Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Except, to argue that there IS such ties after the vast digging that everyone's done... if there was even a hint of such things it would have brought out, instead of being used as non-specific smears for months on end.

{shrug} I've already gotten beyond that point I guess. At this point, I'm just so impressed by the magnificent job his handlers have done staying behind the curtain that I'm not confident we'll ever know who all of them are for sure. Do I believe there are Muslim extremists in their number? Yeah. But I'm not the least bit convinced they could have been this stealthy if they were the sum total of the group.

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

{shrug} I've already gotten beyond that point I guess. At this point, I'm so impressed by the magnificent job his handlers have done staying behind the curtain that I'm not even sure we'll ever know who they are for sure. Do I believe there are Muslim extremists in their number? Yeah. But I'm not the least bit convinced they could have been this stealthy if they were the sum total of the group.

Wow. Now that's a conspiracy theory.

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by molson

If you believe Bush personally ordered the murder of thousands (i.e., not as a result of a misguided war, but actually ordered the WTC buildings to be destroyed), that's pretty personal. That's not a policy difference.

Unless you believe that AND had relatives that died in the buildings/crashes, it still isn't personal. Bush isn't a personal threat to one's well being. When crazies like white supremacists go to kill, or plot with a true intent to kill, it is usually because of some delusion that the target is a direct personal threat to their well being. The worst white supremacy meetings I have seen taped are usually geared towards that kind of personal fear. (" 'They' will steal your jobs, your women, your money, your heritage, your nation, ect ect.")

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Agreed. I noticed that as well. The margin should be around a 3 point nod to the Democrats to provide best results.

Why would that produce the best results?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

{shrug} I've already gotten beyond that point I guess. At this point, I'm just so impressed by the magnificent job his handlers have done staying behind the curtain that I'm not confident we'll ever know who all of them are for sure. Do I believe there are Muslim extremists in their number? Yeah. But I'm not the least bit convinced they could have been this stealthy if they were the sum total of the group.

wow.

[lordscarlet]

So, basically, Jon thinks Obama signals the downfall of society largely because he doesn't believe his stances on the issues, not because he thinks his stances are poor. It seems like most of his reasons for disagreeing with Obama are "I don't believe this..." (and a few "I don't believe this is a good idea", such as foreign policy)

[QuikSand]

Well, back to the actual election for a moment... it seems to me that today/tomorrow represent a serious last chance for a salvage-the-campaign issue for McCain and company, if they see their chances the way I do (bleak).

With the talk about an emerging plan for the FDIC (or someone) to go out and guaranteed millions of bad mortgages as a stabilization plan and/or "main street bailout," there are bound to be a pretty fair number of people, like me, who are likely to have an axe to grind. I'm aware that we are in crisis, and that the standard line for a political candidate is just to pander here, but truth be told -- I'm really pretty incensed at the notion that my neighbor who has half the income but twice the house that I do because he made a risky/stupid buying decision a few years ago is going to get a massive "protection" while I, as someone who acted prudently and bought within my means is going to pay for it.

As a politician whose strong suit has long been "straight talk," this is the sort of interventionist stuff that Senator McCain really scores points with, when he derides it as inappropriate. One of the things that I used to really like about McCain was his ability and willingness to stake out a fairly tough position because he thought the principle was correct. That was, to be candid, the John McCain that got me really interested back in New Hampshire in 2000 (and saddened in South Carolina a week or two later).

Alas, I think the latest version of Senator McCain has turned too populist and pandering to get to that position in any easy way. And, truth be told, it's a longshot anyway.

But I can't be alone in saying I'd gain a ton of respect for anyone who stands up and says that there's something inherently unfair about that sort of proposal... even if it is the latest thing being propped up as "necessary to stave off an economic collapse" or whatever the argument of the day is. Maybe that politician will be our lame duck President, and if so, I'll tip my cap for the first time in a fair while.

McCain needs a Hail Mary. Maybe it's coming out and suggesting that reckless borrowers, irresponsible lenders and out-of-control financiers should all just bend over and take what's coming to them, and the rest of us will pull through whatever we have to until the dust settles.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

Unless you believe that AND had relatives that died in the buildings/crashes, it still isn't personal. Bush isn't a personal threat to one's well being. When crazies like white supremacists go to kill, or plot with a true intent to kill, it is usually because of some delusion that the target is a direct personal threat to their well being. The worst white supremacy meetings I have seen taped are usually geared towards that kind of personal fear. (" 'They' will steal your jobs, your women, your money, your heritage, your nation, ect ect.")

This is slightly OT but important; If you live(d) in Somalia or Iraq, Bush was DEFINITELY a personal threat to your well-being. If you live in Pakistan now, Obama is DEFINITELY a threat to your well-being.

[digamma]

Don't know if this qualifies as a hail mary, but I haven't seen anyone comment on what I thought was an utterly bizarre McCain ad last night.

"Barak Obama. Not ready.....Yet."

Is that ad conceding the ideas battle to Obama? Seems to go against everything McCain has said since the third debate. And it points to what has been the biggest liability of the McCain campaign--the inability to find and stick with a message that resonates with the voting masses.

As an aside, it strikes me you can have a lot of fun with that tag line...

"This election isn't over....Yet."
"John McCain, not dead....Yet."
etc.

[SirFozzie]

Really too early to confirm, but it looks like the Dole "Godless" ad, either had no effect, or hurt their cause, the latest polls in NC put her opponent (Kay Hagen) up six points.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

{shrug} I've already gotten beyond that point I guess. At this point, I'm just so impressed by the magnificent job his handlers have done staying behind the curtain that I'm not confident we'll ever know who all of them are for sure. Do I believe there are Muslim extremists in their number? Yeah. But I'm not the least bit convinced they could have been this stealthy if they were the sum total of the group.

If this post doesn't show how out of touch with reality you are, nothing ever will. Basically, the man is not white, and his middle name is Hussein. He must be in league with the terrorists!

[Butter]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Really too early to confirm, but it looks like the Dole "Godless" ad, either had no effect, or hurt their cause, the latest polls in NC put her opponent (Kay Hagen) up six points.

Seriously doubt the ad was out before the polling was done. Maybe I'm wrong, though.

[albionmoonlight]

Q--

One of the problems with McCain's ADD campaign messaging is that it will be hard for anyone to see a position shift (even one with the possible resonance of the FDIC thing you mention) as anything but more flailing.

Had he stayed on one message--even a bad one--it would have made a last minute move seem bold. Now, it would just seem kind of sad.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Kodos

If this post doesn't show how out of touch with reality you are, nothing ever will. Basically, the man is not white, and his middle name is Hussein. He must be in league with the terrorists!

He's an empty suit who proposes little more than redistributing the wealth from the people who earn it to those that haven't, and who appears to have little more on his mind than appeasing the lowest common denominators both at home & abroad. I wouldn't trust him to run a hot knife through warm butter much less a country ... but believe me, it not because he's multi-racial, bi-racial, extraterrestrial, polka dotted or is missing the third toe on his left foot. He's just another useful idiot, whether his name is Sheik Hussein Obama or BillyJoe RayBob Johnson.

[rowech]

I love when people don't like Obama that it must be because we're racist. Wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that he's going to destroy any incentive to make something of yourself in this country because those who do very well will be penalized and those who don't will be helped along.

[Noop]

I can not believe you think the man is a terrorist or has terrorist ties. You voted for Bush(I am assuming correct?) knowing that his family has done business with the Saudis who btw were responsible for 9/11. (Saudi nationals to be exact.)

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by rowech

Wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that he's going to destroy any incentive to make something of yourself in this country because those who do very well will be penalized and those who don't will be helped along.

You have to be kidding me. Did people stop trying to make money when Clinton was president?

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

So, basically, Jon thinks Obama signals the downfall of society largely because he doesn't believe his stances on the issues, not because he thinks his stances are poor. It seems like most of his reasons for disagreeing with Obama are "I don't believe this..." (and a few "I don't believe this is a good idea", such as foreign policy)

I think what Jon is trying to say (as I feel the same way) is that Obama is saying he is going to be a centrist when his voting record is far left. When the public is not willing to look at a candidate's record and only listens to what comes out of their mouth, it is a dangerous precedent to set. Mainly because the public is showing that it doesn't matter what you do, but what you say, etc., etc.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Big Fo

You have to be kidding me. Did people stop trying to make money when Clinton was president?

Sure they did. Don't you remember how horrible the economy was under Clinton? People stopped trying to make money, stopped hiring workers, and sat around and waited for the welfare checks to roll in. And the capital gains tax was so high that no one invested in the stock market. The Dow was always dropping. Oh, and the budget deficit was HUGE by the end of his presidency.

Wait, did you say Clinton or Bush?

[Noop]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Sure they did. Don't you remember how horrible the economy was under Clinton? People stopped trying to make money, stopped hiring workers, and sat around and waited for the welfare checks to roll in. And the capital gains tax was so high that no one invested in the stock market. The Dow was always dropping. Oh, and the budget deficit was HUGE by the end of his presidency.

Wait, did you say Clinton or Bush?

I heart you.... *pause* no homo.

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by rowech

I love when people don't like Obama that it must be because we're racist. Wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that he's going to destroy any incentive to make something of yourself in this country because those who do very well will be penalized and those who don't will be helped along.

Don't make too much sense or you might upset some people.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

When the public is not willing to look at a candidate's record and only listens to what comes out of their mouth, it is a dangerous precedent to set. Mainly because the public is showing that it doesn't matter what you do, but what you say, etc., etc.

Yep, look how that turned out for Ronald "The Great Communicator" Reagan.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

Don't make too much sense or you might upset some people.

Didn't you just accuse the Liberals of circle jerking?

[Buccaneer]

There's a lot of stuff being said to get elected (or more specifically, to get the turn out needed to get elected). There is also a lot of mechanisms behind the scenes to tabulate favors, which will come due after inaguration. There has not been a single exception to this in any presidency in my lifetime and Obama/McCain will be no different. Those favors will result in appointments, legislations, expenditures and executive orders. With Obama, you may have a "good feeling" about him but what about the people behind the scenes? Bush had to have a Cheney to wield any influence, whom will Obama rely upon? There are many that simply want the opposition out of power and that is the prime motivation despite the words to hide that. Will that be enough to sustain through four years?

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

Don't make too much sense or you might upset some people.

How could he make too much sense.. he's not making any at all!

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by rowech

Wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that he's going to destroy any incentive to make something of yourself in this country because those who do very well will be penalized and those who don't will be helped along.

This is the funniest thing I've read since the whole craziness about Microsoft's anti-trust suit causing the dot-com crash. I love this board!

"Hey Mark, how's that million dollar idea of yours coming along?"
"I fuckin' dropped it man. Have you seen the tax rate those millionaires pay? Fuck that shit."
"Good point man. Hey, hold the mayo on that burger, will ya?"

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

There's a lot of stuff being said to get elected (or more specifically, to get the turn out needed to get elected). There is also a lot of mechanisms behind the scenes to tabulate favors, which will come due after inaguration. There has not been a single exception to this in any presidency in my lifetime and Obama/McCain will be no different. Those favors will result in appointments, legislations, expenditures and executive orders. With Obama, you may have a "good feeling" about him but what about the people behind the scenes? Bush had to have a Cheney to wield any influence, whom will Obama rely upon? There are many that simply want the opposition out of power and that is the prime motivation despite the words to hide that. Will that be enough to sustain through four years?

Do you know? I have more hope behind who Obama will put in place than McCain. When it comes down to it, it is not about his personality, or his charisma to me (though having to listen to McCain trying to make speeches for the next four years makes me want to blow my brains out), it is about my world view and which candidate most closely conforms to it. Obama is much, much, much closer than McCain.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

Don't make too much sense or you might upset some people.

Start making sense, and we'll all be shocked.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

When the public is not willing to look at a candidate's record and only listens to what comes out of their mouth, it is a dangerous precedent to set. Mainly because the public is showing that it doesn't matter what you do, but what you say, etc., etc.

Is this your first election?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

There's a lot of stuff being said to get elected (or more specifically, to get the turn out needed to get elected). There is also a lot of mechanisms behind the scenes to tabulate favors, which will come due after inaguration. There has not been a single exception to this in any presidency in my lifetime and Obama/McCain will be no different. Those favors will result in appointments, legislations, expenditures and executive orders. With Obama, you may have a "good feeling" about him but what about the people behind the scenes? Bush had to have a Cheney to wield any influence, whom will Obama rely upon? There are many that simply want the opposition out of power and that is the prime motivation despite the words to hide that. Will that be enough to sustain through four years?

I don't have a problem with the honeymoon stage of any Presidency. People will celebrate the end of the Bush-era. People will celebrate the first black President. His initial popularity rating will be in the 60's or 70's I'd imagine. Will it sustaine for 4 years? I doubt it, but I think Obama will be an 8-year President.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

There's a lot of stuff being said to get elected (or more specifically, to get the turn out needed to get elected). There is also a lot of mechanisms behind the scenes to tabulate favors, which will come due after inaguration. There has not been a single exception to this in any presidency in my lifetime and Obama/McCain will be no different. Those favors will result in appointments, legislations, expenditures and executive orders. With Obama, you may have a "good feeling" about him but what about the people behind the scenes? Bush had to have a Cheney to wield any influence, whom will Obama rely upon? There are many that simply want the opposition out of power and that is the prime motivation despite the words to hide that. Will that be enough to sustain through four years?

This is a very good point to bring up, who the winning candidate is going to surround themselves with after the election.

As you mentioned, political favors get called in by the people who helped get the winner elected. W had to pay off outstanding favors from both his campaign and his father's administration. Clinton had a ton to repay as well from his runs for the governorship and his presidential campaign. McCain no doubt has many calls coming his way if he wins, due to almost 30 years of Congressional and Senate campaigns, plus his presidential runs from 2000 and this year.

Obama will also have some favors that will be called in, but he will have comparatively fewer than the person he is running against, as well as the past few presidents. If he wins, he will have a lot more freedom to put people into posts on merit, not to repay a political favor. Whether or not he does is one thing, but the opportunity should exist.

[rowech]

Why would I, if I was rich, stay in this country? Why would I keep my money here? Why would I keep my business here? I wouldn't. I'd take it, find somewhere else, and go with it. Where, I have no clue because I'm not rich enough to have ever researched it.

I am absolutely frightened on a nightly basis how much closer we are to watching socialism take over this country. It's been a process that started in the 30s but then it was a need. Unfortunately, once they opened Pandora's box, nobody had the guts to be the one to put all the programs away and now we are starting, and will end up, crashing out of the world picture because of it.

What's sadder is the fact that it didn't have to be this way but unfortunately it will be because the US has become a nation of individuals who panic when things don't always go well and don't understand that sometimes you have to go back to go forward.

Understand, this is not a defense of the current administration but is generally a condemnation of just about all of them since Truman really.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by rowech

I am absolutely frightened on a nightly basis how much closer we are to watching socialism take over this country.

How much of the production and output of industries in this country are slated to be taken over and controlled by the government? People seem to have lost the meaning of the word socialism, and just equate it with higher taxes.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by rowech

Why would I, if I was rich, stay in this country? Why would I keep my money here? Why would I keep my business here? I wouldn't. I'd take it, find somewhere else, and go with it. Where, I have no clue because I'm not rich enough to have ever researched it.

Try. Research away. Find a country with the same level of living where you can make the same kind of money as you can here. Find one that is not even more socialist, that doesn't have even higher taxes and even more people on the dole. Good luck. We'll be right here waiting.

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by rowech

Some folks on this board need to read Atlas Shrugged.

Read whatever you want, it doesn't make your earlier statement any less ridiculous.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by cartman

How much of the production and output of industries in this country are slated to be taken over and controlled by the government? People seem to have lost the meaning of the word socialism, and just equate it with higher taxes.

To quote a great doctor: Don't make too much sense or you might upset some people.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Do you know? I have more hope behind who Obama will put in place than McCain. When it comes down to it, it is not about his personality, or his charisma to me (though having to listen to McCain trying to make speeches for the next four years makes me want to blow my brains out), it is about my world view and which candidate most closely conforms to it. Obama is much, much, much closer than McCain.

And that is where we differ. Neither candidate conforms to my "world view". In fact, I believe that we will see pretty much the same kind of things we saw in the past. That's the part that really bugs me - people thinking that something brand new will take place in Washington DC. That is only true for those that do not know anything prior to 2000. The Carter presidency (along with a Dem Congress led by Tip O'Neill) happened during my late HS and college years (the age some of you are at right now). I also know, as all of us do, what it was like during a Bush2 presidency with a Rep congress. The Democrat platform is not revolutionary - it is very similar to all of the Democratic candidates since Carter in 1980. It can't be because there is a lot of history, precedent and constituents behind that. It will simply be a shift from a definite Rep politics to a Dem one - which has happened before. An Obama administration will have a lot of familiar faces - people that know how Washington works. It will be a cultural shift but in a long-term view, it won't be anything new (just "new" compared to what we've had the past 8 years). Now if we had a charismatic third-party candidate favored to win this election...

[rowech]

Originally Posted by cartman

How much of the production and output of industries in this country are slated to be taken over and controlled by the government? People seem to have lost the meaning of the word socialism, and just equate it with higher taxes.

Medicine's not going to be socialized under him?

Banks are already becoming socialized. Will this not continue under him?

Ready for the next one? Auto industry will be socialized within 10 years. Mark it down.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Try. Research away. Find a country with the same level of living where you can make the same kind of money as you can here. Find one that is not even more socialist, that doesn't have even higher taxes and even more people on the dole. Good luck. We'll be right here waiting.

I'm pretty sure if I'm rich, I can live however I want, wherever I want. (within reason)

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by cartman

Obama will also have some favors that will be called in, but he will have comparatively fewer than the person he is running against, as well as the past few presidents. If he wins, he will have a lot more freedom to put people into posts on merit, not to repay a political favor. Whether or not he does is one thing, but the opportunity should exist.

I disagree to some extent, cartman. There may be less individual connections but I am thinking more of institutions and special interest groups that have funded a good part of the campaign and are taking active steps to turn out the votes.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by rowech

Why would I, if I was rich, stay in this country? Why would I keep my money here? Why would I keep my business here? I wouldn't. I'd take it, find somewhere else, and go with it. Where, I have no clue because I'm not rich enough to have ever researched it.

I am absolutely frightened on a nightly basis how much closer we are to watching socialism take over this country. It's been a process that started in the 30s but then it was a need. Unfortunately, once they opened Pandora's box, nobody had the guts to be the one to put all the programs away and now we are starting, and will end up, crashing out of the world picture because of it.

What's sadder is the fact that it didn't have to be this way but unfortunately it will be because the US has become a nation of individuals who panic when things don't always go well and don't understand that sometimes you have to go back to go forward.

Understand, this is not a defense of the current administration but is generally a condemnation of just about all of them since Truman really.

You really don't know what you're talking about. In almost any way you want to measure Truman was to the left of Obama on economics.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by rowech

Some folks on this board need to read Atlas Shrugged.

And some people need to recognize that Ayn Rand had not even a rudimentary understanding of economics. I liked Atlas Shrugged. Even my name on this board is derived from the book. I also enjoyed reading a variety of Rand's fiction and non-fiction works. However, to believe, like Rand did, that all income tax decreases any incentive to produce is as ridiculous as believing Adam Dunn would get 30 to 50 extra hits a season if he would just choke up on the bat when faced with two strikes. Oh, never mind.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by rowech

Medicine's not going to be socialized under him?

I believe medical insurance is going to be socialized. If we can scrap Medicare/Medicade/SCHIP/TRICARE and replace it with a global health care plan, that would be infinitely preferable to the way things are now. Instead of just doing it, like every other industrialized western nation, we half ass it with the four programs I listed above.

Banks are already becoming socialized. Will this not continue under him?

There is a difference between making a less than controlling investment and the state taking control. I do not see the US taking over JPMorganChase, Citibank, Well Fargo or any other core bank.

Ready for the next one? Auto industry will be socialized within 10 years. Mark it down.

It wasn't socialism when Chrysler got bailed out in '80. Any plan to help the automakers is going to follow closely that same blueprint.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by cartman

I believe medical insurance is going to be socialized. If we can scrap Medicare/Medicade/SCHIP/TRICARE and replace it with a global health care plan, that would be infinitely preferable to the way things are now. Instead of just doing it, like every other industrialized western nation, we half ass it with the four programs I listed above.

Health insurance companies are just asking to be socialized.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Health insurance companies are just asking to be socialized.

I meant to say that the government is going to get into the Health Insurance business. Since the state would control this insurance agency, that would be considered socialized.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by rowech

I'm pretty sure if I'm rich, I can live however I want, wherever I want. (within reason)

And where is that? Fantasy Island? Because what you describe you want doesn't exist. So, unless you are talking "buy your own country" rich, you are much better off in the US by your own definition of what you want.

I remember the belly-aching of the Clinton years. How he was going to raise taxes and ruin the economy. Is that what happened? The world is not going to end, we are not going to become the new USSR, etc. etc.

Geeze. I think I'm grown enough that if my candidate was losing, I wouldn't begin the "it's the end of the world" thing. I wasn't happy when Clinton got elected either time (and I'll happily admit I was wrong), and I was happy when Bush 1 and Bush 2 got elected the first time (which I'll sadly admit I was wrong).

[Buccaneer]

Dawg, which is why I will advocate that the majority party in Congress changes in the 2010 election (assuming an Obama executive).

[rowech]

Originally Posted by John Galt

And some people need to recognize that Ayn Rand had not even a rudimentary understanding of economics. I liked Atlas Shrugged. Even my name on this board is derived from the book. I also enjoyed reading a variety of Rand's fiction and non-fiction works. However, to believe, like Rand did, that all income tax decreases any incentive to produce is as ridiculous as believing Adam Dunn would get 30 to 50 extra hits a season if he would just choke up on the bat when faced with two strikes. Oh, never mind.

Obviously, there have to be taxes......what the government believes should be taxes and what should be the taxes is quite different.

Diamondbacks with Dunn 22-22

Reds without Dunn 22-22

He's a real difference maker.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

And that is where we differ. Neither candidate conforms to my "world view". In fact, I believe that we will see pretty much the same kind of things we saw in the past. That's the part that really bugs me - people thinking that something brand new will take place in Washington DC. That is only true for those that do not know anything prior to 2000. The Carter presidency (along with a Dem Congress led by Tip O'Neill) happened during my late HS and college years (the age some of you are at right now). I also know, as all of us do, what it was like during a Bush2 presidency with a Rep congress. The Democrat platform is not revolutionary - it is very similar to all of the Democratic candidates since Carter in 1980. It can't be because there is a lot of history, precedent and constituents behind that. It will simply be a shift from a definite Rep politics to a Dem one - which has happened before. An Obama administration will have a lot of familiar faces - people that know how Washington works. It will be a cultural shift but in a long-term view, it won't be anything new (just "new" compared to what we've had the past 8 years). Now if we had a charismatic third-party candidate favored to win this election...

I'm not one of those people. I can tell you what is going to happen, and it will be history repeating itself. The first two years, Obama is going to push through the most extreme parts of his plan. People (after initially loving him during the homey-moon/Camelot reborn phase), will begin turning on him, and his popularity will drop. After those two years, he'll moderate and begin to move some of the most popular parts of his plans (which will probably have changed since when he was elected). He'll quite possibly be dealing with one side of Congress being controlled by the opposing party by then (probably the house. If not in control, at least holding many more seats), and most things will end up being stagnant/grid-locked (which is right up your alley).

Now, the question will be if he is able to regain popularity and show true leadership in those final two years enough to be relected. It will also depend on who is running against him (Palin would assure his relection). Also, will he win, yet lose more of congress.

But what is not going to happen? He'll not turn the national religion to Muslim, sell nukes to Osama, or make us a communist state.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by cartman

I meant to say that the government is going to get into the Health Insurance business. Since the state would control this insurance agency, that would be considered socialized.

How exactly would that work?