Obama Timeline 2012-2016

DS1119

As a US citizen I have to and will stand behind my president when push comes to shove. I do reserve my right to criticize, make fun of, get angry at, etc. outside of this thread. I would like to see members post their thoughts here as his second term progresses and then look back in four years and see exactly how positive a choice he was tonight. I'm not looking for debates here. I'm not looking for arguments. I seriously would like to see people post their positive and negative "milestones" as time passes so in 4 years we can look back as PJ fans here.

I am a conservative Republican. However, I want nothing more than a successful term for the president. Everyone in this country only benefits from that. I would enjoy nothing more than in four years (if I'm not dead or banned) to say he was a good choice.

xavier mcdaniel

One thing I want to see is a respectful tone to the office of the presidency. That's been sorely lacking since the Clinton years and the main cause may be the internet and the different avenues people can express their feelings.

Cliffy6745

I would be very happy to argue that Obama's first four years were a lot more successful than most will like to admit and I think historically, they will be judged well.

I don't have this argument in me tonight but I do think the republican party is in big trouble. The economy is on the right track, way too slow, but on the right track. I argued that a vote for Romney promised 8 years of Romney because of that. Conversely, I think that the Republicans are in real trouble as a party after tonight. Growing minorities and huge support among young voters due to social issues makes for real issues to the GOP, real trouble. To say otherwise is ignorant. The inevitable economic bounce, to me, will largely make for a very difficult 4 years for republicans.

I'll be back in the next day or so to argue about Obama

brianlux

I'll be supportive of anything the President does to help move things in a positive direction but I can also guarantee I will be critical of the President if he does not take a strong stance on improving environmental conditions and addressing climate change/global warming.

vant0037

You know I enjoy your posts (at least your non-political ones) DS, but this really feels like a long-range bait. Like someone may say something on here that you can conveniently search to hold against them years from now. I mean, think about it. If (a) things go well in the next 4 years, what will it matter if someone says something that proves you wrong 4 years after the fact? If (b), things go poorly and someone posted some support or hope for his 2nd term now, are you really going to care? If the world goes to shit in the next 4 years (holy fuck I just remembered the Mayan calendar thing is in like 5 weeks), I'm sure none of us will care about what was or wasn't said in 2012. We'll probably be arming ourselves and driving in scrapyard dune buggies in salt-flat wastelands...or something equally terrible and fucking awesome.

I applaud your long-term strategic planning (almost CEO-like actually ), but I'm slightly dubious as to your intentions.

Anyway...not all the races are over in Minnesota. Work will come very early tomorro-err, today. Work will come early today. Shit it's late. Or early. Fuck I'm tired.

DS1119

I liked Obama's speech. He's a very strong and powerful public speaker.

SPEEDY MCCREADY

DS1119 wrote:

I liked Obama's speech. He's a very strong and powerful public speaker.

No doubt...
The man can give a speech...

4 more years?
Ok, Im in....

Lets hope it goes well for Mr. Obama and our nation.

Cliffy6745

DS1119 wrote:

I liked Obama's speech. He's a very strong and powerful public speaker.

4 years may be a fluke, 8 years isn't. Give the man a chance.

brianlux

I was very happy to hear him mention global warming amongst many other important issues. Question is, will dead locks bog things down?

My hope is for healing in this divided and ailing country and world. People of highly differing opinions can work together and play together. We know that right here. Let's be an example that way.

pandora

This is a great idea for a thread and perhaps some may be eating humble pie before it's over
but they will never admit it

From what I have seen the blues are blue hearted with blue glasses
as can be said about the reds ...

so there should be some dandy arguments that get no where
just like those who run our country.

Can we say real change in 2016?

Newch91

One thing I'll be very happy about is the troops coming home from Afghanistan in 2014. No more idiotic wars.

I'd like to see climate change addressed and take action on it.

Marriage equality.

Legalize marijuana.

Gun control. Ban assault weapons.

But most of all: compromise between the parties. Boehner: man up and tell House Republicans you are the leader of the house and don't let Cantor make you his puppet.

Jason P

Now that Obama has won, maybe he will tell us what his agenda is for the next four years.

:think:

polaris_x

i would say that his next four years will be plagued by the fundamental problems that sinks the US - partisanship and ignorance ... no matter what he does - there will be a significantly large portion of the population who will disapprove of everything he does, made easier by an opposition that is more than willing to tell falsehoods and lies with the aid of a inept media to keep people under the same ruse ... some would argue that it is obama (as leader) to blame for not being able to reach across party lines ... i would say the move by the GOP to the hard right and their insistence on playing partisanship games prevented that ... as a strategist - perhaps, it makes sense ... you derail the presidency at the expense of the people and you create a situation that basically ensures you win the next election ... except for the fact you nominate a very weak candidate who really all he had to do was shut up and say a whole lot of nothing to win ... but as elected representatives supposedly working for the interests of americans - they sold out horribly ...

ultimately elections in 2014 will dictate the legacy of obama ... if they can gain control of the house - there might be an opportunity to do good things and hopefully by then people will be able to objectively determine the merit of a presidency or for that matter any elected official ...

whoever said the senate and house majority leaders need to go ... is spot on ... boehner and reid need to be replaced with people who actually care for america ...

Newch91

Here's an interesting take on what his second term will start to look like.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezr ... of-change/

Obama’s second term: Change you can really believe in
Posted by Ezra Klein on November 6, 2012 at 11:22 pm

Typically, presidential elections are about, well, hope and change. The candidates make lots of promises about all the policies they’ll change, then they hope that they can get those promises through Congress. Usually, they fail.

President Obama’s reelection, ironically, isn’t about hope and change. The hope is largely gone, but the changes are already happening.

The Affordable Care Act — the single most significant bill of Obama’s first term — is law. It’s law that mostly won’t go into effect until 2014, but it’s law nevertheless. Mitt Romney’s key campaign promise was that, on day one, he’d begin working to pass a new law that would repeal it. But Obama doesn’t have to do anything to make health reform happen. He doesn’t need 60 votes in the Senate. He doesn’t need 218 votes in the House. It’s already happening. Obama’s reelection is all that was required to for the United States of America to join every other industrialized country in having a universal — or at least very near-to-universal — health-care system.

The Dodd-Frank financial reforms are law. Again, Mitt Romney’s promise was to pass a new law that would repeal it. If Obama is reelected, however, he doesn’t need to ask Congress to work with him on Wall Street reform. They already did. Rather, the new regulations will continue to be hammered out and implemented. Wall Street will simply need to learn to live with them.

Tax increases are law. The Bush tax cuts are expiring at the end of the year, as is the AMT patch, as is the payroll tax cut, as are a host of smaller business tax cuts and stimulus tax cuts. Mitt Romney’s promise was that he’d pass a law making sure taxes didn’t go up (though he left open the possibility of permitting the stimulus cuts to expire). Obama’s promise is that he won’t sign a law that extends all the tax cuts. And if he holds to that promise, then taxes are going up, either through a negotiated compromise or simply letting current law take effect.

On their own, passing and implementing any of these laws would be a huge achievement for a presidency. The three of them together are a record and pace of domestic change unmatched by any recent administration. But they were an odd sort of change: Change that wouldn’t happen until — and arguably unless — Obama secured a second term. Tonight, he did that.

They say that presidents campaign in poetry and govern in prose. That’s rarely been truer for a president than it was for Obama, whose inspiring oratory launched him to the White House and whose grind-it-out, insider-game approach to working with Congress disappointed his fans. But it worked. That prose became law — but, unusually, it became law that wouldn’t fully take effect until his second term. So while in 2008, his election was a vote for hope, in 2012, his reelection carries a guarantee of change.

RFTC

Nice post man,

can we document on this thread the # of times PJ plays the south over the next 4 years? my current guess is zero. although i am seeing EV on Monday in Houston,

JonnyPistachio

I kinda agree with Vant here, but anyways, it cant hurt to be optimistic, so here goes:
I think he'll get the economy going a bit. Unemployment will go down slightly.
I'm most worried about the deficit. Can this be turned around? I have no clue.

The environment and clean energy will be big in the next decade, so Obama will have to work hard on this.

This was a tough election because although I'd absolutely never vote for him, I really would love to have seen the product of the economy after four years of Romney...I dont think much would have changed.

polaris_x

JonnyPistachio wrote:

The environment and clean energy will be big in the next decade, so Obama will have to work hard on this.

i hope i am wrong but i don't see this being a factor at all ... it was barely mentioned in the debates and lead up to the election .. plus, if anything goes against big oil ... we can expect them to fund the appropriate people to make sure obama fails on that front ... just like what big-agri and the chemical companies did in california for prop 37

JonnyPistachio

polaris_x wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

The environment and clean energy will be big in the next decade, so Obama will have to work hard on this.

i hope i am wrong but i don't see this being a factor at all ... it was barely mentioned in the debates and lead up to the election .. plus, if anything goes against big oil ... we can expect them to fund the appropriate people to make sure obama fails on that front ... just like what big-agri and the chemical companies did in california for prop 37

I was kinda surprised they werent mentioned in the debates, but I think Obama has some good policies that are "in the works" as you can see here: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... ts/energy/

I guess these points might not have been debate points because these things wouldnt persuade voters? People have their stance already maybe?

I guess I shouldnt have said they will be "big"...rather, I think they're important, and I think Obama will do a much better job in this dept than Romney would have.

polaris_x

JonnyPistachio wrote:

I was kinda surprised they werent mentioned in the debates, but I think Obama has some good policies that are "in the works" as you can see here: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... ts/energy/

I guess these points might not have been debate points because these things wouldnt persuade voters? People have their stance already maybe?

I guess I shouldnt have said they will be "big"...rather, I think they're important, and I think Obama will do a much better job in this dept than Romney would have.

for sure obama would have been better than romney ... i actually think in a less partisan country - obama would have done well on this portfolio as he brought in a lot of experts to help shape that agenda ... it's just unfortunate how much power big oil has and their lobbyists ...

take keystone for example ... it's widely expected that it'll get approved at some point ... and that's just the power of the lobby ...

brianlux

polaris_x wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

The environment and clean energy will be big in the next decade, so Obama will have to work hard on this.

i hope i am wrong but i don't see this being a factor at all ... it was barely mentioned in the debates and lead up to the election .. plus, if anything goes against big oil ... we can expect them to fund the appropriate people to make sure obama fails on that front ... just like what big-agri and the chemical companies did in california for prop 37

I hope you're wrong and today is not one in which I will be negative so I'll just say I hope it doesn't take a few more Sandy's to wake people up. I for one will work harder on environmental issues in the coming years because all though I have no scratch babies, I do have several "kids" in my extended family for whom I would like to see live in a world that is inhabitable.

JonnyPistachio

polaris_x wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

I was kinda surprised they werent mentioned in the debates, but I think Obama has some good policies that are "in the works" as you can see here: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... ts/energy/

I guess these points might not have been debate points because these things wouldnt persuade voters? People have their stance already maybe?

I guess I shouldnt have said they will be "big"...rather, I think they're important, and I think Obama will do a much better job in this dept than Romney would have.

for sure obama would have been better than romney ... i actually think in a less partisan country - obama would have done well on this portfolio as he brought in a lot of experts to help shape that agenda ... it's just unfortunate how much power big oil has and their lobbyists ...

take keystone for example ... it's widely expected that it'll get approved at some point ... and that's just the power of the lobby ...

Very true.
Someday, I assume there's going to have to be a transition out of that though. (I know, thats a scary and almost impossible idea right now, but it will happen...25 years? 50 maybe? who knows)