[QUOTE=person11;31963569]Can you name one person who would run against him? If Hilary tried again, good luck getting that Secretary of State post again when Obama wins![/QUOTE]
I would have voted for Hillary in 2008.
I think she's been posturing to run for more than a year now...she's been distancing herself from a lot of Obama's moves.
I do not think she would risk it. I am betting that any other Democrats who run would be far-left politicians that are not a part of the administration and who are mad at his compromises.
Secretary of State is the "go away" position for the administration. The secretary is always off meeting leaders and politicians of foreign countries, out of sight and out of the way for the President.
While I don't like the GOP canidates and I don't want to pull a persercution complex, but Jesus you make conservatives look like Demons who have come from the depths of hell.
[QUOTE=Zambies!;31964958]While I don't like the GOP canidates and I don't want to pull a persercution complex, but Jesus you make conservatives look like Demons who have come from the depths of hell.[/QUOTE]
To a lot of people on Facepunch, that's exactly what they are, and worse.
[QUOTE=Ridge;31963355]The Democrats won't put up a replacement for Obama, regardless of what stupid stuff he might do. He's their most prized possession.[/QUOTE]
That's not why they're letting him run again. America has an extremely high incumbency rate, and running as an incumbent can be enough to get you reelected on it's own, running someone else can be suicidal.
In fact not one, but two democratic presidents, Harry S Truman and Lyndon B. Johnson, ended up deciding not to run for president a second time after the unsuccessful wars they were involved in stained their public image, and both the people that ran in their place lost. Compare this to George W. Bush, who ran for a second term despite the Iraq War hurting his public image for similar reasons, and actually did better than he did the first time he ran.
[QUOTE=Aredbomb;31965281]That's not why they're letting him run again. America has an extremely high incumbency rate, and running as an incumbent can be enough to get you reelected on it's own, running someone else can be suicidal.
In fact not one, but two democratic presidents, Harry S Truman and Lyndon B. Johnson, ended up deciding not to run for president a second time after the unsuccessful wars they were involved in stained their public image, and both the people that ran in their place lost. Compare this to George W. Bush, who ran for a second term despite the Iraq War hurting his public image for similar reasons, and actually did better than he did the first time he ran.[/QUOTE]
This, I believe, is the greatest flaw in American politics for efficient government.
i don't think the next election would help... instead... the realm of stupidity grows bigger.
[QUOTE=Ridge;31964466]I would have voted for Hillary in 2008.[/QUOTE]
I find that odd considering her support for single-payer healthcare and whatnot.
When I see all these contenders i cringe inside. I just want to ball up and cry because this country's future is looking so dark.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;31965314]This, I believe, is the greatest flaw in American politics for efficient government.[/QUOTE]
I'd have gone with no term limits for Congress.
[editline]26th August 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zeke129;31965721]I find that odd considering her support for single-payer healthcare and whatnot.[/QUOTE]
But she at least has knowledge from both being a Congresswoman and from being around when Bill was President. She knows how things work, and she knows how to work with foreign dignitaries.
[QUOTE=Ridge;31963355]The Democrats won't put up a replacement for Obama, regardless of what stupid stuff he might do. He's their most prized possession.[/QUOTE]
Obama is a pretty strong candidate, fuck ups aside.
[editline]26th August 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ridge;31965951]But she at least has knowledge from both being a Congresswoman and from being around when Bill was President. She knows how things work, and she knows how to work with foreign dignitaries.[/QUOTE]
Well that's why she's secretary of state
[QUOTE=Ridge;31965951]
But she at least has knowledge from both being a Congresswoman and from being around when Bill was President. She knows how things work, and she knows how to work with foreign dignitaries.[/QUOTE]
Oh god I'm agreeing with Ridge
[QUOTE=Ridge;31964466]I would have voted for Hillary in 2008.
I think she's been posturing to run for more than a year now...she's been distancing herself from a lot of Obama's moves.[/QUOTE]
nah she said she wasn't gonna run
[editline]26th August 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zeke129;31966276]Oh god I'm agreeing with Ridge[/QUOTE]
I would argue that Obama isn't nearly as bad with foreigners as he always says.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;31966281]I would argue that Obama isn't nearly as bad with foreigners as he always says.[/QUOTE]
I'd say Obama's a really good diplomat.
Who here honestly thinks Obama [i]won't[/i] win?
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31966363]I'd say Obama's a really good diplomat.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, intervening in Libya when it's none of our business in the first place is a great example of this "good" diplomacy, ironically being the product of a Nobel Peace Prize winner.
If we are to really improve our image with other nations, then we'd end this 10 year war, and bring back all of our troops stationed in countries all around the world. Not only that, but we'd drop this "world police" attitude of nation building and preemptive wars. Ron Paul promises this.
[QUOTE=semite;31966407]Yeah, intervening in Libya when it's none of our business[/quote]
I hear this cry of "none of our business" a lot, so let me tell you something. The UK and France were the leaders of the intervention, and as a member of NATO, the US had to come with. Not only this, but the NTC asked for our help in their fight.
[QUOTE=semite;31966407]Ron Paul promises this.[/QUOTE]
Ron Paul promises a lot of things I don't agree with.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31966505]I hear this cry of "none of our business" a lot, so let me tell you something. The UK and France were the leaders of the intervention, and as a member of NATO, the US had to come with. Not only this, but the NTC asked for our help in their fight.[/quote]
When did I ever say that being in NATO was a good idea? It was only put together to combat Communism in the post-WW2 era and has no purpose in today's world. Again, it's just another example of promoting preemptive war.
[quote]Ron Paul promises a lot of things I don't agree with.[/QUOTE]
Fair enough. We agree to disagree.
[QUOTE=semite;31966544]When did I ever say that being in NATO was a good idea? It was only put together to combat Communism in the post-WW2 era and has no purpose in today's world. Again, it's just another example of promoting preemptive war.[/QUOTE]
Whether or not you thought it was a good idea to be in NATO, the intervention began whilst we were a member, so we had to participate.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31966363]I'd say Obama's a really good diplomat.[/QUOTE]
Ridge is really pedantic about this. obama gave the queen an ipod with his speeches on there and dvd's that whoops didn't work in britain blah blah blather blather obama is arrogant
[QUOTE=semite;31966407]Ron Paul promises this.[/QUOTE]
He promises a lot of harmful shit.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;31966643]Ridge is really pedantic about this. obama gave the queen an ipod with his speeches on there and dvd's that whoops didn't work in britain blah blah blather blather obama is arrogant[/QUOTE]
Because the queen doesn't already have everything under the fucking sun. Whatever he gave her, she'd have two of.
Ridge, I really never noticed just how fucking stupid of a complaint that is. Do you know how rich she is? What can he give her that will mean anything in the face of that wealth?
I'm going all in for Zombie FDR.
That or Zombie Theodore Roosevelt.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;31966643]Ridge is really pedantic about this. obama gave the queen an ipod with his speeches on there and dvd's that whoops didn't work in britain blah blah blather blather obama is arrogant[/QUOTE]
There's also the fact that he's cuddling up to the Argies and taking their side on the Falklands. But whatever, that's all just blather, right?
[QUOTE=Capitulazyguy;31968963]There's also the fact that he's cuddling up to the Argies and taking their side on the Falklands. But whatever, that's all just blather, right?[/QUOTE]
Is there a reason for Argentina not to have access to those islands, I mean it's pretty much right off their coast.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31968993]Is there a reason for Argentina not to have access to those islands, I mean it's pretty much right off their coast.[/QUOTE]
he opposes it because obama did it
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;31969045]he opposes it because obama did it[/QUOTE]
Oh, I see.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31968993]Is there a reason for Argentina not to have access to those islands, I mean it's pretty much right off their coast.[/QUOTE]
The only permanent settlers on the Falklands are British and wish to remain so.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31968993]Is there a reason for Argentina not to have access to those islands, I mean it's pretty much right off their coast.[/QUOTE]
After launching a disastrous invasion in '83, I can pretty much say that Argentina did seal there fate with the matter, and Great Britain colonized and claimed it, and the residents want to be part of the United Kingdom.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
