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.