|
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. |
United Kingdom13775 Posts
It was under Obama's leadership that Democrats lost their huge advantage of local and state governorships, that DWS became head of the DNC, that Hillary Clinton was groomed as the heir to the Obama legacy, and that the general dissatisfaction with the status quo festered and grew. Obama did oversee a moderately successful recovery of the US economy, even if it remains anemic for all but the wealthiest. He did pass some meaningful, if ultimately insufficient, reforms in a lot of social and domestic areas. In short he was neither all that bad of a president nor a particularly good one, and slowly but surely it became clear that his star was wearing off. There's a difference between surface-level "first impression" charisma and the kind of charisma that develops from working with someone for a long time and gaining respect for them; evidently Obama's strength is in the former.
Damn was it easy to deflect his faults onto something or someone else, and there are still individuals even in this very thread who take any criticism of Obama personally and would deflect as long as possible, but at some point you have to admit that "charismatic but ineffective leadership" doesn't really solve the problems. I actually liked what Chris Christie had to say in his last hurrah as a candidate - it's not about being able to give a speech about how great America is, the people expect you to plow the snow and to get the roads working, so on and so forth. The record there was... adequate but nothing to write home about.
Sure, it seems like an afterthought in the wake of the fact that Trump is president, and that's how the DNC and friends would like you to see it. Even before it was Trump being president it was "we can't worry about Hillary Clinton's faults, Trump is so bad, just elect her then we can talk." And it hasn't changed, it's all about "have you seen the other" guy and not about someone who actually suggests genuine change. And I've seen that the Democrats have enough such potential candidates, they just get no support and aren't "true party loyalists" so they get passed over every time because if the Democrats don't support their own candidate, why would the voters?
You need more than promising hope with no desire to deliver, and you need way more than just promising to be better than "the other guy" to actually win things. Despite being clearly sort of unhinged, Bernie Sanders' greatest strength that propelled him forward wasn't progressivism (he isn't the only progressive around) but more so honesty in that very few people would expect him not to follow through with his promises. The DNC doesn't get it, though.
|
|
On December 13 2017 03:25 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Shockingly accurate.
Edit: LoL – another time with LL explains to US how Obama should have done more to make the DNC better when he is but one part of the leadership, running the West Wing and trying to craft policy while fighting a nightmare war we never should have been part of. Maybe just say the DNC sucked beyond even Obama’s ability to repair.
|
Doesn't sound unlikely for the National Security Advisor.
|
On December 13 2017 04:04 Plansix wrote:Shockingly accurate.
When Warren calls it slut shaming is she implying that she did it, that there wouldn't be a problem with it, or something else? I admit, that one confused me a bit.
|
A majority of voters nationwide say Republican Roy Moore should be expelled from the Senate if he wins a seat in the chamber in Tuesday’s special election in Alabama, according to a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll.
More than six-in-10 voters (61 percent) — including a plurality of Republicans — think the Senate should expel the embattled Moore, who has been accused of pursuing and molesting teenage girls while in his 30s. That includes 77 percent of Democrats, 59 percent of independents and 45 percent of Republicans.
There’s also a gender gap, especially among Republicans, on the issue of expulsion. Half of female Republicans think the Senate should expel Moore, but just 39 percent of Republican men agree.
Only 17 percent of voters think the Senate should not expel Moore if he defeats Democrat Doug Jones in Tuesday’s election — including 7 percent of Democrats, 16 percent of independents and 29 percent of Republicans.
Moore and Jones are down to the wire in a close race to fill the remaining three years of now-Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ unexpired term in the Senate. The polls vary on which candidate is ahead, and some pollsters are cautioning that their surveys shouldn’t be interpreted as a prediction because of greater uncertainty in the special election.
Most voters also believe the Republican National Committee was wrong to reinstate its support for Moore’s campaign, which came last week, after President Donald Trump endorsed Moore, despite the scandal. A 52 percent majority says the RNC did the wrong thing in supporting Moore, while only 20 percent say it was the right thing to back Moore.
Republican voters are split on the question: 35 percent say the RNC did the right thing, and 34 percent say it was the wrong thing to do.
Nearly four-in-10 voters say the RNC’s decision to support Moore makes them less likely to support the committee in the future, while 11 percent say it makes them more likely and 31 percent say it doesn’t change their mind either way. www.politico.com
|
On December 13 2017 04:08 GreenHorizons wrote:When Warren calls it slut shaming is she implying that she did it, that there wouldn't be a problem with it, or something else? I admit, that one confused me a bit. That was a weird term to use, but I get the point. It isn’t like Trump is accusing Chuck of offering a BJ to pass DACA.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 13 2017 04:04 Plansix wrote:Shockingly accurate. Edit: LoL – another time with LL explains to US how Obama should have done more to make the DNC better when he is but one part of the leadership, running the West Wing and trying to craft policy while fighting a nightmare war we never should have been part of. Maybe just say the DNC sucked beyond even Obama’s ability to repair. Yes, it’s clear that nothing bad that happened under his watch is his fault. This time - because he was just too busy to take care of it!
Deflection at its finest.
|
On December 13 2017 04:00 LegalLord wrote: It was under Obama's leadership that Democrats lost their huge advantage of local and state governorships, that DWS became head of the DNC, that Hillary Clinton was groomed as the heir to the Obama legacy, and that the general dissatisfaction with the status quo festered and grew. Obama did oversee a moderately successful recovery of the US economy, even if it remains anemic for all but the wealthiest. He did pass some meaningful, if ultimately insufficient, reforms in a lot of social and domestic areas. In short he was neither all that bad of a president nor a particularly good one, and slowly but surely it became clear that his star was wearing off. There's a difference between surface-level "first impression" charisma and the kind of charisma that develops from working with someone for a long time and gaining respect for them; evidently Obama's strength is in the former.
Damn was it easy to deflect his faults onto something or someone else, and there are still individuals even in this very thread who take any criticism of Obama personally and would deflect as long as possible, but at some point you have to admit that "charismatic but ineffective leadership" doesn't really solve the problems. I actually liked what Chris Christie had to say in his last hurrah as a candidate - it's not about being able to give a speech about how great America is, the people expect you to plow the snow and to get the roads working, so on and so forth. The record there was... adequate but nothing to write home about.
Sure, it seems like an afterthought in the wake of the fact that Trump is president, and that's how the DNC and friends would like you to see it. Even before it was Trump being president it was "we can't worry about Hillary Clinton's faults, Trump is so bad, just elect her then we can talk." And it hasn't changed, it's all about "have you seen the other" guy and not about someone who actually suggests genuine change. And I've seen that the Democrats have enough such potential candidates, they just get no support and aren't "true party loyalists" so they get passed over every time because if the Democrats don't support their own candidate, why would the voters?
You need more than promising hope with no desire to deliver, and you need way more than just promising to be better than "the other guy" to actually win things. Despite being clearly sort of unhinged, Bernie Sanders' greatest strength that propelled him forward wasn't progressivism (he isn't the only progressive around) but more so honesty in that very few people would expect him not to follow through with his promises. The DNC doesn't get it, though. given that the republicans have won quite a bit with promising hope that they won' tdeliver on, and by not being the other guy, i'd say that actually can win. you just need to pick a large enough "us" group to pull it off. the dems didn't build a large enough "us" group.
on your first paragraph, I note hillary's strength is the latter, sadly that doesn't count for much in elections. bernie's strength is charisma, pretending to be an outsider, and seeming honest. note that there's a large difference between "being" honest and "seeming" honest. whether he actually is honest, is a much more complicated question which I haven't looked at in awhile; but he's very good at seeming honest, which in politics is what mostly matters for success.
|
A large part of the problem was the deal Obama made that let DWS be head of the DNC. It's not really his fault she ran it into the ground, and I understand why he made it. The racist backlash against him probably resulted in a fair number of seats being lost, but I'd guess at most 25-40% were from that. That's still a shitload, but nowhere near as much as just incompetent leadership.
|
On December 13 2017 04:14 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2017 04:04 Plansix wrote:Shockingly accurate. Edit: LoL – another time with LL explains to US how Obama should have done more to make the DNC better when he is but one part of the leadership, running the West Wing and trying to craft policy while fighting a nightmare war we never should have been part of. Maybe just say the DNC sucked beyond even Obama’s ability to repair. Yes, it’s clear that nothing bad that happened under his watch is his fault. This time - because he was just too busy to take care of it! Deflection at its finest. Find a better punching bag. Attacking the president for the national party's failures is kinda lazy. A lot of people pushed to keep DWS in power.
|
If only Plansix applied the same standard to corporate CEOs...
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Oh sure, it’s not all Obama’s fault. No one said it was though. Claiming he had nothing to do with it or otherwise trying to paint him as the one bright light in all the shittiness of the party is disingenuous as fuck. Which is par for the course for “Obama as an ideal to strive for” dregs though.
This reminds me of the time Obama was talking about Benghazi in the FP debate of 2012 after Hillary tried to claim responsibility to protect Obama’s re-election. He’s the president, it IS his responsibility. Which evidently he understood better than some of the Obama apologists do.
|
On December 13 2017 04:08 GreenHorizons wrote:When Warren calls it slut shaming is she implying that she did it, that there wouldn't be a problem with it, or something else? I admit, that one confused me a bit.
That seemed like a stupid term for her to use. But one thing that's for sure is that Trump's views on women are very backwards. You can't say it's quite as bad as Saudi Arabia, but I don't know why anyone would want to be that close to Saudi Arabia on this issue.
Remember when Republicans defended him for his Megyn Kelly comments?
|
On December 13 2017 04:32 mozoku wrote: If only Plansix applied the same standard to corporate CEOs... That is a completely accurate equivalence and I'm glad somebody finally made it before I had to
|
On December 13 2017 04:37 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2017 04:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 13 2017 04:04 Plansix wrote:Shockingly accurate. When Warren calls it slut shaming is she implying that she did it, that there wouldn't be a problem with it, or something else? I admit, that one confused me a bit. That seemed like a stupid term for her to use. But one thing that's for sure is that Trump's views on women are very backwards. You can't say it's quite as bad as Saudi Arabia, but I don't know why anyone would want to be that close to Saudi Arabia on this issue.
I am really confused, what is wrong with her using slut shaming?
|
On December 13 2017 04:40 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2017 04:32 mozoku wrote: If only Plansix applied the same standard to corporate CEOs... That is a completely accurate equivalence and I'm glad somebody finally made it before I had to I’ll shit on a CEO any day of the week. But when banks like Wells Fargo have their CEO step down acts like its all cool now, I’ll point out that he was but a small part of the problem.
The President is the punching bag for all the flaws during their time in office. There are 500 members of congress and two huge political parties. Some people just like to focus on the president because it’s easy.
Edit: LL – I was pointing out that Obama should be the model for democrats when it comes to getting elected. The Democrats have this obsession with policy when it comes to running for office. Some of the ones I know still mock “Hope” as part of Obama’s platform. Its like they watch the Republicans win and then mock the one guy who cracked the code they are using.
|
On December 13 2017 04:46 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2017 04:40 kollin wrote:On December 13 2017 04:32 mozoku wrote: If only Plansix applied the same standard to corporate CEOs... That is a completely accurate equivalence and I'm glad somebody finally made it before I had to I’ll shit on a CEO any day of the week. But when banks like Wells Fargo have their CEO step down acts like its all cool now, I’ll point out that he was but a small part of the problem. The President is the punching bag for all the flaws during their time in office. There are 500 members of congress and two huge political parties. Some people just like to focus on the president because it’s easy. I was being sarcastic haha, I agree with you
|
On December 13 2017 04:12 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2017 04:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 13 2017 04:04 Plansix wrote:Shockingly accurate. When Warren calls it slut shaming is she implying that she did it, that there wouldn't be a problem with it, or something else? I admit, that one confused me a bit. That was a weird term to use, but I get the point. It isn’t like Trump is accusing Chuck of offering a BJ to pass DACA.
I wouldn't put it past him, but think him and Chuck are getting along better since the Jerusalem thing.
|
On December 13 2017 04:48 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2017 04:46 Plansix wrote:On December 13 2017 04:40 kollin wrote:On December 13 2017 04:32 mozoku wrote: If only Plansix applied the same standard to corporate CEOs... That is a completely accurate equivalence and I'm glad somebody finally made it before I had to I’ll shit on a CEO any day of the week. But when banks like Wells Fargo have their CEO step down acts like its all cool now, I’ll point out that he was but a small part of the problem. The President is the punching bag for all the flaws during their time in office. There are 500 members of congress and two huge political parties. Some people just like to focus on the president because it’s easy. I was being sarcastic haha, I agree with you Its 2017, I cant tell any more.
|
|
|
|