What if Barack Obama becomes President?

[justlukeyou]

Hi,

I live the UK so I'm not fully fimiliar with American culture and politics. My question is what will the affect of Barack Obama being voted as President?

[Splinemodel]

Wrong forum, chief.

To answer your question, very little will change. Obama is more a "fresh face" than anything else.

[SpamSandwich]

Thus far, Barack Obama has the support of people who tend to blindly follow attractive candidates. Once he can truly articulate a position on issues, people will lose interest. As for Ron Paul, he's been consistent throughout his career, and everyone should know exactly where he stands!

[hardeeharhar]

Spammy that's just bullshit.

[SpamSandwich]

Spammy that's just bullshit.

Alright, since I had not heard Obama's views in any detail, I decided to go to Obama's site to find one of his positions and compare this issue with Ron Paul's position. Thus, "War and Foreign Policy"/"Protecting Our Homeland":

Ron Paul's position:
War and Foreign Policy
The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. This war has cost more than 3,000 American lives, thousands of seriously wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars. We must have new leadership in the White House to ensure this never happens again.

Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America. And now, there are new calls for a draft of our young men and women.

We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution.

Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations.

Too often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised. Too often we have supported those who turn on us, like the Kosovars who aid Islamic terrorists, or the Afghan jihads themselves, and their friend Osama bin Laden. We armed and trained them, and now we’re paying the price.

At the same time, we must not isolate ourselves. The generosity of the American people has been felt around the globe. Many have thanked God for it, in many languages. Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.


...and now, Barack Obama:
Five years after 9/11, our country is still unprepared for a terrorist attack. From improving security for our transit systems and chemical plants, to increasing cargo screening in our airports and seaports, the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission have been underfunded and ignored. The 9/11 Commission gave the government five F's and 12 D's on the implementation of its recommendations. Senator Obama is a member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and has supported efforts to base homeland security spending on risk rather than pork-barrel politics. He has also introduced legislation to strengthen chemical plant and drinking water security and to enhance disaster preparedness.

Protecting Our Chemical Plants

Chemical plants are attractive terrorist targets because they are often located near cities, are relatively easy to attack, and contain multi-ton quantities of hazardous chemicals. While a number of plants have taken voluntary steps to improve security, there are still major gaps; and the federal government has never established meaningful, permanent security regulations. Senator Obama worked with Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) to introduce comprehensive chemical plant security legislation that would establish a clear set of federal regulations that all plants must follow. The bill requires chemical facilities to enhance security, including improving barriers, containment, mitigation, and safety training, and, where possible, using safer technology, such as less toxic chemicals.

"Incredibly, security remains voluntary at (chemical) plants, despite strong warnings from the 9/11 commission that a strike at just one of the nation's major plants could release chemicals capable of killing one million people or more, according to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. He and Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., have introduced legislation that would require plant owners to beef up security. The question is why President Bush hasn't been pushing for tougher measures all along."

-The (Albany) Times Union, September 6, 2006

Keeping Track of Spent Nuclear Fuel

The nation has 103 operating nuclear power plants which annually produce over 2,000 metric tons of spent fuel that remains highly radioactive for many years. A report by the Government Accountability Office found inadequate tracking and security for spent nuclear fuel rods. Nuclear plants in Connecticut, Vermont and California have reported missing spent fuel in the last five years. Senator Obama introduced legislation to establish guidelines for tracking, controlling, and accounting for spent fuel at nuclear power plants.

Evacuating Special Needs Population in Emergencies

One of the most devastating aspects of Hurricane Katrina is that most of the stranded victims were society's most vulnerable members - low-income families, the elderly, the homeless, and disabled Americans. Too many states and cities do not have adequate plans in place to care for special-needs populations. Senator Obama introduced and passed legislation to require mandatory planning for evacuating people with special needs.

Reuniting Families After Emergencies

After Hurricane Katrina, thousands of people struggled to contact family and friends following evacuation. Evacuees were forced to comb through dozens of databases in an effort to reconnect with loved ones. Senator Obama introduced and passed legislation to create a centralized, federal database to allow individuals displaced by an emergency to call one phone number or go to one website and post their location and condition. Family members and law enforcement officials would be able to use this same secure, centralized system to check the status of missing loved ones.

Keeping Our Drinking Water Safe

There are almost 170,000 public water systems in the United States. An attack on a drinking water system could contaminate or disrupt water service, thereby disrupting society, impacting human health and compromising critical activities such as fire protection. Senator Obama introduced legislation to provide $37.5 million over 5 years for drinking water systems to upgrade their monitoring and security efforts.

Protecting the Public from Radioactive Releases

Following reports that nuclear power plants in Illinois did not promptly notify local communities that tritium -- a byproduct of nuclear generation -- had leaked into the groundwater, Senator Obama introduced legislation to require nuclear plants to inform state and local officials if there is an unintentional leak of a radioactive substance. Chronic exposure to high levels of tritium can increase the risk of cancer, birth defects and genetic damage.

Y'know, I get a lot of promises and band-aids in the form of hugely expanded government programs in Obama's stance, but it seems like Paul gets the root of the problem and wants to change things in a more fundamental way, and more importantly, he wants to REDUCE governmental interference at home and overseas.

[Royboy]

.......... but it seems like Paul gets the root of the problem and wants to change things in a more fundamental way, and more importantly, he wants to REDUCE governmental interference at home and overseas.

Isn't this the same promise our current President made?

[BenRoethig]

Hopefully it will be the beginning of the end to euro-style partisan politics. We need more rational people like FDR and JFK, not out of touch zealots.

[hardeeharhar]

i'm really sorry, but Paul's campaign reads like it came from some naive simpleton. You can't have open trade with other nations without the expense of aiding them in time of war. This is a simple historical fact that tears down the entirety of the paragraphs quoted by Spammy.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Hopefully it will be the beginning of the end to euro-style partisan politics. We need more rational people like FDR and JFK, not out of touch zealots.

Yeah. It might mean an end to proportional representation in American elections.

No more coalitions between the Greens and the Social Democrats, stuff like that. And let's hope that never again will a conservative President appoint a socialist as head of the foreign office in his cabinet, like just happened in evil zealous partisan France!

Enough of this euro-style partisan zealotry!

[SpamSandwich]

i'm really sorry, but Paul's campaign reads like it came from some naive simpleton. You can't have open trade with other nations without the expense of aiding them in time of war. This is a simple historical fact that tears down the entirety of the paragraphs quoted by Spammy.

Historical fact? There's a big difference between "aiding" friendly nations willing to partake in free trade and invading an unfriendly nation that poses no immediate threat.

[hardeeharhar]

This administration has a particularly skewed view of its role in shaping other nations....

[giant]

Thus far, Barack Obama has the support of people who tend to blindly follow attractive candidates. Once he can truly articulate a position on issues...since I had not heard Obama's views in any detail
So even though Obama has been the center of a lot of media attention and has given a long series of speeches that have been widely circulated and discussed, you a) "had not heard Obama's views in any detail" (you didn't even both to look) and b) formed a disparaging opinion anyway.

Talk about blindly following candidates...

[SpamSandwich]

So even though Obama has been the center of a lot of media attention and has given a long series of speeches that have been widely circulated and discussed, you a) "had not heard Obama's views in any detail" (you didn't even both to look) and b) formed a disparaging opinion anyway.

Talk about blindly following candidates...

What do most people know about candidates? Whatever is commonly reported. Barack may be 'widely circulated and discussed' in the circles in which you travel, but not everyone is right there with you.

[giant]

What do most people know about candidates?
We aren't talking about "most people," we are talking about you and the fact that you've formed a disparaging opinion about a major candidate and his supporters even though you admit to knowing virtually nothing about him.

You've done a tremendous job in demonstrating, step by step and in detail, how you form opinions without any knowledge of the subjects of those opinions. In addition, you've also very explicitly demonstrated how, when you finally bother to do at least an extremely minimal amount of research, you actively aim to fit the new information into your preconceived opinion.

Your first two posts in this thread are the absolute antithesis of critical thinking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking). And, please, for you own good, at least read the wikipedia article so you have some familiarity with the process.

[trumptman]

Barack will not become president. He is the Paul Tsongas, Bill Bradley, Howard Dean of this election. The Democrats briefly flirt with a candidate like this each cycle and then pick another candidate who they deem to be more "electable." The mainstream media usually does the hit job for them.

I'd actually believe Obama could do it myself except for Clinton running. I've never seen more bare-knuckled campaigning in my life as when the Clintons are running for office. They are to be both feared and awed at the same time.

I assure you that if the Republicans cannot get a decent candidate together soon, Hillary will be our next president.

Nick

[SpamSandwich]

We aren't talking about "most people," we are talking about you and the fact that you've formed a disparaging opinion about a major candidate and his supporters even though you admit to knowing virtually nothing about him.

You've done a tremendous job in demonstrating, step by step and in detail, how you form opinions without any knowledge of the subjects of those opinions. In addition, you've also very explicitly demonstrated how, when you finally bother to do at least an extremely minimal amount of research, you actively aim to fit the new information into your preconceived opinion.

Your first two posts in this thread are the absolute antithesis of critical thinking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking). And, please, for you own good, at least read the wikipedia article so you have some familiarity with the process.

Giant, is it safe to say you support Barack Obama?

[tomkarl]

Giant, is it safe to say you support Barack Obama?

The way I read Giant's post, you missed his point completely.

[trumptman]

You don't have to read giant's posts. They all make the same point. The person whom he disagrees with is uninformed, and thus is not entitled to a viewpoint, opinion, reply/post, whatever.

Nick

[Ireland]

This administration has a particularly skewed view of its role in shaping other nations....
It shouldn't really have a view on that at all.

[Gilsch]

It shouldn't really have a view on that at all.

Whoa whoa there! We're America damnit. :p

[giant]

Giant, is it safe to say you support Barack Obama?
No. It's safe to say that I don't support any of the candidates, and honestly have more important things to focus on these days, but I agree with big chunks of what Ron Paul has said and think Obama's speeches are a head above the rest of the political landscape, so I prefer those two over the other current candidates, although I have the impression that I'll like Richardson the more I learn about him. Even though I really like Ron Paul I would never vote for him, though, since I won't support excessive astroturfing or dogmatic extremism.

I considered saying as much, but I thought I'd wait and see if you'd make that lame assumption, and you didn't disappoint. That Obama was the subject of your statements demonstrating the antithesis of critical thinking is irrelevant.

[sammi jo]

Barack will not become president. He is the Paul Tsongas, Bill Bradley, Howard Dean of this election. The Democrats briefly flirt with a candidate like this each cycle and then pick another candidate who they deem to be more "electable." The mainstream media usually does the hit job for them.

I'd actually believe Obama could do it myself except for Clinton running. I've never seen more bare-knuckled campaigning in my life as when the Clintons are running for office. They are to be both feared and awed at the same time.

I assure you that if the Republicans cannot get a decent candidate together soon, Hillary will be our next president.

Nick

The GOP have ganged up, together with the mainstream media, against the best candidate they have: Ron Paul. The way things are going, I'd vote for him over Obama or Clinton.

[tonton]

Are you insane?

He's the most right-wing of the bunch on pretty much every issue that matters.

No, not every issue, Shawn.

At least he'd get us out of Iraq... but that would likely be forced to happen anyway.

[SpamSandwich]

No. It's safe to say that I don't support any of the candidates, and honestly have more important things to focus on these days, but I agree with big chunks of what Ron Paul has said and think Obama's speeches are a head above the rest of the political landscape, so I prefer those two over the other current candidates, although I have the impression that I'll like Richardson the more I learn about him. Even though I really like Ron Paul I would never vote for him, though, since I won't support excessive astroturfing or dogmatic extremism.

I considered saying as much, but I thought I'd wait and see if you'd make that lame assumption, and you didn't disappoint. That Obama was the subject of your statements demonstrating the antithesis of critical thinking is irrelevant.

Whoa, calm down! Who did you vote for last election? Since I don't personally know you anyway, are you a registered member of any political party or organization?

[thuh Freak]

Any of the serious Democratic candidates would get us out of Iraq-- and without the extremely right-wing baggage of a Ron Paul administration.

What in particular do you not like about RP?

[SpamSandwich]

He wants to abolish *all* welfare, *all* income taxes, and virtually *anything* that he considers "interfering" with the market, votes against nearly *all* federal spending (and the valuable programs such spending funds), wants to eliminate nearly *all* cabinet departments (no EPA? are you joking?), he's strongly pro-life, etc.

This guy is way out there.

Political positions of Ron Paul. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul)

Heh, heh. "Way out there"... Are the Constitution and Bill of Rights "way out there"?

Is getting government out of making every decision for Americans "way out there"?

Is giving more freedom of choice to Americans "way out there"?

Also, Paul is against funding abortion at the federal level. It's a matter for each state to decide.

[Fellowship]

=ShawnJ

This guy is way out there.


:lol: LOL

Shawn you are way left.

The country is to the right of you.

Fellows

[thuh Freak]

Heh, heh. "Way out there"... Are the Constitution and Bill of Rights "way out there"?

Is getting government out of making every decision for Americans "way out there"?

Is giving more freedom of choice to Americans "way out there"?

Also, Paul is against funding abortion at the federal level. It's a matter for each state to decide.

I have to agree with Shawn. RP is very far out there. Yes his ideas are in line with a strict reading of the constitution, and many are reasonable in theory, but he is very far from the current norm.

[SpamSandwich]

I have to agree with Shawn. RP is very far out there. Yes his ideas are in line with a strict reading of the constitution, and many are reasonable in theory, but he is very far from the current norm.

If the current norm is a bed-ridden cancer victim, and implementing reforms would be a radical treatment designed to save said patient, then I agree with you.

[tonton]

If the current norm is a bed-ridden cancer victim, and implementing reforms would be a radical treatment designed to save said patient, then I agree with you.

The current norm is a bed ridden cancer victim. But what Paul is proposing is akin to killing the patient to kill the cancer. Shawn brought up a good point. Would you want a USA without the EPA? Would you want a USA without the FDA?

[SpamSandwich]

No, not every issue, Shawn.

At least he'd get us out of Iraq... but that would likely be forced to happen anyway.

Although, Mitt wants to 'double Guantanamo'. :lol:

[SpamSandwich]

The current norm is a bed ridden cancer victim. But what Paul is proposing is akin to killing the patient to kill the cancer. Shawn brought up a good point. Would you want a USA without the EPA? Would you want a USA without the FDA?

So be it. Despite the initial shock, there is nothing that can be done by government that cannot be done more effectively by private enterprise or non-profit organizations, other than steal your money!

[mydo]

Honestly Obama is mainstream democrat. His politics are interchangeable with most other democrats. I'd rather Obama go and be governor of Illinois before he runs for president. He just has a better chance of winning the White House that way. Right now he's running for VP.

[SpamSandwich]

Honestly Obama is mainstream democrat. His politics are interchangeable with most other democrats. I'd rather Obama go and be governor of Illinois before he runs for president. He just has a better chance of winning the White House that way. Right now he's running for VP.

I agree. He may yet end up on the ticket... but who would make the most 'qualified' (in your opinion) Prez and VP ticket for the Democrats.

[giant]

Whoa, calm down! Who did you vote for last election? Since I don't personally know you anyway, are you a registered member of any political party or organization?
Lame.

[giant]

His politics are interchangeable with most other democrats.
Have you listened to or read his speeches? His campaign is by far the most sophisticated in the race and he's the first public figure in years to consistently invoke Christian rhetoric without being a total jackass about it.

[SpamSandwich]

Have you listened to or read his speeches? His campaign is by far the most sophisticated in the race and he's the first public figure in years to consistently invoke Christian rhetoric without being a total jackass about it.

I knew it, he's totally in love with Barack "Boom Boom" Obama. :lol: :lol: :lol: (hopefully, you have a sense of humor about your own opinions)

[giant]

I knew it, he's totally in love with Barack "Boom Boom" Obama.
Wow. How old are you?

[SpamSandwich]

Wow. How old are you?

I just knew you were going to respond like that. Once again, you've proven to be a 'giant' in just one area. No further comment.

[giant]

I just knew you were going to respond like that. Once again, you've proven to be a 'giant' in just one area. No further comment.
I don't have kids and I'm not a teacher, so I'm not accustomed to talking to people your age. Until that post I wrongly assumed you were an adult, and I apologize for talking to you like one.

[SpamSandwich]

I don't have kids and I'm not a teacher, so I'm not accustomed to talking to people your age. Until that post I wrongly assumed you were an adult, and I apologize for talking to you like one.

:rolleyes: