Thread: US Presidential Election - Peanut Gallery

Feel free to drop in if you want to discuss the presidential election in the US. The election will begin tomorrow, Tuesday, November 6, 2012.

The race between Obama and Romney appears to be extremely close, with some polls placing Obama in the lead and other polls placing Romney ahead.

The BBC ran a poll of all the polls and shows that the majority show Obama leading by a narrow margin.

BBC News - Obama v Romney: US election poll tracker

Collating all the results and factoring in the electoral college, Nate Silver's famous blog FiveThirtyEight gives a bit of a different prediction.

Originally Posted by zxc

Collating all the results and factoring in the electoral college, Nate Silver's famous blog FiveThirtyEight gives a bit of a different prediction.

I would love to join the discussion, Deb.
Sadly, I only know that Obama lives in the White House, that he has a cute wife and two children, and as he speaks, he looks first left, then right, left, and right, and never straight forward.

They are pretty much the same as far as I can tell. It all seems a bit meaningless, a charade.
For that reason this election is not interesting, even though the most powerful president on earth is being elected.
Obama was supposed to be a fresh breeze, a democrat, black etc.
But his foreign policy continued in the same way and the drone attacks started.

Originally Posted by Hanna

They are pretty much the same as far as I can tell. It all seems a bit meaningless, a charade.
For that reason this election is not interesting, even though the most powerful president on earth is being elected.
Obama was supposed to be a fresh breeze, a democrat, black etc.
But his foreign policy continued in the same way and the drone attacks started.

Well, you're correct about that. With either candidate, the drone attacks will continue. I have mixed feelings about it, myself. I think they're a necessary tool against terrorism, but then again sometimes innocents suffer. It's hard to fair to either argument, I think.

Originally Posted by kgcole

Well, you're correct about that. With either candidate, the drone attacks will continue. I have mixed feelings about it, myself. I think they're a necessary tool against terrorism, but then again sometimes innocents suffer. It's hard to fair to either argument, I think.

I think the argument is simple. The drone attacks are political and a violation of law and ethics. There are accusations that some are done without support of Congress and/or are Constitution violations.

Also, the U.S. has a 16 (some say more) trillion dollar debt but still spend (and it's climbing) on a military-industrial complex that they cannot afford. This is an elaborate topic but it is not that complicated to at least, single out examples here and there.

Originally Posted by 14Russian

Also, the U.S. has a 16 (some say more) trillion dollar debt but still spend (and it's climbing) on a military-industrial complex that they cannot afford. This is an elaborate topic but it is not that complicated to at least, single out examples here and there.

I agree with you that military spending is out of control. I'd rather see a tighter budget with focus on capability.

Originally Posted by Hanna

They are pretty much the same as far as I can tell. It all seems a bit meaningless, a charade.
For that reason this election is not interesting, even though the most powerful president on earth is being elected.
Obama was supposed to be a fresh breeze, a democrat, black etc.
But his foreign policy continued in the same way and the drone attacks started.

It's obvious to anyone who isn't brainwashed and conditioned. But, most people are stupid and have their heads in the sand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZLqsRqKFyI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Uh_sXZ6URc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaOg69wD28M

I've suggested to people here (in chat) to watch any one of these videos but AFAIK, no one did. Big surprise. Oh well, what can you expect of humans, right?

Originally Posted by 14Russian

Oh well, what can you expect of humans, right?

You could expect pretty much the same thing of the reptiles as well.

Originally Posted by Hanna

They are pretty much the same as far as I can tell.

For a woman, they are very much two different candidates. One supports the reversal of Roe v. Wade and one does not.
For a GLBTG, they are very much two different candidates. One supports Marriage Equality and one does not.

The other issues like taxes and spending and cutting out FEMA and all that... we have heard promises/threats all before like "read my lips" and they were never kept. However, over the past few years our country has made great strides to be much more inclusive. Much more understanding of others and it would be a very sad day if we started to go backwards. To single out a class of people and say you are not worthy of being married because you are not "normal." Or to tell a young woman what she can or can't do with her own body (for whatever reason) because it is YOUR religious belief and not hers.

Originally Posted by rockzmom

For a woman, they are very much two different candidates. One supports the reversal of Roe v. Wade and one does not.
For a GLBTG, they are very much two different candidates. One supports Marriage Equality and one does not.

The other issues like taxes and spending and cutting out FEMA and all that... we have heard promises/threats all before like "read my lips" and they were never kept. However, over the past few years our country has made great strides to be much more inclusive. Much more understanding of others and it would be a very sad day if we started to go backwards. To single out a class of people and say you are not worthy of being married because you are not "normal." Or to tell a young woman what she can or can't do with her own body (for whatever reason) because it is YOUR religious belief and not hers.

I very much agree...there are stark differences between the candidates. Myself, I lean to the liberal side, but in the spirit of cooperation I think there are some things we should compromise on. But that's such an ugly word these days...compromise.

Originally Posted by rockzmom

For a GLBTG, they are very much two different candidates. One supports Marriage Equality and one does not.

I'm "GLBT," but I oppose "Marriage Equality" as Obama defines it. On the other hand, I support federally-recognized "Civil Unions" in all 50 states, and I've been consistently pissed off by the lack of "proactive" support for Civil Unions among most Republicans, including Romney.

Which reminds me that earlier I had occasion to look up the "standard" Russian translation for an immortal phrase from Romeo and Juliet: Чума пади на оба [их] дома! (In the original, it's actually "your houses," but it's commonly paraphrased as "their houses." For that matter, it's often misquoted as "pox", оспа, rather than "plague", чума.)

ЗЫ: And another immortal phrase: В этом нельзя винить меня, я проголосовал за Кодоса!!

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

I'm "GLBT," but I oppose "Marriage Equality" as Obama defines it.

Which is not to say I'm angry that "Same Sex Marriage" has now been approved by popular referendum in both Maryland and Maine.

(For those outside the US, "SSM" had previously lost every single time it was the subject of a voter referendum, in about 30 different states!)

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

Which is not to say I'm angry that "Same Sex Marriage" has now been approved by popular referendum in both Maryland and Maine.

(For those outside the US, "SSM" had previously lost every single time it was the subject of a voter referendum, in about 30 different states!)

Don't forget Washington State, Throbert. We passed marriage equality by a large margin here! And also legalized cannabis for recreational use!

Originally Posted by Hanna

... even though the most powerful president on earth is being elected.

I'm sure that Chinese president will reach the top again...

Originally Posted by sperk

If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal.
Emma Goldman

I do agree, in one way. With time, they all horribly resemble each other.

"It is a common error to assume that the politician's role is to create jobs,encourage economic activity, enhance the welfare and well-being of hissubjects, preserve the territorial integrity of his country, and fulfill a hostof other functions.

In truth, the politician has a single and exclusive role: to get re-elected. His primary responsibility is to his party and its members. He owes thempatronage: jobs, sinecures, guaranteed income or cash flow, access to thepublic purse, and the intoxicating wielding of power. His relationship is withhis real constituency - the party's rank and file - and he is accountable tothem the same way a CEO (Chief Executive Officer) answers to the corporation'smajor shareholders.

To make sure that they get re-elected, politicians are sometimes required toimplement reforms and policy measures that contribute to the general welfare ofthe populace and promote it. At other times, they have to refrain from actionto preserve their electoral assets and extend their political life expectancy."

S.Vakin

Originally Posted by Ina

To make sure that they get re-elected, politicians are sometimes required toimplement reforms and policy measures that contribute to the general welfare ofthe populace and promote it. At other times, they have to refrain from actionto preserve their electoral assets and extend their political life expectancy."

S.Vakin

Could be that sums it up....lol

Originally Posted by Ina

I'm sure that Chinese president will reach the top again...



I do agree, in one way. With time, they all horribly resemble each other.

"It is a common error to assume that the politician's role is to create jobs,encourage economic activity, enhance the welfare and well-being of hissubjects, preserve the territorial integrity of his country, and fulfill a hostof other functions.

In truth, the politician has a single and exclusive role: to get re-elected. His primary responsibility is to his party and its members. He owes thempatronage: jobs, sinecures, guaranteed income or cash flow, access to thepublic purse, and the intoxicating wielding of power. His relationship is withhis real constituency - the party's rank and file - and he is accountable tothem the same way a CEO (Chief Executive Officer) answers to the corporation'smajor shareholders.

To make sure that they get re-elected, politicians are sometimes required toimplement reforms and policy measures that contribute to the general welfare ofthe populace and promote it. At other times, they have to refrain from actionto preserve their electoral assets and extend their political life expectancy."

S.Vakin

Does he talk about maximizing profits and cash flow? What about selling out and having a nice bank account so if you **** up the country (economy and all), that you have enough to live on some Island someplace? If not, it's just another author with some 'critical' views aimed to sell books.

But, yeah, it's about getting re-elected and being content with being puppets.

Originally Posted by 14Russian

Does he talk about maximizing profits and cash flow? What about selling out and having a nice bank account so if you **** up the country (economy and all), that you have enough to live on some Island someplace? If not, it's just another author with some 'critical' views aimed to sell books.

But, yeah, it's about getting re-elected and being content with being puppets.

No honey, he scrutinizes some loudmouths, public figures and Mr. I-am-all-important-s and such types through the frames of social psychiatry, psychiatric epidemiology and sophisticated sense of humor. So, it means he took the right approach.

А я сравниваю, исходя из одного: кто из них меньше нам опасен. И особой разницы не чувствую. Инерция общественного мнения США и реальная власть капитала США заставят обоих проводить примерно одинаковую политику по отношению к нам.
Полюбить Россию могут заставить только катастрофы типа Второй Мировой Войны. Или падение астероида, когда вдруг окажется, что Сибирь - это единственное убежище для человечества.
Я ещё 4 года назад здесь говорил, что Обама ничего нового нам не принесёт.

Кстати, в связи с выборами недавно показали наших бывших граждан, сейчас проживающих в Чикаго. Владельцев магазина с русским товаром. Я подумал: "наверное, это Лампада".

Originally Posted by Юрка

А я сравниваю, исходя из одного: кто из них меньше нам опасен. И особой разницы не чувствую. Инерция общественного мнения США и реальная власть капитала США заставят обоих проводить примерно одинаковую политику по отношению к нам.

I have to admit, I'm confused sometimes why the relations between the US and Russia are so bad. So often we want the same things, why isn't there more common ground?