speculawyer
Member
And Ironically, the GOP side will be represented by a Mormon or a Catholic . . . which many evangelicals do not consider to be "real Christians".
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PoliGAF 2012 Community Thread
- Thread starter AlteredBeast
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
And Ironically, the GOP side will be represented by a Mormon or a Catholic . . . which many evangelicals do not consider to be "real Christians".
Manmademan
Member
And Ironically, the GOP side will be represented by a Mormon or a Catholic . . . which many evangelicals do not consider to be "real Christians".
mormon I agree with- but I thought evangelicals were over the catholic thing.
You must admit though that Obama was an aberration. His personal narrative and background, combined with not insignificant oratory skill and a crapload of "getting lucky" allowed him to beat Clinton in the primaries. The guy came out of nowhere and had instant rockstar status. "The establishment" were backing Clinton before that happened- Clinton, which is probably the most recognized name in politics next to Bush.
That's...probably not going to happen again, and it's rare that the sitting party runs an absolute nobody when trying to retain the presidency.
Good point. For years heading into 2008 Clinton was just assumed to be the nominee and Obama's victory was a combination of everything you just said. I'm just saying that I don't think the democrats will need much of the south in their path to 270 in the future with the coming changes in demographics.
I would call the states that Kerry won in 2004 the solid democratic states that will in most cases always go blue. I think Colorado and Nevada are going to be entering that group assuredly over the next few election cycles with states like Texas, North Carolina, Virginia and Arizona becoming new swing states over the next decade.
Manmademan
Member
Good point. For years heading into 2008 Clinton was just assumed to be the nominee and Obama's victory was a combination of everything you just said. I'm just saying that I don't think the democrats will need much of the south in their path to 270 in the future with the coming changes in demographics.
I would call the states that Kerry won in 2004 the solid democratic states that will in most cases always go blue. I think Colorado and Nevada are going to be entering that group assuredly over the next few election cycles with states like Texas, North Carolina, Virginia and Arizona becoming new swing states over the next decade.
Texas is most certainly going to go swing state- maybe not by 2016, but it's happening. and when it does I will be glued to my TV
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Texas is most certainly going to go swing state- maybe not by 2016, but it's happening. and when it does I will be glued to my TV
Not entirely related, but it reminds me of during the 2008 election when the Hannity board went insane (in a joyful way) because somebody said they saw a poll that had McCain winning California.
California.
Oh, the disappointment there must have been.
speculawyer
Member
mormon I agree with- but I thought evangelicals were over the catholic thing.
Yeah, I agree that most of them are over it. But some still call the Catholic church the great whore of Babylon or whatever.
You must admit though that Obama was an aberration. His personal narrative and background, combined with not insignificant oratory skill and a crapload of "getting lucky" allowed him to beat Clinton in the primaries. The guy came out of nowhere and had instant rockstar status. "The establishment" were backing Clinton before that happened- Clinton, which is probably the most recognized name in politics next to Bush.
That's...probably not going to happen again, and it's rare that the sitting party runs an absolute nobody when trying to retain the presidency.
Can Obama win big without the south? Probably. But Obama was able to put Virginia and North Carolina in play as swing states, which nobody thought possible- forcing the GOP to spread themselves thin and lessening the importance of Ohio and FL. I can see the Democratic party trying to build on and retain those states, rather than going back to the model that Gore, Kerry, and (to a large extent) Clinton were endorsing by turning out the votes in democratic stronghold states.
I don't think Obama was an aberration as much as he was just an extremely great politician. He has a rare combination of charisma, intellect, and self control that's pretty rare in recent presidential candidates. This is why even when the economy was in the pooper, the majority of Americans still liked him as a person. If the economy is still in good shape by election time, I just don't see how anyone beats him. In fact, if the economy is in good shape, he's going to win by a pretty large margin.
To go a step further, even if the economy isn't doing great by the fall, the money should still be on Obama to win the election. He dismantled the Clinton machine, and won the election with an Islamic name that rhymes with two symbols of America's war on terror only seven years after 9/11. A lot of people say he has a record now, but people forget that he won the election with no real record, and as a black man with an Islamic name.
Yeah, and he won VA, NC, and IN too, something no one expected to happen in 2008.
I'd be shocked if by 2020 Obama isn't considered one of the greatest presidents in American history. Right along with Lincoln, Washington, and Roosevelt.
Manmademan
Member
I don't think Obama was an aberration as much as he was just an extremely great politician. He has a rare combination of charisma, intellect, and self control that's pretty rare in recent presidential candidates. This is why even when the economy was in the pooper, the majority of Americans still liked him as a person. If the economy is still in good shape by election time, I just don't see how anyone beats him. In fact, if the economy is in good shape, he's going to win by a pretty large margin.
To go a step further, even if the economy isn't doing great by the fall, the money should still be on Obama to win the election. He dismantled the Clinton machine, and won the election with an Islamic name that rhymes with two symbols of America's war on terror only seven years after 9/11. A lot of people say he has a record now, but people forget that he won the election with no real record, and as a black man with an Islamic name.
Yeah, and he won VA, NC, and IN too, something no one expected to happen in 2008.
I'd be shocked if by 2020 Obama isn't considered one of the greatest presidents in American history. Right along with Lincoln, Washington, and Roosevelt.
I'd be shocked if they don't rename Martin Luther King day "Martin Luther King Jr day Feat. Barack Obama" in his honor.
Winning a second term means his name will be brought up every February from now until the end of time
PhoenixDark
Banned
I don't think Obama was an aberration as much as he was just an extremely great politician. He has a rare combination of charisma, intellect, and self control that's pretty rare in recent presidential candidates. This is why even when the economy was in the pooper, the majority of Americans still liked him as a person. If the economy is still in good shape by election time, I just don't see how anyone beats him. In fact, if the economy is in good shape, he's going to win by a pretty large margin.
To go a step further, even if the economy isn't doing great by the fall, the money should still be on Obama to win the election. He dismantled the Clinton machine, and won the election with an Islamic name that rhymes with two symbols of America's war on terror only seven years after 9/11. A lot of people say he has a record now, but people forget that he won the election with no real record, and as a black man with an Islamic name.
Yeah, and he won VA, NC, and IN too, something no one expected to happen in 2008.
I'd be shocked if by 2020 Obama isn't considered one of the greatest presidents in American history. Right along with Lincoln, Washington, and Roosevelt.
LOL
He's not a better president than HW Bush, let's not get ahead of ourselves
I'd be shocked if they don't rename Martin Luther King day "Martin Luther King Jr day Feat. Barack Obama" in his honor.
Winning a second term means his name will be brought up every February from now until the end of time
No doubt about that. Consider that the Bush years are truly considered one of the worst decades in American history. If Obama wins re-election and is able to complete his social and political agenda, you could really see the entire country turn around and be in a pretty strong position in the 21st century, just like Roosevelt did for 20th century America after WW2.
LOL
He's not a better president than HW Bush, let's not get ahead of ourselves
You're kidding right? HW Bush rode into the White House on Reagan's coat tails, and lost the White House because he let the far right wage a culture war as the economy began to sag.
He isn't half the politician Obama is. He was definitely better than his son though.
RustyNails
Member
LOL
He's not a better president than HW Bush, let's not get ahead of ourselves
Is that Hillary am cry talking?
LOL
He's not a better president than HW Bush, let's not get ahead of ourselves
0_o
Manmademan
Member
LOL
He's not a better president than HW Bush, let's not get ahead of ourselves
Now this is just terrible.
HW couldn't even have gotten himself arrested, much less elected president if not for Reagan.
and do you really want to get into a list of accomplishments of HW Bush vs. Barack Obama? Obama destroys him here- hell, Obama got more done than just about anyone did in two terms, let alone one.
Obama's sole achilles heel is that expectations for him were so ridiculously high that any list of achievements seems like a letdown in comparison.
I sincerly hope this isn't how people see him. Even if he swung far to the left after a re-election (which isn't happening), it doesn't make up for the countless people he drone bombed to death.I'd be shocked if by 2020 Obama isn't considered one of the greatest presidents in American history. Right along with Lincoln, Washington, and Roosevelt.
BotoxAgent
Member
LOL
He's not a better president than HW Bush, let's not get ahead of ourselves
Hey can please enlighten us with your psychoanalysis again? I loved that shit XD
Done:
This was my last major concern that the legislature could muck with the economy this year; the debt ceiling issue might come up near the election, but I doubt it. Gas prices, on the other hand.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...ax-bill-over-broad-gop-opposition.php?ref=fpbQuick on the heels of the House, the Senate has passed legislation to extend a two percent payroll tax cut through the end of the year.
The final vote was 60-36 with 30 Rs and 6 Ds bucking their leaders to oppose the package. It now goes off to a jubilant White House for President Obamas signature.
The legislation, which also extends emergency unemployment benefits and Medicare reimbursement rates until January 1, 2013.
This was my last major concern that the legislature could muck with the economy this year; the debt ceiling issue might come up near the election, but I doubt it. Gas prices, on the other hand.
I'd be shocked if by 2020 Obama isn't considered one of the greatest presidents in American history. Right along with Lincoln, Washington, and Roosevelt.
My lord, poligaf. I leave for a few hours and look what happens.
Manmademan
Member
I sincerly hope this isn't how people see him. Even if he swung far to the left after a re-election (which isn't happening), it doesn't make up for the countless people he drone bombed to death.
Stop for a second and think about how the right falls all over themselves to fellate Ronald Reagan, despite what he actually did in office.
Obama is practically a saint compared to the shit Reagan Pulled.
It must be. PD has an inordinate, palpable antipathy towards Obama. His bizarre psychological analysis of Obama exemplified this.Is that Hillary am cry talking?
I sincerly hope this isn't how people see him. Even if he swung far to the left after a re-election (which isn't happening), it doesn't make up for the countless people he drone bombed to death.
Roosevelt put hundreds of thousands of Japanese in concentration camps. Lincoln was a white supremacist who wanted to ship all the blacks back to Africa.
Doesn't change their status, and that detail won't change Obama's either.
Obama is practically a saint compared to the shit Reagan Pulled.
You mean saving social security for another generation, raising taxes on gas to fund infrastructure and greatly expanding free health care to millions of elderly?
Manmademan
Member
You mean saving social security for another generation and greatly expanding free health care to millions of elderly?
Grenada Invasion.
Reagan Doctrine.
Iran/Contra Arms Scandal.
Manuel Noriega.
Escalation of the "war on drugs"
Air strikes on Libya.
Do any of these things ring bells? "drone strikes" are nothing at all in comparison.
I sincerly hope this isn't how people see him. Even if he swung far to the left after a re-election (which isn't happening), it doesn't make up for the countless people he drone bombed to death.
As much as I personally detest the killing of innocents in this regard, this is a silly metric in historical terms. Every "greatest President" has their own blood on their hands, and most of them have a lot more than Obama has (including FDR and LBJ).
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
Obama is practically a saint compared to the shit Reagan Pulled.
Before he was even inaugurated (Reagan, October surprise).
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
LOL
He's not a better president than HW Bush, let's not get ahead of ourselves
smh Phoenix. smh.
Manmademan
Member
Santorum's big announcement is apparently just Mike DeWine. -via TPM
yeah, someone leaked it earlier in the thread.
Still: Suikoden is pretty awesome. *high five*
Grenada Invasion.
Reagan Doctrine.
Iran/Contra Arms Scandal.
Manuel Noriega.
Escalation of the "war on drugs"
Air strikes on Libya.
I don't have a problem with any of this.
Reagan did nothing in retaliation to the Beirut bombing, even though there was great pressure to respond.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
yeah, someone leaked it earlier in the thread.
Still: Suikoden is pretty awesome. *high five*
I refuse to get my hopes up with the new one. I refuse.
speculawyer
Member
I wouldn't downplay HW heavily. He ran a profitable (!) kick-butt war against Saddam. And he had the balls to raise taxes despite his pledge thus putting the nation on a more sound fiscal basis. Definitely the best GOP president since Eisenhower.and do you really want to get into a list of accomplishments of HW Bush vs. Barack Obama? Obama destroys him here- hell, Obama got more done than just about anyone did in two terms, let alone one.
I wouldn't dare try to pass judgment on Obama until he is done . . . he could have a later colossal fuck-up or a great event that over shadows everything that has happened so far.
Sure, but for me personally, I find it deplorable. We shouldn't accept this as just the way of things.As much as I personally detest the killing of innocents in this regard, this is a silly metric in historical terms. Every "greatest President" has their own blood on their hands, and most of them have a lot more than Obama has (including FDR and LBJ).
Manmademan
Member
I don't have a problem with any of this.
Reagan did nothing in retaliation to the Beirut bombing, even though there was great pressure to respond.
you don't have a problem with selling arms to Iran (yes, that Iran!) to fund contras in nicaragua to destabilize it, in explicit violation of international law, causing the US to be found guilty of war crimes?
You...do know who Manuel Noriega is, and where he is right now?
What does it take to get you to object? a president literally setting babies on fire?
I wouldn't downplay HW heavily. He ran a profitable (!) kick-butt war against Saddam. And he had the balls to raise taxes despite his pledge thus putting the nation on a more sound fiscal basis. Definitely the best GOP president since Eisenhower.
Whether wars are profitable or not is entirely irrelevant. That's not a useful metric for me. Still, Gulf war 1 was a success by more than a few measures, I'll give that to you.
HW wasn't a bad president. He might even be the best GOP president in some time. But he certainly accomplished less, and was a lesser politician, than Clinton OR Obama.
It's fine to think that the good outweigh the bad in Reagan's presidency, but not having problem with shit like the Iran/Contra or the Granada invasion?I don't have a problem with any of this.
Really?
PhoenixDark
Banned
Roosevelt put hundreds of thousands of Japanese in concentration camps. Lincoln was a white supremacist who wanted to ship all the blacks back to Africa.
Doesn't change their status, and that detail won't change Obama's either.
FDR created the social blanket and led the country through WWII, Lincoln "freed the slaves" through a Civil War. I'm sorry but putting Obama (or any modern president) in that category isn't accurate.
I think it's safe to say Clinton and Reagan are perhaps the best examples of good to great modern presidents, depending on your views. It makes more sense to compare Obama and any modern president to them, and when you do so he doesn't particularly stack up well (although you could argue Obama's legislative record is more impressive than both of theirs). If he manages to get re-elected things can certainly change; imagine how different Clinton's legacy would be if he was not re-elected for instance.
FDR and Lincoln were great leaders who changed the path of the country. I don't see how anyone could argue Obama is a good leader, or a leader at all to be perfectly honest; he seems more like a steward holding office until someone else assumes the presidency. Perhaps Hillary Clinton
Manmademan
Member
... (although you could argue Obama's legislative record is more impressive than both of theirs).
yes, this is exactly what I was talking about re: Obama and HW bush.
If he manages to get re-elected things can certainly change; imagine how different Clinton's legacy would be if he was not re-elected for instance.
This at least I agree with you here. Getting financial reform, healthcare reform, and student loan reform passed are great, but he needs to be able to protect that legacy.
FDR and Lincoln were great leaders who changed the path of the country. I don't see how anyone could argue Obama is a good leader, or a leader at all to be perfectly honest; he seems more like a steward holding office until someone else assumes the presidency. Perhaps Hillary Clinton
Hillaryis44 is a great page man, keep up the good work
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
FDR created the social blanket and led the country through WWII, Lincoln "freed the slaves" through a Civil War. I'm sorry but putting Obama (or any modern president) in that category isn't accurate.
I think it's safe to say Clinton and Reagan are perhaps the best examples of good to great modern presidents, depending on your views. It makes more sense to compare Obama and any modern president to them, and when you do so he doesn't particularly stack up well (although you could argue Obama's legislative record is more impressive than both of theirs). If he manages to get re-elected things can certainly change; imagine how different Clinton's legacy would be if he was not re-elected for instance.
FDR and Lincoln were great leaders who changed the path of the country. I don't see how anyone could argue Obama is a good leader, or a leader at all to be perfectly honest; he seems more like a steward holding office until someone else assumes the presidency. Perhaps Hillary Clinton
lol bravo.
The Librarian
Banned
:/FDR and Lincoln were great leaders who changed the path of the country. I don't see how anyone could argue Obama is a good leader, or a leader at all to be perfectly honest; he seems more like a steward holding office until someone else assumes the presidency. Perhaps Hillary Clinton
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
I don't see how anyone could argue Obama is a good leader, or a leader at all to be perfectly honest; he seems more like a steward holding office until someone else assumes the presidency. Perhaps Hillary Clinton
Hillary, Obama, Romney... 3 sides of the same coin.
It's fine to think that the good outweigh the bad in Reagan's presidency,
That's what I was getting at. Individually some of them are very poor choices, but not enough to bring down the entire administration and their accomplishments. Especially given the state of the world back then, American foreign policy could often get very tawdry at times.
Glorified G
Member
FDR created the social blanket and led the country through WWII, Lincoln "freed the slaves" through a Civil War. I'm sorry but putting Obama (or any modern president) in that category isn't accurate.
I think it's safe to say Clinton and Reagan are perhaps the best examples of good to great modern presidents, depending on your views. It makes more sense to compare Obama and any modern president to them, and when you do so he doesn't particularly stack up well (although you could argue Obama's legislative record is more impressive than both of theirs). If he manages to get re-elected things can certainly change; imagine how different Clinton's legacy would be if he was not re-elected for instance.
FDR and Lincoln were great leaders who changed the path of the country. I don't see how anyone could argue Obama is a good leader, or a leader at all to be perfectly honest; he seems more like a steward holding office until someone else assumes the presidency. Perhaps Hillary Clinton
Is that Hillary am cry talking?
Seems like it.
I'm surprised the PUMAs still exist in 2012.
Manmademan
Member
Hillary, Obama, Romney... 3 sides of the same coin.
One could argue Romney's side keeps flipping so often you can't tell which one it is
That's what I was getting at. Individually some of them are very poor choices, but not enough to bring down the entire administration and their accomplishments. Especially given the state of the world back then, American foreign policy could often get very tawdry at times.
Yeah, we haven't even brought up the unofficial stuff that happened to many Latin American leaders during that time.
Manmademan
Member
That's what I was getting. Individually some of them are very poor choices, but given the state of the world back then, American foreign policy could get very tawdry at times.
American Foreign policy can get very tawdry right now.
My point in bringing up Reagan was to contrast with how america (though especially the right) views him and his presidency DESPITE several serious scandals and human rights abuses during his tenure. Thus, it's not unreasonable to think that in a few decades Obama will be looked on very favorably, drone strikes or no.
Yeah, we haven't even brought up the unofficial stuff that happened to many Latin American leaders during that time.
That's why I brought up Noriega. unofficially we were doing that all over. That's just the one time we got caught at it.
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
One could argue Romney's side keeps flipping so often you can't tell which one it is
That was a jab at the bizarre takes from a few members here, it probably wasn't worth posting.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Seems like it.
I'm surprised the PUMAs still exist in 2012.
I'm not a PUMA and stopped supporting her campaign around the Ohio primary when her people started spreading that pic of Obama dressed as a Muslim. I'm just not an Obama fan, although I will vote for him again
American Foreign policy can get very tawdry right now.
That's an interesting discussion to have. Was American foreign policy during the Cold War (post-Vietnam) worse or better than what we have seen in the past decade (including Bush here)?
I am to believe we are getting better, but maybe that's just because we aren't far enough removed from this era to really evaluate everything that has occurred.
My point in bringing up Reagan was to contrast with how america (though especially the right) views him and his presidency DESPITE several serious scandals and human rights abuses during his tenure. Thus, it's not unreasonable to think that in a few decades Obama will be looked on very favorably, drone strikes or no.
I have no problems with people saying Obama could be seen in such favorable light as Reagan/Clinton or JFK. But, I blanche when people start projecting him higher than that. There is nothing he could possibly do policy-wise (or has done) that would put him higher than that.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
What is Clinton's legacy anyways? Massive surplus combined with blowjobs?
Massive surpluses?!!? How come this is the first time I have heard about this?
I thought the deficit went up while Clinton was in office.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.