USA Politics

I don't really wanna get into politics, but I just wanted to say I am incredibly relieved to see Obama has won. I was a little worried there.

I went to vote for the first time ever (turned eighteen back in June). Imagine my surprise when I see Roseanne Barr on my ballot. :D I'd forgotten she was running.

Anyway, Obama won. God bless America.
 
I feel relieved as well.. It's maybe true that Obama is not as good as Romney for business, but he's certainly less hawk, which is what matters for us non Americans..

But there's another reason: Obama carried on his shoulders the mistakes of the worst president ever, plus the Crisis. We could have done better, dare more, but yet he took the presidency in a very unfortunate moment for US. So he deserved a second chance.

And another one: He has now the opportunity to punish Wall Street, who shamelessly turned him down, after all the help it got. I will be very disappointed if he won't..
 
Yesterday I saw an item on TV with someone (forgot his name) who both knew Romney and Obama. He went to school with both of them and still is friends with Obama.

Some comments he made making the differences clear between two different people (and two different presidents):

Romney doesn't know working/middle class people that well. He never flies in a normal airliner (always private jet). He never went to the grocery store to do his own shopping.

Obama was probably the best law student at Harvard (at least in his time). He could have worked everywhere with a huge salary. Instead he chose to work for a small loan trying to help the community.

My own thoughts to that:
Romney is about money and success and only for the people who feel the same.
Obama is for people.

I know that some of you people will disagree with me here and pardon me for saying, but I am very glad that you guys are in the minority.

 
I am very interested to see if circumstances have changed enough to see if Obama is able to use his second term to pull off what he couldn't in the first.
 
______no5 said:
I feel relieved as well.. It's maybe true that Obama is not as good as Romney for business, but he's certainly less hawk, which is what matters for us non Americans..

But there's another reason: Obama carried on his shoulders the mistakes of the worst president ever, plus the Crisis. We could have done better, dare more, but yet he took the presidency in a very unfortunate moment for US. So he deserved a second chance.

And another one: He has now the opportunity to punish Wall Street, who shamelessly turned him down, after all the help it got. I will be very disappointed if he won't..
Click to expand...


I don't think he is less of a hawk than Romney. I was shocked so many Latinos voted for him as well. Obama has deported more people in 4 years than Bush did in 8... I'm sure there were plenty of non-Latinos in that, but still. Also he may have plans to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan but he escalated Drone attacks as though they were on sale 10 for $10.

I still think he is the man for the job. Thank god the U.S sat back, used its brain and made a good decision. I also agree that it is good the GOP maintained the house, some dissent is necessary. Remember the good ol' days when people only voted for president and the runner up became VP? How cool would it be to have Romney as VP? I think it is important to have someone in your face telling you your full of shit every day, just to make sure you don't get lost in a group of "yes men."
 
Now that this election is over with, I'd like to ask you Americans on here a question:

Why is it that hardly any candidate is nominated for a second try after losing one election? For example, Romney is not going to be the Republican candidate for the next election. I looked up the timeline of previous elections and saw that the last time a candidate went through a second campaign after losing out in the first, was Thomas E. Dewey who lost to Roosevelt in 1944 and then to Truman in 1948. Before him, William Bryan who lost to William McKinley twice (1896 and 1900).

Is it because the parties are reluctant to nominate a candidate who has already lost one election, or is it simply because it is too expensive for most candidates to go through a second nomination campaign?
 
I always wondered that. I particularly wondered why Al Gore didn't run a second time since it seems like the public has always really liked him, and he only lost by the tiniest margin (and it was only after a recount).
 
Forostar said:
My own thoughts to that:
Romney is about money and success and only for the people who feel the same.
Obama is for people.
Click to expand...

True. But, it remains to be seen whether Obama is good for people.

From today's Wall Street Journal:

What Obama's Victory Means for Business

[EDIT: Tried to hide this long article using spoiler tags, but they're acting up on me. So, click on link instead.]

Interestingly, the U.S. stock market is in free-fall today, though that is less a reaction to Obama winning in and of itself than a reaction to the uncertainty re taxes, budgets, etc. as a likely result of the House Republicans likely digging in their heels and refusing to compromise with Obama.
 
I'd say that party politics is why the loser never get's nominated again. They put all that time, money,and effort in just to lose that they feel like it would just be a case wasting more resources
 
And there are always multiple candidates for party's presidential candidate, so they surely put out additional pressure after the loss.
 
Onhell said:
I don't think he is less of a hawk than Romney. I was shocked so many Latinos voted for him as well. Obama has deported more people in 4 years than Bush did in 8... I'm sure there were plenty of non-Latinos in that, but still. Also he may have plans to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan but he escalated Drone attacks as though they were on sale 10 for $10.
Click to expand...

Deportations is not a relevant argument for his hawkness, correct me if I'm wrong but this term is war related.. The way that he handled Lybia, or he's still handling Iran /Israel & Syria, shows a much less war oriented president that Bush was, or Romney seemed to be.
 
Cornfed Hick said:
True. But, it remains to be seen whether Obama is good for people.

From today's Wall Street Journal:

What Obama's Victory Means for Business

[EDIT: Tried to hide this long article using spoiler tags, but they're acting up on me. So, click on link instead.]

Interestingly, the U.S. stock market is in free-fall today, though that is less a reaction to Obama winning in and of itself than a reaction to the uncertainty re taxes, budgets, etc. as a likely result of the House Republicans likely digging in their heels and refusing to compromise with Obama.
Click to expand...

As I watched CNN the morning after the election an anchor said that the Dow dropped 100 some odd points, because of Obama's reelection. In other words, apparently the economy is racist. :p When I got to work and was able to read an actual article regarding the matter, turns out the market dropped over 500 points and it was actually due to the EU's news that their economic woes are about to get worse... nothing to do with Obama.

______no5 said:
Deportations is not a relevant argument for his hawkness, correct me if I'm wrong but this term is war related.. The way that he handled Lybia, or he's still handling Iran /Israel & Syria, shows a much less war oriented president that Bush was, or Romney seemed to be.
Click to expand...


You're right, the deportation is just more of him being a hard ass. But if you read my full post I do mention he has escalated drone attacks to an unprecedented scale.
 
due to the EU's news that their economic woes are about to get worse
Click to expand...

5 billion euro of taxpayer's money has been allocated to projects that don't fulfill necessary requirements.
That doesn't sound grim at all, but that money has been spent by individual states via their access to EU fonds. Which is another sign of rift appearing inside Europe's capacity to jointly rule about economic policies.

Europe's economic situation is going down drain. You cannot trade real industrial output for "financial business" which doesn't create value, and that's what they did. Doesn't matter if the money itself has value inside a monetary system (which is a complete and utter bullshit), it doesn't have in real world; where it's just a piece of paper proving that you have a real value somewhere else. Rant over.
 
Onhell said:
You're right, the deportation is just more of him being a hard ass. But if you read my full post I do mention he has escalated drone attacks to an unprecedented scale.
Click to expand...

I did read it.. Well, I guess is not that easy not being a hawk at all, while president in such a country, especially after Bush. There are huge interests behind, one can't let them down completely.

So yes, he's a hawk, but less a hawk than Romney.. And if the later didn't have the chance to prove my claim or the opposite, I'm glad.

______no5 said:
It's maybe true that Obama is not as good as Romney for business, but he's certainly less hawk, which is what matters for us non Americans..
Click to expand...
 
Here's what I learned this election.

1. The 2008 demographic shift is real, and puts the current Republican Party in a bind.
2. Even though more people voted for Democrat house candidates, the Republicans won a large House majority.
3. The Tea Party has cost the GOP control of the Senate (Tea Party candidates lost Delaware and Nevada in 2010, a strong primary challenge convinced Sen. Snowe of Maine to quit, and Tea Party candidates lost Indiana, Florida, and Missouri).
4. The Obama Coalition is real, and may last for a generation. More young, women, and minority voters voted this year than in 2008.
5. Mitt Romney would have won if he was allowed to run as the man who got angry at an evangelical radio show host in 2007.
6. http://whitepeoplemourningromney.tumblr.com some people have ridiculous reactions. The USA survived a Civil War, Rutherfraud B. Hayes, the Adams-Clay corrupt bargain, Richard Nixon, and George W. Bush, do you really think Obamacare will end the Union?
 
I must say, I'm completely disappointed in some facebook posts i've seen (imagine that) regarding states leaving the Union. That's just crazy grumpy talk, but I can't believe that people really say that stuff. (especially regarding Loosey's #6).

PS, Loosey, glad to see you've survived the hurricane!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top