PDA

View Full Version : POST Election: Obama



rico
11-09-2008, 06:50 AM
Just wanted to get a vote on how everyone feels now that its over.

brandonwarne52
11-09-2008, 06:57 AM
I guess I honestly don't care. I don't want him to fail, that's for sure.

Run Gardner Run
11-09-2008, 07:22 AM
Im a democrat, and wanted him to win. But im not like super excited considering were in such a bad place that it would be rough for either one of them for a while .

DenButsu
11-09-2008, 09:49 AM
Although it doesn't mean I'll never be disappointed (and I'm sure at times I will), as for right now I do feel very, very good about this. I think America really needed a transfusion right now - our blood was getting like Keith Richards bad - and yeah, I think Obama's the right guy to deliver that.

DenButsu
11-09-2008, 09:53 AM
Here are a couple of articles that look at possible early action by the Obama administration.



Obama Team Weighs What to Take On in First Months
By PETER BAKER

WASHINGTON — With the economy in disarray and the nation’s treasury draining, President-elect Barack Obama and his advisers are trying to figure out which of his expansive campaign promises to push in the opening months of his tenure and which to put on a slower track.

Mr. Obama repeated on Saturday that his first priority would be an economic recovery program to get the nation’s business system back on track and people back to work. But advisers said the question was whether they could tackle health care, climate change and energy independence at once or needed to stagger these initiatives over time.

The debate between a big-bang strategy of pressing aggressively on multiple fronts versus a more pragmatic, step-by-step approach has flavored the discussion among Mr. Obama’s transition advisers for months, even before his election. The tension between these strategies has been a recurring theme in the memorandums prepared for him on various issues, advisers said.

“Every president is tempted to take on too much,” said one Obama adviser, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. “On the other hand, there’s the Roosevelt example and the L.B.J. example, which suggest an extraordinary president can do an awful lot. So that’s the question: Is it too risky for the president to be ambitious?”

Much of the issue may be out of Mr. Obama’s hands. The $700 billion financial bailout threatens to push the deficit into the stratosphere. “The poor man has his hands tied by the economic and financial mess we have right now,” said John Tuck, a former aide to President Ronald Reagan. “I don’t know what his options are. They’re very, very limited.”

At a news conference Friday and again in a radio address on Saturday, Mr. Obama signaled that he intended to move quickly to address the nation’s financial problems, despite any obstacles. “I want to ensure that we hit the ground running on Jan. 20,” he said on Saturday, “because we don’t have a moment to lose.”nyt (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/09/us/politics/09promises.html?_r=2&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin)





Obama Positioned to Quickly Reverse Bush Actions
Stem Cell, Climate Rules Among Targets of President-Elect's Team

By Ceci Connolly and R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, November 9, 2008; A16

Transition advisers to President-elect Barack Obama have compiled a list of about 200 Bush administration actions and executive orders that could be swiftly undone to reverse White House policies on climate change, stem cell research, reproductive rights and other issues, according to congressional Democrats, campaign aides and experts working with the transition team.

A team of four dozen advisers, working for months in virtual solitude, set out to identify regulatory and policy changes Obama could implement soon after his inauguration. The team is now consulting with liberal advocacy groups, Capitol Hill staffers and potential agency chiefs to prioritize those they regard as the most onerous or ideologically offensive, said a top transition official who was not permitted to speak on the record about the inner workings of the transition.

In some instances, Obama would be quickly delivering on promises he made during his two-year campaign, while in others he would be embracing Clinton-era policies upended by President Bush during his eight years in office.

"The kind of regulations they are looking at" are those imposed by Bush for "overtly political" reasons, in pursuit of what Democrats say was a partisan Republican agenda, said Dan Mendelson, a former associate administrator for health in the Clinton administration's Office of Management and Budget. The list of executive orders targeted by Obama's team could well get longer in the coming days, as Bush's appointees rush to enact a number of last-minute policies in an effort to extend his legacy.washingtonpost (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/08/AR2008110801856_pf.html)

SmthBluCitrus
11-09-2008, 10:53 AM
I wasn't an initial Obama supporter (I was behind John Edwards) but I am a Democrat, I was happy with our nominee, so I'm pretty happy the Democrat won. I think Obama will have struggles like all Presidents do, but I think he will be successful.

poodski
11-09-2008, 11:54 AM
No inbetween?

Either he will be great or terrible? Or you dont care.

k_rock923
11-09-2008, 12:26 PM
I know that he can be great. I hope that he lives up to his potential.

CuseDude87
11-09-2008, 12:35 PM
Hah, great poll. 100%-0% (out of 6 votes). lol.

I think he'll do well, but will absolutely struggle with making decisions at times. However, I believe the relative good will outweigh the relative bad by a lot.

ink
11-09-2008, 12:44 PM
No inbetween?

Either he will be great or terrible? Or you dont care.

I agree. rico, or Den, can you come up with another option and add it to the poll? Poodski, what option would you like to see?

Your Name Here
11-09-2008, 01:40 PM
No inbetween?

Either he will be great or terrible? Or you dont care.

There's no middle ground when it comes to politics.

Either everything is rainbows, unicorns, and lollypops....or....EVERYTHING IS RUINED FOREVER!

Dburch1102
11-09-2008, 02:18 PM
I am just happy its over. Eventually people will stop with the racism and the ignorance and maybe we can unify under Obama

YanksFan4Life
11-09-2008, 02:24 PM
Rico clealy shows his ability to rise above party lines, and writes a very balanced, well thought out, poll.

I'm getting ****ing tired of people saying we have to unify under Obama though. Just like democrats unified with republicans under Bush? Oh that's right, it was "NOT MY PRESIDENT" from day one. I love how when a Republican is in office, it's WE MUST GIVE HIM NOT ONE INCH. When it's a liberal, it's "well, we should unify under his message of hope and flowers, and milk and honey!" :rolleyes:

This isn't even just about W, I remember people causing the same sort of **** storms during the Gulf.

YanksFan4Life
11-09-2008, 02:39 PM
Just remove the poll ink, it's already destroyed because people who who have voted for none of those options have already been soured on the thread. It's pretty much never going to have an accurate representation of what at least EC08 posters think.

SmthBluCitrus
11-09-2008, 03:21 PM
Rico clealy shows his ability to rise above party lines, and writes a very balanced, well thought out, poll.

I'm getting ****ing tired of people saying we have to unify under Obama though. Just like democrats unified with republicans under Bush? Oh that's right, it was "NOT MY PRESIDENT" from day one. I love how when a Republican is in office, it's WE MUST GIVE HIM NOT ONE INCH. When it's a liberal, it's "well, we should unify under his message of hope and flowers, and milk and honey!" :rolleyes:

This isn't even just about W, I remember people causing the same sort of **** storms during the Gulf.

Come on yf4l ... seriously?

Most liberals were fairly latent following Bush being elected in 2000. The only one's that kept up with the "Not my President" crap were fringe liberals, not us in the mainstream. But, following 9/11, the country was united behind Bush -- except those that thought he perpetrated 9/11 (but those come from both sides of the aisle ... not just liberals, but libertarians as well).

It was when we felt that Bush started abusing his authority -- Patriot, Gitmo, and warrantless wiretaps -- that we started getting angry. Hell, even a majority was behind him when we first invaded Iraq. But, when we started seeing horrendous mismanagement, people started dropping off. Bush was given the benefit of the doubt, so your railing against liberal hatred of Bush is a bit subjective.

But, if you want to go that direction, that's fine. Just remember how much "chance" Clinton was given. The government shut down almost as soon as the GOP came to power in Congress following the Republican "revolution." And, don't forget the partisan Monicagate witch-hunt ... nor the big "family and moral values" tour that Bush went on when he was campaigning for President in 2000.

If you don't want to stand behind Obama as our President, that's fine. You don't have to, you didn't vote for him. I urge you (and everybody else that voted for McCain -- or Barr, Nader, McKinney, et al) to ... but your support is your decision.

YanksFan4Life
11-09-2008, 03:50 PM
Come on yf4l ... seriously?

Most liberals were fairly latent following Bush being elected in 2000. The only one's that kept up with the "Not my President" crap were fringe liberals, not us in the mainstream. But, following 9/11, the country was united behind Bush -- except those that thought he perpetrated 9/11 (but those come from both sides of the aisle ... not just liberals, but libertarians as well).

It was when we felt that Bush started abusing his authority -- Patriot, Gitmo, and warrantless wiretaps -- that we started getting angry. Hell, even a majority was behind him when we first invaded Iraq. But, when we started seeing horrendous mismanagement, people started dropping off. Bush was given the benefit of the doubt, so your railing against liberal hatred of Bush is a bit subjective.

But, if you want to go that direction, that's fine. Just remember how much "chance" Clinton was given. The government shut down almost as soon as the GOP came to power in Congress following the Republican "revolution." And, don't forget the partisan Monicagate witch-hunt ... nor the big "family and moral values" tour that Bush went on when he was campaigning for President in 2000.

If you don't want to stand behind Obama as our President, that's fine. You don't have to, you didn't vote for him. I urge you (and everybody else that voted for McCain -- or Barr, Nader, McKinney, et al) to ... but your support is your decision.

I remember people as soon as three days after the 9/11 screaming BUSH IS GOING TO REINSTATE THE DRAFT, and I was only in High School. That's beyond the point though.

I'm not saying I'm not going to support him, he's our commander-in-chief. I'm just pointing out the blatant hypocrisy that people show every election. Every election the winning side always preaches how the other side needs to unite, but rarely shows the same courtesy the other way. It's just stupid to basically say "party X is against us uniting as a country!" because rarely does the losing side ever take a loss graciously. You can point to Clinton, I can point to Bush Sr. and talk about how I remember the liberal Congress forcing him to so many things he didn't want (including raise taxes, which is one of the things that sunk him in '92). I was only ****ing 4-8 when Bush Sr. was in office, and I remember how much people were *****ing on end about the Gulf. It's beyond ******** for a party to say "YOU BETTER UNITE!", because almost always they are being a bunch of stubborn ***** when they don't have control.

YanksFan4Life
11-09-2008, 03:58 PM
I mean, don't get me wrong, I don't like Bush either...

LAFord
11-09-2008, 03:59 PM
"He will invite the terrorist / other ridiculous babble." What a stupid poll.

SmthBluCitrus
11-09-2008, 04:18 PM
I remember people as soon as three days after the 9/11 screaming BUSH IS GOING TO REINSTATE THE DRAFT, and I was only in High School. That's beyond the point though.

I'm not saying I'm not going to support him, he's our commander-in-chief. I'm just pointing out the blatant hypocrisy that people show every election. Every election the winning side always preaches how the other side needs to unite, but rarely shows the same courtesy the other way. It's just stupid to basically say "party X is against us uniting as a country!" because rarely does the losing side ever take a loss graciously. You can point to Clinton, I can point to Bush Sr. and talk about how I remember the liberal Congress forcing him to so many things he didn't want (including raise taxes, which is one of the things that sunk him in '92). I was only ****ing 4-8 when Bush Sr. was in office, and I remember how much people were *****ing on end about the Gulf. It's beyond ******** for a party to say "YOU BETTER UNITE!", because almost always they are being a bunch of stubborn ***** when they don't have control.

I guess that's just the way it is. The opposite party is the opposite party for a reason. We've long engaged in partisan politics, from the birth of our country on. There have been relative few eras of truly bi-partisan politics.

As for the "re-institute the draft" comments ... I heard those, too. But, in a slightly different manner. I.E. "Bush is going to have to re-institute the draft." As in, he'll have no choice -- our military is small; which goes back to Clinton and Bush I -- due to hacking the size of the military and going to a more privatized industry.

YanksFan4Life
11-09-2008, 04:32 PM
Which is why I think this country would be a lot better off with a multi-party system (like say 4), like several countries in Europe so that we can stop the ******** of two party systems. I think we could EASILY support 4 political parties in this country.

ink
11-09-2008, 04:42 PM
Which is why I think this country would be a lot better off with a multi-party system (like say 4), like several countries in Europe so that we can stop the ******** of two party systems. I think we could EASILY support 4 political parties in this country.

I agree with that. Parliamentary democracy has it's advantages (England) and disadvantages (Italy - constant minority governments) but it sees a lot less deadlock and a lot less "us" vs. "them" politics.

LAFord
11-09-2008, 04:55 PM
Oh, I dream of a day with 4 political parties. I just cannot agree with either one of these 2. I figure my odds would improve with 4 choices.

An example...If I believe in pro choice abortion, AND lots of guns...neither party has my best interests in mind.

And I'm not in agreement with either parties ideals on immigration.

Seppuku
11-09-2008, 05:12 PM
The problem is convincing our 2 existing parties to divide in half, thus giving up their power. If either side takes the first step, the side that doesn't divide is thrust into uncontested power at every level. The only way to rebuild would be to abolish and outlaw the party system. Not a really feasable solution.

BTW- bad poll. You are either all for Obama or insane or apathetic? Not much in the way of choice.

SmthBluCitrus
11-09-2008, 05:18 PM
Which is why I think this country would be a lot better off with a multi-party system (like say 4), like several countries in Europe so that we can stop the ******** of two party systems. I think we could EASILY support 4 political parties in this country.

Just not really possible in our set-up. We're not a parliamentary system and there's so much money invested in the Presidential Democracy two party, right vs. wrong, yes vs. no, us vs. them system. I just don't see a day when our system breaks down into multiple parties for any length of time.

The Democrats and Republicans may evolve into new parties ... and we could be living under a big momentum shift right now where some of the Republicans abandon the GOP and fuse with Democrats causing it to be a centrist party; and the GOP becomes a wing until it re-centers itself. But, that's not something we'll know until we have a chance to look back on it.

ink
11-09-2008, 05:22 PM
^ I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell that the two party system would be abandoned. I was just saying that the parliamentary system has a lot of advantages.

Another big advantage is that seek-and-destroy politics and negative campaigning don't work that well in a parliamentary system. Parties that indulge in those kind of politics just to destroy the opposition soon find that both of them stand a chance of being overtaken by any one of the other parties. Parties that negative campaign get called out on it and lose votes everywhere because there are other conservative and liberal options for voters to give their votes to.

SmthBluCitrus
11-09-2008, 05:40 PM
But, in a parliamentary system, the line between the legislative and executive branches are much less defined. There's no president within the parliamentary system ... only a PM voted in by a majority of peers.

But, in a Presidential system since the President is directly elected, he should be voted on by the majority of citizens (or electoral college, in our direct system) because of the authority the President carries (unlike a multi-party system where a candidate for President is likely to only win a plurality). Whereas a PM doesn't have nearly the authority.

poodski
11-09-2008, 06:04 PM
I agree. rico, or Den, can you come up with another option and add it to the poll? Poodski, what option would you like to see?

I dont know but something better than this.

I mean its basically almost like the south park episode.

Either partying in the streets so happy willing to punch your boss because the country is saved.

or

You are going to hang yourself because we just put a terrorist in the white house.

or

you are in 4th grade and you dont care.

Maybe something like

Partying in the streets, think he will do good but not great, think he will be at best an average president, will put the country further behind than we are now, or noose is tied just waiting for the ice to melt under my feet, oh and I am in 4th grade and I dont care.

poodski
11-09-2008, 06:05 PM
Also this country was built to have two parties. You will always have minor parties, but the country is built to have 2 major parties.

At times a third party may rise and may take over one of the other two and then that one will fall, but there will always be only 2 parties over an extended period of time.

ink
11-09-2008, 06:17 PM
But, in a parliamentary system, the line between the legislative and executive branches are much less defined. There's no president within the parliamentary system ... only a PM voted in by a majority of peers.

But, in a Presidential system since the President is directly elected, he should be voted on by the majority of citizens (or electoral college, in our direct system) because of the authority the President carries (unlike a multi-party system where a candidate for President is likely to only win a plurality). Whereas a PM doesn't have nearly the authority.

You're right. They're quite different and the line between branches of government are much less defined in a parliamentary system. But the point you made about the President having more authority ... that may be true technically, but practically speaking, if a PM rules with a majority, he/she can run any bill he/she wants through the House of Commons and the Senate. That's how NAFTA made it through the Canadian Parliament. Essentially, the 1988 federal election was a referendum on Free Trade. When the Conservative PM won that election, he knew he'd get the FT deal through parliament in no time flat. There are many other examples. An American President wouldn't be able to push legislation through that easily because of the way the branches of government are composed.

ink
11-09-2008, 06:19 PM
Maybe something like

Partying in the streets, think he will do good but not great, think he will be at best an average president, will put the country further behind than we are now, or noose is tied just waiting for the ice to melt under my feet, oh and I am in 4th grade and I dont care.

:laugh2:


Also this country was built to have two parties. You will always have minor parties, but the country is built to have 2 major parties.

No doubt about that.

YanksFan4Life
11-09-2008, 06:27 PM
I think a third party could have a decent amount of success if it:

A) Had a message that could speak to moderates on both sides.
B) Had leadership that could effectively get a party like that started.

In some ways, it's like the problem the Libertarians have. I don't agree with them on everything either, but they do have a message that could appeal to moderates on both sides. It's a shame that they have NO leadership that is capable of being sane and running a large-scale campaign. Unless you have Ross Perot money, you'll never get off the ground.

SmthBluCitrus
11-09-2008, 06:45 PM
It's going to take somebody like Michael Bloomberg. He's spent time in both political parties and also has mega bucks. But, he won't be around forever. Other well-placed people with similar fundamental ideologies would have to step up with him for there to be a sustained effort. Then there would have to be interest from outside investors (PACs, 527s, 501(c3) & (c4) committees. And, those groups already have a lot invested in the two main parties. It would have to take a major restructuring of campaign finance laws. Neither party is going to put themselves in a position to openly legislate the ability of a third party to actually rise up.

But, even if somebody like Bloomberg (associated with a Steve Jobs or a Warren Buffet) were to step up, he (or she ... we'll play gender neutral) aren't likely to take base Democrats or base Republicans out of their element. That means they would have to win almost 100% of the independent vote. Because realistically, the Democratic Party has a 35% base, the GOP has a 35% base -- that leaves about 30% left over. Assume about 25% leaves either established party, and you're looking awfully equal (if an indy party could get 100% of the independent/no-party vote.

Then, they would have to sustain that over several elections in order to branch out and establish legitimate third parties on down-ticket ballots ... with continued fund-raising.

It just isn't likely, in my opinion. Bloomberg has a ton of money, but does he have the ability (or desire) to invest in a three or four election cycle? Is it a good investment for him? He is a businessman, after all.

They might be able to win a seat, or two, throughout the country for a couple of elections. Maybe even take a run as the Presidency for a term or two. I don't think they could do both -- and after eight years they they relegated to the sideline and the history books.

There is just too much invested in the two-party system for a realistic third party to ever rise.

YanksFan4Life
11-09-2008, 07:02 PM
Perot would have won in 1992 if it weren't for that scandal with his daughter. He was tied with Bush and well ahead of Clinton at one point. There was a LOT of support for him, he just never recovered from that temporary leaving of the trail. We definitely would have seen a third party, an effective third party, if he has won in 1992. All it is going to take is someone who can speak effectively to moderates. It worked before, it can easily work again. Perot pretty much funded himself in that run though, so yeah, it would take a man with a shitton of money also. Realistically, there are enough rich businessmen out there who are tired with bad fiscal policies to fund a person who would be worth the investment.

SmthBluCitrus
11-09-2008, 07:15 PM
Perot would have won in 1992 if it weren't for that scandal with his daughter. He was tied with Bush and well ahead of Clinton at one point. There was a LOT of support for him, he just never recovered from that temporary leaving of the trail. We definitely would have seen a third party, an effective third party, if he has won in 1992. All it is going to take is someone who can speak effectively to moderates. It worked before, it can easily work again. Perot pretty much funded himself in that run though, so yeah, it would take a man with a shitton of money also. Realistically, there are enough rich businessmen out there who are tired with bad fiscal policies to fund a person who would be worth the investment.

Like I said, somebody could do it briefly. But, the ability to make a continuous sustained effort for a third party just isn't there ... no matter how much money an individual has.

YanksFan4Life
11-09-2008, 07:17 PM
Well, my larger point is it would have had the staying power if he actually were elected president. Politicians might have considered declaring themsleves of the Reform party. Instead, it's a joke now because of the infamous "let me finish" debate during the 96 elections.

Dburch1102
11-09-2008, 07:28 PM
Rico clealy shows his ability to rise above party lines, and writes a very balanced, well thought out, poll.

I'm getting ****ing tired of people saying we have to unify under Obama though. Just like democrats unified with republicans under Bush? Oh that's right, it was "NOT MY PRESIDENT" from day one. I love how when a Republican is in office, it's WE MUST GIVE HIM NOT ONE INCH. When it's a liberal, it's "well, we should unify under his message of hope and flowers, and milk and honey!" :rolleyes:

This isn't even just about W, I remember people causing the same sort of **** storms during the Gulf.

I just wanna point out that I am a democrat all the way... but I supported Bush in 2004, and even voted for him....

SmthBluCitrus
11-09-2008, 07:41 PM
Well, my larger point is it would have had the staying power if he actually were elected president. Politicians might have considered declaring themsleves of the Reform party. Instead, it's a joke now because of the infamous "let me finish" debate during the 96 elections.

I suppose it's possible. I just don't think it's likely. And, even then ... if one party forms out of the middle, one of the other two parties is going to end up picking up the slack (the rest of the alienated voters) as one party begins to die. Thus, forcing us back into a two party system.

Say, your business class rises out of the two party system to form a Centrist Wealth Party (I'm just making up names -- but, since we're assuming business people like Bloomberg, Jobs, Buffet, or Gates -- Centrist Wealth sounds catchy to me :))

So, we have this centrist wealth party. And, they manage to pick up a few seats in their first election -- not Presidential, but a number of house seats, and a couple Senate seats. The second election, they pick up a couple more Senate seats and a few more in the House -- and they're becoming a realistic third party. The third election, they manage to win the Presidency and they've picked up enough seats that they have a plurality in the House and the Senate. They're doing this at the stake of one of the other two parties -- we'll say the GOP (since they're generally associated more with business class). So, what is happening to the GOP at this point? They're losing seats left and right, maybe their candidates are leaving and moving towards the CWP. Eventually, the GOP is going to cease and die, and the CWP is going to assume the GOP message and the GOP voter.

So, you may have a legit third party for awhile -- but eventually you're going to see the loss of one of the mainstream "norm" parties (in this case the GOP) and the fringe, or indy, party is going to assume the mainstream. Reverting us back to a two-party system.

Granted, this is a scenario, but I think it's the most likely path. But, again, this is assuming it's feasible financially.

I'll tell you this much. As a campaign staffer, you're not going to see me moving to work on a third party campaign. And, I've even been approached on (and am considering) working for a GOP/RPI 2010 campaign. And, I can tell you that there are a slew of other staffers (Dem and GOP) that wouldn't consider it, too.

I did some friendly (and free) advising for a friend that was running as an indy on a low-level county campaign out in California, and he got absolutely slaughtered.

poodski
11-09-2008, 08:31 PM
Perot would have won in 1992 if it weren't for that scandal with his daughter. He was tied with Bush and well ahead of Clinton at one point. There was a LOT of support for him, he just never recovered from that temporary leaving of the trail. We definitely would have seen a third party, an effective third party, if he has won in 1992. All it is going to take is someone who can speak effectively to moderates. It worked before, it can easily work again. Perot pretty much funded himself in that run though, so yeah, it would take a man with a shitton of money also. Realistically, there are enough rich businessmen out there who are tired with bad fiscal policies to fund a person who would be worth the investment.

And if Perot wins I think you most likely see the downturn of one party, at that point most likely the Democrats, or after 4 or 8 years the indy party is no one again.

3 parties might last for 10 or even 15 years but in the long term it will be back to 2. Perhaps with the same two perhaps the new one takes the place of an old one.

gcoll
11-09-2008, 08:33 PM
There isn't a poll option for my position.

My opinion of the election now, is the same as it has been for quite a while. I assumed Obama would win, quite a while ago.

I disagree with a lot of what Obama has to say, but I'm willing to give him a shot. I am curious about how he'll do. Hope he does well.

So, if I had my way....Obama would not be president. But I'm not gonna whine about it, or claim that he'll ruin the country, or that "he's not my president", or anything like that. I am taking a "wait and see" approach.

poodski
11-09-2008, 08:54 PM
I like to call it.

Cautiously optimistic.

If there was a choice for that I would vote for it.

plpfctn
11-09-2008, 10:26 PM
above all, a president must exercise good judgment and obama, b/c of he was against the iraq war from the start, has this. he laid out a set of consequences for invading iraq and they've all be proven spot on. that's the judgment i'm looking for and i feel very comfortable that he's our commander in chief.

Raidaz4Life
11-09-2008, 10:34 PM
I wouldn't say the country is going to hell but its definitely not gonna improve... I've already seen Obama's weak stance towards Iran so my prediction is that Iran will have a nuclear weapon by the end of Obama's presidency and he will still be trying to negotiate with them:rolleyes:


Don't get me wrong I support him and accept him as my President but so far all I'm seeing is the weak President I knew was coming. I said from the beginning he will be the next Jimmy Carter and by God I hope he proves me wrong.

DenButsu
11-09-2008, 10:48 PM
I've already seen Obama's weak stance towards Iran

And that would be what, choosing Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff? :eyebrow:

Drucifer
11-09-2008, 10:59 PM
Just wanted to get a vote on how everyone feels now that its over.It's never over. Just some of the players will change.

ink
11-09-2008, 11:11 PM
It's never over. Just some of the players will change.

Wise words from a veteran of a few elections. :)

YanksFan4Life
11-09-2008, 11:46 PM
wise words from a veteran of a few elections. :)

+1

YanksFan4Life
11-09-2008, 11:47 PM
...so can a mod delete this worthless poll please?

Buckwheat
11-10-2008, 12:05 AM
...so can a mod delete this worthless poll please?

Someone wishes they were still a mod :p

DenButsu
11-10-2008, 12:08 AM
...so can a mod delete this worthless poll please?

I agree the choices are... odd... but is it a problem? :shrug: (the topic, at least, is valid I think)

YanksFan4Life
11-10-2008, 01:30 AM
I agree the choices are... odd... but is it a problem? :shrug: (the topic, at least, is valid I think)

The poll has no value, and by virtue of annoying the people who would have chosen a sane option b, has already become discredited. Sure, the topic is valid, but the poll is not. Even if you gave a reasonable option at this point, the results are already skewed beyond repair.

DenButsu
11-10-2008, 03:39 AM
There's no option for deleting it. I closed it.

rico
11-10-2008, 03:52 AM
it wouldnt let me enter another option after it was already entered.
SO sorry for not putting an in the middle option.
i

YanksFan4Life
11-10-2008, 07:52 PM
Thank you Den.


it wouldnt let me enter another option after it was already entered.
SO sorry for not putting an in the middle option.
i

My greater point was that the "middle option" would have been the option most everyone who aren't swooning over Obama would have picked. The poll is closed now though, so I'll not continue to berate you over it. :)

MickeyMgl
11-11-2008, 07:18 AM
"He was the best man for the job" or "ridiculous babble"?

How very scientific.