|
|
Post by verasthebrujah on Jun 24, 2011 11:56:26 GMT -5
I think the biggest difference between the two would be when it was Bush, there were reasons for what was being said. Now, against Obama, most of it seems to be lies and all out party politics This! Bush pushed the country into an unnecessary war (considering where we found Osama, it's probably two) using lies and political spin, passed unconstitutional laws, authorized illegal wiretapping, allowed for the torture of prisoners of war in defiance of the Geneva Convention, implemented an absolutely stupid method of trying to improve test scores, ruined the economy with tax breaks for the rich, and bungled the recovery for a natural disaster. And he still got reelected. Obama is trying to undo all the damage that Bush did, and is actually doing something, and he's being vilified. Sure, he's not perfect (I'm still angry at him for his stance on gay marriage), but he doesn't deserve to get beat on for stuff that isn't true. To be completely fair, the economy didn't collapse until his second term, and bin Laden was in Afghanistan for a while. Plus, most Americans didn't see Iraq (or the violations of the Geneva Convention) as unnecessary as of late 2004. In fact, Bush's 2004 campaign was a fear-based push: if Kerry is elected, he'll stop torturing people and the terrorists will get you! Plus, gays will be allowed to marry, which will make the Founding Fathers cry (even though John Kerry is against gay marriage)! |
|
|
|
Post by shadoom2 on Jun 24, 2011 12:12:49 GMT -5
Afghanistan and Iraq were much more necessary than Libya (in terms of American interests).
|
|
|
|
Post by Smurfette Principle on Jun 24, 2011 22:09:40 GMT -5
Afghanistan and Iraq were much more necessary than Libya (in terms of American interests). I disagree. Iraq, in my view, is about as necessary as Libya: both were wars of "if we don't attack now, then they'll get us first!" instead of Afghanistan, which was "hey, bin Laden's over there! Let's get him!" Afghanistan went after the guy who attacked us. Iraq was stupid at best and malicious at worst. |
|
|
|
Post by Meshakhad on Jun 25, 2011 19:26:44 GMT -5
I actually was wondering for a while if Obama would run for reelection.
|
|
|
|
Post by verasthebrujah on Jun 25, 2011 22:34:47 GMT -5
I actually was wondering for a while if Obama would run for reelection. The last time a president was elected and served only one full term (meaning they did not assume the office of president as a result of the death of a previous president) and did not seek reelection was Rutheford B. Hayes in 1880. Even presidents as unpopular as Hoover (1932), Ford (1976), and Carter (1980) sought reelection and won the nomination of their party (with generally disastrous results for their party). Since term limits were imposed, LBJ has been the only sitting president who was eligible for another term and did not represent his party on the ballot in the general election-- and he withdrew himself from consideration after the primaries were already underway. |
|
|
|
Post by Smurfette Principle on Jun 25, 2011 22:39:11 GMT -5
I actually was wondering for a while if Obama would run for reelection. Obama has the support of most of the Democrats - perhaps all, if the Tea Party is a big enough threat. Question: could the Tea Party put up their own candidate and leach votes away from the Republicans the way Nader does to the Democrats? |
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Jun 25, 2011 22:40:07 GMT -5
If I were in his place, I wouldn't run for another term. I've quit jobs that were less lousy. But, then again, that's why I'm not president (along with the whole not being legally eligible for multiple reasons thing).
|
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Jun 25, 2011 22:49:22 GMT -5
I actually was wondering for a while if Obama would run for reelection. Obama has the support of most of the Democrats - perhaps all, if the Tea Party is a big enough threat. Question: could the Tea Party put up their own candidate and leach votes away from the Republicans the way Nader does to the Democrats? Could they? Sure. We'll probably see a Tea Party candidate of some kind if the Republican primaries put a relatively sane person - say, Mitt Romney - on the ballot. And assuming that said candidate doesn't lunge to the right to scoop up those votes. Unfortunately, it seems like the Tea Party rhetoric has so thoroughly infested the Republicans that it isn't clear that they don't actually represent the heart of the party, which makes such a move pretty likely. |
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Jun 25, 2011 23:21:15 GMT -5
One almost hopes they elect someone like Bachmann in the primaries, which would all but ensure a Democrat win.
|
|
|
|
Post by itachirumon on Jun 26, 2011 4:54:43 GMT -5
One almost hopes they elect someone like Bachmann in the primaries, which would all but ensure a Democrat win. This might just be my hopefulness but I have a strong feeling they will... she has the right.. let's call it Palin-ness about her to pull the nomination. Which means it's very likely we'll see a Bachmann/Palin vice-versa ticket. |
|
|
|
Post by Smurfette Principle on Jun 26, 2011 9:52:02 GMT -5
One almost hopes they elect someone like Bachmann in the primaries, which would all but ensure a Democrat win. This might just be my hopefulness but I have a strong feeling they will... she has the right.. let's call it Palin-ness about her to pull the nomination. Which means it's very likely we'll see a Bachmann/Palin vice-versa ticket. Of course, if that happened, we'd be getting the "YOU DARE QUESTION THEIR CREDENTIALS? YOU SEXIST!" rigamarole all over again. |
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jun 26, 2011 10:07:28 GMT -5
This might just be my hopefulness but I have a strong feeling they will... she has the right.. let's call it Palin-ness about her to pull the nomination. Which means it's very likely we'll see a Bachmann/Palin vice-versa ticket. Of course, if that happened, we'd be getting the "YOU DARE QUESTION THEIR CREDENTIALS? YOU SEXIST!" rigamarole all over again. Well, to be fair, asking a woman if she has credentials is a lewd solicitation in Alaska. >.> |
|
|
|
Post by the sandman on Jun 26, 2011 11:01:52 GMT -5
One almost hopes they elect someone like Bachmann in the primaries, which would all but ensure a Democrat win. This might just be my hopefulness but I have a strong feeling they will... she has the right.. let's call it Palin-ness about her to pull the nomination. Which means it's very likely we'll see a Bachmann/Palin vice-versa ticket. Never happen. Palin and Bachman despise each other. Which is no surprise because Palin at least seems to despise anyone who might in any conceivable way be a rival. |
|
|
|
Post by shadoom2 on Jun 27, 2011 4:43:03 GMT -5
If I were Obama I probably wouldn't stand. The incumbent always has trouble during bad economic conditions, and the policies of the Republicans are so ridiculous that it would be about a month before people are clamoring for Obama to come back. Plus, even if he wins there's no way he can govern effectively while the Republicans control the legislature and have significant public support.
After four years of complete mismanagement the American people might finally realize how stupid the Republicans are. Then Obama runs a "miss me yet?" campaign in 2016, wins on a landslide, and becomes the second non-consecutive two-term president.
|
|
|
|
Post by verasthebrujah on Jun 27, 2011 8:47:04 GMT -5
If I were Obama I probably wouldn't stand. The incumbent always has trouble during bad economic conditions, and the policies of the Republicans are so ridiculous that it would be about a month before people are clamoring for Obama to come back. Plus, even if he wins there's no way he can govern effectively while the Republicans control the legislature and have significant public support. After four years of complete mismanagement the American people might finally realize how stupid the Republicans are. Then Obama runs a "miss me yet?" campaign in 2016, wins on a landslide, and becomes the second non-consecutive two-term president. This is pretty unlikely. As you said, incumbents do poorly during economic hard times, whereas they do well during economic good times. Economic policy does have some effect on the economy, but to a large extent booms and busts just happen (as has been recognized by economists ranging from Adam Smith to Karl Marx). It is unlikely that the economy will not be better in 2016 than it will be in 2012, regardless of the political party that controls the White House. Even if the economy in 2016 is as bad or worse than in 2012, and Obama sought the Democratic nomination, he would almost certainly fail to get it. He would be attacked as a man who already had the opportunity to fix the economy and failed. Moreover, he would most likely be attacked, even within his own party, as a quitter who couldn't stick with a tough job just because the other side was mean to him (watch it happen to Palin in the primaries if she throws her hat in the ring). Besides, research on voter ignorance shows that the average voter won't know what the policies pursued by Republicans actually do anyway. To the extent that they do know, it's not like they would be surprised by what the Republicans try to do. As much as I oppose the Republicans, I must admit that they generally do what they say they're going to do, at least in terms of defunding and/or destroying beneficial social programs, giving pointless tax breaks to the extraordinarily wealthy, increasing military spending beyond any reasonable level, and implementing policies that discriminate against homosexuals and Muslims. I doubt that we will ever have a nonconsecutive two-term president ever again due to the fact that the president is so overexposed in the modern media that Americans are basically sick of their own president by the time they leave office. If it did, it wouldn't happen when a sitting president chose not to seek reelection. It would happen when a sitting president is narrowly defeated in an election. During the new president's first term, a crisis or disaster that the unseated president warned about would have to occur, allowing him/her to run a "because he was right" campaign against a now-disgraced opponent. |
|
