Totem wrote:
That's a lot of "ifs."
Yes, but we believe in the guy! Belief we can change in, or something...
Quote:
What the end product looks like is absolutely our of his control.
Not "absolutely". "Partially" would be more accurate. The way he withdraws from Iraq will matter.
Quote:
Stabilize Afganistan? Hmm, tougher nut to crack. A surge isn't necessarily the answer, despite its' success in Iraq. These two countries have different circumstances and history working against each other.
Absolutely, it's a very hard nut to crack, but I imagine that the withdrawal from Iraq can only help. Add to the the fact that Obama understands that the solution can't be purely military, and the fact that his NATO allies will be much more willing to help him out than Bush, it should get better. I'm not saying he's going to turn it into Switzerland overnight, but stablise it somewhat, yes, it's doable.
Quote:
Sort out the economy? This pretty much out of his control. As I have said in the past, beyond cheerleading and giving ever-so-slight nudges with interest rates and such, a president doesn't have that much influence on the economy for good or bad. This monster has a mind and life of its' own now and we are just along for the ride.
That's true, but there's a reason for it. When you make every effort to prevent regulation and oversight by the government, then obviously the governmetn doesn't have much control over things. I believe this crisis is the perfect opportunity to wrestle some of that control back, and put it to good use. What the f
uck is the point of having a governmetn otherwise? We should be electing CEOs and Investment fund directors if that's where all the power lies...
Quote:
Reformation of the health care system will be largely dependent on $$$, something we are desperately short of right now. Beyond mere goldbricking, lipservice, or platitudes nothing will get done until the economy is solidly back on its' feet.
Four years is a long time. All he needs to do is start something in his 3rd year. It's gonna be a long-process anyway, and I don't think anyone expects him to put in place a nationalised health service for all Americans within the next 2 years.
Quote:
This is not to say Obama, assuming he is elected, won't be re-elected in 2012, but from where I sit it looks like whoever is in office is going to be a one termer.
Yes, that's what it looks like now, with the current circumstances. But if there's one thing circumstances do, is change. Four years is a long time. And the Republican candidates are pretty weak. They might better in 4 years, but if you guys thrwo us Palin, for exemple, you're toast.
Quote:
The economy will crush whoever is the next president.
Maybe, maybe not. If he's clever, and I think he is, he'll use the crisis a starting point to rebuild stuff slowly. NO one enjoys seeing bankers receive $5million dollars bonuses every year, which they put in tax-free acounts, and when they f
uck up, they get rescued by the taxpayers. No one. People understand that some things need to change. I think that's the angle he'll go for. "Give me time to reform this mess" kinda thing.
Quote:
" Just look at this forum, there isn't a single problem that (fill in the blank with the name of your typical liberal Asylum poster) can't attribute to the neocons/Bush/Republican party."
The difference is that you guys were... in power! The Dems were the opposition party. It's like blaming a player on the bench for the defeat. No, it's the coach's fault, and the coach was a Republican. Slight difference.
Also, did you notice how I
didn't include you in that original statement? That's because I like you. I think you're actually quite reasonable and funny and it pains me everytime I see you get rated down, and so I rate you back up. Cos you don't deserve it. You make coherent argument, and if they're not coherent, they're at least amusing. In any case, they're not completely deluded, unlike gbaji and knox.
So there, by now you should've come all over my face, and I can stop with the ****-sucking.