Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
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 New (and On Notice) Obama Thread

14042444546

Posts

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    THINGS WE ARE NOT GOING TO DO:

    - Continue discussing not-Obama things in the Obama thread, including Hillary Clinton and other politicians who are decidedly not Obama.

    - Create a thread for the fucking 2016 primaries in 2014.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
    enlightenedbumRchanenObiFettEvigilantPhoenix-Ddestroyah87DoodmannCorehealerzagdrobGaddezTofystedethCommunistCow
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    I really would like to not have a 2016 primary thread until the midterms are over. Just like, for my sanity. Don't make us start a God Damn Separate Thread, please.

    With Clinton all but rolling out the "Hillary 2016!" banners, it's probably about time. It's kind of like the way Christmas decorations seem to show up in stores earlier and earlier each year

    Phoenix-DEdith Upwards
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Kasyn wrote: »
    Obama is as unpopular as he has ever been.

    Which is not very. His polling numbers are somewhat remarkably consistent all things considered.

    Edith Upwards
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    THINGS WE ARE NOT GOING TO DO:

    - Continue discussing not-Obama things in the Obama thread, including Hillary Clinton and other politicians who are decidedly not Obama.

    - Create a thread for the fucking 2016 primaries in 2014.

    What about December 2014? :p

  • Morat242Morat242 Registered User regular
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    Doodmann wrote: »
    I'm quickly turning into one of those people that is going to vote third party even if I'm "throwing my vote away" or helping the crazies. I need to feel like I'm at least doing something to stop the country from dragging everything right towards fascism.

    Voting third party will not achieve this goal.

    I don't know about that. The Tea Party might as well be considered a third party at this point and they certainly prove the adage of getting shit done on the local level first. Voting third party in a national election...probably not going to solve anything, beyond making a statement that neither major party can provide you with a viable candidate. But I do think there's value there, especially considering how fractious and broken congress is; this is a time pregnant with possibility for radicals and reformers.
    The Tea Party is not even remotely a third party. They're a party faction with a brand name. What they do is organize, fund-raise, and build up a candidate pool so that they can replace some of the politicians with their own guys and threaten the rest into falling in line. Which is how American political parties work. The Dems didn't just magically become centrist, they became centrist because the centrists beat the left wing for control of the party. The left has spent the last 30 years at least jerking off over third party vanity runs and periodically getting overexcited about a (often theoretical) Dem presidential candidate. That is why we lose. What do you think the Dems learn from the Greens getting 0.36% of the vote for president in 2012? That the left is powerful and strong and they need to appeal to them? Or do they learn that they don't need to give a shit about the left and should instead chase the centrist voters that outnumber the Greens 20 to 1? Even in my home city of San Francisco, where the GOP is gone and there are plenty of lefty voters, the Greens got 0.9% of the vote in the last mayoral election and have zero members of the Board of Supervisors. They are never going to amount to anything.

    To quote Erik Loomis, "But ultimately, the presidential election is the site where you consolidate your gains or cut your losses from the last four years. If you’ve organized and pushed the Democratic Party to the left, you will see that through the presidential primary season. If you haven’t, you won’t. The place to make the moral stand is not the election–it’s all the rest of the time. The presidential election is where you make the moral compromise. The rest of the time you yell and scream and organize to drag the lame person you elected where you want them to go." That is how it has always worked. Aside from throwing the election to their opponents, third parties have only ever accomplished anything by taking advantage of the collapse of one of the major parties.

    The Tea Party (in its various forms) can go to a GOP politician and say "Do what we want, and we'll give you lots of money and votes. Don't, and we'll run candidate XYZ, who may well beat you in the primary and end your career." There are other factions (notably the "establishment Republicans"), but the TP has believable carrots and sticks to get the behavior it wants. And because they have had success, they gain strength, and their threats and rewards get more powerful. There's no lefty equivalent. Too many of us view politics as a way to take a public moral stand instead of as the exercise of power.

    Harry DresdenCaptain MarcusJust_Bri_ThanksGnome-InterruptusAngelHedgieEdith Upwards
  • VeeveeVeevee WisconsinRegistered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    Kasyn wrote: »
    Obama is as unpopular as he has ever been.

    Which is not very. His polling numbers are somewhat remarkably consistent all things considered.

    And do those numbers account for racist bigots? Cause if the man were white with the exact same presidency those numbers would be flipped, I am absolutely positive of it.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited August 2014
    Unemployment has been over 6% for 7 years (or did it finally tick under last month?). His numbers would not be good.

    EDIT: Nope, 6.2%

    enlightenedbum on
    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • KasynKasyn Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    Kasyn wrote: »
    Obama is as unpopular as he has ever been.

    Which is not very. His polling numbers are somewhat remarkably consistent all things considered.

    I didn't say he was historically bad in comparison to many other presidents. And it's still true that he is as unpopular as he has ever been. But he's certainly unpopular enough that he is testing as a political liability for many candidates across the country, apparently including Hillary right now, which was the start of this segue.

    You also have to consider that for the purposes of campaigning and political maneuvering, people are generally going off of their polling and not Gallup favorability. Obama polls in like the mid to low 30s in red states right now, and barely up to his favorability in blue states. Campaigns generally aren't going to fuck with someone until they're testing them in the high 50s to low 60s.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    The issue is more that Democrats still like him very much. And either in a national primary or in a turnout centered election like a midterm, you should probably know that.

    But Democrats have been running from their own shadow since either Nixon or Reagan kicked their ass, depending how you want to look at things.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • KasynKasyn Registered User regular
    But the upcoming presidential primary for Democrats is irrelevant. It is Hillary's if she wants it, period. She might not jazz up the base the way a few other candidates might, but the house of horrors that will be the Republican primary in 2016 will do plenty to bring Dems out to play.

    I generally agree that Democrats cede a lot of ground unnecessarily with their unwillingness to assert themselves, but Obama just isn't popular enough right now to sound appetizing for skittish Dems in a cycle that's all about merely losing bad and not disastrously.

  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    Hillary is aiming for "different than the same old but not a cray Republican"

    I can't fault her entirely for it

  • LilnoobsLilnoobs Alpha Queue Registered User regular
    I can't help but laugh at any polling that gathers its information from fucking cold calls on landlines.

    Edith UpwardsMvrckjmcdonald
  • yossarian_livesyossarian_lives Registered User regular
    So Obama dropped a hint or two that he expects to fill some Supreme Court vacancies before he's out of office. Note the plural on vacancy. Maybe he knows something about the health of one of the conservative supremes. One can only hope. Anyway, I'd link to the article but it's on the Huffington Post and they've got some NSFW pictures all over their site.

    Gotta wonder just how crazy the GOP would get if they saw themselves losing the Supreme Court. I honestly wonder if they'd shut down any hearings to place new judges. Could they do that in a hypothetical standoff with the president?

    "I see everything twice!"


    Edith Upwards
  • King RiptorKing Riptor Registered User regular
    Im sure theyll try but they also know Obama isnt going to put up with that shit anymore.

    I have a podcast now. It's about video games and anime!Find it here.
  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    Doesn't mean they care.

  • TraceTrace GNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam We Registered User regular
    So Obama dropped a hint or two that he expects to fill some Supreme Court vacancies before he's out of office. Note the plural on vacancy. Maybe he knows something about the health of one of the conservative supremes. One can only hope. Anyway, I'd link to the article but it's on the Huffington Post and they've got some NSFW pictures all over their site.

    Gotta wonder just how crazy the GOP would get if they saw themselves losing the Supreme Court. I honestly wonder if they'd shut down any hearings to place new judges. Could they do that in a hypothetical standoff with the president?

    and not one of them will be Ginsburg because that's how badass she is

    jmcdonald
  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    Man, I can't even imagine how great that would be for America if Obama got to replace one or two of the conservative justices. You've still got Roberts as the Chief Justice and a lot of power over which cases get cert and who writes opinions, but it could be a game changer.

    Going 5-4 the other way and there would still be some decisions that I'd wholeheartedly disagree with, but I wouldn't spend half of every June banging my head against the wall either.

    I'd certainly expect vigorous GOP obstruction to any effort to replace any Conservative Justice with even the most likely moderate justices Obama would probably nominate, and I could absolutely see them flipping their shit if he nominated anyone who was even the least bit liberal.

    Still, I could see Obama at this point taking a 'fuck you' approach and nominating someone we would actually want to see on the bench vs. someone who is better than the current alternatives.

  • Mild ConfusionMild Confusion Smash All Things Registered User regular
    Not to be a spoilsport, but it doesn't necessarily have to be conservative judges. It could just as easily be poor health or planned retirement of the more liberal ones too.

    steam_sig.png

    Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
    Dracomicron
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    Honestly I doubt Scalia/Thomas are sharing anything about their health with Obama.

    He's probably talking about the number of elderly liberal judges who would like to not be replaced by Satan.

    DracomicronshrykeMrMister
  • DracomicronDracomicron Registered User regular
    If Obama could replace Anthony Kennedy, then we would at least not have as much bullshit in our lives.

    Gary Gygax wrote:
    ''The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules.''
    Edith Upwardsshryke
  • King RiptorKing Riptor Registered User regular
    Honestly I doubt Scalia/Thomas are sharing anything about their health with Obama.

    He's probably talking about the number of elderly liberal judges who would like to not be replaced by Satan.

    Now this is just me but after citizens united Id have a cia team looking for any fucking cracks in these guys for me to jump on.

    I have a podcast now. It's about video games and anime!Find it here.
    TL DREdith Upwardschrishallett83MrMister
  • Just_Bri_ThanksJust_Bri_Thanks Seething with rage from a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPA regular
    Yeah, give the 'pubs a real reason to impeach. Sure.

    Some days I just want to smack people with a rolled up newspaper. Or a phone book.
    A folding chair is looking like an attractive option right now too...
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    edited August 2014
    So Obama dropped a hint or two that he expects to fill some Supreme Court vacancies before he's out of office. Note the plural on vacancy. Maybe he knows something about the health of one of the conservative supremes. One can only hope. Anyway, I'd link to the article but it's on the Huffington Post and they've got some NSFW pictures all over their site.

    Gotta wonder just how crazy the GOP would get if they saw themselves losing the Supreme Court. I honestly wonder if they'd shut down any hearings to place new judges. Could they do that in a hypothetical standoff with the president?

    More likely the liberal wing is close to retirement or death, statistically speaking. The next four to go are going to be, probably, Ginsberg, Breyer, Kennedy, and Scalia.

    Of those I can only see Breyer retiring.

    More likely is that it's a subtle hint to Democrats that midterms fucking matter, and if you'd like to have a fully armed and operational constitutional battlestation maybe you should show up and vote this year.

    AManFromEarth on
    Lh96QHG.png
    GethiTunesIsEvilRedTidejmcdonaldRchanenGnome-InterruptusDracomicron
  • RozRoz Boss of InternetRegistered User regular
    In my dreams, 6 years after Obama leaves the presidency, a Democratic President nominates him for the supreme court to replace the retiring Scalia. It would be beautiful.

    zagdrobdavidsdurionsHarry DresdenSpoitDiplominatorAistanSquigieGnome-InterruptuslonelyahavaLovelyCommunistCowDracomicronHappylilElfAndy Joe
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    As much as I love Ginsberg she's a cancer survivor and looks like she's knocking on death's door in most pictures. She's most likely the next to step down.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
    CommunistCow
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    Especially if she fears D's losing the Senate and having difficulty replacing her. If her seat is vacant the crazy wing can't even be checked by Kennedy being somewhat sane.

  • Edith UpwardsEdith Upwards Registered User regular
    More likely is that it's a subtle hint to Democrats that midterms fucking matter, and if you'd like to have a fully armed and operational constitutional battlestation maybe you should show up and vote this year.

    If midterms matter than why'd Obama make OFA a useless gimme that demoralizes voters and volunteers while allowing them to think they've done their part?

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Especially if she fears D's losing the Senate and having difficulty replacing her. If her seat is vacant the crazy wing can't even be checked by Kennedy being somewhat sane.

    She's said fairly implicitly that anyone who asks this question can go to hell.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    iTunesIsEviljmcdonaldAndy Joe
  • Dark_SideDark_Side Registered User regular
    edited August 2014
    Hillary is running for president and trying to distance herself from Obama administration foreign policy. So I kind of want to believe this story is true, though it probably isn't.

    Obama says Clinton criticism is horsehit

    I have to agree with Obama here that arming Syrian rebels was probably about the worst thing to do.

    Also, good luck trying to parse this jumble of hedged bets:
    "I did believe, which is why I advocated this, that if we were to carefully vet, train, and equip early on a core group of the developing Free Syrian Army, we would, number one, have some better insight into what was going on on the ground,"

    Dark_Side on
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    I love how people in our government have this completely insane belief there are "good" rebels that we can totally know everything about and arm properly that won't turn around and bite us in the taint. Its about the stupidest belief in american military politics.

    I agree with Obama, its horseshit navel gazing. And there is no way you can be assured that the weapons you give the "good" group today, don't wind up in the bad groups hands anyway, and you'll get blamed for that shit too.

    I mean what if we gave them ground to air missiles, and they shoot down a fucking air liner? Than we would be as stupid as russia is with the "rebels" in the Ukraine.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
    Gnome-Interruptus
  • ButtcleftButtcleft Registered User regular
    To be fair, Obama's critics have a point.

    I mean, arming rebels has gone so fucking well for America in the past. :expressionless:

    that's it, I'm shutting this entire forum down, everyone thank buttcleft
    chrishallett83CommunistCow
  • Dark_SideDark_Side Registered User regular
    I love how people in our government have this completely insane belief there are "good" rebels that we can totally know everything about and arm properly that won't turn around and bite us in the taint. Its about the stupidest belief in american military politics.

    One would think that that several decades worth of bungled US foreign policy decisions in regards to rebels and arms would have taught people some lessons, but nope, it didn't work because we just didn't believe in it hard enough.

    Personally, I prefer Obama's measured, limited responses to these kind of foreign flare ups, though he certainly did error on the rhetoric side with that red line malarkey.

    AManFromEarthEdith UpwardsLovelyCommunistCow
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    The red line complaint is stupid. I mean so we didn't bomb them back to the stone age immediately, we still got them to disarm their chemical weapons and I don't believe there have been new reports of them being used. Oh noes we looked temporarily bad before getting exactly what we wanted without firing a shot.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
    Gnome-InterruptusDracomicron
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    There actually were several reports of the weapons being used after the red line.

    It was a stupid thing to say because he wasn't willing to push past Russia and then eventually the American people to enforce it.

    We got what we want, but you can see in his statements on Ukraine and Iraq that he has learned to not act strong, but to simply be strong.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    There actually were several reports of the weapons being used after the red line.

    It was a stupid thing to say because he wasn't willing to push past Russia and then eventually the American people to enforce it.

    We got what we want, but you can see in his statements on Ukraine and Iraq that he has learned to not act strong, but to simply be strong.

    I don't think Russia mattered here. The American people had no interest in enforcing a red-line against chemical weapons and so Obama as a democratic leader ultimately can't push that hard past that.

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    edited August 2014
    Yeah I admit as an american I'm fresh out of shit to give about people dying in the middle east. Its horrible, I'm awful for admitting it and we broke a lot of it, but I don't want more americans to die in a desert to stop people from murdering each other and instead murder americans. At best we can delay this shit, like the worlds worst dam.

    So Obama is a better man than I am, at least he's trying to stave off genocide in Iraq.

    Preacher on
    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
    V1mfrandelgearslipjmcdonald
  • yossarian_livesyossarian_lives Registered User regular
    Actually, I don't think the red line thing was quite so stupid anymore because getting Assad to give up his chemical stockpiles was a major diplomatic victory. However, because it was a diplomatic victory it's automatically less sexy than our nation's traditional pastime of bombing brown people. Therefore, Obama is weak on foreign policy.

    "I see everything twice!"


    Harry DresdenPreachershrykeV1mDoodmannRchanenGnome-Interruptuschrishallett83Kid PresentableCommunistCowCorehealer
  • Dark_SideDark_Side Registered User regular
    edited August 2014
    Did the red line talk actually much to do with that though? I tend to think the diplomatic pressure was high enough on Assad and Russia that it made sense to just give them up, rather than risk the US and other countries taking a more focused look at the situation.

    I felt the red line was just a rhetorical bluff, that he probably shouldn't have used unless crossing it meant an immediate reaction of some sort, which didn't happen. But I don't think it necessarily weakened American foreign policy heft or anything, regardless of what Obama's american critics have said.

    Dark_Side on
    AManFromEarth
  • HeartlashHeartlash Registered User regular
    If anything, attacking Assad's government forces would look doubly bad now given that we're entering conflict with IS.

    My indie mobile gaming studio: Elder Aeons
    Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Eh Assad murdered the shit out of his own people. ISIS are terrible fucks, but Assad is far from an ally. Like most shit in the middle east there is no good group.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
This discussion has been closed.