Jump to content

2012 U.S. Elections - President Obama Re-elected


Range_This11
 Share

Presidential Election  

78 members have voted

  1. 1. Which Candidate Will You Vote For?

    • Mitt Romney
      8
    • Barack Obama
      55
    • Other (For all you Ron Paulers)
      15


Recommended Posts

So just to confirm, ItsASpork. We're wagering our signatures for the two months following the election - from November 7th to January 7th. I'm betting that Mitt Romney will receive more total votes than Barack Obama, and you're betting that Barack Obama will receive more total votes than Mitt Romney. Keep in mind the signature must follow forum rules.

[hide]

2.4 - Signatures and Avatars

Forum Signature Limits are 500 pixels wide by 250 pixels high by 150Kb file size. There is a 10 image limit to a signature, but the combined dimensions/file size of all the images may not exceed 500 x 250 pixels x 150Kb. Avatar limits are 100 pixels wide by 100 pixels high, by 100Kb file size. Images in hide tags are still subject to our size restrictions. For signatures with images (regardless of size or how many) there will be a limit of 4 lines of text or 10 lines of text if you put them inside a hide tag. Each use of quote tags counts as one line of text in addition to the number of lines being quoted. In the case of signatures without images, please exercise common sense with the amount used. Excessive text in an imageless signature and other excessive or disruptive images or text will be removed at a moderator's discretion.

 

We do not permit religious, racial or sexual references/proclamations in signatures or avatars, this includes images and text. Quotes made by religious figures are allowable in signatures if the name is removed and the content of the quote does not promote or demote any religion. Religious, racial and sexual orientation content is permitted in the About Me section of profiles only, as long as the content is not bashing another religion/race/sexual orientation or advertising conversion.

 

All other Tip.it Forum Rules apply in signatures, avatars and profiles (including the About Me section). However, the board Administrators reserve the right for final authorization and may approve, request you to change, or outright remove any image or text regardless of size, especially if it's deemed inappropriate.[/hide]


  •  

I'm going to ask that you post your signature on Tuesday, and I'll do the same. Let me know if there's any other conditions you'd like on the bet.

 

 

 

Also Range, are you willing to take me up on the avatar bet?

 

Sounds good, I'll come up with something tonight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there's some difference between obama and romney....not that I'd vote for either. Canadian ftw biggrin.png

I think I'd prefer Obama to Harper.

 

It will be bad enough for an overhaul when the people rise up and seize power by force, because that is probably the only way it will ever happen. I am going to guess that since the founding fathers went out of their way to create a democratic system without the power of an actual democracy, that they probably installed some kind of legal barrier to government reform, though I'm not sure about electoral reform. Besides, you can have as many parties as you want (that isn't something that needs changing), you just don't vote for them. You can't exactly legislate that (at least not if you want to be democratic about it).

 

If you ask me, you need to change your system to acknowledge air travel. There is no reason it still needs to take 6 months, because the candidates no longer visit every state by horse.

 

I actually quite like Harper...gets a lot more done with a lot less power compared to obama. Anyway, that's for another topic...

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Randox, the switch between fourth and fifth republics in France didn't require an insurrection, and there was talk of changing the electoral system less than a year ago (might still be going).

Matt: You want that eh? You want everything good for you. You want everything that's--falls off garbage can

Camera guy: Whoa, haha, are you okay dude?

Matt: You want anything funny that happens, don't you?

Camera guy: still laughing

Matt: You want the funny shit that happens here and there, you think it comes out of your [bleep]ing [wagon] pushes garbage can down, don't you? You think it's funny? It comes out of here! running towards Camera guy

Camera guy: runs away still laughing

Matt: You think the funny comes out of your mother[bleep]ing creativity? Comes out of Satan, mother[bleep]er! nn--ngh! pushes Camera guy down

Camera guy: Hoooholy [bleep]!

Matt: FUNNY ISN'T REAL! FUNNY ISN'T REAL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it's nice to know that humans have managed major government reform at least once without a war. It's also encouraging that it was a republic that did it. I can't say I have had many chances to observe how democratic nations handle that sort of thing (doesn't seem to come up much). And history has never been my strong suit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there's some difference between obama and romney....not that I'd vote for either. Canadian ftw biggrin.png

I think I'd prefer Obama to Harper.

 

It will be bad enough for an overhaul when the people rise up and seize power by force, because that is probably the only way it will ever happen. I am going to guess that since the founding fathers went out of their way to create a democratic system without the power of an actual democracy, that they probably installed some kind of legal barrier to government reform, though I'm not sure about electoral reform. Besides, you can have as many parties as you want (that isn't something that needs changing), you just don't vote for them. You can't exactly legislate that (at least not if you want to be democratic about it).

 

If you ask me, you need to change your system to acknowledge air travel. There is no reason it still needs to take 6 months, because the candidates no longer visit every state by horse.

 

I actually quite like Harper...gets a lot more done with a lot less power compared to obama. Anyway, that's for another topic...

The two leaders are in two different positions power-wise. I can't see how you can argue that Harper "gets a lot more done" when what he had proposed in the past required less reforms than what Obama wanted to do.

22031_s.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there's some difference between obama and romney....not that I'd vote for either. Canadian ftw biggrin.png

I think I'd prefer Obama to Harper.

 

It will be bad enough for an overhaul when the people rise up and seize power by force, because that is probably the only way it will ever happen. I am going to guess that since the founding fathers went out of their way to create a democratic system without the power of an actual democracy, that they probably installed some kind of legal barrier to government reform, though I'm not sure about electoral reform. Besides, you can have as many parties as you want (that isn't something that needs changing), you just don't vote for them. You can't exactly legislate that (at least not if you want to be democratic about it).

 

If you ask me, you need to change your system to acknowledge air travel. There is no reason it still needs to take 6 months, because the candidates no longer visit every state by horse.

 

I actually quite like Harper...gets a lot more done with a lot less power compared to obama. Anyway, that's for another topic...

The two leaders are in two different positions power-wise. I can't see how you can argue that Harper "gets a lot more done" when what he had proposed in the past required less reforms than what Obama wanted to do.

 

You forget that he was a minority government leader in a type of democracy where the leader has much less power than in the Unites States.

 

Not to mention that Obama chose to try to push things that required a lot of work.

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Now I'm very well aware that this is intentionally one-sided and cherry-picked to get stupid people in the video (although I have a hard time doubting there were many articulate, well-informed Romney supporters there). I'm also aware you could do this same thing for Obama supporters and get much of the same ignorance. But jeez, it just disturbs me how deluded these people are. Especially the lady who said that Obama's father was a "Muslim atheist," what the [bleep]. And the guy near the end who says that the Buddhists are trying to take away our "freedoms," hahaha. Can't wait to see Romney lose tomorrow.

  • Like 5

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's fair to base your opinion of a politician on the kind of people who follow him (not saying you're doing that but still).

 

Romney being fundamentally dishonest bothers me far more than the TP generally being idiots.

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there's some difference between obama and romney....not that I'd vote for either. Canadian ftw biggrin.png

I think I'd prefer Obama to Harper.

 

It will be bad enough for an overhaul when the people rise up and seize power by force, because that is probably the only way it will ever happen. I am going to guess that since the founding fathers went out of their way to create a democratic system without the power of an actual democracy, that they probably installed some kind of legal barrier to government reform, though I'm not sure about electoral reform. Besides, you can have as many parties as you want (that isn't something that needs changing), you just don't vote for them. You can't exactly legislate that (at least not if you want to be democratic about it).

 

If you ask me, you need to change your system to acknowledge air travel. There is no reason it still needs to take 6 months, because the candidates no longer visit every state by horse.

 

I actually quite like Harper...gets a lot more done with a lot less power compared to obama. Anyway, that's for another topic...

The two leaders are in two different positions power-wise. I can't see how you can argue that Harper "gets a lot more done" when what he had proposed in the past required less reforms than what Obama wanted to do.

 

You forget that he was a minority government leader in a type of democracy where the leader has much less power than in the Unites States.

 

Not to mention that Obama chose to try to push things that required a lot of work.

He used to have much less power. Now he's got a majority government to back him up which allowed him to pass some controversial bills (e.g. scrapping the gun registry).

 

Off-topic for the win.

22031_s.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He used to have much less power. Now he's got a majority government to back him up which allowed him to pass some controversial bills (e.g. scrapping the gun registry).

 

Off-topic for the win.

 

Yes, and I think given the fact that he was a minority leader much longer than he's been a majority one he did a lot as a minority leader. Sure the LGR is controversial but what bill isn't controversial?

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it's nice to know that humans have managed major government reform at least once without a war. It's also encouraging that it was a republic that did it. I can't say I have had many chances to observe how democratic nations handle that sort of thing (doesn't seem to come up much). And history has never been my strong suit.

I think they went through 23 different governments in two years during the 4th though.

Matt: You want that eh? You want everything good for you. You want everything that's--falls off garbage can

Camera guy: Whoa, haha, are you okay dude?

Matt: You want anything funny that happens, don't you?

Camera guy: still laughing

Matt: You want the funny shit that happens here and there, you think it comes out of your [bleep]ing [wagon] pushes garbage can down, don't you? You think it's funny? It comes out of here! running towards Camera guy

Camera guy: runs away still laughing

Matt: You think the funny comes out of your mother[bleep]ing creativity? Comes out of Satan, mother[bleep]er! nn--ngh! pushes Camera guy down

Camera guy: Hoooholy [bleep]!

Matt: FUNNY ISN'T REAL! FUNNY ISN'T REAL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For every vote that Romney gets because "Obsama is a terrorist", there'll be one for Obama because "Romeny is KKK".

 

I like to hope that all the stupid will cancel itself out.

Also: The first New Hampshire town to vote came out as a tie 5-5 (it had a population of 10).

The only difference between Hitler and the man next door who comes home and beats his kids every day is circumstance. The intent is the same-- to harm others.

[hide=Tifers say the darndest things]

I told her there was a secret method to doing it - and there is - but my once nimble and agile fingers were unable to perform because I was under the influence.

I would laugh, not hate. I'm a male. :(

Since when was Ireland an island...? :wall:

I actually have a hobby of licking public toilet seats.

[/hide]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matt: You want that eh? You want everything good for you. You want everything that's--falls off garbage can

Camera guy: Whoa, haha, are you okay dude?

Matt: You want anything funny that happens, don't you?

Camera guy: still laughing

Matt: You want the funny shit that happens here and there, you think it comes out of your [bleep]ing [wagon] pushes garbage can down, don't you? You think it's funny? It comes out of here! running towards Camera guy

Camera guy: runs away still laughing

Matt: You think the funny comes out of your mother[bleep]ing creativity? Comes out of Satan, mother[bleep]er! nn--ngh! pushes Camera guy down

Camera guy: Hoooholy [bleep]!

Matt: FUNNY ISN'T REAL! FUNNY ISN'T REAL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For every vote that Romney gets because "Obsama is a terrorist", there'll be one for Obama because "Romeny is KKK".

Romney is definitely not part of the KKK, nor does he represent anything about it, or its values; any reasonable person can see that. Any reasonable person can also see that Obama does not support terrorist or Islamist activity.

 

Is it perhaps reasonable, though, to suggest that beliefs held by certain extreme elements inside the Tea Party are a throwback to the KKK? Is there any real difference between saying, "I'm not sure if I'll vote for him because he's black" and "I'm not sure if I'll vote for him because he's a Muslim"? (Which Obama isn't anyway, but hypothetically speaking if he were)

 

One's discrimination based on race, the other is on religion. Apart from that, I see no difference at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that personal beliefs are a perfectly valid consideration for voting, and by extension religion can certainly come into play.

 

You are attempting to elect the person who will best represent the interests of the largest portion of the country, and having someone with similar values would seem to be a good thing. By no means does every member of any religion or denomination have the same values, but many people do see it that way.

 

I also prefer not to have any religious considerations in the same room where the laws are made as a point of general principle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tomorrow, in the morning, I am supposed to wake up at 5 AM to listen your American embassador babbling and commenting about the elections live in our national broadcasting centre...

t3aGt.png

 

So I've noticed this thread's regulars all follow similar trends.

 

RPG is constantly dealing with psycho exes.

Muggi reminds us of the joys of polygamy.

Saq is totally oblivious to how much chicks dig him.

I strike out every other week.

Kalphite wages a war against the friend zone.

Randox pretty much stays rational.

Etc, etc

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then again there are definitely people who won't vote for Romney due to him being a Mormon.

 

One of the reasons I won't be voting for Romney is because of 9/11. We're just not ready to have a person belonging to his religion in our White House.

 

The Democrats are going to have an early lead, and then the Republicans are going to get off work.

 

[spoiler=All in a good day's work]l8JJG.jpg

 

 

Amen, brother! Even though I don't agree with your radical liberal views, at least we share some common ground. Bob Dole.

SWAG

 

Mayn U wanna be like me but U can't be me cuz U ain't got ma swagga on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.