At the end of the day, Obama hasn't come across particularly strong, either as a Democrat or a president in general, and in an attempt to reach out to the middle, he's lost his base. He could win every independent in 2012 and it wouldn't matter. While it's still too early to tell right now, it's looking better for Perry by the day who if nothing else would know how to unite the GOP base and probably bring aboard a sizable number of independents. The left is tired and drained, I can't foresee them hating this guy enough to vote against him the way they did with McCain under the presumption that he was a proxy to Bush. Perry is showing a lot of heartland momentum without the Mormon or Tea Party baggage of Romney and Bachmann, respectively.
He actually rather reminds me of Bush during the 2000 election.
And if liberals don't come out to vote for Obama anyway, even if they're not particularly enthused, then the results will be like the 2000 election.
If memory serves me well, that turned out really fucking well for the country.
At the end of the day, Obama hasn't come across particularly strong, either as a Democrat or a president in general, and in an attempt to reach out to the middle, he's lost his base. He could win every independent in 2012 and it wouldn't matter. While it's still too early to tell right now, it's looking better for Perry by the day who if nothing else would know how to unite the GOP base and probably bring aboard a sizable number of independents. The left is tired and drained, I can't foresee them hating this guy enough to vote against him the way they did with McCain under the presumption that he was a proxy to Bush. Perry is showing a lot of heartland momentum without the Mormon or Tea Party baggage of Romney and Bachmann, respectively.
He actually rather reminds me of Bush during the 2000 election.
And if liberals don't come out to vote for Obama anyway, even if they're not particularly enthused, then the results will be like the 2000 election.
If memory serves me well, that turned out really fucking well for the country.
I guess he better start getting his shit together, then.
Steam and CFN: Enexemander
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
edited August 2011
The idea of casting some sort of protest vote because Obama "isn't liberal enough" at a time like this is more retarded than the Tea Party platform you'd essentially be voting for.
Like, really? Are you that stupid?
Edit: Using the Royal You, here... not directly asking anyone.
At the end of the day, Obama hasn't come across particularly strong, either as a Democrat or a president in general, and in an attempt to reach out to the middle, he's lost his base. He could win every independent in 2012 and it wouldn't matter. While it's still too early to tell right now, it's looking better for Perry by the day who if nothing else would know how to unite the GOP base and probably bring aboard a sizable number of independents. The left is tired and drained, I can't foresee them hating this guy enough to vote against him the way they did with McCain under the presumption that he was a proxy to Bush. Perry is showing a lot of heartland momentum without the Mormon or Tea Party baggage of Romney and Bachmann, respectively.
He actually rather reminds me of Bush during the 2000 election.
And if liberals don't come out to vote for Obama anyway, even if they're not particularly enthused, then the results will be like the 2000 election.
If memory serves me well, that turned out really fucking well for the country.
I guess he better start getting his shit together, then.
For me, it doesn't matter much. The GOP alternatives as all so unpalatable that I have to vote for him. Even if he's not the president many of us had hoped for, he's much better than the alternatives. At the end of the day, that's what matters.
The idea of casting some sort of protest vote because Obama "isn't liberal enough" at a time like this is more retarded than the Tea Party platform you'd essentially be voting for.
Like, really? Are you that stupid?
Edit: Using the Royal You, here... not directly asking anyone.
I think it's been pretty well established that "Vote for X because Y is bad!" doesn't work. John Kerry, anyone?
I think it's obvious that 2008 happened because people were voting for someone. I think the return on that investment has been fairly poor, and many liberals and independents tend to agree.
Those are the dividends you're likely to see on Election Day. So, I respectfully request that Mr. President step up his game and be the man we all hoped he would be. Otherwise, it's likely to not go well for him, or the country as a whole.
The idea of casting some sort of protest vote because Obama "isn't liberal enough" at a time like this is more retarded than the Tea Party platform you'd essentially be voting for.
Like, really? Are you that stupid?
Edit: Using the Royal You, here... not directly asking anyone.
I think it's been pretty well established that "Vote for X because Y is bad!" doesn't work. John Kerry, anyone?
I think it's obvious that 2008 happened because people were voting for someone. I think the return on that investment has been fairly poor, and many liberals and independents tend to agree.
Those are the dividends you're likely to see on Election Day. So, I respectfully request that Mr. President step up his game and be the man we all hoped he would be. Otherwise, it's likely to not go well for him, or the country as a whole.
The idea of casting some sort of protest vote because Obama "isn't liberal enough" at a time like this is more retarded than the Tea Party platform you'd essentially be voting for.
Like, really? Are you that stupid?
Edit: Using the Royal You, here... not directly asking anyone.
I think it's been pretty well established that "Vote for X because Y is bad!" doesn't work. John Kerry, anyone?
I think it's obvious that 2008 happened because people were voting for someone. I think the return on that investment has been fairly poor, and many liberals and independents tend to agree.
Those are the dividends you're likely to see on Election Day. So, I respectfully request that Mr. President step up his game and be the man we all hoped he would be. Otherwise, it's likely to not go well for him, or the country as a whole.
Yeah, passing the most important piece of Democratic legislation (the healthcare act) since LBJ certainly was a terrible investment. [/sarcasm]
Seriously, did you all expect total victory? Especially with a disciplined, radical opposition party?
I'm certain a lot of conservatives were disappointed with Bush in 2004. They still voted like crazy.
The idea of casting some sort of protest vote because Obama "isn't liberal enough" at a time like this is more retarded than the Tea Party platform you'd essentially be voting for.
Like, really? Are you that stupid?
Edit: Using the Royal You, here... not directly asking anyone.
I think it's been pretty well established that "Vote for X because Y is bad!" doesn't work. John Kerry, anyone?
I think it's obvious that 2008 happened because people were voting for someone. I think the return on that investment has been fairly poor, and many liberals and independents tend to agree.
Those are the dividends you're likely to see on Election Day. So, I respectfully request that Mr. President step up his game and be the man we all hoped he would be. Otherwise, it's likely to not go well for him, or the country as a whole.
Yeah, passing the most important piece of Democratic legislation (the healthcare act) since LBJ certainly was a terrible investment. [/sarcasm]
Seriously, did you all expect total victory? Especially with a disciplined, radical opposition party?
I'm certain a lot of conservatives were disappointed with Bush in 2004. They still voted like crazy.
The idea of casting some sort of protest vote because Obama "isn't liberal enough" at a time like this is more retarded than the Tea Party platform you'd essentially be voting for.
Like, really? Are you that stupid?
Edit: Using the Royal You, here... not directly asking anyone.
I think it's been pretty well established that "Vote for X because Y is bad!" doesn't work. John Kerry, anyone?
I think it's obvious that 2008 happened because people were voting for someone. I think the return on that investment has been fairly poor, and many liberals and independents tend to agree.
Those are the dividends you're likely to see on Election Day. So, I respectfully request that Mr. President step up his game and be the man we all hoped he would be. Otherwise, it's likely to not go well for him, or the country as a whole.
Yeah, passing the most important piece of Democratic legislation (the healthcare act) since LBJ certainly was a terrible investment. [/sarcasm]
Seriously, did you all expect total victory? Especially with a disciplined, radical opposition party?
I'm certain a lot of conservatives were disappointed with Bush in 2004. They still voted like crazy.
Well, while that is true, it's up to Obama to effectively bring those up. If he feels his accomplishments are something to be proud of, then hopefully he'll campaign on them and convince people that their vote in 2008 was worth it. He's got an uphill battle in front of him, and he's playing a different game this time than he was in 2008, so he needs to be able to adjust and handle it.
The idea of casting some sort of protest vote because Obama "isn't liberal enough" at a time like this is more retarded than the Tea Party platform you'd essentially be voting for.
Like, really? Are you that stupid?
Edit: Using the Royal You, here... not directly asking anyone.
I think it's been pretty well established that "Vote for X because Y is bad!" doesn't work. John Kerry, anyone?
I think it's obvious that 2008 happened because people were voting for someone. I think the return on that investment has been fairly poor, and many liberals and independents tend to agree.
Those are the dividends you're likely to see on Election Day. So, I respectfully request that Mr. President step up his game and be the man we all hoped he would be. Otherwise, it's likely to not go well for him, or the country as a whole.
Yeah, passing the most important piece of Democratic legislation (the healthcare act) since LBJ certainly was a terrible investment. [/sarcasm]
Seriously, did you all expect total victory? Especially with a disciplined, radical opposition party?
I'm certain a lot of conservatives were disappointed with Bush in 2004. They still voted like crazy.
Reality Check: He didn't veto legislation written by the Heritage Foundation.
He then goes on to offer Social Security up on the budget chopping block.
Please don't compare the man to LBJ. It makes my pimp hand quiver.
You mean the debt ceiling bill? Yeah, vetoing that and going into default would be a great move! You're a brilliant political strategist! [/sarcasm]
He did the responsible thing. I wasn't happy about it, but the cuts are back-loaded and can be undone like a future congress (like if we all come out in 2012 and win elections nationwide). Better than default, certainly.
What cuts on SS? If it's lower benefits for the wealthy, fine by me. He was pretty circumspect on that, and I figure it was a strategic move by him to show that the Republicans are so unreasonable that they'll reject everything.
The healthcare bill is the most important Democratic legislation since Medicare and Medicaid. Sorry to break that to you, but Obama achieved what other Democratic presidents couldn't. If that's not enough for you, then have fun in your magical liberal fantasy world (that I'd probably like, but is beside the point).
Edit: Btw, how often was the filibuster used before the 1960's?
Answer: About once a decade.
During the 1960's, cloture ended the Civil Rights filibusters. LBJ had enduring Democratic majorities in Congress, and combined with the rarer filibustering, could pass far more legislation.
The idea of casting some sort of protest vote because Obama "isn't liberal enough" at a time like this is more retarded than the Tea Party platform you'd essentially be voting for.
Like, really? Are you that stupid?
Edit: Using the Royal You, here... not directly asking anyone.
I think it's been pretty well established that "Vote for X because Y is bad!" doesn't work. John Kerry, anyone?
I think it's obvious that 2008 happened because people were voting for someone. I think the return on that investment has been fairly poor, and many liberals and independents tend to agree.
Those are the dividends you're likely to see on Election Day. So, I respectfully request that Mr. President step up his game and be the man we all hoped he would be. Otherwise, it's likely to not go well for him, or the country as a whole.
Yeah, passing the most important piece of Democratic legislation (the healthcare act) since LBJ certainly was a terrible investment. [/sarcasm]
Seriously, did you all expect total victory? Especially with a disciplined, radical opposition party?
I'm certain a lot of conservatives were disappointed with Bush in 2004. They still voted like crazy.
Reality Check: He didn't veto legislation written by the Heritage Foundation.
He then goes on to offer Social Security up on the budget chopping block.
Please don't compare the man to LBJ. It makes my pimp hand quiver.
You mean the debt ceiling bill? Yeah, vetoing that and going into default would be a great move! You're a brilliant political strategist! [/sarcasm]
He did the responsible thing. I wasn't happy about it, but the cuts are back-loaded and can be undone like a future congress (like if we all come out in 2012 and win elections nationwide). Better than default, certainly.
What cuts on SS? If it's lower benefits for the wealthy, fine by me. He was pretty circumspect on that, and I figure it was a strategic move by him to show that the Republicans are so unreasonable that they'll reject everything.
The healthcare bill is the most important Democratic legislation since Medicare and Medicaid. Sorry to break that to you, but Obama achieved what other Democratic presidents couldn't. If that's not enough for you, then have fun in your magical liberal fantasy world (that I'd probably like, but is beside the point).
Who said anything about vetoing the bill? I said he offered SS on the chopping block, and he did (the fucking traitor).
If he had vetoed it, he could have invoked the 14th and we wouldn't be talking about how to cut money during a recession like a group of retarded fucking hyenas. You know, like Clinton blatantly said he would do, and the reason the republican congress never gave Clinton shit about it. The man has a spine.
You're comparing LBJ's accomplishments to Obama's. Are you fucking serious?
Johnson was greatly supported by the Democratic Party and, as President, was responsible for designing the "Great Society" legislation that included laws that upheld civil rights, Public Broadcasting, Medicare, Medicaid, environmental protection, aid to education, and his "War on Poverty." He was renowned for his domineering personality and the "Johnson treatment," his coercion of powerful politicians in order to advance legislation.
The idea of casting some sort of protest vote because Obama "isn't liberal enough" at a time like this is more retarded than the Tea Party platform you'd essentially be voting for.
Like, really? Are you that stupid?
Edit: Using the Royal You, here... not directly asking anyone.
I think it's been pretty well established that "Vote for X because Y is bad!" doesn't work. John Kerry, anyone?
I think it's obvious that 2008 happened because people were voting for someone. I think the return on that investment has been fairly poor, and many liberals and independents tend to agree.
Those are the dividends you're likely to see on Election Day. So, I respectfully request that Mr. President step up his game and be the man we all hoped he would be. Otherwise, it's likely to not go well for him, or the country as a whole.
Yeah, passing the most important piece of Democratic legislation (the healthcare act) since LBJ certainly was a terrible investment. [/sarcasm]
Seriously, did you all expect total victory? Especially with a disciplined, radical opposition party?
I'm certain a lot of conservatives were disappointed with Bush in 2004. They still voted like crazy.
Reality Check: He didn't veto legislation written by the Heritage Foundation.
He then goes on to offer Social Security up on the budget chopping block.
Please don't compare the man to LBJ. It makes my pimp hand quiver.
You mean the debt ceiling bill? Yeah, vetoing that and going into default would be a great move! You're a brilliant political strategist! [/sarcasm]
He did the responsible thing. I wasn't happy about it, but the cuts are back-loaded and can be undone like a future congress (like if we all come out in 2012 and win elections nationwide). Better than default, certainly.
What cuts on SS? If it's lower benefits for the wealthy, fine by me. He was pretty circumspect on that, and I figure it was a strategic move by him to show that the Republicans are so unreasonable that they'll reject everything.
The healthcare bill is the most important Democratic legislation since Medicare and Medicaid. Sorry to break that to you, but Obama achieved what other Democratic presidents couldn't. If that's not enough for you, then have fun in your magical liberal fantasy world (that I'd probably like, but is beside the point).
The healthcare bill he did pass was crap anyway.
Unless he does some incredible things in this next year, the reality is going to be this: Obama was a shit president with shit ideas that couldn't get shit done.
If you do not feel the same way you felt about him in 2008 or would not even donate more than 100 dollars to his campaign today, then you should not vote for him.
If you keep voting for Presidents you do not like, you will never evolve the democratic party. The party needs to get badly bruised so the politicians can learn.
This is the frustration I have with other liberals. They just cannot think long term. They live election to election, vote to vote, issue to issue. They do not understand the concept of investing in their party and the importance of maintaining their image, nor delayed gratification. It's a completely cutthroat party where everyone wants everything NOW and every second they don't have it is an OUTRAGE!
You shouldn't be afraid of a President Perry, because we've had shitty presidents before and we were fine. Obama's whole Presidency has been such a dark time that people actually look back fondly on the Bush years, when the economy was decent and people still had money and jobs. Don't sweat it.
moutpeace on
0
Options
RingoHe/Hima distinct lack of substanceRegistered Userregular
Ah yes, that wonderful Bush Economy that suddenly imploded in January 2009 as soon as Obama took over.
Unless he does some incredible things in this next year, the reality is going to be this: Obama was a shit president with shit ideas that couldn't get shit done.
If you do not feel the same way you felt about him in 2008 or would not even donate more than 100 dollars to his campaign today, then you should not vote for him.
If you keep voting for Presidents you do not like, you will never evolve the democratic party. The party needs to get badly bruised so the politicians can learn.
This is the frustration I have with other liberals. They just cannot think long term. They live election to election, vote to vote, issue to issue. They do not understand the concept of investing in their party and the importance of maintaining their image, nor delayed gratification. It's a completely cutthroat party where everyone wants everything NOW and every second they don't have it is an OUTRAGE!
You shouldn't be afraid of a President Perry, because we've had shitty presidents before and we were fine. Obama's whole Presidency has been such a dark time that people actually look back fondly on the Bush years, when the economy was decent and people still had money and jobs. Don't sweat it.
I think there is a time and place for being willing to take a loss in order to achieve a broader victory, and when the enemy is at your door, willing to burn everything down, that's just not the time.
Which is a lesson the Democrats need to learn as well, but capitulating right now is a really bad idea for everybody left of Lindsey Graham.
Like... basic human rights for everyone except rich, heterosexual men are at stake right now... it's not the time to sit on your thumbs and cry about not living in a liberal utopia.
I think there is a time and place for being willing to take a loss in order to achieve a broader victory, and when the enemy is at your door, willing to burn everything down, that's just not the time.
Which is a lesson the Democrats need to learn as well, but capitulating right now is a really bad idea for everybody left of Lindsey Graham.
Like... basic human rights for everyone except rich, heterosexual men are at stake right now... it's not the time to sit on your thumbs and cry about not living in a liberal utopia.
No, that's exactly the time.
The enemy is always going to be at your door.
There is never going to be a time where basic human rights and heterosexual men aren't at stake. That's just something Democrats don't realize.
There is no magical time where taking a loss isn't going to hurt.
Who said anything about vetoing the bill? I said he offered SS on the chopping block, and he did (the fucking traitor).
If he had vetoed it, he could have invoked the 14th and we wouldn't be talking about how to cut money during a recession like a group of retarded fucking hyenas. You know, like Clinton blatantly said he would do, and the reason the republican congress never gave Clinton shit about it. The man has a spine.
You're comparing LBJ's accomplishments to Obama's. Are you fucking serious?
Johnson was greatly supported by the Democratic Party and, as President, was responsible for designing the "Great Society" legislation that included laws that upheld civil rights, Public Broadcasting, Medicare, Medicaid, environmental protection, aid to education, and his "War on Poverty." He was renowned for his domineering personality and the "Johnson treatment," his coercion of powerful politicians in order to advance legislation.
That's the opposite of Obama.
First, read my edit. If LBJ had to operate in today's political environment, he wouldn't have gotten nearly as much done. And just for reading comprehension, the operative word is "since". We're on the same side, dude. Calmness.
Second, the debt ceiling deal barely cuts anything in 2012. As mentioned, scheduled cuts can be undone by a future Congress. Was it the deal we wanted? No, but it was preferable to default or to months of impeachment hearings.
Invoking the 14th amendment is, as one commentator aptly put, a poisoned chalice. Expanding presidential power allows Congress to shirk its Constitutional responsibilities and pin all fault on the president. The problems in our political system are not Obama's fault. They're Congress' fault, specifically Republican lawmakers ("give us what we want or we'll set it all on fire!").
If we want to fix our political institutions, separation of powers is more important than ever.
Unless he does some incredible things in this next year, the reality is going to be this: Obama was a shit president with shit ideas that couldn't get shit done.
If you do not feel the same way you felt about him in 2008 or would not even donate more than 100 dollars to his campaign today, then you should not vote for him.
If you keep voting for Presidents you do not like, you will never evolve the democratic party. The party needs to get badly bruised so the politicians can learn.
This is the frustration I have with other liberals. They just cannot think long term. They live election to election, vote to vote, issue to issue. They do not understand the concept of investing in their party and the importance of maintaining their image, nor delayed gratification. It's a completely cutthroat party where everyone wants everything NOW and every second they don't have it is an OUTRAGE!
You shouldn't be afraid of a President Perry, because we've had shitty presidents before and we were fine. Obama's whole Presidency has been such a dark time that people actually look back fondly on the Bush years, when the economy was decent and people still had money and jobs. Don't sweat it.
I think there is a time and place for being willing to take a loss in order to achieve a broader victory, and when the enemy is at your door, willing to burn everything down, that's just not the time.
Which is a lesson the Democrats need to learn as well, but capitulating right now is a really bad idea for everybody left of Lindsey Graham.
Like... basic human rights for everyone except rich, heterosexual men are at stake right now... it's not the time to sit on your thumbs and cry about not living in a liberal utopia.
I love how universal healthcare is a liberal utopia, despite most or all first world countries having it.
I love how expecting your president to stop sucking republican dick long enough to actually defend legislation democrats have fought long and hard for is somehow expecting a liberal utopia.
You defeatist apologists are ruining the party.
(read in Dorothy's voice)
"Oh no! Now you have to vote for him!"
No, actually I don't. There will always be a crisis of the moment. That has never, and will never change. The President either starts standing up for my party or he can kiss my ass. And no, hardcore republican circa 1985 is not "close enough."
Unless he does some incredible things in this next year, the reality is going to be this: Obama was a shit president with shit ideas that couldn't get shit done.
If you do not feel the same way you felt about him in 2008 or would not even donate more than 100 dollars to his campaign today, then you should not vote for him.
If you keep voting for Presidents you do not like, you will never evolve the democratic party. The party needs to get badly bruised so the politicians can learn.
This is the frustration I have with other liberals. They just cannot think long term. They live election to election, vote to vote, issue to issue. They do not understand the concept of investing in their party and the importance of maintaining their image, nor delayed gratification. It's a completely cutthroat party where everyone wants everything NOW and every second they don't have it is an OUTRAGE!
You shouldn't be afraid of a President Perry, because we've had shitty presidents before and we were fine. Obama's whole Presidency has been such a dark time that people actually look back fondly on the Bush years, when the economy was decent and people still had money and jobs. Don't sweat it.
I think there is a time and place for being willing to take a loss in order to achieve a broader victory, and when the enemy is at your door, willing to burn everything down, that's just not the time.
Which is a lesson the Democrats need to learn as well, but capitulating right now is a really bad idea for everybody left of Lindsey Graham.
Like... basic human rights for everyone except rich, heterosexual men are at stake right now... it's not the time to sit on your thumbs and cry about not living in a liberal utopia.
Beyond that, though, is the cognitive dissonance in moutpeace's argument.
"If you do not feel the same way you felt about him in 2008 or would not even donate more than 100 dollars to his campaign today, then you should not vote for him.
If you keep voting for Presidents you do not like, you will never evolve the democratic party. The party needs to get badly bruised so the politicians can learn."
"This is the frustration I have with other liberals. They just cannot think long term. They live election to election, vote to vote, issue to issue. They do not understand the concept of investing in their party and the importance of maintaining their image, nor delayed gratification. It's a completely cutthroat party where everyone wants everything NOW and every second they don't have it is an OUTRAGE!"
If maintenance of the Democratic party's image is so important, then how does an Obama loss in 2012 help? Wouldn't it make the party look incredibly weak and divided, instead of cohesive and proud of its achievements?
Medicare and Medicaid started out far smaller than they are now. They expanded over time. In light of your second assertion, specifically about delayed gratification, why can't the healthcare bill improve and expand over time?
Letting the country tank so hard to the right that people get absolutely fucked by the GOP in the hopes that they wake up and realize they ought to be liberals doesn't strike me as a particularly sound. It sounds, actually, like the kind of hard-line ideological warfare that is so despicable on the other side of the aisle.
Letting the country tank so hard to the right that people get absolutely fucked by the GOP in the hopes that they wake up and realize they ought to be liberals doesn't strike me as a particularly sound. It sounds, actually, like the kind of hard-line ideological warfare that is so despicable on the other side of the aisle.
So what's the alternative? Bend over and get fucked discretely by the GOP?
The idea of casting some sort of protest vote because Obama "isn't liberal enough" at a time like this is more retarded than the Tea Party platform you'd essentially be voting for.
Like, really? Are you that stupid?
Edit: Using the Royal You, here... not directly asking anyone.
I think it's been pretty well established that "Vote for X because Y is bad!" doesn't work. John Kerry, anyone?
I think it's obvious that 2008 happened because people were voting for someone. I think the return on that investment has been fairly poor, and many liberals and independents tend to agree.
Those are the dividends you're likely to see on Election Day. So, I respectfully request that Mr. President step up his game and be the man we all hoped he would be. Otherwise, it's likely to not go well for him, or the country as a whole.
Yeah, passing the most important piece of Democratic legislation (the healthcare act) since LBJ certainly was a terrible investment. [/sarcasm]
Seriously, did you all expect total victory? Especially with a disciplined, radical opposition party?
I'm certain a lot of conservatives were disappointed with Bush in 2004. They still voted like crazy.
Reality Check: He didn't veto legislation written by the Heritage Foundation.
He then goes on to offer Social Security up on the budget chopping block.
Please don't compare the man to LBJ. It makes my pimp hand quiver.
You mean the debt ceiling bill? Yeah, vetoing that and going into default would be a great move! You're a brilliant political strategist! [/sarcasm]
He did the responsible thing. I wasn't happy about it, but the cuts are back-loaded and can be undone like a future congress (like if we all come out in 2012 and win elections nationwide). Better than default, certainly.
What cuts on SS? If it's lower benefits for the wealthy, fine by me. He was pretty circumspect on that, and I figure it was a strategic move by him to show that the Republicans are so unreasonable that they'll reject everything.
The healthcare bill is the most important Democratic legislation since Medicare and Medicaid. Sorry to break that to you, but Obama achieved what other Democratic presidents couldn't. If that's not enough for you, then have fun in your magical liberal fantasy world (that I'd probably like, but is beside the point).
Who said anything about vetoing the bill? I said he offered SS on the chopping block, and he did (the fucking traitor).
If he had vetoed it, he could have invoked the 14th and we wouldn't be talking about how to cut money during a recession like a group of retarded fucking hyenas. You know, like Clinton blatantly said he would do, and the reason the republican congress never gave Clinton shit about it. The man has a spine.
You're comparing LBJ's accomplishments to Obama's. Are you fucking serious?
Johnson was greatly supported by the Democratic Party and, as President, was responsible for designing the "Great Society" legislation that included laws that upheld civil rights, Public Broadcasting, Medicare, Medicaid, environmental protection, aid to education, and his "War on Poverty." He was renowned for his domineering personality and the "Johnson treatment," his coercion of powerful politicians in order to advance legislation.
That's the opposite of Obama.
And here I was thinking that people voted for Obama because he wouldn't pull blatantly unconstitutional shit. Maybe you should just come out and say that he should have stripped the cuts from the debt ceiling bill with a signing statement.
And yes, we do dare compare a living politician to your messiah. Stuff your nostalgia up your ass and deal with it.
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
Letting the country tank so hard to the right that people get absolutely fucked by the GOP in the hopes that they wake up and realize they ought to be liberals doesn't strike me as a particularly sound. It sounds, actually, like the kind of hard-line ideological warfare that is so despicable on the other side of the aisle.
The idea of casting some sort of protest vote because Obama "isn't liberal enough" at a time like this is more retarded than the Tea Party platform you'd essentially be voting for.
Like, really? Are you that stupid?
Edit: Using the Royal You, here... not directly asking anyone.
I think it's been pretty well established that "Vote for X because Y is bad!" doesn't work. John Kerry, anyone?
I think it's obvious that 2008 happened because people were voting for someone. I think the return on that investment has been fairly poor, and many liberals and independents tend to agree.
Those are the dividends you're likely to see on Election Day. So, I respectfully request that Mr. President step up his game and be the man we all hoped he would be. Otherwise, it's likely to not go well for him, or the country as a whole.
Yeah, passing the most important piece of Democratic legislation (the healthcare act) since LBJ certainly was a terrible investment. [/sarcasm]
Seriously, did you all expect total victory? Especially with a disciplined, radical opposition party?
I'm certain a lot of conservatives were disappointed with Bush in 2004. They still voted like crazy.
Reality Check: He didn't veto legislation written by the Heritage Foundation.
He then goes on to offer Social Security up on the budget chopping block.
Please don't compare the man to LBJ. It makes my pimp hand quiver.
You mean the debt ceiling bill? Yeah, vetoing that and going into default would be a great move! You're a brilliant political strategist! [/sarcasm]
He did the responsible thing. I wasn't happy about it, but the cuts are back-loaded and can be undone like a future congress (like if we all come out in 2012 and win elections nationwide). Better than default, certainly.
What cuts on SS? If it's lower benefits for the wealthy, fine by me. He was pretty circumspect on that, and I figure it was a strategic move by him to show that the Republicans are so unreasonable that they'll reject everything.
The healthcare bill is the most important Democratic legislation since Medicare and Medicaid. Sorry to break that to you, but Obama achieved what other Democratic presidents couldn't. If that's not enough for you, then have fun in your magical liberal fantasy world (that I'd probably like, but is beside the point).
Who said anything about vetoing the bill? I said he offered SS on the chopping block, and he did (the fucking traitor).
If he had vetoed it, he could have invoked the 14th and we wouldn't be talking about how to cut money during a recession like a group of retarded fucking hyenas. You know, like Clinton blatantly said he would do, and the reason the republican congress never gave Clinton shit about it. The man has a spine.
You're comparing LBJ's accomplishments to Obama's. Are you fucking serious?
Johnson was greatly supported by the Democratic Party and, as President, was responsible for designing the "Great Society" legislation that included laws that upheld civil rights, Public Broadcasting, Medicare, Medicaid, environmental protection, aid to education, and his "War on Poverty." He was renowned for his domineering personality and the "Johnson treatment," his coercion of powerful politicians in order to advance legislation.
That's the opposite of Obama.
And here I was thinking that people voted for Obama because he wouldn't pull blatantly unconstitutional shit. Maybe you should just come out and say that he should have stripped the cuts from the debt ceiling bill with a signing statement.
And yes, we do dare compare a living politician to your messiah. Stuff your nostalgia up your ass and deal with it.
It's not unconstitutional. Read the Constitution.
I welcome the comparison, because it shows Obama as a weak President with no excuses. Compare him to TR while you're at it. FDR as well.
But don't come back and claim that will throw Obama in a favorable light.
Unless he does some incredible things in this next year, the reality is going to be this: Obama was a shit president with shit ideas that couldn't get shit done.
If you do not feel the same way you felt about him in 2008 or would not even donate more than 100 dollars to his campaign today, then you should not vote for him.
If you keep voting for Presidents you do not like, you will never evolve the democratic party. The party needs to get badly bruised so the politicians can learn.
This is the frustration I have with other liberals. They just cannot think long term. They live election to election, vote to vote, issue to issue. They do not understand the concept of investing in their party and the importance of maintaining their image, nor delayed gratification. It's a completely cutthroat party where everyone wants everything NOW and every second they don't have it is an OUTRAGE!
You shouldn't be afraid of a President Perry, because we've had shitty presidents before and we were fine. Obama's whole Presidency has been such a dark time that people actually look back fondly on the Bush years, when the economy was decent and people still had money and jobs. Don't sweat it.
I think there is a time and place for being willing to take a loss in order to achieve a broader victory, and when the enemy is at your door, willing to burn everything down, that's just not the time.
Which is a lesson the Democrats need to learn as well, but capitulating right now is a really bad idea for everybody left of Lindsey Graham.
Like... basic human rights for everyone except rich, heterosexual men are at stake right now... it's not the time to sit on your thumbs and cry about not living in a liberal utopia.
Exactly. Thinking long term is all well and good, but what about the people who stand to lose everything before then. What about people that, should the short run be lost, won't even live to see the long run? Politics isn't a game to be won, people's lives and livelihoods are at stake. I know it's easy to lose sight of that, but we need to look at both the short AND the long term.
The idea of casting some sort of protest vote because Obama "isn't liberal enough" at a time like this is more retarded than the Tea Party platform you'd essentially be voting for.
Like, really? Are you that stupid?
Edit: Using the Royal You, here... not directly asking anyone.
I think it's been pretty well established that "Vote for X because Y is bad!" doesn't work. John Kerry, anyone?
I think it's obvious that 2008 happened because people were voting for someone. I think the return on that investment has been fairly poor, and many liberals and independents tend to agree.
Those are the dividends you're likely to see on Election Day. So, I respectfully request that Mr. President step up his game and be the man we all hoped he would be. Otherwise, it's likely to not go well for him, or the country as a whole.
Yeah, passing the most important piece of Democratic legislation (the healthcare act) since LBJ certainly was a terrible investment. [/sarcasm]
Seriously, did you all expect total victory? Especially with a disciplined, radical opposition party?
I'm certain a lot of conservatives were disappointed with Bush in 2004. They still voted like crazy.
Reality Check: He didn't veto legislation written by the Heritage Foundation.
He then goes on to offer Social Security up on the budget chopping block.
Please don't compare the man to LBJ. It makes my pimp hand quiver.
You mean the debt ceiling bill? Yeah, vetoing that and going into default would be a great move! You're a brilliant political strategist! [/sarcasm]
He did the responsible thing. I wasn't happy about it, but the cuts are back-loaded and can be undone like a future congress (like if we all come out in 2012 and win elections nationwide). Better than default, certainly.
What cuts on SS? If it's lower benefits for the wealthy, fine by me. He was pretty circumspect on that, and I figure it was a strategic move by him to show that the Republicans are so unreasonable that they'll reject everything.
The healthcare bill is the most important Democratic legislation since Medicare and Medicaid. Sorry to break that to you, but Obama achieved what other Democratic presidents couldn't. If that's not enough for you, then have fun in your magical liberal fantasy world (that I'd probably like, but is beside the point).
Who said anything about vetoing the bill? I said he offered SS on the chopping block, and he did (the fucking traitor).
If he had vetoed it, he could have invoked the 14th and we wouldn't be talking about how to cut money during a recession like a group of retarded fucking hyenas. You know, like Clinton blatantly said he would do, and the reason the republican congress never gave Clinton shit about it. The man has a spine.
You're comparing LBJ's accomplishments to Obama's. Are you fucking serious?
Johnson was greatly supported by the Democratic Party and, as President, was responsible for designing the "Great Society" legislation that included laws that upheld civil rights, Public Broadcasting, Medicare, Medicaid, environmental protection, aid to education, and his "War on Poverty." He was renowned for his domineering personality and the "Johnson treatment," his coercion of powerful politicians in order to advance legislation.
That's the opposite of Obama.
And here I was thinking that people voted for Obama because he wouldn't pull blatantly unconstitutional shit. Maybe you should just come out and say that he should have stripped the cuts from the debt ceiling bill with a signing statement.
And yes, we do dare compare a living politician to your messiah. Stuff your nostalgia up your ass and deal with it.
It's not unconstitutional. Read the Constitution.
I welcome the comparison, because it shows Obama as a weak President with no excuses. Compare him to TR while you're at it. FDR as well.
But don't come back and claim that will throw Obama in a favorable light.
I have. The constitution doesn't say what you seem to think it does, as has already been pointed out to you endlessly in the debt ceiling thread. Really, the only was the 14th amendment could be read as saying what you think it means is if it were read by someone of highly questionable literacy.
I love the thought that "Obama didn't give me everything I want, therefore I'm going to vote for the party that is certifiably insane. That'll show him good!"
I love the thought that "Obama didn't give me everything I want, therefore I'm going to vote for the party that is certifiably insane. That'll show him good!"
Exactly. Thinking long term is all well and good, but what about the people who stand to lose everything before then. What about people that, should the short run be lost, won't even live to see the long run? Politics isn't a game to be won, people's lives and livelihoods are at stake. I know it's easy to lose sight of that, but we need to look at both the short AND the long term.
You're right, lets wait until nobody has anything to lose in the short term, ever.
Letting the country tank so hard to the right that people get absolutely fucked by the GOP in the hopes that they wake up and realize they ought to be liberals doesn't strike me as a particularly sound. It sounds, actually, like the kind of hard-line ideological warfare that is so despicable on the other side of the aisle.
So what's the alternative? Bend over and get fucked discretely by the GOP?
Voting for the party that most closely aligns with your personal beliefs. But you don't want to do that. You don't want to vote for a weaker party that aligns with your beliefs in the hope that, if crushed, they'll emerge stronger in the future. This isn't a scifi movie. There's no reason to believe that will happen.
Posts
And if liberals don't come out to vote for Obama anyway, even if they're not particularly enthused, then the results will be like the 2000 election.
If memory serves me well, that turned out really fucking well for the country.
I guess he better start getting his shit together, then.
Like, really? Are you that stupid?
Edit: Using the Royal You, here... not directly asking anyone.
For me, it doesn't matter much. The GOP alternatives as all so unpalatable that I have to vote for him. Even if he's not the president many of us had hoped for, he's much better than the alternatives. At the end of the day, that's what matters.
I think it's been pretty well established that "Vote for X because Y is bad!" doesn't work. John Kerry, anyone?
I think it's obvious that 2008 happened because people were voting for someone. I think the return on that investment has been fairly poor, and many liberals and independents tend to agree.
Those are the dividends you're likely to see on Election Day. So, I respectfully request that Mr. President step up his game and be the man we all hoped he would be. Otherwise, it's likely to not go well for him, or the country as a whole.
Yeah, passing the most important piece of Democratic legislation (the healthcare act) since LBJ certainly was a terrible investment. [/sarcasm]
Seriously, did you all expect total victory? Especially with a disciplined, radical opposition party?
I'm certain a lot of conservatives were disappointed with Bush in 2004. They still voted like crazy.
@DevoutlyApathetic: Yeah, exactly
Reality Check: He didn't veto legislation written by the Heritage Foundation.
He then goes on to offer Social Security up on the budget chopping block.
Please don't compare the man to LBJ. It makes my pimp hand quiver.
Well, while that is true, it's up to Obama to effectively bring those up. If he feels his accomplishments are something to be proud of, then hopefully he'll campaign on them and convince people that their vote in 2008 was worth it. He's got an uphill battle in front of him, and he's playing a different game this time than he was in 2008, so he needs to be able to adjust and handle it.
Steam: pazython
You mean the debt ceiling bill? Yeah, vetoing that and going into default would be a great move! You're a brilliant political strategist! [/sarcasm]
He did the responsible thing. I wasn't happy about it, but the cuts are back-loaded and can be undone like a future congress (like if we all come out in 2012 and win elections nationwide). Better than default, certainly.
What cuts on SS? If it's lower benefits for the wealthy, fine by me. He was pretty circumspect on that, and I figure it was a strategic move by him to show that the Republicans are so unreasonable that they'll reject everything.
The healthcare bill is the most important Democratic legislation since Medicare and Medicaid. Sorry to break that to you, but Obama achieved what other Democratic presidents couldn't. If that's not enough for you, then have fun in your magical liberal fantasy world (that I'd probably like, but is beside the point).
Edit: Btw, how often was the filibuster used before the 1960's?
Answer: About once a decade.
During the 1960's, cloture ended the Civil Rights filibusters. LBJ had enduring Democratic majorities in Congress, and combined with the rarer filibustering, could pass far more legislation.
Obama operates in a much different environment.
Who said anything about vetoing the bill? I said he offered SS on the chopping block, and he did (the fucking traitor).
If he had vetoed it, he could have invoked the 14th and we wouldn't be talking about how to cut money during a recession like a group of retarded fucking hyenas. You know, like Clinton blatantly said he would do, and the reason the republican congress never gave Clinton shit about it. The man has a spine.
You're comparing LBJ's accomplishments to Obama's. Are you fucking serious?
That's the opposite of Obama.
The healthcare bill he did pass was crap anyway.
Unless he does some incredible things in this next year, the reality is going to be this: Obama was a shit president with shit ideas that couldn't get shit done.
If you do not feel the same way you felt about him in 2008 or would not even donate more than 100 dollars to his campaign today, then you should not vote for him.
If you keep voting for Presidents you do not like, you will never evolve the democratic party. The party needs to get badly bruised so the politicians can learn.
This is the frustration I have with other liberals. They just cannot think long term. They live election to election, vote to vote, issue to issue. They do not understand the concept of investing in their party and the importance of maintaining their image, nor delayed gratification. It's a completely cutthroat party where everyone wants everything NOW and every second they don't have it is an OUTRAGE!
You shouldn't be afraid of a President Perry, because we've had shitty presidents before and we were fine. Obama's whole Presidency has been such a dark time that people actually look back fondly on the Bush years, when the economy was decent and people still had money and jobs. Don't sweat it.
Never get tired of hearing that one.
I think there is a time and place for being willing to take a loss in order to achieve a broader victory, and when the enemy is at your door, willing to burn everything down, that's just not the time.
Which is a lesson the Democrats need to learn as well, but capitulating right now is a really bad idea for everybody left of Lindsey Graham.
Like... basic human rights for everyone except rich, heterosexual men are at stake right now... it's not the time to sit on your thumbs and cry about not living in a liberal utopia.
A long time ago, Republicans wanted to completely remove the filibuster.
Democrats said no.
Because Democrats don't think long term.
Sometimes I wonder which party has the bigger morons.
No, that's exactly the time.
The enemy is always going to be at your door.
There is never going to be a time where basic human rights and heterosexual men aren't at stake. That's just something Democrats don't realize.
There is no magical time where taking a loss isn't going to hurt.
First, read my edit. If LBJ had to operate in today's political environment, he wouldn't have gotten nearly as much done. And just for reading comprehension, the operative word is "since". We're on the same side, dude. Calmness.
Second, the debt ceiling deal barely cuts anything in 2012. As mentioned, scheduled cuts can be undone by a future Congress. Was it the deal we wanted? No, but it was preferable to default or to months of impeachment hearings.
Invoking the 14th amendment is, as one commentator aptly put, a poisoned chalice. Expanding presidential power allows Congress to shirk its Constitutional responsibilities and pin all fault on the president. The problems in our political system are not Obama's fault. They're Congress' fault, specifically Republican lawmakers ("give us what we want or we'll set it all on fire!").
If we want to fix our political institutions, separation of powers is more important than ever.
I love how universal healthcare is a liberal utopia, despite most or all first world countries having it.
I love how expecting your president to stop sucking republican dick long enough to actually defend legislation democrats have fought long and hard for is somehow expecting a liberal utopia.
You defeatist apologists are ruining the party.
(read in Dorothy's voice)
"Oh no! Now you have to vote for him!"
No, actually I don't. There will always be a crisis of the moment. That has never, and will never change. The President either starts standing up for my party or he can kiss my ass. And no, hardcore republican circa 1985 is not "close enough."
Beyond that, though, is the cognitive dissonance in moutpeace's argument.
Assertion 1:
Assertion 2:
If maintenance of the Democratic party's image is so important, then how does an Obama loss in 2012 help? Wouldn't it make the party look incredibly weak and divided, instead of cohesive and proud of its achievements?
Medicare and Medicaid started out far smaller than they are now. They expanded over time. In light of your second assertion, specifically about delayed gratification, why can't the healthcare bill improve and expand over time?
The same way that winning in 2008 apparently didn't help Democrats look stronger.
How the fuck do you hold a majority in Congress and the Presidency and still struggle to get your shit done?
You didn't answer the question. Try again.
To respond to your second sentence:
Filibuster and disciplined opposition that doesn't care about governance.
There is no excuse for that question, and there is no answer except incompetence.
If the Republicans wanted to filibuster, let them filibuster and see what happens.
I have no faith in the Democratic party's ability to expand healthcare in the future based on what I've seen today.
So what's the alternative? Bend over and get fucked discretely by the GOP?
And here I was thinking that people voted for Obama because he wouldn't pull blatantly unconstitutional shit. Maybe you should just come out and say that he should have stripped the cuts from the debt ceiling bill with a signing statement.
And yes, we do dare compare a living politician to your messiah. Stuff your nostalgia up your ass and deal with it.
This. Precisely.
It's not unconstitutional. Read the Constitution.
I welcome the comparison, because it shows Obama as a weak President with no excuses. Compare him to TR while you're at it. FDR as well.
But don't come back and claim that will throw Obama in a favorable light.
Exactly. Thinking long term is all well and good, but what about the people who stand to lose everything before then. What about people that, should the short run be lost, won't even live to see the long run? Politics isn't a game to be won, people's lives and livelihoods are at stake. I know it's easy to lose sight of that, but we need to look at both the short AND the long term.
Steam: pazython
I have. The constitution doesn't say what you seem to think it does, as has already been pointed out to you endlessly in the debt ceiling thread. Really, the only was the 14th amendment could be read as saying what you think it means is if it were read by someone of highly questionable literacy.
It's just crazy enough to work!
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
It's more "I'm not going to vote, period."
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
You're right, lets wait until nobody has anything to lose in the short term, ever.
Because they have a constituency who is ready to completely undermine their party at the first sign of weakness (ie, you)
Voting for the party that most closely aligns with your personal beliefs. But you don't want to do that. You don't want to vote for a weaker party that aligns with your beliefs in the hope that, if crushed, they'll emerge stronger in the future. This isn't a scifi movie. There's no reason to believe that will happen.
No, there are many parties, and I'm not voting for any of them. I'm writing myself in.