So what now? Omama is back

[Logbas34]

This is just sick, first time I voted... So excited and bam.. Just got smacked with 4 more years of BS...
Soo what now?
What do you guys predict?

Any specific ramifications to NFA items possible??

Now that he's in and has nothing to lose, there's going to be change alright! Lots of change... Not good change either...

]=

[Logbas34]

I must add in my defense sorry if the subject on NFA items sounded ignorant... This hype got me all fired up...I don't think Obama will go outright and ban NFA, I just am worried in general about all what may happen now with our second ammendment rights as a whole... I know Mitt wasn't really On our side when it comes to certain firearms... But he IMO, was the lesser of 2 evils...

[Bendersquint]

I must add in my defense sorry if the subject on NFA items sounded ignorant... This hype got me all fired up...I don't think Obama will go outright and ban NFA, I just am worried in general about all what may happen now with our second ammendment rights as a whole... I know Mitt wasn't really On our side when it comes to certain firearms... But he IMO, was the lesser of 2 evils...

NFA items are safe since they are already heavily regulated.

I can see some restrictions on hi capacity mags, semi-auto military styled rifles and handguns in the future though.

[bakerjw]

Do the same things that we've been doing. Work on self sufficiency, aka livestock, gardening, canning, etc... This also accelerates my decision to pull the trigger on a few KW solar power system with battery backup.

The fiscal cliff is looming and once the printing presses get rolling full speed, my money in the bank will be worthless.

Also time to dump some cash into large capacity magazines and another several thousand rounds of ammo while I still can.

[silencertalk]

We are outnumbered now and the new minority. I see this as the tipping point, and it will get harder and harder to pass individual responsibility.

For the top two races on the ballot, Marshfield liked the republicans. According to returns tabulated at the poll’s 8 p.m. closing, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney received 7,866 votes to President Barack Obama’s 7,041. Republican incumbent U.S. Senator Scott Brown topped Democratic challenger Elizabeth Warren receiving 9,276 votes to Warren’s 5,799 votes.

My local middle school (6th graders) were even more conservative than their parents! They hated Elizabeth Warren and it was 80/20 against her.

Marshfield’s Furnace Brook Middle School held a mock presidential election on Monday. The students’ preference was Mitt Romney: He bested President Barack Obama, 52 percent to 45 percent. In the voting for U.S. senator, the students gave incumbent Scott Brown a whopping 80 percent of the vote. One student said she voted for Brown because she found Democrat Elizabeth Warren’s voice annoying.

Not all MA is ultra liberal. If you just nuke Boston/Dorchester/Roxbury and a few other pockets of densely-packed O-bots then the commies would not win. That is also true of Ohio.

[Logbas34]

I'm not for nuking anyone in Ohio I live in the good ol' stark county which containing canton and according to the graph I was watching on the news last night on the news we are primarily democrat..

[buckgunner]

We are all going to suffer because of this man in the White House. How could the people in this great country be so stupid as to vote him in to office twice. I have lost faith in the people of this country. I seems that this is just a game to a lot of people and they have no concept of what is going to happen. I try to pass along the morals to my family that I have grown up with and strongly believe in only to have this government tell my family that I am wrong. The future is grim and I don't look forward to the next few years.
God help us all.
Sorry for the rant but I need to vent.

[crazy carl]

It's true, the future looks very bleak. I use to laugh at the doomsayers thinking they were all ignorant to think this great nation would ever fail. Now after seeing Obama re-elected, I realize that the nation has ideologically shifted and those in control are not the Americans that have run this nation since its inception. We are living in a new America and not a good or better America. There are those that will probably think I am a doomsayer, but I am exploring the possibility of moving out of this country to someplace with a lower cost of living, less civil unrest, and a better place to be content and at peace. The American dream is dead and there is no way in a democratic system to bring it back. This election proves we have lost the ability to change things at the voting box. Thats why I am seriously looking for a place my wife and I can live comfortably on what we have without the fear of the government taking it from us via taxes or out right confiscation. God please help us all.

[Libertarian_Geek]

The tipping point was the 17th amendment. It was the very first domino to fall. The current erosion of our republic can be traced back to it.

[O2HeN2]

The tipping point was the 17th amendment. It was the very first domino to fall. The current erosion of our republic can be traced back to it.

I have to agree. But this is the first election where clearly the people who vote for a living outvoted those who work for a living.

The takers outvoted the makers.

O2

[Speed-Racer]

Unfortunately, the path has been chosen We are now to receive the government we deserve.

[MV10]

While the reelection of Obama is bad, I think I'm more disheartened by the fact that his campaign didn't create any appreciable difference in the number of people who bothered to vote. The voters did more or less the same thing they've done in recent years. The numbers didn't vary a lot.

But a vastly larger number of people didn't even care enough to even try one way or the other.

That's the real sign of things to come.

[doubloon]

According to what little research I was able to do on the subject when this came up around the office yesterday, voter turnout as a percentage hasn't really changed much in the last 100 years.

Averaging around 55% in the previous 13 presidential elections. If the 2012 turnout ends up being anywhere near 60% it will be one of the best turnouts since before I was voting (barely).

Many of the clueless don't bother to vote and I'm happy for that.

I believe showing I.D. to vote is not the real issue, I wish people had to pass a test to vote. The questions could be even pretty simple and I think turnout would end up dropping by 30% or more but we'd end up with a more intelligent choice.

Who is running for President? Who for vice president? Who is your senator? Who is your congressman?

So many would fail.

[MV10]

Earlier this morning I read the Dem turnout was something like 2 million lower than 2008, and the Rep turnout was around 1 million lower... (something like that, those numbers are off the top of my head). I suppose "hasn't changed in 100 years" depends on how much variation you consider "the same" but when the win/lose difference is down to individual percentage points, I'd say variations in that same range are significant.

I do agree with a basic skills test for voting, but it would cause a s--t-storm of previously unheard-of proportions. Bring it!

[crazy carl]

The tipping point was the 17th amendment. It was the very first domino to fall. The current erosion of our republic can be traced back to it.

Great historical insight. I was unaware of that and I appreciate the info. I did a little research and educated myself. Thanks Again!!

[doubloon]

Totals might be hard to work with given the fluctuations in overall population.

I looked at popular sources for turnout data which says the voting turnout has varied between ~50% and ~63% since 1960.

You have to go all the way back to 1908 before you can find a estimated turn out greater than 63% and 1900 for anything greater than 70%. The mid-late 1800s produced near 80% turnouts but early 1800 turnouts were estimated to be as lackluster as today.

Given what was going on in the mid-late 1800s it's not surprising how motivated people were to vote.

[ERMaag]

I think we need to get rid of canidates names off the ballot and instead have a list of 15 or so questions on the issues on hand. Then get rid of the electoral college (it's a bit outdated anyway).

[bakerjw]

Then get rid of the electoral college (it's a bit outdated anyway).

IIRC. That requires a constitutional convention. We really don't want those in charge to even get close to that kind of accident waiting to happen.

[ick]

Then get rid of the electoral college (it's a bit outdated anyway).

That is a baaaaaad idea, and here is why......

As it stands now, city population centers have control over the election process on a state-by-state basis. For example, look at Pennsylvania:

The population vote for Philadelphia Pennsylvania was so overwhelmingly for Obama it overcame the pro-Romney vote in the rest of the state. This one small area turned the entire state of Pennsylvania for Obama.

The electoral college "limited" this "damage" to the election process to Pennsylvania's electoral votes.

Granted, this same effect happens in reverse in a state like Texas, but if the electoral college system is dismantled look for the will of the coastlines and cities to control all legislation, all future judge appointments, every veto, every regulation.....

Now as for this election, Obama won the electoral college AND the popular vote... so it is irrelevant anyhow. Our path has been chosen by a coalition of takers, democratic robots, and a rock-star populist president.

Imagine the increased turnout in a state like Kommiefornia if the hippies there could have more of an impact... and weren't limited to just the 55 electoral college votes allocated to that state. Now multiply that by every city in America.

[ERMaag]

Then get rid of the electoral college (it's a bit outdated anyway).

That is a baaaaaad idea, and here is why......

As it stands now, city population centers have control over the election process on a state-by-state basis. For example, look at Pennsylvania:

The population vote for Philadelphia Pennsylvania was so overwhelmingly for Obama it overcame the pro-Romney vote in the rest of the state. This one small area turned the entire state of Pennsylvania for Obama.

The electoral college "limited" this "damage" to the election process to Pennsylvania's electoral votes.

Granted, this same effect happens in reverse in a state like Texas, but if the electoral college system is dismantled look for the will of the coastlines and cities to control all legislation, all future judge appointments, every veto, every regulation.....

Now as for this election, Obama won the electoral college AND the popular vote... so it is irrelevant anyhow. Our path has been chosen by a coalition of takers, democratic robots, and a rock-star populist president.

Imagine the increased turnout in a state like Kommiefornia if the hippies there could have more of an impact... and weren't limited to just the 55 electoral college votes allocated to that state. Now multiply that by every city in America.

do you feel that this would remain true if voters did not know which canidate they were voting for? I feel it would elimate or restrict those people out there that vote purely because it is what their friends and family want. No more voted based off of race or religion, just voting on the issues.

[Libertarian_Geek]

I think we need to get rid of canidates names off the ballot and instead have a list of 15 or so questions on the issues on hand. Then get rid of the electoral college (it's a bit outdated anyway).

Real bad idea. Followed by one that's worse. But let's see it... Cite your reasons for getting rid of electoral college? Enlighten us.

[ERMaag]

I think we need to get rid of canidates names off the ballot and instead have a list of 15 or so questions on the issues on hand. Then get rid of the electoral college (it's a bit outdated anyway).

Real bad idea. Followed by one that's worse. But let's see it... Cite your reasons for getting rid of electoral college? Enlighten us.

hey now, i'm just asking questions. In my opinion voters would have to be more informed when placing their votes. I may be wrong in my line of thought...definately wouldn't be the first time...nor would it be the last...

[Libertarian_Geek]

Can you cite the logic behind your opinion that we should get rid of the electoral college? Simple question.

edited to correct spelling (I triggered my own pet-peeve)

[ick]

do you feel that this would remain true if voters did not know which candidate they were voting for? I feel it would eliminate or restrict those people out there that vote purely because it is what their friends and family want. No more voted based off of race or religion, just voting on the issues.

Yes, I think that is another aspect of things, and that is a good point.

I find there to be a real danger when you start taking away a person's right to vote, even if they are clueless deadbeats.

Think about it like this, the elites in this country think YOU shouldn't have a right to vote either... being a fly-over country or republican Alaska retard in their mind. So if you draw the line at people that can't answer basic questions... how about THEY draw a line that excludes you? It gets tricky drawing a line like that.

Second, even if you could exclude the uninformed I bet it still wouldn't change things much.... so there is the whole argument that there are an equal number of morons voting either way.

Third, we all agree that people have the right to "keep and bear arms" even if they are not so smart. How is the right to vote any different?

[ERMaag]

Can you cite the logic behind your opinion that we should get rid of the electoral college? Simple question.

edited to correct spelling (I triggered my own pet-peeve)

Sense I posted a opinion, in the form of a question, I do not have a source to cite. I do not know of a discussion that has covered this line of thought. If you do not have a opinion to share then just say so, my comment was not meant to insult or belittle anyone. So, if I have insulted or belittled you by posting my opinion, then please come out and say it.

do you feel that this would remain true if voters did not know which candidate they were voting for? I feel it would eliminate or restrict those people out there that vote purely because it is what their friends and family want. No more voted based off of race or religion, just voting on the issues.

Yes, I think that is another aspect of things, and that is a good point.

I find there to be a real danger when you start taking away a person's right to vote, even if they are clueless deadbeats.

Think about it like this, the elites in this country think YOU shouldn't have a right to vote either... being a fly-over country or republican Alaska retard in their mind. So if you draw the line at people that can't answer basic questions... how about THEY draw a line that excludes you? It gets tricky drawing a line like that.

Second, even if you could exclude the uninformed I bet it still wouldn't change things much.... so there is the whole argument that there are an equal number of morons voting either way.

Third, we all agree that people have the right to "keep and bear arms" even if they are not so smart. How is the right to vote any different?

I have not looked at it that way, good point but, I wasn't trying to suggest that we take a person's right to vote. People would just be forced to vote on the topics. The usually key points during a election:

Abortion: Women's right( ) Situational only( )
Right to bear arms: Yes( ) No( )

and so on. Obviously I'm not a test writer, but i'm sure there are plenty out there that could come up with more vital more thought out questions to ask to determine which candidate fits your beliefs.