Presidential Election: 2012

[Famine]

http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/15952527
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/16/world/africa/16nations.html
Famine wrong again?

Hardly. Notice how your articles are dated 16th and 18th March?

11th March - Cameron calls for EU to support NFZ.
1st March - Cameron discusses NFZ in weekly Prime Minister's Questions
24th February - Cameron discusses Libyan NFZ on visit to Oman.

It might be worth noting that the first nation to recognise the Libyan NTC as legitimate was... France (March 10th). France took the lead on pushing the European Union leaders to support a No Fly Zone, drawn up by by the UK Ministry of Defence, which then in turn pushed the UN to mandate one. It might also be worth noting that the hero on the ground to the Libyan rebels was...

July 1st, Benghazi​

If any one man deserves credit for the UN resolution establishing the No Fly Zone and the peace-keeping mission preserving it, it is Nicholas Sarkozy - with David Cameron getting an honourable mention. If you don't think that, you don't know what happened. Still.

But hey, feel free to keep pretending otherwise. Belief wouldn't be belief if it let evidence simply change it.

You don't understand the US played a role in the Libyan Civil war. again.

No nation apart from Libya was involved in the Libyan Civil War. If they were, it wouldn't be a Civil War. US forces played a role in enforcing the UN mandated No Fly Zone in a peace-keeping mission to prevent genocide. Massive difference that you don't seem to want to see, even after all this time.


Incidentally, I noticed the conjecture about Obama doing things differently to any of the Republican nominees (except Ron Paul, who wants to stop this sort of thing), on the basis of him doing things differently to Bush (by, in your mind, going in first to enforce a UN Resolution - but doing it with less stuff which is somehow better). I'm curious if you think any of the potential Democrat Obamareplacements would do things the same as Obama on the basis that they're also Democrats. It's just I recall that the last Democrat President to get involved in a peace-keeping No Fly Zone in someone else's war sent in the big guns right off the bat and embarrassingly lost one...

Or is it just Obama?

 

[Lord Voldemort]

I haven't read many of these post but I'd say I'd vote Republican if Huntsman took over but definitely Democratic (Obama) if Perry ran for president. He is the quintessential Texas politician: no brain, no education, no nothin'!

Edit: Hey, guys! Let's play pick on the admin!

 

[Biggles]

Famine, you are the most unbelievable pedant. Do you really have nothing better to do with your time?

I think the simple point may be made about the Libyan conflict: Obama's policy of low-profile involvement was criticized from all angles - right, left & centre - for a variety of reasons. As it turned out the outcome in Libya was favourable (so far) to the interests of the US & (most likely) to the Libyan people, so this policy can be considered a significant success.

How much credit Obama deserves for the positive outcome is debatable, but what isn't debatable is that, unlike Iraq, a positive outcome was achieved with minimal US expenditure of money & lives, which is a notable contrast to the aggressive, blundering foreign policy of his predecessor at the White House.

With regard to the actual thread topic: contrary to the less-than omniscient prognostications of the OP, Ron Paul, far from being "the perfect person to unseat Obama", isn't even able to command a significant percentage of the conservative vote. Instead, it seems likely that the business as usual candidate will win, after threading his way through the weird assortment of nutty &/or incompetent candidates of the "right".

I'll admit that US politics is entertaining to watch, but I'm thankful that I live in Canada, where the political system, while far from perfect, does not seem to be positively dysfunctional the way it is in the US. By constantly over-emphasizing the individual the US seems to have arrived at the point where it is unable to reach a reasonable consensus on any kind of collective action as a way to move forward.

 

[Famine]

Edit: Hey, guys! Let's play pick on the admin!

Famine, you are the most unbelievable pedant. Do you really have nothing better to do with your time?

He didn't mean it literally.

Incidentally, 37.5k posts here.

Incidentally, if you can't make a post without throwing an insult or your judgement on someone's character, don't make it. This last one isn't a suggestion. Unless you mean it as a compliment, in which case, thank you - precision is terribly important.

I think the simple point may be made about the Libyan conflict: Obama's policy of low-profile involvement was criticized from all angles - right, left & centre - for a variety of reasons. As it turned out the outcome in Libya was favourable (so far) to the interests of the US & (most likely) to the Libyan people, so this policy can be considered a significant success.

What we cannot say is what effect a different choice would have made. Not allowing his troops to be involved at all, for example, or not allowing the French and British to be so significant in the operation that the Libyan people currently regard Sarkozy - Sarkozy! - as a hero.


What we know is that the largely French and British led, NATO operation resulted in no genocide - a succcess. This in turn allowed the two sides - the people and Qaddafi loyalists - to fight on roughly equal terms (which is an interesting way to use overwhelming military force!) and this has resulted in Qaddafi being unseated and, eventually, found and killed.

Aside from Sarkozy, there's precious few who can claim it as a personal victory. I'm amazed anyone would try to claim Obama could.

 

[shmogt]

Forget Obama, forget war, forget all that stuff. Who has the best education plan? Personally I feel the education is sub par. I'm in Canada, but US is basically same stuff I would assume maybe a little worse in some states. I have been and done all levels of school and found that the majority of the time I learned more stuff when I wasn't in school. When I graduated college I didn't have a job right away and had lots of time to sit around. I chose to read and watch things that would be interesting. I learned waaay more than what any school has taught me, a lot of which was pretty basic although not taught in schools for some reason. I heard that US isn't planning on adding any more funds to the education plan next year and it's insane. Educating kids is what is going to determine the future. You want more scientist to make new drugs and cures, push more higher level science and maths at younger grades. You want to slow down the war on drugs, educate kids onto the effects and pros/cons of them. Don't just try to scare them and say its bad because I said so. Education I feel is the most important thing as it gives kids the chance to truly use their knowledge and apply it to things instead of never questioning things and just being a robot that does what it's told.

 

[hampus_dh]

The whole world should take after Russia, Asia and parts of the middle east when it comes to education.

The western world knows nothing but takes 18 times the money to do the job.
Whatever it might be.

 

[Biggles]

What we cannot say is what effect a different choice would have made.

Of course not! Strangely enough: WE NEVER CAN!

Realistically, we can only judge the actual outcome. I have no idea what precise point you are actually trying to make: that for Obama to be able regard his Libya policy as a personal victory he would have to be regarded by the Libyans as a "hero" - like Sarkozy?

Pedantry:

The term in English is typically used with a negative connotation, indicating someone overly concerned with minutiae and whose tone is perceived as condescending.

 

[Famine]

Forget Obama, forget war, forget all that stuff. Who has the best education plan?

Forget it. A school isn't as exciting as a B2 Spirit.

Of course not! Strangely enough: WE NEVER CAN!

So the question remains why Obama is getting praise for his passive decisions in a conflict decided by other people's active decisions...

I'm sure a few F22s wouldn't have harmed the allied effort. In fact, with a few newer planes, maybe the US would have lost one in theatre.

Realistically, we can only judge the actual outcome. I have no idea what precise point you are actually trying to make: that for Obama to be able regard his Libya policy as a personal victory he would have to be regarded by the Libyans as a "hero" - like Sarkozy?

That Obama's participation in the decision-making processes that lead to Libya's people being better able to sustain a rebellion to an abusive dictator cannot be regarded as a personal or overall campaign success for Obama.

Sarkozy's can. Sarkozy is an arsehole, but his very active role from beginning to end has seen him all but deified in Libya.

Pedantry:

The term in English is typically used with a negative connotation, indicating someone overly concerned with minutiae and whose tone is perceived as condescending.

So were you insulting me - against the AUP - or not using the typical form and complimenting me for having a close attention to detail? The former is something that will lead to an exciting PM conversation if there's any repeat of it and it's unbecoming of someone who wishes to participate in discussion.

Incidentally, reading tone is usually a problem for the reader rather than the author. If you're reading what I'm writing as condescending, it's an issue inside your head and not one at the end of my fingers given that tone cannot easily be conveyed on the internet (outside of just up and insulting people). I've found that condescension seems to be read into comments by people who have an inferiority complex - either for good reasons or no particular reason - but there are other causes too. However, this isn't the psychology thread and if you want to continue this discussion I "suggest" you do it by PM also.

 

[shmogt]

I meant forget those things like for now obviously their important too.

I was watching a bill gates interview today and he mentioned that 50years ago the US put tons of money into education and it payed off big helping kids create great things like computers. They mentioned everyone says what a genius Steve jobs was and said its true he was a genius, but he had everything going for him when he was a kid to shape and create a genius. Education in US was best in the world, California in the high school he went to pushed sciences and maths as well as engineering. Everything was setting him up to be the best while now we do not have that. US is still living off of the smart people from 50 years ago and do not have a education system which is creating more people like them.

 

[Dennisch]

Going out of the Libya discussion.

Is Obama doing a good enough job as a president, or will he be kicked out of office next year?
Preferably answered by someone who is not die hard democrat or republican.

 

[Famine]

I meant forget those things like for now obviously their important too.

I was being a little sarcastic (see above about tone). Domestic issues are the most important part of getting things right - it's just people are more interested in an invisible death boomerang.


The issue you might find is that many think what applies to health applies to education - it can be done publicly, but it's subject to whatever the current political trends are (for instance, UK schoolkids are currently taught AGW due to CO2 as fact in science, because it's on the "National Curriculum" [the plan for public education] to do so). The private sector can do things better and more efficiently - I've both been to and worked at both and I'd certainly not be calling the public ones better or more efficient. There's also payment vs. use in question - people who don't have kids pay, through taxation, for other people's kids to be educated (badly).

Going out of the Libya discussion.

Is Obama doing a good enough job as a president, or will he be kicked out of office next year?
Preferably answered by someone who is not die hard democrat or republican.

It'll depend on who the Republican nominee ends up as. If it's someone as demonstrably insane as Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann, he'll get away with it. If it's Ron Paul or Newt Gingrich you might end up with a demographic election - "young" black guy vs. old white guy - which is a pity. Barack does have "One term" stamped all over him though, not least for the litany of broken promises.

 

[Dotini]

Is Obama doing a good enough job as a president, or will he be kicked out of office next year?
Preferably answered by someone who is not die hard democrat or republican.

I haven't voted for either one of those parties since before Perot.

The big picture:
1) The Republicans are still in circular firing squad mode. Totally confused, disorganized, without leadership or ideas (other than Paul). All their current candidates are 2nd rank or worse in some way.

2) Obama is a big disappointment to environmentalists, liberals and the anti-war set. An abject failure on dealing successfully with the ailing economy. He's failed to live up to many if not most of his campaign promises. He's a gifted speaker and an attractive person in some ways, but widely considered pretty much out of his depth as President.

Conclusion: It's wide open and anything can happen.

Respectfully,
Steve

 

[Famine]

1) The Republicans are still in circular firing squad mode. Totally confused, disorganized, without leadership or ideas (other than Paul). All their current candidates are 2nd rank or worse in some way.

2) Obama is a big disappointment to environmentalists, liberals and the anti-war set. An abject failure on dealing successfully with the ailing economy. He's failed to live up to many if not most of his campaign promises. He's a gifted speaker and an attractive person in some ways, but widely considered pretty much out of his depth as President.

You know things are bad when Dotini and I agree on something so completely.

 

[Dapper]

Is Obama doing a good enough job as a president, or will he be kicked out of office next year?
Preferably answered by someone who is not die hard democrat or republican.

The rather brilliant and coincidentally opposite manner compared to US history in which he handle the Libyan Civil War, from beginning to end, seems like a good start to appealing to the US public (not some tribal folk in Libya , yay for Sarkozy for gaining tribal support though) considering how many people in the US (not some other country, since this is the US presidential thread) have been negatively affected by war, or more precisely military conflicts, via losing or injured loved ones and by the overall drag on the economy it has caused.

And the vast improvements he has made in federal financial aid for college students, along with the immense amount of young people now covered under their parents health insurance plans, I think he has gained a lot of votes by actions, not rhetoric.

And once his true campaign starts, I am sure he'll point out how many in congress are not even trying to make things (i.e. the economy, health care, and the general standard of living) better in the US for the sole reason of getting Obama out of the president's seat.

And I hope he points out a lot of things that have reached the Senate have received a majority vote, but not enough to pass.

 

[Dennisch]

But the state of the US was pretty poor when he became president, surely people will realise that you can't fix all those problems in 4 years, especially when the whole western world is in financial misery.

 

[Keef]

But the state of the US was pretty poor when he became president, surely people will realise that you can't fix all those problems in 4 years, especially when the whole western world is in financial misery.

You're right, the state of the Union was bad since before Obama came into office. Before Obama, solutions were tried. They did not work. After Obama went into office, those same solutions were tried, at least twice, and of course neither other them worked. And of course the state of the Union is still just as bad as it was.

Many people realize that you can't fix a problem with a solution which has already been tried, and failed. Don't care how long you try it, it's simply not going to work.

 

[arora]

It's all about the economy, like it or not, his fault or not. He is going to have a hard time overcoming that fact.

No one is going to vote for him based on what happened in/with Libya, no one.

 

[Keef]

No one is going to vote for him based on what happened in/with Libya, no one.

I disagree with this. Most people have no clue about the Libya situation. Of those that do, some of them think it was a great idea, ousting an evil dictator, because the only history classes they've ever taken were in public schools where the ousting of evil dictators is taught to be a good thing.

I'd say the vote on this is split 50/50, just like the vote on everything else.

 

[Famine]

Pretty sure arora was saying Libya won't gain him any votes, rather than it losing him support. As in it having no effect either way.

I think the most likely election will be your 35% of core voters each way, die-hards who'll not consider voting the other way under any circumstances. If Obama gets an easy ride like Perry or Bachmann he should win 55:45 (less third party votes). If he finds himself up against Ron Paul or Newt Gingrich he'll get votes just for being black or for not being a rich, old, white guy (hey, it happens), but then they'll get votes just for being old, white guys or just for not being black. It'll be a trade-off and on policy alone Obama doesn't have a strong hand to play - could be close. If he gets one of the younger or not mental guys (or Herman Cain), he's gone.

One thing is sure though - he can't play the "Change" or "Yes we can" cards. Nothing much has changed and apparently he can't - not least because the Senate shuts him down.

 

[Dennisch]

One thing is sure though - he can't play the "Change" or "Yes we can" cards. Nothing much has changed and apparently he can't - not least because the Senate shuts him down.

And that's because the Republicans "own" the Senate, right?
And because Obama is a Democrat his plans fail there?

It seems like that US politics are more about annoying the other party than actually try to get the US back up their feet.

 

[Famine]

Welcome to bipartisan, bicameral politics.

 

[Dennisch]

So wrong.

Actually, it would be good fun to see one of those young mentals running for office.
Should give us nice new Bush-like quotes.

 

[Dapper]

And that's because the Republicans "own" the Senate, right?
And because Obama is a Democrat his plans fail there?

Out of the 100 votes in the Senate the Dems have 51 votes, Rep 47, and 2 independents (that vote Republican I think).
Republicans currently do a lot of filibustering-
http://www.yuricareport.com/Law & Legal/Senate Rules on Filibuster.html

The filibuster is a U. S. Senate practice whereby a single Senator, or his minority party, can block full Senate consideration of a bill or nomination by extending debate on the proposal indefinitely. The resulting "filibuster" can ordinarily be stopped only by a "cloture" vote, which requires 60 of the 100 Senators (a supermajority) to vote to end debate, and bring the bill or nomination to a final vote.

It seems like that US politics are more about annoying the other party than actually try to get the US back up their feet.

While true, it is because a lot of Americans vote against their own interest. That is why the standard of living is going down and income disparity is growing.

 

[Famine]

Our system is marginally more ludicrous - our upper house, the House of Lords, is populated by people who either inherited certain titles (heritable peers) or who were given those titles (which are not heritable - life peers). Titles are granted twice a year through an honours list to celebrate the Queen's birthday or at New Year (also when a monarch is crowned - Coronation Honours - or a Prime Minister resigns from office or parliament is dissolved). Ceremonially-speaking, the Queen gives the honours but, practically, they are all proposed by the Prime Minister.

What this means is that a sitting Prime Minister can create Life Peers twice a year and load the House of Lords with members of his party. The Lords can then reject legislation passed by the Commons and, because they're Life Peers, they're there until they die...


Incidentally, no, I'm not making any of this up.

 

[Dennisch]

British politics are ancient practice, but let's not go there.

 

[DK]

Our system is marginally more ludicrous - our upper house, the House of Lords, is populated by people who either inherited certain titles (heritable peers) or who were given those titles (which are not heritable - life peers). Titles are granted twice a year through an honours list to celebrate the Queen's birthday or at New Year (also when a monarch is crowned - Coronation Honours - or a Prime Minister resigns from office or parliament is dissolved). Ceremonially-speaking, the Queen gives the honours but, practically, they are all proposed by the Prime Minister.

There's a sorta similar system with the Irish Seanad (yeah, it's Irish for senate, how original.) The Taoiseach (PM) appoints 11 members, and university graduates from Trinity College and the National University of Ireland appoint 6, and panels of elected representatives (i.e. TDs/MPs and county councillors, who are theoretically meant to be experts in the fields of administration, agriculture, culture, industry & commerce and labour) appoint 43.

 

[shmogt]

I'm noticing in here, real life, on the news everyone is always saying what potential screw ups the new candidates will do and how their views are so wrong on some things. Than they always say except for Ron Paul. Clearly Ron Paul is the person to vote for and has the best short and long term views, but even the people who like him kind of say "o but I'm not sure how he will do". You don't no how anyone will do, but at least he is focused of fixing rather than just changing.

 

[Keef]

I honestly don't know why anybody mentions Bachman, or any of the other candidates I have forgotten and therefore will not cite in this post. They have no chance.

The crazy old guy...eh...Gingrich...he doesn't have a shot either. We should all just stop saying his name.

The field of hopefuls has been whittled down to four. In no particular order they are Paul, Cain, Romney, and Perry. Of those, I believe Cain will eventually fall apart (especially if he grabs anymore ass), and I think Perry will shoot himself in the foot like so many other gun-slinging Americans have, if he hasn't already.

So in the end, I believe the Republican nomination will be between Paul and Romney. And let's face it, the only reason Paul isn't a shoe-in is because the stuff he talks about flies over the head of half or more of the people in this country. He is literally going to have to dumb down his message to get into their heads because they simply can't handle it.

Ol' Mitt Romney is not a shoe-in either, but his resiliency is formidable thanks to his amoebic stance on literally everything. The man has absolutely no idea what he's going to say about anything until somebody asks him, and what comes out of his mouth becomes the flavor of the week.

 

[shmogt]

Ahah ya it's so true Ron talks and it makes total sense to smart people but all the dumb people are like "cut military by one cent, that's insane people will attack us instantly!" I really wish the masses would just stop and listen to the messages these people are saying and truly think about what it means. I'm really hoping Ron Paul wins, but I thinking America will vote for the guy with the slicker hair who looks more like what Hollywood would use to represent a president. I don't remember the faces to names sorry.

 

[Dapper]

Speaking of Ron Paul. From the 98th congress
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d098:HR05484:@@@D&summ2=m&