Jump to content

2012 American Presidential Election


DAS

Cast your vote  

84 members have voted

  1. 1. Who are you for?

    • Obama (US Citizen)
      25
    • Romney (US Citizen)
      25
    • Other Candidate (US Citizen)
      8
    • Not Voting (US Citizen)
      5
    • Obama (Non-US Citizen)
      15
    • Romney (Non-US Citizen)
      1
    • Other Candidate (Non-US Citizen)
      1
    • Don't Care (Non-US Citizen)
      4


Recommended Posts

I can't say I'm surprised that Romney is winning among the US citizens and losing among the non-citizens. There haven't been too many votes but that's about what I expected.

[i wonder which one of these 'the illegals' are voting under] :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The people I'm referring to deserve name-calling. I know plenty of intelligent, non-reactionary Republicans.....who are sadly in the minority within their own party anymore. I'm not describing all Republicans, I'm describing those people. Who are a bigger threat to this country than they think Al-Qaeda is. I mean, any group of people who want the country to fail solely to get the current President out of office are domestic terrorists, pure and simple. Same goes for those batshit lunatics on the far, far left who thought Bush blew up the World Trade Center or sabotaged the levees in New Orleans because they think he hated black people.

All political parties have their crazies, the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats is the Republicans get them elected to national office while the Democrats desperately try to shut them the fuck up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course that's what you're referring to. It would in no way be in reference to the posts of mine and LoS that you quoted. Why, that would be ridiculous! Also, I find it quite hilarious that you would accuse the "left", a rather nebulous term in and of itself, of "toss in the gutter" politics, given some of the shit that the Republican party has done and said, especially about the President, the last four years.

I mean, he's been accused of being the following:

a Kenyan citzen (even though Kenya didn't exist when Obama was born, and had he been born there, he would be a dual British and American citizen, as what is now Kenya was a British protectorate in 1961)

a Muslim (not because there's anything wrong with being Muslim, but because they hate Muslims and want to slur him)

a communist (even though he's a corporatist as evidenced by his continuation of Bush's policies)

a fascist (even though he hasn't taken anyone's guns away, and has in fact, expanded gun rights)

pro-illegal immigration (even though he's overseen more deportations than happened under our past administration)

a do-nothing empty suit (even though he's repealed DADT and pushed through the ACA)

a power-hungry dictator (I never undestood this one)

It's like to Republicans, Obama is Schrodinger's President; capable of holding and possessing all ideologies, opinions, and polarities at the same time. He is everything all at once!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The people I'm referring to deserve name-calling. I know plenty of intelligent, non-reactionary Republicans.....who are sadly in the minority within their own party anymore. I'm not describing all Republicans, I'm describing those people.

I'm sure it's not your intention, but do you have any idea how similar that logic is to that of people who try to excuse using the N-word with, "I'm not talking about good black people, just the sorry ones who aren't worth a fuck."

And you are absolutely mistaken that "intelligent, non-reactionary Republicans" are in the minority.

The rabid racists you describe are a definite minority, despite what the media would have the average American viewer to believe.

The people I'm referring to deserve name-calling. I know plenty of intelligent, non-reactionary Republicans.....who are sadly in the minority within their own party anymore. I'm not describing all Republicans, I'm describing those people. Who are a bigger threat to this country than they think Al-Qaeda is. I mean, any group of people who want the country to fail solely to get the current President out of office are domestic terrorists, pure and simple. Same goes for those batshit lunatics on the far, far left who thought Bush blew up the World Trade Center or sabotaged the levees in New Orleans because they think he hated black people.

All political parties have their crazies, the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats is the Republicans get them elected to national office while the Democrats desperately try to shut them the fuck up.

You're still painting an entire group of people with your perspective on a few.

The vast majority of people who identify with the Tea Party movement are regular people.

They aren't racists, they aren't rich, and they certainly aren't terrorists.

The only thing they want to fail is Obama's attempts to implement socialist policies that have already been proven to be a failure.

Obama sees this country as something that needs to be re-created in his vision, and a lot of people aren't OK with that.

Conservatives see a country that has prospered under free-enterprise, and know that "spreading the wealth" isn't the answer.

Obama wants people to believe that a person who is successful achieves it at the expense of another, that one person's prosperity is the root of another person's austerity.

He wants people to believe that there is a finite amount of wealth to be had, instead of infinite opportunities to succeed.

I'd be a lot more worried walking through an Occupy crowd than a Tea Party (Teabilly fuckstick / Teahaddist) crowd - especially with my black wife present.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure it's not your intention, but do you have any idea how similar that logic is to that of people who try to excuse using the N-word with, "I'm not talking about good black people, just the sorry ones who aren't worth a fuck."

.....except the n-word is a racial slur, meant to denigrate and degrade people based on the color of their skin, whereas calling these morons "Teahadists" is insulting them based on their back-ass-ward political views.

So no, there is no similarity there, and I'd thank you never to say something that ridiculous to me ever again.

The only thing they want to fail is Obama's attempts to implement socialist policies

I couldn't keep reading at that point. Obama is not a socialist. You want him to be one, because "socialist" is a right-wing scare word, but he's not. He's a corporatist, which pisses off actual socialists like myself. He's continued every single one of George Bush's business policies, so at the minimum, you're calling George W. Bush a socialist too. Now, if you're referring to the Affordable Care Act, you're talking about a piece of legislation that was first suggested by Bob Dole in the 1980s....Bob fucking Dole (stay with me now), and implemented in a similar form in Massachusetts by some guy named Mitt Romney. You may have heard of him. You'll also notice that Mr. Romney has all but denied he had anything to do with the public health care he put in Massachusetts because the Fox News-watching dingbats he needs to vote for him have been convinced that health care = bad.

So please, please, please tell me how Barack Obama is a socialist or even for that matter, a liberal. He's neither. Obama campaigned as a liberal, but he's governned most solidly from the center-right. The problem is the right in this country has shifted so far to "batshit insane", people no longer recognize what the right actually is anymore. When Dwight Eisenhower would be considered a RINO, your party is in trouble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All political parties have their crazies, the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats is the Republicans get them elected to national office while the Democrats desperately try to shut them the fuck up.

This is a very good sign you've drank the party kool-aid. Both parties say this about the other. If you look at it from a nonpartisan perspective you will realize only the biggest, dumbest, most insane and destined to fail politicians get the party push. Neither party wants them to shut up or they'd just kick them out of the party. Case in point, Obama was the biggest joke of a candidate in the history of world politics. The party loves him. Joe Lieberman is a legitimate candidate who is a step above your common political weasel and not a certainly not a crazy, they kick him out of the party. Ron Paul has been despised by his party for some time, he is a legitimate candidate who is winning people with ideas and not propaganda. Who did the party favor? Mitt Romney, a notorious liberal who has a track record very similar to the incumbent they are trying to defeat. We'll never get anywhere in this country until we all realize that both parties suck. Neither is less bad than the other because, even if one were, they cycle of incompetence and failure keeps getting the opposing party elected so they cancel themselves out by helping the other party. And with how much money the two parties have no one will ever be able to overthrow them. We have a two party despotism in this country. We can't get rid of the yolk of one party without putting on the yolk of the party they replaced which is always a little heavier every time they come back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ He is not a professing liberal but he has a strong liberal record. Type-O will debate this when he reads this but his record seems very liberal too me. Of course not everything he did was liberal but he and I simply see it a little different. I do agree with him that Romney as an individual politician is better than Obama but I'm still not voting this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're not voting? Even if you don't like either of the two main parties, there are no third parties on the ballot or even a name you could write in? That's fucking awful. I can't imagine not voting. I didn't like John Kerry in 2004, and I loathed George W. Bush, but I voted third party, at least so I could say I cast a ballot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.....except the n-word is a racial slur, meant to denigrate and degrade people based on the color of their skin, whereas calling these morons "Teahadists" is insulting them based on their back-ass-ward political views.

So no, there is no similarity there, and I'd thank you never to say something that ridiculous to me ever again.

Oops, your disingenuous-ness is showing.

I didn't say it was the same as using a racial slur.

I said the logic you use to justify using offensive names is similar - which it is.

I couldn't keep reading at that point. Obama is not a socialist. You want him to be one, because "socialist" is a right-wing scare word, but he's not. He's a corporatist, which pisses off actual socialists like myself. He's continued every single one of George Bush's business policies, so at the minimum, you're calling George W. Bush a socialist too. Now, if you're referring to the Affordable Care Act, you're talking about a piece of legislation that was first suggested by Bob Dole in the 1980s....Bob fucking Dole (stay with me now), and implemented in a similar form in Massachusetts by some guy named Mitt Romney. You may have heard of him. You'll also notice that Mr. Romney has all but denied he had anything to do with the public health care he put in Massachusetts because the Fox News-watching dingbats he needs to vote for him have been convinced that health care = bad.

So please, please, please tell me how Barack Obama is a socialist or even for that matter, a liberal. He's neither. Obama campaigned as a liberal, but he's governned most solidly from the center-right. The problem is the right in this country has shifted so far to "batshit insane", people no longer recognize what the right actually is anymore. When Dwight Eisenhower would be considered a RINO, your party is in trouble.

Again, I didn't say he was a socialist.

Apparently you want me to "want him to be one".

But he is trying to implement socialist policies that are proven failures.

What Mitt Romney did for the state he was governor of was what the overwhelming majority of that state wanted.

And if other states want to do the same, they should be allowed to vote yes or no on it.

What Obama is doing for the entire country - regardless of state sovereignty - is forcing a fucking government ponzi scheme on everyone.

I believe it was Margaret Thatcher who said, "the problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money."

That's why Obama is trying to force everyone to participate, to keep those who work supporting those who don't.

EDIT TO ADD:

Except, of course, for all the unions and countless other groups who help line the Democratic coffers - THEY are issued waivers.

If ACA is such a great thing, why are all these firmly Democratic groups seeking and receiving waivers from it?

But it isn't unsustainable.

And if our entire economy crumbles under the weight of this epic failure?

No problem, that much easier to move "forward' into European-style socialism.

As for Obama continuing Bush's policies, that doesn't make him a corporatist so much as an opportunist and a waffler.

He pandered to the anti-Bush bloc, yet it was the continuation of the dreaded "Bush Doctrine" that brought him his only significant accomplishments, to include eliminating Bin Laden (greatly facilitated by information garnered via Guantanamo Bay).

And he still was cheering and glad-handing as the Curious Rover landed this morning, despite his massive cuts to NASA.

Opportunist is the most fitting title.

And the right hasn't shifted much at all.

It's the left that's pulling away from the bulk of the country.

Just look at the Jon Lovitz incident.

A life-long liberal, he had the audacity to actually question Obama's comments, and suddenly he was mercilessly hammered by the left.

You've already made it clear many times that you disapprove of Obama because he isn't liberal enough.

It's obviously because you're so far left that even center-to-center-right looks "batshit insane".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't disapprove of Obama. I wish he was more liberal, but that doesn't mean I wish he wasn't President, or that I want Mitt Romney to take over. I've never hid the fact that I'm very, very, very far to the left, but I also understand that someone with my specific political beliefs will never be elected President because the majority of voters are moderates, and that's who candidates have to appeal to. I have no problem with that.

However, that in no way reflects the fact that the GOP in this country, over the last 30 years, has shifted monumentally to the right. They are not "center to center-right." The GOP hasn't been "center to center-right" since Eisenhower was in office. When people like Michele Bachmann get elected to Congress, that's a sign the party is moving too far over. She's fucking frightening, and what's worse, she sits on the House Intelligence Committee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course that's what you're referring to. It would in no way be in reference to the posts of mine and LoS that you quoted. Why, that would be ridiculous! Also, I find it quite hilarious that you would accuse the "left", a rather nebulous term in and of itself, of "toss in the gutter" politics, given some of the shit that the Republican party has done and said, especially about the President, the last four years.

I mean, he's been accused of being the following:

a Kenyan citzen (even though Kenya didn't exist when Obama was born, and had he been born there, he would be a dual British and American citizen, as what is now Kenya was a British protectorate in 1961)

a Muslim (not because there's anything wrong with being Muslim, but because they hate Muslims and want to slur him)

a communist (even though he's a corporatist as evidenced by his continuation of Bush's policies)

a fascist (even though he hasn't taken anyone's guns away, and has in fact, expanded gun rights)

pro-illegal immigration (even though he's overseen more deportations than happened under our past administration)

a do-nothing empty suit (even though he's repealed DADT and pushed through the ACA)

a power-hungry dictator (I never undestood this one)

It's like to Republicans, Obama is Schrodinger's President; capable of holding and possessing all ideologies, opinions, and polarities at the same time. He is everything all at once!

Perhaps, but the bigger point I was trying to make is that Obama can't run on his achievements, unless you want to say O-care which the majority of Americans seem to be against. The economy is a mess - 8.3% unemployment versus 7.8% when he took office, total national debt is currently close to $16 trillion versus $10.6 trillion when he took office.

Speaking of the national debt, it now exceeds 100% of the nation's Gross Domestic Product, the total value of goods and services. This is the worst Debt/GDP ratio since the end of WW II. And who gets the honor of paying back the debt and the interest on the debt? That's right, the taxpayer (we, our children, grandchildren and other generations). So much for hope and change. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're not voting? Even if you don't like either of the two main parties, there are no third parties on the ballot or even a name you could write in? That's fucking awful. I can't imagine not voting. I didn't like John Kerry in 2004, and I loathed George W. Bush, but I voted third party, at least so I could say I cast a ballot.

It really won't make a difference because no one can compete with the money of the two main parties. If I see a third party (or best of all an independent) I like I would vote for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are really using the justice department to attack citizens for supporting the candidate running against the current administration? It's one thing to use dirty politics, it's another to use the power of government like this. I'm very anti-Romney but if Obama doesn't stop acting like a fascist dictator I may just vote for Romney.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why can't Obama run on his acheivements ? He killed Bin Laden after the last Republican President announced he not only didn't care about him, but disbanded the very group he assigned to find him. He also stated point-blank in the '08 debates that he would not consult Pakistan if it meant an attack on their soil. Do I have to tell you what McCain said ? He gave the Big 3 a chance, and that was after Bush originally floated them the money by saying, and I quote..."No President deserves to assume office with that hanging over their head". How many more people would have been unemployed ? Libya was a total success, as every Republican was criticizing his every move. The Stimulus Package let every State, County, and city provide necessary services...again, keeping more people employed. If every economic blow since '07 had hit at once severe civil disobediance was a real possibility. Now the line is Obama hasn't created any jobs, when the only thing I've seen Republicans stand for in the last four years is eliminating every public service job they can get their hands on. Apperantly an unemployed worker is better in their eyes than an union employee of any ilk.....Mailman, teacher, fire fighter, cop, municipal workers, nurses.....BAD PEOPLE WHO ARE OVERPAID ! Only in America would someone be able to sell that line of crap after shelling out trillions of our money to a bunch of over-compensated greedy bankers. Now the cry is again to de-regulate and put that money in the hands of a very few so we'll all be better off. Excuse me if I'm not buying that line of crap.

I didn't care before, but I want to see Romney's tax returns. I don't care what he made or where he's hiding it. What I want to know is if this man is stupid or cocky enough to think he could run for President without taking care of his own financial house. Lots of rumors floating around that it's the very reason Palin was chosen instead of Romney in '08. Obama's church affiliations were on the table for Republicans in '08.....I can't wait until the focus turns to the Mormon Church. That's going to be special.

The Repugnants have a heck of a V.P. selection record.....Let's see, Agnew, Rockefeller, Bush, Quayle, Palin.... they could do better by drawing Congressional names out of a frickin' hat !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's interesting about the tax returns situation is that every Presidential candidate for the last 50 years, including Romney's own father, have turned over their tax returns. What's even more interesting, is that when Romney was being considered as McCain's VP pick in 2008, he gave them 23 years of his tax returns.

That said, I don't care if he turns them over or doesn't. The same people screaming to see them are the same kind of knuckle-draggers that demanded to see Obama's birth certificate, even though there was no logical reason on the face of this planet to doubt where he was born. It would literally make my skin crawl to get lumped in with the "birthers", even in an abstract way. I have heard that part of the reason other people want them released is that Romney might have illegally taken advantage of tax amnesty in 2009, something to do with loopholes and shelters and shit I admit to knowing nothing about because I'm not a tax lawyer....if that's the case, something like that should be made public, but not through a mass dump of all his tax returns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's interesting about the tax returns situation is that every Presidential candidate for the last 50 years, including Romney's own father, have turned over their tax returns. What's even more interesting, is that when Romney was being considered as McCain's VP pick in 2008, he gave them 23 years of his tax returns.

I thought that was the case.

Which means that demands to see his last 10 years are already covered except 2009, since he's already released the last 2 years (2011 & 2010).

Of course, I guess they weren't released to Obama, though.

Bottom line for me, I'm glad he's not caving to Obama's demands.

It's ludicrous to suggest he hasn't paid taxes in 10 years, NO ONE who makes that much money could skate like that.

Ask Wesley Snipes.

The only thing that will happen if he were to release the recods is they will make issues out of things that aren't really issues, and have 10 years' worth to pore over.

It's simply providing fodder for Obama's muckrakers to load up with.

By ignoring the demands, he positions himself as an equal that doesn't jump when Obama barks.

John Kerry was worth 3 times what Romney's worth, and Democrats had no problem with that.

Obama has nothing to stand on which is why he has to run on Romney's perceived faults.

In 2008, he ran on NOT being George Bush.

Now he has to run on NOT being Obama, i.e., the person who's failed so miserably over the past 3.5 years.

Hence the distraction sideshow.

And as usual, the media acts as his enforcer, doing all the dirty work to allow him to stay "above all the negative campaigning."

All fuss and uproar over Ann Romney's $900 shirt, and in the next breath fawning over Michelle's $6000 coat.

It's so hard for me to understand how so many people don't see it.

Then again, that's where Undecideds come from, I guess.

I wish Romney would hunker down and play just as rough as Obama - people would respond to that.

He should be hammering all the "smoked some dope, did a little blow" stuff from his book, along with clips from all his 2008 campaign promises.

He could beat him with his own words, but he can't tiptoe around scared to be portrayed as a racist, because no matter what, he'll be accused anyway.

It's what the Democrats do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are really using the justice department to attack citizens for supporting the candidate running against the current administration? It's one thing to use dirty politics, it's another to use the power of government like this. I'm very anti-Romney but if Obama doesn't stop acting like a fascist dictator I may just vote for Romney.

Who the fuck cares, vote for him....:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why can't Obama run on his acheivements ? He killed Bin Laden after the last Republican President announced he not only didn't care about him, but disbanded the very group he assigned to find him. He also stated point-blank in the '08 debates that he would not consult Pakistan if it meant an attack on their soil. Do I have to tell you what McCain said ? He gave the Big 3 a chance, and that was after Bush originally floated them the money by saying, and I quote..."No President deserves to assume office with that hanging over their head". How many more people would have been unemployed ? Libya was a total success, as every Republican was criticizing his every move. The Stimulus Package let every State, County, and city provide necessary services...again, keeping more people employed. If every economic blow since '07 had hit at once severe civil disobediance was a real possibility. Now the line is Obama hasn't created any jobs, when the only thing I've seen Republicans stand for in the last four years is eliminating every public service job they can get their hands on. Apperantly an unemployed worker is better in their eyes than an union employee of any ilk.....Mailman, teacher, fire fighter, cop, municipal workers, nurses.....BAD PEOPLE WHO ARE OVERPAID ! Only in America would someone be able to sell that line of crap after shelling out trillions of our money to a bunch of over-compensated greedy bankers. Now the cry is again to de-regulate and put that money in the hands of a very few so we'll all be better off. Excuse me if I'm not buying that line of crap.

:goodpost:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...