|
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. |
On November 17 2016 01:02 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2016 00:58 xDaunt wrote:Vice President-elect Mike Pence has ordered the removal of all lobbyists from President-elect Donald Trump's transition team, The Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday night.
The action was among Pence's first since formally taking over the team's lead role. Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey was abruptly dismissed from the post last week.
Critics had excoriated Trump for including lobbyists, Washington insiders, and Republican Party veterans among his team, saying it contradicted the antiestablishment message that defined his campaign.
Earlier Tuesday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts said Americans "do not want corporate executives to be the ones who are calling the shots in Washington.
"What Donald Trump is doing is that he's putting together a transition team that's full of lobbyists — the kind of people he actually ran against," she said.
The move capped a chaotic day for Trump's transition team. Mike Rogers, the former congressman from Michigan who handled national-security duties, was ousted, as was Matthew Freedman, a senior defense and foreign-policy official.
Rogers was told that all team members picked by Christie were being ousted, The Journal reported, citing a source familiar with the situation. Rogers has publicly indicated that the team may be in disarray.
"Is there a little confusion in New York? I think there is. I think this is growing pains," he told CNN's Jim Sciutto. Sources cited by CNN in that story suggested infighting among Trump's close advisers. Another unnamed CNN source denied the claim.
Trump attempted to dispel talk of turmoil in a tweet late Tuesday: "Very organized process taking place as I decide on Cabinet and many other positions," the tweet said. "I am the only one who knows who the finalists are!"
Trump's team is tasked with finding and hiring 4,000 political appointees to fill out the federal government. Source. Hrm, so maybe now we know why some of these early transition steps have been delayed? Imagine that. Trump's keeping his word to drain the swamp. Tells me they're going back and forth because it's a shitshow, just like Trump's campaign was.
Trump won. He got his result, despite the outward appearances of his campaign. Consider the alternative viewpoint that would never be fairly presented or assessed by the mainstream media: Trump made changes to his campaign as necessary to get his campaign on track. Yes, Hillary's campaign was generally a model of stability, but what did that get her? And what we're hearing now is a lot of valid criticism over how Hillary's campaign conducted itself. Not just pure Monday-morning quarterbacking, but accounts of complaints that were made during the campaign.
|
Adm. Michael Rogers, head of the National Security Agency and the U.S. Cyber Command, spoke at a Wall Street Journal forum on Tuesday, and much of the focus of his discussion with WSJ Deputy Editor-in-Chief Rebecca Blumenstein was about joining government and business to fight the scourge of cyber crime.
...
But Blumenstein also asked Rogers about WikiLeaks, and the slow and steady leak of emails stolen from Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta's gmail account. "There shouldn't be any doubts in anybody's mind: This was not something that was done casually, this was not something that was done by chance, this was not a target that was selected purely arbitrarily," Rogers said. "This was a conscious effort by a nation state to attempt to achieve a specific effect."
The Week
|
these are two separate mike rogers, to be clear.
|
On November 17 2016 01:07 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2016 23:41 LegalLord wrote:A second-hand account from someone who talked with Billy Clinton on what he had to say about the Comey blame game. Again, source of some questionability, but the content is valid.
In the waning days of the presidential campaign, Bill and Hillary Clinton had a knock-down, drag-out fight about her effort to blame FBI Director James Comey for her slump in the polls and looming danger of defeat.
"I was with Bill in Little Rock when he had this shouting match with Hillary on the phone and she accused Comey for reviving the investigation into her use of a private email server and reversing her campaign's momentum," said one of Bill Clinton's closest advisers.
"Bill didn't buy the excuse that Comey would cost Hillary the election," said the source. "As far as he was concerned, all the blame belonged to [campaign manager Robby] Mook, [campaign chairman John] Podesta and Hillary because they displayed a tone-deaf attitude about the feeble economy and its impact on millions and millions of working-class voters.
"Bill was so red in the face during his conversation with Hillary that I worried he was going to have a heart attack. He got so angry that he threw his phone off the roof of his penthouse apartment and toward the Arkansas River."
During the campaign, Bill Clinton felt that he was ignored by Hillary's top advisers when he urged them to make the economy the centerpiece of her campaign. He repeatedly urged them to connect with the people who had been left behind by the revolutions in technology and globalization.
"Bill said that constantly attacking Trump for his defects made Hillary's staff and the media happy, but that it wasn't a message that resonated with voters, especially in the rust belt," the source explained. "Bill always campaigned as a guy who felt your pain, but Hillary came across as someone who was pissed off at her enemy [Trump], not someone who was reaching out and trying to make life better for the white working class."
According to the source, Bill was severely critical of Hillary's decision to reject an invitation to address a St. Patrick's Day event at the University of Notre Dame. Hillary's campaign advisers nixed the idea on the ground that white Catholics were not the audience she needed to reach.
"Bill also said that many African Americans were deeply disappointed with the results of eight years of Obama," the source continued. "Despite more and more government assistance, blacks weren't economically any better off, and black-on-black crime was destroying their communities. He said Hillary should have gone into the South Side of Chicago and condemned the out-of-control violence."
Though Bill conceded that FBI Director Comey's decision to revive Hillary's email scandal created a problem for her campaign, he believed the issue had little impact on the outcome because it had already been baked into the decisions of most voters.
"A big part of Bill's anger toward Hillary was that he was sidelined during the entire campaign by her advisers," said the source. "He can't be effective if he sees himself as just another hired hand. He wasn't listened to and that infuriated him. After all, he knows something about campaigns, and he told me in early October that Hillary and her advisers were blowing it.
"Hillary wouldn't listen. She told Bill that his ideas were old and that he was out of touch. In the end, there was nothing he could do about it because Hillary and her people weren't listening to anything he said."
SourceThe "too arrogant to understand why she lost" narrative builds more and more clout as people who actually ran charismatic campaigns tell her that she did a bad job. Though that does assume that a tabloid writer is giving a valid account of his conversations with ol' Billy, which in this case seems reasonable enough. You often see two kinds of people, when it comes to execution. Ones that do absolutely all they can on all of the things they have the most control over and look for how they can perfect that even more. If these people find failure, they were not prepared enough for the circumstances. If these people find success, they think of themselves as "lucky" rather than paranoid in preparation. One that do some reasonable job and then look outward for help and assistant in their endeavor. If these people find failure, they think of themselves as "unlucky" and start pointing fingers and shuffling the blame. If these people find success, it only goes to reinforce their confidence in their own ability. Hillary is definitely in the second group. No matter what, what Putin did, what Comey did, what Wikileaks did, and what Trump did, Clinton was in total control of her own campaign and what her own campaign did. Trump served up as an easy opponent with plenty of gaffs that disqualified him as president among a huge amount of voters. Clinton was fortunate as hell to have Trump as opponent. The other stuff on Putin, Comey, and Wikileaks only impacted the other part of the electorate, some of which had already disqualified Clinton as a candidate. In the balance, Clinton still had extremely favorable election situation. Sometimes you just have to look in the mirror and say I fucked up.
I'm trying to imagine Bill Clinton throwing a phone off the top floor of a building right now.
I don't understand why so many democrats are going out of their way to defend Hillary. She is responsible for leading her party to the calamity that was this election. This loss is going to have huge implications for the democrats over the next several years. There's a reason why most of the people on the right no longer defend Bush.
|
On November 17 2016 01:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2016 01:02 Doodsmack wrote:On November 17 2016 00:58 xDaunt wrote:Vice President-elect Mike Pence has ordered the removal of all lobbyists from President-elect Donald Trump's transition team, The Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday night.
The action was among Pence's first since formally taking over the team's lead role. Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey was abruptly dismissed from the post last week.
Critics had excoriated Trump for including lobbyists, Washington insiders, and Republican Party veterans among his team, saying it contradicted the antiestablishment message that defined his campaign.
Earlier Tuesday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts said Americans "do not want corporate executives to be the ones who are calling the shots in Washington.
"What Donald Trump is doing is that he's putting together a transition team that's full of lobbyists — the kind of people he actually ran against," she said.
The move capped a chaotic day for Trump's transition team. Mike Rogers, the former congressman from Michigan who handled national-security duties, was ousted, as was Matthew Freedman, a senior defense and foreign-policy official.
Rogers was told that all team members picked by Christie were being ousted, The Journal reported, citing a source familiar with the situation. Rogers has publicly indicated that the team may be in disarray.
"Is there a little confusion in New York? I think there is. I think this is growing pains," he told CNN's Jim Sciutto. Sources cited by CNN in that story suggested infighting among Trump's close advisers. Another unnamed CNN source denied the claim.
Trump attempted to dispel talk of turmoil in a tweet late Tuesday: "Very organized process taking place as I decide on Cabinet and many other positions," the tweet said. "I am the only one who knows who the finalists are!"
Trump's team is tasked with finding and hiring 4,000 political appointees to fill out the federal government. Source. Hrm, so maybe now we know why some of these early transition steps have been delayed? Imagine that. Trump's keeping his word to drain the swamp. Tells me they're going back and forth because it's a shitshow, just like Trump's campaign was. Trump won. He got his result, despite the outward appearances of his campaign. Consider the alternative viewpoint that would never be fairly presented or assessed by the mainstream media: Trump made changes to his campaign as necessary to get his campaign on track. Yes, Hillary's campaign was generally a model of stability, but what did that get her? And what we're hearing now is a lot of valid criticism over how Hillary's campaign conducted itself. Not just pure Monday-morning quarterbacking, but accounts of complaints that were made during the campaign.
I'd call it a little too much turmoil. I'm of the view that Trump's basic personality deficiencies are controlling; he's not focused and doesn't have the patience for sustained learning and management, and leaves a LOT up to people under him. That results in infighting, which we've seen a lot of in his campaign and now his transition. The space below Trump is a power struggle from what we can tell, though Bannon has a seat beside the throne, likely because of their personality similarities.
I also believe Trump's lack of focus and obsession with his media image is so extreme that at various times his campaign team has communicated to him through the media. It's a shitshow.
|
On November 16 2016 20:36 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2016 19:57 RvB wrote:On November 16 2016 19:29 Sbrubbles wrote: The thing about the EC that would really bother me, if I were american, is not how people in small states are worth more than people in large states (that's a valid mechanism for a working federalist pact imo), but how opposition in decidedly non-swing states is worth practically nothing. It seems unfair to republicans in california and democrats in texas, or, in the case of this election, unfair to rural areas in california and urban areas in texas. What's the argument for delegates being winner take all and is it not solvable by simply giving more weight to smaller states? That has nothing to do with the EC. It's called the first past the post system. The UK has it as well for their parliament. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting I could have phrased it better, but that doesn't answer my question. Edit: my problem isn't with the specific voting system used to pick the "state winner", but the idea that there has to be a single "state winner". There seems to be states that can split the delegates in one way or another (Maine and Nebraska). Hope that clears things up for you. Right. I didn't understand you my bad. I was pretty curious as well and this is what I found.
The shift to statewide winner-take-all was not done for idealistic reasons. Rather, it was the product of partisan pragmatism, as state leaders wanted to maximize support for their preferred candidate. Once some states made this calculation, others had to follow, to avoid hurting their side. www.fairvote.org
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 17 2016 01:05 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2016 00:59 LegalLord wrote:By the way, on the eve of his presidency, I'm curious what people think of Obama. I wrote this brief comment about his term; overall I myself approve of him but think his presidency will be remembered as "decent but not extraordinary" overall. Quick polls: + Show Spoiler +Poll: Overall, do you approve or disapprove of Obama's presidency?Approve (12) 75% Disapprove (4) 25% 16 total votes Your vote: Overall, do you approve or disapprove of Obama's presidency? (Vote): Approve (Vote): Disapprove
Poll: On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate Obama's presidency overall?7 (9) 56% 2 (2) 13% 3 (2) 13% 8 (2) 13% 6 (1) 6% 1 (0) 0% 4 (0) 0% 5 (0) 0% 9 (0) 0% 10 (0) 0% 16 total votes Your vote: On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate Obama's presidency overall? (Vote): 1 (Vote): 2 (Vote): 3 (Vote): 4 (Vote): 5 (Vote): 6 (Vote): 7 (Vote): 8 (Vote): 9 (Vote): 10
I'd also like to hear more detailed opinions. Obama will go down in history as a middling president. He had minimal accomplishments, and what he did accomplish is about to be erased by Trump. That said, I think that he should be judged by the promise of his 2008 campaign. By that standard, he has been an utter failure and disappointment. He ran on "hope and change," not "the status quo." I suppose "hope and change, but not at the cost of the global liberal economic and political order" is the mantra of his, and that of many other "status quo" Western leaders, if you want to characterize it in a more fair and/or dickish manner.
By the way, were you for or against Obama in 2008?
|
On November 17 2016 01:33 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2016 01:05 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2016 00:59 LegalLord wrote:By the way, on the eve of his presidency, I'm curious what people think of Obama. I wrote this brief comment about his term; overall I myself approve of him but think his presidency will be remembered as "decent but not extraordinary" overall. Quick polls: + Show Spoiler +Poll: Overall, do you approve or disapprove of Obama's presidency?Approve (12) 75% Disapprove (4) 25% 16 total votes Your vote: Overall, do you approve or disapprove of Obama's presidency? (Vote): Approve (Vote): Disapprove
Poll: On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate Obama's presidency overall?7 (9) 56% 2 (2) 13% 3 (2) 13% 8 (2) 13% 6 (1) 6% 1 (0) 0% 4 (0) 0% 5 (0) 0% 9 (0) 0% 10 (0) 0% 16 total votes Your vote: On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate Obama's presidency overall? (Vote): 1 (Vote): 2 (Vote): 3 (Vote): 4 (Vote): 5 (Vote): 6 (Vote): 7 (Vote): 8 (Vote): 9 (Vote): 10
I'd also like to hear more detailed opinions. Obama will go down in history as a middling president. He had minimal accomplishments, and what he did accomplish is about to be erased by Trump. That said, I think that he should be judged by the promise of his 2008 campaign. By that standard, he has been an utter failure and disappointment. He ran on "hope and change," not "the status quo." I suppose "hope and change, but not at the cost of the global liberal economic and political order" is the mantra of his, and that of many other "status quo" Western leaders, if you want to characterize it in a more fair and/or dickish manner. By the way, were you for or against Obama in 2008?
I was against Obama. I thought he was going to be far more radical than he actually was. I also didn't like his inexperience (but if Obama taught us anything, it's that experience is vastly overrated). Yet as Obama made his initial cabinet picks, it became readily apparent that Obama wasn't going to be changing that much during his presidency. Combine that with his decision to blow all of his political capital on Obamacare, and it became clear that he was going to be very ineffective overall in terms of pushing the type of change that he campaigned on.
|
Second degree manslaughter against the officer in the castile shooting in Minnesota. Watching the press conference right now.
Charge is that the officer was in gross negligence and a hunt of recklessness. This is the state charging him.
|
On November 17 2016 01:40 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2016 01:33 LegalLord wrote:On November 17 2016 01:05 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2016 00:59 LegalLord wrote:By the way, on the eve of his presidency, I'm curious what people think of Obama. I wrote this brief comment about his term; overall I myself approve of him but think his presidency will be remembered as "decent but not extraordinary" overall. Quick polls: + Show Spoiler +Poll: Overall, do you approve or disapprove of Obama's presidency?Approve (12) 75% Disapprove (4) 25% 16 total votes Your vote: Overall, do you approve or disapprove of Obama's presidency? (Vote): Approve (Vote): Disapprove
Poll: On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate Obama's presidency overall?7 (9) 56% 2 (2) 13% 3 (2) 13% 8 (2) 13% 6 (1) 6% 1 (0) 0% 4 (0) 0% 5 (0) 0% 9 (0) 0% 10 (0) 0% 16 total votes Your vote: On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate Obama's presidency overall? (Vote): 1 (Vote): 2 (Vote): 3 (Vote): 4 (Vote): 5 (Vote): 6 (Vote): 7 (Vote): 8 (Vote): 9 (Vote): 10
I'd also like to hear more detailed opinions. Obama will go down in history as a middling president. He had minimal accomplishments, and what he did accomplish is about to be erased by Trump. That said, I think that he should be judged by the promise of his 2008 campaign. By that standard, he has been an utter failure and disappointment. He ran on "hope and change," not "the status quo." I suppose "hope and change, but not at the cost of the global liberal economic and political order" is the mantra of his, and that of many other "status quo" Western leaders, if you want to characterize it in a more fair and/or dickish manner. By the way, were you for or against Obama in 2008? I was against Obama. I thought he was going to be far more radical than he actually was. I also didn't like his inexperience (but if Obama taught us anything, it's that experience is vastly overrated). Yet as Obama made his initial cabinet picks, it became readily apparent that Obama wasn't going to be changing that much during his presidency. Combine that with his decision to blow all of his political capital on Obamacare, and it became clear that he was going to be very ineffective overall in terms of pushing the type of change that he campaigned on.
Do you think he would have been able to make more of the changes that he campaigned on if he hadn't spent so much political capital on Obamacare? Healthcare reform is one of the big changes he campaigned on. It seems like if he didn't spend the capital on Obamacare, and instead some more minor reforms, he would still be lauded as ineffective for not passing healthcare reform.
|
Unbelievable...
Senate Democrats on Wednesday elected Chuck Schumer of New York to lead the party into the Trump era, while Senate Republicans re-elected Mitch McConnell of Kentucky to be the key legislative bridge to the next administration.
Schumer had hoped he might be the majority leader if his party recaptured the Senate, working closely with Hillary Clinton’s administration. Instead, the New York Democrat will serve as the party’s key counterweight to a Trump presidency as minority leader.
“We needed a sharper, bolder, stronger economic message and we needed to let Americans understand what we all believe – that the system’s not working for them and we’re going to change it,” Schumer said during a brief press conference after the elections.
Flanked by senators Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Schumer said Democrats would work with the incoming administration on areas where they agree, but said to expect a “strong and tough fight” where they don’t agree.
Asked about the appointment of Stephen Bannon, who has been called a champion of white supremacists, as a senior White House adviser, Schumer called his rhetoric “reprehensible” but stopped short of calling for his resignation.
Source
|
On November 17 2016 01:57 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Unbelievable... Show nested quote +Senate Democrats on Wednesday elected Chuck Schumer of New York to lead the party into the Trump era, while Senate Republicans re-elected Mitch McConnell of Kentucky to be the key legislative bridge to the next administration.
Schumer had hoped he might be the majority leader if his party recaptured the Senate, working closely with Hillary Clinton’s administration. Instead, the New York Democrat will serve as the party’s key counterweight to a Trump presidency as minority leader.
“We needed a sharper, bolder, stronger economic message and we needed to let Americans understand what we all believe – that the system’s not working for them and we’re going to change it,” Schumer said during a brief press conference after the elections.
Flanked by senators Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Schumer said Democrats would work with the incoming administration on areas where they agree, but said to expect a “strong and tough fight” where they don’t agree.
Asked about the appointment of Stephen Bannon, who has been called a champion of white supremacists, as a senior White House adviser, Schumer called his rhetoric “reprehensible” but stopped short of calling for his resignation. Source So democrats, let me ask you a question: how does it feel to now be the party of Wall Street and the big banks?
|
Its easy to say Obama was an ineffective president when he 6 out of his 8 years he had the most hostile and inffective congress in maybe the history of the USA.
I would love to see an alternate reality in which he was actually able to do his job.
|
We're moving by the topic, but there was an article in politico last week where it was also reported that Bill Clinton was ignored and had conflicts with Mook and Podesta. I can't find it rn, but that story is certainly plausible.
|
On November 17 2016 01:40 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2016 01:33 LegalLord wrote:On November 17 2016 01:05 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2016 00:59 LegalLord wrote:By the way, on the eve of his presidency, I'm curious what people think of Obama. I wrote this brief comment about his term; overall I myself approve of him but think his presidency will be remembered as "decent but not extraordinary" overall. Quick polls: + Show Spoiler +Poll: Overall, do you approve or disapprove of Obama's presidency?Approve (12) 75% Disapprove (4) 25% 16 total votes Your vote: Overall, do you approve or disapprove of Obama's presidency? (Vote): Approve (Vote): Disapprove
Poll: On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate Obama's presidency overall?7 (9) 56% 2 (2) 13% 3 (2) 13% 8 (2) 13% 6 (1) 6% 1 (0) 0% 4 (0) 0% 5 (0) 0% 9 (0) 0% 10 (0) 0% 16 total votes Your vote: On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate Obama's presidency overall? (Vote): 1 (Vote): 2 (Vote): 3 (Vote): 4 (Vote): 5 (Vote): 6 (Vote): 7 (Vote): 8 (Vote): 9 (Vote): 10
I'd also like to hear more detailed opinions. Obama will go down in history as a middling president. He had minimal accomplishments, and what he did accomplish is about to be erased by Trump. That said, I think that he should be judged by the promise of his 2008 campaign. By that standard, he has been an utter failure and disappointment. He ran on "hope and change," not "the status quo." I suppose "hope and change, but not at the cost of the global liberal economic and political order" is the mantra of his, and that of many other "status quo" Western leaders, if you want to characterize it in a more fair and/or dickish manner. By the way, were you for or against Obama in 2008? I was against Obama. I thought he was going to be far more radical than he actually was. I also didn't like his inexperience (but if Obama taught us anything, it's that experience is vastly overrated). Yet as Obama made his initial cabinet picks, it became readily apparent that Obama wasn't going to be changing that much during his presidency. Combine that with his decision to blow all of his political capital on Obamacare, and it became clear that he was going to be very ineffective overall in terms of pushing the type of change that he campaigned on.
Just curious was there ever any democrat you were not against? How did you feel about bill when he was in office? And of couse he was going to be ineffective at pushing changes when the Republicans took over congress and vowed to stop him from getting anything done.
|
On November 17 2016 01:59 Gorsameth wrote: Its easy to say Obama was an ineffective president when he 6 out of his 8 years he had the most hostile and inffective congress in maybe the history of the USA.
I would love to see an alternate reality in which he was actually able to do his job.
But why did he lose control of congress and was never able to wrest it back? I don't think that he kept control over the message of Obamacare and part of that was the loss of control over what people call it.
|
xDaunt has had the wonderful position of standing for pretty much nothing the last few years. Now that his dream of a Republican exec and Congress it will be interesting to see how he acts.
User was warned for this post
|
Putting out bill too much could also backfire, i understand hillary for not wanting to do that, she ran, he was just the first lady.
|
On November 17 2016 01:57 Azuzu wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2016 01:40 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2016 01:33 LegalLord wrote:On November 17 2016 01:05 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2016 00:59 LegalLord wrote:By the way, on the eve of his presidency, I'm curious what people think of Obama. I wrote this brief comment about his term; overall I myself approve of him but think his presidency will be remembered as "decent but not extraordinary" overall. Quick polls: + Show Spoiler +Poll: Overall, do you approve or disapprove of Obama's presidency?Approve (12) 75% Disapprove (4) 25% 16 total votes Your vote: Overall, do you approve or disapprove of Obama's presidency? (Vote): Approve (Vote): Disapprove
Poll: On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate Obama's presidency overall?7 (9) 56% 2 (2) 13% 3 (2) 13% 8 (2) 13% 6 (1) 6% 1 (0) 0% 4 (0) 0% 5 (0) 0% 9 (0) 0% 10 (0) 0% 16 total votes Your vote: On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate Obama's presidency overall? (Vote): 1 (Vote): 2 (Vote): 3 (Vote): 4 (Vote): 5 (Vote): 6 (Vote): 7 (Vote): 8 (Vote): 9 (Vote): 10
I'd also like to hear more detailed opinions. Obama will go down in history as a middling president. He had minimal accomplishments, and what he did accomplish is about to be erased by Trump. That said, I think that he should be judged by the promise of his 2008 campaign. By that standard, he has been an utter failure and disappointment. He ran on "hope and change," not "the status quo." I suppose "hope and change, but not at the cost of the global liberal economic and political order" is the mantra of his, and that of many other "status quo" Western leaders, if you want to characterize it in a more fair and/or dickish manner. By the way, were you for or against Obama in 2008? I was against Obama. I thought he was going to be far more radical than he actually was. I also didn't like his inexperience (but if Obama taught us anything, it's that experience is vastly overrated). Yet as Obama made his initial cabinet picks, it became readily apparent that Obama wasn't going to be changing that much during his presidency. Combine that with his decision to blow all of his political capital on Obamacare, and it became clear that he was going to be very ineffective overall in terms of pushing the type of change that he campaigned on. Do you think he would have been able to make more of the changes that he campaigned on if he hadn't spent so much political capital on Obamacare? Healthcare reform is one of the big changes he campaigned on. It seems like if he didn't spend the capital on Obamacare, and instead some more minor reforms, he would still be lauded as ineffective for not passing healthcare reform.
I think the problem with spending the political capital on Obamacare is that not many people really wanted it to begin with. Let's put Republican opposition aside, and look purely at the Democrats. Obama and the other pro-Obamacare Democrats in Congress had a lot of trouble whipping enough votes from members of their own Party to pass Obamacare. And let's just face reality: Obamacare has been a political poison pill for the Democrats ever since it was passed. The Republicans have successfully bludgeoned Democrats with it in every election since 2010. In short, I think that Obama made a grave miscalculation by making Obamacare his initial policy initiative. Yeah, he eventually passed Obamacare, but that victory has been about as pyrrhic as it could be.
|
On November 17 2016 01:58 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2016 01:57 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Unbelievable... Senate Democrats on Wednesday elected Chuck Schumer of New York to lead the party into the Trump era, while Senate Republicans re-elected Mitch McConnell of Kentucky to be the key legislative bridge to the next administration.
Schumer had hoped he might be the majority leader if his party recaptured the Senate, working closely with Hillary Clinton’s administration. Instead, the New York Democrat will serve as the party’s key counterweight to a Trump presidency as minority leader.
“We needed a sharper, bolder, stronger economic message and we needed to let Americans understand what we all believe – that the system’s not working for them and we’re going to change it,” Schumer said during a brief press conference after the elections.
Flanked by senators Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Schumer said Democrats would work with the incoming administration on areas where they agree, but said to expect a “strong and tough fight” where they don’t agree.
Asked about the appointment of Stephen Bannon, who has been called a champion of white supremacists, as a senior White House adviser, Schumer called his rhetoric “reprehensible” but stopped short of calling for his resignation. Source So democrats, let me ask you a question: how does it feel to now be the party of Wall Street and the big banks?
Wall Street gets as much support from the republicans, when they don't get more. If you break it down, that's really just a bad/dishonest perception coming from your side to their side.
So basically, nothing particularly new or groundbreaking for the democrats. They should be used to it.
|
|
|
|