General Politics Thread

[Bigdoggy]

there were 2 things on why Romney lost it.

1.) admitting to / WANTING to go to war with Iran (people don't want another war unless it's necessary)

2.) Romney pointed the finger at China for money manipulation when the problem relies 100% on the USA, not China.

regardless who won, Romney was going to spend more money and Obama is going to spend more money. doesn't matter.

[Sub-stance1]

there were 2 things on why Romney lost it.

1.) admitting to going to war with Iran (people don't want another war unless it's necessary)

2.) Romney pointed the finger at China for money manipulation when the problem relies 100% on the USA, not China.

regardless who won, Romney was going to spend more money and Obama is going to spend more money. doesn't matter.

There were many reasons why Romney lost. The biggest one is that his party doesn't appeal to all the people.

[Soldier 95B]

The unpopular guy would have gotten things done. As he had before.

You are indeed entitled to believe that.

[Bigdoggy]

There were many reasons why Romney lost. The biggest one is that his party doesn't appeal to all the people.

nope, it's the fact that Romney is a warmonger and he was ready to start shit with both Iran and China. in the debates he came right out with it. look, the USA is manipulating it's own currency with a Fiat currency system the same as china. Why on earth would the USA use the same system as China, almost like the USA doesn't know any better (which is always and 100% the case). During those past debates with Obama and Romney when me, my friends, family were watching the debates. Right when he wanted to go to war with Iran and pointed the blame finger at China, I said "he lost it, he wont be president for those 2 reasons".

you have no idea how many people turned their backs on Romney after he wanted to go to war with IRAN. lolz he fucked up his chance all by himself, Obama didn't screw up his chances, he did it to himself.

[Soldier 95B]

This was the back up gif for Romney if he won...

[MATRIX 2]

[Sub-stance1]

nope, it's the fact that Romney is a warmonger and he was ready to start shit with both Iran and China. in the debates he came right out with it. look, the USA is manipulating it's own currency with a Fiat currency system the same as china. Why on earth would the USA use the same system as China, almost like the USA doesn't know any better (which is always and 100% the case). During those past debates with Obama and Romney when me, my friends, family were watching the debates. Right when he wanted to go to war with Iran and pointed the blame finger at China, I said "he lost it, he wont be president for those 2 reasons".

you have no idea how many people turned their backs on Romney after he wanted to go to war with IRAN. lolz he fucked up his chance all by himself, Obama didn't screw up his chances, he did it to himself.

I disagree. Romney doesn't want to go to war with Iran or anyone else. He isn't that stupid or careless to get us involved with another war right after the previous one is still unpopular with democrats and republicans. Romney lost because of his party and their actions. Romney is not a far right republican or he would of never been governor of a state like Massachusetts. The problem is the he allowed the party to lead him instead of leading the party. At times he came off as two different politicians. His message just wasn't very clear on a lot of important issues. He played to whatever audience he was in front of.

[Bigdoggy]

I disagree. Romney doesn't want to go to war with Iran or anyone else. He isn't that stupid or careless to get us involved with another war right after the previous one is still unpopular with democrats and republicans. Romney lost because of his party and their actions. Romney is not a far right republican or he would of never been governor of a state like Massachusetts. The problem is the he allowed the party to lead him instead of leading the party. At times he came off as two different politicians. His message just wasn't very clear on a lot of important issues. He played to whatever audience he was in front of.

funny how you disagree but regardless on what you say, the debates are 100% proven proof that Romney wanted to go to war with Iran, that is a 100% fact, if you don't believe me, then watch the past debates. just because you say "Romney doesn't want to go to war" that doesn't mean it true. like I said, he said it on national TV, deal with it.

[Sub-stance1]

funny how you disagree but regardless on what you say, the debates are 100% proven proof that Romney wanted to go to war with Iran, that is a 100% fact, if you don't believe me, then watch the past debates. just because you say "Romney doesn't want to go to war" that doesn't mean it true. like I said, he said it on national TV, deal with it.

No that's called playing politics , playing to your base and using fear. It's not 100% proof of anything. Going to war with Iran is much more difficult than Romney made it seem. Just think about the ramifications of that for a moment.

[Morganator]

There were many reasons why Romney lost. The biggest one is that his party doesn't appeal to all the people.

No. Romney lost because he disrespected, discounted and discarded too many voters in too many different demographics, lacked conviction except for himself and didn't stand for anything but himself. That is why he lost. This last elections, Republicans had one of the best chances for total domination and they threw it away on a RINO progressive liberal. The Republicans and by extension, the neoconservative left and right, did this to themselves. Obama's win was nothing short of a revenge repudiation of what the Republicans, Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, Perry, Bachmann and Cain wrought. The Republicans will continue to lose so long as they disrespect, discount and discard the biggest voting block.

Now, you can go ahead and ignore everything I just told but come 2016, it won't just be Republicans on the chopping block. We WILL be taking aim at you Democrats too so for yours' and everyone else's sake, I suggest you respect those very "Paulbots", "Paultards" and "kooky libertarians" you like to disrespect, discount and discard. Ignore my warnings at your own peril.

[Bigdoggy]

No that's called playing politics , playing to your base and using fear. It's not 100% proof of anything. Going to war with Iran is much more difficult than Romney made it seem. Just think about the ramifications of that for a moment.

do you know how to read? you even bolded what I said and still went off track. lolz good grief man. maybe I should put each l....e....t....t...e....r between periods to slow down your reading? o.O

look at the part I bolded, you just admitted that is what he said, which is what I said. your bad at debating. lolz

[Sub-stance1]

No. Romney lost because he disrespected, discounted and discarded too many voters in too many different demographics, lacked conviction except for himself and didn't stand for anything but himself. That is why he lost. This last elections, Republicans had one of the best chances for total domination and they threw it away on a RINO progressive liberal. The Republicans and by extension, the neoconservative left and right, did this to themselves. Obama's win was nothing short of a revenge repudiation of what the Republicans, Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, Perry, Bachmann and Cain wrought. The Republicans will continue to lose so long as they disrespect, discount and discard the biggest voting block.

Wow...I think I have stated that on more than one occasion. I don't think he lacks conviction. His party led him down a road that he was inevitably going to fail.

[Now, you can go ahead and ignore everything I just told but come 2016, it won't just be Republicans on the chopping block. We WILL be taking aim at you Democrats too so for yours' and everyone else's sake, I suggest you respect those very "Paulbots", "Paultards" and "kooky libertarians" you like to disrespect, discount and discard. Ignore my warnings at your own peril.

I'm not a democrat just because I supported Obama. You really need to get that out of your head. His message just resonated with me while with Romney I wasn't clear on where he stood on some important issues. I personally think Romney is a good and decent person but his biggest problem was catering to some of the extremist in his party and that was a big mistake. I still stand by my belief that Paul will never be president and it's simply because he will never gather enough support to be nominated. Plus the fact that he is pushing 80 doesn't help either.

do you know how to read? you even bolded what I said and still went off track. lolz good grief man. maybe I should put each l....e....t....t...e....r between periods to slow down your reading? o.O

look at the part I bolded, you just admitted that is what he said, which is what I said. your bad at debating. lolz

Romney never said his plan was to go to war with iran. He said that he will be tougher on them. My point is that military action is much more difficult than he talked about. That is just the politics talking because the toughest sanctions that has ever placed on them is actually working. Anyway, you said that he was a war monger ready to start shit with iran and china and that isn't true. That isn't the reason he lost. The republican party as as a whole need to rethink their future. Their problems can't be blamed on one candidate or this election result.

[LadyDuoMaxwell]

Since Obama is re-elected, do you think he would look back from the last four years and change some of his positions?

[Morganator]

Since Obama is re-elected, do you think he would look back from the last four years and change some of his positions?

Not really. Congress is gonna be at a deadlock for at least two more years. While the Democrats have the senate, the house is still Republican and they will filibuster everything they can while blaming it on Obama. Obama does have some key legislation which I believe will hurt the country, that I know he will try and ram through. I think he's done playing nice with Republicans in general and since he doesn't have to worry abut reelection, shit's gonna get real.

[Soldier 95B]

Since Obama is re-elected, do you think he would look back from the last four years and change some of his positions?

Would he like to, I am sure he would in some areas, like to. And in some areas he wishes he had the ability to pass things he couldn't. But I don't think that will change going forward either.

[F34R]

Markets tumble after Obama "wins"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/m...-election.html

[Sub-stance1]

Markets tumble after Obama "wins"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/m...-election.html

It will also bounce back. Might as well blame him for the recent hurricane too.

[admartian]

So are Republicans still moving to New Zealand? If so, hope you like our healthcare, gun control (virtually none) and nuclear-neutral policies. Oh, and our indigenous people actually have a say in the government.

But yeah I'm sure you right leaning Americans will love it!

(sorry all this was from Twitter #MovingToNewZealand - pretty funny/sad actually - and I'm not having a go at supporters of any party - just thoguht maybe some people should've done their research first )

[Bio]

Ah, so Obama makes history again. Very surprised at how reliably he secured votes (particularly the electorate and in certain demographics that almost didnt change from the last election) in spite of the stark criticism of our economy. Repubs should really take a hard look at what went wrong for them...because a lot of things did, IMO.This term will be VERY interesting. I really want to see this recovery he believes needed more than four years as well as how much negotiation can be made between parties, as unlikely as it may seem.One thing I found interesting about this election is that the white vote lost quite a bit of influence this time around since Obama actually lost some support from that segment. The face of America is changing and our leaders must be genuinely concerned for American concerns from all flavors more than before, and that is how it ought to be.

[F34R]

It will also bounce back. Might as well blame him for the recent hurricane too.

It wasn't even about what you're saying. smh. It wasn't necessarily about blaming HIM, and obviously the hurricane was his doing to get votes. smh

[Ixion]

Some interesting firsts with this election. This is the first time a President has be re-elected with less votes than the previous election. This is also the first time a President has been re-elected with the unemployment over 7.2%.

The latter is especially interesting. What makes Obama different than the other Presidents who had a poor economy? Could it be because the black vote would be for him regardless of his actions? I know that's not a politically correct thing of me to say, but with 93% of the black vote going to Obama, it's not a baseless assumption.

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/11/06/496...oll-shows.html

[-Kwesnoth-]

Some interesting firsts with this election. This is the first time a President has be re-elected with less votes than the previous election. This is also the first time a President has been re-elected with the unemployment over 7.2%.

The latter is especially interesting. What makes Obama different than the other Presidents who had a poor economy? Could it be because the black vote would be for him regardless of his actions? I know that's not a politically correct thing of me to say, but with 93% of the black vote going to Obama, it's not a baseless assumption.

Without him being black or half black or whatever. He would not have come even close to winning. Probably would not have even won the first time.

[Soldier 95B]

No doubt race plays a part. Just like no doubt race plays a part in votes for Romney. Without the white vote, Romney wouldn't have been anywhere close to where he was.

As for the stock market drop, sadly, that is because of the problems in the European market, especially tied to Germany. Not related to Obama.

[claud3]

Right what ROMNEY

Said

Russia we need more backbone with Russia, Russia are number 1 geo political enemy.

China, I will get tougher on China...aka close the sea of armuse and arm Taiwan and Japan

Iran.... I will make sure we are tougher on Iran

Syria... I will supply more weapons to the rebels


Defence budget will increase under me and that iS the most important thing in America

Now oddly enough, all the leaders in the world besides Israel, wanted and got Obama for four more years

Israel did not get Romney in office and have to deal with Obama

Now thus leaves the door wide open for a strike on Iran... Obama says that Israel can go it alone

Which is bullshit. Romney would have struck Iran about four month into office and would fuck up the middle east even more


Obama might wait until he is six months into office, by that time Iran will again spend nuclear advances and advert war with Israel and the u.s

But what no one understands, is that Iran is like AfghanStan.... it can use low level tatics to defeat the u.s, just like in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt....

The USA spends trillions and they are been in some cases killed by their own weapons, they supply the governments they support

And just in most cases the ally/enemy is defeating the USA with simple I.e.d's and weapons of all low kinds

[Vulgotha]

I remember getting some flack on these forums awhile back for subscribing to aggregate polling methodology and 'high tech' trending analyzers and predictors.

WELL, once again this is another sign that they are in fact fairly reliable:

http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...in-election#p2

I'm not talking about the comment I made earlier concerning Romney slated to win based on some professors system he developed and used for the past 20+ some odd years*, I'm referring to the newer ones that are more robust. Specifically, (in the past situation I'm referencing) I quoted Sam Wang from Princeton. Oddly the dude's a neurosurgeon but he's pretty up to snuff with this political analysis stuff.


*Fully admit I had just glanced that one over and just figured it had to be somewhat accurate.