It's premature, but I'm going to call it in favour of Obama. Although I haven't seen Florida yet and am rather inebriated.
Thank you America, you saved the world from another right wing bible bashing nutcase. Guess I can hold off building that Nuclear bunker I was thinking of making if Romney got into power.
Fist of all the amount of Obama bias on the BBC is sickening, I wish they would just stick to the facts rather than putting their spin on it. This is from a (overreaching) Ronmey fan that I know on facebook, but it's interesting to see their point of view on the election Massachusetts - 61% Obama, 37% Romney Let's look at something. Romney was elected governor. Massachusetts was dead last in job creation. It had above-average unemployment. It was illegally running a large deficit. The state's 'rainy day' fund was drying out. The population wanted someone to fix the state. They elected Romney. Romney looked at the current budget(not his, the one passed before he got there). He said 'Hey, this isn't balanced. We have to cut some things. So, he asked the legislature for special power to make cuts, and balanced the budget. People affected by the cuts didn't like Romney. They wanted him to fix their problems, but they didn't want any pain. For 4 more years, Romney balanced every budget. He had to veto 250 expenditures his last year to do so. His vetoes were overturned, so he used that special power to cut that spending anyway. 4 years of balanced budgets. 4 years of people getting mad at him for cutting 'their' programs. He also increased revenues, increased fees. He closed down loopholes that banks were using to transfer value to other states. Conservatives didn't like him raising fees. The banks didn't like him forcing them to pay taxes. In the end, Massachusetts was 28th in job creation... where 4 years before it had been 50th. Unemployment was in the mid 4%s, where it had been around 6%. The state was #1 in education, where it had been #6. But people were mad. Conservatives were upset about revenue increases. Progressives were mad about cuts. Now, Massachusetts overwhelmingly voted for Obama. This is the problem with America. Even people who experienced Romney's ability to turn things around, overwhelmingly decided they like a guy who promises them free stuff with no pain more. Every year, more entitled kids will turn into 'adults'. Every year, more hard-working people from previous generations will pass on. The problem is only going to get worse. TL;DR Americans want a politician who can promise to fix everything, without any pain. Since that can't happen, they will never get things fixed. Now, I truly believe we are going to have to crash... I think it is inevitable at this point. Romney was the country's last hope, and we said 'No thanks'.
There is a far wider political discussion than is necessary to have here included within this post. Suffice to say, I cannot respond to this guy in good conscience without turning him into a strawman, just as he has done with Obama supporters.
At the end of the day all we have now is 4 years of not very much happening. Regardless of who's in power trying to please all the people all of the time just results in nothing happening.
What has he achieved? because as far as I can see he's done nothing at all? In fact I'd go further and say he's done pretty much the opposite of what he would do in several key promises. Expanding Americas wars and Guantanamo bay. I wouldn't have voted for either of them, Obama has done nothing, and is shaping up to be the worse President in American history, and I don't trust Romney. I would of voted for a third party candidate.
he's done **** all except break pretty much every electoral promise he made. He talks a good game, but that's it.
You've got to give him credit where it is due. He is very good on TV, he is charismatic and he pretty much always says the right thing.
im glad the USA made the right choice. Obama may not have done much to improve America but he has steadied the ship. Romney much like our labour party want to spend our way out and also cause conflicts around the world.
I only have one thing to say here, Gary Johnson. Seriously, look at the guys ideals and look at what he wanted to do and it makes a ton of sense. The problem is the general population of my country (and lets be honest here, most countries) will blindly vote for the political party they support without really looking at the situation. I'm personally disappointed that Obama has been re-elected, but I love my country, and I want us to do the best we possibly can, so I'm still going to try and support the president because I want us to get back on track.
I'm sorry but you are just plain wrong here. He made way to many promises to get elected, everyone revered him as a messiah and look where it has gotten us. The unemployment rate hasn't changed at all, there has been almost 0 job creation, he has raised our debt exponentially and keeps making government programs that we can't afford to pander to people that want to be given free things and taken care of. He is a great orator and he comes across as a nice enough guy, but he really hasn't improved the situation in my country at all. Also, no more of the tired excuse of "It'll take a lot of time to fix because Bush ****ed it all up" cause thats bullshit. In 4 years you would expect to start seeing some progress if the plans you put in place are really working, but they clearly aren't because it hasn't gotten better. As much as I didn't like the guy when he got elected (and still don't), I wanted him to do well to get my country back on track, but after this long of pretty much nothing improving, its hard to not be disillusioned with him (or at least for the democrats I would think it would be). Now don't get me wrong, I'm not the hugest Romney fan by any stretch of the imagination. Economically I think he is a lot more sound than Obama, but on social issues the Republican party is so out of touch nowadays, which is why I have slowly felt myself fall out of touch with the party as well. Not surprised to hear that the BBC vehemently supports Obama, I mean no offense, but the English tend to be quite liberal and PC. So yea, don't read anything on there because it will be completely biased and won't help you to come to any actual truths. Hence why in the states I don't read Fox, MSNBC, Huffington Post, etc because they are so biased to one side or the other.
The scary thing is that as news organisations go the BBC is pretty neutral! Which is very different to saying it is neutral This can usually be picked up in the science articles where they have to present a balance view. Sadly one side of the article is normally some nutcase who is opposed to scientific fact... but that's a whole other argument. Never take anything at face value: "Don't just teach your children to read... teach them to question what they read, teach them to question everything"
The BBC is considered the neutral one in England? Damn, I dunno if I could handle that. But yea like you say, its "neutral" Gotta love the nutcase who opposes clear and obvious science. That actually does bug me a little bit not gonna lie, but yea, a different argument for sure Also, like that last bit. My parents have always told me to do that exactly, and I never take stuff at face value, especially with politics. Doing proper research is always good as it helps give you a well balanced viewpoint.
The situation is pretty dire as far as major news corporations go in this country. There's certain areas where the BBC is actually pretty good but the problem is that its run by people, and people will always be people....
