Dear Readers & Mods,

I have another topic on the forum talking about the 2012 presidential election: "Obama 12: Invincible or Unelectabe?". It was/is my intention there to talk about the election fundamentals going into the 2012 election...NOT about whether or not he should get another term.

This topic, however, is different in that I'm asking the question: "Does Obama deserve re-election?" It is about time to see a topic where we make the arguments for or against the president and the job he's done.

I'll be honest, for the me the answer is no.

* He has proven himself unable to govern. He promised up a post-partisan Washington...but instead we enter into the last year of his first term more divided than ever. Many of his supporters cling to the narrative that Republicans in Congress have been stoppping his initiatives at every turn. However when he entered office he had atmospheric approval ratings that stretched across the aisle but more importantly he had super-majorities in BOTH Houses of Congress. For the first two years of his administration the Republicans in no way could do anything to stop Democratic policies. The resistance he got...came from the moderates in his own party. If he could not lead when his own party was firmly in control of Congress...how can he do it with a divided legislature?

* He also has a very undistinguished foreign policy record. The relationships with our allies is no stronger than it was in '08. In fact they are very strained with our top three strongest allies: England, Israel and S. Korea. With our adversaries we are a joke (Russia, Iran). The only things he has in terms of success are things any president would have done: using the Navy SeALs to take out Somali pirates and Usama bin Laden. Now I'm not all that convinced that he'll be up to the challenge of working with a post-Jong Il N. Korea.

* Obamacare, his signature legacy-legislation, is a Frankenstein bill that he advocated and politiked for...but did not guide its provisions. What he ended up signing into law was a bill that had been cobbled together hap-hazardly. Now the Supreme Court may invalidate it's key provision: the individual mandate. Whatever your veiw on healthcare reform...he didn't lead. He didn't guide. He didn't write or support Democratic lawmakers.

Anyway, just thought I'd open a new discussion on the 2012 election.

It's extremely difficult to tell.

On the face it looks as if Obama greatly underachieved. However, when viewed in perspective, it doesn't look too bad.

There are three major reasons this term has seemed slow. Things were just bad; Obama is quite new to executive politics; and so many wanted him to fail.

The economy was diving hard and it was looking to head in a worse trajecteroy as of Jan 2009, regardless of who was on board. The economy, due to economic reasons, has been extremely slow to recover. Because the economy became an immovable 10-ton elephant in the room, Obama never could seem to get it to budge. When he did do something it seemed miniscule in comparison. In other words, there was really nothing Obama could do short of becoming Jesus and turning the economy into wine, that would have been able to make the economy issue go better.

Now, some of this was definitely his own fault. While he definitely knows his stuff, he did not do too well when it came to leading. There were times he should have stuck his neck out and tried to push Congress to do something more than it was. There was a reason I believe he avoided this, and this leads into the last, and perhaps most oimportant reason why things haven't gone too well...

So many wanted so hard to see him fail at all costs. Obama was Catch-22'ed at every turn. There were people on the left, but mostly on the right, who had their spears pointed Obama where if he did, he did "too much", or if he didn't, he "sat back and did nothing". Frankly he had to choose between getting nailed to the crosses, or getting nailed to the cross. The Thanksgiving speech issue was a perfect example. The news media had a shitstrom when Obama did what Clinton and Bushes did, by not mentioning God in a speech, even though he did mention him in his written address. There was a machien with considerable power whose sole duty was to make Obama look bad regardless of what he did. Shit, Obama could have done everything Reagan did, and he would have been skewered. Those on left did the same thing. They had their utopian (read: WHOLLY NAIVE) view of the world, and when that was popped by the dull needle of reality, they turned on Obama hard. These petulant children didn't get their hemp weedfest and now are punishing a President who has worked to shift a behemoth of country toward their direction. They must think an aircraft carrier can be turned on a dime... Also, the culture of Congress (Democrats bending at the slightest breeze, and Republicans stonewalling everything, even things that would benefit them) really hurt Obama. He had to get coalitions within his own damn party in order to defeat a filibuster impotent minority because his own party had the backbone of a sponge.

The Prefect storm that made Bush look good in the midst of complete incompetence, all blew against Obama and gave Obama no chance for anything but a slow, trudge of an empty term, and sadly many independents will be fooled by this detrimental political tactic...

I'm going to allow this thread to continue because you are clearly trying to make a thread separate from the one already floating around.

Please keep in mind that as the election draws closer that this forum could easily turn into an endless torrent of new election related threads. So, while this might be allowed now I don't think we'll be open to too many more threads so closely related to existing threads as time goes on.

Sorry that I have to butt in but this place turns into a zoo every 4 years and I'd like not to have "but themason did it back in December, waaah" style PMs later on.

At 12/19/11 03:02 PM, TheMason wrote: * He has proven himself unable to govern. He promised up a post-partisan Washington...but instead we enter into the last year of his first term more divided than ever. Many of his supporters cling to the narrative that Republicans in Congress have been stoppping his initiatives at every turn. However when he entered office he had atmospheric approval ratings that stretched across the aisle but more importantly he had super-majorities in BOTH Houses of Congress. For the first two years of his administration the Republicans in no way could do anything to stop Democratic policies. The resistance he got...came from the moderates in his own party. If he could not lead when his own party was firmly in control of Congress...how can he do it with a divided legislature?

Realistically, there was never going to be a post partisan Washington, and there never will be. You also suggest that Obama had filibuster proof majorities for two years, when in reality it was only for the seven months in the Senate after Franken came in and before Brown was elected. And even then, it was tenuous and required total consensus with no defections because it was exactly at 60. And it is flat wrong to say that Republicans could do nothing to stop "Democratic policies" -- on the contrary they loudly protested and brought their rhetoric to white middle class voters who vented at town hall meetings and artificially reduced support for the health care reform bill which scared blue dogs into acting like Republicans. All it took was one blue dog to flip in the Senate to derail any legislation Democrats wanted to push through. Republicans very easily stopped most legislation.

* He also has a very undistinguished foreign policy record. The relationships with our allies is no stronger than it was in '08. In fact they are very strained with our top three strongest allies: England, Israel and S. Korea. With our adversaries we are a joke (Russia, Iran). The only things he has in terms of success are things any president would have done: using the Navy SeALs to take out Somali pirates and Usama bin Laden. Now I'm not all that convinced that he'll be up to the challenge of working with a post-Jong Il N. Korea.

Killing OBL? Ending the mission in Iraq? Strongly supporting the successful mission in Libya to oust Gaddafi? All of these objectives eluded his predecessor whose strong point was supposedly foreign policy. And you have to be sippin' hard on the Kool Aid to believe that a 20 year old sheltered neophyte from a dying and impoverishedf country would have the upper hand against Obama in diplomatic relations. Jesus Christ, bro.

The only thing I know for certain is that Obama can't be re-elected, he's only meant for one term and one term only, some democrats need to come to realize that re-electing Obama will only do the American people even more harm then good, even Steave Jobs (CEO of Apple) said so himself.

That said, some Presidents are only meant for one term while others are re-elected for another, as I said once and I'll say again, Obama is one of those Presidents only meant for one term.

At 12/19/11 08:32 PM, Thecrazyman wrote: The only thing I know for certain is that Obama can't be re-elected, he's only meant for one term and one term only, some democrats need to come to realize that re-electing Obama will only do the American people even more harm then good, even Steave Jobs (CEO of Apple) said so himself.

That said, some Presidents are only meant for one term while others are re-elected for another, as I said once and I'll say again, Obama is one of those Presidents only meant for one term.

What you said makes no sense at all. Steave Jobs is not a person, the CEO of Apple has very little say in how the government is run, and what you posted has never been true about our country or it's presidential election policies. Please try again.

As a liberal , I don't think he dose but I don't see anyone in the running that's better than him.

At best you could get someone with half-good and half-crazy/retarded policies like Ron Paul but I don't see how that's anymore desirable.

I'm not really sure yet. I think Obama even though a bit ineffective did a lot better of a job than McCain and Sarah Palin would have done though. At least Obama acknowledges that they shouldn't be focusing on the terrorists and the Middle-East and that the U.S should be focusing on its economy and the fact that China is whipping its economy up.

I just have a feeling McCain would have done what George Bush did and just focus on DEM MUSLEMS, and America's foreign policy and immigration, and the Middle-East and he wouldn't have ended Guantanamo and the Iraq war and he would have pissed off the Middle-East even more.

At least Obama has been actively supporting peace in the Middle-East and he seems to have the right approach at treating the rulers in the Middle-East.

Whereas George Bush was just like 'HURR DURR, WE WILL NOT NEGOTIATE WITH TERRORISTS, FUCK YOU NORTH KOREA, RARRGHARBLE'

Anyways I'm just hoping there will actually be someone competent that runs in the election that is better than Obama and can more or less do the change that Obama tried to do (whether they do it the Republican or Democrat way or w/e)

Of course not, and you'd have to be an insane partisan hack to think otherwise.

Has anyone else noticed that Bush's low approval ratings were, according to liberals, undeniable proof of the man's utter incompotency as a leader...but then when Obama's ratings fall even lower, this can be WHOLLY attributed to conservatives being dicks? Hilarious.

At 12/19/11 04:41 PM, Bolo wrote: Strongly supporting the successful mission in Libya to oust Gaddafi?

You mean that thing that liberals would have been protesting in the streets and making death threats about if it had been Bush instead of Obama?

At 12/19/11 04:15 PM, Camarohusky wrote: The economy, due to economic reasons,

ahahahah, stunning insights from cam as always.

has been extremely slow to recover. Because the economy became an immovable 10-ton elephant in the room, Obama never could seem to get it to budge.

Except everything he tried doing, regardless of success or lack thereof, was bad, and essentially boiled down to either trying to reinfalte the housing bubble or quick jolts to the economy in order to temporarily boost employment figures before the next election.

When he did do something it seemed miniscule in comparison. In other words, there was really nothing Obama could do short of becoming Jesus and turning the economy into wine, that would have been able to make the economy issue go better.

Sure there was: Nothing.

He pursued and oversaw polices designed to restore the economy to the state it was in immediately prior to the begininng of the collapse, so of course it was terrible policy.

At 12/20/11 12:20 AM, thedo12 wrote: At best you could get someone with half-good and half-crazy/retarded policies like Ron Paul but I don't see how that's anymore desirable.

Which part, exactly, of...stopping the wars, stopping torture, stopping the assasination of American citizens, closing of secret prisons, closing of guantanamo, stopping of spying on american citizens, ending of the patriot act, stopping indefinite detention, stopping the war on drugs, stopping corporate subsidies, opposing all bail-outs, ending multi-TRILLION dolalr deficits....is "retarded"?

He wins by default due to how poor his opposing candidates are. It is better for America to stick by him and hopefully have another Democrat afterwards so that the tax payers money on "Obamacare" isn't for nothing.

At 12/19/11 04:25 PM, Malachy wrote: Sorry that I have to butt in but this place turns into a zoo every 4 years and I'd like not to have "but themason did it back in December, waaah" style PMs later on.

I understand and NP. That's why I choose this tactic: have one thread that is about what's going on electorally (ie: nuts & bolts or poly sci model/predictions) and another that is more philosophical (ie: who should win).

My hope is this can be what turns into the flame thread and the other is more about the electoral fundamentals.

At 12/19/11 04:41 PM, Bolo wrote: Realistically, there was never going to be a post partisan Washington, and there never will be. You also suggest that Obama had filibuster proof majorities for two years, when in reality it was only for the seven months in the Senate after Franken came in and before Brown was elected. And even then, it was tenuous and required total consensus with no defections because it was exactly at 60. And it is flat wrong to say that Republicans could do nothing to stop "Democratic policies" -- on the contrary they loudly protested and brought their rhetoric to white middle class voters who vented at town hall meetings and artificially reduced support for the health care reform bill which scared blue dogs into acting like Republicans. All it took was one blue dog to flip in the Senate to derail any legislation Democrats wanted to push through. Republicans very easily stopped most legislation.

* Filibuster proof majorities: Yes, the Senate veto/filibuster proof majority was only around for 7 months. However, presidents have been able to accomplish a lot more with a lot more slim majorities...or even with an opposition congress. The problem with Obama: he's not a negotiator. I remember reading during the stimulus push at the beginning that Dems were unhappy with Obama because usually the WH sent over a draft piece of legislation for a congressman and senator to introduce...the WH did nothing. Obama was more about vocalizing grand ideas and then letting others do the nitty gritty work. This caused internal divides inside the party that eventually led to moderate Dems vs ideological Dems. Thus his failure to lead his own party (which is one of the hats the president wears) led to Republican 2010 victories.

* Popular opposition: Yes, the Republicans were successful in organizing a popular based movement against Obama. However, with how early in his presidency he took on Healthcare...if he had provided the legislative muscle for his party in Congress by providing them with a bill there would've been more coherence in their message. Furthermore, it could've gone through the legislative process much, much faster giving the Repubs less opportunity to mount an opposition.

So what it comes down is he's shown on the domestic issues he is incapable of leading both his own party (that with his early approval rating should've been easy) and also the nation.

* He also has a very undistinguished foreign policy record. The relationships with our allies is no stronger than it was in '08. In fact they are very strained with our top three strongest allies: England, Israel and S. Korea. With our adversaries we are a joke (Russia, Iran). The only things he has in terms of success are things any president would have done: using the Navy SeALs to take out Somali pirates and Usama bin Laden. Now I'm not all that convinced that he'll be up to the challenge of working with a post-Jong Il N. Korea.

Killing OBL? Ending the mission in Iraq? Strongly supporting the successful mission in Libya to oust Gaddafi? All of these objectives eluded his predecessor whose strong point was supposedly foreign policy. And you have to be sippin' hard on the Kool Aid to believe that a 20 year old sheltered neophyte from a dying and impoverishedf country would have the upper hand against Obama in diplomatic relations. Jesus Christ, bro.

* UBL: A decision any president would make. So easy a caveman or a gekko could do it.

* Iraq: Appears to be more about electoral politics than having a good read on the political situation in the ME and doing what will keep the region shakily stable.

* Libya: It remains to be seen if this is a pro or con. Bush got Qaddafi to stop pushing terrorism against the West. Now we have a situation where we don't know who is going to be in charge. Furthermore, it appears weapons we supplied the rebels are now in the hands of al Qaida and Iran. If the Arab spring turns into a Islamic Revolutionary Winter...Obama's miscalculations in the ME will be horrible not only for the US but also millions of people in those countries. Oh...don't forget the strain he put on NATO by abdicating US leadership of the mission, pissing off our titular allies in France & Germany.

* S. Korea: We had several trade treaties with them (our most faithful ally in the Pacific) that was in the bag...until Obama decided to try his hand negotiating. Then they fell apart.

* Poland: Pulled out of a missile defense pact in order draw Russia closer to the US...all the while Putin laughs at his naivete.

* Gay rights: Now I'm not arguing about the merits of the policy here...just the outcomes. First of all, it takes moxy for a guy who opposed the war in Iraq as being about American imperialism to turn around and use foreign aid as a way of social engineering in other countries. (Hypocritical much, Mr President?) Secondly, and most importantly, this appears to be more about appealing to domestic constituences and Lady Gaga than serious foreign policy aimed at elevating or maintaining the position of the US on the World Scene. I means seriously...foreign policy to maintain domestic political stability? This is something China and N. Korea...not a rational statesman.

So no...I think Obama's record on foreign policy is actually quite dismal.

At 12/19/11 04:41 PM, Bolo wrote: And you have to be sippin' hard on the Kool Aid to believe that a 20 year old sheltered neophyte from a dying and impoverishedf country would have the upper hand against Obama in diplomatic relations. Jesus Christ, bro.

There were a few things about this comment that took me a few moments to digest.

1) It's kinda funny really how you knee-jerk to undermine this neophyte's abilities when in reality he has already been playing the administration. Most N. Korean watchers believe that the attacks on the South last year were at the direction of Jong Un and not Jong Il. The prevailing wisdom is that it was shows of his toughness and ability to lead the military. In fact many think his pudginess hides a ruthless streak that may exceed his father. However, there is the long-term goals attached with any N. Korean military operation: behave badly to extort China, Japan, S. Korea and the US into giving them money and/or food.

It worked with Clinton and Bush...and appears to be working with Obama as well.

2) It's not just about dealing with Jong Un...but actually with a post-Kim family N. Korea. Jong Un remaining in power means the status quo...something this president can deal with. However, if Jong Un falls will the political structure fall too, sending the country into anarchy and chaos? That is what I don't think Obama is up to dealing with. We are going to have a population of 24 million people leaving the Cave of the Hermit Kingdom and seeing that their worldview is not reality but a horrible lie. How will they integrate with the South and then rest of world? How are we going to deal with reunification? The disease and malnutrition of over 20 million people? Then we'll see the concentration camps...

What if it erupts into civil war...or a consilidation of the military who decides to invade the South and now we have a major war that will make Iraq and Afghanistan look easy and bloodless?

So the reality is you have to be chugging the Kool Aid pretty hard not to at least question Obama's ability to lead (when he cannot even lead his own party) in the face of such a challenge.

At 12/20/11 06:31 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Has anyone else noticed that Bush's low approval ratings were, according to liberals, undeniable proof of the man's utter incompotency as a leader...but then when Obama's ratings fall even lower, this can be WHOLLY attributed to conservatives being dicks? Hilarious.

Note wholly, but essential you're right. That opinion is not without a basis. At the moment, who is leading the Republican polls right now? Newt Gingrich, the same man at the head of the conservative revolution during Clinton's second term. Even if it's to no avail, I would rather go with the candidate who promises vying for bipartisanship rather than the candidate whose job it once was to FOSTER partisanship.

You mean that thing that liberals would have been protesting in the streets and making death threats about if it had been Bush instead of Obama?

Except everything he tried doing, regardless of success or lack thereof, was bad, and essentially boiled down to either trying to reinfalte the housing bubble or quick jolts to the economy in order to temporarily boost employment figures before the next election.

Surprising you should say that since I would actually characterize Obama as having many more long-term goals regarding the economy than his predecessor, particularly regarding energy dependence, jobs, and healthcare. Temporary "jolts" as you call them, have been essential for keeping our economy from halting to a standstill, regardless of how effective they have been at pulling us OUT of recession (which apparently, they were).

He pursued and oversaw polices designed to restore the economy to the state it was in immediately prior to the begininng of the collapse, so of course it was terrible policy.

Could you give some examples of this?

Which part, exactly, of...stopping the wars, stopping torture, stopping the assasination of American citizens, closing of secret prisons, closing of guantanamo, stopping of spying on american citizens, ending of the patriot act, stopping indefinite detention, stopping the war on drugs, stopping corporate subsidies, opposing all bail-outs, ending multi-TRILLION dolalr deficits....is "retarded"?

I don't see alot that is "retarded" about Paul's policies. They show how ballsy he is to try (and with okay success) to run on the platform he has chosen. Unfortunately, I think Paul (or any candidate for that matter) is just as likely to fold and compromise as some see Obama as doing. Some of his umbrella goals, such as a smaller government, are simply impossible the way things operate currently. How can you have a smaller government when politicians rely on complex taxes to blackmail corporations and corporations rely on this blackmail to gain access to politicians through fundraising?

What got me to vote for Obama were the promises he made that I could see being seen through, through executive order. Things like the closing of Guantanamo Bay or the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. And the fact is, is that I am NOT completely satisfied with how some of those issues have played out.

But once I think about all of Ron Paul's goals outside of Guantanamo Bay, I either think "He's not stupid, he will listen to his generals." or "Well, that's not going to happen." To me, his goals aren't evolving with the issues facing the country.

I think that if the election came again with him as the primary candidate, I would probably vote for him. This is mostly because he managed to finally bring all the troops home from Iraq. Some people might say his best achievement was finding Osama bin Laden, but in terms of peace, this was probably better. There were a bunch of other things that I can't really remember now, but his health care thing went pretty well.

He's governed during a difficult time, with the sub-prime crisis and let's not forget about his policies regarding offensive military actions overseas. Had Bush been in control this year, American troops would be all over Libya by now and an occupation would be in full swing. Would Bush have pulled troops out of Iraq, or Afghanistan? Obama has spent time directing his advisers to clear up the mess left by his predecessor, militarily speaking.

Of course, you must consider who will be running against him. He'll probably seek re-election as the Democratic candidate, which they will probably give him, as it the tradition, correct? Who will he face in the main Presidential run off? Sarah Palin looks likely to represent the Tea Party (a disgrace to tea drinkers the world over!), though I'm not that clued up on whom the Republicans would choose as their main candidate, or even a shortlist of people who may be in contention.

You can't call an election, when only looking at one side of the coin. Oh wait, that's what we did with the UK and look at what a state we're in now. Tory rule, tearing the country a new arse hole, as we cut services everywhere, build up inflation and sell our way back to 1982. Marvellous.

With all due respect, I'd recommend you do your research before posting.

At 12/20/11 04:32 PM, Coop wrote: He's governed during a difficult time, with the sub-prime crisis and let's not forget about his policies regarding offensive military actions overseas. Had Bush been in control this year, American troops would be all over Libya by now and an occupation would be in full swing. Would Bush have pulled troops out of Iraq, or Afghanistan? Obama has spent time directing his advisers to clear up the mess left by his predecessor, militarily speaking.

1) Sub-prime crisis: This was a ticking time-bomb that Bush inherited from Clinton. (SOURCE) Unfortunately Bush did not learn from his involvement with Savings & Loans in the 1980s and expanded the program. Meanwhile in the 1990s Obama was working with ACORN activists to represent ppl in class action lawsuits against lenders who denied mortgages to high-risk minority boworrers. So in short...in his capacity as community organizer he was part of the movement that put pressure on Clinton to sign the Executive Order authorizing FANNIE MAE & FREDDIE MAC to underwrite sub-prime mortgages.

2) Under Bush relations with Lybia were actually stabalizing. I think people under the Bush administration would not have so naive to think the "Arab Spring" was going to lead to a blossoming of "Democracy" throughout the ME. In fact I think they got so burned by Neocon thought and Iraq that they would've stayed out of Lybia.

3) At almost every turn Obama has followed Bush era policies when it comes to military operations. He surged in Afghanistan. Gitmo is still open. In Iraq we are leaving behind a large contingency of "contractors" which is to say: mercenaries. Something that is less preferable than a professional Army.

4) Iraq: Pulling out in the face of increasing Iranian influence and involvement is not necessarily the wisest thing. With a newly re-constituted military that is in a 're-building' stage we could see another Iran-Iraq War a la the 1980s.

Of course, you must consider who will be running against him. He'll probably seek re-election as the Democratic candidate, which they will probably give him, as it the tradition, correct? Who will he face in the main Presidential run off? Sarah Palin looks likely to represent the Tea Party (a disgrace to tea drinkers the world over!), though I'm not that clued up on whom the Republicans would choose as their main candidate, or even a shortlist of people who may be in contention.

1) Yes he already announced his candidacy, and besides some "Draft Hillary" movements no contender has yet to step forward to challenge him.

2) This is no seperate "Tea Party" political party in the US. The Tea Party is a movement NOT a political party. For the most part they will probably overwhelmingly support the Republican candidate barring a major, conservative third party candidate.

3) Sarah Palin isn't running.

Republican Candidates
Newt Gingrich
Mitt Romney
Michele Bachmann
Rick Perry
John Huntsman Jr.
Ron Paul
Rick Santorum

Obama should have done a better job but to be honest I don't see anyone better than him and I'm so glad that he won over McCain...

I mean Sarah Palin? Seriously?

Also like some other guy said, McCain would have probably just focused on the Middle-East and not on China and the economy. At least Obama focused on those two things even though he failed at efficiently doing shit

McCain would have probably just tried to invade/occupy/put his business into Libya, and he probably wouldn't have ended Guantanamo and the Iraq war and like what George Bush did he would probably overkill the budget on military and just say 'herp derp, I am trying my hardest to fix up the economy, not sure how I will do it but I will do it, also we need 2 get dem Muzzlems' or some shit

Funny story I use to actually support Rick Perry, until I realized how retarded he is.

I don't think he deserves to be elected again, but he is the least awful choice. He is a criminal, as it is illegal to not establish a formal investigation and prosecution against alleged torturers or orderers of torture aka many Bush officials (Convention Against Torture, a treaty which holds the full force of the law,) among many other things. He's a pathetic leader, as he caves to everything the republicans and corporations want. He has ordered, continued, and even increased in illegality the drone programs, illegal agressive "wars" warrantless wiretapping, powers of lobbying and corporations, and kidnapping/torture/murder of people around the world, including US citizens.

In short, doesn't deserve it, but anything is better than a fucking republican.

At 12/20/11 12:22 PM, Ericho wrote: I think that if the election came again with him as the primary candidate, I would probably vote for him. This is mostly because he managed to finally bring all the troops home from Iraq. Some people might say his best achievement was finding Osama bin Laden, but in terms of peace, this was probably better. There were a bunch of other things that I can't really remember now, but his health care thing went pretty well.

There are still 150 troops at the US Embassy along with some 4500 armed contractors with extremely loose to no restrictions. Also, we still murder plenty of innocent humans every day with drones in Iraq.

Honestly no. But if it's between him and Gingrich or Romney, I'll cast a vote for Obama.... Actually fuck that. I'll just vote for Ron Paul. The only one with half a brain.

At 12/20/11 01:59 AM, Halberd wrote: ...he (McCain) wouldn't have ended Guantanamo...

At 12/20/11 09:36 PM, Noonga wrote: McCain ... and he probably wouldn't have ended Guantanamo...

Before anyone else wants to praise Obama for "closing GitMo"...can you do a little research please?

1) He signed the Executive Order w/o giving the DoD and DoJ any guidance on what to do with the detainees and thus had no plan to effectively deal with the issue. Obama once again showed that he is completely ineffectual in his ability to govern...he just thinks he can say: "Make it so." and the rest of government will make his vision reality. So three years later both Republicans and Democrats in the Congress have blocked bringing these guys to the US and closing GitMo. Check this out from this past January:

"...Mr. Obama had yet to mount a sustained public effort to close the prison before members of his own party - who at one point led Congress with a filibuster-proof majority - joined the GOP last spring to thwart a plan to purchase a federal prison in Illinois and transfer detainees to it."

"Most recently, in one of its last acts before Republicans took control of the House, the Democrat-led Congress in December approved a defense authorization bill barring the use of Pentagon dollars for transferring detainees to the United States. It also hamstrings efforts to send them to another nation by requiring a certification from Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates that a foreign country abides by a strict security protocol."

[Emphasis mine]

2) Obama went ahead and signed into law a provision that would allow the DoD to detain indefinately terror suspects w/o trial in violation of the Bill of Rights.

So I'm sorry to break the illusion but Obama is no better in this regard than McCain would've been. In fact with McCain's Natl Security background, history of bipartisanship in the Senate and being very outspoken against US abuses of prisoners both in GitMo and Abu Gharib (having been tortured as a POW himself)...the prison at Guantanamo Bay would've probably been closed by now had he been elected.

At 12/20/11 09:11 PM, TheMason wrote: With all due respect, I'd recommend you do your research before posting.

I've done research - it may not be enough to satisfy you, but if that's the way you want to play it, then so be it.

At 12/20/11 04:32 PM, Coop wrote: He's governed during a difficult time, with the sub-prime crisis and let's not forget about his policies regarding offensive military actions overseas. Had Bush been in control this year, American troops would be all over Libya by now and an occupation would be in full swing. Would Bush have pulled troops out of Iraq, or Afghanistan? Obama has spent time directing his advisers to clear up the mess left by his predecessor, militarily speaking.

1) Sub-prime crisis: This was a ticking time-bomb that Bush inherited from Clinton. (SOURCE) Unfortunately Bush did not learn from his involvement with Savings & Loans in the 1980s and expanded the program. Meanwhile in the 1990s Obama was working with ACORN activists to represent ppl in class action lawsuits against lenders who denied mortgages to high-risk minority boworrers. So in short...in his capacity as community organizer he was part of the movement that put pressure on Clinton to sign the Executive Order authorizing FANNIE MAE & FREDDIE MAC to underwrite sub-prime mortgages.

So, because Bush did nothing about the problem, which he inherited from Clinton, that's Obama's fault? We have similar problems with politics in the UK - the Conservative led coalition, in particular Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne still blames the previous administration for issues that he has now. Where does the buck stop and who is actually going to fix the problems? Sure, this argument may condemn Obama as much as Bush and Clinton, but how far back are you going to go to cast the blame? Why not skip over all of the previous Presidents and put all of this down to the Brits? Maybe I'm just being cynical.

2) Under Bush relations with Lybia were actually stabalizing. I think people under the Bush administration would not have so naive to think the "Arab Spring" was going to lead to a blossoming of "Democracy" throughout the ME. In fact I think they got so burned by Neocon thought and Iraq that they would've stayed out of Lybia.

Ah, so it's only ironic that a bomb has gone off in Baghdad this morning? Obama clearing up the mess that both Bushes made of Iraq, by finally withdrawing troops from the region is a bad thing, because they have never managed to install a regime change, in the hope of promoting democracy is a bad thing? I think it was a loss-loss situation, much like Vietnam for you guys.

Yes, relations with an unhinged dictator may have been stabilising, but there has now been revolution without American influence. It happened, it's been relatively quick and there seems to be no bad feeling directed toward Washington over it all. Incredible!

3) At almost every turn Obama has followed Bush era policies when it comes to military operations. He surged in Afghanistan. Gitmo is still open. In Iraq we are leaving behind a large contingency of "contractors" which is to say: mercenaries. Something that is less preferable than a professional Army.

Like I said above, it's a lose-lose scenario. His hands are tied, because one group or another will attempt to nail him to the wall over his decisions. Stay in there and lose more troops. Pull out and leave mercenaries and perhaps a power vacuum. Running one of the most powerful countries on earth was never going to be an easy job.

We (British troops) are still deployed there, along with a Prince of the Realm, who will fight for us. Proposals for withdrawal are still there, for 2012, so we have to wait and see.

4) Iraq: Pulling out in the face of increasing Iranian influence and involvement is not necessarily the wisest thing. With a newly re-constituted military that is in a 're-building' stage we could see another Iran-Iraq War a la the 1980s.

The cynic in me wants to believe that some generals are playing the waiting game and wish Iran to invade Iraq, so they can go in there and try to "set that place right". I'm not so sure that would work very well, to be honest.

Of course, you must consider who will be running against him.

1) Yes he already announced his candidacy, and besides some "Draft Hillary" movements no contender has yet to step forward to challenge him.

I missed that one, sorry. So he will try for a second term, good for him.

2) This is no seperate "Tea Party" political party in the US. The Tea Party is a movement NOT a political party. For the most part they will probably overwhelmingly support the Republican candidate barring a major, conservative third party candidate.

Yes, I'm aware that they are a bunch of loosely confederated Republicans, kind of akin to Opus Dei in the Catholic Church. More extreme in their views than most.

3) Sarah Palin isn't running.

Now there's a blessing, because some of her views were getting towards the far right, which doesn't bode well.

Republican Candidates

Newt Gingrich

New Gingrich tells gays to vote for Obama

Mitt Romney

May be the front runner, from what I've read into the candidates, his political views casting the wider net

Michele Bachmann

A little right-wing for most? She has potential to make a run, catching the female vote and attempting to beat Hilary to the punch, but I'd say no.

Rick Perry

If all else fails, wheel out a George Bush clone. Evangelical? check. Texan? Check. State Governor? Check. So, he's not an alcoholic, but his views on the Death Penalty and the second ammendment may put some people off, particularly in those states where the Death Penalty is banned, by law. This has happened before.

John Huntsman Jr.

"I'm from the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints... Oh wait, I'm here to drum up support for my Presidential campaign." A veteran of having a door slammed in his face could prove an advantage and his experience with being close friends with Obama and Chinese Vice President, Xi Jinping. Dark horse, at best, I'm afraid, though dangerous.

Ron Paul

Again? He's 75 years old and while his support is spread around, he might not even make it to the end of his first term (80), let alone a second... American Politics likes the younger candidate, I feel.

Rick Santorum

"Gay people are going to hell for being gay" At least UK Tories have learned to keep their mouths shut for the most part. This guy seems to have a chip on his shoulder about his name - why doesn't he change it to something a little more wholesome, like Rimmer, for example?

A spot of charisma may allow him to gain ground on certain other candidates, but will it put him to the candidacy? Only if some of the other contenders call it quits for one reason or another. A dark horse, but not as dark as Huntsman.

Right, there's my thoughts for now, as I feel like we need a good debate here.

No. He should get the fuck out. He's nothing but a lazy-ass guy who isn't doing the right thing. He's letting NDAA 2012 slide, which is one of the biggest problems.

At 12/22/11 08:31 AM, Coop wrote:

At 12/20/11 09:11 PM, TheMason wrote: With all due respect, I'd recommend you do your research before posting.

I've done research - it may not be enough to satisfy you, but if that's the way you want to play it, then so be it.

Your original post was a bunch of talking points that sound spun by a Democratic operative. Your second attempt...not too much better.

1) During the 1990s ACORN (a group Obama has close ties with) organized minorities to go apply for home loans they knew they did not have the credit to apply for. When they were rejected ACORN's allies in the legal field helped by representing these people in class action lawsuits. In at least one against Citibank, Obama was on the legal team representing the Plantiff. Thus while he was not part of the policy making apparatus that led to the sub-prime bubble and near destruction of the financial sector in 2008...he was directly involved in the special interests that were putting political pressure on Clinton and then Bush to create and inflate the housing bubble.

Furthermore, this is something that STARTED with Clinton. Not Bush Sr, Not Reagan, Not Carter or FDR or any president in between. Obama put pressure on DC from Chicago and Clinton and Bush made terrible decisions. Therefore the mess only belongs to these three presidents. So your point about how far back I could place the blame...isn't terribly convincing.

2) Iraq: Bush is the one who negotiated the framework that brought the troops out of Iraq. All Obama is doing is refusing to hear advice advocating a SOFA (Status Of Forces Agreement). Thereby he is sticking to the Bush plan on leaving Iraq. Ignoring/not knowing this part of Obama's "action" led you astray two ways: a) you assumed that Bush would've left us there indefinately and b) you assumed that Obama is taking any action whatsoever. This is action/leadership through inaction.

Furthermore, Obama is having his own "Mission Accomplished" moment. He had the Iraqi PM over to the White House and praised him for creating a secular government. A Shi'ite, the PM flew back to Iraq and has since started a purge of Sunni officials and politicians. In fact he's very publicly arrested his Sunni Vice President. But I'm sure Obama's supporters are right...he has his finger on the political post of the Middle East.

Finally on Iraq: please don't lecture me on how "America fucked-up Iraq". The core of Middle Eastern instability comes from the Imperial hubris of the English and French following WWI. When you guys carved up the Arab/Muslim world in accordance with your own petrol and economic interests. I mean hell...up until you guys got involved Muslims and Jews got along! The best place to be a Jew was in the Middle East!

3) Generals: I wouldn't be too quick with the Dr. Strangelove stereotype of modern American generals. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has taken a significant toll on the US military. In fact, military spending hasn't grown as much as many think. Most of the money going over there has been diverted from existing military bases and projects. In all reality not having to fight another war would be a relief to the brass...not a disappointment. Add to that the wounded and dead...the military are the first to veiw such sacrifice as a tremendous cost and loss.

4) Lybia: Really? No American influence? Really? Without NATO airstrikes the Lybian rebels would've had their asses handed to them. I've seen footage of them firing rocket launchers behind them because they didn't know which way to point the things. They had no discipline of fire, often shooting at nothing and wasting what little ammo they had. They were on the edge of defeat when we intervened.

Now I know you'll claim it was a NATO op...but it was led by Americans. In fact had we not agreed to it...NATO wouldn't have had the ability to get involved.

As for ill will towards Washington...the weapons we sent are alread ending up in Iranian and al-Qaida hands.

5) The Republican opposition: I think it's only going to end up between Newt and Romney with Romney best poised to survive. I think Romney will get it.

But one question: John Huntsman Jr...dangerous? Really? Yes he's Mormon...but not really any kind of fundamentalist one. He was raised Mormon, went to Luthern schools growing up, married and Episcopalian and raises an adopted daughter from India in accordance with her Hindu traditions. He's also very much against things like creationism and puts great faith in science. Hardly the poster boy for the religious nut jobs in the religious right! In terms of politics he's pretty much more moderate than Romney who is almost smack-dab in the center of American politics!

At 12/22/11 07:26 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 12/22/11 08:31 AM, Coop wrote:

At 12/20/11 09:11 PM, TheMason wrote: With all due respect, I'd recommend you do your research before posting.

I've done research - it may not be enough to satisfy you, but if that's the way you want to play it, then so be it.

Your original post was a bunch of talking points that sound spun by a Democratic operative. Your second attempt...not too much better.

Ah, so you're that kind of American, are you? The one who views his own opinion as correct, then does the complete opposite of my posting, since your posts sound like a bunch of talking points that sound spun by a Republican operative.

Opinion is a wonderful thing, don't you think? That two people can have points of view on it and they can both be wrong, since neither of us is going to agree that the other will be right in this, I shall leave it at that.

At 12/23/11 12:53 PM, Coop wrote:

At 12/22/11 07:26 PM, TheMason wrote: Your original post was a bunch of talking points that sound spun by a Democratic operative. Your second attempt...not too much better.

Ah, so you're that kind of American, are you? The one who views his own opinion as correct, then does the complete opposite of my posting, since your posts sound like a bunch of talking points that sound spun by a Republican operative.

Opinion is a wonderful thing, don't you think? That two people can have points of view on it and they can both be wrong, since neither of us is going to agree that the other will be right in this, I shall leave it at that.

Thank you for the victory Coop.

Obviously you either: a) stopped reading after my retort or b) don't have anything substantial to say to my rebuttal.

At 12/24/11 08:47 AM, TheMason wrote:

At 12/23/11 12:53 PM, Coop wrote:

At 12/22/11 07:26 PM, TheMason wrote: Your original post was a bunch of talking points that sound spun by a Democratic operative. Your second attempt...not too much better.

Ah, so you're that kind of American, are you? The one who views his own opinion as correct, then does the complete opposite of my posting, since your posts sound like a bunch of talking points that sound spun by a Republican operative.

Opinion is a wonderful thing, don't you think? That two people can have points of view on it and they can both be wrong, since neither of us is going to agree that the other will be right in this, I shall leave it at that.

Thank you for the victory Coop.

If you knew anything about politics, then you'd know that there is no win, nor lose in debate.

Obviously you either: a) stopped reading after my retort or b) don't have anything substantial to say to my rebuttal.

I've given up trying to make you see reason, because you're that unreasonable to not even consider my arguments. Take your victory, since that is what you view it as, for I have broad shoulders.

Merry Xmas to you too.

The one thing that really galls me is the transparency issue. Obama promised the most transparent government in history and what does he do? He classifies more information than Bush, prosecutes more whistleblowers than ANY president, and essentially locks down information. What he has done in office has proved to me that Obama is a liar who can't account for his actions.