Post-Election Aftermath?

[Noctis3880]

If you were "in diapers" during the Clinton years, then you certainly have no memory of the Nixon years. You have no memory of the police action now called the Vietnam War. You don't remember his predecessor Johnson. So I have to doubt that you know how the citizens felt about Tricky Dickey, as he was most popularly referred to at the time. Watergate was his undoing, but it began before that. Nixon, by the way, won his first Presidential election by one percentage point of the popular vote.

Yes, but his reelection was a landslide victory. They clearly didn't hate Nixon enough to try for the unknown element.

[Codger_64]

Yes, but his reelection was a landslide victory. They clearly didn't hate Nixon enough to try for the unknown element.

McGovern was not an unknown. He made what he thought would be a popular stand, ending the war. And then...

With only 55 percent of the electorate voting, the lowest turnout since 1948

Nixon did win, but it was not nearly the landslide that it is portrayed as today. Many on both sides of the aisle who did vote were voting against McGovern and his plan to run away from the war, not for Nixon. But really, you probably would have had to have been there and old enough to go to war or to vote to understand the mailstrom that was political America during that time. At any rate, America survived that and everything before and since and will survive this election no matter who wins. Perhaps Bengazigate will be the undoing of this President.

[Noctis3880]

McGovern was not an unknown. He made what he thought would be a popular stand, ending the war. And then...

Nixon did win, but it was not nearly the landslide that it is portrayed as today. Many on both sides of the aisle who did vote were voting against McGovern and his plan to run away from the war, not for Nixon. But really, you probably would have had to have been there and old enough to go to war or to vote to understand the mailstrom that was political America during that time. At any rate, America survived that and everything before and since and will survive this election no matter who wins. Perhaps Bengazigate will be the undoing of this President.

True enough, I don't keep a historical record of this nation's wars beyond Iraq and Afghanistan, so I'm a bit perplexed as to precisely which war you're talking about. Sadly, voters seem to be more focused on anti-rich these days than a looming issue like our national debt. Seems to me like Americans back then were willing to vote for someone they didn't like so long as priority #1 was at least met. A pity very few liberals make the same consideration for Romney, at least so far as the news will reveal.

Two things are on my mind: Jobs and the Debt.

Everything else is secondary to me. Now as far as the debt goes, yes deficits will increase with a tax cut, but I believe that if economic growth can be spurred(growth is unquestionably slow as of now), then that growth will allow us to close that gap. Reforming our entitlement programs will certainly be the finishing punch after that first issue is dealt with.

[jdm61]

Just so we are clear, Nixon essentially won by default in 1968. A nasty little man by the name of Sirhan Sirhan handed him that election admittedly with some help from the Hippies, Yippies and Zippies who came to Chicago in the summer. The Democrats and their shift to the HARD left in 1972 handed him the second term.

[Codger_64]

The war that lasted basicly from 1950 through 1975. It was a tumultuous time for Americans, but as I said, you would have had to have lived through it to really understand it all in context.

I am of the opinion that when taxes drop, production, jobs and real income will increase. It has happened time and again. In my experience.

[bobusx]

The war that lasted basicly from 1950 through 1975. It was a tumultuous time for Americans, but as I said, you would have had to have lived through it to really understand it all in context.

I am of the opinion that when taxes drop, production, jobs and real income will increase. It has happened time and again. In my experience.

Funny enough, from what I have read about inflation adjusted income, the wages of the average American haven't gone up in your lifetime. Most of the growth has gone straight into the top earner's pockets and never come out again.

[bobusx]

Also, as far as aftermath goes, I don't expect much. Most people are too lazy to riot or protest anything. Sure, the internet will explode with whining/gloating, some people will flash guns and talk about freedom, there will be calls to abolish the electoral college, but really, only a vocal minority cares enough to make a huge deal. I think things will have to get much worse for those kind of reactions (say for example, Obama wins, but is then assassinated, or vice versa.

[Mannlicher]

I just can't see any civil unrest following the election. oh, there may well be a few isolated incidents, but no riots, no upheavals.

[Codger_64]

Funny enough, from what I have read about inflation adjusted income, the wages of the average American haven't gone up in your lifetime. Most of the growth has gone straight into the top earner's pockets and never come out again.

The "real standard of living" has gone up exponentially. I remember not having an indoor toilet. I remember when TV was black and white only, and not everyone owned one. I cut off a finger in 1959 and it could not be reattached, Now they reattach limbs. From donors even if the original limb isn't availble. Most families had one car, if indeed they had that. More people actually made their own clothes, a rare thing today. Polio, whoping cough and other common diseases were greatly feared. When vegetables and fruits were out of season, you did without. Fast food resturants were unheard of. Fast foods at home were very limited. Radar ranges had not been invented. Nor pocket calculators or computers. Farming was still done with two and four row equipment. So in spite of inflation, the standard of living for Americans has grown in leaps and bounds. Another case of "you would have had to have been there".

[bobusx]

The "real standard of living" has gone up exponentially. I remember not having an indoor toilet. I remember when TV was black and white only, and not everyone owned one. I cut off a finger in 1959 and it could not be reattached, Now they reattach limbs. From donors even if the original limb isn't availble. Most families had one car, if indeed they had that. More people actually made their own clothes, a rare thing today. Polio, whoping cough and other common diseases were greatly feared. When vegetables and fruits were out of season, you did without. Fast food resturants were unheard of. Fast foods at home were very limited. Radar ranges had not been invented. Nor pocket calculators or computers. Farming was still done with two and four row equipment. So in spite of inflation, the standard of living for Americans has grown in leaps and bounds. Another case of "you would have had to have been there".

The same thing happened in many countries that raised taxes too though. That is just part of being in a 1st world country.

[quietmike]

LOL, and you posting the left will riot,

They are saying it themselves.

http://newswalls.blogspot.com/2012/1...upporters.html

[Codger_64]

The same thing happened in many countries that raised taxes too though. That is just part of being in a 1st world country.

Those countries lagged behind though, reaping benefits from the booming economy and innovation in this country. You don't remember the huge growth of the American middle class from the early 1950's foreward. I do. People could afford new houses and construcion boomed. Construction workers could afford new cars, televisions and to send their kids to college. Our econemy grew. Our standard of living grew. Our manufacturing and agriculture exports were ever increasing. Our trade partners tagged along fo the most part but, less than a decade earlier, most of them had been leveled by way (WWII if you don't know history). Not only did those countries get rebuilt, but so did their industries and economies.

[timcsaw]

...
So, what about you? Can you criticize Obama at all? I mean genuine criticisms? Because my theory is that most Obama supporters can't be a supporter and a harsh critic at the same time. I made my choice to vote for Romney after looking at the PROs and CONs. Most people voting for Obama seem to be only looking at the PROs while being oblivious to any CONs. Which one of us is more gullible? Which one of us is more in touch with reality?

It's nice to "dream big" as Obama said, but you need to wake up to reality every once in a while or else you'll be in a coma.

Crickets...

[jdm61]

IN the case of Obama voters, more like listening to the "pros" on network TV and buying into the "con".

Crickets...

[bobusx]

For me personally, I felt he gave too much of the healthcare reform up to Congress, and he failed to reign in the Democrats from gutting it trying to buy votes from republicans that were never gonna vote for it anyway. He wasted to much time thinking he could be bipartisan, and failed to realize just how entrenched the divide was. He was way late on coming out on social issues, making them a pretty weak election time topic. He signed that horrid defense budget that allowed the military to arrest and detain citizens without charge. He also failed to kill the Bush tax cuts for the rich, and he was unable to overcome Republican opposition to raising the debt ceiling until the credit rating was damaged. He also failed to emphasize the damage that the Republicans caused with that. In fact, he is quite terrible at ducking punches, and allowed Repubs too blame him for things they did themselves. For how well he sold himself during the election, he couldn't sell the Democratic platform at all.

[Noctis3880]

For me personally, I felt he gave too much of the healthcare reform up to Congress, and he failed to reign in the Democrats from gutting it trying to buy votes from republicans that were never gonna vote for it anyway. He wasted to much time thinking he could be bipartisan, and failed to realize just how entrenched the divide was. He was way late on coming out on social issues, making them a pretty weak election time topic. He signed that horrid defense budget that allowed the military to arrest and detain citizens without charge. He also failed to kill the Bush tax cuts for the rich, and he was unable to overcome Republican opposition to raising the debt ceiling until the credit rating was damaged. He also failed to emphasize the damage that the Republicans caused with that. In fact, he is quite terrible at ducking punches, and allowed Repubs too blame him for things they did themselves. For how well he sold himself during the election, he couldn't sell the Democratic platform at all.

Uhh, "allowed Republicans to blame him for things they did themselves"? He did nothing BUT blame Bush and the Republicans for 4 years. For his first 2 years he had Democratic majorities in both houses and he used that time to speed through his healthcare law instead of anything else. Bipartisanship isn't impossible if Clinton was any proof of that, though it's not a point in one's favor if Congress unanimously rejects your budget without a single vote of support whatsoever even from your own party.

Funny enough, from what I have read about inflation adjusted income, the wages of the average American haven't gone up in your lifetime. Most of the growth has gone straight into the top earner's pockets and never come out again.

Agreed. And yet you can confiscate all their income and still not be able to close the deficit gap. Feel like enslaving the rich? Didn't France try that? Know what the end result of that was?

And are we referring to minimum wage or wages in general? Because last I checked, the teachers in Chicago are going to be getting $100,000 a year in a few years thanks to their new contract. If wages for certain positions were to rise, wouldn't they suddenly be qualified for the "top earners" category? I would ask whether the number of top earners have risen over the years. And how do you define "average" American? Are we including those with no income in this "average"? Because over 60% of all "poor" households have cable or satellite TV.

You make it sound like we've been working for a nickel an hour, but there are those outside the US who actually do that, and if you despise the state of our country so much in that regard, there are BILLIONS of people in other countries who would be happy to take your spot here.

[Nordic Viking]

They are saying it themselves.

http://newswalls.blogspot.com/2012/1...upporters.html

Thanks. 50 a cherry-picked tweets, from anonymous people on the Internet, most definitely transforms the original poster's conjecture and innuendo to fact

[timcsaw]

For me personally, I felt he gave too much of the healthcare reform up to Congress, and he failed to reign in the Democrats from gutting it trying to buy votes from republicans that were never gonna vote for it anyway. He wasted to much time thinking he could be bipartisan, and failed to realize just how entrenched the divide was. He was way late on coming out on social issues, making them a pretty weak election time topic. He signed that horrid defense budget that allowed the military to arrest and detain citizens without charge. He also failed to kill the Bush tax cuts for the rich, and he was unable to overcome Republican opposition to raising the debt ceiling until the credit rating was damaged. He also failed to emphasize the damage that the Republicans caused with that. In fact, he is quite terrible at ducking punches, and allowed Repubs too blame him for things they did themselves. For how well he sold himself during the election, he couldn't sell the Democratic platform at all.

So your criticisms of all of Obama's failures can actually be blamed on someone else? Wow, there's some scathing criticisms of Obama!

[Triton]

For me personally, I felt he gave too much of the healthcare reform up to Congress, and he failed to reign in the Democrats from gutting it trying to buy votes from republicans that were never gonna vote for it anyway. He wasted to much time thinking he could be bipartisan, and failed to realize just how entrenched the divide was.

Right, because he never signed the obamacare bill that didn't have a single Republican vote, and he didn't operate completely freely controlling both house of congress for two years. He had no control over congress whatsoever right?

He was way late on coming out on social issues, making them a pretty weak election time topic. He signed that horrid defense budget that allowed the military to arrest and detain citizens without charge. He also failed to kill the Bush tax cuts for the rich,

You mean those tax cuts that everyone got?

[timcsaw]

To the OP; The "adults" will hold their nose for 4 years, the "children" will mob up and some will riot and destroy their own neighborhoods. If the "children" venture into the neighborhood of the "adults", some "children" may be spanked or otherwise injured.

Or; The race will be too close to call, charges of vote tampering and "stealing" the election will be constant, Obama will institute Marshal Law and confiscate all the votes to do a "proper" count (which he will oversee himself as President pro tempore for the next 10 years as it will take about that long for him to complete the count).