| 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. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 21 2017 03:47 Euphorbus wrote: Obama should just have let those democrats and republicans vote it down, then blame them, and wait till the next election. If he had foreseen how bad the backlash would be, this would have probably been the correct choice of action. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On January 21 2017 03:43 zlefin wrote: iirc he couldn't, there was opposition from conservative democrats, some of the compromises were made to appease them. Primarily because not all democrats come from democrat states. Re-election is a much bigger deal to them than in states like Vermont or California. The real issue was that instead of getting it passed quickly, Democrats bickered for months until it became a joke of a process. The more liberal democrats did not like the idea of protecting democrats in conservative states in order to maintain their majority and it cost them during re-elections. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12161 Posts
If there ever needed to be an example of several realities coexisting, this is a pretty good one. Fortunately, this one is not that hard to resolve. The notion that Obama was an ideologue is beyond ridiculous. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7884 Posts
On January 21 2017 03:35 biology]major wrote: The next 4-8 years will show change the likes this country has NEVER seen. Trump isn't even a republican, so he can easily negotiate between both sides. Combine that with his insane work ethic and vision and he will be remembered as one of the most influential assuming he lives and makes it through his term(s). Considering the trainwreck it has been until now and the nomination he's made, I'm really sorry to say that chances is that your thin skinned orange narcicisst is gonna disappoint you a lot. Trump can't negociate woth both sides. He will be blocked by the GOP who hates him at every corners and he starts as the most polarizing president in American history. If you think democrats will make "deals" with him, you are delusionnal. | ||
|
Euphorbus
92 Posts
On January 21 2017 03:51 Biff The Understudy wrote: Trump can't negociate woth both sides. He will be blocked by the GOP who hates him at every corners and he starts as the most polarizing president in American history. If you think democrats will make "deals" with him, you are delusionnal. The democrats are probably so stupid, they might make deals with Trump, and thinking themselves to be really smart to do so. Any good liberal deal Trump may propose, the democrats should vehemently block it, just because. Then blame Republicans and Trump for everything. But they won't. | ||
|
MyTHicaL
France1070 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On January 21 2017 03:51 Nebuchad wrote: I like that this page is a discussion about how much Obama had to give up and whether that made him weak or not, and in the middle of that xDaunt is explaining that the problem with Obama is that he was an ideologue and that's why he couldn't get things done. If there ever needed to be an example of several realities coexisting, this is a pretty good one. Fortunately, this one is not that hard to resolve. The notion that Obama was an ideologue is beyond ridiculous. When conservatives say that Obama is an ideologue, its code for "Obama is Black." Like, do remember when Obama convinced the Dems to use a republican plan for Healthcare? Ideologue. Or maybe the time when Obama protected children while deporting more than any president in recent age? Ideologue. Or that time when Obama shifted resources from Iraq and used it to chase Bin Laden? Ideologue. Or that time when Obama cut taxes? Liberal conspiracy. Or the million other things where Obama fused Liberal and Conservative ideals in order to push more middle ground policies--ideologue. And by ideologue--they mean black. | ||
|
Euphorbus
92 Posts
I remember debating online about how bad the US health care system was, before Obamacare. It was impossible to convince the nay-sayers, despite all the facts out there. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On January 21 2017 03:54 MyTHicaL wrote: I don't understand how obamacare wasn't good.. I mean it wasn't perfect but people's main complaint seems to be about it not being able to sustain itself yet healthcare is supposed to run on a loss.. You're not supposed to make money through it.. Here in the US, citizens want social programs to make the government money. If the social program does not, then they say that the Government is stealing money from them. Don't ask me why they think this, Americans are stupid and somehow believe in free market only if it concludes they don't have to pay for shit (but get upset when they don't get free shit at the same time). | ||
|
MyTHicaL
France1070 Posts
On January 21 2017 03:58 Thieving Magpie wrote: Here in the US, citizens want social programs to make the government money. If the social program does not, then they say that the Government is stealing money from them. Don't ask me why they think this, Americans are stupid and somehow believe in free market only if it concludes they don't have to pay for shit (but get upset when they don't get free shit at the same time). Lol.. OK.. I will always find it weird that some people can be so against something that they will actually stage protests about it.. I mean it's the same thing in my eyes; if you don't like the idea of homosexuality or abortions then you have the right to feel that way but why care so much that you stage protests to stop other people practicing them mmm.. | ||
|
Euphorbus
92 Posts
France would still be ruled by a delusional king. | ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
On January 21 2017 03:55 Thieving Magpie wrote: When conservatives say that Obama is an ideologue, its code for "Obama is Black." Like, do remember when Obama convinced the Dems to use a republican plan for Healthcare? Ideologue. Or maybe the time when Obama protected children while deporting more than any president in recent age? Ideologue. Or that time when Obama shifted resources from Iraq and used it to chase Bin Laden? Ideologue. Or that time when Obama cut taxes? Liberal conspiracy. Or the million other things where Obama fused Liberal and Conservative ideals in order to push more middle ground policies--ideologue. And by ideologue--they mean black. Return to thread to see what's happening on inaug day, yup I'm gonna take my leave. People still saying the exact same shit lol, legallord still going on about 2 bad choices, we get it bro. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On January 21 2017 04:02 MyTHicaL wrote: Lol.. OK.. I will always find it weird that some people can be so against something that they will actually stage protests about it.. I mean it's the same thing in my eyes; if you don't like the idea of homosexuality or abortions then you have the right to feel that way but why care so much that you stage protests to stop other people practicing them mmm.. Unsure why you're quoting what I said and then start talking about protests... Americans, most of them, are stupid and greedy. They don't want to pay for anything, they don't want to help people, and they don't like change. When they are forced to acknowledge that because the downtrodden protests for equal rights, they deem it as an attack. Here's the thing MyThical. When Homosexuals and Women are given less rights, attacked more, and are more restricted in society--they don't have the option to just let the other side have their own opinions, especially when the homophobe's and misogynist's opinions directly affect and attack the lives of Homosexuals and Women. That is why they protest, that is why they scream from beneath the boot of oppression. | ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On January 21 2017 04:09 Thieving Magpie wrote: Unsure why you're quoting what I said and then start talking about protests... Americans, most of them, are stupid and greedy. They don't want to pay for anything, they don't want to help people, and they don't like change. When they are forced to acknowledge that because the downtrodden protests for equal rights, they deem it as an attack. Here's the thing MyThical. When Homosexuals and Women are given less rights, attacked more, and are more restricted in society--they don't have the option to just let the other side have their own opinions, especially when the homophobe's and misogynist's opinions directly affect and attack the lives of Homosexuals and Women. That is why they protest, that is why they scream from beneath the boot of oppression. Uhm he's actually saying he doesnt get why people protest against gay marriage or abortions, i.e why they care what others are doing. Still think its a bad analogy to something like univ healthcare since that does have an impact (taxes etc) on them unlike whether 2 blokes get married. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On January 21 2017 04:15 Liquid`Jinro wrote: Uhm he's actually saying he doesnt get why people protest against gay marriage or abortions, i.e why they care what others are doing. Still think its a bad analogy to something like univ healthcare since that does have an impact (taxes etc) on them unlike whether 2 blokes get married. Thanks for the clarification, I felt like he was saying that we should protest Homosexuality and Abortion (my bad!) But I also still don't understand the shift from healthcare needing to run at a loss (for the Feds) and abortion/marriage equality. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8982 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21651 Posts
On January 21 2017 03:47 Euphorbus wrote: Another example is him not appointing a new supreme justice. That was absurdly weak as well. What? You are aware that Obama did appoint a new Supreme Justice and then the Republicans in Congress told him to go F*** himself right? Congress has to approve the nomination. They refused to even get started on the process. There is nothing Obama could have done more then what he did without setting fire to the constitution. On January 21 2017 03:15 On_Slaught wrote: Lol at people like xDaunt praising him for trying to embarass all the politicians he is going to have to work with to get anything done. Like that is in anyway prodictive. Trump supporters railed against Obama for not working with Republicans and trying to bully them early on. This is better? In general I am curious to see how Trump does two things. First, how he does after national tragedies. I can't imagine him giving somber speeches well like Obama. I'm curious what style he will try after mass shootings and the like. After his inane tweets of course. I'm also curious to see how he does at things like the commencement dinner where he is supposed to be funny. His humor is very mean-spirited and I wonder if he can get away from that. Now that Republicans are in charge I expect the White House to be silent when mass shootings happen. Unless the shooter was black/muslim/foreign in which case its an easy scapegoat. | ||
|
Clonester
Germany2808 Posts
great Speech I must say. We will see if he makes his job and you Americans are able to judge in the Midterms in only 22 months and then in 46 months again about the president himself. But if he really does what he claims... his economic programm will be more leftist then Bernie's. On January 21 2017 04:22 Gorsameth wrote: Now that Republicans are in charge I expect the White House to be silent when mass shootings happen. Unless the shooter was black/muslim/foreign in which case its an easy scapegoat. Isnt the narrative of the right wingers and the NRA that these shootings wouldnt happen, if MORE guns would be holded by people in the US? So that mass shooters just get killed by other weapon carries before he can kill other people? | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On January 21 2017 03:47 Euphorbus wrote: Obama should just have let those democrats and republicans vote it down, then blame them, and wait till the next election. That's how it works. That's why the republicans always win, despite public opinion being against them. Approval ratings of congress was super-low. Look now with medicine imports from Canada. Democrats who received donations from big pharma blocked it. Another example is him not appointing a new supreme justice. That was absurdly weak as well. Donors seem to favour weak democrats and hard as nail republicans. I wonder why. he did appoint a new supreme court justice. The republicans in the senate refused to vote on the matter or hold hearings. There's nothing obama can legally do about that. He did try to talk about the issue and how it's bad, but that didn't apply enough pressure, and enough idiotic partisan republicans decided to support the plan of their leadership. so you're just spouting stuff without understanding the issues. | ||
|
MyTHicaL
France1070 Posts
On January 21 2017 04:04 Euphorbus wrote: Without protests, woman wouldn't have the right to vote. Hell, people wouldn't have the right to vote. France would still be ruled by a delusional king. You completely misunderstood what I said. Protests to increase freedoms makes sense, to impede others does not. I am very aware of how and why Louis XVI was beheaded; much more so than you I'd imagine. | ||
| ||
|
|
Wardi Open
Replay Cast
WardiTV European League
ShoWTimE vs sebesdes
Percival vs NightPhoenix
Shameless vs Nicoract
Krystianer vs Scarlett
ByuN vs uThermal
Harstem vs HeRoMaRinE
PiGosaur Monday
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
Replay Cast
The PondCast
Replay Cast
Epic.LAN
CranKy Ducklings
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
