|
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 September 15 2017 02:17 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2017 02:14 Sermokala wrote:On September 15 2017 02:11 Gorsameth wrote:
I'm not saying Obama won the election because he was black, I'm saying he faced unprecedented dogmatic opposition because he was black.
Yeah but the truth is probably more accurately that he faced unprecedented dogmatic opposition because he won the election because he was black. Saying the GOP itself is filled with a bunch of dumb racists is a bit too far of an honest stretch for anyone. That unprecedented black turn out was pretty key for him crushing that election. But lets not forget that he was the opposition party after 8 years of Bush, a deeply unpopular war and a economic crash that the Republics were not super pumped about stopping. I still remember the members of the Republican party saying that the free market should handle the subprime mortgage crisis.
It wasn't just the black vote but a ton of young and hispanic voters that made the election a forgone conclusion back in september. Bush 2 actualy did pretty well with the hispanic vote that people really forget was the key to his sucsess (past the enron goldman sachs money machine). To take such a huge victory in demographics that should under any reasonable conditions continue to grow and grow should scare anyone who lost to the core.
|
On September 15 2017 02:42 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2017 02:17 Plansix wrote:On September 15 2017 02:14 Sermokala wrote:On September 15 2017 02:11 Gorsameth wrote:
I'm not saying Obama won the election because he was black, I'm saying he faced unprecedented dogmatic opposition because he was black.
Yeah but the truth is probably more accurately that he faced unprecedented dogmatic opposition because he won the election because he was black. Saying the GOP itself is filled with a bunch of dumb racists is a bit too far of an honest stretch for anyone. That unprecedented black turn out was pretty key for him crushing that election. But lets not forget that he was the opposition party after 8 years of Bush, a deeply unpopular war and a economic crash that the Republics were not super pumped about stopping. I still remember the members of the Republican party saying that the free market should handle the subprime mortgage crisis. It wasn't just the black vote but a ton of young and hispanic voters that made the election a forgone conclusion back in september. Bush 2 actualy did pretty well with the hispanic vote that people really forget was the key to his sucsess (past the enron goldman sachs money machine). To take such a huge victory in demographics that should under any reasonable conditions continue to grow and grow should scare anyone who lost to the core.
Its why I want to scream at every single one of my democrat friends that say “I think this candidate is to young, we should let them learn in the senate for longer.” They are not Pokémon, god damn it.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Obama chose DWS to lead the Democrats as well, and basically did everything he could to promote a Clinton crony environment in the party apparatus. He shares a lot of the blame for shitty things we criticize Hillary for.
|
legal, did you get to the part in the book where obama pretty much told hillary to run? it's not too far in.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 15 2017 02:55 ticklishmusic wrote:
legal, did you get to the part in the book where obama pretty much told hillary to run? it's not too far in.
I was dumb enough to order a hard copy so I'm mostly still waiting  .
|
On September 15 2017 02:52 LegalLord wrote:
Obama chose DWS to lead the Democrats as well, and basically did everything he could to promote a Clinton crony environment in the party apparatus. He shares a lot of the blame for shitty things we criticize Hillary for.
That was 2008 and people supported it at the time. I’m looking articles about it right now.
http://www.politico.com/story/2011/04/wasserman-schultz-to-lead-dnc-052605
She as a nightmare, but there were not that many options:
http://www.politico.com/story/2011/04/post-kaine-dnc-up-in-the-air-052427
They tried to find other people, but were presented with two options by the party. Presidents and party leaders are not CEOs. The can’t just pick whoever they want to lead the party, since its does come down to a vote and who the party is willing to accept.
|
On September 15 2017 01:49 xDaunt wrote:
I gave some thought last night to the issue of whether I was wrong to lay most of the blame on Obama for his failure to get anything done with republicans. It's pretty hard to ignore the utter worthlessness of Ryan and McConnell over the past 9 months, so I'm definitely more sympathetic to Obama now than I was. However, the big difference between Obama working with the opposition and Trump working with the opposition is that Trump has actually given a significant incentive to get Democrat cooperation. Regardless of how you want to frame what's going on, Trump is very clearly dangling some form of amnesty for the Dreamers to Pelosi and Schumer, which is something that they and the Democrats want very badly. Like I've pointed out many times before, Obama never made a similar offering to Republicans. It's pretty easy to get people to work with you when you offer them stuff.
While I hold no sympathy for Obama, you are pretty much correct elsewhere. Trump is willing to remove one of his premier campaign promises and give the democrats hundreds of thousands and eventually millions of new voters for good NYT headlines.
Trump runs the real risk of going too far opposite Obama's direction.
|
On September 15 2017 03:14 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2017 01:49 xDaunt wrote:
I gave some thought last night to the issue of whether I was wrong to lay most of the blame on Obama for his failure to get anything done with republicans. It's pretty hard to ignore the utter worthlessness of Ryan and McConnell over the past 9 months, so I'm definitely more sympathetic to Obama now than I was. However, the big difference between Obama working with the opposition and Trump working with the opposition is that Trump has actually given a significant incentive to get Democrat cooperation. Regardless of how you want to frame what's going on, Trump is very clearly dangling some form of amnesty for the Dreamers to Pelosi and Schumer, which is something that they and the Democrats want very badly. Like I've pointed out many times before, Obama never made a similar offering to Republicans. It's pretty easy to get people to work with you when you offer them stuff. While I hold no sympathy for Obama, you are pretty much correct elsewhere. Trump is willing to remove one of his premier campaign promises and give the democrats hundreds of thousands and eventually millions of new voters for good NYT headlines. Trump runs the real risk of going too far opposite Obama's direction.
To many of us; the claims that obama was unwilling to offer anything to the republicans seems false, and the product of a nonsense narrative that has been peddled for ages. which makes us eyeroll at what you're saying. At least it does that for me; and I imagine for a fair number of other people as well.
while what trump is offering is more substantial than what obama offered; that doesn't mean obama wasn't willing to make real compromises on things.
|
On September 15 2017 03:14 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2017 01:49 xDaunt wrote:
I gave some thought last night to the issue of whether I was wrong to lay most of the blame on Obama for his failure to get anything done with republicans. It's pretty hard to ignore the utter worthlessness of Ryan and McConnell over the past 9 months, so I'm definitely more sympathetic to Obama now than I was. However, the big difference between Obama working with the opposition and Trump working with the opposition is that Trump has actually given a significant incentive to get Democrat cooperation. Regardless of how you want to frame what's going on, Trump is very clearly dangling some form of amnesty for the Dreamers to Pelosi and Schumer, which is something that they and the Democrats want very badly. Like I've pointed out many times before, Obama never made a similar offering to Republicans. It's pretty easy to get people to work with you when you offer them stuff. While I hold no sympathy for Obama, you are pretty much correct elsewhere. Trump is willing to remove one of his premier campaign promises and give the democrats hundreds of thousands and eventually millions of new voters for good NYT headlines. Trump runs the real risk of going too far opposite Obama's direction.
Those “new voters” could have been Republican voters at any time. If someone had just listened to Reagan and got behind this growing immigrating population, the Republicans would be on a very different path right now. But Newt and the southern strategy 2.0 was how they decided to make a comeback. And sort of break congress.
Edit: Also, minority groups don't all vote in blocks, despite the myth. Black Americas occupy a special place in the US demographics because of our nation’s long history of repressing them. Weirdly, minorities tend to gravitate towards whatever party isn’t trying to screw them over.
|
On September 15 2017 03:14 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2017 01:49 xDaunt wrote:
I gave some thought last night to the issue of whether I was wrong to lay most of the blame on Obama for his failure to get anything done with republicans. It's pretty hard to ignore the utter worthlessness of Ryan and McConnell over the past 9 months, so I'm definitely more sympathetic to Obama now than I was. However, the big difference between Obama working with the opposition and Trump working with the opposition is that Trump has actually given a significant incentive to get Democrat cooperation. Regardless of how you want to frame what's going on, Trump is very clearly dangling some form of amnesty for the Dreamers to Pelosi and Schumer, which is something that they and the Democrats want very badly. Like I've pointed out many times before, Obama never made a similar offering to Republicans. It's pretty easy to get people to work with you when you offer them stuff. While I hold no sympathy for Obama, you are pretty much correct elsewhere. Trump is willing to remove one of his premier campaign promises and give the democrats hundreds of thousands and eventually millions of new voters for good NYT headlines. Trump runs the real risk of going too far opposite Obama's direction.
I don't think Trump is really concerned with anything more than being viewed as a successful president. He has no reason to stick to his guns if he thinks it will ultimately make him unsuccessful.
|
On September 15 2017 03:28 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2017 03:14 Introvert wrote:On September 15 2017 01:49 xDaunt wrote:
I gave some thought last night to the issue of whether I was wrong to lay most of the blame on Obama for his failure to get anything done with republicans. It's pretty hard to ignore the utter worthlessness of Ryan and McConnell over the past 9 months, so I'm definitely more sympathetic to Obama now than I was. However, the big difference between Obama working with the opposition and Trump working with the opposition is that Trump has actually given a significant incentive to get Democrat cooperation. Regardless of how you want to frame what's going on, Trump is very clearly dangling some form of amnesty for the Dreamers to Pelosi and Schumer, which is something that they and the Democrats want very badly. Like I've pointed out many times before, Obama never made a similar offering to Republicans. It's pretty easy to get people to work with you when you offer them stuff. While I hold no sympathy for Obama, you are pretty much correct elsewhere. Trump is willing to remove one of his premier campaign promises and give the democrats hundreds of thousands and eventually millions of new voters for good NYT headlines. Trump runs the real risk of going too far opposite Obama's direction. Those “new voters” could have been Republican voters at any time. If someone had just listened to Reagan and got behind this growing immigrating population, the Republicans would be on a very different path right now. But Newt and the southern strategy 2.0 was how they decided to make a comeback. And sort of break congress. Edit: Also, minority groups don't all vote in blocks, despite the myth. Black Americas occupy a special place in the US demographics because of our nation’s long history of repressing them. Weirdly, minorities tend to gravitate towards whatever party isn’t trying to screw them over.
Reagan gave them amnesty and the Bushes were always on soft side and it didn't help them. Appealing to feelz with amnesty isn't a way to win them over, although pro amnesty Republicans desperately wish it was true.
|
On September 15 2017 04:06 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2017 03:28 Plansix wrote:On September 15 2017 03:14 Introvert wrote:On September 15 2017 01:49 xDaunt wrote:
I gave some thought last night to the issue of whether I was wrong to lay most of the blame on Obama for his failure to get anything done with republicans. It's pretty hard to ignore the utter worthlessness of Ryan and McConnell over the past 9 months, so I'm definitely more sympathetic to Obama now than I was. However, the big difference between Obama working with the opposition and Trump working with the opposition is that Trump has actually given a significant incentive to get Democrat cooperation. Regardless of how you want to frame what's going on, Trump is very clearly dangling some form of amnesty for the Dreamers to Pelosi and Schumer, which is something that they and the Democrats want very badly. Like I've pointed out many times before, Obama never made a similar offering to Republicans. It's pretty easy to get people to work with you when you offer them stuff. While I hold no sympathy for Obama, you are pretty much correct elsewhere. Trump is willing to remove one of his premier campaign promises and give the democrats hundreds of thousands and eventually millions of new voters for good NYT headlines. Trump runs the real risk of going too far opposite Obama's direction. Those “new voters” could have been Republican voters at any time. If someone had just listened to Reagan and got behind this growing immigrating population, the Republicans would be on a very different path right now. But Newt and the southern strategy 2.0 was how they decided to make a comeback. And sort of break congress. Edit: Also, minority groups don't all vote in blocks, despite the myth. Black Americas occupy a special place in the US demographics because of our nation’s long history of repressing them. Weirdly, minorities tend to gravitate towards whatever party isn’t trying to screw them over. Reagan gave them amnesty and the Bushes were always on soft side and it didn't help them. Appealing to feelz with amnesty isn't a way to win them over, although pro amnesty Republicans desperately wish it was true.
Likely because you need to do more than just amnesty. It needs to be a path to citizenship and then "don't worry, the GOP has your back".
I don’t think the whole trying to deport all of them and refusing to work on immigration until the boarder is “secure” is paying off either. We are at close to 30 years of this standoff with no real progress. It is great for republicans who want to win elections, but there is a real danger of this becoming a multi-generation issue.
|
Trump will definitely have to veto this one.
Lol
|
In order to have him veto it, it would first have to pass congress. Which it wont.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Just noticed Sanders has a new book as well. Won't make the same mistake twice, I'm getting this one digital.
|
On September 15 2017 04:48 LegalLord wrote:
Just noticed Sanders has a new book as well. Won't make the same mistake twice, I'm getting this one digital.
Just drive to the book store and buy it in person.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Nah, I prefer supporting the rise of the internet retailer over the brick and mortar. Plus it's like 50% of the price.
|
On September 15 2017 04:50 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2017 04:48 LegalLord wrote:
Just noticed Sanders has a new book as well. Won't make the same mistake twice, I'm getting this one digital. Just drive to the book store and buy it in person.
Nothing hurts more than retailers silently judging your purchases.
|
On September 15 2017 05:01 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2017 04:50 Plansix wrote:On September 15 2017 04:48 LegalLord wrote:
Just noticed Sanders has a new book as well. Won't make the same mistake twice, I'm getting this one digital. Just drive to the book store and buy it in person. Nothing hurts more than retailers silently judging your purchases.
I like to mix up complete garbage graphic novels like Iron Man with dry, dull history and political writings. Buy it all at once like a challenge for retailer to judge me.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Unfortunately the book retailers near my house have all closed up shop. The best I can get is like 15 miles away, which sounds like work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
