EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 2770
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. 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. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On January 21 2016 07:44 xDaunt wrote: Does anyone else think that Hillary may be making a fatal tactical error by fully embracing Obama's presidency? Not really. Right now she's banking on his supporters and capital in minority groups to carry her through the primary, and in the general she'll be banking on every first voter in 2008 and 2012 voting for her too. I don't think repudiating Obama is somehow going to gain her anything; most of the people that hate his presidency already hate Clinton with a fiery passion that could not be quenched by Niagara Falls. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
| ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On January 21 2016 07:53 TheTenthDoc wrote: Not really. Right now she's banking on his supporters and capital in minority groups to carry her through the primary, and in the general she'll be banking on every first voter in 2008 and 2012 voting for her too. I don't think repudiating Obama is somehow going to gain her anything; most of the people that hate his presidency already hate Clinton with a fiery passion that could not be quenched by Niagara Falls. This. Feelings for Obama are pretty much split along party lines. Right now, Clinton is trying to win the primary, particularly the minority vote. If she tried to distance herself from Obama, she'd only piss off Democrats and still fail to win a meaningful amount of independents/Republicans, so there's no logical reason to do so. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On January 21 2016 07:44 xDaunt wrote: Does anyone else think that Hillary may be making a fatal tactical error by fully embracing Obama's presidency? she's bound to the administration anyway so there's not much effectiveness for any sort of distancing. she'll have to put up some concrete results that she has gotten and run on a profile of competent governance. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On January 21 2016 08:22 oneofthem wrote: she's bound to the administration anyway so there's not much effectiveness for any sort of distancing. she'll have to put up some concrete results that she has gotten and run on a profile of competent governance. And if the economy shits itself this year? | ||
|
Evotroid
Hungary176 Posts
Hopefully by then they have seen enough of the republican clown show to remember that Obama may not have lived up to their hopes, but there is still waaaay lower. I sincerely share your belief that Hillary is completely untrustworthy career politician who knows how corrupt, and that if god forbid Bernie won, he couldn't achieve anything due to congress, etc. But. Please tell me, what do you hope, which republican wins, and in exactly what way will it be better, or even just simply not worse than the probably not much Hillary would do? All I see (obviously through my european bias but that is why I ask here) is repugnant, toxic social ideas (anti-planned parenthood, no sex ed,no gay marriage, etc) and views (like on climate change) that can only be explained by being completely stupid or downright evil-corrupt ... A complete disregard for any kind of social problem not directly affecting the white male population, and not in a way of bad solutions, but just pretending that there is nothing wrong like they would know it. Foreign policy? Even if I concede that Obama was even worse than Bush (a feat at that) it's not like they give any answers other than more saber rattling and bombing. (how good was it last time, right?) And finally, not one of them seems an ounce less corrupt than Hillary, they have big donors just like her, and in most "evil corporation vs general populace" they are on the corporate side, be it environment, taxation whatever. And they throw around "facts" like every gop event was a lying contest. /end semi rant/ I promise, I wont argue your hopes or anything, what do I know, I don't live there, I am just flabbergasted and curious. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
It won't be Obama's fault by any metric. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
then she will just be sanders 2.0 and eat the rich etc. this china + oil thing may produce some drastic stock market slopes but it is not something the u.s. economy can't recover from. exposure to the chinese debt situation in the states is relatively low, and really lower commodity helps the u.s. the relative security of the u.s. economy and political situation may yet lead to more optimistic future growth prospects. now, it would be a good opportunity to open the fiscal spigots and do the necessary investments in education and infrastructure. i still see the inexorable drive towards more concentration and pyramidal distribution both in corporate organization and in society as the ultimate problem for the u.s. it may yet require a revolution sort of change, but i don't see sanders and his group as the right ones leading this thing. say what you will about hillary but her group of advisers is superior to sanders by far. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On January 21 2016 07:55 cLutZ wrote: ^^You are so positive about everything in politics Plansix. First you think politicians don't change positions for purely Machiavellian purposes, now you have faith in the intelligence and political engagement of "general election voters". I am just delighted by this. Like Phil Simms after a Peyton Manning touchdown. I am generally not a cynic about people when it comes to general elections. Specifically when it comes to the pandering that and issue flopping that a lot of candidates do. Just like the "Blame Bush for everything" didn't work for democrats for longer than one election, the GOP already cashed in their "blame Obama for everything" chip and they got the house. And like the demarcates after 2008, the GOP flushed their chances down the toilet with infighting and hopeless causes. The only difference is the democrats at least passed the ACA, but now without a bunch of internal drama. This election reminds me of Romney and the GOP's "plan" then. If you could call it a "plan". | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On January 21 2016 07:44 xDaunt wrote: Does anyone else think that Hillary may be making a fatal tactical error by fully embracing Obama's presidency? I hope so. Economy could be in trouble from oil shocks due to shale oil debt default. Bunch of midwest banks probably gonna fold up soon. Unemployment out there has spiked. Depressed Chinese economy only reduces demand for more oil. HOW ABOUT SHALE OIL THOUGH? | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8760 Posts
that's a big if. there are some indicators that are disconcerting, sure. although stock markets have been highly inflated by cheap money and would have to come down sooner or later anyway. I feel like it's once again people are surprised that when you throw a ball into the air, it will inevitably come down. cheap oil is pretty good for the whole economy but for some big players with _very_ loud voices. well, and china won't go belly up because they got a pretty big war chest to keep themselves floating way past the election in any case. I don't see it happening, something extreme and extraordinary would have to happen imho. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
Source | ||
|
Doraemon
Australia14949 Posts
everything really is obama's fault | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On January 21 2016 09:08 Evotroid wrote: Hopefully by then they have seen enough of the republican clown show to remember that Obama may not have lived up to their hopes, but there is still waaaay lower. I sincerely share your belief that Hillary is completely untrustworthy career politician who knows how corrupt, and that if god forbid Bernie won, he couldn't achieve anything due to congress, etc. But. Please tell me, what do you hope, which republican wins, and in exactly what way will it be better, or even just simply not worse than the probably not much Hillary would do? All I see (obviously through my european bias but that is why I ask here) is repugnant, toxic social ideas (anti-planned parenthood, no sex ed,no gay marriage, etc) and views (like on climate change) that can only be explained by being completely stupid or downright evil-corrupt ... A complete disregard for any kind of social problem not directly affecting the white male population, and not in a way of bad solutions, but just pretending that there is nothing wrong like they would know it. Foreign policy? Even if I concede that Obama was even worse than Bush (a feat at that) it's not like they give any answers other than more saber rattling and bombing. (how good was it last time, right?) And finally, not one of them seems an ounce less corrupt than Hillary, they have big donors just like her, and in most "evil corporation vs general populace" they are on the corporate side, be it environment, taxation whatever. And they throw around "facts" like every gop event was a lying contest. /end semi rant/ I promise, I wont argue your hopes or anything, what do I know, I don't live there, I am just flabbergasted and curious. I agree with this completely. I don't trust Hilary and my positions align more closely with Bernie, but he's just not very good at politics. I'll take the venal, opportunist who's effective over the ineffective idealist. So far his policy outlines have not been good. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On January 21 2016 12:28 Doraemon wrote: http://www.theage.com.au/world/sarah-palin-blames-sons-domestic-violence-on-obamas-leadership-20160120-gmalti.html everything really is obama's fault This clown give other vets a bad name. Blaming your short comings on the war/PTSD when others seem to be able to handle it is some weak shit. | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8760 Posts
On January 21 2016 13:09 Plansix wrote: This clown give other vets a bad name. Blaming your short comings on the war/PTSD when others seem to be able to handle it is some weak shit. personal responsibility in full force, right there. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On January 21 2016 13:13 Doublemint wrote: personal responsibility in full force, right there. My brother served in two tours. He got shot at, ambushed during a convoy and his lead driver had a suicide bomber blow up under the lead vehicle after being run over. He doesn't drive cities unless he is 100% forced to. He wouldn't be caught dead blaming anyone but himself. The Palins are just weak shit. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On January 21 2016 12:36 Jibba wrote: I agree with this completely. I don't trust Hilary and my positions align more closely with Bernie, but he's just not very good at politics. I'll take the venal, opportunist who's effective over the ineffective idealist. So far his policy outlines have not been good. What do you mean not very good at politics? Do you mean you don't like his policy outlines? http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/bernie-sanders-reparations/424602/ Ta-Nehisi Coates wants Bernie Sanders to consider reparations. I don't get it. | ||
| ||
