2012 US Presidential Election discussion.

vesicles said:

My goodness, the same happened to us. Only our polling place was moved to an elementary school closer to our house. I went to the old place first and it was packed! I was even more depressed when I found out that I was in the wrong place. However, there was hardly a line at the new place and I was able to finish it within 20 minute. I love it! Well, except the fact that I didn't get that "I voted" pin...

Click to expand...

Interesting. Over here AFAIK we always go to the local school (or city hall). I vote at the same school my grandparents voted in (though not at last election, as the school was being renovated for the first time since the 50s...my mother recognized her old desk when she came for the teacher meetings), and I live in a big city. One would say it is strange that -important- facts like where to vote drowns out in the electoral nightmare/circus that is the US presidential election in face of unsubtantial debates

EDIT: So apparently there actually are some cases of use of churches. I would guess this is OK because up until the last election we actually had a state church over here (lutheran-evangelical).

solarz said:

And this is why you shouldn't mix politics and religion.

Click to expand...

yeah, i find it very interesting that all those conservatives never voiced ONE CRITICISM while so called christian churches all over america participated in state segregationist policies by having segregated congregations and holding segregated services.

where was either the core constitutional value of separation of church and state, or the fundamental core christian value of equality before god, then? both were conveniently ignored in order to uphold america's fundamental value of white supremacy.

some of us refuse to forget those inconvenient truths of america's historical inequality, no matter who tells us they're not important.

america's history of moral, spiritual, legal, and logical hypocrisy is such an easy subject that it's not even a challenging discussion.

thankfully, last night was a gettysburgh, of sorts.

maybe, now, that history of inequality can be consigned to the dust bin of history.

I remember the Bush-Gore election when everyone was bringing up their "odd" voting experience as to suggest tampering. They've got nothing compared to me. I remember hearing claims of election fraud because they didn't see a lock on a ballot box. It was only until recently I actually saw a lock on a secure ballot box where I go vote. The majority of elections I've participated in voting, it was a beat-up cardboard box with a slit cut on top to slip your ballot through with one flap folded over the next as security. Then there was the year where all of the sudden I was a non-partisan independent affiliated with no party. Regarding my polling place... It always changes from the school nearby to a church further away. I'm amazed by how close different polling places are with my friends who live in lighter populated suburbs. They're literally just two blocks away from each other. The church where I had to go vote was almost a mile away.

Here's an interesting read and take on the perspective of a so called political polarized nation. Remember Obama won the electoral college in a pretty wide gap, but in the total popular votes it was a lot closer.

One thing to take away from this election is that the whole nation is moving to the left because of Latino and other minorities votes, as well as increasing young people, social issues etc.. On the other side, there is still the old voters that believe in the so call "traditional values" that they hold for decades.

Republican did well actually, they would have won if this is the year 2000, because they did well with middle-older age white male voters.

Only way for Republican to not lose election in the future is to move to the left, much left, but if they do that, they will lose their traditional older white voters which on paper still constitutes majority of population.

So basically one of two things will happen

1. Democrats move more to the left, Republican move more to the right or stay where they are and nation became divided more than ever and Republican will keep loosing. This is similar to the States feel prior to the civil war, where both side got radicalized by their own ideology and no one wants to compromise.

2. Republicans and democrats should work together along with the media to turn the nation toward more left leaning sentiments overall, stop hating everyone in the media, stop hating the gays, stop hating the Mexican, Asians, Blacks etc... So that they can help to change the older white male's attitudes. This is actually what the civil right movements have done in the 60-70s, where it pretty much make everyone more politically correct on the outside, but whatever they feel on the inside is another matter, but the end goal is done.

The best outcome is for the 2nd case to occur, however this will be harder in today's environment, because as economy gets bad, people will be more radicalized and they tend to want to look for the "villain" from outside rather than within, this is where you are seeing Europe right now the far right political party are gaining popularity, and their main agenda is anti-immigrant, anti-outsider, anti people that does not look like me. Also there is the fact that older white males are the demographics that have the most closed mind people, simply due to their age and background.

However on the other hand, those problems are not so hard as to unable to overcome like slavery issues before the civil war. But if this keep going on where both side are getting increasing radicalized to their own believes, one way to keep the peace is by both side to have the same amount of power to balance each other out, which is very similar to the decades before the civil war broke out. However as soon as one side's power began to overriding the other side, and the other side see they cannot gain anymore from participation in the political process, it is very possible for them to take radical measures such as more independence from the Federal Government, and depends on how the government reacts, civil war is not out of the question down the line.

jackliu said:

One thing to take away from this election is that the whole nation is moving to the left because of Latino and other minorities votes, as well as increasing young people, social issues etc.. On the other side, there is still the old voters that believe in the so call "traditional values" that they hold for decades.

Republican did well actually, they would have won if this is the year 2000, because they did well with middle-older age white male voters.

Only way for Republican to not lose election in the future is to move to the left, much left, but if they do that, they will lose their traditional older white voters which on paper still constitutes majority of population.

Click to expand...

I predict that when Obama's second term is up, the Republicans are going to be swept into office.

One of the main reasons why Obama got re-elected is because most Americans despite four years of Obama still blame their economic woes on Bush. And if you look at the popular vote in the elections you will see that the numbers are much closer something like 50,4% of the votes for Obama and 48,1% of the votes for Romney. With a voter turnout rate between 57 to 60%.

Aside from the presidential elections on tuesday there was also a non binding referendum in Puerto Rico about its future status. And it seems that a majority of the people there have voted to formally join the US as the 51st state. Do anyone know if this will actually happen and in what time frame ?

Puerto Rico wants to become the 51st state of the US

Voters in Puerto Rico have supported a non-binding referendum to become a full US state.

The measure will require approval from the US Congress, but President Barack Obama has said he will respect the vote.

The island is currently a US territory, which uses the dollar and whose citizens travel on US passports.

But it does not return senators to the US Congress and is represented in Washington by a non-voting delegate.

Almost 80% of the island's electorate took part in the referendum, the fourth in the past 45 years.

With almost all the votes counted, almost 54% voted to change the island's relationship with the US.

And in reply to a second question on what future they favoured, nearly two-thirds wanted full statehood.

If Congress grants its approval, Puerto Ricans would have the right to vote in all US elections, but would also have to pay federal taxes, something at present they are excused from.

The island came under US control in 1898 when Spain lost the island at the end of the Spanish-American war.

Ties were strengthened in 1917 when Puerto Ricans became US citizens and were allowed to serve in the military.
'No other option'

There are now almost a million more Puerto Ricans in the US than on the island.

Supreme Court judge Sonia Sotomayor, singer Jennifer Lopez and the former jazz musician Tito Puente are all of Puerto Rican descent, though all three were born in New York.

Ties between the island and the mainland are strong and many on the island considered it inevitable that a full union be requested.

A young voter in the capital San Juan, Jerome Lefebre, said: "Puerto Rico has to be a state. There is no other option.

"We're doing okay, but we could do better. We would receive more benefits, a lot more financial help."

But that opinion was rejected by Ramon Lopez de Azua: "Puerto Rico's problem is not its political status.

"I think that the United States is the best country in the world, but I am Puerto Rican first."

The island has been hit hard by the current recession - it has debts of $68bn (£42bn) and unemployment is more than 13%.

President Barack Obama, who visited the island last year, has said he will respect the will of Puerto Ricans if there is a clear majority.

Any change would require approval by the US Congress.

Click to expand...

Jeff Head said:

First, I never said GOP or Republican Party.

I am actually an Independent, and espouse what are these days called, Consevative Principles. I am willing to vote for anyone, of any party, who espouses those same principles, and have done so.

In this election, I believed Romney was much closer to them than I believe Obama is...but the people have made their choice, and now we must move on.

As to the House of Representatives, the more every-day type people we get there who espouse modern conservative principles, the better, no matter which party they belong to. So, please do not read more into my writing than what is there...had you asked, I could have explained it to you without such a public exchange.

My letter was not meant to say that the GOP=God's will. In fact, my intent was to clearly state to others that God's will transcended the election itself and that I am more than willing to accept His will and work for the long term improvement of the country by working with other parties, whomever they may be, in the advancement of fundamental moral and economic prionciples.

Click to expand...

What do you view as modern conservative principles?

I always thought conservative principles were about fiscal conservatism, humble foreign policy and pragmatic approach. If you just stick with those principles, you have a very attractive platform.

But then problem is the Republican party adds in the social conservatism element which is not very attractive to most blue states. And that's only going to get more unattractive over time. The other part is the strong national defense element, which just ends up looking like war mongering.

I consider myself an evangelical Christian and also friends with mostly Christians. I literally want to tear my clothes off when I heard those "rape" comments by Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock. They make Christians look like the most intolerant crazy people around. That's what a lot of people associate Republican party to over here in New York and California. You can't blame them. Who was the last Republican president that actually reduced the size of the government?

Franklin said:

One accidental Obama voter

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

If something seems too good to be true, chances are, it is too good to be true.

Not even Dubya is that inept.

tphuang said:

I always thought conservative principles were about fiscal conservatism, humble foreign policy and pragmatic approach. If you just stick with those principles, you have a very attractive platform.

But then problem is the Republican party adds in the social conservatism element which is not very attractive to most blue states. And that's only going to get more unattractive over time. The other part is the strong national defense element, which just ends up looking like war mongering.

Click to expand...

i do so admire independent thinkers!