I think the world would be a better place if we were all a little more cynical. In fact, there’s really no point in anyone believing anything. That way, we CAN’T be wrong! Plus we won’t have silly disagreements about who killed who, or whether zombies are truly superior to unicorns (If I believed in stuff, I’d say that was definitely a yes).

Mr. Scalzi, thank you for writing this and putting out there. I didn’t vote for the President Elect, but in a few short months he’s going to start the horrible, unforgiving, thankless job that he fought so hard to get. I wish people would stop putting more pressure on him by making him into some kind of savior. He’s not. No government or official of any level is going to save us. We are going to save us, with what I hope will be good, sound leadership for a change. If people were to listen closely to what Mr. Obama is saying in his speeches, I believe he’s telling us as much. We, as a country, allowed much of this financial crisis to happen and did far too little to avert it. Now, we have to deal with those consequences. No one is going to like it. No one.

I didn’t vote for Mr. Obama, nor did I vote for Mr. McCain, though I did vote. I’m not sure that we’ve made the best choice, but I hope we have. In the end, I think the next four years would have forced some of the same choices from our leaders regardless of which party put them forward. Yes, we needed a change. I hope we’ve made the right one. The real change, however, needs to start at home, my own home included.

It’s time to stop worrying about what percentage of the vote constitutes a “mandate” or a “landslide”. It doesn’t matter. Mr. Obama is the clear winner and inspired more people to get out and vote, from all socioeconomic backgrounds, than any candidate has in many, many years. No matter the end result, that alone was a good thing. I hope those people who voted for a change keep being interested in what’s happening in their country. That’s the change that matters. People pitching in and making a small difference in their own local community.

So, while your post may have upset some and been a simple buzzkill for others, thank you for reminding us that Barack Obama is one man and can only do so much. The real change is up to us.

What about the UK? Do you care about our opinion? Because the reaction to the US election result of most of the people I know has been: “Oh. So maybe they aren’t so stupid after all.” You might not want to appear weaker, but would it hurt to look a bit smarter?

The US has got a chance to make the world re-evaluate it. I think it would be a pity to waste it.

My basis for believing that increasing the capital gains tax, income tax, and protectionist trade policies will harm the economy comes from the results of the JFK, Reagan, and Bush tax cuts. In each case, governmental receipts increased.

Conversely, the Carter tax hike and IIRC the Bush I tax hike both caused the economy to shrink or slow down in growth. Thus a tax increase during a recession can cause the contraction to last longer and be deeper than it otherwise would be.

Regarding other tax Peter to give to Paul items that are already in the code, I don’t like them either. One of the items on my ballot was a resolution to allow my state to invest school trust fund money into private company stocks. I voted against it because I feel government has no business having any ownership interest in any private business. I am convinced that the major reason for the mortgage meltdown was the federal ownership/relationship with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

I’m sure Mr. Obama would not agree to help Iran wipe Israel off the map. I am afraid that Mr. Obama wouldn’t say anything one way or the other. As an example, during the campaign, Mr. Obama told a Jewish group he was addressing that he supported their concept of what should be done regarding Jerusalem. (I can’t remember exactly what position the group advocated.) Within a couple of weeks, due to outcry from those that support the Palestinian position, Mr. Obama backed off and went neutral on the issue. If President Obama is neutral to Iran on the issue of Israel’s right to exist, I believe Iran would understand that as a green light.

Regarding the WGN item, let it drop. What about Rep Schumer and his support of the so-called “Fairness Doctrine”? That doctrine, if enacted, is a direct limitation on political speech by government because it is only going to be applied to talk radio.

By the way, DG Lewis, I don’t think you win anything. As I understand it, it requires a comparison of the other side in the debate to Hitler or Nazis. I have not said that Mr. Obama, Todd, or any other commenter on this thread is similar to them. What I did do is relate a historical fact of a naive or overly trusting leader being taken in by Hitler.

(What do I win?)

I don’t believe that increasing capital gains taxes will slow down economic growth. I have yet to see compelling research and arguments that convince me of that, but I am open to suggested reading. Frankly, I’m not concerned that rich people making over 250K or 150K will pay more taxes. I think if you make more, you should pay more. There is all sorts of income and resource redistribution happening for the rich that fiscal conservatives don’t bellyache about, and which help them become and stay rich. For example, government subsidies for specific industries. And I don’t see you making a compelling case that any of the economic policies that you outlined will cause a recession to become a depression.

I would ask that regarding the issue of meeting with leaders without preconditions, that you stop making parallels between Obama’s position, and that of Chamberlain in regards to Hitler. You can in fact meet with leaders without capitulating to their demands. One possibility is that talking leads to consensus on some issues that are of strategic importance to the US and its allies, including Israel. When you draw the parallel to Hitler, it reeks of fear mongering. I don’t suppose that Iran will rescind their statements about wiping Israel off the face of the Earth; however, their strategic goals, what they agree to with the US, and what they say publically can actually all be different. As long as Obama doesn’t agree to help Iran wipe Israel off the face of the Earth, I think his willingness to talk could result in a positive result. Would it kill you to think positive on this?

I don’t know much about the WGN incident, but my original point remains. You are conflating government policy restricting free speech with the actions of private citizens and corporations, who have no obligation regarding free speech period.

“Dude, you need to stop doing that shit or I’m going to have to start actually being nicer to you.”

I feel obliged to point out that “Vox” and Vox Day (who posts here as “VD”) are different people.

David at 194: Please read my post and understand it. I said that an American or Israeli city will suffer a NBC attack in the next 4 years, not that Obama is planning it. I base this on Obama’s stated intention of meeting with Iran and others without preconditions (as stated on his campaign website) along with the fact that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapon technology (according to the UN IEAE) and that the Iranian leaders have consistently stated they want to make Israel a howling wilderness and burn it off the face of the earth.

Meeting without preconditions has happened before in history. Neville Chamberlain, the Prime Minister of England in 1938, met with Adolf Hitler to discuss Hitler’s desire to annex the Sudetenland, a part of Czechoslovakia that had a large number of ethnic Germans living there. The result of that meeting was a promise from Hitler that he wouldn’t look to expand any more after getting the Sudetenland. PM Chamberlain went back to London and gave his famous “Peace in our time” speech.

Germany promptly broke the promise, annexed the rest of Czechoslovakia and within one year WWII had started in part due to Hitler not believing Britain and France’s promise to declare war if Poland was invaded.

Todd Stull @ 197: I don’t believe the housing/credit meltdown would cause a depression. I do believe it will cause a recession that may take most of a year to recover from, as long as no new anti-growth items are implemented in Washington DC. However, Mr. Obama has stated that he wants to increase the capital gains tax, allow the Bush tax cuts to sunset in 2010, does not support free trade, and wants to increase taxes on people making more that 250K a year. (As an aside, some Democrats have said lower figures: Joe Biden used $200,000 and Bill Richardson used $150,000 a few days before the election). These economic policies, if actually enacted, will deepen the recession into a depression.

In regards to Colin Powell’s endorsement, I think you are relying too much on Gen. Powell’s statement and not enough on Obama’s stated positions. As stated above, I feel that meeting with dictatorial leaders without preconditions is a recipe for disaster. (I think it can be agreed upon here that the Iranian leadership is a functional dictatorship due to only one party or ideology having power.)

In regards to the WGN incident, the response was coordinated by the Obama campaign due to an action notice that was emailed out his supporters by campaign workers. In addition, I found it highly offensive that Mr. Obama’s supporters seemed to claim any disagreement with or concerns about Mr. Obama’s policy statements were motivated by racism.

What a remarkably unpatriotic attitude. ‘I’m fine, so it doesn’t matter how many Americans died in Iraq or in New Orleans.’