Return to “2012 Presidential Election”
...it's kinda sad, ain't it...?SewTexas wrote:I can't believe that of the bunch that have said "I'm gonna run" I'm thinking Ron Paul might be the best of the lot....that right there makes me want to be sick....
OldSchool wrote:Except what is this President's forte (it sure has nothing to do with vision or management skills or leadership skills)? Think about it....Oldgringo wrote:The past President's administration is what gets the future President elected. Think about it....OldSchool wrote:Problem with another term is that the current POTUS doesn't care about constraints, legislative or otherwise, anymore. His policies are being conducted through agencies and departments, including TSA, EPA, Treasury, Justice and the FED (no longer subservient to the Treasury, nor Congress, as it currently stands). He has already started giving assignments to each of these (or maybe simply allowing them to do what they want -- quite possible, given what I think of his competence), and another term would allow him to finish out his plans. For example, he clearly just wants to push payment of the national debt out into the next President's administration.
The past President's administration is what gets the future President elected. Think about it....OldSchool wrote:Problem with another term is that the current POTUS doesn't care about constraints, legislative or otherwise, anymore. His policies are being conducted through agencies and departments, including TSA, EPA, Treasury, Justice and the FED (no longer subservient to the Treasury, nor Congress, as it currently stands). He has already started giving assignments to each of these (or maybe simply allowing them to do what they want -- quite possible, given what I think of his competence), and another term would allow him to finish out his plans. For example, he clearly just wants to push payment of the national debt out into the next President's administration.
srothstein wrote:During the last election, I said that it was the Democrats to lose, and the only way they could lose it was to nominate Hillary. Well, it seems like I called that one correctly.
This election is not nearly as clear cut, but I do give it to the Republicans to lose. The problem is that I don't see a viable candidate yet in the bunch. The best I see are people like Romney, who make it a race instead of a clear cut thing. I do see some, like Trump or Palin, as being a way to give it to the Democrats. I read one analysis recently that says the Republicans might want to concentrate on the congress (both houses) as some of the candidates will look very good in 2016 after they gather more exposure on the national scale. They mentioned Ryan as one example of a potential future leader who they could start grooming now for next cycle.
That seems like a very wise strategy to me. If they can get control of both houses, it almost (not quite but almost) makes the POTUS irrelevant from a legal aspect. They do have to be prepared to pass laws to stop executive orders if they do this though.
, that is what I was trying to say.That is absolutely correct! If the GOP doesn't pull its collective head out soon, there will be another four years of the current POTUS.RoyGBiv wrote:Now if only the GOP had a worthy candidate..
There's a whole lot of nothing on the horizon at this moment.
Trump?
