President Obama (in Debates)

as he nears his bid for a 2nd term Obama having brought the troops home and steadied an economy on the rocks, braces for a republican nameless challenger.


Discuss

No.

Part of your first post is inaccurate and therefore the rest of the post will be nothing but fallacy.

Prescience says: Wrong forum.

Moved thread to debates as you know it's going to happen.

How about we skip the most volatile part and just ask who thinks Mitt will take South Carolina's primary on the 21st and whether that will guarantee him the GOP spot.

how was it wrong? the economy is not good but is no longer crashing and the war in iraq is over.

I got a job, and he is from my home state, so he's cool in my book! although the best president in my lifetime would probably be clinton :)
(I was born in 1989 btw)

Only reason Obama may win a second term is because Tim Tebow is not running!

agreed piper

This made my night, I thought children these days didn't have a sense of humor.

What's with all these "discuss" posts lately?

Well, he certainly stemmed much of the bleeding caused by the last guy.

To be fair this was more a failure to negotiate with the Iraqis to keep troops on the ground than "yay, we won!"

It's between Romney and Paul. Romney is a disgraceful, indefensible slug who needs to go away and never return. I have a lot of respect for Paul, and may support him in the primary. I'll never vote Republican in the general, but I want the best person from each party to get the nomination, and I want a debate between Ron Paul and Obama.

*awaits the inevitable flames*

I just think "nameless" is a funny word for a primary that contains Romney, Gingrich and Paul... especially compared to Obama...

Agreed.

i said nameless because we don't know who the challenger is yet thats all

So you meant "as-yet-unnamed". "Nameless" implies they get someone off the D-list, instead of just choosing from the B-string.

This is the B-string?

I think you'd be generous to even call the current crop "D-list", especially now that Hunstman has dropped out.

Or were you counting Colbert? That might raise the group to "C-Company". *smile*

RP is nothing but first string, as for the other candidates, I just pretend they don't exist now.

Sure, RP is strong.

I was talking about the team as a whole, as was Bast ( I assume). Even RP can't raise the group much above a C-, especially considering his current standings and electability. Not my rules, it is what it is.

IDK,

After watching the debate tonight. RP scares me more than Obama.

Ron Paul reminds me a lot of Willie Stark from All the King's Men. However as Sugar Boy said, "Ain't nobody talk so good like the boss".

Indeed. Hard-core, "take it all the way" libertarians always feel...out of touch to me. I don't see how a pure libertarian society can exist any more than a pure communist one. Actually, I can actually see the communism (the theoretical type, not Stalinist type) working better, it just isn't realistic.

Some good ideas in there, I just can't wrap my head around how it would work as a whole.

I want Ron Paul to win the primary for one reason: a debate with Obama. Ron will school the president on a few issues he has lost the liberal base on, and hopefully force Obama to move further to the left on issues of personal liberties and civil rights.

But I would never give Ron Paul my vote in the general. He's just far too radical on other issues.

Actually,

It looks more and more like Obama will be getting that 2nd term after all.

Rommey, the presumptive GOP candidate is the worst candidate well since Dole. And even Dole seems much better to me. The thought of him getting the Republican nomination makes me vomit.

Full steam ahead.... To Greece.

I should have taken that bet.

*grin*

Truth be told, I would rather have Obama than Rommey.

For numerous reasons I despise Rommey that much.

Being serious, what are the main reasons?

I'm not Ranger, but here's why I find Romney to be lower than pig feces:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9cn0M_AFWg

Disgusting. Utterly disgusting.

1) He flip flops on everything from abortion to global warming to taxes. The only thing he has not flipped on is Rommeycare, the one thing he should say was a bad idea.
2) He raised taxes as Governor.
3) He is 1-2 in elections. 2-17 if you count each primary individually from 08. A loser many times over.
4) He is the architect of Obamacare and refuses to say Rommeycare is a bad thing.
5) He took bailout money while at Bain, supported TARP, and is suggesting he is open to future bailouts. He compared what he did at Bain to how Obama bailed out Chrysler and GM.
6) He wants a VAT-more taxes on a national level.

I think that is enough to make any small government conservative puke up blood.

http://psudo.us/sho/GOP.html

I talked to a dyed-in-wool conservative dude at my work, and he was very disappointed in the republican showing this year. It's like a who's who of horrible, boring, status-quo dudes. No wonder the republicans were so antsy to get some other people to run, like the Chris Christie guy, or even that lady, whats her face? Palin, that's it.

While I agree such a debate would be fun to watch (and from a consistency standpoint, I think RP would clean Obama's clock), it's hardly a good thing for a healthy election and a healthy future of the executive office, is it? Unless you've entirely given up on a Obama contender having a chance (I have not).

I'm not saying I can think of a better GOP candidate (and it is quite sad that things are in this state of affairs), but saying you'd like RP to get the nod to see how a debate would go is like saying you'd like Michelle Bachmann to win just to see what dress she'd wear to the nomination. That's how I see it, anyway. If you don't think Paul can win, then seeing a debate isn't going to change anyone's mind, either. Maybe I'm just cynical.

This impending election, more than any I can remember, should be getting people on board with party and election reform. We need more and better VIABLE candidates, not just whatever clap-trap the SINGLE realistic opposing party can muster. I'd love to have a couple other parties be able to bring pragmatic potentials to the table, but with our two-party, non-runoff voting system, all we get to do is complain. It's pretty sad.

sut, none want to see Ron in the white house, but you aren't wrong to call us on that.
RP is a joke for a ruling office, but he's the most fun joke above all else. That's why we'll let it slide. Can't think of one(perhaps John Huntsman on a shot so long Stephen Hawking would dougie to his victory?)of the republican runners that stood to favor with independents within this 24 hour news cycle. So much awful came rolling from that big red clown car we hope our favorite clown takes a pie to the ringmaster's face and end the booing for one night. Forgive us.

As for the Red vs Blue schtick we put up with. I'll take a page from another Capt. McCrazypants, Jesse Ventura, and ask for a vote of no confidence on the ballot. -.-

Heh, if "no confidence" meant something, I'd do it. I want my vote to matter, but I've always been a childish idealist.

I understand the the "at least we can be entertained vibe"... Then I think about gladiator fights in the crumbling Roman Empire and, well, I have a hard time finishing my thought.

Thumbs down.

I disagree entirely. Ron Paul can't beat Obama in the general. What he can do is straighten Obama out on a few things where Paul actually has the advantage among liberals. The drug war, the real wars, and NDAA to name a few. It may - may - force Obama to move a little bit toward his base on these. Also, it may foster a national discussion on some of these issues, where the primary debates would not.

I think that is a poor analogy. Bachmann's dress is not a discussion on policy. The only conversation the dress might spur is gossip among fashion commentators. An Obama vs. Paul debate will be about differences in policy and leadership.

LB, I'll just leave it at this: You obviously have more faith in the electorate (and the media) if you think an RP/Obama debate would change anything or anyone any appreciable amount. Hope springs eternal, sure, but that spring dried up for me a long time ago. Their debate would be a cup of very smart, super-heated water thrown into a frigid ocean of public stupidity and media-standard polarization. And I don't think Obama would change at all, either (not in any truly manifest way). Why would he? We have a two-party, electoral-college-based, non-runoff voting system. Until an issue or candidate can MATTER (read: get a majority of votes), it doesn't force anyone to change at all.

Obama's a smart guy -- he knows what libertarianism is. A debate with RP isn't going to suddenly make him act on that knowledge any more than he already is.

Just my opinion. Like I said, I'll leave it at that. And yeah, the MB analogy was poor, I realized that before writing it but couldn't resist, anyway. *smile*

I do; and I'd be willing to debate anyone about how he would be the best president of the candidates, including Obama, at the current state of affairs, even including his foreign policy.

You have the remember, presidents are only one part of the government and bills get passed. Do you think a four year term by RP would lead to a completely libertarian US Sut?

I've felt this way since I was probably 14.

One of the first things we can all do is try to get term limits.

That would stop us from having a ruling class that never experiences what it is like in the real world of needing a job.

No. My guess is that it would lead to pretty much nothing at all getting done. That's generally what happens when a non-centrist has non-absolute power. Stance effectiveness is generally proportional to power level. When a power is absolute, the non-centrist can cause MORE change, because they can do whatever they want. When a power is checked, the non-centrist has a harder time affecting change do their stance being harder to compromise on. (All just my personal opinion).

So he'd have to compromise. Educate me on that front. Name five things Ron Paul touts as being his main platform planks that he could get done in some sort of compromised fashion. Is he going to half-shut down the EPA? Going to put us halfway back on the gold standard? Half privatize public services? Half privatize schools? Half shut down all fire departments? Half allow gays to get married?

I like libertarian thinking, and I like the clarity in RP's stance. I believe people should be more self-sufficient. I believe credit should be used less. I believe in free markets (to an extent). I believe regulations should be lessened where they've grown into bureaucracy for bureaucracy sake. But the big picture on libertarian thinking appears to want to change the entire world overnight into a very, very different landscape. It is hard to see how any of it could be done piece-meal (that's where you can educate me). I don't see how that can be half-done. I suppose you could say the same for ANY viewpoint, but it is extremely easy to say for a viewpoint so far away from the current state of affairs.

It's easy for Ron Paul to talk at GOP debates, listing all the departments and gov't programs he would eliminate. But what do you think he would do, really get accomplished, once he hit the White House?

Wars; Better than what Obama would get done... b/c he's done pretty crap at that.

It all depends on who controls both houses of Congress.

As we have seen, even a far left president can get a lot "accomplished" if his party controls the House and has 60 seats in the Senate. Even passing laws that nobody reads, few understand, and the public do not want.

But when Congress is split, then not much gets done. Which in some cases is the best thing.

Very good points. Additionally, it would be harder for "career" politicians (simply because they would be less entrenched) to be overcome by payola and campaign contributions, something far too easy to succumb to in the current corporations-are-people landscape.

Seems odd to think that executive branch term limits have been in place now for almost 65 years, and yet that never translated over to the legislative branch?

Not to me.

Why would Congress make a law that restricts their golden goose? Most people in Congress are in districts that are safe wins year after year.

They can pass laws that they do not have to follow (health care/insider trading), they get months off each year for vacation/campaigning, and will always have an income.

Seems quite logical to me they have never advocated term limits.

Can you elaborate? Do you mean he would have more wars? Fewer wars? More effective wars? What has Obama been crap at that you think RP would do better?

Not even sure why you are bringing up Obama at all -- I didn't. And if you are talking about the fact that RP would probably against getting into wars in the first place, that wasn't exactly under Obama's control. A conflict that WAS entirely under Obama's control would have been Libya, no? Do you disagree that the U.s. played a decent, balanced role in that conflict with reasonable results? Again, what would have RP done differently there, and what would the (hopefully more desirable) outcome have been?

The military spending would be significantly less under RP than Obama, which would be even less than under another Republican. If you want to talk about why and if it would cause us to lose "safety." That's going to be a whole new discussion that will have to wait until I finish my midterms that I'm studying for.

The more I self-examine I seem very un-republican when it comes to foreign policy.

Well that's good news.

Ranger, I didn't mean I don't know WHY it hasn't happened, I'm just not sure I understand why it isn't more in the public forefront, more often. In that sense, my usual cynical nature leaves me and I wonder why folks haven't done something about it. If a nationwide referendum where to succeed, do you still think Congress would not ratify it? I suppose not, but man, there would be some REAL housecleaning during those next elections. A de facto term limitation. *smile* I'm being pretty idealistic there.

I support term limits for Senators, but not in the House. The House was always meant to be the absolute voice of the public, whatever they want at any given time. The Senate was meant as the cooling plate for legislation, as a check on the mob rule of the House. Term limits are more appropriate there.

Demi the link you posted their proof is not very good. Judging from the few I read or watched.

Oh, I don't need to talk about any of that.

I was just trying to clarify why you brought up Obama when he didn't actually get is into any wars, and (in my opinion) did the best he could as far as what we were already involved in. One military operation where Obama had more latitude as far as how much to engage (Libya) went quite a bit better as far as results and loss of military resources (including the uber-important human variety). And another operation (bin Laden) showed a pretty decent job in a more surgical/intelligence/special-ops fashion.

I don't disagree that simply getting involved in much of anything (the apparent libertarian style) would be as effective on saving resources. However, I can't honestly say I'm prepared to endorse that level of isolationism. For example, what would have happened between 1940 and 1945 if a pure libertarian had been in charge? Pearl Harbor (aggression) wasn't the only thing that triggered US involvement in WW2, and even if it were, a pure libertarian stance would have only had us engage in the Pacific Theater -- Germany had not shown aggression toward us. And, according to the platform on the LP.org web site, we should "avoid entangling alliances". So, no reason to go help out another nation under seige. Sorry, 1942 Great Britain. We hardly knew ye.

When I think about isolationism, I always see Neville holding up that newspaper. It's a hard image to shake when one thinks about Nazi concentration camps gearing up while a lot of Europe slept in blissful ignorance. :\ With great power comes great responsibility -- I assume you are willing to give up the "power" part, then, at least from a military standpoint?

Hm, maybe a libertarian-minded person can clarify this for me, too (just reading more of the Lib platform from LP.org...)

==================================
2.6 Monopolies and Corporations
We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of companies based on voluntary association. We seek to divest government of all functions that can be provided by non-governmental organizations or private individuals. We oppose government subsidies to business, labor, or any other special interest. Industries should be governed by free markets.
===================================

Soooo, the title of the section is "Monopolies and Corporations", but then monopolies aren't even mentioned. I take that to mean libertarians are fine with monopolies? Interesting.

A very very large part of it, yes.

As for Obama, I don't like the way he has been (or really many people related to the issue) has been handling Iran. That's about my only objection, I also think he could have gotten of Iraq/Afghanistan quicker.

I have no idea what other libertarians believe, I only assume the title b/c it's better suited to me, than Rep or Dem. So, for the record, I'm against Monopolies.

Come on, what's not to like about a fun board game involving thimbles, hats, and a cute little dog? *smile*

I agree, it would have been nice to get out of Iraq more quickly (we ain't out of Afg yet), but, as I said, I think things went about as well as they could have once we were in.

I need to do a lot more research on Iran. I don;t know how real the thread of nuclear weapons is there, but that is the kind of threat, exactly, where I see the libertarian viewpoint of "defend against aggression only" falls short. Here's why. Aggression, from a nuclear standpoint isn't standard aggression. It is immediate and massively devastating. To put it another way, it is not something one can afford to be reactive to (or at least, that the debatable part).

Would you like Ron Paul to not do anything in regards to Iran, but then unleash the dogs of war once half a million people are killed by a dirty bomb? Was it worth saving the resources and "avoid entangling alliances" at that point? I know, I don;t like playing "what if", especially with such large, nasty scenarios, any more than I figure you do, but it needs to be considered, no?

Seems I, FawkesNoose, had channeled Bill Maher with me mind ninja powers in a past post.....
Just watched the Real Time season premiere. Pre-plagiarized him on a dancing Stephen Hawking and clown car.

I have no idea what that means, Fawkes, but it sounds astonishing.

No one wants to talk isolationism with me? Pity. I was hoping to be uproariously, adamantly, pedantically tossed on my head.

I was really hoping.

I have another midterm tomorrow, one monday, and one wednesday, and I'm currently working on some independent work. Gotta love college!

But maybe tomorrow afternoon we can talk isolationism.

The only times I think a country shouldn't be isolationist, is

1) Saftey
2) Mutual Benefits (i.e. trading with other countries)

I don't think RP has any problem with trade agreements. As for safety that's where I said we open a whole other can of worms. Some would say we went to war with Iraq for safety, I would wholeheartedly disagree.

Then like I said... Sorry England. We hardly knew ye. Twice. Our safety was never compromised on the European front. Let 'em try to come and take Cape Cod! Lobster Cannons! Or I suppose we could do it in the name of point 2, trading. Dang, we love us some Guinness -- send over the troops to protect the kegs!

I guess we'd potentially be under German sovereignty, a couple times over. Ok, ok, the first time it would have been German/Austrian, but we shouldn't let little historical quibbles get in the way of being trodden upon (we all understand proactivity vs. reactivity, after all). And that first time they wouldn't have really had enough naval forces to reach us. We probably could have built a big wall along the East Coast to stop them, regardless.

And was Japan _really_ compromising our safety in December of 1941? I say just give 'em Hawaii if that's what they wanted. That'll appease them.

Ah. I love the smell of peace in our time. Anyone have a newspaper I can hold up?

WW1/WW2 would fall under number 1; I don't see how much prior to Pearl Harbor there was a clear perceived threat to our sovereignty much much much higher than what we see with Iran.

(and to get more on non-flippant topic, I'll counter your single-word #1 point with a single word rebuttal.

Nuclear.

What sort of cushion does your "safety" net have now? We can curse Oppenheimer all night long, but Pandora's Box just don't. wanna. close.

I don't think you can, I think it's probably scary to think about the amount of countries and organizations that could seriously do significant damage to us. However, I think we should only take action if there is a country/organization has a clear and cut means, and intent to do harm to us indirectly or directly.

Also, I think we should consider why middle eastern countries would have less affinity to us than even Western European countries.

Absolutely. That would be part of the proactivity, part of the "entangled alliances" that the libertarian platform, as I understand it, would have us ESCHEW. That's where the "safety" line gets fuzzy.

We're already pretty close on thought process. Go study. we can talk more later.

Really? It's the middle of January.

And I'm studying... it's sooooo boring.

That's an odd schedule.

FawkesNoose, I was actually sitting there reading that bit you wrote about the clown cars and I was laughing my brains out, so great! ;)