That's the whole point.
Once you ascend to even being considered for that office, you have been bought and sold 10x over. Your soul is long gone
Cenk Uyger ends the Obama delusion
- Thread starter Broke Wave
- Start date
That's the whole point.
Once you ascend to even being considered for that office, you have been bought and sold 10x over. Your soul is long gone
Mr. Somebody
Friend Of A Friend
Yea. basically. Hes not a savior. He sympathizes with gays and then brushes off death of youth in chicago.
Classic case of the failure to do EVERYTHING. Obama has had progressive policy victories. He has also had moderate policy victories. People on the left critizing him for at times being a moderate are just as bad as the tea party guys and their RINO criticisms.
Broke Wave
The GOAT
Such as?
Mr. Somebody
Friend Of A Friend
I wont be surprised if Michelle bounces on him after his tenure. Shes already telling the media the pres is a terrible father.
Obamacare
Repeal of DADT
Not defending DOMA
Raising the rate of the top tax bracket
99 weeks of unemployment benefits
Ending Iraq War
PAYE
Dodd-Frank
Lilly Ledbetter
I could go on, but that's just off the top of my head. And this is in 5 YEARS. As with Obamacare, progressives think the policies didn't go far enough but that exactly what the FAILURE OF EVERYTHING is about. The policies are undoubtedly a huge leap to the left. And Obamacare and the gay rights stuff are generational policy shifts that just a decade ago were thought impossible.
And he's not finish. Before he leaves office, we'll have sweeping immigration reform and perhaps (doubt it) a real national gun policy.
The immigration reform will happen only because Obama's presidency bought out the racism of the right. Bush got like 45% of the hispanic vote. With Obama on the ballet, Romney and McCain were at 25 and 30.
So I don't see anyway possible the left could've hoped for a better 5 years. Unless of course, they hoped for EVERYTHING.
Broke Wave
The GOAT
Lets take this apart step by step.
This is not a progressive idea at all... it actually came from the right wing Heritage Foundation. I get tired of explaining this to people but Mitt Romney implemented this in his own state, and this legislation forces you to buy insurance, which enriches the already parasitic healthcare providers.
These are two social issues that would have been done by a moderate Republican. There are plenty of Republicans who support these things and these are not "progressive" specifically. It just goes to show how far right the spectrum has shifted if those two social issues are progressive and not the mainstream, according to you.
He did not exactly... the top tax rate is what it was during the Clinton Era... so yes he may have raised it from the historically low Bush Jr. Era... it could easily be framed as a "restoration". Furthermore, he actually cut taxes on the middle class, making the unsustainable Bush rates permanent. He also plans on cutting corporate taxes.
I'm surprised this is even a political issue. In any other country this would be a non issue and just goes to show you how far right wing America has gone politically. NOT progressive.
Women should get equal pay for equal work, signed, your friend, the rest of the developed world
The softest piece of regulation on earth... it actually does not prevent ANY OF THE OLD PRACTICES which lead to the crash. The so called "Volker-Rule" was so watered down that Mr. Volker asked to have his name taken off of it. The financial services industry has not stopped the risky derivatives trading and toxic asset bundling that ruined the economy a few years ago and they are just as over-leveraged as before. So this is NOT progressive whatsoever.
Lets take this apart step by step.
This is not a progressive idea at all... it actually came from the right wing Heritage Foundation. I get tired of explaining this to people but Mitt Romney implemented this in his own state, and this legislation forces you to buy insurance, which enriches the already parasitic healthcare providers.
These are two social issues that would have been done by a moderate Republican. There are plenty of Republicans who support these things and these are not "progressive" specifically. It just goes to show how far right the spectrum has shifted if those two social issues are progressive and not the mainstream, according to you.
He did not exactly... the top tax rate is what it was during the Clinton Era... so yes he may have raised it from the historically low Bush Jr. Era... it could easily be framed as a "restoration". Furthermore, he actually cut taxes on the middle class, making the unsustainable Bush rates permanent. He also plans on cutting corporate taxes.
I'm surprised this is even a political issue. In any other country this would be a non issue and just goes to show you how far right wing America has gone politically. NOT progressive.
Women should get equal pay for equal work, signed, your friend, the rest of the developed world
The softest piece of regulation on earth... it actually does not prevent ANY OF THE OLD PRACTICES which lead to the crash. The so called "Volker-Rule" was so watered down that Mr. Volker asked to have his name taken off of it. The financial services industry has not stopped the risky derivatives trading and toxic asset bundling that ruined the economy a few years ago and they are just as over-leveraged as before. So this is NOT progressive whatsoever.
Your argument is exactly what I said it would be. The policies aren't progressive enough. You also add that someone else would've did them.
Regarding the first, policies should be judged on the political landscape they are passed in. It doesn't matter if Obamacare used to be a Republican idea. The fact of the matter is, the policy moves us to the left of where we where when Obama was elected. That's the progress in progressive. Is it the end destination? Hopefully not, but its a start and what was politically possible.
Regarding the second, who cares if someone else MIGHT WOULD'VE done those things. They didn't. Obama did. Once again, you're not mad that he did them, you mad that he didn't do MORE. Failure of Everything.
Go to a Tea Party rally and start yelling RINO at Mitt Romney becaue that's what you're doing in the thread.
Broke Wave
The GOAT
First of all I'm mad that he did a couple of things that you said were progressive, I think they were just stupid. It does matter if Obama used a Republican idea, and of course ANYTHING he does is going to move us to the left of hes predecessor... he was the president after BUSH. But he's moved us to the RIGHT on civil liberties and the constitution with the extra-judicial killings. It's important what someone else might have done because when people elected Obama they didn't want someone to do the moderate Republican agenda, the wanted the progressive agenda.
Yes I'm a tea partier...that's exactly the impression I'm giving off right now
This is the sh!t I keep saying. Grow up people. Obama CANNOT give you everything you want. Im seeing people on here calling him a moderate Republican - NO, his new budget proposal raises taxes on the wealthy so he would be disqualified as a Republican IMMEDIATELY. Everybody has to agree to stuff they dont want to. I'm shocked at how this simple fact is so often ignored.
First of all I'm mad that he did a couple of things that you said were progressive, I think they were just stupid. It does matter if Obama used a Republican idea, and of course ANYTHING he does is going to move us to the left of hes predecessor... he was the president after BUSH. But he's moved us to the RIGHT on civil liberties and the constitution with the extra-judicial killings. It's important what someone else might have done because when people elected Obama they didn't want someone to do the moderate Republican agenda, the wanted the progressive agenda.
Yes I'm a tea partier...that's exactly the impression I'm giving off right now
This actually isn't true though. The drone strikes actually began under Bush, but were kept quiet and the Obama administration did not bring that to the light as they didn't even want to talk about their own policy. Just a point of correction. You're also totally wrong about the Heritage Foundation completely writing the Healthcare Bill. It is largely molded on the old gang of 6 plan, spear-headed by a moderate republican whose state (Rhode Island) maintains its spot as one of the top 5-7 states for healthcare. Furthermore, that is probably the boldest legislation he passed seeing as how his own Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel told him not to do it becaus of the political fall out. It barely passed using the measure they used and somehow you think he was about to get a more progressive bill through
Broke when I say you are inexperienced it is not about analytical ability, it is about your understanding of the American electorate (actually I think you do understand but ignore it). A libertarian in your country is in many ways aligned with a guy like Obama to put that in perspective. The US is playing catch up, you have to look at the situation on the ground. But I will admit, I did think we'd close Guantanomo in that first term. I really did. But Obama was not elected to enact a progressive agenda entirely, he was losing to McCain he was talking about the exact opposite like a month out. He won after the economy tanked and those moderates thought he would be better for the job. The people who gave him VA, CO, NC, IND, NV, nearly Missouri, Ohio, MI, Wisconsin and places like that are not wholly progressives by and large. They are moderates, and often have center-left leanings or only vote Democratic insofar as it pertains to their direct interests or are shifting because progressives from other states are moving there (VA, CO). The US is inching towards becoming a center-left nation.
It's not there yet. You say things that I want to happen, but I understand are not possible. It has nothing to do with support of Obama. It's what I learned in school and in DC answering phones wondering what the fukk these tea party people were mad at (I still don't know).
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2012
- Messages
- 42,423
- Reputation
- 3,805
- Daps
- 152,090
- Reppin
- black love, unity, and music
He's a terrible father and apparently is so bad in bed Michelle considers herself a single mom!
Broke Wave
The GOAT
This actually isn't true though. The drone strikes actually began under Bush, but were kept quiet and the Obama administration did not bring that to the light as they didn't even want to talk about their own policy. Just a point of correction. You're also totally wrong about the Heritage Foundation completely writing the Healthcare Bill. It is largely molded on the old gang of 6 plan, spear-headed by a moderate republican whose state (Rhode Island) maintains its spot as one of the top 5-7 states for healthcare. Furthermore, that is probably the boldest legislation he passed seeing as how his own Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel told him not to do it becaus of the political fall out. It barely passed using the measure they used and somehow you think he was about to get a more progressive bill through
Broke when I say you are inexperienced it is not about analytical ability, it is about your understanding of the American electorate (actually I think you do understand but ignore it). A libertarian in your country is in many ways aligned with a guy like Obama to put that in perspective. The US is playing catch up, you have to look at the situation on the ground. But I will admit, I did think we'd close Guantanomo in that first term. I really did. But Obama was not elected to enact a progressive agenda entirely, he was losing to McCain he was talking about the exact opposite like a month out. He won after the economy tanked and those moderates thought he would be better for the job. The people who gave him VA, CO, NC, IND, NV, nearly Missouri, Ohio, MI, Wisconsin and places like that are not wholly progressives by and large. They are moderates, and often have center-left leanings or only vote Democratic insofar as it pertains to their direct interests or are shifting because progressives from other states are moving there (VA, CO). The US is inching towards becoming a center-left nation.
It's not there yet. You say things that I want to happen, but I understand are not possible. It has nothing to do with support of Obama. It's what I learned in school and in DC answering phones wondering what the fukk these tea party people were mad at (I still don't know).
Drone strikes as a matter of fact did exist under Bush but Obama has undoubtedly expanded that program, and extended it to killing American Citizens without a trial, which he did with Anwar Al-Awlaki and his 16 year old son who were killed at DIFFERENT TIMES. He also signed the NDAA which is essentially a repeal of the 4th Amendment, so based on this alone he is fundamentally a right winger.
I never said the Heritage Foundation completely wrote the bill, I simply said that it was sourced from the old Heritage Foundation idea, which it was. I also think it was at terrible idea, and as far as a more progressive piece of legislation being unable to pass, why didn't Obama at least try? Or at least mention the words public option in public? Why didn't he hold the fight over until the mid terms? It is because he doesn't believe in a public option and got exactly what he wants, in my own estimation. If we're talking about the electorate being center right, which is what you're insinuating, that is simply not true. every poll is in opposition to what you're saying, look at the numbers on single-payer healthcare, stronger financial reforms, ending the war in Afghanistan, repealing the NDAA, strong climate change safeguards etc etc and you'll see a pattern. Americans are much further to the left than the media and politicians believe... they even called their congressmen to stop the bailout in 2008. Americans are not averse to radical change.
You talk in absolute terms, and then use half-explained examples to make your points. With all due respect, please do not try to debate a law student on the 4th amendment. You will lose, and you're using it wrong. Let's move on from that point. Whether or not someone is right or left-wing is a meaningless distinction without something to measure it against as you yourself have demonstrated in this thread. Democrats signed onto to what the White House did under Bush when he initially expanded those, powers, was Nancy Pelosi and were the left-leaning Justices on the SCOTUS right-wingers back then....I doubt you would make such an argument. Though I think we can agree in calling members of Congress cowardly.
I
You basically implied that the Heritage Foundation wrote the bill, and its an unfair comparison and even worse, it's inaccurate. The part most frequently attributed to them is the "health exchanges" which is a popular idea (though they try to dissassociate themselves from it because of Obama. There are numerous things politicans don't bother to try because they know they don't have the votes. But apparently, you're not up on your legislative history. The original house version of the bill passed by Pelosi had a public option. The Senate version did not. Joe Lieberman--a supposed progressive--threatened to fillibuster it if it did. So the second time around Pelosi did not even include the public option as part of reconciliation because she said the senate lacked the votes and because some of her own house members were turning against her (conservative dems) with what had barely passed the first time. So I'm not exactly sure what your grievance is. Obama's guy in the Senate Durbin said he'd whip up the votes and couldn't. End of ball game. Or at least mention the words public option in public?
This is an incredibly simplistic way of thinking and reasoning. Your estimation ignores political reality, which was his approval rating dropping 30 points and conservative house members and senate members going
. If it becomes an issue right before the mid-terms those people are even more susceptible to losing in districts where the idea was unpopular and democrats don't usually win and are less likely to support it. You remove the buffer of them saying "see, your life hasn't drastically become worse because of this." Again, you expose your lack of understanding of the American electorate. Half of those issues are not partisan issues. Those issues are not strictly "right or left" issues. More importantly, you confuse people in support of individuals provisions with their overall stance and ignore the collective cognitive dissonance of the American polity. What I am saying, is true. The problem is that you categorize issues that are no longer right-left issues as right left issues and then you misunderstand the dispersal of votes. Many things have minor majority support, but for that to ever be put into action you would need widespread cleavages throughout the country because of how and where seats are allocated given districting. 90% support in blue districts means nothing when you have 40% support in red districts and there are more red districts. Look at how Obama got less of the vote this time but his electoral count wasn't all that different, the vote totals were run up in red states, but had literal overall impact. If America = majority in presidency = majority in chambers then yes, you would be right. But we are effectively a center-right nation in actual terms.
This is just terribly misguided. I was one of those people picking up those phones and those years and it was not liberals and progressives calling alone. It was every working and middle class family. I have posted up a thread showing that Americans on an individual basis are much more progressive than politicians and the media portray, but it combats with overarching beliefs. It's why WV will vote for Democratic Senators, but not a president, etc. It's not that simple. Issues must be framed in a certain way to appeal to their notions of fairness. It's a hard sell. Further, our constitution is designed to prevent radical change from happening quickly. You would need an entirely new cycle of senators before progressive policies begin. Meanwhile, across middle America, which voted for Obama last election, they voted for a bunch of governors that enacted right to work legislation that worked against them. It's not that simple.