|
Alter Ego posted:The only way Ted Cruz sees the inside of the Oval Office is if everyone else in the legislative and executive branch dies in a nuclear explosion. Yeah, I was being flippant about it specifically being Cruz. Even T-Paw/Bush/Whoever-R is going to make Redeye Flight's list of achievements a lot more compelling.
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 15:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 01:06 |
|
|
The legacy of Obama is showing that even the Left thinks that the President is a God King that doesn't need consent of Congress to get his policy done, and they criticize him for not doing so.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 15:43
|
|
|
Even when he had it, there were reasons to be disappointed.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 16:06
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The legacy of Obama is showing that even the Left thinks that the President is a God King that doesn't need consent of Congress to get his policy done, and they criticize him for not doing so.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
There were a handful of Blue Dogs in congress among those numbers, and they were afraid to vote for anything to D as it might affect their chance of getting elected. Of course they lost anyways, so WELP!
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:There were a handful of Blue Dogs in congress among those numbers, and they were afraid to vote for anything to D as it might affect their chance of getting elected. To be fair, Pelosi have them that option once it was clear things were going to pass. She'd need them later, plus they were key to maintaining the majority. It's not like they actively plotted to gently caress poo poo up. Plus it was more the district makeup, not the individual and their votes that determined whether someone lost. For example, off the top of my head and using the example of my immediate area, Rick Boucher and Glenn Nye lost after voting no, but Tom Periello, Bob Etheridge, and John Spratt all voted yes and lost. All came from R-leaning districts. No one really won or lost in 2010 based on their bold moves. I remember people talking about how all the progressive caucus still won, but come on, there are no CPC members in districts that aren't solid blue.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
Clinton's legacy is basically that he rode the economic wave to it's zenith and then left before poo poo went down. All of Clinton's biggest accomplishments were basically betrayals to the left. Despite what you may think of Obama's legacy, it's substance as far as attaining real policy goals which while maybe not 100% optimal at least attemp to appeal to the left's sensibilities is much greater that Clinton's. But seeing as Clinton is still widely popular among liberals I think it all basically boils down to how likable of a guy you are, and if your own party sees you as political anathema.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
I think Obama will be remembered as the left's answer to Reagan, in that he won elections through sheer charisma (and weak opponents), was more centrist than his base will give him credit for due to opposition in the House, and will continue to make the opposition violently angry for years to come.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
HorseRenoir posted:I think Obama will be remembered as the left's answer to Reagan, in that he won elections through sheer charisma (and weak opponents), was more centrist than his base will give him credit for due to opposition in the House, and will continue to make the opposition violently angry for years to come. He isn't literally a war criminal who committed high treason. Yet. :benghazi:
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:He isn't literally a war criminal who committed high treason. Every leader of every nation is a war criminal. 
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:He isn't literally a war criminal who committed high treason. Obama is certainly a war criminal did you not know this?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 04:23
|
|
|
Ever since I filed, I've been getting a small stream of political junk mail. Today, I learned where the yard signs come from. 50 two-sided 16"x26" yard signs for $230. Add on an extra $100 if I want to use two colors! No wonder campaigns scorn these things.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 05:47
|
|
|
When a campaign manager and an old, out-of-touch donor love each other very much, they pee into each other's butts and then, like a miracle, a yard sign is born into every crotchety elder's yard, ready to be stolen by the oppositions youth.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 06:42
|
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:Ever since I filed, I've been getting a small stream of political junk mail. Today, I learned where the yard signs come from. NO UNION BUG. BURN THEM. Seriously, I've seen this be a huge issue in a primary. Don't make that mistake.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
Gyges posted:W's mistake is that he didn't do anything big for people to focus on instead of the wars, torture, tax cuts and economic implosion. Maybe the Medicare D thing? I honestly know very little about it sitting in the dwindling bubble of my youth. Even if he did, Johnson shows that dumb wars cast a large shadow over the other things you do. It could be argued that immediately trying to privatize Social Security after getting re-elected was the catalyst that really started his downhill spiral.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:Ever since I filed, I've been getting a small stream of political junk mail. Today, I learned where the yard signs come from. Are you running in Montco PA? I've had some experience with Capitol Promotion lawn signs, if you get the cheapest double-sided paper ones, they will fall apart at the sides and possibly blow off the stand...maybe not this election but definitely in the next one. (Staple them down the sides to increase longevity) Plus the corrugated plastic ones look ALOT nicer.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
Not to thread pimp but I have an A/T thread going on about political campaigns and it always comes back to lawn signs.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
Dr.Zeppelin posted:It could be argued that immediately trying to privatize Social Security after getting re-elected was the catalyst that really started his downhill spiral. Katrina didn't really help either.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Katrina didn't really help either. And the weird nomination of Harriet Miers. Also, in the whole Obama/Reagan analogy, I think Clinton is more analogous to Reagan. Obama maybe more of a Truman type who gets a better look in the history books but at the time was seen as middling.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
De Nomolos posted:NO UNION BUG. BURN THEM.  What's up with using the union bug, though? There's lot of autoworker retirees and folks connected to either the remnants of the auto industry or employed by the local university, so there's decent a decent unionized presence out here. I get that it'll get some folks up into a froth, but surely that can't be that big of a deal. R-right? The Nastier Nate posted:Are you running in Montco PA? I've had some experience with Capitol Promotion lawn signs, if you get the cheapest double-sided paper ones, they will fall apart at the sides and possibly blow off the stand...maybe not this election but definitely in the next one. (Staple them down the sides to increase longevity) Plus the corrugated plastic ones look ALOT nicer.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:surely that can't be that big of a deal. R-right?. Don't contribute to the further destruction of decent well-paid jobs.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
The unions are incredibly bad-rear end about get-out-the-vote and canvassing, and it's a bad idea to get on their bad side.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The legacy of Obama is showing that even the Left thinks that the President is a God King that doesn't need consent of Congress to get his policy done, and they criticize him for not doing so. Well, he did use his Andrew Jackson "gently caress you" powers to bomb Libya without the consent of Congress.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:Well, he did use his Andrew Jackson "gently caress you" powers to bomb Libya without the consent of Congress. Good because Libya is a shining beacon in Africa now.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:Well, he did use his Andrew Jackson "gently caress you" powers to bomb Libya without the consent of Congress. I thought those were Nixionian "totally not a war over here" powers. Jacksonian gently caress You's are generally harsher and come with explicit threats should you not shut the gently caress up about it.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:Well, he did use his Andrew Jackson "gently caress you" powers to bomb Libya without the consent of Congress. Nearly every President ever has used his powers as Commander in Chief of the military without the consent of Congress. This is not a particularly serious indictment of Obama. Congress has the specific power to declare war. Not every use of the military is considered warfare. The problems come when the President's definition and the Congress' definition don't agree.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 and related UN and NATO decisions gave Obama explicit permission to use the military without congress, since various UN and NATO treaties had long been ratified by the way.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
I am not a book posted:Don't contribute to the further destruction of decent well-paid jobs. The X-man cometh posted:The unions are incredibly bad-rear end about get-out-the-vote and canvassing, and it's a bad idea to get on their bad side.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:Wait, so the NO UNION BUGS thing earlier was mocking repeat of wrong opinions? I misread it as a sincere warning and was thoroughly confused as to how people could object to the union bug. Seriously, if you are a Democrat, you do not have yard signs, your doorbeller or mail pieces printed without a union bug. Unions will notice and they will care. I'm surprised that you haven't had to fill out union questionnaires with a checkbox like "I pledge to have all of my campaign materials printed union if at all possible". I work on campaigns and anything I print that the public will see either is from a union printer with the bug or I print on our campaign's printer and I have "printed in house" in little text on the bottom on it so people know I didn't go non-union. It's a big deal. I had a friend who was on a campaign where the local SEIU offered to do a lot of printing for them on the SEIU's office printer. Great, free printing! Except when the other unions saw the material and there was no union bug on it. It was printed by a union but not by a union printer, and that was a problem. gohuskies fucked around with this message at 21:51 on May 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
Mischitary posted:Clinton's legacy is basically that he rode the economic wave to it's zenith and then left before poo poo went down. All of Clinton's biggest accomplishments were basically betrayals to the left. See: the Three Strikes Law that, along with Reagan's mandatory terms for possession, helped make the prison system what it is today; with a vastly over-represented black inmate population and over crowding. gently caress Clinton.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
I've got some disposable income. Time to put some "smoke weed every day" lawn signs on the national mall 
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
gohuskies posted:Seriously, if you are a Democrat, you do not have yard signs, your doorbeller or mail pieces printed without a union bug. Unions will notice and they will care. I'm surprised that you haven't had to fill out union questionnaires with a checkbox like "I pledge to have all of my campaign materials printed union if at all possible". I work on campaigns and anything I print that the public will see either is from a union printer with the bug or I print on our campaign's printer and I have "printed in house" in little text on the bottom on it so people know I didn't go non-union. It's a big deal. This is the exact issue I've encountered. We got the best union endorsements in part because our D primary opponent was a self-funder who was friends with the owner of a small nonunion print shop. What was sad was losing anyway 
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Katrina didn't really help either. Yeah it's entirely possible that the ticking time bomb of his crony appointments would have been enough on its own, but in early 2005 it really did seem like Rove's Permanent Republican Majority thing was going to be willed into existence and repeated in the media enough times to become true. After he won I remember talk of his "mandate" and people talking about the margin of victory in the most dubious terms, stuff like how he had the highest absolute number of votes in history (even more than Reagan!!!) as if the continually increasing population of the country had nothing to do with it. I guess they ended up believing their own hype because a party that just squeaked by in a close re-election doesn't just immediately turn around and propose to gut SS of all things like that. The whole SS thing though seemed like the spell was lifting. Sure there were plenty of adversarial things here and there but by and large public sentiment seemed to be that Bush was a good guy who was just trying his best in this big tough world and we gotta stand up with him for liberty etc etc. After that happened and people realized they were actually allowed to say "no wait, gently caress this guy" it made all the bad stuff after that (Katrina, Miers, etc.) go a lot worse for him than they would have in his first term.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 04:00
|
|
|
The Bush presidency was sort of before my time, but to be honest, I'm surprised that saying social security should be privatized went over so poorly. Seems like if somebody suggested that today, people would be all over it.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
Wanamingo posted:The Bush presidency was sort of before my time, but to be honest, I'm surprised that saying social security should be privatized went over so poorly. Seems like if somebody suggested that today, people would be all over it. Haha of course they wouldn't. You know who votes the most right? People on social security and people who will be on social security very soon.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 04:48
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Haha of course they wouldn't. You know who votes the most right? People on social security and people who will be on social security very soon. Doesn't stop the media from constantly fellating Paul Ryan about how "serious" he is, saying America needs to "get tough" 
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 04:56
|
|
|
Remember Bush's signature social program was an expansion of Medicare to pay for prescription drugs (with of course the usual fuckery that Medicare is not allowed to negotiate prices like any other insurer, but has to pay whatever sucker rates drug companies want to charge). Old people vote a lot. The gamble to get old people to support the Social Security privatization is that payments to existing retirees were still guaranteed; it was the first step to dismantle the system and feed younger people to the wolves while grandfathering in the current voting recipients. It wasn't completely insane to bet that boomers on the cusp of retirement would be entirely cool with loving over the next generation, but since they didn't actually benefit from it, they didn't really have any reason to risk loving with the program. A shrewder move may have been to claim that privatization would have better returns (like he did), and then go on to say he'd increase payments to today's seniors to compensate them for missing out on the fabulous benefits of private accounts.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 04:56
|
|
|
Gen. Ripper posted:Doesn't stop the media from constantly fellating Paul Ryan about how "serious" he is, saying America needs to "get tough" And Ryan didn't DARE advocate privatizing social security.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Remember Bush's signature social program was an expansion of Medicare to pay for prescription drugs (with of course the usual fuckery that Medicare is not allowed to negotiate prices like any other insurer, but has to pay whatever sucker rates drug companies want to charge). A lot of boomers about to retire lost a shitload of money from their 401(k)s in the market crash of 2008. Putting their Social Security funds in the market is the last thing they are interested in.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 01:06 |
|
|
Bush's proposal was from 2005, and boomers were specifically exempt.quote:Would reform affect everyone? The president has said all along that any reform would not affect the benefits of current and near retirees. On Wednesday, he specified that benefits of anyone age 55 and older will not be changed. That was the right-wing plan to start gutting Social Security and turning into another fee-generating scam for Wall Street: blunt the opposition of seniors by exempting them. It didn't work of course, but I was speculating whether, had he offered to increase current retirees' benefits, they would have reliably voted to gently caress over the next generation like they always do. You're perfectly right of course that post-2008 that proposal is going to be dead for a long, long while. No one would dare suggest it today.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 05:14
|
|