So, how is Obama doing?

[mcgeedo]

In another thread ("Why should I vote for McCain") I had the idea that we should have a thread that we could look back on in a few months. Since it seems inevitable that Obama is going to be elected by those who think he's going to be their salvation (i.e. provider) or the agent of some sort of "change" of some unspecified kind, why don't we put some predictions of how he'll be doing in a few months. Then we can resurrect the thread next Spring or Summer and make observations on just how he is doing with the great promises he's made. I'll bookmark the thread, and put a calendar reminder for it on my personal calendar.

So, make a prediction. Take one or more of The Saviour's great promises and tell us what he will have accomplished by, say, May or June. I'd like to ask, please, that we not digress into rebuttals or arguments at this point in time of whatever a poster might predict. Let's just make those predictions, and wait and see what actually happens.

I'll start with a couple.

I predict that Obama's "tax cut" for 95 percent of the people will happen and will take the form of a "stimulus" check (welfare) for those who make less than some certain amount of income.

I predict that the Dow index will fall below 7000 after Obama is elected, or when it becomes obvious that he will be elected (10+ percent lead in the polls).

I predict that Obama will be "tested" with an international crisis as Biden has predicted. His response will be more conciliatory than anything else, and it will generally be agreed that he will have dimished the stature and standing of the US by doing so.

I predict that the quality of life in both Afghanistan and Iraq will be poorer, and that violence will increase.

[Derwood]

I predict that Obama will need to fix the economic issues and the war before he can put forth any major spending plans in good faith.

I predict Obama will select the most diverse cabinet (in terms of race, background, partisanship, etc.) in US History

I predict that Republicans across the internet will seize every opportunity to say "TOLD YOU SO" every time they perceive an Obama let down

[filtherton]

I predict that the people who don't like him still won't like him.

[dc_dux]

I predict that Obama will remain calm and deliberative and will solicit opinions from a wide range of experts on the the enormous challenges that the next president will face as a result of eight years of failed policies and shotgun solutions.

[fresnelly]

I can't assume Obama will win. Your elections are just too wacky.

I predict the winner will be heavily criticized for not delivering on promises fast enough. If the economy isn't "fixed" within a month (a fantasy to be sure) there will be much hand wringing and apoplexy.

I predict the winner will be both applauded and vilified for spending time overseas on diplomatic excursions.

I predict that the new administration will be discover new "shocking" misadventures of the previous administration. This could be played merely for partisan points or as an excuse to cut back on election promises.

I predict, win or lose, that we're going to see a lot more of Sarah Palin: touring the country as VP and public face of the administration, or as a pundit on TV and radio in opposition.

[ratbastid]

I predict at least three "OMGZ! Obama's the ANTICHRIST!!!!11!!" threads per week on Tilted.

[Willravel]

Prediction? Obama loses, the internet goes nuts, but no one really does anything but protest and we get four more years of bullshit. Despite the fact that, just like the last few elections, there's a mountain of evidence to suggest voter tampering, most sheeple will dismiss it out of hand. Obama will have a lot more votes, probably by a margin of at least 10%, but it won't matter.

President McCain will get my friends in the military killed. President McCain will continue to alienate us from our allies. President McCain will be caught up in several personal scandals. He'll die in his second term, and I'll leave the country for good.

[ottopilot]

I thought Obama would win by a landslide. But he's too close to the margin of error (in most polls) and it's late in the game. I'm leaning more toward the core of will's assessment:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Prediction? Obama loses, the internet goes nuts, but no one really does anything but protest and we get four more years of bullshit. Despite the fact that, just like the last few elections, there's a mountain of evidence to suggest voter tampering, most sheeple will dismiss it out of hand. Obama will have a lot more votes, probably by a margin of at least 10%, but it won't matter.

However, I don't necessarily agree with these sentiments...

Originally Posted by Willravel

President McCain will get my friends in the military killed. President McCain will continue to alienate us from our allies. President McCain will be caught up in several personal scandals. He'll die in his second term, and I'll leave the country for good.

I predict McCain by atleast 54% and that he will probably die late in his first term. Palin will loose the general election in 2012.

[roachboy]

not being a prophet, even after a few lovely malt beverages, i have no idea what the future will hold.
if obama wins, i think he inherits a shitty situation thanks to the republicans and their idiotic neoliberal worldview. i cannot tell at this point exactly what that situation will look like, any more than you can--things keep changing, as they do. i don't have a particular degree of faith that obama will be able to break with that nitwit socio-economic worldview in a manner that's hard enugh to address the structural crises that the republicans have created (like it or not-neoliberalism crosses party lines--clinton was one of you, the entirety of the republican party was as well--the left/right spectrum that conservatives pretend describes the world is meaningless except as the private language of conservatives--and you know what they say about private languages)...
but i have some hope that he would be able to do that.

i have no hope---at all---at any level---that john mc-cain would be able to deal with the problems that he will have to address straight away. i have no reason--at all--to think that a "maverick" republican whose maverickness consisted in supporting the bush administration 90% of the time will be able to think far enough outside the ideology that 3 months ago he endorsed enough to deal with the problems created by that ideology.

i just don't buy the arguments he floats.
i dont believe him, i dont believe his campaign. i think mc-cain is a direct route onto the shoals. go there if you want, but i want no part of it.

[dc_dux]

There is no way to predict if an Obama administration and a Democratic majority Congress will be successful given the enormous challenges they will face.

It appears the American people are ready to provide them with the opportunity, given the failures of the Republicans over the last eight years.

At the very least, I do believe it will be much more transparent and much less of a president operating on the very edge of Constitutional authority.

[Amaras]

I believe the right wing will hound him every step of the way, not letting him govern.
Until a crisis will arise and Obama will be called upon to rise above the trite and
become transcendant.
Will he or won't he? I hope, for all our sakes, he does. And I'm Canadian.
If McCain wins, the left has proven far less capable at causing the machinery of Gov't
to stop, so a lot of right wing rhetoric and empty BS will continue.
I can only hope he shows himself to be at least somewhat the man I believed him to
be in 2000.
Anyways, it looks like you need Democrats to come in, save your economy, and then
leave show the Republicans can take credit for it. Like usual.

[Manic_Skafe]

I'm with you Will, but I do believe that Obama will win. The votes will actually count this time around but only, and obviously so, because the reps don't want to touch the next 4 years (at least) with a ten foot pole.

I predict that Obama will lose a lot of his popularity simply because it'll be his job to announce exactly how fucked we are. Wearing the straight jacket of the last eight years, he won't be able to perform all of the magic tricks he's promised and he'll of course be criticized for it.

His presidency will improve our relationship with the rest of the world, we'll be nudged further toward energy independence and bettering the environment, he'll eventually accomplish some of what he's proposed but many of the changes will be cosmetic.

Things will be different but still very much the same. We'll continue to make like the Romans and the Corporate States of America will continue to chug along.

[energus]

From my perspective (across the oceanic divider) I can't help wonder how a 72 year old man, whom (as I understand it from the media) has had several encounters with cancer and ,as the Life Expectancy in the USA is somewhere near the middle to late seventies, stats wise might not even make it till the end of this term is still in the running? Don't get me wrong as a foreigner it is hard for me to judge American politics and society, but there has to be a younger more viable option among 305,500,000 Americans?

As for Barrack Obama. Yes Obama is a liberal (so what it is a democracy, isn't it. Land of the free and so), most conservatives will say the same of Bill Clinton (who left the Oval Office with a surplus on the balance). So being a liberal does not exclude a good economic policy.

As for his legacy in a couple of months/years? Fox will hound him (like they did Clinton), depending on the Senate and Congress elections they will try to block him, there will be a large mess to clean up (economy, foreign affairs, Iraq, Afghanistan, but also what to do with Cuba when Fidel kicks the bucket) and he will have to unite a (seemingly) divided country.

I don't think it matters who wins there will be a lot of issues to deal with. Pro-life, guns, gay marriage all have the potential to create or enlarge a divide. I don't envy the candidates, nor you lot for who have to choose between now and the 4th.

For the record I did a Dutch poll on issues and turns out I am 88% Obama, not weird since I am from that liberal hell hole called the Netherlands

[Daniel_]

I suggest anyone wondering how things will end up if McCain wins should read Rober Heinlein's Revolt in 2100.

[djtestudo]

This thread (and really this whole election) is starting to remind me of an old Dilbert cartoon.

[guyy]

I think the Dow will rise on the day after Election day. Not that that will change anything...

[Derwood]

Originally Posted by guyy

I think the Dow will rise on the day after Election day. Not that that will change anything...

I think it will too. Clearly the issue of the economy is what has pushed Obama's numbers up over the past month, so I would assume that Obama winning the election would provide a boost in consumer confidence, at least in the short term

[The_Dunedan]

Predictions:

1: Obama will win. McCain and his handlers have run an absolutely numbnutted fustercluck of a campeign, and Obama's appeal to the Pay My Way Club is too broad-based for him to lose at this point.


2: Within the first year, I and my family will be unemployed. We own/run a successful small business, and we -cannot- sustain that business with 2x-3x MORE of our paychecks and company money running out the door. Additionally, we're gun dealers, which brings me to...

3: Victim Disarmament. LOTS of it. HR1022 will come out of committee and be passed by the Democratic majority and signed (if needed) by President Obama. This will make nearly every semiautomatic firearm in the country illegal (if you own a C-96 Mauser or Bergmann, consider yourself lucky), along with 90% of my inventory. That's not counting, of course, the -total- ban on sidearms that Sen. Obama has supported in the past, or the fact that his idea of "reasonable restriction" was the Washington DC ban which the Supremes recently struck down, or his support for banning virtually every centerfire rifle round in existence.

4: Inflation & Depression: Where's the money gonna come from? All these "changes" the good Senator is talking about are damned expensive, people, and since 40% of the country already pays no taxes and Obama's promising a tax-cut for 95% of the population...where's that money gonna come from? "The other five percent! Right. Sure. Maybe if you take everything they own, that's if you can stop them from moving to St. Kitts and taking their toys with them. Just like the bailout, it's going to have to come down to printing money. Or, I suppose he could always borrow it from the Chinese, if they'll still loan us so much as a cup of sugar.

[roachboy]

dunedan: my brother runs a successful small business, supports obama, is informed about the policies he actuall advocates and runs out a scenario for small business that has not resemblance to yours. why do you suppose that is?

on guns---i think obama supports local gun control. hell, i support that. i've lived in cities for a very long time and see no reason why urban spaces should NOT have strict controls over guns. but i don't see the same need for it applying everywhere. i don't think obama does either (dc put up some good posts about this question)---so i don't see the basis for your position on that either.

on the last point---what you're running into is the outline of your own economic views mapped onto obama. i don't see anything like the scenario you outline as happening. but this is obviously the diciest area, because the mutation of capitalism that seems to be underway could go in any number of directions and coping with change is not something that any system does terribly well. so on taxation, the main change is a reversal of republican tax breaks for the wealthy because the famous "trickle down" theory has been demonstrated empirically to have been not worth the napkin laffer drew his curve on. there are a host of areas that could be transformed---i maintain (speaking entirely for myself here) that the republicans have used bloated, obscene levels of military spending as a way of diverting tax revenues into the economy by way of the faction of the capitalist order that most consistenty supports the party--you know, patronage--and that an enormous amount of money could come from ending the candy binge of unnnecessary shiny high-tech toys for the military. a rethink of what the military is and what it's role is needs to happen--the cold war logic, which the reagan period simply extended and which has been extended since--except for the fact that the republicans saw the draft as anathema (the one thing they seemed to have learned from vietnam)...there are all kinds of other areas that can be rethought. the period of conservative domination may well be over---i hope it is--good riddance---and maybe it will be possible to develop a saner social system for that.

end political part===========================

i suspect that while you may not like what appears to be coming politically, you'll end up better off that you think you will.
at least i hope that's the case.
i seriously hope that your predictions for yourself and your family are wrong.
political differences aside, no-one wants to see others suffer, particularly not if they're linked by a sense of community, no matter how curious that community might be.
i hope you're wrong, sir.
best of luck and try not to worry so much.

[Derwood]

Another post in this forum shoots down most of your claims about Obama's stances on guns

[The_Dunedan]

And his associations, endorsements, and voting record speak for themselves. HR1022 is real, and would put us out of business, along with nearly every other gun-dealer in the country. Where is this thread, I'd love to see this "debunking."


Edit: Found it. This is a pile of crap. Allow me to respond in detail.
From FactCheck.org: NRA Targets Obama

Obama lays out his basic stance on guns in a "Sportsmen" fact sheet and also in an "Urban Policy" paper on reducing gun violence. The NRA's claims find little support here.

Regarding a Constitutional right to guns, Obama says:

Obama, "Sportsmen": Barack Obama believes the Second Amendment creates an individual right, and he respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms. He will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns.

On the issue of urban policy, Obama says he favors "commonsense measures" to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and children, and that he would bring back the expired "assault weapon" ban and make it permanent:

Obama, "Urban Policy": Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.

First off, "Sportsmen." The 2nd Amendment a'int about sports, period, The End. Secondly, there is no such bloody thing as the "gun-show loophole." It doesn't exist. It's a figment of Sarah Brady's imagination. What she's metamorphosing into a convenient and scary straw-man is the right of normal people to sell a firearm in a private sale, not for profit. It's like buying a used car. Thirdly, as it relates specifically to me, a renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban, especially in the form of HR1022 (which Obama supports) would put us clean out of business. We can't all sell Kreighoffs to John Kerry, you know.

The NRA bases this overheated claim on a vote Obama cast on March 24, 2004, in the Illinois state Senate. He was one of 20 who opposed SB 2165. That bill, which passed 38 - 20 and became law, did not make it a crime to use firearms for self-defense, however. Rather, it created a loophole for persons caught violating local gun registration laws.

It states that in any Illinois municipality where gun registration is required it shall be an "affirmative defense" if the person accused of violating the registration requirement can show that the weapon was used "in an act of self-defense or defense of another ... when on his or her land or in his or her abode or fixed place of business."

This is perhaps a mischaracterization; what they should have said was that Obama wanted it to remain a crime to use a firearm in self-defense. He didn't even want the possibility of an affirmative defense out there!

False: Obama is not proposing to ban hunting ammunition. And he did not, as claimed in an NRA TV spot featuring a Virginia hunter named Karl Rusch, vote to "ban virtually all deer hunting ammunition." What Obama voted for was a measure to ban "armor-piercing" ammunition, which the measure's sponsor has said repeatedly would not cover hunting ammunition.

This claim is based on Obama's vote on S. 397 in the U.S. Senate. Obama was one of 31 senators who voted in favor of S. Amdt. 1615 to S. 397 which sought to "expand the definition of armor piercing ammunition."
The amendment applied only to handgun ammunition "capable of penetrating body armor" and to rifle ammunition that is "designed or marketed as having armor piercing capability," however.

It's true that common high-powered rifle bullets are capable of penetrating the vests worn by police, which are a defense chiefly against lower-velocity handgun rounds. But does that mean hunting ammunition is "designed or marketed as having armor piercing capability"? Or that a rifle round that some handguns might accept would be banned? That's the NRA's argument, and it was repeated on the floor of the Senate by Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. He said flatly that the measure "would ban nearly all hunting rifle ammunition," without any elaboration. However, the measure's sponsor, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, said his amendment was not intended to cover hunting ammunition:

Sen. Kennedy (July 29, 2005): This is not about hunting. We know duck and geese and deer do not wear armor vests; police officers do.

Kennedy's measure failed by a vote of 64 - 31.

By the way, the NRA has used this ploy before. It ran ads in 2004 claiming Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry had voted "to ban deer-hunting ammunition" when he had actually voted on an earlier occasion for this same Kennedy amendment on armor-piercing rounds. Kennedy said then:

Sen. Kennedy (March 2, 2004): My amendment will not apply to ammunition that is now routinely used in hunting rifles or other centerfire rifles. To the contrary, it only covers ammunition that is designed or marketed as having armor-piercing capability.

Clarification, Sept. 29: We originally misstated the NRA’s argument. The group rests its case on the amendment’s language regarding handgun ammunition, not rifle ammunition. The NRA argument goes this way: The Kennedy amendment would have covered ammunition that “may” be used in a handgun and is “capable” of piercing police body armor. A few uncommon handguns can accept rifle rounds, such as the Weatherby Mark V CFP or the Thompson Contender.

These handguns are neither few nor uncommon. They exist in huge numbers and are chambered in everything from .218 Bee to .500 Nitro Express. While I'm unaware of a specific AP loading in .500NE, if past history is any guide, one will be invented. What most people outside the gun industry don't realise is that the BATF&E can unilaterally declare something "armor piercing" when it isn't, can unilaterally declare what had previously been a legal "sporting-purpose" weapon an illegal "non-sporting-purpose" weapon, and all this at the stroke of a pen. Give them an inch, they'll take five miles.

Granted, this one's a bit of a stretch. But I don't trust slimballs like Kennedy to keep their promises, and I don't trust poll-chasers like Obama to leave something alone if it'd be popular to muck around with it.

While a complete ban on handguns is not politically practicable, I believe reasonable restrictions on the sale and possession of handguns are necessary to protect the public safety. In the Illinois Senate last year, I supported a package of bills to limit individual Illinoisans to purchasing one handgun a month; require all promoters and sellers at firearms shows to carry a state license; allow civil liability for death or injuries caused by handguns; and require FOID applicants to apply in person. I would support similar efforts at the federal level, including retaining the Brady Law."

This restates Obama's alleged current position. Even this is insane, but one must consider that the original survey in question had Obama's signature. Either he's lying, or he signs things without looking at them, and I don't want Col. Henry Blake for a President, thanks. The proposals above are rediculous enough; civil liability alone would be a disaster. Sarah Brady, Mike Bloomberg, and their dispicable ilk would be more than happy (and have more than enough money) to sue ever gunmaker and importer in this country clean out of business. They've been trying for several years now, and a wide-open license like this would kill the industry. It's a backdoor gun-grab.

I don’t think that we can get that done. But what I do think we can do is to provide just some common-sense enforcement. One good example -- this is consistently blocked -- the efforts by law enforcement to obtain the information required to trace back guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers. That’s not something that the NRA has allowed to get through Congress. And, as president, I intend to make it happen.

See, here's the thing. It ALREADY HAPPENS. About 2-5 times a year, we get a call from the ATF Tracing Center in Atlanta, GA. They ask for information pertaining to a certain gun. We look it up in our records and call them back. This happens when a gun falls into the hands of Law Enforcement for some reason (we never know why) and some LEO someplace is trying to figure out where the gun went, or came from. Everything needed to trace guns already exists, more's the pity. What he's talking about, the Tiehart Amendment, is a law that prevents local LEOs from going on fishing expeditions in federal firearms records. The gun-grabbers want this revoked, thankfully they've so far been unsuccessful. I'd rather not have my shop used as a blackmail/gossip factory by our idiot Depputies, thanks.

True: In 2004, while running for the Democratic nomination for the Senate seat he now holds, Obama indeed called for "national legislation" to prevent anyone but law enforcers from carrying concealed firearms. The Chicago Tribune, which queried the candidates on several issues, reported:

Chicago Tribune (Feb. 20 2004): Obama ... backed federal legislation that would ban citizens from carrying weapons, except for law enforcement. He cited Texas as an example of a place where a law allowing people to carry weapons has "malfunctioned" because hundreds of people granted licenses had prior convictions.

"National legislation will prevent other states' flawed concealed-weapons laws from threatening the safety of Illinois residents," Obama said.

More recently, Obama was quoted by the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review in an article on April 2, 2008, saying "I am not in favor of concealed weapons. ... I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations."

Well, that says it all right there. I'm not going to debate the virtues of concealed carry here, though.

Partly true: The NRA refers here to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which was put in place during former President Bill Clinton's administration. Title XI of the legislation spoke directly to regulations on assault weapons. The law outlawed the semi-automatic versions of 19 kinds of military-style assault weapons, but it expired in 2004. The "assault weapon ban" was always a misnomer, however. Fully automatic weapons – like the military assault rifle carried on battlefields – had always been illegal to own without a very hard-to-obtain federal license, under legislation going back to the days of Al Capone. They remain so today.

Nevertheless, Obama called the ban a "common sense gun law" and favors bringing it back on a permanent basis. Obama's "Urban Policy" fact sheet says he "supports making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets."

The "renewal" of the AWB that he's referencing here is HR1022, the oft-mentiond and never-to-be-sufficiantly-damned horror mentioned above. It radically expands the AWBs scope to include a whole lot more Scary Black Guns (which are rarely used in crime), banning virtually every semi-auto of any description. Nice bit of wordplay, factcheck, but try checking your facts next time.

his claim is based on an article that appeared in the Chicago Defender on Dec. 13, 1999, when Obama was in the Illinois state Senate. According to the Defender, at an anti-gun rally, Obama "outlined his anti-gun plan," which, among other things, sought to "increase the federal taxes by 500 percent on the sale of firearm, ammunition [sic] -- weapons he says are most commonly used in firearm deaths." As a U.S. senator, however, Obama has not pushed for any such tax on ammunition.

We asked the Obama campaign about his position on an ammunition tax but have received no response.

Well, did he say it or didn't he? And isn't "no comment" universally understood to be PolSpeak for "Yes I did it, but I'm not gonna admit it"?

This claim also is based on the1999 Defender article. It reported Obama was pushing "all federally licensed gun dealers sell firearms in a storefront and not from their homes while banning their business from being within five miles of a school or a park." The NRA states that the 5-mile limit would have resulted in the closing of 90 percent of gun shops in the country. But as a U.S. senator Obama hasn't pushed for a 5-mile limit and isn't proposing one as part of his presidential campaign.

We asked the Obama campaign about his current position on imposing a five-mile limit on gun shops but have received no response.

See above.

Factcheck seems to be awfully short of facts, and not very inclined to check things either. And I can unequivocally state that if even half of this passed or became a nationwide trend, we would be out of business. So would 90% of the FFLs in this country.

[surferlove007]

What do I think?
I'm honestly so astonished that no one has mentioned this...I think if Obama is elected, within six months he will be assassinated. It's a horrible thing, but I honestly think that is a reality in the world today.

The Dow will drop tremendously. Small business owners, "Joe the Plumber" and others will be out of jobs. The economy will fail. My parents will lose much of what they have worked their entire lives for because they fit into the greater than $250,000.00/yr bracket.

I'm hoping that doesn't happen (Obama getting elected). That's just my prediction.
Glad I gave my vote to McCain and canceled out one of the Obama votes.

[Derwood]

Originally Posted by ghoastgirl1

My parents will lose much of what they have worked their entire lives for because they fit into the greater than $250,000.00/yr bracket.

How were your parents doing under Reagan? I ask because they were taxed more under Reagan than they will be under Obama's plan.

[Poppinjay]

If Obama is elected, within a year Newt Gingrich will release a book about the faile d Obama administration.

If the economy improves, Rush Limbaugh will claim that it is due to the policies enacted by W.

"Don't Blame Me, I voted For McCain" stickers will show up if any little thing goes wrong. A few snot ass kids will make "Don't Blame Me, I voted For Nader" stickers.

"Real Americans" will move to Canada. Sorry Canada! We still love your ale and dry.

Somebody, somewhere will write a manifesto about the n's and shoot up or bomb a government building because that's how retards handle losing.

[dc_dux]

Originally Posted by ghoastgirl1

....Small business owners, "Joe the Plumber" and others will be out of jobs. The economy will fail. My parents will lose much of what they have worked their entire lives for because they fit into the greater than $250,000.00/yr bracket.

I'm hoping that doesn't happen (Obama getting elected). That's just my prediction.
Glad I gave my vote to McCain and canceled out one of the Obama votes.

Your parents will do just as well as they did under Clinton? Did they lose much of what they worked for?

You bought the hype.

BTW, your vote only canceled out another vote in Texas, which willl have no impact on the election.

[surferlove007]

Mine is just a prediction. Wasn't this supposed to be guesses without some negative response from other posters? Clinton was a disaster anyway. I'm done with this thread...better get to class.

[roachboy]

clinton was a disaster in what respects?
please don't rehash conventional limbaugh "wisdom" on this--give specifics.

i was not a fan of clinton in many respects (but for reasons that i suspect have nothing whatever to do with yours), but i would not qualify his administration as a disaster in any non-mythological sense of the term, particularly not when you butt it up against either reagan or bush 2...

[dc_dux]

Originally Posted by ghoastgirl1

....Wasn't this supposed to be guesses without some negative response from other posters? Clinton was a disaster anyway. I'm done with this thread...better get to class.

Pointing out the facts is not a negative response.

[Derwood]

facts like the fact that "Joe the Plumber" is a) not a plumber, b) not a small business owner and c) doesn't make anything close to $250,000?

okay, I"ll stop now

[ottopilot]

Originally Posted by Derwood

facts like the fact that "Joe the Plumber" is a) not a plumber, b) not a small business owner and c) doesn't make anything close to $250,000?

okay, I"ll stop now

Not that it really has much to do with anything, but the vilification of this guy by the Obama campaign and the media is unreasonable.

a) Joe the plumber is a plumber who operates under his employers license. He is prepping for his master's rating which will allow him to own a plumbing business.
b) The hypothetical scenario that he posed was "if" he was to someday buy the business from his current employer.
c) He never stated that he earned $250,000, but that the business he spoke of someday owning (in his question to Obama) could generate revenues of $250,000 or more.

With Republican "shill" conspiracy accusations and wild speculation about someone asking some honest unscripted questions, it sounds more and more like this thread belongs in Tilted Paranoia.

[Derwood]

Originally Posted by ottopilot

Not that it really has much to do with anything, but the vilification of this guy by the Obama campaign and the media is unreasonable.

a) Joe the plumber is a plumber who operates under his employers license. He is prepping for his master's rating which will allow him to own a plumbing business.
b) The hypothetical scenario that he posed was "if" he was to someday buy the business from his current employer.
c) He never stated that he earned $250,000, but that the business he spoke of someday owning (in his question to Obama) could generate revenues of $250,000 or more.

With Republican "shill" conspiracy accusations and wild speculation about someone asking some honest unscripted questions, it sounds more and more like this thread belongs in Tilted Paranoia.

the point is that "Joe the Plumber" is now the poster boy for small business owner, and much of what the McCain speeches are saying about Obama's policies on small business are flat out lies. Fact Check has all the details, but anyone who thinks that an Obama administration is going to mean the death of every small business in the country is clearly not operating with facts. To that point, i think it's pretty hilarious that people think the GOP is on the side of the little guy...

[roachboy]

saying that the "joe the plumber" figure is a shill is not exactly a conspiracy---it's more a simple statement of fact.

it is strange that the republican have put perfectly reasonable folk in the position of having to live in counter-factuals as a way of maintaining support. if i were a conservative, that would piss me off to no end.

[Poppinjay]

Clinton was a disaster anyway.

Yeah, that whole greatest peacetime expansion of the economy was horrible.

[ratbastid]

Look, his first interaction with Obama was brilliant. I loved the guy, and I loved Obama's response.

Since then, it's the Republicans who have turned him into some sort of media monkey, and have taken four words completely out of context in a desperation hail-mary to save a dead campaign.

If you listen to EVERYTHING Obama said to Joe, the McCain/Palin distortions become very clear.
-----Added 29/10/2008 at 10 : 47 : 57-----

Originally Posted by Derwood

To that point, i think it's pretty hilarious that people think the GOP is on the side of the little guy...

Seriously. Who do they think they money would get spread TO??

[dc_dux]

Originally Posted by ottopilot

With Republican "shill" conspiracy accusations and wild speculation about someone asking some honest unscripted questions, it sounds more and more like this thread belongs in Tilted Paranoia.

otto....there is no conspiracy....McCain made him an issue....first by invoking his name a dozens times in the last debate and now bringing him into the campaign.

Joe the plumber is now an official shill, campaigning with McCain in Ohio yesterday, where he and McCain both agreed with a supporter that “a vote for Obama is a vote for the death to Israel.”

YouTube - McCain Stands By Joe Plumber's Fearmongering On Israel

YouTube - McCain Stands By Joe Plumber's Fearmongering On Israel

So Joe is now a foreign policy expert.

One can only wonder what brilliant pearl of wisdom he will offer today on the campaign trail with McCain in Florida.

Just another example of how completely clueless the McCain campaign is. Do they really believe that having Joe appear w/McCain or speak at campaign events will help attract swing voters?
-----Added 29/10/2008 at 12 : 12 : 33-----
Joe is now considering running for Congress in 2010

draftjoetheplumber

[*Nikki*]

I can tell you what Obama is doing for me. He is making me excited to vote for the first time in my life.

[YaWhateva]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

YouTube - McCain Stands By Joe Plumber's Fearmongering On Israel

Wow, even Fox News says this is getting frightening. That's really saying something. 'Joe' doesn't say anything and he completely dances around the subject even though Obama has made his stance perfectly clear time and time again. And even then, if Obama did have a talk with Ahmadinejad or anyone else, that can be construed as bringing the death of Israel? Seriously? God, these people scare the shit out of me and truly make me think there is no hope for America.

So Joe is now a foreign policy expert.

He even said, 'I probably know just enough to be dangerous'. He's damn right the shit he's saying is dangerous but not because he knows anything at all about foreign policy. The only thing that he seems to know about foreign policy is that there are people outside of the United States and sometimes we have relations with them 'foreigners'. Ugh.

[roachboy]

Obama: "By the end of the week, he’ll be accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in Kindergarten."

Pollster.com - 2008 Election Polls, Trends, Charts and Analysis


click on this:
11:54
Obama: "I’m sorry to see my opponent sink so low"

in the box on the right side of the page.

[surferlove007]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Pointing out the facts is not a negative response.

Might I point out the negative affects your words have on future voters of this country? Why would someone my age who is undecided about taking the time and effort to vote want to after hearing comments like "oh well you're vote doesn't matter since your state is Republican." What the hell man. That's essentially the exact argument telling people their vote won't count. Even if my vote doesn't change the way the state will go it is setting up an example to be a good citizen.

Wake up...

[Derwood]

Originally Posted by ghoastgirl1

What do I think?
I'm honestly so astonished that no one has mentioned this...I think if Obama is elected, within six months he will be assassinated. It's a horrible thing, but I honestly think that is a reality in the world today.

The Dow will drop tremendously. Small business owners, "Joe the Plumber" and others will be out of jobs. The economy will fail. My parents will lose much of what they have worked their entire lives for because they fit into the greater than $250,000.00/yr bracket.

I'm hoping that doesn't happen (Obama getting elected). That's just my prediction.
Glad I gave my vote to McCain and canceled out one of the Obama votes.

I don't know how much more than $250k your parents make (nor is it my business), but take a look at this chart and see what they'll pay: