Presidential Election: 2012

[Famine]

Funny that you all can compare the years under Obama that easily like the ones you had under Bush... Like there was no difference at all...

Well there was; international politics stabilized under Obama, and the US won some respect back from the rest of the planet. Something which it lost greatly when Iraq was invaded bypassing the UN and we had to put up with a lying idiot in the white house and the evil neocon goons that surrounded him + a whole nation that was practically brainwashed by FOX news standards, and only showed how ignorant and easy to manipulate they were (freedom fries being one example of that).

The... what?

Obama's put more troops into more arenas of war. He's authorised drone strikes on allies, he's authorised the execution without trial of US citizens in allied territories and he's sent strike teams into allied sovereign states for operations bypassing local security forces. He promised to withdraw troops from existing wars, not put them into new ones.

He promised less war - and we gave him a Nobel Peace Prize for the promise alone. He's delivered more war and with a considerable more lax attitude to borders.

You're right though, there is a difference between the Bush years and the Obama ones in terms of foreign policy. Bush made no excuses and sought to enforce a UN resolution when the UN chose not to. Obama talks about peace and quietly bombs allies and kills his own citizens. Which is the "lying idiot in the white house" again?


You can't possibly look at Obama's record of broken promises, particularly about foreign and economic policies, and think he'd be a good choice for peace and economic security. And of course Mitt Romney is fledermaus-guano insane...

 

[Tornado]

a whole nation that was practically brainwashed by FOX news standards, and only showed how ignorant and easy to manipulate they were (freedom fries being one example of that).

I'm pretty sure that is not an example of that, because when the "Freedom Fries" thing happened everyone treated it as a complete farce. Which is probably why it was nothing more than the punchline to a joke within the month.

 

[mister dog]

The... what?

Obama's put more troops into more arenas of war. He's authorised drone strikes on allies, he's authorised the execution without trial of US citizens in allied territories and he's sent strike teams into allied sovereign states for operations bypassing local security forces. He promised to withdraw troops from existing wars, not put them into new ones.

He promised less war - and we gave him a Nobel Peace Prize for the promise alone. He's delivered more war and with a considerable more lax attitude to borders.

You're right though, there is a difference between the Bush years and the Obama ones in terms of foreign policy. Bush made no excuses and sought to enforce a UN resolution when the UN chose not to. Obama talks about peace and quietly bombs allies and kills his own citizens. Which is the "lying idiot in the white house" again?


You can't possibly look at Obama's record of broken promises, particularly about foreign and economic policies, and think he'd be a good choice for peace and economic security. And of course Mitt Romney is fledermaus-guano insane...

Sounds like he is the CIA's top dog all round there; you have proof for all those statements (ordering executions without trial of american citizens etcetera?), and i guess the strike teams in allied territories, bypassing local security forces, is mainly referring to the Bin Laden kill? He killed america's number one boogyman and still people can find ways to criticize it..., because he didn't inform the pakistani's... well ofcourse he didn't or Osama wouldn't have been in that house anymore if he did inform them beforehand, that's the whole point.

Also i'd like to see a summary of how much broken promises there were, in percentage. I still get a hunch he kept most of his important promises, which is quite good for a politician.

 

[Dennisch]

Most likely Obama will get another 4 years to do what he promised. If the Republicans don't shoot down every thing the Democrates come up with.

 

[Liquid]

Politics these days.

 

[Dennisch]

Well, American politics.

Now with added entertainment value. And ways to make the other guy look bad.

Politics. Yeah.

What I do like is that almost the entire world thinks that the US would be better of with 4 more years of Obama, but the US doesn't see it that way.

 

[Famine]

Sounds like he is the CIA's top dog all round there; you have proof for all those statements (ordering executions without trial of american citizens etcetera?)

Yep. They were all over the news - I'm surprised you're not aware of them, given your readiness to criticise the news outlets in other countries as "brainwashing"...

and i guess the strike teams in allied territories, bypassing local security forces, is mainly referring to the Bin Laden kill? He killed america's number one boogyman and still people can find ways to criticize it..., because he didn't inform the pakistani's... well ofcourse he didn't or Osama wouldn't have been in that house anymore if he did inform them beforehand, that's the whole point.

Pakistan's national security is Pakistan's business. Yemen's is Yemen's. Peace-loving Barack Obama has ordered strikes in both countries - neither of which are at war with the US and both of which are allies in the "War on Terror". Bush did too (50 strikes in Pakistan in 3 years, to 300 strikes in 4 for Obama) but he's a warmonger, right?

Would you be so quick to support unilateral military action against an FBI "ten most wanted" target in your home town without your country's knowledge or consent? What if it Pakistan carrying out unilateral military action against one of Pakistan's most wanted in your home town without your country's knowledge or consent? You certainly don't seem to support the US taking unilateral military action against one of its ten most wanted in Iraq eleven years ago...

Obama's just as blind to borders and sovereignty as Bush was. The only difference is that Bush lied about why he was going into Iraq, while Obama lied about peace while seeking war.

Also i'd like to see a summary of how much broken promises there were, in percentage. I still get a hunch he kept most of his important promises, which is quite good for a politician.

It's 100%

Even his signature promise - socialised healthcare - didn't make it to the books. Instead he took the insurer-based system and made it compulsory and more expensive for a worse product. Bush's "evil neo-cons" couldn't have dreamed of any better situation than that.

 

[Liquid]

Well, American politics.

British politics are just as bad for cloneworthyness. It's two sides of the same coin.

What I do like is that almost the entire world thinks that the US would be better of with 4 more years of Obama, but the US doesn't see it that way.

Because the Republicans often say publicly that they're invading X, Y and Z. Obama has been duplicitous about invading other countries, and pretends that he won't.

Famine made an excellent point that Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize, then afterwards bombed Pakistan and invaded Libya. And didn't close Guantanamo.

 

[FoolKiller]

Funny that you all can compare the years under Obama that easily like the ones you had under Bush... Like there was no difference at all...

Guantanamo, still there.
Afghanistan, still there.
Iraq, still there.

At home:
Crony Capitalism, still there.
Healthcare, see crony capitalism.
Patriot Act, still there and added NDAA. Now the president can kill us without warrant, as opposed to just spy on us.
Open government, locking guys up indefinitely, without charge, in torturous conditions for giving out too much information.
Bush said what I can do in the bedroom, Obsma said what I can put in my utility closet.

I find it odd that the war protestors that had reasons other than politics, such as Cindy Sheehan, are the only ones still protesting. Everyone else said its OK for Obama to continue and expand Bush's policies.

Maybe you don't get the full news stories in Spain that we do here, but Republicans and Democrats ultimately just want one thing; unfettered government power at any cost. Sure, they each play to a different base by approaching different issues, but how is legislating who I can marry any different from legislating foods I eat, lightbulbs or toilets I use, or chemical substances I can put in my body, some even limited by my location?

Argue Obama is different all you want just because the international community can turn a blind eye to war when it is unmanned. But if the last debate showed us anything, it is that both candidates were vying to be the president who begins a war with Iran.

Well there was; international politics stabilized under Obama, and the US won some respect back from the rest of the planet. Something which it lost greatly when Iraq was invaded bypassing the UN

If that pissed everyone off so much why are they silent as Obama goes down the same path with Iran?

and we had to put up with a lying idiot in the white house

Are you claiming that has changed?

and the evil neocon goons that surrounded him

As opposed to the heads of the very businesses and banks Obama complains about being his economic advisors?

What's the difference between the Koch Brothers and Jeff Immelt? The Koch brothers don't pretend to be in favor of whoever gets them the biggest tax rebates.

a whole nation that was practically brainwashed by FOX news standards, and only showed how ignorant and easy to manipulate they were (freedom fries being one example of that).

A whole nation? Really? Two close elections for Bush followed by Obama's victory suggests about half regularly disagree with Fox News.

 

[Dennisch]

He took out Osama. That holds more than enough value to justify the raid. Even without telling Pakistan. The raid shouldn't be an issue.

The drone attacks are on another level. As you say, Pakistan and Yemen are "allies", and unless they ask the US to hover around with the drones, the US should leave that sort of actions to the national forces of those countries.

Obama didn't invade Libya. The UN did, or NATO?. Didn't the French lead that "invasion" ?

Oh, and FOX shouldn't be taken seriously. Srsly.

 

[mister dog]

Guantanamo, Iraq, Afghanistan still there yes, as the whole thing was started in the Bush years, and it would be ethically wrong; to first invade and bomb countries to the ground and then leave them to their own after the chaos was created, something which Obama couldn't afford, because if he did, the extremists like the taliban in Afghanistan would have taken over in no time.

And he is right also to ,unlike some are stating here, see terrorist cells worlwide as the biggest threat to US security, and not Iran, as he himself said in the last debate.
The one that is really eager to have Iran as the number 1 enemy and also attack it military is Romney, not Obama...

Also as you might now, Yemen Afghanistan and also neighbouring Pakistan hold the crop of Jihadists and Al Qaeda (or what remains of it), so you are obliged to go after them there, and stop them before some terrorist cell creates havoc locally, or succeeds to bomb a metro or a bus somewhere in the US for example.

The only efficient way to do that is to do it with drone attacks. Yes they also cause civilian deaths sadly but far less than a full blown invasion, a point upon which you have to agree, no?

 

[Famine]

Guantanamo, Iraq, Afghanistan still there yes, as the whole thing was started in the Bush years, and it would be ethically wrong; to first invade and bomb countries to the ground and then leave them to their own after the chaos was created, something which Obama couldn't afford, because if he did, the extremists like the taliban in Afghanistan would have taken over in no time.

Yet this is what he was promising in 2008 - and it's what got him a Nobel Peace Prize...

And he is right also to ,unlike some are stating here, see terrorist cells worlwide as the biggest threat to US security, and not Iran, as he himself said in the last debate.
The one that is really eager to have Iran as the number 1 enemy and also attack it military is Romney, not Obama...

They're both after Iran next.

Also as you might now, Yemen Afghanistan and also neighbouring Pakistan hold the crop of Jihadists and Al Qaeda (or what remains of it), so you are obliged to go after them there, and stop them before some terrorist cell creates havoc locally, or succeeds to bomb a metro or a bus somewhere in the US for example.

I find it bizarre that you see no problem with ignoring sovereignty in the name of attacking terrorism when Barack Obama does it, but deem it warmongering if George Bush does it (or if Mitt Romney plans to do it).

Really bizarre.


A vote for Obamney is a vote for Obamney. Their words will differ slightly, but their actions will not.

 

[TheBook]

A vote for Obamney is a vote for Obamney. Their words will differ slightly, but their actions will not.

QFT. On my Facebook wall (properly cited, of course).

 

[Danoff]

Only Obama could hand over gazbillions of dollars to wall street investment firms and line the pockets of health insurance companies, maintain ALL wars he promised to get rid of while interfering in others and putting us on the road to new ones he has promised to start "if it comes to that" and still be seen as a candidate who is anti-big business and anti-war.


Why? Why does he get away with that?

Because he's a democrat, and so the people who generally complain loudest about that stuff (in the US) voted for him. I say they should feel cheated and back away from him rather than "staying the course" as it were.

 

[Joel]

Only Obama could hand over gazbillions of dollars to wall street investment firms and line the pockets of health insurance companies, maintain ALL wars he promised to get rid of while interfering in others and putting us on the road to new ones he has promised to start "if it comes to that" and still be seen as a candidate who is anti-big business and anti-war.


Why? Why does he get away with that?

Because he's a democrat, and so the people who generally complain loudest about that stuff (in the US) voted for him. I say they should feel cheated and back away from him rather than "staying the course" as it were.

But...but...but...Romney's mean! He's a wall street-banker-evil-capitalist guy who wants to make abortion and contraception illegal!

 

[mister dog]

He who wants to hit the dog, always finds a stick...

Reality is there's only 2 guys that have a chance of being the next president; you guys go for Romney then? Good luck (we will all need it).

 

[Famine]

Reality is there's only 2 guys that have a chance of being the next president; you guys go for Romney then? Good luck (we will all need it).

Thanks for playing the Reading Only What You Want To Read game:

And of course Mitt Romney is fledermaus-guano insane...

They're both after Iran next.

A vote for Obamney is a vote for Obamney. Their words will differ slightly, but their actions will not.

And this one was posted just after the last time you played the Honest Barack card and got it refuted:

I'm not an American, but if I were I wouldn't vote for Romney or Obama even if they came with a free car.

 

[Joel]

He who wants to hit the dog, always finds a stick...

Reality is there's only 2 guys that have a chance of being the next president; you guys go for Romney then? Good luck (we will all need it).

Nobody is supporting Romney either. Look up Gary Johnson, that's who I (and Danoff and Famine) support. We're just trying to point out that they're hilariously similar candidates. A vote for Obama or Romney is a vote for which Commander in Chief gets to bomb Iran and keep growing the deficit.

Go team!

 

[Dennisch]

Jeb Bush 2016. 👍


Apparently Texas has banned foreign observers for the coming elections....

Clickie

 

[Zenith]

Reality is there's only 2 guys that have a chance of being the next president; you guys go for Romney then? Good luck (we will all need it).

Voting for the lesser of two evils rather than the candidate you want is a great way to hurt your democracy.

Instead of giving attitude, trying processing what Famine and others are telling you. Maybe it'll improve your reading comprehension among other things.

 

[Dennisch]

So, of all the USians in this thread, who will be voting for a third party?

 

[JediRage]

Invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq - People had a problem with the loss of troops and civilians.

Drone strikes - People have a problem with civilians being hit while targetting terrorists. Even though In some cases, tribesmen, motivated by a clan or blood feud, have pointed out a rival as a Taliban member or al-Qaeda sympathiser, they say, in the hope he will be blown to bits.

Iran sanctions - People have a problem with non-unilateral sanctions causing 'poverty' and 'deaths' of civilians by starvation.

So, moral of the story according to the far-left, is lay down your weapons, abandon the attempt at diplomatic and economic persuasion and just let extremists do what they like.

OK, if you adopt this policy, please don't encourage the rise of religious extremism as a form of resistance against your geo-political enemies without thinking ahead about the problems (1980s - Mujahideen vs Soviets). The number of civilians killed, terrorized and subjugated because of this 'noble intervention' is what is causing 'the West' to go back and clean up its own mess.

So many apologists for religious extremists nowadays. Mind-boggling.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Even his signature promise - socialised healthcare - didn't make it to the books. Instead he took the insurer-based system and made it compulsory and more expensive for a worse product. Bush's "evil neo-cons" couldn't have dreamed of any better situation than that.

Oh it is much worse than you might think.

I work for a small restaurant company. We have three locations and about 120 employees. We would love to open more locations and hire more people.

After the Christmas Eve passage of The Affordable Health Care Act, I went through a few of our payrolls and counted how many of our employees were fulltime. We had just about 50 employees that worked more than 35 hours a week.

Since the AHCA mandates that employers with 50 or more employees must provide their employees with health insurance we are stuck. We want to grow, but we cannot afford to pay for healthcare for our employees, and we cannot afford to pay the fines for not.

If that wasn’t bad enough under new guidelines for AHCA purposes fulltime is now defined as 30 hours a week!

Now, not only can we not grow – we are going to have to shrink. We have about 80 employees that work over 30 hours.

We are not alone there are many companies in the same boat as we are.

The AHCA has taken what was once an employer’s incentive to attract good employees, and turned it into mandate that is strangling our whole economy.

A good, fulltime waiter takes home around $700 a week. More than enough to pay for their own insurance.

It is a shame that we are going to have to cut so many employee’s hours just to survive as a company.

 

[Caz]

So, of all the USians in this thread, who will be voting for a third party?

Me.

If i wasnt voting for anyone tho i would write myself in so my ballot couldnt be mistaken for a hanging chad

 

[Danoff]

So, of all the USians in this thread, who will be voting for a third party?

Myself and my wife.

 

[FoolKiller]

Myself and my wife.

Same here, which is saying a lot for my wife. She was raised by parents active in the Democratic Party and with a father who worked for top state officials. When I met her it was all Democrat, but when I quizzed her on issues she agreed more with me than either party. After six years of marriage she finally realized I was right about voting third party not wasting a vote. Last year we both voted independent (libertarian but not on the party ticket) for governor. This year she claims she is voting for Roseanne just because even that makes more sense than Obamney.

 

[jcm]

Yeah, Obamney is pretty horrible. Both the 3rd and 4th parties are much better in my opinion. Personally, I'd love to see the Greens do well, and I'd like to know what you Americans think about the Greens?

 

[Joey D]

So, of all the USians in this thread, who will be voting for a third party?

I will be, I've pretty much made up my mind that I'm voting for Jill Stein. After looking over where all the candidates stand on the different issues, my beliefs fit the closest to hers (although not exact). She hasn't got a hope or a prayer to win, but at least I'll know I'm not responsible for voting in Obama or Romney.

Personally, I'd love to see the Greens do well, and I'd like to know what you Americans think about the Greens?

I really like the party's idea and I am a pretty strong supporter of green initiatives.

 

[Bye Ya]

So, of all the USians in this thread, who will be voting for a third party?

Or not voting.

 

[mister dog]

Thanks for playing the Reading Only What You Want To Read game:

I'm not only adressing you Famine, seems like everyone here is on the same bandwagon that Obama is "as bad" a candidate as Romney (which i don't agree with like you probably noticed).

F-corse it's a noble tought voting for the party that you think fits your style the best, which in this case (US elections) means the candidate that won't make it; like the greens for example, hey.. i used to do the same when i voted in Belgium (altough luckily we have multiple parties that have a shot at being in office, and we are not restricted to one or the other).

But there's a big difference between Belgian elections, (and most european ones) and the US presidential one, and that is that sadly US foreign policy can trigger wars on a world stage if a idiot is in control:

For me; the republicans and Romney are a serious danger to world stability, so if i were an american i would put my vote on Obama, just to prevent that from happening. In my view i think you guys have it wrong that Obama would just as easily attack, or support a attack on Iran.
So it's a case of storing your personal preferences in the fridge, and voting so that the one party you don't want to see in control, doesn't get there, as it can have very serious consequences.

To make a romantic comparison; if Hitler and Nixon would be both running for president, you would vote for Nixon to stop Hitler no? Even tough your heart lays with Jimmy Carter...