US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2989

On February 23 2016 03:38 Biff The Understudy wrote:


If anything, Obama has been a very strong leader.

On February 23 2016 03:42 xDaunt wrote:

You must be joking. Obama is many things, but no reasonable person has ever accused him of being a strong leader.

On February 23 2016 03:42 xDaunt wrote:

You must be joking. Obama is many things, but no reasonable person has ever accused him of being a strong leader.

On February 23 2016 03:38 Biff The Understudy wrote:


If anything, Obama has been a very strong leader. He has put up reforms that were needed for decades against a hateful, extremist and unbelievably determined opposition, such as the Obamacare, which is a major, major achievement. He has put up a financial reform that we in Europe could only dream of.

But of course, in modern politics saying you will "carpet bomb" people is synonym with "strong leadership". Macho bullshit is seen as "strong" while reasonable determination, rational behaviour, patience and wisdom is seen as weak stuff. It's better to boast about guns and tough shit like building walls and deporting millions of people if you want Joe Redneck to vote for you than provide, for example, a healthcare for every citizen. Who cares about healthcare when you can carpet bomb the shit out of the brown dudes and kick out those dirty mexicans.

Someone who spend his days insulting anyone, who says one sexist remark after a racist insult, who is so ridiculously megalomaniac and dishonest as Trump is not "strong".

I think Krugman is really right when he says we don't have a rational argument anymore. That's a very serious problem, the hysterization of politics and the fact that a major party has become so uninterested with what's actually going on and relies so much on fears, macho instinct and populist nonsenses.

On February 23 2016 03:52 Plansix wrote:
By what metric? The second Bush was "stronger" by leading us a 5 trillion dollar war based by bad intelligence? Of being able to pass his agenda with his party in control of both houses of congress? By failing to respond to a natural disaster on US soil and letting an entire city rot?

The only way W. Bush is a strong leader is if we change the metric to "most money spent on the military to blow up other countries."

On February 23 2016 03:49 Biff The Understudy wrote:

Very strong leader in any way possible.

What he has achieved, considering the circumstances is just unbelievable, despite what Fox and the lunatic from the Tea Party have been saying for years.

You compare what has been done in America in the last eight years, a comparatively amazing recovery from one of the most devastating financial crisis in history (with an incredible amount of jobs created), a not perfect but still remarkable financial reform, the Obamacare which is just amazing considering what was there before, and all of that witha parliament controlled by lunatics living in an Ayn Rand novel. If that's not strong leadership, I'm Mary Poppins.

Obama is a leader that any European country would have dreamt to have during those years. I can't think of a president that has achieved more in such hard times in the last 50 years.

But then again, the narrative offered by Fox and co doesn't care one little bit about what has been done and what is. And the sad thing, just like about Hillary is that people are dumb enough to believe in it.

On February 23 2016 03:38 Biff The Understudy wrote:


If anything, Obama has been a very strong leader. He has put up reforms that were needed for decades against a hateful, extremist and unbelievably determined opposition, such as the Obamacare, which is a major, major achievement. He has put up a financial reform that we in Europe could only dream of.

But of course, in modern politics saying you will "carpet bomb" people is synonym with "strong leadership". Macho bullshit is seen as "strong" while reasonable determination, rational behaviour, patience and wisdom is seen as weak stuff. It's better to boast about guns and tough shit like building walls and deporting millions of people if you want Joe Redneck to vote for you than provide, for example, a healthcare for every citizen. Who cares about healthcare when you can carpet bomb the shit out of the brown dudes and kick out those dirty mexicans.

Someone who spend his days insulting anyone, who says one sexist remark after a racist insult, who is so ridiculously megalomaniac and dishonest as Trump is not "strong".

I think Krugman is really right when he says we don't have a rational argument anymore. That's a very serious problem, the hysterization of politics and the fact that a major party has become so uninterested with what's actually going on and relies so much on fears, macho instinct and populist nonsenses.

On February 23 2016 03:52 Plansix wrote:
By what metric? The second Bush was "stronger" by leading us a 5 trillion dollar war based by bad intelligence? Of being able to pass his agenda with his party in control of both houses of congress? By failing to respond to a natural disaster on US soil and letting an entire city rot?

The only way W. Bush is a strong leader is if we change the metric to "most money spent on the military to blow up other countries."

America’s international climate obligations carry a significant public health benefit, with new research finding that about 295,000 premature deaths could be prevented in the country by 2030 if deep cuts to greenhouse gas emissions are achieved.

At a summit in Paris in December, 196 nations, including the US, agreed to limit global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels in order to prevent the worst effects of climate change. The agreement, the first to demand all countries slash emissions, will require major emissions reductions given that the world has already warmed by 1C during the past century.

A paper by Duke University calculates that in order to help achieve the Paris goal, the US will need to reduce its emissions by 40% by 2030, compared with 2005 levels. This is a jump from the 26-28% reduction the US has promised to undertake by 2025.

The US would prevent many premature deaths and save the economy billions of dollars should it make the necessary emissions cuts, the Duke study shows. A total of 295,000 Americans who would otherwise die from lung cancer, heart attacks or respiratory diseases by 2030 would be saved due to the reduction in air pollution.

Currently, the US experiences about 200,000 early deaths each year due to emissions from heavy industry, cars, trains and ships, as well as commercial and residential heating. Ozone and particulate matter released from the burning of fossil fuels are linked to 100,000 of these annual deaths.

On February 23 2016 03:49 Biff The Understudy wrote:

Very strong leader in any way possible.

What he has achieved, considering the circumstances is just unbelievable, despite what Fox and the lunatic from the Tea Party have been saying for years.

You compare what has been done in America in the last eight years, a comparatively amazing recovery from one of the most devastating financial crisis in history (with an incredible amount of jobs created), a not perfect but still remarkable financial reform, the Obamacare which is just amazing considering what was there before, and all of that witha parliament controlled by lunatics living in an Ayn Rand novel. If that's not strong leadership, I'm Mary Poppins.

Obama is a leader that any European country would have dreamt to have during those years. I can't think of a president that has achieved more in such hard times in the last 50 years.

But then again, the narrative offered by Fox and co doesn't care one little bit about what has been done and what is. And the sad thing, just like about Hillary is that people are dumb enough to believe in it.

On February 23 2016 03:56 xDaunt wrote:

All of those presidents got shit done (regardless of whether you like what they did). All of them demonstrated an ability to work with the other side to pass grand legislation. All of them demonstrated an ability to work foreign relationships to accomplish real things on the global stage. Obama can't hold a candle to any of them on any of these fronts.

On February 23 2016 03:55 Deathstar wrote:


Obamacare is currently a mess right now because it lost it's purpose. Without a public option, which died thanks to moderate Democrats, Obamacare cannot achieve it's stated goals.

Costs are still too high and unaffordable to millions of Americans, quality of care is comparable to pre-Obamacare, the program needs federal subsidies to stay afloat which will cost us trillions into this decade, hasn't done anything to curtail the problem of underinsurance, and so now we have a bunch of people with pre-existing conditions entering the market while the healthy population gets nothing due to high deductibles except a bigger bill.

On February 23 2016 03:53 Jockmcplop wrote:


I was gonna say something similar. Losing two wars simultaneously is no measure of strength by my mind.

On February 23 2016 03:57 Deathstar wrote:


You can't think of another president because you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

On February 23 2016 03:56 xDaunt wrote:

All of those presidents got shit done (regardless of whether you like what they did). All of them demonstrated an ability to work with the other side to pass grand legislation. All of them demonstrated an ability to work foreign relationships to accomplish real things on the global stage. Obama can't hold a candle to any of them on any of these fronts.