It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Obama is going to win the 2012 election.

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by thepresident

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Obama will win....

Its all in the numbers...He needs 65 million votes

He will get 10 million from the gays because he once said he likes gay marriages, doesn't matter if he really does or not... in four years most will still not be married.

He will get 40 million from people who think he will give them entitlements. They will not get them , but he said they will and he will get their vote.

That leaves only 15 million that for some reason think he will do something that he didn't do this last four years...now we know the next four years will be about as bad as the last, but he will get their vote...

BAM!! 65 million votes....


65 Million????

You mean 270 electoral college votes?


That is about what 270 electoral college votes equates to....




posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 11:04 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by bobs_uruncle
 

Dear bobs_uruncle,

Interesting ideas, thanks. It reminds me a little of the OWS movement. But aren't there some pretty big hurdles to be overcome?

A vote for an independent throws a real spanner in the works, but it has to be an en-masse vote for an independent candidate to really mean something,
I don't remember precisely, but didn't third-party candidate Ross Perot get about 15% of the national vote? He left no legacy or movement behind, the system continued, unperturbed. How do we get to 30% when the nation is so strongly polarized and dedicated to their candidate? Right now, undecided and third-party combined is at less than 10%. I can't see how that will change significantly.

Starve the beast and screw it up until it dies.
I assume that if the beast is hungry it will just take more. A hungry beast is an angry beast. I don't want to be around if it gets really mad. It will seriously hurt the first million or so people that it gets mad at. And if it does die, what then? Who picks up the pieces? Islam? China? Russia? Mexico? All of the above? I don't care for that very much either.

I'm just not clear on how we get from here to a "Worker's Paradise."


I don't think there is truly a "worker's paradise" that is achievable. The owners/handlers want what they want and the workers want what the handlers have, in many cases anyway. But I was once told that a successfull negotiation always leaves both parties feeling like they have lost something. In the present "contest" to control the white house for their handlers, the candidates lose nothing. Their crimes are insulated from justice due to their position. Their handlers hide behind the skirts of the mechanics of finance, politics and business in order to obfuscate intention and radically change world views based on their own agendas, of course without consiquence, so they (the handlers in the IMF, FED, Wall Street, Mil/Ind Complex, etc.) lose nothing. And someone must always lose something, which happens to be people like you and I. We bear the brunt of mismanagement, political corruption, wars and graft through the tightening of security protocols and higher taxes, higher food costs, the invisible tax of inflation, fluctuating commodity pricing, etc.

In this "contest" or in past/future negotiations, there is no loss directed at the politicians and their handlers, they have been absolved of all responsibility and accountability. That's not the way the world is supposed to work. If a politician forces a bill or law that destroys people's ability to produce a "living" for themselves and they do so consistently without regard for their countrymen/women, I would consider that treason as it effects the entire country (in this case) and if I remember right, we hang traitors, after a fair trial of course. But how does one provide a fair trial for the corrupt, when the corrupt set the rules, the corrupt judge themselves and the corrupt control the system?

Cheers - Dave
edit on 9/19.2012 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


I don't think this thread is about why Obama should win. I don't know, I may have read the title wrong.



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by PatriotGames2
 

Dear PatriotGames2,

You are absolutely right.


When I made my first post, I suggested there would be many possible reasons for Obama's win, if he gets one, and many possible reasons for Romney's win, if he gets one. I suspect you could tick them off in your head.

I said something like, I would find it more interesting if we looked from here to see why Obama should win. That could be anything from an energized black vote, or an improved recovery, or he could emphasize his foreign policy skills (or not, as the situation required), or anything else.

I suppose I should take the blame for shifting the topic. Anything I can do to fix it?

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


I think that post fixed it.

Obama shouldn't win. He shouldn't have even ran in 08 as a junior senator with zero experience. Having said that, it has been my opinion all along that he will win and Romney was chosen to lose this time around. Unfortunately for America, once again we are left with 2 choices that are lacking to the point of extreme disappointment, at least from my view.

I also don't believe everything is absolute. I am anticipating an October surprise that will make it even closer than it already is. But truthfully, most people I talk to - and that isn't an accurate representation of the masses but just my personal experience with the probable voters that I know - look at Romney as someone who represents the problems that got us here in the first place. He reminds them of Bush and his corporate background, no matter how unjustified, turns people off. People are disappointed that instead of keeping his promises (surprise, surprise) Obama has continued the same policies that people were fed up with in 2008, but people are also stupid and easily manipulated. I think they will choose the evil they know instead of the evil they don't. This is only my opinion, and I admit I could be very wrong. We all like to talk politics, but very few of us have actually sat in on the process, we really cannot comprehend the decisions these people have to make in order to sustain the massive infrastructure of this country of ours. I have been more critical than most, but sometimes I wonder why I even bother when I really lack the knowledge to effectively issue any sort of valid criticism.

I will be voting for Gary Johnson, not that anyone asked. Some undoubtedly view that as a waste of a vote or a vote for Obama or whoever, but as a citizen of this country voting is the voicing my opinion and I chose to express no confidence in either political party. The validity of voting is another issue entirely, and I have my doubts if it truly is legitimate, but that is how I feel at the moment. That may change in the time it takes to get to November.
edit on 20-9-2012 by PatriotGames2 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics
 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join