1. Pay for my smartphone
2. Pay my mortgage
3. Wipe out my debts
4. Borrow a trillion dollars every year
5. Increase gasoline and electric prices
6. Let Iran nuke Israel
7. Keep blaming Bush and Republicans

Not intervene against legalized weed in Colorado and any other state that follows their path.

Quote: (11-09-2012 12:18 PM)Caligula Wrote:  

Scumbag Roosh: says politics is biggest source of forum beef; starts inflammatory political thread.

What is inflammatory about it? I just want to understand why supporters voted for him based on things he promised.

Quote: (11-09-2012 08:53 AM)Roosh Wrote:  

What do you hope he will accomplish in the next four years that he hasn't in the past four?

What he accomplishes is dependent on congress as well. He's not an autocrat. What I hope he accomplishes:

Get us out of Afghanistan
Enact Obamacare
Raise taxes on the wealthy to close the deficit
Cut the military budget
Look out for the interests of the middle class
Reform entitlement spending
Stay out of Iran
Be a fair broker on Israel/Palestine
Keep Wall Street regulations in place


Beyond that, I like him because he's pragmatic and not ideological. He's a thinker, he's calculating. He doesn't rely on his gut like Bush did. I've never heard him come off as a demagogue. I think he tries to reach across the aisle and compromise. It's too bad the Republicans don't feel the same way. I think he handled the Hurricane Sandy situation well, I think he did the right thing helping out GM and Chrysler and saved a lot of jobs. I think he looks for international cooperation instead of going it alone. His experience living overseas I think gives him a broader perspective of the world that someone like Romney doesn't have.

This list above isn't exhaustive but these are a few things off the top of my head as to why I support him and what I hope he gets done.

ps - That popcorn guy is by the far the best emoticon we have. Cracks me up every time!

Quote: (11-09-2012 08:08 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

Quote: (11-09-2012 12:18 PM)Caligula Wrote:  

Scumbag Roosh: says politics is biggest source of forum beef; starts inflammatory political thread.

What is inflammatory about it? I just want to understand why supporters voted for him based on things he promised.

Inflammatory was an exaggeration. But politics threads haven't been good for the overall tone and cohesion of the forum.

Regardless of how innocuous they start out (eg. tenderman posting ridiculous glamour shots of Paul Ryan doing arm curls) they derail and always generate more heat than light.

Anyway, I'll continue to stay off the politics threads and focus elsewhere.

Fair enough, though I do want to understand where Obama supporters come from since they make a big part of the forum.

Obama is a hamster-wheel speed catalyst, plain and simple.

For me, the big thing is that Obama, while no pacifist, doesn't seem to get his rocks off on land invasions of Muslim countries. Another Republican president would have meant another war in the middle east, which is an atrocious waste of money, American prestige, and young men's lives. I'm fine with the GOP controlling the House--Senate too, if that had come to pass--but by this point, the American president is nothing less than an emperor in matters of foreign and military policy, and Republicans are too trigger happy to hold that much power.

Btw, I like political threads on RVF, as long as the discussions within them stay within them. Guys here bring a perspective you don't find other places.

Chris Christie 2016

He was only nuthugging obama after sandy so Bruce Springsteen, his idol would be friends with him.

Let me summarize a Facebook orgasm from election night posted by one of my friends-

Obama is wonderful because:
He will create 12 million new jobs.
He has enacted positive change.
Warren, and McKaskill won.
Gay marriage passed by referendum in two states.
Pot has been legalized in two states.
He finds this a "a sweeping vindication for the progressive agenda".
And a "complete vindication of liberal policies, of social justice".

Notice the use of the word "vindication". This is the key.

Obama vindicates. He is the vindicator. He is affirmation.

The fanatical Obama supporters love him not for any rational reason, but because he reaffirms and vindicates. Themselves. He reaffirms belief in their selves.

Think about it.

Quote: (11-09-2012 12:20 PM)_GQ_ Wrote:  

Obama's administration will continue to whittle away at the unemployment rate and perhaps more importantly keep us out of war. Hilary will take over in 2016 and return the US to the glory days.

That's cute haha

Quote: (11-09-2012 09:21 PM)murrb Wrote:  

Chris Christie 2016

I do like him though.

Quote: (11-09-2012 09:28 AM)Roosh Wrote:  

^^ Well, I've noticed a lot of happiness in his re-election on the internet. I'm curious as to the reason why.... what do supporters expect he will do that warrants that response?

"Choose the best" nowadays has a different meaning, it is usually choosing between a complete piece of shit and not so complete piece of shit.

Personally I'm just happy Romney didn't win, and from talking to other people here in CA it is quite common. I don't know what the Republicans though when they came up with probably the most retarded candidate they could ever find. While with Obama there is a possibility things still might get worse, with Romney it would be pretty much guaranteed. Stagnation is the only thing Republicans seem to be good at, and in the modern society this means death.

Yeah, and the healthcare law which I'm happy to see standing.
And hopefully we'll get weed legalized, at least in civilized places (AR/MO can keep it banned if they want to).
And gay marriage, hopefully they all will get it the next year or so, so we can forget about it and move on.
And keep the religion away from school and politics so my kids wouldn't have to learn that retarded stuff.

Republicans will never win the whitehouse again unless they change their social issues.

Fiscally conservative and socially liberal will be the key if the grand old party ever wants to win the whitehouse again.

Right now they are scaring away all the minority votes because the minorities hear the word republican and think they want to round them all up and deport them if they win.

They are scaring away alot of women voters with pro life and other republicans like todd akin and the legitimate rape stuff.

Old white people votes are shrinking by the year

Young progressive/minority votes are growing by the year

At least Obama and Leftist Socialism will be blamed when we ride off the fiscal cliff. Those whom God has joined together, let no man put asunder. The marriage of Obama and the American electorate has been consummated and ye shall perish eternally in the fires of Mount Doom. And thine eternal enemies the Conservatives shall smite thee with terrible vengeance in 2016, sweeping past the teat-sucking blue state citizenry and doing the work of holy God to preserve the sanctity of capitalism, individual freedom, and civilization.

Also, I wonder if red pill and game websites will be labeled hate speech and ban-hammered when Obama appoints Leftist Supreme Court Justices. Similar to what they do in Socialist Europa.

It could happen my friends. Leftists have little regard for the freedom of speech.

While I would never describe myself as as Obama "supporter," I'll chime in a little, since I technically preferred him over Romney.

The hope--at least in some sectors of the Left--is that our suspicion that Obama is a committed reformer, and that it will come out in his second term (when presidents' true color tend to shine).

I'd like to see:

**1. Campaign finance reform (a need for which he is keenly aware).

2. End to NAFTA/CAFTA etc.

3. More tariffs on Chinese products.

4. Raise marginal tax rate (on wealthy).

5. Raise corporate taxes (i.e., close loop-holes that allow the GEs and Exxon-Mobiles to pay zero taxes or, in some cases, get a refund).

6. Dis-incentivize off-shoring of jobs (import taxes).

7. Improve national healthcare (Obamacare).

8. Appoint real progressives to the Supreme Court.

9. End stupid foreign wars of occupation (Afghanistan).

I'm sure there are others, but those are off the top of my head. How many of those has Obama talked about doing at one point or another? I'd say 5 or 6. Is he likely to do them? Nah. But he's more likely to do some of that than, say, Romney or Rubio or Ryan, or any one of the other current darlings of the Right--who'd likely do the straight-up opposite.

None of this, of course, can happen--even if he intended to do it--with an obstructionist (Republican) Congress. Frankly, just doing the first on the list would improve many of the country's problems over the next couple of election cycles.

The responses in this thread are hilarious.

Was everyone living under a rock for the last four years?

Did anyone do any fact checking? Or is it 2004 all over again when everyone bought what the MSM told them hook, line, and sinker? (granted Republicans have been their own worst enemy-as was mentioned earlier with the refusal to budge on being so socially conservative)

I wonder what the excuses will be in 2016? It was Bush's fault? It was Ronald Reagan's fault? It was Howard Taft's fault? At what point do you hold people accountable? It's almost like Republicans are men and Democrats are women, in that Republicans (men) get held to the highest most impossible standards, while the Deomcrats (women) get passes on everything with zero accountability. This does not say that the Republicans haven't been innocent and don't deserve some of the blame.

I am also surprised for so many so called "red-pillers" on this forum, how many blue pills are being eaten by the handful (i.e. supporting increased goverment control of everything).

I get that not a lot of people were impressed by Romney or Republicans (I know I was not), but when people say things like "raise corporate taxes" (when the U.S. already has the highest corporate tax rate in the world) and then wonder why so many jobs and companies are going overseas, it makes me shake my head.

These threads always seem to stray from the original topic.

Quote: (11-10-2012 12:32 AM)Pacesetter20 Wrote:  

The responses in this thread are hilarious.

Was everyone living under a rock for the last four years?

Did anyone do any fact checking? Or is it 2004 all over again when everyone bought what the MSM told them hook, line, and sinker? (granted Republicans have been their own worst enemy-as was mentioned earlier with the refusal to budge on being so socially conservative)

I wonder what the excuses will be in 2016? It was Bush's fault? It was Ronald Reagan's fault? It was Howard Taft's fault? At what point do you hold people accountable? It's almost like Republicans are men and Democrats are women, in that Republicans (men) get held to the highest most impossible standards, while the Deomcrats (women) get passes on everything with zero accountability. This does not say that the Republicans haven't been innocent and don't deserve some of the blame.

I am also surprised for so many so called "red-pillers" on this forum, how many blue pills are being eaten by the handful (i.e. supporting increased goverment control of everything).

I get that not a lot of people were impressed by Romney or Republicans (I know I was not), but when people say things like "raise corporate taxes" (when the U.S. already has the highest corporate tax rate in the world) and then wonder why so many jobs and companies are going overseas, it makes me shake my head.

Quote: (11-10-2012 12:46 AM)Tbone Wrote:  

These threads always seem to stray from the original topic.

Agreed. And I, for one, am tired of having the "red-pillness" and masculinity of entire segments of the forum questioned as a means to make a point. It's almost like a countdown to a statement like this:

Quote: (11-10-2012 12:32 AM)Pacesetter20 Wrote:  

I am also surprised for so many so called "red-pillers" on this forum, how many blue pills are being eaten by the handful (i.e. supporting increased goverment control of everything).

My opinion is that there needs to be some rules for participating in these political threads, otherwise they degenerate. Yes, more "government" is the solution.

NN = No "government" (crawling with trolls)

RVF = Strong "government" regulation (cleanest, smoothest forum on the web)

Quote: (11-10-2012 12:46 AM)Tbone Wrote:  

These threads always seem to stray from the original topic.

Just to show that I am capable of rational thought and not 100% biased, here are the things that I wish would actually get done, I would eat crow for my dislike of Obama:

- End Afghanistan. We aren't allowed to do what needs to be done to win it, so we might as well just leave, immediately, save money and Soldiers' lives.

- Military reform. I am actually for cutting the military, which could probably be easily done (start will all of the unnecessary xxxCOM fiefdoms and bloated staffs, etc) without jeopardizing national security (i.e. cutting actual trigger pullers). America doesn't need a huge standing Army (a small, highly trained core). Robust Navy (with Marines), Strong Airforce, Strong Cyber. As much as it pains me the Army is the last priority.

- Stop deficit growth. Everyone talks about reducing deficit (something neither party has been able to do. I would be happy if he can stop it that is in 2016 the deficit is the same as it is right now.

- End High Frequency Trading. Wall Street needs to be further reformed, if you don't know what it is, see link: http://moneymorning.com/2012/10/16/unles...e-markets/

- Entitlement reform. A pipedream I know.

- End the war on drugs. A stupid conservative crusade.

- Make VAWA gender neutral.

- Implement tarrifs as a way to increase revenue.

What the fuck is all this pro-Romney shit in the manosphere ever since Obama won? People honestly think that electing a mainstream democrat or repbulican who is appointed by banks and corporate lobbyists is going to change the direction of the U.S.? I thought you guys were smarter than that... This country has already been bought and sold. The game is over and mainstream politics isn't changing shit.

Quote:Quote:

NN = No "government" (crawling with trolls)

RVF = Strong "government" regulation (cleanest, smoothest forum on the web)

There is a massive difference in scale between a forum of a 1000 posters and a government of 300+ million people.


When you get to such a large size, it only makes sense to decentralize power into local hands in order to effectively manage things.

No libertarian believes in "no government" (except for some crazy anarchists), but that instead government should be given absolute powers within a small defined scope and scale.

Not an Obama supporter, but I hope he gets around to updating the United States' 100+-year-old antitrust laws. Ever since a few decisions came down from the Supreme Court in the last decade (Iqbal, Twombly) it is very difficult to get into court on certain antitrust claims. Also, the damages are set by statute at $100,000,000 - not chump change, but Apple's $1B verdict against Samsung in a patent case demonstrates how antiquated this number is.

There's been some movement by the Obama admin to enforce the laws on the books (see http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/...nforcement) but unless the laws are updated, there's only so much he can do. Meanwhile, AT&T grows far beyond its size when last broken up and other Telecoms in particular get truly massive. While there has been some regulatory pushback as to some mergers and acquisitions (e.g., Comcast's recent purchase of NBC), regulators can only do so much.

Also, not really things I hope Obama does, but issues he will have to confront:

-The looming clash between DOJ enforcement of federal marijuana laws, such as the crackdowns on dispensaries in California, which are legal under CA law but distributing a Schedule I drug under federal law; and
-The reappearance of a SOPA/PIPA-clone bill. Given the farce that is the patent "reform" bill that passed in his last term, I am not optimistic about the outcome of any IP protection litigation; most likely, any new law will end up like the DMCA, which failed to contemplate the Internet's evolution and is still being interpreted by the courts today.

He's less bad than Romney.

Let's face it neither candidate will do anything about the problems that concern us here. Nor is there any difference on fiscal issues, the only difference is that Obama will spend slightly more on butter, and Romney will spend slightly more on guns.

Where there is a meaningful difference is that Obama is far less aggressive and probably won't wrack up any more wars. Now quite possibly, even likely, is that Romney's aggression is just campaign rhetoric - but do I particularly want to find out? Nope.

for the obama supporters