• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

I really don't care who wins the election.

JulesMaximus

No Lifer
Jul 3, 2003
74,182
635
126
I'm voting for Obama and he'll win CA easily whether I vote or not but I really don't care either way. It's going to be one of these two regardless.

I'm just curious what your plans are if your guy doesn't get in?

I have a lot of friends who are fairly conservative and a some who are pretty liberal and it seems that the conservative ones are just foaming at the mouth at the thought of another 4 years of Obama.

Someone my wife is good friends with was telling her that Obama is a communist and we're going to a world currency and that the middle class will disappear if Obama wins. I find that a bit hard to believe personally. I think she gives him too much credit. :biggrin:
 

JulesMaximus

No Lifer
Jul 3, 2003
74,182
635
126
He's a redistributionist. That doesn't end well.
Let's see, we currently redistribute 1/3 or our tax dollars to interest on the national debt, nearly a third of it to military expenditures and the rest on social programs. That hasn't really changed since Obama was elected. I doubt it will change under Romney. We'll just have another fat cat in office... except this one is a billionaire corporate raider instead of a Harvard lawyer.
 

UberNeuman

Lifer
Nov 4, 1999
16,937
3,083
126
Stupid people will keep being stupid....

\see the Romeny supporters as proof of this....
 

JulesMaximus

No Lifer
Jul 3, 2003
74,182
635
126
I will say this, this is one of the ugliest elections I've ever witnessed.

No matter who you support these two groups are going to have to set aside their differences and work together. It's not a war.
 

UberNeuman

Lifer
Nov 4, 1999
16,937
3,083
126
I will say this, this is one of the ugliest elections I've ever witnessed.

No matter who you support these two groups are going to have to set aside their differences and work together. It's not a war.
If you don't mind my asking - which side, do you feel, has been unwilling to cross the aisle?
 

zanejohnson

Diamond Member
Nov 29, 2002
7,048
7
81
meh it's obvious obama has it in the bag already..

but no.. honestly i dont really care that much... it's more entertainment to me then something i could really be angry over..
 

Slew Foot

Lifer
Sep 22, 2005
12,381
94
86
Hopefully Obama wins the presidency and the republicans get congress. The country seems to do better when that happens
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
17,437
2,657
126
I will say this, this is one of the ugliest elections I've ever witnessed.

No matter who you support these two groups are going to have to set aside their differences and work together. It's not a war.
I hope they don't. Gridlock is the only possible way we'll survive the next four years.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
0
0
I'm not that concerned. I think Obama will win as President, that the Republicans will maintain control of the House and probably gain control of the Senate. Even if they don't win control they can still stop bad legislation and there's only so much that Obama can do by presidential fiat.
When it's all said and done Obama and his supporters can take a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut.
 

dawp

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
10,669
1,890
126
since I'm in misery chances are it will go romney so it really doesn't matter who I vote for so it's be 3rd party for me, write-in if I have to.
 

dawp

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
10,669
1,890
126
I'm not that concerned. I think Obama will win as President, that the Republicans will maintain control of the House and probably gain control of the Senate. Even if they don't win control they can still stop bad legislation and there's only so much that Obama can do by presidential fiat.
When it's all said and done Obama and his supporters can take a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut.
I think that depends on how badly romney looses. If it's a landslide, I would suspect the house and senate repubs will loose seats.
 
Last edited:

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,061
494
126
It doesnt matter who wins. Obama will be a lame term president if he wins anyways.
 

BudAshes

Lifer
Jul 20, 2003
12,981
1,946
126
I'd be fine with a republicans but their only plan is to mortgage our future by using every possible natural resource we have right now. They have no long term plan what's so ever. Their plan is to ride it out 'till rapture comes and all of us atheists burn in hell. Unfortunately the democrats are almost worse. They bandwagon any environmental concerns scientists have and turn them into profitable catch phrases that they use to further their campaigns and careers.
 

Doppel

Lifer
Feb 5, 2011
13,306
2
0
He's a redistributionist. That doesn't end well.
BREAKING: So are you. So are 99% of Americans, they just like to pretend they aren't and/or don't even know what it means.

Welfare, medicaid, medicare. Even if you hate all those, what about disability for troops. A guy from a war cannot work and is fvcked up forever and now on the government dole. That's wealth redistribution. A newborn's mom dies and the kid is now a ward of the state. Wealth redistribution.

Such trite comments about not supporting it are naive.

------------

I don't think the course of the country will change much regardless of who wins, though with Romney's recent behavior I think he needs to go to his room more than the oval office and think about what he's done. When he's ready to apologize he can come down and eat supper with the rest of the family.
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
I'd be fine with a republicans but their only plan is to mortgage our future by using every possible natural resource we have right now. They have no long term plan what's so ever. Their plan is to ride it out 'till rapture comes and all of us atheists burn in hell. Unfortunately the democrats are almost worse. They bandwagon any environmental concerns scientists have and turn them into profitable catch phrases that they use to further their campaigns and careers.
So do you think the Dems have a long-term plan?
 

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,010
1
76
As Rush Limbaugh put it: "America can survive another 4 years of Obama. What we cannot survive is an electorate that would re-elect Obama."
 

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,010
1
76
Hopefully Obama wins the presidency and the republicans get congress. The country seems to do better when that happens
Maybe under a typical Democrat president like Clinton. But Obama, not facing re-election, will take unconstitutional executive authority to new heights never before imagined. Remember his "after my election, I'll have more more flexibility" statement? What do you think he meant by that?
 

SandEagle

Lifer
Aug 4, 2007
16,813
11
0
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2205273/Mitt-Romney-secret-video-If-I-fanatic-Id-let-nuclear-bomb-Chicago.html

‘If I were Iran – a crazed fanatic, I’d say let’s get a little fissile material to Hezbollah, have them carry it to Chicago, and then if anything goes wrong, or America starts acting up, we’ll just say, “Guess what? Unless you stand down, why, we’re going to let off a dirty bomb.

‘I mean this is where we have – where America could be held up and blackmailed by Iran, by the mullahs, by crazy people. So we don’t have any option but to keep Iran from having a nuclear weapon.’
lol sounds like a deranged puppet. i know who i'm NOT voting for.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
BREAKING: So are you. So are 99% of Americans, they just like to pretend they aren't and/or don't even know what it means.

Welfare, medicaid, medicare. Even if you hate all those, what about disability for troops. A guy from a war cannot work and is fvcked up forever and now on the government dole. That's wealth redistribution. A newborn's mom dies and the kid is now a ward of the state. Wealth redistribution.

Such trite comments about not supporting it are naive.
(1) Disability for troops can easily be considered risk based compensation for services rendered. Or are you arguing that paying troops is wealth redistribution?

(2) And as for the newborn... this is why children are supposed to have 2 parents to drastically reduce the risk of this happening. Yet another reason why single motherhood is incompatible with reality.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,890
638
126
I'm not that concerned. I think Obama will win as President, that the Republicans will maintain control of the House and probably gain control of the Senate. Even if they don't win control they can still stop bad legislation and there's only so much that Obama can do by presidential fiat.
When it's all said and done Obama and his supporters can take a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut.
Way more to consider than this IMO.

Four more years of Obama's foreign policy? The majority of what they do in that regard will come right out of the White House, no intervention or input from Congress required. Is somebody going to wave a smart stick over them in the next term? We're not making friends, we're cultivating enemies. We're not even keeping the friends we have.

The big one is the SCOTUS. Our next president will for sure appoint one and perhaps two to the court. The left looks at our Constitution as a living document that should be changed on a whim. They do not have the patience to go through the formal amendment process. A majority on the court will result in toys and candy for everyone with more borrowing paying for it.

We need a budget. Do we just hope for Republican control in the Senate and hope that Obama will sign a budget they create? Who's going to pressure him to do it? The voters? Congress? Our allies? Who would he listen to and why should he?

A restoration of the balance of power is the only hope our nation has to survive in anything that remotely resembles what we used to be and what we were founded on. That being a place for the people of the world to emigrate to where they could find success through hard work and determination. Now, we'll let them in and put them on public assistance. It's not sustainable. There was a time when the majority had enough common sense to realize this. Now, not so much. It won't end well.

I just spent the latter part of the past week at the annual conference for the franchise I bought into almost a year ago. I've opened up a small business. We traveled with a couple from Canada that opened one several months prior to ours. They're on the verge of opening a second location. That's not even on the radar for us. Here's why.

In order to get ours open, I had to spend our money. No bank would lend, no SBA loans, no funding available to open up a relatively low cost franchise that has been rated consistently within the top ten almost since their inception a decade ago. The failure rate on them is so far below the norm for franchises that it's truly impressive. The franchise is even on the good-guy SBA lending list.

Our Canadian compadres, who are less than half our age with a far lower net worth were able to get government funding for their first one and are getting government funding for their second. I should tell you that their BOE at their first location is much higher than ours and their cash flow is nearly identical. At this point, like us, they are covering the bills and future projections look good if the path stays the same. Based on their performance and accounts receivable, they can get funding for that second business. We have to be in business for three years and will have to have bankrolled a major portion of the investment to even be in consideration for lending to open a second location and create some more jobs.

The point is, that our government makes a lot of noise about supporting businesses but when compared to our neighbors to the North, it becomes apparent that it's just lip service. Canada is supporting their economy, they see the end result of creating jobs and the positive results that has across the board. Here, we're going to take from the rich to give to the poor because there aren't enough jobs to go around. We'll throw money at some green projects that fail because they aren't ready for prime time and we'll hope things turn around no matter how slowly that happens.

It's too damned hard to create jobs, so our impetus has shifted towards maintaining the lifestyle to the greatest degree possible of the people that live within our boundaries. We've got rich folk to take money from and we're still able to borrow, so we'll continue on this path. It's the safest course of action because we're living it, we've become comfortable with it and if it lasts long enough to finish a term and get another one of our own in office, we've won. To top it off, we'll hate on a successful guy running for president. He just doesn't fit in with the new American dream of a chicken in every pot, with the chicken and the pot supplied by the government using money taken or borrowed from someone else. We can't have a successful guy in office because it's too damned scary. We'll just stay with what we've got, what we've come to know and maintain the status quo.

Take off the shades, the future ain't bright.
 

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,501
1
81
I do care about who wins the election.
If Mr Romney win the US will face:
1. The GOP's cultural wars agenda
2. An increase in taxes on the poor, and working and middle classes and cutting of programs that benefit them.
3. A return to neo-con foreign policies. Anyone remember "Bomb, bomb Iran"?
4. "Conservatives" choosing 3 to 4 USSC justices
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
I don't expect much to change regardless of who wins.

I'd prefer that Obama won, but I don't think Romney would be significantly better or worse.

I'm voting 3rd party and already reconciled to my candidate not winning ;)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY