Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Democrats Government United States Politics

Barack Obama Retains US Presidency 1576

Posted by Soulskill
from the but-will-he-go-for-the-three-peat dept.
Fox News, NBC, and CNN have called the U.S. election for incumbent Barack Obama. Of the so-called 'battleground states,' Obama carried Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, and New Hampshire, which, along with all of the solidly Democrat-leaning states, was enough to push him beyond the 270 required for victory. You can check this chart to see the full list of states that have currently been called, and by which news networks. The NY Times has an excellent interactive map showing all election results updated in real time, as does CNN. It's currently projected that the Republicans will retain control of the House of Representatives, and the Democrats will retain control of the Senate.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Barack Obama Retains US Presidency

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 06, 2012 @11:33PM (#41903341)
    Not sure whether I consider that a good thing or not; but at least somebody did something about the health care problems the USA has and maybe the conservatives will work a little bit with him now to improve it, rather than just chanting to repeal it like some kind of mantra.
  • Tweedledee won ! (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Taco Cowboy (5327) on Tuesday November 06, 2012 @11:36PM (#41903365) Journal

    Tweedledum lost !

    But is there any difference ?

    I mean, Democrooks are as bad as the Republicrooks - and both are there to fleece the people and to ensure that their power is not challenged by the people.

    The Bill of Rights be damned.

    The Constitution also be damned.

    As long as Washington D.C. is under the control of Demo-Republicrooks, they will continue to allow this charade to continue.

  • Re:well... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MyLongNickName (822545) on Tuesday November 06, 2012 @11:37PM (#41903379) Journal

    Not really. Two sources of data I user are electionprojection.com and electoral-vote.com. One is run by a liberal, the other by a conservative, but both are data driven based on several polling services. Both has Obama winning 303 electoral votes, Both sources have predicted correctly each state, and I see the possibility of two states going against their prediction (Florida, they predicted for Romney, Va they predicted for Obama). Based on the polls, this election has really been over for a couple months. So, only a media wanting a major even was predicting a long, drawn out affair.

  • by Black Parrot (19622) on Tuesday November 06, 2012 @11:37PM (#41903381)

    Not sure whether I consider that a good thing or not; but at least somebody did something about the health care problems the USA has and maybe the conservatives will work a little bit with him now to improve it, rather than just chanting to repeal it like some kind of mantra.

    No, the Republicans will spend the next four years obstructing anything and everything in order to make the government look dysfunctional and Obama look bad, just to improve their chances of winning next time.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 06, 2012 @11:37PM (#41903383)

    Obama or Romney, whoever gets elected, get rid of the Electoral College.

  • by Black Parrot (19622) on Tuesday November 06, 2012 @11:38PM (#41903395)

    But is there any difference ?

    Yes.

    Now my turn for a question: do you pay the slightest attention to what our politicians do?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 06, 2012 @11:39PM (#41903409)

    It's not. And "at least somebody did something" is a ludicrous argument. What he gave us is worse than what we had.

    That's like saying "at least the guy at Fort Hood did something."

    80% of that law is stuff that just plain shouldn't exist, especially in a law that claims to be about affordable health care.

  • by jonnythan (79727) on Tuesday November 06, 2012 @11:40PM (#41903415) Homepage

    That worked super well this past 4 years. They won back the Presidency and gained ground in the Senate.

    Oh, wait. That's the opposite of what happened.

  • by AK Marc (707885) on Tuesday November 06, 2012 @11:41PM (#41903427)
    We choose between the party that taxes us to subsidize farmers and hollywood, or the party that taxes us to subsidize banks and oil companies. You may claim there is a difference, but I don't see enough of one for it to matter.
  • by cheekyjohnson (1873388) on Tuesday November 06, 2012 @11:42PM (#41903447)

    And both seem to want to increase government surveillance and trade freedom for safety.

  • by khasim (1285) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Tuesday November 06, 2012 @11:45PM (#41903475)

    Then you'll see a huge difference.

  • by An Ominous Coward (13324) on Tuesday November 06, 2012 @11:45PM (#41903479)

    In your opinion, do you think an Al Gore administration would have led us into war with Iraq?

  • Re:Obama (Score:5, Insightful)

    by aardvarkjoe (156801) on Tuesday November 06, 2012 @11:47PM (#41903511)

    1. Declare a national holiday so all can vote on a day off to eliminate the lines.
    2. Get rid of the electoral college.
    3. Get Congress to override Citizen United.
    4. Take the money out of the electoral system.

    Funny, I'd put "educate the voting public" ahead of any of those.

    Of course, it will never happen, since it suits both major parties perfectly well to keep the voters ignorant.

  • Re:Just one thing (Score:3, Insightful)

    by fustakrakich (1673220) on Tuesday November 06, 2012 @11:47PM (#41903515) Journal

    The 'free world" is an exoplanet, still waiting to be discovered.

  • by Doctor_Jest (688315) on Tuesday November 06, 2012 @11:47PM (#41903517)

    Nope... Syria or Iran. Or Libya. But not Iraq. So, 6 in one hand, half-dozen in the other. I think Al Gore would've been just like Clinton was in Bosnia... shoot first, ask permission later. Why would there be any debate about this, considering Al Gore's pre-movie career policies and stated platforms?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 06, 2012 @11:49PM (#41903537)

    I've met some Republicans. They claim that the obstructionism is useful for stopping a more socialist agenda, but they too tire of a dysfunctional government.

    I think their voices will get heard. I think there will be a handful of Republicans who will need to play nice to keep their seats, and it only takes a handful. I have some hope.

    Moreso because, while I would have voted for Buddy Roemer had he been on the ballot, I was glad to see that all those millions of dollars weren't enough to get a sub-standard Republican elected. It may not have worked well, but the system worked.

  • Re:GWB 2.0 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jeremi (14640) on Tuesday November 06, 2012 @11:51PM (#41903553) Homepage

    Please, let's stop pretending that Bush started anything.

    1) He started the invasion of Iraq.
    2) He started torture as official US policy.

    His predecessors were hardly any better.

    After World War 2, the USA convicted several Japanese soldiers of water boarding American and Allied prisoners of war. The US government hanged them for that crime.

    George W. Bush will forever be known as the President who first sanctioned torture in the USA.

  • Re:Excellent (Score:5, Insightful)

    by x_IamSpartacus_x (1232932) on Tuesday November 06, 2012 @11:54PM (#41903569)
    Ok, honestly, I wish people could try to be a little less partisan. Both men were good men and would try to serve this country. Sure they both have selfish motivations for some of the things they do but, seriously, who the hell wouldn't in that position???.
    Let's all agree that, though Obama may do things differently than you personally think he should, he's going to lead America as best he can.
    I'm generally conservative/libertarian in my politics and most of my friends align in that direction. I infrequently use Facebook and when I looked this morning I was disgusted with the ridiculous epithets and flat out doucheiness of a LOT of people who call themselves "Christians" or at least moral people.
    Obama is a good man. I would lead a bit differently than I but he's NOT a "Baby Killer", the "Antichrist", the "Nigger in the White House", or any other hateful and decidedly unchristian thing so many morally ugly people are saying about him.
    He's your president. He's your supreme leader. He's under tremendous pressure and stress to serve America and her interests. Speak of him that way or shut the hell up.
  • Re:GWB 2.0 (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 06, 2012 @11:54PM (#41903571)

    Lots of people disagree. Bush was the one who got tens of thousands of Americans killed for a pointless war in Iraq.

    The republicans got Clinton impeached for getting a blowjob in the Oval Office and then lying about it.

    Tell me one of these is not worse then the other. Bush was a madman who screwed up this country far more then any other president in recent history, including Nixon. And that Nixon asshole was a dirtyhanded SOB.

  • by Joe_Dragon (2206452) on Tuesday November 06, 2012 @11:54PM (#41903575)

    ACA is a bridge to a other system at least in part

    The health care problems in the usa are to big to fix at one time and there is room to change ACA or to use it while working on a better over all idea.

  • by Taco Cowboy (5327) on Tuesday November 06, 2012 @11:56PM (#41903593) Journal

    ... doesn't matter, really.

    The original intent of the founding fathers have been fcuked left, right, and center, by those power crazy elites.

    There supposed to be 3 branches of government, and the 3 branches supposed to be guarding against the other two, preventing any of the branches in usurping power from the people.

    But the whole thing no longer work as intended - at least not by the founding fathers' blueprint.

    So many of the rights of the people have been taken away, and the saddest part is, most of the citizenry still do not care.

    As long as they can continue to enjoy their six packs, and have some one-night-stands, they are satisfied, and they do not care what the politicians, the Demo-Republicrooks, are doing to them, and their children.

  • by Passout1 (1922988) on Tuesday November 06, 2012 @11:58PM (#41903603)
    ...Thankyou American voting public.
  • by Black Parrot (19622) on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @12:00AM (#41903623)

    We choose between the party that taxes us to subsidize farmers and hollywood, or the party that taxes us to subsidize banks and oil companies. You may claim there is a difference, but I don't see enough of one for it to matter.

    Geez. Anyone can list some things that they don't like and both parties do. Do you seriously generalize that to no meaningful differences at all?

    And there are also matters of degree. For example, I think Obama is a jerk (or criminal) for allowing the drone attacks to continue and even escalate, but at least he's not trying to rush is into a war with Iraq.

    Your values may be very different from mind, but you can easily spot topics where the parties differ significantly, if you pay attention and think for yourself instead of joining in the knee-jerking.

    Vote the worst bastards out, then start working on the next layer.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @12:01AM (#41903645)
    I'm sure people remember where it was when Bush took office in Jan 2001. I'm sure people remember Iraq and pallets of US$100 bills which "disappeared, 4000+ Americans dead and a 2 trillion US$+ cost. I'm sure people remember the 2007-2008 crash. I'm sure people remember 9/11 which was on George Bush's watch. The US Deficit is a product of republicans and George Bush. They took 8 years to destroy the US. It will take more than 4, maybe 6, maybe 8 years to turn the time. Luckily Obama won. Mittens would have just turned around the good Obama and the democrats have done over the last 4 years and returned the US to it's downward spiral into oblivion. I'm not an Obama fan, but as always in US elections it's the lesser of 2 evils.
  • by sconeu (64226) on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @12:04AM (#41903665) Homepage Journal

    If either DemoPublican candidate had promised to abolish the TSA, and to put some sanity into copyright, and otherwise respect the Constitution, I might have voted for him.

  • by Jeremi (14640) on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @12:05AM (#41903673) Homepage

    The electoral college is necessary to balance power between large and small states. Civics education in this country is going down the pooper.

    Whether or not balancing power between large and small states is a good thing is open to debate, though.

    The fact is that the vote of a person living in Wisconsin counts for 3.8 times as many Electoral Votes as my vote as a Californian.

    The historical background of the USA as a collection of sovereign states notwithstanding, that seems like a pretty undemocratic state of affairs. In a proper democratic system, all votes should be given equal weight.

  • by ircmaxell (1117387) on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @12:06AM (#41903681) Homepage
    Have you actually read the bill? Because I find it REALLY hard to believe that anyone who actually has would say that it does anything about the health care problems the USA has. It's not a health care bill. It's a health insurance bill. One which does nothing to solve the existing problems that health care has (abuse, ridiculous spiraling costs, ridiculous GOVERNMENT regulations - aka Medicare's rules, etc). Not to mention fraud or malpractice abuse (false malpractice cases, which drive up costs significantly)...

    Does that make it useless? No, absolutely not. But it does nothing for the healthcare problems that we face. All it does is put a band-aid on a gunshot wound. A band-aid that costs how many billion dollars per year (that we're already over-budget by)?
  • Re:Excellent (Score:5, Insightful)

    by caseih (160668) on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @12:11AM (#41903727)

    Please mod the parent up. I remember back during the Clinton days in a red state the amount of vitriol and extremely vile and vulgar things said about Clinton. Then in the Bush days, particularly in the second term, it happened all over again. Remember the stupid "miserable failure" campaign to manipulate Google's search? If I recall at the time many slashdotters thought it was pretty clever. Some people went so far as to claim Bush would hold onto power somehow (watch the same things will be said of Obama now).

    Now again we see the same crap uttered by those who voted for the other team.

    It's this behavior that's destroying America as much as any party or policy. It's time to stop it. No, just because the majority of Americans voted a different way then I did, it doesn't mean democracy has failed and the country is going to self-destruct. And no, just because the majority of Americans *did* vote the way I think they should have doesn't mean that those who didn't are somehow less important than I am.

  • Re:GWB 2.0 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by speederaser (473477) on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @12:15AM (#41903755)

    Please, let's stop pretending that Bush started anything. His predecessors were hardly any better.

    Yeah, Clinton with his 3.5% unemployment, 3 years of balanced budgets and 8 years averaging 3.7% GDP growth really sucked. I'm glad those days are gone.

    [/sarcasm]

  • by caseih (160668) on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @12:19AM (#41903773)

    Socialism? Are you kidding? Both major parties are sliding head-long into fascism, not socialism. Methinks you need to read up what socialism really is. Maybe you should actually read what Karl Marx said about capitalism. I think you'll be hard-pressed to disagree with his observations about capitalism, though he was dead wrong about what would happen because of it.

    I think you'll have better mileage with the birther argument than the socialism one.

  • Re:Excellent (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @12:21AM (#41903795)

    >Both men were good men and would try to serve this country

    Please tell me you're kidding. Mr. Romney has not denied bullying a classmate and shaving his head or transporting his dog on a vacation in a way most would consider abusive and was a professional corporate raider. While Mr. Obama is really not who I would prefer in office (I am a small-c conservative), Mr. Romney has shown a shocking lack of human decency in a variety of ways.

    If anything, this election has shown that nearly half of the the United States is not just financially bankrupt but ethically bankrupt as well.

  • by artor3 (1344997) on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @12:22AM (#41903799)

    Obama is leading by 8 points in Nevada and 4 points in Colorado, both with ~75% reporting. Even if he loses Ohio, that's still enough electoral votes to win.

    He's also (slightly) ahead in Florida, with almost all of the remaining ballots coming from the Miami-Dade county, where Obama leads by 25 points. So even if he somehow loses Ohio and Colorado, he'd still get enough electoral votes to win.

    Even Romney were to win Ohio, there's simply no way for him to win the presidency. The math just doesn't work. I agree the news networks were too quick to call this one, but they got it right all the same.

  • by sjames (1099) on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @12:23AM (#41903811) Homepage

    At lest we wouldn't still be stuck there a decade later. When Democrats go to war, they tend to strike surgically based on the advice of expert strategists who actually went to school to learn how to do these things. They don't tend to crow about mission accomplished before we've even gotten started.

  • by evil_aaronm (671521) on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @12:27AM (#41903833)
    Exactly. It occurred to me the other day: Did the Founding Fathers intend for there to be so many exceptions to the plainly written rules in the Constitution? I mean, take the 4th amendment. It says right there, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." I don't see the part where it says, "Except when we're crossing the border or getting on an airplane." So why is it that the DHS can treat us any old way they want to, just because we're crossing back into this country or traveling somewhere?

    This is just one example among many.
  • by EdIII (1114411) on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @12:28AM (#41903847)

    Fuck man, I would have campaigned for him....

  • Re:GWB 2.0 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by spire3661 (1038968) on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @12:32AM (#41903879) Journal
    Can you say Telecom explosion? Clinton prospered because our ability communicate went supernova.
  • by circletimessquare (444983) <<moc.liamg> <ta> <erauqssemitelcric>> on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @12:35AM (#41903901) Homepage Journal

    I am a solid liberal, but some of the finest times in my life is having a serious discussion with an intelligent conservative. But tonight, William F. Buckley is rolling over in his grave. The economy is weak. A shallow analysis says Obama should have been voted out. But you didn't deliver.

    Because the Right in the U.S.A. has been taken over by shrill blind ideological fanatics and well, frankly, the stupid. So the only guy who could maneuver from the primaries, where the truly crackpot rightwing idiots held power, to the general elections, was an empty vapid lying suit like Romney.

    The pendulum swings left and right in this country, your time will come again. But the only way you are going to get there, Republicans, is to use your brain. Stop pandering to the loud shrill dumb voices on the right. Cut them out, excise them, ignore them, marginalize them as they deserve, because they are a liability, not a strength. And thereby be a serious power again. Otherwise, you collapsed tonight, and you will continue to collapse, until you come to grips with the raging Randroids, hatemongers, and assorted narrow minded morons on your side of the fence.

    Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of stupid moronic liberals as well.

    But the difference is, they don't hold the power in the Democratic party for now.

    Yours,
    one happy elated American liberal tonight

    The path of lies, empty suits, vile sources of cash, and fearmongering was repudiated, soundly.

    All is good in the world.

    I sleep the deep happy sleep of the mightily vindicated tonight.

  • by RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) <{taiki} {at} {cox.net}> on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @12:38AM (#41903917)

    So a bunch of really old dead white dudes matter?

    The founding fathers were people, not gods.

    Big deal.

  • by evil_aaronm (671521) on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @12:46AM (#41903957)
    So, Obama should've just ignored the fiscal and housing crisis and just let everything fail? And how would that have made the situation better? Look, R's won't admit it, but the country is better off than it was. I'm not an Obama fanboi, by any means, but any objective observer would say that this "train wreck" you mention is just hyperbole.
  • by EdIII (1114411) on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @12:47AM (#41903971)

    Geez. Anyone can list some things that they don't like and both parties do. Do you seriously generalize that to no meaningful differences at all?

    Yes. Meaningful is not objective, but subjective. Those differences you speak of merely amount to either death by a knife, or death by a gun.

    Either party is deeply toxic towards America with their own unique blend of anti-freedom, anti-consumer agendas.

    A meaningful difference would be one that I could actually believe would result in a net positive for America. Not seeing it.

  • Re:Excellent (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SQL Error (16383) on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @12:49AM (#41903991)

    In contrast, there was 9/11 - sure, most people think it was the Saudis, but there are too many questions unanswered, like the lack of debris, lack of video, lack of an airplane at the Pentagon

    Lack of debris? Lack of airplane? If you believe that, I'd seek a second opinion if you said the sky is blue.

  • by Electricity Likes Me (1098643) on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @12:50AM (#41904001)

    Call me crazy too, but 9/11 was either a true false flag op, or the US government created an opportunity out of knowing there was an imminent attack on US soil.

    Here I will blow your mind: there are no grand conspiracies. Bad people are bad people because they always find a way to make a profit by taking advantage of bad situations, and the world is kind of messed up like that.

  • by RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) <{taiki} {at} {cox.net}> on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @12:51AM (#41904013)

    Who care about the intent?

    If Benjamin Franklin knew about the state of the world today there would've no second amendment and healthcare for all.

  • by Mitreya (579078) <mitreya&gmail,com> on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @12:55AM (#41904033)

    but not to make Obama look bad. They should obstruct his "agenda" because it is the wrong direction for the country.

    Yes, it would be bad form for the country to help veterans find jobs [washingtonpost.com]. I am sure every single one of the republicans that voted against this bill had also opposed the unfunded wars that created these veterans in the first place
    Oh, wait...

  • Re:Excellent (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @12:57AM (#41904043)

    No, Mitt Romney is not a good man. His campaign was too dishonest for him to possibly be a good man. I don't care that he had some selfish motivations, his complete lack of integrity is without doubt to me.

    I'm not calling him a crazy Mormon Polygamist, I'm not even calling him an evil Corporate CEO, I'm just referring to how he conducted himself in this election.

    Heck just his remarks about the size of the US Navy being smaller than it was after WW1 was enough for me to recognize the fundamental lack of honesty in the man. Nobody who understands a single thing about the military would be fooled by that, and yet he stood by it even after he was given an explanation as to why it was so terribly flawed.

    I'd list his mendacious conduct in detail further, but that's already been done enough.

    You want to show some REAL integrity? Give up on the notion of being non-partisan to the point where you can't even call a man out for being the most dishonest man to run for President since Ronald Reagan.

  • by Concerned Onlooker (473481) on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @01:03AM (#41904093) Homepage Journal

    Good reminder. I don't think people remember that anymore. When they didn't find any then the Bush administration suddenly found an interest in human rights or claiming to be champions of the oppressed or whatever other excuse for invasion they could muster up. Except the fact that Bush made us known as a torturing state made that kind of laughable.

  • Re:Excellent (Score:5, Insightful)

    by guises (2423402) on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @01:04AM (#41904101)
    They didn't vote for Romney, they voted republican and Romney was the name next to the (R). Even saying that they "voted" is kind of a stretch, it implies a decision with at least some consideration behind it. People have their favorite brands, and for some people that brand is republican.
  • by Black Parrot (19622) on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @01:06AM (#41904109)

    ACA is a bridge to a other system at least in part

    Actually it's what's left of what might have been a decent system, if the Democrats hadn't compromised on issue after issue to secure Republican votes. (And then the Republicans didn't vote for it anyway. I fear and detest them, but I don't call them stupid.)

  • Re:GWB 2.0 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Black Parrot (19622) on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @01:11AM (#41904131)

    After World War 2, the USA convicted several Japanese soldiers of water boarding American and Allied prisoners of war. The US government hanged them for that crime.

    US justice consistently ruled waterboarding a crime from the time of the Spanish-American War until this century. We have convicted foreign troops for doing it to ours, our own troops for doing it to foreigners, and even civilian law enforcement agents for doing it to criminals or suspected criminals.

    But no one has the political courage to slap a President and Vice President in prison for it. We'll impeach a president for lying about an illicit blowjob, but not for authorizing war crimes.

  • by breech1 (137095) on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @01:18AM (#41904171)

    They go further to the right (unfortunately). I think there's a good chance the Republicans repeat what happened after 2008: savage their nominee by complaining he wasn't conservative enough. Their solution will be to move further to the right to address that rather than realize they likely lost because their candidate moved too far to the right to appease the extreme wings of the party for the primaries.

  • Re:Excellent (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fearofcarpet (654438) on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @01:22AM (#41904209)

    It is easy to look back now and say that they are both good people with the best interests of the country in mind, and that is probably true. But elections and candidates are not mirror images and there are not two equal sides; this election was Dreams From My Father versus No Apology. After John McCain corrected an audience member that called Obama an Arab, the response from the electorate was a net negative; Obama supporters were mad about the comment and McCain supporters were mad that he looked "weak." That was the exact moment that truth-telling became a liability in the eyes of political advisers and name-calling whisper campaigns came back into fashion.

    This year, the Romney campaign decided that intellectual honesty and demonstrable facts are no longer important in presidential politics and almost managed to win the White House with that strategy. All politicians lie at times, to various degrees, often by omission, but the Romney campaign correctly observed that the resulting sound bites are a net positive, e.g., the first debate.

    Neither man is Hitler, but during the post mortem, which will be all about demographic shifts, business cycles, and the "ground game," everyone will pretend not to notice Romney's flaming pants. Nixon would have been embarrassed by the GOP campaign this year (including all the talk about "legitimate" rape and the complete abandonment of science and observation.) And it's our fault because, over the next four years, we will let the Obama administration lie to us and equivocate over everything from regulatory reform to drone strikes while FOX News tries to drum up another faux scandal. People will put their partisan blinders back on and pretend that it's ok when "our guy" lies--and besides, Romney was so much worse.

    I'm happy to see Obama back in office and I'm relieved that there won't be a republican in the White House to acquiesce to this bat-shit crazy House, but I don't buy the argument that Romney would have done a good job as president; he would have tried, but he is a self-obsessed moral relativist that is too comfortable with lying to be the figurehead of (what is still) the most powerful nation on Earth. He further damaged political discourse, further legitimized the fringe, ultra-right-wing of the party, and did nothing to discourage the hate-filled name calling to which you refer. Childish name-calling serves no purpose and denigrating the president just further polarizes the country, but lies are lies and we shouldn't be afraid to call Obama out on them and hold his administration accountable when they will inevitably start oozing from the White House.

  • by artor3 (1344997) on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @01:26AM (#41904245)

    Just like they did to McCain. I really wanted McCain as president back in 2000. But when he became the party nominee in '08, the GOP broke him, just like they've done with Mitt.

    The GOP needs to ditch the extremists, but I don't see how they've be able to with the insurgent tea partiers dominating their primaries. The inmates are running the asylum.

  • by Ultracrepidarian (576183) on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @01:26AM (#41904251)
    It's a shame we learned so little from Vietnam. Yes, I was there in '68.
  • by circletimessquare (444983) <<moc.liamg> <ta> <erauqssemitelcric>> on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @01:28AM (#41904263) Homepage Journal

    the above comment is exhibit A of the kind of shrill blind fanatic that you need to lose in order to win again

  • by timeOday (582209) on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @01:34AM (#41904309)

    So, lets spend nothing on defense and trillions on Solar Energy Cronies of the DNC?

    No fair, my post used actual numbers and yours are complete baloney.

  • by Ungrounded Lightning (62228) on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @01:36AM (#41904319) Journal

    That ship already sailed. The decision on Obamacare blew out all the constitutional limits on what the Federal Government can regulate, provided they disguise the penalty for non-compliance as a tax. Five to four, and the swing vote was Roberts, the chief justice, appointed by George W. Bush.

    This has been coming since the Marijuana Tax Act and the Federal Firearms Act of 1934. But National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius made it explicit, putting the stake firmly through the heart of Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co.

  • Re:Excellent (Score:4, Insightful)

    by aztracker1 (702135) on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @01:37AM (#41904331) Homepage
    I didn't vote for either.. I'm part of the roughly 5% who voted Libertarian... Full run.. every race that had a libertarian, that's who I voted for.. I have very little aside from disdain for the current (R) and (D) candidates... I don't think either one of them would do anything but strip more personal freedoms and civil liberties in either rubber stamping almost everything that seems to come from congress, or via executive order that simply ignores the law.

    It happened under Bush, it spread further under Obama...
  • by Nerdfest (867930) on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @01:37AM (#41904339)

    ... that would be the appearance of safety. I don't think anything that has been done has actually added any significant safety.

  • by Relayman (1068986) on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @01:39AM (#41904353)
    The military does not want or need the money. We don't need any better fighter jets or bombers because that's not how the next war is going to be fought.

    The next war will be in stealing money from people, companies and banks and, so far, the Europeans, Asians and Africans are winning.
  • by sjames (1099) on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @01:40AM (#41904355) Homepage

    LBJ made a grave mistake in Vietnam. Now look at who seems to have learned from that mistake and who still wants to blunder in against the best advice available.

  • Re:Excellent (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hairyfeet (841228) <.bassbeast1968. .at. .gmail.com.> on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @01:42AM (#41904371) Journal

    THIS, this right here, was why everyone on the right side of the aisle did a "Anybody but Romney!" song and dance for the entire primary, as they KNEW that Mittens for so damned spoiled and THOUGHT he was clever and just wouldn't STFU and instead his "Richie Rich" persona bled on through.

    I knew the man was dead in the water before the primary even ended, when he did his "I'm a normal guy!" speech when he talked about having to go through late HS and early college with "a truly ugly car" and someone said "Uhhh...that "ugly car" was a BRAND NEW LUXURY CAR that rolled straight out of daddy's plant and into your garage Mittens" and that was when I knew this guy was DOA, when even his "I'm normal!" story ends up involving luxury cars handed out by daddy? Yeah they were fucked, the LAST thing you run in a bad economy is a Grey Puopon spoiled little rich kid.

    What is truly scary is...this is it folks, this is the BEST the parties have to offer. Kinda sad isn't it? Man do we need a new system, something where we can have multiple parties like they have in EU, gotta be better than this "Coke VS Pepsi" races we have here.

  • by DMUTPeregrine (612791) on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @01:44AM (#41904391) Journal
    I think you're deluded. The public knows what the Republicans are, and they like that. You think people are basically good and reasonably logical, and if shown the facts will change their opinions. This is demonstrably false for most people, they're basically emotional and tribalistic, and will do or believe almost anything to stay a part of their chosen tribe/social group. The fear of ostracism is often stronger than the fear of death (witness soliders dying for their country) and changing the chosen tribe of a person is very, very difficult.

    The same applies for most other groups of people.
  • by bondsbw (888959) on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @01:47AM (#41904411)

    In the USA, we need:

    - Better checks and balances. In addition to the above, we need to return more power to the states (which gives us a check on the federal government).
    - Better system for single-winner elections. It should allow you to specify your primary choice, and also your backup choice(s) should your primary fail to gain enough support.
    - Proportional representation in Congress. If every district in the nation votes 50.1% for Party A, then Party A has 100% of the seats of Congress. Party B gets nothing, although 49.9% of the nation supports Party B. (A less extreme example: third-party candidates often get a decent chunk of the vote, but rarely get representation in Congress.) A solution is multiple-winner proportional representation.
    - Electoral college reform. I don't know that we should go to a popular vote system for President, but the electoral college should at least force a proportional representation from each state. It should also remove the electors, and change to a simple count.

    Please, continue on from here...

  • by deanklear (2529024) on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @02:01AM (#41904515)

    Gay rights don't matter? Reproductive rights don't matter? Ending wars doesn't matter? Reforming health care doesn't matter?

    The fashionable political ignorance fad has really run its course. Learn something or find something less important to ruin with your branded apathy.

  • Re:Wait, What? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Tablizer (95088) on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @02:01AM (#41904519) Journal

    I guess I'll go watch Fox News slip into a channel-wide suicidal depression.

    FoxNews, gun shops (NRA), and Rush Limbaugh are ironically more profitable with a Democrat in office. Aggravation and paranoia are their secret formula for profits.

  • by Culture20 (968837) on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @02:05AM (#41904551)

    Either party is deeply toxic towards America with their own unique blend of anti-freedom, anti-citizen agendas.

    FTFY. Replacing the word citizen with consumer in public discourse is one of the toxic things they have done.

  • by TheGratefulNet (143330) on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @02:24AM (#41904653)

    one that wants to make the country beholden to christian interests (pretty much above all, other than the almight dollar).

    the other is nearly neutral (as neutral as you can get these days) on the subject.

    in obama's speech, he talked a lot about inclusion.

    in romney's speech, he said he'd 'pray' for the other side.

    if you don't get that they are *worlds* apart, you have your head hidden somewhere dark.

    we got the right guy. luckily, we avoided giving mandate to the american taliban party.

  • by TheGratefulNet (143330) on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @02:28AM (#41904675)

    we gained a lot because we unloaded a lot of crazy!

    sadly, not going backwards does count, these days, as going forward.

    I really did not want to return to bad old days. and so, in a way, its a victory.

    obama is very much on the right; he's not nearly left enough for many of us. and so, take this as a middle ground vote, one that is long over-due.

  • Re:Excellent (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MightyMartian (840721) on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @02:33AM (#41904711) Journal

    I think Nixon would be saddened to see what his Southern Strategy has morphed into.

    One thing is clear, the Republicans have to recognize now that they have a serious problem. Yes, they've still got the House, but so weak, fractured and dominated by fringe special interests is the Republican Party that they could not even push over a President mired in economic woes, and whose major policy initiative (Obamacare) is still distrusted by over half of Americans.

    To Republicans I say this. You will hear Tea Party and social conservative types blame Nate Silver and the other pollsters, talking about media conspiracies and so forth. It's time to tell Donald Trump to form his own party, time to tell the Tea Party that they're influence has been purely malign, a tumor on the Republican Party that is forcing poor compromise candidates who are then further shackled by having to try to find some way of convincing Americans they aren't social Neanderthals while still maintaining the support of these social regressives. If you cannot purge the party of these types, or at least put them back under the stone from whence they came, you will be denied the Presidency again in 2016. You have to decide what core conservative values are, and if you cannot align them with the national mood, then you're going to come back disappointed.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @02:34AM (#41904717)
    Police/TSA officers are more of a threat to US citizens compared to Osama ever was.
  • by gomiam (587421) on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @03:41AM (#41905047)
    I'm sure the new security theater measures in USA airports have helped a lot in finding and killing bin Laden. Sorry, but military actions aren't usually considered security in normal parlance.
  • Very simple (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SmallFurryCreature (593017) on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @03:56AM (#41905119) Journal

    Democrats are crooks.

    Republicans are evil.

    They will both kill your for a dollar but the Democrats won't rape you first then skin you and steal your kids.

    Read up on the antics Republicans went through to stop people from voting, 7 hour queues? There are countries just coming out of war that have this sorted better.

    Even top economic newspapers said people should vote for Obama because Romney just lied to much and his economic policies made no sense.

    People joke about choosing the lesser of two evils but that is still a difference. With a democrat, there is always a chance he will do something decent by accident. With a republican, that will NEVER ever happen.

    The funny thing seems to be that Romney as Governor was pretty moderate but got persuaded/forced by the extremist to change his tune and it lost him the election. If you look at the states Romney won in, those are exactly the states no EU person should ever go to, redneck states all and you might think you are right-wing in the EU but you are NOTHING compared to a moderate Texan.

    The republicans basically tried to win the election on abortion, gay rights and drugs. These are things the extremists care about but not if it is a choice between their job and something that doesn't affect them. Two states even voted for legal recreational drug use. This puts two American states miles ahead of the most liberal EU countries. That is... well... republican attitudes couldn't be father removed from the voter on the street.

    Oh yeah, they also objected to Obama bailing out the car industry because you know, creating jobs, that is something that the voter really hates... and they seriously thought they had a chance in Ohio were Obama basically rebooted the economy?

    That it is even so close shows that many Americans would cut of their nose to spite their face. "Oh I hate gays so much I will vote for the guy who hates my guts and thinks I am a leech and should go and die already."

    No matter how bad things are under the democrats, the only certainty in the universe is that under the republicans it will be worse.

  • by TheEyes (1686556) on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @04:08AM (#41905213)

    Begpardon?? Clinton was the first and only President in several decades to leave the Office with a budget balance or surplus. Before him was Nixon, before him Eisenhower, and before him Truman. Obama begins his second term in the Oval Office after adding six point one Trillion Dollars to the deficit. More than doubling it in just four years from the previous eight!

    As he should have; recessions are precisely the times when you need the government to step in and keep the evonomy moving, because the banks aren't adding liquidity and private citizens are busy digging themselves out of unemployment.

    The unexcusable, fiscally irresponsible moves were made during the previous decade, where we racked up huge deficits in the middle of a market boom. 2001-2007 should have been a time of budget surpluses, where the country built up a rainy day fund to pay for the next market downcycle. Instead we gave the money away to trust fund rent-seekers like Romney, in the hopes that these "job creators" would trickle down jobs on the rest of us.

  • by TheGratefulNet (143330) on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @04:14AM (#41905231)

    the republicans are butt-hurt about a black guy winning.

    twice.

    the first time, they swore that their goal was to ensure he was a 1-term president. they cared little about getting things done; instead they stood for blockage and non-compromise.

    they had nothing other than 'our guy is not the black guy'

    america is sad, like that. half of us are racists and won't admit it. they hide behind 'the businessman can fix our jerbs!' but its really what everyone in the room sees and just won't call out by name.

    the good news is that we just barely beat out the racists and backwards thinkers.

    the bad news is that it was not overwhelming like it should have been. a majority but not big enough, considering what most of the R voters were using for voting criteria.

  • by tehcyder (746570) on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @04:29AM (#41905305) Journal

    with the IRS you're often presumed guilty unless you can prove you're innocent

    That's what people guilty of tax evasion always say. If the IRS find out you've been in receipt of undeclared income (e.g. you are a drug dealer driving a Ferrari who claims to be unemployed) why the fuck shouldn't they presume you are guilty?

    Yes, it is their business to hunt for income to tax. If they just relied on the honour system, only the poor honest suckers would pay any tax, and the rich and criminal would pay even less than they do now.

  • by Areyoukiddingme (1289470) on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @05:43AM (#41905619)

    I saw that too. McCain did multiple appearances on The Daily Show over the years. Before his nomination, he sounded sane and thinking and even justified some of the "maverick" label he had acquired. After he "won" the nomination, the money people of the RNC completely hosed him. They told him what to say, what to wear, what to eat, what to think, and none of it was him. It was some neocon wetdream that is such a tiny minority it continues to astonish me how much power they've acquired over the Republican party, at all levels.

    We know where that power comes from, too: money. There are a few completely insane exceedingly rich people who basically control the Republican party lock, stock, and barrel, because of their money. They "donate", they call the shots. And they're NOT conservative. They're ridiculously regressive. Conservatives like to keep things more or less the way they are. That's the definition of the word. Don't rock the boat if the boat is floating and making progress. The people that control the Republican party are anything but conservative. They want to change everything, starting with Roe vs. Wade and working their way down a very long list that would push us back to as close to pre-Civil War society as makes no difference. Even further, in some cases, to pre-Revolutionary War. I swear their ultimate goal is to engender a literal American aristocracy, with themselves as the aristocrats. It's sick, and it's un-American, and they should be stopped.

  • by isorox (205688) on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @05:59AM (#41905719) Homepage Journal

    the republicans are butt-hurt about a black guy winning.

    twice.

    the first time, they swore that their goal was to ensure he was a 1-term president. they cared little about getting things done; instead they stood for blockage and non-compromise.

    they had nothing other than 'our guy is not the black guy'

    america is sad, like that. half of us are racists and won't admit it. they hide behind 'the businessman can fix our jerbs!' but its really what everyone in the room sees and just won't call out by name.

    the good news is that we just barely beat out the racists and backwards thinkers.

    the bad news is that it was not overwhelming like it should have been. a majority but not big enough, considering what most of the R voters were using for voting criteria.

    I have no doubt that more racists voted republican than democrat, however if you think the only reason 49% of the U.S voted for Romney was because Obama was black, you have serious issues.

    There's a lot wrong with the U.S, and I can see why ex-Obama voters are disgruntled. Romney had a lot of valid points, you and I may not agree, but it's a perfectly valid opinion to think that people should live in an "every man for himself" world, or even a "charity will sort it out" world. You don't need to be racist to agree with Romney's policies.

  • Nerds Win (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ideonexus (1257332) on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @06:06AM (#41905747) Homepage Journal
    Congratulations to the real winners of last nights race: Nate Silver, Sam Wang, Intrade and all the other "Quants" (statisticians) who never characterized this election as "close" or a "tossup," but stuck to their Bayesian models predicting Obama as a heavy favorite. If their predictions were wrong, they would be looking for new jobs today, but the hiney hobbit pundits who characterized these brilliant nerds as "effeminate UnAmerican eggheads" will pathetically deflect responsibility for their own failed predictions this morning--but the nerds know the score. Science works bitches.
  • The Republican leaders met the day Obama was inaugurated and declared that their only priority was to make him a 1-term president, and they did it by doing everything they could to poison the political process in America for four years straight. In the last few days, they openly said that people should vote for Romney because they will stop at nothing to block anything at all from happening under Obama.

    But a Democrat somewhere once did something bad, so what the Republicans are doing is completely justified. And clearly Obama is being unreasonably partisan by refusing to give the Republicans every single thing they want.
  • by slacka (713188) on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @07:03AM (#41905983)

    Mod Up.

    We gained nothing today..

    Colorado and Washington passed marijuana legalization for recreational use. We gained a little more freedom in some states.
    I don’t even smoke pot or tobacco. But It's clear that prohibition does nothing but make criminals rich and overcrowd our jails with non-violent citizens.

  • Re:Excellent (Score:3, Insightful)

    by gtbritishskull (1435843) on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @07:10AM (#41906011)
    There are many excellent reasons to think that Romney would not be a good president (47%, flip-flopping on every issue, refuse to tell us his plans, tax returns) but neither the mistakes he made as a kid nor the way in which he transported his dog are things that an intelligent voter should use to decide on the next president.
  • by gtbritishskull (1435843) on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @07:30AM (#41906115)

    When Obama took office, the deficit was over $1 trillion. Go talk to any economist and he will tell you that during a recession you should NEITHER reduce spending nor raise taxes. Otherwise you risk making things worse. And Greece is a perfect example of what happens when you try austerity during a downturn (the austerity made the downturn worse, so the revenues decreased right along with their reductions in spending). If you want to reduce the deficit then you have to reduce spending or raise taxes (or wait for the economy to get better to increase revenue). I have found it very ironic that Republicans keep screaming that we are going to be just like Greece, and then keep pushing for the policies that caused Greece's economy to collapse (austerity).

    It is all relative. If Obama had come into office with a balanced budget, he would have been able to maintain a deficit of a few hundred billion dollars and still stimulated the economy. Instead, he had to tack on a few hundred billion onto the trillion dollar deficit. What is not fiscally responsible is living beyond our means and running up the debt when the economy is doing well ($5 trillion added to the debt 2000-2008). If you do that, then there is a LOT less flexibility to handle emergencies (and the 2008 financial crisis WAS an emergency) in the future.

  • by PopeRatzo (965947) on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @07:48AM (#41906247) Homepage Journal

    The original intent of the founding fathers ...

    So? What, were the "founding fathers" fucking supermen? Who fucking cares what the "founding fathers" wanted? That group of slaveowners who though only men should be allowed to vote? Were they some kind of god-endorsed supermen and now we're bound to every asshole's interpretation of what they believe the "founding fathers" wanted?

    And what kind of huge fucking ego does it take to say you can look through the eyes of an extremely intellectually diverse group of men from 240 years ago and come up with a distillation of their collective desire? Because I've read Jefferson and Madison and Franklin and others and guess what: they didn't all agree on everything.

    I'm sorry, I know I should be mean to you Taco Cowboy because you're so badly damaged. I mean, you know, "more to be pitied then censured" and all that, but seriously, take your founding fathers and Ronald Reagan and stuff 'em.

  • Two words: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by danaris (525051) <danaris @ m ac.com> on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @09:33AM (#41907177) Homepage

    Grover Norquist.

    To expand somewhat, particularly if you haven't heard of him (I don't know how closely you follow the bizarre inanities of US politics), Grover Norquist is a conservative lobbyist and activist who has, through means I haven't particularly explored, managed to convince enough of America that taxes are, in and of themselves, bad, that it's nearly impossible for a Republican to get elected without signing his pledge. This pledge effectively states that those signing it will never ever raise taxes, and seems to be getting interpreted lately as meaning they will never do anything that increases the share of revenue the government collects.

    This idea, that taxes are the source of all our government's financial problems, has now been sold to a huge proportion of America, whose grasp of math apparently extends to, "Taxes are money that I pay out of my pocket. I like having more money in my pocket. These people are telling me that not only will I be happier if I'm paying less taxes, we'll all be better off if we pay less taxes and the government gets shrunk!"

    Unfortunately, particularly in times of crisis, people want simple answers to their problems. The answer, "Well, if everyone making more than some very low yearly income pays a little more, and we make the very rich pay a lot more, we can do a lot better for everyone because of this, that, and the other," just doesn't have the same appeal as, "We can fix everything in America by letting you keep more of your money!"

    This, of course, becomes even more true when you look at the effect the very rich can have on the landscape, because they are able to essentially buy public opinion for their ideas (not even getting into their ability to actually buy legislation for their ideas). Furthermore, America has a special vulnerability to their blandishments due to our historical culture of "rugged individualism" and whatnot: there's still a strong streak in American culture that believes that not only does everyone have a right to the fruits of their own labours, but everyone in America has a real chance to somehow become very rich themselves (see some politician this past election cycle boldlyand utterly falsely proclaiming that "we are a nation of haves and soon-to-haves"). And people who believe that they will, someday Real Soon Now, be rich themselves, do not want to see there being serious restrictions on the rich or attempts to steal away their hard-earned money, because "That's gonna be me someday, and I wanna keep all my money for myself!"

    tl;dr version: People are stupid, especially about money and what it means for a society.

    Dan Aris

  • by cayenne8 (626475) on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @09:49AM (#41907393) Homepage Journal
    It isn't the terrorists that will bring down the US...it will be our mismanagement of the economy, and I'm afraid we as a country put a few nails in the coffin with the re-election of this guy.

    Sad day for the US....

  • by mcgrew (92797) * on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @11:09AM (#41908469) Homepage Journal

    It isn't the terrorists that will bring down the US...it will be our mismanagement of the economy, and I'm afraid we as a country put a few nails in the coffin with the re-election of this guy. Sad day for the US....

    I don't see it. It took Bush's economic policies (tax cuts for the rich, getting our country attacked by not listening to the previous adminiatration or his own FBI agents), and starting two very expensive wars to nearly bankrupt us. Bush went into office with a balanced budget and a booming economy, and left it with the largest defecit in US history and the economy in ruins. You expected Obama to fix in four years what Bush took eight to destroy? Are you mad?

    When your wife leaves you broke and in debt, what do you do? You cut spending as much as you can, get a second job if you have to (increased revenues), and guess what? You're going to go even deeper in dept before you can get out of it. You gotta eat. That's where the country is now.

    Unemployment is lower than when Obama took office, there are far more jobs available than when he took office (Bush is still history's only President to leave office with fewer jobs than when he was elected), the Iraq war is over and Afghanistan winding down. Things are getting better, fool. But Romney's plan is to go back to the Bush policies. All I can say is WTF?!?

  • by Kjella (173770) on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @11:15AM (#41908543) Homepage

    Exactly. It occurred to me the other day: Did the Founding Fathers intend for there to be so many exceptions to the plainly written rules in the Constitution?

    Well, it's one page long - literally, this is the actual document [usconstitution.net]. The first amendment doesn't say anything about death threats or shouting fire in a crowded theater, but I very much doubt they intended those to be legal. I really doubt they expected that 200+ years later people would try to divine the small implementation details from what is an extremely high level summary, even vital rights are covered by about half a sentence. To take the 4th, I'm pretty sure a 1790s sheriff would search a person that's under arrest and that's as intended but it's not explicit but is considered a "reasonable" search. I think you're forgetting what the alternative here was, which was to have no bill of rights at all. The point was to have something short and sweet that said the government can't search anyone and any place they want, any time.

    I know that Iceland has been working on a new constitution using a very open and modern process with public input and their section on human rights covers about 6.5 pages and I'd say even that one could be spelled out in more explicit detail, because most articles end up with stating a right then saying the government can curb it anyway. But it's kind of hard to catch all the "EXCEPT if your religion requires human sacrifice, EXCEPT if you want to print kiddie porn, EXCEPT if your peaceful assembly on public ground is blocking any ambulances from reaching/leaving the hospital" and so on. Almost no rights are total absolutes that under no circumstances can be restricted in any way. Like the ten commandments may say "You shall not kill" but I'm pretty sure most would kill in their own or their family's defense. But there's no exceptions stated.

  • by Weaselmancer (533834) on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @12:02PM (#41909079)

    I don't think anything that has been done has actually added any significant safety.

    How about ending our presence in Iraq? Do you think that has anything to do with your safety? It does. Allow me to explain.

    Check out this wiki page. [wikipedia.org] Give it a good once-over, then let's talk about the contents.

    You'll find that a good base number for civilian deaths in Iraq is a little over 100,000. That seems to be the average agreed upon number. We'll go with the AP number, 110,600 deaths. AP is reliable, and it's a decent average for the most conservative estimates for loss of life. Now note the time period. "March 2003 to April 2009." That's 6 years and one month. Are you with me so far?

    On 9/11, the terrorist attacks accounted for the loss of 2,977 lives. [wikipedia.org] Now let's look at those numbers and see what they mean.

    110600 / 2977 is 37.15. So what that means is that we have killed 37 times more civilians than the 9/11 attackers did. The 9/11 victims and the civilians in Iraq are alike - all innocent people that did not deserve to die.

    March 2003 to April 2009 is a period spanning 6 years and 1 month. That's 73 months. And 73 / 37.15 is 1.96. That's almost exactly two months. That means that what we've done to Iraq is like a 9/11 style attack every two months for over six years. Remember how pissed off we were after 9/11? Imagine that every two months for six years running.

    110,000 families missing a loved one. A child they raised, a mother they loved, a father that will never come home. 110,000 families that have a good solid reason to absolutely poisonously passionately hate our guts.

    Still feel safe? It took only 19 guys to carry out the 9/11 attacks. [wikipedia.org]

    My point is that it absolutely matters who is President. Decisions will be made that will affect your safety directly. You need someone at the helm that makes good decisions.

    It matters. A lot.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @12:24PM (#41909311)

    My god you really drank the Democrat kool-aid here. The economy tanked because

    1) Sub Prime mortgages finally caught up with the banks who were told/forced to give loans out to people who normally wouldn't qualify. Forced by Congress (before Bush)
    2) Then the deriative fiasco where the banks, insurance companies, etc tried to trade-off these bad loans.
    These weren't Bush policies. Sorry. Both Bush and McCain tried to get the Democratically controlled Congress to look at both of the above because they were worried what might (and did happened). But the Congress failed to do anything about it. Todd/Frank said there was nothing to worry about. The biggest fraud is that the financial collapse was caused by President Bush. Todd/Frank are the two keys guys that should be arrested for the financial fiasco.

    Tax cuts for rich - hmmmm these tax cuts were sustained by Democrat controlled Congress as well.
    Getting our country by not listening to previous administration: I love this one. One of the contributing factors to go into Iraq was because the previous administration said that they did have WMDs. Also now it is Bush's fault that the 911 hijackers struck WTC and Pentagon. Please...... So in one instance you fault him not listening to prevous adminstration and another for listening to the previous administration. Maybe you are one of those 9/11 truthers who think that Bush staged the whole thing. They belong with birther nut jobs.

    Also wars are not detriments to an economy even wars that we borrowed money for. In fact it is quite the opposite. Wars are one of the top economic growers (not saying polictically or morally that they are correct - just the economic effect).

    Unemployment is lower???? Really... You do know that number is only people who claiming unemployment benefits right....You do know that millions of people have given up on looking. What you really need to look at is the total number of people working. The work force size is down millions. Unemployment is really around 10% to 15% depending on area.

    I was no Bush fan and not a Romney fan, but his policies did not screw up the economy.

    Keep on drinking the Kool-aid and let's keep on doing what Obama is doing and maybe we can be like Greece someday. Yeah!!!

  • by cayenne8 (626475) on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @12:27PM (#41909343) Homepage Journal

    Bush went into office with a balanced budget and a booming economy, and left it with the largest defecit in US history and the economy in ruins. You expected Obama to fix in four years what Bush took eight to destroy? Are you mad?

    Actually, not entirely true.

    The economy was in a bit of a downslide when Bush took office, due in part to the dotcom bubble bursting at the end of the Clinton era.

    And I'd dare say, that Obama has done as much to ruing the economy, running up the deficit in his four years, that almost doubles everything prior to him (Bush included).

    If Obama keeps pushing us the same in the next 4 years as was done the previous ones....well, the US will be looking a great deal like Greece I fear....

    We're getting dangerously close to the fiscal edge.

    Seriously too..unemployment lower? More jobs?

    Where are you getting those numbers?

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." -- Albert Einstein

Working...