Obama Will Win 2nd Term: Has it already been decided?

reply to post by Paschar0


Frankly, I would not be surprised if he didn't even GET to run in the election. it's been discussed, and with the historically low poll numbers, all the problems with the economy, the illegal wars hat even Democrats want to impeach him over, and so forth, he could make history by being the first incumbent that didn't get to run when he wanted to.

reply to post by Jermicide


Not a bad guess! If he does bow out, would be VERY interesting it it was sometime between May and July of 2012....check the dates, and see if you know what I mean.

If I read this twenty years ago I would have laughed at the idea of "predetermined presidential winners", "rigged voting machines", "party machines" not allowing outsiders to even participate and especially the media's complicit role. What a wonderful world the matrix was.

Now, sadly, I can't disagree that any of this happens on a regular basis. S&F

Originally posted by Carseller4
Obama doesn't have a chance.

Blacks will not show up with the enthusiasm as they did in 2008. The "White Guilt" factor will not be in play this time. Independents are looking for a leader, something Obama is incapable of being.

Obama = Carter

One and done.

Don't the white racists negate the black racists?

As an independent, I can tell you, as disappointed as I am with Obama, I would vote for him before any of the current republican choices and from what I'm reading, the majority of independents feel the same way. Ron Paul seems to be the one candidate that changes this but there seems to be a serious effort to deny him.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
reply to post by Paschar0

 

Frankly, I would not be surprised if he didn't even GET to run in the election. it's been discussed,

By whom has this been discussed?
I expect sources.

reply to post by Paschar0


Two party system is such a joke. Why are there even parties? Why can't people run based on their platforms and not the platforms of their party?

reply to post by Paschar0


The establishment and the men running the show from behind the scenes want one of their three puppets to win: Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, or Newt Gingrich. It doesn't matter if the Democrat Obama or the Republicans Romney/Gingrich win, because the policies are for the most part going to stay the same. There's not going to be any significant changes to things of actual importance, such as the wars or the Federal Reserve, because those are a few of the things that the corporate overlords are trying to protect. They might differ on other topics, but I don't believe there will be a big difference between the three.

Originally posted by Paschar0
I say this from the standpoint of believing the that beginning with Bush, elections are much easier to manipulate through the electronic paperless (intentionally proof less) systems that have been implemented across the country. I suggest that unless a candidate has HUGE overwhelming numbers, that any election can be nudged to make anyone they choose the winner.

You clearly do not understand how the President of the United States is voted into office then. I suggest you brush up on the Article 2, Section 1 (electors) and the 12th Amendment of the Constitution. The popular vote -- no matter how skewed or cheated -- does not matter in the election of the President.

Electors are the go between and help insulate the election of the President. They can be voted in by popular vote, selected by State legislatures, or randomly selected by an empowered governor of a State. Those then elected to be the State's electors meet, as prescribed by State law to cast their votes.

Originally the system was set up that each elector was to cast two votes; of which at least one vote was for a person not of their own state. The person with the highest number of votes tallied would be President. The Vice-Presidency was easy and was the person with the second highest votes counted. In case of a tie, the election of the President was then given to the House of Representatives. If the second highest count (that for Vice-President) was a tie then the Senate (naturally since the Vice-President is the President of the Senate; but you knew that right?) would vote to break the tie.

Though, there were problems with the original system and many of them were not foreseen (such as the rabid party politics we see today). The 12th Amendment was ratified four years later after the fiasco of the Jefferson-Burr election. Each elector chose Jefferson and Burr as their two votes. This created a tie and caused mass elections in the Congress that highlighted a flaw in the system (personally, since the Executive at the time was the weakest of the three branches I don't see it as a flaw, but it does lead to mayhem in deeply divided and partisan politics).

With the passing of the 12th Amendment, changes in how the votes are cast by the electors were implemented to combat the party politics that were seen in election of 1800. The small change was that instead of casting two votes without distinction of office, electors now cast a vote for President and one for Vice President. Each is tallied by their respective states and sent to the Senate to be counted. If there is a tie, the top three names get passed to the House who then proceed to vote for a winner.

The process is complicated but is beautiful. Many rail against it because they do not understand it. One of the major drawbacks in today's society and that of the past 100 years or so, is the devolving of American civics education and the lack of interest to be involved in local politics -- where it all begins.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


You clearly are in a dreamworld all your own if you believe our system is beautiful and uncorrupted, which was the point of the discussion, but thank you for the long drawn out unnecessary lesson in snarkyism, the rest of us were just so lost in our ignorance before you came along.

Actually, I believed much the same as you for quite some time, but then tenth grade was over and the real world became more evident.

Originally posted by Paschar0
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

You clearly are in a dreamworld all your own if you believe our system is beautiful and uncorrupted, which was the point of the discussion, but thank you for the long drawn out unnecessary lesson in snarkyism, the rest of us were just so lost in our ignorance before you came along.

Actually, I believed much the same as you for quite some time, but then tenth grade was over and the real world became more evident.

Thank you, some people just have it coming.

Yes, we need 4 more years of this!
The Enemy Within!

Originally posted by KTATS

Originally posted by Paschar0
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

You clearly are in a dreamworld all your own if you believe our system is beautiful and uncorrupted, which was the point of the discussion, but thank you for the long drawn out unnecessary lesson in snarkyism, the rest of us were just so lost in our ignorance before you came along.

Actually, I believed much the same as you for quite some time, but then tenth grade was over and the real world became more evident.

Thank you, some people just have it coming.

I just thought it was sort of obvious that under the current system, if a national election had a electoral vote that didn't closely reflect the popular vote, it would almost immediately trigger public outrage.

It would highlight how it no longer serves the best interests of the people or the country... if it ever did is a matter of opinion.

Which is why if you're going to fix an election, it's important.

Originally posted by Paschar0
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

You clearly are in a dreamworld all your own if you believe our system is beautiful and uncorrupted, which was the point of the discussion, but thank you for the long drawn out unnecessary lesson in snarkyism, the rest of us were just so lost in our ignorance before you came along.

Actually, I believed much the same as you for quite some time, but then tenth grade was over and the real world became more evident.

Ha! Interesting because I merely explained how the popular vote in the Presidential election has no bearing what-so-ever. I never claimed the system was perfect nor uncorrupted. Am I not correct in suggesting the OP understand the way a president gets elected before they start making claims that the current president will be elected via fraud of the popular vote?

I never claimed either that the electorate isn't a target to corruption, scandal and possible fraud -- you projected it because that is the outcome you hoped for. How can we have a discussion of the process when only a few know the actual process?

But thank you for your comment on your inability to comprehend and actually engage in discussion.

Please see my response DIRECTLY above your last one. Jesus.

It all comes down to who mentions and thanks God the most throughout the campaign.

See, in America, we all love God and need to address him and refer to his greatness in everything we do. Just like Tim Tebow. Maybe he should run for GOP nomination. He loves Jesus and runs around. Pefect fit.

reply to post by Paschar0


Well considering there have been four presidents who lost the "popular" vote why does it even matter? You seem very hostile to someone who comes in arguing against the OPs thoughts... I am not sure why this is.

Sadly, I am sure you and I would probably find common ground that things are flawed -- even given my original statement that the current system is beautiful. When I said such, it is because I do not ascribe to any form of direct democracy on the National level.

Even in your assessment your use of "national elections" is incorrect. We have no national elections. All elections take place at the State and local levels. This is bothersome for me because many lament and complain about the system in which they have no knowledge (please do not take that as a jab at you; I am generally speaking here).

Given as such -- I cannot see States (who are the entity who elects the electorate) being bought off to pre-select a president, however; this is speaking in a vacuum. Given the current apathy of the large portion of the voting public and their lackluster participation in anything but the General Elections, I can see it happen and probably happens on an extent that many do not want to see.

This is why I went to great lengths to post what I did. It wasn't arrogance. It was to provide discussion in which you found a problem with (and I am unsure why.)

So regarding the question proposed by the OP -- Has it already been decided? -- Possibly, but highly doubtful in my opinion.

Post Script
To add -- there have been four presidential elections that have gone against the "popular vote" -- it is rare but not impossible for it to happen. One of the most famous newspaper errors of all time was the running of "Dewey Wins". In regards to your assessment that if you want to rig an election you have to rig the popular vote...again, possibly, but do you think the People would even care? Election day is a Tuesday and I am sure some reality television show is on that night to take their minds off the fiasco that is American politics.

Yes it already has because consider the alternative is no regulations, no assurances, more corruption, more crud. Our nation cannot afford to be under GOP control.

Two words :

bIN LADIN! Need I say more?

Originally posted by seabag

Originally posted by brianmg5

Obama taught constitutional law for 12 years and has proven to be very knowledgeable, I wouldn't underestimate him as a street organizer if I were the GOP.

Oh ya, he’s sharp as a whip alright!!

Hehe....as funny as it is, it has been edited. Still, amusing.

reply to post by Paschar0
HB Gary. They did wonders for Canada's Harper fiasco, and they were working with US elections models.

AX
FTNWO

Originally posted by brianmg5

Originally posted by seabag
post removed by staff

Obama taught constitutional law for 12 years and has proven to be very knowledgeable, I wouldn't underestimate him as a street organizer if I were the GOP.

edit on Mon Nov 28 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)

I'm curious as to where you came up with this tidbit. I know nothing about Obama's past, only that he was once a 'substitute' teacher in college. How did you verify this?