|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The Even More Awesome Presidential Election Thread | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
I'm just a outsider, but I like to ask: are you all content with this political system?
Hell, no!Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 803 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
As a European I have trouble understanding how somebody who has made this amount of blunders is still a viable candidate for a presidental race. Because the people that are going to vote for him anyways, let's say around half the voting population, don't see what he does as blunders. They agree with the shit he says. Oh, and they don't want a black guy in the WHITE house. Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given."Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ooh-child Member (Idle past 345 days) Posts: 242 Joined: |
Nope, you're certainly not the only one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1468 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
As a European I have trouble understanding how somebody who has made this amount of blunders is still a viable candidate for a presidental race. What makes you think he's viable? Nate Silver's giving him an 8% chance of winning. I mean he's still in the race because he has no choice, he can't drop out because at this point he can't be replaced. The party voted to nominate him, he accepted, and there's no do-over. He's the GOP candidate, end of story. People have donated money to his campaign and, legally, it can't be used for anything but campaign expenses. He literally cannot legally give up. He just shambles on to an almost certain defeat in November, hoping that Obama makes a mistake. But Obama doesn't make mistakes. His opponents do. It's amazing how people fall all over themselves to let Obama win, isn't it? Jack Ryan? Alan Keyes? John McCain? And now Romney? You just can't make any money betting against Obama. The election was always his to lose, and that's exactly what Obama does not do - commit unforced errors and lose when he should have won.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3293 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
crashfrog writes:
I can sleep again!
What makes you think he's viable? Nate Silver's giving him an 8% chance of winning. I mean he's still in the race because he has no choice, he can't drop out because at this point he can't be replaced. The party voted to nominate him, he accepted, and there's no do-over. He's the GOP candidate, end of story. People have donated money to his campaign and, legally, it can't be used for anything but campaign expenses. He literally cannot legally give up. He just shambles on to an almost certain defeat in November, hoping that Obama makes a mistake. But Obama doesn't make mistakes. His opponents do. It's amazing how people fall all over themselves to let Obama win, isn't it? Jack Ryan? Alan Keyes? John McCain? And now Romney? You just can't make any money betting against Obama. The election was always his to lose, and that's exactly what Obama does not do - commit unforced errors and lose when he should have won.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3293 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined:
|
I own my own business. It's a small business, no less. I pay a LOT of taxes. I also pay for my own insurance and everything else. So, no I'm not one of these so-called freeloaders either. And I'm voting against Romney. He scares the hell out of me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sfs Member (Idle past 2535 days) Posts: 464 From: Cambridge, MA USA Joined: |
Nate Silver is giving Romney a 25% chance of winning, not 8%. 8% is the probability that he would win if the election were held today.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 413 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
hooah212002 writes:
There's a story in Canadian pseudo-history that the White House was originally painted white because we burned it during the War of 1812 ("we" being British at the time).
Oh, and they don't want a black guy in the WHITE house. quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kairyu Member (Idle past 205 days) Posts: 162 From: netherlands Joined: |
By viable I meant he's still a serious candidate that, although not on a winning road, still has a reasonable amount of support behind him.
To illustrate my point, a week or so ago a ''what would you vote in the US?'' poll was held in some countries in Europe, including here. If I recall correctly, Obama got 80% of the ''votes'', and Rommey about 5%. Of course, this doesn't quite reflect a true election, but Rommey's reputation here is clear.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
To illustrate my point, a week or so ago a ''what would you vote in the US?'' poll was held in some countries in Europe, including here. If I recall correctly, Obama got 80% of the ''votes'', and Rommey about 5%.
My guess is that it would be about the same here ---- if Obama were not black. Racism is deeply ingrained and visceral. Of course, to be realistic, if Obama were not black, the Republicans would not be sounding nearly so insane. They have a insane platform in order to appeal to the racist vote, without directly using racist epithets.Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ooh-child Member (Idle past 345 days) Posts: 242 Joined:
|
If Obama weren't black, it'd be about something else since he's the Democrat.
If it had been Hillary elected, we'd have been inundated w/ mysogynistic insanity about another Clinton in the White House. If it had been Edwards, well, we know what would've permiated the brains of conservatives then. If it had been Richardson, then the 'brown skin' stuff would just be adjusted to fit his particular hue & origin. The conservatives ruling the Republican party have had 'generic democrat' derangment syndrome since Bill Clinton was elected. Just gets hotter every year.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 350 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined:
|
OK you can all relax now. The choice is obvious.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1468 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
By viable I meant he's still a serious candidate that, although not on a winning road, still has a reasonable amount of support behind him. Well, he's "the guy" for the Republican Party agenda. Why would people who support that agenda stop supporting him?
To illustrate my point, a week or so ago a ''what would you vote in the US?'' poll was held in some countries in Europe, including here. If I recall correctly, Obama got 80% of the ''votes'', and Rommey about 5%. Sure, but doesn't Geert Wilders run your Parliament? Sounds like you guys have your own experience with total nutbags winning elections.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Shield Member (Idle past 2863 days) Posts: 482 Joined: |
but doesn't Geert Wilders run your Parliament? No. Wilders is the Parliamentary group leader of Partij voor de Vrijheid(Party for Freedom). Each party has one. Edited by rbp, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024