re-direct you to what Dan said earlier on here:



and this is exactly why. It's darn right foolish. You seem to be repeating the same point without backing yourself up.

Because I couldn't possibly know anything about American politics, I'm clearly that stupid and don't bother to educate myself before replying in a thread debating the result (or even just educating myself in general). It's not like I was actually in America watching the TV campaigns at all was it - which is exactly why I picked up on that more than anything else.

It's clear that Romney SIGNIFICANTLY harmed his chances at becoming President when the expose about the 'women in binders' came out. Obviously his moronic policies didn't exactly help but that was the really big thing that made a lot of Americans turn against him. I never said that everyone else was perfect, and I never said that Obama's adverts weren't attacking; but he wasn't the worst. He never even said anything in them that wasn't true, whereas Romney loves embellishing the truth and has a knack for telling some of the truth, rather than all of it.

You're also being extremely biased now; you're saying that the Republican party helped Romney to lose, but all the adverts and things were directly Obama's fault. The mistakes Obama made could also be blamed on the Democrats. End of the day, Romney isn't even in Senate, hasn't even been govenor of MA for a while; he's not as involved in the central politics of America as as presedential candidate should be. Like; Donald Trump running, effectively.

And I'm repeating my point? You haven't even MADE a point, all you're doing is laughing and disagreeing with whatever I say, calling it 'silly'.

[FlyingJesus]

I really hope that all these idiots going WOO OBAMA WON are simply ignorant of what he's actually been doing for the past 4 years. I hate ignorance but the alternative is that these people are genuinely evil

[lawrawrrr]

I really hope that all these idiots going WOO OBAMA WON are simply ignorant of what he's actually been doing for the past 4 years. I hate ignorance but the alternative is that these people are genuinely evil

Ignorant of the Health Care and Wall Street reforms? The death of the biggest terrorist threat and subsequent fading of the group (yes it's still around but it's nowhere near as much of a threat for now), not to mention other terrorist and threatening world leaders? The ending of the war in Iraq? Getting rid of Bush's idiotic torture policies? Supporting gay marriage laws and campaigning for rights? Boosting the automobile economy?

He even reduced government spending, lowered the unemployment rate, tried his best with the economy (lets face it we can't blame him solely for that but the US could be in SUCH a worse state right now).

Don't get me wrong, he's made mistakes, broken a few of his promises (what politician doesn't) but he's introduced a lot of long-term plans that simply can't just be noticed in the 4 year term.

[Grig]

Because I couldn't possibly know anything about American politics, I'm clearly that stupid and don't bother to educate myself before replying in a thread debating the result (or even just educating myself in general). It's not like I was actually in America watching the TV campaigns at all was it - which is exactly why I picked up on that more than anything else.

It's clear that Romney SIGNIFICANTLY harmed his chances at becoming President when the expose about the 'women in binders' came out. Obviously his moronic policies didn't exactly help but that was the really big thing that made a lot of Americans turn against him. I never said that everyone else was perfect, and I never said that Obama's adverts weren't attacking; but he wasn't the worst. He never even said anything in them that wasn't true, whereas Romney loves embellishing the truth and has a knack for telling some of the truth, rather than all of it.

You're also being extremely biased now; you're saying that the Republican party helped Romney to lose, but all the adverts and things were directly Obama's fault. The mistakes Obama made could also be blamed on the Democrats. End of the day, Romney isn't even in Senate, hasn't even been govenor of MA for a while; he's not as involved in the central politics of America as as presedential candidate should be. Like; Donald Trump running, effectively.

And I'm repeating my point? You haven't even MADE a point, all you're doing is laughing and disagreeing with whatever I say, calling it 'silly'.

Of course Romney himself had a contribution to his own demise. But the fact he had to satisfy various bases meant he had to flip-flop, whilst women were alienated in the party itself from some recent rape comments from a couple of party candidates. Then of course there is Obama's ability to get his base out, which is not directly his fault. Record Latino numbers and a drop in white voters is bad for the party as a whole. They won't win further elections until they reform.

As for policy as a whole, relating to your latest reply, Obama has been doing well in foreign policy. Yet, look at the unemployment rate, if you think this marginal dip is a big accomplishment, then you are very mistaken :P. Plus debt has been skyrocketing and you can only blame Obama for that.

Plus, the two agree on loads. Take your pick, Coke or Pepsi. As Tom mentioned, there is a lot of ignorance going around.

[lawrawrrr]

Of course Romney himself had a contribution to his own demise. But the fact he had to satisfy various bases meant he had to flip-flop, whilst women were alienated in the party itself from some recent rape comments from a couple of party candidates. Then of course there is Obama's ability to get his base out, which is not directly his fault. Record Latino numbers and a drop in white voters is bad for the party as a whole. They won't win further elections until they reform.

As for policy as a whole, relating to your latest reply, Obama has been doing well in foreign policy. Yet, look at the unemployment rate, if you think this marginal dip is a big accomplishment, then you are very mistaken :P. Plus debt has been skyrocketing and you can only blame Obama for that.

Plus, the two agree on loads. Take your pick, Coke or Pepsi. As Tom mentioned, there is a lot of ignorance going around.

He didn't HAVE to flip flop at all. He didn't have to make sexist, racist or homophobic comments, which he did on many occasions, and that's what lead to this 'flip flopping'. As a mormon, he was expected to tick certain 'boxes' to gain their votes; which is basically why he got such a high percentage of votes (considering the amount of extremist religious people there are in America). This time, they focussed a lot on getting the minority vote, which is probably why the White vote dropped (doesn't help that they are terrible at making sure people know their rights), but that doesn't mean that'll happen next time. They already have the minority seating in Senate, but still manage to get their candidate as president. I'm not sure where I was going with that point... lost my train of thought.

Thing is, with the economy, it's surprising the unemployment rate isn't a hell of a lot higher than it is. And debt in almost every country has skyrocketed over the last 5 (noticeably in the last 2 really) years. Obama's already implementing his new debt-reduction policy (within the next few weeks anyway), so we'll just have to see where that goes.

Coke and Pepsi are actually incredibly different so that's a really bad analogy. Yes there is a lot of ignorance, but it's not right to ASSUME someone is ignorant and shoot everything they say down.

[Grig]

He didn't HAVE to flip flop at all. He didn't have to make sexist, racist or homophobic comments, which he did on many occasions, and that's what lead to this 'flip flopping'. As a mormon, he was expected to tick certain 'boxes' to gain their votes; which is basically why he got such a high percentage of votes (considering the amount of extremist religious people there are in America). This time, they focussed a lot on getting the minority vote, which is probably why the White vote dropped (doesn't help that they are terrible at making sure people know their rights), but that doesn't mean that'll happen next time. They already have the minority seating in Senate, but still manage to get their candidate as president. I'm not sure where I was going with that point... lost my train of thought.

Thing is, with the economy, it's surprising the unemployment rate isn't a hell of a lot higher than it is. And debt in almost every country has skyrocketed over the last 5 (noticeably in the last 2 really) years. Obama's already implementing his new debt-reduction policy (within the next few weeks anyway), so we'll just have to see where that goes.

Coke and Pepsi are actually incredibly different so that's a really bad analogy. Yes there is a lot of ignorance, but it's not right to ASSUME someone is ignorant and shoot everything they say down.

Don't have time to address the other issues, but technically unemployment is higher as many people simply gave up and thus got removed from the 'people searching for jobs' and statistics which count them. In reality, it's much much higher.

[lawrawrrr]

Don't have time to address the other issues, but technically unemployment is higher as many people simply gave up and thus got removed from the 'people searching for jobs' and statistics which count them. In reality, it's much much higher.

If you're going to go into technicalities then this debate is all a bit moot. There's only one way to count the unemployment rate, if that's not good enough then there's basically no unemployment rate and there never has been. The ACTUAL RECORDED unemployment rate should be a lot higher with the way the economy is going.

[FlyingJesus]

Ignorant of the Health Care and Wall Street reforms?

Ahh yes, forcing people to buy government mandated healthcare regardless of whether you want or can afford it, what a saint.


The death of the biggest terrorist threat and subsequent fading of the group (yes it's still around but it's nowhere near as much of a threat for now)

al-Zawahiri is just as bad if not worse than Bin Laden, and al-Qaeda hasn't faded at all, it's just less reported on.


not to mention other terrorist and threatening world leaders?

I imagine you mean Gaddafi, whose ousting was the doing of his own people and was actually hindered by US interference.


The ending of the war in Iraq?

Took troops out of Iraq eventually yes, but drone attacks and random bombings in the East are massively prevalent under Obama - he's sent over 5 times as many attacks as Bush did, murders hundreds of civilians and then claims that they were military threats merely for being adult males, has a personal kill list which he writes himself, assassinated the 16 year old son of a US citizen who he'd already killed in a drone strike miles and miles away from any combat zone, has plans to invade Iran, funds and supports Israeli terrorists in their illegal war against Palestine and other neighbouring countries... but yeah he's totally peaceful.


Getting rid of Bush's idiotic torture policies?

Yeah we all remember the time he followed through on his promise to close Guantanamo right? Oh, that didn't actually happen? Whoops. Turns out in Guantanamo the laws on torture don't technically exist anyway and no-one detained there will ever get a chance to speak out, so the ban on "enhanced interrogation" is a moot point. He also reinstated the Patriot Act allowing wiretaps and all sorts of Big Brother technology to be legally used by the government to spy on whoever they like (or don't like), and signed the NDAA which means the US government can arrest and detain ANYONE indefinitely without access to a lawyer or trial.


Supporting gay marriage laws and campaigning for rights?

A flat out lie. In one interview he said that he doesn't see why two people in love shouldn't be allowed to marry and liberals went mad for it, but he has actually stated that he has no intention whatsoever of pursuing the issue of marriage equality, and he has NEVER actually campaigned for it. In fact, it's an issue he's changed his mind on a few times over his career, and has most of the time been opposed to it.


Boosting the automobile economy?

You mean continuing the loan which Bush wrote out.


He even reduced government spending

Which oddly enough is a Republican policy.


lowered the unemployment rate

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/charts/united-states-unemployment-rate.png?s=usurtot&d1=20070101&d2=20121130
Oh right.


tried his best with the economy (lets face it we can't blame him solely for that but the US could be in SUCH a worse state right now).

Don't get me wrong, he's made mistakes, broken a few of his promises (what politician doesn't) but he's introduced a lot of long-term plans that simply can't just be noticed in the 4 year term.

He has delivered on not a single one of his promises, other than to give Hope. He's saved entirely by the grace of being extremely charismatic and the complete ignorance of people who want to like him despite his many many flaws.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Most people on here are from the UK though and haven't followed the election so of course they are going to base their decisions on personality. Obama presidency hasn't made me think what an absolute idiot like I did for Bush, but if I was American and was voting, I would have followed the debates etc to make an informed decision.

So you hated Bush purely based on personality? or did you hate the Bush Presidency based on illegal wars, the trashing of civil liberties, drone bombings, bailouts, debt and so on? if so, then nothing has changed (and a bit of thinking would confirm this).


Anyone who questions or jokes about why windows don't open on passenger jets is going to lose.

Again, Obama has made similar gaffes (and thats without mentioning Biden) yet because Romney is Republican is and related to Bush etc then it's funny and stupid when he makes a mistake but not when Obama makes many.

Is this what we've come to?


Ignorant of the Health Care and Wall Street reforms?

Forcing people to buy healthcare is a good move? and being $17tn in debt, how is this being paid for?


The death of the biggest terrorist threat and subsequent fading of the group (yes it's still around but it's nowhere near as much of a threat for now), not to mention other terrorist and threatening world leaders?

That was actually the military, saying it was down to Obama would be like saying that the capture of Ian Huntley was down to Prime Minister Blair as opposed to the Police Force.

As for the terrorists, every time a drone bombing takes place Mr. Obama is creating many many more.


The ending of the war in Iraq?

As far as i'm aware, thousands of soldiers are in Iraq? he's put many more into Afghanistan as well as declaring war on Libya and drone bombing Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen. And you know the weapons he supplied to the 'rebels' in Libya? well they are now being used to wage war in northern Mali by al-Qaeda.


Getting rid of Bush's idiotic torture policies?

Isn't Guantamino Bay still open?


Supporting gay marriage laws and campaigning for rights?

The US Constitution is such that it oughtn't to matter what the President thinks of gay marriage. But then President Obama has little regard for the constitution and treats his office like an Imperial one, so that's no surprise.


Boosting the automobile economy?

I hope that wasn't a serious remark in regards to the bailouts of bankrupt (and still bankrupt) companies such as General Motors.


He even reduced government spending

You cannot be serious!?


lowered the unemployment rate

Check the real unemployment figures (and its the same here) rather than what they publish.


tried his best with the economy (lets face it we can't blame him solely for that but the US could be in SUCH a worse state right now).

Yeah all that printing of worthless money which is going to cause a currency crisis (and believe me, that will be severe).


Don't get me wrong, he's made mistakes, broken a few of his promises (what politician doesn't) but he's introduced a lot of long-term plans that simply can't just be noticed in the 4 year term.

Sounds like a list of excuses to me, but Romney would have done much the same as Romney is on record as supporting money tree healthcare, supporting corporate bailouts for bust business, supporting more war etc.

Edit: ah i've just see FlyingJesus has done a much better job than me, it would be best to reply to him as opposed to mine.

[Grig]

If you're going to go into technicalities then this debate is all a bit moot. There's only one way to count the unemployment rate, if that's not good enough then there's basically no unemployment rate and there never has been. The ACTUAL RECORDED unemployment rate should be a lot higher with the way the economy is going.

So you're denying these people ever exist. Because they do and in numbers. You have basically tried to simplify an issue, which economists take into account.

Then you have contradicted yourself by first defending Obama's handling of the economy and now attacking it. I bid you ado with my "moot" debate arguments :rolleyes:.

[xxMATTGxx]

I was actually taking the piss with what I posted but whatever Dan.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I was actually taking the piss with what I posted but whatever Dan.

But you mean it. I've seen it and we've all been guilty of it. We took the piss (rightly so) out of Bush over and over again whilst actually analysing his political actions and policies (like the wars) and we properly criticised him. Obama on the other hand seems to get a free pass despite being behind many gaffes while Romney is constantly brought down over one or two remarks.

Can you imagine Bush getting 83% support in this poll back in 2004? it wouldn't happen.

[Grig]

But you mean it. I've seen it and we've all been guilty of it. We took the piss (rightly so) out of Bush over and over again whilst actually analysing his political actions and policies (like the wars) and we properly criticised him. Obama on the other hand seems to get a free pass.

Can you imagine Bush getting 83% support in this poll back in 2004? it wouldn't happen.

Just to add, the media are also extremely pro-Obama and are at times acting almost like a propaganda force for him Take Letterman for example and his Late Night Shows, he takes the mick out of Romney every night, yet had barely done it for Obama.

Then people start acting like sheep and electing him for his personality. I'm for neither of the two, but I'm simply stating it. It's almost like an Obama cult!

[-:Undertaker:-]

Just to add, the media are also extremely pro-Obama and are at times acting almost like a propaganda force for him Take Letterman for example and his Late Night Shows, he takes the mick out of Romney every night, yet had barely done it for Obama.

Then people start acting like sheep and electing him for his personality. I'm for neither of the two, but I'm simply stating it. It's almost like an Obama cult!

Exactly, it's the same as the BBC over here - on radio and so on you'd constantly hear gags and jokes about George W Bush yet you never hear anything of Obama unless it is praise. Thank God for the internet is all I can say so that some of us can actually find out what's really going on.

[HotelUser]

Exactly, it's the same as the BBC over here - on radio and so on you'd constantly hear gags and jokes about George W Bush yet you never hear anything of Obama unless it is praise. Thank God for the internet is all I can say so that some of us can actually find out what's really going on.

I would assume that's because the political center over there is further to the left than it is in the United States. Here, Fox News is biased towards promoting the Republicans and CNN is more inclined to promote Obama.

Being Canadian, much of our TV is American, and although we have CBC and CTV for news, most Canadians still watch American news stations. There's an old saying that goes along the lines of "America votes. Canada watches". Having watched for months and months I can tell you that I've seen a lot of media bias going in both directions. As an Obama supporter myself I am admittedly disheartened as well by the 2012 re-election campaign because I thought they fought more dirty than in 2008 (that's not to say their Republican counterparts were innocent, either).

Not related to any of those parties I noticed in the poll that you selected Libertarian as one of your options. I know you quite like Ron Paul, but for what reasons do you support the Libertarian party? Would you vote in a Libertarian over a Republican?

[Grig]

I would assume that's because the political center over there is further to the left than it is in the United States. Here, Fox News is biased towards promoting the Republicans and CNN is more inclined to promote Obama.

Being Canadian, much of our TV is American, and although we have CBC and CTV for news, most Canadians still watch American news stations. There's an old saying that goes along the lines of "America votes. Canada watches". Having watched for months and months I can tell you that I've seen a lot of media bias going in both directions. As an Obama supporter myself I am admittedly disheartened as well by the 2012 re-election campaign because I thought they fought more dirty than in 2008 (that's not to say their Republican counterparts were innocent, either).

Not related to any of those parties I noticed in the poll that you selected Libertarian as one of your options. I know you quite like Ron Paul, but for what reasons do you support the Libertarian party? Would you vote in a Libertarian over a Republican?

Fox News is the worst and most discredited news network ever, albeit one of the most popular. However, discounting Fox News and one or two other things, 90% of the media and popular culture in terms or talk shows etc. have favoured Obama.

[Inseriousity.]

I think you'll be waiting a very long time before people vote based on policies rather than personality. The sad thing is the politicians know this, how do you think they get away with it for so long?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Not related to any of those parties I noticed in the poll that you selected Libertarian as one of your options. I know you quite like Ron Paul, but for what reasons do you support the Libertarian party? Would you vote in a Libertarian over a Republican?

For all the reasons I support Ron Paul, Gary Johnson is essentially the same as Ron Paul from foreign policy to drugs, from the Constitution to states rights, to cuts and regulation. I cannot think of one difference between them both.

I loathe the Republican Party in the same way I loathe the Conservative Party - both are the same as the parties they are supposed to be opposing. But as a machine in capturing the Presidency, Ron Paul vying for the GOP nomination in primaries was obviously the best way to go about it. The same cannot be said for the Conservative Party over here in Britannia though, as the system is closed and not as open as the US one is.

Considering Ron came second to Romney in 2012, Rand (being a better politician) has a good shot come 2016.


Would you vote in a Libertarian over a Republican?

I care little for any party, it is the candidate and their policies & record which matter.


I think you'll be waiting a very long time before people vote based on policies rather than personality. The sad thing is the politicians know this, how do you think they get away with it for so long?

In the four years from now until 2016 the Ron Paul camp will have to prepare the stage for Rand Paul. The biggest obstacle to a Rand Paul victory in 2016 will most likely be the likes of Paul Ryan who talk the talk but whose actions don't match rhetoric (unlike Rand).

It can be changed on both sides of the Atlantic, we just have to keep at it.

[FlyingJesus]

For all the reasons I support Ron Paul, Gary Johnson is essentially the same as Ron Paul from foreign policy to drugs, from the Constitution to states rights, to cuts and regulation. I cannot think of one difference between them both.

Gary Johnson has a less annoying accent