Gemmill 35322 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Yes, let's give this man the nuclear codes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxMD02zU9SE&feature=youtu.be&t=49s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 30735 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 In all honesty, what is there to be scared of? Which Bush transgressions has Obama rectified? My thoughts exactly. Obama is like JFK but not in the way a lot of people think, i.e. he's a conservative who's managed to convince his followers that he's a liberal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meenzer 14135 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 That may be the best we can hope for from a country like the US, mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 My thoughts exactly. Obama is like JFK but not in the way a lot of people think, i.e. he's a conservative who's managed to convince his followers that he's a liberal. In the absence of the electorate making any move towards a third party I find myself hoping for a Romney win. At least then there is some popular opposition to the conservative policies of the US voiced in the media. http://www.obamatheconservative.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Yes, let's give this man the nuclear codes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxMD02zU9SE&feature=youtu.be&t=49s As i watched I replaced references to "Jesus", "God" and "Jerusalem" with "Dipsy", "Lala" and "Tellytubbyland". Made me no less concerned for his mental health, but made me chuckle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 20086 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 My thoughts exactly. Obama is like JFK but not in the way a lot of people think, i.e. he's a conservative who's managed to convince his followers that he's a liberal. Obama care is quite a big deal over there tbf. Romney will likely reverse it if he gets in. And the right wing bible bashing nutters in the states accuse Obama of being a socialist. Shows how the definition of liberal changes as you cross the Atlantic I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 30735 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Obama care is quite a big deal over there tbf. Romney will likely reverse it if he gets in. And the right wing bible bashing nutters in the states accuse Obama of being a socialist. Shows how the definition of liberal changes as you cross the Atlantic I suppose. Can't see Romney getting in anyway so it's probably moot. And fair play to Obama on the medical insurance issue, despite it inevitably being watered down. What else has he done that Bush wouldn't have done though? Especially in terms of foreign policy, I can't see a big difference tbh so that's why I agreed with HF. Romney's rhetoric has been a lot more anti-war / foreign intervention than Obama's foreign policy has turned out to be so far. Perhaps we'll see a difference in the 2nd term, when he obviously doesn't have to worry about re-election, but I doubt it somehow. When he got in I used the Tommy Carcetti analogy and I stick by it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 I think there is a difference in Foreign policy and it's that Obama has enshrined as the bipartisan approach actions much worse than Bush. Because Conservatives are nasty pasties and democrats are namby pamby. Bush was under huge scrutiny from civil liberties critics just for illegally monitoring the calls/mails of US citizens, Obama has immunised anyone from prosecution for that minor faux pas and had virtually no blow back from seizing the right to assassinate US citizens (even 16 year olds) with no evidence of wrongdoing. What can a president not do now, if he can do that? Bush was compared to Hitler for merely detaining "terror suspects" captured on 2 fronts (in Iraq/Afghanistan) indefinitely without charge, Obama has been lauded by liberals for maintaining Guantanamo for those in detention already...but also for switching from a capture policy to a murder one, killing suspects (and their families/associates/bystanders) with flying robots in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen & Somalia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 30735 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 With that sort of thing in mind I was tempted to say there's a strong argumment that Obama has been worse but that was tempered by the fact it was Bush who went into Afghanistan and Iraq in the first place whereas perhaps Obama would have been more reticent, especially regarding Iraq. Who knows though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3243 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Andy Parsons said it best when he said Mitt Romney is the guy who wasn't good enough to beat the guy who wasn't good enough to beat George Bush Jr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 18010 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 I thought Obama was effectively paralysed because of congress? Either way, he's done more for the poor and minority groups than any republican would have. He's also withdrawn from Iraq, NOT invaded Iran, and has been much more of a stabilising influence on the Middle East than Romney would be. He's got the US economy growing. Romney's tax cut plans would make the deficit and debt even worse. And this is before taking into account Romney is a magic underpants wearing nutter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 30735 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 I thought Obama was effectively paralysed because of congress? Either way, he's done more for the poor and minority groups than any republican would have. He's also withdrawn from Iraq, NOT invaded Iran, and has been much more of a stabilising influence on the Middle East than Romney would be. He's got the US economy growing. Romney's tax cut plans would make the deficit and debt even worse. And this is before taking into account Romney is a magic underpants wearing nutter. All fair points. I want Obama to win like although I think I'm probably guilty of buying into the myth there too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3243 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 I don't like Romney because he is a Mormon. Sorry moron stupid iPhone autocorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 35322 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 I don't like Romney because he is a Mormon. Sorry moron stupid iPhone autocorrect. You ever thought about getting into standup? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 I thought Obama was effectively paralysed because of congress? Either way, he's done more for the poor and minority groups than any republican would have. He's also withdrawn from Iraq, NOT invaded Iran, and has been much more of a stabilising influence on the Middle East than Romney would be. He's got the US economy growing. Romney's tax cut plans would make the deficit and debt even worse. And this is before taking into account Romney is a magic underpants wearing nutter. How was he paralysed by Congress? I know it's what his supporters would have you believe, but he had a majority in congress for the first 2 years. He proposed moving Guantanamo, not closing it....his plan was to move all of the detainees to a facility in the US. Guantanamo in all but name. Congress voting against that wasn't anything to do with an end to indefinite attention.. Just the location. Congress paralysed him into a drone & Assassination program? Obama fought tooth and nail to stay in Iraq but was forced to withdraw because of the agreement George Bush had made while in office. He'll claim it as a major accomplishment, but it's one for Bush which he was against... http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61731.html Obama has implemented sanctions against Iran that is crippling the citizenry, not the leadership.... http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/08/02/sanctions_cripple_irans_middle_class_not_the_regime This is the equivalent of the Iraq sanctions that killed half a million children and Albright said were "worth it". Despuite having the entire country surrounded by military installations and the nuclear might of the world pointed at the "troublemakers". As for stabilising the Middle East, the concentration on drones over troops on the ground has reduced the destabilisation (at our hands) in the 2 countries we invaded. But the proliferation of drone use across continents means that under Obama "in most countries surveyed, favorable attitudes toward the United States dropped to levels lower than they were during the last year of the Bush administration." http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/checkpoint-washington/post/arab-worlds-views-of-us-president-obama-increasingly-negative-new-poll-finds/2011/07/12/gIQASzHVBI_blog.html This anti western sentiment, (which had been massively reduced at the time of Obamas election) only raises the liklihood of terrorist activity from "militants". He has improved the economy. Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3243 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 You ever thought about getting into standup? With my knees? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 18010 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 How was he paralysed by Congress? I know it's what his supporters would have you believe, but he had a majority in congress for the first 2 years. He proposed moving Guantanamo, not closing it....his plan was to move all of the detainees to a facility in the US. Guantanamo in all but name. Congress voting against that wasn't anything to do with an end to indefinite attention.. Just the location. Congress paralysed him into a drone & Assassination program? Obama fought tooth and nail to stay in Iraq but was forced to withdraw because of the agreement George Bush had made while in office. He'll claim it as a major accomplishment, but it's one for Bush which he was against... http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61731.html Obama has implemented sanctions against Iran that is crippling the citizenry, not the leadership.... http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/08/02/sanctions_cripple_irans_middle_class_not_the_regime This is the equivalent of the Iraq sanctions that killed half a million children and Albright said were "worth it". Despuite having the entire country surrounded by military installations and the nuclear might of the world pointed at the "troublemakers". As for stabilising the Middle East, the concentration on drones over troops on the ground has reduced the destabilisation (at our hands) in the 2 countries we invaded. But the proliferation of drone use across continents means that under Obama "in most countries surveyed, favorable attitudes toward the United States dropped to levels lower than they were during the last year of the Bush administration." http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/checkpoint-washington/post/arab-worlds-views-of-us-president-obama-increasingly-negative-new-poll-finds/2011/07/12/gIQASzHVBI_blog.html This anti western sentiment, (which had been massively reduced at the time of Obamas election) only raises the liklihood of terrorist activity from "militants". He has improved the economy. Yes. I'll admit to not knowing enough about the US political system to know how much of Obama's plans were vetoed by the second house. I'm fairly sure all the things you mention would have been worse under the republicans though. And frankly, I don't really care about Guantanamo and drones as issues. To think that a pro Zionist like Romney will improve matters in the Middle East is surely laughable though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 I'll admit to not knowing enough about the US political system to know how much of Obama's plans were vetoed by the second house. I'm fairly sure all the things you mention would have been worse under the republicans though. And frankly, I don't really care about Guantanamo and drones as issues. To think that a pro Zionist like Romney will improve matters in the Middle East is surely laughable though. Romney won't. There will be an effective opposition to any choices he makes though. Unlike there is with Obama in power. For example if Obama uses force on Iran (beyond sanctions) there'll be broad bipartisan support and vitrtually zero media inspection of the rights and wrongs of such a decision. Certainly within the mainstream media. If Romney were to do it there would be far more scrutiny of the decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 20086 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 (edited) obamacare was a massive deal in the states. it doesn't seem that revolutionary when you're used to state funded healthcare but it was huge over there, the race might not be so tight if he'd saved it for his second term. i think we see a more liberal agenda if he's re-elected and hopefully no more wars. hurricane sandy will be good for obama. Edited November 2, 2012 by Dr Gloom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 The race isn't close Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Mitt is roughly as likely to win as Swansea are to beat Chelsea... http://www.oddschecker.com/specials/politics-and-election/us-presidential-election/winner http://www.oddschecker.com/football/english/premier-league/swansea-v-chelsea/winner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 30735 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 All the stuff I've seen/heard seems to suggest Romney might win the popular vote but won't win the election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 20086 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 The race isn't close It's closer than it should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 18010 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Each on 47%? I'd say that was quite close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 the election isn't decided on a popular vote though Obama has 303.4 electoral votes in the lates poll, up 9.3 Romney has 234.6 http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/author/nate-silver/ 56.3% versus 43.6%, so almost a 13 point lead. It got closer than it had ever been for a week or so after the first debate, so some people got a bit excited for a while. But Romney's not once managed to tie the electoral vote or get closer than a few points off Obama's tail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now