President Obama

[Blarghagh]

I said it when he was looking at being confirmed, but Romney (named after a breed of sheep, always a bad sign) reminds me of a Republican version of John Kerry- the least offensive candidate of a not very inspiring bunch, and one that pretty much nobody is actually enthusiastic about in any way except for "not being the other guy". He's certainly not got the charisma of a Reagan or Clinton necessary to unseat a sitting President.

 

Not having the charisma or a Reagan or Clinton is a severe understatement. Even Bush had a human element (even if that was the same human element primates have) - this guy is a robot, even his facial movements look artificial. I haven't followed the actual elections since the only thing Obama proved was that who the president is doesn't matter jack ****, the opposite party will block anything the president tries to do anyway - that means that as a foreigner, whoever the president is at this point affects me in no way whatsoever. But from what I've seen of Romney, it's that he is a ridiculous excuse for a politician and any party that chooses such a charisma black hole as him as a figurehead is on the way out.

[kmelt93]

Gallup has Romney tied with Obama. Typically Gallup is the most accurate because it measures LIKELY voters and not REGISTERED voters. Romney/Ryan 2012!

[Humodour]

Gallup has Romney tied with Obama. Typically Gallup is the most accurate because it measures LIKELY voters and not REGISTERED voters. Romney/Ryan 2012!

 

Many pollsters measure LIKELY voters.

 

Gallup is a poor choice, not because it is bad (it's quite good), but because it is only one source. It has been pretty exhaustively shown that better, more accurate predictions are produced by combining polls, as Electoral Vote, PollyVote, and Nate Silver's 538 do.

 

But perhaps more importantly than any of this - it does NOT matter who wins the popular vote! The president is elected based on who gets 270 electoral votes or more. And electoral votes are assigned in discrete, unevenly weighted amounts to each state.

 

What I am saying is: only the swing states matter in determining if Romney is doing okay or not. Since Obama is well ahead in an embarassingly large number of swing states, it's downright unlikely that Romney has any chance left of winning.

 

Nate Silver puts the odds at around 75% for an Obama victory, found by adding up all the chances of a scenario occuring where Obama wins over 269 electoral votes.

[Malcador]

Well, war with Iran seems less likely under Obama, so it'd be okay if he won. But never know.

[Gfted1]

Speaking of which, how is it that the US got sucked into having to protect and fund Israel to the tune of billions of dollars per year? Seriously, why is that our problem? Shouldnt the UN be responsible, they created the nation.

[kmelt93]

Speaking of which, how is it that the US got sucked into having to protect and fund Israel to the tune of billions of dollars per year? Seriously, why is that our problem? Shouldnt the UN be responsible, they created the nation.

 

We give aid to some of the most undeserving countries. Billions to Pakistan, who in the past refused American military access in their territory, even though we had evidene insurgents fled from Afghanistan to Pakistan. Not to mention Pakistan is currently holding Ar. Afridi in jail, yet he was key in finding Bin Laden's exact location.

[WDeranged]

I said it when he was looking at being confirmed, but Romney (named after a breed of sheep, always a bad sign) reminds me of a Republican version of John Kerry- the least offensive candidate of a not very inspiring bunch, and one that pretty much nobody is actually enthusiastic about in any way except for "not being the other guy". He's certainly not got the charisma of a Reagan or Clinton necessary to unseat a sitting President.

 

Not having the charisma or a Reagan or Clinton is a severe understatement. Even Bush had a human element (even if that was the same human element primates have) - this guy is a robot, even his facial movements look artificial. I haven't followed the actual elections since the only thing Obama proved was that who the president is doesn't matter jack ****, the opposite party will block anything the president tries to do anyway - that means that as a foreigner, whoever the president is at this point affects me in no way whatsoever. But from what I've seen of Romney, it's that he is a ridiculous excuse for a politician and any party that chooses such a charisma black hole as him as a figurehead is on the way out.

 

 

Looks like a good figurehead to me

[HoonDing]

Humpty Romney

[BruceVC]

Why do people even care who gets elected? It's not changing anything, the whole system is rigged and rotten to the core.

 

 

 

So I strongly disagree. It does matter. I guess I am assuming that with control of both houses and the executive, the Dems can pull off some decent policy. Well, if they can do anything about greenhouse gas emissions in the US combined with a continued push for wind+solar adoption (even if it's just a ****ing measly 5% to start with, like Australia's), then that's change I can believe in. For the record: Obama pushed hard on building loads and loads of new solar power stations towards the end of his 1st term. So there is history to back up my hope.

 

I support another Obama re-election. I am a South African but I work for a global American company and travel to the USA and Europe about 4-6 times a year. I also believe that when America sneezes the world gets a cold, so I follow and enjoy the whole American machinery as it is relevant to world affairs.

 

The perception of the USA really suffered under Bush, there will be always be American haters but Obama has done a lot to positively change that perception. Romney seems to espouse a much more militant and arrogant American image around foreign ppolicy For example he was dismissive of Russia and Putin in his tour of Poland and very belligerent towards Iran. So Obama is much better for America's global decisions in my view if you want to avoid the Bush era foreign policy decisions.

 

Romney isn't very popular amongst the minority groups in America, especially Hispanics. And this is due to how he positioned himself to win the Republican candidacy. So he has dug his own grave amongst these groups in the vote.

 

Finally his "47%" comments still shows he doesn't get the average, financially suffering American citizen. Or he just doesn't care. Despite all the spin from his advisor's and supporters he comes across as an elitist and out of touch with certain grassroot issues. He has suffered in the Polls due to this comment.

 

All this bodes well for Obama despite the state of the American economy. I intend to stay awake all night watching the Election in 2012, its fascinating seeing the graphs on CNN and seeing the red\blue states voting outcomes

Edited September 22, 2012 by BruceVC

[floyd ryan]

Wins the election. Thank glob.

 

1000 years of darkness!!1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wg14hRntRpg

 

He should rather continue counting to infinity...

[BruceVC]

Wins the election. Thank glob.

 

1000 years of darkness!!1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wg14hRntRpg

 

He should rather continue counting to infinity...

 

It would be completely laughable if so many Americans probably didn't believe this. It worries me when I see the influence of Christian fundamentalism creep into and establish itself in American politics. Also I thought that I was ignorant when it come to understanding the intricacies of American politics but even I know that Obama can only have 4 more years, not 1000

Edited September 22, 2012 by BruceVC

[Hurlshort]

Fundie Christians have a very loud voice, but they are still a very small, uneducated, and ridiculous group.

[Rostere]

Speaking of which, how is it that the US got sucked into having to protect and fund Israel to the tune of billions of dollars per year? Seriously, why is that our problem? Shouldnt the UN be responsible, they created the nation.

 

Truly one of the mysteries of the world...

[WDeranged]

Wins the election. Thank glob.

 

1000 years of darkness!!1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wg14hRntRpg

 

He should rather continue counting to infinity...

 

What is it with Americans and these videos, all the pathos and appeals to patriotism, so cheesy...I want to nail his wife.

[kmelt93]

Fundie Christians have a very loud voice, but they are still a very small, uneducated, and ridiculous group.

 

As uneducated as the unemployed welfare recipients who leach off of taxpayer money?

Edited September 22, 2012 by kmelt93

[Hurlshort]

Fundie Christians have a very loud voice, but they are still a very small, uneducated, and ridiculous group.

 

As uneducated as the unemployed welfare recipients who leach off of taxpayer money?

 

Typically, yes. I feel bad for both groups. They are usually raised in an environment where education is not valued. It is difficult to rise above that.

[Legatus]

So incapable Obama will win easily ... Ron Paul would be a better (winner) candidate for Republicans anyway.

 

Hi people, I'm a new member here (not American, from Asia). I've been in BSN for few years, now I'm here to join Obsidian forums for better impact on his better games and their fans!

[213374U]

Speaking of which, how is it that the US got sucked into having to protect and fund Israel to the tune of billions of dollars per year? Seriously, why is that our problem? Shouldnt the UN be responsible, they created the nation.

 

Truly one of the mysteries of the world...

 

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/03/06/the-absurdity-of-usisraeli-relations/

[Hurlshort]

So incapable Obama will win easily ... Ron Paul would be a better (winner) candidate for Republicans anyway.

 

Hi people, I'm a new member here (not American, from Asia). I've been in BSN for few years, now I'm here to join Obsidian forums for better impact on his better games and their fans!

 

Welcome aboard!

 

Ron Paul would be a better candidate because he would raise important questions and hopefully push the Obama administration to be better. But his chances of winning would be incredibly small, he'd struggle just to keep the Republican base and the independents he brings to the party are not enough to offset the losses.

 

It's a similar reason I wanted Gingrich to win. He'd never win the general election, but he is the only politician in the mix that has a history of balancing a budget and working effectively with the other party. He would challenge the Democrats on those issues, hopefully making our current President a better one.

 

This Romney campaign hasn't really done anything except trip on itself.

[Meshugger]

Hey US citizens! Compared to Bush, what has the Obama administration done differently in terms of policies? Namely

 

- Foreign policy

- Domestic policy

- Economic policy

- Security policy

- Social policy

 

And what changes would Romney in turn, if become elected, bring to these policies? I would like to get a better picture from actual americans instead of reading newsweek or the economist.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Hey US citizens! Compared to Bush, what has the Obama administration done differently in terms of policies? Namely

 

- Foreign policy

- Domestic policy

- Economic policy

- Security policy

- Social policy

 

And what changes would Romney in turn, if become elected, bring to these policies? I would like to get a better picture from actual americans instead of reading newsweek or the economist.

Foreign policy - Obama pretty much the same as Bush, except with more apologizing. To be fair Obama would've been unlikely to go into Iraq. Romney - who knows?, probably similar to Bush, but hopefully less naive/idealistic and more competent than either.

 

Domestic/economic - I'm not sure how you differentiate between those two, Obama has gone crazy with the spending compared to Bush. I think Romney understands the problems we're facing and is experienced and pragmatic enough to deal with them without putting his own reelection before the interests of the country. I have to note here that Obama almost made a deal with the Republicans on deficit reduction but backed out at the last moment due to political considerations, apparently mostly because of pressure from the Democrats in the Senate.

 

Security - Bush was doing what he believed would be in the best interests of the US. Obama is about to go through with huge defense cuts which many experts (including his own Secretary of Defense) claim with cripple our military. I have to note that Congressional Republicans are also responsible for this, but at least they are trying to find a solution. Romney has critisized both for the mess they created.

 

Social policy - Both Bush and Romney are fairly moderate on this, Romney more liberal than Bush, Obama more liberal than Romney. Of course being the Republican candidate Romney had to take more conservative positions and hence has been critisized as a flip-flopper and not a true conservative (which is true, he's a pragmatist).

[Meshugger]

Thanks! Anyone else?

[Hurlshort]

Foreign - This was Bush's biggest weakness during his term. Obama has improved foreign policy by virtue of not coming across as arrogant, but his actual policy implementation has been painfully slow. He is very cautious in every respect, from the very slow troop pullout plan to his comments about other countries. Romney has already had a few big missteps, and he's barely even started to address foreign policy. I would have to call Romney a step backward.

 

Domestic/Economic - Obama has failed on this front to make any major headway. The big problem is we need a president that, as WoD already mentioned, can work with the opposing party for the betterment of the country. I've been unhappy with Obama here, but I'm not convinced Romney can do better. I'd jump in front of a bullet for a bipartisan candidate. They don't seem to exist anymore. I'm really not happy with either choice on this issue.

 

Security - I'm calling it a draw because both candidates will be forced to trim expenses here, but I believe both will heed the Department of Defense as much as possible.

 

Social - The real reason I will vote for Obama in 2012 is because he came out against discrimination when he dropped his support of the Defense of Marriage Act. Sure, his VP kind of pushed him into it, but he did the right thing. If Romney wants my vote, he needs to stand up against discrimination as well. I can't get over these civil rights issues, the Republican party needs to get on the right side of history here.

[Calax]

Hurlie, I'd say that in order for Obama to have negociated with the other side, the other side had to be willing to do it. Everything I've seen has been that the Republicans have, as a general rule, blocked anything that would have been counter to their personal goals... even in the slightest. Obamacare (a name he likes because Obama Cares...) was compromised on... with the Democrats loosing at least one key part of it (the "Public Option) while the Republicans stated that they got 98% of what they wanted... and were unhappy with what they got. That said

 

Foreign Policy: Obama has been trying to right the US's likability factor among the Eurozone countries, and cut down on foreign entanglements. The Iraq pullout was a good step, and he's generally been amicable to requests by other nations. He hasn't run roughshod over anyone to get what he wanted, so he's managed to rehabilitate the US's image at least somewhat on foreign soil.

 

Social policy: Obama has been incredibly pro gay and pro womens equity. He removed the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy and allowed gays to be instated in the military (which was a hard fought battle) and has been trying to get other things passed, but everything he wants gets either nutered beyond recognition, or just filibustered to death. The Aforementioned Obamacare was one such policy.

 

Security: He hasn't changed much, but contrary to what WoD might say, we could easily afford to drop some of our military spending... but we'd HAVE to revamp how we do purchases and the entire military industrial complex within our country. Gates was attempting this, but I'm not sure how he's succeeded (for the record, the US spends about Half of the ENTIRE WORLDS budget on military). TSA needs to be revamped, and Homeland security probably needs a bit more Umph when dealing with more long standing Agencies (like the FBI, CIA, NSA, DEA... all of them) as it's entire purpose is to make sure that those agencies properly communicate.

 

Economic/Domestic: Everything my economics professors have told me is that he managed to pump enough money into our economy to prevent a full on depression, but was blocked from getting enough in there to get us out of any recession. The "Debt counter" the republicans threw up at their convention was also 50% Bush created, and the two Wars that we got into went almost entirely unfunded, by the Bush admin doing things like leaving them out of the budgets. TARP has been repaid in it's entirety, and we're finally starting to come out of our recession, but if Romney/Ryan's budget goes into effect, we'll be right back where we started.

 

One of the major things drilled into my head here, has been that for an economy to actually work, Money needs to "do work". And having the whole 1% controlling the majority of the US money supply schtick means that not much American money is doing work within America. And while Romney will tell you that he's cutting taxes so people can create jobs, the reality is that people won't create jobs, because those tax cuts won't hit the small business owner.... because any smart small business owner doesn't pay personal taxes, everything is "reinvested" in their small business.

[Morgoth]