# U.S Presidential Elections



## Sashan

Tomorrow being the Presidential elections day for USA to choose between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, thought I would open this thread for discussions.


----------



## VCheng

I predict a win for Obama.


----------



## SQ8

Romney is too raw for the Americans of today..
and loose chads will not save him.


----------



## Android

Race for Congress: 6 Indian-Americans seek to create history

WASHINGTON: Six Indian-Americans are in the race for a seat in the US House of Representatives, with the latestpolls and mainstream media saying that three of them have bright chances of winning.
Elections will be held for all 435 seats, representing the 50 US states on November 6.
Ami Bera, the Democratic Party candidate from California's seventh Congressional District, is said to have the best chances to win the Congressional elections. Pitted against incumbent Republican Dan Lungren , Bera has outraised hisopponent.
So far only two Indian-Americans have been elected tothe US Congress. Dalip Singh Saund was the first Indian-American elected to the House of Representatives in 1950s, while Bobby Jindal , now the Louisiana governor, was the second one.
Bera is followed by Republican young gun Ricky Gill, in the neighbouring California's ninth Congressional District.
Gill who barely managed to turn 25 to file his nomination papers is trying to unseat three-term incumbent Democrat Jerry McNerney.
A weak Republican candidate inMichigan's 11th Congressional District has brightened the chances of Democratic Dr Syed Taj, who hails from Bihar and isthe younger brother of Syed Shahbuddin. Taj has his Republican rival Kerry Bentivolito contend with.
Contesting for the second consecutive time from Pennsylvania's Sixth Congressional District, Iraq war veteran Dr Manan Trivedi of theDemocratic Party has been given a "Lean Republican" status by The New York Times.
New Jersey's Democratic candidate Upendra Chivukula's seat has been determined as"Lean Republican" by Real Clear politics. Jack Uppal, a Democratic candidate from California's fourth Congressional District, is probably the weakest of the sixIndian-American candidates in fray.
Woman, 99, set to vote for first time
Better late than never! A 99-year-old woman in the US has lived through 24 presidential elections, but has chosen this year's close contest to cast her first ballot. Rosie Lewis, of Fort Myers, Florida, who received her ballot in the mail, got some help from a family friend to register and credits the election of President Barack Obama in 2008 for inspiring her to cast her first vote this time, NBC reported. Her vote could be crucial as a photo finish to the White House was predicted by final USpoll surveys.
After Sandy, another storm threatens US
Days after Sandy devastation inUS eastern coast, another strong coastal storm threatens to hit the region this week and could result in high winds, flooding and power outages. Though there is still uncertaintyover its exact course and timing, the storm could bring windy conditions with high winds in the range of 50 miles per hour. "While there is still some uncertainty regarding thetrack and timing of the storm inthe Northeast, substantial impacts are expected," the National Weather Service said.

Race for Congress: 6 Indian-Americans seek to create history

WASHINGTON: Six Indian-Americans are in the race for a seat in the US House of Representatives, with the latestpolls and mainstream media saying that three of them have bright chances of winning.
Elections will be held for all 435 seats, representing the 50 US states on November 6.
Ami Bera, the Democratic Party candidate from California's seventh Congressional District, is said to have the best chances to win the Congressional elections. Pitted against incumbent Republican Dan Lungren , Bera has outraised hisopponent.
So far only two Indian-Americans have been elected tothe US Congress. Dalip Singh Saund was the first Indian-American elected to the House of Representatives in 1950s, while Bobby Jindal , now the Louisiana governor, was the second one.
Bera is followed by Republican young gun Ricky Gill, in the neighbouring California's ninth Congressional District.
Gill who barely managed to turn 25 to file his nomination papers is trying to unseat three-term incumbent Democrat Jerry McNerney.
A weak Republican candidate inMichigan's 11th Congressional District has brightened the chances of Democratic Dr Syed Taj, who hails from Bihar and isthe younger brother of Syed Shahbuddin. Taj has his Republican rival Kerry Bentivolito contend with.
Contesting for the second consecutive time from Pennsylvania's Sixth Congressional District, Iraq war veteran Dr Manan Trivedi of theDemocratic Party has been given a "Lean Republican" status by The New York Times.
New Jersey's Democratic candidate Upendra Chivukula's seat has been determined as"Lean Republican" by Real Clear politics. Jack Uppal, a Democratic candidate from California's fourth Congressional District, is probably the weakest of the sixIndian-American candidates in fray.
Woman, 99, set to vote for first time
Better late than never! A 99-year-old woman in the US has lived through 24 presidential elections, but has chosen this year's close contest to cast her first ballot. Rosie Lewis, of Fort Myers, Florida, who received her ballot in the mail, got some help from a family friend to register and credits the election of President Barack Obama in 2008 for inspiring her to cast her first vote this time, NBC reported. Her vote could be crucial as a photo finish to the White House was predicted by final USpoll surveys.
After Sandy, another storm threatens US
Days after Sandy devastation inUS eastern coast, another strong coastal storm threatens to hit the region this week and could result in high winds, flooding and power outages. Though there is still uncertaintyover its exact course and timing, the storm could bring windy conditions with high winds in the range of 50 miles per hour. "While there is still some uncertainty regarding thetrack and timing of the storm inthe Northeast, substantial impacts are expected," the National Weather Service said.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/Race-for-Congress-6-Indian-Americans-seek-to-create-history/articleshow/17107459.cms


----------



## VCheng

Oscar said:


> Romney is too raw for the Americans of today..
> and loose chads will not save him.




It is perhaps more a matter of sticking with the devil one knows than the devil one doesn't.


----------



## Android

Self delete


----------



## arp2041

Obama is gonna win, though it will not be an easy win but a win anyways, Mitt Romney lost on 3 counts - In second & Third presidential debates where Obama emerged as winner & the Sandy hurricane also helped Obama as his response to the disaster was quick & effective.

As far as India is concerned though Republicans are more pro India than Democrats, but the American policy of establishing a good strategic relation with India is now cast in stone so will not be effected by any President, thus Obama will keep working for good relations with India.


----------



## Icewolf

arp2041 said:


> Obama is gonna win, though it will not be an easy win but a win anyways, Mitt Romney lost on 3 counts - In second & Third presidential debates where Obama emerged as winner & the Sandy hurricane also helped Obama as his response to the disaster was quick & effective.
> 
> As far as India is concerned though Republicans are more pro India than Democrats, but the American policy of establishing a good strategic relation with India is now cast in stone so will not be effected by any President, thus Obama will keep working for good relations with India.



Do you really think Indians vote decides on who will win the U.S election?


----------



## jaunty

Must watch


----------



## arp2041

Icewolf said:


> Do you really think Indians vote decides on who will win the U.S election?



Who said so?? I was talking about the impact on relations with India after Obama gets elected.

Anyways, Indian American community is still an influential one, it nos. around 3 million & many of them help both the Presidential candidates in the race to White House by raising funds etc., recently Obama even tried to reach out to them by publishing ads in hindi:

US Presidential elections: Obama and Romney campaigns reach out to Indian Americans - World News - IBNLive

This was important since in an election which is gonna probably end in a photo finish, every vote count.


----------



## Mercenary

Obama will win.

The only question is by how much.

My prediction is that he will win every state that he won in 2008 minus North Carolina and Indiana.


----------



## Esc8781

Mercenary said:


> Obama will win.
> 
> The only question is by how much.
> 
> My prediction is that he will win every state that he won in 2008 minus North Carolina and Indiana.


And Texas .


----------



## Mercenary

Esc8781 said:


> And Texas .



He didnt win Texas in 2008.


----------



## Sashan

Whoever wins should win only from electoral pov but also from popular votes. Gore won in 2000 through popular votes while Bush won on electoral votes.


----------



## jaunty

Obama starts from 237, Romney 191. Obama just needs a couple of the swing states to turn his way, whereas Romney needs 5-6 of them. Obama is ahead in almost all the swing states by at least a couple of points, so right now his chances are bright, but still quite a close race. Good video from NPR- The Amazing Morphing Campaign Money Map on Vimeo

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## VCheng

I cast my vote on my way in to work this morning.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sashan

VCheng said:


> I cast my vote on my way in to work this morning.



Will be doing mine during lunch.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Developereo

Sashan said:


> Whoever wins should win only from electoral pov but also from popular votes.



The name of the country provides a clue: United States of America.

The whole point of the electoral college system is that North Dakota's voice shouldn't be drowned out by the masses in California or New York.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Don Jaguar

Obama will win this election.


----------



## Mercenary

Obama will win


----------



## Rajaraja Chola

Icewolf said:


> Do you really think Indians vote decides on who will win the U.S election?



Indian Americans now form a most influential community in US after the jewish community.. They have 2 Indian Americans as Governors and many indians were appointed are important posts in Obama administrations, and they were also responsible as Obama's poll advisors in his first elections... 
Even now Republicans and Democrats race among themselves to show themselves as champions of indian americans .. A record 6 Indian americans are going for Senate..

And Obama must win for the good of US and the world


----------



## IndoUS

Voted in the morning, I must say some people take the voting thing really seriously. I went to the polling station at 6 am since the polling begins at 7, and there were some people who had camped out last night infront of the polling station in the freezing weather(can't be that much of an a$$ to them considering they gave me a doughnut and hot chocolate).


----------



## VCheng

An expensive game, to be sure:

The final ad spending in the presidential contest:

*Overall ad spending: $984 million*
Team Romney (includes outside groups): $583 million
Team Obama (includes outside groups): $401 million

*Total ad spending by the campaigns: $549 million*
Obama campaign: $336 million
Romney campaign: $213 million

*Total outside ad spending: $435 million* (44% of total)
Outside spending supporting Obama: $65 million
Outside spending supporting Romney: $370 million

Per state: Ohio $197 million, Florida $192 million, Virginia $152 million, Colorado $81 million, Iowa $74 million, North Carolina $70 million, Nevada $60 million, Wisconsin $45 million, New Hampshire $44 million, Pennsylvania $35 million, Michigan $19 million, Minnesota $11 million, New Mexico $3 million, Maine $400,000

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DroneMailini

When will the results be announced?


----------



## IndoUS

DroneMailini said:


> When will the results be announced?



Maybe tonight, considering if there are no hick ups. But since this race is really close it might be tomorrow or in a couple of days.


----------



## DroneMailini

I hope Obama Wins, Eagerly waiting for results


----------



## IndoUS

DroneMailini said:


> tonight are you sure?



Well last time it was reported the same day at night, but since the race is so close in all the battle groud states it is hard to say if it will come out tonight around midnight or tomorrow morning.


----------



## faithfulguy

DroneMailini said:


> When will the results be announced?



The results are announced when enough votes are counted to determined the election of a state. The fun part is to watch the precinct reported counts change numbers on the screen, live. I voted for Romney 10 days go. But my vote does not count as I live in a blue state.



Rajaraja Chola said:


> Indian Americans now form a most influential community in US after the jewish community.. They have 2 Indian Americans as Governors and many indians were appointed are important posts in Obama administrations, and they were also responsible as Obama's poll advisors in his first elections...
> Even now Republicans and Democrats race among themselves to show themselves as champions of indian americans .. A record 6 Indian americans are going for Senate..
> 
> And Obama must win for the good of US and the world



In this election, it's the Hispanic community that counts the most after whites. It's the votes that count at this stage instead of money.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## IndoUS

faithfulguy said:


> The results are announced when enough votes are counted to determined the election of a state. The fun part is to watch the precinct reported counts change numbers on the screen, live. I voted for Romney 10 days go. But my vote does not count as I live in a blue state.



Man you are lucky you could vote early, I had to stand in line at 6 am in the morning. And I live in Michigan so the state is a toss up state but it leans towards Obama, but my county is a Republican county, so I am waiting to see how things work out.


----------



## VCheng

DroneMailini said:


> When will the results be announced?



Ohio polls close at 7:30 and major networks will start to call the race one way or another soon after that. The final results may come late into the night.


----------



## KingMamba

Lets go Obama will be voting in a couple of hours.


----------



## Rajaraja Chola

faithfulguy said:


> The results are announced when enough votes are counted to determined the election of a state. The fun part is to watch the precinct reported counts change numbers on the screen, live. I voted for Romney 10 days go. But my vote does not count as I live in a blue state.
> 
> 
> 
> In this election, it's the Hispanic community that counts the most after whites. It's the votes that count at this stage instead of money.



Yes, read in articles, Hispanics form a major part of population now. But they are yet to form a influence, which might change in future. 
Regarding even if their population is higher, its of no use, since its the electoral college that finally votes president, even if popular vote is in favour of loser.
George bush became president in that way in 2000.


----------



## scherz

This US alection is a joke. May the guy who have the highest amount of money and influence win! Actually its buying the thron, democracy of epicness.


----------



## Rajaraja Chola

scherz said:


> This US alection is a joke. May the guy who have the highest amount of money and influence win! Actually its buying the thron, democracy of epicness.



When ur country experiences election, and u voted in it, we will know whether its joke or not...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## KingMamba

Rajaraja Chola said:


> Yes, read in articles, Hispanics form a major part of population now. But they are yet to form a influence, which might change in future.
> Regarding even if their population is higher, its of no use, since its the electoral college that finally votes president, even if popular vote is in favour of loser.
> George bush became president in that way in 2000.



You clearly do not know what you are talking about, Hispanics have a huge influence when it comes to votes. They may not have huge monetary reserves but their raw voting numbers could swing the election one way or another. BTW, Romney is on record saying it would be easier for him to win an election if he were of Hispanic heritage.



scherz said:


> This US alection is a joke. May the guy who have the highest amount of money and influence win! Actually its buying the thron, democracy of epicness.



The majority of people who will be voting have not been given any money to do so in one way or another, all the money is used on ads (money which is donated by wealthy people who want to swing the election one way or the other) however the ads can only affect so many people.


----------



## HeinzG

Tight game. Romney may win.


----------



## darkinsky

VCheng said:


> I cast my vote on my way in to work this morning.



so VCheng, for your negative obsession with Pakistan, will you vote for the candidate depending upon which one is more hard liner in Pakistan relations, or considering the economic impacts of US itself??


----------



## IndoUS

KingMamba93 said:


> You clearly do not know what you are talking about, Hispanics have a huge influence when it comes to votes. They may not have huge monetary reserves but their raw voting numbers could swing the election one way or another. BTW, Romney is on record saying it would be easier for him to win an election if he were of Hispanic heritage.
> 
> 
> 
> The majority of people who will be voting have not been given any money to do so in one way or another, all the money is used on ads (money which is donated by wealthy people who want to swing the election one way or the other) however the ads can only affect so many people.



Yes they have the numbers, but the problem is that the Hispanics have not been able to put forth their agenda, and personally I think that if Romney had selected Marco Rubio as his VP. As for election, the whole popular vote and electoral votes are messed up, case and point the Bush election.



HeinzG said:


> Tight game. Romney may win.



Well its still up in the air yoou never know what will happen.


----------



## VCheng

darkinsky said:


> so VCheng, for your negative obsession with Pakistan, will you vote for the candidate depending upon which one is more hard liner in Pakistan relations, or considering the economic impacts of US itself??



All politics is LOCAL.


----------



## arp2041

Can someone pls explain me how the US electoral system works, i mean if Bush din't got popular vote than how he won in an electoral college??

Also din't understood what this means:



faithfulguy said:


> The results are announced when enough votes are counted to determined the election of a state. The fun part is to watch the precinct reported counts change numbers on the screen, live. I voted for Romney 10 days go. *But my vote does not count as I live in a blue state.*



I understand Blue state means democrat majority, but does that mean that if someone vote for republican than that will not count??


----------



## KingMamba

IndoUS said:


> Yes they have the numbers, but the problem is that the Hispanics have not been able to put forth their agenda, and personally I think that if Romney had selected Marco Rubio as his VP. As for election, the whole popular vote and electoral votes are messed up, case and point the Bush election.
> 
> 
> 
> Well its still up in the air yoou never know what will happen.



Yes but Hispanics do know who has their interests at heart. Romney viz a viz his rhetoric has alienated much of the Hispanic community.


----------



## Adir-M

I have a family in florida. Last elections they voted for obama\democrats now they told me the going to vote for mitt. There are half million jews is florida and florida hold huge numbers of electors. Most of the jewish community in florida going to vote for mitt. 
The problem is the huge debt and 7.8% citizen with no job. Obama solution is foolish intervention in the market and handing over Federal reserve to collapse companys this will not create new jobs.


----------



## KingMamba

arp2041 said:


> Can someone pls explain me how the US electoral system works, i mean if Bush din't got popular vote than how he won in an electoral college??
> 
> Also din't understood what this means:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand Blue state means democrat majority, but does that mean that if someone vote for republican than that will not count??



How the Electoral College Works

The vote will still count however the point being it will not make a big impact.


----------



## IndoUS

arp2041 said:


> Can someone pls explain me how the US electoral system works, i mean if Bush din't got popular vote than how he won in an electoral college??



The electoral votes are the number of Representatives in the House and the Number of Senators in the Senate. Each state has two senators while the number of Reps. are depended on the states population. There are something like 538 electoral votes all together, and it is these votes that count. The popular votes are just a gauge to see as to which side the electoral votes would lean on.


----------



## Gandhi G in da house

Obama will win ,albeit by a small margin . For some reason , i don't know I want Mitt to win

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## KingMamba

Adir-M said:


> I have a family in florida. Last elections they voted for obama\democrats now they told me the going to vote for mitt. There are half million jews is florida and florida hold huge numbers of electors. Most of the jewish community in florida going to vote for mitt.
> The problem is the huge debt and 7.8% citizen with no job. Obama solution is foolish intervention in the market and handing over Federal reserve to collapse companys this will not create new jobs.



Majority of the Jewish community are democrats although the Republican party is definitely more pro Jewish (what with all the evangelical Christians in the party) so the Jewish vote if it does flip this year could be a game changer as well.


----------



## VCheng

Adir-M said:


> I have a family in florida. Last elections they voted for obama\democrats now they told me the going to vote for mitt. There are half million jews is florida and florida hold huge numbers of electors. Most of the jewish community in florida going to vote for mitt.
> The problem is the huge debt and 7.8% citizen with no job. Obama solution is foolish intervention in the market and handing over Federal reserve to collapse companys this will not create new jobs.



Florida with its 29 EC votes is a CRUCIAL state to win for both camps.


----------



## KingMamba

VCheng said:


> Florida with its 29 EC votes is a CRUCIAL state to win for both camps.



This is where that Hispanic vote that somebody was saying holds little value will come into play. 25% of Florida residents are Hispanic (give or take 2%).


----------



## IndoUS

Adir-M said:


> I have a family in florida. Last elections they voted for obama\democrats now they told me the going to vote for mitt. There are half million jews is florida and florida hold huge numbers of electors. Most of the jewish community in florida going to vote for mitt.
> The problem is the huge debt and 7.8% citizen with no job. Obama solution is foolish intervention in the market and handing over Federal reserve to collapse companys this will not create new jobs.



Economy is Obama's biggest problem, and if people are voting purely on economy then Obama has less chances of winning. 


Ok so this funny: I told my friend(he is black) I voted for Romney and he said that it is racist, and this really surprised me since I am brown. And it is really bothering me that when whites vote for a white person it is racism but when blacks vote for blacks it is completely fine. WTF is that.(Not trying to be Racist).

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## arp2041

IndoUS said:


> The electoral votes are the number of Representatives in the House and the Number of Senators in the Senate. Each state has two senators while the number of Reps. are depended on the states population. There are something like 538 electoral votes all together, and it is these votes that count. The popular votes are just a gauge to see as to which side the electoral votes would lean on.



But i still din't understood how Bush won if he lost on popular vote, taking example of Indian electoral system, if say i want to elect a President from congress party, i will vote a congress Representative who will further vote for the congress nominee through electoral college, if the majority want congress to win than they will elect majority congress representatives, so how does the system change (or vote change) in the US in b/w the two stages i.e. popular vote & electoral college??


----------



## KingMamba

arp2041 said:


> But i still din't understood how Bush won if he lost on popular vote, taking example of Indian electoral system, if say i want to elect a President from congress party, i will vote a congress Representative who will further vote for the congress nominee through electoral college, if the majority want congress to win than they will elect majority congress representatives, so how does the system change (or vote change) in the US in b/w the two stages i.e. popular vote & electoral college??



Bush won because Florida was really close and he was awarded the Florida electoral votes which put him over the electoral votes needed to be declared President.


----------



## IndoUS

arp2041 said:


> But i still din't understood how Bush won if he lost on popular vote, taking example of Indian electoral system, if say i want to elect a President from congress party, i will vote a congress Representative who will further vote for the congress nominee through electoral college, if the majority want congress to win than they will elect majority congress representatives, so how does the system change (or vote change) in the US in b/w the two stages i.e. popular vote & electoral college??



Okay so I am guessing here so people if this is wrong correct me, I think that the voting of electoral votes is up to the reps. so its up to them is to who they vote for regardless of what their constituency picks.


----------



## Awesome

Any results in? Exit polls 3 hours ago said Romney was ahead by a hair.


----------



## KingMamba

IndoUS said:


> Economy is Obama's biggest problem, and if people are voting purely on economy then Obama has less chances of winning.
> 
> 
> Ok so this funny: I told my friend(he is black) I voted for Romney and he said that it is racist, and this really surprised me since I am brown. And it is really bothering me that when whites vote for a white person it is racism but when blacks vote for blacks it is completely fine. WTF is that.(Not trying to be Racist).



What makes you think Romney can change the economy when he has not told anyone how he will do so?? Unless you voted for him for a different reason, just curious.


----------



## VCheng

Asim Aquil said:


> Any results in? Exit polls 3 hours ago said Romney was ahead by a hair.



The reliable indicators will come in between 7 to 9 pm EST.


----------



## KingMamba

IndoUS said:


> Okay so I am guessing here so people if this is wrong correct me, I think that the voting of electoral votes is up to the reps. so its up to them is to who they vote for regardless of what their constituency picks.



The real truth is that America is a Republic first and foremost and in a Republic the President is elected by his peers (Senators/ Representatives) hence the electoral college and only slowly became a representative democracy although it still retains characteristics of a Republic. 

Read this informative article to understand what I mean by this. 

America: Republic or Democracy?


----------



## IndoUS

KingMamba93 said:


> What makes you think Romney can change the economy when he has not told anyone how he will do so?? Unless you voted for him for a different reason, just curious.



Same can be said about Obama, the main difference is that Romney has a back ground in doing business and turning around failing companies. He has even worked and helped balance the budget for his state. So in the Economy section he has an edge since he has experience.


----------



## Adir-M

I think in the end obama will win because of swing states.
Obama have better chance to win in ohio and virginia


----------



## arp2041

KingMamba93 said:


> Bush won because Florida was really close and he was awarded the Florida electoral votes which put him over the electoral votes needed to be declared President.



Last thing, if Florida has 29 EC votes, & majority of people vote for democrat candidate, does that mean all 29 EC votes go for Obama & Romney doesn't get even one EC vote??


----------



## KingMamba

IndoUS said:


> Same can be said about Obama, the main difference is that Romney has a back ground in doing business and turning around failing companies. He has even worked and helped balance the budget for his state. So in the Economy section he has an edge since he has experience.



Expecting Obama to fix a mess in 4 years which took Bush 8 years to create is unrealistic. Not to mention running a company is different than running a country so the same does not apply and unless you are a rich person who makes well over 250k a year Romney's plan to decrease taxes for the rich does you no benefit. (Which btw is the one thing he is sure of)

Also how can expect an idiot like Romney to take charge of the worlds greatest armed forces when he does not even know common geography (example him saying Syria is Iran route to the Ocean ).



arp2041 said:


> Last thing, if Florida has 29 EC votes, & majority of people vote for democrat candidate, does that mean all 29 EC votes go for Obama & Romney doesn't get even one EC vote??



Nah if you win the electoral votes for a particular state you get all the votes.


----------



## Adir-M

> Last thing, if Florida has 29 EC votes, & majority of people vote for democrat candidate, does that mean all 29 EC votes go for Obama & Romney doesn't get even one EC vote??



Exactly ...


----------



## Adir-M

KingMamba93 said:


> Expecting Obama to fix a mess in 4 years which took Bush 8 years to create is unrealistic.



When some thing not improved you can always blame the one that was before you...


----------



## IndoUS

KingMamba93 said:


> Expecting Obama to fix a mess in 4 years which took Bush 8 years to create is unrealistic. Not to mention running a company is different than running a country so the same does not apply and unless you are a rich person who makes well over 250k a year Romney's plan to decrease taxes for the rich does you no benefit. (Which btw is the one thing he is sure of)
> 
> Also how can expect an idiot like Romney to take charge of the worlds greatest armed forces when he does not even know common geography (example him saying Syria is Iran route to the Ocean ).
> 
> 
> 
> Nah if you win the electoral votes for a particular state you get all the votes.



See this is what I hate about people, since when is being successful a crime. Romney got to where he is on his own, I don't give a crap is to what a person earns as long he id doing it legally. As for 4 years to fix an economy, he didn't even make it any better instead he handed out free money and put the country in an even bigger debt which is still going up. $5 trillion in stimulus and other project which even he admitted was not well planned remember the "shovel ready" comment. The Unemployment is still hanging at 8% there is not reduction of debt or deficit. And he had 4 years he couldn't make a dent and you are expecting him to do a miracle in the next 4 years.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## KingMamba

IndoUS said:


> See this is what I hate about people, since when is being successful a crime. Romney got to where he is on his own, I don't give a crap is to what a person earns as long he id doing it legally. As for 4 years to fix an economy, he didn't even make it any better instead he handed out free money and put the country in an even bigger debt which is still going up. $5 trillion in stimulus and other project which even he admitted was not well planned remember the "shovel ready" comment. The Unemployment is still hanging at 8% there is not reduction of debt or deficit. And he had 4 years he couldn't make a dent and you are expecting him to do a miracle in the next 4 years.



Alright we will see, and Romney making money legally is laughable you should look up some of the dirty things he did while employed at Bain capital and also why he refuses to release his tax returns.


----------



## S_O_C_O_M

i'm voting for the green party


----------



## IndoUS

KingMamba93 said:


> Alright we will see, and Romney making money legally is laughable you should look up some of the dirty things he did while employed at Bain capital and also why he refuses to release his tax returns.



He released all his tax return check the news, why do you think Obama campaign stopped bringing the issue up after the debates. As for illegally what did he do illegally can you tell me something he did that was illegal.



S_O_C_O_M said:


> i'm voting for the green party



Is this the Tax-something party that was under the Partisan section or is this different?


----------



## KingMamba

S_O_C_O_M said:


> i'm voting for the green party



Who is their candidate?


----------



## Esc8781

Time to go to war with Iran, vote for Romney. Let's kill ourselves.


----------



## Adir-M

> Who is their candidate?


----------



## IndoUS

Esc8781 said:


> Time to go to war with Iran, vote for Romney. Let's kill ourselves.



Naahhh.... He said no war, so if Israel is planning on attacking then I am not sure what would happen. The race is tight I wouldn't tout anyone as being as ahead untill the results come out both have a very good chance of taking the swing states. Right now I am more concerned about my state politics and the future of the Detroit city considering it almost went bankrupt couple of months back and is still pretty close to bankruptcy.


----------



## Adir-M

liberal brain==>
Voting for republicans==>war
lol


----------



## KingMamba

IndoUS said:


> He released all his tax return check the news, why do you think Obama campaign stopped bringing the issue up after the debates. As for illegally what did he do illegally can you tell me something he did that was illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> Is this the Tax-something party that was under the Partisan section or is this different?



I would but I am at work and besides you already voted so pointless now.



Adir-M said:


>



 Good for a laugh.



Adir-M said:


> liberal brain==>
> Voting for republicans==>war
> lol



Well we will see hopefully you are right and Romney will not immediately declare war on the whole planet if he wins.


----------



## IndoUS

KingMamba93 said:


> I would but I am at work and besides you already voted so pointless now.
> 
> 
> 
> Good for a laugh.



So just abandon the topic, I am asking for one news.


----------



## Esc8781

Adir-M said:


> liberal brain==>
> Voting for republicans==>war
> lol


Third party==>


----------



## KingMamba

IndoUS said:


> Naahhh.... He said no war, so if Israel is planning on attacking then I am not sure what would happen. The race is tight I wouldn't tout anyone as being as ahead untill the results come out both have a very good chance of taking the swing states. Right now I am more concerned about my state politics and the future of the Detroit city considering it almost went bankrupt couple of months back and is still pretty close to bankruptcy.



You should look up how Romney was against the Detroit auto bailouts but still found a way to profit off of it.


----------



## Adir-M



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## IndoUS

KingMamba93 said:


> You should look up how Romney was against the Detroit auto bailouts but still found a way to profit off of it.



Yes and did you now that even after the bailout the companies are still struggling they are making cars at higher cost and selling them in lower cost. The profit you are talking about might have come more investment, and in that case almost anyone that has a pension plan or other investment plan did profit.

What Romney wanted was to restructure these companies after bankruptcy so that they wouldn't fall into the same old traps.


----------



## KingMamba

IndoUS said:


> Yes and did you now that even after the bailout the companies are still struggling they are making cars at higher cost and selling them in lower cost. The profit you are talking about might have come more investment, and in that case almost anyone that has a pension plan or other investment plan did profit.
> 
> What Romney wanted was to restructure these companies after bankruptcy so that they wouldn't fall into the same old traps.



Okay Indo although I do not buy that Romney has the slightest clue as to what he will do let us wait for the results as arguing now is pointless.


----------



## IndoUS

As for Obama the only thing he did for Michigan was write a check to business that went bankrupt, th administration gave millions to a renewable energy company saying it will create thousand of jobs but at the end of the day it created only 3 jobs. They gave out money to a company that makes batteries for Electric Car, and the companies took the money and misused it, and now they are getting batteries from China. So much for bailing out Detroit/Auto Industry.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Adir-M

Obama 4 years in office lets see his accomplishment:

Foreign policy--> Arab spring&Muslim brotherhood in egypt,Terrorist attack in libya,Hizbullah gaining power in lebanone parliament, syria civil war, iran still chasing after nucler bomb.

Economy--> USA debt going up.Unemployed still 7.8-8%

"change" lol more like status quo


----------



## BigDaddyWatch

America's future is already foretold in the movie Zombie Strippers with Jenna Jameson. 











*Jenna Jameson*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## fallstuff

I voted last week. Anybody else here exercised their constitutional responsibility ? 

If you have not voted yet, 

*Go Vote !!!*

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Sashan

Projected winners for each state is coming in - 


Vermont - Obama
Indiana - Romney
Georgia and Virginia - too close to call.


----------



## KingMamba

Looks like Romney will win Kentucky as well.


----------



## Hyde

still awaiting for results on BBC

It was suppose to start 6 minutes before if I read the timing correctly

hmm seems like Sashan is reading from somewhere else and he already announced for 2 states?


----------



## VCheng

Zakii said:


> still awaiting for results on BBC
> 
> It was suppose to start 6 minutes before if I read the timing correctly
> 
> hmm seems like Sashan is reading from somewhere else and he already announced for 2 states?



All major US networks are carrying some form of Election Specials covering the results as they come in.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sashan

Zakii said:


> still awaiting for results on BBC
> 
> It was suppose to start 6 minutes before if I read the timing correctly
> 
> hmm seems like Sashan is reading from somewhere else and he already announced for 2 states?



Zakii - Watching NBC live and it is projected but they are spot on mostly.


@KingMamba - true - missed out Kentucky.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hyde

This is how I am feeling right now


----------



## KingMamba

Obama wins New Hampshire.

Not final but he has 70% of votes so far so all but done.


----------



## Hyde

seems like we are going to see repeat of 2004 when Kerry was wining for 90% of the time and suddenly you witnessed Bush coming ahead and winning the elections

Romney 19
Obama 3


----------



## KingMamba

Zakii said:


> seems like we are going to see repeat of 2004 when Kerry was wining for 90% of the time and suddenly you witnessed Bush coming ahead and winning the elections
> 
> Romney 19
> Obama 3



Looks like Obama is going to win by the skin of his teeth through the electoral college.


----------



## IndoUS

Race is too close, hopefully we will get the results by midnight. The President has a good chance of taking Florida.


----------



## Abii

KingMamba93 said:


> Looks like Obama is going to win by the skin of his teeth through the electoral college.



Man you americans have got to be the .... ppl in all of the developed world lmao

Can't believe idiots like Romney can get so many votes.


----------



## KingMamba

Abii said:


> Man you americans have got to be the .... ppl in all of the developed world lmao
> 
> Can't believe idiots like Romney can get so many votes.



People do not like the results they see so they are willing to give change a chance, I still got 4 more family members I am forcing out of their houses right now to go vote. LOL

Looks like Romney won Virginia.


----------



## IndoUS

KingMamba93 said:


> People do not like the results they see so they are willing to give change a chance, I still got 4 more family members I am forcing out of their houses right now to go vote. LOL
> 
> Looks like Romney won Virginia.



Wouldn't't call it out so quick there'd still room for Obama.


----------



## Sashan

KingMamba93 said:


> People do not like the results they see so they are willing to give change a chance, I still got 4 more family members I am forcing out of their houses right now to go vote. LOL
> 
> Looks like Romney won Virginia.



Do you mean West Virginia? It is projected Romney won it while Virginia is still too close to call as per NBC.


----------



## KingMamba

IndoUS said:


> Wouldn't't call it out so quick there'd still room for Obama.



Looks like he got Georgia as well, yeah you are right but Romney is pulling away in those two states.

Romney 24 electoral votes

Obama 3 (270 to win)


----------



## kawaraj

Florida, too close to call, Virginia heading for R....


----------



## KingMamba

Sashan said:


> Do you mean West Virginia? It is projected Romney won it while Virginia is still too close to call as per NBC.



Romney is starting to pull away in Virginia, I meant Virginia.


----------



## Sashan

Looks like South Caroline is Romney's



KingMamba93 said:


> Romney is starting to pull away in Virginia, I meant Virginia.



What channel are you watching?


----------



## IndoUS

KingMamba93 said:


> Looks like he got Georgia as well, yeah you are right but Romney is pulling away in those two states.
> 
> Romney 24 electoral votes
> 
> Obama 3 (270 to win)


Well Georgia doesn't count it has always been Republican, I am waiting for Ohio and Florida and so far Florida us towards Obama.


----------



## KingMamba

IndoUS said:


> Well Georgia doesn't count it has always been Republican, I am waiting for Ohio and Florida and so far Florida us towards Obama.



Obama has 50% of the Florida vote with Romney right behind him at 49%.



Sashan said:


> Looks like South Caroline is Romney's
> 
> 
> 
> What channel are you watching?



CNN and NBC

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## RazPaK

Hope Romney wins.


----------



## KingMamba

IndoUS said:


> Well Georgia doesn't count it has always been Republican, I am waiting for Ohio and Florida and so far Florida us towards Obama.



Yeah but Obama stuck it close in Georgia for a while which was surprising but Romney has pulled away now.



RazPaK said:


> Hope Romney wins.



You voted Romney?


----------



## Hyde

Obama 3
Romney 33

seems like my prediction is proving right


----------



## jaunty

Zakii said:


> Obama 3
> Romney 33
> 
> seems like my prediction is proving right



These don't matter, only swing states matter.


----------



## KingMamba

CNN has Obama in South Carolina 75% to 25% Romney.


----------



## IndoUS

Zakii sir, what are people's opinion in UK about the election?


----------



## KingMamba

jaunty said:


> These don't matter, only swing states matter.



Florida and Ohio will be key so far Obama still leads in Florida.


----------



## jaunty



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## KingMamba

Zakii said:


> Obama 3
> Romney 33
> 
> seems like my prediction is proving right



I still see Romney 24 what channel you watching??


----------



## RazPaK

KingMamba93 said:


> You voted Romney?



Yes sir....


----------



## jaunty

KingMamba93 said:


> Florida and Ohio will be key so far Obama still leads in Florida.



Of course, both of those are major battleground states. Less than 10% of the votes have been counted so far, lead at this point is not very telling.


----------



## KingMamba

Just as important, Race for the senate

Republican 37
Democrats 31 

51 for control.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jaunty

Watch CNN live 2ndruntv_cnn on Justin.tv


----------



## KingMamba

jaunty said:


> Of course, both of those are major battleground states. Less than 10% of the votes have been counted so far, lead at this point is not very telling.



30% of the vote has been tallied in Florida.


----------



## RazPaK

According to google Romney only has 13 electoral votes.


----------



## KingMamba

10% of the vote in North Carolina is in Obama leads 53% to Romney 46%.



RazPaK said:


> According to google Romney only has 13 electoral votes.



He has 33 now as per CNN. Google is slow I guess.


----------



## jaunty

The ABC set at Times Square is the best.


----------



## KingMamba

I think Obama will take Florida, the democrats have a bigger lead in the senate seat. InshAllah

Republicans lead the race for the US House 11 to 3 (270 to win).


----------



## Sashan

jaunty said:


> The ABC set at Times Square is the best.


'

I havent checked it but did you check NBC set in the ice rink in Rockefeller Center named Democracy plaza? looks cool.


----------



## IndoUS

KingMamba93 said:


> Just as important, Race for the senate
> 
> Republican 37
> Democrats 31
> 
> 51 for control.


Senate will stay democrat in my opinion while the house will be Republican


----------



## KingMamba

40% Florida vote is in Obama 51% Romney 48% now.



IndoUS said:


> Senate will stay democrat in my opinion while the house will be Republican



I agree with this.


----------



## darkinsky

KingMamba93 said:


> I think Obama will take Florida, the democrats have a bigger lead in the senate seat. InshAllah
> 
> Republicans lead the race for the US House 11 to 3 (270 to win).



inshallah????......


----------



## jaunty

KingMamba93 said:


> 40% Florida vote is in Obama 51% Romney 48% now.



Too close, without FL it will be really tight for Romney.


----------



## EagleEyes

Florida is the key. Obama has to win it.


----------



## jaunty

Sashan said:


> '
> 
> I havent checked it but did you check NBC set in the ice rink in Rockefeller Center named Democracy plaza? looks cool.



Yeah ABC looks much better.


----------



## KingMamba

jaunty said:


> Too close, without FL it will be really tight for Romney.



Obama pulled away a bit farther, we must also look at the Senate races as they will show where people are leaning towards.


----------



## jaunty

I will switch to Fox once Obama wins this thing


----------



## KingMamba

darkinsky said:


> inshallah????......



Oh yes I am scared of an America with a Mormon in charge.


----------



## Sashan

In Connecticut, Linda Mcmahon who is a Republican is fighting for the U.S senate seat vacated by Joe Lieberman and how does she fight? Aligning herself with Obama.


----------



## KingMamba

jaunty said:


> I will switch to Fox once Obama wins this thing



Lmao Fox people will spontaneously com-bust.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## VCheng

jaunty said:


> I will switch to Fox once Obama wins this thing



You must be a Sadist!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## EagleEyes

jaunty said:


> I will switch to Fox once Obama wins this thing



FOX is good to watch just for the entertainment.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## KingMamba

Sashan said:


> In Connecticut, Linda Mcmahon who is a Republican is fighting for the U.S senate seat vacated by Joe Lieberman and how does she fight? Aligning herself with Obama.



Whatever works right.  She was projected to win, idk about now.



WebMaster said:


> FOX is good to watch just for the entertainment.



I can only imagine the garbage they are spewing over there right now.


----------



## jaunty

ABC predicting Obama win in MA, Romney's home state

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Esc8781

The only job I could get when Romney is elected is giving him tissues.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sashan

KingMamba93 said:


> Whatever works right.  She was projected to win, idk about now.



She ran negative campaign against Chris Murphy and this is the last straw. Connecticut is a democratic party state. I am doubtful she is going to win though she spent more than what he spent.


----------



## KingMamba

jaunty said:


> ABC predicting Obama win in MA, Romney's home state



That would a smack in Romney's face although not shocking considering his approval rating as he left governorship was in the toilet.


----------



## Sashan

jaunty said:


> Yeah ABC looks much better.




True - ABC looks cool.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jaunty

KingMamba93 said:


> That would a smack in Romney's face although not shocking considering his approval rating as he left governorship was in the toilet.



MA is traditionally a blue state though, not very surprising.


----------



## KingMamba

Esc8781 said:


> The only job I could get when Romney is elected is giving him tissues.



Is it better than the job you have right now?


----------



## Esc8781

Florida's exit poll is Obama: 50 Romney:49  very close.


----------



## KingMamba

jaunty said:


> MA is traditionally a blue state though, not very surprising.



Yeah, which is why I said it is not shocking.

Sashan looks like you are right, Romney will win South Carolina.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sashan

Georgia - Romney
DC - Obama

Obama - 64 Romney -82

Maryland - Obama

Missisippi - Romney

Oklahoma - Romney

RI - Obama


----------



## KingMamba

Sashan said:


> She ran negative campaign against Chris Murphy and this is the last straw. Connecticut is a democratic party state.* I am doubtful she is going to win though she spent more than what he spent.*



Damn right I have seen so many of her commercials.


----------



## Al-zakir

Cast my vote a hour ego.


----------



## IndoUS

Wait Sashan I thought Romney was 71 and Obama wad 78?


----------



## Sashan

IndoUS said:


> Wait Sashan I thought Romney was 71 and Obama wad 78?



NBC mate.


----------



## KingMamba

10% of the Ohio vote is in Obama 61% Romney 38% as of right now.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Sashan

KingMamba93 said:


> Damn right I have seen so many of her commercials.





She spent like 50 million on her own between the last elections and this one. But she does not project a positive view of her(she is an ex WWF executive)


----------



## IndoUS

KingMamba93 said:


> Lmao Fox people will spontaneously com-bust.



Lol I just did and they are actually showing Obama as being ahead, if Obama wins O'Reilly's show is going to be fun to watch.


----------



## KingMamba

IndoUS said:


> Lol I just did and they are actually showing Obama as being ahead, if Obama wins O'Reilly's show is going to be fun to watch.



Well they can only twist reality so far, it would be hard for them to show Romney winning but I am sure they would love to.



Sashan said:


> She spent like 50 million on her own between the last elections and this one. But she does not project a positive view of her(she is an ex WWF executive)



Yes, I know I was an avid fan of WWF a decade ago.


----------



## Sashan

CT - Obama 
Alabama - Romney

wow - FL - Romney leading


----------



## Mercenary

Obama will win.

Inshallah.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## KingMamba

Sashan said:


> CT - Obama
> Alabama - Romney
> 
> wow - FL - Romney leading



Not a surprise at all, and nah it is still too close.

Obama won Massachusetts.


----------



## Hyde

IndoUS said:


> Zakii sir, what are people's opinion in UK about the election?


Obviously like America you have difference of opinion in UK. I think Obama couldn't survive recession, high unemployment rate, very high defence budget etc is good for China and other countries since America endangered her super power claim after suffering from recession and economic turmoil and China closing the margin quicker than expected. I feel Romney might introduce better economic policies but I think the majority in UK is still supporting Obama for unknown reasons


KingMamba93 said:


> I still see Romney 24 what channel you watching??



watching from BBC

BBC News - LIVE: US presidential election


----------



## Esc8781

Georgia Romeny:67 Obama: 32


----------



## Sashan

NC AND Maine, NH - Obama.


----------



## jaunty

Both neck and neck in FL.


----------



## KingMamba

Zakii said:


> Obviously like America you have difference of opinion in UK. I think Obama couldn't survive recession, high unemployment rate, very high defence budget etc is good for China and other countries since America endangered her super power claim after suffering from recession and economic turmoil and China closing the margin quicker than expected. I feel Romney might introduce better economic policies but I think the majority in UK is still supporting Obama for unknown reasons
> 
> 
> watching from BBC
> 
> BBC News - LIVE: US presidential election



I think it is because Romney dissed the UK during the Olympics the buffoon doesn't know when to keep his mouth shut.


----------



## Al-zakir

KingMamba93 said:


> 10% of the Ohio vote is in Obama 61% Romney 38% as of right now.



Rep can not win without Ohio.


----------



## KingMamba

Damn Obama has lost the lead to Romney in Florida with more than 50% of the vote in, and Romney is gaining on him in Ohio. 



Al-zakir said:


> Rep can not win without Ohio.



Obama still ahead 57% to 42% in Ohio with 13% of the vote in.


----------



## KRAIT

Why not add a poll in this thread ? Who will win ? Would be great to see what's the general consensus of PDF members.


----------



## jaunty

KingMamba93 said:


> Damn Obama has lost the lead to Romney in Florida with more than 50% of the vote in, and Romney is gaining on him in Ohio.
> 
> 
> 
> Obama still ahead 52% to 48% in Ohio with 13% of the vote in.



If Romney wins both Ohio and Florida he is in real good shape.


----------



## Esc8781

Should we talk about the Senates too?


----------



## jaunty

KRAIT said:


> Why not add a poll in this thread ? Who will win ? Would be great to see what's the general consensus of PDF members.



Most people outside US would like to see Obama again. Pakistanis hate Obama because of drones but Romney has the same position on drones. It will be overwhelmingly Obama.


----------



## KingMamba

jaunty said:


> If Romney wins both Ohio and Florida he is in real good shape.



Correction on Ohio, edited on top.



Esc8781 said:


> Should we talk about the Senates too?



Why not, they are just as important.


----------



## Pak47

jaunty said:


> Most people outside US would like to see Obama again. Pakistanis hate Obama because of drones but Romney has the same position on drones. It will be overwhelmingly Obama.



Most Pakistani's i spoken to voting for Obama.


----------



## KingMamba

55% of Florida vote is in with Obama pulling back ahead.  50% to 49%


----------



## jaunty

Pak47 said:


> Most Pakistani's i spoken to voting for Obama.



Well I was talking about Pakistanis in Pakistan or those who are not US citizens. I guess Krait wanted to get an international viewpoint.


----------



## Sashan

OH - Obama - 59% Romney - 40% - NBC


----------



## KingMamba

I like to view the Senate battles in the swing states because it shows where voters are leaning towards.


----------



## Esc8781

Florida now has a democrat Senate.


----------



## Pak47

Didn't see kraits post. Bp.


----------



## KingMamba

If Obama takes Ohio and narrowly wins Florida then Romney is toast. I also got NY going to Obama (my opinion).



Sashan said:


> OH - Obama - 59% Romney - 40% - NBC



20% of the vote is in, so far so good.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jaunty

KingMamba93 said:


> If Obama takes Ohio and narrowly wins Florida then Romney is toast. I also got NY going to Obama (my opinion).
> 
> 
> 
> 20% of the vote is in, so far so good.



Dude NY, CA etc are 100% Obama, always blue.


----------



## KingMamba

jaunty said:


> Dude NY, CA etc are 100% Obama, always blue.



You couldn't tell with the Republicans running their mouths over here.


----------



## jaunty

KingMamba93 said:


> You couldn't tell with the Republicans running their mouths over here.



Obama will win by at least 10% margin in those two.


----------



## liontk

salut, glad to see you gentleman here,

Its going to be an interesting night, as far as the election goes, whoever wins the election tonight must take Candienne government into consideration as the US opinion is very low in our country now. We are also USA's biggest trading partner or atleast in the top 3 yet we get no acknowledgement and our suggestions are hardly taken into account. In future if americanne do not get their act together, we will start selling our energy to china via british columbia. So canada and canadienne will be watching this election very closely as our economy depends on it. 

My question for you guys in this forum is, what are your countries concerns in regards to United States and what would you like from the future president.

merci beaucoup, bonne chance pour le election for the candidates

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Esc8781

Mitt won Arkanas


----------



## KingMamba

liontk said:


> salut, glad to see you gentleman here,
> 
> Its going to be an interesting night, as far as the election goes, whoever wins the election tonight must take Candienne government into consideration as the US opinion is very low in our country now. We are also USA's biggest trading partner or atleast in the top 3 yet we get no acknowledgement and our suggestions are hardly taken into account. In future if americanne do not get their act together, we will start selling our energy to china via british columbia. So canada and canadienne will be watching this election very closely as our economy depends on it.
> 
> My question for you guys in this forum is, what are your countries concerns in regards to United States and what would you like from the future president.
> 
> merci beaucoup, bonne chance pour le election for the candidates



I was peeved when Obama rejected the keystone pipeline deal.


----------



## Sashan

FL - 56% Obama - 51 Romney - 48%


----------



## jaunty

Tonight my posts # will go significantly up, been struggling for 3 years lol


----------



## KingMamba

Esc8781 said:


> Mitt won Arkanas



Red state, was expected.


----------



## Sashan

jaunty said:


> Tonight my posts # will go significantly up, been struggling for 3 years lol



Hopefully you dont say anything here to get banned - Zakii and Webmaster are keeping a Hawkish eye here.


----------



## jaunty

Sashan said:


> FL - 56% Obama - 51 Romney - 48%



With 60% votes, a few of the remaining counties are blue and tossup. Obama should win I reckon.


----------



## KingMamba

Obama and Romney are neck and neck in NC with 50% of the vote in.


----------



## jaunty

Sashan said:


> Hopefully you dont say anything here to get banned - Zakii and Webmaster are keeping a Hawkish eye here.



Nah never got banned, only a few infractions, all expired, I should be safe


----------



## Plexyre

Voted at noon during lunch break.

No hard feelings for whoever wins or which party takes control of Congress 

Time to get ready for 2014 and 2016 elections, political and media pundits are already talking about it (at least give us a month's break from the politics)

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## KingMamba

jaunty said:


> With 60% votes, a few of the remaining counties are blue and tossup. Obama should win I reckon.



Florida going to Obama would be a huge morale blow to the Romney camp especially considering they were leading for much of the night.


----------



## Sashan

jaunty said:


> Nah never got banned, only a few *infractions, all expired*, I should be safe



Looks like you have some buffer built up.


----------



## KingMamba

Plexyre said:


> Voted at noon during lunch break.
> 
> No hard feelings for whoever wins or which party takes control of Congress
> 
> Time to get ready for 2014 and 2016 elections, political and media pundits are already talking about it (at least give us a month's break from the politics)



I just hope the two parties work together to solve some of these issues once this election is through.


----------



## jaunty

Romney is toast if he doesn't win OH and FL.


----------



## KingMamba

Romney should have picked a Latino running mate or a woman his choice of Ryan still makes no sense to me.


----------



## liontk

KingMamba93 said:


> I was peeved when Obama rejected the keystone pipeline deal.



No In Canada , we are not that pissed about the pipeline as much as negligence to our suggestion in foreign affair matters. Remember we always have and do continue to support americanne`s through the good and the bad times, we even participated in your war on terror and lost 150 soldiers.. I personally am slightly titled towards Obama but that partially due to us Canadienne being left leaning, don`t get me wrong your democrats are very right wing in comparison to our conservatives(most right wing party in Canada), while your republicans, well lord bless their souls because they are quite out there in terms of social and economic policies.


----------



## IndoUS

KingMamba93 said:


> Florida going to Obama would be a huge morale blow to the Romney camp especially considering they were leading for much of the night.



Florida at this point seems to be in the pocket of Obama.


----------



## Icecreamcart

As much as I would like Obama to win, a consequences of a Romney victory would be utterly fascinating.

In terms of foreign policy, a president who doesn't have war-mongering neo-cons as foreign policy advisers would definitely be preferable. 

A Romney victory would embolden Netanyahu's Likud - Yisrael merger and the Israeli elections. Not something I'll like to see.


----------



## jaunty

KingMamba93 said:


> Romney should have picked a Latino running mate or a woman his choice of Ryan still makes no sense to me.



Agreed. Probably he tried to attract the young voters who are heavily polarized towards Obama. But if you are against abortion and LGBT college kids won't vote for you


----------



## KingMamba

liontk said:


> No In Canada , we are not that pissed about the pipeline as much as negligence to our suggestion in foreign affair matters. Remember we always have and do continue to support americanne`s through the good and the bad times, we even participated in your war on terror and lost 150 soldiers.. I personally am slightly titled towards Obama but that partially due to us Canadienne being left leaning, don`t get me wrong your democrats are very right wing in comparison to our conservatives(most right wing party in Canada), while your republicans, well lord bless their souls because they are quite out there in terms of social and economic policies.



Our democrats are liberals and our Republicans are conservative. Sorry mate America will hear you guys out in foreign policy matters but the final decisions will always be ours, you guys are just gonna have to live with that (no offense intended).


----------



## liontk

Since this happens to be PDF, i would like to once again pose the question to both indienne and pakistani members about what you would like from the future president of United states in regards to your country with respect to policy? 

once again my apologies for my anglais, its my second language so hopefully my question kind of makes sense


----------



## KingMamba

Icecreamcart said:


> As much as I would like Obama to win, a consequences of a Romney victory would be utterly fascinating.
> 
> In terms of foreign policy, a president who doesn't have war-mongering neo-cons as foreign policy advisers would definitely be preferable.
> 
> A Romney victory would embolden Netanyahu's Likud - Yisrael merger and the Israeli elections. Not something I'll like to see.



That is my greatest fear, Romney looks like he will be bringing back in the same Bush era aides with him to the white house and knowing how easily the man is influenced one way or the other it would be disastrous.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sashan

liontk said:


> Since this happens to be PDF, i would like to once again pose the question to both indienne and pakistani members about what you would like from the future president of United states in regards to your country?
> 
> once my apologies for my *anglais, its my second language *so hopefully my question kind of makes sense



Realised it with your first posting here. No worries - English is not the first language for anyone here except for few Americans.


----------



## Al-zakir

IndoUS said:


> Florida at this point seems to be in the pocket of Obama.



Not yet. Hold your horse for sec.


----------



## KingMamba

Al-zakir said:


> Not yet. Hold your horse for sec.



He is trying to jinx it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jaunty

David Axelrod looks confident on ABC.


----------



## IndoUS

KingMamba93 said:


> He is trying to jinx it.



Not really 60% of the votes are out so its pretty much given at this point.

I am surprised Romney is doing well in Michigan considering this is a pretty blue state.


----------



## Sashan

CT U.S senate - Murphy - 61%, Mcmahon - 37% - Mcmahon lost 50 mil last time and this time 47 mil.  - For all the negative campaign she ran.


----------



## Al-zakir

I am on CNN. Where you guys at?


----------



## KingMamba

jaunty said:


> Agreed. Probably he tried to attract the young voters who are heavily polarized towards Obama. But if you are against abortion and LGBT college kids won't vote for you



I would have voted for Ron Paul but the republican party did not give him a chance. 



IndoUS said:


> Not really 60% of the votes are out so its pretty much given at this point.
> 
> I am surprised Romney is doing well in Michigan considering this is a pretty blue state.



Just playing with you mate.


----------



## jaunty

Al-zakir said:


> I am on CNN. Where you guys at?



CNN online, ABC on TV.


----------



## IndoUS

Ohio also leaning just like the last election to Obama.


----------



## Safriz

Obama : 78
Romney: 82


----------



## liontk

Sashan said:


> Realised it with your first posting here. No worries - English is not the first language for anyone here except for few Americans.



I am taking classes at university to improve my anglais, its very hard langue compare to say francais or even say urdu that my grand papa tries to get me to learn. Sometimes I wish the anglo's did not dominate the world but rather the francophone language did , imagine how awesome would the world be having francais as international communication langue. Also on the side note, is there still any francais/quebecois influence in india/pakistàn, or do general populace hate francais like anglos due to france`s past colonial influence on india. sorry for sidetracking from my thread just curious.


----------



## Safriz

Romney is on the road to victory from the looks of it.


----------



## jaunty

KingMamba93 said:


> I would have voted for Ron Paul but the republican party did not give him a chance.



Ron Paul doesn't appeal to the conservative base of Republicans.


----------



## KingMamba

We may go to bed early tonight guys if both Ohio and Florida go to Obama.


----------



## Don Jaguar

liontk said:


> Since this happens to be PDF, i would like to once again pose the question to both indienne and pakistani members about what you would like from the future president of United states in regards to your country with respect to policy?



I will prefer Obama over Romney.


----------



## KingMamba

Safriz said:


> Romney is on the road to victory from the looks of it.



Not really, idk what election you are watching. 



jaunty said:


> Ron Paul doesn't appeal to the conservative base of Republicans.



That is because the man talks sense, sense does not appeal to the majority of the bigots who infest the party.


----------



## Sashan

liontk said:


> I am taking classes at university to improve my anglais, its very hard langue compare to say francais or even say urdu that my grand papa tries to get me to learn. Sometimes I wish the anglo's did not dominate the world but rather the francophone did , imagine how awesome would the world be having francais as international langue. Also on the side note, is there still any *francais/quebecois influence in india*, or do local people hate francais like anglos post colonial peroid. sorry for sidetracking from my thread just curious.



I lived near a place called Pondicherry near Chennai in South India for couple of years, which has French influence even now as it was ruled by French. The Auroville is dominated by French people. There is a hindi actress called Kalki Koechlin who is from Pondicherry and is of French ancestry.


----------



## KingMamba

liontk said:


> I am taking classes at university to improve my anglais, its very hard langue compare to say francais or even say urdu that my grand papa tries to get me to learn. Sometimes I wish the anglo's did not dominate the world but rather the francophone did , imagine how awesome would the world be having francais as international langue. Also on the side note, is there still any francais/quebecois influence in india, or do local people hate francais like anglos post colonial peroid. sorry for sidetracking from my thread just curious.



How much urdu do you know?? I am planning on learning french, just love the way the words roll off the tongue.


----------



## Icecreamcart

KingMamba93 said:


> That is because the man talks sense, sense does not appeal to the majority of the bigots who infest the party.



Ron Paul has integrity, something his party lacks. You may dislike him, but you can't help but respect his conviction.


----------



## Don Jaguar

liontk said:


> I am taking classes at university to improve my *anglais*, its very hard langue compare to say francais or even say urdu that my grand papa tries to get me to learn. Sometimes I wish the anglo's did not dominate the world but rather the francophone did , imagine how awesome would the world be having francais as international langue. Also on the side note, is there still any francais/quebecois influence in india, or do local people hate francais like anglos post colonial peroid. sorry for sidetracking from my thread just curious.



That is english not anglais.

And english looks very easier to me than french so i prefer english.

And your grand father wanted you to learn urdu?

Why?


----------



## IndoUS

Obama and Romney tied in Florida, Obama still strong in Ohio.


----------



## KingMamba

Icecreamcart said:


> Ron Paul has integrity, something his party lacks. You may dislike him, but you can't help but respect his conviction.



I know I have nothing but utter respect for the man he didn't fold until it became painfully clear that his party was not willing to back him even though he probably would have beaten Obama. The man had a lot of the usual Obama voters on his side.


----------



## IndoUS

Florida is gonna repeat what happened during the 2000 election.


----------



## Sashan

Icecreamcart said:


> Ron Paul has integrity, something his party lacks. You may dislike him, but you can't help but respect his conviction.



If Romney had charted the economic plan properly, he would be have been the winner considering economy is the major issue in this election.

CNN projections - 123 Obama - 152 - Romney

FL - 72% Obama leading 50 to 49


----------



## jaunty

CNN projections right now, but none of these are important states I think.


----------



## Safriz

Obama: 123
Romney:153

Pulling ahead romney...


----------



## IndoUS

THe state of California is gonna be a huge boost to Obama so lets not count that out.


----------



## jaunty

Obama will sweep the west coast, they are still voting there.


----------



## Sashan

Safriz said:


> Obama: 123
> Romney:153
> 
> Pulling ahead romney...





Big states like CA and NY yet to come in.


----------



## Don Jaguar

IndoUS said:


> Obama and Romney tied in Florida, Obama still strong in Ohio.



What is the situation of Texas?


----------



## jaunty

CNN projection: Repubs getting majority in house of representatives.


----------



## IndoUS

Oh my god Florida is gonna give me a heart attack at this point 6000 vote is the difference.


----------



## Sashan

Republicans - US house of rep control - CNN


----------



## Icecreamcart

Sashan said:


> If Romney had charted the economic plan properly, he would be have been the winner considering economy is the major issue in this election.
> 
> CNN projections - 123 Obama - 152 - Romney
> 
> FL - 72% Obama leading 50 to 49



I've been keeping up with US politics and Romney doesn't hasn't revealed any specifics for his economic plans. Because he knows independents wouldn't vote for him if he did.

The classic bait-and-switch. Convince the voters to vote for him and once the election is over, unleash his true economic agenda.


----------



## jaunty

Don Jaguar said:


> What is the situation of Texas?



Texas is a red state. So Romney.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## IndoUS

Don Jaguar said:


> What is the situation of Texas?



Texas is a Republican strong hold so its a Romney win there.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## liontk

KingMamba93 said:


> How much urdu do you know?? I am planning on learning french, just love the way the words roll off the tongue.



in comparison to anglais, you will definitely find francais much easier, my recommendation would be to transfer school or just live six months or max a year in francophone environment in say Canada due to close proximaty with United states(preferably quebèc in canada to learn Louis francais). I am saying this because francais take time to learn if your not in a non francais environment however as far as reading and writing goes,any universitiè 1xxx class can get you up to speed.

As far as Urdu goes, as i am getting older i am trying to get more involved to learn the language and pakistani culture, unfortunately in my family on my grandpapa and some extended aunts are pakistanis. I have in the past planned to take time off to travel pakistan/ india(some extended family still there) to learn the langue. My grandpapa however thinks that pakistan is not safe at this point in time even for canadienne.


----------



## Don Jaguar

KingMamba93 said:


> How much urdu do you know?? I am planning on learning french, just love the way the words roll off the tongue.



Specially when a girl speaks.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## IndoUS

Lol, I think the CNN site is down.


----------



## jaunty

Florida is too close to call.


----------



## Sashan

Icecreamcart said:


> I've been keeping up with US politics and Romney doesn't hasn't revealed any specifics for his economic plans. Because he knows independents wouldn't vote for him if he did.
> 
> The classic bait-and-switch. Convince the voters to vote for him and once the election is over, unleash his true economic agenda.



I was disappointed with Obama but Romney disappointed me even more for not annoucing any plans and on top of it saying it will take 8-10 years to turn the economy around. So why not give Obama a chance after all it is 4 years since he took over.

FL - Romney leads by just 1288 votes. wow.


----------



## IndoUS

Can anyone else access CNN, its showing site not responding for me.


----------



## jaunty

IndoUS said:


> Can anyone else access CNN, its showing site not responding for me.



Yes working fine for me.


----------



## Don Jaguar

IndoUS said:


> Can anyone else access CNN, its showing site not responding for me.



It is working fine here.


----------



## IndoUS

jaunty said:


> Yes working fine for me.



I only have NBC now for checking, CNN is down for me.


----------



## KingMamba

Wow Romney leads florida by exactly 193 votes.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## IndoUS

KingMamba93 said:


> Wow Romney leads florida by exactly 193 votes.



That is just insanely close at this point lets get ready for election recount for Florida.


----------



## Sashan

FL - Obama leads by 300 votes.


----------



## jaunty

KingMamba93 said:


> Wow Romney leads florida by exactly 193 votes.



Looks like it's gonna be like 2000, when Bush won FL by 537 votes and won the election 

PA 10% votes in, Obama 69%


----------



## IndoUS

Wait hold on CNN came back and now its saying Romney is ahead, what the hell is going on.


----------



## Safriz

IndoUS said:


> Can anyone else access CNN, its showing site not responding for me.



Looks like CNN banned you for trolling


----------



## IndoUS

jaunty said:


> Looks like it's gonna be like 2000, when Bush won FL by 537 votes and won the election
> 
> PA 10% votes in, Obama 69%



PA is a democratic state even though its called a swing state I highly believe its going to Obama.


----------



## KingMamba

Obama has supposedly won PA and retaken Florida lead. He would only need Ohio and 10 more electoral votes to win if PA is set in stone.


----------



## IndoUS

Safriz said:


> Looks like CNN banned you for trolling



Came back up the mods at CNN are pretty lenient.


----------



## Sashan

KingMamba93 said:


> Obama has supposedly won PA and retaken Florida lead. He would only need Ohio and 10 more electoral votes to win if PA is set in stone.



Looks like Obama will FL as Miami is a democrat territory while Naples will give some boost to Romney.


----------



## IndoUS

Sashan said:


> Looks like Obama will FL as Miami is a democrat territory while Naples will give some boost to Romney.



At this point only Holmes and Santa Rosa county remain.


----------



## Sashan

IndoUS said:


> At this point only Holmes and Santa Rosa county remain.



Do you know the impact of Obama winning Ohio and Romney - FL?


----------



## Icecreamcart

Sashan said:


> Do you know the impact of Obama winning Ohio and Romney - FL?



Wasn't it that Romney needs to win 5-6 swing states if he doesn't get both Ohio and Florida?

Check the scenarios map - NYT

Paths to the White House - Election 2012 - NYTimes.com

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## IndoUS

Sashan said:


> Do you know the impact of Obama winning Ohio and Romney - FL?



Romney has to win FL while for Obama losing FL is not much of a big deal.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kawaraj

IndoUS said:


> THe state of California is gonna be a huge boost to Obama so lets not count that out.



it does not matter, Democrats already count that in.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## IndoUS

kawaraj said:


> it does not matter, Democrats already count that in.



Oh, thanks mate I thought it was still left out.


----------



## Adir-M

FLORIDA 50%-50% LOL

if ohio + florida mitt ==>win

if only ohio or florida obama==>win


----------



## jaunty

Florida will be decided by less than 5000 votes I guess.


----------



## RazPaK

I hope to god Romney wins.


----------



## Safriz

143 Obama
153 Romney
270 to win.

Less than 600 votes remain to be counted in Florida,and still 50/50


----------



## Icecreamcart

Safriz said:


> 143 Obama
> 153 Romney
> 270 to win.
> 
> Less than 600 votes remain to be counted in Florida,and still 50/50



Obama's ahead by 15000 votes.


----------



## jaunty

Obama ahead by 10K votes in FL now.


----------



## Oldman1

If Obama wins Ohio and Florida its pretty much over.


----------



## Sashan

NBC projections - Obama - 158 Romney - 152


----------



## Adir-M

Obama will win in Ohio.
Early vote in ohio
54%obama-46%mitt.


----------



## Oldman1

Election 2012 Control Room -- Yahoo! News

I'm watching this.


----------



## kawaraj

jaunty said:


> Florida will be decided by less than 5000 votes I guess.



Exactly it's like 2000 when the last county flare the fireworks.


----------



## Sashan

kawaraj said:


> Exactly it's like 2000 when the last county flare the fireworks.




FL - 84% Obama leading by almost 20,000 votes.


----------



## Hyde

Romney 154
Obama 153

so close


----------



## jaunty

Now Obama is ahead by 20K in FL.



Zakii said:


> Romney 154
> Obama 153
> 
> so close



Dude totals numbers at this point don't mean much. Obama will sweep the west coast, voting is still going on there. Only a few states(6-7) will decide this.


----------



## kobiraaz

RazPaK said:


> I hope to god Romney wins.



why?.....................................


----------



## Developereo

VCheng said:


> An expensive game, to be sure:
> 
> The final ad spending in the presidential contest:
> 
> *Overall ad spending: $984 million*



Try SIX BILLION.

Sky News: Election day caps $US6 billion spree



scherz said:


> This US alection is a joke. May the guy who have the highest amount of money and influence win! Actually its buying the thron, democracy of epicness.



The American system is good at the local level, but the national elections are very much rigged in favor of the two dominant parties. Third party candidates have zero chance of getting the exposure and legitimacy needed to compete at the national level even if they are popular (Ralph Nader, Ross Perot) at the grass roots level.



IndoUS said:


> The electoral votes are the number of Representatives in the House and the Number of Senators in the Senate. Each state has two senators while the number of Reps. are depended on the states population. There are something like 538 electoral votes all together, and it is these votes that count. The popular votes are just a gauge to see as to which side the electoral votes would lean on.



You are mixing up Congress (House + Senate) with the electoral college. They both have similar rationale behind them, but they are not the same.



arp2041 said:


> Can someone pls explain me how the US electoral system works, i mean if Bush din't got popular vote than how he won in an electoral college??



The idea behind the electoral college is to make sure ALL states have some input into the election and their concerns are addressed. If it was just about the popular vote, then candidates would spend all their time in the populous states and nobody would even bother showing up in the other ones, meaning their issues would be ignored.

In an electoral college, the winner-take-all effect is stopped at state boundaries, so candidates need to win a certain number of states (not just votes) to get elected. Essentially, it goes back to the way the US was formed as a federation of states and the concern of smaller states to protect their rights from being swamped by the bigger states. The balance of power between the states v/s the federal government is an ongoing issue.


----------



## Hyde

jaunty said:


> Now Obama is ahead by 20K in FL.
> 
> 
> 
> Dude totals numbers at this point don't mean much. Obama will sweep the west coast, voting is still going on there. Only a few states(6-7) will decide this.



I know.... but no harm in following the election results - I guess you are doing the samething


----------



## kawaraj

Sashan said:


> FL - 84% Obama leading by almost 20,000 votes.



Tallahassee already counted.


----------



## jaunty

Obama is winning FL, the remaining southern counties including Miami are traditionally blue.


----------



## Sashan

kawaraj said:


> Tallahassee already counted.



But Miami-date county and 1 more county which CNN mentions as heavily democrat dominated is still pending. In fact, only 40% is counted for Miami. So I feel Obama will win safely by atleast 50,000.


----------



## jaunty

Zakii said:


> I know.... but no harm in following the election results - I guess you are doing the samething



No I meant although the total numbers show it's very close, it may not be so. Only the swing states matter. Didn't mean to offend you.


----------



## Al-zakir

I think Obama for another 4.


----------



## Safriz

157 Bama
153 Roomey

157 Bama
153 Roomey


----------



## Icecreamcart

Romney's catching up to Obama in Ohio. now 52-47.


----------



## Safriz

and Minnesota to Obama


----------



## Sashan

Meanwhile in CT U.S senate elections, Linda Mcmahon will concede defeat shortly. 100 mil of her own money down the drains in 2 years.


----------



## jaunty

Have to say that the CNN coverage is the best.


----------



## kawaraj

Mit.R is certainly combating the headwind as his home state votes against him, well Obama still gets strong backing from Illinois. 

Luck goes to the blue.


----------



## Sashan

FL - Obama - 40,000 lead.


----------



## Abii

Looks like most of the redneck states have finished voting

Obama is going to win by the looks of it.


----------



## Hyde

seems like Obama already won


----------



## Developereo

Safriz said:


> 157 Bama
> 153 Roomey




Add 67 (CA, WA) for Obama since that's a given.


----------



## jaunty

My prediction is that the popular vote will be very close, Romney may even win it but Obama will easily win in electorate votes. He will get way more than 270.


----------



## Safriz

Romney ahead again.


----------



## kawaraj

what a projection mess, did I just see Romney wins in Illinois?


----------



## Sashan

Zakii said:


> seems like Obama already won



Swing states - 

NH - Obama, FL, ohio - Obama leading, IOWA Obama, NV - Latino voters increase from 15 to 18% between 2008 and 2012 - so Obama will most probably win. CO - Obama

NC, VA, WI - Romney leading

Romney need to win atleast 6 swing states but looks like it is not at this time.


----------



## Safriz

153 Obama
162 Rom

270 to win


----------



## Don Jaguar

Safriz said:


> 153 Obama
> 162 Rom
> 
> 270 to win



How much more time it will take to reach 270?


----------



## Hyde

Sashan said:


> Swing states -
> 
> NH - Obama, FL, ohio - Obama leading, IOWA Obama, NV - Latino voters increase from 15 to 18% between 2008 and 2012 - so Obama will most probably win. CO - Obama
> 
> NC, VA, WI - Romney leading
> 
> Romney need to win atleast 6 swing states but looks like it is not at this time.



yeah and Florida going out of his hands... Obama already got enough votes from electoral college unless there is a shock awaiting


----------



## Developereo

The mood on Faux News has already gone from somber to funereal. Blame game has started.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jaunty

Don Jaguar said:


> How much more time it will take to reach 270?



I guess voting hasn't closed in West Coast yet. But those 3 states (CA,OR,WA) are going to Obama anyway.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sashan

Zakii said:


> yeah and Florida going out of his hands... Obama already got enough votes from electoral college unless there is a shock awaiting



FL will most probably gone for Romney as Obama is leading by more than 45,000 after 87% voting and CNN says it is 29 votes and once FL is gone then they say Romney is lost across US. WI is just 10 votes. So FL will be a big loss for Romney.


----------



## jaunty

So after this election most likely nothing will change basically. Dems are winning Senate, Repubs are winning House, Obama-president. So it will remain tough for Obama to get things done.


----------



## kawaraj

Developereo said:


> The mood on Faux News has already gone from somber to funereal. Blame game has started.



sense of desperate. actually m.romney made some serious mistakes. 

in a debate, obama blatantly refute mitt, "when asked about who's america's biggest threat, you said it's Russia, not what we fighting for 10 years, the terrorists" m.romney was shut up there....


----------



## Sashan

kawaraj said:


> sense of desperate. actually m.romney made some serious mistakes.
> 
> in a debate, obama blatantly refute mitt, "when asked about who's america's biggest threat, you said it's Russia, not what we fighting for 10 years, the terrorists" m.romney was shut up there....



They did the polls and foreign policy is of interest to just 4% Americans. Economy is of interest for 67% and that is where Romney slipped in that he did not define his plan properly and it was a turn off for many.


----------



## Safriz

172 Bumbum
163 Roo


----------



## Developereo

kawaraj said:


> sense of desperate. actually m.romney made some serious mistakes.
> 
> in a debate, obama blatantly refute mitt, "when asked about who's america's biggest threat, you said it's Russia, not what we fighting for 10 years, the terrorists" m.romney was shut up there....



I don't think the debates were a major factor. If anything, they helped Romney by projecting him as a legitimate contender for the White House.

The basic problem is that the Republican Party is still perceived as a white male country club, and has failed to keep pace with the changing demographics in America.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Don Jaguar

Safriz said:


> 172 Bumbum
> 163 Roo



Which website you are following?


----------



## Sashan

NBC - took over Rockfeller Center and its Ice rink - the map looks awesome with the color changes for different states on the ice.
ABC - Time square - looks pretty nice.
CNN - took over Empire state building but have not shown anything outside.


----------



## S_O_C_O_M

I voted. 

I picked Obama. 

Romney is a douchebag.


----------



## Safriz

Don Jaguar said:


> Which website you are following?



I am in UK.
BBC


----------



## gambit

Developereo said:


> The mood on Faux News has already gone from somber to funereal. Blame game has started.


This is a very foolish post. Given how close is the race, right now Romney is in the lead. The next hour it may change. And the hour after that.


----------



## kawaraj

Developereo said:


> I don't think the debates were a major factor. If anything, they helped Romney by projecting him as a legitimate contender for the White House.
> 
> The basic problem is that the Republican Party is still perceived as a white male country club, and has failed to keep pace with the changing demographics in America.



Agreed. 
Always Fundamentals call the shot.


----------



## S_O_C_O_M

Zakii said:


> yeah and Florida going out of his hands... Obama already got enough votes from electoral college unless there is a shock awaiting



no he doesn't

its a dead heat tie. 

Ohio is a determining factor. As well as Flordia which is too close to call. if either goes to obama. romney is toast


----------



## kawaraj

Developereo said:


> I don't think the debates were a major factor. If anything, they helped Romney by projecting him as a legitimate contender for the White House.
> 
> The basic problem is that the Republican Party is still perceived as a white male country club, and has failed to keep pace with the changing demographics in America.



Agreed. 
Always Fundamentals call the shot.


----------



## Safriz

S_O_C_O_M said:


> I voted.
> 
> I picked Obama.
> 
> Romney is a douchebag.



Romney is same as our David Camerron..
Millionair who does not and cannot understabd problems of the poor but does undetstand the rich and fully supports the rich.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jaunty

Developereo said:


> The basic problem is that the Republican Party is still perceived as a white male country club, and has failed to keep pace with the changing demographics in America.



Couldn't agree more. With constantly changing demography Republicans must find a way to win votes other than white males. Even most white females now vote for Democrats except for the Southern states.


----------



## darkinsky

Safriz said:


> 172 Bumbum
> 163 Roo



bumbum the chinese member??


----------



## Developereo

gambit said:


> This is a very foolish post. Given how close is the race, right now Romney is in the lead. The next hour it may change. And the hour after that.



Hey, I just report, you decide. 

Maybe your buddies at Faux News know something you don't, eh?


----------



## longyi

S_O_C_O_M said:


> no he doesn't
> 
> its a dead heat tie.
> 
> Ohio is a determining factor. As well as Flordia which is too close to call. if either goes to obama. romney is toast




Florida with 89% vote in and Obama leads .6% point, statistically Obama won. Game's over!


----------



## Don Jaguar

gambit said:


> This is a very foolish post. Given how close is the race, right now Romney is in the lead. The next hour it may change. And the hour after that.



And who will get your vote?

Obama or Romney?


----------



## S_O_C_O_M

longyi said:


> Florida with 89% vote in and Obama leads .6% point, statistically Obama won. Game's over!



not true. not with flordia. go look up florida history in presidental elections.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Developereo said:


> Hey, I just report, you decide.
> 
> Maybe your buddies at Faux News know something you don't, eh?


I do not think any American here have rooted for Romney. I could be wrong so anyone can correct me. But if Romney is the elect, I will gather up all the posts rooting for Obama and shows y'all what fools you are.


----------



## RazPaK

gambit said:


> I do not think any American here have rooted for Romney. I could be wrong so anyone can correct me. But if Romney is the elect, I will gather up all the posts rooting for Obama and shows y'all what fools you are.



I voted Romney.


----------



## S_O_C_O_M

Don Jaguar said:


> And who will get your vote?
> 
> Obama or Romney?



military people are always republicans. so ground pounder here must have picked romney.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## longyi

S_O_C_O_M said:


> not true. not with flordia. go look up florida history in presidental elections.




You might be right, right now Obama ahead by only .2% point in Florida


----------



## Safriz

RazPaK said:


> I voted Romney.



Troll


----------



## Sashan

longyi said:


> You might be right, right now Obama ahead by only .2% point in Florida



CNN is doing an awesome job looking at various counties within FL and is confident Obama will win though they havent done the projections yet.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Developereo

gambit said:


> I do not think any American here have rooted for Romney. I could be wrong so anyone can correct me. But if Romney is the elect, I will gather up all the posts rooting for Obama and shows y'all what fools you are.



Canada Beefing Up Border Patrol In Event Romney Wins Presidential Election - The Global Edition

As I have said earlier, I don't think either candidate is a standout. However, given consistent 8% unemployment, Obama doing f- all to improve the situation, the economy being the number one issue and Romney's supposed strong point, it would be a major cause for introspection if the Republicans can't bag this one.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jaunty

Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert live in 10 minutes. 

Comedy Central's Indecision: Election Night Live


----------



## gambit

Here is what you guys seems to be too blinded to understand:

If Obama is re-elected, he will have a terrible second term because this close contest is an indicator that half of the country is dissatisfied with him and that he won re-election only because of race and the divisions that he sown throughout the country, not because he was a competent executive or was a visionary figure.


----------



## darkinsky

the gap of two voters in florida is closing


----------



## Safriz

173 Bam
174 Rom

270 to win.


----------



## Hyde

O-bomb: 173
Romney: 174


----------



## jaunty

OH, VA and FL are still too close to call tbh.


----------



## S_O_C_O_M

gambit said:


> Here is what you guys seems to be too blinded to understand:
> 
> If Obama is re-elected, he will have a terrible second term because this close race is an indicator that half of the country is dissatisfied with him and that he won re-election only because of race and the divisions that he sown throughout the country, not because he was a competent executive or was a visionary figure.



what an idiotic post. most presidental elections are split down the line.

plus 

its very difficult to beat an incumbent president.

ground pounder.


----------



## Developereo

gambit said:


> Here is what you guys seems to be too blinded to understand:
> 
> If Obama is re-elected, he will have a terrible second term because this close contest is an indicator that half of the country is dissatisfied with him and that he won re-election only because of race and the divisions that he sown throughout the country, not because he was a competent executive or was a visionary figure.



Obama will win, not because people like him better, but because Romney failed to make his case and people decided not to rock the boat.


----------



## kawaraj

Obama wins in demography, simple truth.

or we can just put it the other way, the election is all about to pick the bad from the worse.


----------



## Battle of Bach Dang River

Obama 173
Romney 163


----------



## Sashan

FL - 93%, Obama leads by 36,000


----------



## kobiraaz

wtf! MY twitter IS FULL OF -'if romney wins, i am moving to bangladesh, if obama wins i am moving to canada '


----------



## Ganymede

I took the liberty to make some rough calculations:

US population:
311,591,917

Total population of "2012 Swing States":
(Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin)

66 million

66/311 = only 21.2% of the US vote actually matters for the Presidential race.

Even less so than if you consider some of these states safely Dem. or Rep.; What people don't seem to realize is that you aren't just voting for one person. You're voting for senators, representatives, propositions, etc. Step back and see that standing behind both Romney and Obama are a large network of like-minded f#cks.

So your vote doesn't matter for the one president but it can make a difference on the mood of the government as a whole. I voted for Jill Stein, she may not win but at least I'll sleep easy tonight knowing i didn't vote for one of the crooks.


----------



## Hyde

*Obama 244 
Romney 178*

as expected


----------



## S_O_C_O_M

obama won california

its a wrap.


----------



## Safriz

244 Bum
178 Rom
Calfornia to Obama
270 to win


----------



## Icecreamcart

Romney's catching up in Ohio. 50-48.

Instead of R-Florida and D-Ohio, we might get the reverse.


----------



## SMC

This is good for Pakistan. Romney would've prolonged the Afghan war by 200 years and started a war with Iran. At least with Obama, we know that US is gonna get the f*ck out of Afghanistan by 2014.


----------



## kawaraj

Mitt gets NC another swing state


----------



## Sasquatch

Excellent as expected Obama


----------



## Oldman1

kobiraaz said:


> wtf! MY twitter IS FULL OF -'if romney wins, i am moving to bangladesh, if obama wins i am moving to canada '



Give it a day and they will forget ever moving.


----------



## Icecreamcart

Paths to the White House - Election 2012 - NYTimes.com

With N.H for Obama, if Romney doesn't win Florida, the election is over.


----------



## RazPaK

SMC said:


> This is good for Pakistan. Romney would've prolonged the Afghan war by 200 years and started a war with Iran. At least with Obama, we know that US is gonna get the f*ck out of Afghanistan by 2014.



And that is where you are wrong sir.


----------



## KingMamba

jaunty said:


> So after this election most likely nothing will change basically. Dems are winning Senate, Repubs are winning House, Obama-president. So it will remain tough for Obama to get things done.



Yep, Republicans will block him every chance they get a shame too.


----------



## longyi

Florida 94% votes in, Obama leads be .5% point, looks like Obama will carry Florida.


----------



## Safriz

244 BUm

203 Rom


----------



## gambit

Developereo said:


> Obama will win, not because people like him better, but because Romney failed to make his case and people decided not to rock the boat.


I have been thru several elections and not once have I ever made any predictions. Raygun's win by a landslide...

United States presidential election, 1984 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> Reagan's 525 electoral votes (out of 538) is the highest total ever received by a presidential candidate.


...Was when majority of soothsayers convinced themselves that he would lose.


----------



## kawaraj

76 precincts of Miami-dade, that's the slice hope of Romney.


----------



## Sashan

New Mexico and IOWA - Obama

FL with less than 500,000 remaining and Obama leading by 36,000 it is tough for Romney.


----------



## darkinsky

SMC said:


> This is good for Pakistan. Romney would've prolonged the Afghan war by 200 years and started a war with Iran. At least with Obama, we know that US is gonna get the f*ck out of Afghanistan by 2014.



dude there is no formal announcement that they are gonna get out in 2014, obama also as elected said that he would immediately evacuate his army but he didnt in his first tenure

drone attacks increased in obama and the aid bill was also conditioned which wasnt in bush time


----------



## SMC

RazPaK said:


> And that is where you are wrong sir.



Why? Obama is bad for Pakistan in the short term, but in the long term he is a much better choice.


----------



## longyi

"We are experiencing 3-4 hour lines to vote in Miami in the Brickell area. These long lines started this morning and are continued throughout the day," he said. "These are working people here with jobs. What about the elderly - they can't wait four hours in a line to vote. It shouldn't be like this."








Floridians know how important their votes are. Where I voted this morning in Brooklyn there was no line at all.


----------



## S_O_C_O_M

romney has been trying for the past 10 years to be president.


----------



## Safriz

251 Bum
203 Rom

270 to win


----------



## Sashan

CNN projects Obama - 262 Romney - 191 - If Obama wins FL, all is done for Romney.


----------



## KingMamba

Obama at 262 now, Romney at 201.


----------



## kawaraj

ohio for obama, he wins.


----------



## Safriz

Obama has most probably won.
Game over Romnay
Suck it up...Gambit

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## IndoUS

Obama wins the election in my opinion hands down. He gets Ohio and Florida and Colorado.


----------



## Sashan

CNN projects Obama wins Presidential elections.


----------



## KingMamba

CNN projects Ohio to Obama, Obama has won re-election.


----------



## S_O_C_O_M

obama won its official


----------



## KingMamba

Down wit Romney, Mitt the twit.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Safriz

257 Bum
203 Rom


----------



## Battle of Bach Dang River

Congrats to Obama!

*Game over*


----------



## Sasquatch

longyi said:


> Where I voted this morning in Brooklyn there was no line at all.



I personally like Romney more business oriented , Obama is to much of dreamer, but Romneys FP is , but it's not really a surprise as for Asian Americans they prefer Obama.


----------



## jaunty

Fox has conceded defeat. People are gathering for Obama's speech.


----------



## Al-zakir

Romney is toast. No one like flip-flopper.


----------



## RazPaK

SMC said:


> Why? Obama is bad for Pakistan in the short term, but in the long term he is a much better choice.



I cannot disagree with you there, but I still have my reservations. I have my own thoughts which I don't want to share with the village idiots on the forum.


----------



## Mercenary

OBAMA!!!!


----------



## longyi

I'm still p!ss at the 4 trillion dollar robbery in 2000.


----------



## KingMamba

You look at the Obama camp and you see white, black, Asian, young, and old. You look at Romney's camp and you see a whole different story....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## xdrive

More Tax
More Debt
Less jobs

Enjoy the next 3 years Americans

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## RazPaK

Yay!!! More drone strikes. Celebrate you bastards.


----------



## Safriz

its official
Obama 275
He wins officially.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## xdrive

KingMamba93 said:


> You look at the Obama camp and you see white, black, Asian, young, and old. You look at Romney's camp and you see a whole different story....



I noticed that too. It just goes to show that the U.S is still very racist.

Instead of voting for a candidate on what they stand for, Americans vote based on race. People vote for obama because he is black because they think that makes them "intelligent" and "progressive" It's a wider problem of moving towards political correctness and far left wing extremism


----------



## KingMamba

RazPaK said:


> Yay!!! More drone strikes. Celebrate you bastards.



Romney had the same drone strike policies. 

The Republican party has to reform in order to have a better shot come four years, expect a lot more bickering as the Republicans win the House of Representatives.


----------



## KRAIT

Obama is Back.


----------



## Safriz

End of game for Romney...


----------



## KingMamba

xdrive said:


> I noticed that too. It just goes to show that the U.S is still very racist.
> 
> Instead of voting for a candidate on what they stand for, Americans vote based on race. People vote for obama because he is black because they think that makes them "intelligent" and "progressive" It's a wider problem of moving towards political correctness and far left wing extremism



I believe what it really shows is the ineptness of the Republican party of taking into account the changing demographics of this great nation.


----------



## Sasquatch

From observing Romney would have gotten the US economy back on track however his Social & FP to some extent don't seem popular.


----------



## kawaraj

I actually was hoping Mitt.R wins the election out of curiosity. now feel sorry for him. If anything to blame Romney it's his stance of pretending to be conservative, far too right to stay away from people in the middle.

Republicans need a generation to get out of this Bush curse.


----------



## Al-zakir

Good for America and the world.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sasquatch

kawaraj said:


> I actually was hoping Mitt.R wins the election out of curiosity. now feel sorry for him. If anything to blame Romney it's his stance of pretending to be conservative, far too right to stay away from people in the middle.
> 
> Republicans need a generation to get out of this Bush curse.



x2. also the hawkish FP.


----------



## RazPaK

KingMamba93 said:


> Romney had the same drone strike policies.
> 
> The Republican party has to reform in order to have a better shot come four years, expect a lot more bickering as the Republicans win the House of Representatives.



You are wrong. The Republicans are...well better for the country and better for Pakistan. I will probably tell you why tomorrow.


----------



## KingMamba

kawaraj said:


> I actually was hoping Mitt.R wins the election out of curiosity. now feel sorry for him. If anything to blame Romney it's his stance of pretending to be conservative, far too right to stay away from people in the middle.
> 
> Republicans need a generation to get out of this Bush curse.



The onus is now on the democrats to prove that they deserved re-election, if Obama does not rise to the occasion the Republicans Will take back the Presidency in 4 years.


----------



## KRAIT

Any link for Obama speech.


----------



## longyi

KRAIT said:


> Any link for Obama speech.




I'm watching BBC live

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Mercenary

KRAIT said:


> Any link for Obama speech.



He hasnt made the speech yet.

He will probably speak at 12 once Romney makes his own concession speech.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## KingMamba

RazPaK said:


> You are wrong. The Republicans are...well better for the country and better for Pakistan. I will probably tell you why tomorrow.



You better actually tell me tomorrow don't leave me hanging.  (hate when people do that )


----------



## Safriz

As usual... 
Ohio will have a recount...


----------



## S_O_C_O_M

Safriz said:


> As usual...
> Ohio will have a recount...



thats always florida. not ohio.


----------



## A.Rafay

Safriz said:


> As usual...
> Ohio will have a recount...



Florida and Virginia are also left


----------



## S_O_C_O_M



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Safriz

No speaches yet i think as ohio may have a re count.


----------



## xdrive

KingMamba93 said:


> I believe what it really shows is the ineptness of the Republican party of taking into account the changing demographics of this great nation.



Changing demographics should be irrelevant.

My countries demographics change often, but race is irrelevant in elections.


----------



## kobiraaz

I am happy!! Dnt know why!!! Hurray!!!!


----------



## RazPaK

KingMamba93 said:


> You better actually tell me tomorrow don't leave me hanging.  (hate when people do that )



Haha, I have company. Try to understand.


----------



## KRAIT

Mercenary said:


> He hasnt made the speech yet.
> 
> He will probably speak at 12 once Romney makes his own concession speech.


That I know. I am asking for any idea where I can see it online. Too lazy to get up and watch on TV. 

Thanks longyi.  

Got it.


----------



## jaunty

KingMamba93 said:


> You look at the Obama camp and you see white, black, Asian, young, and old. You look at Romney's camp and you see a whole different story....



Not only that, I feel most of the young whites are liberal where I live(PA). From my personal experience at Uni youngsters don't connect with Republican in social issues. Republicans will have to change their game to win in the future. Youngsters feel they haven't moved on with time in social issues.


----------



## A.Rafay

What happens to Joe Biden now will he be 're elected


----------



## longyi

KRAIT said:


> That I know. I am asking for any idea where I can see it online. Too lazy to get up and watch on TV.




You can get it from BBC News Live

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kawaraj

xdrive said:


> Changing demographics should be irrelevant.
> 
> My countries demographics change often, but race is irrelevant in elections.



no.... your country is way different either from political institution or social tradition. but i'd say this demography change is evolving underneath.... in some way. we will see.


----------



## Safriz

obama 281
Romney 203


----------



## kawaraj

A.Rafay said:


> What happens to Joe Biden now will he be 're elected



no he's fired for having too much champagne.


----------



## Sashan

Congrats Pres. Obama. Odd luck Governor Romney. Hopefully the Republicans cooperate with Pres. Obama and turn around the economy. 


Thinking about B.B.King's song "Thrill is gone". The excitement for the past couple of months is over.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Safriz

senate will continue bugging obama as they did last time.
Senate is more powerful than president himself.


----------



## jaunty

Safriz said:


> senate will continue bugging obama as they did last time.
> Senate is more powerful than president himself.



Senate has a majority of democrats, I think you meant the House.


----------



## S_O_C_O_M

A.Rafay said:


> What happens to Joe Biden now will he be 're elected



he is going to have to professionally whiten his dentures again.


----------



## kawaraj

Nikkei pulled off to the positive zone, financial seems to welcome Obama's reelection....


----------



## jaunty

My I told you so moment  Both are at 49% in popular votes and looks like Obama is crossing 300. 



jaunty said:


> My prediction is that the popular vote will be very close, Romney may even win it but Obama will easily win in electorate votes. He will get way more than 270.


----------



## Icecreamcart

Romney hasn't given up yet. 
There must be some rural Christian votes that haven't been counted yet!


----------



## jaunty

Another very early prediction.  Marco Rubio will be 2016 candidate for the republicans.


----------



## Abii

republinuts are forever done

The minorities are now a huge chunk of the US, women are smarting up, the under 30 crowd hate the reblicans, the under 40 are also pro democrat and worse of all, the republican people are becoming crazier by the year and they will continue to alienate people.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Rajaraja Chola

BBC News - President Barack Obama wins re-election

Obama have won with 290 votes...


----------



## Safriz

ok thats that..
Obama 290
Romney 203.

If ever ohio gets a recount.
Now obama still wins.

Come on Romney deliver your speech...you were hinging on ohio recount, doesnt matter now.


----------



## LeGenD

Abii said:


> republinuts are forever done
> 
> The minorities are now a huge chunk of the US, women are smarting up, the under 30 crowd hate the reblicans, the under 40 are also pro democrat and worse of all, the republican people are becoming crazier by the year and they will continue to alienate people.


You should be happy. Romney was bad news for Iran.

Unfortunately, Obama is bad news for Pakistan.


----------



## Mercenary

Obama won every state he won in 2008 except Indiana and North Carolina.

Really good results for Obama.


----------



## Esc8781

LeGenD said:


> You should be happy. Romney was bad news for Iran.
> 
> Unfortunately, Obama is bad news for Pakistan.


Romney is going to be the same or worse for Pakistan.


----------



## Mercenary

LeGenD said:


> You should be happy. Romney was bad news for Iran.
> 
> Unfortunately, Obama is bad news for Pakistan.



Both Obama and Romney would continue Drone Strikes.

The Era that Republicans would be good for Pakistan and Democrats be bad for Pakistan are over.

Pakistan needs to change its tune or it will become a pariah state.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LeGenD

Esc8781 said:


> Romney is going to be the same or worse for Pakistan.


No, republicans have been typically good for Pakistan.


----------



## Icecreamcart

Hey, am I reading it correctly, Obama would have won even if he lost Ohio and Florida (assuming the final tallies change the result)?


----------



## Developereo

xdrive said:


> I noticed that too. It just goes to show that the U.S is still very racist.
> 
> Instead of voting for a candidate on what they stand for, Americans vote based on race. People vote for obama because he is black because they think that makes them "intelligent" and "progressive" It's a wider problem of moving towards political correctness and far left wing extremism



I was discussing this with a friend of mine who was a political science major in the US. His view is that the whole point of democracy is for people to vote for someone who they feel is in tune with their concerns. So women might vote for a woman candidate, ditto for people of a given race. So, it's more about a candidate convincing people that he/she is sensitive to their concerns.

Remember that Bill Clinton was sometimes called the first black President of the US, because African-Americans felt that he was so in tune with their concerns.


----------



## LeGenD

Mercenary said:


> Both Obama and Romney would continue Drone Strikes.
> 
> The Era that Republicans would be good for Pakistan and Democrats be bad for Pakistan are over.


Drone strikes may have continued but Republicans are not as cold towards Pakistan as Democrats. 



Mercenary said:


> Pakistan needs to change its tune or it will become a pariah state.


This I agree with.


----------



## Gadgeteer

kawaraj said:


> Nikkei pulled off to the positive zone, financial seems to welcome Obama's reelection....


Even Sensex jump to 100 points just in fraction of time after obama win...


----------



## gambit

Developereo said:


> I was discussing this with a friend of mine who was a political science major in the US. His view is that the whole point of democracy is for people to vote for someone who they feel is in tune with their concerns. So women might vote for a woman candidate, ditto for people of a given race. So, it's more about a candidate convincing people that he/she is sensitive to their concerns.
> 
> Remember that Bill Clinton was sometimes called the first black President of the US, because African-Americans felt that he was so in tune with their concerns.


Obama won re-election because he did exactly what he condemned when he ran the first time: "If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from." And he did it against Romney to good effect. It is always easier for the undecided, which includes those who voted for him the first time because they are undecided about his record, to stay with the devil you know than to take a chance with the devil you do not. Romney's character is that of a good person and there are plenty of personal testimonies about that. It was the mischaracterizations of his record as a businessman that did the most damages to Romney. The Obama campaign knew what they did was wrong about Romney's character and his business experience and in a way, they had no choice but to resort to character assassinations.

Of course, a couple of Republican males making insensitive comments about rapes did not help Romney one bit.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Abii

LeGenD said:


> No, republicans have been typically good for Pakistan.



you're not reading ppl's responses

Republicans would have continued the strikes. Romney already stated that he would continue them. If anything, he would have expanded it. 

And Obama has been worse for Iran than Bush so you're wrong on that front as well.


----------



## Icecreamcart

gambit said:


> Obama won re-election because he did exactly what he condemned when he ran the first time: "If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from." And he did it against Romney to good effect. It is always easier for the undecided, which includes those who voted for him the first time because they are undecided about his record, to stay with the devil you know than to take a chance with the devil you do not. Romney's character is that of a good person and there are plenty of personal testimonies about that. It was the mischaracterizations of his record as a businessman that did the most damages to Romney. The Obama campaign knew what they did was wrong about Romney's character and his business experience and in a way, they had no choice but to resort to character assassinations.



Both sides did the same, if I recall. So... all's fair in love and war.

Of course, I still think unlimited super-PAC funding is an unbelievable law.


----------



## gambit

Icecreamcart said:


> Both sides did the same, if I recall. So... all's fair in love and war.


Now is a good time for Reid's unnamed source who told him that Romney did not pay taxes for a decade to appear. This will definitely sealed Romney's character coffin. But do not hold your breath that this imaginary friend will appear any time in this and the next generation. Reid was already well known in the Senate as a consumate backstabber when necessary. This will further cement that reputation beyond doubt.


----------



## Abii

Looks like the Dems are getting a majority in Senate as well. 

Senate is more powerful than the house right?


----------



## Banu Umayyah

What is more surprising than Barry getting reelected is the two American states that legalized cannabis today. Coincidence?!


----------



## gambit

Abii said:


> Looks like the Dems are getting a majority in Senate as well.
> 
> *Senate is more powerful than the house right?*


Technically speaking, meaning according to strict interpretation of the US Constitution, the House trumps the Senate in many ways, most significantly -- the country's purse strings. It is only out of courtesy that the House usually delay many bills out of respect for the Senate. But if the House wants to be a real A-hole, it can shut the Senate out.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## S_O_C_O_M

gambit said:


> Technically speaking, meaning according to strict interpretation of the US Constitution, the House trumps the Senate in many ways, most significantly -- the country's purse strings. It is only out of courtesy that the House usually delay many bills out of respect for the Senate. But if the House wants to be a real A-hole, it can shut the Senate out.



incorrect 

they both carry equal weight, just perform different duties.

ground pounder.


----------



## Icecreamcart

gambit said:


> Now is a good time for Reid's unnamed source who told him that Romney did not pay taxes for a decade to appear. This will definitely sealed Romney's character coffin. But do not hold your breath that this imaginary friend will appear any time in this and the next generation. Reid was already well known in the Senate as a consumate backstabber when necessary. This will further cement that reputation beyond doubt.



Reid was the willing sacrificial piece to attack Romney's credibility.

Because they calculated that the loss of Reid's reputation is nothing compared to the effect of putting the focus directly on Romney.


----------



## S_O_C_O_M

romney makes concession speech..


----------



## Obambam



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

S_O_C_O_M said:


> incorrect
> 
> they both carry equal weight
> 
> ground pounder.


Think before you correct me. Each side have responsibilities and duties that are assigned by the Constitution and may not trespass each other's rights and privileges. I specifically mentioned the country's purse strings because bills and by extensions the money allocated to them, originate and approved in the House, not the Senate.

Kids in the House - High School - How a Bill Becomes a Law


> While most bills can originate in either Chamber, *bills regarding revenue* always begin in the U.S. House of Representatives.
> 
> Senate Action
> 
> If a bill passes in the U.S. House of Representatives, an exact copy is sent to the U.S. Senate. The bill is sent to a Senate committee for review and discussion before proceeding to the Senate floor for a vote. The Senate, like the House, considers each amendment separately before the bill is voted on. Unlike the House, the Senate typically votes by voice.
> 
> The Bill Returns to the House
> 
> If the bill is passed by the Senate, both the House and Senate bills are returned to the House with a note indicating any changes. If the Senate has made amendments, the House must vote on the bill again as both Chambers of Congress must agree to identical legislation in order for it to become law. If the Speaker of the House decides the Senate amendments require further research, the bill can be sent back to committee before the House votes again.


It is a children's website but in your case, it is appropriate.


----------



## A.Rafay

Romney should have made a good concession speech from day one! Obama is coming on stage now!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Icecreamcart said:


> Reid was the willing sacrificial piece to attack Romney's credibility.
> 
> Because they calculated that the loss of Reid's reputation is nothing compared to the effect of putting the focus directly on Romney.


Perhaps that is true. But I doubt it because senators have no term limits and Nevada can not impose such a law upon the federal government. Reid did it out of malice and partisanship. His chance of re-election to the US Senate is equal odds no matter what.

Now that it is settled, I finally can watch _Prometheus_.


----------



## Obambam

https://twitter.com/BarackObama






_"Four more years": Barack Obama and his wife Michelle_


----------



## faithfulguy

America choose to flush itself down he the drain today. It's time to learn Chinese. Wait, I already know Chinese. But the reelection of Obama shows that they rather have temporary freebies from the gov then ensure America stays strong and prosperous for our children.


----------



## Obambam

faithfulguy said:


> America choose to flush itself down he the drain today. It's time to learn Chinese. Wait, I already know Chinese. But the reelection of Obama shows that they rather have temporary freebies from the gov then ensure America stays strong and prosperous for our children.



It's time to bring your riches back to China


----------



## EagleEyes

America has chosen a leader who wouldn't be another country's ******.


----------



## TheRafael00000

I wonder what will be the future of Israel as they lost huge monetary because of Romney campaign and even when Netanyahu deliberately showed his stance against Obama with the Bibi placard of "Save the Jew,WAr on Iran".


----------



## WS-10 Engine

Muahahahahahahaha

Obummer got elected.

Hopefully he runs up the deficits and cuts the military.

America is finished, it will be further weakened after 4 more years.

Obama reelection confirms America is on a terminal decline.

It's over, say goodbye Jimbo!


----------



## LeGenD

Abii said:


> you're not reading ppl's responses
> 
> Republicans would have continued the strikes. Romney already stated that he would continue them. If anything, he would have expanded it.
> 
> And Obama has been worse for Iran than Bush so you're wrong on that front as well.


I am reading people's responses. My point stands that Republicans are not as cold towards Pakistan as Democrats.


----------



## Developereo

gambit said:


> I finally can watch _Prometheus_.



Read this after you watch the movie, or before.

cavalorn: Prometheus Unbound: What The Movie Was Actually About

It's an interesting take on the movie. Sounds ridiculous at first, but he makes a good case.


----------



## Icecreamcart

I was going to say something like America is heading in the right direction with Obama's election. 

But then you realise that with a Democrat president, a Democrat Senate and a Republican House, you get the same political deadlock as per the last four years.

Good luck for those who have to suffer with it.


----------



## Oldman1

Icecreamcart said:


> I was going to say something like America is heading in the right direction with Obama's election.
> 
> But then you realise that with a Democrat president, a Democrat Senate and a Republican House, you get the same political deadlock as per the last four years.
> 
> Good luck for those who have to suffer with it.



Hence the reason for separation of powers. Unless you want a President who wants to be Chavez with unlimited power and no resistance.


----------



## Icecreamcart

Oldman1 said:


> Hence the reason for separation of powers. Unless you want a President who wants to be Chavez with unlimited power and no resistance.



It would have worked if the parties weren't so polarized and were willing to compromise. But it isn't.

A scenario where one party takes the controls of all three areas would be more effective at passing legislation, for better or worse.


----------



## Oldman1

Icecreamcart said:


> It would have worked if the parties weren't so polarized and were willing to compromise. But it isn't.
> 
> A scenario where one party takes the controls of all three areas would be more effective at passing legislation, for better or worse.



For better or for worse, hence as you said before they have to compromise. We have various compromises in the past especially dealing with slavery and in new territories. Not everybody voted Obama and you are going to have people simmering with anger if only the majority passes laws that pleases them while alienating the minority which is still significant.


----------



## gambit

Icecreamcart said:


> It would have worked if the parties weren't so polarized and were willing to compromise. But it isn't.
> 
> A scenario where one party takes the controls of all three areas would be more effective at passing legislation, for better or worse.


Is that what *YOU* want, a government that is efficient at passing laws over consequences?



Icecreamcart said:


> I was going to say something like America is heading in the right direction with Obama's election.
> 
> But then you realise that with a Democrat president, a Democrat Senate and a Republican House, you get the same political deadlock as per the last four years.
> 
> Good luck for those who have to suffer with it.


With 16 trill of debt being in the 'right direction'?


----------



## Icecreamcart

Oldman1 said:


> For better or for worse, hence as you said before they have to compromise. We have various compromises in the past especially dealing with slavery and in new territories.



The Missouri compromise didn't really work out, Civil War and all that. But it's the truth that the current iteration of the Republican party and the Democratic party are incapable of compromise. The no-tax-raise pledge is one such example. You have one side refusing to pass legislation for the sole reason of being put forward by the other, even if it was already a compromise.





> Not everybody voted Obama and you are going to have people simmering with anger if only the majority passes laws that pleases them while alienating the minority which is still significant.



I would say majority rule is the main feature of representative democracy. State laws are passed all the time that alienate the dissenting minority, so nothing is changed.


----------



## Icecreamcart

gambit said:


> Is that what *YOU* want, a government that is efficient at passing laws over consequences?
> 
> 
> With 16 trill of debt being in the 'right direction'?



Hardly. I'll prefer a government that efficiently passes laws through compromise. But it only works in a country without such political polarization. So what can you do?

I've had a look at the plans to cut the deficit, and with Romney's projected defense budget and economic plan, the deficit will increase at a much higher rate. Not very sustainable.


----------



## fallstuff

Congratulation to President Obama


----------



## Hellraiser007

Democrats are better than Republicans.

Speaking of "aggressive war mentality of Republicans".


----------



## Oldman1

Icecreamcart said:


> The Missouri compromise didn't really work out, Civil War and all that. But it's the truth that the current iteration of the Republican party and the Democratic party are incapable of compromise. The no-tax-raise pledge is one such example. You have one side refusing to pass legislation for the sole reason of being put forward by the other, even if it was already a compromise.



The Missouri Compromise and others before it have tried to address the issue before and it was a delicate issue. But that don't mean we should apply that failure to all others and there will be no compromise because we only had one civil war. Heck the original colonies wouldn't even be united unless they agree on some of the issues that were addressed especially states rights and federal govt. 





> I would say majority rule is the main feature of representative democracy. State laws are passed all the time that alienate the dissenting minority, so nothing is changed.



Thats state laws its not the same as applying federal law to all states. Even in Congress each state would have 2 senators automatically instead of the number of senators based on population. Because they know that the minority needs to be represented.


----------



## S_O_C_O_M

LeGenD said:


> I am reading people's responses. My point stands that Republicans are not as cold towards Pakistan as Democrats.



Are you kidding? Republicans are the worst for Pakistan.

Pressler Amendment.....Larry Lee Pressler was a Republican


----------



## gambit

Icecreamcart said:


> Hardly. I'll prefer a government that efficiently passes laws through compromise. But it only works in a country without such political polarization. So what can you do?
> 
> I've had a look at the plans to cut the deficit, and with Romney's projected defense budget and economic plan, the deficit will increase at a much higher rate. Not very sustainable.


Some issues cannot be compromised unless one is willing to compromise one's principles.

As far as the debt goes...

There are two ways to pay off the debt:

- Raise taxes.

- Raise income.

For the second option, the tax rate remains the same but because there is now more of the income the final tax amount is increased. The first option is easy: Just pass a law saying so. The second option is more problematic because it require a higher understanding of economics, be amenable to business, and a willingness to be patient.

Obama is the first option type of leader. He is ideologically driven to be hostile to the accumulation of wealth, even if earned by honest labor, but it is easier to simply see all profit as sourced from dishonesty and immorality. He has proved to be woefully ignorant of even basic economics. Then when the ideology and the ignorance mate, the offspring are incompetence and ineptitude at managing an existing capitalist society.


----------



## S_O_C_O_M

gambit said:


> Some issues cannot be compromised unless one is willing to compromise one's principles.
> 
> As far as the debt goes...
> 
> There are two ways to pay off the debt:
> 
> - Raise taxes.
> 
> - Raise income.
> 
> For the second option, the tax rate remains the same but because there is now more of the income the final tax amount is increased. The first option is easy: Just pass a law saying so. The second option is more problematic because it require a higher understanding of economics, be amenable to business, and a willingness to be patient.
> 
> Obama is the first option type of leader. He is ideologically driven to be hostile to the accumulation of wealth, even if earned by honest labor, but it is easier to simply see all profit as sourced from dishonesty and immorality. He has proved to be woefully ignorant of even basic economics. Then when the ideology and the ignorance mate, the offspring are incompetence and ineptitude at managing an existing capitalist society.



WRONG. Not only 2 ways.

U.S. can also

cut/reduce spending 

And Its Increase Revenue not Income. 

silly ground pounder.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Husnainshah

Some tweets from heartbroken Donald Trump  :



> Donald J. Trump &#8207;@realDonaldTrump
> The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.





> Donald J. Trump &#8207;@realDonaldTrump
> This election is a total sham and a travesty. We are not a democracy!





> Donald J. Trump &#8207;@realDonaldTrump
> We can't let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided!


----------



## Farooq

this thread shows how stupid Pakistanis living abroad are



LeGenD said:


> You should be happy. Romney was bad news for Iran.
> 
> Unfortunately, Obama is bad news for Pakistan.



Pakistan is bad news for itself


----------



## VCheng

Farooq said:


> this thread shows how stupid Pakistanis living abroad are.........



Do you mean those Pakistanis are stupid who send home more than a billion dollars a month?


----------



## gambit

S_O_C_O_M said:


> WRONG. Not only 2 ways.
> 
> U.S. can also
> 
> cut/reduce spending


Can but not must.



S_O_C_O_M said:


> And Its Increase Revenue not Income.


What is the difference between 'revenue' and 'income'?

What's the difference between revenue and income? - Business - Answer Desk | NBC News


> Q: The terms Revenue and Income are often used in reporting earnings. What is the difference? &#8212; Audrey W.
> A: Revenue (sometimes called sales) refers to all the money a company takes in from doing what it does &#8212; whether making goods or providing services. Other sources of funds &#8212; including investment gains &#8212; are usually labeled as such but also included as revenue. (Occasionally, you&#8217;ll see this number referred to as &#8220;gross income.&#8221
> &#8220;Net income&#8221; is the phrase commonly used to refer to a company&#8217;s &#8220;profit.&#8221; It represents how much money the company has left over, if any, after it&#8217;s paid the costs of doing business &#8212; payroll, raw materials, taxes, interest on loans, etc..


I was talking about taxes paid by *INDIVIDUALS* as part of citizenship. Enact policies that encourage businesses, which will stimulate the economy, which will make labor, intellectual and physical, more competitive, which will increase gross pay, which will increase the tax amount, and which will increase net personal income to inject back into the economy.



S_O_C_O_M said:


> silly ground pounder.


Smarter than you, moron. But given how ignorant you are so far about 'revenue' versus 'income', it looks like I have a job while you are still mooching off ma and pa.


----------



## Farooq

LeGenD said:


> I am reading people's responses. My point stands that Republicans are not as cold towards Pakistan as Democrats.



This guy a republican is vehemently anti-Pakistan- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dana_Rohrabacher .. the point is that both parties are not any different in their foreign policy when it comes to pleasing Israel 


the facade of BO somehow being better for Pakistan is only for gullible Pakistanis to believe


----------



## sancho

S_O_C_O_M said:


> WRONG. Not only 2 ways.
> 
> U.S. can also
> 
> *cut/reduce spending
> *
> And Its Increase Revenue not Income.
> 
> silly ground pounder.



Exactly, but that's what many americans simply don't understand, or are not used to, that you can only spend the money that you have, or that you are able to pay back. If they really would want to reduce the dept, the first thing they have to do is bring back a big part of their troops from Europe, Japan or the Gulf region, end the wars (especially the made up once), cut the military budget. 
Raising taxes of the rich will not pay off the dept, it is a way to get the government additional money to fund other programs, for example modernising the infrastructure that is in a bad condition in the US as well, or to improve certain reforms to push the economy again. These in return will increase the income of the people and get the government more money to pay the dept as well, but reduction of spending is the most important step!

From the 2 candidates, Obama was clearly the only one that had understand that. Romney wanted to reduce taxes, which lowers the income of the government, he wanted to increase military spending with no way to balance the spending again, he wanted to stay even longer in Iraq and Afghanistan, which will cost even more billions, so basically everything that you can do against paying of the debt!


----------



## S_O_C_O_M

gambit said:


> Can but not must.
> 
> 
> What is the difference between 'revenue' and 'income'?
> 
> What's the difference between revenue and income? - Business - Answer Desk | NBC News
> 
> I was talking about taxes paid by *INDIVIDUALS* as part of citizenship. Enact policies that encourage businesses, which will stimulate the economy, which will make labor, intellectual and physical, more competitive, which will increase gross pay, which will increase the tax amount, and which will increase net personal income to inject back into the economy.
> 
> 
> Smarter than you, moron. But given how ignorant you are so far about 'revenue' versus 'income', it looks like I have a job while you are still mooching off ma and pa.



you posted the definition and you still do not understand which is the proper term to be used in this context. 

*A: Revenue (sometimes called sales) refers to all the money a company takes in from doing what it does &#8212; whether making goods or providing services.*

do you still not get it?

ground pounder.


----------



## gambit

sancho said:


> Exactly, but that's what many americans simply don't understand, or are not used to, that you can only spend the money that you have, or that you are able to pay back. If they really would want to reduce the dept, the first thing they have to do is bring back a big part of their troops from Europe, Japan or the Gulf region, end the wars (especially the made up once), cut the military budget.
> Raising taxes of the rich will not pay off the dept, it is a way to get the government additional money to fund other programs, for example modernising the infrastructure that is in a bad condition in the US as well, or to improve certain reforms to push the economy again. These in return will increase the income of the people and get the government more money to pay the dept as well, but reduction of spending is the most important step!
> 
> *From the 2 candidates, Obama was clearly the only one that had understand that. Romney wanted to reduce taxes, which lowers the income of the government, he wanted to increase military spending with no way to balance the spending again,* he wanted to stay even longer in Iraq and Afghanistan, which will cost even more billions, so basically everything that you can do against paying of the debt!


The rich cannot and could not get to be 'the rich' unless there is an economic system that is amenable to risk taking, entrepreneurship, property rights, and profiteering. For Romney to be as you falsely described him is to be intellectually dishonest because it would be self destructive in the first place, therefore he could not have gotten to be part of the %1 and the rest would not see their incomes rise at all. See post 472.


----------



## gambit

S_O_C_O_M said:


> you posted the definition and you still do not understand which is the proper term to be used in this context.
> 
> *A: Revenue (sometimes called sales) refers to all the money a company takes in from doing what it does &#8212; whether making goods or providing services.*
> 
> do you still not get it?
> 
> ground pounder.


I get it better than you do, moron.

Tax revenue - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> Tax revenue is the income that is gained by governments through taxation.


And what do governments tax? Income from individuals, which are profits from corporations. So when I said the government could increase its revenue thru higher income, I was talking about personal income.

So how much allowance does your parents give you a week, little boy?


----------



## LeGenD

S_O_C_O_M said:


> Are you kidding? Republicans are the worst for Pakistan.


No. 

Most Republican Presidents have cooperated with Pakistan on numerous matters.



S_O_C_O_M said:


> Pressler Amendment.....Larry Lee Pressler was a Republican


It passed under tenure of Ronald Reagon. However, he did not took any concrete steps against Pakistan. It should be noted that spread of Nuclear weapons is among the sensitive issues for US in general.

Now if you focus on the track record of Democrats, they were fine with us until the period of COLD WAR. Afterwards, Democrats started treating Pakistan like trash with total disregard of its issues and needs. The example of Obama is most recent. Prior to him, recall how Clinton treated Pakistan on the issue of Kargil.

I know that Pakistan needs to stand on its own feet but Democrats are no longer friendly to us.



Farooq said:


> Pakistan is bad news for itself






Farooq said:


> This guy a republican is vehemently anti-Pakistan- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dana_Rohrabacher .. the point is that both parties are not any different in their foreign policy when it comes to pleasing Israel
> 
> 
> the facade of BO somehow being better for Pakistan is only for gullible Pakistanis to believe


Bro, I am not saying that Republicans are in love with Pakistan. They do take tough stance when they feel like it.

However, Republicans are lesser of the EVILS among the two.


----------



## saiyan0321

well it doesnt matter to us its not like romney was going to change his drone policy they both had pretty much the same foreign policy 



> I know that Pakistan needs to stand on its own feet but Democrats are no longer friendly to us.



yaar both of their policy seemed the same to me about pakistan the both were going for drones right now none is good for pakistan well lets see if he changes anything although 99% sure he will continue the same thing expect a drone tomorrow as a celebration


----------



## truthseer

Good think for us. Romney is a warmonger.


----------



## Gandhi G in da house

Can Romney stand again for 2016 ?


----------



## VCheng

nick_indian said:


> Can Romney stand again for 2016 ?




If he can win the Republican nomination, yes.

But that would be unlikely.


----------



## KingMamba

nick_indian said:


> Can Romney stand again for 2016 ?



If he has any self respect he won't. I predict the Republican party will have a minority on the ballot or a woman.


----------



## Backbencher

Obama was the better person btw the 2 .


----------



## VCheng

KingMamba93 said:


> If he has any self respect he won't. I predict the Republican party will have a minority on the ballot or a woman.



For the VP slot, likely.


----------



## Gandhi G in da house

KingMamba93 said:


> If he has any self respect he won't. I predict the Republican party will have a minority on the ballot or a woman.



Why do you say that ? In terms of popular votes , Romney came pretty close. Just a difference of 1.5 % votes between the two.



VCheng said:


> If he can win the Republican nomination, yes.
> 
> But that would be unlikely.



I believe he can win against any other Democrat


----------



## WS-10 Engine

gambit said:


> Can but not must.
> 
> 
> What is the difference between 'revenue' and 'income'?
> 
> What's the difference between revenue and income? - Business - Answer Desk | NBC News
> 
> I was talking about taxes paid by *INDIVIDUALS* as part of citizenship. Enact policies that encourage businesses, which will stimulate the economy, which will make labor, intellectual and physical, more competitive, which will increase gross pay, which will increase the tax amount, and which will increase net personal income to inject back into the economy.
> 
> 
> Smarter than you, moron. But given how ignorant you are so far about 'revenue' versus 'income', it looks like I have a job while you are still mooching off ma and pa.



You talking economics is like taking dancing lessons from Charles Krauthammer!

Just stick to airforce tech son, you have a hard time with that as it is.
Just leave economics alone mate.


----------



## sancho

gambit said:


> The rich cannot and could not get to be 'the rich' unless there is an economic system that is amenable to risk taking, entrepreneurship, property rights, and profiteering. For Romney to be as you falsely described him is to be intellectually dishonest because it would be self destructive in the first place, therefore he could not have gotten to be part of the %1 and the rest would not see their incomes rise at all. See post 472.



I read your earlier post, but it is factually wrong as I already showed, because it's not an economical problem but caused because of overspending! So you have to find ways to reduce spending in first place and that was not the way Romney wanted to take.
The greed of the 1% btw caused all these problems and I am happy to see that the majority of Americans were smart enough to not trust on of these 1% again. With less risks and more regulations in the bank fields, we wouldn't face a global financial and economic crisis today, while your economy would also not be in such a mess.


----------



## VCheng

nick_indian said:


> ...
> I believe he can win against any other Democrat



Much can change in 4 years, and we don't know who the Democrats will put up then.


----------



## KingMamba

nick_indian said:


> Why do you say that ? In terms of popular votes , Romney came pretty close. Just a difference of 1.5 % votes between the two.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe he can win against any other Democrat



Not if Hillary Clinton runs, her husband has been pushing her too.

I said self respect because usually when you lose two Presidential elections back to back you get the hint, he came close in 2008 as well but didn't make the republican nomination. This was his best chance to win the Presidency and he failed despite 62% of America saying they are either where they were 4 years ago or worse.


----------



## faithfulguy

Obambam said:


> It's time to bring your riches back to China



I'm not from China. And I'm or a big fan of China. China needs to reform it's political system eventually.



TheRafael00000 said:


> I wonder what will be the future of Israel as they lost huge monetary because of Romney campaign and even when Netanyahu deliberately showed his stance against Obama with the Bibi placard of "Save the Jew,WAr on Iran".



Israel is finished with 4 more years. 4 more years without accountability.



TheRafael00000 said:


> I wonder what will be the future of Israel as they lost huge monetary because of Romney campaign and even when Netanyahu deliberately showed his stance against Obama with the Bibi placard of "Save the Jew,WAr on Iran".



Israel is finished with 4 more years. 4 more years without accountability.


----------



## longyi

Oh oh, the Dow plunges more than 170 points at the first opening session after Obama's win. Guess what the big moneys are thinking.


----------



## AHMED85

Good to see Obama Once Again.. Hope he will work on Humanity...Like his vision of FORWARD..

Now the world need more attraction on Humanity, Understanding between the Cultures & Religion with Respect which led toward progress.. War is not the solution of any problem when every thing solve by peace.. 

Best of Luck...


----------



## Adir-M

Interesting results
92% of the black Americans vote for. 
70% of Hispanic and Latino Americans vote for obama
68% of jews vote for obama.
-----------------------------------------------------
The United States Congress still control by republicans

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## KingMamba

Adir-M said:


> Interesting results
> 92% of the black Americans vote for.
> 70% of Hispanic and Latino Americans vote for obama
> 68% of jews vote for obama.
> -----------------------------------------------------
> The United States Congress still control republicans



I told you that Jews were going to vote for Obama.


----------



## gambit

WS-10 Engine said:


> You talking economics is like taking dancing lessons from Charles Krauthammer!
> 
> Just stick to airforce tech son, you have a hard time with that as it is.
> Just leave economics alone mate.


This is a military oriented forum. I am veteran of the world's most powerful military of the world's most powerful country. You are a conscript reject of a military struggling to reform itself while awash with corruption.

I have a real job in a field -- semiconductor manufacturing -- that your China is still behind in technology, innovation, and expertise. My house is large enough that 2 or even 3 of your family's generations can live in.

So who is really the cripple trying to walk, let alone dance, now?


----------



## gambit

sancho said:


> I read your earlier post, but it is factually wrong as I already showed, because it's not an economical problem but caused because of overspending! So you have to find ways to reduce spending in first place and that was not the way Romney wanted to take.


You have not showed anything. If raising taxes on the rich will not pay off the debt, then what did you mean by saying Obama understood how to resolve the debt? By raising taxes on everyone?



> ...for example modernising the infrastructure that is in a bad condition in the US as well, or to improve certain reforms to push the economy again.


What good is this if policies are filled regulations that hindered businesses?



> ...but reduction of spending is the most important step!


Then why did Obama focused on health care which while does need reform, spending cuts and economic recovery are the more immediate needs? How does this make sense, increase spending then cry about not having enough money?



sancho said:


> The greed of the 1% btw caused all these problems and I am happy to see that the majority of Americans were smart enough to not trust on of these 1% again. With less risks and more regulations in the bank fields, we wouldn't face a global financial and economic crisis today, while your economy would also not be in such a mess.


You mean the other %99 do not have their own greed and %99 of them do not work and hope that he/she is going to be a member of that %1 strata?

One issue is not regulations but *TARGETED* regulations or a scalpel, not a hammer. Mortgages are reasonable assets for the country to base its financial strength. Mortgages are not restricted to single family homes but includes apartments for young adults starting out in life, small businesses to operate, or factories to produce. But if we are to focus on single family homes, it was the Democrats' idea to force lenders to lower the standards of mortgage qualifications.

I lived without a credit card for years before I bought my house. My credit scores were so low (not bad) that no lender would touch me. Not because I have a bad credit history, but because I have none. There is a difference having no credit history versus having a bad credit history. I lived under my means and that is what responsible people should do. And yet people with high credit scores but low cash reserves were able to purchase homes, pay only interests, then re-sold them for quick profit. And these are members of the %99. I had to get a credit card and use it for one year before I could use it along with my veteran status to qualify for a mortgage. To this day, I have no debts other than a mortgage and a few hundreds dollars in the sole VISA credit card just so I can have some credit history. I have no car payments and no personal loans of any kind. And I am a member of the %99 as well.

Blaming the %1 is a convenient distraction because it presumes that all members of the wealthy are crooks while all members of the rest are honorable victims with the wealthy's millions and billions as ready attractants and false evidence for that categorization.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## anon45

John Huntsman probably had a better chance of winning the primaries, too bad the republicans couldn't pick someone so moderate.


----------



## valkyr_96

Gambit this apply to you and your generation but the younger generation would be on a spend spree and hence going under debt you just cant squash that because that is what apparently drives you economy in overdrive better to tax the people who are overcharging in the first place. Health care is quite a touchy issue Micheal Moore did put up a grim picture (it was a little one sided though) but think about this most of the health care that people in Pakistan receive are both charity (given freely) and zakat compulsory) this is intended for the people of Pakistan but is shared by the Afghan both refugees and the relative of those Afghan/Pathans who have being living and earning livelihood here. One would not even object/refuse them because they are so helpless.....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## longyi

Investors' sentiment: Dow plunges more than 300


----------



## Esc8781

WS-10 Engine said:


> Muahahahahahahaha
> 
> Obummer got elected.
> 
> Hopefully he runs up the deficits and cuts the military.
> 
> America is finished, it will be further weakened after 4 more years.
> 
> Obama reelection confirms America is on a terminal decline.
> 
> It's over, say goodbye Jimbo!


Means that the world economy is fvcked too.


----------



## Meengla

Well, not gonna the read the above comments before I register my my voice here--to be recorded for eternity, without being influenced: This Pakistani-American is over-joyous for the Obama win!
Obama is not perfect. And Romney impressed me more than Bush Sr, Bob Dole, GWB, and McCain did. These are the people I actually watched during elections campaigns. Too bad for Romney he had to pander to the extreme right-- the 'moralists', the prophets of 'Manifest Destiny', the old-mindset which is stuck in racial thinking. Romney is one Republican I thought of supporting had he been a true fiscal conservative instead of what he came out to be: A mouthpiece of the far-right.
America is changing. Republicans need to change too if they want to stay relevant. Or they could negotiate a peaceful 'secession' and move to the so-called 'Red States'.
Pop your bottles of champagne, guys!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

anon45 said:


> John Huntsman probably had a better chance of winning the primaries, too bad the republicans couldn't pick someone so moderate.


NPR have a good summation of how Obama won -- twice.

Obama's Win Powered By Organization, If Not Ideas : It's All Politics : NPR


> "The Obama campaign realized better than any other campaign that elections aren't about one big thing anymore," says Sasha Issenberg, author of The Victory Lab: The Secret Science of Winning Campaigns. "Part of that is we have much better tools now to isolate the impact of individual interactions between a campaign and voters, and lots of data that allows us to segment the voters themselves."
> 
> Issenberg argues that the Obama campaign took those tools, including the application of social science insights and experiments, and, with the gift of four years to perfect its operation, "used them better than any other political enterprise in history."


The economy affects everyone of every demographic at the most personal level. But the summation pretty much confirms what I have always suspected -- but unsure -- when Obama came into prominence: That the key to winning each demographic is isolate out the single dominant issues *BESIDES ECONOMICS* per demographic group and custom tailor your message accordingly.

For the working class, it is the perception that 'the rich' are crooks, exploitative, and uncaring.

For the Latinos, it is about immigration.

For the blacks, this is a 'gimme'. The Obama political machine can have a relatively hands-off tactic and let the group's internal racial police enforce racial solidarity, thereby assured a high degree of political conformity.

For the homosexuals, it is about legal equality with heterosexuals in terms of everything under the country's laws.

For women, given the Republicans' historical views on conservative Christianity regarding women, it was easy to fabricate a false 'war on women' attitude from the conservatives, from abortion to birth control, then a couple of over 50 white Republican males made a couple of insensitive remarks about rape and that sealed the Democrats' hold on this group. Many will dispute Akin's and Mourdock's comments effects on the Presidential election when they were running for their own offices -- and failed -- but I believe the effects were much more subtle and distasteful to women, in general, and to even conservative ones who voted for Romney. Republicans have got to realize that the over 50 white Republican males demographic group among them should STFU about sex in general, let alone rape.

The economy is like the weather -- it falls upon everybody. But immigration does not *EMOTIONALLY* affect US borne citizens the way it does the Latinos. Same for gay marriages. And so on...The same way that snow removal machines are irrelevant in Texas and Nevada even in the midst of winter for New York. This precision focus is what pulled un-polled and unexpected voters into the Democrats' side and threw conventional wisdom way off. Even Gingrich admitted today.

Newt Gingrich:


> &#8220;I think *the country was looking at a different set of things than we were looking at*,&#8221; he said. &#8220;Republicans are going to have to take a very serious look at what happened and why it did happen and why we were not more competitive at the presidential level.


He mean the country to be the people of these diverse demographics. Each group was looking at something else besides what the Republicans and Romney did successfully prodded them to look at, and the fact that Romney won %49 of the popular vote meant that they did successfully prodded the general population to look at the economy as standalone issue. But it was not enough for each group. Each needed more and the Obama political machine was insightful enough to exploit that need.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Meengla

gambit said:


> Blaming the %1 is a convenient distraction because it presumes that all members of the wealthy are crooks while all members of the rest are honorable victims with the wealthy's millions and billions as ready attractants and false evidence for that categorization.



This is perhaps getting off topic but...may be relevant.
I respect your POV. There is most probably a lot of truth in what you say. And I am as 'liberal' as you can get. Some of friends have even called me a 'socialist'. One jokingly called me a 'commie ba$tard!'.
We, the have-nots, demonize the ultra rich while playing lottery all our lives to join the rich. How would we behave if had $100 million in assets? Probably do what most of the rich people do: Move to more posh neighborhoods, live in 'gated communities', and vacation along 'exclusive beaches'.


----------



## Mercenary

Abii said:


> you're not reading ppl's responses
> 
> Republicans would have continued the strikes. Romney already stated that he would continue them. If anything, he would have expanded it.
> 
> And Obama has been worse for Iran than Bush so you're wrong on that front as well.



Exactly. All of Romney's Foreign Policy Advisors are those Neo-Cons who tricked Bush into starting a war with Iraq and now want a war with Iran.

Obama is still refusing to go along with despite all the pressure from the Republican Congress and Netanyahu.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Developereo

gambit said:


> There are two ways to pay off the debt:
> 
> - Raise taxes.
> 
> - Raise income.
> 
> For the second option, the tax rate remains the same but because there is now more of the income the final tax amount is increased. The first option is easy: Just pass a law saying so. The second option is more problematic because it require a higher understanding of economics, be amenable to business, and a willingness to be patient.



The first option is more reliable because you already know people's income figures from their tax returns, so the increased revenue resulting from higher tax rates can be forecast with more certainty. There is a chance that some business may fold or lay off people when margins gets squeezed, but the reality is that most businesses have much more slack than they admit.

With the second approach, there is an underlying assumption that if people are allowed to keep more of their money (by reducing tax rates), then they will invest that money into expanding the business. There is no guarantee that that will happen, since they could just as easily use that money to splurge. When the Australian government sent out checks to spur the economy during the GFC, much of the money was spent on foreign goods and foreign vacations.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Developereo said:


> The first option is more reliable because you already know people's income figures from their tax returns, so the increased revenue resulting from higher tax rates can be forecast with more certainty. There is a chance that some business may fold or lay off people when margins gets squeezed, but the reality is that most businesses have much more slack than they admit.
> 
> With the second approach, *there is an underlying assumption that if people are allowed to keep more of their money (by reducing tax rates), then they will invest that money into expanding the business. There is no guarantee that that will happen, since they could just as easily use that money to splurge.* When the Australian government sent out checks to spur the economy during the GFC, much of the money was spent on foreign goods and foreign vacations.


So what if they splurge? But think about it for a few moments...By spending, they are injecting capital back into the economy. Whether a foreign entity benefit or not, that capital must first pass through native hands. Even hoarding can still be beneficial because banks will use those deposits to finance assorted projects. The only hoarding that will deny the economy money is by burying cash in the backyard.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

Meengla said:


> This is perhaps getting off topic but...may be relevant.
> I respect your POV. There is most probably a lot of truth in what you say. And I am as 'liberal' as you can get. Some of friends have even called me a 'socialist'. One jokingly called me a 'commie ba$tard!'.
> We, the have-nots, demonize the ultra rich while playing lottery all our lives to join the rich. How would we behave if had $100 million in assets? Probably do what most of the rich people do: Move to more posh neighborhoods, live in 'gated communities', and vacation along 'exclusive beaches'.


Your income does not need to have nine zeros in order for you to live among 'the rich'. Just six zeros will do and an engineer section lead can put his family in that gated community.

I always have a problem with the phrases 'haves' and 'have nots'. I live within walking distance of two millionaires in my neighborhood. If I have a dog and exercise him daily, then I would be within 3 millionaires. Anyway...If any of the millionaires fill up his swimming pool, does that somehow take water away from my bathtub? That is not how wealth works.

So if water was not taken away from *YOUR* bathtub by a millionaire somewhere in your city, why does that give you the latitude to demonize him just because he is wealthier than you? Not the 'right', but the latitude. You still have water to get clean, drink, cook, and for your potted plants. Why are you complaining about him? So what if the millionaire have his a private jet to the Bahamas vacation? Did that private jet somehow took away your freedom to fly, even coach class, to the same destination?

Pitting 'the haves' against 'the have nots' usually unjustifiably is about fomenting crass class warfare via the base human feeling of envy and through the expression of jealousy.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## WS-10 Engine

gambit said:


> Your income does not need to have nine zeros in order for you to live among 'the rich'. Just six zeros will do and an engineer section lead can put his family in that gated community.
> 
> I always have a problem with the phrases 'haves' and 'have nots'. I live within walking distance of two millionaires in my neighborhood. If I have a dog and exercise him daily, then I would be within 3 millionaires. Anyway...If any of the millionaires fill up his swimming pool, does that somehow take water away from my bathtub? That is not how wealth works.
> 
> So if water was not taken away from *YOUR* bathtub by a millionaire somewhere in your city, why does that give you the latitude to demonize him just because he is wealthier than you? Not the 'right', but the latitude. You still have water to get clean, drink, cook, and for your potted plants. Why are you complaining about him? So what if the millionaire have his a private jet to the Bahamas vacation? Did that private jet somehow took away your freedom to fly, even coach class, to the same destination?
> 
> Pitting 'the haves' against 'the have nots' usually unjustifiably is about fomenting crass class warfare via the base human feeling of envy and through the expression of jealousy.



Go get a job you clown.

Coming here writing freaking paragraphs 24/7.


----------



## Developereo

gambit said:


> So what if they splurge? But think about it for a few moments...By spending, they are injecting capital back into the economy. Whether a foreign entity benefit or not, that capital must first pass through native hands. Even hoarding can still be beneficial because banks will use those deposits to finance assorted projects. The only hoarding that will deny the economy money is by burying cash in the backyard.



That was the whole point. When people buy foreign goods, the only benefit to the local economy is the meager percentage of a middleman. And when they spend it on foreign vacations, there is precious little local benefit at all.

The supply siders assume that the extra residual income will be injected into the local economy, but there is no guarantee.

P.S. I am not defending high taxes. I believe that government introduces so many levels of inefficiency and overhead that the money can be better used by the private sector directly. However, a balance needs to be found, as in everything else.


----------



## WS-10 Engine

gambit said:


> This is a military oriented forum. I am veteran of the world's most powerful military of the world's most powerful country. You are a conscript reject of a military struggling to reform itself while awash with corruption.
> 
> I have a real job in a field -- semiconductor manufacturing -- that your China is still behind in technology, innovation, and expertise. My house is large enough that 2 or even 3 of your family's generations can live in.
> 
> So who is really the cripple trying to walk, let alone dance, now?



For a guy that has a job, you sure are on PDF ALOT!

I call bullsh*t on your 'job' and your military 'service'.

I think it's safe to say you are an old unemployed bum with no wife and no job.

That proves why you are on PDF 24/7 writing page long paragraphs. 
THAT IS A GUY WITH TOO MUCH TIME ON YOUR HANDS!

Regarding most powerful military.....you mean the same military that got humiliated in the Korean War and Vietnam war?
You sir have been successfully brainwashed by the American propaganda machine.

I bet you haven't even seen a real fighter jet let alone touch one.

I HIGHLY doubt you live in your own house let alone live in a big house.

Fantasize more mate, you will go crazy if you don't.


----------



## anon45

WS-10 Engine said:


> Go get a job you clown.
> 
> Coming here writing freaking paragraphs 24/7.



and



WS-10 Engine said:


> For a guy that has a job, you sure are on PDF ALOT!
> 
> I call bullsh*t on your 'job' and your military 'service'.
> 
> I think it's safe to say you are an old unemployed bum with no wife and no job.
> 
> That proves why you are on PDF 24/7 writing page long paragraphs.
> THAT IS A GUY WITH TOO MUCH TIME ON YOUR HANDS!
> 
> Regarding most powerful military.....you mean the same military that got humiliated in the Korean War and Vietnam war?
> You sir have been successfully brainwashed by the American propaganda machine.
> 
> I bet you haven't even seen a real fighter jet let alone touch one.
> 
> I HIGHLY doubt you live in your own house let alone live in a big house.
> 
> Fantasize more mate, you will go crazy if you don't.





This guy can't respond intelligently and so goes on juvenile rants.


----------



## gambit

Developereo said:


> That was the whole point. When people buy foreign goods, the only benefit to the local economy is the meager percentage of a middleman. And when they spend it on foreign vacations, there is precious little local benefit at all.
> 
> The supply siders assume that the extra residual income will be injected into the local economy, but there is no guarantee.
> 
> P.S. I am not defending high taxes. I believe that government introduces so many levels of inefficiency and overhead that the money can be better used by the private sector directly. However, a balance needs to be found, as in everything else.


In trying to defend your argument, you are treading into the absurd here. Most people, when they have extra income, especially the kind earned through their jobs and the amount is not extravagant like the kind a lower tax rate bring, usually spend it on themselves on necessities, small personal luxuries, or additional savings. And so what if some do spend outside the local economy? Your example of whatever the Australian government did to stimulate growth via giving the citizens the equivalent of a 'holiday bonus' was short term and as such, many are going to spend it extravagantly. A lowered tax rate from the government is the opposite of a pay increase from one's employer but the effect is the same: Higher take home pay. And that mean the higher income amount is usually less than %10 of gross and long term. No one is going to take an overseas vacation every weekend with that kind of money. So for what little they gained, what and where else are they going to spend it on except the local economy?


----------



## sancho

KingMamba93 said:


> Not if Hillary Clinton runs, her husband has been pushing her too.



I'm pretty sure she will and if, it will be very difficult for the Republicans to find someone to counter her. 



longyi said:


> Oh oh, the Dow plunges more than 170 points at the first opening session after Obama's win. Guess what the big moneys are thinking.



Not because of Obama, but because of the Republicans in the Congress might still follow their blocking policies and that's the worse that could happen for America.



gambit said:


> You have not showed anything. If raising taxes on the rich will not pay off the debt, then what did you mean by saying Obama understood how to resolve the debt? By raising taxes on everyone?



Raising taxes for the 1% is only a part of the solution and only for the short term, because you can't even get the next budget balanced otherwise, with the result of a recession. That again means dramatic budget cuts and tax increases for everyone in the US as the only solution!
You still didn't understand that, like many in your country and that's the problem, because Americans are not used to think about the consequences of your behaviour. 
Again, you have no choice but reduce the spending in the mid to long term to reduce the dept, while infrastructure and economy must be strengthened by the government on the other side. Simply raising taxes in a time where you have less people in jobs that can pay taxes and your economy is slowly coming back from the financial crisis is not a solution!



gambit said:


> What good is this if policies are filled regulations that hindered businesses?



It creates jobs on the lower end, which translates into more tax payers as well, so more tax revenue without increasing taxes for all! It speeds up transportations and logistics, which makes your industies to be more effective and competitive compared to others in the world, that translates into better economy, which again means more more tax revenue without increasing taxes for all!



gambit said:


> Then why did Obama focused on health care which while does need reform, spending cuts and economic recovery are the more immediate needs? How does this make sense, increase spending then cry about not having enough money?



Spending is not = spending, you have necessary spending and unnecessary spending! Spending billions for 2 useless wars, or for huge numbers of troops in countries where they are not needed anymore is unnecessary spending. Obama achieved more wrt getting those who were responsible for 9/11 in 4 years and with waaaaay less spendings, than the former government. Ending these useless wars and getting back the troops, reduces the spendings, which again helps to reduce the dept. While Romney wanted to do exactly the opposite!

Improving the quality of living, by increasing health care and education budgets, improving infrastructure and reducing taxes for the lower and middle class on the other hand are necessary spending, especially when you were far behind in these fields in a global comparison, even behind many way less educated countries. That alone should make clear that the earlier policies of de-regulations didn't helped you, but made it even worse. Poverty increasing, education level droping, more industries loosing compared to foreign counterparts, more US companies moving production to foreign countries...
All this made America weaker, not stronger!




gambit said:


> I lived under my means and that is what responsible people should do. *And yet people with high credit scores but low cash reserves were able to purchase homes, pay only interests*



Exactly and how was it possible that these people got these cheap loans, that normally never should have been granted? Because of your insanely de-regulated banking sector, that wanted to make more and more money, by selling more and more cheap loans and diverting these bad loans to other banks again. This bubble had to blow up someday, because everybody only took high risks and didn't thought about the consequences. 

So you should blame those, that made these de-regulations possible, you should blame those bankers that got big bonuses when they sold poor people cheap loans, because these people are still living on the good side, because they didn't lost their homes, or have to suffer now and not those how were blinded by greedy bankers with "the american dream" that *anybody* can own a house! 


Btw, India was often criticized by US officials and bankers, because of the regulations in the banking sector, but exactly these regulations were the reason why India was not as badly effected by the financial crisis that you have created. Otherwise we would face the same problems like the Europeans now. Where even countries that had a good dept to groth ratio like Spain, are now in deep trouble, because they have to bail out several of their banks, that bought the bad loans from the US and invested in these cheap loans as well. 

*High risks and de-regulations only feeds the greed of the 1%, while the 99% have to pay for the consequences at the end and today the whole world suffers because of US de-regulations. If you get into a recession it will be even worse, so if you want to do something, put some pressure on the Republicans, to finally start helping your country by working with THE US PRESIDENT, because that will help the world as well!!!*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Developereo

I don't know about Fox News, but many pundits, including Republicans, are saying that the crucial factor in this race was the Latino vote. That's going to be a quandary for the Republicans. On the one hand, they are right on principle that illegal immigration should not be rewarded, but the demographic shift has already occurred and Republicans will need to accept that reality. Once they can bite the bullet and get past that issue, they might have a chance since Latinos tend to be socially conservative.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## pkuser2k12

republicans have cowboy attitude they are stupid war mongers 

whereas democrat obama is cold blooded,arrogant and very clever man who came on slogan of change but did exactly the opposite

he bailed out the big banks

received noble piece prize but started proxy wars in libya,syria and drones in pakistan and yemen
sent more tropes in afghanistan

after democratically elected he went to dictator hosni mubark in egypt with peace message towards muslims and then instigate so called arab spring to change regimes

has destabilized whole of middle east and dragged turkey in at now turkey will become another 80s and 2000s proxy and destabilized country like pakistan

has further destabilized afghanistan and pakistan

blatantly as president of a country lie in front of whole world that raymond davis is a diplomat and not a spy

escalating tensions in pacific ocean with china

u turn on Guantanamo gail closing

he is arrogant,cool blooded,very clever and liar who dose not faces second term God knows what he will bring to the world now



some info on us elections 

in terms of electoral votes obama got 303 and romney got 206 electoral votes

obama got 60,782,354 votes
romney got 57,884,882 votes

obama won by 2 million votes and got 33% of total votes in USA(not casted but total)

turnout was 50% even less than 2008 elections 

source cnn
Election Results - 2012 Election Center - Elections & Politics from CNN.com


----------



## VCheng



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Sashan

Developereo said:


> I don't know about Fox News, but many pundits,* including Republicans, are saying that the crucial factor in this race was the Latino vote*. That's going to be a quandary for the Republicans. On the one hand, they are right on principle that illegal immigration should not be rewarded, but the demographic shift has already occurred and Republicans will need to accept that reality. Once they can bite the bullet and get past that issue, they might have a chance since Latinos tend to be socially conservative.



It was and here is why - in NV which was one of the swing states, 

2004 - Republicans won that state 
2008 - Obama won the state getting 55% of the total votes, Latino votes were 15% of the total votes
2012 - Obama won the state getting 52.3% of the total votes while Romney got 45.7%, Latino votes were 18% of the total votes(a 3% increase)

So inspite of Obama being the incumbent, he won in NV. So unless Republicans update their policies to reflect the 21st century, the chances are they will become something like Whig party and will be history.


----------



## KingMamba

Sashan said:


> It was and here is why - in NV which was one of the swing states,
> 
> 2004 - Republicans won that state
> 2008 - Obama won the state getting 55% of the total votes, Latino votes were 15% of the total votes
> 2012 - Obama won the state getting 52.3% of the total votes while Romney got 45.7%, Latino votes were 18% of the total votes(a 3% increase)
> 
> So inspite of Obama being the incumbent, he won in NV. So unless Republicans update their policies to reflect the 21st century, the chances are they will become something like Whig party and will be history.



I do not remember who it was on this thread but someone said the Latinos have no clout in US elections. Once again I was right in asserting otherwise.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Sashan

KingMamba93 said:


> I do not remember who it was on this thread but someone said the Latinos have no clout in US elections. Once again I was right in asserting otherwise.



I noticed your posts, you were good with your analysis.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## KingMamba

Sashan said:


> I noticed your posts, you were good with your analysis.



Thank You.


----------



## gambit

sancho said:


> Raising taxes for the 1% is only a part of the solution and only for the short term, because you can't even get the next budget balanced otherwise, with the result of a recession. That again means dramatic budget cuts and tax increases for everyone in the US as the only solution!
> *You still didn't understand that*, like many in your country and that's the problem, because Americans are not used to think about the consequences of your behaviour.
> Again, you have no choice but reduce the spending in the mid to long term to reduce the dept, while infrastructure and economy must be strengthened by the government on the other side. Simply raising taxes in a time where you have less people in jobs that can pay taxes and your economy is slowly coming back from the financial crisis is not a solution!


I understand it well enough. Spending cuts is a separate issue and am not talking about that. Am talking about taxes as motivator and discouragement to businesses and capitalism. A business make decisions affecting its survival regardless of whether the government enact spending cuts or not. May be it is *YOU* who do not understand this fact.

Am not advocating raising anyone's taxes but lowering them, from businesses to individuals. Spending cuts is a separate issue. Yes, the government should act wisely and reduce spending, but businesses succeed and fails based upon decisions outside of government's actions, such as bad partnerships, accidents, natural disasters, or crimes.



sancho said:


> *It creates jobs on the lower end*, which translates into more tax payers as well, so more tax revenue without increasing taxes for all! It speeds up transportations and logistics, which makes your industies to be more effective and competitive compared to others in the world, that translates into better economy, which again means more more tax revenue without increasing taxes for all!


Are you joking? Restrictive regulations creates jobs?



sancho said:


> Spending is not = spending, you have necessary spending and unnecessary spending! Spending billions for 2 useless wars, or for huge numbers of troops in countries where they are not needed anymore is unnecessary spending. Obama achieved more wrt getting those who were responsible for 9/11 in 4 years and with waaaaay less spendings, than the former government. Ending these useless wars and getting back the troops, reduces the spendings, which again helps to reduce the dept. While Romney wanted to do exactly the opposite!


I knew it...!!! Instead of remaining on basic principles on taxes and incomes that affects all countries that engages in capitalism, you have to resort to convenient talking points and criticisms of specific US actions.



sancho said:


> Improving the quality of living, by increasing health care and education budgets, improving infrastructure and reducing taxes for the lower and middle class on the other hand are necessary spending, especially when you were far behind in these fields in a global comparison, even behind many way less educated countries. That alone should make clear that the earlier policies of de-regulations didn't helped you, but made it even worse. Poverty increasing, education level droping, more industries loosing compared to foreign counterparts, more US companies moving production to foreign countries...
> All this made America weaker, not stronger!


The results of an education takes years to manifest while it takes only one or two years to know if a business will succeed or not. A recession is an emergency that no amount of spending on education or building roads can help. The economy was humming along quite well with the current infrastructure as it was. How long will it take a person to get out of poverty? How about a few months in a rising economy? When I got out of the USAF in 1992, I was very much in poverty in the middle of a good economy. I worked for Jiffy Lube at minimum wage and lived with my parents for a few months. You think I do not know what poverty feels like? But if I did not take steps to remedy my situation, I would have remained in poverty among busy and prosperous people.

An economic recession is not the time to invest in education or infrastructures or health care. As society lives and breathes, those things will call out for improvements in their own time. They always have and the best time for investments in them are prosperous times when there are plenty of money and opportunities to experiment with new ideas and strengthened the current system. A recession is the time to use whatever money is available to revive the current system because no matter how flawed it may be, it was working.



sancho said:


> Exactly and how was it possible that these people got these cheap loans, that normally never should have been granted? Because of your insanely de-regulated banking sector, that wanted to make more and more money, by selling more and more cheap loans and diverting these bad loans to other banks again. This bubble had to blow up someday, because everybody only took high risks and didn't thought about the consequences.
> 
> So you should blame those, that made these de-regulations possible, you should blame those bankers that got big bonuses when they sold poor people cheap loans, because these people are still living on the good side, because they didn't lost their homes, or have to suffer now and not those how were blinded by greedy bankers with "the american dream" that *anybody* can own a house!


If you want to criticized deregulations, it would be intellectually honest to beg the question of who is *AUTHORIZED* to deregulate in the first place. Businesses cannot nullify laws or deregulate restrictions imposed upon them by someone else. Sob stories do not point fingers at the sources of deregulation. It was under Clinton that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were *FORCED* to buy mortgages that were questionably created under the noble intention of removing racial discrimination in the mortgage underwriting industry.

The Federal Reserve Bank of Boston Study on Mortgage Lending Revisited.


> This study confirms the findings of the 1992 Boston Federal Reserve Bank report that revealed statistical evidence of mortgage discrimination in the Boston metropolitan area. Boston Fed researchers concluded that after controlling for all objective indicators of applicant risk, lenders still rejected minorities 56 percent more often than otherwise identical whites. *However, the study has been criticized for miscoded data and omitted variables. This research used the data used by the Boston Fed and replicates their study to address each criticism in turn. This analysis shows that the Boston Fed data did contain miscoded or atypical observations but that data errors are not responsible for the negative race effect.* This analysis also shows the omitted-variable criticism to be unsubstantiated. In fact, this research generated additional support for the finding of discrimination by comparing a subjective measure of credit risk with objective credit history determinants.


Basically, the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston conducted a study of racial discrimination in the mortgage lending industry and concluded that there were racial discrimination. The study was found to be seriously flawed. But relaxation of lending criteria were enacted anyway.

The first lender of any mortgage is the local lender, or at least a local representative of a nation wide financial organization. Boston Fed sort of 'encouraged' local lenders to 're-assess' those who were rejected the first time around and overlook certain deficiencies in new applicants. Finally, the government told all lenders that the taxpayers via Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be liable for these 'sub-prime' mortgages.

It is a rare bird of a businessman who would reject these profit leaning policies out of moral distaste and farsightedness on how it could negatively affect the country's economy. But the reality is that when there is an opening for profit, whether regulations are removed or were never there in the first place, capitalism will exploit those openings. So the first blame and greatest condemnations should be reserved for the Democrats who out of noble intentions enacted policies without studying their consequences. Then blame the greedy bankers.

Targeted regulations would be something like: If mortgages are to include sub-primes, then banks are forbidden to list all mortgages on their books as assets. Or if mortgages are allowed to be listed as assets, then only with certain mortgages that meet strict criteria.

There are no limits on how precise these regulations could be.

Bottom line is that you simply want to play class warfare by zeroing in on 'greedy bankers' without looking at their political sponsors, which happened to include Democrats.


----------



## AsianLion

*Business Rule as Usual: The US Midterm Elections*

Taking care of big business is what US government has long been all about, and the Obama years have been no exception.

*“Government Works Only for the Rich and Powerful”*

Last Thursday’s _New York Times_ (I am writing on Monday, November 10, 2014) contained two instructive and curiously contrasting reflections on the Republican Party’s sweeping victory in last week’s United States midterm Congressional and state elections. The first reflection came from Frank Luntz, a leading Republican pollster and public relations expert. The elections, Luntz noted in a _Times_ Op-Ed, were no mandate for the “extreme conservative agenda.” They were really, Luntz felt, a spasm against a government that functions just for the wealthy Few. “This year,” Luntz wrote, “I travelled the country listening to voters, from Miami to Anchorage, 30 states and counting. And from the reddest [most Republican] rural towns to the bluest [most Democratic] big cities, the sentiment is the same. People say Washington is broken and on the decline, that _government no longer works for them – only for the rich and powerful_.” 

I was reminded by Luntz’s comment of something that liberal commentator William Greider wrote in the spring of 2009, setting the tone for Washington’s continued service to the wealthy corporate and financial few across the Age of Obama (something that I and a number of other journalists and authors have documented at length) – a time when 95% of US income gains have gone to the top 1%. 

“During the past nine months, gigantic financial bailouts amid collapsing economic life made visible the crippling divide between governing elites and citizens at large. People everywhere learned _a blunt lesson about power, who has it and who doesn't_. They watched Washington rush to rescue the very financial interests that caused the catastrophe. They learned that_ government has plenty of money to spend when the right people want it_. ‘Where's my bailout,’ became the rueful punch line at lunch counters and construction sites nationwide. Then to deepen the insult, people watched as establishment forces re-launched their campaign for ‘entitlement reform’ – a euphemism for whacking Social Security benefits, Medicare and Medicaid.” (emphasis added)

*“US No Longer an Actual Democracy”*

Luntz might have added that what “people say” about Washington happens to be accurate. Beneath the nation’s identity-politicized marionette theater of partisan warfare, both of the two reigning US political organizations have moved well to the right of the populace under the influence of concentrated wealth. In a study originally released last April, leading mainstream political scientists Martin Gilens (Princeton) and Benjamin Page (Northwestern) report that the US political system has become “an oligarchy,” where wealthy elites and their corporations “rule.” Examining data from more than 1,800 different policy initiatives from 1981 to 2002, they found that wealthy and well-connected elites consistently steer the direction of the country, regardless of or even against the will of the US majority. “The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy,” Gilens and Page wrote, “while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence” 

A story about Gilens and Page’s study in the liberal online journal _Talking Points Memo_ (_TPM_) last April bore an interesting title: “Princeton Study: U.S. No Longer an Actual Democracy.” It reported Gilens and Page’s finding that “the government—whether Republican or Democratic—more often follows the preferences” of Americans at the nation’s 90th income percentile than those at the 50th percentile. The _TPM _story contained a link to an interview with Gilens in which he explained that “contrary to what decades of political science research might lead you to believe, _ordinary citizens have virtually no influence over what their government does in the United States_. And economic elites and interest groups, especially those representing business, have a substantial degree of influence…. _Both parties have to a large degree embraced a set of policies that reflect the needs, preferences and interests of the well to do_.” No wonder, as _TPM _reporter Sahil Kapur noted, “Polls show that many American voters feel on a gut level that the _government isn't looking out for them_.” (emphasis added)

*Further Omissions*

Luntz could have added some other important things. He might have mentioned non-voters. Nearly two-thirds of the electorate did not participate in last week’s midterm election (the lowest midterm turnout in 70 years), reflecting (among other things) widespread antipathy towards the nation’s noxious, money-soaked and mass-marketed election spectacles and elite-controlled policy and politics.

The Republican strategist might have noted that there’s nothing all that “conservative” about the Republicans’ agenda. The 21st century G.O.P is more accurately described as radically regressive, something that makes it irrational for voters to think that backing Republicans is a way to protest the control of government by the rich and powerful. 

Another related omission in Luntz’s reflection is the Left vacuum in US society and politics. A critical factor behind mass non-voting is the almost complete absence of relevant Left movements and political parties willing and able to capture and act on the popular majority’s progressive policy opinions and values. That absence contributes to the abject failure of the other reigning US political organization, the dismal dollar Democratic Party, to act in accord with its populist-sounding campaign promises. The Left void is also no small part of why millions of ordinary Americans “vote against their own pocketbooks” by backing Republicans. It is no small part of how and why the Republican Party holds power in the US Congress and in the majority of US state governments even though it is viewed negatively by nearly half the populace and viewed positively by just 29 percent. 

Still, Luntz’s comment was honest and candid when compared to the vast right-wing blather about how “the people spoke” against “liberalism” and on behalf of the Republicans’ “free market” agenda last week. 

*“Expect[ing] a Return on Their Investment” in US “Democracy”*

A second and equally candid reflection in last Thursday’s _Times _came from Robert Shapiro, a top Commerce Department official in the Clinton administration and currently the chairman of a leading Washington economic and security consulting firm. “With the Republicans controlling both houses,” Shapiro told _Times_ reporters Nelson Schwartz and Clifford Krauss, “the corporations that have been financing their campaigns for years are going to _expect to see a return on their investment_.” As Schwartz and Clifford explained, the policy “returns” sought on election investments include a significant reduction in corporate taxes, final presidential approval of the eco-cidal Keystone XL Pipeline “to connect Canadian oil sand fields with American refineries on the coast of the Gulf of Mexico,” the reduction of White House efforts to control greenhouse gas emissions, and the enactment of sweeping new “free trade” (investor rights) deals (guaranteed to increase multinational corporations’ ability to exploit workers and poison the environment without interference from governments and popular movements) with Asia and Europe. In other words, more for the rich and the powerful – the common good be damned! 

So what if the great majority of the US populace (the vast army of non-voters as well as voters) loathes the oligarchic domination of their government and politics by Big Business and “the 1%”? And so what if the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued right before the election its “starkest warning yet” (_New York Times_) on the ever more desperate need for the US and other nations to dramatically slash carbon emissions and move off fossil fuels to renewable energy sources? 

Who cares? The Nobel Prize-winning IPCC can kiss Uncle Sam’s oil- and gas-slicked rear end. A good policy return on Big Carbon’s political investment is expected.

*“Issues Where There’s Broad Agreement Among the American People”*

In press conference remarks given the day after his dismal, dollar-drenched, and demobilizing Democratic Party received its second consecutive richly deserved mid-term shellacking at the hands of the widely disliked and radically regressive Republicans, US President Barack Obama said that he and the now more fully Republican Congress “can surely find ways to work together on issues where there’s broad agreement among the American people.” 

Not likely. There has long been broad agreement among the nation’s majority on a number of issues and problems that are completely off the policy table of the nation’s “really existing capitalist democracy – RECD, pronounced as ‘wrecked’” (Noam Chomsky). Among the technically irrelevant areas of extensive popular concurrence: wealth and income are far too unevenly distributed in the US; big business and the wealthy are far too powerful in the nation’s politics and government; workers should enjoy strong organizing and bargaining rights; wages are far too low; no household with full-time working members should be poor; government should privilege job creation over deficit reduction; taxes should be made far more progressive; government should act firmly to protect the environment and control carbon emissions; government should provide quality health care coverage for all; trade agreements should be revised to include strong labor and environmental protections; private money should be taken out of public elections; third (and fourth) political parties should be permitted a serious chance to compete for votes and representation in the US political system; Social Security and Medicare should be strengthened through progressive funding; strong financial regulations should be passed; corporations should be placed under popular control and strongly regulated; the nation’s giant “defense” (empire) budget should be significantly reduced while social expenditures are increased. None of these extensive popular and majority beliefs have the slightest chance of receiving support from either of the two reigning business parties in the US where “_ordinary citizens have virtually no influence over what their government does in the United States,” _where_ “_economic elites and interest groups, especially those representing business, have a substantial degree of influence,” and where “_Both parties have to a large degree embraced a set of policies that reflect the needs, preferences and interests of the well to do_.” 

A ubiquitous and longstanding Washington admonition loyally repeated over and over by US “mainstream” media calls for the nation’s two supposedly “polarized” parties to get past “partisan gridlock” and “get things done.” The media is clear on the “zones of agreement” where the center-right neoliberal President and the hard right neoliberal GOP Congress might be able act on the admonition during the last two years of Obama’s administration. The “hopeful” areas for “bipartisan action” are “trade” (corporate-neoliberal measures to insulate giant multinational firms yet further from popular and democratic interference), corporate tax “reform” (reduction), and “energy” (increased capitalist fossil fuel extraction and carbon emissions). 

*“Taking Care of Business”*

“The point,” Obama said during his press conference last week, “is it’s time for us to start taking care of business.” But _taking care of big business_ is what US government has long been all about, and the Obama years have been no exception. Greider’s “blunt lesson about power” is longstanding and ongoing. We should not be deceived by the myth of the powerless and bankrupt state. It is only what the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu called “the left hand of the state” – the parts of government that serve the poor and the causes of equality and civil liberty – that are broke and fading after decades of corporate and financial neoliberal assault. The “right hand of the state” – the parts that distribute wealth and power and punish the rest (the rising ranks of the poor especially) – is well-fed and thriving. As the voters Frank Luntz “listened to” (polled) this year sense, the US government does not lack the resources and wherewithal to carry out key objectives when it comes to serving the needs of the opulent minority. It is inadequate and poor only when it comes to meeting the social and democratic needs of the non-affluent majority.


----------

