Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
disco

2012 Election

Recommended Posts

I don't think that's what disco said at all. Also, I think that Obama has moved forward on his goals, just not as fast as anyone would have hoped. It's kind of funny how Republicans criticize Obama for not doing what he promised, yet they are most of the reason why he hasn't. I also would not place him low at all on my list of Presidents. He came in at a time of social unrest and a poor economy. The economy is much improved and the division between Democrats and Republicans is toning down. The next President is essentially set up to have a very productive time in office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I view Obama's terms as steps backward. There has been no progress. The U.S. is worse for the wear since he has taken office.

 

It's funny, but somehow 'democrats' continue to blame republicans for their own failures. Surely every president is judged on results, not intentions.

 

If we judged based on intentions, not results, Jimmy Carter would be the best president ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deciding if he's "worst 15" 5 years into an 8 year presidency is a stupid game and a waste of time. The conventional wisdom holds that presidents aren't judged until 10 years after they leave office, yet you judge Obama when he's 60% through his term.

 

Furthermore, you are not giving him enough credit for the things he has accomplished. ACA, even in its watered-down version, is a societal-changing bill. Social Security began as pensions for widows and soldiers, who knows if ACA will actually become what it was supposed to be (an actual public option). ACA is gigantic; Democrats have been trying to get healthcare reform passed since Kennedy. The foot is now in the door for the US, at some point down the line, to finally get a modern healthcare system which matches the rest of the world. It might not happen tomorrow, or in 5 years, but the fact that ACA exists makes it easier for future reforms to get passed.

 

Second, his management of the economy has been superb. Yes, I said it: Superb. He inherited the worst economic calamity since the Great Depression. If you want to see how well his economic policies have worked, just compare the US to Europe. Europe in 2013 is worse off relative to 2007 than Europe of 1935 was to Europe of 1929. I cite that statistic in an attempt to prove a negative - that without his politics, without the QE of the Fed (enacted, as with so many things in the Obama administration, because of Republican stupidity) the US would be in a much, much worse position. And his passage of Dodd-Frank, even in its bastardized special-interest-raped version, allows for the absolutely critical "system-wide threat" categorization which allows for oversight of any significant financial institution. That tool is going to be immensely useful for future administrations. Other successful economic policies include education reform (which allows for future reigning in of tuition costs), extension of unemployment (not only the human factor here, but economic studies have shown that every $1 in unemployment generates a high multiple in actual economic spending), and wise re-balancing of the US debt portfolio (thanks to historically-low interest rates, the US has been refinancing its long-term debt to a lower interest rate, akin to refinancing the mortgage on one's house - something which will save hundreds of billions down the road).

 

Third, he has finally begun the process of drawing down the wars in Iraq / Afghanistan. He gets credit for UBL. He also gets credit for engaging China and Russia in a multilateral way - China being especially important; they are now following the multilateral model set up by the US via the WTO and other such organizations. This is part of why he has brought back to life the idea of multilateralism, so eagerly destroyed by Bush 2 - if you set up rules for how the world works, people (and especially rising countries which desire reputation, like China and Russia) tend to follow those rules as a form of obtaining international legitimacy. Obama gets credit for handling Libya, for the US, spectacularly - no troops on the ground. He gets credit for handling the Arab Spring successfully as well. One of Bush Senior's greatest accomplishments in office was letting the former Soviet Republics declare their independence without co-opting their revolutions for press / political coverage, thereby allowing their revolutions to truly be "homegrown" and have a higher chance of success. Obama followed a similar tactic with the Arab Spring.

 

So no, he's not a Carter. Carter managed to fuck up everything. Obama inherited a completely fucked up situation and has been improving it - maybe not at the rate you'd desire, but at a rate higher than the rest of the Western world. His economic policies have been superb, and were definitely better than what McCain / Romney proposed doing. The foundations he is laying for the future via ACA, Dodd-Frank, and education reform are going to greatly benefit whoever comes after him.

 

And for every single one of these things, Republicans were there the whole time saying "no" to everything. They still rant about TARP, despite the fact that TARP turned a profit for the taxpayers. And you seriously think that the Republican party would have done better? They would have done nothing. They wanted to return to the economic policies of Mellon, who advised Herbert Hoover in 1929:

 

"liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate farmers, liquidate real estate... it will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up from less competent people."

 

The modern-day equivalent of this is "let the banks fail!" Mellon's suggestion drove the US deeper into depression, catalyzing political support for FDR who promptly reversed course upon taking office. The same scenario would have played out in the US. "Let the banks fail" would have made our Recession a Depression, and a Democrat would have gotten elected in 2012 on a radical change of course platform. 4 years would have been wasted.

 

You're just wrong if you think things today, for the US, are equivalent to things in January 2009 without improvement. And I think you're even more wrong to assume that Obama has been a failure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with nearly every single point you raised, I don't have the will to reply in a large wall of text. :-)

 

I will point out one thing, Republicans are not railing against TARP, you can stop that lie any time now.

 

Carter 2.0, with an extra term. You certainly can judge a president before 10 years, but you must continue to adjust 10 years onward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why bother asking, if all you're going to reply with is "Nope nope nope"

 

Cat, your go, since Nate is unusually silent on a political issue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no point in discussing with you disco, you still are clinging to the idea that Obama has been a great president, you're quickly entering a minority even among party faithful. Just take a look at the sinking Obama ship on Reddit, that's pretty much your demographic.

 

Anyway, it's not worth it, you immediately threw out a wall of text and everything you said was based around opinions that were easily adjusted/tweaked in response to anything I would say.

 

You say Obama's economic policy has been superb *because it could have been worse*! That's just silly and I don't even want to discuss how bad of a fallacy that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Participate in the discussion or shut up. Standing on the sidelines repeating what you've already does nothing other than make you feel good about yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not nearly as important or relevant as what has been discussed so far in this thread, but here's a story that quietly broke the news a couple of hours ago :

 

http://www.therecord.com/news-story/3854309-mps-seeking-money-from-voters-who-launched-robocalls-court-case/

 

Basically, a bunch of voters sued the Conservative government because they launched misleading robocalls before the elections. The citizens wanted to re-vote for the ridings in which this happened. The court agreed with the citizens and blamed the Conservatives, but argued that it wasn't widespread enough to warrant another vote. So the government responds by asking the citizens to pay their court fees.

 

I don't even what

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can sue political parties for voter suppression in Canada?

 

Shit, try that in the US and you'd probably end up being charged with one of those crimes that has "terrorism" somewhere in the name. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why bother asking, if all you're going to reply with is "Nope nope nope"

 

Cat, your go, since Nate is unusually silent on a political issue?

 

Are you saying that you can't come up even a single prediction or criticism about BHO by conservatives from any point in the past, including before he was elected, that turned out to be correct? Because that's what I'm getting from you, which I why I have no desire to continue with political discussions here.

 

Also, Nate is not the "only one" that posts sources. That sort of pisses me off that you said that, like when Envy accused me of not sourcing anything, when I actually source many things and am usually the only one, but he decided, hypocritically and wrongly, to call me out on it. I generally try have a least one link in every post. Not all the time, but many times.

 

You can sue political parties for voter suppression in Canada?

 

Shit, try that in the US and you'd probably end up being charged with one of those crimes that has "terrorism" somewhere in the name. 

 

Considering that voter suppression has actually happened here in the US via IRS targeting of conservative groups and the very people that would be suing are being treated nearly like terrorists.... :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you saying that you can't come up even a single prediction or criticism about BHO by conservatives from any point in the past, including before he was elected, that turned out to be correct? Because that's what I'm getting from you, which I why I have no desire to continue with political discussions here.

 

Also, Nate is not the "only one" that posts sources. That sort of pisses me off that you said that, like when Envy accused me of not sourcing anything, when I actually source many things and am usually the only one, but he decided, hypocritically and wrongly, to call me out on it. I generally try have a least one link in every post. Not all the time, but many times.

 

That's not at all what I said in my lengthy post - I included several criticisms which proved true. I still would like a list or sampling of what you see as 2008 criticisms which proved true.

 

I mocked Nate re: sources because his habit was always to ask for sources and then disagree with the ones he didn't like by googling the study and seeing what people said negative about it. In that sense, he asked for the source so that he could discredit said source and thereby discredit the argument, as opposed to asking for a source so that learning about the topic is possible. Your sources are usually worth reading, and I don't recall you arguing against scientific studies like Nate did, so my mockery doesn't apply to you at all. And besides, sources are usually not necessary here. It's not like we're doing academic research, its just some dudes sitting around BS'ing about whatever comes up.

 

Also re: voter disenfranchisement. People are suing the IRS, although it is questionable whether or not the IRS's actions constituted disenfranchisement - studying the finances of a right-wing group applying for non-profit status doesn't automatically = disenfranchisement, because you have to prove hardship on the part of the groups and you have to prove that said hardship resulted in denying the vote to people who would have otherwise voted. However, regardless, the IRS is being sued. And Justice sued many of the various states which enacted restrictive voter registration policies leading up to 2012, on the grounds that they did result in disenfranchisement. Justice won (at least until today, when an Alabama county won its attempt to overturn the part of the Civil Rights Act which Justice used to shut down their attempts to change voter registration), and the IRS suits are still coming. So yes, despite Cat's bellicose interpretation of the Tea Party being treated like terrorists (how many Tea Party activists are in Guantanamo?), it is possible to sue the US over voter enfranchisement questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disco, your sources were anything but credible scientific studies. Discrediting a dodgy source is completely legitimate. It means the foundation of your argument is propped up with bad information.

 

And just because I don't want to get into a text wall back and forth with you, doesn't mean I wouldn't like to discuss the subject.

 

It's obvious that there has been a massive shift against Obama in the last few months, more and more people are realizing just how badly they have been failed by him. I enjoy it coming full swing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that Obama's been good on the economy and excellent on foreign policy, especially compared to the catastrophic shit show that was the Bush administration. Not as good as Clinton, and Hillary deserves a lot of credit for the foreign policy, but that's not surprising. His blanket support for a surveillance state and a general erosion of civil liberties is deeply disappointing, as is the complete non-response from pretty much every member of congress (with a few notable exceptions; I don't tend to agree with Rand Paul, but I'm glad someone's fighting).

 

On an unrelated note, I'm glad that the Voting Rights Act got smacked around by the Supreme Court, because that's been an awful piece of for-appearances-only legislation for the last 20 years. Maybe now we'll get something better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not glad the Voting Rights Act got its formula destroyed. It is rather troubling that the Supreme Court sees its role as capable of judging whether a Congress-approved (in 2006) formula is valid or not. And having lived in the South for 26 years, I know full well that those fuckers will do whatever they can to discriminate, quietly, against everyone who isn't a Protestant heterosexual white person. We all saw the stories leading up to 2012 about how Florida changed the early voting hours for specific (Democratic) districts, how Pennsylvania's head of the GOP said "voter ID will win Mitt Romney this state," how Ohio reduced early voting in Democrat districts and extended them in Republican districts, etc etc. And now there's no method of federal oversight for this stupidity.

 

I get the argument against it - the formula is using data from 1972, so obviously it needs updating - but the practical implications, given this incredibly dysfunctional Congress and the fact that most of the Republicans come from the South, which would be adversely affected by a new formula, means that there's no practical way that the Voting Rights Act gets fixed, at least in this Congress.

 

In other news, DOMA ruled unconstitutional today. Court then declined to rule on Prop 8 - apparently DOMA constitutes a breach of constitutional rights regarding marriage but state limitations on marriage don't - meaning that gay marriage is now legal in California, and the federal government now has to recognize the state-passed gay marriages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/in_e-mails_texas_gopers_worried_feds_would_say_redistricting_map_diluted_hispanic_voting_power.php

 

I hadn't seen this before, but apparently in 2010-2011 various Texas Republican representatives were trying to affect their district's racial make-up, and worried that the pre-clearance required by the Voting Rights Act would prevent their attempts. Now that there's no oversight, they're free to do whatever they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×