Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[drogulus]

I can't tell you how many people have told me they wish they could take back their vote for him.

     Romney would have put considerable pressure on the Kongressional Klowns to permit him to succeed. Imagine for a moment trying that "Mormon Socialist" crap on him. Having run against his own health care plan he'd have trouble pivoting back to the "new, improved" version, but he would. Enough Klowns would shit their diapers and vote yes, and Dem support would put him over the top.

     I'm not up to date on Romney and foreign policy. My guess is it would depend.....would it be too much of a stretch to see him as a Scowcroftian realist? That would better suit me than the "luv the Joos, kill 'em later" Klown Kaucus.

[Karl Henning]

I can't tell you how many people have told me they wish they could take back their vote for him.

But of course, that is sniping rather than a solution, isn't it?  Do they really wish they had voted instead for M^cCain/Palin?  Seriously, anybody:  are you okay with "Vice President Palin"?  (And I fully allow that Biden is not the dream VP.)

And I've said before:  in 1Q12, Obama was as weak an incumbent as any opposition party might dream of.  The race was Romney's to lose, and he rolled up his sleeves to the task.  If that's how he manages a campaign, how would he manage a country?

If Hilary wins next November, the GOP will have only themselves to blame, meseems.

[Florestan]

It is true that Obama is the US president who more than any has governed in a manner most pleasing to European sensibilities. 

However, his most recent approval ratings in the US hover around 46-47% - which accounts for far wider disapproval among the general electorate than just the Tea Party folks.  His policies, while pleasing to Europeans, have weakened the US's effectiveness and led to several foreign policy failures, not to say creating more division and unrest domestically than by any president in recent memory. 

I can't tell you how many people have told me they wish they could take back their vote for him.

I am European but please count me out. I dislike Obama today just as much as I disliked him when he was crowned King of the USA sworn in as President. Can´t comment on his domestic policies, but in the foreign affairs he´s too soft for my tastes. I like it hardcore: The Gipper was the best hands down, followed by George Bush sr, although the latter was kind of an appeasement guy himself. 

[Todd]

His policies, while pleasing to Europeans, have weakened the US's effectiveness and led to several foreign policy failures

Aside from the bungled response to Syria, and the bungled policy in Libya, and the lawless air campaign still underway, and the continued use of potentially extra-legal murder by drone, I see a reasonably successful realist foreign policy. 

Obama is letting Ukraine burn while doing just slightly more than nothing in terms of direct aid and action, and he is trying to realign regional power structures in the Middle East by dealing with Iran - which I see as a policy aimed largely at eroding Russian influence in the region.  (One can also view relations with Cuba in a similar way.)

I'm not up to date on Romney and foreign policy.

Romney made the outrageously silly statement during the campaign that Russia was the greatest geopolitical threat to the US, to which Obama retorted that the 80s called and wanted its foreign policy back.  Romney courted some advisors of Bush I, but since he lost, any contemplations of what he might have done are as useful as soggy cornflakes.

If Hilary wins next November, the GOP will have only themselves to blame, meseems.

I'm not quite of that viewpoint, but given recent electoral trends, a moderately robust economy (and if Al Gore proved anything, it is that Democrats can't turn a booming economy into a slam dunk victory), and fear mongering as it pertains to those pesky foreigners, the Republicans have got a far better chance than last time around. 

I like it hardcore: The Gipper was the best hands down, followed by George Bush sr, although the latter was kind of an appeasement guy himself.

Reagan had it right for the Soviet Union, but Bush I followed just the right type of cold hearted realism this country should be pursuing now and into the future. 

I think it is safe to say that, at least rhetorically, the next President, whoever he or she may be, will be more hawkish than Obama.

[San Antone]

But of course, that is sniping rather than a solution, isn't it?  Do they really wish they had voted instead for M^cCain/Palin?  Seriously, anybody:  are you okay with "Vice President Palin"?  (And I fully allow that Biden is not the dream VP.)

And I've said before:  in 1Q12, Obama was as weak an incumbent as any opposition party might dream of.  The race was Romney's to lose, and he rolled up his sleeves to the task.  If that's how he manages a campaign, how would he manage a country?

If Hilary wins next November, the GOP will have only themselves to blame, meseems.

It was the second vote they regret most.  But I can't see how we could be worse off had Obama never been elected.  I am glad to see that you don't give Hillary strong odds.  I look forward to her candidacy and think it is the best path for a Republican president.

There is some speculation (not from me, mind you, I agree he blew it) that Romney, in fact, did not exactly lose the election considering the fraud in Chicago and other Democratic strongholds.

But, bottom-line: I don't see much difference between the two parties.  Both represent business as usual.

[Karl Henning]

Generally, I think his foreign policy has been a failure since our allies are uncertain of us and our enemies are testing us.

Alas, I think you're right.

It was the second vote they regret most.  But I can't see how we could be worse off had Obama never been elected.  I am glad to see that you don't give Hillary strong odds.  I look forward to her candidacy and think it is the best path for a Republican president.

But, bottom-line: I don't see much difference between the two parties.  Both represent business as usual.

Alas, I think you're right, again.

[Jubal Slate]

Both represent business as usual.

Dipshits. 

[Karl Henning]

Dipshits. 

Accurate analysis 

[Todd]

I think the Iran "deal" is a huge problem, the first thing that happened was Russia offering Iran anti-aircraft defenses - hardly a diminishing role for them.  Encouraging an Iran hegemony in the region will lead to more unrest and probable conflict.  Generally, I think his foreign policy has been a failure since our allies are uncertain of us and our enemies are testing us.

Well, things don't change over night.  What else would Russia do?  Surely you don't expect Putin to think that a US-Iran deal is good for Russia and sit back and do nothing?  I don't trust Iran, but I also don't trust Saudi Arabia.  Better to have two big players in the region as quasi-allies, or at least less directly antagonistic to the US, to allow for more US maneuvering.  More options are good.

[San Antone]

Somehow, paying Iran to sign the deal does not make the US look strong.  Saying that Obama is converting Iran into an ally is like saying that paying protection money to the mob is finding an investor for your business.

[Todd]

Somehow, paying Iran to sign the deal does not make the US look strong.  Saying that Obama is converting Iran into an ally is like saying that paying protection money to the mob is finding an investor for your business.

Iran will never be an ally in the sense that the UK is an ally, but a less overtly adversarial Iran, over time, can have benefits that outweigh continuing policies in place now.  Also, I think your mobster metaphor is wrong.  Better to think of Iran as one mob family being paid to fight another mob family.

[drogulus]

     The world isn't very bipolar now, so I expect intervention/isolation each will continue to rack up failure after failure. Who to save, who to kill....no rationale can cover the cases. I can only be a lukewarm warmonger, but look at how the Syria/Iraq/Iran/ISIS turmoil makes and breaks ad hoc alliances. If you think a one size fits all ideology can guide you you're probably a hopeless idealist IOW a fukin' retaahd. Make me a martini!

[Pat B]

Generally, I think his foreign policy has been a failure since our allies are uncertain of us and our enemies are testing us.

That's not exactly a new development under Obama, is it? There a number of things I wish he had done differently, but in an era where the foreign policy baseline is "did you construct false pretenses to start an unnecessary war with unclear goals and delusional expectations?" it's hard for me to rate his foreign policy as a failure.

[Ken B]

If Hilary wins next November, the GOP will have only themselves to blame, meseems.

I agree. It will take effort, but I fear they are up to it.

[Florestan]

Generally, I think his foreign policy has been a failure since our allies are uncertain of us and our enemies are testing us.

True. US has no allies more trustful and sincere in Eastern Europe than Poland and Romania --- yet should Russia move against one of them, can they be absolutely sure that the 5th article of the NATO Treatise will be activated?

[Todd]

True. US has no allies more trustful and sincere in Eastern Europe than Poland and Romania --- yet should Russia move against one of them, can they be absolutely sure that the 5th article of the NATO Treatise will be activated?

It will at least be debated.

[Florestan]

It will at least be debated.

Of that I am sure. I just pray to God that it never becomes a serious issue.

[Ken B]

Of that I am sure. I just pray to God that it never becomes a serious issue.

It is always a serious issue, and it is ALWAYS the most important issue for me in choosing a president.

Here's my gut reaction. America will probably defend France if she's attacked. She might defend South Korea, maybe. But America will go to the wall for Poland.

[Florestan]

It is always a serious issue, and it is ALWAYS the most important issue for me in choosing a president.

Here's my gut reaction. America will probably defend France if she's attacked. She might defend South Korea, maybe. But America will go to the wall for Poland.

Will she? Or are you just being ironic?

[Ken B]

Will she? Or are you just being ironic?

I believe America would defend Poland to the hilt. I don't believe that about all countries in the world. I don't believe it about Greece for instance.