The US Presidential Elections.

[Guest MattP]

Fixed your post.

True, but.....

The debt Obama has added on has exceeded Bush's debt level in one term compared to two of Dubyas. Both at 5million.

I'll find the article on CBS for you.....

[Knightonian]

Hard choice isn't it Knight?

A party that I generally agree with in terms of policy that clearly has to please a load of religious cranks or one that has added 5 trillion worth of debt onto a nation and will probably take it to a double A rated country by the end of another term.

What a terrible choice. I'd probably abstain to be honest.

You know Matt. I actually rate you as one of my favourite posters on here, because you have a brilliant Cricket knowlege and I reckon if I met you down the pub, we could have a great conversasion about cricket and the like and I admire the fact you have been on some tours to Australia ect.

However, do you really take the Republican party in the USA seriously?

No matter how right-wing you may be, could you really support that party in all seriousness?

[Jordan]

True, but.....

The debt Obama has added on has exceeded Bush's debt level in one term compared to two of Dubyas. Both at 5million.

I'll find the article on CBS for you.....

I'm well aware of the numbers. But Bush increased the national debt by $5 trillion to fund tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and his wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and left office with a national net decrease in employment and the economy in shambles.

The Obama administration has deficit spend to drag out country out of an economic abyss and despite the complete cluster**** they were thrown into, have spurred an increase in employment and have saved the American auto industry.

It's a simple choice--and it is a duality: keep moving forward, or go back to the policies that nearly ruined this country.

[Knightonian]

I'm well aware of the numbers. But Bush increased the national debt by $5 trillion to fund tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and his wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and left office with a national net decrease in employment and the economy in shambles.

The Obama administration has deficit spend to drag out country out of an economic abyss and despite the complete cluster**** they were thrown into, have spurred an increase in employment and have saved the American auto industry.

It's a simple choice--and it is a duality: keep moving forward, or go back to the policies that nearly ruined this country.

I hope this means you are voting for the Democrats Jordan. Love you if you are.

[Jordan]

I hope this means you are voting for the Democrats Jordan. Love you if you are.

I think my avatar says it all.

[New England Fox]

If Romney wins, I'm moving back to England, simple as that really.

[Dr The Singh]

Most people i spoke to who live in the US want Obama

[Guest MattP]

You know Matt. I actually rate you as one of my favourite posters on here, because you have a brilliant Cricket knowlege and I reckon if I met you down the pub, we could have a great conversasion about cricket and the like and I admire the fact you have been on some tours to Australia ect.

However, do you really take the Republican party in the USA seriously?

No matter how right-wing you may be, could you really support that party in all seriousness?

I'd have a great pint with anyone, no doubt we would.

I thought the Republicans were a decent party and when I think of what they for America in the 70's/80's it's very sad what the current one is like, like I said to Jordan I don't rate either of the two at the minute, Mitt doesnt look fit to run the US, I still cannot see anything from Obama that makes me think the US's credit rating will be restored and he can get people back in their homes.

I'm well aware of the numbers. But Bush increased the national debt by $5 trillion to fund tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and his wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and left office with a national net decrease in employment and the economy in shambles.

Maybe, but at the time the American people were firmly behind both wars and from what I remember about Afghanistan absolutely baying for blood, that massive military spending was being backed for the first four years by almost everyone in the senate.

[Guest MattP]

Most people i spoke to who live in the US want Obama

He should win it, obviously it won't be as clinical as last time but I dont think Romney has the support tobe able to turn him over.

He'll need the gay and the black vote again to come out in force again, but even if they go back to pre 2008 levels of support it's still hard to picture Romney picking up more than him.

[Vacamion]

He should win it, obviously it won't be as clinical as last time but I dont think Romney has the support tobe able to turn him over.

He'll need the gay and the black vote again to come out in force again, but even if they go back to pre 2008 levels of support it's still hard to picture Romney picking up more than him.

Not sure if I have understood this incorrectly, but are you suggesting that someone's ethnicity or sexual orientation should have anything to do with how they vote?

As a white hetero, I'd like to think that how I vote is nothing to do with the amount of melanin in my skin or where I like to put my whanger...

[Guest MattP]

Not sure if I have understood this incorrectly, but are you suggesting that someone's ethnicity or sexual orientation should have anything to do with how they vote?

As a white hetero, I'd like to think that how I vote is nothing to do with the amount of melanin in my skin or where I like to put my whanger...

Surely a gay would more likely to vote Democrat given they favour gay marriage whereas the Republicans dont?

Blacks are more likely to vote for Obama, in astounding amounts.

http://www.politico....1108/15297.html

Obama became the first Democrat to also win a majority since Jimmy Carter with the near-unanimous backing of blacks and the overwhelming support of youth as well as significant inroads with white men and strong support among Hispanics and educated voters.

The Illinois senator won 43 percent of white voters, 4 percentage points below Carter’s performance in 1976 and equal to what Bill Clinton won in the three-man race of 1996. Republican John McCain won 55 percent of the white vote.

Fully 96 percent of black voters supported Obama and constituted 13 percent of the electorate, a 2-percentage-point rise in their national turnout.

[Vacamion]

Surely a gay would more likely to vote Democrat given they favour gay marriage whereas the Republicans dont?

Blacks are more likely to vote for Obama, in astounding amounts.

http://www.politico....1108/15297.html

I agree that support among gay people or black people would be expected to get behind the Democrats for the reasons you outline.

I'm just not comfortable with sexuality or race defining one's polictical outlook - surely we are more than our sexuality or our race???

Maybe that's why I prefer the UK's polictics (for all its flaws) to that in the USA.

[Guest MattP]

I agree that support among gay people or black people would be expected to get behind the Democrats for the reasons you outline.

I'm just not comfortable with sexuality or race defining one's polictical outlook - surely we are more than our sexuality or our race???

Maybe that's why I prefer the UK's polictics (for all its flaws) to that in the USA.

Why not? Surely that's the same all over the World be it race, religion or anything, in Northern Ireland I doubt their many Protestants voting for Sein Fein, I doubt many Blacks or Muslims in Britain vote BNP.

It's a part of politics and we should never ignore facts just in case we end up on a debate about race.

It goes both ways, the Republicans have to come out with their religious bullshit to secure their seats in the South, every political party has core groups of it's support that it has to please.

[Vacamion]

Why not? Surely that's the same all over the World be it race, religion or anything, in Northern Ireland I doubt their many Protestants voting for Sein Fein, I doubt many Blacks or Muslims in Britain vote BNP.

It's a part of politics and we should never ignore facts just in case we end up on a debate about race.

It goes both ways, the Republicans have to come out with their religious bullshit to secure their seats in the South, every political party has core groups of it's support that it has to please.

I disagree.

Why can't someone be black or gay AND suppport the Repubican Party's economic proposals?

I don't think it is right that your religion or your ethnicity or your sexual orientation defines who you vote for.

Being black or being gay should be considered (in the same way as being tall or being from Cornwall) as just another thing in the collection of things that make you who you are, rather than defining who you vote for.

I don't want to ignore race religion or sexuality, but I think that there are FAR more important things to consider in polictics ("It's the economy, stupid!") and it has come to a sad pass if politicians are chasing the "catholic" vote or the "asian" vote...

I think we won't agree on this, however.

Sorry for sidetracking the thread.

[Guest MattP]

No worries, someone can be black and support the Repubicans, it just seems from the statistics looking at Obama's voters, it's unlikely until a black man leads the Republicans.

[breadandcheese]

I thought they just don't like him because he is black, and has a terrorist name.... (According to the right wing)

Whilst I hope for an Obama win in this election, I think it's lazy to present the Republican party as a racist party and denigrate the electoral debate into something it's not. (Clearly, there are idiots who vote Republican, just as there are idiots who vote Democrat.)

Remember that America had its first black chief-of-staff (Colin Powell) and first black secretary of state (Colin Powell, succeeded by Condoleezza Rice) under a Republican presidency. Whether this opened the door to having a black president, I don't know, but it can't have harmed Obama's bid. One things for sure, we're still waiting here in the UK for the first black cabinet minister to hold a serious position, so I'm not sure we're in a position to look down our noses and feel smug.

[Guest MattP]

Whilst I hope for an Obama win in this election, I think it's lazy to present the Republican party as a racist party and denigrate the electoral debate into something it's not. (Clearly, there are idiots who vote Republican, just as there are idiots who vote Democrat.)

Remember that America had its first black chief-of-staff (Colin Powell) and first black secretary of state (Colin Powell, succeeded by Condoleezza Rice) under a Republican presidency. Whether this opened the door to having a black president, I don't know, but it can't have harmed Obama's bid. One things for sure, we're still waiting here in the UK for the first black cabinet minister to hold a serious position, so I'm not sure we're in a position to look down our noses and feel smug.

While we have Chuka Umanna and Diane Abbott being presented as the best around it could be a while.

[Rincewind]

Isn't Rommey anti-gay anti-abortion and prefers whites in his company? All he has to do is to convince the majority of Americal to agree with him which will have to include many gays, women and blacks but if they are also bible bashing Christian Fundalmentalists he'll have a chance.

[ADK]

Why not? Surely that's the same all over the World be it race, religion or anything, in Northern Ireland I doubt their many Protestants voting for Sein Fein, I doubt many Blacks or Muslims in Britain vote BNP.

It's a part of politics and we should never ignore facts just in case we end up on a debate about race.

It goes both ways, the Republicans have to come out with their religious bullshit to secure their seats in the South, every political party has core groups of it's support that it has to please.

Its another major issue with democracy in my opinion. Democracy as we know it only works when people share similar enough political views and are willing to choose between similar parties with a narrow spectrum of differences. Without that background it is nothing more than majority rule.

[breadandcheese]

Its another major issue with democracy in my opinion. Democracy as we know it only works when people share similar enough political views and are willing to choose between similar parties with a narrow spectrum of differences. Without that background it is nothing more than majority rule.

Isn't that the point of democracy?

[Guest MattP]

Isn't Rommey anti-gay anti-abortion and prefers whites in his company? All he has to do is to convince the majority of Americal to agree with him which will have to include many gays, women and blacks but if they are also bible bashing Christian Fundalmentalists he'll have a chance.

I've never heard him say that.

[Rincewind]

He may not say it but some of his views are.

[ADK]

Isn't that the point of democracy?

Perhaps, but what i am getting at is you need voters to be open to voting for different candidates based on reasonable issues, not on basis of colour, religion etc.

[Guest MattP]

He may not say it but some of his views are.

Prefers whites in his company?

[breadandcheese]

Isn't Rommey anti-gay anti-abortion and prefers whites in his company? All he has to do is to convince the majority of Americal to agree with him which will have to include many gays, women and blacks but if they are also bible bashing Christian Fundalmentalists he'll have a chance.

Genuine question, do you know this to be true? Because the second part of your post implies that any American who votes for him must be racist and homophobic, which on that basis means that if America decides to elect Romney as president, then it's a homophobic racist country filled with homophobic racists.

Clearly Americans are able to see past race, caring more about the economy, taxes, education, etc.

Maybe it's the quality of reporting in the UK on the American elections, but it seems the general default position is that this election is about whether you are a racist/homophobe (vote Romney) or not (vote Obama). It's quite insulting to Americans as it supposes that they're incapable of rational thought or engaging in debate.