LET ME SEE U GET DIRTTYYYYYYYY

Just got an email from a friend in Afganistan right now, his vote didnt count, thank you Obama Administration. I voted for Gary Johnson...... I am conservitive by nature, but Romney IS NOT McCain, so, I said to hell with it and went third party this year.

Http://youtu.be/82CYNj7noic

George Washington may have snicked around on Martha , but many folks don't believe that is why they call him the father of our country. The fact is there are few presidents that never had a scandal . Glenn Beck
was quick to remind us that Woodrow Wilson gave us prohibition, yet never bothered to mention that he vetoed the bill that prohibited the manufacture and sell of alcohol. When the GOP freed the slaves
it would be over four score before the The Nineteenth Amendment (Amendment XIX) to the United States Constitution prohibits any United States citizen to be denied the right to vote based on sex. It was ratified on August 18, 1920. Wilson, after first sidestepping the issue, became a major advocate for the women's suffrage. I agree with the amendments to the constitution and find it is odd when a party is accused of being unconstitiional . It looks like Obama wants Americans to be healhy and smart sos we can be competitive with China so that the top three percent won't pass American's by to build companies in China

http://youtu.be/_XjAAmGoGq8

I'm feeling pretty good about stuff.

I do have several (rather large) issues with Obama: Keeping Guantanamo open, drone strikes, war in Libya and in general. I'm still disappointed in the US's involvement in these areas. Though there was nothing that implied that these things would change under Romney, they are issues that made me much less exuberant about this election in general. When Obama won last night, it was a feeling of relief, rather than jubilation.

I feel like Romney is probably a good person. In fact, I watched some of his old speeches from several years ago, and I liked that Romney quite a lot better. What worried me is that all of his old positions changed so drastically. Now, people are totally free to change positions - if we're all doomed to keep the same opinions we had at twenty, that would be a messy world. I actually love when people who have the courage to say "my feelings on this have changed." But... that wasn't what Romney did. He said things like "I have always supported X," when you can literally pull up old videos of him supporting the opposite. Now, this happens in every party, and I would bet Obama has similar switches. But I feel like what shaped Romney's new opinions were members from the very far right, and it's THEIR motivations and positions that I'm honestly afraid of. If Rom had just been himself, I think things could have gone differently.

Overall, I see this election as a huge victory for women, minorities, and the LGBT population. Wisconsin just elected an openly-gay, woman Senator! Who could have imagined that happening even 30 years ago? And Minnesota was just the first out of 31 states to have a marriage amendment put before it and -fail.- To me, it speaks of tolerance and compassion on an institutional scale. I'm really proud of that.

"Regarding the Chinese thing, can no one take a freaking joke on this website anymore, seriously?"

I guess I took the learning to speak Chinese comment in 2 ways.
One is that I knew you were joking, of course, but I still felt (and feel) like there was/is an ounce of truth (actual fear) to the comment. Why else would "jokes" like this by Republicans be prevalent? There are some far right wing conservatives that have wild allegations against Obama... it pushes the envelope of batshit crazy lol.
The second way I look at the learning to speak Chinese comment: I'm worried people who hold strong opinions in politics don't have realistic understandings of the candidates, what they stand for, and what they stand against. It's been instilled in some people from their youth, especially conservatives in my opinion, which party to side with. They don't think for themselves.

I'd like to read some wild allegations against Romney. Democrats and liberals call him a flip-flopper, but there's significant evidence for it.

I don't understand the Minnesota one that well, can you explain Sibby?

"Now, this happens in every party, and I would bet Obama has similar switches. But I feel like what shaped Romney's new opinions were members from the very far right, and it's THEIR motivations and positions that I'm honestly afraid of. "

I agree here - whats weird though is Romney went from moderate to conversative, where usually you see people go from conservative/liberal to moderate, to align with independents more. Obama comes to mind with his stance on gay marriage and there was something else pretty big that happened, but my brain just isn't performing where it needs to be today lol.

Regarding Guantanamo, what would you like to see done (more specific than "close", I mean lol).

Jane I was raised by liberals from grandparents to parents. My Dad doesn't care about politics.. nor does most of my family honestly. I was a democrat (or I thought I was anyway) until I stopped listening to my family and began thinking for myself. I do heaps and heaps of research from both sides of the line on every candidate and especially measures I am voting on. It usually takes me hours upon hours to vote on a small ballot, it's pretty exhausting, but it's a responsibility I take seriously.

RE: the Chinese joke, to me it really is just a joke with no bit of truth, because it's stupid. They know English, or most of them do, so when they take us over they can adapt. KIDDING, of course. The joke for me stems by the amount that the Chinese currently finance our debt. They're the leinholder, here.

^ Makes sense! And impressive.
It's awesome you've stood up for yourself and are forming your own opinions, choosing your own party, and doing the research. I'm sorry I may have thought otherwise.

EDIT: That sounds condescending, my bad. I hope you know what I mean.

Minnesota: There was an amendment that would define marriage as only man and woman. (It's already illegal for gay people to marry here, so it wouldn't really have changed anything.) I understand people having this belief, I just don't think there is any good way you can justify it legally.

"Obama comes to mind with his stance on gay marriage." I agree. I am glad he said it, but would he have supported gay marriage if it wasn't expected of him, whether or not he believes in it himself? Not sure.

I'm very conflicted on Gitmo. Personally, I think torture is always reprehensible (not to mention unreliable) and I am very against people being detained without due process and without even being charged. I think its an embarrassment to the system, and it think it justifies other people who might feel like torturing American citizens in THEIR countries.

However. The cynical side of me says that, even if Gitmo were closed, the same things would just be happening somewhere else, more secretly. Maybe there will always be shadowed part of the government where a few people are called on to do the "dirty work" so that the rest of us can keep our hands clean and have idealistic opinions. I'm not sure. I definitely don't like it, but I have no illusions about the practicality of wanting it closed.

No, it's pretty rational to think that. I know a LOT of people who think the way they do (both my party and otherwise) who have no idea WHY they support the party/people they do other than because they were told to, or are easily influenced.

I have a friend who was totally Obama until he spent an afternoon with a pro-Romney guy. He was wishy washy up until the election and decided to FLIP A COIN. Romney and Obama are two very different people I think, you can't flip a friggin coin.

And then you have your people who vote based on names, looks, ages etc. It's scary the people who vote lol

SIBBY: I am more aligned with the cynic in you, lol. I think it's something that's going to happen. I do think they need to be tried and the like rather than just sitting there, though I understand the reason behind it all. My biggest thing is when/if they close it... what happens to the people, what happens in the future etc? I've never heard an actual plan, and I don't like making changes and going with the flow, I'd rather see a plan.

Oh, one more thing that I felt like adding.

I really, really, really hope that people in government now are willing to work together. I feel like the last four years were just people trying everything they could to keep the opposite party from gaining any ground. Super frustrating. Your main goal should be "I want to help people," not "I'm going to do everything I can to stop this other side from making changes, no matter what they are." Grr. Plus, you're more likely to get some things going your way if YOU are willing to compromise as well. Didn't these folks ever go to Kindergarten to learn about sharing and taking turns?

"My biggest thing is when/if they close it... what happens to the people, what happens in the future etc? I've never heard an actual plan, and I don't like making changes and going with the flow, I'd rather see a plan."

I'm with you there. I don't think closing it was ever really even considered seriously enough to start making contingency plans. Would closing it risk people sweeping those things under the rug even further? Not sure.

"We have more people on welfare and food stamps under Obama" I don't trust the private sector with government bailouts . Obama did pretty much what I thought the right wing wanted him to do when he extended the Bush Tax cuts . The repuplicans revealed their only plan to make him a one term president and lower taxes for the weathiest Americans . I don't want to offend anyone with the hard facts, but they fell a tad short of their goal

Sib - what I REALLY wish we could do is have a bill be drafted and have it ONLY INVOLVE what it's regarding. They think it's a give and take type thing, but they never include whats actually in the bill, just "democrats won't do this!" "republicans won't do that!". Well duh, if you see the other crap both parties throw into the bill, it makes it impossible for vote for it. It's not saying no on the actual issue, but the pork, too.

I'm sick of the two party system but I don't see a way of ever moving past it. This country is so intensely divided, it's scary.

Mike I find it sad you don't trust the private sector. I'm not always for bailouts, I like the free market system to take it's course. You're too big and get in over your head? Sorry. I guess it seems a little harsh, but when I can't afford my bills because I bought too many pairs of shoes, I don't have the government, or mommy and daddy there to help me out.

The problem is the systems are being abused, anywhere from welfare and food stamps to Medicare/Medicaid. 2 years in medical billing solidified my refusal to agree with Medicaid - it's ridiculous how much fraud is through that system. We need reform of all kinds, but we can't do it all at once. Baby steps makes it easier and usually won't crash (any) system.

You are quite welcome to have all of our politicians if you like, we can then go back to being ruled by our queen.
Elizabeth 2 would take no prisoners just like her namesake from the 1600's

There is nothing to fear but fear itself . I can't see any bill that Obama signed standing in the way of the private sector investing in a healhier smarter America. Investing in roads and bridges to the future is not the burden the government should place on the private sector . We even have governments placing prison systems in the hands of the private sector . I agree that greed and profit motivates government and private sector power . If the message is the goverment is the enemy then the messengers don't need to be governors. Did Chris Christie run when a natural disaster threatened the livelihood of the people that elected him?

"Sib - what I REALLY wish we could do is have a bill be drafted and have it ONLY INVOLVE what it's regarding. They think it's a give and take type thing, but they never include whats actually in the bill, just "democrats won't do this!" "republicans won't do that!". Well duh, if you see the other crap both parties throw into the bill, it makes it impossible for vote for it. It's not saying no on the actual issue, but the pork, too."

TOTALLY. People say it would take too much time to draft bills for every single thing, but maybe you'd make up for lost time by -not spending weeks arguing over it.- Plus maybe it would make you think harder about what's actually worthy to make a law out of.

Sib I'm eye to eye with you here. Perhaps you could add bills that are like-minded together and that would make sense. But for example making a law about gay marriage and throwing an abortion clause in it? No. They don't correlate, it makes no sense to lump them together. Issues should be separated.

Then, things would pass, legislature would move and crap would actually get done instead of filibustering and bickering.

WHY ARE WE AGREEING ON POLITICAL THINGS SIB. THIS ISN'T NORMAL. :P

Well I tuned in to Sean Hannity to hear him whine. Ann Coultar came on like a good dizzy blonde to say she did not think even Chris Christie would beat Obama and she was sorry she ever predicted that Romney would lose.
Isn't that special?
Karl Rove and Dick Morris must have used all the shovels to spread the B.S. They have not showed up yet.

He invited a loser called Herman Cain to talk abut how Obama should have run his campaign
Get your hose out Yaki mud is the cleanest thing being thrown and the right has sworn there will be no honeymoon lmao

http://youtu.be/OjrthOPLAKM

"WHY ARE WE AGREEING ON POLITICAL THINGS SIB. THIS ISN'T NORMAL. :P"

THE WORLD IS ENDING IN DECEMBER, WATCH OUT!

But yes. I agree with what you said above. (AHH THERE IT IS AGAIN!) Maybe we agree on processes and motivations, just not on specific issues. I can live with that.

With a remarkable anecdote of bipartisan fromance we say adieu to the 2011-2012 presidential campaign & LOCK this thread at 100