Be a Supporter!

Will Obama win or lose the election

  • 18,598 Views
  • 514 Replies
New Topic
TheKlown
TheKlown
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 44
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Oct. 2nd, 2012 @ 05:07 AM

The Election is tight but I think President Obama will win still. I won't be voting for Obama most likely unless he impresses me on Wednesday. If Obama is re-elected, I hope he does do good for our country the next 4 years. Will see tho. You have to cheer for America even if it's not the candidate you voted for, we all should want America to be the best it can be.


I bleed Orange, Green, and Red.
Flyers, Eagles, Phillies, and Sixers.

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Oct. 2nd, 2012 @ 03:41 PM

At 9/25/12 08:29 PM, Warforger wrote: Wow. They're threats, on 9/11/2001 intelligence agencies had only been given a warning that there was going to be some sort of attack. They weren't told "We are going to be hijacking aircraft and crashing them into the World Trade Centers, the Pentagon and the White House", since up to that the point the only terrorism that was ever done against the US by Muslim militants was by just bombing buildings. It would have been pretty out of the blue to think that would've been the case. This was the same case on the recent 9/11 attacks according to your own links.

Here's the thing: 9/11/12 is NOT the same case as 9/11/01. On the morning of 9/11/01 it was a normal day. There was nothing to make anyone think that we would be attacked at a specific time or a specific place.

Fast forward to today.
* 9/11, especially in the Middle East, is a day where the military overseas goes on heightened alert because there is a heightened chance of attack.
* The Ambassador himself was sending communiques up the State Dept chain of command...that were ignored.
* Ayman al-Zwahiri, who is now head of al-Qaida, called for attacks on US interests in Lybia on 9/11!

Furthermore, there is the bogus red-herring video explanation given by the administration. While I am not doubting that this video has been the cause of protests and some degree of violence, there is nothing in the attack on the embassy/consulate in Benghazi that indicates it was the result of a spontaneous protest gone bad. Also, it doesn't matter what pissed someone off enough to comitt terrorism. Terrorism is terrorism. Obama dithering on it and trying to say 'we're investigating' is more proof of just how incompetent the guy is on foreign policy and national security.

The Obama administration bungled this from the beginning. Embassy security should've been strengthened prior to 9/11 in ALL US facilities in the region just as normal security measures. Especially given that we had the major al-Qaida leader calling for attacks against US interests in Lybia.

Speaking as a military member and Natl Security expert...that these things did not happen as a matter of course is nothing but incompetence.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
DragonPunch
DragonPunch
  • Member since: May. 12, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Oct. 2nd, 2012 @ 06:16 PM

At 10/2/12 05:22 AM, 24901miles wrote: Agreed with Klown. Even if Romney doesn't win, I hope he puts his hat in the ring to help the nation move through this depression, maybe as a Senator.

Obama's still going to win the presidency. Have you not seen the polls? Do some research for once. YEESH! Anyway, it will take more than a decade to correct what Bush did, so as long as we keep getting Democrats into office during that time, we'll be fine. After all, THEY care about the middle class.


SCREW THE SYSTEM!!! Play video games instead.My Official Art Thread! COMMENT ON IT!

BBS Signature
BumFodder
BumFodder
  • Member since: Jan. 14, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 36
Melancholy
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Oct. 2nd, 2012 @ 07:11 PM

At 10/2/12 06:16 PM, HiryuGouki wrote: Obama's still going to win the presidency. Have you not seen the polls? Do some research for once. YEESH! Anyway, it will take more than a decade to correct what Bush did, so as long as we keep getting Democrats into office during that time, we'll be fine. After all, THEY care about the middle class.

Too true, seems like the democrats push everything forward and the republicans push it all backwards.

Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Oct. 2nd, 2012 @ 07:16 PM

At 10/2/12 03:41 PM, TheMason wrote:
At 9/25/12 08:29 PM, Warforger wrote: Wow. They're threats, on 9/11/2001 intelligence agencies had only been given a warning that there was going to be some sort of attack. They weren't told "We are going to be hijacking aircraft and crashing them into the World Trade Centers, the Pentagon and the White House", since up to that the point the only terrorism that was ever done against the US by Muslim militants was by just bombing buildings. It would have been pretty out of the blue to think that would've been the case. This was the same case on the recent 9/11 attacks according to your own links.
Here's the thing: 9/11/12 is NOT the same case as 9/11/01. On the morning of 9/11/01 it was a normal day. There was nothing to make anyone think that we would be attacked at a specific time or a specific place.

Out of context. I was saying it was the same case in terms of how much the government knew beforehand. Before 9/11/01 a couple of people in the government heard there was some terrorist attack coming, no notion that it was going to be planes being driven into the Twin Towers. While say 9/11/12 probably wouldn't be so obscure or as ambiguous, I doubt there would've been an indication that such a concentrated attack would've happened. Thus how much the government knew beforehand was.

Fast forward to today.
* 9/11, especially in the Middle East, is a day where the military overseas goes on heightened alert because there is a heightened chance of attack.
* The Ambassador himself was sending communiques up the State Dept chain of command...that were ignored.
* Ayman al-Zwahiri, who is now head of al-Qaida, called for attacks on US interests in Lybia on 9/11!

Bin Laden also called for many attacks that never happened, plans for an attack on 9/11/11 were there, threats are constantly made. The thing though is that they tend to be foiled, or at least such a coordinated attack like 9/11/01 impossible because they don't have a good network like they had before. Now it's just random uncoordinated unorganized attacks like say the Fort Hood shooting.

This was another case of that, Al-Qaeda had nothing to do with this, it was an interesting early notion but upon investigation the State department has negated this.

Furthermore, there is the bogus red-herring video explanation given by the administration. While I am not doubting that this video has been the cause of protests and some degree of violence, there is nothing in the attack on the embassy/consulate in Benghazi that indicates it was the result of a spontaneous protest gone bad. Also, it doesn't matter what pissed someone off enough to comitt terrorism. Terrorism is terrorism. Obama dithering on it and trying to say 'we're investigating' is more proof of just how incompetent the guy is on foreign policy and national security.

So you don't know what he did either? He sent more military forces to Libya.

The Obama administration bungled this from the beginning. Embassy security should've been strengthened prior to 9/11 in ALL US facilities in the region just as normal security measures. Especially given that we had the major al-Qaida leader calling for attacks against US interests in Lybia.

It was, the problem though was that in Libya there is no national army but merely a collection of militias which didn't like Gaddaffi. So unless you deploy an entire battalion and take Benghazi over if the militia doesn't like you it's probably going to betray you down the line and kill your ambassador, since you know at the end of the day they control the city and have the army while an embassy doesn't. That was the problem, there was insider intelligence given to the militia group, so they attacked the Safe House where Chris Stevens was hiding.

Speaking as a military member and Natl Security expert...that these things did not happen as a matter of course is nothing but incompetence.

I'm going to guess even if you or a guy you would want to be President was in power this would have happened anyway. I don't think there's anything that could've been done. Honestly it makes me pretty sick how people politicize such crap, it's like saying the 9/11/01 attacks were due to incompetence (which is what LemonCrush was arguing).


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
TheKlown
TheKlown
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 44
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Oct. 3rd, 2012 @ 01:59 AM

Why do people say I should have my mind made up by now who I will be voting for? I just asked a question on Yahoo answers and people acted like I was an idiot for not having my mind made up on who I will vote for. I think some people don't understand how serious this election is. Why is it weird I want to see the Debates first before my mind is made up? I know my dad thinks I'm definitely voting Republican because he thinks I do what he does but I'm my own person and I want to see which Candidate has the best plan for this country for the next 4 years.


I bleed Orange, Green, and Red.
Flyers, Eagles, Phillies, and Sixers.

BumFodder
BumFodder
  • Member since: Jan. 14, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 36
Melancholy
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Oct. 3rd, 2012 @ 06:27 AM

At 10/3/12 01:59 AM, TheKlown wrote: Why do people say I should have my mind made up by now who I will be voting for? I just asked a question on Yahoo answers and people acted like I was an idiot for not having my mind made up on who I will vote for.

Because theyre pathetic idiots who like to pretend its some kind of games show competition. Call them all fucking retards for me please.

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Oct. 3rd, 2012 @ 10:13 AM

At 10/2/12 06:16 PM, HiryuGouki wrote: Obama's still going to win the presidency. Have you not seen the polls? Do some research for once.

I suggest you do some research yourself.

RCP Natl Average

On the national level the race is still very tight. Obama's numbers are starting to ebb and Romney's are starting to tick up. This could be some blowback from the Benghazi attack. Also, Bernacke was out there talking about how the economy was not in recession BUT not growing enough to make a dent in unemployment. Furthermore, we've got one more unemployment report coming out for September and there'll be buzz around the election about October's forecast. If these are negative I expect Obama's ebb to continue.

Obama Job Approval

Obama's negative approval rating is about where his positive approval rating is. While 48% is considered the low end of the 'safe zone' for a president to win re-election...typically their negative also lags their positive by a 2 or more pts. That Obama's is about a 0.3% difference is not a good sign for him.

Electoral College

Right now according to the polls; it looks like an Obama win is probable. The bright spot for Obama is Ohio and that it's just outside the margin of error for him.

But the election is not today. So there is time, however history is against Romney. Most of the time by now you can see who is going to win...it's obvious. But this year it is not so clear cut. Check out the predictions of political scientists. It basically comes down to models based on polling indicate that Obama will win, while others that use economic variables (either mixed with poll data or exclusively) predict a Romney victory.

Also you have the ghost of 1980. Carter had a healthy lead over Reagan going into the last week of the election cycle. Then on election day Reagan won handidly. Same thing with Bush v. Gore in 2000 and Truman v. Dewey. Upsets are possible in presidential elections that are this close.

So this year with Obama only having slight leads in these states the debates matter.

Anyway, it will take more than a decade to correct what Bush did, so as long as we keep getting Democrats into office during that time, we'll be fine. After all, THEY care about the middle class.

I suggest you do some research.

* The policy that caused the financial collapse was set in motion by Clinton in 1999.
* Obama's policies did not keep us from sliding into recession. The crash happened in September '08 under Bush. Our entire financial system came within hours of crashing that would sent us spiraling into a depression on par with the Great Depression. While Bush reached out to both McCain and Obama for their input, much of the crisis management was done by his team (SecTreas Paulson and Fed Chair Bernacke). Obama kept Bernanke on as Fed Chair. Furthermore, most of the stabilization and things that kept us from sliding backwards happened under Bush.
* Obama is just a third Bush term! Bush spent wildly and not just on military spending. Medicare Part-D was a huge social spending program. Bush increased the deficit more than any president before him...then Obama stepped in and increased that amount.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Oct. 3rd, 2012 @ 10:34 AM

At 10/2/12 07:16 PM, Warforger wrote: Out of context. I was saying it was the same case in terms of how much the government knew beforehand. Before 9/11/01 a couple of people in the government heard there was some terrorist attack coming, no notion that it was going to be planes being driven into the Twin Towers. While say 9/11/12 probably wouldn't be so obscure or as ambiguous, I doubt there would've been an indication that such a concentrated attack would've happened. Thus how much the government knew beforehand was.

Weak, just weak. Sorry, I quoted you directly so you cannot claim 'out of context'.

The point is, overseas you take extra precautions especially on days where local passions tend to be inflamed. You beef up security.


Bin Laden also called for many attacks that never happened, plans for an attack on 9/11/11 were there, threats are constantly made. The thing though is that they tend to be foiled, or at least such a coordinated attack like 9/11/01 impossible because they don't have a good network like they had before. Now it's just random uncoordinated unorganized attacks like say the Fort Hood shooting.

1) You say the plots are foiled. You do realize you're contradicting yourself here. UBL called for attacks and we took these threats seriously and prepared for them. If you look at the security detail in Benghazi, it was woefully inadequate for the locale.
2) They still have a good network in this part of the world. They are organized and involved in the events on the ground from Syria, to Egypt, to Tunisia, to Lybia.
3) We armed the Lybian rebels which were infiltrated in part by al-Qaida operatives, thereby helping re-supply the group.
4) A coordinated attack in the US is not impossible...but highly, highly improbable. In the Middle East, a coordinated attack by al-Qaida is very much a possibility.


This was another case of that, Al-Qaeda had nothing to do with this, it was an interesting early notion but upon investigation the State department has negated this.

Too bad the State Department has limited intel and investigative powers. From the stuff I've seen...al-Qaida had a hand in this.


So you don't know what he did either? He sent more military forces to Libya.

When.


The Obama administration bungled this from the beginning. Embassy security should've been strengthened prior to 9/11 in ALL US facilities in the region just as normal security measures. Especially given that we had the major al-Qaida leader calling for attacks against US interests in Lybia.
It was, the problem though was that in Libya there is no national army but merely a collection of militias which didn't like Gaddaffi. So unless you deploy an entire battalion and take Benghazi over if the militia doesn't like you it's probably going to betray you down the line and kill your ambassador, since you know at the end of the day they control the city and have the army while an embassy doesn't. That was the problem, there was insider intelligence given to the militia group, so they attacked the Safe House where Chris Stevens was hiding.

WTF? What part of my statement are you trying to disassemble with that rambling paragraph.

You keep a detachment of Marine guards in an embassy. You keep a helicopter ready in case the government decides they want you gone so you can get out of town. See, when the army turns and the government turns...they usually let the US get their ppl out because they don't want a war with the US.

On the other hand, a detachment of Marines could give the embassy/consulate staff a reasonable chance of surviving a coordinated terrorist attack. Instead Stevens was given a couple of CIA guys for protection.

I'm going to guess even if you or a guy you would want to be President was in power this would have happened anyway. I don't think there's anything that could've been done. Honestly it makes me pretty sick how people politicize such crap, it's like saying the 9/11/01 attacks were due to incompetence (which is what LemonCrush was arguing).

Bad guess. I think Obama made the right choice in taking out the Somali pirates during the Maersk Alabama hostage crisis...and then taking out UBL. In retrospect, I think invading Iraq was a very bad mistake on the part of Bush. Bush sent the military into Iraq without a coherent strategy for winning the post-invasion...Bush bungled Iraq.

In this case the Obama administration displayed their incompetence. When you take this on top of the rest of his history, I don't think the charge of incompetence is that much of a stretch. I think its so obvious it should overcome any bias.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Oct. 3rd, 2012 @ 10:39 AM

Unless anything weird happens, all we have got between now and the election are the debates. As it is right now, Obama has a slim lead.

Based on Romney's history with words, I would have to say the debates give a decided advantage to Obama.

The debates can have a chance to make the election for Romney though. What he would need there is to finally give us some details about his policies. That coupled with a few Obama gaffes would be enough to catapult Romney to the front. However, it is quite unlikely that either of these will come to pass. First off, Obama is a very good debater who rarely makes two slip ups in a short time. Second, I don't think Romney is smart enough to do the right talk in the debate, and such policy speak will open him up to being grilled on TV. If you look at the Romney Campaign (makes Dukakis look like Reagan) there have been numerous crucial periods where Romney chose personal control over expertise, experience, and skill. (See RNC where Romney trashed the lauded script writers to write his own speech and for Eastwood). The debates can work like a cross examination in court. That is one of the biggest reasons politicans spend so many words saying nothing. Confusing the masses with policy is bad enough. Doing so AND getting every flaw hammered byt he opponent on national TV is near political suicide.

Aside from the debates, Romney is seriously hoping for something unexpected to happen. Otherwise it might not be a great election for him.

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Oct. 3rd, 2012 @ 10:47 AM

At 10/3/12 10:22 AM, 24901miles wrote:
At 10/3/12 10:13 AM, TheMason wrote: * The policy that caused the financial collapse was set in motion by Clinton in 1999.
Citation.

A quick google search yields a few people trying to pin "the collapse" on Clinton to bypass the argument that 2000-2008 Bush-Cheney-Congress is at fault.

I've actually posted this link so often on this BBS.

Would a New York Times article written in 1999 (before Bush was even in office), suffice? Clinton is the one that allowed FANNIE MAE and FREDDIE MAC to buy mortgages made to 'subprime' mortgage applicants. This is what set the stage for the financial collapse.

Here's a few highlights from the article:

"In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's."

"''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''"

Clinton essentially caved to demands from both social groups and big finance. But here's the thing...even dealing with a flailing economy...Bush did nothing to defuse the time-bomb this Clinton de-regulation had. So don't think I'm trying to let Bush off the hook here. I'm pointing out that the crash is a result of a policy that Clinton started. Bush I think deserves blame and fault...but not all of it. Nor do I think that the Democrats are the answer given that this is a Clinton-era policy that lead to the collapse.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Oct. 3rd, 2012 @ 10:56 AM

At 10/3/12 10:39 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Unless anything weird happens, all we have got between now and the election are the debates. As it is right now, Obama has a slim lead.

Agreed. I think Obama's chance of winning are between 52-54%.

However there are three 'weird' things that have some reason to be expected:

* September unemployment report.
* Benghazi fall-out.
* The Eurozone is starting to percolate.


Based on Romney's history with words, I would have to say the debates give a decided advantage to Obama.

For the most part I agree with you. However, one word of caution: 1980. Going into the debates Reagan was not the Reagan we know today. Political watchers expected him to fail and then Carter would waltz into a second term. Didn't work out that way.

Now, I know Romney has a history that is very much the antithesis of Reagan's communication skills. But I hope that his campaign is competent enough to have him going through strong debate prep.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
Ericho
Ericho
  • Member since: Sep. 21, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 43
Movie Buff
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Oct. 3rd, 2012 @ 12:10 PM

It seemed like it would be an easy win for Obama, considering how the hate that's been going around Romney lately, but I looked at some polls and they're actually pretty close, with some people saying that the debate tonight might actually make it or break it for Romney. Obama's a better orator than him, so I'd still say he's got this one in the bag. Romney hasn't supported change that America is striving for, like leaving Afghanistan or legalizing gay marriage.


You know the world's gone crazy when the best rapper's a white guy and the best golfer's a black guy - Chris Rock

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Oct. 3rd, 2012 @ 12:56 PM

At 10/3/12 12:10 PM, Ericho wrote: Obama's a better orator than him, so I'd still say he's got this one in the bag.

I was thinking about this in response to Camaro's post.

Is Obama really that great of an orator? He gives great teleprompter and has great delivery. But tonight he is sharing the stage with a person who wants his job. No teleprompter. No cheering crowds of supporters. But there will be instant feedback. It's not his element. And the last time he had to do it was four years ago.

On the other hand, Romney had to do it only a few months ago. He didn't do that well on the first couple of debates but he was winning them by the end. So Romney may go into this debate with an edge, considering that being the economy is Obama's most vulnerable issue.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Oct. 3rd, 2012 @ 03:18 PM

At 10/3/12 10:56 AM, TheMason wrote: But I hope that his campaign is competent enough to have him going through strong debate prep.

Definitely possible, but Romney seems self-depricatingly reluctant to hand control of his campaign to the experts who would be able to achieve such a result.

Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Oct. 3rd, 2012 @ 05:55 PM

At 10/3/12 12:56 PM, TheMason wrote:
At 10/3/12 12:10 PM, Ericho wrote: Obama's a better orator than him, so I'd still say he's got this one in the bag.
I was thinking about this in response to Camaro's post.

Is Obama really that great of an orator? He gives great teleprompter and has great delivery. But tonight he is sharing the stage with a person who wants his job. No teleprompter. No cheering crowds of supporters. But there will be instant feedback. It's not his element. And the last time he had to do it was four years ago.

The whole teleprompter thing is just a myth derived from the Rove Strategy: attack your opponents strengths. Hoover used a teleprompter. LBJ used a teleprompter. Reagan used a teleprompter. Every president since the invention of the damn things has used them. The idea is that somehow Obama is this bumbling idiot who can't form cohesive sentences without them, which is laughably far from the truth. Look at the speeches he gave at the Jefferson Jackson Dinner, candidates are forbidden to use notes or teleprompters in their speeches at the event. Do you really think that before Obama most presidents gave impromptu speeches, or are you going to admit that note cards and teleprompters are essentially the same exact thing?

Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Oct. 3rd, 2012 @ 07:19 PM

At 10/3/12 10:34 AM, TheMason wrote: Weak, just weak. Sorry, I quoted you directly so you cannot claim 'out of context'.

And you still managed to take it out of context. You were responding to a comment that supposedly said that nothing was to be expected, that comment however was saying that the White House had little knowledge of a specific attack.

The point is, overseas you take extra precautions especially on days where local passions tend to be inflamed. You beef up security.

To begin with we've had 11 years with no incident, next that doesn't matter when there is insider info to the militia.

1) You say the plots are foiled. You do realize you're contradicting yourself here. UBL called for attacks and we took these threats seriously and prepared for them. If you look at the security detail in Benghazi, it was woefully inadequate for the locale.

No. Bin Laden was unable to do any type of attack outside of Afghanistan because most people in his network were dead. Combined with the heightened intelligence Al-Qaeda itself is unable to commit any attacks directly. Thus many of these "attacks" are committed by groups/individuals who aren't Al-Qaeda.

But Islamic terrorists aren't credible, when the attacks in Oslo Norway happened initially an islamic group in Oslo claimed responsibility for the attack. The militia which attacked the embassy were not in communication with Al-Qaeda. i.e. Islamic terrorist groups constantly threaten, but it's not clear when they're actually realistic.

2) They still have a good network in this part of the world. They are organized and involved in the events on the ground from Syria, to Egypt, to Tunisia, to Lybia.

No they're not. This is why say an attack like 9/11 hasn't occured since, this is why all the terrorist attacks were random; the underwear bomber the Fort Hood shooting the storming of the embassy. Because so many have died the network has been unable to effectively work together. Now they're present of course in certain area's trying to build up grassroots support by joining rebel forces but those groups tend to be formed without any connection to mainstream Al-Qaeda. because of the intense attacks by NATO they're no longer an effective force.

3) We armed the Lybian rebels which were infiltrated in part by al-Qaida operatives, thereby helping re-supply the group.

Oh wow. What a terrible argument. Using this logic Reagan was responsible for 9/11 because he trained Bin Laden. Nevermind the arms leftover by Qaddaffi's army.

4) A coordinated attack in the US is not impossible...but highly, highly improbable. In the Middle East, a coordinated attack by al-Qaida is very much a possibility.

That's what I was saying anyway. My point is that you're acting like it was in some way linked to Al-Qaeda when they're not very reliable.

Too bad the State Department has limited intel and investigative powers. From the stuff I've seen...al-Qaida had a hand in this.

Oh great so you know more about this than the State department.

When.

After the attack?

WTF? What part of my statement are you trying to disassemble with that rambling paragraph.

You keep a detachment of Marine guards in an embassy. You keep a helicopter ready in case the government decides they want you gone so you can get out of town. See, when the army turns and the government turns...they usually let the US get their ppl out because they don't want a war with the US.

....Which doesn't make a difference when the government doesn't have control over the military.

On the other hand, a detachment of Marines could give the embassy/consulate staff a reasonable chance of surviving a coordinated terrorist attack. Instead Stevens was given a couple of CIA guys for protection.

Um he did have that, 4 Americans died 2 of those were Navy SEALS.

Bad guess. I think Obama made the right choice in taking out the Somali pirates during the Maersk Alabama hostage crisis...and then taking out UBL. In retrospect, I think invading Iraq was a very bad mistake on the part of Bush. Bush sent the military into Iraq without a coherent strategy for winning the post-invasion...Bush bungled Iraq.

I didn't say anything about Bush.

In this case the Obama administration displayed their incompetence. When you take this on top of the rest of his history, I don't think the charge of incompetence is that much of a stretch. I think its so obvious it should overcome any bias.

.....What history? I'm not sure what you mean by incompetence. You mean things like Reagan failing to kill Gaddaffi? Invading Iraq? Invading Somalia?


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
TheKlown
TheKlown
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 44
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Oct. 3rd, 2012 @ 11:12 PM

The President looked really bad tonight, I'm not sure who is going to win the election now.


I bleed Orange, Green, and Red.
Flyers, Eagles, Phillies, and Sixers.

leanlifter1
leanlifter1
  • Member since: Sep. 30, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Oct. 3rd, 2012 @ 11:34 PM

At 10/3/12 11:12 PM, TheKlown wrote: The President looked really bad tonight, I'm not sure who is going to win the election now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwIr_dsuyCs&feature=plcp


BBS Signature
Korriken
Korriken
  • Member since: Jun. 17, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Oct. 4th, 2012 @ 12:32 AM

At 10/3/12 05:55 PM, Feoric wrote:
The whole teleprompter thing is just a myth derived from the Rove Strategy: attack your opponents strengths. Hoover used a teleprompter. LBJ used a teleprompter. Reagan used a teleprompter. Every president since the invention of the damn things has used them.

yeah but you can't use a teleprompter in a debate.

The idea is that somehow Obama is this bumbling idiot who can't form cohesive sentences without them, which is laughably far from the truth.

I wouldn't be so certain about that.

in fact, he's made some pretty massive gaffes. one that stands out, perhaps above all others, one, that if not by ANYONE else would have caused them to be laughed off the stage of politics. Just imagine of Bush or McCain said that. it would have been front page news for a week. of course ,the media tried its damnedest to not show off his gaffes as they did with Bush's gaffes.

Look at the speeches he gave at the Jefferson Jackson Dinner, candidates are forbidden to use notes or teleprompters in their speeches at the event.
there's a difference between a speech and a debate. in a speech, no one talks back.

Do you really think that before Obama most presidents gave impromptu speeches, or are you going to admit that note cards and teleprompters are essentially the same exact thing?

Given the amount of stuttering Obama did, I'd say he misses being able to use his teleprompter. not to mention, even Huffington Post grudgingly gives Romney the victory (and then slams the living shit out of him for what he didn't mention, while making no mention of what Obama didn't mention). fun night.

not as much of a myth as you want it to be.


I'm not crazy, everyone else is.

DragonPunch
DragonPunch
  • Member since: May. 12, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Oct. 4th, 2012 @ 09:18 AM

At 10/3/12 11:12 PM, TheKlown wrote: The President looked really bad tonight, I'm not sure who is going to win the election now.

Let's not write him off yet. He still has 2 more debates to hopefully win, and his VP also has a debate to hopefully win. I say hopefully, because based on Romney's tone, the debates could go either way. In my opinion, if Obama starts attacking Romney personally, we could see Romney lose his cool, and start yelling potentially. He already lost it when he basically bullied Ron Paul (or was that someone else) over something Paul called him out on. Let's not forget that 90% of Romney's statements were total lies.

Remember that 716 billion Romney talked about? That's actually the amount Obama saved by cutting waste from Medicare, i.e. stuff that was not helping Medicare thrive and was probably dragging it down. Let's not forget that Obama cut spending on useless programs recently (I forget which ones at the moment), and wants to invest in renewable energy as well as bring oil and coal production to the States. If Obama can keep his cool like he did next time and attack Romney with a straight face, he could win the next debate. Let's look at all of the ammo Obama has:

- the 47% remarks
- women's rights
- gay rights
- The Affordable Care Act of 2012
- RomneyCare
- supporting China's cheating
- Romney's "Just let it die" comments regarding the auto industry in Detroit
- the amount of companies Bain Capital has destroyed, and the amount of jobs Bain has destroyed as well

The list goes on and on and on...Anyways, I'm going to go write these suggestions to Obama himself. Wish me luck!


SCREW THE SYSTEM!!! Play video games instead.My Official Art Thread! COMMENT ON IT!

BBS Signature
TheKlown
TheKlown
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 44
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Oct. 4th, 2012 @ 04:25 PM

Chris Matthews

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z303YXnQDKU


I bleed Orange, Green, and Red.
Flyers, Eagles, Phillies, and Sixers.

Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Oct. 4th, 2012 @ 07:25 PM

It seems pretty strange how people think Romney won if you saw the debate beginning to finish but all other points it seemed well a mediocre tie. In the beginning Romney got pretty far but as it progressed the ugly dull face of politics loomed as both candidates took the same stances on the same issues. Something is wrong when the moderator has to find differences between the candidates constantly and fails to do so. I felt Romney did an effective manouever helping define himself more and defend previous attacks, but he just didn't drive anything home. He didn't provide any plan, which I guess helped him so that Obama couldn't destroy it. And then there's the thing where both candidates say things they claim are facts but contradict each other. Obama claims there's a tax break for outsourcing jobs Romney claims there isn't, Obama says Romney will cut taxes too much Romney say he won't. I wish there was some fact checkers who constantly fact checked all of their statements once they said it. Other than that this is a good victory for Romney when everything leading up to it was a miserable joke.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
Jpresley777
Jpresley777
  • Member since: Oct. 1, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Oct. 4th, 2012 @ 09:36 PM

I say he loses.
But based on his rapping skills in the video below
he may just have a chance to repeat.

http://elvisrecommends.com/obamas-rap

* All in good fun..

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Oct. 4th, 2012 @ 10:01 PM

At 10/3/12 05:55 PM, Feoric wrote: ... The idea is that somehow Obama is this bumbling idiot who can't form cohesive sentences without them, which is laughably far from the truth. Look at the speeches he gave at the Jefferson Jackson Dinner, candidates are forbidden to use notes or teleprompters in their speeches at the event. ...

* In the past when Obama has had to give impromptu speeches or deal with events that were not heavily controlled he has shown himself to be very prone to gaffes and verbal missteps. Now you may say that 'Obama is a lawyer so he's used to things like cross-examination'. That would be true if he were a trial lawyer, but he wasn't.

* Last night he went into a situation where things were unscripted. He did not know the questions in advance, much less Romney's arguments and rebuttals. That he is not good at impromptu speaking was evident last night in the debates, he withered under fire from Romney.

* Jefferson Jackson Dinner...irrelevent. It is still a prepared speech that he can rehearse ahead of time...and there is not someone who wants your job actively refuting what you have to say.

* LBJ, Reagan, other presidents, notes, etc...all a strawman argument. Those presidents and speaking techniques are not what I was talking about. I'm talking about Obama's ability as a orator. I was making the point that he is not the great communicator that other presidents were: Clinton, Reagan, JFK, FDR...three of the last four great communicators we had as presidents were Democrats. Obama has had his moments...like all presidents do...but he is not one of the greats with or without a teleprompter.

All in all...you claim that this is a myth created by Karl Rove. Judging by last night's debate performance this myth is: CONFIRMED.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Oct. 4th, 2012 @ 10:18 PM

At 10/4/12 09:18 AM, HiryuGouki wrote: ...his VP also has a debate to hopefully win.

Biden is a liability for the campaign, while Ryan is a budgetary wonk and knows the numbers forwards and backwards. Where I was worried about Romney...I'm not worried about Ryan because how weak his opponent is. But hey...Romney did surprise last night along with Obama.


... as well as bring oil and coal production to the States. ...

You might want to do some research into how the administration has dealt with these issues over the past four years (and not what he says now to get your vote).


- the 47% remarks

That it was not brought up last night tells me that the campaign has done some focus group testing and found that this is actually a non-starter. Or, they know by bringing it up allows Romney a chance to confront it and repair the damage (therefore it would be better for Obama to let his PAC proxies use it). Most likely it is a combo of the two.

- women's rights
- gay rights

These only work on 'single issue' voters who are radical about these issues. Chances are...they were not going to vote for Romney anyway. Also...women's rights are somewhat subjective. Not every woman thinks that being opposed to Sandra Fluke (sp?) is the same thing as being a misogynist.

- The Affordable Care Act of 2012

Not enough to make a strong case for Obama. It's a better environment for it than in June, but a plurality (51%) still favor its repeal.

- RomneyCare

That was brought up last night in the debate, which is a tactical mistake because now the opponent can deal with it head-on. So now it is nullified as an issue.

- supporting China's cheating

You're getting a little wonky here, plus Romney can fire back that Obama waited until late in the election cycle to do anything about...making the claim that Obama was just playing politics.

- Romney's "Just let it die" comments regarding the auto industry in Detroit

This is Romney's "You didn't build it" sound bite, and it could cost him Ohio. Of all the things you've spelled out, this is the one that poses any threat.

- the amount of companies Bain Capital has destroyed, and the amount of jobs Bain has destroyed as well

Bain has an 80% rate of success with their mergers and acquisitions...which is actually pretty stellar for the business they are in. So when you look at the numbers and facts...you are being lied to my friend.

But at the same time, Romney does need to answer these allegations head on with these facts and point out that Obama and/or his proxies are lying and provide the facts. If not...Romney deserves to lose.


The list goes on and on and on...Anyways, I'm going to go write these suggestions to Obama himself. Wish me luck!

I would suggest that you take a few courses on electoral behavior, campaigning workshops with Democrats on Campus, and work on a few campaigns as a staffer (college kids can do this on the state legislative level) before you start advising the Obama campaign.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Oct. 5th, 2012 @ 12:11 AM

At 10/3/12 07:19 PM, Warforger wrote: And you still managed to take it out of context. You were responding to a comment that supposedly said that nothing was to be expected, that comment however was saying that the White House had little knowledge of a specific attack.

No...I'm not taking it out of context. I'm pointing out that the following premise of your argument is wrong:
that the level of warning the Obama Administration had was about as ambiguous as the warning the Bush Administration had.

Now they may not have know the specifics about number of militants and timing. But they did have a target (US interests in Libya) and a date (9/11). That, from a military/national security perspective, is far more specific than the "an attack is imminent" warning Bush had.

The point is, overseas you take extra precautions especially on days where local passions tend to be inflamed. You beef up security.
To begin with we've had 11 years with no incident, next that doesn't matter when there is insider info to the militia.

To begin with you have to look no further than Wikipedia to see you are incorrect.

And there are ways of countering insiders with the militia. You simply give them the day off and have security run by US personnel. That's the way we've done it before.

No. Bin Laden was unable to do any type of attack outside of Afghanistan because most people in his network were dead. Combined with the heightened intelligence Al-Qaeda itself is unable to commit any attacks directly. Thus many of these "attacks" are committed by groups/individuals who aren't Al-Qaeda.

1) UBL was in Pakistan soon after 9/11.

2) You simply do not know how al-Qaida operates. It is a multi-headed hydra designed to operate even if UBL or al-Zawahiri were isolated. Here's some reading for you.


But Islamic terrorists aren't credible, when the attacks in Oslo Norway happened initially an islamic group in Oslo claimed responsibility for the attack. The militia which attacked the embassy were not in communication with Al-Qaeda. i.e. Islamic terrorist groups constantly threaten, but it's not clear when they're actually realistic.

You need to learn about the process of radicalization. Al-Qaida operatives do not just go waltzing into organizations they wish to infilitrate and say: "Hi, I'm Abdul and I want to talk to you about joining al-Qaida." They infilitrate and organize and in the cases of militias in places like Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Syria and Iraq...direct activities. All without letting the participants know they are part of an al-Qaida operation.


No they're not. This is why say an attack like 9/11 hasn't occured since, this is why all the terrorist attacks were random; the underwear bomber the Fort Hood shooting the storming of the embassy. Because so many have died the network has been unable to effectively work together. Now they're present of course in certain area's trying to build up grassroots support by joining rebel forces but those groups tend to be formed without any connection to mainstream Al-Qaeda. because of the intense attacks by NATO they're no longer an effective force.

*sigh*

This is not why a 9/11 attack hasn't occured since. There are two main reasons:
1) Increased security measures in the US and countries that fly to the US.
2) al-Qaida diverted their resources to fighting the US in Iraq.

Now you talk about connections to 'mainstream Al-Qaeda' (sic); there never has been such a thing. Al-Qaida uses a modified cell structure that uses many, many cells so that even if the uppermost cell is compromised the organization can live on. A good novel demonstrating this would Robert Heinlen's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

Furthermore, al-Qaida is known for it's technological savy in the way it communicates. For example, it found a way to imbed messages in the empty spaces of .jpg files. They used sports and porn pics to imbed these messages and send them back and forth to one another to avoid detection. Therefore, it would be near impossible to stamp out every network of cells.

3) We armed the Lybian rebels which were infiltrated in part by al-Qaida operatives, thereby helping re-supply the group.
Oh wow. What a terrible argument. Using this logic Reagan was responsible for 9/11 because he trained Bin Laden. Nevermind the arms leftover by Qaddaffi's army.

Too bad for you, it's not a terrible argument. The difference is at the time, the thought was we would allies in the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, Pakistan used the money to train elements that would become the Taliban to fight an insurgent war against India. Instead they returned to Afghanistan full of Islamic zeal and anti-west/outsider conviction.

In Libya we just assumed the rebels were Jeffersonian Democrats...with 30+ years of experience telling us not to. Essentially, Obama didn't learn from Reagan's mistake.

That's what I was saying anyway. My point is that you're acting like it was in some way linked to Al-Qaeda when they're not very reliable.

Now who's twisting words? I'm saying that in the Middle East a coordinated attack by al-Qaida IS a very likely probablity. You're saying its not.

Oh great so you know more about this than the State department.

I know what capabilities the State Department has. Ergo, on the open source stuff at least, I know better who to listen to. And it's not State.

When
After the attack?

Dude! You realize you just lost this point, don't you? The point is: a Marine security detachment should have been deployed long before the attack. That it was not in place by 9/11 is a sign of the administration's incompetence in National Security matters.


....Which doesn't make a difference when the government doesn't have control over the military.

Yes it does.

Um he did have that, 4 Americans died 2 of those were Navy SEALS.

Um...no he did not have that. As we learn more about the attack he did not have the full security complement for an embassy in the region/country...nor were the facilities properly hardened against such an attack. As for the former Navy SeALs, so? Make a Marine Embassy Detachment, this does not.

I didn't say anything about Bush.

No, you made an ad hominem accusation that I would not be as critical as a president I supported. I'm pointing out that you are wrong. Here's a few more gems for you:

I like Reagan as a president over the first Bush. But:

Reagan didn't really have many military successes. Grenada, while ultimately successful, was a bungling operation that only succeeded b/c of the inadequacy of the invaders we pushed out. Other than that, Reagan didn't do much militarily. Bush I on the other had was rather successful militarily (Panama, Iraq, early stages of Somalia). Clinton was mixed. Somalia was a travesty that was bungled at his level. But OPERATION: Desert Fox and the Kosovo Air Campaigns were very effective.

... I'm not sure what you mean by incompetence. ...

Obama has damaged our reputation with France, England, Israel and even proven ineffective in South Korea. He missed a chance at change in Iran. He is indecisive in making military decisions that really count such as the surge in Afghanistan...when you already have troops committed and fighting you do not take weeks to weigh all options. You either send in more or pull everyone out. I personally think he should've pulled us out of there instead of sending in a surge.

And please do not bring up killing UBL. The killing of one man, even a symbolic one like UBL, is less important than winning the war. I'm not saying it's not a good thing, I actually support it and think Obama did good. But make a comprehensive foreign/military policy, it does not.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Oct. 5th, 2012 @ 12:23 AM

At 10/5/12 12:11 AM, TheMason wrote:
....Which doesn't make a difference when the government doesn't have control over the military.
Yes it does.

I was running out of space, so I thought I'd finish and come back to this point.

When the government loses control of the military, if it is a true military and not a militia, the Generals or Colonels or Sergeants that take over realize that they cannot take on the US or any outside power for that matter. So they may bluster about attacking US interests...but let US interests 'get away'. They are smart enough to know that they have to consolidate power, and just by taking over the US will probably pull out any way.

Now, in the case of militias you do have a point that there is increased threats and the situation is incredibly unstable. Which actually works AGAINST your argument that Obama was taken by surprise. If you're going to open up an embassy in the middle of Benghazi where rebels are consolidating their power base...and politics are based upon balancing the very delicate and complex nuances of competing Northern African and/or Arabian tribal governments...you may not want to treat security like you would in London, Paris, Seoul or even Moscow or Beijing.

You want to harden the facilities to keep mobs out, and as far from the compound's buildings as possible. You want, not just a small security team, but a full-on Marine Corps security detachment...as big as the Status Of Forces Agreement (SOFA) will allow. Furthermore, you make sure the SOFA either excludes the USMC Embassy Detachment as counting against it...or allows for a huge Marine presence.

These are not some 'hindsight' lessons learned...or armchair Generaling from a Republican...these are Standard Operating Procedures. That the embassy/consulate was such a soft target with weak security should be a national scandal.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Oct. 5th, 2012 @ 01:28 AM

At 10/5/12 12:23 AM, TheMason wrote: Now, in the case of militias you do have a point that there is increased threats and the situation is incredibly unstable. Which actually works AGAINST your argument that Obama was taken by surprise.

To a point, yes, but you're not going far enough. When the threats have gone from many to extreme and the percentage of them that get carried out is almost 0, the surprise factor returns amidst the spike in threats. This is because the spike is of threats, not actions. 10,000 threats with no action presents a more surprise prone situation than 100 threats and 3 actions. Somebody going from the latter to the former over a period of time would likely lower their readiness in correlation to the massive drop in credibility of the threats.

If you're going to open up an embassy in the middle of Benghazi where rebels are consolidating their power base...and politics are based upon balancing the very delicate and complex nuances of competing Northern African and/or Arabian tribal governments...you may not want to treat security like you would in London, Paris, Seoul or even Moscow or Beijing.

True, but in such a volatile nation with an infant government, the last you want to do is overtly show a massive military presence. If peaceful relations are the goal, sending a garrison in to protect an embassy would end up doing more harm to a much higher degree of certainty than leaving the embassy slightly under-protected in an attempt to appear as an embassy instead of an occupation force.

Obama played the long term stability game and got dinged a little in the short term, but (almost ironically) has ended up with a better relationship with Libya and the Libyan people because of the attack. If I were an ambassador in a country with an icy to mediocre view of the US, I would gladly die to bring the people and countries together. The "Mistake" you so harp on may actually end up being the mortar that holds the US-Libya relationship together. I would also highly caution against your "military is everything" cold war diplomacy when it comes to the Middle East. The mess over there is largely a result of such diplomacy, and the only actions that have dampened the mess have been soft touch and cereberal.

BUTANE
BUTANE
  • Member since: May. 9, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 22
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Oct. 5th, 2012 @ 11:30 AM

At 10/3/12 11:34 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:
At 10/3/12 11:12 PM, TheKlown wrote: The President looked really bad tonight, I'm not sure who is going to win the election now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwIr_dsuyCs&feature=plcp

This video is essentially saying that it doesn't matter who wins, both major parties are run by corporate overlords. Ok, if thats's the way you see it, then there is a clear difference in this election, because the idea of corporate money running the country comes to to campaign finance laws. Obama was a supporter of the McCain-Feingold act, he wants to regulate money in politics. By not voting, you think are saying that you don't like corporate money in politics and how it causes the entire system to be corrupt, but mostly....you just don't know anything about the candidates, and are too lazy to read the news or even check out the wikipedia page seeing what their stances are.

And even if I'm wrong. Not voting because it is simply a "lesser of two evils" election. Why would that stop you from voting? It is still better to have the lesser of two evils than it is to have the greater of two evils. If in ever election you vote for the lesser of the two evils, as candidates run for re-election and lose to the new lesser of the two evils, eventially the "lesser evil" candidates will just be good candidates and the system will be purged of the problem.

Not voting is fucking stupid no matter how you look at it. It is basically giving up your own voice and empowering the voice of your political opponents.


BBS Signature