So if Obama loses - its all because or racism....

[CaptainHaplo]

The excuses are already starting - and if Obama loses, its all because of race.

http://shine.yahoo.com/work-money/co...185600847.html

Of course - if racism was so rampant - he wouldn't have been elected in the first place, but that little fact escapes mention. No - if he loses it couldn't possibly be because of his record on the economy, or all the broken promises, or massive debt increases, or health care mandates, etc.

Of course - if racism was so rampant - he wouldn't have been elected in the first place, but that little fact escapes mention.

Someone didn't read it

[Catfish]

By the interest and knowledge the common voter shows, do you really think most people even know Obama is black ?

[Skybird]

They are now considering a law ruling a compensation of 5% of the total electorate poolsize for all non-White political candidates, due to the politically incorrect problem of population-wide thought crimes. They also plan an amendement saying that the right to vote becomes void if the right is abused for voting the wrong guy.

I already see the headline in the LA Times in 2022: "New POTUS Amada Mombeki elected with 105% of all votes!"

9 weeks ago - and today:


from: "Der Tagesspiegel"

[Catfish]

^ A 'constitutional republic', with dwindling rights for democratic vote

What is true is that Romney has now gathered more money from his supporters, than Obama ever wasted for his campaign.

Anyway the president of the United States cannot be elected directly, by the people, but only by electors - just as we had it in Germany a long time ago, with the 'Kurfuersten' who elected the king or Kaiser of the country.

[Ducimus]

If Obama loses, it won't all be because of race, but i think race is a large part of it. With all the bullcrap that has surrounded Obama's presidency like "Birthers" and a congressman yelling out to the President during an address, "You lie!" and all the other myriad things that are unique to Obama's term, i fail to see how race is NOT an issue. These negative things are all unique to Obama's term, and the only thing unique about obama is the color of his skin.

However I also think Race is also a part of why he got elected to begin with. Of course to prove or disprove that, all you need to do is look up percentage of white vs non white voter turn out during that election year. I'm pretty sure alot of blacks (if not most blacks?) voted for Obama because he was black and for no other reason.

Since this topic is not that important to me, ill let someone else do that research if its such a burning issue. Personally im convinced race is part of the issue. Racism exists, no matter how hard people try and pretend it doesn't.

EDIT:
It's also worth mentioning that the voter demographic is changing. Insert my standard rant about illegal immigration here.

[JU_88]

It's irrelevant isn't it? Off course some will make judgments on superficial bs, it doesn't have to be about race either, i remember seeing some retarded NewYorker telling an RT reporter she wouldn't vote for Ron Paul because he looks too old and weak.
Thats the same thing isn't it? Democracy means that even morons get to vote, so weather a presidential canditate is black, white, young old etc, some people will obviously vote based on some silly crap, rather than the actual policies. Such is life.
Pretty pointless artical IMO.

[Ducimus]

In the end, its mostly irrelevant who's president to begin with. The only thing we can do, is keep t out of the white house.

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

In the end, its mostly irrelevant who's president to begin with. The only thing we can do, is keep t out of the white house.

Oh sure, I think eveyone knows that the likes of Goldman Sachs, Haliburton, the M.I.C and all the rest - get to pull plenty of strings, when it comes to the important stuff. Quite a number of congressmen are former employees of these guys anyway (surprise, surprise)
You are correct in that they cannot be ousted via the current democratic process, it would probably take an armed revolution to kick them out of office.
A military Coup is much better way to have a revolution, if a people can get the military on their side, governments are suddenly quite willing to hand over the keys, so to speak.
Not sure what will happen here in the UK, we in the process of systematically sacking our entire military, probably so we can save a few quid for the next round of bailouts
Maybe Dave will scare off any foreign threats with his pinched 'bacon like' complexion.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by JU_88

Oh sure, I think eveyone knows that the likes of Goldman Sachs, Haliburton, the M.I.C and all the rest - get to pull plenty of strings, when it comes to the important stuff. Quite a number of congressmen are former employees of these guys anyway (surprise, surprise)
You are correct in that they cannot be ousted via the current democratic process, it would probably take an armed revolution to kick them out of office.
A military Coup is much better way to have a revolution, if a people can get the military on their side, governments are suddenly quite willing to hand over the keys, so to speak.
.

You know that is one of the arguments for our 2nd amendment pro NRA supporters like to use. To enpower the people to be able to take back or overthrow the government should the need ever arise. It probably was the ultimate intention behind the 2nd amendment when you consider how our country became its own sovereign nation to begin with. (1776 and all that) However, in this day and age which is a far cry from musketry, i suspect any such armed revolt would be crushed quickly by the military. So your right, getting the miltary on your side is a much better way. Actually, it would be the only way.

But in case some government agent somewhere is monitoring this, this is all just hypothetical and academic. I'm much too worried about paying my bills, then lofty ideological and political stuff. In fact i am so uninvolved politically, that I also don't vote. I don't think there is much point in it anymore, no matter who's in office, it always ends up the same way anyway.

[AVGWarhawk]

Win or lose, the country will still be in a rut.

[CaptainMattJ.]

i wanted, 100%, for Hillary to win. Obama was, and still mostly is, a talker, and he cant get all that much done either. I think race was a factor in Obama's presidency. Hillary was the best candidate and then they took her out. I only voted for Obama so that Mccain didnt get in. Unfortunately i will still be voting for Obama this time too. he hasnt been a bad president, no. hes shown us some growth and progress. But he isnt someone id vote for given any other solid options.

So im left with choosing romney or Obama, and ill stick with Obama.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by CaptainMattJ.

i wanted, 100%, for Hillary to win. Obama was, and still mostly is, a talker, and he cant get all that much done either. I think race was a factor in Obama's presidency. Hillary was the best candidate and then they took her out. I only voted for Obama so that Mccain didnt get in. Unfortunately i will still be voting for Obama this time too. he hasnt been a bad president, no. hes shown us some growth and progress. But he isnt someone id vote for given any other solid options.

So im left with choosing romney or Obama, and ill stick with Obama.

What is wrong with Romney that leaves you the only alternative, Obama? Use a write in vote and vote for Bugs Bunny if both do not fit the bill.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by CaptainMattJ.

i wanted, 100%, for Hillary to win. Obama was, and still mostly is, a talker, and he cant get all that much done either. I think race was a factor in Obama's presidency. Hillary was the best candidate and then they took her out.

The problem with Hillary, is i think a lot of people remember her when she was the first lady, and were left a distinct impression that she was power hungry.
Remember those bumper stickers that said, "Fire the President and her husband too!"?

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

But in case some government agent somewhere is monitoring this, this is all just hypothetical and academic.
I'm much too worried about paying my bills, then lofty ideological and political stuff. In fact i am so uninvolved politically, that I also don't vote. I don't think there is much point in it anymore, no matter who's in office, it always ends up the same way anyway.

Yes, but it is the social contract that has been broken, and it has been broken numerous times in history. Debts are intended to rise in a way you will not be able to pay them - indeed no one can, not even banks or nations.
Normally the banks would have broken down, but by some divine inspiration our glorious governments decided to bail them all out - because otherwise it would have meant the end of the political class as well.

Short:


Long:

debts: ~ from 0:38 minutes

You are right, as long as the government does not really change, the common man will get less and less influence, being held in an artificial state of slavery money-wise, trying to pay his bills and having no time to think about anything else.
Also if nothing changes, society will go down like all those isolated empires did - only that nowadays it is no isolated nation breaking apart, but the whole world uses this system, and is interconnected.

One of the problems is that politicians are not too bright mostly (indeed some (!) have been and are politicians, because they have been proven useless anywhere else), and while they are intelligent enough to keep themselves at power and keep up their network, they are lacking in having a greater view, and reall thinking ahead without party blinders.