Me? Don't let my bad grammar fool you. I was actually born here, just a product of the American educational system.
Anyone who isn't a tea party candidate (Romney, Huntsman) will beat Obama. Obama has lost the faith from the public and even his own party is losing interest in him. He's done. He had a weak hand, but he'll lose because he played it even weaker.
LOL!!! okay, playing devil's advocate again? Mr Obama has been the most substantial president America has had since FDR. Probably even more so. No one will beat him next year.
Because I question the valuation of the negative externality that is carbon emissions. It's crap, and economically devastating (there's a reason hungy high growth nations like China and India are not foolish enough to enact such policies). "In order to pay for the fact that it will be 3 degrees warmer a century from now (our models are fool proof!), your electricity rates need to skyrocket. I know it will destroy your disposable income and the investment capital of companies that might want to hire you, but trust me, you will be thanking me 50 years from now when it's a few degrees cooler. I know it's tough, but suck it up, pay up, we're saving the planet here" If you got a flyer in the mail asking for money to offset your carbon footprint, most people would rightfully say GTFO what kind of scam is this.
Explain to me how cap and trade would "destroy" disposable income and "investment capital". I'm not quite sure you understand how cap and trade works at all. It's nowhere near as drastic, that's for sure. I didn't see the United States collapse when SO2 emissions were submitted to cap and trade, and last I checked, Denmark and Sweden were still AAA economies despite having carbon taxes since the 1990s.
commodore, you should check which nation is taking the most significant steps towards a future of non-carbon energy. Hint: it's not us.
Hyperbole much? There isn't an ounce of substance in this and its reflective of the right wing hysteria of a cap and trade system despite the fact that we already did it with Sulfur dioxide with minimal economic impact. Not to mention countries that have implemented carbon taxes or cap and trade haven't been annihilated either. Look if you're going to go global warming denial on us, you're right we can't convince you since you apparently believe that CO2 emissions dont do anything. But to go a step further and suggest that our economy will collapse (with no actual data or evidence) if we regulate emissions is a load of garbage.
European countries are not beacons of economic vitality, they are aging welfare states with stagnant growth and high unemployment. I don't deny the climate is changing, it always is. I'm skeptical that man can control the weather. I'm skeptical of coercive measures dreamed up by relatively wealthy people, imposed on all of us in the name of saving the planet from extinction. I think such measures would do more harm than good. Cap and trade begets higher energy prices (Obama says they will skyrocket), begets economic decline. Higher gas and utility prices disproportionately hurt the poor as a percentage of income. There's a reason DiCaprio promotes this and guy filling up his pickup for work doesn't. The insular, atypical lifestyle of those promoting these measures is just another reason to be skeptical of them.
Collectively I think I'd put JFK-LBJ-Nixon ahead of Obama. Whether you're discussing the "substance" of their policies or their complexity/personal depth. UFor better or worse I think Perry reminds me a bit of Reagan in the late '70s, but only if some kind of Iran hostage type "blunder" plagues Obama.
The countries that have grabbed the bull by the horns (Sweden, Denmark, Finland) and implemented carbon taxes in the 90s have higher average growth rates than both the Eurozone, and the United States from 1999-2009. Denmark's unemployment rate is 7.4%. To suggest that there is some correlation between implementing reform on carbon, and total economic calamity is blatantly false. You know what else begets higher energy prices---peak oil---and commodity asset bubbles propped up by an unfair tax system, and insufficient regulation. Cap and trade would merely mean higher energy prices from those who derive their energy from throwing pollutants into the air---which, if you don't want to punish them for carbon emissions, you can punish them for all the other things they spew up there too, as well as the fact that they are using limited resources that are improperly priced in the first place anyways. Inexorably, with an emphasis on clean energy, cap and trade would shift resources towards development in that direction, and with government subsidies cutting from oil to clean energy, energy that is renewable, and causes not nearly that much harm, will finally be fairly priced.
??? I think Clinton was clearly a far more effective politician and president. Obama hasn't been tough enough, he's weak, and with his 40% approval rate if even, he'd have to be the first president to be reelected with such a low popularity in the modern age. I don't see it has happening. The economy stinks and will stink for a while, and Republicans have successfully defined him as Jimmy Carter reincarnated. We should have elected Hillary.
Its funny that you say that since the PRC has enacted a national strategy to address Global Warming. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_policy_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China [rquoter]Although China has been taking action on climate change for some years, with the publication on 4 June 2007 of China's first National Action Plan on Climate Change, China became the first developing country to publish a national strategy addressing global warming.[15] The plan does not include targets for carbon dioxide emission reductions, but it has been estimated that, if fully implemented, China's annual emissions of greenhouse gases would be reduced by 1.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2010.[15] Other commentators, however, put the figure at 0.950 billion metric tons.[16] [/rquoter] The PRC is also the world leader now in renewable energy.
I agree with Sweet Lou here. Obama is not a very effective leader, he is better GW for sure. I would not vote for any of the current Republicans in the lead currently in the GOP nomination, but if someone like Daniels come out, I would probably vote Republican. Obama might be a good scholar, but I don't think he is that great at running a country.
I actually think, given his obstacles (now more than 50% of his fellow politicians, as a policy goal, opposing his every utterance), he is pretty good at running the country. Where I think he falls down is the non-brainy side of things. While an inspiring campaigner and speech-maker, he is not a day to day inspirational person to a lot of the country. I hear (even from independents and liberals) that he "doesn't seem to like the job" and seems "sad all the time." And he makes that bitter beer face all the time. I think people underrate the power of a natural, honest and omnipresent sense of playfulness and good cheer (Reagan.) I thought he SUCKED policy wise, but he generally made people feel better about things after they just watched him, as a fellow tribe member, even (especially? LOL) with the volume off. A lot of times, if you watch Obama with the volume off, you would think he is speaking at one of a daily set of funerals. Sweet Lou (I think it was) saying we should have elected Hillary is just crazy to me, however. She is even more dolorous and earnest, with much less charisma.
That's partly because he wasn't on TV nearly as much in the pre-24 hour news cycle era - and TV presentation back then was much more genteel and conducive to a former WWII era hollywood veteran to shine. Also, the era of mass irony/cynicism/fragmentation hadn't dawned yet. I don't know if it would go over nearly as well today and don't think he'd be as suited to the total lack of privacy; they definitely wouldn't have been able to camouflage his 2nd term Alzheimer's symptoms & such.
fair points, Samwise. I think the current media cycle ensures that *any* celebrity will wear on viewers within, say, 8-10 months max. This even happens to the challengers in the general election before the voting happens.
Effective politician, certainly. President? What exactly did Clinton successfully enact as President that compares to FinReg, Health Care, capturing OBL, or even the DADT repeal? During a pretty good economy, Clinton's popularity at this point was the same as Obama's is during one of the worst recessions in the past 70 years. He oversaw the same mid-term massacre as Obama, but without having the economic challenges that Obama came into office with. His two big policy accomplishments at this point were NAFTA (significant) and the assault weapons ban, which lasted all of 10 years.
