Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Theorist
#176 Old 8th Nov 2012 at 3:10 PM
Quote: Originally posted by kiwi_tea
I find it difficult to accept that a Romney presidency would be, all in all, worse than an Obama one. After all, Obama's first term has made it look like Bush was pulling his punches throughout his entire presidency, and Obama reversed none of Bush's substantive policies at all, he expanded them further to the right than ever. I would expect Romney's presidency to be as bad.


It absolutely would have been worse. If you think Obama leans too far right, Romney IS the right. The Republican party is our right wing. Romney made it clear during the debates that:
- He would protect DOMA, and is against LGBT rights.
- He is against a woman's right to choose.
- He finds no need for legislation that promotes sexual equality in the workplace (opposed Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act).
- He thinks Obama is too diplomatic and should be more aggressive with other countries.
- He wants to reduce environmental protections and open up federally protected lands for drilling.
- He thinks the path to a stronger middle class is through a stronger upper class (trickle down).
- He wants to reduce public funding, and increase military spending.
- He wanted to cut tax breaks which help lower and middle class families like child tax credits and education credits. To make up the difference, he proposed eliminating capital gains and dividend income taxes. What lower or lower-middle class family even owns dividend-paying stocks or stocks at all for that matter?

Then consider the Republican party as a whole, they have members that clearly do not believe in separation of church and state (Huckabee), believe that women cannot become pregnant from "legitimate" rape (Akin), and if a woman becomes pregnant from a rape, it's "god's will" (Mourdock). Let's not forget that the party as a whole is against consumer protection laws, regulating corporations, gun control, immigration, entitlements like social security and medicare, and wants to privatize everything. If your beliefs are on the left, I can understand not being completely happy with the guy who only leans left, but you don't vote for the guy on the right, that doesn't make any sense.

Quote: Originally posted by RoseCity
I agree - if there are two candidates and one serves you half a shit sandwich and the other one serves you a whole, you should choose the half sandwich. What I don't understand is this whole thing - yay Obama won! - that you have to eat the half sandwich and also say how great it tastes, so much better than the whole one. And I have no way to know now if Romney would even have been worse.


The better candidate won, and that's enough to make me happy. No politician can please 100% of people 100% of the time, because all of his/her constituents have different views. Politics is all about compromise. And yes, I have no doubt with the concerns you mentioned earlier, you would have found Romney to be worse.

Kiwi - aren't you living in New Zealand? If so, I don't think you fully understand the political demographics of the US. People on MTS that represent the US are very left-leaning, myself included. However, this is NOT an accurate representation of the US as a whole. Most Americans are moderates, but we also have a great deal of the country which leans far-right. They hold onto their beliefs quite fiercely, are extremely outspoken, and have access to a great deal of money. The only developed countries more conservative than the US are probably all in the Middle East. A party even more liberal than the Democratic party simply could not thrive here as it might in other countries. The only way we've ever managed to get a left-leaning president into office is when they've appeared to the American people to be more moderate. I do believe this will change over time as the population as a whole becomes more progressive, less religious, and less conservative, but this kind of change will probably take a very long time. As a whole, America is a very conservative place and any politician that wants to be elected to office has to appeal to a majority of the people, not small minorities.

Resident wet blanket.
Advertisement
Retired
retired moderator
#177 Old 8th Nov 2012 at 3:59 PM Last edited by kiwi_tea : 8th Nov 2012 at 5:50 PM.
My point is that both the Democrats and the Republicans have, for many, many decades, been stripping away the basic employment and wage rights won in the revolutionary struggles of the early 20th century. They both have the same sorts of economic goals, but differ mostly in how to implement them - the Democrats are into trickle-down economics just as are the Republicans, that's why they too focus first and foremost on putting more money into wealthy hands.

Sure, the Republicans are anti-science, anti-women, anti-gay. So are Democrats, because scientists, women, and gay people work for a living, and under the Democrats their rights are being stripped - not just their right to wage and work benefits, but their rights to privacy and even to a trial through a justice system. Heck, their right not to be tortured and killed by their government!

Wages are going down. Even during the brief years between deepening and deepening economic crises, when wages are climbing they are climbing well below inflation. What this means is that most people - the bottom 90% - are getting poorer all the time, even when business and the economy is booming. The nationalistic unions collaborate happily enough in this race to the bottom because if wages don't go down then jobs just go overseas to China or India, America is not immune to the *global* market. The trade union officials are well-heeled, in many cases they're positively privileged, too busy sipping chardonnay to help actual workers by organising a *serious* fight to improve conditions. Workers struggles are, if anything, a threat to the trade union bureaucracy, that's pretty much exactly why union membership is so anaemic, and why the unions roll over at nearly every opportunity. With costs of living climbing and climbing and more social institutions being dismantled to pay for the bailouts of the banks and the quickening transferal of public wealth and resources into a relatively few private hands, the US is well on its way towards a dystopic situation. And not just the US, the same thing is happening globally, hence the European riots of late, hence the failed revolutions in the Middle East, hence the failed Occupy movement - all of which lacked any coherent political leadership, but were reactions to the same right-wing social pressures. If you can't see that this situation is unsustainable - that getting emotionally invested in a party that is attacking you and everyone around you is not very sensible - you'll just be a cork on the ocean of civil unrest that washes the Democratic party to its inevitable death.

The only option is to build alternatives, and build them before it is too late.

Edit: And Obama doesn't "lean left". Heck, he doesn't "lean" right. He sits firmly on the hard right. You don't get to cut public services, reduce taxes on the wealthy, dismantle and weaken a shitload of constitutional rights including the right not be killed without a trial - killed! mind you - and then get to call yourself "left" or "centrist". And stop talking like you're in a democracy and there needs to be some sort of public mandate for your government to do something. The US government does pretty much whatever competing strains of business lobbyists demand of it, voting population be damned or deceived. Ask a working American what they actually want in basic terms - confused political affiliations aside - and it's pretty much all the things Obama or Romney are taking away. Nobody wants to be jobless, or grossly underpaid, without access to healthcare, without adequate nutrition, and for all that to be getting worse.

CAW Wiki - A wiki for CAW users. Feel free to edit.

GON OUT, BACKSON, BISY BACKSON
transmogrified
retired moderator
#178 Old 8th Nov 2012 at 5:59 PM
Quote: Originally posted by kiwi_tea
Edit: And Obama doesn't "lean left". Heck, he doesn't "lean" right. He sits firmly on the hard right.


Clearly he sits firmly on your hard right. However, it seems like you're not listening to GnatGoSplat at all. In the U.S. political spectrum, the Democratic platform is the electable left-leaning platform. Go significantly lefter than that and a national candidate cannot appeal to enough of the voters to win the office. You're smart and informed. I know you can read both our electoral map and the popular votes. The United States is not one nation undivided on economic and social issues.

Does our de facto two-party system need to be overhauled? Absolutely. The problem is, the faction that blinks -- whether the right fields someone more conservative than the Republican candidate or the left fields someone more liberal than the Democratic candidate -- hands the election to the faction that didn't split their votes.
Retired
retired moderator
#179 Old 8th Nov 2012 at 6:10 PM Last edited by kiwi_tea : 8th Nov 2012 at 10:39 PM. Reason: typo
Except in the midst of a growing social crisis, as is happening now and in the immediate future, with no sign of any real recovery - certainly some of the biggest losses, the public revenue squandered on the bank executives, the cuts to healthcare, will never be returned in the better days if they are to come - the minor parties start coming into the fore. That is exactly why the openly fascist and racist Golden Dawn party in Greece has gone from nearly no support to a dangerously significant player, likewise in Greece the lunatic pseudo-lefts in Syriza which almost made it to government. And their two big parties, the parties everyone acted as though they'd never die, are either dead or fighting for survival. There's no way to rule out such a scenario in the States, the poverty there is already so deep, worsening and spreading, and if people aren't building smaller parties now that offer genuine left alternatives (I have a horse in this race, but won't start promoting it as an example in case it breaks rules or seems unseemly) then there is a real risk of fascist America. I mean, come on, someone might be unwise enough to trust Obama with the right to kill innocent US citizens without so much as a trial - a right he is using, and repeatedly defending through the courts while smearing the families of victims - but do you trust every person who takes that helm with the right Obama has established?

It's a right that explodes one of the most basic fundaments of the US Constitution.

Edit: And I'd dispute the idea that the Democrats are specifically the electable "left". The two parties have collaborated, as you yourself observe, to ensure that even getting another party on the ballot is near impossible, requiring millions of signatures and millions of dollars *just to get on the ballot*. On top of that, they have the major factions of media in their pockets. It's all very undemocratic. Who could be elected if the process were not so prohibitive to alternatives, that's a good question, but everyone I know who votes Dem identifies them openly as a "lesser evil", not as "Fuck yeah the Democrats are such a progressive party", and they are pretty much casting votes not *for* the Dems, but rather *against* the Republicans. I think that would imply many Dem voters are considerably left of the Dems whether they themselves are capable of identifying that fact or not. And let's not forget a HUGE number of US voters, most of them on the left, many of them young, don't even see any point in bothering to vote at all, cos let's face it, it's not like they'll really get anything out of it.

Though to be fair, I imagine most Americans, Dem or Republican, are left enough on constitutional issues that they don't want their government to be allowed to search their homes without warrants, intercept their correspondences, torture them, and finally kill them with impugnity if they accidentally or intentionally stand in the way of its imperialist plans or blow the whistle on the government's illegal activities. Edit: Or if they're US-born but their family is Pakistani and they visit that country and are seen by US operatives carrying a shovel down the street and Obama's assassination programme deems that reason enough to drop a bomb on them with an unmanned drone, killing them and lots of equally innocent people nearby. You know. That sort of thing. People generally frown upon it if it is drawn to their attention. Moreso when they learn Obama's programme generally drops a follow up bomb to kill any rescuers that come to the scene, an act the US government used to use in their official definitions of what constituted terrorism.

CAW Wiki - A wiki for CAW users. Feel free to edit.

GON OUT, BACKSON, BISY BACKSON
Theorist
#180 Old 8th Nov 2012 at 8:44 PM
Actually, that's not true. I don't recall every party whose candidates were on the ballot, but I believe the Libertarian Party, Constitution Party, Green Party, and Justice Party all had a candidate on it.

I believe the Green Party does lean further left than Democrats, but they are far left enough that they're unable to appeal to enough voters to be electable. As Mangaroo mentioned, this is a country very divided. As it is, 48.4% of American voters already believe Obama leans too far to the left. In the US, "socialism" is a pejorative. Brand anything as "socialist", and people panic, they become outraged. It's considered "un-American". That's why Obama got a lot of opposition to "Obamacare", which isn't even as radical of a departure from status quo when comparing it to the universal health care system that virtually every other developed country offers. Your American friends may have been open-minded to a candidate that leans more to the left than Obama, but that view does not reflect the whole of America. Remember, this is the country that put George W. Bush in office twice.

Just how far right does America lean? Take a look at the two alternative political parties that are gaining traction in the US. The 3rd largest party in the US, albeit, a distant 3rd, is the Libertarian party. They are very liberal on social issues, but take a hard-right stance on economic issues and government involvement. The 4th largest party is the Constitution Party. They are in the far right on everything, and make Republicans look liberal. Americans in general are just very right-leaning people, and no electable politician is going to stray very far from the will of the majority if they want to keep their job.

How do most Americans feel about the drone strikes? The majority approves.
"But regardless of the harm that drone strikes inflict upon those living in countries including Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, most Americans – including 72 percent of Republicans – support the targeted-killing initiative."
http://rt.com/usa/news/drone-strikes-pew-cia-603/

Like I said, the country as a whole is too right-leaning to support any politician that leans any further left than Obama.

Resident wet blanket.
Retired
retired moderator
#181 Old 8th Nov 2012 at 9:00 PM Last edited by kiwi_tea : 9th Nov 2012 at 1:53 PM.
Quote:
Actually, that's not true. I don't recall every party whose candidates were on the ballot, but I believe the Libertarian Party, Constitution Party, Green Party, and Justice Party all had a candidate on it.

All backed by deep pockets, of course. You still have to be incredibly rich and be in good with corporate backers. There is no room for anyone who doesn't represent the interests of profitability first and foremost.

Quite a few of my American friends are evangelical Christians (yes, the friendships are tense at times), without particularly good educations. Notably, this has made them considerably less fearful of left ideas than the rarer educated types, albeit they're generally pretty impressionable people. I know one or two who are committed Republicans, but most I know hold their political views pretty lightly. Mostly they feel they are out of their depth, so side with the Republicans by default, tossing out a few defensive cliches. Most of the Republicans I know in person, though socially conservative, really aren't very right-wing, though there are one or two that really are - generally the more educated, Ron Paul-types.

Edit: And doesn't it say something about the sheer unpopularity of the platforms of both parties that they have so much control but still feel they need to lie about or conceal from the American public pretty much every legislative decision that they make and its context? I mean, how many of those in that poll genuinely believe the propaganda that Obama is bombing terrorists, and not just ordinary citizens who look a bit suspicious according to a US militant's subjective judgement? How many know Obama is killing rescuers? I mean, how many Americans in that poll genuinely believe the propaganda that the US's wars of aggression in the Middle East are actually about fighting terrorists, rather than securing US economic interests, installing sympathetic regimes, and putting a military encirclement around China? (they're not just suddenly putting a very large number of warships into the South China Sea for nothing, either, after all.)

Edit: Okay, Pew Research is often excellent, and generally I trust their methodology, but their report on their site implies they asked "About six-in-ten Americans (62%) approve of the U.S. government's drone campaign targeting extremist leaders and groups in nations such as Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia." Gee. I wonder why Americans support a campaign "targeting extremists leaders"? If that is the question they asked then its content is completely misleading. That question implies to respondents that Obama's drone campaign is targeting and killing known terrorists. In so many cases, that's not the truth.

Edit: In the light of a new day it also strikes me that Obama campaigned, and won his first sweeping victory, on a campaign that promised he would be bringing change, and hope, and would be making things better in all sorts of not-very-specific left-esque ways. Now this was all a very sleazy and non-committal set of lies, but it's notable that he got a significantly larger mandate to power when he pretended to be on the left. People were excited. Millions imagined it was a fresh new day. People who would never normally vote voted. Life-long Republicans switched sides, and unshockingly many prominent right-wing talking heads who switched in protest against the Republicans' anti-intellectual platform have remained on Obama's side because Obama's administration has done nothing to alienate them. Obama's total vote count, now that his right-wing record rules out the more blatantly untrue insinuations that he originally campaigned on, fell from 69.5 million in 2008 to 60.5 million in 2012. It is very rare for any presidential candidate in history to receive a lower mandate for their second term, even George W Bush didn't suffer that, boosting his support for a second term 12 million over his first. And I think it's safe to say Bush is the most hated US president in history. 9 million seems to be a big drop in support for Obama, and general turnout seems to have dropped very significantly as well, and this has all happened not as Obama has demonstrated his commitment to being a "scary" leftist - which in faking got him a huge initial mandate - but as he has demonstrated he is willing to be further to the right than Bush.

Edit: And I recognise how condescending that talk about the Republicans I know sounds, but don't really know how to put it more delicately. I mean, I have friends who very clearly don't know very much about their own country's history, let alone the world outside the US. They don't even believe in studying the Bible with any historical depth, let alone politics and science, because they've been taught that faith is its own ends and that the text is exactly as God intended it to be. They react against certain phrases and words - socialism, etc - but can only give a very disjointed, misinformed definition of socialism if you asked them. My point is they're not right-wing ideologues, as anti-gay and pro-life as they might be, and most of them are shocked, conflicted, and distressed to consider the implications of some of their own views, though they're definitely emotionally partisan. I don't blame people for being lied to and lied to and lied to and exploited.

CAW Wiki - A wiki for CAW users. Feel free to edit.

GON OUT, BACKSON, BISY BACKSON
Theorist
#182 Old 9th Nov 2012 at 3:57 PM
I applaud your idealism, and in many ways, I do wish the US were more like New Zealand. However, the majority of Americans simply do not share your views, and it takes a majority for a politican to win an election.
Obama may fall on your hard right, but by US standards, he is on the left - and 48% of Americans would tell you - too far to the left.

Your American friends may be impressionable or hold their political views pretty lightly, but I assure you, that's not the case with many Americans. There is a growing group of conservatives who hold their views with great ferocity. Many of these people are white and male. It's a group large enough that we have the stereotype of the Angry White Male. They hold tightly to their guns and religion. In fact, white males were the largest demographic of Romney votes. I've heard people that fit this group call Muslims "towel heads" and say things like, "we should bomb them all and let god sort 'em out". So no, I don't believe civilian casualties resulting from drone attacks are big concern to them or most right leaning people for that matter, which is why 72% of people identifying as Republicans supported drone strikes vs 62% of Americans in general.
If you want to see just how fiercely these people hold onto their beliefs, just read some of the comments on Yahoo News articles dealing with US politics or anything where a gun is involved. Also try Googling "libtards", it's what a lot of conservatives call people like me who lean left. You will see through their vitriol that a great deal of American conservatives do not hold onto their beliefs lightly.

Just how far to the right do Americans fall?
51% say Obama is too far to the left as of Feb 2012. However, 4-years earlier, only 37% of Americans thought Obama was too far to the left. This means the same decisions and policies that made you think he is too far to the right, made more Americans think he is too far to the left. In fact, only 10% of Americans would agree with you that Obama is too conservative!
http://www.gallup.com/poll/152954/h...ree-issues.aspx

Not about Obama specifically, but here's how the average American falls:
"Gallup/USA Today polling in June 2010 revealed that 42% of those surveyed identify as conservative, 35% as moderate, while 20% identify as liberal."
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politi...ological_groups

Liberals are the smallest group in the US, and your views fall further left than the average American liberal.

Compared to New Zealand?
"The New Zealand political sphere has no strong conservative representation and the right, like Australia, are centre-right. The New Zealand National Party won the 2008 elections and are traditionally considered to be a right leaning party however their policies would be considered more liberal than Barack Obama's. While there is economic conservatism, social conservatism is almost unheard of, until the shit hits the fan." - http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservative#New_Zealand

Your right leaning party is more liberal than Obama, yet 51% of Americans think Obama is too liberal. Your entire country seems to fall far more to the left than the US, and therefore your point of reference differs. The people of the US are just very different from the people of NZ. Your views may be mainstream in NZ, but in the US, you'd be seen as the extreme left.

Given the beliefs and ideologies of the majority of people in the US, I think were were damn lucky that we were able to get a left-leaning president all all, rather than one who would have pushed the country further to the right than it already is.

Oh, not sure what right-wing talking heads you're talking about. All the ones I'm aware of, Limbaugh, Beck, O'Reilly, Coulter, they all still hate Obama and consider him a left-wing socialist.

Resident wet blanket.
Retired
retired moderator
#183 Old 9th Nov 2012 at 4:53 PM Last edited by kiwi_tea : 9th Nov 2012 at 9:09 PM.
I understand what you are saying about my point of reference, and I accept your figures, but I don't think you understand what I am saying about history. When people desert the Republicans and Democrats out of sheer desperation, as circumstances force their hand, history suggests it will happen very swiftly - potentially over a matter of months - and also against a tide of predictions that it will never happen at all. Much less than a decade ago, you could produce the same sorts of figures suggesting Greece's population was so right-wing there'd never, ever, ever be mass support for a party like Syriza (or, contrariwise, far enough to the left that Golden Dawn would never be hitting 20% in some neighbourhoods and c. 5% across Athens). The shift to either the right, and fascism, or the left, and socialism (or vain attempts to make capitalism less like capitalism), will be a horrific and dangerous jolt if nobody has done any work to prevent the former from filling the gap.

Edit: Though it's not usually the population that shifts to the right during a social crisis, historically the general public usually goes dramatically left, seeking housing, food, healthcare, voting rights, etc, all the things they'd lost. Fascism gets its purchase by having a special appeal to a small but dangerous faction of the populous: The police and certain bureaucrats. That's exactly what is happening in Greece, where Golden Dawn is finding its support especially among police officers, and there is already evidence the police are aiding and covering up attacks on immigrants. It would be sheer, blinkered idiocy to imagine that America and other declining, increasingly poverty-stricken nations - the UK, Australia given a few decades and a burst Chinese housing bubble - are immune to these risks.

CAW Wiki - A wiki for CAW users. Feel free to edit.

GON OUT, BACKSON, BISY BACKSON
Mad Poster
#184 Old 14th Apr 2013 at 1:33 AM
Can't believe the whole thing with Obama offering the CPI change for Social Security in his budget.
1) Social Security doesn't add to the deficit. It is a separate fund. So why was it even included in his budget? The government has borrowed 2.75 trillion from the fund, then has the gall to tell us that we're spongers.
2) I read somewhere that someone in the administration was saying that it was offered to show how uncooperative the Republicans are. If you offer something, don't you have to be prepared to give it? What a brilliant wheeler dealer he is. Now the Republicans can have their cake while declaring him a hater of seniors - and I guess they're right.
3) The fund (empty as it may be, thanks to our government) doesn't belong to him - it belongs to all of us.
4) Before the election people were explaining his behavior during his first term as 'he had to do all that so he'd be reelected. Things will be different in the second term.' I'm waiting, but so far I'm not seeing it.
Forum Resident
#185 Old 14th Apr 2013 at 10:09 PM
Actually now that the republicans have rejected the entire budget. He no longer has to offer it. It was a political gamble to get the republicans to sit down with him to discuss the budget. Now that the republican/tea party has shown that it is not willing to work with President Obama. The democrats can use that fact in the coming elections. Watch as many do so in their elections as they paint the republican/tea party as extremists. It also frees President Obama from having to try to hard to get House Speaker Boehner to sit down and talk.

Though yes he will continue to try to work with the House Speaker. He is going to let the republican/tea party walk off the cliff like a bunch of lemmings as the party as a whole has chosen to do. The President and the democrats can make the argument that the only ones continuing the Sequester is the extremist republican/tea party.

While it may have looked like a tactical blunder. It is really a strategic win for President Obama and the democrats. That is my opinion and observation of as political junky.
Mad Poster
#186 Old 15th Apr 2013 at 5:18 AM
The big thing with the Republicans is supposedly deficit reduction. From my perspective, if you were the progressive person Obama claims to be, you would show the courage of your supposed convictions and say 'you know what, I don't think deficit reduction is terribly important in this time of unemployment.' and let the Republicans reject that budget. Why would you offer them something that will hurt seniors and doesn't even contribute to the deficit that you're trying to reduce. If they reject that, it looks good for them not him.
Back in 2008 he said he would never cut Social Security cost of living increases, but that was then. And I think he did say that he wouldn't accept the changes if the seniors receiving the least money weren't protected. But I wouldn't count on that - has the dude ever vetoed anything?
Theorist
#187 Old 15th Apr 2013 at 7:12 PM
Quote: Originally posted by RoseCity
The big thing with the Republicans is supposedly deficit reduction.

The big thing Republicans say they're for now is deficit reduction. Historically they're bigger spenders than Democrats. Worse for them, they say they're against "entitlements" in the form of Social Security, but their largest voting bloc demographic is Seniors. That's why it's a trap:

Vote in support of this thing that has the bits in that you say are terribly important and you destroy a trusted voting bloc.

Vote against it and everyone sees that you're full of shit, and you lose all of the rest of the voting blocs.

Quote: Originally posted by RoseCity
Back in 2008 he said he would never cut Social Security cost of living increases, but that was then.


And this is now and he still hasn't cut them. Since I don't think the Republicans are budging from their non-position of obstruction, I think it's safe to say he's clearly got the upper hand of not having to actually support anything in practice.

Quote: Originally posted by RoseCity
But I wouldn't count on that - has the dude ever vetoed anything?


When has he had to? So very little legislation has been passed with this Congress that he's really not had much to do except try to run the country through executive orders. The Republicans have painted themselves into a corner kowtowing to the extremists inside and outside their party.

Obama doesn't have to please anyone now. He's not going to run for any more offices, everything he does now is either long term Democratic planning, "to promote a legacy," or just something he feels is the right thing to do. I think it's pretty clear that his "budget" is exactly the first thing with some tones of the middle one - this is the moment in history where we should start swinging the Republican party back to the center and casting off the nutjobs again. Then everyone can go back to worrying whether Democrats are "left enough" or whether people in Congress are merely corrupt as opposed to functionally insane or categorically dangerous.

To force that swing is going to require a lot of constant pressure from Democrats. There's a lot of money supporting the other side, and a lot of people who have to admit they were wrong or at least be shown a path to take where they "fix the Democrats" but actually do what most Democrats want them to do.

For instance, if Republicans took this budget and just took out the Senior enraging Social Security parts? It's Obama's bill. That's the one he's been calling for all along. And since he's a lame duck he can even stand up and afford to argue at them if they try to do that, and force them to argue in support of "entitlements."

That takes the wind out of so many sails of the Republican deficit hawk platform that it's not funny, and the whole time Obama could be sitting on the notion that if they bite the bait too hard he could just veto the bill even though he proposed it (and then tack on a "I put this in hoping it wouldn't come to this..." message to the American people later on.)

I wish the Obama that campaigns was the same Obama that sits as President mostly because the other Obama has a lot more charismatic focus. But Obama the President has a lot of good things going for him and chiefest among them is that he's an excellent hand at cards. A lot of Presidents in the past, I'd probably use a poker analogy. Reagan and Clinton, for instance, were good at bluffing, table talk. But Obama's clearly a gin or canasta sort of guy instead - his political game is to maneuver his opponents into a position of weakness then strike. His opponents right now won't even come to the table, so he's maneuvering them to the table so he can force them to eat the poisoned meat or admit refusal and thus admit intention for offense. It's not terribly up front, less Caesar and more Titus.

Honestly, I'm glad Cheney's been tossed out of the Republican inner circles. I think that guy plays a similar sort of politics, just with a less likeable mug and scruples. Obama's working a long game, because if you get what you wanted in the end it doesn't matter what you proposed at first. Supporting your principles to the detriment of those principles isn't a principled stand - it's just stupid. You go for the plan that you think will get you what you want in the end, even if you're doing things that don't seem to support that goal along the way.
Lab Assistant
#188 Old 8th Feb 2014 at 7:07 PM
I know this thread has not received a reply in approximately 9 months but it is still relevant.
1. The USA should stay out of the Middle East. The Middle East is in such a bad state because Britain, France, and the USA have been mucking around there for approximately a century.
2. I think that NYC's Hot Spot style of policing should be used in more cities.
3. I believe that low-rent subsidized apartments should be made available to more people. Free housing should be spartan apartments or dorms with bolted down beds. Low-income housing should cost a token $1-10 a month and be slightly nicer. Subsidized apartments for families should be relatively nice and cost 10% of the household's income or slightly less. All major cities should build these in their metropolitan areas.
4. I believe that the minimum wage should be raised by the national US government by at least a small amount but also add some sort of Nutrition Credits. Nutrition Credits would be used to buy nutritious food, such as vegetables or meal-replacement products. Every grocery store should sell at least one of each food group that can be purchased with Nutrition Credits alone. This might be dried brown rice, dried beans, or canned or frozen fruits or vegetables. Nutrition Credits would not be taxed. However, food with no good nutrition (such as ramen, chips, or candy) should be subject to national and state sales taxes. I also think that luxury vehicles (such as those with under 30 mpg) should be subject to a national sales tax.
5. I believe that everyone deserves a proper education through at least high school. Those that are capable should be allowed to exercise their creativity and intellect in a positive manner that prepares them for the outside world. Vocational training should once again be taught in high schools of every district (even if it is just one high school in some districts).
6. I think that the Death Penalty should not be allowed to apply to as many crimes as it does now in some states. It should be reserved for when a proven murderer has committed multiple counts of Murder 1. If truly proven beyond a reasonable doubt with eyewitnesses and DNA and he either shows no remorse or is proven impossible to be reformed, there should be no appeals by him (if new evidence miraculously proves him innocent, then a lawyer should be allowed to present this new evidence). It should be carried out quickly and painlessly. I hear Atmospheric pressure and comfortable temperature Nitrogen is not a bad way to go.
7. Cannabis and LSD should not be Schedule I controlled substances. Schedule II seems OK to me. Neither are particularly addictive.
8. I am not a giant fan of late term abortions but I believe that contraception (including Plan B) should be available to most everyone without prescription. Abortion Pills should be available with prescription. Late term abortions should be allowed when the fetus is not viable and birth will put the mother's life in danger.
9. Health-Care costs in the USA should be lowered. More students should be encouraged to enter the medical field. High paying medical and engineering fields have barely any women in them. This is the main reason why on average, women earn 77% as much as men.
10. Coal and Oil Power Plants should be shut down and replaced with renewables and Generation IV Nuclear Power Plants. All Generation I and II Nuclear Power Plants should be decommissioned and the more dangerous of the Generation III Nuclear Power Plants should also be decommissioned.

--Ocram

Always do your best.
Top Secret Researcher
#189 Old 9th Feb 2014 at 5:48 PM
Quote: Originally posted by AzemOcram
9. Health-Care costs in the USA should be lowered. More students should be encouraged to enter the medical field. High paying medical and engineering fields have barely any women in them. This is the main reason why on average, women earn 77% as much as men.


No. The 77% statistic is for men and women within the same field. Two workers, with everything being equal but who have different genders, will have a wide difference in pay, which usually works out to 77 cents per the guy's dollar. Encouraging women to change fields won't solve the problem, because the overall problem will still exist in another field.
Lab Assistant
#190 Old 9th Feb 2014 at 5:55 PM
Quote: Originally posted by hugbug993
No. The 77% statistic is for men and women within the same field. Two workers, with everything being equal but who have different genders, will have a wide difference in pay, which usually works out to 77 cents per the guy's dollar. Encouraging women to change fields won't solve the problem, because the overall problem will still exist in another field.

No, I am correct: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...y-than-men.html
In the same field, the difference is 1-5%, not 23%.
I have posted only one link, I can post more.

--Ocram

Always do your best.
Test Subject
#191 Old 16th Nov 2014 at 11:27 PM
I know that this thread hasn't gotten any posts for 9 months but I was just going to bring up the topic of immigration.

Obama could not have won without the Latino vote, just fact. He won off of a lie. He hasn't done what he promised Latinos: immigration reform. Our immigration system is broken. Families are being split up because of deportation, there's a new thing called "beaner hopping", etc.

I'm not saying that I hate Obama or anything but I was wondering what other people thought about these issues.
Instructor
#192 Old 21st Nov 2014 at 4:30 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Jambo3231
I know that this thread hasn't gotten any posts for 9 months but I was just going to bring up the topic of immigration.

Obama could not have won without the Latino vote, just fact. He won off of a lie. He hasn't done what he promised Latinos: immigration reform. Our immigration system is broken. Families are being split up because of deportation, there's a new thing called "beaner hopping", etc.

I'm not saying that I hate Obama or anything but I was wondering what other people thought about these issues.


This dipshit interrupted my tv show with his press conference
Supposedly he's not deporting illegals who have been here unless they are criminals and as long as they agree to pay taxes.
he will make it even harder for new illegals to come into the US
Supposedly, the illegals who have been here for 5years+ with children can get green cards and are safe or whatever
And he says, since now all those who have been "hiding" can go out and work normal jobs and go to school like everyone else, he promises this will not basically cause issues for those of us Americans and Legal immigrants to find and hold jobs with now more "competition" of the millions of illegals living in each state who got paid under the table jobs, now those with children will probably hop on Welfare and SNAP.

Just as long as they pay taxes...

I'm not sure how I feel about this but, then again it would be impossible and unkind to hunt down illegals and shipping them back to the motherland.
So looks like this is the only option, lets see what Congress thinks about this...

Peace, Harmony & Balance... Libra is Love..
Mad Poster
#193 Old 25th Nov 2014 at 6:05 PM
Quote: Originally posted by frenchyxo22
This dipshit interrupted my tv show with his press conference
Supposedly he's not deporting illegals who have been here unless they are criminals and as long as they agree to pay taxes.
he will make it even harder for new illegals to come into the US
Supposedly, the illegals who have been here for 5years+ with children can get green cards and are safe or whatever
..


The green cards are temporary - up to 3 years, I think - and don't contain any special privileges for the holders like fast track to permanent resident or citizenship. Just a stopgap I guess to keep parents from being deported away from their citizen children until Obama isn't president anymore.
Some Republicans like Mitch McConnell don't like to deal with this issue in general because their constituencies are so anti-immigrant and they only care about getting reelected. And then there's the whole fun thing of Republicans in Congress not wanting to do anything at all to spite BObama.
Lab Assistant
#194 Old 25th Nov 2014 at 7:19 PM
I don't like tearing apart families. However, I think it makes sense for whole families of undocumented immigrants (with non-citizen children) to be deported together. Sometimes these families get to stay in the USA because their children get DACA status.

--Ocram

Always do your best.
Test Subject
#195 Old 12th Dec 2014 at 5:14 AM
what do you all think about the US torture secrets that came out
Guest
#196 Old 14th Jan 2015 at 3:12 AM
Quote: Originally posted by o0bubby
what do you all think about the US torture secrets that came out


It wasn't much of a secret. VP Cheney was bragging about it.
Lab Assistant
#197 Old 16th Apr 2015 at 1:01 AM
The 2016 election season is starting (the presidential election season seems to start earlier each time). Hilary Clinton seems to be the Democratic candidate with the greatest probability of running on the ticket. The Republicans have several candidates and none of them have much popularity. That is a shame because I would never vote for Hilary Clinton after her track record. She is similar to Obama but worse. Most people noticed that in 2008. If a good Republican candidate runs (I will have to thoroughly check their positions on the dozen issues I care about), I might vote Republican for the first or second time in my life, otherwise, I will vote for a 3rd Party.

--Ocram

Always do your best.
Theorist
#198 Old 16th Apr 2015 at 3:09 PM
I will vote for the Democrat just as a vote against Republicans. Last thing this country needs is another Republican president. We're back-asswards enough as it is.

Actually, I like Hillary. The Benghazi issue looks to me more like political posturing on the Republican's side and I think the whole email issue is blown out of proportion. Granted, I haven't been following Benghazi or Clinton's email in any more detail than what's presented in the evening news. My main concern with Hillary is that these issues, although they don't affect my opinion of her, may have tarnished her image with undecided and moderate voters. As a result, I'm concerned about whether or not she could beat the Republican candidate.

Resident wet blanket.
Top Secret Researcher
#199 Old 16th Apr 2015 at 6:58 PM
Clinton has a pretty good campaign this year. Have you seen the video? She's at least making an effort to appeal to the voters by telling them she cares about the people. That's far better than her 2008 campaign slogan - "I'm in it to win it".

I think she could win a lot of the people who voted Obama in.
Instructor
#200 Old 18th Apr 2015 at 3:52 PM
Quote: Originally posted by hugbug993
Clinton has a pretty good campaign this year. Have you seen the video? She's at least making an effort to appeal to the voters by telling them she cares about the people. That's far better than her 2008 campaign slogan - "I'm in it to win it".

I think she could win a lot of the people who voted Obama in.


Well Duh

Peace, Harmony & Balance... Libra is Love..
 
Page 8 of 9
Back to top