I hope I'm 100% wrong about Obama

McCain's biggest mis-step in the election was having Palin as his VP candidate. He wasn't looking for someone who would make a good vice-president, he was just looking for someone to broaden his appeal during the election - in part towards more conservative elements he felt he needed, and also as an ill-advised attempt to connect with women voters who may have been previously supporting Clinton. I think the election would have been much closer if he didn't have Palin dragging him down.

He may still have lost anyway, but I think a lot of people who were on the fence looked at Palin, then looked at McCain's age, and thought, "There's a pretty good chance she might have to step in as president... no thanks."

Anyway, no matter who won, half the country would be in a bad mood right now. The point to remember is that in four years we'll have the chance to put someone else in there if we want.

Hopefully, he'll do a good job. At this point, I'd settle for merely adequate. But people who have on rose-colored glasses and are expecting the country to miraculously get better overnight are in for a big disappointment. Reality just doesn't work that way.

Nathan Strum, on Wed Nov 5, 2008 12:52 AM, said:

I disagree. Palin drew bigger crowds and more enthusiasm than anyone else in the race. She's not a Senator, which is a big plus in my book. Were it not for Governor Palin attempting to drag McCain across the finish line, he would have been even more thoroughly stomped.

IMHO, McCain's biggest misstep (beyond running for office in the first place) was voting for the world's largest bank heist. He'd said that he'd reject any legislation that was laden with pork. Had he rejected that abomination, which was going to pass anyway, he would have been perfectly poised to reap some rewards when it failed miserably.

Oh well. The Founding Fathers are to be commended for having created a nation that could last 220 years. I think they predicted that nations would last about 200, so I guess they did pretty well. Once Obama and Congress re-instate the "Fairness Doctrine", though, I'm not sure how the Republic will ever recover.

You really think that after the 8 year amok run of Bush there's still anything left in your country worth ruining? What would that be?

Cybergoth, on Tue Nov 4, 2008 11:51 PM, said:

People. Don't judge all of us based on one man's bad decisions.

supercat, on Tue Nov 4, 2008 11:42 PM, said:

Well, she drew more attention, but I don't know if that equated with enthusiasm.

Nathan Strum, on Wed Nov 5, 2008 9:41 AM, said:

True, certainly. I was thinking of objects, not subjects when writing that

Nathan Strum, on Wed Nov 5, 2008 9:41 AM, said:

No fear, I judge everyone by his own actions. To us outside spectators it is looking though as if Bush hit the country a lot harder than bin Laden ever could. It's pointless to list or debate all of his evil actions once again, I'm sure he'll go down in history as Americas worst president of all time anyway. I actually hope that some day he'll see some justice and spend the rest of his life in jail for committing crimes against humanity and the american people.

I really try hard to steer clear of political threads usually because there are never any winners. But "one of the world's largest nuclear arsenals will within a few years be in the hands of a third-world nation" is precisely the kind of statement that perpetuates this state of irrational fear and oppression that has existed for the last few years in the US.

Let's face it, the president is a figurehead. A symbol and a mascot with limited authority and power. We now have a mascot that hopefully represents a fresh start, new direction, and above all, hopefully common sense. It's been scary how cult-like and brainwashed some people have become in the wake of 9/11. Stop being afraid and start thinking again.

Nathan Strum, on Wed Nov 5, 2008 3:44 AM, said:

She drew enthusiasm primarily among those who had already decided on the Republican ticket. Her far-right views scared off many of those who were on the fence. In that sense, she hurt McCain. I think a better choice would have been Lieberman, or if they really wanted to nominate a woman who wouldn't scare as many moderate voters away, try to get Christine Todd Whitman or Kay Bailey Hutchison.

It's probably moot anyway, as I think the real reason the dems won is because of the perceived failure of the Bush administration. If you are correct in thinking that the Obama administration will lead the country on a downward spiral, rest assured that public perception will change again.

If anyone made the USA getting closer to a 3rd world country, then it was/is G.W. Bush. Period. And yes he and those Cheney, Rumsfeld etc. criminals belong to jail. Life sentence!

Obama will not be able to repair all that damage done by the Bush administration, not even in two terms. This will take at least one generation without making major mistakes. But I am sure he will be able to slowdown and maybe even stop the dramatic decline of the USA we have seen during the past 8 years. He is in a position which can be compared to Bush after 9/11. The world is supporting a change massively. And I am sure he uses this 2nd chance of foreign trust and national optimism wisely. The USA need friends and allies at least as much as the free world needs the USA as a friend and ally too.

This is a good day.

batari, on Wed Nov 5, 2008 9:41 AM, said:

It will anyway. Any president is in a lose-lose situation. All presidents in my lifetime (starting with Johnson) have been derided to some degree or other by the end of their time in office.

For me Palin is Bush dumbness^2. She represents B-class Amercia, where intelligence is considered something bad and stupidity rules. 8 years of B-class America ruling are 8 years too much.

Well, from a completely non-political standpoint, I hate to tell you this - but America is getting stupider. Perhaps not percentage-wise, but I think our stupid people are getting stupider. I fear for the literacy of our country.

And now, in order to give equal time to the opposing viewpoint, a rebuttal:


LOL! u r so stupd OMG!!!! WTF?? LOL!!! u dont now what u r talking about u r so dum WTF duz litterng hav 2 do with beng stupd LOL!!!!!! ROTFLMAO!!


Thank you.

Thomas Jentzsch, on Wed Nov 5, 2008 7:32 PM, said:

Some of her stupidity is massively overhyped in the media here though. E.G. despite everyone making fun of it, you can _really_ see Russia from Alaska.

Nathan Strum, on Wed Nov 5, 2008 7:44 PM, said:

Yes, the country seems to be divided into A-class and B-class. With the gap getting wider and wider. But this is not only a US problem, we have a similar development in Germany too. The so called middle-class is slowly dwindling.

Cybergoth, on Wed Nov 5, 2008 7:44 PM, said:

I can see a church tower from my home, does that qualify for making me a priest?

Nathan Strum, on Wed Nov 5, 2008 12:44 PM, said:

Seen Idiocracy?

Cybergoth, on Wed Nov 5, 2008 10:44 AM, said:

I live there, I know.

DaveD, on Wed Nov 5, 2008 10:35 AM, said:

The U.S. government is in a very tenuous situation financially. As soon as it appears that it might be unable to pay off its existing creditors, nobody will lend it money except at higher interest rates. If the government does not immediately cut spending (within a month or two at max), the rates will skyrocket to the point where tax revenues can no longer pay the interest. At that point the government will have no choice but to either stop spending abruptly (telling people with no advance notice that they're simply not going to get paid) or hyper-inflate the currency. What do you suppose is going to happen when government employees are told without warning that they're not going to get paid, or if the currency gets devalued 25% or more?

I don't know that McCain would appoint cabinet members who would recognize what needs to happen to avert disaster, but I have zero confidence in Obama's desire or willingness to do so. Instead, what I expect from Obama is a cycle of higher tax rates and lower tax revenues. Such a cycle would be bad under any circumstances, but with a government that is on the brink of total insolvency it would be an absolute unmitigated disaster.

Perhaps I'm being overly optimistic about McCain. On the other hand, I think that under him country might have had a chance to reverse its course toward financial Armageddon. I see no such chance with Obama.

Cybergoth, on Wed Nov 5, 2008 12:44 PM, said:

Right. There were quite a number of statements for which Palin was derided, despite the fact that the statements were entirely correct. Gov. Palin (unlike Tina Fey) didn't say that she could see Russia from her house, but rather that Russia was visible from parts of Alaska. Not only is the statement literally true, but if one looks at a globe it's clear that Russia isn't far from Alaska at all. Indeed, Alaska is closer to Russia geographically than to any other part of the U.S.

It really is disgusting the extent to which the media is in the tank for Obama. Why is it that the media spends more effort vetting a guy who asks Obama a hypothetical question than it would spend vetting Obama? Why is there, for example, no demand that Barack prove citizenship by, at minimum, having an official of the state of Hawaii sign an affidavit that says that the information on the alleged Certificate of Live Birth posted on Obama's web site is accurate? Note that an official saying that Hawaii has a birth record for Obama is not the same thing, given that Hawaii will register foreign births. Would it be unreasonable to insist that presidents demonstrate eligibility as a matter of course, to dispel any doubts of legitimacy?

Obama has stated a desire to bankrupt coal-fired power producers. How many people who voted for him know that? How many people know that he's going to raise taxes on people making a lot less than $250K/year? And how many people realize that the difference between someone who makes $250K/year and someone who makes $25M/year is a lot bigger than the difference between someone who makes $250K/year and $50K/year?

Class warfare is destructive, but Obama favors it. Not that he'll go after those making $250M/year. Those people can afford the right sorts of tax shelters to avoid confiscatory tax policies. It's those who would have the audacity to improve themselves that he wants to squash. And I guess a lot of people want him to do so.

Thomas Jentzsch, on Wed Nov 5, 2008 12:51 PM, said:

Governor Palin's point was that Alaska is geographically adjacent to Russia. Indeed, the over-water distance between Russia and Alaska is smaller than the distance between Alaska and the rest of the U.S. Further, I would expect that Alaska has far more dealings with Canada than any other state.

Thomas Jentzsch, on Wed Nov 5, 2008 12:50 PM, said:

How do you define the classes?

IMHO, the notion that a family that makes $250K/year is in the highest economic class is absurd. If you want to argue that such a family is in a different class from one that makes $50,000, then fine. But $250K/year is nowhere near enough to instantly make one a member of the highest class.

Communism is supposedly a classless system, but in practice there are two classes: the elite, and everybody else. That's what Obama et al. seek for the U.S. The elite don't want anyone below them to have upward mobility, thus they vote for Democrats to help them maintain their elite status.

Nathan Strum, on Wed Nov 5, 2008 1:44 AM, said:

Yeah, like attention from SNL's writers.

supercat, on Wed Nov 5, 2008 5:16 PM, said:

I do, and it doesn't faze me, because I'm not a gloal warming denier.

supercat, on Wed Nov 5, 2008 5:16 PM, said:

We've just had 8 years of class warfare (i.e. trickle down economics). It's time for a correction back to the mean.

mos6507, on Wed Nov 5, 2008 6:43 PM, said:

Uh, in that case you're out of date, since we don't have global warming any more--it's now global "climate change".

If, however, you claim that that theory is scientific, let me ask two questions:

• What exactly is being claimed by the global "climate change" fearmongers, and
  
• In the event that such a claim were false, how would one be able to determine that?

If a theory is scientifically meaningful, there must exist tests which, if it were false, it would be unlikely to pass.

Further, even if CO2 emissions were harmful, I'm not quite sure what would be accomplished bankrupting the U.S. power companies when China is building dozens of new coal-fired plants every year and, unlike ours, they don't have to meet EPA restrictions on sulfer oxides and other such nasty emissions.

No doubt this country is in rough shape for many reasons and the new president will face many challenges. And you make some good points in post #18. I fail to see what it has to do with selling off nuclear arsenals to third world countries though. Relax, things aren't that bad yet.

DaveD, on Wed Nov 5, 2008 7:34 PM, said:

The point isn't that the U.S. would sell of weapons to third-world countries. The point is that the U.S. is in very real danger of becoming a third-world nation. Unless steps are taken to deal with the issue, what do you think will happen if people stop wanting to lend money to the U.S. government except as 30-day notes with 25% interest?

A major factor in assigning credit risk is evaluating the ratio of an entity's interest payments to its income. If the ratio gets too high, the entity will be deemed a credit risk and interest rates will be increased. This in turn will push the ratio higher, quickly creating a death spiral. We are dangerously close to that point. If we get there, this will quickly become a third-world nation.

mos6507, on Wed Nov 5, 2008 6:43 PM, said:

Letting people keep what they earn is class warfare. Got it.

Communism was tried at Plymouth Colony centuries before Karl Marx was even born. It failed miserably. The only reason the colony survived is that Governor Bradford decided to go against the colony's charter and subdivide the land to individual families and tell each family that it could eat its own harvest. The colonists were moral and industrious people. If communism could work with any group, it should have worked with them.

supercat, on Thu Nov 6, 2008 12:55 AM, said:

So you are predicting a major, catastrophical crash within the next few months? Well, let's come back to this thread in 6 months and see what happened. Ok?

Quote

There are a lot more options:
- selling governmental properties
- increasing taxes
- more intelligent spending
- a new war
- ...

So Obama has a lot of options to choose from. And it is not one option versus another.

BTW: The dollar already has lost ~50% of its value compared to the Euro since 2000.

Quote

Higher taxes do not result into lower revenues. There is not logic into this broad statement, just prejudice. Too high taxes will eventually result into this, yes. But not even then in short terms.

So if you have an evident situation (as you predict), increasing taxes might help you to survive it. Of course this is no long term solution.

Quote

So you already know the financial experts which he will choose? Or do you just have generally no faith into Obama as a leader? Which would be a solely subjective impression then.

I agree, that there are very hard economic times for the USA coming, no matter who is in charge. The deficit is way too high in almost all areas, the infrastructure is pretty rotten and a lot of money is wasted for inefficient or even counter-productive military adventures worldwide.

In my opinion, based on what I have observed...

Best possible outcome:

Obama continues to make his most loyal supporters content with his charm, political wit, and eye-watering speeches involving the words "Hope", "Future", and "Change".

...taxes will slightly raise in order to "distribue the wealth", alternative energies will be found, ending interest for our presence in the middle east, and the welfare collectors along with "the middle class" will all be thrilled with their new fat checks.

We'll all be glad the Bush administration is gone, and proceed to celebrate with paper party hats and noisemakers with the words "Yes we CAN" written on them.

...though eventually, the Obama administration will probably run out of things to keep the audience glued to their seats, so everything will return to "normal".

Worst possible outcome:

Tax hikes on the major "corporations that ship jobs overseas" will become so brutal, due to the lowered income taxes on the "middle class" workers, that these companies will start laying off everyone and their brother as an excuse to take more money for themselves. Even if the wages go up, and the workers tax goes down, fact remains, these ruthless bastards are rich for a reason, and they can lay off whoever the hell they want, when they want, for whatever reason they wish... that is unless socialism really does get involved in all of this.

We will also "End the war in Iraq" as stated, so that we may place more troops into Afghanistan, or maybe even Pakistan [even if they don't want us, they'll get us], as outlined, in order to prevent this so-called "War on Terror". Lord knows where that will eventually lead us...

Bottom line... I personally foresee a large group of disappointed and downright ticked-off citizens and supporters, regardless of the outcome. I only say this because too many people are acting like this man is some sort of heaven-sent savior, when anyone could plainly tell that he's just another politician.

...with that being said, I do think it's awesome that an African-American individual has triumphed over the norm, in order to make his way to the highest executive position this country has to offer :3

2600FunTimes, on Fri Nov 7, 2008 12:19 PM, said:

100% agreed.