Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

John Drake

Romney v Obama

Who would you vote for?   42 members have voted

  1. 1. Who would you vote for?

    • Obama
      33
    • Romney
      4
    • Neither
      3
    • I'm not American, why should I care.
      2

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

207 posts in this topic

Well, the election is tomorrow.

US pollsters still suggest it will be a close run thing even though TRL has it as an Obama landslide!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm fairly confident Obama will get a second term. Romney just isn't a viable candidate. Saying that, dubya got elected, twice!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The poll of polls puts it something like 47.9% to 47.4% to Obama but a comparative landslide in electoral college points.

http://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2012/11/05/romney-goes-into-the-final-day-of-the-campaign-without-being-ahead-in-any-of-the-closing-national-polls/

For the gazillions spent by Romney he's reached the dizzy heights of 47.4% having started on 46%.

For the gazillions spent by Obama he's more or less stayed the same.

This is democracy, apparently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a choice between, (by European standards) right wing and more right wing and to be honest I don't think it will make any difference. Israel will bomb Iraq no matter who is in charge in the US. he country will only ever do anything that is is it's own interests, no matter who is President.

I'd vote for Romney cos his father in law is from Bridgend and he is a free enterprise man, but I could not vote for him because of his bizarre religious views, However, I would vote for him because as Wikipedia has it ( and you can bet that if any of that was wrong it would be corrected double quick) " Romney helped develop and enact into law the Massachusetts health care reform legislation, the first of its kind in the nation, which provided near-universal health insurance access through state-level subsidies and individual mandates to purchase insurance. He also presided over the elimination of a projected $1.2–1.5 billion deficit through a combination of spending cuts, increased fees, and the closure of corporate tax loopholes. As for him being rich, his net worth is estimated in 2012 at $190–250 million. or about £100 to £150 million. That puts him considerably behind Labour's JK Rowling's at £560m, London-based founder of the Spotify music website Daniel Ek with a fortune of £190m - the same amount as David and Victoria Beckham...oh and Wigan's saviour Dave Whelan is richer, too, as is Labour luvvie R Branson.

However, in the end I've gone with Obama, but only because he does not seem to be ramming religion down people's necks. Wobbled a bit when I heard Bruce Springsteen was supporting Obama, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is democracy, apparently.

yes, and its a pain when its so close. How does the losing 49.99999% get represented? In any case, there is the Senate and the House of Representatives to consider, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a choice between, (by European standards) right wing and more right wing and to be honest I don't think it will make any difference. Israel will bomb Iraq no matter who is in charge in the US. he country will only ever do anything that is is it's own interests, no matter who is President.

I'd vote for Romney cos his father in law is from Bridgend and he is a free enterprise man, but I could not vote for him because of his bizarre religious views, However, I would vote for him because as Wikipedia has it ( and you can bet that if any of that was wrong it would be corrected double quick) " Romney helped develop and enact into law the Massachusetts health care reform legislation, the first of its kind in the nation, which provided near-universal health insurance access through state-level subsidies and individual mandates to purchase insurance. He also presided over the elimination of a projected $1.2–1.5 billion deficit through a combination of spending cuts, increased fees, and the closure of corporate tax loopholes. As for him being rich, his net worth is estimated in 2012 at $190–250 million. or about £100 to £150 million. That puts him considerably behind Labour's JK Rowling's at £560m, London-based founder of the Spotify music website Daniel Ek with a fortune of £190m - the same amount as David and Victoria Beckham...oh and Wigan's saviour Dave Whelan is richer, too, as is Labour luvvie R Branson.

However, in the end I've gone with Obama, but only because he does not seem to be ramming religion down people's necks. Wobbled a bit when I heard Bruce Springsteen was supporting Obama, though.

There was a site where you could answer questions and it would pair you up with your actual nearest candidate.

I got Jill Stein who is apparently the Green Party candidate.

If he was over here Obama would be a model old-school one-nation Tory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, in the end I've gone with Obama, but only because he does not seem to be ramming religion down people's necks. Wobbled a bit when I heard Bruce Springsteen was supporting Obama, though.

If presidential candidates did not pander to the religious, would religion be such a major factor in elections and therefore candidates would not focus on religion? What I am saying is that is it a vicious circle. I thought one of the founding principals of the US was the separation of church and state. Why is religion such a political issue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The poll of polls puts it something like 47.9% to 47.4% to Obama but a comparative landslide in electoral college points.

http://www7.politica...national-polls/

For the gazillions spent by Romney he's reached the dizzy heights of 47.4% having started on 46%.

For the gazillions spent by Obama he's more or less stayed the same.

This is democracy, apparently.

It's no dafter than our system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's no dafter than our system.

In theory it shouldn't be but it manages the quite incredible double whammy of paralysis and division on an alarmingly regular basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Romney helped develop and enact into law the Massachusetts health care reform legislation, the first of its kind in the nation, which provided near-universal health insurance access through state-level subsidies and individual mandates to purchase insurance.

Which makes it even odder that he has pledged to repeal 'Obamacare' if he is elected President. Isn't is more or less the same thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which makes it even odder that he has pledged to repeal 'Obamacare' if he is elected President. Isn't is more or less the same thing?

Yup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If presidential candidates did not pander to the religious, would religion be such a major factor in elections and therefore candidates would not focus on religion? What I am saying is that is it a vicious circle. I thought one of the founding principals of the US was the separation of church and state. Why is religion such a political issue?

The freedom to form a religion and express religious belief is a constitutional right in the USA. The right is set out in the First Amendment alongside freedom of speech and of the press. Constitutional rights are always big political issues in the US, and rightly so. They have a strong culture of freedom of expression and that is a good thing IMO. They have far more freedom in this respect than we do in the UK. Insofar as religious belief is concerned, that allows both the balanced believer and the nutjob to coexist but Americans would rather the nutjob exist than the balanced believer be silenced. Churches are massive in the US. Huge. I've been to a couple. They are also everywhere, certainly up to and including the Midwest (I haven't been further West than New Mexico so I couldn't speak for that side of the country which I admit will be a different culture). Religions of all kinds exist in certain areas but there is still a predominantly Christian influence in the States, either protestant or (where the Hispanic population is concerned) Roman Catholic. It is perfectly normal to be listening to mainstream radio or watching TV or hearing an interview by a well known sports personality and there be a reference to God or personal belief. There is not the cynicism about or fear of religion in the States that there is over here. So either of the candidates for presidency referring to faith (and both have one) would be the norm rather than the exception.

The separation of church and state was a decision based upon the corruption (and worse) experienced here in England by the early settlers rather than as a comment upon faith. The early Americans worked hard to ensure checks and balances in their system of government. Alas, the downside to that system is often inaction because stalemates occur, stalling the progress of a particular policy, and Obama has suffered in this area as he appears unable or unwilling to 'cross the floor' and negotiate with the opposition, something that is crucial to making the American governance system work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we've now got 2 votes for Romney - anyone owning up? (or do we have to have a poll on it?)

My money's on Northern Sol and JohnM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The poll of polls puts it something like 47.9% to 47.4% to Obama but a comparative landslide in electoral college points.

http://www7.politica...national-polls/

For the gazillions spent by Romney he's reached the dizzy heights of 47.4% having started on 46%.

For the gazillions spent by Obama he's more or less stayed the same.

This is democracy, apparently.

I can't see your point. All the billions spent by both candidates have made sod-all difference. That's surely a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we've now got 2 votes for Romney - anyone owning up? (or do we have to have a poll on it?)

I will own up without fear or trepidation, so here is my 50 cents worth.

Reason being, all politicians have their faults and stuff up(eg Romney) ,my concern in any election is the state of the economy.And the state of the US economy is at best marking time with unemployment worse than prior to election.The money being thrown around on dud environmental projects(Solyndra), is similar to what our current mob did in Oz with money for school halls etc..

Yes the idea of providing money to the car manufacturers was a good idea(a plus for Obama) and some of the US banks needed a swift kick up the Kyber.That is only part of the economic equation.

If you don't have a growing economy to support those looking for jobs,the less fortunate and the frail,then it is an exercise in shuffling the deck chairs.The national debt is horrendous as is ours in Oz (although ours is healthy employment wise)and this will be left to our kids and grandkids to absorb.Therefore I would be looking at someone who has the ability to create employment longterm.The spin on the latest job figures is just that,sugar coating.

In Australia 60% of employment is created by small business,and likewise in the US.They are taking a hammering in the US ATM,so Govt policies " äint"working in toto.

The killing goes on in Syria meaning the US influence and Hillary have had no impact.Obama stated Al Queda is torn apart ,much weaker.Really ?Try telling that to the Libyans,Afghanis,Iraqis,Malians,Kenyans,Somalians.Cells being found in UK,Germany,US ,Indonesia .

I will say this ,Obama's govt is streets ahead, of the mish mash of one, we have in Australia.

Romney has business experience, Obama was a lawyer,I say no more.

I am napoleon and I authorise this policy statement,on behalf of the good guys (capitalists with a conscience). ;):O

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't see your point. All the billions spent by both candidates have made sod-all difference. That's surely a good thing.

Except that it's a complete waste. They could both have agreed to spend a tenth of the amount and got the same result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The freedom to form a religion and express religious belief is a constitutional right in the USA. The right is set out in the First Amendment alongside freedom of speech and of the press. Constitutional rights are always big political issues in the US, and rightly so. They have a strong culture of freedom of exp<b></b>ression and that is a good thing IMO. They have far more freedom in this respect than we do in the UK. Insofar as religious belief is concerned, that allows both the balanced believer and the nutjob to coexist but Americans would rather the nutjob exist than the balanced believer be silenced. Churches are massive in the US. Huge. I've been to a couple. They are also everywhere, certainly up to and including the Midwest (I haven't been further West than New Mexico so I couldn't speak for that side of the country which I admit will be a different culture). Religions of all kinds exist in certain areas but there is still a predominantly Christian influence in the States, either protestant or (where the Hispanic population is concerned) Roman Catholic. It is perfectly normal to be listening to mainstream radio or watching TV or hearing an interview by a well known sports personality and there be a reference to God or personal belief. There is not the cynicism about or fear of religion in the States that there is over here. So either of the candidates for presidency referring to faith (and both have one) would be the norm rather than the exception.

The separation of church and state was a decision based upon the corruption (and worse) experienced here in England by the early settlers rather than as a comment upon faith. The early Americans worked hard to ensure checks and balances in their system of government. Alas, the downside to that system is often inaction because stalemates occur, stalling the progress of a particular policy, and Obama has suffered in this area as he appears unable or unwilling to 'cross the floor' and negotiate with the opposition, something that is crucial to making the American governance system work.

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IThe killing goes on in Syria meaning the US influence and Hillary have had no impact.Obama stated Al Queda is torn apart ,much weaker.Really ?Try telling that to the Libyans,Afghanis,Iraqis,Malians,Kenyans,Somalians.Cells being found in UK,Germany,US ,Indonesia .

The US never has had any influence in Syria.

Obama is right, AQ is in pieces but AQ aren't the be-all and end-all of Islamic terrorism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except that it's a complete waste. They could both have agreed to spend a tenth of the amount and got the same result.

It might be a waste but that doesn't mean it isn't democratic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will own up without fear or trepidation, so here is my 50 cents worth.

Reason being, all politicians have their faults and stuff up(eg Romney) ,my concern in any election is the state of the economy.And the state of the US economy is at best marking time with unemployment worse than prior to election.The money being thrown around on dud environmental projects(Solyndra), is similar to what our current mob did in Oz with money for school halls etc..

Yes the idea of providing money to the car manufacturers was a good idea(a plus for Obama) and some of the US banks needed a swift kick up the Kyber.That is only part of the economic equation.

If you don't have a growing economy to support those looking for jobs,the less fortunate and the frail,then it is an exercise in shuffling the deck chairs.The national debt is horrendous as is ours in Oz (although ours is healthy employment wise)and this will be left to our kids and grandkids to absorb.Therefore I would be looking at someone who has the ability to create employment longterm.The spin on the latest job figures is just that,sugar coating.

In Australia 60% of employment is created by small business,and likewise in the US.They are taking a hammering in the US ATM,so Govt policies " äint"working in toto.

The killing goes on in Syria meaning the US influence and Hillary have had no impact.Obama stated Al Queda is torn apart ,much weaker.Really ?Try telling that to the Libyans,Afghanis,Iraqis,Malians,Kenyans,Somalians.Cells being found in UK,Germany,US ,Indonesia .

I will say this ,Obama's govt is streets ahead, of the mish mash of one, we have in Australia.

Romney has business experience, Obama was a lawyer,I say no more.

I am napoleon and I authorise this policy statement,on behalf of the good guys (capitalists with a conscience). ;):O

So, in summary, Obama struggles to deal with the mess left by the previous Republican administration so the answer is to elect another Republican. Really?

As for Australia's national debt, I didn't think it was anywhere near as bad as the UK's or US's. I've seen varying figures, but the CIA Worldbook has national debt in 2011 as 26.8% of GDP (US: 67.7%, UK: 86.3%) The government deficit is only 3.3%, and is expected to return to surplus by 2015 (US: 8.6%, UK: 8.3%). You and your government are doing okay!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It might be a waste but that doesn't mean it isn't democratic.

I wasn't necessarily saying it was. Although it does squeeze out those candidates and parties that do not have access to such funds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a choice between, (by European standards) right wing and more right wing and to be honest I don't think it will make any difference. Israel will bomb Iraq no matter who is in charge in the US. he country will only ever do anything that is is it's own interests, no matter who is President.

This is because in the 1980's Reagan abollished the rules that required US broadcasters to be even handed politically (like they are here) and opened the way for Mr Murdoch's Fox News. They are hysterically right wing, they have branded Obama a Communist, a foreigner, and a Muslim, all of which are untrue,but enough Americans believe it because Fox transmit this stuff every day. We should be thankful we don't get it here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Rugby League World - April 2017

League Express - Mon 10th April 2017