- News all the latest
- Theme Park explore the park
- Resort tour the resort
- Future looking forward
- History looking back
- Community and meetups
-
ℹ️ Heads up...
This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks. - Thread starter Stelios
- Start date
- Favourite Ride
- Nemesis
- Favourite Ride
- Nemesis
2012 US Election
Stelios
TS Member
Whew. We can breathe now. Let's hope he sings, especially if he gets Florida.
Even speaking to a lot of my internet friends, only one of them was Republican which game me a clearer idea. I do fear that a weak Democrat will fail miserably next time though (if Romney was smart and wanted a chance, he would of waited until then to "sort out" Israel and Iran). I kinda feel a bit sorry for Romney, you'd never see British politicians give speeches of that much dignity.
Even speaking to a lot of my internet friends, only one of them was Republican which game me a clearer idea. I do fear that a weak Democrat will fail miserably next time though (if Romney was smart and wanted a chance, he would of waited until then to "sort out" Israel and Iran). I kinda feel a bit sorry for Romney, you'd never see British politicians give speeches of that much dignity.
Not really... Just look it up. It's no secret that this administration has a list of 'dangerous enemies' which they are hunting down and killing with drone strikes.
In some ways, you can make a case that Obama is actually worse than Bush on this issue. As where Bush tortured supposed terrorists in Guantanamo bay, this President just assassinates them.
In some ways, you can make a case that Obama is actually worse than Bush on this issue. As where Bush tortured supposed terrorists in Guantanamo bay, this President just assassinates them.
Tom
TS Member
I'm pleased America continues to keep out less-extreme leaders like Romney would have been, but everyone knew Obama was going to win this really. The British media playing it up as a 'close' battle was just a pathetic attempt to drum up interest and suspense in their coverage, particularly by the opinionated BBC.
However, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it if Romney got in. Frankly I find America's influence and power to be diminishing, and the election of their president does not require to be at the top of the news in this country for days before and afterwards as it is. The coverage of Hurricane Sandy's effect on the United States was also disgracefully out of proportion by the UK media when almost as many people were killed in the Caribbean islands as what were in America.
I don't believe that the majority of the British public hero-worship America or its leaders in the way that the BBC and co do, I find them embarrassingly unrepresentative.
However, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it if Romney got in. Frankly I find America's influence and power to be diminishing, and the election of their president does not require to be at the top of the news in this country for days before and afterwards as it is. The coverage of Hurricane Sandy's effect on the United States was also disgracefully out of proportion by the UK media when almost as many people were killed in the Caribbean islands as what were in America.
I don't believe that the majority of the British public hero-worship America or its leaders in the way that the BBC and co do, I find them embarrassingly unrepresentative.
Scott
Former TS Team Member
The world media, not just the BBC, played it up as a close battle... Because it could have been. It turned out different in the end in terms of the electoral college numbers but the overall popular vote shows how it was close.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.
Sam
TS Member
Nick said:
Oh dear me, where to begin... how do you know they're "dangerous terrorists" unless they have a chance to stand trial? Without doing so, they can only ever be suspected terrorists. What are the chances, realistically, that suspected 'terrorists' killed by drone attacks in Pakistan or Afghanistan were going to kill you?
The only problem is not just the unnecessary deaths of civilians, the other problem is the lack of a fair trial for these people before they're butchered.
Meat Pie said:Rejoice... They picked the lesser of two evils.
I feel so much safer with the man who has a secret kill list of people he wants to dispose of. :
As a straight guy, the difference between the two candidates might not be that great. But for LGBT people, there is a clear gulf between these two men. If their foreign policy is similar, Obama's policies and beliefs on gay rights are radically more progressive than Romney's. Even if it makes little difference to straight people, LGBT people worldwide breathed a massive sigh of relief last night.
Tom
TS Member
mrbrightside said:
Then feel free to substitute every instance British with worldwide because it was all drama generation driven partially by the Republicans.
The figures you mention are misleading, if you do the calculations (which I haven't, but the bookmakers did and it's in their interests to be as accurate as possible) it was clear only Obama could have realistically won for many days before yesterday.
Indeed at 22:45 last night when people were still saying it was insanely close, if you'd put £100 on Obama you'd have woken up with £17 profit, whereas that money on Romney would have made you £400 up. There's a reason for that and the claims it would be the closest election for 50 years and comparisons with Bush/Gore in 2000 were laughable to anyone with a shred of intelligence.
Nick
TS Member
Sam said:
Apologies, I didn't really make myself clear enough there. I mean, quite explicitly, dangerous terrorists only (ie. those who have a past of terrorism, or those at imminent threat of committing an act of terrorism). They don't deserve a trial, frankly, as they have clearly a threat to many people, and if action is needed quickly, then it should be done. However, unproven terrorists should not be targeted before sufficient evidence is given.
To be honest, law is much too slow to act on such important matters. For example, the fiasco we had a couple of weeks ago for the length time it took to deport a terrorist (I'm not sure if he was proven or not).
Everybody deserves a trial, regardless of what crime they've committed. It's a fundamental right. Whether it's possible to arrest somebody in a terrorist-controlled desert state and bring them to court is another matter, but I don't think the premise that a person doesn't deserve a trial should be brought into question.Nick said:
Nick
TS Member
Rupert said:
This is the last time I'm going to change the topic's subject, I'll be happy to debate in another topic.
Anyway, criminals don't have the same rights as law-abiding citizens. For example, if they are in prison, then they don't have them same freedom at all. When you say "fundamental right", it can not be regarded as a right for criminals who have had other rights removed from them. And also, I'm not suggesting there wouldn't be a trial, I would be suggesting that the terrorist would not be able to have a say in it. There would have to be a court to judge whether they are guilty or not, dependent on the evidence given.
And, to be honest, I'm sure that if someone you loved had been killed by a terrorist attack, you wouldn't be so sure to give them a fair trial- if it risks letting them go free, when it's clear they are guilty.
Anyway, I think it's time to go back on topic.