Jump to content

~*The Official Thread of One Term/Twice Impeached/Worst of Them All Presidential Tantrums, Candy Throwing, and Pants Shitting*~


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said:

Clinton was an obviously flawed candidate in a few key ways, but section interference was a real thing and she won the popular vote. The retcon of her into the worst candidate ever is... weird. 

It's like an objective major loser like McGovern never happened.

 

All this blame for "who is responsible for Trump" is really absolving the people who actually voted for this piece of shit of agency in the matter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

I'm not saying Obama was perfect.  I'm saying that blaming him for Trump when he left the country in far better shape than he found it despite constant Republican opposition and unprecedented levels of disrespect and undermining. Thinking that the first black President in this country could follow a Progressive agenda without being accused by the Right of being a Socialist who wants to take guns and food from white people and give them to minorities displays an incredible lack of understanding about how racial politics work in this country.

 

Trump won because White America panicked and thought the country was changing too fast and they would lose their privaledged position. That's why Trump won. Only another White man, MAYBE could have beaten him and no I don't count Bernie.

Ultimately you know who is responsible for Trump? The American Electorate.

 

I can blame a number of factors at the same time, and that includes Obama and the American electorate, which is why I emphasize "in part" constantly. Obama did a lot - especially given the Herculean task the Bush administration left him at the time. But he still did a lot of things wrong, especially at the end, and I do hold him responsible for that part in this absolute clusterfuck of a situation we have now.

 

Obviously, I blame Trump himself first and foremost. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said:

Clinton was an obviously flawed candidate in a few key ways, but section interference was a real thing and she won the popular vote. The retcon of her into the worst candidate ever is... weird. 

 

Most unpopular candidate, perhaps not "worst" in an objective sense. In fact, I found Hillary Clinton very qualified for the position, despite my disagreements with her. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

It's like an objective major loser like McGovern never happened.

 

All this blame for "who is responsible for Trump" is really absolving the people who actually voted for this piece of shit of agency in the matter

 

That's because, sadly, the most taboo thing in American politics is criticizing the electorate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, osxmatt said:

 

That's because, sadly, the most taboo thing in American politics is criticizing the electorate.

It's not ok for a candidate. Us normal folks it's more than fine. It's why one of the dumbest things Hillary said (and not to harp on 2016 much longer) was her "deplorable" comment, no matter how true it was and still is.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

It's like an objective major loser like McGovern never happened.

 

All this blame for "who is responsible for Trump" is really absolving the people who actually voted for this piece of shit of agency in the matter

 

5 minutes ago, osxmatt said:

 

That's because, sadly, the most taboo thing in American politics is criticizing the electorate.

 

In no way am I absolving the American electorate by saying that Obama played a role in Trump's ascendancy and presidency due to his negligence and lack of resolve. That's flatly true. I didn't say he played the biggest part or even the second biggest part. But he played a significant enough role.

 

Obviously, at least the 40% base/alt-right American electorate that keeps approving of Donald Trump's presidency in polling are a bunch of dumb ass fucking morons who want to burn us all down, including apparently immolating themselves while cutting off their nose to spite their own stupid faces, in case anyone needed me to be clear about my opinion on the subject. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

Most unpopular candidate, perhaps not "worst" in an objective sense. In fact, I found Hillary Clinton very qualified for the position, despite my disagreements with her. 

But she’s objectively not the most unpopular candidate either. She was not even the most unpopular candidate in 2016. 

 

Edit / typo :|

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said:

But she’s objectively not the most unpopular candidate either. She was not even the most unpopular candidate in 2018. 

 

The most unpopular candidate the Democratic party could have reasonably selected to go up against Donald Trump in 2016 given the context at the time. 

 

Obviously, I don't (and I don't think anyone else) literally means she was the most unpopular/worst candidate in history.

 

The entire Republican primary candidates from 2016 shows that's simply not true, obviously. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

 

In no way am I absolving the American electorate by saying that Obama played a role in Trump's ascendancy and presidency due to his negligence and lack of resolve. That's flatly true. I didn't say he played the biggest part or even the second biggest part. But he played a significant enough role.

 

Obviously, at least the 40% base that keeps approving of Donald Trump's presidency in polling are a bunch of dumb ass fucking morons who want to burn us all down, in case anyone needed me to be clear about my opinion on the subject. 

 

It was said earlier by a different user, and said perfectly.

 

The only role Obama had in electing Trump or motivating the Republican Party was his existence.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, osxmatt said:

 

It was said earlier by a different user, and said perfectly.

 

The only role Obama had in electing Trump or motivating the Republican Party was his existence.

 

I didn't say it was his fault Trump became a candidate or anything like that. I'm saying he didn't help his own party enough throughout his years as President which helped Trump and the Republicans, so no, his mere existence isn't the "only role" a major President of 8 years has leading up to the immediate election following his tenure. That's ridiculous of any president. You don't think any president has an effect on the election proceedings of his successor? C'mon now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

I think you can much more safely blame Joe Lieberman for this. (Along with the stupid fucking fillibuster)

 

 

“The Senate certainly shouldn't try to jam anything through until Scott Brown is seated,” President Barack Obama told ABC the day after Scott Brown won an open seat, knocking Democrats' filibuster-proof majority to 59. “The people in Massachusetts spoke. He's got to be part of that process.”

 

Barry doesn’t understand power

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

 

 

“The Senate certainly shouldn't try to jam anything through until Scott Brown is seated,” President Barack Obama told ABC the day after Scott Brown won an open seat, knocking Democrats' filibuster-proof majority to 59. “The people in Massachusetts spoke. He's got to be part of that process.”

 

Barry doesn’t understand power

 

Ahem:

6a00d8341c630a53ef01630347cc66970d-600wi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

 

 

“The Senate certainly shouldn't try to jam anything through until Scott Brown is seated,” President Barack Obama told ABC the day after Scott Brown won an open seat, knocking Democrats' filibuster-proof majority to 59. “The people in Massachusetts spoke. He's got to be part of that process.”

 

Barry doesn’t understand power

The version of the ACA that passed the Senate with 60 democratic votes did not have a public option because of Joe Lieberman. That's why the house passed the Senate version of the bill.

 

Quote

After the Finance Committee vote on October 15, negotiations turned to moderate Democrats. Majority leader Harry Reid focused on satisfying centrists. The holdouts came down to Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, an independent who caucused with Democrats, and conservative Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson. Lieberman's demand that the bill not include a public option[163][180] was met,[181] although supporters won various concessions, including allowing state-based public options such as Vermont's Green Mountain Care.[181][182]



The White House and Reid addressed Nelson's concerns[183] during a 13-hour negotiation with two concessions: a compromise on abortion, modifying the language of the bill "to give states the right to prohibit coverage of abortion within their own insurance exchanges", which would require consumers to pay for the procedure out of pocket if the state so decided; and an amendment to offer a higher rate of Medicaid reimbursement for Nebraska.[157][184] The latter half of the compromise was derisively termed the "Cornhusker Kickback"[185] and was repealed in the subsequent reconciliation amendment bill.

On December 23, the Senate voted 60–39 to end debate on the bill: a cloture vote to end the filibuster.[186] The bill then passed, also 60–39, on December 24, 2009, with all Democrats and two independents voting for it, and all Republicans against (except Jim Bunning, who did not vote).[187] The bill was endorsed by the AMA and AARP.[188]

On January 19, 2010, Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown was elected to the Senate in a special election to replace Kennedy, having campaigned on giving the Republican minority the 41st vote needed to sustain Republican filibusters.[157][189][190] His victory had become significant because of its effects on the legislative process. The first was psychological: the symbolic importance of losing Kennedy's traditionally Democratic Massachusetts seat made many Congressional Democrats concerned about the political cost of passing a bill.[191][192]

 

House

Brown's election meant Democrats could no longer break a filibuster in the Senate. In response, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel argued that Democrats should scale back to a less ambitious bill; House Speaker Nancy Pelosi pushed back, dismissing Emanuel's scaled-down approach as "Kiddie Care".[193][194]

Obama remained insistent on comprehensive reform. The news that Anthem Blue Cross in California intended to raise premium rates for its patients by as much as 39% gave him new evidence of the need for reform.[193][194] On February 22, he laid out a "Senate-leaning" proposal to consolidate the bills.[195] He held a meeting with both parties' leaders on February 25. The Democrats decided that the House would pass the Senate's bill, to avoid another Senate vote.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think one thing I will grant Obama is that Presidents only really seem to have 1 year of political mandate in the US before everyone turns against them. So you get 1 year to do what you want, maybe 2 if you are lucky and get re-elected. Unfortunately for Obama much of that time was spent with the bailout, which for some reason was seen as a political issue that needed to use up political goodwill. Then he had to fight for the ACA, and that was pretty much all he was ever allowed to do (and didn't even get what he really wanted). 

 

Also yeah, Clinton made some big mistakes but she was far from being a bad candidate. She received the second-highest votes of any Democratic candidate in US history and won the popular vote by a decent margin. People like Kerry and Gore were worse candidates than her. Honestly her positions were pretty liberal (for American politics) but received almost no coverage. But that's normal, because US elections aren't about policies they are about personalities because the US electorate is a collection of Neanderthals and troglodytes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

2009/2010 was a different time. We had norms. This is pre teatard takeover

 

Which gets to my point that Democrats don’t understand power.  They would rather pretend to be characters from the West Wing than actually make a meaningful difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

 

Which gets to my point that Democrats don’t understand power.  They would rather pretend to be characters from the West Wing than actually make a meaningful difference.

 

I mean, the preservation of norms is a good thing if both sides are willing to play by the rules. Otherwise you would be okay with the next Democratic President expanding the Supreme Court to 500 seats and stacking it with every single one of their friends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

I mean, the preservation of norms is a good thing if both sides are willing to play by the rules. Otherwise you would be okay with the next Democratic President expanding the Supreme Court to 500 seats and stacking it with every single one of their friends.

 

I am okay with that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 of the 4 most successful politicians in the last decade were Obama, Sanders, and Trump. They all have one thing in common: a year or two before they entered their campaigns NOBODY in DC politics thought they had a chance and laughed at anyone who said they did. There is a universal anger in this country on left and right because the relief valve of politics, the moderates, can't function as actual moderates without losing the only reason they got there: the money. Lieberman knew he was fucked in Connecticut without insurance company money backing him. When moderates can't function the electorate will only go more extreme in search for someone to fix it: for the left that was Obama then Sanders, for the right it was Trump. 

 

Obama's failure to go after money in politics is what led to Trump. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jwheel86 said:

3 of the 4 most successful politicians in the last decade were Obama, Sanders, and Trump. They all have one thing in common: a year or two before they entered their campaigns NOBODY in DC politics thought they had a chance and laughed at anyone who said they did. There is a universal anger in this country on left and right because the relief valve of politics, the moderates, can't function as actual moderates without losing the only reason they got there: the money. Lieberman knew he was fucked in Connecticut without insurance company money backing him. When moderates can't function the electorate will only go more extreme in search for someone to fix it: for the left that was Obama then Sanders, for the right it was Trump. 

 

Obama's failure to go after money in politics is what led to Trump. 

 

who's the fourth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jwheel86 said:

3 of the 4 most successful politicians in the last decade were Obama, Sanders, and Trump. They all have one thing in common: a year or two before they entered their campaigns NOBODY in DC politics thought they had a chance and laughed at anyone who said they did. There is a universal anger in this country on left and right because the relief valve of politics, the moderates, can't function as actual moderates without losing the only reason they got there: the money. Lieberman knew he was fucked in Connecticut without insurance company money backing him. When moderates can't function the electorate will only go more extreme in search for someone to fix it: for the left that was Obama then Sanders, for the right it was Trump. 

 

Obama's failure to go after money in politics is what led to Trump. 

Why do people keep acting like Bernie Sanders just popped up out of nowhere? He's been in the Senate since the 90's... and he y'know, lost. To the worst Presidential candidate in history apparently. THAT is the definition of success?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SilentWorld said:

 

who's the fourth?

Hillary Clinton, who won the popular vote. 

2 hours ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Why do people keep acting like Bernie Sanders just popped up out of nowhere? He's been in the Senate since the 90's... and he y'know, lost. To the worst Presidential candidate in history apparently. THAT is the definition of success?

I didn't say pop up out of nowhere, though is name recognition was very low, I'm saying wouldn't have been taken seriously as a viable candidate in the primaries. He's now second behind Biden in 2020 polling. Democrats need to find a candidate who will motivate people to vote, if they go with another John Kerry or Hillary Clinton, they'll lose. Policy ideas, experience, and fear of the other candidate doesn't work with voters, it should but then we got Bush for 2 terms, a community organizer freshman Senator for 2 terms, and now Trump. All Republicans need to say is abortion to get their voters out, Democrats need more. If the Democratic Nominee can't inspire people that they'll try to fix the country, beyond the damage Trump causes, they'll stay with Trump or won't show up.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Always nice to see people underrate Obama's first couple of years, which were some of the most active between Congress and the president in decades. People focus on what wasn't in the ACA and not what was actually in itand how it's fundamentally transformed how we even talk about health care.

 

I can speak from experience that the ACA was great going in between jobs two years ago as it covered me until my new insurance kicked in and was significantly cheaper than COBRA. I know people who couldn't even get insurance before the ACA became a law. There was a time where my work insurance went up big time because I missed the deadline for my biometric screening, but I was able to find something well within my price range on the exchange. And having insurance until I was 26 was and is completely underrated as I would have been paying for two additional years after graduating college, something I did not have to do for several years. That's years of expenses that people don't have to pay.

 

That doesn't even get into how different we talk about health care now. Dems in deep red Trump areas support the ACA; that's the minimum now. We were lucky to get any red-area Democrats to even vote for it in 2010; now it's something that's expected if you run. Reducing Medicaid? That takes a big fight; it's very popular due to the ACA. Pre-existing conditions and a longer period of time young people can be on their parents' health insurance? It's toxic to even go after those and reverse them. And now you have progressives going all the way, running on a Medicare-For-All platform. The conversation has changed completely due to the ACA.

 

The one thing I do think Obama should have done was attend some Occupy Wall Street protests in Wisconsin in 2011. They stayed out of it, and Obama won Wisconsin by 14 points in 2008. He won it again fairly easily, though not as lopsided, in 2012, but showing support for the workers getting screwed by conservative policies in 2011 would have went a ways to show that national Democrats support labor, something Hillary took for granted in 2016. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...