Obama's secret advantage- people's inability to admit a mistake

[Cammmpbell]

it wasn't a mistake given the alternative.

and you guys haven't provided anyone who is a good alternative.

so there ya go.

Personally I think Obama's been a pretty damn good President. He's smart as a whip, has a good sense of humor, has to ability to make corrections in policy and is well liked by foreign leaders. I didn't make a mistake in voting for him. Just as I didn't make a mistake when I voted for Clinton.

I never voted for Clinton but I did vote for Obama. Also my wife and her sister and if we live and are able we'll do it again.

 

[Trajan]

it wasn't a mistake given the alternative.

and you guys haven't provided anyone who is a good alternative.

so there ya go.

Personally I think Obama's been a pretty damn good President. He's smart as a whip, has a good sense of humor, has to ability to make corrections in policy and is well liked by foreign leaders. I didn't make a mistake in voting for him. Just as I didn't make a mistake when I voted for Clinton.

if I had written parody I could not have done better....

 

[JakeStarkey]

The far righties are very bitter because Romney is going to be the nominee. For more than two years the moderated and good GOP have been working to lessen, and eventually eliminate, the weirdos from the far right. We are getting there. Hurray for the GOP!

 

[JoeB131]

The far righties are very bitter because Romney is going to be the nominee. For more than two years the moderated and good GOP have been working to lessen, and eventually eliminate, the weirdos from the far right. We are getting there. Hurray for the GOP!

Romney will lose by Goldwater like proportions, and the next idjit who gets up there and says, "We need to nominate a moderate" will be laughed off the stage.

Oh, going back to ignore mode on you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nah, you love reading me!

Romney can beat Obama if the loons on the far right vote for him. If Paul runs a thirdy party campaign, that will work also. Good Republicans know that if Paul runs a third-party effort we can get the loons out of the party and we start afresh.

 

[JoeB131]

Nah, you love reading me!

Romney can beat Obama if the loons on the far right vote for him. If Paul runs a thirdy party campaign, that will work also. Good Republicans know that if Paul runs a third-party effort we can get the loons out of the party and we start afresh.

It's sometimes fun for the humor value.

Actually, Paul running as a third party candidate would seal Obama's victory, hense why Romney is going out of his way to not antagonize the guy. He might even get delegates on the platform writing committee.

But guy, Paul isn't the problem. The libertarians aren't the issue, it's the evangelicals who won't vote for Romney. At least not enthusastically.

The real problem, of course, is that Romney isn't likable as a person and Obama is.

 

[California Girl]

it wasn't a mistake given the alternative.

and you guys haven't provided anyone who is a good alternative.

so there ya go.

Personally I think Obama's been a pretty damn good President. He's smart as a whip, has a good sense of humor, has to ability to make corrections in policy and is well liked by foreign leaders. I didn't make a mistake in voting for him. Just as I didn't make a mistake when I voted for Clinton.

if I had written parody I could not have done better....

I confess I laughed out loud when Swallow said Obama is 'well liked by foreign leaders'. That is some funny shit.

As an interesting aside, yesterday I was in London and I met an American girl who lives here. We got to talking politics and she informed me that she voted for Obama in 2008. I smiled. She said 'You know that joke about voting for Obama in 08 to prove you're not racist, and not voting for him in '12 to prove you're not stupid'... 'Yea' I said 'I've heard that joke'.... 'well' she replied 'that's me'.

 

[Cammmpbell]

Personally I think Obama's been a pretty damn good President. He's smart as a whip, has a good sense of humor, has to ability to make corrections in policy and is well liked by foreign leaders. I didn't make a mistake in voting for him. Just as I didn't make a mistake when I voted for Clinton.

if I had written parody I could not have done better....

I confess I laughed out loud when Swallow said Obama is 'well liked by foreign leaders'. That is some funny shit.

As an interesting aside, yesterday I was in London and I met an American girl who lives here. We got to talking politics and she informed me that she voted for Obama in 2008. I smiled. She said 'You know that joke about voting for Obama in 08 to prove you're not racist, and not voting for him in '12 to prove you're not stupid'... 'Yea' I said 'I've heard that joke'.... 'well' she replied 'that's me'.

Like I said....the people I know who voted for the president in 2008 are all going to do it again.

 

[JBG]

Nixon won re-election largely by decimating, through dirty tricks, worthier opponents. Also, he used "banana republic" economics, i.e. the wage and price controls combined with devaluation and heavy Fed stimulus to ensure a temporarily palmy economic environment.

I think people are too hard on Nixon, who was more of a leader than Obama and the six idiots put together. An argument can be made that Nixon only lost in 1960 due to Democratic vote fraud....I think there was a lot more to it than that. First, McGovern was simply a horrible opponent. the Hippies hijacked the party and slammed it into the wall. And give Nixon his due, he kept the economy stable while ending a war, and changed the dynamic of the Cold War by playing the two major adversaries off against each other.

I think that liberal or conservative voters should correctly view Nixon as neither, but a thug. As far as Illinois vote fraud, other Republican jurisdictions had that as well. Nebraska is widely rumored to have had a fraudulent result.

As for 1972, this is how memory serves me.

During the spring of 1971 things were going poorly for Nixon. The economy was barely emerging from the 1969-70 recession, but prices started surging at 5-6% annual rates, around what they were before we entered the recession. Long term rates zoomed as well, after a brief drop during 1970.

The Vietnam War, the "peace talks" and the withdrawal from Vietnam were not going well either. Adding to the misery, the Pentagon Papers came out during June 1971. While they covered only the Democratic administrations, Nixon and Johnson were personally rather close, and the administration was bound at the hip to prior policies.

So, in order to rescue himself from what looked like an economic and foreign policy debacle, on, I believe, August 15, 1971 Nixon took the following steps:

1. Devalued the U.S. dollar by 10%(not sure on amount);
2. Slammed closed the gold window, effectively eliminating the gold standard (this was finalized in the Smithsonian Accords that December);
3. Imposed an import tariff of, I believe, 10% (not sure on amount); and
4. Imposed a short-term wage and price freeze (eventually called "Phase I wage and price controls)

These steps were what "kept the economy stable while ending a war".

As for foreign policy he was said to have "play(ed) the two major adversaries off against each other". This had utterly no benefits in any of the world's hot spots, either Vietnam or in the Middle East. What we had was a craven surrender of Taiwan to the Communists, and a pulling of the plug on the South Vietnamese. In my view, the purpose of the Peking February 1972 and Moscow May 1972 visits was to create a sense of euphoria, not unlike a heroin high.

We paid for it richly as allies stopped relying on the U.S. because the U.S.'s word was not worth the paper it wasn't written on.

In short, Nixon was a scoundrel.

All the same, I was probably the only person in my high school (I was a senior) to support Gerald Ford's pardon of Nixon since I felt that the 18 months leading up to September 1974 were marked largely by paralysis. I did believe that Nixon cut a deal for himself to resign. All the same, I was happy to see him out and the country's business again being conducted.

Incidently, didn't vote for Obama, probably won't vote for him next time. (Although if the GOP nominates Romney, I won't vote GOP, either.) But I do find this interesting.

You see, here's the thing. I don't see beating Obama as a priority. It'd be nice, as long as it doesn't put Romney in the White House. Romney would be worse for a whole lot of reasons, not the least of which is that he turns the GOP into Democratic Party Mark II. The GOP might actually benefit from a second Obama term. It will have more time to develop and articulate oppossing philosophies.

Here's where I see the real problem with the GOP today. Most of its assumptions have been debunked. It has to rework what its assumptions are, and reconnect with the middle class.

In any case, I don't see 5 million Obama Supporters changing their minds.

As for Obama you may be right that the G.O.P. would benefit from a second Obama term. I am not prepared to see a country I love destroyed in the process.

Also important is Obama's effect on our allies. They are losing their respect, fast, for U.S. policy, and find us unreliable.

Israel is also a vital forward base in a part of the world where the nearest (somewhat) stable country in the direction of the Pacific is India. We simply need to rope down that part of the world and setting Israel up to be butchered by Arab hordes is not a good idea.

 

[JoeB131]

I think that liberal or conservative voters should correctly view Nixon as neither, but a thug. As far as Illinois vote fraud, other Republican jurisdictions had that as well. Nebraska is widely rumored to have had a fraudulent result.

As for 1972, this is how memory serves me.

During the spring of 1971 things were going poorly for Nixon. The economy was barely emerging from the 1969-70 recession, but prices started surging at 5-6% annual rates, around what they were before we entered the recession. Long term rates zoomed as well, after a brief drop during 1970.

The Vietnam War, the "peace talks" and the withdrawal from Vietnam were not going well either. Adding to the misery, the Pentagon Papers came out during June 1971. While they covered only the Democratic administrations, Nixon and Johnson were personally rather close, and the administration was bound at the hip to prior policies.

So he effectively managed turbulant times... Not seeing a problem here.

So, in order to rescue himself from what looked like an economic and foreign policy debacle, on, I believe, August 15, 1971 Nixon took the following steps:

1. Devalued the U.S. dollar by 10%(not sure on amount);
2. Slammed closed the gold window, effectively eliminating the gold standard (this was finalized in the Smithsonian Accords that December);
3. Imposed an import tariff of, I believe, 10% (not sure on amount); and
4. Imposed a short-term wage and price freeze (eventually called "Phase I wage and price controls)

These steps were what "kept the economy stable while ending a war".

And why was this a bad thing? Point was, they worked. At least until the 1974 Oil shock, anyway.

As for foreign policy he was said to have "play(ed) the two major adversaries off against each other". This had utterly no benefits in any of the world's hot spots, either Vietnam or in the Middle East. What we had was a craven surrender of Taiwan to the Communists, and a pulling of the plug on the South Vietnamese. In my view, the purpose of the Peking February 1972 and Moscow May 1972 visits was to create a sense of euphoria, not unlike a heroin high.

We paid for it richly as allies stopped relying on the U.S. because the U.S.'s word was not worth the paper it wasn't written on.

The South Vietnamese regime was unsustainable, and everyone knew it. As for Taiwan, we really had indulged their fantasy that they hadn't lost the 1949 war for long enough, don't you think. (It was Carter who actually finalized the "betrayal".)

In short, Nixon was a scoundrel.

All the same, I was probably the only person in my high school (I was a senior) to support Gerald Ford's pardon of Nixon since I felt that the 18 months leading up to September 1974 were marked largely by paralysis. I did believe that Nixon cut a deal for himself to resign. All the same, I was happy to see him out and the country's business again being conducted.

I think the problem was that the Presidency as an institution was weakened, and no president acted with that kind of authority again. But probably Ford's pardon was the most bloodless way out Watergate.

As for Obama you may be right that the G.O.P. would benefit from a second Obama term. I am not prepared to see a country I love destroyed in the process.

Also important is Obama's effect on our allies. They are losing their respect, fast, for U.S. policy, and find us unreliable.

I think Bush beat him to that, really. Obama's probably improved relations with Europe.

Israel is also a vital forward base in a part of the world where the nearest (somewhat) stable country in the direction of the Pacific is India. We simply need to rope down that part of the world and setting Israel up to be butchered by Arab hordes is not a good idea.

But it's probably inevitable... Demographics are Israel's worst enemy. The problem with Israel is that it's South Africa - an apartheid state using religion as the guide instead of race. And we go along with their fantasy that the Invisible Sky Man loves them the very bestest.

My view on the middle east is that it's a hornet's nest. We keep sticking in our hand hoping that we won't get stung, or that this hornet is friendlier to us than that hornet.

 

[JBG]

I think that liberal or conservative voters should correctly view Nixon as neither, but a thug. As far as Illinois vote fraud, other Republican jurisdictions had that as well. Nebraska is widely rumored to have had a fraudulent result.

As for 1972, this is how memory serves me.

During the spring of 1971 things were going poorly for Nixon. The economy was barely emerging from the 1969-70 recession, but prices started surging at 5-6% annual rates, around what they were before we entered the recession. Long term rates zoomed as well, after a brief drop during 1970.

The Vietnam War, the "peace talks" and the withdrawal from Vietnam were not going well either. Adding to the misery, the Pentagon Papers came out during June 1971. While they covered only the Democratic administrations, Nixon and Johnson were personally rather close, and the administration was bound at the hip to prior policies.

So he effectively managed turbulant times... Not seeing a problem here.

Not really. He created a chimera of prosperity that didn't last.

So, in order to rescue himself from what looked like an economic and foreign policy debacle, on, I believe, August 15, 1971 Nixon took the following steps:

1. Devalued the U.S. dollar by 10%(not sure on amount);
2. Slammed closed the gold window, effectively eliminating the gold standard (this was finalized in the Smithsonian Accords that December);
3. Imposed an import tariff of, I believe, 10% (not sure on amount); and
4. Imposed a short-term wage and price freeze (eventually called "Phase I wage and price controls)

These steps were what "kept the economy stable while ending a war".

And why was this a bad thing? Point was, they worked. At least until the 1974 Oil shock, anyway.

No, until around January 11, 1973 when the stock market peaked. Long before the oil embargo.

Israel is also a vital forward base in a part of the world where the nearest (somewhat) stable country in the direction of the Pacific is India. We simply need to rope down that part of the world and setting Israel up to be butchered by Arab hordes is not a good idea.

But it's probably inevitable... Demographics are Israel's worst enemy. The problem with Israel is that it's South Africa - an apartheid state using religion as the guide instead of race. And we go along with their fantasy that the Invisible Sky Man loves them the very bestest.

My view on the middle east is that it's a hornet's nest. We keep sticking in our hand hoping that we won't get stung, or that this hornet is friendlier to us than that hornet.

What's your alternative, to let the crazies run the place? Clearly we have to project power there. The preferred alternative would be to turn Mecca into a glassified parking lot if they don't behave themselves.

 

[JoeB131]

But it's probably inevitable... Demographics are Israel's worst enemy. The problem with Israel is that it's South Africa - an apartheid state using religion as the guide instead of race. And we go along with their fantasy that the Invisible Sky Man loves them the very bestest.

My view on the middle east is that it's a hornet's nest. We keep sticking in our hand hoping that we won't get stung, or that this hornet is friendlier to us than that hornet.

What's your alternative, to let the crazies run the place? Clearly we have to project power there. The preferred alternative would be to turn Mecca into a glassified parking lot if they don't behave themselves.

We can agree to disagree on Nixon.

But to the Middle East, the problem is, part of what is making them crazy is Israel on a site they consider holy.

My ideal solution would be to make the Holy Land a UN Mandate. No one gets to control it, and it is open as an international heritage site to all the Abrahamic Faiths. (At least until we mature enough as a species to stop believing in Magic Sky Friends) that being impractical, plan B should be developing an alternative to petroleum so we aren't fueling the craziness with petro-dollars.

But frankly, us projecting power in Baghdad is as objectionable as them projecting power in Chicago. they may be "Crazies", but it's their region of the world.

Frankly, the Ottomans had the thing under control, but the Europeans had to go in and start messing with things.

 

[JBG]

But to the Middle East, the problem is, part of what is making them crazy is Israel on a site they consider holy.

The site became "holy" only when the Balfour Declaration was passed. It was a minor mosque before. Any part of their "ummah" is holy, yet they do nothing with the land.

But frankly, us projecting power in Baghdad is as objectionable as them projecting power in Chicago. they may be "Crazies", but it's their region of the world.

Frankly, the Ottomans had the thing under control, but the Europeans had to go in and start messing with things.

Until the Ottomans picked the wrong side in WW I that is.

 

[JoeB131]

But to the Middle East, the problem is, part of what is making them crazy is Israel on a site they consider holy.

The site became "holy" only when the Balfour Declaration was passed. It was a minor mosque before. Any part of their "ummah" is holy, yet they do nothing with the land.

But frankly, us projecting power in Baghdad is as objectionable as them projecting power in Chicago. they may be "Crazies", but it's their region of the world.

Frankly, the Ottomans had the thing under control, but the Europeans had to go in and start messing with things.

Until the Ottomans picked the wrong side in WW I that is.

There was a "right" side of World War I? World War I was probably the biggest disaster to ever hit the world. It got rid of monarchies that were slowly inching towards democracy and replaced them with Communism, Fascism, Nazism and every other bad idea of the 20th century.

I would also dispute that the holiness of Jerusalem to Muslims was merely an invention of the 20th century. I seem to remember that there were these things called "Crusades" that the Muslims fought pretty hard. Which I think shows the ultimately futility of Zionism. Took them two hundred years, but they finally pushed the Crusaders into the sea.

 

[Toro]

Well, if this poll is any indication, Obama is in trouble. 5% of the people who said they voted for him in 08 won't vote for him in 12, and no one who said they didn't vote for him would for vote for him next year. A 5% swing would almost certainly deep-six Obama.

 

[JoeB131]

Well, if this poll is any indication, Obama is in trouble. 5% of the people who said they voted for him in 08 won't vote for him in 12, and no one who said they didn't vote for him would for vote for him next year. A 5% swing would almost certainly deep-six Obama.

That's if anyone really believes you voted for Obama four years ago...

 

[editec]

But to the Middle East, the problem is, part of what is making them crazy is Israel on a site they consider holy.

The site became "holy" only when the Balfour Declaration was passed. It was a minor mosque before. Any part of their "ummah" is holy, yet they do nothing with the land.

But frankly, us projecting power in Baghdad is as objectionable as them projecting power in Chicago. they may be "Crazies", but it's their region of the world.

Frankly, the Ottomans had the thing under control, but the Europeans had to go in and start messing with things.

Until the Ottomans picked the wrong side in WW I that is.

The TURKS picked the wrong side, of course.

But the ARABS fought against the TURKS.

THEN , after the war? The Brits fucked them.

 

[Ravi]

Well, if this poll is any indication, Obama is in trouble. 5% of the people who said they voted for him in 08 won't vote for him in 12, and no one who said they didn't vote for him would for vote for him next year. A 5% swing would almost certainly deep-six Obama.

Too bad we can't see who voted.

 

[JoeB131]

But to the Middle East, the problem is, part of what is making them crazy is Israel on a site they consider holy.

The site became "holy" only when the Balfour Declaration was passed. It was a minor mosque before. Any part of their "ummah" is holy, yet they do nothing with the land.

But frankly, us projecting power in Baghdad is as objectionable as them projecting power in Chicago. they may be "Crazies", but it's their region of the world.

Frankly, the Ottomans had the thing under control, but the Europeans had to go in and start messing with things.

Until the Ottomans picked the wrong side in WW I that is.

The TURKS picked the wrong side, of course.

But the ARABS fought against the TURKS.

THEN , after the war? The Brits fucked them.

Well, their own fault, then. The Brits fucked everyone. It wasn't like this wasn't a public record, was it. Maybe they should have asked the Egyptians or the Indians how much the British could be trusted.

But dismantling the Ottoman Empire was a horrid mistake. It gave rise to the Saddams and the Assads and the House of Saud and all the other bad actors in that region.

 

[JoeB131]

Well, if this poll is any indication, Obama is in trouble. 5% of the people who said they voted for him in 08 won't vote for him in 12, and no one who said they didn't vote for him would for vote for him next year. A 5% swing would almost certainly deep-six Obama.

Too bad we can't see who voted.

My bad.

Toto claims he's one of the ones who voted for Obama last time and is going to vote for the WMR this time. And if you believe that, I have some swamp land on planet Kolob I can sell you.