US election 2012

Two sides of the same coin. Anything of real importance (world affairs) has already been decided - and anything yet to be decided on that matter will follow the same course regardless of who's in office. Presidents are chosen, not elected. Enjoy the 'show'.
 
Last edited:
What a terrible waste of money. $6billion later, same president, same Senate majority and same House majority.
 
A lot of time and money (and coverage, probably more then we give our own elections) just for a few more years of the same when in reality it doesn't matter as the US political system doesn't really work. Doesn't matter in the slightest who is in charge as everything has to go through the senate where business lobbying and red vs blue voting means nothing gets through so nothing will ever change.

$6 billion just to decide on a hood ornament.
 
Malevolence said:
Obama again, what a bloody travesty!

Edit: For some bizarre reason the forum censors the good old Father Ted word ****in' but allows bloody to be posted.
Click to expand...

Is it wrong that the moment I saw this I applied a huge range of stereotypes? Redneck, religious nutter, war monger, homophobic etc etc etc...
 
Naffa said:
What a terrible waste of money. $6billion later, same president, same Senate majority and same House majority.
Click to expand...

It's their money, and Presidential elections do create jobs and put money into local economies albeit temporarily (although given the length of preparations and primaries etc, it isn't tat temporary before the whole thing starts again). Far better that they raise their own campaign funding than the State providing it.

I would rather $6bn (if that figure is even accurate) spent than Mitt Romney being in the White House tbh.
 
Where are you getting $6bn from? I thought it was nearer $2bn for the election.

Looking at the votes, it doesn't seem that close......?
 
Meh, it was always the case, now we will continue to have pointless rivalry between the houses of congress/senate and the WH.

Sometimes it is better to at least have stability over sensibility.

None of which are the Americans forte, at least not any more.

Not that any of it matters overall, since Goldmann Sachs "ex" workers practically run the economy in the US (seriously just look at where all the guys come from in their treasury committee, sure they have the experience, but also a huge bias, which was only confirmed back in 07/08 when they strongman'd a vote for the bailout...it used to be a No by a small margin, I don't need to elaborate.)

I find it all stale, fake and horribly hollow-hearted. :(
 
Naffa said:
I couldn't disagree more.
Click to expand...


The $6bn figure seem vastly inflated according to other estimates which put it at a third of that at most...and US demographics are such that State Funding of campaigns would cost the taxpayer huge amounts of money that would be better spent elsewhere. And there is State Funding for Presidential candidates if they are eligible (I think I am correct in thinking that Mitt Romney and Obama are the first to not have any public funding in their funding model) and private contributions are subject to restrictions laid down in US law which is regulated and overseen by the FEC. It isn't just a free for all, with the richest guy having the advantage.

Campaign Financing is big business in the United States, it employs thousands of people and contributes billions to the US economy and despite various attempts to reform or change the system, a better one that doesn't infringe on protected US civil liberties such as Free Speech has yet to be proposed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom