American Politics

[Mozz]

Originally Posted by Stealthy

The three things the Obama Presidency will be remembered for are: Obamacare, the Recovery from the Recession, and deeply entrenched Congressional opposition.

That's certainly a rosy view.

[phoopes]

Personally the first thing that always comes to mind when thinking about what Obama did was eliminating Bin Laden

[Emi]

who dat

[Snorby]

Originally Posted by Shuckle

You cannot argue that Trump is morally repugnant while sweeping Obama's moral failings under the carpet. There's more than just drone strikes on civilians. Cracking down HARD on whistle-blowers like Snowden, the war in the Middle East which is dragging itself onward into its 16th year and has shifted targets once again to ISIS, the continued mass incarceration and disenfranchisement of black males, etc. etc. etc. etc.

His Twitter feed is nicer (and even that's a stretch, reading it is an exercise in "they got outraged over THIS?") but his administration can hardly be considered to be on pristine moral standing. I just don't think there's nearly as much contrast as you think there is.

I fail to see where his administration not being perfect (aside from the fact that most of the problems you cited were inherited and not caused by the Obama Adminstration) makes him as personally immoral as someone who mocks the disabled and gropes women. Please enlighten me.

[Mozz]

Originally Posted by Snorby

I fail to see where his administration not being perfect (aside from the fact that most of the problems you cited were inherited and not caused by the Obama Adminstration) makes him as personally immoral as someone who mocks the disabled and gropes women. Please enlighten me.

Killing people is worse than mocking the disabled or talking about how easy it is to fuck women when you're famous, but we might just have different moral compasses, lmk.

[deh74]

Originally Posted by Mozz

That's certainly a rosy view.

Exactly. By far the biggest thing Obama will be remembered for is being the first black President. And honestly, that might just end up being the only thing he's really remembered for.

[Shuckle]

Originally Posted by Snorby

I fail to see where his administration not being perfect (aside from the fact that most of the problems you cited were inherited and not caused by the Obama Adminstration) makes him as personally immoral as someone who mocks the disabled and gropes women. Please enlighten me.

Uh, no I picked things that Obama literally promised to fix during his campaign plus two problems that his administration caused, then tossed in some good old fashioned institutional racism that Obama, despite being a black president in identity, did little to nothing about beyond some impassioned speeches that totally missed the mark.

I refuse to be sucked into an argument about Trump's integrity. I have learned my lesson on this one, thanks. Retro vade, Rangeet.

[Doppleganger]

Originally Posted by Shuckle

You cannot argue that Trump is morally repugnant while sweeping Obama's moral failings under the carpet. There's more than just drone strikes on civilians. Cracking down HARD on whistle-blowers like Snowden, the war in the Middle East which is dragging itself onward into its 16th year and has shifted targets once again to ISIS, the continued mass incarceration and disenfranchisement of black males, etc. etc. etc. etc.

Obama cracked down on Snowden because the entire NSA fiasco more or less happened on his watch.

While the telecoms were monitoring mobile convos in the Bush era, voice recognition wasn't good enough to really make use of it, and the packets were low quality anyway to accommodate the massive volume of data passing through towers. Like, a lot of false flags. I wonder how many "he had"s had flagged as "jihads".

But the real damage happened once 3G game into the picture, circa 2007. Obama had full vested authority to stop that once he got to power and let it expand for 5 more years. That is a huge, huge negative in my book - it's not on the same level as Lincoln suspending habeas corpus or Roosevelt's forced internments of the Japanese, but it's spiritual kin in how it's a deliberate violation of civil rights. And, Obama had no excuse for it, unlike the US-threatening wars Lincoln and Roosevelt faced.

It takes a certain kind of cold evil to basically sell out the American people to data mining corporations, and that's what Obama did.

Originally Posted by Mozz

Killing people is worse than mocking the disabled or talking about how easy it is to fuck women when you're famous, but we might just have different moral compasses, lmk.

I'm pretty sure every president since Herbert Hoover has blood on his hands - Trump will too before he leaves office. Outside of that, though, I can see how Obama stands as more "presidential" than Trump does.

[Rangeet]

Originally Posted by Mozz

Killing people is worse than mocking the disabled or talking about how easy it is to fuck women when you're famous, but we might just have different moral compasses, lmk.

George W Bush missed security briefings warning about 9/11. Then he invaded Iraq based off false information which probably led to ISIS.

And also, more AMERICAN people die due to air pollution every year than soldiers did in the Vietnam War. Almost as many people die in the world as Jewish people did in the Holocaust. More people will die due to climate change than due to any other (non-"natural") reason.

Going by the environment alone, climate change deniers have more blood on their hands than most genocidal dictators.

Finally, I'd like some sources on how Obama has flouted the Constitution and grabbed power for the executive branch, please. This isn't the first time you've made outrageous statements without providing decent sources.

At Concept: Compromising is always on the table, as with all of politics, but Republicans have utterly refused to do that either, so it's ludicrous to place the blame on Democrats. And when they have compromised, like Obamacare, they turn around and blast it for not working ideally. They've blocked completely moderate SC justices from Obama. Only one side is trying to run a government. Oh, and then Obama is blamed because he couldn't get anything through a Congress that's tried to block everything progressive. And at the end of the day, there's only so far you can compromise with basic human rights.

Nobody's calling Obama a perfect President, but when you look at Trump and back to him it's not difficult to see where the illusion might come from. Overall, Obama has done wonders for the economy, and he has presided over a pretty tough time. He's got blood on his hands, he's got broken promises on his hands, but show me which leader of any country doesn't. Demanding ideological purity is ridiculous; the point of the matter is whether or not Obama has been a good President. I think that he has been. And I think that it's crystal clear that Trump is far more morally repugnant than Obama. Saying that he's not simply because he hasn't killed anyone is like claiming I'm better than a theoretically near-perfect neurosurgeon because the neurosurgeon has had patients that died on the operating table. If Trump had had to make the decisions that Obama had to, he'd have fucked up in ways almost impossible to imagine. He's proving that already.

[Shuckle]

Originally Posted by Rangeet

Finally, I'd like some sources on how Obama has flouted the Constitution and grabbed power for the executive branch, please. This isn't the first time you've made outrageous statements without providing decent sources.

Is "attempted to provide amnesty for all illegal immigrants by issuing an executive order" a valid response to this or are you looking for something a little less...easy, like the conflict in Libya?

Originally Posted by Rangeet

At Concept: Compromising is always on the table, as with all of politics, but Republicans have utterly refused to do that either, so it's ludicrous to place the blame on Democrats. And when they have compromised, like Obamacare, they turn around and blast it for not working ideally. They've blocked completely moderate SC justices from Obama. Only one side is trying to run a government. Oh, and then Obama is blamed because he couldn't get anything through a Congress that's tried to block everything progressive. And at the end of the day, there's only so far you can compromise with basic human rights.

I'm not sure where to begin. It seems you've learned American politics from Buzzfeed listicles.

[Mozz]

Originally Posted by Shuckle

Is "attempted to provide amnesty for all illegal immigrants by issuing an executive order" a valid response to this or are you looking for something a little less...easy, like the conflict in Libya?.

One would think that "going to war without Congressional approval" and "allowing illegals to stay and giving them unheard of benefits" would be enough, but climate change kills more people every day than Hitler.

[Doppleganger]

Originally Posted by Rangeet

George W Bush missed security briefings warning about 9/11. Then he invaded Iraq based off false information which probably led to ISIS.

And also, more AMERICAN people die due to air pollution every year than soldiers did in the Vietnam War. Almost as many people die in the world as Jewish people did in the Holocaust. More people will die due to climate change than due to any other (non-"natural") reason.

Going by the environment alone, climate change deniers have more blood on their hands than most genocidal dictators.

You're making false equivalencies here. At some abstract level, anything one does can result in the death of another person. Your own life came at the expense of your would-be brothers and sisters who died as sperm in the race to be born.

I don't think climate change denies do so with deliberate malice toward those who would suffer the most from it. They would, at worst, be indifferent, and at best have empathy. It isn't a clear line of causality in the same that bullet + aim = murder.

Compared to Hillary Clinton allowing the Benghazi massacres to rage onward, it's far easier to see where a moral decision would be confronted.

Originally Posted by Rangeet

Finally, I'd like some sources on how Obama has flouted the Constitution and grabbed power for the executive branch, please. This isn't the first time you've made outrageous statements without providing decent sources.

This is a pretty easy one. Obama uses executive orders to get around decisions by Congress, in direct defiance of congressional decisions.

One that stands out to me is investigating the origins of the Deep Horizon oil spill. Congress usually takes care of this - they're the ones who approved the 9/11 commission, afterall - but this event took place when Congress went full retard and started blocking everything Obama did.

You might say, well Obama faced ridiculous and stupid Republican obstruction in Congress which is why he had to go this route, and that's true. Obama also showed a lot of restraint in this route and used it as a last resort, compared to Clinton who was even more cavalier with issuing executive orders to do what he wanted.

But it's also true to say "damned if you do, damned if you don't". Obama's policies don't get pushed if he doesn't abuse the EO, but if he does he's actively defying how the American political system works.

It's a different playing field from what Roosevelt and Lincoln were facing with their EOs. In those cases, Congress more or less did everything Roosevelt/Lincoln said, and the wartime pressure lead to EO which were faster to implement that going through the comparatively slow Congress.

Originally Posted by Rangeet

At Concept: Compromising is always on the table, as with all of politics, but Republicans have utterly refused to do that either, so it's ludicrous to place the blame on Democrats. And when they have compromised, like Obamacare, they turn around and blast it for not working ideally. They've blocked completely moderate SC justices from Obama. Only one side is trying to run a government. Oh, and then Obama is blamed because he couldn't get anything through a Congress that's tried to block everything progressive. And at the end of the day, there's only so far you can compromise with basic human rights.

When Obama came to power in 2008, the Democrats had control of the House and Senate as well as the Presidency, including the power to overrule any Republican objection. Yet Democrats voted against the Affordable Care Act even in its amended, impotent form. Republican obstruction was a red herring that diverted attention from infidelity and conflict of interest in the Democratic Party who didn't want nationalized healthcare which would force more taxes on, say, the rich.

The Democrats haven't been a unified party since the days of LBJ. While the Republicans have undergone a clear ideological shifts toward conservatism then neoconservatism, they've been on the whole more homogeous and consistent than Democratic leadership.

Originally Posted by Rangeet

Nobody's calling Obama a perfect President, but when you look at Trump and back to him it's not difficult to see where the illusion might come from. Overall, Obama has done wonders for the economy, and he has presided over a pretty tough time. He's got blood on his hands, he's got broken promises on his hands, but show me which leader of any country doesn't. Demanding ideological purity is ridiculous; the point of the matter is whether or not Obama has been a good President. I think that he has been. And I think that it's crystal clear that Trump is far more morally repugnant than Obama. Saying that he's not simply because he hasn't killed anyone is like claiming I'm better than a theoretically near-perfect neurosurgeon because the neurosurgeon has had patients that died on the operating table. If Trump had had to make the decisions that Obama had to, he'd have fucked up in ways almost impossible to imagine. He's proving that already.

Again, he's done wonders for the economy*. We're in a very dangerous spot right now with the stock market, and it's going to take a long time for interest rates to slowly deflate the bubble we're in. Meanwhile, lending is still at 2010-ish lows because banks remain terrified of default risk - if they were restrained during periods of low interest rates, imagine what would happen when rates rise?

[SoS]

Hey I'mma just poke my head in here to say that maybe don't use anti-disabled slurs like "retard" in your arguments if you want to be credible kthxbai

[Shuckle]

i cant handle this

cecily strong is my hero

[Concept]

Originally Posted by Rangeet

At Concept: Compromising is always on the table

Originally Posted by Rangeet

There's no question of compromise anymore.

Which is it?

Originally Posted by Rangeet

as with all of politics, but Republicans have utterly refused to do that either, so it's ludicrous to place the blame on Democrats. And when they have compromised, like Obamacare, they turn around and blast it for not working ideally. They've blocked completely moderate SC justices from Obama. Only one side is trying to run a government. Oh, and then Obama is blamed because he couldn't get anything through a Congress that's tried to block everything progressive. And at the end of the day, there's only so far you can compromise with basic human rights.

Nobody's calling Obama a perfect President, but when you look at Trump and back to him it's not difficult to see where the illusion might come from. Overall, Obama has done wonders for the economy, and he has presided over a pretty tough time. He's got blood on his hands, he's got broken promises on his hands, but show me which leader of any country doesn't. Demanding ideological purity is ridiculous; the point of the matter is whether or not Obama has been a good President. I think that he has been. And I think that it's crystal clear that Trump is far more morally repugnant than Obama. Saying that he's not simply because he hasn't killed anyone is like claiming I'm better than a theoretically near-perfect neurosurgeon because the neurosurgeon has had patients that died on the operating table. If Trump had had to make the decisions that Obama had to, he'd have fucked up in ways almost impossible to imagine. He's proving that already.

We're not remotely placing all the blame on Democrats, so let's not go tilting at that strawman. Congressional Republicans have been actively spiteful - but Obama has made zero effort to work with Congress. If he had we might have got weakened versions of some of his achievements (with Cuba, with Iran, with Obamacare, etc), but ones that could've stood a chance at survivng a Republican administration. As it is, everything he's done is going to be dismantled by the incoming administration and four years from now he might as well have not done anything in the first place. First black President is going to be his one any only achievement. Now of course a lot of the blame here lies with congressional Republicans, but my point is this; Obama could've avoided the complete dismantling of everything he's done, could've secured some small lasting progress by making an active effort to work with Congress - and he chose not to.

I admire and agree with many of the guys ideals but I don't think he was a good President.

Originally Posted by Son_of_Shadows

Hey I'mma just poke my head in here to say that maybe don't use anti-disabled slurs like "retard" in your arguments if you want to be credible kthxbai

Hey um

Originally Posted by Son_of_Shadows

You BASTARD

As an actual bonafide bastard* I'd appreciate it if you would've use that as a slur, either.

No wait, hang on. That'd be a silly thing for me to get antsy about.

*Only true for the purposes of making a point.

[SoS]

>comparing anti-disabled hate to being called a bastard

yeah ok cool that's not a false equivalence at all

those are totally both hate crimes

[Concept]

No my point is that retard is a pretty generic swearword these days and its general use is in no way, shape or form slighting actual disabled people any more than calling someone a bastard is slighting actual bastards. Like if you're actually using it to attack a disabled person then sure I'd agree with you, but 99% of the time that's obviously not the case. Dopple is very clearly not attacking or saying anything bad about disabled people but somehow you're pretending that he is and I don't get why.

Slurring disabled people is where the word comes from, sure. But if we can use bastard without it being assumed that we're disparaging actual bastards, we can use retard without it being assumed we're disparaging the actually disabled.

[deoxys]

Originally Posted by Son_of_Shadows

>comparing anti-disabled hate to being called a bastard

yeah ok cool that's not a false equivalence at all

those are totally both hate crimes

Using 'retard' as a slur may disparage the differently-abled in its use, but it is not a hate crime. Regardless, everyone should probably be using more constructive language.

[Shuckle]

Originally Posted by Son_of_Shadows

>comparing anti-disabled hate to being called a bastard

yeah ok cool that's not a false equivalence at all

those are totally both hate crimes

*buzzes in*

Um yes what is "context?"

[Emi]

Are we missing the heavy sarcasm there???

[Mozz]

WJC was able to work with a Republican Congress, but his views (check his 1992 acceptance speech at the DNC) are significantly closer to Trump than Obama, IMO.

[Heather]

Wow it's almost as if political parties' views evolved and changed over the past nearly 2.5 decades to account for changes in the world. Sure, that long ago illegal immigration was probably a unanimous issue in spirit, but that was before drug cartels and gangs started making refugees out of people over someone's next heroin trip and the money behind it.

[Rangeet]

And it's almost as if the war on drugs was something caused by Republican Presidents, like Reagan! Which would have been perfectly fine since it was over 30 years ago, if it weren't for the fact that current Republicans are still pushing for it. Which is yet another irony since there's a significant majority of the GOP that seemingly doesn't care about Russia potentially interfering in the US election. I suppose worshiping Reagan is much like most other religions, evangelicals get to pick and choose.

[Mozz]

Originally Posted by Rangeet

And it's almost as if the war on drugs was something caused by Republican Presidents, like Reagan! Which would have been perfectly fine since it was over 30 years ago, if it weren't for the fact that current Republicans are still pushing for it. Which is yet another irony since there's a significant majority of the GOP that seemingly doesn't care about Russia potentially interfering in the US election. I suppose worshiping Reagan is much like most other religions, evangelicals get to pick and choose.

I appreciate your efforts, but Nixon actually started the War on Drugs.

[Snorby]

Not sure if you mean to imply that Geet said Reagan was the Republican President who started the war on drugs or that Reagan wasn't a major player in the war on drugs. You're completely wrong either way, though, so I guess it doesn't matter.