Will Obama lose in 2012?

Tomorrow, America goes to the polls in the mid-term elections and even the most optimistic predictions suggest the Democrats will lose control of the House of Representatives and will just about cling on to their Senate majority. The big question though, is what the trends will be for 2012, with the Tea Party wing of the Republicans likely to win a sizeable number of seats, increasing support for Palin. With a swing to the right and Obama's ratings falling, will he end up a one-term president? Michael Bloomberg among others is also thinking of running for the Republicans, and with Clinton tipped to be the VP for next term, the run-in to 2012 should be interesting.

I hope to god the teabaggers don't get in. A bigger bunch of callous hypocrites you'd be hard pushed to find. "The government should stay out of our lives. Except when it's making it mandatory to display the Ten Commandments in schools, and banning homosexual marriage"

It looks as though it might be that way now, but in reality there is very little chance of him losing.

Who have the Republicans got? Palin and McCain. Palin has no chance of winning a national election because she draws support almost entirely from the right wing. Her core support will always be good but that's it. She hasn't a hope in hell of winning over moderate voters, even if a large section of the American electorate aren't really happy about certain parts of Obama's administration e.g. healthcare reforms.

McCain would in principle have a chance of doing that, but there were questions over his age before and they certainly won't have become less prominent with the passing of 4 years. Maybe McCain runng on a ticket with a solid, dependable moderate Republican (i.e. not Palin) would have a chance.

Really though, there doesn't seem to be a prominent candidate that would mount a serious challenge. I guess Bloomberg would have a good chance in a national election, but how popular would he be with the party's core voters? Palin would win in a primary campaign amongst the social conservative voters by a long way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peadar1987

I hope to god the teabaggers don't get in.

---

There's a teabagging party?

I'd pay to see their convention!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by culloty82

With a swing to the right and Obama's ratings falling, will he end up a one-term president?

---

Yes. He's the incumbent during a recession, so he has had to make unpopular decisions. He also came to power on the back of a great deal of optimism which has been disappointed by political realities. It doesn't matter whether or not the recession's not his fault, or whether or not he's done well given the constraints he's had, I can't see him getting re-elected. The reality is that the electorate as a whole is fickle, short-sighted and stupid, and he's doomed by circumstance unless the GOP pull a really terrible candidate out of their collective ass.

And what's wrong with either of those things?

Do you have a kid in school? If they don't get religion there they don't get it at all. It's not like it used to be when we were kids in school in Ireland. Those behind banning the Ten Commandments from school are for banning religion altogether. Lest they forget humans have had religion for thousands of years. And as for banning homosexual marriage - nearly all Tea Party memebers and Republicans nowadays support gay rights - it's the forcing of society to accept something other than one man and one woman (as marriage) which is the sticking point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mark12345

Those behind banning the Ten Commandments from school are for banning religion altogether.

---

Please provide evidence for this statement.

The tea party movement is a union of the paranoid, racist and stupid (along with a minority of people with more noble aims). Portrayed as a grassroots bottom up anti-politics movement, it's anything but that, controlled and directed by big donors whose interests are served squarely by tax cuts and formed almost exclusively of white people.

It's sole contribution to American society is proliferating the myth that Obama is a foreign Muslim.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...is-muslim.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mark12345

Lest they forget humans have had religion for thousands of years.

---

Baldrick: But my lord, I've been in your family since 1532...
Blackadder: So has syphilis! Now get out!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

The tea party movement is a union of the paranoid, racist and stupid (along with a minority of people with more noble aims). Portrayed as a grassroots bottom up anti-politics movement, it's anything but that, controlled and directed by big donors whose interests are served squarely by tax cuts and formed almost exclusively of white people.

---

For the benefit of those who haven't seen it George Monbiot's excellent article on just this subject.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mark12345

Do you have a kid in school? If they don't get religion there they don't get it at all.

---

So you care so much about your children's religious indoctrination that you want it taught to everyone's kids in schools but not enough to teach it to them yourself?

Schumi, he can't figure out the difference between "mandatory" and "optional", or "religion" and "organised religion", you're wasting your time. He can come back with proof of his earlier statement, or he can bugger off to wherever the Star readers post their crap. The Boards.ie After Hours forum is probably ideal, populated as it is almost entirely by clinical morons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dahamsta

The Boards.ie After Hours forum is probably ideal, populated as it is almost entirely by clinical morons.

---

Are these cold and objective morons, or residents of psychiatric wards with late-night internet access?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mark12345

And what's wrong with either of those things?

---

Well, seeing as you asked:

Quote:

---

Do you have a kid in school? If they don't get religion there they don't get it at all.

---

I don't, and brilliant. Religion isn't the sort of thing I want drilled into my children. Education belongs in schools. Religious indoctrination belongs in churches.

Quote:

---

It's not like it used to be when we were kids in school in Ireland.

---

And the country is far better off for it.

Quote:

---

Those behind banning the Ten Commandments from school are for banning religion altogether.

---

I don't want the Ten Commandments in schools, but I fully support peoples' right to choose their own religion. Having any one thrust upon them by organisations that receive my tax euros is nothing short of curtailment of my religous freedom. How would you feel if your money was used to fund Muslim evangelism?

Quote:

---

Lest they forget humans have had religion for thousands of years.

---

The appeal to tradition argument holds no water.

Quote:

---

And as for banning homosexual marriage - nearly all Tea Party memebers and Republicans nowadays support gay rights - it's the forcing of society to accept something other than one man and one woman (as marriage) which is the sticking point.

---

You don't have to accept anything, as much as you really should (and let's not forget that marriage used to be defined as "one woman and whoever her father chose to give her away to"). What gay rights activists are pushing for is recognition of their relationships as long-term committments, affording them such rights as the right to adopt a child, hospital visitation rights, next-of-kin rights, and everything straight couples in this country have been allowed for decades.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dahamsta

...The Boards.ie After Hours forum is probably ideal, populated as it is almost entirely by clinical morons.

---

I was going to ask for a citation, but then I read that forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Fly

Are these cold and objective morons, or residents of psychiatric wards with late-night internet access?

---

The latter, but I was going for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moron_(psychology) ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peadar1987

Education belongs in schools. Religion belongs in churches.

---

Religion belongs in schools too, educationally speaking. All religion though. Preferably after science, so they can apply what they pick up there to the idiocy that organised religions come out with. I'd like to see my child write an essay entitled "Compare and contrast Catholicism and Scientology". After all, it's the same old sh*t.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John83

I was going to ask for a citation, but then I read that forum.

---

It's awful. It used to be entertaining, now it's just twaddle and ignorance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dahamsta

Religion belongs in schools too, educationally speaking. All religion though. Preferably after science, so they can apply what they pick up there to the idiocy that organised religions come out with. I'd like to see my child write an essay entitled "Compare and contrast Catholicism and Scientology". After all, it's the same old sh*t.

---

You're dead right. I've fixed my post. I'd actually like to see world religion and culture given more prominence in schools. In today's more globalised economy, an introspective, xenophobic nation isn't going to do much lucrative business. Mind you, I'd also like to see more maths and science, and languages need a complete overhaul. The only thing I'd actually cut down on are the literature sections of the English and Irish courses [/derail]

For starters, we'd probably get along a hell of a lot better with muslims if we had a better understanding of their beliefs. The ignorance out there is astounding, but again that comes back to my old favourite bitch: the media in general and tabloid journalism in particular. There's dumbing down and there's just plain dumb like.

Although this photo was apparently taken in 2003 at an anti-war counter protest, it sums up the American right and teabaggers nicely.
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...B1GSMqAX9Iaqo=
The Republicans will no doubt gain control of congress and maybe the Senate. Because of this, there will be gridlock in Washington, as the party of 'No' have made it clear there won't be any compromise. This is why I feel, no matter who they pit against Obama, he'll retain the presidency.

Obama and the Democrats have performed woefully in failing to sell their message and to expose the insanity of the tea party mental cases. The Republicans to do well, act like a load of loopers in the house and senate and hand Obama victory next time round.

Since we're discussing the Tea Party, I thought it pertinent to transfer this over from the Web Video Thread...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUPMjC9mq5Y

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mark12:3-45

And what's wrong with either of those things?

Do you have a kid in school? If they don't get religion there they don't get it at all. It's not like it used to be when we were kids in school in Ireland. Those behind banning the Ten Commandments from school are for banning religion altogether. Lest they forget humans have had religion for thousands of years. And as for banning homosexual marriage - nearly all Tea Party memebers and Republicans nowadays support gay rights - it's the forcing of society to accept something other than one man and one woman (as marriage) which is the sticking point.

---

Fixed. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by strangeirish

Although this photo was apparently taken in 2003 at an anti-war counter protest, it sums up the American right and teabaggers nicely.
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...B1GSMqAX9Iaqo=

---

Bit hard on the 'Moran' clan there. Reckon big Kevin would have something to say there...

CNN.com expects the Republicans to win 243 seats in the House, compared to the Democrats 192, a red gain of over 60 seats. Crucially, though, the Democrats will still hold 51 out of the 100 Senate seats, allowing them to block legislation if needed.

There were some horrible people elected there, disappointingly some with Irish surnames!

The only 'good' thing is that even the US is unlikely to over-extend itself by starting more pointless foreign wars?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dahamsta

Please provide evidence for this statement.

---

Get on the Thomas More Law Centre web site and you'll get all the evidence you need. It's a bunch of lawyers giving of their services for free to help cities and towns and schools defend themselves against the monied liberal groups who have already stopped kids singing traditional Christmas songs in school, won't let them wear red or green at that time of year or say prayers before football matches (in asking God to protect them, like they have done for decades).

They are the same liberals who are trying to rid the state of California from all reference to religion (up to and including the changing of names like 'San' Francisco, 'San' Diego, 'Santa' Barbara.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy

"starting more pointless foreign wars?"

---

Starting pointless foreign wars? If it's Iraq you're referring to the people in the US are divided over the wisdom of that war. You can say what you want about Bush, but he did keep one promise and that was to take the fight to the terrorists on their own soil in order to take it away from America. You got to ask youself if a group of immigrants decided to do a 911 act in Ireland, how receptive would the Irish people be to them? Would they last 5 seconds in the streets of Dublin before being attacked? So 'starting foreign wars' is a bit harsh.

And one more thing, you may want to give a little more credit to America for intervening on our behalf in the Second World War. If they didn't we wouldn't be talking to one another today, would we?

Sorry Mark, but the Thomas More Law Center is nothing other than a defender of people who want to ram Christianity down everyone's throat, whether they like it or not.

Oh, and the United States intervened on 'our behalf' after the Japanese convinced them it was the right thing to do. They rushed right in, didn't they...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mark12345

Get on the Thomas More Law Centre web site and you'll get all the evidence you need.

---

I just did that. I clicked on "Religious freedom" under "Key issues". The first article was about challenge to the Health Care Reform Act. That these people file that under "Religious freedom" says a lot.

Then, in the archives, I then searched for the word "school" in the article headlines which emerged. The first instance was about a school which banned the wearing of the US flag. Again, that these people file that under "Religious freedom" says a lot.

Quote:

---

It's a bunch of lawyers giving of their services for free to help cities and towns and schools defend themselves against the monied liberal groups who have already stopped kids singing traditional Christmas songs in school, won't let them wear red or green at that time of year or say prayers before football matches (in asking God to protect them, like they have done for decades).

They are the same liberals who are trying to rid the state of California from all reference to religion (up to and including the changing of names like 'San' Francisco, 'San' Diego, 'Santa' Barbara.

---

You seem to have no notion of the difference between a secular state and religious persecution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mark12345

Starting pointless foreign wars? If it's Iraq you're referring to the people in the US are divided over the wisdom of that war. You can say what you want about Bush, but he did keep one promise and that was to take the fight to the terrorists on their own soil in order to take it away from America.

---

Some Egyptians and Saudi Arabians attack America, and that justifies invading Iraq? Using US bases in Saudi Arabia? This would be secular Iraq which was no supporter of terrorism? And America which trained the Taliban back when it suited them? HA!

Quote:

---

You got to ask youself if a group of immigrants decided to do a 911 act in Ireland, how receptive would the Irish people be to them? Would they last 5 seconds in the streets of Dublin before being attacked? So 'starting foreign wars' is a bit harsh.

---

What the hell are you talking about? If some immigrants crashed a couple of planes into Dublin, killing thousands, would we pull their ashes out of the fiery wreckage to give them a good kicking before invading Andorra to seize key skiing slopes?

Quote:

---

And one more thing, you may want to give a little more credit to America for intervening on our behalf in the Second World War. If they didn't we wouldn't be talking to one another today, would we?

---

This would be the neutral America who joined that war when Germany declared war on them in 1942? And what on earth does that have to do with anything? Should ArdeeBhoy give his unquestioning support to American foreign policy on the grounds that their contribution was important in a war 70 years ago? By that token, should he also give his unquestioning support to Russia?

I really only have one question for you: are you a troll, or do you really believe this stuff?

Mark, read up on Mohammed Mosaddeq. Much of the current chaos and religious extremism in the Middle East is due in no small part to the interference of the US, and it's almost certainly their fault that we don't have a moderate, secular, peaceful Iran today. It's a massive pity that the people who pushed for this became rich from oil revenues and protectionism, while the people who suffer are the ordinary citizens of the Middle East, and the victims of the terrorism their actions spawned.

Some small facts on the "small bunch of selfless lawyers" in Thomas More:

In August 2001, the Center filed a lawsuit against the San Diego chapter of Planned Parenthood, in which it sued Planned Parenthood to force it to inform women of a possible link between abortions and breast cancer. Although PP and medical experts denied any such link, a Thomas More Law Center lawyer claimed that a "preponderance of medical evidence" did establish a link.[5 In March 2003, the Law Center intervened in the controversy over the "Ten Commandments monument" erected in the Alabama Supreme Court building by Judge Roy Moore. It filed a brief in support of Moore, claiming that the "First Amendment does not require the existence of an impenetrable wall between church and state."[16]
In a May 2000 visit to Charleston, West Virginia, Robert Muise, one of the lawyers, tried to persuade the school board to buy and use Of Pandas and People as a textbook for its science classes.[32] Muise warned the board in Charleston that it would undoubtedly be sued if the district taught intelligent design, but that the Thomas More Law Center would provide legal defense at no cost.

In any case, can the US really claim to be any safer from their two wars, have come any closer to stabilising the Middle East or neutralise al-Qaeda?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mark12345

Starting pointless foreign wars? If it's Iraq you're referring to the people in the US are divided over the wisdom of that war. You can say what you want about Bush, but he did keep one promise and that was to take the fight to the terrorists on their own soil in order to take it away from America. You got to ask youself if a group of immigrants decided to do a 911 act in Ireland, how receptive would the Irish people be to them? Would they last 5 seconds in the streets of Dublin before being attacked? So 'starting foreign wars' is a bit harsh.

And one more thing, you may want to give a little more credit to America for intervening on our behalf in the Second World War. If they didn't we wouldn't be talking to one another today, would we?

---

Wow what a post:eek:
As mentioned, what the hell has Iraq got to do with 911?
America didnt intervene on OUR behalf, we are not poland or belgium? We werent attacked

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mark12345

Starting pointless foreign wars? If it's Iraq you're referring to the people in the US are divided over the wisdom of that war. You can say what you want about Bush, but he did keep one promise and that was to take the fight to the terrorists on their own soil in order to take it away from America. You got to ask youself if a group of immigrants decided to do a 911 act in Ireland, how receptive would the Irish people be to them? Would they last 5 seconds in the streets of Dublin before being attacked? So 'starting foreign wars' is a bit harsh.

And one more thing, you may want to give a little more credit to America for intervening on our behalf in the Second World War. If they didn't we wouldn't be talking to one another today, would we?

---

Hmm. Like Iraq was anything to do with 9/11. And what's the reason for Afghanistan, beyond Rove & co's paranoia??
'Hawks', me a*se.

And whoever the history teacher was, please Sue them!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy

And whoever the history teacher was, please Sue them!

---

And don't go to Thomas More and co. Their legal advice is free for a reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by strangeirish

Sorry Mark, but the Thomas More Law Center is nothing other than a defender of people who want to ram Christianity down everyone's throat, whether they like it or not.

Oh, and the United States intervened on 'our behalf' after the Japanese convinced them it was the right thing to do. They rushed right in, didn't they...

---

Sorry, I can't share you're opinion about the TMLC. I would be interested to know what your feelings are on the liberals changing the names in California (away from anything depicting religion)? You are ok with that? TMLC has fought to stop that and things like that over the last several years.

Regarding the Americans in WWII, they did get into the war after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941, did they not? We can split hairs on the words 'our behalf' but the fact is that America did get into the war on our behalf because they stood up for what was right and by default they stood up for us and other countries like us who were unable to stand up for ourselves. Gave their lives for us in fact.

But then again we Irish (and this is not directed at you in particular) are experts on every war we never fought in, just sitting there on the fence pontificating all day long on everything and anything which is a million miles away - such 'activism' would have really helped those innocent people in Bosnia, wouldn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mark12345

Sorry, I can't share you're opinion about the TMLC. I would be interested to know what your feelings are on the liberals changing the names in California (away from anything depicting religion)? You are ok with that? TMLC has fought to stop that and things like that over the last several years.

Regarding the Americans in WWII, they did get into the war after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941, did they not? We can split hairs on the words 'our behalf' but the fact is that America did get into the war on our behalf because they stood up for what was right and by default they stood up for us and other countries like us who were unable to stand up for ourselves. Gave their lives for us in fact.

But then again we Irish (and this is not directed at you in particular) are experts on every war we never fought in, just sitting there on the fence pontificating all day long on everything and anything which is a million miles away - such 'activism' would have really helped those innocent people in Bosnia, wouldn't it?

---

Ireland were officially neutral for the duration of WW2. The USA clearly did not enter the war on our behalf. And the idea that the USA entered the war as some altruistic measuse on behalf of those who couldn't stand up for themselves is so naive as to be laughable. They entered the war to protect themselves and their interests, just like we remained neutral to protect ourselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy

Hmm. Like Iraq was anything to do with 9/11. And what's the reason for Afghanistan, beyond Rove & co's paranoia??
'Hawks', me a*se.

And whoever the history teacher was, please Sue them!

---

I'll be as charitbale as I can to you in my reply, because I realize there are two very different interpretations here.

I lived in America for several years and had the benefit of seeing the Democratic (Party) driven media report (or often not report) biasedly on TV to the masses. And when it comes to news involving America - Ireland, England and
most of Europe just picks up the biased news (because its from the same news corporations) and forms their opinions from it hook, line and sinker.

There is another media angle in the land of the dollar and free speech, and that is Talk Radio. They give far more balanced reporting to the news (and the facts) and are able to back them up.

If you are going to blame America for the Iraq war then you have to confess that you forgot to also apportion a decent share of the blame to Britain, France, Germany and Russia, all of whom pooled their intelligence information with the White House beforehand. And what of Spain - they had an occupying force in Iraq did they not? The Iraq war was very much an international effort.

I'm sure we both agree that the loss of innocent lives in Iraq was horrible, as it is in any war, but with the American
president required to respond (and that 'requirement' vow is one he takes upon being sworn in) and with him being told after 911 that Iraq had all the ingredients to make WMD's, many of which were found in the country, then the decision to go into Iraq was a well informed one.

I'll be the first to say that the US forces stayed too long in the country, but there are those who'll argue that the US mission evolved into one of helping the country to democracy (they've had how many elections now?). There is also an argument that the US was afraid to get out too quick like happened in Kuwait.

You've got to ask yourself - what would Ireland do if we had the wherewithal to respond to an attack on our country?
If we had even half the military power of either the USA or Iraq our response would have involved loss of life to some innoncents in some country, would it not?

My feeling is that if NATO did what it was supposed to (and how Kofe Annan can sleep in his bed at night when those
poor people in Darfur were the victims of genocide is beyond me - his response was 'we can't interfere in another
soverign nation') then there would be no need for America or Russia or any super power to take up the fight.

I'm sure you'll have your own thoughts on what I have posted above, but I can tell you this for a fact. I talked over
a number of years with ex-pats from Ireland, England and Scotland, who were living in the US. For what it's worth they were, and still are I would suggest, completely disgusted by the sort of anti-American feelings (from those back home) that are in evidence on this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osarusan

Ireland were officially neutral for the duration of WW2. The USA clearly did not enter the war on our behalf. And the idea that the USA entered the war as some altruistic measuse on behalf of those who couldn't stand up for themselves is so naive as to be laughable. They entered the war to protect themselves and their interests, just like we remained neutral to protect ourselves.

---

There's none as blind as those who will not see.

If a doctor saved your life would you punch him in the face and say 'how dare you claim that you saved my life - it's your job isn't it?' Strange logic, very strange? Shake off the anti-American feelings and you might see the world a little clearer!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osarusan

. And the idea that the USA entered the war as some altruistic measuse on behalf of those who couldn't stand up for themselves is so naive as to be laughable. They entered the war to protect themselves and their interests, just like we remained neutral to protect ourselves.

---

And you're laughing and writing and having dinner with your parents and grandparents who all would have perished were it not for the American intervention in WWII.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mark12345

with the American president required to respond (and that 'requirement' vow is one he takes upon being sworn in) and with him being told after 911 that Iraq had all the ingredients to make WMD's, many of which were found in the country, then the decision to go into Iraq was a well informed one.

---

When we have seen testimony from senior FBI and CIA officials that they were pressured by Bush administration officials into coming up with a link between Iraq and 9-11 and other pretexts for invasion, I think we can knock that one on the head.

Unless of course you count this:
http://www.gwjokes.com/cartoons/clear-link.jpg