|
mcmagic posted:Uhh more Americans actually voted for Clinton than Trump. But I thought non-votes were votes for Trump? More Americans voted for neither of them than either of them so I guess Americans really wanted no President.
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 14:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 01:05 |
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:But I thought non-votes were votes for Trump? Put it however you want. We know she won the popular vote and we also know that a lot of idiots didn't vote or voted for a joke candidate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 14:51
|
|
|
It's just amazing how in TYOOL 2017 we can have a discussion of the Obama presidency without talking about how incredibly racialized the response to his Presidency was.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 15:03
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:It's just amazing how in TYOOL 2017 we can have a discussion of the Obama presidency without talking about how incredibly racialized the response to his Presidency was. most of the burnouts were not mentally developed (i'm being generous here) during bush so it's all they know.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 15:10
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:It's just amazing how in TYOOL 2017 we can have a discussion of the Obama presidency without talking about how incredibly racialized the response to his Presidency was. Probably because there is nothing we can do about it. It was inevitable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 15:10
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Probably because there is nothing we can do about it. It was inevitable. You're right, but it's relevant for discussing Obama's legacy as President. Obama, for all his faults, exemplified the scandal-free, conciliatory, bipartisan Presidency that everyone said they wanted. He was one of the more personally virtuous Presidents we have ever had. The reaction to him was no doubt partially because he was a Democrat, but when you look at the response to him (including Trump), it's hard to separate his legacy from the fact that a segment of the population hated him for the color of his skin, and that this was reflected the electoral prospects of the Democratic Party through 2016.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 16:15
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:You're right, but it's relevant for discussing Obama's legacy as President. Obama, for all his faults, exemplified the scandal-free, conciliatory, bipartisan Presidency that everyone said they wanted. He was one of the more personally virtuous Presidents we have ever had. The reaction to him was no doubt partially because he was a Democrat, but when you look at the response to him (including Trump), it's hard to separate his legacy from the fact that a segment of the population hated him for the color of his skin, and that this was reflected the electoral prospects of the Democratic Party through 2016. I'm sure in 40 years Obama is going to be universally beloved even by republicans who will forget their racist temper tantrum very quickly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 16:35
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:You're right, but it's relevant for discussing Obama's legacy as President. Obama, for all his faults, exemplified the scandal-free, conciliatory, bipartisan Presidency that everyone said they wanted. He was one of the more personally virtuous Presidents we have ever had. The reaction to him was no doubt partially because he was a Democrat, but when you look at the response to him (including Trump), it's hard to separate his legacy from the fact that a segment of the population hated him for the color of his skin, and that this was reflected the electoral prospects of the Democratic Party through 2016. I'm not sure we can blame the Democrats' losses on Obama's skin color, considering that Dems did much worse when he wasn't on the ballot. It may have played a role in Congressional Republicans' particular obsession with opposing everything he did simply because he was the one who did it, but Obama's tendency to respond to opposition by backing down certainly encouraged them by rewarding those tactics.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I'm not sure we can blame the Democrats' losses on Obama's skin color, considering that Dems did much worse when he wasn't on the ballot. It may have played a role in Congressional Republicans' particular obsession with opposing everything he did simply because he was the one who did it, but Obama's tendency to respond to opposition by backing down certainly encouraged them by rewarding those tactics. I think it played the role in riling up the racist republican base, which in turn lead to the effect you are referring too. :
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
The language used against Obama was racially charged but looking at both Clintons, Gore and Kerry it is more that republicans view democrats as fundamentally illegitimate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 17:52
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:You're right, but it's relevant for discussing Obama's legacy as President. Obama, for all his faults, exemplified the scandal-free, conciliatory, bipartisan Presidency that everyone said they wanted. He was one of the more personally virtuous Presidents we have ever had. The reaction to him was no doubt partially because he was a Democrat, but when you look at the response to him (including Trump), it's hard to separate his legacy from the fact that a segment of the population hated him for the color of his skin, and that this was reflected the electoral prospects of the Democratic Party through 2016. Obama was the president everyone says they want, not the one they actually want in the slow downward ratcheting decline of post-2008 America. We really want a president who will gently caress over those fuckers for whatever value of fuckers our ideology and material condition inclines us to. The bland bipartisan ideal is an outward facing social lie for the majority of Americans. It's only truly believed by the chattering classes who have exempted themselves from the decline and for whom politics is a game instead of a struggle Obama would have been far more unpopular if not for his race. America as a whole liked his image and symbolism. But they really didn't like his politics as evidenced by every election since his.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:The language used against Obama was racially charged but looking at both Clintons, Gore and Kerry it is more that republicans view democrats as fundamentally illegitimate. He really was coddled as far as presidents go
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
SickZip posted:He really was coddled as far as presidents go As opposed to the other Presidents who had to produce their papers?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:As opposed to the other Presidents who had to produce their papers? That's seriously minor bullshit. His administration was incompetent, morally bankrupt, and sold the country out to Wallstreet and that's all he had to deal with. Cry me a river that people's dislike was channeled through a racially tinged channel. He deserved worse and every other recent president has.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
SickZip posted:That's seriously minor bullshit. His administration was incompetent, morally bankrupt, and sold the country out to Wallstreet and that's all he had to deal with. Cry me a river that people's dislike was channeled through a racially tinged channel. He deserved worse and every other recent president has. It really takes quite a leap to look at 90 days of the Trump presidency and call Obama and his administration incompetent....
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
SickZip posted:Obama was the president everyone says they want, not the one they actually want in the slow downward ratcheting decline of post-2008 America. We really want a president who will gently caress over those fuckers for whatever value of fuckers our ideology and material condition inclines us to. The bland bipartisan ideal is an outward facing social lie for the majority of Americans. It's only truly believed by the chattering classes who have exempted themselves from the decline and for whom politics is a game instead of a struggle Had Obama been president during a period with 90s style economics he'd be popular as all get out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 11:41
|
|
|
SickZip posted:Obama was the president everyone says they want, not the one they actually want in the slow downward ratcheting decline of post-2008 America. We really want a president who will gently caress over those fuckers for whatever value of fuckers our ideology and material condition inclines us to. The bland bipartisan ideal is an outward facing social lie for the majority of Americans. It's only truly believed by the chattering classes who have exempted themselves from the decline and for whom politics is a game instead of a struggle If by "America" you mean a minority of voters who are controlling the country by exploiting flaws in our system of government than sure.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 15:05
|
|
|
SickZip posted:That's seriously minor bullshit. His administration was incompetent, morally bankrupt, and sold the country out to Wallstreet and that's all he had to deal with. Cry me a river that people's dislike was channeled through a racially tinged channel. He deserved worse and every other recent president has. This is why it's hard to have a legit conversation about the Obama presidency because you have lunatics like this raging against some illusion created by the right.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:It really takes quite a leap to look at 90 days of the Trump presidency and call Obama and his administration incompetent.... But Obama was mostly incompetent? Watching Trump's administration be a dumpster fire of unprecedented proportions does not mean that Obama was a competent president. It's comparing a rabid rapist orange monkey throwing poo poo and hand grenades around the fine china shop to a slick salesman who gave most of the finery to free to their rich friends then overcharged the average joe resulting in a net loss for the shop but enrichment for his wealthy friends. His "grand bargain" was a massive failure of an idea that hosed up most of his presidency. He refused to go after any of the criminally guilty fat cats that causes the largest financial crisis in nearly 100 years. He didn't really try to pull out of the Middle East. He continued and ramped up secret bombing campaigns/wars. He didn't even push to move weed down in scheduling. Yeah he didn't instill existential dread of massive loss of liberties, economic stability, or nuclear hellfire, but calling him a competent president might be a bit of a stretch. Mediocre at best, but still not good. Of course I still voted Obama twice and would vote for him again because his opposition is Republicans that are literal cartoon villains. Voted for Hillary too despite likely being a step down from Obama's already middling performance, because look at how poo poo Trump is before even 100 days. We can call Obama a not great president and it doesn't absolve Trump of anything.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 21:38
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:But Obama was mostly incompetent? Watching Trump's administration be a dumpster fire of unprecedented proportions does not mean that Obama was a competent president. I think this highlights another key aspect of the Obama presidency, which is that the country turned to the left during his presidency. Jailing Wall Street CEOs was not a mainstream idea in 2009 and largely came to the fore retrospectively during Occupy Wall Street. You can see the same thing with healthcare, minimum wage, etc. It's not that different than what happened to W, where he was largely condemned by conservatives at the end of his presidency for policies they praised in the beginning.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 16:19
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:I think this highlights another key aspect of the Obama presidency, which is that the country turned to the left during his presidency. Jailing Wall Street CEOs was not a mainstream idea in 2009 and largely came to the fore retrospectively during Occupy Wall Street. You can see the same thing with healthcare, minimum wage, etc. I was there. It absolutely was.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hiey5KmidRo&t
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:I think this highlights another key aspect of the Obama presidency, which is that the country turned to the left during his presidency. Jailing Wall Street CEOs was not a mainstream idea in 2009 and largely came to the fore retrospectively during Occupy Wall Street. You can see the same thing with healthcare, minimum wage, etc. .....What? He was only in office for eight years, and if anything the country moved to the right a bit overall as a response to a black man being president. People absolutely wanted massive reform and jail for the bankers that ratfucked the economy. Bush's problem is he went to war too early in his presidency. People got to see how loving stupid it was to be involved in TWO wars halfway around the world, accomplishing nothing and costing us trillions. The same thing will happen to Trump when his base sees he is not really a strongman and Americans are dying and killing for no reason.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:.....What? While I agree that some people wanted to jail Wall Street bankers, can you think of anyone in a position of authority (party leaders, politicians, constituency groups) who actually seriously proposed this as public policy? Not even Bernie Sanders, who is far to the left of the Democratic Party as it existed in 2008, advocates that. I understand that Obama did not please many people who exist on the lefternmost edge of the Democratic Party. And amidst this environment of recrimination on the left ("Bernie would've won" etc.), it can be tempting to build a history of a party or a voting populace that was much more left-leaning, but it just wasn't so. Obama was firmly a product of the times in 2008, and once more represented the left-leaning instincts of the electorate more than any other candidate. Sanders couldn't even get to Iowa in 2008.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:While I agree that some people wanted to jail Wall Street bankers, can you think of anyone in a position of authority (party leaders, politicians, constituency groups) who actually seriously proposed this as public policy? Democrazy posted:Not even Bernie Sanders, who is far to the left of the Democratic Party as it existed in 2008, advocates that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
Clinton, Bush, and Obama left us all an economy of retail jobs, and now retail is dying away because boomers wanna spend money on restaurants and 'enjoy life'. Pathetic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Obama could have done that himself, you know, leading rather than following. Like, I'm pretty sure more people were in favor of jailing bankers than were ever in favor of expanding the surveillance state. Bernie Sanders rails against Bankers, he calls them bald people, say they do terrible acts, but I don't believe he ever actually called for anyone to press any charges against anyone in the banking industry. It seems that, despite this apparent groundswell of support for trying bankers, no one actually is willing to take up the idea. Must be confounded by big money corporations, like the overwhelmingly supported Peta Lindsay candidacy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:Bernie Sanders rails against Bankers, he calls them bald people, say they do terrible acts, but I don't believe he ever actually called for anyone to press any charges against anyone in the banking industry. It seems that, despite this apparent groundswell of support for trying bankers, no one actually is willing to take up the idea. Must be confounded by big money corporations, like the overwhelmingly supported Peta Lindsay candidacy. Or do you mean naming specific people?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:https://berniesanders.com/press-release/wall-street-ceos-not-too-big-to-jail/ Okay, fair. But that's still talking retrospectively. The Democratic Party in 2008 was significantly to the right of Sanders in 2016 on economic issues, and the primaries reflected that. Democrazy fucked around with this message at 21:32 on Apr 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
yeah i agree that obama was and is a right winger
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
You guys probably should give up the idea that jailing bankers and hedge fundies was ever really going to happen. Despite their actions being immoral, ruinous, and systemically dangerous, almost none of the things done to cause the Great Recession were in themselves illegal. And for the handful of issues that were against the laws, very little of it had any chance to be successful to prosecute whether or not there was any political will to oppose their fundraisers. This was of course due to decades of regulatory capture by the financial industry, poor oversight capability by the government/judiciary, and a lot of the poo poo just being issues of subjective judgment and/or normal capitalism in action.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 03:41
|
|
|
ThaGhettoJew posted:You guys probably should give up the idea that jailing bankers and hedge fundies was ever really going to happen. Despite their actions being immoral, ruinous, and systemically dangerous, almost none of the things done to cause the Great Recession were in themselves illegal. And for the handful of issues that were against the laws, very little of it had any chance to be successful to prosecute whether or not there was any political will to oppose their fundraisers. Probably not but we had massive structural change to the financial system in the 30s. That could happen again and I'm more interested in that than a few guys going to jail.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 03:57
|
|
|
ThaGhettoJew posted:You guys probably should give up the idea that jailing bankers and hedge fundies was ever really going to happen. Despite their actions being immoral, ruinous, and systemically dangerous, almost none of the things done to cause the Great Recession were in themselves illegal. It's not like that's stopped the US from locking undesirables up in the past.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 07:42
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:It's not like that's stopped the US from locking undesirables up in the past. LOL if you think rich assholes who'll screw over anyone for a dollar are undesired by lawmakers. Now if you want some of their middle-class underlings and minimum-wage functionaries to go to scapegoat jail, that we can handle. With a particularly zealous anti-corporate public and some very brave politicos running a full scale attack in say 2010 we might have squeezed out a few fines totalling a percent of a percent of a day's profits out of them. I mean look at the amazing punishment of Wells Fargo's widespread out and out fraudulent business practices last year. Over two million fake accounts and credit cards were set up and they paid a piddly $185 million (a record fee!) and they fired like five thousand no-names and wage slaves. The CEO eventually stepped down with his millions and golden parachute poo poo and I suppose they temporarily lost some stock value and ratings under a few weeks or so of bad press. And this is for easily provable nation-spanning illegal activity that we actually were able to get some charges on. No jails, no federal takeovers, no destruction by the invisible hand of the market. Obama's direct failure here is probably just failing to publicly chastise the financial system more as de facto party head (at least after he got us to pay to stop it from completely collapsing). The half-hearted and immediately undermined stuff like Dodd-Frank that actually did happen was just Congress doing the absolute minimum they could get away with like always. And they have less and less need to accomplish even weaksauce populist goals as mega-money contributions and gerrymandered districts become a greater part of their political life cycles.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 08:40
|
|
|
ThaGhettoJew posted:LOL if you think rich assholes who'll screw over anyone for a dollar are undesired by lawmakers. Now if you want some of their middle-class underlings and minimum-wage functionaries to go to scapegoat jail, that we can handle. With a particularly zealous anti-corporate public and some very brave politicos running a full scale attack in say 2010 we might have squeezed out a few fines totalling a percent of a percent of a day's profits out of them. Yeah, obviously it was not going to happen, but all I'm saying is that in an ideal world Obama would have declared that Wall Street is gulty of economic terrorism and shipped the fuckers off to Guantanamo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 08:42
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Yeah, obviously it was not going to happen, but all I'm saying is that in an ideal world Obama would have declared that Wall Street is gulty of economic terrorism and shipped the fuckers off to Guantanamo. Stipulated. If they only didn't run our 401k's...
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 08:46
|
|
|
ThaGhettoJew posted:Stipulated. If they only didn't run our 401k's... Nah if he's going that far he can just nationalize all the banks and then your retirement is fine.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 09:26
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:You're right, but it's relevant for discussing Obama's legacy as President. Obama, for all his faults, exemplified the scandal-free, conciliatory, bipartisan Presidency that everyone said they wanted. The presidency people wanted was one where their lives would improve and the wrongs of the last decade would be righted. 'Scandal-free, conciliatory, bipartisanship' express very little in the way of actual politics.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 11:59
|
|
|
ThaGhettoJew posted:You guys probably should give up the idea that jailing bankers and hedge fundies was ever really going to happen. Despite their actions being immoral, ruinous, and systemically dangerous, almost none of the things done to cause the Great Recession were in themselves illegal. A massive amount of foreclosure/mortgage fraud, which plenty of banks engaged it, was illegal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 12:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 01:05 |
|
|
Didn't the guy that prosecuted the people involved in Savings and Loans crisis recently say that there were totally people that could have been nailed? It seems like it's more that there was zero political interest into punishing anyone involved rather than everything being absolutely, for reals on the up and up. Regardless of prosecutions I think people would have been fine if Obama had put more effort into helping the people that got screwed over by the banks. He left everyone at the mercy of the people that had just gotten done plundering the economy through shady tactics. Unsurprisingly you then heard stories of veterans and old widows being kicked out on the street or people having houses they owned being foreclosed on by banks that had no claim whatsoever, just hosed up paperwork. That's loving terrible optics for the supposedly leftist party. The Obama administration could have totally allowed their banker friends to skate without taking too much political damage, but they forgot the part where they had to mollify the absolutely justified anger somehow instead of saying anyone complaining was full of poo poo and "didn't know what they were angry about."
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 12:22
|
|
