US Elections 2012 Part II: The Conventions, Debates and Election results

[Jmac]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Actually, to not vote means you don't actually care if either candidates win... So you won't be protesting, you just don't think it matters.

So can you honestly say it is fine if Romney is your next president?

Because here in Australia, I think it matters who you end up with. Obama is a great old-school Republican President (despite the D next to his name). While Romney doesn't stand for anything despite calling himself a Republican. So technically it is true that you are voting between two Republicans, but in reality it is between a Republican and someone who has no identity whatsoever.

Easy there killer! Who said I wasn't gonna vote? I've voted in the last 3 elections and have been an active voter for the last 12 years.

What I meant was for me it's picking the candidate who may follow through their campinage promises and those who don't, thus the lesser of two evils analogy. For me whats important is the stabilization of my country. So I'll look at the both candidates under a microscope and weight the pros and cons of each person and vote accordingly. Voting empowers me of choosing the next person that'll lead my country to a better future. Because what I worry more about is not what's going to happen during my time, but where the country is and heading during my childrens time.

So as an American citizen, taxpayer, and voter: I take my civic duties very seriously, so future generations won't have to struggle to get by.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Neki Ecko

Vexx, I was at school but I did read the whole thing and I have to be honest, I wonder why they want to throw blame on somebody that doesnt have any control of the situation. Like that S/P isssue, I remember plenty of times that Obama want both sides to agreed but GOP didnt want to play, even with the stimulus that wasnt his called, he still got blame for it. I just dumbfound about that. Obama screwed up from time to time but he was still trying to bring both sides to the table and actually getting stuff done.

As was mentioned before, people lay the blame inappropriately in part because they don't understand the roles and powers of the government. I suspect it's also because there's a hope that the government can do more. All countries of the world are experiencing low economic growth or contracting economies; given how interconnected our economies are, how would a single country suddenly return to the most explosive growth that it had ever experienced? That's what people want, though, and it's frightening to think that we might not be able to do anything about it directly.

Heck, if Americans have gotten into the idea that you can take a pill to lose weight right away, or a pill to make yourself feel better instantly, why wouldn't they think that with a single vote they can turn their economic situation around? The idea that it won't matter who we elect, and that this might continue for years numbering the double-digits, is a frightening, depressing prospect for many people.

Originally Posted by Vexx

Up to now, the democrats have been notoriously inept on either communicating what they're about or in effectively undermining GOP thin-air assertions. In short, they're pansies - they also suffer from that which a democracy needs: diversity. They're aren't in lockstep, they argue with each other, etc. They let the GOP define the language, which often loses the debate before it starts.

I never viewed the Democrats as being "pansies," just a bit more civilized. The GOP came off as a bunch of bully hooligans, kicked off by Representative Joe Wilson shouting "you lie!" during the President's speech back in 2009. Their ability to act in relative unison is impressive, in a way, but didn't strike me as being very good for the government. The Democrats' willingness to disagree with each other certainly doesn't make for a strong platform (particularly compared to the GOP, who largely act as one), but it seems more like they're actually thinking about things, and are more likely to negotiate with one another. With the GOP, they've played "my way or the highway" this entire time, and with their acts of unity and their numbers in the government, they could afford to.

In the event that the Republicans win big in the coming elections, my guess is that the Democrats will similarly polarize and begin to act in unison. Perhaps they'll also be obstructionists. I haven't been following government matters for long enough to know if this is a trend: perhaps the smaller, less powerful group in the government always behaves this way.

[Neki Ecko]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Actually, to not vote means you don't actually care if either candidates win... So you won't be protesting, you just don't think it matters.

So can you honestly say it is fine if Romney is your next president?

Because here in Australia, I think it matters who you end up with. Obama is a great old-school Republican President (despite the D next to his name). While Romney doesn't stand for anything despite calling himself a Republican. So technically it is true that you are voting between two Republicans, but in reality it is between a Republican and someone who has no identity whatsoever.

To me, I think that Obama would been a fine Republican indeed , but at the end of the day, I believe that Romney isnt what American needs right now but there is some many people that doesnt like Obama, that they will move the vote to him, but I think we will see, next week how Obama plays this.

[ganbaru]

Analysis: Romney looking for voters' respect, if not love
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...87U06S20120831
Is he out of his mind ?

[DonQuigleone]

The upside of a Republican presidency is that it will finally put there crazy ideas to rest, once they finally get implemented.

Of course, that means that they'll probably end out sinking the country into a depression...

[Anh_Minh]

Eh. Depends on whether they can foist off the blame on the obstructionism of the bleeding heart liberals, the illegals, and/or the liberal media.

[GDB]

Well, considering they've been trying to put the blame of Bush's failures on Obama, I'd say that's almost a guarantee.

[Neki Ecko]

Or like one person told me, that you will get into the office, then they will pass the buck to you, no question about it.But here is something to think as the Nov elections is coming. As of right now, Romney is doing very poorly in the Black, Latina, Others and Gay Voters right now. He has to get atleast 60% or higher of the white votes to win. Here is my question, do you think that he can get that very high percent to win? (For the record, there is only two other GOP that got that high of percent, Nixon and Reagan and both of them won by 20% or higher)

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Eh. Depends on whether they can foist off the blame on the obstructionism of the bleeding heart liberals, the illegals, and/or the liberal media.

Maybe, but if they hold a majority in Congress, Senate and the Presidency (which I find plausible) then they won't be able to blame anyone else really...

[GDB]

Sorry, but I personally don't feel it's a good idea to give them 100% power just so they can't blame anyone.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by GDB

Sorry, but I personally don't feel it's a good idea to give them 100% power just so they can't blame anyone.

Even if they would have full power, they will still try to put the blame on somebody else, or changing the subject of attention .

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by GDB

Sorry, but I personally don't feel it's a good idea to give them 100% power just so they can't blame anyone.

As I said, the unfortunate downside is that they'll probably destroy the country in the process...

However, the upside is that that will probably be the end of the Republican party as we know it. Political power at the moment is a poisoned chalice right now. It's already destroyed the previous democratic majority. Whoever wins now will lose later.

If the Democrats win this cycle, then the Republicans with the wrong-headed ideas will be stronger then ever. People need real life experience to prove them wrong.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

As I said, the unfortunate downside is that they'll probably destroy the country in the process...

However, the upside is that that will probably be the end of the Republican party as we know it.

That's like burning down a house to fix a termite problem.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Neki Ecko

Or like one person told me, that you will get into the office, then they will pass the buck to you, no question about it.But here is something to think as the Nov elections is coming. As of right now, Romney is doing very poorly in the Black, Latina, Others and Gay Voters right now. He has to get atleast 60% or higher of the white votes to win. Here is my question, do you think that he can get that very high percent to win? (For the record, there is only two other GOP that got that high of percent, Nixon and Reagan and both of them won by 20% or higher)

Vote suppression of minorities, the young, the elderly, veterans.

While all the lights and mirrors are going on at the convention, in almost every key flippable state, the Republicans are pushing falsely named "voter id" laws which translate to vote suppression of minorities, the young, the elderly, veterans. Anyone who might be inclined to vote "D".

Fortunately, there's a few judges who have noticed that but there needs to be many more faster.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Fortunately, there's a few judges who have noticed that but there needs to be many more faster.

Am I wrong but, in the case of Florida there have been judgement against thoses law but the gouvernor is doing as ifthey didn't happen ?

[Ithekro]

Question: Isn't everyone suppose to have a State ID anyway?
For when you are asked to identify yourself by an officer of the law.

[flying ^]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Question: Isn't everyone suppose to have a State ID anyway?

and for libs to resist having that simple requirement to show up in poll centers boggles the sane mind.

question to non-Americans... Do you have to show a photo ID to vote in local/state/province/natl elections? Right now as it stands, USA is once again... exceptional... when it comes to this

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Question: Isn't everyone suppose to have a State ID anyway?
For when you are asked to identify yourself by an officer of the law.

Hmmm, I think the standard ID is a driver's license. Poor people are less likely to drive cars so...

EDIT: @Flying, I just need my voter registration card.

[flying ^]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Vote suppression of minorities, the young, the elderly, veterans.

While all the lights and mirrors are going on at the convention, in almost every key flippable state, the Republicans are pushing falsely named "voter id" laws which translate to vote suppression of minorities, the young, the elderly, veterans. Anyone who might be inclined to vote "D".

Fortunately, there's a few judges who have noticed that but there needs to be many more faster.

photo id should be the least of you democrats' worries

the 'unmotivated' and those who simply 'moved on' should cause your party to be alarmed

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by flying ^

question to non-Americans... Do you have to show a photo ID to vote in local/state/province/natl elections? Right now as it stands, USA is once again... exceptional... when it comes to this

Here there a list of ID than can be used for the voting, the health insurance card is the mostly used one as everybody have one. You don't have to get a ID than would be used only for voting.