US Presidential Election Countdown Closing (1 Viewer)

[KenHigg]

I'll vote for him tomorrow then. If he wins and screws things up it'll be your fault

 

[Vassago]

I'll vote for him tomorrow then. If he wins and screws things up it'll be your fault

He's obviously not going to win, but if he gets 5%, the Libertarian Party becomes a recognized major party and recieves money for the 2016 election. Their candidate will also get to speak in the debates. That's a good enough reason for me.

Also, it will smack Congress in the face a little, forcing them to actually get stuff done if they want to keep their job. People will start to realize there are other viable options and this is not just a two party system. I think overall, more people would agree with Gary Johnson's views than either Obamney.

 

[KenHigg]

Sample ballot:

Link

The booze law gets a little more liberal every few years :banghead:

 

[Brianwarnock]

Do think that he election should have been delayed until the effects of sandy had been more cleaned up. Our news shows people in the effected areas not knowing where to vote as the usual places are destroyed.

Brian

 

[Vassago]

Sample ballot:

Link

The booze law gets a little more liberal every few years :banghead:

I don't understand. Are you for or against alcohol sales on Sunday?

 

[KenHigg]

I wish it was not available anytime.

 

[Steve R.]

Better late then never I guess. Gary Johnson video clip. Get ready for the coming police state! Will Canada have refugee camps established on Wednesday?

The case for a third party vote

 

[Brianwarnock]

I wish it was not available anytime.

Prohibition didn't work any more than it would for guns.

Personally I don't think retail outlets of any kind should be open on Sundays, not a religious belief but a family day requirement.

Brian

 

[Adam Caramon]

I wish it was not available anytime.

So you want the government to dictate how people should behave? Prevent people from purchasing/consuming alcohol?

What a big government socialist.

 

[KenHigg]

Not sure where you guys are seeing where I said anything about government involvement. I just said I wish it wasn't around. Given that it is and will be, I'll try to teach my grandson and any other young people in my life the dark sides of alcohol like perils of addiction and over indulgence. I'm not blind and know my efforts will most likely be fruitless given how over glamorized it is but at least I will be able to say I knew and spoke up.

 

[Steve R.]

Game Over. Obama unfortunately wins. Results not yet final; but the hand writing is on the wall. Washington Post: Obama wins reelection, according to network projections. (Since this is a changing story, the link may "break").

 

[Lister]

So long "Mitt The Twit" and his parade of Crazy, phew, that felt close.

 

[KenHigg]

Lister - a blast from the past! How've you been?

 

[Adam Caramon]

And interestingly, it wasn't really even close. I was watching the coverage on CNN, the Republican strategists were suitably humbled by the results. They're actually talking about how the Republican party needs to change and adapt to remain competitive. Let's hope that's what they actually do instead of sticking to their guns.

 

[KenHigg]

What? They were 'actually talking about' that? Where is my remote!?!

One bozo beat another bozo, oh hum. Another generation gets on the blinder bandwagon...

 

[Steve R.]

The era of "BIG" government is back.

Actually, that was a given, even Romney (despite his rhetoric), would have promoted "BIG" government. The difference is that "BIG" government is integral to Obama's vision. Under Obama the government will be increasingly involved in personal affairs and providing "benefits".

Too soon to tell, but will Obama really tackle the tax/deficit/debt problems? Or will it turn out to be empty campaign rhetoric to be forgotten now that he has won re-election. He has asserted that he would make the "tough" decisions. So far he has avoided them. Time will tell.

 

[KenHigg]

The era of "BIG" government is back.

Actually, that was a given, even Romney (despite his rhetoric), would have promoted "BIG" government. The difference is that "BIG" government is integral to Obama's vision. Under Obama the government will be increasingly involved in personal affairs and providing "benefits".

Too soon to tell, but will Obama really tackle the tax/deficit/debt problems? Or will it turn out to be empty campaign rhetoric to be forgotten now that he has won re-election. He has asserted that he would make the "tough" decisions. So far he has avoided them. Time will tell.

He's lame duck now and didn't do anything the past four years what makes anyone think he'll do anything now, not that Romney would do anything :banghead:

IMHO the budget issue overides everything else.

 

[Steve R.]

And interestingly, it wasn't really even close. I was watching the coverage on CNN, the Republican strategists were suitably humbled by the results. They're actually talking about how the Republican party needs to change and adapt to remain competitive. Let's hope that's what they actually do instead of sticking to their guns.

Even FOX News, this morning, discussed how the Republicans need to re-assess their message in light of the election results.

The Republican platform has been intellectually "bankrupt". Blame Bush proved that. Yet Romney continued down that road. The Democrats, in contrast, are running a populist "bread and circuses" platform that is extremely difficult to compete with.

The sad reality of this election is that it once again reaffirms that most people will vote for the "free" populist handout. What the US needs is someone who can rationally sell, to the electorate, a plan to fix the tax/deficit/budget issues even if it means economic self-sacrifice.

 

[KenHigg]

Even FOX News, this morning, discussed how the Republicans need to re-assess their message in light of the election results.

Is this a surprise? If the dems had lost they'd be doing the same...

 

[Adam Caramon]

Even FOX News, this morning, discussed how the Republicans need to re-assess their message in light of the election results.

They definitely need to. As was mentioned during the coverage last night, a party cannot survive into the future relying solely on white males. What they really need to do is cast off some of their oldest members, embrace the small group of young people that identify as Republicans, and build a platform around them that encourages diversity and outside ideas.

The Republican platform has been intellectually "bankrupt".

The platform and the candidates. Fiscal conservatism has a future, social conservatism is breathing its last breaths.

The Democrats, in contrast, are running a populist "bread and circuses" platform that is extremely difficult to compete with.

As was Romney. Tax cuts for all, increased spending on the military, increased spending on education. There was actually little that was different in their overall messages.

The sad reality of this election is that it once again reaffirms that most people will vote for the "free" populist handout.

I think that is too simplistic of a take-away. Romney made many mistakes, his party didn't help him out by taking on the mantle of "pregnancy by ra** is god's will". The Republican congresses record-setting use of the filibuster, and the senate minority leader stating his #1 priority was to make President Obama a 1 term president all contributed to Romney's downfall.