Obama has won
 

Well done President Obama, on achieving your second term after a closely fought contest.

I'm not his biggest fan, but its a case of selecting the lesser of the tragedies (imo).

Hopefully much of his policies were about playing the centralist position to enable this second term, and now he'll take it more to the left and at the least come good on a national health care.

IMHO that's what's dooming our country. "The lesser of two evils". Its a horrible destructive way of thinking. It may buy us a few extra years but so what? Just be prepared to apologize to your children and grandchildren. "Sorry you're all impoverished but I bought myself a few extra years of delaying having a financially responsible government so I was able to keep spending."

If this is truly the "lessor of two evils" - I'll take it any day of the week.

Yyyyeeeeaaaahhh no.

Are you proposing that no 16 year olds will die as a result of Romney's military policies? If so, please elaborate.

Yes Gay marriage is the ONLY issue that matters. A number of years from now when America is in complete poverty people will look back and say, "We don't have enough money or jobs for food or shelter but thank god we had a president that liked homosexuals and had a lot of flowery rhetoric that sounded nice." I'm all for gay marriage but Jesus people need to set their priorities straight.

I don't know for sure if Romney's policies would've solved more economic problems than Obama's policies, but I also have no reason to believe that America will be in complete poverty under Obama.

Obama had four years. Much of his impact, whether good or bad, has yet to be seen. Its not like he inhereted a utopia and screwed it up. There's still many lingering problems caused by his predecessors (both Republican and Democrat).

The problem Obama will face is getting the balance between the ideological and the realism. The 1% could up and leave if tax hikes are too disagreeable. If he harms small businesses and the middle class, he'll fail and surely he knows that. There's a lot of scare mongering. I see nothing in his policies to suggest he's trying to exterminate the middle class or small businesses, or that he'll be zealous to the point of driving the 1% overseas, or that he'll cripple the economy.

That's the other thing as evidenced by your post. People think there were only 2 candidates running. I mean they must be legitimately unaware there's a 3rd party they can vote for. As long as people have this "don't waste your vote or vote the other guy out by voting for the lesser of 2 evils" our problems will continue to snowball. We're in such deep shit now that a candidate is unelectable and is looked upon as a looney if he promotes fiscal responsibility.

If a president inherits a bad situation does that automatically mean he should get 8 years to turn things around? Why not 16? Why not make him a dictator? What arbitrary number of years should we give him? How did you come up with that number? Are we going to keep hearing excuses 4 years from now when the economy is still sluggish?

Also the Democrats had a lot of control in Congress when shit hit the fan almost exactly around the time our economy started to tank. A president isn't a dictator. If you're putting blame on just one man & the rest of them get off Scott free like they did again when most of them got reelected this week then you need to rethink things. Frank, Reid, Pelosi, etc. I see from my fellow liberals this current Republican group doesn't quite get the same leash and excuses as they do for Obama. But again people in this country have a sports minded mentality when it comes to politics.

What candidate do you think has a better chance of pulling us out of our economic slump? And how will their policies do that?

@ Creekin, It is arbitrary, I don't have formulae to show the precise length of time a President requires for most policies to take effect. Why not 9? or 11? I don't know. Its good to question that. Why is it 4 years per term? should it be reduced/increased? however, I don't know.

I agree with you on this. But the solution wont come from the system itself, or brought on by mainstream media outlets. People must demand a systemic change. They're not ready to do that yet. The partisanship, scapegoating, and hypocrisy will continue much to the detriment of a true democracy.

I don't know what the future holds for the U.S and the World, but my guess is that unless we control Worldwide population size, i.e controlling demand, things will rapidly deteriorate, irrespective of which of the U.S Presidential candidates was elected.

Did I miss Jim being ban-hammered? Damnit! I wanted to rub Obama's victory in his face! :(

I like Gary Johnson or Ron Paul. Very broad question... I'll start with cease the borrowing/spending let alone the out-of-control borrowing/spending, not policing the world and creating these reckless ongoing wars, progressive cut backs across the board over a gradual extended period of time, slowly give people their freedoms and right to choose and stop rewarding reckless bad behavior (individuals, businesses, homeowners, corporations, etc.) by bailouts, audit the Fed, bring back the gold standard, flat tax, embrace a progressively growing free market, ensure the government's main function is to protect individual property rights and freedoms (not a safety net, not a charity, not a health insurance agency, not a world police, etc.) and on and on...

In order to do that we have to fundamentally change our mentality on the function of government. I just don't see that happening anytime in the near future. We're creating a dependent society latched upon an authoritarian government. Just like every other doomed country throughout history. We're doing absolutely nothing different than any other nation has tried and eventually failed in the past. We have to protect ourselves from the tyranny of the majority. It basically boils down to a Libertarian government vs Authoritarian government. We went from groups of unknown farmers to a world power by the early 20th century. Did we need all of these new government programs/principles we have today to do that? No. I like that kind of growth and would like to see that happen again.

The Democrats had control of Congress for about 4 months during Obama's presidency.

That's why we should be a Republic to protect ourselves from the tyranny of the majority.

Its not population that's the problem its resources and the number one cause of resources getting squeezed is government intervening into the free market. Government is force. Plain and simple. Take out all the flowery rhetoric and that's exactly what it boils down to. Of course we need government force to protect our property and freedoms but beyond that all it pretty much does is restrict, stunts growth, bans, confines people into these tight dense population spaces and suffocates true production which would otherwise service the needs of a rapidly growing population.

We need a set plan that doesn't just sound good for right now. We need a plan that will be good for the near future and for the ongoing future. You don't set out on a plan just because its sounds good or just because we've done it in the past (you know the thinking no policy should ever be tried unless it has already been tried). People who love to be a pragmatist and avoid "theory" in favor of what "works." People love to criticize capitalism by its worst cases but do not ever under any circumstances compare these to the worst cases of statism.

Did anybody claim otherwise?

No, not outwardly in this thread, I suppose not. I guess then that you're proposing democrat control of congress tanked the economy in 4 months.

As much as I would love to see a Libertarian government, it just doesn't seem realistic. How many actual Libertarians are there, and of those, how many are actually going to vote for a Libertarian candidate over the 'lesser of two evils'?
Seeing as Libertarian voters could sway an election, I would assume that the majority of them would play it safe and vote for the 'lesser of two evils'. How does the society get weened into voting Libertarian?

Nope.

If you're voting for what is realistic then yes reality is where heading towards the abyss. I can't control what other people do but at least my guys won't be the ones responsible for the country tanking and the terrible fate of our children and grandchildren won't be on my conscience.

Education.

Then what was the point in all this?

I mean, when you say "blame", because they had "a lot of control in Congress," what are you blaming them for?

So the way you see it is, our situation is hopeless and were doomed no matter what unless suddenly everyone becomes more educated and elects a libertarian next term? or will it already be too late by then?
I'm struggling to see this :confused:

Democrats and Republicans but some just like to put the blame on just one party. You don't need a supermajority to get things done.

Its pretty bleak.

You need a lot of people agreeing with you. Do you think one of the more non-mainstream candidates would have as much support in Washington, or is this a case of needing to vote everyone out of Washington and start from scratch? More-or-less abolish 2 of the parties?

Yes the latter.

The point is Obama treats all Americans with human dignity, whereas Romney believes hospital visitation for same sex partners is a privilege and not a right. Its those little details that reveal Obama to be the better man. And considering the entire Republican party wants to bomb Iran into oblivion (killing untold numbers of innocents in the process), it's hard to take your drone-strike counter-point seriously.

So "treating people with dignity" or whatever that means means that everyone has to be forced to purchase health insurance otherwise they get taxed & punished for it? Killing innocent people across seas with drones, unprecedented giving direct orders to kill an American citizen without a trial? Breaking his promise to close the torture chamber Gitmo. Raising the debt of this nation (just like other presidents yes but still) raised it at a record pace) placing more financial burdens on future generations. Signed a bill that would detain AMERICAN CITIZENS INDEFINITELY without a trial! And on and on and on... I suppose we both have different definitions of "treating people with dignity". Oh yeah he's such a cool nice man. You're seriously going to use one single issue instead of the thousands upon thousands of other issues to define his character?

And I'm not talking about the God damn Republicans! Jesus you can never talk about the problems with the Democrat Party without liberals mentioning the Republicans. Shit no wonder we're stuck with these two sucky parties.

You seem to think we're heading for the apocalypse. Why criticize peoples' opinions of the two party system when you yourself see no real solution? You say your solution is to educate people on politics, but you must know that that is highly unrealistic? How do you educate an entire population in four years? I'm sure you have an answer for that, but honestly, how realistic is your answer? How likely is it that four years from now we'll be electing a Libertarian president?
So if we're doomed for this bleak future, and there's no chance of educating the masses before it's too late, then what is your point?
Again i'm struggling to understand it, please inform me so I can learn from it. :confused:

Its a solution. I don't need to hear how realistic a solution is or not when its still a solution. You know what I think is unrealistic? Heading in this same direction and believing we're going to be ok. Keep printing money, expanding government and encroaching on our basic rights to property and freedom. Its been the same for a very long time and it going to catch up to us. That's the reality. That's real. Its not just going to disappear. If nobody wants to listen then whatever we deserve what we get. Its just a shame future generations have to suffer. The apocalypse isn't imminent but its like that anecdote of a frog in boiling water. Want to wear rose colored glasses? Hey whatever lets you sleep at night I guess.

The whole discussion for the past 2 days has stemmed from your response to a "lessor of two evils" point that was made.

But there I was replying to 'the other guys are worse so that automatically makes my guys the best' mentality. Its like saying Hitler was the worst but Stalin is the best because we have no other choice for best world leader in world history. Democrats are on here like 'its finally our turn now'. No its been your time for a while now and the Republicans. Its time to go for both because both share equally (more or less) in the responsibility.

I hear you, but am pointing out why you might be hearing people mentioning Republicans.


The one thing about Obama winning - there was this blonde girl dancing at the democratic headquarters. She was wearing blue and seemed to be pretty much in the middle of everything. I'm surprised if no one has made a Facebook page or Twitter account for her. If we are going to get face time with pictures of upset Romney supporters, I want to see a whole movie surrounding this young lady.

How can you consider that to be a plausible solution when it's so unlikely? A sudden emergence of world peace and equality is equally unlikely, why not just make that your solution?
It takes time to educate a whole country. And it takes a lot more than convincing to make 300 million people suddenly start thinking differently.
Is there any reason to believe that your solution ever has a chance of succeeding?
How many steps would the government have to take in order for that to be a reality?

Also there are good signs that the economy is improving. What do you chalk that up to?

So if you don't think something good is possible you make matters worse instead? I don't get what point you are trying to make. There can be no world peace so lets make world war? Just keep doing bad things because probably only bad things are going to happen? "Meh there's nothing I can do to change things so I'll just keep feeding the problem." Well that's very inspiring but I'll fight for what I believe in no matter how daunting the feasibility of it is but that's just me. I'm not interested in what other people think can or can not happen I'm interested in what is right and so should everyone else.

People said a lot of things were unrealistic 100, 200, 300... years ago that are very real today. If people only fought for what they believe what was 'realistic' we wouldn't have ventured to outer space, sailed across the Atlantic ocean, invented all the different technologies we have today, never bothered to fight against the British, never thought to have ended slavery, racism, sexism etc. Times change and are changing all the time. Look at the massive change in our culture between the 1950s and the 1960s. Who's to tell you times can't or won't change again? The only constant in the universe is change and not the fake change our current chief of state's slogan was.

There's always 'signs' the economy is improving. Is it really improving? No. Its smoke and mirrors delaying the inevitable the direction we're heading. If you are personally borrowing more than you pay in then immediately once you borrow a lot more times are ok for a while (and signs of improvement) until your debt catches up on you again. Rinse/repeat. No nation can withstand this massive debt long term. Let me know once we're back down to 12 figures let alone 13. Spending money like drunken sailors as if we have money to burn. Do I think we're in deep shit. Yeah its almost a certainty by now we fall into the abyss but fuck it I'll fight anyway because yes I'll also believe anything is possible no matter how someone says how unrealistic something is. It is more possible than you may think.

If they can't create a villain they can't create a hero.

Some of the time: yes; other times: no.

These things have ended? :confused:

So encourage it instead?

Then the same goes for the other party as well.