Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

The Obama Administration: Re-Elected! 332-206 (Probably)

AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad.The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
edited November 2012 in Debate and/or Discourse
So, the President is still this guy:

tumblr_m78buztYU71qigzato1_500.jpg

His approval ratings have started to rebound lately, due to a variety of factors. Women have been coming back to the President, and the continuing insanity that is the Republican nominating contest has certainly helped. But obviously the biggest factor has been the finally possibly recovering economy. We had another pretty solid jobs reports on Friday, and with previous jobs reports being revised upwards, we're actually in something resembling a decent recovery. People are even returning to the labor pool, which is why the unemployment rate stayed at 8.3% this month.

There are still of course issues. Plenty of people are still angry about the NDAA, for example. There is also the continuing debate of targeted killings of American citizens abroad who have been allegedly linked to terrorism, such as Anwar Al-Awlaki. And generally quite a lot of civil libertarians are angry. For quite a lot of updates on these kinds of issues, you can read Glenn Greenwald who will probably channel your rage every day.

If you would like to litigate the past, we can continue to argue over the size of the stimulus and the nature of the health care bill and how much Congress sucks.

There are quite a lot of positives! First of all, and most importantly, the administration has appointed two justices to SCOTUS. That's working out pretty well. You've also got the end of the Iraq War (yes, on the Bush timeline, but we didn't ignore the government we set up) and the beginnings of the withdrawal from Afghanistan, scheduled to be complete in 2014. There have been quite impressive environmental regulations like this one and this one. And obviously there have been quite a lot of advances in the realm of gay rights, like the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, various hate crimes legislation, the end of support for the Defense of Marriage Act from the Justice Department, etc. etc. etc. There are other things, most of which are catalogued here: http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

With the upcoming election, recently the White House has been moving towards a more populist message. This started with a speech in Osawatomie, Kansas, that was fairly reflective of Teddy Roosevelt. And then he gave a defense of labor generally in a very fired up, very "campaign Obama" style speech to the UAW.

In the short term media cycle news of the moment, there are two major things going on.

First, the President made sure that Rush Limbaugh's bullshit got even more attention by calling Sandra Fluke and telling her that her parents are/should be proud of her, and how he hopes his daughters are willing to speak their mind like Ms. Fluke was.
Second, gas prices are high, and that is somewhat concerning for the President's re-election chances. Not surprisingly, energy has been a recent focus, and the subject of today's weekly address was energy.

This thread is mostly about the actions of the President/White House. There's obviously some overlap with the campaign, as what they're doing right now as far as governing is inextricably linked to the election (we run this country in a very, very stupid way). But try to keep it within the context of the White House's actions, so:

Do: talk about a speech the President made, a regulatory decision, a bill he's pushing for in Congress, his golf game, etc. etc. etc.
Don't: talk about Romney/Santorum/Gingrich/Paul. There is a primary thread for that, and when the primary thread is done, there will surely be a general election thread. Also, let's try not to get off on random ass tangents, though I am not exactly innocent on that front.

@Enlightenedbum shamed me with his superior OP.

AManFromEarth on
Lh96QHG.png
«134567102

Posts

  • nightmarennynightmarenny Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    @Rayofash

    Why? Vetoing the bill would have done nothing. They had a veto-proof majority.

    nightmarenny on
    Quire.jpg
  • lonelyahavalonelyahava One day, I will be able to say to myself "I am beautiful and I am perfect just the way I am"Registered User regular
    are we really having this argument again?

    Seriously?

    It was veto-proof. And had the president Vetoed the bill, it woudl have vetoed quite a lot of funding for defense. Maybe all of it. And would have gained him, and the country for that matter, absolutely nothing in return but MORE of a headache.

    My Little Corner of the World || I am ravelried! || My Steam!
    You have to fight through some bad days, to earn the best days of your life.
  • nightmarennynightmarenny Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    So when it comes to actually decent criticisms of the presidents actions I really dug this Colbert sketch.

    http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/410085/march-06-2012/the-word---due-or-die

    It deals with the problems I have with this whole Assassination thing. An enemy Soldier can be American and they shouldn't have extra protection but we need to sit down and define what a "war" is and what the rules are. 'cause the old rules don't cover this.

    Was Libya a war? Some people say it is but we didn't put a single soldier on the ground. We didn't really engage in combat in any true sense. What makes it different from the other bombings we've done? Or are we now at war with all those other places?

    We need to define war.

    nightmarenny on
    Quire.jpg
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    are we really having this argument again?

    Seriously?

    Seriously!

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Palin challenges Obama to a debate:
    http://thehill.com/video/campaign/215745-sarah-palin-challenges-obama-to-debate-anywhere-anytime

    No, it's not April 1st.

    This is... I honestly do not know what to say.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    Palin challenges Obama to a debate:
    http://thehill.com/video/campaign/215745-sarah-palin-challenges-obama-to-debate-anywhere-anytime

    No, it's not April 1st.

    This is... I honestly do not know what to say.

    Her ego. It can be seen from space.

    steam_sig.png
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    So when it comes to actually decent criticisms of the presidents actions I really dug this Colbert sketch.

    http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/410085/march-06-2012/the-word---due-or-die

    It deals with the problems I have with this whole Assassination thing. An enemy Soldier can be American and they shouldn't have extra protection but we need to sit down and define what a "war" is and what the rules are. 'cause the old rules don't cover this.

    Was Libya a war? Some people say it is but we didn't put a single soldier on the ground. We didn't really engage in combat in any true sense. What makes it different from the other bombings we've done? Or are we now at war with all those other places?

    We need to define war.

    We don't need to define it, we need to stop letting Republicans lie about what war has always been.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Palin challenges Obama to a debate:
    http://thehill.com/video/campaign/215745-sarah-palin-challenges-obama-to-debate-anywhere-anytime

    No, it's not April 1st.

    This is... I honestly do not know what to say.

    You know what would make my day? Obama accepting the challenge.

  • ronyaronya Arrrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20120313a.htm

    To support a stronger economic recovery and to help ensure that inflation, over time, is at the rate most consistent with its dual mandate, the Committee expects to maintain a highly accommodative stance for monetary policy. In particular, the Committee decided today to keep the target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to 1/4 percent and currently anticipates that economic conditions--including low rates of resource utilization and a subdued outlook for inflation over the medium run--are likely to warrant exceptionally low levels for the federal funds rate at least through late 2014.

    :whistle:

    Steam
    shryke wrote: »
    Talking to ronya is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma, that has been shit out and then eaten again by a bulldog.
  • nightmarennynightmarenny Registered User regular
    Palin challenges Obama to a debate:
    http://thehill.com/video/campaign/215745-sarah-palin-challenges-obama-to-debate-anywhere-anytime

    No, it's not April 1st.

    This is... I honestly do not know what to say.

    You know what would make my day? Obama accepting the challenge.

    No. that would be terrible.

    The only good news I get from Palin is when I realize she hasn't been in the headlines for a few months.

    Quire.jpg
  • HenroidHenroid Gibberish Cold white sand!Registered User regular
    How is Palin relevant enough to challenge Obama to a debate, exactly? She's not a candidate.

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit." - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    People keep giving her airtime. It's a self fulfilling Media prophecy.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • HenroidHenroid Gibberish Cold white sand!Registered User regular
    She's just going to say, "REAL AMERICANS WANT FREEDOM" in several different ways. It's a waste of time and beneath any president to 'debate' a media personality.

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit." - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    We know when we are at war - when there is a declaration of war duly passed by congress. What we really need to do is figure out what all these other things called "wars" are, and what if any rules apply to them.

  • nightmarennynightmarenny Registered User regular
    We know when we are at war - when there is a declaration of war duly passed by congress. What we really need to do is figure out what all these other things called "wars" are, and what if any rules apply to them.

    Yup. What is the extent to which our Military can act outside of war?

    Quire.jpg
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Ann Arbor, MichiganRegistered User regular
    ronya wrote: »
    http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20120313a.htm

    To support a stronger economic recovery and to help ensure that inflation, over time, is at the rate most consistent with its dual mandate, the Committee expects to maintain a highly accommodative stance for monetary policy. In particular, the Committee decided today to keep the target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to 1/4 percent and currently anticipates that economic conditions--including low rates of resource utilization and a subdued outlook for inflation over the medium run--are likely to warrant exceptionally low levels for the federal funds rate at least through late 2014.

    :whistle:

    ronya, interpret for us? Is this the Fed actually doing something to help their dual mandate or more inflation hawkery?

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Ann Arbor, MichiganRegistered User regular
    DoctorArch wrote: »
    Palin challenges Obama to a debate:
    http://thehill.com/video/campaign/215745-sarah-palin-challenges-obama-to-debate-anywhere-anytime

    No, it's not April 1st.

    This is... I honestly do not know what to say.

    Her ego. It can be seen from floating above Siberia.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    DoctorArch wrote: »
    Palin challenges Obama to a debate:
    http://thehill.com/video/campaign/215745-sarah-palin-challenges-obama-to-debate-anywhere-anytime

    No, it's not April 1st.

    This is... I honestly do not know what to say.

    Her ego. It can be seen from floating above Siberiaher house.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • VeritasVRVeritasVR Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    He could probably defeat her using an intricate system of facial expressions and hand gestures.

    There are no words.

    VeritasVR on
    CoH_infantry.jpg
    Let 'em eat fucking pineapples!
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    ronya wrote: »
    http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20120313a.htm

    To support a stronger economic recovery and to help ensure that inflation, over time, is at the rate most consistent with its dual mandate, the Committee expects to maintain a highly accommodative stance for monetary policy. In particular, the Committee decided today to keep the target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to 1/4 percent and currently anticipates that economic conditions--including low rates of resource utilization and a subdued outlook for inflation over the medium run--are likely to warrant exceptionally low levels for the federal funds rate at least through late 2014.

    :whistle:

    ronya, interpret for us? Is this the Fed actually doing something to help their dual mandate or more inflation hawkery?

    If you believe the statement, the FOMC is committing not to engage in contractionary policy until "late 2014" - so, not prior to the election, however much pundits shriek about gas prices. There were some accusations a while ago that the Fed engaged in contractionary policy prior to elections with Democrat incumbents and expansionary policy vice-versa, especially when the FOMC statement released on, coincidentally, the same day the 2010 elections closed was the one that announced QE2.

    Certain Congresspeople certainly want it to, though.

    Steam
    shryke wrote: »
    Talking to ronya is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma, that has been shit out and then eaten again by a bulldog.
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    What we really need to do is figure out what all these other things called "wars" are, and what if any rules apply to them.

    They're not wars, they're political bullshit. You can't go to war on an abstract concept.

    Harry Dresden on
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    What we really need to do is figure out what all these other things called "wars" are, and what if any rules apply to them.

    They're not wars, they're political bullshit. You can't go to war on an abstract concept.

    No, but you can against a non-state organisation.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    What we really need to do is figure out what all these other things called "wars" are, and what if any rules apply to them.

    They're not wars, they're political bullshit. You can't go to war on an abstract concept.

    No, but you can against a non-state organisation.

    And yet they never call it the War on Al Quaida or War on [x] cartel/gang/syndicate.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    What we really need to do is figure out what all these other things called "wars" are, and what if any rules apply to them.

    They're not wars, they're political bullshit. You can't go to war on an abstract concept.

    No, but you can against a non-state organisation.

    And yet they never call it the War on Al Quaida or War on [x] cartel/gang/syndicate.

    Which doesn't change the fact that the AUMF is a declaration of war in all but name.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    I finally found something that properly explains my problems with Obama: http://www.postlibertarian.com/2012/03/218-reasons-not-to-vote-for-obama/

  • VeritasVRVeritasVR Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    rayofash wrote: »
    I finally found something that properly explains my problems with Obama: http://www.postlibertarian.com/2012/03/218-reasons-not-to-vote-for-obama/

    I got to #32 before I realized that this is crime by association.

    Yes, the people who did those things work for the federal or state government.

    Yes, they are on the payroll of the government and use government funds.

    No, the President did not endorse or specifically order the majority of those actions.

    Also, not all of those things are bad.

    VeritasVR on
    CoH_infantry.jpg
    Let 'em eat fucking pineapples!
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    I stopped at #2 because of blatant lies

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    I stopped at #2 because of blatant lies

    But, it's such a reasoned argument!

    obama-bush-mashup.jpg

    In all seriousness, there are plenty of reasons to be unhappy with the president. But politics is an exercise in pragmatism. Call it lesser of two evils if you will, but the US could do much, much worse than having four more years of Obama.

    Also, this writer hates Biden, which means I no longer wish to hear anything he has to say.

    tumblr_m0vtnxAMaT1qij8k6.jpg

    Lh96QHG.png
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    Rush Limbaugh complained on his radio show today that President Obama was dipping into our national oil reserve. Obama has done so earlier during the Arab Spring but that was because supply was mildly interrupted. There was a good reason to take 30 million barrels out of the reserve. This dipping is being done for gaining favor with voters by keeping gas prices steady until the election. Is this accurate?

    Angryspider2_zps663851d1.jpg
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    I love that the GOP candidates were bitching about Obama NOT dipping into the Reserve. Specifically I think Gingrich mentioned it in his for-some-reason-not-a-concession speech on Tuesday.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    Probably?

  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot P'burg, MTRegistered User regular
    ...if Rush Limbaugh says it, it's not true.

    Spoiler:
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    edited March 2012
    You know, there really ought to be a law that says the president can only do politically damaging things during election years.

    AManFromEarth on
    Lh96QHG.png
  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    jdarksun wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    I finally found something that properly explains my problems with Obama: http://www.postlibertarian.com/2012/03/218-reasons-not-to-vote-for-obama/
    There are a ton of great reasons to be unhappy with Obama.

    The question is, do any of them make you want Santorum in the White House?

    I'm torn on that. Obama is clearly the best choice, but if Santorum will speed the decline of this nation it may be for the better. It's going down either way, we can either rip the band-aid off quickly or let it linger.
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    I stopped at #2 because of blatant lies


    Can't tell if you're joking. You know it's still open right?

  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    ...if Rush Limbaugh says it, it's not true.

    I mean, it is a pretty good reason to tap into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

  • dbrock270dbrock270 Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    rayofash wrote: »
    but if Santorum will speed the decline of this nation it may be for the better.

    Wait, are you implying that you want America to fail?

    dbrock270 on
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    rayofash wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    I stopped at #2 because of blatant lies


    Can't tell if you're joking. You know it's still open right?

    Can't tell if you're joking. You know that it is still open because the house/senate stopped Obama from closing it, right?

    Burtletoy on
  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    dbrock270 wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    but if Santorum will speed the decline of this nation it may be for the better.

    Wait, are you implying that you want America to fail?

    It already has. The next few decades will be nothing but death pangs.

  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    I stopped at #2 because of blatant lies


    Can't tell if you're joking. You know it's still open right?

    Can't tell if you're joking. You know that it is still open because the house/senate stopped Obama from closing it, right?

    You know he doesn't need congressional approval to close it right?

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    jdarksun wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    I finally found something that properly explains my problems with Obama: http://www.postlibertarian.com/2012/03/218-reasons-not-to-vote-for-obama/
    There are a ton of great reasons to be unhappy with Obama.

    The question is, do any of them make you want Santorum in the White House?

    I'm torn on that. Obama is clearly the best choice, but if Santorum will speed the decline of this nation it may be for the better. It's going down either way, we can either rip the band-aid off quickly or let it linger.
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    I stopped at #2 because of blatant lies


    Can't tell if you're joking. You know it's still open right?

    Can I interest you in Ron Paul? His policies would get what you seem to want dome pretty quickly if followed through on. Whole western world, really.

    Lh96QHG.png
«134567102
This discussion has been closed.