US Politics Mega-thread - Page 633
Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
| ||
ziggurat
Canada847 Posts
On November 18 2013 03:46 heliusx wrote: The president cannot choose not to enforce the ACA. Are you trying to draw parallels between the delays and simply choosing which laws you will enforce? Obama is already picking and choosing which parts he will enforce. I agree that this is unconstitutional but he's doing it anyway. I'm not sure how you missed all the news stories about this in the last few months. I would imagine that if you google "obama enforcement discretion" you'll get lots of hits explaining the details. | ||
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
| ||
ziggurat
Canada847 Posts
On November 18 2013 03:47 farvacola wrote: This is as clear an indication as any that you are drinking the kool-aid. The latter part is certainly an open question; I do think that she would have spoken on the matter more carefully. The former, though, is based on nothing more than the assurances of those who either have no idea what they are talking about, have everything to gain in claiming authority alongside their indignation, or both. It would seem a fairly safe bet to suggest that someone out there could have hired better contractors and gone about the tech side of things more competently, but the notion that even someone like Hilary would have been guaranteed to have no issues with the launching of a massive website is nonsense. Hillary is a competent administrator. And she is a details person. Obama's reaction when the web site didn't work was to get mad at his advisers for not telling him that it wouldn't work. I don't think it's drinking the coolaid to say that Hillary would never display this stunning level of ineptitude. | ||
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
On November 18 2013 04:03 ziggurat wrote: Hillary is a competent administrator. And she is a details person. Obama's reaction when the web site didn't work was to get mad at his advisers for not telling him that it wouldn't work. I don't think it's drinking the coolaid to say that Hillary would never display this stunning level of ineptitude. Do you wish she was president 2000-2008? | ||
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
On November 18 2013 04:00 ziggurat wrote: Obama is already picking and choosing which parts he will enforce. I agree that this is unconstitutional but he's doing it anyway. I'm not sure how you missed all the news stories about this in the last few months. I would imagine that if you google "obama enforcement discretion" you'll get lots of hits explaining the details. Enforcement discretion is nothing new or unconstitutional. Your comparison to not enforcing a law as a way to subvert it is frankly stupid. Aldo don't put words into my mouth I didn't say anything Obama has done was unconstitutional. | ||
ziggurat
Canada847 Posts
This is a tough one for me. I admire Hillary but I disagree with a lot of her views. But Bush proved to be disappointing in a lot of ways, not least of which was that on issues that matter to me he wasn't really conservative at all. Maybe. | ||
Scorpion77
98 Posts
here's how Barry should have behaved, rather than shitting all over Our National Anthem. I'd say Hillary would've been better than Comrade Barry, since she has more interpersonal skills and doesn't seem to be fixated on fighting a guerilla war against the UK. She also would've been a lot less partisan, I should think. And of course her husband was the president for two terms so he'd know a thing or two about working with congress. But let's face it, none of the candidates were good... even Romney vs Obama ended up being a contest of who-is-the-least-shit Touching briefly on foreign policy again, one could be forgiven for believing that the USA was about to declare Total War on the United Kingdom, judging from the Democrat's national conference... and of course we've already discussed The President's extreme venomtongued anti-British rhetoric... | ||
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
| ||
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
On November 18 2013 05:43 Scorpion77 wrote: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2487821/Britain-lays-pageantry-Queen-welcomes-South-Koreas-female-president.html here's how Barry should have behaved, rather than shitting all over Our National Anthem. Oh you mean when the band started playing in the middle of him speaking? Are you a troll or just really dumb? | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On November 18 2013 04:03 ziggurat wrote: Hillary is a competent administrator. And she is a details person. Obama's reaction when the web site didn't work was to get mad at his advisers for not telling him that it wouldn't work. I don't think it's drinking the coolaid to say that Hillary would never display this stunning level of ineptitude. She was such a details person that Obama crushed her in the 08 primaries while her campaign completely floundered. Obama in 08 was a junior senator with two whole years of experience at the federal level and he reigned fire all over Clintons inept team. And no, it wasnt youth enthusiasm and the black vote, it was a methodical campaign that seemed state of the art compared to Hilary's friends inept handling of the situation. And that is a hallmark of the Clintons. They have dumb friends and lackeys and they trust these lackeys and friends way too much. Obama's obvious problem is that he only seems to get up for elections, which he runs meticulously and effectively and then goes back to sleep or whatever it is that he actually does. | ||
Introvert
United States4773 Posts
On November 18 2013 12:30 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKXlsreAqVk At least the Republicans have found one thing they are actually willing to do. Starting in 2003, the Democratic minority embarked on an unprecedented series of filibusters to stop President George W. Bush’s appointments to appeals courts. Back then, Republicans said there was a crisis of judicial vacancies needing to be filled. Democrats replied that the courts, especially the D.C. Circuit, were underworked and that the Republicans were trying to pack the courts with like-minded judges. Now the sides are reversed, and so are the talking points. Little Secret As it happens, the Republicans have the better of the current argument. They aren’t conducting a “blockade” that violates past norms. President Barack Obama’s nominees are getting confirmed at a faster pace than Bush’s were at the same point in his presidency. One of Obama’s nominees, Sri Srinivasan, was unanimously confirmed in May. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-11/republicans-shouldn-t-let-obama-pack-the-courts.html | ||
Scorpion77
98 Posts
On November 18 2013 05:49 heliusx wrote: Oh you mean when the band started playing in the middle of him speaking? Are you a troll or just really dumb? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVS_It6EIGo Nice try, but we all know he already knew the protocol: I can guarantee he did that intentionally to try and build the 'Obama' brand, in rather clintonian/blairite fashion - same way he did that silly facial pose with the olympian gymnast which went viral So I ask you: Are you a troll or just really dumb? User was warned for this post | ||
![]()
Falling
Canada11355 Posts
But after 8 years under Bush are we still surprised by human error? I think a far simpler explanation is (in my opinion) a rather innocuous gaffe as he is no doubt used to saying a toast immediately after announcing that a toast will be given. It fairly easily covers why he continues to speak- once started, he was committed to continuing. Plus it feels cut short and the downturned smile, and a hasty correction at the end also suggest a realization of his error. Hardly the stuff of heady 'Obama' brand of Clintonian/Blaritie fashion. I mean, which is it? Is Obama the apologizer for America, who won't stand up for American values or some calculating politician, stepping on other culture's protocols to promote his brand of foreign policy. It's a nitpicky, partisan (or maybe it's nationlistic instead?) attack intellectually similar in nature to insisting on calling Obama "Comrade Barry." We're just missing the Barrack HUSSEIN Obama comments and we're right at home in the major news networks comment section back in 2008. | ||
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On November 18 2013 12:38 Sub40APM wrote: She was such a details person that Obama crushed her in the 08 primaries while her campaign completely floundered. Obama in 08 was a junior senator with two whole years of experience at the federal level and he reigned fire all over Clintons inept team. And no, it wasnt youth enthusiasm and the black vote, it was a methodical campaign that seemed state of the art compared to Hilary's friends inept handling of the situation. And that is a hallmark of the Clintons. They have dumb friends and lackeys and they trust these lackeys and friends way too much. Obama's obvious problem is that he only seems to get up for elections, which he runs meticulously and effectively and then goes back to sleep or whatever it is that he actually does. I think this is a pretty unfair reading of the 2008 primary and Clinton's campaign in particular. I do think she made the classic mistake of underestimating Obama and largely assuming she would win. But like Mitt Romney in 2012, she took a lot of flak from all corners of the Democratic Party, not to mention plenty of heaping criticism every chance Republicans got too. People wanted another alternative but Obama managed to seize his moment and not botch it horribly like people thought he would, like all the poorly prepared GOP candidates did in 2012. I would say that President Obama is a great politician but a very mediocre leader. | ||
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
It was like the Independence Day speech or something. | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) wants to make sure that there is a strong progressive voice in the 2016 presidential field, and he's willing to jump in if no one else does. "There are people in this world who, ever since they were 12 years of age, they decided they wanted to be president of the United States. That is honestly not me," Sanders told the Burlington Free Press last week. "Anyone who really, really wants to be president is slightly crazy because this is an unbelievably difficult job given the crises that this country faces today." Nevertheless, Sanders said that there needs to be a 2016 candidate who will go after Wall Street, focus on poverty and the collapse of the middle class, address global warming and oppose cuts to Social Security and Medicare -- all issues that Sanders has taken on while in the Senate. And according to the Free Press, "Sanders says he is willing to consider making a run if no one else with progressive views similar to his ends up taking the plunge." "Under normal times, it's fine, you have a moderate Democrat running, a moderate Republican running," Sanders said. "These are not normal times. The United States right now is in the middle of a severe crisis and you have to call it what it is." Sanders said he would probably run as an independent. Source | ||
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
Livelovedie
United States492 Posts
| ||
| ||