|
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 01:40 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.
In 08 specifically though, the other choice was John Rambo McCain, who was the epitome of everything that pissed people off about the Bush administration. In that light it wasn't a hard choice. The rest of the criticism I mostly agree with and I'd characterize him as "better than average status quo president."
|
On November 17 2016 02:01 hunts 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. 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.
At a national level? No, there has not been any democrats that I have supported. There have been some locally that I have supported.
|
On November 17 2016 02:05 ticklishmusic wrote:
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.
I'm not sure where you get off saying this. I have been for a lot of things, none of which Democrats and most Republicans have been interested in.
|
On November 17 2016 02:04 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +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.
The idiot that is Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Abandoned the 50 state strategy and local levels. Hence the losing streak started while forcing other levels of cooperation to go with her or leave. Hence Clinton...
|
On November 17 2016 02:06 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2016 01:58 xDaunt wrote: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.
I haven't seen the final figures, but I'm pretty sure that Wall Street threw a ton more support at Democrats this election than at Republicans -- particularly at the presidential level. And this is to be expected given that Trump very clearly ran on a campaign that ran counter to Wall Street's interests.
|
On November 17 2016 02:11 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2016 02:06 Nebuchad wrote:On November 17 2016 01:58 xDaunt wrote: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. I haven't seen the final figures, but I'm pretty sure that Wall Street threw a ton more support at Democrats this election than at Republicans -- particularly at the presidential level. And this is to be expected given that Trump very clearly ran on a campaign that ran counter to Wall Street's interests.
Of course, Trump ran on obscure positions on most things and Wall Street prefers clarity. But right now he seems set on deregulating them, he has cabinet picks that go their way... I'm sure they're feeling much better.
|
On November 17 2016 02:09 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2016 02:04 Sermokala wrote: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. The idiot that is Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Abandoned the 50 state strategy and local levels. Hence the losing streak started while forcing other levels of cooperation to go with her or leave. Hence Clinton...
Then Obama's failures in getting what he wanted passed isn't all the oppositions fault.
|
On November 17 2016 02:15 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2016 02:11 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2016 02:06 Nebuchad wrote:On November 17 2016 01:58 xDaunt wrote: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. I haven't seen the final figures, but I'm pretty sure that Wall Street threw a ton more support at Democrats this election than at Republicans -- particularly at the presidential level. And this is to be expected given that Trump very clearly ran on a campaign that ran counter to Wall Street's interests. Of course, Trump ran on obscure positions on most things and Wall Street prefers clarity. But right now he seems set on deregulating them, he has cabinet picks that go their way... I'm sure they're feeling much better.
Trump hasn't picked anyone yet. I'd wait and see what happens before coming to any conclusions. This is particularly important in this case given that Trump apparently just canned Christie and all of his people for bringing in lobbyists despite Trump's orders to the contrary. This suggests to me that Trump is serious about his campaign promises.
|
It might help that the candidate who isn't Trump was quite literally Wall Street's representative in Congress.
|
Is this a good idea?
Twitter has suspended the accounts of several members of the American alt-right movement, including the leader of a white nationalist think tank.
The social network has not given an explanation for its actions.
But they come the same week it announced new ways for users to complain about hateful content.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37997864
I honestly don't have any idea how much influence twitter has, and how the alt-right uses it. And even less idea on what this means. The alt right people are clearly not going anywhere, so does this even do anything?
|
On November 17 2016 02:17 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2016 02:15 Nebuchad wrote:On November 17 2016 02:11 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2016 02:06 Nebuchad wrote:On November 17 2016 01:58 xDaunt wrote: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. I haven't seen the final figures, but I'm pretty sure that Wall Street threw a ton more support at Democrats this election than at Republicans -- particularly at the presidential level. And this is to be expected given that Trump very clearly ran on a campaign that ran counter to Wall Street's interests. Of course, Trump ran on obscure positions on most things and Wall Street prefers clarity. But right now he seems set on deregulating them, he has cabinet picks that go their way... I'm sure they're feeling much better. Trump hasn't picked anyone yet. I'd wait and see what happens before coming to any conclusions. This is particularly important in this case given that Trump apparently just canned Christie and all of his people for bringing in lobbyists despite Trump's orders to the contrary. This suggests to me that Trump is serious about his campaign promises.
I thought he canned Christie because of his aides being found guiltry of the bridge gate thing and implications that Christie would also go on trial for it?
|
On November 17 2016 02:24 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2016 02:17 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2016 02:15 Nebuchad wrote:On November 17 2016 02:11 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2016 02:06 Nebuchad wrote:On November 17 2016 01:58 xDaunt wrote: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. I haven't seen the final figures, but I'm pretty sure that Wall Street threw a ton more support at Democrats this election than at Republicans -- particularly at the presidential level. And this is to be expected given that Trump very clearly ran on a campaign that ran counter to Wall Street's interests. Of course, Trump ran on obscure positions on most things and Wall Street prefers clarity. But right now he seems set on deregulating them, he has cabinet picks that go their way... I'm sure they're feeling much better. Trump hasn't picked anyone yet. I'd wait and see what happens before coming to any conclusions. This is particularly important in this case given that Trump apparently just canned Christie and all of his people for bringing in lobbyists despite Trump's orders to the contrary. This suggests to me that Trump is serious about his campaign promises. I thought he canned Christie because of his aides being found guiltry of the bridge gate thing and implications that Christie would also go on trial for it?
I'm sure that the bridge gate stuff didn't help and played a role in Trump's decisionmaking.
|
Private company. They can do what they want.
But overall, the optics probably won't be good. The "net neutrality" crowd doesn't like that and I think most internet people more or less agree with their approach to that. People mostly accept that fucked up stuff on the internet should be able to have its own voice in its own corner of the tubes.
|
On November 17 2016 02:24 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2016 02:17 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2016 02:15 Nebuchad wrote:On November 17 2016 02:11 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2016 02:06 Nebuchad wrote:On November 17 2016 01:58 xDaunt wrote: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. I haven't seen the final figures, but I'm pretty sure that Wall Street threw a ton more support at Democrats this election than at Republicans -- particularly at the presidential level. And this is to be expected given that Trump very clearly ran on a campaign that ran counter to Wall Street's interests. Of course, Trump ran on obscure positions on most things and Wall Street prefers clarity. But right now he seems set on deregulating them, he has cabinet picks that go their way... I'm sure they're feeling much better. Trump hasn't picked anyone yet. I'd wait and see what happens before coming to any conclusions. This is particularly important in this case given that Trump apparently just canned Christie and all of his people for bringing in lobbyists despite Trump's orders to the contrary. This suggests to me that Trump is serious about his campaign promises. I thought he canned Christie because of his aides being found guiltry of the bridge gate thing and implications that Christie would also go on trial for it?
Rachel Maddow and others had some interesting speculation about why he canned Christie. Basically boiled down to him only being there as a token in the first place, then Trump's son in law pushing him out because he was bitter about Christie throwing the book at his billionaire (biological) dad when Christie was AG.
|
On November 17 2016 02:23 Acrofales wrote:Is this a good idea? Show nested quote +Twitter has suspended the accounts of several members of the American alt-right movement, including the leader of a white nationalist think tank.
The social network has not given an explanation for its actions.
But they come the same week it announced new ways for users to complain about hateful content. http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37997864I honestly don't have any idea how much influence twitter has, and how the alt-right uses it. And even less idea on what this means. The alt right people are clearly not going anywhere, so does this even do anything?
It theoretically cleans up a little bit of trash (Milo comes to mind), but a lot of times it backfires and gives more visibility and headlines to hateful people that otherwise wouldn't be in the spotlight.
So I don't think it really helps, in practice.
|
On November 17 2016 02:17 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2016 02:15 Nebuchad wrote:On November 17 2016 02:11 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2016 02:06 Nebuchad wrote:On November 17 2016 01:58 xDaunt wrote: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. I haven't seen the final figures, but I'm pretty sure that Wall Street threw a ton more support at Democrats this election than at Republicans -- particularly at the presidential level. And this is to be expected given that Trump very clearly ran on a campaign that ran counter to Wall Street's interests. Of course, Trump ran on obscure positions on most things and Wall Street prefers clarity. But right now he seems set on deregulating them, he has cabinet picks that go their way... I'm sure they're feeling much better. Trump hasn't picked anyone yet. I'd wait and see what happens before coming to any conclusions. This is particularly important in this case given that Trump apparently just canned Christie and all of his people for bringing in lobbyists despite Trump's orders to the contrary. This suggests to me that Trump is serious about his campaign promises.
Well I don't think it's likely that you're right, but if you are, hey, that's a good thing. I'm not going to feel threatened by the possibility of good things happening.
|
On November 17 2016 02:09 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2016 02:04 Sermokala wrote: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. The idiot that is Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Abandoned the 50 state strategy and local levels. Hence the losing streak started while forcing other levels of cooperation to go with her or leave. Hence Clinton...
Debbie is not to blame for Wisconsin. That is a Clinton failure. I am bothered by a lot of things about this election, but the glaring failure that is Wisconsin makes me not feel bitter. It's not that Trump won, it's that Clinton lost. Wisconsin represents a failure of democrats.
|
On November 17 2016 02:38 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2016 02:17 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2016 02:15 Nebuchad wrote:On November 17 2016 02:11 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2016 02:06 Nebuchad wrote:On November 17 2016 01:58 xDaunt wrote: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. I haven't seen the final figures, but I'm pretty sure that Wall Street threw a ton more support at Democrats this election than at Republicans -- particularly at the presidential level. And this is to be expected given that Trump very clearly ran on a campaign that ran counter to Wall Street's interests. Of course, Trump ran on obscure positions on most things and Wall Street prefers clarity. But right now he seems set on deregulating them, he has cabinet picks that go their way... I'm sure they're feeling much better. Trump hasn't picked anyone yet. I'd wait and see what happens before coming to any conclusions. This is particularly important in this case given that Trump apparently just canned Christie and all of his people for bringing in lobbyists despite Trump's orders to the contrary. This suggests to me that Trump is serious about his campaign promises. Well I don't think it's likely that you're right, but if you are, hey, that's a good thing. I'm not going to feel threatened by the possibility of good things happening.
My overall attitude towards Trump's election is one of cautious optimism. He is going to face all sorts of opposition to the types of things that he campaigned on. I'm not even 100% sure that he believes some of what he campaigned on. He may do a lot of good things as president. He could also turn out to be a democrat in republican clothing. This is why I always referred to supporting Trump as a roll of the dice. There is a risk that a tremendous number of people could be hugely disappointed by a Trump presidency. To say that such mass disappointment could be problematic would be a vast understatement.
|
On November 17 2016 02:11 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2016 02:06 Nebuchad wrote:On November 17 2016 01:58 xDaunt wrote: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. I haven't seen the final figures, but I'm pretty sure that Wall Street threw a ton more support at Democrats this election than at Republicans -- particularly at the presidential level. And this is to be expected given that Trump very clearly ran on a campaign that ran counter to Wall Street's interests.
This is nonsense (that Trump runs counter to Wall Street interests). Lower corporate taxes and deregulation are very much in the interests of the financial sector. Have you seen what financial stocks have done since the election?
|
On November 17 2016 02:42 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2016 02:38 Nebuchad wrote:On November 17 2016 02:17 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2016 02:15 Nebuchad wrote:On November 17 2016 02:11 xDaunt wrote:On November 17 2016 02:06 Nebuchad wrote:On November 17 2016 01:58 xDaunt wrote: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. I haven't seen the final figures, but I'm pretty sure that Wall Street threw a ton more support at Democrats this election than at Republicans -- particularly at the presidential level. And this is to be expected given that Trump very clearly ran on a campaign that ran counter to Wall Street's interests. Of course, Trump ran on obscure positions on most things and Wall Street prefers clarity. But right now he seems set on deregulating them, he has cabinet picks that go their way... I'm sure they're feeling much better. Trump hasn't picked anyone yet. I'd wait and see what happens before coming to any conclusions. This is particularly important in this case given that Trump apparently just canned Christie and all of his people for bringing in lobbyists despite Trump's orders to the contrary. This suggests to me that Trump is serious about his campaign promises. Well I don't think it's likely that you're right, but if you are, hey, that's a good thing. I'm not going to feel threatened by the possibility of good things happening. My overall attitude towards Trump's election is one of cautious optimism. He is going to face all sorts of opposition to the types of things that he campaigned on. I'm not even 100% sure that he believes some of what he campaigned on. He may do a lot of good things as president. He could also turn out to be a democrat in republican clothing. This is why I always referred to supporting Trump as a roll of the dice. There is a risk that a tremendous number of people could be hugely disappointed by a Trump presidency. To say that such mass disappointment could be problematic would be a vast understatement.
You don't really make sense to me as a political being, forgive me for saying that =)
Every time I see you defend a policy, it's republican/far right.
Every time I see you defend a position, it's far left/social democrat.
I don't think you're socially conservative, I know you're not a fan of immigration much but besides that...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
