In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On November 06 2015 23:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Agreed. Plus, the sample size will be wayyy too small. It's probably better to look at some surveys/ research that have been done on a larger scale:
I am aware of those surveys -- I was wondering about the people posting in this thread.
Ah okay. Again though, you're assuming that social desirability bias and trolling won't be an issue. (There's nothing stopping me from voting in the Republican poll and putting any answer I want.)
Compare and contract Fox News and pretty much every other news site: everyone is talking about the good jobs report, Fox is completely silent about it.
On November 07 2015 00:47 ticklishmusic wrote: Compare and contract Fox News and pretty much every other news site: everyone is talking about the good jobs report, Fox is completely silent about it.
On November 06 2015 23:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Agreed. Plus, the sample size will be wayyy too small. It's probably better to look at some surveys/ research that have been done on a larger scale:
I am aware of those surveys -- I was wondering about the people posting in this thread.
Ah okay. Again though, you're assuming that social desirability bias and trolling won't be an issue. (There's nothing stopping me from voting in the Republican poll and putting any answer I want.)
I think the fact that you aren't 13 years old hinders you from that, and I don't think there are that many 13 year olds reading this thread - if there are any then their maturity level is likely to not be 13 anyway.
social desirability bias also shouldn't really be a bigger factor here than elsewhere ; republicans who post in this thread clearly are not the ones who shy away from conflict (or they would not be posting in this thread). Sample size is obviously a problem, but then kwizach wasn't claiming that this was actual research, maybe more along the lines of figuring out whether man made climate change is actually a contentious issue (whether it's real) on this forum, even among the posters we have who identify as republican?
Anyone else starting to wonder if the economy is going to be in a really decent spot towards the end of 2016? It is looking like the Obama presidency isn't going to really put all that sour of a taste in anyone's mouth. Things going kinda nuts in the Middle East, but that's a given. Unemployment is low, healthcare not perfect but a definite improvement over 8 years ago. Perhaps it is my liberal perspective, but I am really just not seeing any source of major criticism that will make people do the usual pendulum swing between red and blue. I feel like previous ends of 8 year reign have always had a dagger that the other party is using to make their case. But in 2016, it feels like the only options are blaming ISIS on Obama and saying the ACA sucks. I don't think either of those things will be killer.
On November 07 2015 01:45 Mohdoo wrote: Anyone else starting to wonder if the economy is going to be in a really decent spot towards the end of 2016? It is looking like the Obama presidency isn't going to really put all that sour of a taste in anyone's mouth. Things going kinda nuts in the Middle East, but that's a given. Unemployment is low, healthcare not perfect but a definite improvement over 8 years ago. Perhaps it is my liberal perspective, but I am really just not seeing any source of major criticism that will make people do the usual pendulum swing between red and blue. I feel like previous ends of 8 year reign have always had a dagger that the other party is using to make their case. But in 2016, it feels like the only options are blaming ISIS on Obama and saying the ACA sucks. I don't think either of those things will be killer.
While there are some things done by his administration I don't support, I do believe that his presidency will be looked back upon as a successful one.
I like his presidency. I have no idea how much it has affected my life, but things have been going steadily better where I live (NYC) in terms of construction, hiring, housing prices, etc. And my friend in the army didn't get sent off to die and was able to get honorably discharged. And the Whitehouse fb page shared a college humor video, which jives with my age/generation.
I might be selfish, but I think the above indicates that the last 6-8 years has been pretty good in my opinion.
Obama won't be included with Washington, Lincoln and Roosevelt, but he'll probably end up right below the that tier. I'm pretty happy with what he's done domestically, though the Middle East situation is still a very complicated one. It remains to be seen what Obama can make happen before he leaves office though.
Security state is worse than it was pre-Bush. That's a fairly important issue for me and I'm mad about it.
Middle East has been a clustershambles. It was already a complete mess and nobody really had a good plan but we pay the government to be better at making plans than you or I and their "lets go home and hope for the best" strategy hasn't exactly improved American interests. One good thing in terms of foreign policy is that Iran, Saudi Arabia and most importantly Russia have been devastated by the Saudi break with OPEC which is partially a result of domestic oil policy. America's standing hasn't improved considerably but in terms of ability to project power Russia has suffered a very serious setback while Iran has been brought to the negotiating table which is something that was absolutely necessary. We need Iran if we are to end our toxic relationship with Saudi Arabia who are literally the enemy in the Middle East while still retaining a regional partner. Bush's branding of Iran as part of the Axis of Evil set back relations with them 15 years, despite the detante in the wake of 9/11 and the military partnership with them in Afghanistan. Maybe Bush gambled on America becoming such a regional power in the Middle East through the proxy of Iraq that we wouldn't need relationships in that region, we could just kick the shit out of everyone, but I think it's fantastic that Obama has begun to repair that relationship with a diplomatic victory.
In Europe he took his "literally anyone but Bush" credit and squandered it in the wake of Snowden and the halfhearted response to clearning up the torture/Guantanamo mess. In the Ukraine he lost at brinkmanship with Putin but I'm not honestly sure that was a place we were going to win. The point of brinkmanship is to convince the other guy you're a bigger lunatic than he is and if you fail to convince him then the nukes fly. The time to win in Ukraine was the early 90s, Clinton made an agreement with Russia and the European powers and Putin subsequently took a shit on that agreement. I recall there was one poster in this topic at the time who was blaming Obama for not writing stronger deterrents into the Budapest Memorandum but I think that's a little unfair given it was 14 years before he took office. Bill takes the fall for that one.
On climate change, not enough was done. There was insufficient political will to do as much as was needed but it was still his job. We know why he failed, the American people weren't voting with him on the issue when it came to filling the houses with people willing to take action on it, but as leader it was kinda his job to convince them on it.
Healthcare, the left think it's nowhere near enough, the right think it's way too much which to me suggests that he took a middle ground. Maybe in 2009 he could have implemented a Single Payer system if he'd pushed for it from the outset. I think we'll have to judge Obamacare based on what happens next. It's certainly no more than a patch on a broken system. As for the gap in states that turned down Federal Medicaid expansion, the Republican governors in those states should be ashamed.
Gay rights, well done.
Immigration issues, no real work done.
Race issues, no real work done that wouldn't have happened anyway. I get that he doesn't want to be seen as a black guy helping black guys but still.
Economy. Bush took the blame for the collapse under his watch which wasn't really his fault. Bush then implemented QE which was also very unpopular. That QE worked exactly the way it was meant to under Obama's watch without being his policy (not to say the enemies of QE didn't blame him for it). We're now in something like 6 years of economic growth with the market far stronger than it was pre recession. I personally think he got lucky but then again, I also think Bush got unlucky. I'm glad we had Bush in 08 and not someone either so far right they think all government intervention is wrong or so far left they just hate banks.
I'd still support him in 2008 and 2012 but I'd not be especially excited to do so. It's mainly just looking at the other party and going "oh hell no".
Obama Announces Historic Decision to Reject Keystone XL Pipeline
On Friday, President Obama announced his administration's decision to reject the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline, after seven years of intense deliberation over the pipeline's potential environmental risks. The announcement is widely viewed as a major victory for environmentalists and is sure to further burnish the president's legacy in combating climate change.
Proponents of the controversial project, which would have carried more than 800,000 barrels of crude oil from Canada daily, say the pipeline's construction would be an essential jobs creator and boost the economy.
Aren't we just trucking the oil in though? We're still dependent upon Canadian oil sands, we just refuse to build the infrastructure to use it efficiently. I guess if the plan is to be so inefficient that oil looks bad and we find a new solution which just happens to be green then that'd work but still, not a great plan.
Ben Carson’s campaign on Friday admitted, in a response to an inquiry from POLITICO, that a central point in his inspirational personal story was fabricated: his application and acceptance into the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. The academy has occupied a central place in Carson’s tale for years. According to a story told in Carson’s book, “Gifted Hands,” the then-17 year old was introduced in 1969 to Gen. William Westmoreland, who had just ended his command of U.S. forces in Vietnam, and the two dined together. That meeting, according to Carson’s telling, was followed by a “full scholarship” to the military academy. Story Continued Below West Point, however, has no record of Carson applying, much less being extended admission. “In 1969, those who would have completed the entire process would have received their acceptance letters from the Army Adjutant General,” said Theresa Brinkerhoff, a spokeswoman for the academy. She said West Point has no records that indicate Carson even began the application process. “If he chose to pursue (the application process), then we would have records indicating such,” she said. When presented with these facts, Carson’s campaign conceded the story was false. “Dr. Carson was the top ROTC student in the City of Detroit,” campaign manager Barry Bennett wrote in an email to POLITICO. “In that role he was invited to meet General Westmoreland. He believes it was at a banquet. He can’t remember with specificity their brief conversation but it centered around Dr. Carson’s performance as ROTC City Executive Officer.”
Ben Carson’s campaign on Friday admitted, in a response to an inquiry from POLITICO, that a central point in his inspirational personal story was fabricated: his application and acceptance into the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. The academy has occupied a central place in Carson’s tale for years. According to a story told in Carson’s book, “Gifted Hands,” the then-17 year old was introduced in 1969 to Gen. William Westmoreland, who had just ended his command of U.S. forces in Vietnam, and the two dined together. That meeting, according to Carson’s telling, was followed by a “full scholarship” to the military academy. Story Continued Below West Point, however, has no record of Carson applying, much less being extended admission. “In 1969, those who would have completed the entire process would have received their acceptance letters from the Army Adjutant General,” said Theresa Brinkerhoff, a spokeswoman for the academy. She said West Point has no records that indicate Carson even began the application process. “If he chose to pursue (the application process), then we would have records indicating such,” she said. When presented with these facts, Carson’s campaign conceded the story was false. “Dr. Carson was the top ROTC student in the City of Detroit,” campaign manager Barry Bennett wrote in an email to POLITICO. “In that role he was invited to meet General Westmoreland. He believes it was at a banquet. He can’t remember with specificity their brief conversation but it centered around Dr. Carson’s performance as ROTC City Executive Officer.”
On November 07 2015 03:12 Gorsameth wrote: I donno, his "I had a gun pointed at me" story was fake aswell and that didn't seem to hurt his popularity.
I really do wonder why his supporters support him. He explicitly lies about half the time, and is ignorant about everything else. Is it really because he's black or a neurosurgeon? Is that it?
On November 07 2015 02:56 KwarK wrote: Aren't we just trucking the oil in though? We're still dependent upon Canadian oil sands, we just refuse to build the infrastructure to use it efficiently. I guess if the plan is to be so inefficient that oil looks bad and we find a new solution which just happens to be green then that'd work but still, not a great plan.
that is my understanding. It's still being sent by truck and rail, which have higher risks of loss of life due to accidents. The oil will get to where it's going, the question is just how it's sent. I believe the state department report was clear on this, at least it was on the last version of it I read, which was a few years ago.
I think we're beginning to see the end of Carson. Oh well, he sold millions of copies of a book full of what we know to be lies so I don't think he's hurting much.
On November 07 2015 03:12 Gorsameth wrote: I donno, his "I had a gun pointed at me" story was fake aswell and that didn't seem to hurt his popularity.
I really do wonder why his supporters support him. He explicitly lies about half the time, and is ignorant about everything else. Is it really because he's black or a neurosurgeon? Is that it?
Ive said it before, I seriously think the majority of his support are people who do not follow the Primary and who's reaction comes down to "Isn't he that neurosurgeon guy?"