[Flair91]

They were nowhere near as bad as what Obama has done and said to us as President. When Romney starts believing a part of Britain should be taken over by another country then he will reached Obama's stunning lows.

Obviously, Romney should have smiled and said he looked forward to the event and is certain it would be a great success! Yet, he was honest - he pointed out the few problems we had.

Personally, It does lessen my opinions of him because it shows his judgement is off - then again he was being honest about it which is a plus. I think the media made a mountain out of a molehill. If this was at any other time of the year it would be at the back of the papers. Slow news era atm (like every summer is).

[Flair91]

(Original post by Cephalus)
Yeah I do love the way you asked a neutral question then provided some info to show why Romney is better =]

That was my intention. I asked a few probing questions about who you would prefer and laid out a few conditions. Then I put a disclaimer down saying what I personally believe. Problem brah?

[Cephalus]

(Original post by Flair91)
That was my intention. I asked a few probing questions about who you would prefer and laid out a few conditions. Then I put a disclaimer down saying what I personally believe. Problem brah?

lol I was the first one to vote Romney =] And the second to publically declare my support

[justanotherposter]

(Original post by Flair91)
They were nowhere near as bad as what Obama has done and said to us as President. When Romney starts believing a part of Britain should be taken over by another country then he will reached Obama's stunning lows.

Obviously, Romney should have smiled and said he looked forward to the event and is certain it would be a great success! Yet, he was honest - he pointed out the few problems we had.

Personally, It does lessen my opinions of him because it shows his judgement is off - then again he was being honest about it which is a plus. I think the media made a mountain out of a molehill. If this was at any other time of the year it would be at the back of the papers. Slow news era atm (like every summer is).

Based on Romney's track record of going against everything he says I wouldn't put too much trust in his claims of liking Britian. Anyway I'm pretty sure a lot of countries don't like us (just look at Eurovision,) but as long as we are able to cooperate economically I don't see why it should matter what Obama's opinion of us is, Romney may like us more, but that doesn't mean he's better for us or America.

[Astronomical]

Whilst I am inclined to agree with the suggestion that we perform a coup and take back the states (), since this is not one of the options I voted Obama.

I actually don't think Obama is that bad; certainly he talks an awful lot more than he acts, but when you consider the global economic climate, national debts in excess of $15 trillion that need to be reduced, and that the US is still the biggest economy by some distance, he's done an okay job.

Romney, on the other hand, comes across as a foolhardy, conceited bigot. One cannot deny his business prowess, though, and how it may be beneficial to the world economy, but at the same time it is somewhat worrying, as successful business are by necessity ruthless in order to make a profit.

Of course, this discussion is largely irrelevant because Romney doesn't even pose a remote threat to Obama in the election.

[Flair91]

Ermm why has a mod changed my thread title to something my thread isn't about?
It has nothing to do with what you think Obama's chances are of the US election, it's about which of the two men are better for Britain.

Change back please.

P.S The lack of capitalisation and punctuation is disturbing for a mod

[ThatGuyPsy]

Your thread was merged with this one.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by lonely14)
Obama. He is lesser of two evils.

It's thinking like this that gets us into the situation of having two evils.

"The "democracy gap" in our politics and elections spells a deep sense of powerlessness by people who drop out, do not vote, or listlessly vote for the “least worst” every four years and then wonder why after every cycle the “least worst” gets worse."
- Ralph Nader

[martinix]

(Original post by anarchism101)
It's thinking like this that gets us into the situation of having two evils.

"The "democracy gap" in our politics and elections spells a deep sense of powerlessness by people who drop out, do not vote, or listlessly vote for the “least worst” every four years and then wonder why after every cycle the “least worst” gets worse."
- Ralph Nader

Would voting for Rommney change anything for better? Would not voting do it? Voters are powerless, democracy is just a word.

[floridadad55]

(Original post by Cholley71)
And state your reasons.

The current tally, 60-5 in favor of Obama is ludicrous (I say this because the most recent polls show that it is an even race), but there is a good chance Obama will win. If you look at the electoral map of the states on CNN, you will see that Romney basically has to win every single "swing state" in order to win. He can't afford to lose a single one. All these states would have to swing in the same direction, which is unlikely. It did happen in 1980, when Carter ran against Reagan. The election was tied until the last week, and then the entire country basically concluded that they had had it with Carter, and Reagan won just about every state that was in play. College students tend to like Obama. Don't presume that the average american voter feels the same way. But since Obama starts out with all the northeastern states and all the west coast states, it is his race to lose.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by martinix)
Would voting for Rommney change anything for better?

No, it wouldn't. I'm just saying that Obama being the 'lesser evil' isn't a reason to vote for him.

[dongonaeatu]

yh

[Flair91]

(Original post by ThatGuyPsy)
Your thread was merged with this one.

My god. This makes even less sense..
How do I find out who mutilated my thread?

[justanotherposter]

(Original post by floridadad55)
The current tally, 60-5 in favor of Obama is ludicrous (I say this because the most recent polls show that it is an even race), but there is a good chance Obama will win. If you look at the electoral map of the states on CNN, you will see that Romney basically has to win every single "swing state" in order to win. He can't afford to lose a single one. All these states would have to swing in the same direction, which is unlikely. It did happen in 1980, when Carter ran against Reagan. The election was tied until the last week, and then the entire country basically concluded that they had had it with Carter, and Reagan won just about every state that was in play. College students tend to like Obama. Don't presume that the average american voter feels the same way. But since Obama starts out with all the northeastern states and all the west coast states, it is his race to lose.

The polls are based in America, TSR comprises of all nationalities, where republicans are often not popular due to their pro-gun, anti-healthcare bills. As most other nation's leaders (the nations that come on here at least) are anti-gun and pro-healthcare, people in other countries have trouble understanding the republican viewpoint. Plus as you said college students tend to like Obama, and college/uni students make up a large proportion of the TSR community.

[Made in the USA]

(Original post by Muscovite)
did you though? why does it make a difference if they're post war or not?

Because the electorate, demographics, and the political parties were so different back then, comparing what happened so long ago to recent history is meaningless. I want to stick tot he last 50 years. No need to go any further into history.

[Made in the USA]

(Original post by justanotherposter)
The polls are based in America, TSR comprises of all nationalities, where republicans are often not popular due to their pro-gun, anti-healthcare bills. As most other nation's leaders (the nations that come on here at least) are anti-gun and pro-healthcare, people in other countries have trouble understanding the republican viewpoint. Plus as you said college students tend to like Obama, and college/uni students make up a large proportion of the TSR community.

To say that republicans are anti-healthcare is ludicrous. It really shows that you have no understanding of the issues. All US parties are pro healthcare and all want to get as many people access as possible, they just disagree on how to do it. Democrats want higher taxes and government-based solutions. Republicans want free market solutions.

And regarding the guns, I wouldn't say the democrats are anti-gun. They want to try to ban some types of weaponry, but I don't know of a credible democrat politician who wants the second amendment repealed.

[FSP]

Depends if republicans have succesfully cast Obama as some left wing radical. Independents might think ooh obama is unamerican and radical. I dont like Romney but he is the safer option.

Also if isreal strikes Iran in October, Obama will loose and oil prices global reccession etc.

Their is little difference beetween the two candidates on monteray policy and civil liberties. Obama is a hell of alot more pro war and Foriegn Intervention than Bill Clinton. Drone Strikes are inhumance untransparent mass executions of weddings funerals no regard for civilians. Romney would probably be the same

Tax Policy - neither of them have a serious plan to tackle the deficit.

Im suprised Romney is so close in the polls and raising twice as much cash. However, I think Obama will win because he has an image which portays him as more in touch with the average american.

[FSP]

(Original post by Made in the USA)
To say that republicans are anti-healthcare is ludicrous. It really shows that you have no understanding of the issues. All US parties are pro healthcare and all want to get as many people access as possible, they just disagree on how to do it. Democrats want higher taxes and government-based solutions. Republicans want free market solutions.

And regarding the guns, I wouldn't say the democrats are anti-gun. They want to try to ban some types of weaponry, but I don't know of a credible democrat politician who wants the second amendment repealed.

Republicans flat out reject univeral healthcare which they see as a form of wealth redistribution. Fox News even said america doesnt have enough doctors to treat eveyone, so just dont try to help the poor.
Market Reforms ? Like the one proposes by the Heritage foundation in early 1990s also known as obamacare.

I wouldnt say democrats are for higher taxes,but ofcourse it will
Cost more to cover an extra 30 million people. At the moment Hospitals just have to write off unpaid fees.

[justanotherposter]

(Original post by Made in the USA)
To say that republicans are anti-healthcare is ludicrous. It really shows that you have no understanding of the issues. All US parties are pro healthcare and all want to get as many people access as possible, they just disagree on how to do it. Democrats want higher taxes and government-based solutions. Republicans want free market solutions.

And regarding the guns, I wouldn't say the democrats are anti-gun. They want to try to ban some types of weaponry, but I don't know of a credible democrat politician who wants the second amendment repealed.

I'm fully aware of all of this, some simplified choice of words does not mean I don't understand the Republican viewpoint, your nitpicking. What I said is still valid, the rest of the world use government based solutions and think the free market system is unfair and promotes some kind of elitism that if you can't afford to pay money to private companies every year, you don't deserve to live. Mitt Romney was even for government healthcare until he ran for election at which point he mysteriously changed his stance.

And yes I know democrats want gun control, I'm not stupid. Outright banning them would make no sense in the USA (although not for 'constitutional' reasons, another thing people outside the US don't get, just because these rules were written by the founding fathers why does that mean they can never be changed? Those laws were written based on how the world worked hundreds of years ago, why are they not allowed to be adjusted based on the modern world?) I understand that banning guns outright would create a huge black market, however gun control seems like a good idea to most Western societies outside the US, it is far to easy to obtain one in the US.

[Cannotbelieveit]

Mitt Romney has gone down dramatically IMO due to his comments he's made during the past week.

Obama.