Jump to content

US Presidential Elections 2012

pap

By pap,
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

anothersaintinsouthsea

anothersaintinsouthsea

Posted
Posted
The whole notion of Obama as the first non-white US president was very noble, well-meaning, progressive, but imo its created a mess in that the US has gone in the opposite direction.

 

 

well that's the fault of hardcore (but sizeable) minority in the Republican Party - the extreme (often religious) right - who just can't get over the fact that their Commander-in-Chief is black.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
anothersaintinsouthsea

anothersaintinsouthsea

Posted
Posted
Four more years of Blair-like governance for the US. All fart and no sh*t.

 

Apart from intoducing universal health coverage and stopping the auto industry from collapsing.

 

Four more years of obsessing over Asia and negelct over Europe.

 

Europe should be able to get its own **** in order. Asia is where it is at and the UK (and Europe) should be more proactive in making firends in China and India.

 

Four more years of asymmetrical trans-Atlantic relations.

 

Four more years of US mis-treatment of its closest ally because of a colossal chip on the shoulder of Mr. President.

 

As ever but at least Obama didn't get us involved in any new illegal and costly wars unlike the last Republican.

 

 

Four more years of impotent US governance due to the Republican majority in the House.

 

Partisan observers aside, it is pretty clear where the blame lies and perhpas one of the reasons the Republicans lost despite the economy being in such bad shape. Lets be clear - this should have been a shoe in victory for the Republicans.

 

Obama is a f**king useless public speaker without his little glass screens in front of him, as was proven in the first televised debate.

 

Well it's pretty clear you're not a fan. Most observers thought he was poor in the first debate but scored narrow wins in the other two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thedelldays

Thedelldays

Posted
Posted (edited)
Well, it's another glad soul here.

 

While I think I'll be a while before the Republican Party is replete with neo-fascists again, still a good thing that they've been kept out.

is it true that if the yanks had a voting system you wanted, the other guy would have got in...im sure I heard on the radio when I woke up that the Other bloke had actually got more votes...?

 

 

edit..just looked, Romney won 2,000,000 more votes...

bizarre

 

also, I do love it how people get so wrapped up in the US elections over here...completely and utterly mental as to why.....

Edited by Thedelldays
Link to comment
Share on other sites
alpine_saint

alpine_saint

Posted
Posted (edited)
Apart from intoducing universal health coverage and stopping the auto industry from collapsing.

 

 

 

Europe should be able to get its own **** in order. Asia is where it is at and the UK (and Europe) should be more proactive in making firends in China and India.

 

 

 

As ever but at least Obama didn't get us involved in any new illegal and costly wars unlike the last Republican.

 

 

 

 

Partisan observers aside, it is pretty clear where the blame lies and perhpas one of the reasons the Republicans lost despite the economy being in such bad shape. Lets be clear - this should have been a shoe in victory for the Republicans.

 

 

 

Well it's pretty clear you're not a fan. Most observers thought he was poor in the first debate but scored narrow wins in the other two.

 

Yes, I am not a fan. I think he is on a par with Jimmy Carter in effectiveness and competence.

 

Its clear you are a fan, and your comments reflect this. You comment about "new, costly wars" was a complete diversion that didnt even address my points. Oh, and a valliant attempt to blame all his short comings on the Republicans, but I'm afraid it just sounds like second-rate politicking...

 

EDIT: My personal opinion - having the milestone of the first black President was a massive step forward for the minority communities in the US. I simply think that Colin Powell shouldnt have lost his balls and it should have been him. The first black president having more Republican values might have promoted better harmony over the issue in the US.

Edited by alpine_saint
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pap

pap

Posted
  • Author
Posted
is it true that if the yanks had a voting system you wanted, the other guy would have got in...im sure I heard on the radio when I woke up that the Other bloke had actually got more votes...?

 

bizarre

 

also, I do love it how people get so wrapped up in the US elections over here...completely and utterly mental as to why.....

 

It's definitely possible; happened three times in the past. The final cut is decided by the Electoral College, a system which weights the results of individual states.

 

We're no better, and actually a lot worse. Our leader is really derived from the result of around 150 marginal seats, each designed to represent 65K people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thedelldays

Thedelldays

Posted
Posted
It's definitely possible; happened three times in the past. The final cut is decided by the Electoral College, a system which weights the results of individual states.

 

We're no better, and actually a lot worse. Our leader is really derived from the result of around 150 marginal seats, each designed to represent 65K people.

no better..at least our leader won more votes than the others....imagine the meltdown you would have if cameron was in charge and his party never even won the race...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
norwaysaint

norwaysaint

Posted
Posted

Yes, Obama won the most votes, I think the last president to win despite not getting the most votes was George Dubya in his first election. It's quite funny trying to explain First Past the Post to people living in countries with PR. They just keep asking "So all of those millions of votes count for absolutely NOTHING? So many people don't get represented at all?".

 

I don't mind FPTP though, PR actually brings about enough of its own problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
anothersaintinsouthsea

anothersaintinsouthsea

Posted
Posted
Yes, I am not a fan. I think he is on a par with Jimmy Carter in effectiveness and competence.

 

Its clear you are a fan, and your comments reflect this. You comment about "new, costly wars" was a complete diversion that didnt even address my points. Oh, and a valliant attempt to blame all his short comings on the Republicans, but I'm afraid it just sounds like second-rate politicking...

 

EDIT: My personal opinion - having the milestone of the first black President was a massive step forward for the minority communities in the US. I simply think that Colin Powell shouldnt have lost his balls and it should have been him. The first black president having more Republican values might have promoted better harmony over the issue in the US.

 

The points you were making were rhetoric and implied that if Romey had got in that things would be different. You mentioned asymetry and abusing their closest ally so I alluded to the most blatent example of asymetry and abusing the relationship - all of which happened under a Republican and not Obama.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pap

pap

Posted
  • Author
Posted
i do believe the tories won the race......

 

anyway...Obama is just as bad as the rest of them...all fart and no poo....so boring how some channels gave it almost uninterupted coverage

 

If the Tories won the race, then they would not be in Government with the Lib Dems.

 

If they had any balls, they'd have gone to the polls again. Fact is, they f**ked up in a two-horse race against an unpopular incumbent government.

 

The majority of the country didn't want them, whether you count votes or seats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
alpine_saint

alpine_saint

Posted
Posted
The points you were making were rhetoric and implied that if Romey had got in that things would be different. You mentioned asymetry and abusing their closest ally so I alluded to the most blatent example of asymetry and abusing the relationship - all of which happened under a Republican and not Obama.

 

What, we were bullied into Afgahnistan and Iraq, were we ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Deano6

Deano6

Posted
Posted
Four more years of Blair-like governance for the US. All fart and no sh*t.

 

Four more years of obsessing over Asia and negelct over Europe.

 

Four more years of asymmetrical trans-Atlantic relations.

 

Four more years of US mis-treatment of its closest ally because of a colossal chip on the shoulder of Mr. President.

 

Four more years of impotent US governance due to the Republican majority in the House.

 

Obama is a f**king useless public speaker without his little glass screens in front of him, as was proven in the first televised debate.

 

Every SINGLE one of these would have been worse under Romney. And call me shallow, but I don't really care how great he is at speaking without glass screens. That's not what he got voted in for, in fact what a ridiculously trivial thing to worry about!

 

Regarding race relations - was there more or less racism at football matches before there were black players playing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bridge too far

bridge too far

Posted
Posted
If the Tories won the race, then they would not be in Government with the Lib Dems.

 

If they had any balls, they'd have gone to the polls again. Fact is, they f**ked up in a two-horse race against an unpopular incumbent government.

 

The majority of the country didn't want them, whether you count votes or seats.

 

Too right.

 

The Conservatives achieved 36.1% of the vote in 2010. Labour had 29% and the LibDems 23%.

 

I think a party needs 50.1% of the vote to secure a majority, Jamie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pap

pap

Posted
  • Author
Posted
so, in paps world.....the country never wants any leader then..?

 

Combination of the political system, the voting system and our constitutional make-up, dear boy.

 

The political system is indirect. We don't vote on a leader; they're kind of picked for us by party members and/or trade unions. Worse still are the leadership elections that happen mid-Parliament.

 

Voting system isn't designed to deliver a clear-cut majority verdict.

 

Constitutional make up means we don't get to do anything as ridiculous as pick our head of state, unlike the Americans, who do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
trousers

trousers

Posted
Posted
Combination of the political system, the voting system and our constitutional make-up, dear boy.

 

The political system is indirect. We don't vote on a leader; they're kind of picked for us by party members and/or trade unions. Worse still are the leadership elections that happen mid-Parliament.

 

Voting system isn't designed to deliver a clear-cut majority verdict.

 

Constitutional make up means we don't get to do anything as ridiculous as pick our head of state, unlike the Americans, who do.

 

Technically correct of course but I would venture the majority of swing voters in this country vote for the party whose leader they prefer rather than the party per se (either consciously or subconsciously)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pap

pap

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Technically correct of course but I would venture the majority of swing voters in this country vote for the party whose leader they prefer rather than the party per se.

 

I'd have to accept that some do, certainly. However, one of the biggest drivers in voting decisions is self-interest, and I'd argue that how much someone likes a leader also depends on self-interest.

 

Look at Maggie. People hated her when she abolished free school milk, but flocked to her in droves when she promised them they could buy their own council houses.

 

I know that in this age of celebrity it's easy to dismiss the value that people place on policy. I've never seen a member of the public snuggling up with a nice piece of draft legislation - but that's hardly the point. Policy is ammunition, unloaded with abandon on the various organs which slavishly prop up political parties. Every bit of it is melted down, reforged, re-fired and regurgitated by idiots who think they finally have something to say.

 

Yes, personality is important - but policy is the difference between being a milk snatcher or a provider of free money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
alpine_saint

alpine_saint

Posted
Posted (edited)
Every SINGLE one of these would have been worse under Romney. And call me shallow, but I don't really care how great he is at speaking without glass screens. That's not what he got voted in for, in fact what a ridiculously trivial thing to worry about!

 

Regarding race relations - was there more or less racism at football matches before there were black players playing?

 

U what ???

 

How would Romney have been impotent with a majority in the House ???

 

And yes, imo you are shallow. Obama is about as articulate as Ronald Reagan without his glass screens. Not sure I want the Western world led by a dribbling fool.

 

And your question is just plain ridiculous. A better analogy would be "Is there less or more racism in football since Rio Ferdinand started going on about a black players union?". I am not saying it is right at all, but if any minority interest group, whether it be blacks, women, gays, etc. starts differentiating itself from the rest of society, and in a text-book definition of the word start acting in a discriminatory manner themselves, it triggers a response from those elements in the rest of society that have a problem with them.

 

But, WTF, you carry on rolling with your bandwagon of cliches..

Edited by alpine_saint
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anothersaintinsouthsea

anothersaintinsouthsea

Posted
Posted
Hush now....this forum isn't the place to dispel the 101 myths of Thatcherism....

 

As ever it is how the story is sold that matters not the actual truth. Labour got rid of free milk to secondary school kids int he 60s, Thatcher got rid of free milke for over 7s when Education Secretary in the 70s and then got rid of it for over 4s in the 80s as PM.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15809645

Link to comment
Share on other sites
saintbletch

saintbletch

Posted
Posted
A question.

 

Is the USA more, or less racially divided as a result of an Obama presidency over the past 4 years ?

 

I mad a quick scan of the papers this morning for images of the election day in the US, and for me the racial division between Obama and Romney supports is very, very pronounced.

 

The whole notion of Obama as the first non-white US president was very noble, well-meaning, progressive, but imo its created a mess in that the US has gone in the opposite direction.

 

I cannot help wondering if Hillary Clinton would have achieved more.

 

Good question.

 

I'd say more divided but that is going to change over the next 4+ years.

 

But it seems that from your question you feel this is a bad thing. I'd suggest that their country needs to go through a wider division before it can start to come together again.

 

Either that or the Republicans will spend a long time in the political wilderness.

 

Unsurprisingly Obama attracted a large proportion of the non-white American/European vote. The reason this matters is that this demographic will increase at the greatest pace over the next 4 years. One stat I heard was that 50,000 Hispanic/Latinos reach the age of majority every month. Obama also attracted a large percentage of the youth and female votes too and got 93% of the male, black vote.

 

The Republican heartland is getting marginalised. 50%+ of its target has the wrong chromosomal configuration. The white American numbers will fall as a percentage of the population. The rest is getting older and dying all the time. As a party they are in trouble if they can't beat an impotent President presiding over an economic backdrop from Hell.

 

Unless they embrace racial differences, make theism less central to their world view and, perhaps relatedly, recognise that women have the right to control their own uteri; then they will be unelectable in 2016 (assuming the Democrats don't field a serial-killing paedophile).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ohio Saint

Ohio Saint

Posted
Posted

Unless they embrace racial differences, make theism less central to their world view and, perhaps relatedly, recognise that women have the right to control their own uteri; then they will be unelectable in 2016 (assuming the Democrats don't field a serial-killing paedophile).

 

Good to see that someone is actually up to date with things and not just posting stuff from their own arse as can be seen above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
alpine_saint

alpine_saint

Posted
Posted
Why does it not surprise me that Alps bases his judgement of a leader on his/her ability to take to a public stage and talk a load of hot air?

 

What else are politicians there for ?

 

You're really funny. You have this strange habit of trying to make sarcastic comments that are actually correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sheaf Saint

Sheaf Saint

Posted
Posted
What else are politicians there for ?

 

You're really funny. You have this strange habit of trying to make sarcastic comments that are actually correct.

 

Just because someone isn't especailly good at speaking without a script or an autocue doesn't make them a bad leader, likewise being good at it doesn't guarantee good leadership skills. It's actions, rather than words, that ultimately matters.

 

Adolf Hitler was a very good public speaker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pap

pap

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Good question.

 

I'd say more divided but that is going to change over the next 4+ years.

 

But it seems that from your question you feel this is a bad thing. I'd suggest that their country needs to go through a wider division before it can start to come together again.

 

Either that or the Republicans will spend a long time in the political wilderness.

 

Unsurprisingly Obama attracted a large proportion of the non-white American/European vote. The reason this matters is that this demographic will increase at the greatest pace over the next 4 years. One stat I heard was that 50,000 Hispanic/Latinos reach the age of majority every month. Obama also attracted a large percentage of the youth and female votes too and got 93% of the male, black vote.

 

The Republican heartland is getting marginalised. 50%+ of its target has the wrong chromosomal configuration. The white American numbers will fall as a percentage of the population. The rest is getting older and dying all the time. As a party they are in trouble if they can't beat an impotent President presiding over an economic backdrop from Hell.

 

Unless they embrace racial differences, make theism less central to their world view and, perhaps relatedly, recognise that women have the right to control their own uteri; then they will be unelectable in 2016 (assuming the Democrats don't field a serial-killing paedophile).

 

I was speaking with a staunchly Republican colleague a couple of hours ago. He is in mourning. He genuinely believes that this is the end of the Republican party, citing the growth in the Latino population as you have. The make-up of the US population is changing rapidly; it's one of the most fascinating things about the place. From my experience, the North is much better integrated than the South, but everywhere you go, you see an abundance of Latinos in low-paying or menial jobs. I've found the social stratification to be a little unnerving. I think I need to go to Miami or Arizona for a pallet-cleanser.

 

Another issue is co-ordinated migration. African Americans are moving back to the South en masse. Many places already have the ridiculous "majority minority" tag, a term which in itself, shows how predominant White American culture is over there. The rise of a black middle class and black mayors in southern cities is encouraging, but in general, the US is needless and dangerously segregated. Right now, the blame culture seems confined to bars and presidential elections, but I honestly wouldn't be surprised if it leads to a civil war down the line. Probably not in my lifetime, but all the seeds for conflict are there. It's going to be difficult for the White American population to continue to view the Latinos as untermenschen when the population is 65%-70%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...