Assuming Obama wins, what happens in 4 years?

amacachi · 05-11-2008 3:53am #1

I can't see the economic situation being sorted out by government action, and we all know that people blame the people in power whether it's their fault or not.

So who thinks Obama will be out on his arse in 4 years time?

ramjee_kapar · 05-11-2008 3:57am

Aw come on now, do you not believe in CHANGE.. ?

marco_polo · 05-11-2008 3:58am

amacachi wrote: »

I can't see the economic situation being sorted out by government action, and we all know that people blame the people in power whether it's their fault or not.

So who thinks Obama will be out on his arse in 4 years time?

Haven't you heard of Palin 2012?

CHD · 05-11-2008 4:05am

Do it again
Do it again

Hobbes · 05-11-2008 7:23am

I think the downside is that Tina Fey will have to live off her small salary she gets from 30 rock for the next 4 years.

On the plus side, Little Britain US now more funny and can't wait to see what Roger Smith from CIA makes of this!

lostexpectation · 05-11-2008 9:09am

everybody talking about lousieanna governer bobby jindal being the repubs david cameron, a mintory american-indian(as in punjabi), fiscal conservative and fundalMENTAList christian.

where the native american president surely that would be the ultimate american dream.

Sherifu · 05-11-2008 10:05am

Obama has 4 years to prove himself which is good enough. He'll be judged on that. As long as they keep Palin away from the White House i'll be happy.

Macha · 05-11-2008 11:06am

And so it begins...

brianthebard · 05-11-2008 1:11pm

A policy of protectionism sees the US become more isolated once again on the world stage, and in four years there will still be thousands of troops in Iraq. (my thoughts).

cornbb · 05-11-2008 1:20pm

brianthebard wrote: »

A policy of protectionism sees the US become more isolated once again on the world stage, and in four years there will still be thousands of troops in Iraq. (my thoughts).

If Guantanemo Bay is closed and its inmates are either freed or tried in a proper court, that would be a massive achievement in itself. Hope to see this plus a reversal of a slew of other dodgy foreign/security policy mistakes. I'm also certain that relations with Iran will improve and that the US will rediscover direct diplomacy.

Its very hard to predict what will happen from an economic point of view. That will depend as much on external factors as it will on Obama's policies.

Macha · 05-11-2008 2:16pm

brianthebard wrote: »

A policy of protectionism sees the US become more isolated once again on the world stage, and in four years there will still be thousands of troops in Iraq. (my thoughts).

Do you not think there's a difference between economic protectionism and political isolationism?

(You know you've been watching too much political analysis when you add "ism" onto the end of every second word)

Headshot · 05-11-2008 2:28pm

do you think Obama will get rid of the missiles plans in poland ?

RedPlanet · 05-11-2008 2:38pm

brianthebard wrote: »

A policy of protectionism sees the US become more isolated once again on the world stage, and in four years there will still be thousands of troops in Iraq. (my thoughts).

I doubt protectionism is where the US is going under Obama, he obviously seeks engagement.
I hope he, as President addresses the Arab League, asking for their help in spearheading a UN stabilization force to replace US troops.

brianthebard · 05-11-2008 3:13pm

taconnol wrote: »

Do you not think there's a difference between economic protectionism and political isolationism?

(You know you've been watching too much political analysis when you add "ism" onto the end of every second word)

Not really, they go hand in hand.

RedPlanet wrote: »

I doubt protectionism is where the US is going under Obama, he obviously seeks engagement.
I hope he, as President addresses the Arab League, asking for their help in spearheading a UN stabilization force to replace US troops.

You realise protectionism is an economic policy, of the type where a president wants to bring US companies back the the US?

Mad Finn · 05-11-2008 3:20pm

lostexpectation wrote: »

where the native american president surely that would be the ultimate american dream.

There's already been a Native American Vice President.

A mere 80 years ago.

brianthebard · 05-11-2008 3:23pm

Mad Finn wrote: »

There's already been a Native American Vice President.

A mere 80 years ago.

I didn't know that, pretty cool thanks.

Benedict XVI · 05-11-2008 3:59pm

Well Obama will not last p**ing time if he does not keep his promises to voters like this lady

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6ikOxi9yYk

Question - how do i embed youtube ?

eVeNtInE · 05-11-2008 4:03pm

This post has been deleted.

is_that_so · 05-11-2008 4:22pm

This is part of the problem he has. He has to deliver on enough of his promises so that he disappoints the least number of people. Even if he's only competent he could be expected to get a second term. Guaranteed if he has a reasonably successful Presidency imo.

Nationally I guess that means managing the US out of its current mess and part of the tax cuts and address health insurance. So no pressure there at all.

In world terms I think that means addressing the Israeli/Palestinian problem but I reckon Afghanistan/Pakistan will be the real test.

Next time out however he won't be the new guy or be able to talk about "change" and depending on who comes out of the GOP could have a tough time of it.

longlearie · 08-11-2008 8:52pm

I have noticed that most Irish people are not happy that Obama won the election.I watched Brian Cowen congratulate Obama as if he was in mourning ,and from most comments I have read ,it seems to me that a lot of Irish people are very sad he won.I heard a TV 3 newscaster saying he was sure the media would turn on Obama in a few weeks time....he has not even assumed office yet....Do you agree with me ?

Cunny-Funt · 09-11-2008 6:59pm

No. :rolleyes:

RichTea · 09-11-2008 9:06pm

I'm supremely confident that Obama will be a two term president.

The Raven. · 10-11-2008 3:00am

longlearie wrote: »

I heard a TV 3 newscaster saying he was sure the media would turn on Obama in a few weeks time....he has not even assumed office yet...

It looks like the cracks are already beginning to show

!

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/problems-loom-for-st-barack-1530037.html

Black Swan · 10-11-2008 3:39am

brianthebard wrote: »

A policy of protectionism sees the US become more isolated once again on the world stage, and in four years there will still be thousands of troops in Iraq. (my thoughts).

Blue digs out her crystal ball and cleans the dust off it. Lights a fire, dances to Jamaican drums, tosses off magic robe (cause it's too hot), stops and runs her fingertips over the pretentious globe, giving the following predictions:

US Auto Industry gets both bailout funding, R&D funding, and is protected from foreign competition for a limited period of time, until it develops competitive hybrids and alternative energy fueled cars and trucks (GMC has dozens upon dozens of 100% hydrogen SUVs being beta tested running about the US, and this will be given further incentives by Obama the Plumber Uncle Sam).
The US becomes world diplomat, rather than world bully, beginning with the talking to, and normalising relations with Iran and Cuba, along with better relations (but still requiring a lot of work) between US, South Korea and North Korea (with eventual unification at some distant point in the future, which most North and South Koreans want, just like East and West Germany).
Middle East Shift. Relations improve between the US and the Middle East (especially working in collaboration with Dubai, the newly developing financial and economic capital of the Middle East, and shifting away from the influence of the spoiled and autocratic Royal family of Saudi Arabia).
Iraq War finally ends, with gradual withdrawal of US troops, leaving only advisers and trainers, but no combat ready US forces.
Afghanistan War is reinvested with US troops and resources, the losses there are reversed, self-defense forces are developed and supplied, with withdrawal of combat troops by 2012 election year, except for advisers and trainers.

Whew! Blue collapses next to the now dwindling fire. This prediction stuff is exhausting!

brianthebard · 10-11-2008 3:44am

Lolz I didn't realise you were such an Obama convert Blue. I can see the Auto industry changing its ways, as a matter of necessity rather than anything else though. Most of the companies have hybrids in the works atm. Everything else is wishful thinking, the US is not going to turn from its Imperialist policies because of one new president. They aren't going to become a diplomat or satiated power any time soon. They will continue their war on drugs in Columbia, continuing to destabilise that region. Obama has given every indication that he is willing to use force where necessary. Where he draws the line on necessity is the main difference between him and a hawk like McCain, but the threat of force will not be far in the background. There will still be US troops in Iraq at the end of his first term. There's no way the US can delink from Saudi Arabia if they want to stay solvent.

Black Swan · 10-11-2008 4:32am

brianthebard wrote: »

Lolz I didn't realise you were such an Obama convert Blue.

I'm no Democrat! The only parties I like are where you go and dance, get drunk, and have fun! My pretentious predictions were based upon what a rational too high on coffee person would do given the foreign policy dilemma the US faces after 8 years of Bush failure.

brianthebard wrote: »

I can see the Auto industry changing its ways, as a matter of necessity rather than anything else though. Most of the companies have hybrids in the works atm.

Indeed, but what you don't fathom is that they could go under and be replaced by Toyota, et al. Plus, during the past 8 years of the Bush Administration, R&D incentives for the auto industry have gone in the dumpster, except for inept war machines produced (like Humvees, which were so poorly armoured that the bullets would pierce one side and bounce around inside). GMC could go bankrupt, and require a bailout. Where Obama has an opportunity to regulate is by Executive Order on how those federal funds are spent in terms of developing truly alternative fuel vehicles that are competitive with Toyota (and not spent by GMC executives and board members going off to expensive beach resorts having fun while so-called planning).

brianthebard wrote: »

the US is not going to turn from its Imperialist policies because of one new president. They aren't going to become a diplomat or satiated power any time soon.

Well, only the next 4 years will tell, won't they? Obama said "Yes we can!" So we can sit off on our island and observe if it's all political rhetoric or if they change their ways?

brianthebard wrote: »

They will continue their war on drugs in Columbia, continuing to destabilise that region.

Well, I have heard next to nothing from either political campaign of substance in terms of how to solve this problem. Maybe whomever wins in 2012 will inherit this problem? Obviously, the president has a terrible economic and war mess to solve, and this might have to wait?

brianthebard wrote: »

Obama has given every indication that he is willing to use force where necessary.

Yes, although he will have to completely rebuild the US military and National Guard, that has been poorly supplied and burned out in two endless wars. But the difference is that he will not shoot first, and talk later, like Bush with Iraq War II.

brianthebard wrote: »

There's no way the US can delink from Saudi Arabia if they want to stay solvent.

The US currently consumes 25 percent of the world's oil, and Saudi Arabia is the US's number one supplier. It would seem that you could put the shoe on the other foot, and tell the Saudi's that if they are not good, and stop playing both ends against the middle, the US will pass a policy to leave oil as a fuel for cars and trucks, just like the mandate being rolled out currently in Brazil (a country of 150 million people)?

RedPlanet · 10-11-2008 9:09am

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

... and Saudi Arabia is the US's number one supplier.

Is that really true?
http://perotcharts.com/images/energy/energy06.png
Maybe perotcharts are wrong, i don't know.

Black Swan · 10-11-2008 10:42am

I guess it depends upon from who's perspective you are citing?

Saudi Arabian Exports:

"Saudi Arabia has an oil-based economy with strong government controls over major economic activities. It possesses more than 20% of the world's proven petroleum reserves, ranks as the largest exporter of petroleum"

"Exports - partners:
US 16.9%, Japan 16.1%, South Korea 10.3%, China 8%, Taiwan 4.8% (2007)"

Source: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sa.html

United States Imports:

"Canada remained the largest exporter of total petroleum in August, exporting 2.198 million barrels per day to the United States, which is a decrease from last month (2.390 thousand barrels per day). The second largest exporter of total petroleum was Saudi Arabia with 1.573 million barrels per day." (2008)

Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

In any case, it represents a large diplomatic chip to bargain with?

brianthebard · 10-11-2008 1:56pm

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

I'm no Democrat! The only parties I like are where you go and dance, get drunk, and have fun! My pretentious predictions were based upon what a rational too high on coffee person would do given the foreign policy dilemma the US faces after 8 years of Bush failure.

Indeed, but what you don't fathom is that they could go under and be replaced by Toyota, et al. Plus, during the past 8 years of the Bush Administration, R&D incentives for the auto industry have gone in the dumpster, except for inept war machines produced (like Humvees, which were so poorly armoured that the bullets would pierce one side and bounce around inside). GMC could go bankrupt, and require a bailout. Where Obama has an opportunity to regulate is by Executive Order on how those federal funds are spent in terms of developing truly alternative fuel vehicles that are competitive with Toyota (and not spent by GMC executives and board members going off to expensive beach resorts having fun while so-called planning).

Ok I'll agree.

Blue_Lagoon wrote:

Well, only the next 4 years will tell, won't they? Obama said "Yes we can!" So we can sit off on our island and observe if it's all political rhetoric or if they change their ways?

Well I didn't see anything in that rhetoric to suggest he might turn away from convential US thinking like the Monroe Doctrine, which still informs US foreign policy to such a large degree?

Blue_Lagoon wrote:

Well, I have heard next to nothing from either political campaign of substance in terms of how to solve this problem. Maybe whomever wins in 2012 will inherit this problem? Obviously, the president has a terrible economic and war mess to solve, and this might have to wait?

Follows on from my first point, and the fact that it was never mentioned reaffirms my fears that he will not be taking a very different approach to foreign policy.

Blue_Lagoon wrote:

Yes, although he will have to completely rebuild the US military and National Guard, that has been poorly supplied and burned out in two endless wars. But the difference is that he will not shoot first, and talk later, like Bush with Iraq War II.

Talk first and shoot after isn't so much better-plus imo he is more likely to go the Clinton route in the Balkans and rely on heavy bombing for his terrorist "targets".

Blue_Lagoon wrote:

The US currently consumes 25 percent of the world's oil, and Saudi Arabia is the US's number one supplier. It would seem that you could put the shoe on the other foot, and tell the Saudi's that if they are not good, and stop playing both ends against the middle, the US will pass a policy to leave oil as a fuel for cars and trucks, just like the mandate being rolled out currently in Brazil (a country of 150 million people)?

Who would make up the shortfall? Surely the Brazilian mandate has to be taken in the context of a nation which has been producing ethanol for decades and which has started drilling for oil off its coast? And in addition, those 150 million probably don't use as much energy as 15 million US citizens. The US would have to make up a far far bigger energy deficit than Brazil does.

Assuming Obama wins, what happens in 4 years?

Comments