Obama Wins! - So What's Next?

Remove all ads!

Yes, and you are still wrong. The Republican talking point that Obama will be the "messiah" is an attempt to raise the bar to an impossible level. This is an odd thing for the same bunch who brought us Sarah Palin and George W. Bush, where the bar was set just about on the floor for them. Raising aand lowering of the bar on the both sides is time-honored tradition here in the US.

Please, point away. You are entitled to your opinion on any subject: Whether it's Obama's race, or if whether or not he is the Messiah, or whether or not you believe he is a "dirty" politician. I'm sure it will be important information for us all. The great lamentations and wailiings of conservatives are expected, and after the last 8 years, it is sweet music to the ears. Yes, don't let the smallest, most trivial faltering or mistake pass without a mighty outcry of conservative indignation. How else am I going to get my entertainment for the next four years? We had our eight years in the "Deserts of Consternation." Enjoy YOUR stay there, Martaug (and please, write often).

It seems there is more support for the Obama over the stimulus plan than for the Republicans. Surprised?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29097893/

 

Are you just being melodramatic, or did you really feel this way? Because, as idiotic as the Bush administration was, there was no way that they were going to be able to end "free and real elections". I'm not sure if there are legal safeguards in the US to actually ensure this (I know there are in Canada - it's actually the one good thing about having the Queen of England as our Head of State), but I can guarantee that the U.S. citizens would not stand still if any president tried to turn the U.S. into a fascist state (unless of course that's what the people wanted). And I don't believe for one minute that Bush would have gone that far anyway (as much as he might have wanted to).

 

Splunge - There was a real fear that GWB would declare a major war (like on Iran) right on the eve of the election. And would try to postpone the election until "things settled down." But those fears were unfounded.

On FDR's election there was an attempt to take the government from the people by military force:

General Butler, who made the allegations, was very famous during his time:

BTW, Splunge, just google Prescott Bush (yep, the same family) and "business plot" and see the results.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot

 

Well, it was somewhat melodramatic and I did not really believe it but I did fear it. I envisioned a string of semi-rigged elections ala 2000 and a population paralysed by fear and war that would slowly change America even more. Now, this was a worst case scenario but at times I did not think it seemed that unlikely.

 

Is there a provision under US law that would allow an election to be postponed in those circumstances? (I’m just asking, because I don’t know.) And if so, are there any further provisions as to when an election would have to be rescheduled? In any event, postponement due to war is not really the same thing as turning the country into a fascist state, and it is that idea that I was addressing.

As to your other example, that was a case of someone trying to seize power from the government, not a government trying to seize power permanently, and it failed. So the system worked.

I should point out the irony of a non-American trying to defend the American system to a U.S. citizen. But then again, it’s precisely because of your awareness of the potential dangers that allows you to be diligent in ensuring that governments don’t overstep their bounds. And that is exactly what I was getting at in my previous post.

Edit: thanks for the clarification, joacqin. But I don't really think that there was much risk of the U.S. being transformed in the way you describe. Of course, on the other hand, there was the McCarthy era, which shows what can happen when people are consumed by fear...

 

Chandos, you mean to tell me that anyone other than an extremely far-left wing nut on heavy medication actually believed that was gonna happen?

Well we had that alright, but it was the dems doing the rigging. Just look at all of the counties that showed up with either 100% voter particpation or more voters than lived in the counties. It was really shameful.

Splunge, the only way that i know of would have been to declare the country under martial law & i just don't see bush doing that.
Now obama on the other hand, i can seriously see trying to pull this crap, "for the good of the country" of course.

In all seriousness(& IMHO), the country is going to be at the closest point to having a civil war/secession in the next 4 years as we where in the late 1850's.

Most of those that post here just do not(or will not) understand the amount of dislike, distrust & outright hatred there is towards obama & certain members of the democratic party in a large number of americans.

 

Martaug, you are one of the people I envisioned cheering America's descent into fascism. You and the people who share your view would welcome an ultra right-wing dictator-in-all-but-name.

 

Hey, are you trying to say my medication stopped working?

 

Well, I don’t doubt that, but I also don’t understand it. Dislike? – fine; everyone has their own likes and dislikes. Mistrust? – OK, I can buy that; Obama doesn’t have much of a track record.

But hatred? That only makes sense (if you can use the word “sense” in this context) for card-carrying members of the KKK who oppose and fear any kind of change.

 

In all seriousness, that's hilarious.

Oh believe me, we know. The same people who called anyone who had a legitimate criticism of the Bush administration in the last 8 years a "traitor" or "the 'blame America first' crowd" or a "defeatocrat" or any number of the cute little pet names the right-wing "patriots" like to throw at their fellow countrymen. Isn't it ironic that, now that you're on the losing and unpopular side, every criticism you have of every trivial issue (nobama takes over the census! OMG!) you expect to be taken seriously? Please.

The sad thing is, Obama's far from perfect, Martaug. One day in the next 8 years he's going to screw up something major, and despite your lame "messiah" talk, I assure you everyone who voted for him knows this and is expecting this. And on that day, legitimate criticisms will be laid on Obama from the right (and center and left, but mostly the right), and Obama's supporters will have to eat crow about it, deservedly so. Problem is, if the last 3 weeks is any indication, you're going to spend every waking moment in the next 8 years combing every right-wing web site you can find to throw anything you can at Obama, no matter how trivial or baseless the issue is. "Crying wolf," in a way. Accomplishing nothing more than giving us all a good laugh and turning into everything you claim to hate about the far-left nutjobs who wanted Bush to fail at every turn. And on the day Obama does blow it, you'll scream you were right and no one is going to care, because any credibility you had you pissed away a long time ago.

So by all means, keep it up.

 

Okay -- now I admit I hate Hillary, but there's no need to drag me through the mud here. After all, even though I really can't stand her I certainly don't want her to fail in her current job.

I must admit, $3 trillion dollars does make me a bit nervous. That's nearly $25,000 per tax paying American -- personally I'd rather have the $25,000 in my pocket instead of having the government spend it. However, if they get this right it's worth it. If they get it wrong ... well ... DR's assessment of 'the next 8 years' is a bit optimistic.

 

Well, everyone would like to have 25K, but I don't think that the general public would do much better at organizing large-scale expenditures than the government. What I am somewhat sceptic about is what percentage of these money (when did it become 3 trillions, by the way, I'd heard about half that amount) will end up where it's needed - and when and how will it be paid back. After all, a government investing in the private sector should expect a return on its investment, just like everyone else. And the money taken, just as the money given, should be as transparent and effectively spent as possible. I know I sound somewhat naive, but when we are talking about billions and trillions, it pays to be pedantic. Literally.

Right now, I guess the big issue is how much of the financial and other sectors need to be bailed out. After all, it's more than partly their fault for messing up, so putting more money in them might end up counterproductive.

 

Obama hardly strikes me as the type who would declare Martial Law on a whim or in an attempt to seize power. Using a balance of probabilities model, I would say that Bush would have been more likely to try that than Obama, but nevertheless, no President would do such a thing lightly.

I also hardly see any states seceding or rebelling against the Union -- that's not the tone of ANY of the news I see from Fox, CBS, NBC, or anything on the net's more reputable news sources. I understand that a lot of Americans really hate and distrust Obama, but not to the degree of rebellion.

On the flip side, many right wingers thought that some of the criticisms levied against Bush were specious and lacking merit. Now they are giving the left a taste of that medicine. I think both sides could be accused of hypocratic behaviour here.

 

Eh? Where did $3 trillion come from? I heard the stimulus package was a little over $800 billion. (Which is still a TON of cash, but significantly less than $3 trillion.) In fact, even if you want to add in the $700 billion bailout authorized last fall, we're still way short of $3 trillion.

That's because no one is really talking about rebellion. I agree that a lot of people hate and distrust Obama, but no more so (and I would assert a hell of a lot less) than people hated and distrusted Bush for the last year he was in office. Bush had a disapproval rating of 70% when he left office. To put that in perspective, Nixon had a disapproval rating of 65% when he resigned during the Watergate scandal. Talk of states seceding from country may be happening in martaug's world, but not the world where most of the rest of us live.

 

It was in the tribune this morning and also the Washington Post.

 

If you see an equal balance here, you really must not think much of people on the right, LKD. The right thought (and still thinks) that complaints that Bush lied about WMD, sat on his hands during Katrina and flooded the government (especially the DoJ) with unqualified political flacks are "specious and lacking merit." Problem is, Bush actually did those things. Likewise, the left (and I would say most of the center) think that complaints that Obama is a Marxist socialist, a secret muslim and a racist are "specious and lack merit." Problem is, these claims actually do lack merit, though I understand how some desperately wish that weren't the case.

There are certainly things a reasonable person can dislike about Obama and his politics (I have plenty, believe me). But so far, only one side's claims are specious and lacking merit. It would be nice if the right would level charges against Obama that didn't smack of barking lunacy. Then I would believe they cared more about this country than about 2010. But so far that seems to be all they have, which is sad. There are certainly legitimate conservative opposing arguments to be made, but for some reason (that honestly escapes me) it's only the nutbars and buffoons of the right who are allowed near a microphone.

Right now, the two biggest "rising stars" of the right are Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber, for Pete's sake. What does that tell you about what the right learned from the last election?

 

NC was actually an Obama state during the election. I guess it would have to succeed from itself.

 

Hmmm... Too bad the article wasn't more specific as to how it came up with that number. The $3 trillion seems to be a potential price if more action is needed, but even if you add up the associated costs of the other items listed in the article, you still don't get close to $3 trillion. The money on the table right now according to the article is $838 billion from the stimulus itself, and the still unallocated $350 billion (of the original $700 billion) from the bailout funds authorized back in October.

 

Aldeth, tim geithner stated yesterday(or was it monday) that the treasury dept would spend $2 trillion in public & private funds to spur consumer and business lending.
Not sure how the treasury is gonna use private funds but thats his stance.

Nope sorry joacqin but i believe in personal freedom to much for that. See, unlike dems in america who want a nanny state to do-all & be-all for them from cradle to grave, i want everyone to be able to succeed or fail on their own merits.
Just as none of my personal rights would/should infringe on your rights, none of yours should interfere with mine.

No chandos, you are one of the most centered members of anybody on here. Now DR on the other hand.

Anybody here in the us that wants to learn about how a lot of libetarians, conservatives & single issue voters feel, just stroll down to the local gunstore.
There is a reason that almost every manufacturer of semi-auto firearms is backordered from 3 - 24 MONTHS.
There is a reason why the sales of .50 BMGs have went from 3-5 a year to now flying out the door at the rate of 4-7 a month.
Now this isn't poor people buying $3,500 - $8,000 firearms, these are upper-middle to upper class people that are buying while they can because
THEY
DO
NOT
TRUST
OBAMA.
When you see people that have never owned &/or shot more than a .38 revolver come in & place orders for an AR-15, 3-5 dozen mags & a case lot of ammo, you realise that a lot more people are really concerned than the lame-stream media will admit.

Oh BTW, my earlier quote(way back in the gun control thread) on the number of rounds manufactured in the US was WAY, WAY off. The figures now are between 8 & 14 Billion rounds a year(depending on whether or not you include all military rounds), & yet, even with this HUGE figure, ammo is getting scarce.

Oh well, back to the obama bashing.
Did you see the video of him smacking his head trying to board Marine-One?
Thats gonna leave a mark.
check it out on youtube.

 

Well, the WP article talked about "public and private" money, which obviously means that not all of those funds would be expended by the state - maybe they are counting likely private investments attracted by the state guarantees? As far as I can understand there's the 800-ish billions of the bill proper, and the Treasury committing up to a trillion to purchase "bonds or other assets backed by consumer loans", which I interpret more as a guarantee - barring a complete and utter FUBAR-ing of the market, these should not lose most of their value. In fact, isn't it possible that this actually wins some money? I'd think bonds and other "assets" are fairly cheap now, and their price may rise if things get better.

The other 1.2-ish trillions I don't see mentioned anywhere. I didn't know about the Treasury plan (though technically it may not even count, as it's not the federal government spending those money and they are not directly from taxes), but even then it's not even close to that mind-chilling 3 000 000 000 000 dollars. Or three Teradollars, if you are scared by all those zeroes

And as for those arms purchases, I don't know how much the NRA should pay Obama for that, but it won't be enough . You have to admit, Marty, if he does half as much for the other US industries as he did for the small arms manufacturers he'll be worth his weight in gold. Presuming what you are saying is statistically significant, of course - no offense meant, but you know how anecdotal evidence is.