|
Condiv posted:Apparently obama supporting a violent fascist coup in honduras doesn’t count for you Or all the PoC who suffered domestically either. But then again, we've never really counted in America so why start now.
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 23:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 07:27 |
|
|
Cingulate posted:He didn't lead you into any new wars Syria, Libya and Yemen aren't countries... 
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 23:19
|
|
|
Horseshoe theory posted:Syria, Libya and Yemen aren't countries... lol if you think US military forces weren't operating in those countries before 2009.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 23:30
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I think the ACA will have deep, lasting impact. It's a bad compromise, but consider what was before? I am quite sure you'll end up with something closer to ACA then the pre-ACA situation. lovely, yes. But the cat's out of the bag. The tax bill that is likely to pass tomorrow removes the Obamacare mandate. Without the mandate in place, every other provision in the ACA outside of medicaid expansion is dead. Without the mandate, the difference between a qualified health plan and a "health plan" become irrelevant. No one would buy "quasi health insurance that doesn't satisfy mandate and has lifetime caps" with the mandate in place. The real risk without the mandate isn't people dropping out of health insurance completely. It's people buying health insurance that wouldn't qualify for the mandate, and where there is nothing stopping insurers from adding back all the BS that the ACA removed. So the tax bill that is likely to pass tomorrow essentially makes everything other than medicaid expansion dead letter. joepinetree fucked around with this message at 23:38 on Dec 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:lol if you think US military forces weren't operating in those countries before 2009. I guess that means GWB did nothing wrong since we were in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. before 2001 then, eh?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 23:39
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:lol if you think US military forces weren't operating in those countries before 2009. As far as I know we weren’t in any substantial way, at least in Libya and Syria. I can’t speak for Yemen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 00:37
|
|
|
Horseshoe theory posted:Syria, Libya and Yemen aren't countries... joepinetree posted:The tax bill that is likely to pass tomorrow removes the Obamacare mandate. Without the mandate in place, every other provision in the ACA outside of medicaid expansion is dead. Without the mandate, the difference between a qualified health plan and a "health plan" become irrelevant. No one would buy "quasi health insurance that doesn't satisfy mandate and has lifetime caps" with the mandate in place. The real risk without the mandate isn't people dropping out of health insurance completely. It's people buying health insurance that wouldn't qualify for the mandate, and where there is nothing stopping insurers from adding back all the BS that the ACA removed. So the tax bill that is likely to pass tomorrow essentially makes everything other than medicaid expansion dead letter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 00:56
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:What Obama has not done is lead you into long-term engagement where hundreds of thousands or millions die and a whole region is destabilised. Except that Obama's proxy and not-so-proxy actions did lead to instable clusterfucks...? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 01:00
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Obama did some vaguely centrist-liberal stuff and your right-wing spectrum mostly lost their minds and elected a Shrieking White-Hot Sphere Of Pure Rage. What if he actually had nationalised a few banks and redistributed money towards Urban Poor People? "The white-hot sphere of pure rage literally couldn't rage any harder!" - I think you're being much too optimistic, it's quite possible it could. Maybe it would have won the popular vote or something. There is nothing in here to debate or discuss because it's just "the Lord works in mysterious ways" except with politicians. Like I don't even know what the point of posting it even is, the rejection of evidence/logic/reality is built into the premise because any evidence contradicting your conclusion is just handwaved away with "well if we could only understand the fullness of the Divine, we would know how all these things exalt Him all the more"
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 01:38
|
|
|
Pretty sure you just answered your own question. And don’t talk to Cingulate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 04:35
|
|
|
In the fifteenth century, when Russia was occupied by Mongols, a peasant and his wife were walking along a dusty country road; a Mongol warrior on a horse stopped at their side and told the peasant he would now proceed to rape his wife; he then added: "But since there is a lot of dust on the ground, you must hold my testicles while I rape your wife, so that they will not get dirty!" Once the Mongol had done the deed and ridden away, the peasant started laughing and jumping with joy. His surprised wife asked: "how can you be jumping with joy when I was just brutally raped in your presence?" The farmer answered: "But I got him! His balls are covered with dust!" Is today's critical Left not in a similar position? Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 04:57 on Dec 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 04:55
|
|
|
We need to cut the balls.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 05:09
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:There is nothing in here to debate or discuss because it's just "the Lord works in mysterious ways" except with politicians.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 10:36
|
|
|
That strawman isn't worth spending more than the five seconds it's taking me to write this post. Criticizing Obama is not automatically Trumpy politics just because Trump happens to also criticize the same man jfc
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 14:46
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:That strawman isn't worth spending more than the five seconds it's taking me to write this post. I guess that's what people mean by "populism"? Whatever - whomever you attribute it to, however you label it - I think it's wrong.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 14:54
|
|
|
I've never seen elitism combined with anti-intellectualism to quite this degree before, it's really something to behold.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 14:54
|
|
|
Falstaff posted:I've never seen elitism combined with anti-intellectualism to quite this degree before, it's really something to behold. full-on "marvel, do not think"
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 16:18
|
|
|
Look, obviously this whole politics thing is just too hard to be understood by us peons, which is why I'm definitely able to say that Obama did all he possibly could.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 16:23
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Not just the same man - the same criticism, the same idea of politics. Why don't you just stop beating around the bush and just openly call people who criticize Obama Trump supporters? It's obciously what you want. Trying to soften the impact of your stupid equivocating by dressing it up with useless rhetorical filler is just waiting everybody's time. You are also wrong.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 18:02
|
|
|
Randlr posted:Why don't you just stop beating around the bush and just openly call people who criticize Obama Trump supporters? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
my sweet, tender german boy
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
TB's ban was complete bullshit and I'm deeply disappointed by it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
A lovely Reporter posted:TB's ban was complete bullshit and I'm deeply disappointed by it. yeah totally what kind of monster permabans someone who gets banned 7 times and probated 32 times in a calendar year?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 19:33
|
|
|
self unaware posted:yeah totally what kind of monster permabans someone who gets banned 7 times and probated 32 times in a calendar year? How many reregs this year are you up to?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:How many reregs this year are you up to? 1, its not that really hard to figure out considering i name myself after my previous ban
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:No, of course not, he made a bunch for sure. The issue with this logic is it can be used to defend literally any inaction on the part of politicians. There will never come a time when you can't argue "well, X is smart and there's a plausible-sounding motivation for them not doing Y." Also, even if you assume that you're correct, the only way to possibly change the circumstances where (for example) Obama's actions were the best actions possible is to project differing public opinion that convinces politicians different ideas are possible. So even under your assumptions, it doesn't make sense to argue against people condemning Obama for inaction. If everyone said "well, I'm sure that X politician did the best that could be expected" nothing would ever change. People need to send the message that they're unsatisfied and convince politicians that doing the things they want is a better option than not doing so. Regarding Obama specifically, there are very good reasons to believe he was never particularly left-leaning politically and, even if he could do literally anything, he wouldn't pursue left-wing policies. Everything indicates that Obama genuinely appreciates and prefers things like bipartisanship and what have you. More generally speaking, I would bet money that most high level Democratic politicians genuinely like and value the opinions of liberal-leaning business executives and what have you. They fundamentally do not view, say, Democratic-voting finance CEOs as harmful or bad in any way. Cerebral Bore posted:Guys Obama only rode in on the biggest wave of public discontent since Vietnam, obviously he had zero leverage and just had to roll over and take it even on stuff that the President has full control over. Really the best he could do, pinky swear. But can you literally go back in time and somehow magically prove that he could have done things differently? Heh, didn't think so.  Cingulate posted:Well yes, but 1. he's smarter than you or I in those aspects that matter for these purposes, 2. he's probably also superior in most of the ones that don't. Being technically skilled does not imply having good judgement or ideology. I'm sure that, say, Jamie Dimon is a very intelligent person. He is also a bad person whose goals and beliefs are at odds with the well being of the American public. In Obama's case, he obviously genuinely values stupid things like bipartisanship. Like any culture, American politician culture has its share of commonly held ideas and beliefs, and many of them are stupid. edit: Also I kind of doubt the premise that Obama is even exceptionally academically smart to the extent that no one posting in this thread is comparable. Like, I would not be surprised if there are people posting here who had higher SAT scores or better grades than Obama (and it wouldn't imply they have better judgement regardless). Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 23:27 on Dec 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 23:19
|
|
|
self unaware posted:1, its not that really hard to figure out considering i name myself after my previous ban A swing and a miss
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
People crying about Obama while forgetting what it was a step up from. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 08:36
|
|
|
Ganson posted:People crying about Obama while forgetting what it was a step up from. this would be a real good point if dems weren't trying to rehabilitate gwb oh wait, no it wouldn't cause just because gwb was poo poo doesn't mean we can't criticize obama's failings Condiv fucked around with this message at 09:36 on Dec 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 09:07
|
|
|
im sure glad obama was a step up from all the executive overreaches of gwb, you know the stuff congressional obstruction couldnt get in the way of him fixing, like use of executive privilege, drone strikes, nsa surveillance, mass immigrant deporta
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 09:19
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:The issue with this logic is it can be used to defend literally any inaction on the part of politicians. There will never come a time when you can't argue "well, X is smart and there's a plausible-sounding motivation for them not doing Y." So yes, I agree he isn't particularly left leaning. But that's a different issue. My point is, there were, by necessity, a lot of people involved in each of his political acts he had to deal with, and usually, a lot of these people were not very leftist either. Ytlaya posted:Being technically skilled does not imply having good judgement or ideology. I'm sure that, say, Jamie Dimon is a very intelligent person. He is also a bad person whose goals and beliefs are at odds with the well being of the American public. In Obama's case, he obviously genuinely values stupid things like bipartisanship. Ytlaya posted:edit: Also I kind of doubt the premise that Obama is even exceptionally academically smart to the extent that no one posting in this thread is comparable. Like, I would not be surprised if there are people posting here who had higher SAT scores or better grades than Obama (and it wouldn't imply they have better judgement regardless).
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 10:38
|
|
|
Ganson posted:People crying about Obama while forgetting what it was a step up from. a step up in deportations maybe
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 16:01
|
|
|
Ganson posted:People crying about Obama while forgetting what it was a step up from. it turns out not all of us view destroying half the wealth of the black community to give to the richest Americans as something to fistpump over
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:it turns out not all of us view destroying half the wealth of the black community to give to the richest Americans as something to fistpump over It's kind of funny how you can just do a "find and replace" to that Tom Tomorrow (I think? can't remember if he did it) Reagan cartoon (the one with the people talking about how inspirational, etc, Reagan was despite the bad stuff he did) for a bunch of liberals with respect to Democratic presidents, particularly charismatic ones like Clinton or Obama. Cingulate posted:Hm, I surely shouldn't be making the point that Obama should be beyond criticism or that people who want leftist policies shouldn't demand them, and I don't think I did. What I wanted to say was, it's fair to accuse Obama of not being sufficiently leftist (he isn't very leftist, he's a moderate), but it's naive to attack him as ineffective from the position that it would have been very easy for him to enact super leftist policies. It seemingly was very hard for him to pass something as compromising as the ACA. I don't see how passing anything substantively more leftist than that would have been a cakewalk. The issue I think most people have is that he didn't even try to pass anything better or more ambitious (because, as you mentioned, he isn't actually very left-leaning ideologically). If he had visibly attempted to either pass something better (or at least talked about it in order to increase its perception as possible/"mainstream"*) I don't think most people on the left would have responded as negatively. * As we saw work quite well with Bernie Sanders and single payer, which is now viewed as plausible by many people who used to not even consider it Cingulate posted:And I agree with him on that. Sure, it might at times make you less effective in pushing through your own agenda. But if your own values include respecting those who disagree with you, then it might be consistent to compromise even if it ends up not contributing to general welfare as much. It's consistent, sure, but it's still bad and he should absolutely be faulted for it. Bipartisanship should be something you resort to when all else fails and you have no choice in order to accomplish something necessary. It shouldn't be something actively valued and sought out, at least as long as Republicans are on the other side of that equation. There is no reason to respect Republicans. That isn't a good value to have. A lot of liberal values have this privileged angle to them where the goal is for people to feel proud of their own intelligence and open-mindedness, even if the end result is worse for many people. Cingulate posted:Well he's a law professor, I think that counts as "exceptionally academically smart". Sure, he possibly couldn't get a PhD in physics. But as you say, there's also judgement, and there's dedication, and communication skills, and just broad-range ability to pick up on concepts outside your focus, which he to me appears to excel at. This should not be confused with him being insufficiently leftist, a completely different issue. Most high level politicians have a relatively high level of credentials, but being a law professor (or whatever) doesn't in any way imply being a skilled politician. A person's values/ideology can also influence their efficacy. For example, Obama's valuing of bipartisanship could have negatively impacted his ability to accomplish more (or at least set the stage for future Democratic administrations to accomplish more). Not to mention the fact that being a skilled politician has multiple aspects to it; Hillary Clinton was apparently good at making connections politically, but bad at the charisma angle (that Obama was good at). She was also a highly credentialed person, but that didn't magically give her that skill. Also, this sort of reasoning is basically circular, where you decide highly credentialed people are intelligent because they're highly credentialed. This logical framework literally doesn't allow for the possibility that incompetent people could ever become highly credentialed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
E: wrong thread
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
Edit: NM
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 21:22
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:it turns out not all of us view destroying half the wealth of the black community to give to the richest Americans as something to fistpump over I've seen this "destroying black wealth" phrase in reference to Obama a lot today and I'm not sure what it's in reference to. What should I look into to find out what that means? (This is a serious question--I'm uneducated on the topic so this is legitimately the first time I've seen this phrase as a specific policy issue.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
Harrow posted:I've seen this "destroying black wealth" phrase in reference to Obama a lot today and I'm not sure what it's in reference to. What should I look into to find out what that means? (This is a serious question--I'm uneducated on the topic so this is legitimately the first time I've seen this phrase as a specific policy issue.) The People's Policy Project (one of the few actually leftist think tanks) just released a new well researched report on the topic that's stoking conversation: http://peoplespolicyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Foreclosed.pdf quote:The Obama presidency was a disaster for middle-class wealth in the United States: Between 2007 and 2016, the average wealth of the bottom 99% decreased by $4,500. This decline was particularly concentrated among the housing wealth of African Americans. Outside of home equity, black wealth recovered its 2007 level by 2016. But average black home equity was still $16,700 less. Meanwhile, over the same period, the average wealth of the top 1% increased by $4.9 million. Much of this decline in wealth, we argue, was the direct result of policies enacted by President Obama. His housing policies, particularly regarding foreclosures, were a disastrous failure that led to millions of families losing their homes, with black families suffering especially harsh losses. What’s more, Obama had power—money, legislative tools, and legal leverage—that could have very sharply ameliorated the foreclosure crisis, if not largely prevented it. He chose not to use them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:The issue I think most people have is that he didn't even try to pass anything better or more ambitious (because, as you mentioned, he isn't actually very left-leaning ideologically). Ytlaya posted:* As we saw work quite well with Bernie Sanders and single payer, which is now viewed as plausible by many people who used to not even consider it Ytlaya posted:It's consistent, sure, but it's still bad and he should absolutely be faulted for it. Bipartisanship should be something you resort to when all else fails and you have no choice in order to accomplish something necessary. It shouldn't be something actively valued and sought out, at least as long as Republicans are on the other side of that equation. There is no reason to respect Republicans. That isn't a good value to have. A lot of liberal values have this privileged angle to them where the goal is for people to feel proud of their own intelligence and open-mindedness, even if the end result is worse for many people. Ytlaya posted:Most high level politicians have a relatively high level of credentials, but being a law professor (or whatever) doesn't in any way imply being a skilled politician. A person's values/ideology can also influence their efficacy. For example, Obama's valuing of bipartisanship could have negatively impacted his ability to accomplish more Ytlaya posted:Also, this sort of reasoning is basically circular, where you decide highly credentialed people are intelligent because they're highly credentialed. This logical framework literally doesn't allow for the possibility that incompetent people could ever become highly credentialed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 07:27 |
|
|
Harrow posted:I've seen this "destroying black wealth" phrase in reference to Obama a lot today and I'm not sure what it's in reference to. What should I look into to find out what that means? (This is a serious question--I'm uneducated on the topic so this is legitimately the first time I've seen this phrase as a specific policy issue.) https://jacobinmag.com/2017/12/obama-foreclosure-crisis-wealth-inequality Short version was that Obama's reaction to the financial crisis was set up to shore up banks, not home owners. That, coupled with lax enforcement of laws, allowed banks to foreclose, sometimes illegally, millions of homeowners. Which disproportionately affected black homeowners and substantially increased the racial wealth gap.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 22:21
|
|