|
Arkane posted:Obama had TWO YEARS of bicameral control. Not only control, but they had resounding majorities. The "but only for Congress" meme is bullshit. You've expunged the first two years from your memories apparently. And besides that, the idea that a President cannot work with Congress has 250 years worth of evidence to the contrary. Ignoring the fact that you are either lying, or ignorent about the fact that this is not really true in any meaningful way, lets consider what did get done in that time period: quote:January 29, 2009: Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-2 Fair pay act, Cash for clunkers, Heavy sanctions on Iran, Don't ask don't tell repeal, Healthcare for those affected by 9/11 Oh and that little one in the middle, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. You know, that sweeping reform of healthcare that the american public had been promised going on three decades by that point? Yeah that little thing was in there too. By contrast Congress has passed almost no substantitive legislation apart from the standard 'keep our lights on' policy in the last four years. The 112th Congress has passed less bills than any congress in US history, even the famous 'do nothing' congress. As shown late last year they have difficulty even passing the basic 'keep our lights on' bills, and the 113th congress is set to become equally as bad. Yet somehow this is Obama's fault? I assume you mean because Obama doesn't bend over and take it since the republicans control the house?
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 09:25 |
|
|
Passing "heavy sanctions on Iran" is a bad thing, not something that should be celebrated as an accomplishment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
The idea that Obama doesn't know how to compromise is ridiculous once you consider that the PPACA does not have a public option specifically because he needed the vote of Senators like Joe Lieberman to get a majority.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 04:20
|
|
|
But he didn't compromise with Republicans, and by compromise I mean give them everything they want and more.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 04:27
|
|
|
spoon0042 posted:But he didn't compromise with Republicans, and by compromise I mean resign
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 04:28
|
|
|
Also the stimulus bill was basically "So how much of this needs to be tax cuts before Republicans like me?". Also, basically all of 2011 when Obama was going to give Republicans the sweetest deal ever before Eric Cantor convinced Boehner that he'd be able to get a better deal from President Romney.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 04:28
|
|
|
I think you mean 'fire Biden, choose a Republican VP, and THEN resign.'
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 04:31
|
|
|
Rogue0071 posted:Passing "heavy sanctions on Iran" is a bad thing, not something that should be celebrated as an accomplishment. Iran was cracking down on its people following a rigged election at the time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:Also the stimulus bill was basically "So how much of this needs to be tax cuts before Republicans like me?". Also, basically all of 2011 when Obama was going to give Republicans the sweetest deal ever before Eric Cantor convinced Boehner that he'd be able to get a better deal from President Romney. Right after the election when talk of a stimulus was first happening, Rush Limbaugh suggested something along the lines of "well McCain got 46% of the vote so Obama should compromise and make 46% of the stimulus tax cuts". The actual stimulus ended up being about a third tax cuts so the stimulus ended up being closer to what Limbaugh wanted than what Krugman and other Keynesians wanted. But Obama is divisive and doesn't compromise, so welp
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
Rogue0071 posted:Passing "heavy sanctions on Iran" is a bad thing, not something that should be celebrated as an accomplishment. In addition to what other posters have mentioned, the sanctions passed on Iran were instrumental in getting Iran to come to the table on nuclear talks with the United States, and arguably are largely responsible for the fact that the US actually has some measure of diplomatic relationship with Iran beyond simply ignoring one another. Sanctions are not always a good or bad thing. On the whole the sanctions imposed on Iran have actually resulted in a more reasonable working relationship with a regime that was understandably upset with the west. In my opinion this is a good thing because it will make it harder for the next republican president to call for the bombing of Iran if we have a functional diplomatic relationship with them instead of the passive aggressive hostility of the past several decades.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 04:54
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Iran was cracking down on its people following a rigged election at the time. This or worse applies to plenty of US allies, but you don't see sanctions against Bahrain. That's nothing more than a pretext rather than the actual reasoning for the sanctions. Caros posted:In addition to what other posters have mentioned, the sanctions passed on Iran were instrumental in getting Iran to come to the table on nuclear talks with the United States, and arguably are largely responsible for the fact that the US actually has some measure of diplomatic relationship with Iran beyond simply ignoring one another. There's no reason there should be US-Iran nuclear talks in the first place. Leaving aside the ridiculous hypocrisy of a US which built and used the first nuclear weapons and allied and allies itself with nuclear proliferating apartheid South Africa, Israel, and Pakistan policing the nuclear programs of others, there's no evidence that Iran is pursuing anything other than nuclear power generation and Iran is in compliance with the IAEA. That US sanctions caused enough economic damage to pressure Iran into having to abandon certain parts of its legal nuclear energy program and search for diplomatic workarounds through Brazil and Turkey is not a worthy accomplishment. Furthermore, pushing heavy sanctions with bellicose rhetoric about Iran's nuclear program does not an invasion of Iran harder, any more than the heavy sanctions against Iraq between the Gulf War and 2003 made the Iraq War harder. Furthermore, those sanctions inflict real human suffering on Iranians, and you can't just point to the side potential diplomatic benefits and ignore the primary impact and justification. Rogue0071 fucked around with this message at 05:37 on Jul 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 05:29
|
|
|
Rogue0071 posted:There's no reason there should be US-Iran nuclear talks in the first place. Well international law through both the UN and the NPT which Iran is a party of.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 05:42
|
|
|
I also like how doing it for the right reasons isn't allowed because other people do the same thing but didn't get punished. Which is actually the logic of children.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 05:44
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:I also like how doing it for the right reasons isn't allowed because other people do the same thing but didn't get punished. Which is actually the logic of children. If a large number of states take an action but only the ones that are on a target list for other reasons get sanctioned for it it's pretty clear that the action isn't actually the source of the sanction, just a convenient excuse. e: VV I would be perfectly fine with something like that, but it's clear that the current system is designed to leave Iran reliant on import of processed fuels for energy and thus continually vulnerable to US/EU economic pressure. Rogue0071 fucked around with this message at 05:54 on Jul 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 05:51
|
|
|
An ideal approach to Iranian nuclear talks would bring Israel to the table to end opacity and start peaceful sharing of talent and technology.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 05:52
|
|
|
Except our sanctions and talks on Iran, which is your main point of contention, revolve around its nuclear program, not the 2009 protests and we generally tend to not take a fond stance to nations creating new wmd programs in recent times.Rogue0071 posted:If a large number of states take an action but only the ones that are on a target list for other reasons get sanctioned for it it's pretty clear that the action isn't actually the source of the sanction, just a convenient excuse.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 05:59
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:Except our sanctions and talks on Iran, which is your main point of contention, revolve around its nuclear program, not the 2009 protests and we generally tend to not take a fond stance to nations creating new wmd programs in recent times. I was responding to the claim that the sanctions were with regards to the protests Fulchrum posted:Iran was cracking down on its people following a rigged election at the time. I was quite clear that I believe the actual reasons for the sanctions to be related to the nuclear energy program.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 06:02
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:Arkane, I respond to all of your posts with Getting back to this, I would love it if PPP asked the following questions in their next major poll. quote:Who do you feel was more responsible for the 2008 financial crisis? Follow up question should be quote:Barack Obama was sworn in as President on January 20th 2009, who do you feel was more responsible for the 2008 financial crisis? This way we'll know the baseline percentage of idiots that make up the electorate from the number of people who answer (A) to question 1, and the baseline percentage of racists in the electorate by who still answers (A) to question 2.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 06:08
|
|
|
Most of what Libertarian and business Republicans believe is based on the logic of children. They purposely remove the synergy bonus of welfare to make it sound like we are tossing money down a hole and then talk up military spending while not understanding the fact that carriers are going to start being liabilities. They assume the upper class cares enough about the country their in to create jobs but then threaten to leave when the rest of society gets impatient and starts to organize a different approach. They ignore actually doing public things with space exploration/ scientific advancement but then complain when jobs go overseas to a country that has finally figured out how to catch up and build what we used to build, but do it cheaper because they can take advantage of human labor easier. The reaction to allowing people who live in the country already for the long term to vote as an attack on their party and not a sign that life constantly updates and changes is telling. This is how you become racist without actually actively thinking about race. Arkane, if you are by chance still lurking in this thread, you should be aware that political ideology is a stepping stone to understanding the complexity of life, not a loving football game of "is it our turn to take advantage of the country?" You have to ALWAYS spend the money needed to push technology and science directly and that always has to involve the government. Lowering taxes on the super wealthy and decreasing federal spending on making the country equal is, by definition, lazy and only accomplishing the goal of coasting as an economic powerhouse. You think in feel good measures and then attack the other side or anyone who actually gives a poo poo as naive. Racism is the accidental result of conforming the world to your ideas instead of forming your ideas to what the actual world is like. But please, if it makes you or anyone who thinks like you feel better, you can just say there are idiots in the democrat party as well! Doesn't that make it all better?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 06:09
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Some more post modern tunes for you, OP First time I ever heard of Hatebreed, I dunno maybe a decade ago, some dude with a bald head walked into our local union bar with a T-shirt from them, and a few people (including me) in the bar got it into our heads that hatebreed must be some sort of nazi white power band. So they where about to go over and brain the guy with a pool cue aaaaaand then his mate, an asian guy, walked over to him in pretty much the same shirt and we figured we might be working off a bad hunch. There was a LOT of bad blood about nazi skinheads at this pub because of an earlier violent incident there by them and since most of the bar was union guys most the locals had no compunction against beating the snot out of any nazi that set foot within it, so said bald metalhead was pretty drat lucky he didn't get beaten shitless by a pack of drunk trade unionists.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 06:57
|
|
|
Beating Nazis should be a right. Why hasn't Obama acted?!?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 07:08
|
|
|
FADEtoBLACK posted:Beating Nazis should be a right. Why hasn't Obama acted?!? Obama lied, jews died.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 08:27
|
|
|
Who was more responsible for the holocaust? Obama... 29% Hitler... 28% They are the same person... 29% Don't know... 14%
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 08:35
|
|
|
So is the next pres honestly still in the air or is it just going to be Hillary?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 08:42
|
|
|
Dr.Zeppelin posted:Right after the election when talk of a stimulus was first happening, Rush Limbaugh suggested something along the lines of "well McCain got 46% of the vote so Obama should compromise and make 46% of the stimulus tax cuts". The actual stimulus ended up being about a third tax cuts so the stimulus ended up being closer to what Limbaugh wanted than what Krugman and other Keynesians wanted. But Obama is divisive and doesn't compromise, so welp Really I think the race thing makes for a unique depth of nastiness but I remember how they treated Clinton, who was a white southerner. The problem is that a Democrat had the temerity to win the election. Maybe if Obama was a white they'd be slightly less obstructionist, have slightly less heat behind them? But I doubt it. Or I doubt it'd make a difference save at the margins.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 08:43
|
|
|
To be fair, there's a crazy portion on the left too. I read a Facebook post by a congresswoman in my state about the I-11 project to build an interstate between Phoenix and Vegas. There were quite a few posts demanding light rail instead. Can you imagine a 300 mile long tram ride? I'm guessing the same kind of person would like us to convert our nuclear submarines to solar power.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 09:02
|
|
|
FADEtoBLACK posted:So is the next pres honestly still in the air or is it just going to be Hillary? Someone could beat her in the primaries, because honestly, all Liberal voters have a more detached resignation than a vibrant joy for her. It feels like its more of a "this is how the story is supposed to go" sort of deal - one of the most storied and accomplished careers in politics we've ever seen, punching through glass ceiling after glass ceiling, before finally becoming the first person ever to be addressed as Madame President. No-ones really got anything to point to about her as a person and say "this excites me". So another person could beat her out and secure the nomination. Not Biden, though. Honestly, it feels like a woman will be next - we're just at that point where straight white male is no longer the default option, so of course more than half of Americas population will want to be represented by a Commander In Chief that knows what living as a woman is. But whoever the Democrat is is gonna be sitting in the White House come March 2017. THe Republicans have quadrupled down on crazy by now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 09:24
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:To be fair, there's a crazy portion on the left too. I read a Facebook post by a congresswoman in my state about the I-11 project to build an interstate between Phoenix and Vegas. Light rail means "not freight" aka humans which necessarily includes high-speed service. The particular route you're referring to has had high-speed proposals written for it for some time now. Of course, we can find crazy people claiming to be leftists beyond those who dislike mass transit; though typically these types of views are held by wackadoos on both sides of the aisle, such as anti-fluoridation and anti-vaccination ideas. Hell, even anti-union sentiment is becoming a bipartisan characteristic; particularly if it's a public transit or waste management strike.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 09:41
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:To be fair, there's a crazy portion on the left too. I read a Facebook post by a congresswoman in my state about the I-11 project to build an interstate between Phoenix and Vegas. You know people in Europe ride 300+ miles in trains all the time, as for "light rail" as another poster said, they probably meant either non-freight or a lighter build passenger train. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 09:45 on Jul 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 09:43
|
|
|
I just realized that 28+29+44= 101. Maybe something about this poll is suspect.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
Ralepozozaxe posted:I just realized that 28+29+44= 101. Maybe something about this poll is suspect. Or it's just a rounding error.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 15:33
|
|
|
FADEtoBLACK posted:So is the next pres honestly still in the air or is it just going to be Hillary? If Jeb plays the game literally and exactly perfectly he could beat her IMO.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 16:10
|
|
|
Ralepozozaxe posted:I just realized that 28+29+44= 101. Maybe something about this poll is suspect. You can grab it from PPP's website. It's Republican Primary voters, so it's not of Louisiana as a whole, but it's a legit poll: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_LA_821.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 16:20
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:If Jeb plays the game literally and exactly perfectly he could beat her IMO. So far he hasn't said anything, that's his best bet. Literally never speak and hope people just decide to picture you as who they want to vote for. Opening their mouths is the dumbest thing any republican can do right now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 16:40
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:If Jeb plays the game literally and exactly perfectly he could beat her IMO. Remember how good Obama's two campaigns have been? How the first time he beat McCain/Palin by 7% and 10,000,000 votes nationally (granted, a scarecrow with a sign "I'm not a Republican" could've won the Presidency that year, but that is a drat impressive campaign), and the second time around when Romney had everything fall in place perfectly for a win and yet Obama won rather decisively? How Obama's opponents almost invariably seem to gently caress themselves up and flail uselessly at the wind? That's because Obama and his campaign staff are basically the best campaigners in recent US political memory...or perhaps ever. Any Republican campaign would have to be that good. The problem with the Republican Party right now is that their campaign apparatus is kind of comparatively weak (they'd never be able to pull off the kind of organization Obama had), and they're forced to kowtow to the Tea Party, which most Americans don't actually like. Jeb wouldn't have a Romney-esque 47% gaffe, but Republicans will hate it if he fails to energize the base. Doing that, though, is a recipe for disaster since only the Republican base likes the Republican base. He can't play the game literally and exactly perfectly. The Republicans are probably not winning the Presidency any time soon, but of course politics is weird and creepy, and stranger things have happened.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:So far he hasn't said anything, that's his best bet. Literally never speak and hope people just decide to picture you as who they want to vote for. Opening their mouths is the dumbest thing any republican can do right now. I wonder if the republicans are going to try and limit the number of Presidential debates in 2016 the way they're moving to limit the number of primary debates. Just say something like LIBERAL MEDIA!!!! and ignore any requests for debates, make the opposing camp chase them, and then have maybe 1 just so they can say they did it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:To be fair, there's a crazy portion on the left too. I read a Facebook post by a congresswoman in my state about the I-11 project to build an interstate between Phoenix and Vegas. Wait what's wrong with light rail? What's wrong with a 300 mile rail trip? That's only a little longer than the NY /Boston Amtrak route and I do that all the time. Jesus people 's expectations in this country are warped.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 17:12
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:If Jeb plays the game literally and exactly perfectly he could beat her IMO. The counter ad writes itself however. Just pictures of US soldiers with limbs blown off and poo poo, and dick cheney splashing about in a swiming pool of oil with the words "4 MORE YEARS". But seriously, Bush vs Clinton II would be loving hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
I'm praying for Warren v. Cruz, but it won't happen 
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 17:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 09:25 |
|
|
If we're talking fantasy, go Sanders or go home.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2014 17:58
|
|