Dubstepforum.com

Money elects in the US. The republican machine very early on will decide that these guys are unelectable (guys referring to tea party types) and will quickly marginalize them.

Not saying in the future Tea Party persons won't effect the election, I just don't think it will be this election.

2016 (assuming non re-election scenario) they will as they'll have another 3 batches of elections to gain power.

A Tea Party VP is realistic if someone hangs on long enough and looks like they'll be stealing republican votes.

um.... you know the election won't be until november 2012, and you're talking about in august 2011 lol

jugo wrote:um.... you know the election won't be until november 2012, and you're talking about in august 2011 lol

This is America. The 2012 campaign coverage began in November 2008

yeah, i know, but it's just been on my mind. I have no political affiliation, and will happily admit i don't know whats best on a lot of issues. It's just nerve wracking. every time i look at the news its so fucked up, basically i feel like we've been had by our entire political system. and the way news media covers certain things/doesn't cover other things.
I don't know who's got their hand in whose pocket. Just wondered what types of thoughts there would be on Obama as a two-term POTUS, coming from such a worldwide forum.

Who do you think is going to win?

capitalism

Obama. I'd be siding with the Dems anyway, unless they picked someone truly offensive, but I can't see the GOP even putting up a respectable challenge by the time they've got through all their current infighting.

The Tea Party won 2012 for Obama in 2010.

magma wrote:Obama. I'd be siding with the Dems anyway, unless they picked someone truly offensive,

You don't think a war criminal who killed American citizens without due process and supported a bill enabling indefinite detention, sent more troops to the Middle East in one term than George Bush in two terms and pretty much announced war with Iran in his state of the union adress.. is truly offensive? Really?

Christ.

Anyway. Romney actually stands a shot against Obama and probably wouldn't be.. worse. But I don't know. Anyone but Paul would've been terrible, but considering the media onslaught around Iowa and voterfraud (no, it's not a conspiracy, even Rachel Maddow reported on it) in Maine.. I don't think they're gonna let him get the nomination that easily (he's last in strawpolls, but first in delegates, but meh, it's all about momentum).

Yeah its completely shit choices you have there, as usual. But a lying twofaced prick isn't as bad as a rightwing loonie, so easy choice.

hubb wrote:Yeah its completely shit choices you have there, as usual. But a lying twofaced prick isn't as bad as a rightwing loonie, so easy choice.

That's the reasoning I kinda fail to see. How's supporting legislation that'll never pass 'loonier' than killing thousands of people? It's like people are fine with murder if it's carried out in the name of pseudo-leftism.

Genevieve wrote:

magma wrote:Obama. I'd be siding with the Dems anyway, unless they picked someone truly offensive,

You don't think a war criminal who killed American citizens without due process and supported a bill enabling indefinite detention, sent more troops to the Middle East in one term than George Bush in two terms and pretty much announced war with Iran in his state of the union adress.. is truly offensive? Really?

Christ.

It would only be an offensive option if the GOP wouldn't have gone much further on all of those things. Which they would've. And they wouldn't have made any effort to sort out health care, don't-ask-don't-tell etc etc. Obama's not been perfect by any means... saying I'd choose him over Mit Romney isn't the same as saying I think he's an angel from heaven.

I'm not a big fan of America, so I disagree with most of their presidents - it's probably a good job I don't have to decide a vote - but I find it easy to see why Obama's less offensive than all of the people on GOP tickets at the moment though including Paul, whose economics I find negligent to the point of offense.

Rock & a hard place?

Obama is the best of a bad bunch really. Agree with Magma, GOP would have, at the very least, not done a damn thing about healthcare, it's not too mental to assume they would have gone harder with the Middle East and done most of the same things Obama did. It's not like he thinks policies up himself.

The Reps are too fragmented, the in-fighting is hilarious and without any semblance of solidarity Obama just looks like a better bet.

I'd probably pick Romney if I had to (obviously ignoring Paul, he's great but it'll never happen), I can't imagine a scarier country than one led by Rick Santorum. That man is child's-skin-as-a-lamp scary. **shudder**

Also, this is for the presidency of the US of A, not America. just to be facitious.

"If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged." -- chomsky

offensive, criminal, and plenty more.

it is always harder to get people (voters) interested in other what's happening in countries. even when your own government is responsible for it, and therefore so are you. it's not surprising that it's harder, but i find it surprising how much harder it is.

the differences between presidential candidates on domestic policy are usually greater than on foreign policy. which is 1 good reason to cast your vote based on domestic policy.

Genevieve wrote:

hubb wrote:Yeah its completely shit choices you have there, as usual. But a lying twofaced prick isn't as bad as a rightwing loonie, so easy choice.

That's the reasoning I kinda fail to see. How's supporting legislation that'll never pass 'loonier' than killing thousands of people? It's like people are fine with murder if it's carried out in the name of pseudo-leftism.

Because all of the other candidates would surely have done the same as Obama if not more.

Besides, murder is better when done in the name of pseudo leftism!

magma wrote:It would only be an offensive option if the GOP wouldn't have gone much further on all of those things.

But seeing as the Dems actually have gone further than Bush.. what do you base all this on? Wasn't the point of Obama that he'd be better than Bush, not worse?

I'd have prefered McCain to have won in 2008. Not because he'd be better or in any way different, but then at least people would start pretending to care about war again. Now a war criminal who's record is worse than any previous president get's a pass because he's got a (D) next to his name.

The right wing red neck choice most likely.

Genevieve wrote:

magma wrote:It would only be an offensive option if the GOP wouldn't have gone much further on all of those things.

But seeing as the Dems actually have gone further than Bush.. what do you base all this on? Wasn't the point of Obama that he'd be better than Bush, not worse?

I'd have prefered McCain to have won in 2008. Not because he'd be better or in any way different, but then at least people would start pretending to care about war again. Now a war criminal who's record is worse than any previous president get's a pass because he's got a (D) next to his name.

Debating what someone else would've done under the same pressures is pretty moot... we have no idea how John McCain would've dealt with threats like Iran, but considering he was singing "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" to the tune of the Beach Boys during his campaign, I imagine he might have been at least as gung ho as the current lot.

America likes going to war; I don't know why, but it does.

I'm pleased that he's made some progress getting his people healthcare and has bucked the international trend on dealing with sovereign debt to leave the USA experiencing a better recovery from their recession than most European countries, that's more than I could say for two terms of Dubya.

But, he's certainly not my guy. He's from an almost entirely alien culture, it'd be strange if he was. I can't imagine ever fully supporting an American candidate... none of the "politicians" on either side of the race seem to have as much substance as the people we elect across Europe and we despair at ours enough...

I prefer Obama of the lot.

Romney stands 0 chance against Obama at this point. He squandered that role already.

The only chance the republicans stand is Santorum winning the nomination and the republicans making this election about ethics, religion, us vs them, etc etc and completely polarizing the religious base

This is how bush beat gore.... in my opinion only way they win this

The GOP honestly has no chance of putting up anyone that can stand up to Obama in an election. That said, no one on either side is really "good".