Iun Posted November 7, 2012 Posted November 7, 2012 As I write, Barack Obama has just passed the 275 mark - he needed 270 to win. So, what are your thoughts, N-Europe? Four more years of mediocrity? Better the Devil You Know? or does Obama still stand for Hope and Change?
Londragon Posted November 7, 2012 Posted November 7, 2012 (edited) Thankfully, Obama has won. Another 4-8 years of Republicans would mean the closure of stem cell therapies and research, abortion laws rescinded, women's rights being affected, low earning populace without the right to any form of health-care, etc. Well, if the Democrats win next time at least Scientific research has another 4 years of un-interrupted growth within the USA, unlike under Bush and pals. Edited November 7, 2012 by londragon Error
Cube Posted November 7, 2012 Posted November 7, 2012 I didn't see a single story or comment that didn't portray Romney as a homophobic, racist*, lying biggot. Who would have done nothing but claimed the growth spurred on by what Obama has done as his own work. So I'm glad Obama won. *"Racist" in the more general term, depicting more stuff like religion and the like an and not just race.
Ashley Posted November 7, 2012 Posted November 7, 2012 I didn't see a single story or comment that didn't portray Romney as a homophobic, racist*, lying biggot. Who would have done nothing but claimed the growth spurred on by what Obama has done as his own work. Watch Fox News
Cube Posted November 7, 2012 Posted November 7, 2012 Watch Fox News Well, if they're the only place that didn't portray him like that...that solidifies my view.
Murr Posted November 7, 2012 Posted November 7, 2012 "Oh Obama you're so fine, you're so fine you blow my mind hey Obama, Hey Obama!" "Who let the Obama out, Who Who Who? Who let the Obama out!"
Mokong Posted November 7, 2012 Posted November 7, 2012 Thankfully, Obama has won. Another 4-8 years of Democrats would mean the closure of stem cell therapies and research, abortion laws rescinded, women's rights being affected, low earning populace without the right to any form of health-care, etc. Well, if the Democrats win next time at least Scientific research has another 4 years of un-interrupted growth within the USA, unlike under Bush and pals. Did you mean Republicans there? Was gonna make a thread on this yesterday when the voting started but then I thought I didn't want to jinx it Glad Obama won.... Romeny seemed like he would do more damage than Bush did. I can't get over how he would say Obama has failed fixing the economy and that Obama shouldn't be blaming the previous administration....yet you just knew had Romney gotten in he wouldn't be able to fix the economy in 4 years and would be blaming Obama saying "it wasn't my fault" I don't understand Republicans at all in the US... like Health Care... how can they view something that provides people who otherwise wouldn't have access to health care a bad thing? Yeah lets just leave people to die because their not as rich as us and can't afford health insurance or had a pre-exsisting condition so the insurance companies won't insure them....surely it was their fault they were sick in the first place Was looking at which states voted for who.... how is not surprising you could have predicted which ones would Romney....states like Texas, Louisianna, Mississippi etc Though looking at the map on the Sky News site looks like Romney did win the most states....wonder if he'll win the "popular" vote. That's another thing I don't get bout the US elections, how are those "collage votes" allocated? Is it a state gets more "points" based on Population or something?
Lens of Truth Posted November 7, 2012 Posted November 7, 2012 (edited) Yes, this is very much a case of the devil you know. Seems to have been a fairly clear decision too. At a policy level Romney was all over the place, Obama slightly less so. Economically Obama has largely continued Bush's awful legacy, but at least he's reigned in foreign policy. I think Romney would have been a liability. You know, at least in the UK we know why we have an enormous and continually growing state with massive debt and at least at some level it's well-intentioned - we have huge welfare, a National Health Service, a state broadcaster, loads of EU "guidelines" and warnings painted on every road saying "LOOK LEFT, DON'T DIE NOW". America has nothing to show for its crippling debt except Federal extravagance and war. Never ceases to amaze me. Edited November 7, 2012 by Lens of Truth
Serebii Posted November 7, 2012 Posted November 7, 2012 (edited) The problem is that people demand instant gratification for fixes. Fixes with things like the economy will take a while, but the majority of the public won't accept that and only will accept instant gratification. They want taxes lowered and everything, even though it may make things worse. Obama, and even our government, misguided though they may be, are trying to fix the issues caused by the previous governments (Labour's lowering of VAT to 15% to "encourage spending" just a year before they were on their way out just smacked of trying to screw the next government knowing they'd have to raise it to 20%) and it will take a while for it to be fixed. However, Obama and the current government are attempting to fix it, and sometimes they have to raise things to fix it, and people just see them as raising it and nothing being "fixed" yet. I'm glad Obama won, I actually feared for the world if Romney did Edited November 7, 2012 by Serebii
killer kirby Posted November 7, 2012 Posted November 7, 2012 Oh...America had an election? Had no idea.
Jamba Posted November 7, 2012 Posted November 7, 2012 Did you mean Republicans there? Was gonna make a thread on this yesterday when the voting started but then I thought I didn't want to jinx it Glad Obama won.... Romeny seemed like he would do more damage than Bush did. I can't get over how he would say Obama has failed fixing the economy and that Obama shouldn't be blaming the previous administration....yet you just knew had Romney gotten in he wouldn't be able to fix the economy in 4 years and would be blaming Obama saying "it wasn't my fault" I don't understand Republicans at all in the US... like Health Care... how can they view something that provides people who otherwise wouldn't have access to health care a bad thing? Yeah lets just leave people to die because their not as rich as us and can't afford health insurance or had a pre-exsisting condition so the insurance companies won't insure them....surely it was their fault they were sick in the first place Was looking at which states voted for who.... how is not surprising you could have predicted which ones would Romney....states like Texas, Louisianna, Mississippi etc Though looking at the map on the Sky News site looks like Romney did win the most states....wonder if he'll win the "popular" vote. That's another thing I don't get bout the US elections, how are those "collage votes" allocated? Is it a state gets more "points" based on Population or something? Two things I think factor in to the healthcare stuff. Firstly the classic Republican voter (usually quite well off, middle to upper class and white or depressingly uneducated) have been happy with their health system as it has been. They don't see the problem of people on the poverty line not being able to afford surgery or treatment as a problem because it's outside of their view. Another and probably more important thing is that American is completely founded on capitalism. If you earn more money, you have the right to better stuff. Healthcare companies should be like businesses that thrive through competition and offering better to the customer. To fund Obama's healthcare system costs tax money and the classic red voter feels that they have earned their money and they should get to spend it how they like. You know... by NOT investing it in a altruistic healthcare system.
jayseven Posted November 7, 2012 Posted November 7, 2012 @Iun I'm far more interested in what the 'once a decade' leadership change in China could mean. I've not heard anything about it except one tweet BBC have on their live feed at the moment. Elsewise I'm feeling extremely cynical about this whole thing. I mean of course I prefer Obama; I'm a liberal who knows nothing about running a country but has throwback 60s hippy ideals for how the world can run on peace and love, but I'm just surprised at how surprised (inorite) I am that everyone non-american is so... passionate/zealous about the whole affair.
Londragon Posted November 7, 2012 Posted November 7, 2012 Did you mean Republicans there? Whoops, yes. Major jubilation at Obama's win frazzled my brain.
Serebii Posted November 7, 2012 Posted November 7, 2012 @Iun I'm far more interested in what the 'once a decade' leadership change in China could mean. I've not heard anything about it except one tweet BBC have on their live feed at the moment. Elsewise I'm feeling extremely cynical about this whole thing. I mean of course I prefer Obama; I'm a liberal who knows nothing about running a country but has throwback 60s hippy ideals for how the world can run on peace and love' date=' [i']but[/i] I'm just surprised at how surprised (inorite) I am that everyone non-american is so... passionate/zealous about the whole affair. America is a major player in the world. A change there could determine the course of human civilisation, the next war and so forth
Londragon Posted November 7, 2012 Posted November 7, 2012 Though looking at the map on the Sky News site looks like Romney did win the most states....wonder if he'll win the "popular" vote. That's another thing I don't get bout the US elections, how are those "collage votes" allocated? Is it a state gets more "points" based on Population or something? Yeah, it's completely based off of population. The bigger the population the more College points.
Ganepark32 Posted November 7, 2012 Posted November 7, 2012 I'm happy Obama won but the biggest issue has been, and continues to be, that the Rednecks... sorry, Republicans have control of the House of Representatives and so any policies he wants to instigate are coming up against and will continue to come up against resistance. It's pretty much a stalemate situation where concessions will have to be made to get anything through and in the end, that's going to be detrimental to Obama's cause (and pretty much the goal of anyone who would have been President) of trying to get America back on track (and that's without figuring in things like public attitudes to some of his policies). Believe Obama did manage to win the popular vote as well so at least there wasn't a split on that.
jayseven Posted November 7, 2012 Posted November 7, 2012 America is a major player in the world. A change there could determine the course of human civilisation, the next war and so forthI know the argument, but I disagree with the worshipping aspect. The BBC correspondant in Iran did say that the Iranian worry was that Romney would go all Lost Prophets and start something in the middle east, so what you say is totally valid But I think it's silly to just champion Obama without really, really knowing and/or being involved in the direct consequences of his actions. Plus I'm feeling extra crispy-miserable. Not trying to piss you off or anything Though I did like the fact that Romney took ages to give his speech because he didn't write a concession speech ahead of time!
Mr-Paul Posted November 7, 2012 Posted November 7, 2012 I've been reading about the US election a lot for the last month, have found it fascinating. It's amazing what a large proportion of Americans think things like National Health, benefits etc. etc. are communist ideas, so are vehemently against them. It's like Jamba said, it is the ultimate capitalist state. I stayed up to watch the votes come in, flicking between the BBC, CNN and Fox News. So fascinating to watch it from different perspectives. When Fox called Ohio for Obama (and declared him president-elect) one of their panelists had a meltdown, refusing to accept the result until all the votes were counted. They then had to interview their statisticians on air to prove this guy wrong! Anyway, really glad Obama got re-elected. I saw bad things coming for the USA, and the rest of the world, had Romney won. Romney just wasn't experienced enough to be president in my view, he's a businessman, not a politician. Obama seems to care about America, about the people. Mitt Romney cares about Mitt Romney, and power. He had no real policies. It's really easy to gain votes just because you're not the guy currently in charge. But luckily, people didn't want him enough
heroicjanitor Posted November 7, 2012 Posted November 7, 2012 I saw a poll that was conducted by an American "think tank" (hate that phrase >: /) that has shown that if Europeans were the ones voting Obama would be overwhelmingly voted in. But then a lot of Europeans don't even know who Romney is and Obama is pretty much a celebrity so it could be something to do with that.
bob Posted November 7, 2012 Posted November 7, 2012 I think the most important issue here...is that i just won myself £2.50.
MoogleViper Posted November 7, 2012 Posted November 7, 2012 Drinks on @bob! how are those "collage votes" allocated? The one who makes the prettiest picture wins the most points.
Mr-Paul Posted November 7, 2012 Posted November 7, 2012 Though looking at the map on the Sky News site looks like Romney did win the most states....wonder if he'll win the "popular" vote. That's another thing I don't get bout the US elections, how are those "collage votes" allocated? Is it a state gets more "points" based on Population or something? There are 538 college votes, equivalent to the number of Senators (2 for each state, total of 100) and Representatives (438) in the US Congress. Each state has a number of college votes, which is equivalent to the number of representatives/senators, which is decided by the population of the state. So because California is highly populated, it has 55 representatives/college votes. Each state decides how it allocates its votes, but most give their votes to the candidate who gets the most votes overall in the state. The exceptions to this are Maine and Nebraska, who split their votes by district. For this reason, Romney may have won more states, but he won the states with smaller populations, whereas Obama won the states with a higher number of college votes. It's not really too different to how it works in the UK - it isn't done on popular vote, it is done on who gets a majority in the most areas, the main difference being that it is done on a much bigger scale, and each state is not equal like each constituency is in the UK. Still, it always comes down to swing states, these places where there really is a mix of opinion.
Agent Gibbs Posted November 7, 2012 Posted November 7, 2012 (edited) I certainly think Obama was the best candidate available (did anyone notice Rosanne Barr also ran....can you imagine?) Romney was worse than David Cameron, he flip flopped on what his aims and beliefs were constantly and even when called to task on them said they were his personal beliefs and that his policies wouldn't reflect them (or words to such), i just felt he would be another bush. AND his party is full of loons who thing pregnancy from rape is gods will, that women's bodies can shut down a rape and prevent it (implies if they don't they want it, doesn't it? nice ideas there), thankfully the men responsible for those statements have been defeated and not won/retained seats, but nobody ever heard republicans condemning such nonsense, the best we got were statements saying they were misguided or personal beliefs my friend had this on his facebook, a nice example of crazy romney People want too much, Obama is on cleanup of 8 years of bush/republican mistakes and had no hope of fixing them all in 4 years, but in my view he did an amazing job. whats worse is a lot of Americans thing America is in worse fiances now due to Obama, yet they are steadily improving, his measures are working, but most believe media hype eschewing figures of current American finance, with inaccurate or down right fabricated ones, then bring in how families are worse off etc, well of course they are they are paying extra to reduce the deficit and recover the economy and its working! but they won't be blinded by that now will they, they want as said above instant gratification. Obama isn't perfect but he's miles above the competition Edited November 7, 2012 by Agent Gibbs
bob Posted November 7, 2012 Posted November 7, 2012 Yeah, it's pretty much how we don't blame the recession right now on the Conservatives (or even Labour for that matter) as we realise that it wasn't their fault. But we do judge them on what they've done so far. In Obama's case he seems to have genuinely tried.
Diageo Posted November 7, 2012 Posted November 7, 2012 I'm glad Romney didn't win as that man would have set equality rights back 50 years.
Recommended Posts