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.

 

Obama won because of 2 factors; Sandy & Ron Paul

page: 3
6
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by starchild10
He won because he isn't white. It's that simple...


???????????

how did you spin the racism??

or.....he could of got MORE votes if he was white....!!!

he was genuine and appealled to the masses thats why he won

he won because...romney was crap.....

peace




posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Razimus
 


What the hell are you talking about? Obama won again because he got over 270 Electoral Votes... That's it... end of story.... Romney could have had 100% of the popular vote and still would have lost

It' blows my mind sometimes, did no-one pay attention in school... There are only 538 votes that matter in electing the POTUS...

Everyone that voted for an Evil America (the lesser of 2 evils ring a bell) are the ones that really waisted their vote.... had each 3rd party platform received just 5% of the popular vote they could then enter into the general elections next election cycle.. and then people could quit their bitching

BET THE NEWS DIDN'T TELL YOU THAT, DID THEY!?!?



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 06:13 PM
link   
no

romney opened his mouth and spoke

and it was over

lol



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   
Romney lost because he was Mitt Romney. Obama won simply because people didn't trust the bugger. This is what I learned from good ol' Mitt.

He's for abortion but he wants to overturn Roe v Wade
He's pro gun control, but a life-time member of the NRA
Apparently he decided that Jeep was moving to China
He is totally against Obama Care, but completely endorses it
Dogs are perfectly safe strapped to car roofs
He doesn't want anything to do with Regan/Bush but Regan was his hero
He watched his daddy march with Martin Luther King, in some other state during some other march, without King.
He wanted so badly to fight in Vietnam, but he didn't. Did he? No. Yes? Maybe. No.

The man couldn't make up his mind. I'd rather have 4 more years of BS then 4 years of absolute insanity.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 07:04 PM
link   
You must be very blind or ignorant if you think Ron Paul's endorsement for Romney would mean ANYTHING.

Ron Paul's supporters act independently.

You'd think after all of the election fraud, physical assaults, and horrible treatment from Team Romney and the RNC, that a simple 'I endorse Romney' will make everything ok and green light the Ron Paul supporters to vote?

Just think about how absurd you sound right now, OP.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 07:11 PM
link   
We had four years to KNOW what Obama's plan for America was, he never laid out a plan for his next four and,

We will never know if Romney could have pulled it off and helped us out of this situation,

I think you are all in for a rude awakening.

We will see.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by FORMe2p00p0n
reply to post by Razimus
 


Everyone that voted for an Evil America (the lesser of 2 evils ring a bell) are the ones that really waisted their vote.... had each 3rd party platform received just 5% of the popular vote they could then enter into the general elections next election cycle.. and then people could quit their #####

BET THE NEWS DIDN'T TELL YOU THAT, DID THEY!?!?



I wonder if you had a ton of money if you could purchase ads to play during Dancing With The Stars informing people of this. Something like:

"Listen you idiots. If just 5% of us throw our votes to the Libertarians, and 5% of us throw our votes to say..the Green Party the next election we get two more choices instead of these clowns we got now. VOTE STRATEGICALLY!!! Come ON! We can DO THIS!"

But would the networks allow you to buy an ad like that? This is all assuming the whole dog and pony show isn't rigged, of course.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Razimus
 




Yeah but those people who voted for Roseanne Barr (and the rest of the Liberal-to-a-fault fringe) would've broke toward Obama so they sort of cancel each other out.

Obama and Romney were two starkly opposing men with 2 completely different sets of ideologies and beliefs. They had 2 different directions they wanted to take this country. I think that had the most to do with deciding the election. Not the weather, (people knew who they were voting for prior to Sandy) and certainly not a post script like Ron Paul.
edit on 8-11-2012 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 12:28 AM
link   
Ok, some people clearly don't understand the concept of Democracy (i dont really blame them, as US and UK have 2 party systems )

One candidate CANNOT steal away votes from another.....
In a democracy like Netherlands, Germany or the Scandinavian countries we have coalition governments, beacuse people have the choice to vote for a party which is actually their ideology as there are a multitude of parties, all the way from Extreme right to Extreme left.

Now NEVER had i EVER heard the argument XXX Stole YYY votes and made YYY lose as XXX votes were wasted votes (in this scenario XXX is 3rd party candidate in a 2 party system) until i started learning about US politics and in more recent years, this trend has also started to show UK politics.



Now the whole point of Representative Democracy is that you can choose someone who believes what you believe, So social pressure not to vote for someone as they are a "Wasted vote" Spits in the face of Representative Democracy.
For Crying out loud, its called Freedom of Choice, its really beyond me, how anyone could think votes for a 3rd party is wasted, or that 3rd party made YYY loose.
No 3rd party did not make Mitt lose, the people spoke, and they clearly did not want Mitt, otherwise the people who did not vote for him would have !!!

Sorry, just had too get the rant of my chest. (and whether or not the US is actually a Representative Democracy, is a different discussion all together, but its supposed to be, and is on paper)

Namaste.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 01:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Razimus
 


Good. Ron Paul stuck by his principles.
I personally think he should have endorsed Johnson, but I am glad he didn't endorse Romney.

Here's the thing though, these two things aren't the reason Mitt lost. First there was no momentum for Hurricane Sandy to steal, and second Mitt never had a chance. That should have been clear during the primaries. At the GOP convention when there were 200 Ron Paul state delegates ignored. Or the fact that every victory of Paul's was played down or even stolen via fraud. He won the first national primary, but this fact was never outright admitted until the convention was days away and they only admitted he won the most delegates when in reality he won the state but was there was vote fraud. Had that vote not been tampered with (and the media anounced two winners before eventually granting Paul some of the spotlight months later) Paul would have had the right momentum and would have won the candidacy. It would have changed the votes of all states to follow. He also had a second chance in Maine where they closed down the vote for districts with strong Paul support.

Romney was set up to be the candidate that lost to Obama. That simple. He was EVERYONES LAST CHOICE for GOP candidate. If you support GOP I guarantee he was not your man at the start of the primaries. He was no ones choice.

He was never going to win, his sole purpose was to keep Obama from having to face someone like Ron Paul or a third party candidate like Gary Johnson. That is why he existed in this election.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 01:21 AM
link   
reply to post by eLPresidente
 


It scares me after every election when people go into awe shucks mode instead of allowing their eyes to be opened. As I said in me previous post, Romney's whole purpose for existing in this election was to keep Obama from having to go up against someone like Ron Paul or a decent third party candidate like Gary Johnson. I mean I can't believe people bought into the obvious media perpetuated illusion that Romney was ever any kind of competition.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join