|
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 15 2013 17:15 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2013 16:51 Scorpion77 wrote:On November 15 2013 08:28 Liquid`Drone wrote:
obama has been disappointing in many ways but this is the first time I've seriously seen him considered worse than bush from a foreign policy perspective. The invasion of iraq was far, far more tainting to USA's global image than well, NSA, drone warfare and whatever else you want to blame on obama combined.
Israel and Saudi Arabia are not even close to as important American allies as Europe, not historically, not currently, and not anytime in the conceivable future.
Domestically, well, I'd guess it just depends more on perspective, and I can understand that if you hate the idea of ACA then you will also hate Obama, and he has seemed less "capable" than most american presidents in the sense of what he has managed to accomplish. But, I can't think of any president ever who has had to deal with even nearly as polarized political climate, and it seems hard to blame obama for that. The republican party of the past 15 years has turned into a completely ridiculous entity, and aside from israeli settlers it's hard to find anyone outside the US who actually prefer bush. personally i think the fault lies totally with obama is the Republican party an extreme neo-medieval borderline clerical fascist party? Yes but what has obama done in response to this? Built a vast cult of personality before 2008 to begin his road to becoming president which Joseph Stalin would've been proud of; campaigned on values of 'Change' 'Hope' 'A New Beginning' 'A non-partisan presidency' when in fact his presidency has been one of the most partisan in recent memory. As far as NSA goes, those of us who value civil liberties are outraged that the All Seeing Eye that is the NSA is watching our every move... maybe being from Northern Ireland makes me value my own privacy more since the Democratic Machine actually weaponized Ireland when they let the Mafia and Irish-American IRA sympathisers give weapons to Sectarian Irish Republicans. Where does the NSA come into this? Because the IRA army council has connections with the global anti-British Irish Diaspora in Australia/New York/Boston/Liverpool/London east-end... the IRA probably has more intelligence than Her Majesty's Armed Forces thanks to Obama's global spy programme. Note that the IRA used Armalites rather than AK47's, this being during the Cold War... the IRA wouldn't have re-emerged if it weren't for the Democrats playing a blind eye to it due to their own anti-British prejudice. Truth is the American Republic needs another party system, frankly what we have here is a One party state with two factions: the Business Party with Corporatist and Socialist factions. Your rage makes it sound like you think a republican president wouldn't be using drones and wouldn't have allowed the NSA to set up a global surveillance system. It's a bit futile to discuss party politics period when you bring up topics that both parties are in unanimous agreement on. You are aware the drone strikes began under Bush right? You are aware that the NSA was setting up a global surveillance system under Bush right?
"Your rage"
?
Stop projecting.
Also if you'd read my post you'd grasp that I advised a new party system, or are you in favour of this corporate dictatorship?
I'm not a fan of bush either - both are bad - point is Obama increased the use of drones, decided to make global mass surveillance part of standard US policy and decided that it was legal for the US to assassinate anyone in the world, regardless of what international law says (hint: it's illegal)
if anything we aren't reacting strongly enough against this Orwellian, world police politics
|
So you say you aren't raged after comparing Obama to Stalin and before saying "we aren't reacting strongly enough." I'm not saying you shouldn't be raged man. But a stupid one liner like "Stop Projecting" seems a bit shameless after writing a hyperbolic post in which you say "Obama is the worst president ever" and "the American Republic is probably going to become the new sick man of the world."
I do agree that we aren't reacting strongly enough against the fastening of the procedures of totalitarianism on the human race. You just seem to be wasting a lot of energy attacking a hack president who is just as much an inert member of the political machine as his predecessor by trotting out talking points that sound like they come from republican/libertarian chain emails.
|
On November 15 2013 17:15 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2013 16:51 Scorpion77 wrote:On November 15 2013 08:28 Liquid`Drone wrote:
obama has been disappointing in many ways but this is the first time I've seriously seen him considered worse than bush from a foreign policy perspective. The invasion of iraq was far, far more tainting to USA's global image than well, NSA, drone warfare and whatever else you want to blame on obama combined.
Israel and Saudi Arabia are not even close to as important American allies as Europe, not historically, not currently, and not anytime in the conceivable future.
Domestically, well, I'd guess it just depends more on perspective, and I can understand that if you hate the idea of ACA then you will also hate Obama, and he has seemed less "capable" than most american presidents in the sense of what he has managed to accomplish. But, I can't think of any president ever who has had to deal with even nearly as polarized political climate, and it seems hard to blame obama for that. The republican party of the past 15 years has turned into a completely ridiculous entity, and aside from israeli settlers it's hard to find anyone outside the US who actually prefer bush. personally i think the fault lies totally with obama is the Republican party an extreme neo-medieval borderline clerical fascist party? Yes but what has obama done in response to this? Built a vast cult of personality before 2008 to begin his road to becoming president which Joseph Stalin would've been proud of; campaigned on values of 'Change' 'Hope' 'A New Beginning' 'A non-partisan presidency' when in fact his presidency has been one of the most partisan in recent memory. As far as NSA goes, those of us who value civil liberties are outraged that the All Seeing Eye that is the NSA is watching our every move... maybe being from Northern Ireland makes me value my own privacy more since the Democratic Machine actually weaponized Ireland when they let the Mafia and Irish-American IRA sympathisers give weapons to Sectarian Irish Republicans. Where does the NSA come into this? Because the IRA army council has connections with the global anti-British Irish Diaspora in Australia/New York/Boston/Liverpool/London east-end... the IRA probably has more intelligence than Her Majesty's Armed Forces thanks to Obama's global spy programme. Note that the IRA used Armalites rather than AK47's, this being during the Cold War... the IRA wouldn't have re-emerged if it weren't for the Democrats playing a blind eye to it due to their own anti-British prejudice. Truth is the American Republic needs another party system, frankly what we have here is a One party state with two factions: the Business Party with Corporatist and Socialist factions. Your rage makes it sound like you think a republican president wouldn't be using drones and wouldn't have allowed the NSA to set up a global surveillance system. It's a bit futile to discuss party politics period when you bring up topics that both parties are in unanimous agreement on. You are aware the drone strikes began under Bush right? You are aware that the NSA was setting up a global surveillance system under Bush right?
A brave attempt but you can't bury the fact that drones and sort-of-legal surveillance has gotten worse under Obama.
It is worth pointing out that this issue is interesting because Obama's most vocal defenders on those issues are Republicans. But this is why a two-party system is nice. Stuff that had anti war activists wailing under Bush are now quietly accepted as probably okay even though they are far bigger now. Don't worry, next time we get a GOP president, anti war activists will be screaming about war-mongering America and how it has no respect for the rule of law again.
|
By the way, let's just clear this out. Bush was not the worst president ever. Obama is not the worst president either. At best and at worst, they've been weak to mediocre. The comparisons of Obama to FDR and Lincoln are now laughable, but he's not looking at the bottom either.
|
On November 15 2013 18:11 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2013 17:15 IgnE wrote:On November 15 2013 16:51 Scorpion77 wrote:On November 15 2013 08:28 Liquid`Drone wrote:
obama has been disappointing in many ways but this is the first time I've seriously seen him considered worse than bush from a foreign policy perspective. The invasion of iraq was far, far more tainting to USA's global image than well, NSA, drone warfare and whatever else you want to blame on obama combined.
Israel and Saudi Arabia are not even close to as important American allies as Europe, not historically, not currently, and not anytime in the conceivable future.
Domestically, well, I'd guess it just depends more on perspective, and I can understand that if you hate the idea of ACA then you will also hate Obama, and he has seemed less "capable" than most american presidents in the sense of what he has managed to accomplish. But, I can't think of any president ever who has had to deal with even nearly as polarized political climate, and it seems hard to blame obama for that. The republican party of the past 15 years has turned into a completely ridiculous entity, and aside from israeli settlers it's hard to find anyone outside the US who actually prefer bush. personally i think the fault lies totally with obama is the Republican party an extreme neo-medieval borderline clerical fascist party? Yes but what has obama done in response to this? Built a vast cult of personality before 2008 to begin his road to becoming president which Joseph Stalin would've been proud of; campaigned on values of 'Change' 'Hope' 'A New Beginning' 'A non-partisan presidency' when in fact his presidency has been one of the most partisan in recent memory. As far as NSA goes, those of us who value civil liberties are outraged that the All Seeing Eye that is the NSA is watching our every move... maybe being from Northern Ireland makes me value my own privacy more since the Democratic Machine actually weaponized Ireland when they let the Mafia and Irish-American IRA sympathisers give weapons to Sectarian Irish Republicans. Where does the NSA come into this? Because the IRA army council has connections with the global anti-British Irish Diaspora in Australia/New York/Boston/Liverpool/London east-end... the IRA probably has more intelligence than Her Majesty's Armed Forces thanks to Obama's global spy programme. Note that the IRA used Armalites rather than AK47's, this being during the Cold War... the IRA wouldn't have re-emerged if it weren't for the Democrats playing a blind eye to it due to their own anti-British prejudice. Truth is the American Republic needs another party system, frankly what we have here is a One party state with two factions: the Business Party with Corporatist and Socialist factions. Your rage makes it sound like you think a republican president wouldn't be using drones and wouldn't have allowed the NSA to set up a global surveillance system. It's a bit futile to discuss party politics period when you bring up topics that both parties are in unanimous agreement on. You are aware the drone strikes began under Bush right? You are aware that the NSA was setting up a global surveillance system under Bush right? A brave attempt but you can't bury the fact that drones and sort-of-legal surveillance has gotten worse under Obama. It is worth pointing out that this issue is interesting because Obama's most vocal defenders on those issues are Republicans. But this is why a two-party system is nice. Stuff that had anti war activists wailing under Bush are now quietly accepted as probably okay even though they are far bigger now. Don't worry, next time we get a GOP president, anti war activists will be screaming about war-mongering America and how it has no respect for the rule of law again.
No one is denying that it's gotten worse under Obama. I've criticized Obama myself in this very thread multiple times for these things. But there's no point in deceiving yourself into thinking that it wouldn't have progressed just as far just as fast under a Republican president. Let's not kid ourselves.
Once again, the Bush Doctrine is named the Bush Doctrine for a reason. There are two minor points to be made about the drone strikes in comparison to the Iraq war with regards to the ethical taking of life and one point to be made about the economics.
1) Far far more Iraqis and other innocents died in Gulf Wars 1 and 2 and the occupation than during the sum total of drone strikes
2) Americans tend not to die in drone strikes
3) Drone strikes are way way cheaper than the Iraq war was
That said, the drone strikes are fucking appalling, in violation of international law, and in violation of basic human dignity.
http://dronestagram.tumblr.com/
Lastly, I'm sorry to inform you that you probably won't get a GOP president for quite some time.
|
We shall see. Republicans were similarly feeling their oats in 2005 and it all went sideways on them very quickly. Unless you've come from the future and already know who the next few presidents are.
|
On November 15 2013 18:37 coverpunch wrote:
We shall see. Republicans were similarly feeling their oats in 2005 and it all went sideways on them very quickly. Unless you've come from the future and already know who the next few presidents are.
Republicans are commonly known to live in fantasyland though.
See for example:
On November 01 2012 11:26 xDaunt wrote:
Karl Rove is predicting that Romney will win 51-48 with 279 electoral votes or so. His interpretation of the polling numbers is interesting and basically in line with my thoughts.
Source.
|
On November 15 2013 12:23 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2013 11:45 coverpunch wrote:On November 15 2013 10:21 Liquid`Drone wrote:
what? that statistic absolutely backs up my statement, almost more than I expected it to. Look at the difference between 2008 and 2009. Obama's election makes france go from 42 to 75, germany from 31 to 64, spain from 33 to 58. scandinavian countries would tell the same story, and I expect the same from benelux.
If anything, I should have specified western europe. Poland and probably other eastern european countries had more people who favoured bush compared to obama because they wanted a stronger, more aggressive US to work as a counterpart to russia. Even with the dip since obama's first election (and like I said, obama HAS been disappointing to me and many other western europeans), in western europe it has moved from 53 to 58, 42 to 64, 31 to 53, 33 to 62, 53 to 76, 33 to 62. Considering that a significant amount of europeans would answer that they are favourably inclined or disfavourably inclined towards the US regardless of who the president was, these changes in perception are massive. Fluctuations of 5 percent on these types of polls are actually very significant, 30% in one year is incredible. But you already countered this by making the point that Obama was overhyped, that he won the Nobel Peace Prize simply for being "not Bush". Obama's ongoing decline in support doesn't speak to a legacy that is drastically better than Bush's. He needs to shape up or things will get ugly for him too. EDIT: The real question is has Obama still "literally undone" the perception of the US as a bully deserving of ridicule. This has been a pretty crappy year for him and ridicule seems to be on the rise, so probably no. I'm not really trying to state that Obama has been good here. I'm trying to make you remember/realize just how bad bush was. The biggest norwegian newspaper had a _daily_ column with a stupid quote by Bush, it wasn't running for the entire 8 year presidency, but definitely for a couple. the war against Iraq was as big of a diplomatic disaster as Vietnam. I myself have never been as politically angry, and worried about the future of the world, as I was during the first years of Bush's presidency, witnessing the buildup to the Iraq war, where lies and disinformation were blatantly circulated. Like, in all honesty, part of the reason why Western Europe has received Obama much better than Bush, and why western europe will continue to remember Obama more favourably than Bush even after he leaves office, even if he continues to disappoint us, is quite simply that he is a democrat and rhetorically much more in line with western european values. And currently, while europeans are absolutely angry about NSA, the continued source for ridicule of american politics stems from the american tea party, not the president. And really, while obamas numbers have dropped significantly, and while they will probably continue to drop some because this type of negative momentum is typically very hard to change as a president (or as any politician really), Obama is going to have to royally fuck up to be remembered as poorly as Bush was; I'm pretty certain a poll across western europe of worst american president ever would have him win a landslide election - I don't think there are any statistics for that though. Edit: Not to mention that Bush, in Europe, is still blamed for the still-ongoing economic crisis.
Obama's numbers are higher because people are starting to understand that it's not just the President's fault. Like, probably Obama isn't personally opposed to torture, extrajudical executions and the surveillance state but even if he was there's little he could do about it. Or more accurately, if he was the kind of person who would stand up to these kinds of things he probably wouldn't have been elected.
|
On November 15 2013 16:51 Scorpion77 wrote:
is the Republican party an extreme neo-medieval borderline clerical fascist party? Yes
but what has obama done in response to this? Built a vast cult of personality before 2008 to begin his road to becoming president which Joseph Stalin would've been proud of; campaigned on values of 'Change' 'Hope' 'A New Beginning' 'A non-partisan presidency' when in fact his presidency has been one of the most partisan in recent memory.
Is Obama very partisan because he chose to be so despite Republican attempts at bi-partisanship or is it because the Republicans have refused to work with him on even the most basic of issues, forcing him into partisanship to get anything done at all.
|
On November 15 2013 21:28 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2013 16:51 Scorpion77 wrote:
is the Republican party an extreme neo-medieval borderline clerical fascist party? Yes
but what has obama done in response to this? Built a vast cult of personality before 2008 to begin his road to becoming president which Joseph Stalin would've been proud of; campaigned on values of 'Change' 'Hope' 'A New Beginning' 'A non-partisan presidency' when in fact his presidency has been one of the most partisan in recent memory.
Is Obama very partisan because he chose to be so despite Republican attempts at bi-partisanship or is it because the Republicans have refused to work with him on even the most basic of issues, forcing him into partisanship to get anything done at all.
Obama is very partisan beacuse he came into town with all the power in Washington at his back and decided he didn't need to worry about getting anything done with how weak he saw the Republicans as. Everything has developed in his presidency from that. The dems success in 2006 to 2008 had as much to do with the rise of the tea party then the health care reform year did.
Americans love a winner and hate a loser. To keep power you must keep winning not just take a year off at the peak of your partiea power in the last couple decades without being terrible at your job or utterly nieve
|
On November 15 2013 14:58 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2013 12:10 xDaunt wrote:On November 15 2013 11:27 FallDownMarigold wrote:On November 15 2013 02:36 xDaunt wrote:
Why is there so much discussion about the esoteric around here when Obamacare is imploding in grand fashion on the world stage?
Concisely explain how it's 'imploding in grand fashion'  I sort of suspect you're slightly exaggerating Huh? Have you not glanced at any remotely fair news site over the past couple weeks? Democrats are publicly shitting themselves over all their constituents losing their health care coverage as a result of Obamacare. You know that you are in deep shit when Bill Clinton comes out and basically calls you a liar (saying that Obama "should keep his word"). I read those stories too, lol (not nearly as dramatically as you describe), so I'm wondering, what's your understanding of exactly how it's going to 'implode on the worldstage in a huge way' or whatever, and could you explain it
You know it's bad when the New York Times is comparing Obamacare to Katrina.
Let's set the failure of the website aside for a moment. The real disaster for democrats is that the hidden costs of Obamacare are being laid bare for everyone to see. People who had good, legitimate health coverage are losing their plans by design under Obamacare. Obamacare only works if millions of healthy people are thrown off their current plans and forced into more the more expensive exchanges where they can subsidize care for others. As I mentioned previously, I'm one of those people, and there are millions more.
No social program has ever been a free lunch, and Obamacare isn't any different in that regard. What is different is that people are seeing the real costs of a policy like Obamacare in very stark, unmistakable terms that have real consequences for them personally beyond just paying a little more money in taxes. Various conservative commentators are talking about how this may be the "death knell" for liberalism. I'm not ready to go that far yet, but it is very clear that the repercussions will be fatal for many democrat politicians.
And the democrat politicians know it too. That is why all of the democrat senators who are up for reelection next year met with Obama privately last week on these very issues. That is why Diane Feinstein, a democrat senator in a solidly blue state, has demanded that legislation be passed allowing people to keep their current plans. That is why Bill Clinton came out and said the same thing, triggering a revolt among all elected democrats to fix Obamacare and allow people to keep their coverage.
Unfortunately for them, they aren't going to get that fix. Republicans won't give it to them. Frankly, it wouldn't matter if they did. The insurance plans that are being destroyed right now aren't coming back. The damage has been done. All that's left is for democrats to explain to their angry constituents why they had to peddle Obama's lie that people could keep their health plans if they wanted to. Republican politicians will just eat popcorn.
Oh, and does anyone think that tea party politicians who did everything possible to stop this from happening aren't going to benefit politically from this? Just some food for thought.
So yeah, this is a huge political story.
|
On November 16 2013 00:31 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2013 21:28 Gorsameth wrote:On November 15 2013 16:51 Scorpion77 wrote:
is the Republican party an extreme neo-medieval borderline clerical fascist party? Yes
but what has obama done in response to this? Built a vast cult of personality before 2008 to begin his road to becoming president which Joseph Stalin would've been proud of; campaigned on values of 'Change' 'Hope' 'A New Beginning' 'A non-partisan presidency' when in fact his presidency has been one of the most partisan in recent memory.
Is Obama very partisan because he chose to be so despite Republican attempts at bi-partisanship or is it because the Republicans have refused to work with him on even the most basic of issues, forcing him into partisanship to get anything done at all. Obama is very partisan beacuse he came into town with all the power in Washington at his back and decided he didn't need to worry about getting anything done with how weak he saw the Republicans as. Everything has developed in his presidency from that. The dems success in 2006 to 2008 had as much to do with the rise of the tea party then the health care reform year did. Americans love a winner and hate a loser. To keep power you must keep winning not just take a year off at the peak of your partiea power in the last couple decades without being terrible at your job or utterly nieve
Highly encourage that you guys read this book.
The Amateur: Barack Obama In The White House
Maybe then, you would start to see why Obama is so partisan.
|
On November 16 2013 00:56 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2013 14:58 FallDownMarigold wrote:On November 15 2013 12:10 xDaunt wrote:On November 15 2013 11:27 FallDownMarigold wrote:On November 15 2013 02:36 xDaunt wrote:
Why is there so much discussion about the esoteric around here when Obamacare is imploding in grand fashion on the world stage?
Concisely explain how it's 'imploding in grand fashion' I sort of suspect you're slightly exaggerating Huh? Have you not glanced at any remotely fair news site over the past couple weeks? Democrats are publicly shitting themselves over all their constituents losing their health care coverage as a result of Obamacare. You know that you are in deep shit when Bill Clinton comes out and basically calls you a liar (saying that Obama "should keep his word"). I read those stories too, lol (not nearly as dramatically as you describe), so I'm wondering, what's your understanding of exactly how it's going to 'implode on the worldstage in a huge way' or whatever, and could you explain it You know it's bad when the New York Times is comparing Obamacare to Katrina. Let's set the failure of the website aside for a moment. The real disaster for democrats is that the hidden costs of Obamacare are being laid bare for everyone to see. People who had good, legitimate health coverage are losing their plans by design under Obamacare. Obamacare only works if millions of healthy people are thrown off their current plans and forced into more the more expensive exchanges where they can subsidize care for others. As I mentioned previously, I'm one of those people, and there are millions more. No social program has ever been a free lunch, and Obamacare isn't any different in that regard. What is different is that people are seeing the real costs of a policy like Obamacare in very stark, unmistakable terms that have real consequences for them personally beyond just paying a little more money in taxes. Various conservative commentators are talking about how this may be the "death knell" for liberalism. I'm not ready to go that far yet, but it is very clear that the repercussions will be fatal for many democrat politicians. And the democrat politicians know it too. That is why all of the democrat senators who are up for reelection next year met with Obama privately last week on these very issues. That is why Diane Feinstein, a democrat senator in a solidly blue state, has demanded that legislation be passed allowing people to keep their current plans. That is why Bill Clinton came out and said the same thing, triggering a revolt among all elected democrats to fix Obamacare and allow people to keep their coverage. Unfortunately for them, they aren't going to get that fix. Republicans won't give it to them. Frankly, it wouldn't matter if they did. The insurance plans that are being destroyed right now aren't coming back. The damage has been done. All that's left is for democrats to explain to their angry constituents why they had to peddle Obama's lie that people could keep their health plans if they wanted to. Republican politicians will just eat popcorn. Oh, and does anyone think that tea party politicians who did everything possible to stop this from happening aren't going to benefit politically from this? Just some food for thought. So yeah, this is a huge political story.
1) Republicans will pass the bill which would allow people to keep their current plan. This is a step in the right direction, and will also score points in undermining one of the key ingredients for the Obamacare to succeed.
2) Obama called the 2010 election a shell-lacking. If he thought that was shell-lacking, wait till what happens in 2014. Democrats are in a deep shit trouble right now... UNLESS the mainstream media bails them out again.
|
On November 16 2013 01:14 jellyjello wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2013 00:56 xDaunt wrote:On November 15 2013 14:58 FallDownMarigold wrote:On November 15 2013 12:10 xDaunt wrote:On November 15 2013 11:27 FallDownMarigold wrote:On November 15 2013 02:36 xDaunt wrote:
Why is there so much discussion about the esoteric around here when Obamacare is imploding in grand fashion on the world stage?
Concisely explain how it's 'imploding in grand fashion' I sort of suspect you're slightly exaggerating Huh? Have you not glanced at any remotely fair news site over the past couple weeks? Democrats are publicly shitting themselves over all their constituents losing their health care coverage as a result of Obamacare. You know that you are in deep shit when Bill Clinton comes out and basically calls you a liar (saying that Obama "should keep his word"). I read those stories too, lol (not nearly as dramatically as you describe), so I'm wondering, what's your understanding of exactly how it's going to 'implode on the worldstage in a huge way' or whatever, and could you explain it You know it's bad when the New York Times is comparing Obamacare to Katrina. Let's set the failure of the website aside for a moment. The real disaster for democrats is that the hidden costs of Obamacare are being laid bare for everyone to see. People who had good, legitimate health coverage are losing their plans by design under Obamacare. Obamacare only works if millions of healthy people are thrown off their current plans and forced into more the more expensive exchanges where they can subsidize care for others. As I mentioned previously, I'm one of those people, and there are millions more. No social program has ever been a free lunch, and Obamacare isn't any different in that regard. What is different is that people are seeing the real costs of a policy like Obamacare in very stark, unmistakable terms that have real consequences for them personally beyond just paying a little more money in taxes. Various conservative commentators are talking about how this may be the "death knell" for liberalism. I'm not ready to go that far yet, but it is very clear that the repercussions will be fatal for many democrat politicians. And the democrat politicians know it too. That is why all of the democrat senators who are up for reelection next year met with Obama privately last week on these very issues. That is why Diane Feinstein, a democrat senator in a solidly blue state, has demanded that legislation be passed allowing people to keep their current plans. That is why Bill Clinton came out and said the same thing, triggering a revolt among all elected democrats to fix Obamacare and allow people to keep their coverage. Unfortunately for them, they aren't going to get that fix. Republicans won't give it to them. Frankly, it wouldn't matter if they did. The insurance plans that are being destroyed right now aren't coming back. The damage has been done. All that's left is for democrats to explain to their angry constituents why they had to peddle Obama's lie that people could keep their health plans if they wanted to. Republican politicians will just eat popcorn. Oh, and does anyone think that tea party politicians who did everything possible to stop this from happening aren't going to benefit politically from this? Just some food for thought. So yeah, this is a huge political story. 1) Republicans will pass the bill which would allow people to keep their current plan. This is a step in the right direction, and will also score points in undermining one of the key ingredients for the Obamacare to succeed. 2) Obama called the 2010 election a shell-lacking. If he thought that was shell-lacking, wait till what happens in 2014. Democrats are in a deep shit trouble right now... UNLESS the mainstream media bails them out again.
You think the failed Obamacare execution is just going to erase the memory of Republicans throwing a temper tantrum and messing with both our economy and the world economy as a whole during the next election cycle? Keep dreaming. That stunt is one of the most embarrassing and pathetic things ever seen in our legislative history, so it's not going to be as clear-cut as you think. Both sides have messed up and there's going to be voter backlash against both sides.
Oh, and stop with the complaining about the "mainstream media". The right has the abomination that is Fox News. You get no room to complain about "mainstream media bias".
|
On November 15 2013 18:14 coverpunch wrote:
By the way, let's just clear this out. Bush was not the worst president ever. Obama is not the worst president either. At best and at worst, they've been weak to mediocre. The comparisons of Obama to FDR and Lincoln are now laughable, but he's not looking at the bottom either.
To clear this out even more, we were talking about who was worse on international relations. I don't see how Bush can't make at least the top 5 of that list, ahead of Obama.
On November 16 2013 01:07 jellyjello wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2013 00:31 Sermokala wrote:On November 15 2013 21:28 Gorsameth wrote:On November 15 2013 16:51 Scorpion77 wrote:
is the Republican party an extreme neo-medieval borderline clerical fascist party? Yes
but what has obama done in response to this? Built a vast cult of personality before 2008 to begin his road to becoming president which Joseph Stalin would've been proud of; campaigned on values of 'Change' 'Hope' 'A New Beginning' 'A non-partisan presidency' when in fact his presidency has been one of the most partisan in recent memory.
Is Obama very partisan because he chose to be so despite Republican attempts at bi-partisanship or is it because the Republicans have refused to work with him on even the most basic of issues, forcing him into partisanship to get anything done at all. Obama is very partisan beacuse he came into town with all the power in Washington at his back and decided he didn't need to worry about getting anything done with how weak he saw the Republicans as. Everything has developed in his presidency from that. The dems success in 2006 to 2008 had as much to do with the rise of the tea party then the health care reform year did. Americans love a winner and hate a loser. To keep power you must keep winning not just take a year off at the peak of your partiea power in the last couple decades without being terrible at your job or utterly nieve Highly encourage that you guys read this book. The Amateur: Barack Obama In The White HouseMaybe then, you would start to see why Obama is so partisan.
That book is a joke, the author clearly has no idea what he's talking about.
In this stunning exposé, bestselling author Edward Klein—a contributing editor to Vanity Fair, former foreign editor of Newsweek, and former editor-in-chief of the New York Times Magazine—pulls back the curtain on one of the most secretive White Houses in history. He reveals a callow, thin-skinned, arrogant president with messianic dreams of grandeur supported by a cast of true-believers, all of them united by leftist politics and an amateurish understanding of executive leadership.
|
I almost drove off the road hearing the replay of this yesterday :
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/11/13/obamacare_architect_genetic_lottery_winners_have_been_paying_an_artificially_low_price.html
JONATHAN GRUBER, M.I.T.: Let’s start with understanding that we're not talking about the vast majority of Americans. This law is really leaving those with employer insurance, those with government insurance alone. We’re talking about a small minority of Americans that buy insurance on their own through the individual market.
CHUCK TODD: Still millions of people.
GRUBER: Exactly. It's 12 million people, about a third of which will end up paying more under this law. And that as you said in the introductions sort of the idea. We currently have a highly discriminatory system where if you’re sick, if you’ve been sick or [if] you’re going to get sick, you cannot get health insurance.
The only way to end that discriminatory system is to bring everyone into the system and pay one fair price. That means that the genetic winners, the lottery winners who've been paying an artificially low price because of this discrimination now will have to pay more in return. And that, by my estimate, is about four million people. In return, we'll have a fixed system where over 30 million people will now for the first time be able to access fairly price and guaranteed health insurance.
|
On November 16 2013 01:14 jellyjello wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2013 00:56 xDaunt wrote:On November 15 2013 14:58 FallDownMarigold wrote:On November 15 2013 12:10 xDaunt wrote:On November 15 2013 11:27 FallDownMarigold wrote:On November 15 2013 02:36 xDaunt wrote:
Why is there so much discussion about the esoteric around here when Obamacare is imploding in grand fashion on the world stage?
Concisely explain how it's 'imploding in grand fashion' I sort of suspect you're slightly exaggerating Huh? Have you not glanced at any remotely fair news site over the past couple weeks? Democrats are publicly shitting themselves over all their constituents losing their health care coverage as a result of Obamacare. You know that you are in deep shit when Bill Clinton comes out and basically calls you a liar (saying that Obama "should keep his word"). I read those stories too, lol (not nearly as dramatically as you describe), so I'm wondering, what's your understanding of exactly how it's going to 'implode on the worldstage in a huge way' or whatever, and could you explain it You know it's bad when the New York Times is comparing Obamacare to Katrina. Let's set the failure of the website aside for a moment. The real disaster for democrats is that the hidden costs of Obamacare are being laid bare for everyone to see. People who had good, legitimate health coverage are losing their plans by design under Obamacare. Obamacare only works if millions of healthy people are thrown off their current plans and forced into more the more expensive exchanges where they can subsidize care for others. As I mentioned previously, I'm one of those people, and there are millions more. No social program has ever been a free lunch, and Obamacare isn't any different in that regard. What is different is that people are seeing the real costs of a policy like Obamacare in very stark, unmistakable terms that have real consequences for them personally beyond just paying a little more money in taxes. Various conservative commentators are talking about how this may be the "death knell" for liberalism. I'm not ready to go that far yet, but it is very clear that the repercussions will be fatal for many democrat politicians. And the democrat politicians know it too. That is why all of the democrat senators who are up for reelection next year met with Obama privately last week on these very issues. That is why Diane Feinstein, a democrat senator in a solidly blue state, has demanded that legislation be passed allowing people to keep their current plans. That is why Bill Clinton came out and said the same thing, triggering a revolt among all elected democrats to fix Obamacare and allow people to keep their coverage. Unfortunately for them, they aren't going to get that fix. Republicans won't give it to them. Frankly, it wouldn't matter if they did. The insurance plans that are being destroyed right now aren't coming back. The damage has been done. All that's left is for democrats to explain to their angry constituents why they had to peddle Obama's lie that people could keep their health plans if they wanted to. Republican politicians will just eat popcorn. Oh, and does anyone think that tea party politicians who did everything possible to stop this from happening aren't going to benefit politically from this? Just some food for thought. So yeah, this is a huge political story. 1) Republicans will pass the bill which would allow people to keep their current plan. This is a step in the right direction, and will also score points in undermining one of the key ingredients for the Obamacare to succeed.
No, they won't. The Tea Party won't let the republicans do anything less than fully repeal Obamacare. Boehner has already taken that position. Besides, the Republicans would be stupid to have any part of Obamacare at this point. There's no political risk for them to do nothing. Passing a bill that allows people to keep their current plans isn't going to fix anything. It will merely give the democrats an excuse to wash their hands of what they have done. The plans that are gone are gone permanently.
2) Obama called the 2010 election a shell-lacking. If he thought that was shell-lacking, wait till what happens in 2014. Democrats are in a deep shit trouble right now... UNLESS the mainstream media bails them out again.
The mainstream media isn't bothering to bail Obama out because it can't. Just look at the New York Times article that I cited above. Obamacare is the disaster that everyone on the right predicted that it would be. The harm is no longer theoretical. The chickens have come home to roost.
|
On November 16 2013 01:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2013 01:14 jellyjello wrote:On November 16 2013 00:56 xDaunt wrote:On November 15 2013 14:58 FallDownMarigold wrote:On November 15 2013 12:10 xDaunt wrote:On November 15 2013 11:27 FallDownMarigold wrote:On November 15 2013 02:36 xDaunt wrote:
Why is there so much discussion about the esoteric around here when Obamacare is imploding in grand fashion on the world stage?
Concisely explain how it's 'imploding in grand fashion' I sort of suspect you're slightly exaggerating Huh? Have you not glanced at any remotely fair news site over the past couple weeks? Democrats are publicly shitting themselves over all their constituents losing their health care coverage as a result of Obamacare. You know that you are in deep shit when Bill Clinton comes out and basically calls you a liar (saying that Obama "should keep his word"). I read those stories too, lol (not nearly as dramatically as you describe), so I'm wondering, what's your understanding of exactly how it's going to 'implode on the worldstage in a huge way' or whatever, and could you explain it You know it's bad when the New York Times is comparing Obamacare to Katrina. Let's set the failure of the website aside for a moment. The real disaster for democrats is that the hidden costs of Obamacare are being laid bare for everyone to see. People who had good, legitimate health coverage are losing their plans by design under Obamacare. Obamacare only works if millions of healthy people are thrown off their current plans and forced into more the more expensive exchanges where they can subsidize care for others. As I mentioned previously, I'm one of those people, and there are millions more. No social program has ever been a free lunch, and Obamacare isn't any different in that regard. What is different is that people are seeing the real costs of a policy like Obamacare in very stark, unmistakable terms that have real consequences for them personally beyond just paying a little more money in taxes. Various conservative commentators are talking about how this may be the "death knell" for liberalism. I'm not ready to go that far yet, but it is very clear that the repercussions will be fatal for many democrat politicians. And the democrat politicians know it too. That is why all of the democrat senators who are up for reelection next year met with Obama privately last week on these very issues. That is why Diane Feinstein, a democrat senator in a solidly blue state, has demanded that legislation be passed allowing people to keep their current plans. That is why Bill Clinton came out and said the same thing, triggering a revolt among all elected democrats to fix Obamacare and allow people to keep their coverage. Unfortunately for them, they aren't going to get that fix. Republicans won't give it to them. Frankly, it wouldn't matter if they did. The insurance plans that are being destroyed right now aren't coming back. The damage has been done. All that's left is for democrats to explain to their angry constituents why they had to peddle Obama's lie that people could keep their health plans if they wanted to. Republican politicians will just eat popcorn. Oh, and does anyone think that tea party politicians who did everything possible to stop this from happening aren't going to benefit politically from this? Just some food for thought. So yeah, this is a huge political story. 1) Republicans will pass the bill which would allow people to keep their current plan. This is a step in the right direction, and will also score points in undermining one of the key ingredients for the Obamacare to succeed. 2) Obama called the 2010 election a shell-lacking. If he thought that was shell-lacking, wait till what happens in 2014. Democrats are in a deep shit trouble right now... UNLESS the mainstream media bails them out again. You think the failed Obamacare execution is just going to erase the memory of Republicans throwing a temper tantrum and messing with both our economy and the world economy as a whole during the next election cycle? Keep dreaming. That stunt is one of the most embarrassing and pathetic things ever seen in our legislative history, so it's not going to be as clear-cut as you think. Both sides have messed up and there's going to be voter backlash against both sides.Oh, and stop with the complaining about the "mainstream media". The right has the abomination that is Fox News. You get no room to complain about "mainstream media bias".
People are going to remember that Republicans did it and now they are going to understand why republicans did it.
|
so much foolishness and hatred. I'm trying to channel Iroh to say something profound and clarifying, but i'm coming up with nothing.
At least some of the citations remain interesting.
|
On November 16 2013 02:28 RCMDVA wrote:I almost drove off the road hearing the replay of this yesterday : http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/11/13/obamacare_architect_genetic_lottery_winners_have_been_paying_an_artificially_low_price.htmlShow nested quote +JONATHAN GRUBER, M.I.T.: Let’s start with understanding that we're not talking about the vast majority of Americans. This law is really leaving those with employer insurance, those with government insurance alone. We’re talking about a small minority of Americans that buy insurance on their own through the individual market.
CHUCK TODD: Still millions of people.
GRUBER: Exactly. It's 12 million people, about a third of which will end up paying more under this law. And that as you said in the introductions sort of the idea. We currently have a highly discriminatory system where if you’re sick, if you’ve been sick or [if] you’re going to get sick, you cannot get health insurance.
The only way to end that discriminatory system is to bring everyone into the system and pay one fair price. That means that the genetic winners, the lottery winners who've been paying an artificially low price because of this discrimination now will have to pay more in return. And that, by my estimate, is about four million people. In return, we'll have a fixed system where over 30 million people will now for the first time be able to access fairly price and guaranteed health insurance.
Are you surprised? I've never had any doubt that the crazies on the left who think like Obama believe that shit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
