President Obama Re-Elected

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Dude, go look at some of the international polling. Romney was wildly unpopular with the rest of the world (excepting Pakistan and Israel, obviously). There were nervous editorials being published in Europe about how none of the leaders were ready for a Romney win, how relations with the US might take a long time to repair, etc.

To suggest (as Sasaki has) that we somehow need to apologize to the world for re-electing Obama is completely and utterly divorced from reality.

---

That is mostly because the rest of the world has no idea about American politics.

To them R= evil and D= saint. To them anyone in America who speaks of religion in a political campaign is a fundamentalist nut job. Romney was a Mormon and to many of them that makes him unacceptable.

CR is right, fundamentally there is little difference between the two. Both will or would have catered to banks and special interests putting Wall Street before Main Street. They are beholden to, not the people who voted for them, but to those who provided the money to manage their campaigns. When elected they do what is good for themselves and their moneyed backers and the electorate be hanged.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

The candidate with the big bucks did win.....

Unless you think the comparative size of their personal fortunes is somehow significant.

Obama spent as much or more than Romney's team collected. Romney would have had to dump half or more of his personal fortune into the race to make up the dollars difference alone.

---

Depends on what you mean by big bucks. Obama had more grass root money, but Mitt got much more money from those with big buck. Compare the superpacks (Mitt get's twice as much), ouside spending (I'm not sure how they count that, but it's more than the superpacks) and really compare the candidate donors, in particular since Obama got almost twice as much money there. It has to be something like 4-5 times more people that gave money to Obama than Romney.

And, yep the world prefer Obama. An obvious example: Known right-wing chronicler ends answering a question on why our prime minister (also right-wing) kept a low profile about who he prefered as the winner:
"But after the electoral victory it is natural to congratulate the winner and in this case rejoice as well."

Edit:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

That is mostly because the rest of the world has no idea about American politics.

To them R= evil and D= saint. To them anyone in America who speaks of religion in a political campaign is a fundamentalist nut job. Romney was a Mormon and to many of them that makes him unacceptable.

---

Large parts of it yes. As well as lots of colouring from the Bush years. Also high religious content in public. Lots of questions where the Republican side doesn't really exist in large parts of Europe (general healthcare, abortion (is a big question in some European countries though), guns, etc, etc). Perceived as the arrogant party in international affairs. Financial irresponsibillity, (even if claiming otherwise).

I don't think that Romney lost much international support for being specifically Mormon though, compared to say devout Catholic or Protestant in public, but it's certainly a downside. Probably worse in a very devout country than here though.

I think the arrogance question is the largest one in general actually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

No can do, sorry. The truth is out (there) now, you know, and the Naked Cowboy did not get elected but a Kenyan Muslim Communist did. Says it all, really. :no:

---

No need to be facetious.

The latest I'm hearing is that there were voting machine issues in key states. The final results don't tally with the exit polls there (exit polls are the gold standard for detecting vote tampering). There's no way a decorated war hero like romney would have lost without some kind of fraud.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Large parts of it yes. As well as lots of colouring from the Bush years. Also high religious content in public. Lots of questions where the Republican side doesn't really exist in large parts of Europe (general healthcare, abortion (is a big question in some European countries though), guns, etc, etc). Perceived as the arrogant party in international affairs. Financial irresponsibillity, (even if claiming otherwise).

I don't think that Romney lost much international support for being specifically Mormon though, compared to say devout Catholic or Protestant in public, but it's certainly a downside. Probably worse in a very devout country than here though.

I think the arrogance question is the largest one in general actually.

---

The majority of it is because the Republicans advertise themselves as pro-war, religious fundamentalist fascists.

You constantly hear about the Republican senator who is a creationist, you hear how "Rape is not rape if they got pregnant" and all sorts of religious opinions which are in wacky-ville. You hear how Republican pundits express that the best way America can handle foreign policy is to bomb everything and everywhere, from Iran to North Korea, and consider using nuclear weapons. You hear about the continuous racist and bigoted remarks, every time a Birther (who is always a republican) speaks up, Republicans lose support. Every time you hear about homosexuals getting persecuted by Republicans (again), they lose support. Everytime you hear some one go "You know what, we should torture as many offensive term for non-american we can get ahold of", it is always a Republican.

In short, Republicans are typically supported and espouse the views in favour of everything that is wrong in America. As I argued elsewhere, Democrats are very much a catch-all 'not them' party of everyone left of Mussolini.

You don't even need to go into Economical arguments for any rational person to be repulsed and funnily enough, no one would have any problems if the Republicans were simply on about economics. It is all the loonybin stuff which scares everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

You don't even need to go into Economical arguments for any rational person to be repulsed and funnily enough, no one would have any problems if the Republicans were simply on about economics. It is all the loonybin stuff which scares everyone.

---

This statement is, in a nutshell, why the Reps are having serious problems. If they would drop the social radicalism and general bigotry, they would probably dominate the government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

To them anyone in America who speaks of religion in a political campaign is a fundamentalist nut job.

---

This should be of special concern to American citizens, since it says in your constitution that politics and religion are not supposed to mix......you guys should be the first ones to consider this a problem no?
over here the religion feelings or lack there of of a candidate or elected office holder are rarely if ever brought up, and no one really cares about it, it's a personal issue.

and I don´t consider them fundamentalists nut jobs just because they bring religion up.......I sometimes consider them fundamentalist nut jobs because well......they espouse positions that are "nut jobery"....if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...i have to consider that either:
a) they are religious nutjobs
b) they are willing to cater to religious nutjobs

in terms of effects on legislation the 2 might as well be the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

This statement is, in a nutshell, why the Reps are having serious problems. If they would drop the social radicalism and general bigotry, they would probably dominate the government.

---

I agree, I think they would. There is a lot in America who do want a small-government, but all the social radicalism is actually making Republicans big government in repression of social liberties. Just they dropped that part of their mandate, they would pick up a lot more votes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

This should be of special concern to American citizens, since it says in your constitution that politics and religion are not supposed to mix......you guys should be the first ones to consider this a problem no?
over here the religion feelings or lack there of of a candidate or elected office holder are rarely if ever brought up, and no one really cares about it, it's a personal issue.

and I don´t consider them fundamentalists nut jobs just because they bring religion up.......I sometimes consider them fundamentalist nut jobs because well......they espouse positions that are "nut jobery"....if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...i have to consider that either:
a) they are religious nutjobs
b) they are willing to cater to religious nutjobs

in terms of effects on legislation the 2 might as well be the same.

---

I am not a big believer in Religion. But both Ds and Rs bring belief in God to the campaigns. Sometimes from European TV reports you get the idea that all the religions in America are weird cults. Usually Catholics, Jews, and Anglicans get a pass, maybe Lutherans too most of the time. But most other faiths get cast in a negative light. In actuality few are.

The Republican party is broken, however. They keep making the mistake of pandering to the extreme, just as the Democrats once did. They need not embrace creationism to stand a chance of winning. They need to distance themselves from those extreme elements, at least on a national level. They would do much better to concentrate on individual liberties, balancing the budget, and a smaller role for government, and then backing up what they say with actions.

Both parties need to approach the deficit and the entitlements problem sooner rather than later. Else the US will be in the same fix as Greece and others.

The election gave some ambiguous signals. Republicans lost women, latinos and black voters => losing the White House.

If their policy and press is so bad, why did they hold on to the HR? If things are really so bad for the Republicans, you would expect them to be freezing in the political wilderness => they are not.

It is going to take a complex, nuanced analysis to get a decent picture of what occurred yesterday.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny

The election gave some ambiguous signals. Republicans lost women, latinos and black voters => losing the White House.

If their policy and press is so bad, why did they hold on to the HR? If things are really so bad for the Republicans, you would expect them to be freezing in the political wilderness => they are not.

It is going to take a complex, nuanced analysis to get a decent picture of what occurred yesterday.

---

Because a senate and a presidential race are about nuance and the big picture, while a House race is about the local so it would seem the local can only takes you so far.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Did you watch the debates? Obama and Romney differed more in style than substance on most big issues.

CR

---

Obama is in favour of abortion. Romney is against. First red flag.
Romney is way more religious than Obama, and speaks about religion frequently. Second red flag.
Romney has no intention of implementing free healthcare. Obama at least has the will to try to move in that direction, even though it's watered down and chances are slim. Third red flag.

I could go on, but it should be obvious by now.

Republicans need to put up candidates for president with stances like Schwarzenegger or Mitt the Governor if they ever want the presidency back, but the fat heads on talk radio are already saying they lost because Mitt wasn't conservative enough (just like they said in 2008 about McCain). The disconnect from reality is mind-boggling. I look forward to more "divine rape" tea party candidates in the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Obama is in favour of abortion. Romney is against. First red flag.
Romney is way more religious than Obama, and speaks about religion frequently. Second red flag.
Romney has no intention of implementing free healthcare. Obama at least has the will to try to move in that direction, even though it's watered down and chances are slim. Third red flag.

I could go on, but it should be obvious by now.

---

Boy are you fooled!

Don’t you know that Obama Care is what Romney got passed in MA. When he was Governor? Romney doesn’t believe any of that. He was pandering to his base just like the other guy. From what Obama has done since taking office he my be further right than Romney.
Politics- Acting, not much difference. All you got to see what who was the best liar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Boy are you fooled!

Don’t you know that Obama Care is what Romney got passed in MA. When he was Governor? Romney doesn’t believe any of that. He was pandering to his base just like the other guy. From what Obama has done since taking office he my be further right than Romney.
Politics- Acting, not much difference. All you got to see what who was the best liar.

---

I do know that Obamacare is basically Romneycare. I would think of that as common knowledge in a thread like this, really. I'm surprised you made a point of it.

However, the republican voters are overwhelmingly opposed to ObamaRomneycare. If Romney were to do a 180 degree spin on what his voters wanted him to do, then he'd both have to be a lying cheating bastards as well as superhuman negotiation and communication skills to avoid completely loosing all reoublican support. I don't think he's either of those.

Romney was a republican governor in a democratic state back then. He needed to be very moderate. I'd say his healthcare is like his abortion stance - he wasn't against it back when he was governor, but he is now that he's making a national attempt.

Oh good Lord...

Just spent the last hour reading the pre- and post-election comments on dickmorris.com. Haven't laughed this much in ages.

Abortion is an emotional issue. Turning it over to the states is the best idea but it does appeal to voters so both sides use it to get out the vote. It is not getting repealed. It is all smoke and mirrors like most of what they say.

Romney was not just a Republican Governor in a Democrat state. He was a Republican Governor in the most staunchly Democrat state that there is. MA. He won by appealing to Democrats, something he should have done this time if he really expected to get elected. The Republicans wouldn’t have voted for Oboma had he moved to the left. They may have stayed home but they would not have voted D with a gun to their head.

Honestly, I don’t think these guys believe in anything in particular, except themselves. Had he won there is not much that would have changed. The country would still have been in the same mess, they would just have a different person to blame.

Xiahou: Loved the humorous reference in the post I thanksed.


How did the GOP hold the HofR. Redistricting. Take a look at the shapes of the various districts in some places. City mice vote Dem; Country mice vote GOP. This gives the GOP a mostly red map by space, but leaves them critically short in voter leverage in states with large population urban centers relative to overall state population. The redistricting has been effected so as to create districts with comfortable voter bases in make it very difficult for an opponent to win. Been going on like that for decades, but the GOP has controlled a majority of state governments for the last couple of census readjustments.

You guys suck

Really you do.

But when and where do we suck? And on what do we suck? And do we suck continuously, or do we occasionally exhale?

Details, details.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

But when and where do we suck? And on what do we suck? And do we suck continuously, or do we occasionally exhale?

Details, details.

---

The best satire goes unnoticed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

No need to be facetious.

The latest I'm hearing is that there were voting machine issues in key states. The final results don't tally with the exit polls there (exit polls are the gold standard for detecting vote tampering). There's no way a decorated war hero like romney would have lost without some kind of fraud.

---

I hear that the voting machine company basically bought the cheapest junk and called it "product" and then sold it off at tremendous profit, like any good capitalist is supposed to do. Unfortunately the vote fix feature was faulty, as might have been expected given the notoriously bad rep of QA on outsourced software and it did not produce the expected results.

Anyway, I expect that by 2016 this will all be fixed. People only have to "like" something on facebook, and if you are too old, too poor, or too much of a liberal snob to be on facebook you no longer get to vote... So that's all sorted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Oh good Lord...

Just spent the last hour reading the pre- and post-election comments on dickmorris.com. Haven't laughed this much in ages.

---

I particularly like:

Quote:

---

When Romney bypassed Obama’s “firewall” states (like the Germans did the French Maginot Line in World War II), the president had not laid in the necessary prophylactic irradiation of negative ads, and three of the states embraced Romney.

---

Prophylatic irradiation of negative ads.

Beautiful prose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I actually had some my old Army buddies unfriend me from Facebook after they learned I voted for Obama. :laugh4:

---

Yah, I just got unfriended today by friend who is an Army medic; she decided she couldn't tolerate knowing people who did not vote Romney.

When you let politics get to you like that? I think maybe you need medical help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I actually had some my old Army buddies unfriend me from Facebook after they learned I voted for Obama. :laugh4:

---

I have a friend who is frothing at the mouth over Obama's win and he ranted a bit last night. I know if I had bothered to comment on his tirade he'd almost certainly unfriend me - "dust off his boots" as he has called it in the past.

I have quit contact with both my mother and sister, as they believe that "Sweden is an artificial creation, and that every culture and person has an equal right to it".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

I have quit contact with both my mother and sister, as they believe that "Sweden is an artificial creation, and that every culture and person has an equal right to it".

---

Do they understand that every collective polity -- unless utterly balkanized to a fare-the-well -- can be described as artificial if that is their standard?

On the other hand, I am not a fan of cutting off contact with close family because they hold viewpoints that are incorrect. You either agree to disagree or avoid the subject.

SF, I can honestly say that I have no idea what they understand and not...

I was myself beaten rather badly not long ago by an immigrant gang. One of my students this summer got sent to Africa to have some forging done on her lady bits. Criminal statistics are sky rocketing and social security and economy goes to ****, all the while we take in 1% of the population a YEAR. And before people from the US complains, YOU get the educated ones, we get the ones you refuse. Before you complain, check comparative stats on education level of accepted immigrants between the countries. Heck, one of our Stockholm suburbs accepted more Iraqi refugees than ALL OF USA combined.

Comparative figures would be USA accepting 3,5+ million uneducated immigrants a year. Good luck.

I could only take my family's scolding when I argued against it for so many years, before I asked them to... ... ... some weeks ago.

EDIT: stupid zeroes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Yah, I just got unfriended today by friend who is an Army medic; she decided she couldn't tolerate knowing people who did not vote Romney.

When you let politics get to you like that? I think maybe you need medical help.

---

I can't imagine being that big of a douche when it comes to politics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

SF, I can honestly say that I have no idea what they understand and not...

I was myself beaten rather badly not long ago by an immigrant gang. One of my students this summer got sent to Africa to have some forging done on her lady bits. Criminal statistics are sky rocketing and social security and economy goes to ****, all the while we take in 10% of the population a YEAR. And before people from the US complains, YOU get the educated ones, we get the ones you refuse. Before you complain, check comparative stats on education level of accepted immigrants between the countries. Heck, one of our Stockholm suburbs accepted more Iraqi refugees than ALL OF USA combined.

Comparative figures would be USA accepting 30+ million uneducated immigrants a year. Good luck.

I could only take my family's scolding when I argued against it for so many years, before I asked them to... ... ... some weeks ago.

---

Going to need a citation Swen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Going to need a citation Swen

---

me too, 1% is the correct number. Edited.