Page 2 of 10
#41
I'm pretty sure we're gonna be fine, but nothing magical is going to happen. Just like the past 4 years, where nothing really bad happened, and nothing really good happened. Because its been a long time since anything actually happened to America besides people making a fuss over fairly small things. The same would have been true if Romney won, he just seems like a bit of a jerk to me, and I'd rather have a chill president that does nothing than an aggressive president who does nothing.
Quote by Trowzaa
what specs is your pc? like how much ram?


Quote by Hydra150
[IMG]http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large-5/three-rams-steve-mckinzie.jpg[/IMG]


Quote by eGraham
3 ram, nice

#42
What's the popular vote at right now? Kinda curious?
"Pain or damage don't end the world nor despair, nor fuckin' beatings. The world ends when you're dead, until then you have more punishment in store. Stand it like a man, and give some back."
#43
Quote by Toadvine
What's the popular vote at right now? Kinda curious?


Obama's up by about 100,000.
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
#44
Quote by Toadvine
What's the popular vote at right now? Kinda curious?


Obama is slightly ahead, likely to get about 50% of the vote.
#45
Quote by Toadvine
What's the popular vote at right now? Kinda curious?

50,229,000 Obama
50,105,000 Romney
___

Quote by The_Blode
she was saying things like... do you want to netflix and chill but just the chill part...too bad she'll never know that I only like the Netflix part...
#46
Does no one else think it's odd that the voting populous is divided almost exactly in half?
#48
Quote by W4RP1G
Does no one else think it's odd that the voting populous is divided almost exactly in half?

Nah, it's pretty much an inevitability in a first past the post system.
But boys will be boys and girls have those eyes
that'll cut you to ribbons, sometimes
and all you can do is just wait by the moon
and bleed if it's what she says you ought to do
#49
Quote by W4RP1G
Does no one else think it's odd that the voting populous is divided almost exactly in half?


That's rather the point of a duopoly.
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
#50
Quote by W4RP1G
Does no one else think it's odd that the voting populous is divided almost exactly in half?


If you followed before the actual election, they've kind of been expecting it to happen. It was an incredibly close vote.

Really I dont understand why it was so damn close. I don't see how anyone could think Romney was a good choice for president, but hey whatever.
#51
Quote by captaincrunk
that's what a 2 party system is designed to do

It's designed to divide the country in half? Why not just make 2 different countries rather than forcing everyone to compromise? I'm not really asking for an answer to that question, just saying is all.
#52
Quote by W4RP1G
It's designed to divide the country in half? Why not just make 2 different countries rather than forcing everyone to compromise? I'm not really asking for an answer to that question, just saying is all.


Because if you were going to start dividing states based on people's political opinions then you would end up with 7 billion different countries on this planet.
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
#53
Quote by W4RP1G
It's designed to divide the country in half? Why not just make 2 different countries rather than forcing everyone to compromise? I'm not really asking for an answer to that question, just saying is all.




That didn't work out so well last time people tried it.
THE FORUM UPDATE KILLED THE GRADIENT STAR

Baltimore Orioles: 2014 AL Eastern Division Champions, 2017: 30-26
Baltimore Ravens: 2012 World Champions, 2016: 8-8
2017 NFL Pick 'Em: 0-0
#54
Quote by W4RP1G
It's designed to divide the country in half? Why not just make 2 different countries rather than forcing everyone to compromise? I'm not really asking for an answer to that question, just saying is all.

because people can't afford to move, and then you have two single party countries that would find out that single party systems are even worse
#55
Quote by Todd Hart
Because if you were going to start dividing states based on people's political opinions then you would end up with 7 billion different countries on this planet.

That's one hell of an exaggeration. Most people don't do independent research and form all of their own political opinions, they jump on board with their party's beliefs(for various reasons).

Besides, the libertarian approach of letting each state decide their policies would provide better options than what we have now.
#56
Quote by W4RP1G
That's one hell of an exaggeration. Most people don't do independent research and form all of their own political opinions, they jump on board with their party's beliefs(for various reasons).

Besides, the libertarian approach of letting each state decide their policies would provide better options than what we have now.


There are thousands of issues to have a stance on and everyone has a stance on them, whether they know it or not. Given the number of issues to address, the chance of two people overlapping on everything is pretty much nil.
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
#57
Quote by captaincrunk
because people can't afford to move, and then you have two single party countries that would find out that single party systems are even worse

So basically we just gotta make the current mess work? That sucks
#58
Quote by Todd Hart
There are thousands of issues to have a stance on and everyone has a stance on them, whether they know it or not. Given the number of issues to address, the chance of two people overlapping on everything is pretty much nil.

Seriously, wtf man? I'm not even trying to imply that every single person should have their own country. Obviously there would be some compromise in some areas, but not nearly as contrasting as the compromises between republicans and democrats.
#59
Quote by W4RP1G
Seriously, wtf man? I'm not even trying to imply that every single person should have their own country. Obviously there would be some compromise in some areas, but not nearly as contrasting as the compromises between republicans and democrats.


If you're going to start saying 'We shouldn't have to compromise' then you've started something that you can't stop. Compromise is inherent in democracy, and that's tough.
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
#60
Quote by Todd Hart
Not sure if genuine apathy or delicious, delicious tears.


I'll let you decide. It's more fun that way.
Quote by Dæmönika
I'm afraid of you...MDoggDX316phobia

Quote by Imperial
Yes, Master MDoggDX316

Ain't Nuthin' But a UG Thang: The Hype Man of the UG Hip
Hop/Guitar Music Equality Illuminati
#61
I know & YAYA! @ Thread Title.
Quote by laid-to-waste
look nigga, if you're chillin with 5 bros and 2 hos, you're gonna wanna pay attention to all of em equally. not moon over the hos forever and laugh at every shitty thing they say and just stare at them all night, like some of my mates do.
#63
Republicans and Democrats really aren't all that far away ideologically (well, on social issues they are, but everything else is not too different). The big dividing line is the fact that neither side plays very well with the other.
#64
Quote by Todd Hart
If you're going to start saying 'We shouldn't have to compromise' then you've started something that you can't stop. Compromise is inherent in democracy, and that's tough.

Ok, maybe I shouldn't have been so vague. Do you at least see where I was coming from now?
#65
Quote by Todd Hart
There are thousands of issues to have a stance on and everyone has a stance on them, whether they know it or not. Given the number of issues to address, the chance of two people overlapping on everything is pretty much nil.

which is why representation is a load a shit and we're all ****ed over
#66
Quote by RedDeath9
You can have more than two parties

Good one man. Maybe someday a third party will be allowed to debate the president without being arrested.
#67
Quote by W4RP1G
It's designed to divide the country in half? Why not just make 2 different countries rather than forcing everyone to compromise? I'm not really asking for an answer to that question, just saying is all.


Actually yes. Two parties means you have more of the population represented by the winning party then not. You throw more parties in and then you have 20% of the population as beneficiaries to the rule of party Z. Smaller coalitions = fewer beneficiaries.
#68
The voting system would need to change for any 3rd party to make any real headway.

The way things are, things will inevitably trend towards two.
#69
Quote by TunerAddict
Actually yes. Two parties means you have more of the population represented by the winning party then not. You throw more parties in and then you have 20% of the population as beneficiaries to the rule of party Z. Smaller coalitions = fewer beneficiaries.

don't have a national president then, you don't really need one anyway
#70
Quote by captaincrunk
don't have a national president then, you don't really need one anyway


Not something I disagree with.
#71
Quote by TunerAddict
Actually yes. Two parties means you have more of the population represented by the winning party then not. You throw more parties in and then you have 20% of the population as beneficiaries to the rule of party Z. Smaller coalitions = fewer beneficiaries.

Unless you have a third party that is somewhere in between, then everyone gets a little of what they want instead of half getting much more and half getting much less.
#73
I'm actually shocked that we aren't all burning in fiery pit right now. According to pretty much everyone I know, the world has basically ended.


I need new friends.
#74
Let's be fair, with the house and senate going to different parties, neither of which have a supermajority (needed to overcome any filibusters) and two fairly moderate candidates, the two would've done about 70-80% the same. Having said that, in that remaining 25%, I like Obama a lot better.
#77
Quote by LostLegion
It doesn't affect me. So I don't give a fuck.

you gave enough of one to make this post.
mugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmugmug
#79
Nothing is going to change in merica. I don't see why so much emphasis is placed on the figure head.
-The Crimson Fucker, aka PonyFan #376121
#80
Quote by metal4eva_22
Nothing is going to change in merica. I don't see why so much emphasis is placed on the figure head.


It's about principle more than anything else. Obama represents a thoughtful move forward.

Also, now that he's not running for re-election, and the economy will continue to improve slowly but surely, he should be able to get more done.