Election Game Week

I respect your views, I'm honestly just not sure what you're getting at. I really don't see how Obama winning is so different than Bush winning in 2004. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure Obama has a much higher approval rating than Bush did at the time.

If Biden were to run and win in 2016, I would definitely agree with you.

 

Status quo for at least the next 2 years.

 

Spain has 25% unemployment, Greece is a nightmare, and France has a president taxing people at 75%. It could get a lot worse.

 

Statement in reference to Romney/Ryan budget.

 

Quite possibly. The question is do you take a hit for a couple of years to ultimately come out stronger for it as a party? I'll tell you that I think they could do a lot better in terms of candidates based on what we saw this year. Also, if you leave the Dems in control long enough I'm sure folks will be ready and willing to vote the new and improved Republicans back into office.

 

I think that his statement to President Medvedev was foreshadowing - "On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.…This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility."

 

I have almost no doubts about any of this. But the problem isn't getting the average member to go along with it. It's the people actually running for office. They aren't going to want to lose.

 

He has to be able to convince the House to work with him. I'm still not sold on his ability to do that. Reagan and Clinton could work with the opposition controlling Congress. I seriously doubt Obama has it in him.

 

Truthfully, I don't know the approval ratings you're talking about off the top of my head, so I won't speak to that. I wish our politicians could have a civil discussion like we are. The nation would be so much better off without the demagoguery.

Biden won't sniff the nomination. Hillary on the other hand.....

 

Yea, but do we have the full context of that statement?

We'll cut back on defense, because that is what Dems do. We'll probably enter into some form of disarmament, because that is what Dems do.

As far as that statement goes, in regards to missile defense, it could mean:
1. We completely defund (unlikely).
2. We defund by some percentage (most definitely going to happen).
3. (In context) We are going to limit the sites in strategic countries with respect to ally protection (probably most likely.)

I'm not certain, so don't take this as gospel by any means, but I thought there was a little tiff between us and Russia, during the W years, about the location of several of our interceptor sites, and who and what they cover.

That could be what that entire statement was about. I don't know, and so I take it as presumptive that they were discussing anything else.

 

I look for a shift to ship-based missile defense.

 

Well gentlemen, the discussion the past few months has been fun. Let's do it again in about 42 months.

 

I tried to look at the numbers, and I may have been wrong. I knew Bush's numbers were high post-911, but I thought they sunk much lower by the end of his first term. Apparently, it's similar to where Obama is now.

 

Well said sir.

 

It is a two way street. The house wouldnt agree to even a 1 to 10 tax to cut ratio on the budget

 

2016 - Christie vs. Clinton?

 

Agreed

 

Brian Williams is now talking about vaginal probes

 

There's no doubt about that, but it doesn't change my point. I have no idea why some people are so terrified of Obama. I'm certainly no fan, but even if he was as extreme as people make him out to be, I wouldn't be worried about him bringing about radical change.

 

Rubio has a shot.