|
|
On October 18 2012 07:32 imareaver3 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 07:18 Innovation wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Embarassing myself? I saw this bullshit coming four years ago. Sure, Obamacare passed, only to be challenged in every single method possible. Sure the democrats had a "super majority", but the Republican minority stood together and filibustered and challenged everything that came through. The fact is that Democrats didn't stand together with their "super majority" as strongly as Republicans stood together to oppose them.
This was the plan all along, make it impossible for Obama to fulfill things his campaign promised, and then hammer him on "failing to deliver". Republicans did not have the power to filibuster without a significant amount of democrats also siding with the republicans. If a president cannot even unite his own political party to stand by him there is a significant problem. Either he is simply a weak an ineffective leader or his ideas were too extreme for even his own party to back up. Either way that's not the republicans fault, that's his and his parties fault. Your analysis is close to correct but your blame is pointed in the wrong direction. It takes 60 votes to break a filibuster. There were 60 Democrats in the Senate, and that means Obama needed every last one of them. No policy proposal can reasonably be expected to get the vote of every last senator of their party. 90% of them, 95% of them, sure, but there will always be a few people from conservative states facing brutal reelection campaigns who can't be expected to always back the President. No American president has ever consistently gotten 100% of his party's senators to back his specific policy proposals. Not being able to do so is not a sign of weakness.
He only had 60 Senators for 2 weeks, if I'm not mistaken. Due to the sickness of Kennedy and the holdup of Franken, the Super Majority hardly ever existed. However, Republicans loved to promote their "helplessness" in the situation and would insist the Super Majority was mere moments from shoving legislation down the throats of the American people.
|
On October 18 2012 07:32 imareaver3 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 07:18 Innovation wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Embarassing myself? I saw this bullshit coming four years ago. Sure, Obamacare passed, only to be challenged in every single method possible. Sure the democrats had a "super majority", but the Republican minority stood together and filibustered and challenged everything that came through. The fact is that Democrats didn't stand together with their "super majority" as strongly as Republicans stood together to oppose them.
This was the plan all along, make it impossible for Obama to fulfill things his campaign promised, and then hammer him on "failing to deliver". Republicans did not have the power to filibuster without a significant amount of democrats also siding with the republicans. If a president cannot even unite his own political party to stand by him there is a significant problem. Either he is simply a weak an ineffective leader or his ideas were too extreme for even his own party to back up. Either way that's not the republicans fault, that's his and his parties fault. Your analysis is close to correct but your blame is pointed in the wrong direction. It takes 60 votes to break a filibuster. There were 60 Democrats in the Senate, and that means Obama needed every last one of them. No policy proposal can reasonably be expected to get the vote of every last senator of their party. 90% of them, 95% of them, sure, but there will always be a few people from conservative states facing brutal reelection campaigns who can't be expected to always back the President. No American president has ever consistently gotten 100% of his party's senators to back his specific policy proposals. Not being able to do so is not a sign of weakness.
That's a double-edged sword, though, because Republicans work the same way, in the sense that not 100% of them will vote against a certain bill or policy that the majority of their party disagrees with. Granted, being the minority, I could see fewer Republicans slipping over to the Democrats' side on bills, but theoretically the logic applies both ways.
|
On October 18 2012 07:00 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 06:55 armada[sb] wrote:On October 18 2012 06:52 xDaunt wrote:On October 18 2012 06:28 farvacola wrote:On October 18 2012 06:21 Defacer wrote:On October 18 2012 06:13 xDaunt wrote:On October 18 2012 06:08 CajunMan wrote:On October 18 2012 04:54 Snaap wrote: Hey guys I was wondering about something. First of all I'm not from the US, nor do I have a great understanding of US politics, so dont hate if I get something wrong. When reading/watching stuff about the election, often time it is stated how terrible the last 4 years have been and how this is the reason for not voting for obama. Now in my opinion considering the very tough spot the US were in when Obama took over he did a very good job, but for some reason people expect him to turn the whole crises and deficits over over night. Everytime I read his statements they're usually realistic and make sense to me, What is the reason for saying that obama failed in his term? Am I missing something here? Again, Im not a pro on US politics so no flame pls  It is because everything he is currently promising is what he promised in 2008. He had 2 years to do anything he wanted and didn't do 99% of it. That is a very large part of it a lot of people feel betrayed they put their trust in him. After 4 years his biggest accomplishments are a stimulus plan that is largely a waste of money and a healthcare program that raised premiums and put us further in debt. (I am against universal healthcare 100% personally but I don't even know how you can suggest such a plan that will cost so much with both a debt and a deficit as large as ours it is fiscally irresponsible above all else) Exactly right. This is why it is somewhat meaningless to score the debates in a vacuum (like I have been doing) and pronounce winners and losers. Voters aren't measuring Obama at the debates with just his performance at any given debate in mind. They are weighing his debate performance in context with his record of the past four years and the rhetoric on which he ran 4 years ago. Viewed in this larger scope, it becomes very apparent why Obama is in such a hard spot. He has fallen very, very far from where he was in 2008. Yeah ... that's interesting. I've really enjoyed the US election this year as an outsider. It's easy for me to analyse the election as sport -- who is playing better, or what the next play should be. But it's impossible for me to have a good sense on the pulse or actual perception of average voters, or America at-large. I wonder if any pundit, high-information voter or keyboard warrior actually does. Anyone who wears their party affiliation on their sleeve whilst offering forth "accurate" depictions of moderate/independent voting tendencies is drinking too much kool-aid, be it of the red or blue variety. So you think that people are ignoring Obama's four year track record and what he promised during the 2008 campaign? You may want to reconsider who's drinking the kool-aid. Are you aware that the executive branch merely enforces policy created by the legislative branch? Do you realize that republicans stonewalled anything that had a whiff of Obama involvement? This has been discussed to death already. Here's the bottom line. Obama's record is bad. This isn't debatable. Voters are either going to hold him accountable for it or they are going to hold Republicans accountable for stonewalling him.
FTFY. The key issue here is whether the voters think Obama is responsible for his own failures or whether Republicans doomed him to failure by doing everything they could to prevent his reelection as they promised.
|
On October 18 2012 07:55 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 07:00 xDaunt wrote:On October 18 2012 06:55 armada[sb] wrote:On October 18 2012 06:52 xDaunt wrote:On October 18 2012 06:28 farvacola wrote:On October 18 2012 06:21 Defacer wrote:On October 18 2012 06:13 xDaunt wrote:On October 18 2012 06:08 CajunMan wrote:On October 18 2012 04:54 Snaap wrote: Hey guys I was wondering about something. First of all I'm not from the US, nor do I have a great understanding of US politics, so dont hate if I get something wrong. When reading/watching stuff about the election, often time it is stated how terrible the last 4 years have been and how this is the reason for not voting for obama. Now in my opinion considering the very tough spot the US were in when Obama took over he did a very good job, but for some reason people expect him to turn the whole crises and deficits over over night. Everytime I read his statements they're usually realistic and make sense to me, What is the reason for saying that obama failed in his term? Am I missing something here? Again, Im not a pro on US politics so no flame pls It is because everything he is currently promising is what he promised in 2008. He had 2 years to do anything he wanted and didn't do 99% of it. That is a very large part of it a lot of people feel betrayed they put their trust in him. After 4 years his biggest accomplishments are a stimulus plan that is largely a waste of money and a healthcare program that raised premiums and put us further in debt. (I am against universal healthcare 100% personally but I don't even know how you can suggest such a plan that will cost so much with both a debt and a deficit as large as ours it is fiscally irresponsible above all else) Exactly right. This is why it is somewhat meaningless to score the debates in a vacuum (like I have been doing) and pronounce winners and losers. Voters aren't measuring Obama at the debates with just his performance at any given debate in mind. They are weighing his debate performance in context with his record of the past four years and the rhetoric on which he ran 4 years ago. Viewed in this larger scope, it becomes very apparent why Obama is in such a hard spot. He has fallen very, very far from where he was in 2008. Yeah ... that's interesting. I've really enjoyed the US election this year as an outsider. It's easy for me to analyse the election as sport -- who is playing better, or what the next play should be. But it's impossible for me to have a good sense on the pulse or actual perception of average voters, or America at-large. I wonder if any pundit, high-information voter or keyboard warrior actually does. Anyone who wears their party affiliation on their sleeve whilst offering forth "accurate" depictions of moderate/independent voting tendencies is drinking too much kool-aid, be it of the red or blue variety. So you think that people are ignoring Obama's four year track record and what he promised during the 2008 campaign? You may want to reconsider who's drinking the kool-aid. Are you aware that the executive branch merely enforces policy created by the legislative branch? Do you realize that republicans stonewalled anything that had a whiff of Obama involvement? This has been discussed to death already. Here's the bottom line. Obama's record is bad. This isn't debatable. Voters are either going to hold him accountable for it or they are going to hold Republicans accountable for stonewalling him. FTFY. The key issue here is whether the voters think Obama is responsible for his own failures or whether Republicans doomed him to failure by doing everything they could to prevent his reelection as they promised.
Because Republicans were (understandably) afraid what could have happened if Obama's policies, or at least the ones he promised/supported, did pass?
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 18 2012 08:01 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 07:55 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 07:00 xDaunt wrote:On October 18 2012 06:55 armada[sb] wrote:On October 18 2012 06:52 xDaunt wrote:On October 18 2012 06:28 farvacola wrote:On October 18 2012 06:21 Defacer wrote:On October 18 2012 06:13 xDaunt wrote:On October 18 2012 06:08 CajunMan wrote:On October 18 2012 04:54 Snaap wrote: Hey guys I was wondering about something. First of all I'm not from the US, nor do I have a great understanding of US politics, so dont hate if I get something wrong. When reading/watching stuff about the election, often time it is stated how terrible the last 4 years have been and how this is the reason for not voting for obama. Now in my opinion considering the very tough spot the US were in when Obama took over he did a very good job, but for some reason people expect him to turn the whole crises and deficits over over night. Everytime I read his statements they're usually realistic and make sense to me, What is the reason for saying that obama failed in his term? Am I missing something here? Again, Im not a pro on US politics so no flame pls It is because everything he is currently promising is what he promised in 2008. He had 2 years to do anything he wanted and didn't do 99% of it. That is a very large part of it a lot of people feel betrayed they put their trust in him. After 4 years his biggest accomplishments are a stimulus plan that is largely a waste of money and a healthcare program that raised premiums and put us further in debt. (I am against universal healthcare 100% personally but I don't even know how you can suggest such a plan that will cost so much with both a debt and a deficit as large as ours it is fiscally irresponsible above all else) Exactly right. This is why it is somewhat meaningless to score the debates in a vacuum (like I have been doing) and pronounce winners and losers. Voters aren't measuring Obama at the debates with just his performance at any given debate in mind. They are weighing his debate performance in context with his record of the past four years and the rhetoric on which he ran 4 years ago. Viewed in this larger scope, it becomes very apparent why Obama is in such a hard spot. He has fallen very, very far from where he was in 2008. Yeah ... that's interesting. I've really enjoyed the US election this year as an outsider. It's easy for me to analyse the election as sport -- who is playing better, or what the next play should be. But it's impossible for me to have a good sense on the pulse or actual perception of average voters, or America at-large. I wonder if any pundit, high-information voter or keyboard warrior actually does. Anyone who wears their party affiliation on their sleeve whilst offering forth "accurate" depictions of moderate/independent voting tendencies is drinking too much kool-aid, be it of the red or blue variety. So you think that people are ignoring Obama's four year track record and what he promised during the 2008 campaign? You may want to reconsider who's drinking the kool-aid. Are you aware that the executive branch merely enforces policy created by the legislative branch? Do you realize that republicans stonewalled anything that had a whiff of Obama involvement? This has been discussed to death already. Here's the bottom line. Obama's record is bad. This isn't debatable. Voters are either going to hold him accountable for it or they are going to hold Republicans accountable for stonewalling him. FTFY. The key issue here is whether the voters think Obama is responsible for his own failures or whether Republicans doomed him to failure by doing everything they could to prevent his reelection as they promised. Because Republicans were (understandably) afraid what could have happened if Obama's policies, or at least the ones he promised/supported, did pass?
I'm pretty sure we went over this before, and all one has to do is look at how they dragged down the judicial/low-level executive confirmation process to see how moronic Republicans were.
|
I think that the fact that the whole "Women in Binders" is going viral is actually important. Unlike the Big Bird thing, this actually highlights the awful sexism in Mitt Romney's response to that equal pay question. I mean, Mitt Romney just said that women need flexible hours because they need to cook dinner and be homemakers, rather than address the fact they that need equal pay. Obama kept hitting Romney on Planned Parenthood and contraception, and all Romney tried to do is mitigate the damage, quite unsuccessfully.
It didn't help that Romney was steamrolling through a female moderator. And his whole story that he had to go and try to find competent women was just such a bizarre story to tell.
I think Romney's going to drop dramatically from women voters.
|
On October 18 2012 08:30 DoubleReed wrote:
I think that the fact that the whole "Women in Binders" is going viral is actually important. Unlike the Big Bird thing, this actually highlights the awful sexism in Mitt Romney's response to that equal pay question. I mean, Mitt Romney just said that women need flexible hours because they need to cook dinner and be homemakers, rather than address the fact they that need equal pay. Obama kept hitting Romney on Planned Parenthood and contraception, and all Romney tried to do is mitigate the damage, quite unsuccessfully. I think Romney's going to drop dramatically from women voters.
You are taking the election way too seriously if you believe this.
|
On October 18 2012 08:34 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 08:30 DoubleReed wrote:
I think that the fact that the whole "Women in Binders" is going viral is actually important. Unlike the Big Bird thing, this actually highlights the awful sexism in Mitt Romney's response to that equal pay question. I mean, Mitt Romney just said that women need flexible hours because they need to cook dinner and be homemakers, rather than address the fact they that need equal pay. Obama kept hitting Romney on Planned Parenthood and contraception, and all Romney tried to do is mitigate the damage, quite unsuccessfully. I think Romney's going to drop dramatically from women voters. You are taking the election way too seriously if you believe this.
Sorry, but I really want Romney to lose and for Virginia to go blue.
|
Obama looked much better that debate, but Romney wasn't as bad as people seem to think. The woman in binders comment would end Romney's campaign in a less polarized circumstances, but as it is he will lose votes but not lose the election over that.
|
On October 18 2012 08:41 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 08:34 coverpunch wrote:On October 18 2012 08:30 DoubleReed wrote:
I think that the fact that the whole "Women in Binders" is going viral is actually important. Unlike the Big Bird thing, this actually highlights the awful sexism in Mitt Romney's response to that equal pay question. I mean, Mitt Romney just said that women need flexible hours because they need to cook dinner and be homemakers, rather than address the fact they that need equal pay. Obama kept hitting Romney on Planned Parenthood and contraception, and all Romney tried to do is mitigate the damage, quite unsuccessfully. I think Romney's going to drop dramatically from women voters. You are taking the election way too seriously if you believe this. Sorry, but I really want Romney to lose and for Virginia to go blue.
Then you might be interested in what's on Reddit right now...
http://notlarrysabato.typepad.com/doh/2012/10/virginia-gop-caught-destroying-voter-registration-forms.html
|
On October 18 2012 08:41 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 08:34 coverpunch wrote:On October 18 2012 08:30 DoubleReed wrote:
I think that the fact that the whole "Women in Binders" is going viral is actually important. Unlike the Big Bird thing, this actually highlights the awful sexism in Mitt Romney's response to that equal pay question. I mean, Mitt Romney just said that women need flexible hours because they need to cook dinner and be homemakers, rather than address the fact they that need equal pay. Obama kept hitting Romney on Planned Parenthood and contraception, and all Romney tried to do is mitigate the damage, quite unsuccessfully. I think Romney's going to drop dramatically from women voters. You are taking the election way too seriously if you believe this. Sorry, but I really want Romney to lose and for Virginia to go blue.
Virginia is basically a lock for Romney now. Obama's advisors are pinning their hopes on Ohio, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada.
|
On October 18 2012 07:06 Innovation wrote:Show nested quote +Are you aware that the executive branch merely enforces policy created by the legislative branch? Do you realize that republicans stonewalled anything that had a whiff of Obama involvement? First two years democrats had a super majority in both houses meaning that they/Obama could have done anything they wanted.
There is a difference between a filibuster-proof majority and a supermajority.
Simple Majority: >1/2
Filibuster-proof Majority: 3/5
Supermajority: 2/3
It is popularly repeated that Obama's administration held a supermajority in both houses of Congress for the first two years of its occupancy. There was never an "unstoppable supermajority" that could've passed "anything the democrats wanted". From July 8, 2009 (when D-Sen. Al Franken was finally sworn in) until August 25, 2009 (when Ted Kennedy passed away), the Democrats held a filibuster-proof majority in both houses if you counted the independent congressmen who typically voted liberally.
On September 25, 2009 Paul Kirk filled Kennedy's vacancy and the FP majority resumed. On February 4, 2010 Republican Scott Brown was sworn into what was previously Kennedy's seat. That ended the total of roughly six months of a Democratic FP majority.
In these six months a Democrat controlled Congress pushed forward the ACA, championed by President Obama, against all obstacles a resisting Republican Congress could hope to throw at it. They didn't forget that, either. As soon as Republicans took over the House of Representatives they began a long campaign of "No" intended to absolutely crush all hopes of an Obama administration seeking reelection.
The real issue here is a gridlocked Congress. Nothing happens. No progress gets made. No cooperation occurs. The question that should be discussed is whether it's Obama's fault for bruising relations with Republican Congressmen or a Republican House's unwillingness to put a black eye behind them and play ball.
|
On October 18 2012 08:56 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 08:41 DoubleReed wrote:On October 18 2012 08:34 coverpunch wrote:On October 18 2012 08:30 DoubleReed wrote:
I think that the fact that the whole "Women in Binders" is going viral is actually important. Unlike the Big Bird thing, this actually highlights the awful sexism in Mitt Romney's response to that equal pay question. I mean, Mitt Romney just said that women need flexible hours because they need to cook dinner and be homemakers, rather than address the fact they that need equal pay. Obama kept hitting Romney on Planned Parenthood and contraception, and all Romney tried to do is mitigate the damage, quite unsuccessfully. I think Romney's going to drop dramatically from women voters. You are taking the election way too seriously if you believe this. Sorry, but I really want Romney to lose and for Virginia to go blue. Virginia is basically a lock for Romney now. Obama's advisors are pinning their hopes on Ohio, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada.
lol, right. Not that I don't expect this from you, xDaunt. Romney's winning, but if women shift their vote Virginia will swing blue.
Obama certainly doesn't need Virginia, but that doesn't mean he won't get it.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
So this whole "binders full of women" thing has brought to my attention the sexism that is apparently portrayed by the line "some of my best friends are women."
Why is "some of my best friends are women" seen as sexist? I'm missing something.
|
On October 18 2012 09:08 Souma wrote:
So this whole "binders full of women" thing has brought to my attention the sexism that is apparently portrayed by the line "some of my best friends are women."
Why is "some of my best friends are women" seen as sexist? I'm missing something.
Well because it's something that sexists commonly say to defend themselves.
Kind of like how Santorum said that he has gay friends or when racists say they have black friends.
And I'm pretty most of Romney's best friends are corporations.
|
Obama will take Virginia by a slim margin, I feel it in mah bones.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 18 2012 09:11 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 09:08 Souma wrote:
So this whole "binders full of women" thing has brought to my attention the sexism that is apparently portrayed by the line "some of my best friends are women."
Why is "some of my best friends are women" seen as sexist? I'm missing something. Well because it's something that sexists commonly say to defend themselves. Kind of like how Santorum said that he has gay friends or when racists say they have black friends. And I'm pretty most of Romney's best friends are corporations.
I think that's pulling at straws though. I mean I'm Asian, and if someone accused me of being racist I'd tell them I have black friends, white friends, whathaveyou. Likewise if someone called me sexist, I'd tell them they're an idiot and that a lot of my friends are female. It feels like a completely normal response.
|
On October 18 2012 09:08 Souma wrote:
So this whole "binders full of women" thing has brought to my attention the sexism that is apparently portrayed by the line "some of my best friends are women."
Why is "some of my best friends are women" seen as sexist? I'm missing something.
It is a nothing issue. Liberal women are going to be convinced that republicans are going to chain them to the kitchen regardless of what is actually said or proposed.
|
On October 18 2012 09:14 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 09:08 Souma wrote:
So this whole "binders full of women" thing has brought to my attention the sexism that is apparently portrayed by the line "some of my best friends are women."
Why is "some of my best friends are women" seen as sexist? I'm missing something. It is a nothing issue. Liberal women are going to be convinced that republicans are going to chain them to the kitchen regardless of what is actually said or proposed.
Or maybe it's this very mischaracterization of the issue that is turning women off the GOP.
You don't think women know what the Lily Ledbetter Act is? You don't think they care about that? Lily Ledbetter is the type of law that only has an impact when it's needed. If their is no discrimination, Lily Ledbetter won't have any effect. It's a good law, and women like it.
It has nothing to do with the kitchen or sandwiches. This is the type of simplification of an issue that is becoming the ruin of your party. Own your policies, own your positions, don't dismiss the whole issue because you don't think it's a "winner" for you.
|
On October 18 2012 09:14 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 09:08 Souma wrote:
So this whole "binders full of women" thing has brought to my attention the sexism that is apparently portrayed by the line "some of my best friends are women."
Why is "some of my best friends are women" seen as sexist? I'm missing something. It is a nothing issue. Liberal women are going to be convinced that republicans are going to chain them to the kitchen regardless of what is actually said or proposed.
Well, chain them to the kitchen or transvaginally evaluate them or pay them less than men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
