Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Saracen21stC

President Barack Obama Defeats Romney To Win Re-Election

Recommended Posts

_63977159_obama.jpg

 

Barack Obama: "I have never been more hopeful"

 

US Presidential Election 2012

President Barack Obama has been re-elected to a second term, defeating Republican challenger Mitt Romney.

 

America's first black president secured more than the 270 votes in the electoral college needed to win.

 

In his victory speech before supporters in Chicago, Mr Obama said he would talk to Mr Romney about "where we can work together to move this country forward".

 

Mr Obama prevailed despite lingering dissatisfaction with the economy and a hard-fought challenge by Mr Romney.

 

His Democrats also retained their majority in the Senate, which they have held since 2007.

Continue reading the main story

 

Obama-303

Romney-206

 

The Republicans kept control of the House of Representatives, which analysts say will likely result in more of the gridlock that characterised Mr Obama's first term, with the House and the president at loggerheads on most legislation.

 

In his address, the president challenged his opponents, asking them to work with him.

With only Florida's 29 electoral votes still undecided, Mr Obama won 303 electoral votes to Mr Romney's 206.

 

The popular vote, which is symbolically and politically important but not decisive in the race, remains very close.

Continue reading the main story

 

“Start Quote

 

 

 

Both candidates said this was a choice of two visions - America has chosen

 

 

_53409341_mardell-112x81.jpg Mark Mardell North America editor

 

'One nation' speech

 

Mr Obama congratulated Mr Romney and Republican vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan on their hard-fought campaign.

 

"We have picked ourselves up, we have fought our way back and we know in our hearts that for the United States of America the best is yet to come," he said.

 

Mr Obama said he was returning to the White House "more determined, and more inspired than ever about the work there is to do, and the future that lies ahead".

 

He pledged to work with Republican leaders in Congress to reduce the government's budget deficit, fix the tax code and reform the immigration system.

 

"We are an American family and we rise and fall together as one nation," he said.

 

In Boston, where his campaign was based, Mr Romney congratulated the president and said he and Mr Ryan had "left everything on the field" and had given their all in the campaign.

 

Continue reading the main story

US media reaction

 

Thomas L Friedman of the New York Times writes: "No one can know for sure what complex emotional chemistrytipped this election Obama's way… it came down to a majority of Americans believing that whatever his faults, Obama was trying his hardest to fix what ails the country."

 

Dan Balz of the Washington Post says: "Tuesday's election produced an uncertain mandate, although Obama will attempt to claim one. Obama offered a plan, but not one that deals directly with some of the problems he will have to confront immediately."

 

A Wall Street Journal opinion piece read: "[Obama] said little during the campaign about his first term and even less about his plans for a second. Instead his strategy was to portray Mitt Romney as a plutocrat… it worked with brutal efficiency - the definition of winning ugly."

 

Doyle McManus of the Los Angeles Times writes: "If we're lucky, we will find that we elected a different Obama from the one who won four years ago - not just a grayer Obama but a wiser one too."

 

Referring to the struggling economy, Mr Romney said now was not the time for "partisan bickering and political posturing", and that Republicans and Democrats must "put people before politics".

 

"I so wish that I had been able to fulfil your hopes to lead the country in a different direction but the nation chose another leader and so I join with you to earnestly pray for [Mr Obama] and for this great nation," he said.

 

Under the US constitution, each state is given a number of electoral votes in rough proportion to its population. The candidate who wins 270 electoral votes - by prevailing in the mostly winner-takes-all state contests - becomes president.

 

On Tuesday, the president held the White House by assembling solid Democratic states and a number of important swing states such as Colorado, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota, Virginia and Wisconsin. His narrow victory in Ohio, a critical Mid-Western swing state, sealed the victory.

 

 

 

In other key ballots:

  • Referendums in Maine, Maryland and Washington state approved same-sex marriage, while a measure in Minnesota to block gay unions failed
  • Colorado and Washington state voted to legalise recreational use of marijuana
  • California voters rejected a proposal to abolish the death penalty
  • In a referendum, Puerto Ricans voted in favour of becoming the 51st US state, if Congress approves the move.

 

 

Billions spent

 

Mr Romney won North Carolina and Indiana, both of which Mr Obama won in 2008, as well as the solid Republican states.Continue reading the main story

 

 

Reaction to the result

 

Analysis: A vote for the status quo

Peston: Does US election matter to us?

What Obama's win means for the world

World reaction to Obama's re-election

In pictures: US elects a president

Clash over 'fiscal cliff' looms

 

 

But he was unable to win in Ohio or other states needed to breach the 270 threshold.

 

Also on Tuesday's ballot were 11 state governorships, a third of the seats in the 100-member US Senate and all 435 seats in the House of Representatives.

 

Mr Obama's victory came despite lingering high unemployment - 7.9% on election day - and tepid economic growth.

 

But voters gave him credit for his 2009 rescue of the US car industry among other policy accomplishments, and rewarded him for ordering the commando mission that killed Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan last year.

 

He and Mr Romney, as well as their respective allies, have spent more than $2bn (£1.25bn) - largely on adverts in swing states.

 

 

 

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk...canada-20233064

Edited by Saracen21stC
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

I want to see reaction of our American members here. No reaction so far!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I'll speak.

 

First of all, I didn't vote for either Obama or Romney. I have some issues with Obama, namely that he has expanded the military action in the Middle East dangerously and somewhat capriciously with drone attacks and so forth. On the other hand, I could never support Romney considering his beliefs and anti-Muslim tendencies either. Not to mention, Romney was solidly indebted to AIPAC, the israeli lobbyist group, willing to blindly support Netanyahu with anything he wanted.

 

As I have said before, I've worked for Ron Paul basically since 2007 as a volunteer. Here in Virginia, his chief strategist asked us last week to vote for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate. Since Johnson's views match up well with my own, I had no problem doing so. While I might not agree with everything Johnson agrees with, I do believe he was far closer (and one of only a handful of individuals who respected Muslim-Americans) to what I do support.

 

That being said, Obama is definitely the lesser of two evils as far as I am concerned for not just the Muslim-American community, but the United States as a whole. He is far more respectable than Mitt Romney is and so while I didn't vote for him, I was happy to see him defeat Romney. Though I am interesting in that in the three races here in my area of Virginia, I voted for three different parties. I voted for a Democrat for the Senate and a Republican for the House of Representatives. Both of whom were much better than their opponents.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand the election - I know that Obama won but then there were these other mini elections on legalisation of marijuana and same sex marriage? Are they like referendums connected to the election?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically, yes. For instance, the states of Maine, Maryland and Washington voted to legalize same-sex marriage (which was the first time anything like that managed to pass when put to a vote of the public) and another state voted down a proposal to define marriage as between a man and woman. A couple states voted to legalize marijuana totally, while Oregon voted not to.

 

Here in Virginia, our referendums were on eminent domain and prohibiting the government from taking land from private individuals except for public use and about the assembly being required to act in a certain time after bills are vetoed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never understood how they can be "united" states if they have different laws for different issues...

 

I think it will be interesting to see what Obama does now that he does not have to worry about re-election. Will he let loose and come through on promises he made. I am not his biggest fan and think he is just as bad as romney...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The easy answer is that for all the rhetoric, states' rights is still inherent in our Constitution. Indeed, if you tried to take that away from most Americans, you'd see a very large backlash because they like their individualism. Two of the biggest referendums this year were actually in Colorado and Montana for instance, banning corporate money from being used in elections (since the Supreme Court a couple years ago declared corporations had the same rights as people). Since those two states passed their referendums overwhelmingly, several other states are planning to do the same in the next election cycle.

 

The United States are more a confederation than even most people realize, though we are a republic. We're a large enough country by size that different regions have vastly different outlooks and values even.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never understood how they can be "united" states if they have different laws for different issues...

 

I think it will be interesting to see what Obama does now that he does not have to worry about re-election. Will he let loose and come through on promises he made. I am not his biggest fan and think he is just as bad as romney...

 

I agree. Which is again why I didn't vote for him. And I know several other Muslims who felt the same way here in Virginia. He's at best, the lesser of two evils to me. One note that I will say is this: Obama's staffers were particularly incensed at Netanyahu trying to get involved in the American elections, and said that Obama is likely to remember that affront for some time. Which could hurt Bibi in his plans to continue his apartheid practices in israel and against Iran as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be interested if Ron Paul was elected as then there might be some real policy changes especially foreign policy which concerns me most. I do hope that the economy goes down the drain though if I'm being honest. That way they might stop oppressing other nations.

 

Anyway here is another view on voting in democracies. Particularly in America. Written in 2008 just before the elections(read all three parts):

 

 

Anyone with a simple understanding of the history of American politics would realize that on the major issues both parties share the same agenda. But even in the case where there is a clear lesser evil such as Ron Paul I would still follow the opinion of total abstinence because I believe that we are under no necessity to allow the participation in a system of disbelief, and because our participation is a tacit acceptance on our behalf to play by the rules of the democratic system.

 

http://www.kalamulla...-affairs16.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do hope that the economy goes down the drain though if I'm being honest. That way they might stop oppressing other nations.

 

As-salamu 'alaikum wa rahmatu Allahi wa barakatuh

 

Do you think the global economy can handle the US economy going down the drain? "Going down the drain" is an ambigious statement. How bad would you the US economy gets?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As-salamu 'alaikum wa rahmatu Allahi wa barakatuh

 

Do you think the global economy can handle the US economy going down the drain? "Going down the drain" is an ambigious statement. How bad would you the US economy gets?

 

Walaikumsalam warahmatullahi wa barakatuh

 

I am seeing this issue from a point of view of what benefits our ummah. The current global system(which is based of riba) is not ideal from an Islamic point of view anyway. In my opinion the decline of the global economy might be necessary for the Muslim ummah to free itself. I mean just look at wherever there is even a small hint of the implementation of Shariah, that land if invaded and destroyed just like in northern Mali today where they are gathering a coalition to invade. If they didn't have the money they would not be able to invade.

 

So maybe this(global economy going down the drain) is exactly what is needed for the re-establishment of the Khilafah and the demise of the nation state which is really just keeping the Muslims divided.

 

Allah knows best.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never understood how they can be "united" states if they have different laws for different issues...

Well, in order to understand why that is, you'd need to understand what sort of governmental system we have set up, which is a federal republic subdivided into 50 semi-autonomous republics. This is a fundamentally different system from a unitary state such as France, which isn't subdivided into autonomous or semi-autonomous pieces with separate legislatures.

 

When the United States was first founded, it was a confederation of 13 independent states. You could think of them as 13 countries that decided to come together and share certain responsibilities, such as common defense or free trade between states. A "state" in the political sense is an organizational apparatus with a "legitimate" monopoly on the use of force over a defined territory and population. Virtually every country you see today are organized as "states," such as France, Japan, China, Saudi Arabia, Australia, etc.

 

Due to some difficulties the United States encountered under the Articles of Confederation, the U.S. Constitution was drafted to form a federation of states (as opposed to a more loosely-associated confederation), which introduced a more powerful national government comprised of representatives from the individual state governments. The individual states conferred some powers to the national (or federal) government such as the ability to coin money and levy tariffs on goods, while the states retained the remainder of power over their territories and populations.

 

So the United States of America is actually a federation of 50 individual states that, if they were not bound together by the U.S. Constitution, would be 50 independent republics. Several countries around the world are federations similar to the United States, such as Mexico, Brazil, Russia, and Australia. What makes the United States of America "united" is the common federal government comprised of representatives of each state. Whatever powers were not explicitly given to the federal government via the U.S. Constitution was retained by each state. This accounts for the variety in different laws governing each state, because the federal government is forbidden from making such laws, while each state has a monopoly over lawmaking in their respective territories over matters reserved to them by the Constitution.

 

So to sum up, the United States of America is a federation of 50 semi-autonomous republics bound, or united, together by the U.S. Constitution, which explicitly states the powers the national government has, while reserving the remainder of powers to the individual state governments.

Edited by Wanderer
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

according to this report they may no longer "united states"

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk...canada-20301477

Secession talk goes through the rounds every election, just as many always claim they'll "leave the country," but very few actually do. Texas, Hawaii, and Vermont are three places where secession has been a minority opinion for decades. The thing is, secessionist movements never gain enough support to go anywhere. Even the U.S. Civil War ended up with no states remaining fully autonomous from the federal government strengthened by Abraham Lincoln.

 

I wouldn't read too much into this.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well put Wanderer , many outside of the United States are puzzled by how the American system works . Some have already taken the idea of " States Right " to mean a State can legislate whatever it wants . That is true to a degree , however those rights must fall in under the Constitution .Federal Law trumps State Law. If a State legislates a law , it can be challenged and brought to the Supreme Court.If that law is considered "UnConstitutional " then it will be struck down . Since same sex marriage has been considered Constitutional , any state has the right to make it legal , but counter-intuitively , those same states retain the right , to not recognize same sex marriages thus you have a patchwork of a minority of States that consider it legal . Since there is no law forbiding same sex marriages in the Constitution , as well as Abortion and marijuana use , it is left to the States to determine legality in that particular state . This can even be extrapolated down to the County level as there ARE many Counties that are what is called " A dry County " ...that is no sale of Liquor is permitted .

There is also forms of legislation , called " Bills or Acts " that a majority of State Senators and Representatives can pass in a majority or super majority vote to enact new laws and repeal laws already in existence .Such a majority can even change or abolish an Amendment IF it is ruled Constitutional by the Supreme Court

Aside from a sometimes disastrous foreign policy , the USA , has freedoms unheard of in most parts of the world . One can move to another state more suitable to their situation or views .

This type of government is unacceptable in the eyes of some , and that can be remedied by going elsewhere .The Constitution was writen over 240 years ago and has been Amended about 25 times . Obviously the situations that exist today were non-existent then . That's why there is a Supreme Court to which any group , organization or citizen has as a right, access to under the constitution ...that is called Due Process. Citizens CAN change foreign policy by way of the vote , that is what got the US out of Iraq and soon Afghanistan . Hopefully that same process will eliminate intervention except in cases where a US Ally is concerned .

Yes , the US has Allies too , just as ANY other Nation has allies .

Edited by Aligarr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×