To the rest of the world: we're sorry. We tried--it's not really our fault. I promise we're not all like this--there are many, many Americans who don't like Obama. Please don't judge us by the 51% who voted for him.
Printable View
To the rest of the world: we're sorry. We tried--it's not really our fault. I promise we're not all like this--there are many, many Americans who don't like Obama. Please don't judge us by the 51% who voted for him.
Ugh I know
Drone strikes in Yemen now? When will this blood for oil end?
And don't even get me started on how he lines his big business buddies pockets with his supposed "bailouts"
According to int'l polling by that leftist rag The Economist, the only two nations that preferred Romney to Obama were Pakistan and Israel. So instead of saying "To the rest of the world," perhaps you should say, "Dear Pakistan and Israel." A little more reality-based, a little less pathos-fueled.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Plus legal weed and more gay marriage. It's been a good night.
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mcoitv85FB1qjh4la.gif
As an Australian, I am happy to see Obama win four more years. Go home Rmoney and take your binders full of women with you!
Oh and thank fuck for Akin losing.
Woooooooo
Which only proves that what you say matters more than what you do, considering Obama's foreign policy record in comparison to Bush. And Pakistan probably preferred Romney because he hasn't ordered the deaths of hundreds/thousands of them via drone strikes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
:cool:Quote:
Plus legal weed and more gay marriage. It's been a good night.
Awwww yeah. Take that, feds! (including the anti-pot Obama)
CR
He obviously doesn't endorse legalization of weed, but didn't he end federal raids on legal (in the states) dispensaries for medical marijuana? Not that recreational use isn't a totally separate issue, but if people in Washington and Colorado are hoping their airspace isn't swarming with black helicopters from the DEA, they have better than normal odds of that not happening with O'Bama.
Hooray for WA
No, Obama increased federal raids on medical marijuana over what happened during the Bush administration.Quote:
Originally Posted by Graphic
CR
Thank flock that Romney didn't win. I really don't understand why anyone would vote for him.
I stand corrected.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
True but nobody understands why Romney was seen to be a credible candidate. Emphasis on credible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Which only proves that you should not tell people in advance you plan on running the world's largest economy off a cliff. Certainly you should not let your henchmen attempt such a plan prior to actually having obtained power, and you must definitely not seen to be part of- or associated with any such brazen plotting before the people are firmly in your grasp and at your mercy anyway. Note to future wannabe American overlords: elections is phase one, doomsday device/plot is part two. Not the other way around.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
I don't know enough of American politics to comment but he seems capable enough.
Hello guys, excuse my question (tin foil and all that) but why does it matter which of the two actors will play the role of president? The banking elite and the corporations have been calling the shots since you dropped the gold standard and allowed the Federal Reserve to print your dollars. The last guy who tried to work against them got shot in the head.
Same here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
After all he is the president who finally brought Bin Laden to justice. That has to count for something surely.
Indeed. How did that happen America?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
What's next, a Japanese soldier over John Wayne?
The majority of americans are still sane.
Here's what the man himself had to say.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFf2k_XqPIY
at least this time he doesn't have to live up to the wildly unrealistic expectations of the hyper-ventilating and hormonal teenage cheerleaders of happy-smiley politics!
good news.
his first term is pretty reasonable when examined from a realistic standpoint instead of the "OMG HE'S THE 2nd COMING" impression that some people had 4 years ago.
I wouldn´t buy a used car from Romney let alone trust him with something as the presidency of the US, so good news he's not getting anywhere near it.
Over here in the neds it was downright emberassing, the leftist church seemed more realistic this time around. Obama wasn't... him... he turned to be merely... a manQuote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Not much of a choice was there?
Quote:
The one aim of all such persons is to butter their own parsnips. They have no concept of the public good that can be differentiated from their concept of their own good. They get into office by making all sorts of fantastic promises, few of which they ever try to keep, and they maintain themselves there by fooling the people further. They are supported in their business by the factitious importance which goes with high public position. The great majority of folk are far too stupid to see through a politician’s tinsel. Because he is talked of in the newspapers all the time, and applauded when he appears in public, they mistake him for a really eminent man. But he is seldom anything of the sort.**
Thank you, Jesus.
It is refreshing to know that in 2012 America big bags of money by themselves aren't sufficient to win the election, and the man's character still matters.
He got pretty damn near it if you look at the numbers. I personally wouldn't trust anyone following a religion that is not older than 500 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
I doubt most of the rest of the world minds at all. Obama has demonstrated a willingness to hammer specific terrorist leaders while drawing down/ending larger conflicts and nation-building efforts; he has shown a greater propensity to coordinate US efforts with NATO goals with our allies; He has not created turmoil in the international marketplace by going after China about the Yuan; He is not pursuing US strategic goals over the direct opposition of our Allies; and, according to most of their own political standards, his domestic policies are completely centrist (a.k.a. normal and sane) with only the mildest of political left tones -- garden variety European Social Democracy. Remember, the fact that we do not have a single, essentially universal, health care policy in place has always made Europe think we are idiots. They probably spend more time wondering why our poor -- whose needs are not being met by the current government system -- haven't launched an endless series of riots than they do wondering why we still cling to the electoral college.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
In short, I doubt they think we have cause to apologize for electing someone whose policies -- at least to their lights -- so completely outstrip those of his predecessor in quality.
The candidate with the big bucks did win.....Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
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.
I was just about to reply but SF, already made my point exactly. So instead I just choose to bold what I would have elaborated on. With that said, elaboration isn't needed, but the bolding is :book2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
If you want to say sorry, say sorry about all those who voted Romney. Just throwing that out there. I would have woken up shuddering to the news of him being elected and actually slightly scared about the future.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus
Did you watch the debates? Obama and Romney differed more in style than substance on most big issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
CR
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.
Exemplum gratum:
America's closest allies may be in for a rude awakening on November 7th, should Romney pull off a win. Their lack of preparation for a Romney presidency and sharp ideological differences with him seem likely to immediately complicate any Romney moves to do what he is saying his election would in terms of improving America's standing globally. The problem under Bush wasn't just that America was disliked by the Arab world because of the Iraq War and the administration's support for torture techniques like water-boarding -- it was that our standing with our European allies tumbled. It's hard to see how Romney could improve upon what Obama has done to repair those relationships in the near-term, given his well-demonstrated disdain for European social attitudes and economic policies, and what a shock an Obama loss would be to European citizens.
That is mostly because the rest of the world has no idea about American politics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
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:
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
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.
No need to be facetious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
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.
The majority of it is because the Republicans advertise themselves as pro-war, religious fundamentalist fascists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
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.
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 Tiaexz
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
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 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 TinCow
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
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.
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 HopAlongBunny
Obama is in favour of abortion. Romney is against. First red flag.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
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.
Boy are you fooled!Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
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.
The best satire goes unnoticedQuote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
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.
I particularly like:Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Prophylatic irradiation of negative ads.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.
Beautiful prose.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
When you let politics get to you like that? I think maybe you need medical help.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
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
I can't imagine being that big of a douche when it comes to politics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Going to need a citation SwenQuote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
me too, 1% is the correct number. Edited.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Romney would not have been able to change anything, and probably has personal views that align with mainstream America (ie vaugely anti-abortion). Style difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
And what decisions would Romney's religiosity have affected? What actual impact would it have had? Style.Quote:
Romney is way more religious than Obama, and speaks about religion frequently. Second red flag.
Obamacare was in many ways a copy of Romneycare. Romney could not have repealed it, and Obama can not advance free healthcare any further. Style.Quote:
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.
None of those would have led to meaningful policy differences.
CR
I guess my concern with Governor Romney was that he was unable to stand up to the reactionary/extremist elements in his own party in the primary. Why would we imagine he would do differently in the Presidency?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Going back to the point made in the OP, couldn't find the Economist piece, but here's similar data from a separate study. I seriously doubt you will find anything current that is much variant. The world does not need an apology.
https://i.imgur.com/n23YV.jpg
A good illustration of why Democrat “get out the vote drives” concentrate on immigrants and why proof of citizenship is not required. LOL
Do you have opinion polls on prison populations too?
Didn't he dodge the draft 5 times?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
(I assume you are playing devil's advocate.)
How many on an international level are aware of American policies in detail? For that matter, how many Amercians does (consider the examples of rejecting friendship because people voted for Obama)?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
As long as you don't go into the details, style and presentation is all that matters for how you're percieved.
During most of the last 4 years, the US taxes has been the lowest in 50 years. Has that changed the perception of "socialist" Obama taxing the US heavily? No.
I was looking at the break down of the vote. It was pretty much -
In Army, Religious, Old, White and Male - Voted Republican
Everyone else - Voted Democrat
Pretty much fits the stereotype, I facepalmed.
Though, I think seriously that if the Republicans just completely dropped talking about Social-Conservative issues, deflecting them or say "I think these should be held at the State level", then I believe they would really win around a lot of votes. I am going to be pretty honest and say, do you really think your stereotypical republican will go "Mitt Romney is not saying he is anti-abortion enough, I am going to vote Democrat". He should simply stop pandering to the extremes since he will get that vote regardless.
There you go, free advice on how to get into power.
Aren't you white and male?
Liberals baffle me sometimes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpt3GSxp25U
Except that it won't work. If he doesn't pander to the purists, he won't get the nomination. Look at Dick Lugar: he dared to be his own man, got primaried out, his tea party darling successor decides to run his mouth about rape and God's will == seat goes to the Dems. GOP needs to cleanse itself of the fundamentalist rabble. They're a liability at this point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
It was a good strategy when winning a majority of that demographic by itself was enough to win an election. Unfortunately, the white male doesn't seem to have as much strength in his polling these days...Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
*ahem*
penis.
Once you go black you never go back, eh?
It's hard to deny the attractiveness of the black man's polling, particularly among single white women.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Thank you, now I'll never be able to avoid laughing when someone mentions how high Obama scored with white females...Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
You have internet access AND use it. Of course you vote Obama.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
As a white man, I can feel the power slipping threw my fingers
It's time to take my small buisness and massive untaxed earnings elsewhere
By your own admission you do not qualify as "Old" so obviously, you voted Obama.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Seriously though: you pretty much have to fit the stereotype to not have been on the receiving end of abuse from the GOP propaganda machine and/or affiliated outlets. Me I am not likely to vote for you if all you have to offer is abuse.
This is from an earlier poll, but I bet it's mostly accurate:
http://i47.tinypic.com/2eygbc1.png
No offense, but who should America give a shit about what the rest of the shit-hole world thinks? All we gotta do is look at them if we need a reason to not take their advice. They don't want the same things as us, and many times want the exact opposite. (though they are happy to suck our nipples dry constantly)
Europe wanted Obama? They can keep him! Of course they wouldn't want him as a leader of their countries, but they want him for the US. No offense to you Euroweiners, but governmentally speaking, you suck. You are a perfect example of everything not to do! They only better examples you could find are Africa and South America!
As far as whether you want an apology or not, you may not now, but wait till he starts WWIII, and then you will condemn him and America as you condemned Hitler and Germany, even though you were completely in favor of Hitler taking control in Germany. You help us come under the control of a dicator, and then will blame us when the shit hits the fan.
Literally ChristmasQuote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
http://whitepeoplemourningromney.tumblr.com/page/4
That is one of the more hilarious things I've seen in a while. Poor white people...Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Mourning? Nah, actually a little giddy and vindictive. No, not the responsible or mature thing to do, but I am gonna have a lot of fun saying "I told you so" as the country tears itself to pieces. I'll feel really sorry for those who voted against Obama, because they don't deserve this, but I will have no pity for those who did not.