Will Obama Be a One Term President?

[Coito ergo sum]

1. are you saying that the US is freer than Syria and Iran? A nicer place to live? Better economic system? Better political system? yes? no? They're about the same?

2. Is there one country in the world against which you will credit the US as doing anything better? Anything good or beneficial, that is...

3. I've never once heard you defend the US on any point. I've never head you suggest it was right on anything.

You are, of course, able to make judgments in favor of other countries. You have said Cuba has a better medical system, for example. So, why can't you say whether there is anything the US does better than Cuba?

These aren't nonsense questions. Maybe your answer is no on all counts - there is nothing that that US does, nothing about the US, that is better than Cuba, North Korea, Syria or Iran. That does appear to be your view, since you refuse to say otherwise.

1. Define "free", define "nicer", define "better".
2. US football is better than canadian football.
3. Not sure if you have been right on anything, although I certainly haven't read all eight thousand or so posts of yours.

Are there any other areas where you find it impossible to answer a simple question without evasion? I've not seen you duck questions by asking for the definition of common, monosyllabic English words...just this topic...this topic you find it impossible to communicate about using the English language....

But I'll bite:

Free: (n) enjoying personal rights or liberty, as in a land of free people. "Freer" of course is the comparative of free. A country that is freer has a greater degree of personal rights or liberty.

Nice: pleasing; agreeable; delightful - nicer being the comparative of nice.

Better: of superior quality or excellence.

Regarding point 3 - I wasn't talking about me being right, personally. I've never once heard you defend the US on any point. I've never heard you suggest it was right on anything. You can tell me if there is anything on which you will defend the US or anything done by it that you think was right.

[sandinista]

1. are you saying that the US is freer than Syria and Iran? A nicer place to live? Better economic system? Better political system? yes? no? They're about the same?

2. Is there one country in the world against which you will credit the US as doing anything better? Anything good or beneficial, that is...

3. I've never once heard you defend the US on any point. I've never head you suggest it was right on anything.

You are, of course, able to make judgments in favor of other countries. You have said Cuba has a better medical system, for example. So, why can't you say whether there is anything the US does better than Cuba?

These aren't nonsense questions. Maybe your answer is no on all counts - there is nothing that that US does, nothing about the US, that is better than Cuba, North Korea, Syria or Iran. That does appear to be your view, since you refuse to say otherwise.

1. Define "free", define "nicer", define "better".
2. US football is better than canadian football.
3. Not sure if you have been right on anything, although I certainly haven't read all eight thousand or so posts of yours.

Are there any other areas where you find it impossible to answer a simple question without evasion? I've not seen you duck questions by asking for the definition of common, monosyllabic English words...just this topic...this topic you find it impossible to communicate about using the English language....

But I'll bite:

Free: (n) enjoying personal rights or liberty, as in a land of free people. "Freer" of course is the comparative of free. A country that is freer has a greater degree of personal rights or liberty.

Nice: pleasing; agreeable; delightful - nicer being the comparative of nice.

Better: of superior quality or excellence.

Regarding point 3 - I wasn't talking about me being right, personally. I've never once heard you defend the US on any point. I've never heard you suggest it was right on anything. You can tell me if there is anything on which you will defend the US or anything done by it that you think was right.

It's not a simple question, "free" or "freedom" is not a simple word as you seem to think. Personal rights? Such as, the right to housing? education? Food? Clothing? The freedom to do with ones body as one wishes (such as doing drugs, sexual practices, abortion etc)? Who are we talking about, freedom for who? Are some more "free" than others?

Nice? In what sense? Beaches? landscapes? The "niceness" of a country is not really qualitative is it?

Better? In what sense? Better for whom?

[Coito ergo sum]

1. are you saying that the US is freer than Syria and Iran? A nicer place to live? Better economic system? Better political system? yes? no? They're about the same?

2. Is there one country in the world against which you will credit the US as doing anything better? Anything good or beneficial, that is...

3. I've never once heard you defend the US on any point. I've never head you suggest it was right on anything.

You are, of course, able to make judgments in favor of other countries. You have said Cuba has a better medical system, for example. So, why can't you say whether there is anything the US does better than Cuba?

These aren't nonsense questions. Maybe your answer is no on all counts - there is nothing that that US does, nothing about the US, that is better than Cuba, North Korea, Syria or Iran. That does appear to be your view, since you refuse to say otherwise.

1. Define "free", define "nicer", define "better".
2. US football is better than canadian football.
3. Not sure if you have been right on anything, although I certainly haven't read all eight thousand or so posts of yours.

Are there any other areas where you find it impossible to answer a simple question without evasion? I've not seen you duck questions by asking for the definition of common, monosyllabic English words...just this topic...this topic you find it impossible to communicate about using the English language....

But I'll bite:

Free: (n) enjoying personal rights or liberty, as in a land of free people. "Freer" of course is the comparative of free. A country that is freer has a greater degree of personal rights or liberty.

Nice: pleasing; agreeable; delightful - nicer being the comparative of nice.

Better: of superior quality or excellence.

Regarding point 3 - I wasn't talking about me being right, personally. I've never once heard you defend the US on any point. I've never heard you suggest it was right on anything. You can tell me if there is anything on which you will defend the US or anything done by it that you think was right.

It's not a simple question, "free" or "freedom" is not a simple word as you seem to think.

I don't think it's simple. But, you use it all the time when criticizing the US. Why can't you use it in the same sense when answering my question?

Personal rights? Such as, the right to housing? education? Food? Clothing?

It's up to you. The part of my question using the word "free" was "1. are you saying that the US is freer than Syria and Iran?" If you think Syria and Iran are freer than the US, then your answer to the question is "no." If you think the US is "freer" than Syria and Iran, what with their massive oppression of women, Jews, homosexuals, non-Muslims - such that only about 60% of the population are oppressed without even basic rights such as "freedom of religion," then that's your call. If you think that on balance, they enjoy the same comparative level of freedom, then that's up to you too.

I can't put the words in your mouth. If you think Iran and Syria are freer because they enjoy more personal rights like a right to housing, education, food and clothing that Americans don't enjoy (as if we don't have a right to housing, education, food and clothing...) - then that's up to you. Say it, though. Stop evading. Own your beliefs.

The freedom to do with ones body as one wishes (such as doing drugs, sexual practices, abortion etc)? Who are we talking about, freedom for who? Are some more "free" than others?

You'll need to answer that. If the question "are you saying that the US is freer than Syria and Iran?" - is "no" because the US doesn't have legal drugs, state funded abortions or free sexual practices for bestiality-philes, well then that's your criteria. That's what I'm asking you for - what you think.

Nice? In what sense? Beaches? landscapes? The "niceness" of a country is not really qualitative is it?

"A nicer place to live?" - if it's a nicer place to live because of the beaches and landscapes in Iran, and that outweighs the political prisoners, lack of democracy, oppression of homosexuals, lack of abortion rights, oppression of women, gunning down of protesters in the streets and a theocracy run by orthodox Ayatollahs that deny even basic religious freedom, then that may be your answer. To me, Iran is not a nicer place to live because of the oppression and the lack of religious freedom, the lack of free speech, the lack of criminal defendant's rights, and all sorts of other things - even though they may have great hiking and nice beaches - I'm inclined to think the US is a tad nicer overall. Your answer may be different. Is it?

Better? In what sense? Better for whom?

Again - I gave you the sense - "Better economic system? Better political system?" For whom? The people overall - by and large - en masse - generally speaking.

Feel free to carve out exceptions - like if you think Iran is better for women, economically and politically, than the US, then that may be your position. If it's better for gays there, economically and politically - carve them out too.

For me, I can say - "the US economic system is better overall than Iran's, and the American political system, what with its limited constitutional federal government, separation of powers, and general respect for the human rights of its citizens, far outweigh's any advantages of the Iranian system of theocratic tyranny." You, of course, may adopt a different position. But, that's why I'm asking for your opinion. Feel free to verbalize it in any words you care to use and with any qualifiers you need to make your answer clear.

[sandinista]

coito:

I don't think it's simple. But, you use it (the term "freedom") all the time when criticizing the US. Why can't you use it in the same sense when answering my question?

No, actually I do not.

are you saying that the US is freer than Syria and Iran?

I have barely ever even spoken about Syria or Iran, I have also never been to either place.

"are you saying that the US is freer than Syria and Iran?"

Again, I rarely ever even mention Syria or Iran so I'm not sure what you're even trying to get at.

I'm inclined to think the US is a tad nicer overall.

I have never been to Iran or Syria so not sure if it is "nicer" than anywhere else.

"Better economic system? Better political system?" For whom? The people overall - by and large - en masse - generally speaking.

Depends on who you are and what you believe.

For me, I can say - "the US economic system is better overall than Iran's, and the American political system

Good for you. Again, you seem to be speaking to me like I am some bug fan of Iran. Really, when it comes down to it Iran has problems and so does the US. That is what you have a hard time with, the old..."if you don't like america you must LOVE Iran" for some reason, ridiculous.

[Svartalf]

It depends on how whacko the Republicans are in two years.

Short of a huckabee/Palin ticket, or something of the order of religious cultist/teabagger, and I'm not even sure those would be enough, I don't know what in the world could save Obama from taking a fall next election... he's being railed at for not making miracles, and I'm afraid nothing short of a miracle can secure his reelection.

[Ian]

It depends on how whacko the Republicans are in two years.

Short of a huckabee/Palin ticket, or something of the order of religious cultist/teabagger, and I'm not even sure those would be enough, I don't know what in the world could save Obama from taking a fall next election... he's being railed at for not making miracles, and I'm afraid nothing short of a miracle can secure his reelection.

I think the only way he'll lose is if the economy goes back into a nosedive. Otherwise, he's got it made. Two months after the predictable midterm backlash, and he's actually improved to a 53% approval rating before he's even had to fight with a GOP-controlled House. He's positioned himself towards the political center, and has gained much support from Independents. And the Republicans are thoroughly infected by the Tea Party. Seriously, we could be looking at an electoral landslide for Obama in 2012. David Axelrod may very well be dancing a jig behind closed doors. See my earlier post about the comparisons to 1972.

Another big factor: his potential opponents all suck. The biggest General Election threat is probably from Romney, but on a level playing field he's got way too much going against him. Again, if the economy heads back into the abyss, then Obama could be done. But if trends keep going more or less the way they have been, he'll win re-election in a walk.

[Ian]

That said, Obama has done more to bring social progress to this country than perhaps any other president in history except maybe Lincoln, a republican (where have all these good repubs gone?). Health care, gay rights, installing 2 liberal supreme court justices, saving the economy, etc,.

Let me put it bluntly: Obama good; right wing bad.

The Republicans used to be the progressive party. In his time, Lincoln was despised by conservatives. And Teddy Roosevelt (following the assassinated McKinley before him) inaugurated the Progressive Era (the closest the US ever got to true laissez-faire capitalism was in the 1890s, prior to McKinley/Roosevelt taking office; we've have a hybrid capitalist/socialist economy ever since). The parties did something of a switcheroo around the 1920s, and the Democrats became the progressive ones. But it bears mentioning that the two Republicans with faces on Mount Rushmore (Lincoln and Roosevelt) were considered very left-of-center in their day.

[Svartalf]

It depends on how whacko the Republicans are in two years.

Short of a huckabee/Palin ticket, or something of the order of religious cultist/teabagger, and I'm not even sure those would be enough, I don't know what in the world could save Obama from taking a fall next election... he's being railed at for not making miracles, and I'm afraid nothing short of a miracle can secure his reelection.

I think the only way he'll lose is if the economy goes back into a nosedive. Otherwise, he's got it made. Two months after the predictable midterm backlash, and he's actually improved to a 53% approval rating before he's even had to fight with a GOP-controlled House. He's positioned himself towards the political center, and has gained much support from Independents. And the Republicans are thoroughly infected by the Tea Party. Seriously, we could be looking at an electoral landslide for Obama in 2012. David Axelrod may very well be dancing a jig behind closed doors. See my earlier post about the comparisons to 1972.

Another big factor: his potential opponents all suck. The biggest General Election threat is probably from Romney, but on a level playing field he's got way too much going against him. Again, if the economy heads back into the abyss, then Obama could be done. But if trends keep going more or less the way they have been, he'll win re-election in a walk.

I'm not betting because I've already lost bets on American politics; but I'll remain sceptical until I know the elephant ticket, possibly until the actual poll results.

[Coito ergo sum]

More than half of registered voters believe President Obama will lose a bid for a second term, even as more Americans say they approve of his job performance than at any time in more than a year. http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.co ... -think.php

[Robert_S]

More than half of registered voters believe President Obama will lose a bid for a second term, even as more Americans say they approve of his job performance than at any time in more than a year. http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.co ... -think.php

LOL @ the majority of Merkins who think they're in the minority.

This is what comes from letting the fringe batshit crazy right winger network control the debate.

[Coito ergo sum]

It was a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey, by the way. CNN is generally pro-Obama.

I don't get what you mean 'the majority of merkins who think they're the minority' - you think the majority of Americans think they are the majority? Or, are you saying that there are some Americans who think they are the minority and the majority of those who think they are the minority are the one's answering this poll in the affirmative?

[Svartalf]

Is there something wrong with being in a minority?

I've voted 'loser' more time than I can remember, but if I had voted for the winner all these times, I'd be either dead by my own hand or far too smug for my own good.

[Robert_S]

It was a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey, by the way. CNN is generally pro-Obama.

I don't get what you mean 'the majority of merkins who think they're the minority' - you think the majority of Americans think they are the majority? Or, are you saying that there are some Americans who think they are the minority and the majority of those who think they are the minority are the one's answering this poll in the affirmative?

OK, that was inaccurate, but it sounded good.

There is a portion of the majority (likes Obama in this case) that thinks it is in the minority.

[JimC]

It was a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey, by the way. CNN is generally pro-Obama.

I don't get what you mean 'the majority of merkins who think they're the minority' - you think the majority of Americans think they are the majority? Or, are you saying that there are some Americans who think they are the minority and the majority of those who think they are the minority are the one's answering this poll in the affirmative?

OK, that was inaccurate, but it sounded good.

There is a portion of the majority (likes Obama in this case) that thinks it is in the minority.

More to the point, they are happy to pat him on the back in an opinion survey, but doubt that they and others will be able to do that when their vote counts for real...

[Coito ergo sum]

It was a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey, by the way. CNN is generally pro-Obama.

I don't get what you mean 'the majority of merkins who think they're the minority' - you think the majority of Americans think they are the majority? Or, are you saying that there are some Americans who think they are the minority and the majority of those who think they are the minority are the one's answering this poll in the affirmative?

OK, that was inaccurate, but it sounded good.

My question was inaccurate? A question is an interrogatory, not a statement or an assertion of fact - how can it be inaccurate?

There is a portion of the majority (likes Obama in this case) that thinks it is in the minority.

I think at the present time it's iffy whether the majority likes Obama. I've seen approval ratings as low as 48%, I think. He's hovering in the 49 to 51% range. When it comes to specific issues like the deficit, he's at a 68% disapproval rating.