|
|
On June 15 2012 10:42 Probulous wrote:
The fact is that the American public voted in a democratic president in a congress with a democratic majority. He had a mandate to govern in the manner in which he saw fit. To constantly filibuster because you are ideologically opposed is behaving like a spoilt brat who couldn't get the cookie they want.
that's how our government works, sorry if you don't like it, but there it is. the filibuster is a legitimate way to exercise power when you are a minority in Congress, and the Democrats have used it plenty of times, rightfully so. the idea that the Republicans (or Democrats) have to sit twiddling their thumbs and signing off on everything that the majority does is ridiculous and was never how our system was designed to work.
the fact is that the American people proved that they at least in part support the filibustering in 2010. but i'm not walking around telling Democrats that they need to start repealing everything because my side won an election, because that's not how it is supposed to work, and it would be unfair to suggest that they do so. why even have a filibuster if you shouldn't use it? the whole point of not having a pure democracy is that we can have a minority that can still exercise some power.
On June 15 2012 10:42 Probulous wrote:
To then blame Obama for not being effective is really rich. It creates an incentive not to even try and compromise because the consequences are politically so damaging.
In hindsight it would have been better for him to just stick with his original plan and forget that the republican side of congress existed. At least then he wouldn't get blamed for the compromises he made.
he can be rightly blamed for not being effective because he did not do all that much to compromise with Republicans on any issue. now, i don't think he necessarily needed to come to us to compromise, but then he can't really complain when the Republicans aren't all that eager to support his programs.
it would be wildly unfair to suggest that the Republicans should compromise with Obama when not only does he refuse to compromise with them, but the Republican base does not want them compromising with him. if he's willing to come to our table, so be it, but if not, then we can let the American people decide in an election, because that's freedom baby! i for one am tired of this idea that everything always needs to be compromised, or that the middle way is always better than the extreme's. you may feel different, and many Americans agree with you, but i for one feel like the Republicans have done enough compromising in the last 20 years. we need to make some stands, and i applaud the Republicans for taking a stand. it is wildly disingenuous to say that Obama shouldn't have compromised, but then attack Republicans for not compromising.
|
Shit! nevermind.
Trying to find a version of the Romney speech that can be embedded here.
|
On June 15 2012 12:01 sc2superfan101 wrote:
it is wildly disingenuous to say that Obama shouldn't have compromised, but then attack Republicans for not compromising.
How so? Obama compromised without getting anything in return. Why would it be disingenuous to argue both 1) that he shouldn't have compromised because it made little to no difference with regards to the attitude of the other side and 2) that the Republicans should have compromised since that's what Obama did?
What would be disingenuous would be to only attack Republicans for not compromising if Obama hadn't tried compromising either - but he did.
|
On June 15 2012 11:11 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2012 11:07 1Eris1 wrote:On June 15 2012 10:38 Defacer wrote:On June 15 2012 10:14 1Eris1 wrote:On June 15 2012 09:02 Defacer wrote:
Do you think the characterization of Romney as a hard-right conversative (versus a moderate flip-flopper) is better or worse for Obama?
It is better for Obama, worse for the country as a whole, but I do not blame him for it. On June 15 2012 09:02 Defacer wrote:
Do you think Obama's outline of Romney's economic policy is fair/accurate?
Fair? Hard to say. I tend not to look at criticisms of certain things as fair when there is no supporter to back them up. (I also do not think an Economist at Moodys can really be "independent or fair" but that is not really pertenent) Is it accurate though? Probably, although if it was then the President's own detailing of his economic policies was not very accurate either. Overall it was the speech I expected from Obama. Worded really well, to the point that 70-80% of Americans will probably react strongly to it (negative or positive), but nothing that I had not seen before, and nothing that will convince me to vote for him. (I am not voting for Romney either, both of them disgust me.) I thought it was interesting that Obama was practically daring the press to fact-check him when describing Mitt Romney's economic proposals. I'm just glad he's finally pointing out what I've been asking on the TL boards for ages -- How, exactly can you pretend to care about the deficit while promising another tax cut? Obama's plans and ideas seem like incomplete wishful thinking, but Romney's plan seems to guarantee a larger deficit AND worse social services. Good luck not-voting! On the contrary, I am voting, just not for either of them. There is no candidate completely in line without a lot of my views, but they are a few that are certainly closer to mine then either of Romney or Obama. And even if one vote cannot do much, it is probably my best option in getting my voice out there, in accordance with my current situation and position in life. (People say I am too cynical, so I am trying to be more of an optimist) The problem with the Ryan plan/tax cuts is it is trying to do everything at once. If we want to cut government or taxes, fine, but spread it the fuck out. Wait for the government to actually be smaller before you reduce its revenues. (I think Romney might actually be drifting towards this concept, thankfully, but it could just be bullshit like it ususally is.) As for the wishful thinking, I completely agree. Thank you Mr. President, those were wonderful words of hope that you have used 10x before, now what exactly is the actual plan? ...Makes me wonder why I don't just permanently shun politics and go for getting rich and living in obscure luxury. Yes. Getting rich will solve everything. Too bad you live in America, where your personal success and failure hinges entirely on who is and isn't President. Ziiiiinnng average American voter! Show nested quote +
edit: As sort of an off-topic question, if we take into account inflation and the like, where does Obama rank in terms of contribution to the debt (per year or term, whatever)? I imagine he's well up there, but I doubt he spent more than Lincoln or Roosevelt.
Fuck that's a good question ...
Nah, the truth of the matter is they aren't that different, at least not as much as they would like to portray, and even if they were the checks and balances of the government will never allow them to really change all that much.
I'd be perfectly fine with 20 million instead of 25 million yo.
|
When there is a divided government, the goal of the majority party in Congress is to sabotage the president at any cost, disregarding the issues at hand.
And that's what we're seeing.
|
On June 15 2012 13:13 Lightwip wrote:
When there is a divided government, the goal of the majority party in Congress is to sabotage the president at any cost, disregarding the issues at hand.
And that's what we're seeing.
No. That's a bold, unsourced statement, and it flies in the face of history. Have you forgotten the "permanent majority?" The Democratic Congressional leaders during the Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Bush 41 administrations would not have agreed with that sentence; all Republican policy achievements before Bush 43 were passed with Democratic compliance. The attitudes expressed in your post date back only to Gingrich and the 1994 midterms (And the Do-Nothing Congress of 1946-48, but that was an aberration and the Republicans paid dearly for it); the idea that the opposition should actively obstruct the majority is a parliamentary one that has no place in American government. Indeed, the design of American government is such that an obstructionist attitude from either party inevitably leads to gridlock.
|
On June 15 2012 10:04 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2012 09:43 xDaunt wrote:On June 15 2012 09:07 sunprince wrote:On June 15 2012 02:21 xDaunt wrote:
Oh, and here's one other thing that I want to be clear about: the democrats chose to ram through Obamacare even though they knew that it was politically unpopular at the time. There was minimal political will or desire to overhaul the healthcare system. The politically smart thing to do would have been to drop the fight altogether and move on to another issue. Instead, they chose to "go over the top" and charge into the withering gunfire of the majority of Americans who oppose massive healthcare reform. That was their choice, and they have to live with it and its consequences. The politically smart thing to do would have been to ram Obamacare through at the beginning. Obama gutted his precious health care plan in order to try to compromise with Republicans, and in the end Republicans didn't budge an inch. Obama's biggest failure as a President was trying to negotiate with extremists when he didn't have to. If Democrats learned to play hardball as the Republicans have, then the healthcare debate would have been resolved quickly and they would have moved on to other important issues. I wonder how long it will take Democrats to learn that it's retarded for them to play nice when they're the only ones doing it. No, he didn't gut Obamacare for the sake of appeasing republicans. He gutted it for the sake of appeasing blue dog democrats. That said, I commend you for being the first liberal in this thread to acknowledge that Obama did not need to compromise with republicans. He said he did not need to compromise with republicans, not that he didn't compromise.
Either way, it's a very good point. Obama burned through his political capital by prolonging debate over health care reform (or at least, not actively trying to find a quick resolution), creating a lengthy process that allowed the topic to become more polarizing and toxic than it would have been had the ordeal been shorter. Ultimately this greater price came with no gain whatsoever, and in fact many of his own supporters feel that the legislation became worse as a result of the compromises that were made.
Obama has repeatedly made this mistake throughout his first term... really, it took him until after last summer's debt ceiling fiasco to figure out the reality of present-day partisanship.
|
On June 15 2012 09:43 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2012 09:07 sunprince wrote:On June 15 2012 02:21 xDaunt wrote:
Oh, and here's one other thing that I want to be clear about: the democrats chose to ram through Obamacare even though they knew that it was politically unpopular at the time. There was minimal political will or desire to overhaul the healthcare system. The politically smart thing to do would have been to drop the fight altogether and move on to another issue. Instead, they chose to "go over the top" and charge into the withering gunfire of the majority of Americans who oppose massive healthcare reform. That was their choice, and they have to live with it and its consequences. The politically smart thing to do would have been to ram Obamacare through at the beginning. Obama gutted his precious health care plan in order to try to compromise with Republicans, and in the end Republicans didn't budge an inch. Obama's biggest failure as a President was trying to negotiate with extremists when he didn't have to. If Democrats learned to play hardball as the Republicans have, then the healthcare debate would have been resolved quickly and they would have moved on to other important issues. I wonder how long it will take Democrats to learn that it's retarded for them to play nice when they're the only ones doing it. No, he didn't gut Obamacare for the sake of appeasing republicans. He gutted it for the sake of appeasing blue dog democrats. That said, I commend you for being the first liberal in this thread to acknowledge that Obama did not need to compromise with republicans.
+
On June 15 2012 11:47 imareaver3 wrote:Show nested quote +
edit: As sort of an off-topic question, if we take into account inflation and the like, where does Obama rank in terms of contribution to the debt (per year or term, whatever)? I imagine he's well up there, but I doubt he spent more than Lincoln or Roosevelt.
There's no way to viably compare to Lincoln. Lincoln paid for the Civil War by raising taxes and literally printing money (temporarily taking the US off the gold standard) in addition to borrowing money. Roosevelt (and Wilson...) raised the debt by much, much more than Obama--but they were borrowing that money from American citizens (war bonds), so it wasn't as bad. And the money got paid back very quickly. Other than that, only Bush 43 can be really compared to Obama as far as debt increase goes. + Show Spoiler +
*swoon*... thread is back to being interesting although as to the first post link (besides interesting points being made) I am quite sure Sunprince isn't a liberal, I'd say moderate swing right. Although these days that might as well be a liberal 
|
On June 15 2012 13:41 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2012 10:04 kwizach wrote:On June 15 2012 09:43 xDaunt wrote:On June 15 2012 09:07 sunprince wrote:On June 15 2012 02:21 xDaunt wrote:
Oh, and here's one other thing that I want to be clear about: the democrats chose to ram through Obamacare even though they knew that it was politically unpopular at the time. There was minimal political will or desire to overhaul the healthcare system. The politically smart thing to do would have been to drop the fight altogether and move on to another issue. Instead, they chose to "go over the top" and charge into the withering gunfire of the majority of Americans who oppose massive healthcare reform. That was their choice, and they have to live with it and its consequences. The politically smart thing to do would have been to ram Obamacare through at the beginning. Obama gutted his precious health care plan in order to try to compromise with Republicans, and in the end Republicans didn't budge an inch. Obama's biggest failure as a President was trying to negotiate with extremists when he didn't have to. If Democrats learned to play hardball as the Republicans have, then the healthcare debate would have been resolved quickly and they would have moved on to other important issues. I wonder how long it will take Democrats to learn that it's retarded for them to play nice when they're the only ones doing it. No, he didn't gut Obamacare for the sake of appeasing republicans. He gutted it for the sake of appeasing blue dog democrats. That said, I commend you for being the first liberal in this thread to acknowledge that Obama did not need to compromise with republicans. He said he did not need to compromise with republicans, not that he didn't compromise. Either way, it's a very good point. Obama burned through his political capital by prolonging debate over health care reform (or at least, not actively trying to find a quick resolution), creating a lengthy process that allowed the topic to become more polarizing and toxic than it would have been had the ordeal been shorter. Ultimately this greater price came with no gain whatsoever, and in fact many of his own supporters feel that the legislation became worse as a result of the compromises that were made. Obama has repeatedly made this mistake throughout his first term... really, it took him until after last summer's debt ceiling fiasco to figure out the reality of present-day partisanship.
You reminded me of something Chris Rock said in regards to Obama's first term on the WTF podcast (an excellent podcast about stand-up comedy I recommend to everyone).
“The last George Bush we had was the first cable TV president we had. And what I mean by that...he was the first President that was only President to the people that voted for him.
He did not give a fu*k about the people that didn’t vote for him. Obama is actually trying to be President to the whole country and there’s a lot of compromise being President to the whole country.
In a weird way our complaints about Obama are because we miss Bush. We miss hating somebody. We miss the guy who didn’t give a fu*k. Bush didn’t give a fu*k about us. He just really, really didn’t. We want revenge; we don’t want justice. That’s the problem with the Democrats. We want revenge.”
Chris Rock is far from a being a pundit or reliable source of ... well, facts ... but he really captures the disenchantment of the Democrats.
Obama said throughout the 2008 campaign that he was going to reach across the aisle -- part of his appeal to young and independent voters was that he was portrayed as this level-headed, moderate, multi-cultural, unifying force.
Unfortunately for everyone, he actually did try to reach across the aisle and lost a lot of political capital, as you said.
Obama supporters thought they wanted compromise, but what they actually wanted was a guy that would erase any and every remnant of the Bush administration. They wanted revenge.
|
No, I really wanted compromise. I wanted compromise so it could erase the policies of the Bush administration with bilateral ones. It wasn't for want of revenge; it was for want of betterment.
|
On June 15 2012 14:52 Probe1 wrote:
No, I really wanted compromise. I wanted compromise so it could erase the policies of the Bush administration with bilateral ones. It wasn't for want of revenge; it was for want of betterment.
Compromise ... with a vengeance!
|
It's a cruel irony really: the worst mistake Obama made was trying to deliver on his core promise, which was constructive, cross-faction engagment.
|
On June 15 2012 14:43 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2012 13:41 Signet wrote:On June 15 2012 10:04 kwizach wrote:On June 15 2012 09:43 xDaunt wrote:On June 15 2012 09:07 sunprince wrote:On June 15 2012 02:21 xDaunt wrote:
Oh, and here's one other thing that I want to be clear about: the democrats chose to ram through Obamacare even though they knew that it was politically unpopular at the time. There was minimal political will or desire to overhaul the healthcare system. The politically smart thing to do would have been to drop the fight altogether and move on to another issue. Instead, they chose to "go over the top" and charge into the withering gunfire of the majority of Americans who oppose massive healthcare reform. That was their choice, and they have to live with it and its consequences. The politically smart thing to do would have been to ram Obamacare through at the beginning. Obama gutted his precious health care plan in order to try to compromise with Republicans, and in the end Republicans didn't budge an inch. Obama's biggest failure as a President was trying to negotiate with extremists when he didn't have to. If Democrats learned to play hardball as the Republicans have, then the healthcare debate would have been resolved quickly and they would have moved on to other important issues. I wonder how long it will take Democrats to learn that it's retarded for them to play nice when they're the only ones doing it. No, he didn't gut Obamacare for the sake of appeasing republicans. He gutted it for the sake of appeasing blue dog democrats. That said, I commend you for being the first liberal in this thread to acknowledge that Obama did not need to compromise with republicans. He said he did not need to compromise with republicans, not that he didn't compromise. Either way, it's a very good point. Obama burned through his political capital by prolonging debate over health care reform (or at least, not actively trying to find a quick resolution), creating a lengthy process that allowed the topic to become more polarizing and toxic than it would have been had the ordeal been shorter. Ultimately this greater price came with no gain whatsoever, and in fact many of his own supporters feel that the legislation became worse as a result of the compromises that were made. Obama has repeatedly made this mistake throughout his first term... really, it took him until after last summer's debt ceiling fiasco to figure out the reality of present-day partisanship. You reminded me of something Chris Rock said in regards to Obama's first term on the WTF podcast (an excellent podcast about stand-up comedy I recommend to everyone). Show nested quote +“The last George Bush we had was the first cable TV president we had. And what I mean by that...he was the first President that was only President to the people that voted for him.
He did not give a fu*k about the people that didn’t vote for him. Obama is actually trying to be President to the whole country and there’s a lot of compromise being President to the whole country.
In a weird way our complaints about Obama are because we miss Bush. We miss hating somebody. We miss the guy who didn’t give a fu*k. Bush didn’t give a fu*k about us. He just really, really didn’t. We want revenge; we don’t want justice. That’s the problem with the Democrats. We want revenge.”
Chris Rock is far from a being a pundit or reliable source of ... well, facts ... but he really captures the disenchantment of the Democrats. Obama said throughout the 2008 campaign that he was going to reach across the aisle -- part of his appeal to young and independent voters was that he was portrayed as this level-headed, moderate, multi-cultural, unifying force. Unfortunately for everyone, he actually did try to reach across the aisle and lost a lot of political capital, as you said. Obama supporters thought they wanted compromise, but what they actually wanted was a guy that would erase any and every remnant of the Bush administration. They wanted revenge.
Defacer,
I disagree with you on a number of points. Obama was elected into office on a wave of anti-Bush sentiment because people wanted a very different kind of government. They wanted what Obama alluded to in his stirring speeches-- transparency, less foreign meddling, less corporate interests corrupting Washington, and the closure of Guantanamo Bay. There certainly WERE clues during the 2008 campaign for Presidency that Obama was going to end up resembling Bush in some ways but people kind of read between the lines and saw what they wanted to in Obama-- and he certainly encouraged this by his methods of rhetoric which were very skiful. But I don't think its disingenuous to say that on the whole this is what people were expecting from Obama-- someone very different than Bush. And sad to say Obama has been like Bush or WORSE on so many issues that upset people. He is continuing to curtail civil liberties, he is coming down harder on people caught using drugs, Guantanmo was not closed, Drone attacks have escalated in the middle east, corporate interests continue to plague washington, etc.
Obama's platform was CHANGE!! yeah simple as that. And there hasn't been the kind of change people wanted.
Most of the Ra-Ra "Yes we can!" Changes have been bad ones. New internet bills want to peek into people's hard drives without a warrant. Quite a few examples spring to mind.
So ye, on the whole I don't like your attempt to discredit some people's principled disappointment in Obama. I think the unprincipled Democrats (those like Chris Rock) who just want to see "their guy" in Office, and love to hate on Republicans, are the ones who still have unbridled support for Obama. And just because their dude is in Office doesn't give them less reason for hating-- there is still plenty, plenty of vitrol tossed back and forth between supporters of the two parties, despite the fact that, sad to say, their parties are in many ways the same as each other on the most important issues.
So in a nutshell-- yeah this is my point of view on this. Reply if you're so inclined I'd like to hear your feedback :p
|
On June 15 2012 15:23 JeanLuc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2012 14:43 Defacer wrote:On June 15 2012 13:41 Signet wrote:On June 15 2012 10:04 kwizach wrote:On June 15 2012 09:43 xDaunt wrote:On June 15 2012 09:07 sunprince wrote:On June 15 2012 02:21 xDaunt wrote:
Oh, and here's one other thing that I want to be clear about: the democrats chose to ram through Obamacare even though they knew that it was politically unpopular at the time. There was minimal political will or desire to overhaul the healthcare system. The politically smart thing to do would have been to drop the fight altogether and move on to another issue. Instead, they chose to "go over the top" and charge into the withering gunfire of the majority of Americans who oppose massive healthcare reform. That was their choice, and they have to live with it and its consequences. The politically smart thing to do would have been to ram Obamacare through at the beginning. Obama gutted his precious health care plan in order to try to compromise with Republicans, and in the end Republicans didn't budge an inch. Obama's biggest failure as a President was trying to negotiate with extremists when he didn't have to. If Democrats learned to play hardball as the Republicans have, then the healthcare debate would have been resolved quickly and they would have moved on to other important issues. I wonder how long it will take Democrats to learn that it's retarded for them to play nice when they're the only ones doing it. No, he didn't gut Obamacare for the sake of appeasing republicans. He gutted it for the sake of appeasing blue dog democrats. That said, I commend you for being the first liberal in this thread to acknowledge that Obama did not need to compromise with republicans. He said he did not need to compromise with republicans, not that he didn't compromise. Either way, it's a very good point. Obama burned through his political capital by prolonging debate over health care reform (or at least, not actively trying to find a quick resolution), creating a lengthy process that allowed the topic to become more polarizing and toxic than it would have been had the ordeal been shorter. Ultimately this greater price came with no gain whatsoever, and in fact many of his own supporters feel that the legislation became worse as a result of the compromises that were made. Obama has repeatedly made this mistake throughout his first term... really, it took him until after last summer's debt ceiling fiasco to figure out the reality of present-day partisanship. You reminded me of something Chris Rock said in regards to Obama's first term on the WTF podcast (an excellent podcast about stand-up comedy I recommend to everyone). “The last George Bush we had was the first cable TV president we had. And what I mean by that...he was the first President that was only President to the people that voted for him.
He did not give a fu*k about the people that didn’t vote for him. Obama is actually trying to be President to the whole country and there’s a lot of compromise being President to the whole country.
In a weird way our complaints about Obama are because we miss Bush. We miss hating somebody. We miss the guy who didn’t give a fu*k. Bush didn’t give a fu*k about us. He just really, really didn’t. We want revenge; we don’t want justice. That’s the problem with the Democrats. We want revenge.”
Chris Rock is far from a being a pundit or reliable source of ... well, facts ... but he really captures the disenchantment of the Democrats. Obama said throughout the 2008 campaign that he was going to reach across the aisle -- part of his appeal to young and independent voters was that he was portrayed as this level-headed, moderate, multi-cultural, unifying force. Unfortunately for everyone, he actually did try to reach across the aisle and lost a lot of political capital, as you said. Obama supporters thought they wanted compromise, but what they actually wanted was a guy that would erase any and every remnant of the Bush administration. They wanted revenge. Defacer, I disagree with you on a number of points. Obama was elected into office on a wave of anti-Bush sentiment because people wanted a very different kind of government. They wanted what Obama alluded to in his stirring speeches-- transparency, less foreign meddling, less corporate interests corrupting Washington, and the closure of Guantanamo Bay. There certainly WERE clues during the 2008 campaign for Presidency that Obama was going to end up resembling Bush in some ways but people kind of read between the lines and saw what they wanted to in Obama-- and he certainly encouraged this by his methods of rhetoric which were very skiful. But I don't think its disingenuous to say that on the whole this is what people were expecting from Obama-- someone very different than Bush. And sad to say Obama has been like Bush or WORSE on so many issues that upset people. He is continuing to curtail civil liberties, he is coming down harder on people caught using drugs, Guantanmo was not closed, Drone attacks have escalated in the middle east, corporate interests continue to plague washington, etc. Obama's platform was CHANGE!! yeah simple as that. And there hasn't been the kind of change people wanted. Most of the Ra-Ra "Yes we can!" Changes have been bad ones. New internet bills want to peek into people's hard drives without a warrant. Quite a few examples spring to mind. So ye, on the whole I don't like your attempt to discredit some people's principled disappointment in Obama. I think the unprincipled Democrats (those like Chris Rock) who just want to see "their guy" in Office, and love to hate on Republicans, are the ones who still have unbridled support for Obama. And just because their dude is in Office doesn't give them less reason for hating-- there is still plenty, plenty of vitrol tossed back and forth between supporters of the two parties, despite the fact that, sad to say, their parties are in many ways the same as each other on the most important issues. So in a nutshell-- yeah this is my point of view on this. Reply if you're so inclined I'd like to hear your feedback :p
What I think Chris Rock is attempting to convey -- and it's a sentiment that I agree with -- is the radical social change that people wanted from Obama was impossible or unrealistic, partially due to his decision to govern very differently from Bush.
In comparison to his predecessor, he did govern with more transparency. He did 'reach across the aisle'. And he has been far more candid or lucid about his position on issues than Bush was, whenever it was possible.
I don't know enough about the 'drug war' so I can't speak to it. But on foreign policy, he has actually been surprisingly effective and radically different from Bush.
Remember the speech in Cairo? There is no way Bush would ever try or be able to connect with the international Muslim community in such a manner. Or how he handled uprising in Libya? Or the sanctions in Iran? He's gone out of his way to build partnerships with the foreign community.
To criticize the drone attacks seems unfair to me, considering their effectiveness at actually counter-acting and disabling active terrorists. It's a shadow war for the right reasons, versus Bush's obvious war for fake reasons. The key difference between Bush's war on terror and Obama's is that Obama's war is actually effective.
There are civil liberties that him and his administration actually improved and endorsed -- principally related to gay rights.
Sorry, I'm rambling. All I'm saying is that I'm understand the disappointment of Democrats regarding Obama. At the same time I thought the expectations of change under Obama where unrealistic, particularly for four years. If Obama was the socialist dictator that Republican's paint him as, maybe he could have gotten a little more done.
I said it before, but the president can't end the war with a phone call, legalize pot overnight, reform the healthcare system without support, et cetera. Government does not and should not work that way.
People are disenchanted with Obama, when they should be disenchanted simply by the bureaucracy, sluggishness and politics of government.
To put Obama's performance in perspective, it took eight years for my city to approve the location of a dog park.
|
On June 15 2012 13:10 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2012 12:01 sc2superfan101 wrote:
it is wildly disingenuous to say that Obama shouldn't have compromised, but then attack Republicans for not compromising.
How so? Obama compromised without getting anything in return. Why would it be disingenuous to argue both 1) that he shouldn't have compromised because it made little to no difference with regards to the attitude of the other side and 2) that the Republicans should have compromised since that's what Obama did? What would be disingenuous would be to only attack Republicans for not compromising if Obama hadn't tried compromising either - but he did.
our definitions of compromise are so different that it will be hard for me to explain this to you. i can see how you and other left-leaning or moderate people would think that Obama has compromised a lot. you don't understand the conservative mindset. not going for the public option, to us, isn't a sign of compromise, it's a sign of sanity. this isn't to be insulting, or even to suggest that it's "insane" for wanting a public option, i am just describing to you how we feel about the idea of 1) our federal government providing insurance for all 300+ million of us, and 2) the federal government taking on that much of a financial burden at a time like this.
to most conservatives, this is like suggesting that they go out and tear down everything they've spent their entire lives building. so when you say Obama has compromised, any conservative is going to wonder what you're talking about, because to us, compromise would've been not even passing the Affordable Health Care Act, or perhaps suggesting to congress that they pass a realistic budget sometime before the election. putting the heat on Eric Holder to either cooperate with congress or resign would be a good start.
to you, this seems like pure radicalism on our part, i'm sure of it. that's because most people tend to think of themselves as being more toward the center than they really are, myself included. perhaps i am a radical right-winger, i have no way of telling as i am not exactly good at analyzing myself. but it's kind of irrelevant whether i am wrong or right, because i'm talking about perceptions, not facts. the perception in the conservative mindset is that Obama has done very little compromising, and therefore, it is high time that the Republicans (who we view as the ultimate compromise...rs) stop giving in and start saying "nope, no more meeting you halfway."
|
Canada11350 Posts
On June 15 2012 12:01 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2012 10:42 Probulous wrote:
The fact is that the American public voted in a democratic president in a congress with a democratic majority. He had a mandate to govern in the manner in which he saw fit. To constantly filibuster because you are ideologically opposed is behaving like a spoilt brat who couldn't get the cookie they want. that's how our government works, sorry if you don't like it, but there it is. the filibuster is a legitimate way to exercise power when you are a minority in Congress, and the Democrats have used it plenty of times, rightfully so. the idea that the Republicans (or Democrats) have to sit twiddling their thumbs and signing off on everything that the majority does is ridiculous and was never how our system was designed to work. the fact is that the American people proved that they at least in part support the filibustering in 2010. but i'm not walking around telling Democrats that they need to start repealing everything because my side won an election, because that's not how it is supposed to work, and it would be unfair to suggest that they do so. why even have a filibuster if you shouldn't use it? the whole point of not having a pure democracy is that we can have a minority that can still exercise some power.
To my mind it doesn`t work. Or at least not any more. Republicans use it now, Democrats before them, and Republicans again before that. At this point it seems they`ve perfected the art of log jamming the entire system. Both are wrong. Both hate the filibuster when they`re in power`` and both abuse it when they are out of power. But it seems it has become an exploit that needs fixing.
Congress has a limitation on filibustering that they didn`t have originally and I would suggest it`s time for the Senate to have a limit too. Republican, Democrat, I don`t really care who`s in power. While government needs checks and balances, being able to grind government legislation to a halt is not a check nor a balance.
|
Facts below, still love Obama?
1. Current National Debt: $15,782,580,057,771 - 6/14/2012 Increasing by approximately $926,046/min
2. Interest on National Debt: $3,827,378,018,217 - 6/14/2012 Increasing by approximately $287,376/min
3. Current GDP: $15,205,695,897,699 - 6/14/2012 Increasing by approximately $802,589/min
4. US Federal Spending: $3,651,989,529,450 6/14/2012 Increasing by approximately $181,130/min
5. Current Federal Tax Revenue: $2,301,724,804,226 - 6/14/2012 DECREASING by approxmiately $792/min
6. ??????
7. Profit!
User was warned for this post
|
Bush didn’t give a fu*k about us. He just really, really didn’t.
this is one of the saddest things i have ever read, because the fact is that no one who ever knew George W. Bush would ever have said something like that. the guy spent his entire Presidency ignoring the vitriol that was thrown at him by all sides, and never said word one about it, because he believed that being the President was more important than being falsely accused of mass murder and treason.
everyone wants to forget that one. Bush was considered by 1/3 of the country to have had foreknowledge or some involvement in 9/11. he was once asked in a press conference if he had known about the attacks beforehand, and had let them go on for political purposes. that is something Obama has not had to deal with at all. ever. he and his supporters like to talk about hate? he hasn't seen hatred from almost anyone except ridiculous fringe groups. find me a picture of a tea party burning an effigy of Obama, as happened at countless Anti-Bush rallies. when was the fake documentary about what would happen if Obama was assassinated made? that happened to Bush. and lets not forget almost every celebrity on earth (who all now fawn over Obama or mildly scold him) calling Bush "Hitler" on television, or sometimes worse.
you know why Bush never said much about that stuff? because he believed 1) that the office of the President was above things like that, and 2) he was the President of both the Democrats and the Republicans. read the guy's memoirs some time if you don't believe me. and to this day he is hated and insulted by a huge portion of the country he spent eight years protecting and working for. Obama has done nothing but polarize himself from day one. when his term started, 1/3 of Republicans approved of his job performance.1/3 of the country had let themselves become convinced that Bush caused 9/11. i cannot even describe how frustrated it makes me to hear someone like Chris Rock say something like that, after the years he spent ripping Bush to shreds in public with every other celebrity. it's just so hypocritical and displays such a misunderstanding of what has been happening since 2000
|
On June 15 2012 17:37 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2012 13:10 kwizach wrote:On June 15 2012 12:01 sc2superfan101 wrote:
it is wildly disingenuous to say that Obama shouldn't have compromised, but then attack Republicans for not compromising.
How so? Obama compromised without getting anything in return. Why would it be disingenuous to argue both 1) that he shouldn't have compromised because it made little to no difference with regards to the attitude of the other side and 2) that the Republicans should have compromised since that's what Obama did? What would be disingenuous would be to only attack Republicans for not compromising if Obama hadn't tried compromising either - but he did. our definitions of compromise are so different that it will be hard for me to explain this to you. i can see how you and other left-leaning or moderate people would think that Obama has compromised a lot. you don't understand the conservative mindset. not going for the public option, to us, isn't a sign of compromise, it's a sign of sanity. this isn't to be insulting, or even to suggest that it's "insane" for wanting a public option, i am just describing to you how we feel about the idea of 1) our federal government providing insurance for all 300+ million of us, and 2) the federal government taking on that much of a financial burden at a time like this. to most conservatives, this is like suggesting that they go out and tear down everything they've spent their entire lives building. so when you say Obama has compromised, any conservative is going to wonder what you're talking about, because to us, compromise would've been not even passing the Affordable Health Care Act, or perhaps suggesting to congress that they pass a realistic budget sometime before the election. putting the heat on Eric Holder to either cooperate with congress or resign would be a good start. to you, this seems like pure radicalism on our part, i'm sure of it. that's because most people tend to think of themselves as being more toward the center than they really are, myself included. perhaps i am a radical right-winger, i have no way of telling as i am not exactly good at analyzing myself. but it's kind of irrelevant whether i am wrong or right, because i'm talking about perceptions, not facts. the perception in the conservative mindset is that Obama has done very little compromising, and therefore, it is high time that the Republicans (who we view as the ultimate compromise...rs) stop giving in and start saying "nope, no more meeting you halfway."
This is what Chris Rock is alluding to. While Democrats pretend to want diplomacy and compromise, what they really want -- hell, what they need -- is a president that was uncompromising and polarizing as Bush on THEIR side.
I don't think it comes from any logical or malicious place, but there's this post-Bush hangover. There's still a resentment towards Bush, and rightfully so, which makes left-wingers and independents judge Obama's presidency unfairly.
They look at the Bush presidency -- his two wars, his unraveling of financial regulations, his tax cuts, his medicaid plan, legalized tortured -- and secretly think to themselves, "Now should be our turn to do whatever the hell we want."
And I'm saying this as someone who is liberal on most issues, and would vote for Obama if I could.
But you have to fair, sc2superfan. Over the course of Obama's presidency there were many instances when the Conservative Congress was willfully obstructing progress and being obstinate, and opposing Obama's decisions simply because he was Obama.
Remember last Christmas when Boehner lost control of Congress, and the Republicans almost allowed taxes to rise after Obama and the Senate agreed to extend the payroll tax? Or their endless cock-blocking of routine appointments of key positions -- filled by personnel agreed upon by Republicans and Democrats -- which Obama eventually had to circumvent?
This kind of active sabotage is not revisionist history or imagined. You can blame Obama for not compromising or understanding the conservative perspective, but you can equally blame Republican congress for creating an environment where compromise wasn't even an option.
How do you compromise with someone that who's idea of negotiation is holding their breath until they pass out?
|
On June 15 2012 17:54 sc2superfan101 wrote:everyone wants to forget that one. Bush was considered by 1/3 of the country to have had foreknowledge or some involvement in 9/11. he was once asked in a press conference if he had known about the attacks beforehand, and had let them go on for political purposes. that is something Obama has not had to deal with at all. ever. he and his supporters like to talk about hate? he hasn't seen hatred from almost anyone except ridiculous fringe groups. find me a picture of a tea party burning an effigy of Obama, as happened at countless Anti-Bush rallies. when was the fake documentary about what would happen if Obama was assassinated made? that happened to Bush. and lets not forget almost every celebrity on earth (who all now fawn over Obama or mildly scold him) calling Bush "Hitler" on television, or sometimes worse.
Dude, are you fucking shitting me?
These images are all from Tea Party rallies.
+ Show Spoiler +
Come on now.
Lot's of people hated Bush. Some of them are crazy. But some of them hated him because he started a zillion dollar war with bad intelligence, stopped looking for Osama Bin Laden, presided over a horrible emergency response to Hurricane Katrina that New Orleans is still recovering from, presided over the mortgage crisis which led to the worst recession since the Great Depression, and pretty much signed off on torture being A-OK.
He did a shitty job, man.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_2b_SPCr78uQ/Sq2YtN3xxGI/AAAAAAAALyg/JihKjGHAvw8/s400/tea+party++7+dc+anichrist.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.addictinginfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/racist_tea_party1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.blueridgemuse.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/032110protestafp.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://mokellyreport.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/tea-party-racist-signs-01.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/EXID46551/images/jewsinovers.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/signswerwr32.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.bradblog.com/Images/TeaPartyComix_ObamaSmoking.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.obamaftw.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/tea-party-racist.jpg)
