Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Sign in to follow this  
DAS

2012 American Presidential Election

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

But something is foul when a certain race votes at a 96 percent clip. That is a racist vote. Pure and simple. I took statistics in college and it defies all logic. Its an embarresment to this country. Right now the smart money says Obama will fuck things up more than ever and then we will have a Hillary vs Rubio contest in 2016. Of course it may not play out this way, Hillary probably has a far less chance of getting the nomination than Rubio.. Its pretty sad when you cant have an election decided on the merits of the issues and rather it becomes a racial divide that decides it. And Gender too. Oh, those poor poor women have it so damn hard here don't they? This is not the 1920's for God's sake. The Couny executive here is a woman. She has more power than any man in this fucking town. The spin machine is at work 24/7 in dirty polotics. And a blind and uneducated public led by the youth of this country cannot see through it. They are too fucking lazy sending texts and listening to their I Pods and drving, all at the same time. How many of them really know the issues like the 13 year old girl that was posted on this site? And IMO if you were not born here, you should not be able to vote here. At least not until you have lived here a good number of years. I know of nobody that had to even show ID at the polling place they went to. Mitt Romney is a good guy who cares. And a smart guy. And to Mr Obama, I happen to love my wife too. What the hell does that have to do with the price of gas? Who cares what dress your wife is wearing. I sure as fuck dont. I do care about where you decide to get our gasoline from? And who you will give out free food stamps to this month. And now I have to look at your ugly ass for 4 more years. Amen for term limits.

I think I pointed this out before but just in case:

The United States has a free market economy, what that means in relation to gasoline and oil prices is this, regardless of whether the oil is pulled from American soil or Saudi soil is completely irrelevant because all of it goes on the world oil market and then is sold. In truth the United States produces enough of it's own oil to supply 80% of our needs but because of a free market system those American oil companies then sell it to the world market where we purchase it from. This is why we can drill baby drill until we are blue in the face and have American oil coming out of everyones collective ass and it will not affect gas prices one bit. Gasoline prices are high for one major reason, supply and demand. China and India as emerging markets are buying more oil than ever before and that demand is just going to increase reducing supply thus driving up prices further. The ONLY way for the President or the government to control gasoline prices would be to nationalize our oil production and purchase the remaining 20% directly from Canada, if we did that gas would be about $1.05 per gallon, however that would be socialism. So, if anyone has a problem with the price of gas blame the free market capitalist system of supply and demand and business selling to maximize profit, don't blame the government.

Too bad neither candidate brought this dirty little secret up at the debates, if they did the oil companies would have had their heads on a pike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I pointed this out before but just in case:

The United States has a free market economy, what that means in relation to gasoline and oil prices is this, regardless of whether the oil is pulled from American soil or Saudi soil is completely irrelevant because all of it goes on the world oil market and then is sold. In truth the United States produces enough of it's own oil to supply 80% of our needs but because of a free market system those American oil companies then sell it to the world market where we purchase it from. This is why we can drill baby drill until we are blue in the face and have American oil coming out of everyones collective ass and it will not affect gas prices one bit. Gasoline prices are high for one major reason, supply and demand. China and India as emerging markets are buying more oil than ever before and that demand is just going to increase reducing supply thus driving up prices further. The ONLY way for the President or the government to control gasoline prices would be to nationalize our oil production and purchase the remaining 20% directly from Canada, if we did that gas would be about $1.05 per gallon, however that would be socialism. So, if anyone has a problem with the price of gas blame the free market capitalist system of supply and demand and business selling to maximize profit, don't blame the government.

Too bad neither candidate brought this dirty little secret up at the debates, if they did the oil companies would have had their heads on a pike.

Everything you say does make perfect sense. But their has to be some ways of doing this in a better and more economic way than another. Ie, do we drill in the Gulf? The less we have to depend on certain other countries that are going to hold us hostage so to speak, the better. Do I have the answers? I do not pretend to. I am for the environment and I will still say I am a believer in global warming while others are screaming its pure BS. How can it be B/S? The scientific evidence is there. The proof is in the fucking pudding. I know I jumped to another topic but I try not to put up long winded posts in the hopes more will skim read it than if its long. With my less than perfect reputaion I am sure some will roll their eyes at anything I post, but at least I am trying not to over do it. Carry on my fellow Zep heads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Obama organization needs to separate itself from people who think they are under some sort of entitlement with regards to Welfare. There are 47 million people on food-stamps in this country...47 MILLION...... and another 50 million on Medicare.

Edited by Rock Historian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I pointed this out before but just in case:

The ONLY way for the President or the government to control gasoline prices would be to nationalize our oil production and purchase the remaining 20% directly from Canada, if we did that gas would be about $1.05 per gallon, however that would be socialism. So, if anyone has a problem with the price of gas blame the free market capitalist system of supply and demand and business selling to maximize profit, don't blame the government.

^^^ Interesting post. But isn't what you describe more protectionism than socialism? I'm not a civics major, please forgive my lack of knowledge. Whatever it is called, if what you say is correct than why not take care of our own needs first with our own resources? Then get the 20 percent from Canada (or whoever offers the best deal)? Maybe I am missing something? It sounds like a good solution imo, but too easy! Missy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Obama organization needs to separate itself from people who think they are under some sort of entitlement with regards to Welfare. There are 47 million people on food-stamps in this country...47 MILLION...... and another 50 million on Medicare.

The guy on your show now is right. Obama now must walk the walk so to speak. Not his exact words but the message he is sending. Romney came out. He sent a message. What did Obama really say? Nothing!!!! And he wins. He had no record to run on. Nothing of any substance that was positive? And 47 million on food stamps is a fucking joke. He bought a second term from the lazy low life bastards that poison this society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Orange County is "tumbleweed"?

As a person who used to live in Orange County and now lives in Los Angeles, yes it is!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh, what's up with them Swamp Thangs down in Florida? Don't they each 'rithmetic down there? Or are they still trying to figure out a way to fix it for the Reptilians to win, like in 2004?

Wake up, fuckheads: YOU LOST ALREADY.

Edited by Tinkerbelle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I delivered my absentee ballot to the registrar a couple weeks ago because I'm in the midst of traveling and am kinda busy.

I'm not gonna argue the politics with anyone... no time to read and write the posts and y'all certainly don't need my help with the 'discussions'... but, I gotta say that it was good news and bad news as far as I'm concerned...

The bad news... Roy Moore got elected chief justice for the Alabama state supreme court... :mad::thumbdown::soapbox:

Maybe this time he'll forgo installing granite monuments in the rotunda. <_<

The good news... Obama WON!!!! :yay::hurrah::yay:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I read back on all of the posts here, I realize how separated we are as a country. We should be trying to work together! Some of Washington's last words were to never get involved with political parties, and what have we done?

We need to find a middle ground here, for the progress of America and its citizens. It shocks and horrifies me that blatant racism and sexism are alive and well today. We are in the 21st century, and we need to understand that we should be helping each other.

"We have learned to fly the air like birds and swim the sea like fish, but we have not yet learned the simple art of living together as brothers." - MLK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a person who used to live in Orange County and now lives in Los Angeles, yes it is!

I lived in Irvine for 14 years. I disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But something is foul when a certain race votes at a 96 percent clip. That is a racist vote. Pure and simple. I took statistics in college and it defies all logic. Its an embarresment to this country. Right now the smart money says Obama will fuck things up more than ever and then we will have a Hillary vs Rubio contest in 2016. Of course it may not play out this way, Hillary probably has a far less chance of getting the nomination than Rubio.. Its pretty sad when you cant have an election decided on the merits of the issues and rather it becomes a racial divide that decides it. And Gender too. Oh, those poor poor women have it so damn hard here don't they? This is not the 1920's for God's sake. The Couny executive here is a woman. She has more power than any man in this fucking town. The spin machine is at work 24/7 in dirty polotics. And a blind and uneducated public led by the youth of this country cannot see through it. They are too fucking lazy sending texts and listening to their I Pods and drving, all at the same time. How many of them really know the issues like the 13 year old girl that was posted on this site? And IMO if you were not born here, you should not be able to vote here. At least not until you have lived here a good number of years. I know of nobody that had to even show ID at the polling place they went to. Mitt Romney is a good guy who cares. And a smart guy. And to Mr Obama, I happen to love my wife too. What the hell does that have to do with the price of gas? Who cares what dress your wife is wearing. I sure as fuck dont. I do care about where you decide to get our gasoline from? And who you will give out free food stamps to this month. And now I have to look at your ugly ass for 4 more years. Amen for term limits.

Hey, educated 17 year old here. In my short life, I've learned more about American politics than you have. I have probably been through more shit than you have in your high school years. To say that Obama is giving out food stamps to "lazy lowlife bastards" is proof that you have been able to live comfortably enough that you have not seen the lowest of the low. My aunt is on food stamps because she physically cannot work due to health problems. She has cancer. Is she one of these lazy low life bastards of which you speak? Because of a marginally small and unrelated group of people who may outdo the system, you choose to generalize and attack the entire bunch of people on welfare who actually need it?

Edited by jayceeporter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, educated 17 year old year. In my short life, I've learned more about American politics than you have. I have probably been through more shit than you have in your high school years. To say that Obama is giving out food stamps to "lazy lowlife bastards" is proof that you have been able to live comfortably enough that you have not seen the lowest of the low. My aunt is on food stamps because she physically cannot work due to health problems. She has cancer. Is she one of these lazy low life bastards of which you speak? Because of a marginally small and unrelated group of people who may outdo the system, you choose to generalize and attack the entire bunch of people on welfare who actually need it?

Good post. And I'm sorry to hear about your aunt.

There has been some really nasty talk in this thread since the Reptilians lost, much of it coming from LedZepFan77. I'm actually surprised he's allowed to get away with some of the things he's said, but hey, that's the Mods' job.

I don't really understand what their beef is. 'They're all right, Jack' - they'll be able to continue living high on the hog for the next 4 years, although possibly with a little less net pay in their pocket...so why do they even care that Obama's gonna be helping out the disadvantaged for another 4 years, enabling them to exist on the breadline instead of way below it? They'll still be able to carry on stuffing their greedy mouths at their trough, and have no reason to fear that any of the scum underclass will be able to jump up high enough to steal any of their swill.

There's nothing more pathetic than bad losers - especially bigoted ones. Shame on you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Romney got less votes than McCain did 4 years ago. Obama got less votes compared to what he got in 2008. but this means that even more than 2 million who voted for McCain didn't vote for Romney. Obama got fewer votes compared to 2008 but the ones he lost this time around were not gained by Romney.

at worst people thought Obama was not as great as they thought so they didn't vote. but he certainly isn't the disaster those who live in Fox News/Rush Limbaugh bubble want to believe. if they believed that they would have voted for someone else. but they decided to just not vote.

Romney not only got fewer votes than McCain in 2008, he got fewer votes than Bush in 2004 and Kerry(who lost) in 2004.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Obama organization needs to separate itself from people who think they are under some sort of entitlement with regards to Welfare. There are 47 million people on food-stamps in this country...47 MILLION...... and another 50 million on Medicare.

From a foreign persective the fact that so many americans really believe this is honiestly rather unsettling.

Whether its a hangover from the cold war years, a deliberate push by the wealthy or a product of americas history there seems to be this national sense of embarrisment at being poor, as if its uniformely a mark of laziness and stupidity.

The reality is that the majority of people who benefit from these programs are employed, they simpley have jobs that fail to meet what have been desided as basic living standards. The average working man has simpley not benefited from much of the growth in US GDP in recent decades that has vanished into the pockets of the ultra wealthy, hence a drop in relative living standards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pathetic when illegal immigrants are allowed to flock in and cast votes to ensure this prick another term. Ohio, to me is the equivalent of hell on Earth full of devils. At leats if Rubio ges the next nomination he will neutralize the latino vote? The youth in this country and the blacks did not vote on the evidence of his non accomplishments. They voted race and for a guy that wiil "give them things". Food stamps for one. This is a sad day in this country

For the record, I don't like Rubio just because of the perceived bump he could deliver in the Latino vote. I happen to think he stated what should be his party's position more clearly and effectively than anyone did at either convention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question: There seems to be an issue with the Benghazi tragedy and how Obama handled it so...Do those who feel Obama dropped the ball in Libya and should be impeached ALSO feel the same about Reagan and his handling of the 1983 Lebanon bombing which killed 284 Marines? Should Reagan have been impeached? His inaction and lack of both resolve and response was far more egregious than Obama's. Reagan and his staff were warned REPEATEDLY by both the CIA and Mossad that an attack was imminent yet nothing was done. Then as a response Reagan pulled the remaining Marines and left the Israeli's to finish what we should never have started.

This is just a question and personally I do not blame Reagan nor do I think him inept. These tragedies happen when you have a global footprint, sometimes they can be avoided, sometimes not.

One thing I am very happy about with this election (beside the obvious) is that I believe the Republicans will learn a valuable lesson. This loss by the Republicans with a large majority of the popular vote going to Obama speaks volumes to the elephant (no pun intended) in the room. The Republican Party MUST change back to it's 1960's - 1980's positions on social issues and taxation if they are to become a relevant player in the future. I would love it for an Eisenhower type to win in 2016, or even better, a Theodore Roosevelt type, but the latter would be pushing it since Roosevelt was WAY to progressive for either party in todays zeitgeist.

Opinions????

I don't think it's a good comparison. Reagan didn't watch it unfold in real time like Obama did, and even if he did he couldn't have stopped it because it was a bomb. Benghazi was a siege over the course of hours. Obama could have made a move to send help and save Americans, or at least try. Reagan didn't have that option in real time.

Furthermore, it's the coverup! Reagan called it what it was and blamed the right people. Obama blamed a video, the state department more or less apologized for a video, and they frog marched the maker of this video to jail to satisfy this false narrative. There's a lot to feel outraged about here and really it's not a good comparison to Reagan and the marines.

And a little off topic but can you imagine George H.W. Bush comforting a father of one of the fallen marines by boisterously declaring, "Were your son's balls always bigger than cue balls?" What a clown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The budget talks on Capital Hill center around a tax increase on the wealthy. The increase would be from 35% to 39% for the top tax bracket. From 1946 until 2000, that tax rate was 39%. The Bush tax cuts changed that rate. By coincidence, the last year of the 39% tax rate was the last year this country had a balanced budget. The rate was 39% during the entire Clinton administration. These are facts.

Considering the above facts, and considering that over 75% of Americans feel the rates should be returned to Clinton era levels, please explain to me very slowly why the Republican party should be holding this country hostage by refusing to return the tax rates to the same level they were for 54 years ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The budget talks on Capital Hill center around a tax increase on the wealthy. The increase would be from 35% to 39% for the top tax bracket. From 1946 until 2000, that tax rate was 39%. The Bush tax cuts changed that rate. By coincidence, the last year of the 39% tax rate was the last year this country had a balanced budget. The rate was 39% during the entire Clinton administration. These are facts.

Considering the above facts, and considering that over 75% of Americans feel the rates should be returned to Clinton era levels, please explain to me very slowly why the Republican party should be holding this country hostage by refusing to return the tax rates to the same level they were for 54 years ?

You whole post is invalid because tax rates were NOT 39% for 54 years. You reference 1946. The top tax rate in 1946 was 86.45%(!). Rates have changed a LOT over the decades, every President has his own idea on taxes. So why are Clinton's being presented as "permanent"? Why not Reagan's? Why not Kennedy's? In 1988 it was 28%. Clinton raised them to 39.5%. Bush lowered them to 35%, hardly a huge cut.

So here's the part you may be missing, or maybe you just don't care about. The proposed raising of the top bracket doesn't just affect Warren Buffet. It affects a massive amount of small businesses who are taxed under individual and not corporate rates. Small businesses have it tough enough already with over-regulation, etc. Small businesses already fretting what Obamacare will mean for them. Why should the Feds stick their hand in the pocket of small business again? Especially when raising the top bracket four points would hardly fuel a few weeks of our current government's profligate spending? Is it some warped idea of social justice?

This is where Obama is a great politician. Our government spends like a drunken sailor no matter who is in charge, I am certainly not giving Bush a pass. But instead of addressing the gravy train, Obama has pointed at citizens and businesses who already burden a ridiculously large amount of our country's tax revenue, and in effect he's saying, "THEY'RE the problem, not government." Dare I say you seem to buy it hook, line, and sinker?

What we need is true tax reform, not a politically motivated divide and conquer band-aid in the form of "taxing the rich" (who by no means are all rich).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rich aren't all rich? :huh:

Maybe I didn't express it correctly, but the people who would be affected by raising the top tax rate aren't all rich. Many are small business owners. It's not all Warren Buffets who are being targeted by the raising of the top rate. Not even close. But Obama and his administration have put it all under the banner of "tax the rich", which makes it an easy sell to the masses. Cynical.

Edited by mstork

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You whole post is invalid because tax rates were NOT 39% for 54 years. You reference 1946. The top tax rate in 1946 was 86.45%(!). Rates have changed a LOT over the decades, every President has his own idea on taxes. So why are Clinton's being presented as "permanent"? Why not Reagan's? Why not Kennedy's? In 1988 it was 28%. Clinton raised them to 39.5%. Bush lowered them to 35%, hardly a huge cut.

So here's the part you may be missing, or maybe you just don't care about. The proposed raising of the top bracket doesn't just affect Warren Buffet. It affects a massive amount of small businesses who are taxed under individual and not corporate rates. Small businesses have it tough enough already with over-regulation, etc. Small businesses already fretting what Obamacare will mean for them. Why should the Feds stick their hand in the pocket of small business again? Especially when raising the top bracket four points would hardly fuel a few weeks of our current government's profligate spending? Is it some warped idea of social justice?

This is where Obama is a great politician. Our government spends like a drunken sailor no matter who is in charge, I am certainly not giving Bush a pass. But instead of addressing the gravy train, Obama has pointed at citizens and businesses who already burden a ridiculously large amount of our country's tax revenue, and in effect he's saying, "THEY'RE the problem, not government." Dare I say you seem to buy it hook, line, and sinker?

What we need is true tax reform, not a politically motivated divide and conquer band-aid in the form of "taxing the rich" (who by no means are all rich).

http://www.thefiscal...Plan.aspx#page1

Republicans, citing stats from the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, say the higher rates would “capture’’ about 50 percent of income from small business and “affect’’ 25 percent of all jobs. (See this

of Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell).

Democrats, also citing statistics from the Joint Committee, say the opposite. By their reckoning, only 3 percent of small business owners are in the top two brackets and would see any tax increase at all.

Who’s right?

The short answer: both statistics are true, but the Republican claim is false.

According to the Joint Tax Committee, which analyzed President Obama’s tax proposal, taxpayers will report $1 trillion in business income on their individual tax returns in 2011. And just as Republicans claim, about 50 percent of that income is expected to be reported by people in the top two tax brackets.

The argument that the upper tier can't afford a tax hike is as crazy as the Republican mantra that we need to increase Defense spending at this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a foreign persective the fact that so many americans really believe this is honiestly rather unsettling.

Whether its a hangover from the cold war years, a deliberate push by the wealthy or a product of americas history there seems to be this national sense of embarrisment at being poor, as if its uniformely a mark of laziness and stupidity.

The reality is that the majority of people who benefit from these programs are employed, they simpley have jobs that fail to meet what have been desided as basic living standards. The average working man has simpley not benefited from much of the growth in US GDP in recent decades that has vanished into the pockets of the ultra wealthy, hence a drop in relative living standards.

This "lazy" claim is incredibly popular, and requires no thought at all to buy in on.

I have been involved with a mentoring organization (Big Brothers) for twelve years now, I have met more than my fair share of people on welfare. Almost invariably, they do work. Unfortunatley, lacking a decent education, they work in low wage jobs. So making enough to even get by, never mind pay for health insurance, is just beyond their reach. Not one of them WANTS to stay on public assistance.

Honestly, passing some sort of jobs training bill should be a no brainer. We have two large manufacturers in a town next door, and they begged the governor to do something. They want to expand, have loads of business, but can't find qualified people. Let's take the laid off people, train them (at government expense) then plug them into one of these jobs. These jobs pay well, the workers will pay more in taxes since they will make more money...seems like a win-win.

As far as oil and gas goes, the US imports and exports all sorts of things. The US has been exporting oil for awhile now. This is due primarily to refining capacity, something the Arabs always like to point out. There's plenty of oil, you just can't refine it fast enough, the refineries are operating at capacity. And no one wants to build anymore, they take up a lot of space and are very nasty to have in your neighborhood. The president has very little impact on oil and gas prices, but we do love to hang that around the neck of the current Prez (done with Clinton, W, and Obama). As talented as the USA is, I can't believe that we still have the internal combustion engine, one hundred year old technology, and we can't get beyond that??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.thefiscal...Plan.aspx#page1

Republicans, citing stats from the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, say the higher rates would “capture’’ about 50 percent of income from small business and “affect’’ 25 percent of all jobs. (See this

of Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell).

Democrats, also citing statistics from the Joint Committee, say the opposite. By their reckoning, only 3 percent of small business owners are in the top two brackets and would see any tax increase at all.

Who’s right?

The short answer: both statistics are true, but the Republican claim is false.

According to the Joint Tax Committee, which analyzed President Obama’s tax proposal, taxpayers will report $1 trillion in business income on their individual tax returns in 2011. And just as Republicans claim, about 50 percent of that income is expected to be reported by people in the top two tax brackets.

The argument that the upper tier can't afford a tax hike is as crazy as the Republican mantra that we need to increase Defense spending at this time.

A tax hike on the top bracket, as I mentioned earlier, would not even generate an amount of money that would make a serious dent in our fiscal problems. True tax reform that encourages growth on the other hand would do just that.

Why do you prefer one over the other? Again, is it social justice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×