2012 Poll

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by Danzig

seeing how mccain is still alive and kicking, i'm not sure how palin would be prez in '09.

had mccain chosen a decent running mate, instead of that dipshit, he'd have most likely won. wonder if things would be any different? i'm guessing no.

i was a hypothetical danzig , i know mccain was the nominee for president

there is talk about palin running in '12

if she had been elected president and took over in jan '09 , we wouldn't be any worse off today than what we are and no one can prove that statement wrong

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by gales0678

i was a hypothetical danzig , i know mccain was the nominee for president

there is talk about palin running in '12

if she had been elected president and took over in jan '09 , we wouldn't be any worse off today than what we are and no one can prove that statement wrong

no, you can't prove it wrong. but i think we'd be a laughingstock all the same. instead of criticism about obama bowing down to another countries leader, we'd be reading criticism of her butchering the english language. and i wonder who her supreme court choices would be? now that's scary!

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by Danzig

no, you can't prove it wrong. but i think we'd be a laughingstock all the same. instead of criticism about obama bowing down to another countries leader, we'd be reading criticism of her butchering the english language. and i wonder who her supreme court choices would be? now that's scary!

firing an employee over a 30 second blog without looking at all the facts because she was going to be on glen beck , know that makes the white house a comedy show that even pailn's butchering of the english language can't even top

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by gales0678

firing an employee over a 30 second blog without looking at all the facts because she was going to be on glen beck , know that makes the white house a comedy show that even pailn's butchering of the english language can't even top

is that the usda employee you're talking about?

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by Danzig

is that the usda employee you're talking about?

yes the lady from Georgia , what a pr disaster

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Danzig

no, you can't prove it wrong. but i think we'd be a laughingstock all the same. instead of criticism about obama bowing down to another countries leader, we'd be reading criticism of her butchering the english language. and i wonder who her supreme court choices would be? now that's scary!

An excellent point.
This is one of the areas where presidents can make a big difference. There are plenty of others too. People would be better served focusing on those areas than attributing every change in the nation's (or world's) economy to the person in the Oval Office. The bottom line with Obama will probably be:
1) if the economy is doing well or surging mightily in the summer and fall of '12....he'll win.
2) if it isn't....he'll lose.

That's stupid.

Things the president can control (Supreme Court nominees, some aspects of foreign policy, pushes for legislation on social issues, etc.) often take a back seat to things the president can't control in the minds of voters. The country re-elected the Bush administration after a truly miserable first four years on a number of fronts....many of which (Iraq) were the direct result of actions taken by the administration. People didn't care. Then the country turned against him in the second term largely because the economy fell apart "on his watch." Sure his administration only deserves about 1% of the blame for the economic meltdown, but most voters are too stupid to figure that out.....which is probably the answer to your other question about why there aren't good candidates. There aren't many good voters.

[Danzig]

people lament the economy (and i agree, the pres doesn't have much affect over all) but i can't help but wonder how much our problems come from those two stupid, ill advised wars? spending went thru the roof, as did the deficit. the deficit has a correlary effect on the economy. our foreign policy has been a mess for years, decades even. afganistan was our number one recipient of foreign aid for years. we supported iraq vs iran...hindsight of course is 20-20. we should never had invaded either country, we shouldn't be there now, all these years and billions and lives later. clinton perhaps should have done more, bush should have waited for calm before deciding what to do after 9-11, instead of the visceral off with their heads response. what is past is prologue.... and this story sucks.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i can't help but wonder how much our problems come from those two stupid, ill advised wars? spending went thru the roof, as did the deficit. the deficit has a correlary effect on the economy. our foreign policy has been a mess for years, decades even. afganistan was our number one recipient of foreign aid for years. we supported iraq vs iran...hindsight of course is 20-20. we should never had invaded either country, we shouldn't be there now, all these years and billions and lives later.

Yep, all of this is 100% true. And the point you make about the government's debt having an effect on the economy is quite correct. I just think some people (not you) seem to think that Bush "spending a lot of money," and Obama "spending a lot of money" is what caused the economy to tank. That is nonsense.
Was the war in Iraq a poor decision fiscally for the United States? Yes. I hate that war as much as anyone and opposed it from the outset....but it didn't cause the housing bubble to burst, unemployment to skyrocket etc. Either did the stimulus, as I know you know.