Home
Blog
Careers
Forums
Downloads
FM24 Real Name Fix
FM23 Real Name Fix
FM24 New Leagues
FM23 New Leagues
FM24 Tactics
FM24 Data Update
FM Database
FM Guides
FM Shortlists
FM24/25 Update Wonderkids
FM24/25 Update Free Players
FM24/25 Update Bargains
FM24/25 Update Players to avoid
FM24/25 Update Club Budgets
FM24/25 Update Club Facilities
Graphics
Installation Guides
Records
Prediction League
Fantasy Football
Search
Sam
Uncle Sam
Mr Willy
I'm happy Obama has won because Romney represents the wrong image - nepotism, snobbery and aristocracy.
Fantastic
I'd recommend just turning off Facebook today.
Obtuse
Abbott
Bet the turnout was high for that one
Slashman X
Federal government still has to have their say about it
Ninja
In fairness, Mormonism is at least 10 magnitudes of stupidness more stupid than normal Christianity and Obama's religion is not a central part of his policy making, arguably he's only publicly a Christian because atheism is political suicide in America.
I don't think it's unfair to describe Romney as a religious fundamentalist, but it is unfair to describe Obama as that.
Uncle Sam
In other news, I'll be checking my mailbox for my Obamaphone:
Torri
You have to admit Barack would definitely not be where he is now without her.
2016 Mrs Obama for President!
bluemoon.
You should be ashamed of yourself. That's awful.
Crane
Tell Stephen Fry that you feminist cunt.
Ninja
I think you're being overly cynical.
Of course career politicians use anything to get power, but I don't think you can dismiss religion in a country, in parts, as deeply religious as America as meaning 'almost nothing' to all of them. Of course some will try and make out they are more religious than they are to advance their career (and I genuinely think Obama is a very good example, he probably would describe himself as 'Christian', loyalty to the tribe as Dawkin's termed it, but only actually plays up to it to be electable) but I think to dismiss it at all is naïve. Some of the most religious nut job politicians are religious nut jobs because that's what they believe, not because that's what makes them electable.
As for Romney, seeing as the Christian right have supported him and he's adapted policies to appease them, I don't think it's a stretch to say that their ideas are fundamentalist and by supporting that he is too, nor do I think they would embrace him if they viewed mormonism as so distinct from Christianity that he wasn't Christian. I agree a sane Christian would make the distinction but there's an awful lot of right wing nut jobs whose own brand of Christianity is so warped that mormonism isn't that much stranger.
Unrelated question, but seeing as you're as impartial an observer as can be where do you see the Republican party going? They lurched to the right here and lost the centre so do you see them going back to the centre and abandoning the Tea Party or going further to the extreme?
Obtuse
Yes because Sky Pixies are more believable than a man. Also magic underwear.
Abbott
I laughed, and that's all that matters.
*sobs*
Telegram Sam
Shouldn't you be on a plane to Colorado?
Uncle Sam
You are right about how important religion is to a significant portion of the electorate, however. That's why all politicians profess faith and why the Republican party uses it especially to manipulate voters. I don't care what religion a politician associates himself with. He or she could be a fundamentalist Christian, he or she could be a devout Muslim, I couldn't care less. If he or she believed and adhered to Libertarian principles I would vote for them as many times as I possibly could. However, I think you overestimate the overall importance of religion to voters. While you probably can't get elected without saying you are a Christian, you also can't get elected to significant office and be a fundamentalist. That demographic simply isn't large enough to carry anything beyond a local election. See Richard Mourdock in Indiana. The kind of Fundamentalist that you and others try to imply that certain politicians are simply don't get elected. Either you have a misconception of what Fundamentalism is, or you don't fully understand politics in this country. A leaning one way or the other on certain moral issues does not make you a fundamentalist.
As for the direction of the Republican party, it's hard to say. My guess would be that the election was close enough in the popular vote that the party leaders will place the blame on the Romney/Ryan campaign rather than on the party platform. When it comes to winning Presidential elections, catering to the center doesn't really help, at least not for the Republicans. Romney was actually himself an attempt to do that because of his record as Governor of Massachusetts. Bush didn't get elected twice by pandering to the moderates. The key for Republicans in those elections was energizing the small-government base of the party. The Tea Party emerged as a response to Bush's moderate Presidency and a direction that lead to the nomination of a moderate like John McCain. The Tea Party's original vision was a strong one, less government and a non-intrusive foreign policy. My fear about the tea party is that it has been infiltrated by Republicans like Ryan who simply want to manipulate it to their own ends. Ryan clearly wanted to continue the Bush/Obama war mongering, so he is not a genuine Tea Partier. But my guess is that Republicans will focus on their base supporters and try to become more organized in their efforts "on the ground".
Shola
Mr Willy
The Libertarians did alright this year in getting 1% of the popular vote - something to be proud of. If the Republicans continue on a right-ward slide, then I could see many crossing over to the Libertarians, possibly in statewide elections more often. The downside, however, is that the Libertarian Party could become an entryist opportunity for social conservatives who want to affect the Libertarian platform on social issues to the extent that the party becomes 'socially and fiscally conservative', rather than classical liberal.
Obama isn't that left-wing in terms of his actions - Gingrich saying that Obama is "America's leftest president" being the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard - but his speech in Chicago on Tuesday night was really good, and actually was a good way of putting into words part of my overall beliefs. Individual ambition along with social obligation and solidarity, not individual ambition and screwing over others to get there - the Objectivist (cuntish) way of achieving success. Obama's campaign team as well, was phenomenal, and shows what can happen when communities pull together to achieve a shared goal - in this case, Obama's re-election.
Anyway, I'll enjoy listening to the right-wing moan about how bad Obama is, what an arsehole he is, etc. Then afterwards, they'll go out and shoot people in the street because that's their 2nd Amendment right to do so.
Uncle Sam
If the Libertarian party is infected by Republicans looking for a new home, then the true Libertarians will find a new party.
And I don't know if you've been following things over here, but Obama IS bad. This should never have been a race but our country is in such bad shape that the Republicans were able to trot up a candidate like Romney and make it close. The difference was not voters voting FOR Obama, but against Romney. Our national debt is rapidly increasing and Obama's answer is to print more money. His policies have caused the value of our currency to plummet, and with expensive programs like his healthcare bill (which is extremely poor) he shows no signs of being fiscally responsible. The only hope is that the Republican majority in the House will force him to balance the budget, but they are so dead set on wasteful military spending that I have little confidence in that. And speaking of the military, despite his rhetoric to the contrary Obama continues to meddle in foreign affairs and keep our military in parts of the world where we are not wanted, killing innocent civilians and ruining lives.
Ninja
You really can't blame Obama for a debt crisis spawned primarily by the government that preceded him.
And the race was always going to be close, no President has ever been re-elected with the economy in as bad a shape as it is now. From what I understand the main reason Obama did not lose the election on the grounds of economy is because Romney's plan essentially entailed adopting the Bush era policies that got you into the mess in the first place.
Samirah
Obama is probably the lesser of the two evils, but neither Obama or Romney is very good for the US. Or for the Muslim-American community either. Romney though is one of the worst liars I've seen in recent times (and there are a lot of them). Even Republicans were asking him to stop lying in his ads.
Uncle Sam
It's funny, no President is ever to blame for their failures, it's always the previous administration's policies that make recovery impossible. While Bush's out of control spending did help create the mess, it goes way deeper than that and much farther back. The fact is spending continues to skyrocket and Obama is showing no signs of fiscal responsibility. His answer is to just print more money, which is a great idea obviously. The health care bill only adds about 200 billion to our spending, and if the government doesn't figure out this tax situation Americans are about to have their tax burden increase dramatically. Always a great thing while trying to recover from a recession.
The more I watch the assholes in Washington screw things up the closer I come to becoming an all out anarcho-capitalist.
Telegram Sam
Uncle Sam
Certainly would have gone up had Romney been elected, but it's still higher than when Bush left office contrary to Obama's promise in 2008.Neither party is interested in being responsible when it comes to spending.
Sears
Uncle Sam
While that is probably true, the point is still a fair one. We spend way too much on our military.
Sears
Yeah, to spend close to a trillion a year is ridiculous to be fair. America should really stop getting involved in most wars that happen around the world (not only that, but they've thousands of troops still stationed in Okinawa off the coast of Japan (don't need to be there), some in Europe (again don't need to be there) and Middle East + South Korea (probably need to be there, not sure about Korea though?)) but then again I probably don't have a clue what I'm talking about
But why, in your opinion, do you think America feels the need to spend so much on their military?
Uncle Sam
You're right about us having troops stationed in parts of the world where they don't need to be. Countries like Germany, Japan, and Korea can defend themselves. All of our foreign military bases should be closed and our troops brought home. That would drastically cut our spending and get things started toward cutting into our national debt.
Telegram Sam