As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

The Obama Administration

19091939596100

Posts

  • nightmarennynightmarenny Registered User regular
    Seruko wrote: »
    YamiB. wrote: »
    Problem is this won't work. It's just basic political science. Get us a parliamentary system instead of first-past-the-post and then maybe we'll see the views of the electorate better match those of the people. Also multiplying the number of Congressmen by 10 or 100 so that they can go back to reflecting a manageable number of constituents and the means to run for office is back withing the reach of a "normal person" would be a help as well.

    It seems that voting for the lesser to two evils isn't working either. I admit there is close to 0 chance of my working. But it makes more sense to me to vote in terms of voting to vote for what you want and hope that politicians will see this and adjust to better represent your desires.

    The way I see it right now both the Republicans and Democrats are driving the country off a cliff, the big difference being the speed at which they do so. What I want is to actually turn things around instead of choosing a slower decline even though I'm cynical enough to believe it is an pretty futile effort.

    We've put a democrat in the White House for one bloody term and he hasn't gotten everything you wanted? Obama made several obvious pushes forward. Maybe if liberals wern't so quick to abandon the party that is going there way(and convincing themselves they are just as bad as the other guy) they would be a more viable base.

    Obama enacts republican legislation? Political Reality, plus ACA totally worth everything
    Suggest Obama Could have done better? Pie in the Sky
    Point Out ACA as scored by every government agency does nothing to change health care crisis? Social Justice!
    Point out real social justice issues have been ignored and gotten worse on almost every front? Crazy talk
    Point out we're in a lost decade Economically? Your arguments make no sense
    Provide references and citations? Needlessly Pedantic
    Respond to out of bounds insults with in bounds insults and keep things on topic? You're an ass
    Cool Story Bro.

    None of that happened.

    So lets move on to talking about interesting stuff.

    Quire.jpg
  • SticksSticks I'd rather be in bed.Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    If enough people vote "for what they want" by going third party, politicians from the closest major party will indeed adjust to better represent your desires. Next cycle. After they get their asses handed to them this time around.

    You basically have to take a short term loss, and pray that it turns into long term gain.

    Sticks on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Sticks wrote: »
    If enough people vote "for what they want" by going third party, politicians from the closest major party will indeed adjust to better represent your desires. Next cycle. After they get their asses handed to them this time around.

    You basically have to take a short term loss, and pray that it turns into long term gain.

    By this standard the Democrats in 2004 would be considerably more liberal than in 2000. Which... they were not.

    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Sticks wrote: »
    If enough people vote "for what they want" by going third party, politicians from the closest major party will indeed adjust to better represent your desires. Next cycle. After they get their asses handed to them this time around.

    You basically have to take a short term loss, and pray that it turns into long term gain.

    For the Presidency? That's...not really true. If you want to impact the party's overall stance on things you need to do it via primaries and via the legislature and States. If anything the Presidency is the least important since its constituency is so large you can't really move the median voter that much one way or the other.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    Sticks wrote: »
    If enough people vote "for what they want" by going third party, politicians from the closest major party will indeed adjust to better represent your desires. Next cycle. After they get their asses handed to them this time around.

    You basically have to take a short term loss, and pray that it turns into long term gain.

    For the Presidency? That's...not really true. If you want to impact the party's overall stance on things you need to do it via primaries and via the legislature and States. If anything the Presidency is the least important since its constituency is so large you can't really move the median voter that much one way or the other.

    And this is how the far right has seized control, too. If you want to start a political movement in the United States, you start local and build an organization. You can't just jump into the national discourse with no support down ticket.

    If the left is serious about changing the narrative, they need to start off in municipal, county, and state elections. Most laws that effect the day to day are passed on the state level (education being the big one). Once you have a solid coalition, you move up into the congressional and state level offices. Get a few states on board and you start making moves toward a national movement.

    It's how the Republicans went from backwater free soilers to a nationally competitive party.

    At the same time, you have to vote for the candidate who most represents you, the "best option". Call it better of two evils if you must, but the only people who get helped by disenfranchisement are the people in power.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • nightmarennynightmarenny Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    moniker wrote: »
    Sticks wrote: »
    If enough people vote "for what they want" by going third party, politicians from the closest major party will indeed adjust to better represent your desires. Next cycle. After they get their asses handed to them this time around.

    You basically have to take a short term loss, and pray that it turns into long term gain.

    For the Presidency? That's...not really true. If you want to impact the party's overall stance on things you need to do it via primaries and via the legislature and States. If anything the Presidency is the least important since its constituency is so large you can't really move the median voter that much one way or the other.

    And this is how the far right has seized control, too. If you want to start a political movement in the United States, you start local and build an organization. You can't just jump into the national discourse with no support down ticket.

    If the left is serious about changing the narrative, they need to start off in municipal, county, and state elections. Most laws that effect the day to day are passed on the state level (education being the big one). Once you have a solid coalition, you move up into the congressional and state level offices. Get a few states on board and you start making moves toward a national movement.

    It's how the Republicans went from backwater free soilers to a nationally competitive party.

    At the same time, you have to vote for the candidate who most represents you, the "best option". Call it better of two evils if you must, but the only people who get helped by disenfranchisement are the people in power.

    But Amanfromearth, if we start at the county level how ever will we instantly fix everybody's problems in a single election!

    (I may be letting my bitterness take to much control)

    nightmarenny on
    Quire.jpg
  • TheCanManTheCanMan GT: Gasman122009 JerseyRegistered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    Sticks wrote: »
    If enough people vote "for what they want" by going third party, politicians from the closest major party will indeed adjust to better represent your desires. Next cycle. After they get their asses handed to them this time around.

    You basically have to take a short term loss, and pray that it turns into long term gain.

    For the Presidency? That's...not really true. If you want to impact the party's overall stance on things you need to do it via primaries and via the legislature and States. If anything the Presidency is the least important since its constituency is so large you can't really move the median voter that much one way or the other.

    And this is how the far right has seized control, too. If you want to start a political movement in the United States, you start local and build an organization. You can't just jump into the national discourse with no support down ticket.

    If the left is serious about changing the narrative, they need to start off in municipal, county, and state elections. Most laws that effect the day to day are passed on the state level (education being the big one). Once you have a solid coalition, you move up into the congressional and state level offices. Get a few states on board and you start making moves toward a national movement.

    It's how the Republicans went from backwater free soilers to a nationally competitive party.

    At the same time, you have to vote for the candidate who most represents you, the "best option". Call it better of two evils if you must, but the only people who get helped by disenfranchisement are the people in power the people you hate more.

    FTFY. Every single vote that isn't case is ostensibly a vote for the candidate you disagree with more.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Sticks wrote: »
    If enough people vote "for what they want" by going third party, politicians from the closest major party will indeed adjust to better represent your desires. Next cycle. After they get their asses handed to them this time around.

    You basically have to take a short term loss, and pray that it turns into long term gain.

    For the Presidency? That's...not really true. If you want to impact the party's overall stance on things you need to do it via primaries and via the legislature and States. If anything the Presidency is the least important since its constituency is so large you can't really move the median voter that much one way or the other.

    And this is how the far right has seized control, too. If you want to start a political movement in the United States, you start local and build an organization. You can't just jump into the national discourse with no support down ticket.

    If the left is serious about changing the narrative, they need to start off in municipal, county, and state elections. Most laws that effect the day to day are passed on the state level (education being the big one). Once you have a solid coalition, you move up into the congressional and state level offices. Get a few states on board and you start making moves toward a national movement.

    It's how the Republicans went from backwater free soilers to a nationally competitive party.

    At the same time, you have to vote for the candidate who most represents you, the "best option". Call it better of two evils if you must, but the only people who get helped by disenfranchisement are the people in power the people you hate more.

    FTFY. Every single vote that isn't case is ostensibly a vote for the candidate you disagree with more.

    You know, the funny thing is that's how I originally had it before I self edited.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • DajianDajian Registered User regular
    I really think the current mindset of instant gratification is what is making it increasingly difficult to shift the national parties to the left and I do mean both of them. You can’t expect to have the Democratic Party swing far left while leaving the GOP on the far right. That would leave a large portion of voters with nowhere to go and neither of the parties is willing to give up that middle ground.

    The 24 hour news cycle and constant scandal chasing has lead us to believe that politics is something that happens day to day/minute to minute basis (and sure some issues happen in this time frame), but the big questions, the big policies, and real formative change takes decades. They all start at a local and state level and have to grow in support. If you are a liberal and you want liberal policies the best way to see them happen in your life time is to get involved locally. Get out and effect local and state level policy. The president of our future will be shaped and supported at the local and state levels of today.

    You are not going to go out and find a liberal candidate for president for the next two or three election cycles because the available pool is from politicians that have had to cut their teeth and build their message to support their local and state environments for the last 2 decades (as the country slowly shifted to the right). If we truly want to push the country left it has to spread out from places like CA, MD, and DC (Solid Blue Liberal States) into their neighboring states and then beyond to shift the national conversation to be more liberal.

    I am an unashamed liberal and I voted for Obama because he was the pragmatic realist who would be a good administrator and I will vote for him again in a heartbeat, but I long for the day when I can support my local and state liberal candidates for the national stage.

  • dontindentdontindent Registered User regular
    shryke wrote:
    Bush declared Mission Accomplished in Iraq in 2003. The new government of Iraq formed in 2006. 6 years of occupation (3 under the new government) is plenty of time, so yeah, I don't think we saved a whole lot of lives by staying an extra 3 years and in the meantime we lost many American and Iraqi lives from continued skirmishes. Obviously I don't have much of the information available to me that Obama does, but neither do you guys, so let's take the appeal to authority off the table here.

    With the economic situation at home when Obama took office I would have been completely fine with leaving in Jan 2009.

    Given that Obama got the Nobel Peace prize for essentially being not-Bush, I doubt the rest of the world cared a lot about us upholding Bush's promises.

    That's not an appeal to authority at all. There's every reason to assume President Obama gets far better information then candidate Obama, let alone you or I. To attempt to ignore this as a possible source of a change in position is incredibly dishonest.

    Secondly, plans are made based on timelines. If Bush told the Iraqis "We are leaving on this data", they will plan the transition of authority to happen on that timetable. Asking them to change that timetable isn't necessarily feasible or a good thing. This isn't "6 years of occupation to get ready". That doesn't even make sense in light of how ANYTHING in the real world is planned.

    If this is true, then why did we cheer when Obama criticized this timeline during his campaign? Why weren't we giving the Bush administration this same benefit of the doubt?

    Anyway, I feel like a lot of the debate here is pretty adversarial toward criticizing Obama from the left. Claiming that, well, he did better than a Republican would in his position isn't really a useful claim to make. Is that really our standard, now? "Well, at least my candidate is to the left of a group of fringe right-wingers!" I guess I'd like to aim a little higher than that. Here's my perspective:
    • A lot of great stuff has happened under the Obama administration (although, a large part of that was due to the awesome 111th Congress)! People have been pointing this stuff out over the course of this thread. Some of it wasn't good enough (the stimulus package, the ACA), but is better than nothing. The Obama administration has been objectively better than the Bush administration as a result.
    • "Better than nothing" should not be our aim. We shouldn't be satisfied with "better than nothing." Mediocre policy is better than bad policy, but not the same as good policy, and the latter is (I would assume) our aim. Democrats are not the same as Republicans, and thus we hold them to a higher standard. This seems fair to me.
    • Obama himself has been a mixed bag policy-wise. I don't expect him to take the bully pulpit, and single handedly coerce Congress into passing utopian legislation. However, he has chosen to use the bully pulpit to encourage policy, and some of it has been pretty bad. He openly advocated for some pretty egregious austerity last year, for instance. I don't think it's too much to ask for him openly advocate for more liberal policy. I'm pragmatic in that I don't expect him to convince Congress of anything, and I don't expect him to be suddenly advocating for single-payer healthcare. Nonetheless, it would be nice to have more prominent figures shifting the Overton Window left, for a change.

    That said, I also realize that liberals need to become a more consistent base. I voted straight Democrat in 2010 (even if it was essentially pissing on a fire, living in Southwest Michigan and all). I'll be voting for Obama this year, even if I'm not terribly enthusiastic about it.

    I guess my point is, if people don't think Obama is being liberal enough, they should be vocal about it. They should openly adovcate more liberal polcy. They should also vote every chance they get, and vote as liberal as possible.
    If you're going to keep insisting that Bush = Obama to a large degree, you're going to have to address that he, you know, doesn't. Outside of appointments to Treasury and the national security state.
    These are significant powers of the presidency, though. If, as has been argued in this thread, we should be blaming Congress for a lot of the stagnation on the legislative front (which I believe we should be), then we should be focusing more on things like the above, rather than just crediting Obama with the positive legislative achievements that have been gained over the previous few years. Obama is responsible for appointing Geithner and Summers, and he's responsible for continuing to listen to them and doing his best to implement their advised economic policy. Likewise for the security state he has instituted (or, in some cases, continued).

    It seems like people want it both ways, where Obama is responsible for all good things that have happened under the auspices of the federal government as a whole, but is not responsible for those things the government has failed to accomplish, because they're out of the scope of presidential powers.

  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    MuddBudd wrote: »
    Can this stop being the everyone argues with Seruko thread now?

    It's almost as bad as an ACSIS airplane derail

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    These are significant powers of the presidency, though. If, as has been argued in this thread, we should be blaming Congress for a lot of the stagnation on the legislative front (which I believe we should be), then we should be focusing more on things like the above, rather than just crediting Obama with the positive legislative achievements that have been gained over the previous few years. Obama is responsible for appointing Geithner and Summers, and he's responsible for continuing to listen to them and doing his best to implement their advised economic policy. Likewise for the security state he has instituted (or, in some cases, continued).

    It seems like people want it both ways, where Obama is responsible for all good things that have happened under the auspices of the federal government as a whole, but is not responsible for those things the government has failed to accomplish, because they're out of the scope of presidential powers.

    Fair points, but he also has a pretty kickass/effective foreign policy (Clinton has wildly exceeded my expectations) that is basically entirely his. And Sotomayor has been fantastic. Kagan less so, but still quite good. There have been some under the radar huge things on the environment (CAFE standards to 55 mpg in the next decade, the mercury regulation) that have been purely executive issues.

    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • dontindentdontindent Registered User regular
    These are significant powers of the presidency, though. If, as has been argued in this thread, we should be blaming Congress for a lot of the stagnation on the legislative front (which I believe we should be), then we should be focusing more on things like the above, rather than just crediting Obama with the positive legislative achievements that have been gained over the previous few years. Obama is responsible for appointing Geithner and Summers, and he's responsible for continuing to listen to them and doing his best to implement their advised economic policy. Likewise for the security state he has instituted (or, in some cases, continued).

    It seems like people want it both ways, where Obama is responsible for all good things that have happened under the auspices of the federal government as a whole, but is not responsible for those things the government has failed to accomplish, because they're out of the scope of presidential powers.

    Fair points, but he also has a pretty kickass/effective foreign policy (Clinton has wildly exceeded my expectations) that is basically entirely his. And Sotomayor has been fantastic. Kagan less so, but still quite good. There have been some under the radar huge things on the environment (CAFE standards to 55 mpg in the next decade, the mercury regulation) that have been purely executive issues.

    Right, and I totally agree on all the points you listed, and should probably add the contraception mandate as well. Like I said, he's been a mixed bag. On the whole, I'd call him a good president, but one with substantial failings.

  • SticksSticks I'd rather be in bed.Registered User regular
    Sticks wrote: »
    If enough people vote "for what they want" by going third party, politicians from the closest major party will indeed adjust to better represent your desires. Next cycle. After they get their asses handed to them this time around.

    You basically have to take a short term loss, and pray that it turns into long term gain.

    By this standard the Democrats in 2004 would be considerably more liberal than in 2000. Which... they were not.

    Well, there wasn't a viable third party in that election. So there was zero chance that the dems' takeaway from that was "we weren't liberal enough."

    But that is beside the point. I wasn't actually advocating this as a meaningful way to effect change in the national parties. I was laying out the reasoning behind voting "for who you want" vs "against who you least want" in our system. When you vote this way, this is what you are relying on in order to accomplish your goals.

    In other words, don't do it. It's poor strategy.

  • Hello, sorry for english

    Just wanted to say that Obama administration is good because less aggressive than predecessor and republican, so better for non-america countries like mine
    Thanks for sharing opinions, please think about consequences in international setting when choosing for candidate, it is my opinion.

    Flame_Shot.gif Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a year. Set him on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life!
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Sticks wrote: »
    Sticks wrote: »
    If enough people vote "for what they want" by going third party, politicians from the closest major party will indeed adjust to better represent your desires. Next cycle. After they get their asses handed to them this time around.

    You basically have to take a short term loss, and pray that it turns into long term gain.

    By this standard the Democrats in 2004 would be considerably more liberal than in 2000. Which... they were not.

    Well, there wasn't a viable third party in that election. So there was zero chance that the dems' takeaway from that was "we weren't liberal enough."

    But that is beside the point. I wasn't actually advocating this as a meaningful way to effect change in the national parties. I was laying out the reasoning behind voting "for who you want" vs "against who you least want" in our system. When you vote this way, this is what you are relying on in order to accomplish your goals.

    In other words, don't do it. It's poor strategy.

    Nader ran in 2000, won 5% and lost Gore the election.

    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    dontindent wrote: »
    shryke wrote:
    Bush declared Mission Accomplished in Iraq in 2003. The new government of Iraq formed in 2006. 6 years of occupation (3 under the new government) is plenty of time, so yeah, I don't think we saved a whole lot of lives by staying an extra 3 years and in the meantime we lost many American and Iraqi lives from continued skirmishes. Obviously I don't have much of the information available to me that Obama does, but neither do you guys, so let's take the appeal to authority off the table here.

    With the economic situation at home when Obama took office I would have been completely fine with leaving in Jan 2009.

    Given that Obama got the Nobel Peace prize for essentially being not-Bush, I doubt the rest of the world cared a lot about us upholding Bush's promises.

    That's not an appeal to authority at all. There's every reason to assume President Obama gets far better information then candidate Obama, let alone you or I. To attempt to ignore this as a possible source of a change in position is incredibly dishonest.

    Secondly, plans are made based on timelines. If Bush told the Iraqis "We are leaving on this data", they will plan the transition of authority to happen on that timetable. Asking them to change that timetable isn't necessarily feasible or a good thing. This isn't "6 years of occupation to get ready". That doesn't even make sense in light of how ANYTHING in the real world is planned.

    If this is true, then why did we cheer when Obama criticized this timeline during his campaign? Why weren't we giving the Bush administration this same benefit of the doubt?

    Because Bush had already proven his stupidity and lack of attachment to facts by doing things like, say, invading Iraq in the first place.

    The benefit of the doubt is based on the person in question.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    YamiB. wrote: »
    Problem is this won't work. It's just basic political science. Get us a parliamentary system instead of first-past-the-post and then maybe we'll see the views of the electorate better match those of the people. Also multiplying the number of Congressmen by 10 or 100 so that they can go back to reflecting a manageable number of constituents and the means to run for office is back withing the reach of a "normal person" would be a help as well.

    It seems that voting for the lesser to two evils isn't working either. I admit there is close to 0 chance of my working. But it makes more sense to me to vote in terms of voting to vote for what you want and hope that politicians will see this and adjust to better represent your desires.

    The way I see it right now both the Republicans and Democrats are driving the country off a cliff, the big difference being the speed at which they do so. What I want is to actually turn things around instead of choosing a slower decline even though I'm cynical enough to believe it is an pretty futile effort.

    We've put a democrat in the White House for one bloody term and he hasn't gotten everything you wanted? Obama made several obvious pushes forward. Maybe if liberals wern't so quick to abandon the party that is going there way(and convincing themselves they are just as bad as the other guy) they would be a more viable base.

    The party are abandoning liberals more than liberals abandoning the party. Why should they stick around when they're the first faction to get ignored or spat on to appease the conservatives? One side constantly compromising isn't a good way to build trust with a voting bloc. There needs to be a give and take here.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    The party is where the votes are.

    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Bagginses wrote: »
    fugacity wrote: »
    Businesses being punished by fines is futile. Make it jail time and other actual punishments that hurt the business or the people responsible for the decisions in a way they can't laugh off like being banned from said industries for x years or permanently and that will have an effect on white collar crimes being committed.

    Only because of the size of the fees. If they were "comply or you put your business at risk of not existing anymore"-sized you'd probably see a lot more compliance.

    No it wouldn't. Large fees would bankrupt the smaller businesses, but the larger businesses would just buy up those parts and go on to pollute more and incorporate those fees into their expenses. Then use their amassed wealth to lobby and campaign for lawmakers who will lower the fees back down again. Look at how much the pork industry which is largely run by one corporation gets away with. You can't make a fee large enough to stop pollution without nationalizing the industry. Jail time seems more effective to me. For sustained systemic violation pull their corporate charter and pay out in reverse normal order, goverment first, then litigates, then debtors, then bonds, then stockholders (voting stock last), then executives last if there's anything at all left over. There needs to be a death penalty for corporations.

    Who do you jail, and why can't the fines simply be levied on a per capita basis?

    Anyone who authorized the crimes. Especially the elites in the company's upper ranks who give orders and control policies. The workers who also followed those orders, too.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    YamiB. wrote: »
    Problem is this won't work. It's just basic political science. Get us a parliamentary system instead of first-past-the-post and then maybe we'll see the views of the electorate better match those of the people. Also multiplying the number of Congressmen by 10 or 100 so that they can go back to reflecting a manageable number of constituents and the means to run for office is back withing the reach of a "normal person" would be a help as well.

    It seems that voting for the lesser to two evils isn't working either. I admit there is close to 0 chance of my working. But it makes more sense to me to vote in terms of voting to vote for what you want and hope that politicians will see this and adjust to better represent your desires.

    The way I see it right now both the Republicans and Democrats are driving the country off a cliff, the big difference being the speed at which they do so. What I want is to actually turn things around instead of choosing a slower decline even though I'm cynical enough to believe it is an pretty futile effort.

    We've put a democrat in the White House for one bloody term and he hasn't gotten everything you wanted? Obama made several obvious pushes forward. Maybe if liberals wern't so quick to abandon the party that is going there way(and convincing themselves they are just as bad as the other guy) they would be a more viable base.

    The party are abandoning liberals more than liberals abandoning the party. Why should they stick around when they're the first faction to get ignored or spat on to appease the conservatives? One side constantly compromising isn't a good way to build trust with a voting bloc. There needs to be a give and take here.

    Could it be that conservatives show up to vote more consistently?

    Lh96QHG.png
  • SerukoSeruko Ferocious Kitten of The Farthest NorthRegistered User regular
    edited March 2012
    I have read carefully the treaty of Paris, and I have seen that we do not intend to free, but to subjugate the people of the Philippines. We have gone there to conquer, not to redeem. It should, it seems to me, be our pleasure and duty to make those people free, and let them deal with their own domestic questions in their own way. And so I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land.
    Mark Twain.
    Clearly not at all applicable in Afghanistan.
    Nope 11 Years of Occupation, while perhaps longer than World War I & II combined, totally justified. Fight them over there or over here.
    If only there was some historical precident for propping up corrupt unpopular governments, for a decade or so, In Asia, for their own good.

    Seruko on
    "How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
    "You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
    "In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
    "In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
    I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
  • dontindentdontindent Registered User regular
    The party are abandoning liberals more than liberals abandoning the party. Why should they stick around when they're the first faction to get ignored or spat on to appease the conservatives? One side constantly compromising isn't a good way to build trust with a voting bloc. There needs to be a give and take here.

    The data I've seen indicate conservative and moderate Democrats are the more reliable base, and so thats who the party caters to. You establish that no Democrat makes it through the primary process without being a bonafide Progressive by getting the liberal base to vote early, often, and consistently, and you'll get candidates running to the left as fast as Republicans run to the right. In the short term, though, we've got to suck it up and build that reliable base.

  • nightmarennynightmarenny Registered User regular
    YamiB. wrote: »
    Problem is this won't work. It's just basic political science. Get us a parliamentary system instead of first-past-the-post and then maybe we'll see the views of the electorate better match those of the people. Also multiplying the number of Congressmen by 10 or 100 so that they can go back to reflecting a manageable number of constituents and the means to run for office is back withing the reach of a "normal person" would be a help as well.

    It seems that voting for the lesser to two evils isn't working either. I admit there is close to 0 chance of my working. But it makes more sense to me to vote in terms of voting to vote for what you want and hope that politicians will see this and adjust to better represent your desires.

    The way I see it right now both the Republicans and Democrats are driving the country off a cliff, the big difference being the speed at which they do so. What I want is to actually turn things around instead of choosing a slower decline even though I'm cynical enough to believe it is an pretty futile effort.

    We've put a democrat in the White House for one bloody term and he hasn't gotten everything you wanted? Obama made several obvious pushes forward. Maybe if liberals wern't so quick to abandon the party that is going there way(and convincing themselves they are just as bad as the other guy) they would be a more viable base.

    The party are abandoning liberals more than liberals abandoning the party. Why should they stick around when they're the first faction to get ignored or spat on to appease the conservatives? One side constantly compromising isn't a good way to build trust with a voting bloc. There needs to be a give and take here.

    I don't really feel they have done that. Yes this congress has allowed some things to be added to their bills to get enough votes but by and large most of what I got was what I wanted. SOPA and certain parts of NDAA piss me off. Which is why I'm glad we struck SOPA down and our centrist president refuses to use the NDAA so I'm hoping its no longer a law when someone else is in the white house. But I think this administration has been good first step. If the youth and liberal vote doesn't lose its head and comes out in force this year and 2016(so they know it wasn't just the candidate) we should make some serious gains.

    Quire.jpg
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Seruko wrote: »
    I have read carefully the treaty of Paris, and I have seen that we do not intend to free, but to subjugate the people of the Philippines. We have gone there to conquer, not to redeem. It should, it seems to me, be our pleasure and duty to make those people free, and let them deal with their own domestic questions in their own way. And so I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land.
    Mark Twain.
    Clearly not at all applicable in Afghanistan.
    Nope 11 Years of Occupation, while perhaps longer than World War I & II combined, totally justified. Fight them over there or over here.
    If only there was some historical precident for propping up corrupt unpopular governments, for a decade or so, In Asia, for their own good.

    Are you suggesting that the President appointed Karzai Governor-General with approval from the Senate? Because I don't recall that vote.

  • SerukoSeruko Ferocious Kitten of The Farthest NorthRegistered User regular
    edited March 2012
    moniker wrote: »
    Seruko wrote: »
    I have read carefully the treaty of Paris, and I have seen that we do not intend to free, but to subjugate the people of the Philippines. We have gone there to conquer, not to redeem. It should, it seems to me, be our pleasure and duty to make those people free, and let them deal with their own domestic questions in their own way. And so I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land.
    Mark Twain.
    Clearly not at all applicable in Afghanistan.
    Nope 11 Years of Occupation, while perhaps longer than World War I & II combined, totally justified. Fight them over there or over here.
    If only there was some historical precident for propping up corrupt unpopular governments, for a decade or so, In Asia, for their own good.

    Are you suggesting that the President appointed Karzai Governor-General with approval from the Senate? Because I don't recall that vote.

    Looks totally legit.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamid_Karzai#2009_re-election_and_second_term
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamid_Karzai#Controversy
    After all nothing to do with Obama. 2014 Is only 13 years of occupation, as liberators really.
    It's like the Afghan national army is currently welcoming US troops with friend ship bullets.

    Seruko on
    "How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
    "You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
    "In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
    "In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
    I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    Sticks wrote: »
    If enough people vote "for what they want" by going third party, politicians from the closest major party will indeed adjust to better represent your desires. Next cycle. After they get their asses handed to them this time around.

    You basically have to take a short term loss, and pray that it turns into long term gain.

    For the Presidency? That's...not really true. If you want to impact the party's overall stance on things you need to do it via primaries and via the legislature and States. If anything the Presidency is the least important since its constituency is so large you can't really move the median voter that much one way or the other.

    And this is how the far right has seized control, too. If you want to start a political movement in the United States, you start local and build an organization. You can't just jump into the national discourse with no support down ticket.

    If the left is serious about changing the narrative, they need to start off in municipal, county, and state elections. Most laws that effect the day to day are passed on the state level (education being the big one). Once you have a solid coalition, you move up into the congressional and state level offices. Get a few states on board and you start making moves toward a national movement.

    It's how the Republicans went from backwater free soilers to a nationally competitive party.

    At the same time, you have to vote for the candidate who most represents you, the "best option". Call it better of two evils if you must, but the only people who get helped by disenfranchisement are the people in power.

    Exactly.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Seruko wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Seruko wrote: »
    I have read carefully the treaty of Paris, and I have seen that we do not intend to free, but to subjugate the people of the Philippines. We have gone there to conquer, not to redeem. It should, it seems to me, be our pleasure and duty to make those people free, and let them deal with their own domestic questions in their own way. And so I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land.
    Mark Twain.
    Clearly not at all applicable in Afghanistan.
    Nope 11 Years of Occupation, while perhaps longer than World War I & II combined, totally justified. Fight them over there or over here.
    If only there was some historical precident for propping up corrupt unpopular governments, for a decade or so, In Asia, for their own good.

    Are you suggesting that the President appointed Karzai Governor-General with approval from the Senate? Because I don't recall that vote.

    Looks totally legit.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamid_Karzai#2009_re-election_and_second_term
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamid_Karzai#Controversy
    After all nothing to do with Obama. 2014 Is only 13 years of occupation, as liberators really.
    It's like the Afghan national army is currently welcoming US troops with friend ship bullets.

    Again, I would ask for the Roll Call vote in the United States Senate appointing the leader of the Afghani government. Otherwise the parallels to our treatment of the Philippines following the Spanish-American War that you are alluding to seem specious at best.

    You can look votes up up on thomas.loc.gov if that helps.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    YamiB. wrote: »
    Problem is this won't work. It's just basic political science. Get us a parliamentary system instead of first-past-the-post and then maybe we'll see the views of the electorate better match those of the people. Also multiplying the number of Congressmen by 10 or 100 so that they can go back to reflecting a manageable number of constituents and the means to run for office is back withing the reach of a "normal person" would be a help as well.

    It seems that voting for the lesser to two evils isn't working either. I admit there is close to 0 chance of my working. But it makes more sense to me to vote in terms of voting to vote for what you want and hope that politicians will see this and adjust to better represent your desires.

    The way I see it right now both the Republicans and Democrats are driving the country off a cliff, the big difference being the speed at which they do so. What I want is to actually turn things around instead of choosing a slower decline even though I'm cynical enough to believe it is an pretty futile effort.

    We've put a democrat in the White House for one bloody term and he hasn't gotten everything you wanted? Obama made several obvious pushes forward. Maybe if liberals wern't so quick to abandon the party that is going there way(and convincing themselves they are just as bad as the other guy) they would be a more viable base.

    The party are abandoning liberals more than liberals abandoning the party. Why should they stick around when they're the first faction to get ignored or spat on to appease the conservatives? One side constantly compromising isn't a good way to build trust with a voting bloc. There needs to be a give and take here.

    Could it be that conservatives show up to vote more consistently?

    I'd say they do that because conservatives are given more to be motivated about. That and the Democrats are shitty about expanding their liberal base or energizing their loyal ones. They need them whenever the newest elections but it's back to ignoring liberals when they get into power, some even blame liberals whenever the Democrats lose as well. That is not a good tactic for solid long term liberal support.

    edit: Insulting liberals and kicking out high profile liberals that actually did good work isn't going to make liberals loyal voters.

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2010/02/rahm-apologizes-for-privately-calling-liberal-activists-retarded

    http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/justin-coussoule-confirms-obamakaine

    Harry Dresden on
  • SerukoSeruko Ferocious Kitten of The Farthest NorthRegistered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    Seruko wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Seruko wrote: »
    I have read carefully the treaty of Paris, and I have seen that we do not intend to free, but to subjugate the people of the Philippines. We have gone there to conquer, not to redeem. It should, it seems to me, be our pleasure and duty to make those people free, and let them deal with their own domestic questions in their own way. And so I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land.
    Mark Twain.
    Clearly not at all applicable in Afghanistan.
    Nope 11 Years of Occupation, while perhaps longer than World War I & II combined, totally justified. Fight them over there or over here.
    If only there was some historical precident for propping up corrupt unpopular governments, for a decade or so, In Asia, for their own good.

    Are you suggesting that the President appointed Karzai Governor-General with approval from the Senate? Because I don't recall that vote.

    Looks totally legit.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamid_Karzai#2009_re-election_and_second_term
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamid_Karzai#Controversy
    After all nothing to do with Obama. 2014 Is only 13 years of occupation, as liberators really.
    It's like the Afghan national army is currently welcoming US troops with friend ship bullets.

    Again, I would ask for the Roll Call vote in the United States Senate appointing the leader of the Afghani government. Otherwise the parallels to our treatment of the Philippines following the Spanish-American War that you are alluding to seem specious at best.

    You can look votes up up on thomas.loc.gov if that helps.

    Totally right, after all Karzai was completely fairly democratically elected without any influence from the occupying force. The election was totally above board, really an impeccable democratic event without any kind of censure or obfuscation. It's not like exactly the same argument has been used to justify every long term US occupation of a foreign nation. Nope totally unique "but if we leave it will cause more harm than if we stay" totally not at all similar. You'd have to be some kind of mentat to draw any parallels between the Philippines, Korea, Iraq and Afghanistan.

    "How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
    "You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
    "In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
    "In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
    I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    dontindent wrote: »
    The party are abandoning liberals more than liberals abandoning the party. Why should they stick around when they're the first faction to get ignored or spat on to appease the conservatives? One side constantly compromising isn't a good way to build trust with a voting bloc. There needs to be a give and take here.

    The data I've seen indicate conservative and moderate Democrats are the more reliable base, and so thats who the party caters to. You establish that no Democrat makes it through the primary process without being a bonafide Progressive by getting the liberal base to vote early, often, and consistently, and you'll get candidates running to the left as fast as Republicans run to the right.

    They're more reliable because the Democrats actually make an effort to court them. Had many Democratic politicians campaigned like Obama did in the presidential election on a national scale more liberals would have shown up to vote IMO.
    In the short term, though, we've got to suck it up and build that reliable base.

    Agreed.

    That said, that's only a first step. More liberals voting alone won't make all of the conservative Democrats swing left. They prosper from the status quo to much. But hopefully that can change with a sizable liberal base that can't be ignored in the future.

    Harry Dresden on
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    YamiB. wrote: »
    Problem is this won't work. It's just basic political science. Get us a parliamentary system instead of first-past-the-post and then maybe we'll see the views of the electorate better match those of the people. Also multiplying the number of Congressmen by 10 or 100 so that they can go back to reflecting a manageable number of constituents and the means to run for office is back withing the reach of a "normal person" would be a help as well.

    It seems that voting for the lesser to two evils isn't working either. I admit there is close to 0 chance of my working. But it makes more sense to me to vote in terms of voting to vote for what you want and hope that politicians will see this and adjust to better represent your desires.

    The way I see it right now both the Republicans and Democrats are driving the country off a cliff, the big difference being the speed at which they do so. What I want is to actually turn things around instead of choosing a slower decline even though I'm cynical enough to believe it is an pretty futile effort.

    We've put a democrat in the White House for one bloody term and he hasn't gotten everything you wanted? Obama made several obvious pushes forward. Maybe if liberals wern't so quick to abandon the party that is going there way(and convincing themselves they are just as bad as the other guy) they would be a more viable base.

    The party are abandoning liberals more than liberals abandoning the party. Why should they stick around when they're the first faction to get ignored or spat on to appease the conservatives? One side constantly compromising isn't a good way to build trust with a voting bloc. There needs to be a give and take here.

    Could it be that conservatives show up to vote more consistently?

    I'd say they do that because conservatives are given more to be motivated about. That and the Democrats are shitty about expanding their liberal base or energizing their loyal ones. They need them whenever the newest elections but it's back to ignoring liberals when they get into power. That is not a good tactic for solid long term liberal support.

    Hmmm, I think it's probably a mix of both things. From my point of view liberals tend to throw their hands up at the first obstacle, whereas conservatives keep plowing through regardless. I won't argue that the DNC doesn't use the left; they do and that isn't really debatable. But I think that the left does need to make an effort to get involved.

    I mean, that's what the Tea Party's done (though admittedly it's easy to take power when you're astoturfed) to the Republicans.

    And I'm less than convinced that the left is in fact the Democrat's base. We don't really have a leftist party, right now we have a center left (DNC) and a far right (GOP) party set. I don't know what the solution is for that but I think it's where we are in America.

    I imagine the dynamic will shift along population lines, as even Conservative youngsters are liberal compared to the boomers.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Obama didn't campaign as a liberal though. He campaigned as a we can come together to solve our problems pragmatic idealist.

    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    YamiB. wrote: »
    Problem is this won't work. It's just basic political science. Get us a parliamentary system instead of first-past-the-post and then maybe we'll see the views of the electorate better match those of the people. Also multiplying the number of Congressmen by 10 or 100 so that they can go back to reflecting a manageable number of constituents and the means to run for office is back withing the reach of a "normal person" would be a help as well.

    It seems that voting for the lesser to two evils isn't working either. I admit there is close to 0 chance of my working. But it makes more sense to me to vote in terms of voting to vote for what you want and hope that politicians will see this and adjust to better represent your desires.

    The way I see it right now both the Republicans and Democrats are driving the country off a cliff, the big difference being the speed at which they do so. What I want is to actually turn things around instead of choosing a slower decline even though I'm cynical enough to believe it is an pretty futile effort.

    We've put a democrat in the White House for one bloody term and he hasn't gotten everything you wanted? Obama made several obvious pushes forward. Maybe if liberals wern't so quick to abandon the party that is going there way(and convincing themselves they are just as bad as the other guy) they would be a more viable base.

    The party are abandoning liberals more than liberals abandoning the party. Why should they stick around when they're the first faction to get ignored or spat on to appease the conservatives? One side constantly compromising isn't a good way to build trust with a voting bloc. There needs to be a give and take here.

    Could it be that conservatives show up to vote more consistently?

    I'd say they do that because conservatives are given more to be motivated about. That and the Democrats are shitty about expanding their liberal base or energizing their loyal ones. They need them whenever the newest elections but it's back to ignoring liberals when they get into power. That is not a good tactic for solid long term liberal support.

    Hmmm, I think it's probably a mix of both things. From my point of view liberals tend to throw their hands up at the first obstacle, whereas conservatives keep plowing through regardless. I won't argue that the DNC doesn't use the left; they do and that isn't really debatable. But I think that the left does need to make an effort to get involved.

    I mean, that's what the Tea Party's done (though admittedly it's easy to take power when you're astoturfed) to the Republicans.

    And I'm less than convinced that the left is in fact the Democrat's base. We don't really have a leftist party, right now we have a center left (DNC) and a far right (GOP) party set. I don't know what the solution is for that but I think it's where we are in America.

    I imagine the dynamic will shift along population lines, as even Conservative youngsters are liberal compared to the boomers.

    True.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Seruko wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Seruko wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Seruko wrote: »
    I have read carefully the treaty of Paris, and I have seen that we do not intend to free, but to subjugate the people of the Philippines. We have gone there to conquer, not to redeem. It should, it seems to me, be our pleasure and duty to make those people free, and let them deal with their own domestic questions in their own way. And so I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land.
    Mark Twain.
    Clearly not at all applicable in Afghanistan.
    Nope 11 Years of Occupation, while perhaps longer than World War I & II combined, totally justified. Fight them over there or over here.
    If only there was some historical precident for propping up corrupt unpopular governments, for a decade or so, In Asia, for their own good.

    Are you suggesting that the President appointed Karzai Governor-General with approval from the Senate? Because I don't recall that vote.

    Looks totally legit.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamid_Karzai#2009_re-election_and_second_term
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamid_Karzai#Controversy
    After all nothing to do with Obama. 2014 Is only 13 years of occupation, as liberators really.
    It's like the Afghan national army is currently welcoming US troops with friend ship bullets.

    Again, I would ask for the Roll Call vote in the United States Senate appointing the leader of the Afghani government. Otherwise the parallels to our treatment of the Philippines following the Spanish-American War that you are alluding to seem specious at best.

    You can look votes up up on thomas.loc.gov if that helps.

    Totally right, after all Karzai was completely fairly democratically elected without any influence from the occupying force. The election was totally above board, really an impeccable democratic event without any kind of censure or obfuscation. It's not like exactly the same argument has been used to justify every long term US occupation of a foreign nation. Nope totally unique "but if we leave it will cause more harm than if we stay" totally not at all similar. You'd have to be some kind of mentat to draw any parallels between the Philippines, Korea, Iraq and Afghanistan.

    There are plenty of critiques of the horrific handling of the war and aftermath there. Claiming we colonized them isn't one of them. We annexed the Philippines, appointed their Governor through the authority of the President of the United States, and collected taxation/tribute from them in the process. Yes I would say that is a rather different circumstance from the one in Afghanistan with the lines diverging significantly rather than running along the same plane.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Obama didn't campaign as a liberal though. He campaigned as a we can come together to solve our problems pragmatic idealist.

    He did a good enough job to get liberals energized, though. Coming together is a theme that is good bait to court liberals in campaigns.

  • The Big LevinskyThe Big Levinsky Registered User regular
    Seruko wrote: »
    This whole calculus, on the face of it, blatantly is racist and imperialist.
    No one ever made the suggestion that we couldn't return France to French rule after the liberation during world war II. There were purges and executions of traitors there. Yet time and time again the US finds itself in situations where it has to save dark skinned people from themselves. By militarily occupying their country. Strange how those countries are usually either strategically important or resource rich or both. Weird how they didn't invite us in, in the first place.

    You're gonna compare post war France to Afghanistan? If you cannot see how staggeringly different and totally unrelated those two situations are, I don't think there's any point in continuing.

  • TachTach Registered User regular
    Seruko, do you want us out because you're anti-imperialist, anti-racist, or pro Afghani? Because your arguments are all over the place.

    When we went into Afghanistan, it was to depose the Taliban in order to remove Al Queda's base of operations. Bush- who up until that time was against nation-building- bungled the occupation and then turned his hardon to Iraq. It's been a long and difficult process to try and rectify the mistakes made by Bush & co, and we are on the road to ending the whole thing. It is not perfect, but nothing ever is in that place. No indefinite occupation.

    If we were to pull out 100% right this moment (a logistical impossibility) the Afghan army & security forces would be wiped out and more than likely the Taliban would seize power again.

    Do you remember what they are like? What their government did to their people? Do you want that for the Afghans?

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    dontindent wrote: »
    The party are abandoning liberals more than liberals abandoning the party. Why should they stick around when they're the first faction to get ignored or spat on to appease the conservatives? One side constantly compromising isn't a good way to build trust with a voting bloc. There needs to be a give and take here.

    The data I've seen indicate conservative and moderate Democrats are the more reliable base, and so thats who the party caters to. You establish that no Democrat makes it through the primary process without being a bonafide Progressive by getting the liberal base to vote early, often, and consistently, and you'll get candidates running to the left as fast as Republicans run to the right.

    They're more reliable because the Democrats actually make an effort to court them. Had many Democratic politicians campaigned like Obama did in the presidential election on a national scale more liberals would have shown up to vote IMO.
    In the short term, though, we've got to suck it up and build that reliable base.

    Agreed.

    That said, that's only a first step. More liberals voting alone won't make all of the conservative Democrats swing left. They prosper from the status quo to much. But hopefully that can change with a sizable liberal base that can't be ignored in the future.

    That's what primaries are for.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    dontindent wrote: »
    The party are abandoning liberals more than liberals abandoning the party. Why should they stick around when they're the first faction to get ignored or spat on to appease the conservatives? One side constantly compromising isn't a good way to build trust with a voting bloc. There needs to be a give and take here.

    The data I've seen indicate conservative and moderate Democrats are the more reliable base, and so thats who the party caters to. You establish that no Democrat makes it through the primary process without being a bonafide Progressive by getting the liberal base to vote early, often, and consistently, and you'll get candidates running to the left as fast as Republicans run to the right.

    They're more reliable because the Democrats actually make an effort to court them. Had many Democratic politicians campaigned like Obama did in the presidential election on a national scale more liberals would have shown up to vote IMO.
    In the short term, though, we've got to suck it up and build that reliable base.

    Agreed.

    That said, that's only a first step. More liberals voting alone won't make all of the conservative Democrats swing left. They prosper from the status quo to much. But hopefully that can change with a sizable liberal base that can't be ignored in the future.

    That's what primaries are for.

    More liberals running would help more. Though you can't really get to one without the other.

    Lh96QHG.png
This discussion has been closed.