or Connect
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › President Obama's 2nd Term
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

President Obama's 2nd Term

post #1 of 234
Thread Starter 

I didn't want to post this in the 'One Flew Over the GOP's Nest' threads so I started this one.

 

Anyone else listen to Pres. Obama's press conference today?

 

While I was listening to Pres. Obama give literate and well thought out answers to the questions.

Sure, there was some vagueness in the answers to some questions but in those cases (Libya) I can understand a bit of hesitance in offering up a 'cut in stone' answer seeing as what happened hasn't been determined with 100% accuracy. 

 

The one thing that kept popping up in my head was that couldn't help but think of how absolutely horrible Romney would have performed in a similar press conference situation.

Romney is used to getting up in front of an audience an being all CEO-ish with his speechifying but I don't think he isn't used to (or enjoys) people questioning his decisions or statements.

I could be wrong...did he ever have a 'good' press conference when he was Gov?

post #2 of 234

Dunno about anyone else, but I'm loving that subtle "the gloves are off" tone to some of his public comments now.

post #3 of 234
I just hope there legit a part of me doubts it. Just after the last four years of caving I'm very skeptical. And with the Grand Bargain on the table it scares me what could happen.

But what are everyone's thoughts on Ambassador Rice potentially being the next Secretary of State and John Kerry as Defense Secretary?
post #4 of 234

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arturo RJ View Post

But what are everyone's thoughts on Ambassador Rice potentially being the next Secretary of State and John Kerry as Defense Secretary?

 

It sounds like someone found a newspaper from 2004 and said, "Ahh, fuck it".

post #5 of 234

Susan Rice would do fine, although I think BHO should go with Bill Clinton.

 

I don't like Kerry.  He's kind of an idiot.

post #6 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arturo RJ View Post

I just hope there legit a part of me doubts it. Just after the last four years of caving I'm very skeptical. And with the Grand Bargain on the table it scares me what could happen.
But what are everyone's thoughts on Ambassador Rice potentially being the next Secretary of State and John Kerry as Defense Secretary?

 

WHAT DO YOU EXPECT HIM TO DO WHEN THE PRESIDENT NEEDS CONGRESS BY DESIGN?!?!?!?!?!??  Just not do anything?

post #7 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spook View Post

WHAT DO YOU EXPECT HIM TO DO WHEN THE PRESIDENT NEEDS CONGRESS BY DESIGN?!?!?!?!?!??  Just not do anything?

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with compromise it's just the whole idea of "The Grand Bargain" is freightning. The fact of having as much spending cuts as is reported is awful and there is no earthly reason for it just to get very slight revenue increases. This cements the notion that he isn't a true progressive and fits into what Cornell West said about Obama.
post #8 of 234
Thread Starter 

Krugman addressed this idea of "compromise" a week ago.

If this path is pursued, I can only hope Obama is able to frame it in such a way that 100% of the blame falls on the GOP's shoulders..

 

 

Quote:

Let’s Not Make a Deal

 

<excerpt>

But one goal eluded the victors. Even though preliminary estimates suggest that Democrats received somewhat more votes than Republicans in Congressional elections, the G.O.P. retains solid control of the House thanks to extreme gerrymandering by courts and Republican-controlled state governments. And Representative John Boehner, the speaker of the House, wasted no time in declaring that his party remains as intransigent as ever, utterly opposed to any rise in tax rates even as it whines about the size of the deficit.

 

So President Obama has to make a decision, almost immediately, about how to deal with continuing Republican obstruction. How far should he go in accommodating the G.O.P.’s demands?

My answer is, not far at all. Mr. Obama should hang tough, declaring himself willing, if necessary, to hold his ground even at the cost of letting his opponents inflict damage on a still-shaky economy. And this is definitely no time to negotiate a “grand bargain” on the budget that snatches defeat from the jaws of victory.

 

In saying this, I don’t mean to minimize the very real economic dangers posed by the so-called fiscal cliff that is looming at the end of this year if the two parties can’t reach a deal. Both the Bush-era tax cuts and the Obama administration’s payroll tax cut are set to expire, even as automatic spending cuts in defense and elsewhere kick in thanks to the deal struck after the 2011 confrontation over the debt ceiling. And the looming combination of tax increases and spending cuts looks easily large enough to push America back into recession.

 

Nobody wants to see that happen. Yet it may happen all the same, and Mr. Obama has to be willing to let it happen if necessary.

 

Why? Because Republicans are trying, for the third time since he took office, to use economic blackmail to achieve a goal they lack the votes to achieve through the normal legislative process. In particular, they want to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, even though the nation can’t afford to make those tax cuts permanent and the public believes that taxes on the rich should go up — and they’re threatening to block any deal on anything else unless they get their way. So they are, in effect, threatening to tank the economy unless their demands are met.

post #9 of 234

I'm getting frustrated with Kerry's name being mentioned so much.  He's undoubtedly qualified and I'm sure he would do a fine job, but the possibility of loosing a senate seat just strikes me as a silly and unnecessary risk to take.  Scott Brown would probably run and would stand a decent chance of winning.  There are plenty of other viable alternatives, even former Republicans like Jim Webb and Chuck Hagel, who would sail through their confirmation hearings.  

post #10 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Macken View Post

I'm getting frustrated with Kerry's name being mentioned so much.  He's undoubtedly qualified and I'm sure he would do a fine job, but the possibility of loosing a senate seat just strikes me as a silly and unnecessary risk to take.  Scott Brown would probably run and would stand a decent chance of winning.  There are plenty of other viable alternatives, even former Republicans like Jim Webb and Chuck Hagel, who would sail through their confirmation hearings.  

 

 

Wait wouldn't the Governor just name a replacement? I  mean that how us in NY got Kristen Gillibrand, unless I guess the rules are different than here. 

post #11 of 234

If Kerry were to become Secretary of State or Defense, the Governor of Mass. would appoint a temporary replacement, followed by a special election to fill the seat.  It's my understanding that the law was changed in 2004 because Massachusetts Dems were concerned that if Kerry were to win the  Presidency, the Governor at the time (Romney), would appoint a republican to fill Kerry's seat.  So their push to change the law may have ironically enough ended up screwing Kerry out of getting this postion.

post #12 of 234

The ECONOMIST mag says' Hug a republican' .  Is it worth the effort, knowing that they will most likely hold the economy hostage to get what they want?

 

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21565955-budget-deal-makes-sense-re-elected-president-his-opponents-his-country-and

 

Now, hug a Republican

A budget deal makes sense for the re-elected president, his opponents, his country and the world

 

LET him savour, for a day or two, a victory that many had said could not happen. No president since FDR had been re-elected with unemployment so high. The country seemed pessimistic and bitterly divided, on racial grounds even more than on economic ones. His best-known achievement, health-care reform, had turned out to be deeply unpopular. The Republicans spent $800m trying to remove him. Yet on November 6th Barack Obama carried all the states he won four years ago, bar only Indiana and North Carolina, for a solid victory over Mitt Romney of 332 electoral-college votes to 206; the Democrats tightened their grip on a Senate they had once been expected to lose; and the president gave his best speech for several years.

 

In fact, Mr Obama’s victory is both smaller and potentially bigger than that. Smaller because it was a less impressive feat than it immediately feels (see article), and a lot of hard work lies ahead of him. Bigger because if this president, who has so often failed to find achievements to match his lofty words, can reach out to the Republicans, together they have a rare opportunity: to cement a much more substantial legacy for Mr Obama, to make the American right electable again, and to do their country’s finances and politics a power of good.

Oh, lucky man

In the short term, it will be the smallness that stands out. This newspaper endorsed Mr Obama and is glad he won, but he was lucky: lucky for the second time to have faced a less fluent opponent weighed down by his party’s trunkful of baggage; lucky that the American economy perked up, a little, just when he needed it to; maybe lucky even that Hurricane Sandy appeared when it did. Mr Obama fought an appallingly negative campaign and scraped a victory in both the swing states and the popular vote (which he won by only 2.4%, the lowest ever for a successfully re-elected president). The Democrats’ gains in the Senate stemmed largely from the Republicans choosing candidates of such tragicomic extremism that they might have been characters from a Tom Wolfe novel. And, above all, in the House the Republicans preserved their majority, feel vindicated and are spoiling for a fight.

 

Indeed, it will be in his negotiations with Congress that the smallness will really strike home. For all the speeches, Mr Obama has merely renewed the status quo in Washington—one he has proved so unable to alter for the past two years. His main domestic achievements, including health reform, were shuttled through Congress when his party controlled both chambers. He has no Clintonian record of reaching across the aisle. And the central issue that divides the parties—how to solve the American government’s rotten finances—was the weak spot both of Mr Obama’s first term (he ignored the recommendations of his own Bowles-Simpson deficit commission) and of his campaign (he simply concentrated on hammering away at Mr Romney’s admittedly barmy numbers).

So why might Mr Obama’s victory turn into something big? Because if he wants his second term to be more than a disappointing addendum to a divisive first one, he must work with his opponents; because the Republicans, if they are sensible, need to understand that their road to electoral rehabilitation lies in dealing with a president who cannot run again for office; because the basic framework of a deal is appreciated by both sides; and because there is an urgent prompt.

 

In less than two months’ time, unless a deal is struck, America will fall off a “fiscal cliff” that will, through a combination of automatic tax rises and spending cuts, subtract as much as 5% from GDP in a year. That would be a disaster for an economy growing at an annual rate of barely 2%. But behind this immediate crisis is the deeper one: America taxes itself like a small-state economy, and spends like a big-state one. Add in an ageing population, and it is going broke. Mr Obama will be pilloried by history if he does nothing to fix that, though the bond markets would probably punish him well before he left office.

 

Mr Obama ought to tackle the two problems at once, so that the deal to stop the economy going off the cliff is tied into longer-term reform. He will not be able to hammer out all the details of those reforms, but he can force agreement on the main parts, based on Bowles-Simpson, which he should endorse rapidly. That means being very clear about how much deficit-reduction will come from tax rises (which Republicans hate) and how much from spending cuts (which Democrats loathe); about which tax-exemptions must go or be curtailed; just how far entitlements like Medicare and Social Security will have to be scaled back by the use of means-testing, delayed retirement and less generous indexation; and much else in the same vein.

Explore our interactive 2012 election results guide

Mr Obama came close to getting a deal along these lines with the current Republican speaker, John Boehner, in July 2011, but his failure to work successfully with Republicans has been woeful. He must now do everything he can to hug them close. This time that means offering them proof that he really intends to be more bipartisan. A pro-business treasury secretary would be a start: the names of Larry Fink or Mark Warner come to mind. Swift approval for the Keystone XL pipeline connecting Canada with the Gulf of Mexico would also help. In his first term, Mr Obama broadly got the economics right, but his White House waged a destructive war of words against business. If he wants to help America’s poor (see article), he would do better to embrace a truly progressive agenda, based on competition, reforming government so that it targets spending on the most needy, and reforming taxes.

 

Not that old chestnut again

All this is plainly in Mr Obama’s interest—and that of his country, too. But what about the Republicans? Their script is depressingly easy to write. The party’s leaders will once again conclude that they lost because their candidate was not a genuine conservative, and vow to find the real thing next time. Possible future leaders like Paul Ryan, this year’s vice-presidential candidate, will head to the right in preparation for the 2016 primaries. Compromise with Mr Obama will be treason.

 

If the Republicans do that they will be abandoning all electoral sense. They managed to lose an election again in a country where conservatives still handily outnumber liberals by lumbering Mr Romney with extremist positions, such as rejecting any budget deal involving tax rises even if spending cuts were ten times greater. Their obsession with abortion and gay marriage seems ever more out of touch with women and young people. And their harshness towards illegal immigrants cost them the growing Latino vote, 71% of which went to Mr Obama. Plenty of independent voters, and this newspaper, yearn for a more pragmatic Republican Party. Doing a deal on the deficit with Mr Obama would signal its rebirth.

 

Above all, though, a bipartisan deal over the budget would be good for America—and the world. It would encourage business to invest, thus strengthening America’s economy and raising the country’s standing, and indeed the standing of market capitalism. Enemies like Iran and North Korea would once again respect and fear American power. A budget deal would act as a reminder that democracy works, especially at a time when China is changing its leadership in a more dictatorial way. The alternative, of four more years of angry stasis, would do America, and the world, huge damage.

post #13 of 234

I've said this before but I'll say it again. Because I think it's important.

post #14 of 234

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/12/susan-rice-tells-her-side-story/59984/

 

Looks like Republicans got what they wanted. Please tell me Kerry isn't  going to get it. Don't reward people like McCain and Graham.
 

post #15 of 234
I feel really bad for Rice but she probably did the right thing since economic issues will be continuous enough for the next few months so a political fight over the Secretary of State post wouldn't be helpful but overall sad that the GOP caused this to happen, and feeling like a broken record but Obama should have fought back more against their attacks.

I'd like Kerry to get it more anyway but hate for him to get it like this and if he wins the appointment I hope the republicans don't take his seat though I really don't see it happening even if Scott Brown runs.

Also what is everyone's opinion of Chuck Hagel potentially being the next defense secretary? I know he's a moderate republican but I hate the idea of him being appointed I'd much rather a democrat being appointed. Kind of shows my personal feeling of Obama of not being a true progressive and by nature is a moderate conservative, to be kind of true.

Though have to hand it to him for saying that going after Colorado and Washington for their new drug laws is not a "top priority" hopefully this will be the case. Hopefully the drug raids will lessen but with Biden there, I kind of doubt it.

But the whole Rice mess and potentially appointing Hagel has me a little worried about where the administration is going in these next four years overall.
post #16 of 234
You have a mandate right the fuck now, Barack.
post #17 of 234

I hate that those *&^%ers bullied Susan Rice into withdrawing from consideration but the whole Tarsands connection was troublesome.  John Kerry is a war hero and peace lover both, so even though it's in some ways a humiliating victory for him I'd still support him.  And Chuck Hagel is an old school Republican, not one of the ignorant and/or cynically dishonest that dominate the right these days.  Go back and read old interviews with him on the wars etc. 

post #18 of 234

Still too soon to talk about gun control?

post #19 of 234
White House says today isn't the day for gun control debate. So, uh, just wait till the public outrage dies down. Clearly that is when there will be the most political capital to act.

Fuck you very much, Mr. President. How many shootings on your watch is this you've essentially ignored?
post #20 of 234

That's why the NRA has to go.  They are that much of a political monster.

post #21 of 234
I highly doubt any talk of gun control wil happen anytime soon. I mean we had a member of congress almost killed nothing happened. What will it take a governor being assassinated? The president? What happened is so sad and something really needs to be done because this getting ridiculous. Also it's awful that Obama said now is not the time for a debate, now is the perfect time! I'm sick of that argument when can we talk about this?

I'm cool with people having guns for hunting and such but the use if assault riffles at extended gun clips is terrible, this is totally a violation of what the founding fathers wanted with the second amendment and to say anything against that is utter ignorance. This has to end because the frequency of these shooting is out of control and needs to be put to an end.
post #22 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arturo RJ View Post

I highly doubt any talk of gun control wil happen anytime soon. I mean we had a member of congress almost killed nothing happened. What will it take a governor being assassinated? The president? What happened is so sad and something really needs to be done because this getting ridiculous. Also it's awful that Obama said now is not the time for a debate, now is the perfect time! I'm sick of that argument when can we talk about this?
I'm cool with people having guns for hunting and such but the use if assault riffles at extended gun clips is terrible, this is totally a violation of what the founding fathers wanted with the second amendment and to say anything against that is utter ignorance. This has to end because the frequency of these shooting is out of control and needs to be put to an end.

 

Who the fuck knows, or cares, what the founding fathers wanted with the second amendment?  I'm not attacking you, but this originalism thing is absolute horseshit.  We have a document and we deal with it as written.  We can't divine the intent of rich white men from 250 years ago who wouldn't recognize the country Abraham Lincoln inherited, let alone the country Barack Obama inherited.

 

The second amendment deals exclusively with the prohibition of the federal government's ability to regulate the right to bear arms in relation to a state's right to regulate its own militia.  Since people no longer bring their own weapons when they serve on the national guard, whatever was intended is moot.  Last time I read the bill of rights, the second amendment didn't read as follows:  "Men with small penises being what they are, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

 

Problem solved.

post #23 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spook View Post

Who the fuck knows, or cares, what the founding fathers wanted with the second amendment?  I'm not attacking you, but this originalism thing is absolute horseshit.  We have a document and we deal with it as written.  We can't divine the intent of rich white men from 250 years ago who wouldn't recognize the country Abraham Lincoln inherited, let alone the country Barack Obama inherited.

The second amendment deals exclusively with the prohibition of the federal government's ability to regulate the right to bear arms in relation to a state's right to regulate its own militia.  Since people no longer bring their own weapons when they serve on the national guard, whatever was intended is moot.  Last time I read the bill of rights, the second amendment didn't read as follows:  "Men with small penises being what they are, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Problem solved.

Ha! I think we both agree with each other I was just pointing out that most people reference the amendment wrong, so were on the same page....I think. Anyway no way we should allow people to carry whatever weapons they want and is it says in the second amendment control of weapons should be properly relegated. There needs to be real gun control because as I said this getting out of control and really has been for a real long time.
post #24 of 234

I thought the Supreme Court dealt with the issue of "2nd Amendment = State Militias" and decided that no, 2nd Amendment pertains to individuals?

 

I watched the President speak about this tragedy live streaming on the Net, and had to take a long walk to get myself together. I know some people in Connecticut, and emailed them as soon as I read the news. Turns out one of them knows someone who might have had kids at that school. I really hope they are OK.

 

I'm willing to bet that the common denominator in all these shootings is some physical problem...either a natural chemical imbalance in the brain or meds that didn't work or the person stopped taking meds. 

post #25 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post

I thought the Supreme Court dealt with the issue of "2nd Amendment = State Militias" and decided that no, 2nd Amendment pertains to individuals?

 

I watched the President speak about this tragedy live streaming on the Net, and had to take a long walk to get myself together. I know some people in Connecticut, and emailed them as soon as I read the news. Turns out one of them knows someone who might have had kids at that school. I really hope they are OK.

 

I'm willing to bet that the common denominator in all these shootings is some physical problem...either a natural chemical imbalance in the brain or meds that didn't work or the person stopped taking meds. 


I must confess to not having read the recent gun control cases (the DC handgun ban one), but I think you're right.  In any event, SCOTUS also decided Plessy v. Ferguson (separate but equal is cool), Dredd Scott (blacks can't be citizens), and Citizens United.

 

SCOTUS has been known to be wrong.  The Court may dictate the supreme law of the land, but just because it's supreme doesn't mean it's correct.  I hope that this tragedy pushes us in that direction.

post #26 of 234

There is one thing I agree with the "Original Intent" guys on: The Constitution is designed to be amended, and yet many profound issues have in effect been legislated by Judges re-interpreting the existing document. I'd really like to see someone propose a new Amendment to super-cede the 2nd Amendment for example (and to remain on topic). In the 70's the ERA failed to get enough votes from the States to become part of the Constitution, but in the process the issues around Women's rights received a thorough debate and discussion. It may be too much to ask for a similar dialogue around the right to bear arms, especially in this toxic political environment, but one can dream.

post #27 of 234
While we can't read the hearts and minds of statesmen who have been dead for two centuries, we can certainly look at the times in which they lived and derive context from there. In its infancy, America was surrounded by the British Navy to the east, hostile Native Americans to the west, and French and Spanish colonies to the north and south. The new nation was stretched out in a line across the eastern coast of the continent, and moving troops from one end to the other would have taken weeks if not months.

We can reasonably infer that the 2nd Amendment was what it literally says it is, a provision for the defense of the country - not some nudge-nudge, secret handshake, national self destruct mechanism meant to empower Joe Sixpack to stage a coup. This chickenhawk fantasy held by insecure men isn't a sound enough reason to tolerate the sale of massacre tools. The fact that these fuckers are de facto domestic terrorists aside, the fact that the language of the Constitution actually uses the words "well regulated militia" means that it is probably perfectly, Constitutionally legit to keep automatic weapons out of the hands of the kind of irresponsible retard who thinks he's going to take on the U.S. Department of Defense one day and win.
post #28 of 234
post #29 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reasor View Post

While we can't read the hearts and minds of statesmen who have been dead for two centuries, we can certainly look at the times in which they lived and derive context from there. In its infancy, America was surrounded by the British Navy to the east, hostile Native Americans to the west, and French and Spanish colonies to the north and south. The new nation was stretched out in a line across the eastern coast of the continent, and moving troops from one end to the other would have taken weeks if not months.
We can reasonably infer that the 2nd Amendment was what it literally says it is, a provision for the defense of the country - not some nudge-nudge, secret handshake, national self destruct mechanism meant to empower Joe Sixpack to stage a coup. This chickenhawk fantasy held by insecure men isn't a sound enough reason to tolerate the sale of massacre tools. The fact that these fuckers are de facto domestic terrorists aside, the fact that the language of the Constitution actually uses the words "well regulated militia" means that it is probably perfectly, Constitutionally legit to keep automatic weapons out of the hands of the kind of irresponsible retard who thinks he's going to take on the U.S. Department of Defense one day and win.


If you go into the Federalist Papers, which were written as a 'here is what these amendments mean' guide, Hamilton actually did want everybody armed as a block to the possibility of a tyrant, and even wrote that if the people of Europe were armed and had representative governments that they'd all overthrow their monarchies forthwith. But then you look at the historical record and notice that more tyrants have been put into power through armed insurrection of the citizenry than have been removed (even within the lifespans of the Founding Fathers. Napoleon doesn't take power without the French Revolution happening first), then the idea that guns=freedom rapidly proves to be bullshit.

post #30 of 234

"When Obama Attacks" or, the President's Press Conference Jan 14, 2013

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WQUHe2kINM

 

Really like that Obama is now calling out the Republicans for their intransigence.

post #31 of 234
post #32 of 234

Senate kills deals, House already adjourned, Sequester going to happen tomorrow fo' sho: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/01/us/politics/senate-shoots-down-competing-bills-to-undo-cuts.html

post #33 of 234

I think it's time to pull an Iceland.

post #34 of 234
Yeah most transparent administration in the history of the world!

(Cue laugh track)

http://rt.com/usa/nsa-surveillance-lawsuit-secret-930/
post #35 of 234
“As a result of Sen. Paul’s historic filibuster, civil liberties got two wins:" The ACLU on Rand Paul's filibuster
post #36 of 234
Bernie Sanders is my hero! Screw you Obama and your "Grand Bargain"! Hopefully if it comes to it he will do an epic talking filibuster. People need a real debate to explain why this policy would be a horrible idea.

http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/03/11/bernie-sanders-just-say-no-to-any-entitlement-benefits-cuts/
post #37 of 234
This is a rather disconcerning article and really can't argue with the facts. Honestly on civil liberties he has been atrocious, worse than any recent president, I do like he is pushing for marriage equality and like he got some sort of health care reform done but everything else has massively disappointed me.

Oh well, I hope in 2016 Biden and Clinton don't run so we get a real progressive Democratic candidate unlike the terrible milquetoast candidates we've had pretty much since I've been born. My support would be with Patrick or O'Malley though most likely it'll be Schweitzer, who would be like the white Obama.

http://m.guardiannews.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/19/goodale-obama-press-freedoms-secrecy-nixon
post #38 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arturo RJ View Post

Bernie Sanders is my hero! Screw you Obama and your "Grand Bargain"! Hopefully if it comes to it he will do an epic talking filibuster. People need a real debate to explain why this policy would be a horrible idea.

http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/03/11/bernie-sanders-just-say-no-to-any-entitlement-benefits-cuts/

 

Bernie Sanders is my hero too and has been since forever, but do you think Bernie Sanders could ever get elected president in the present climate?  How do you think he'd be treated in the idiotic media?  How much money do you think he could raise to compete on the level that we've allowed presidential elections to reach?  Any time Bernie is asked if he'd run for president, he says thanks but no thanks.  Any time he's asked if he supports President Obama he says he does.  The reason for both is that he understands what it means to get elected in the 2000-ies. 

 

So he's doing his job, which is to put the right kind of pressure on the President.  And he understands that the President is doing his job, which is to listen to all sides and try to find a pathway through. 

 

Obviously, I'm with Bernie on this one, but sit down and watch a few hours of the kind of news most people consume and judge for yourself what kind of pressure is coming to bear on Obama and what it will take to get any legislation through that House of Representatives and the filibuster-happy a-holes on the right in the Senate.

post #39 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arturo RJ View Post

This is a rather disconcerning article and really can't argue with the facts. Honestly on civil liberties he has been atrocious, worse than any recent president, I do like he is pushing for marriage equality and like he got some sort of health care reform done but everything else has massively disappointed me.

Oh well, I hope in 2016 Biden and Clinton don't run so we get a real progressive Democratic candidate unlike the terrible milquetoast candidates we've had pretty much since I've been born. My support would be with Patrick or O'Malley though most likely it'll be Schweitzer, who would be like the white Obama.

http://m.guardiannews.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/19/goodale-obama-press-freedoms-secrecy-nixon

 

Nixon committed treason when he made a secret deal with the Vietnamese.  Reagan committed treason when he (allegedly) traded arms for hostages.  Bush II lied us into wars that have killed millions and lifted virtually all laws on the aristocracy.  I wish people would make their arguments without calling Obama "worse than" because he's not worse than any president since Jimmy Carter.  Even Clinton, whom I love now, signed a lot of terrible legislation that led to horrible things, like skyrocketing poverty, Fox News, and derivatives. 

post #40 of 234
I guess I'm kind of younger I've only been conscious of the Clinton, W. Bush, and Obama administrations. And in terms of civil liberties he has been as bad or worse than W. he continued his wiretap, indifinite detention program and made the drone program much worse.

So yes I understand previous presidents were worse like Johnson, Reagan and Nixon but out of the last three he has been the worst in my estimation. Probably shouldn't of phrased it like that but the idea that a democratic president is violating civil liberties like this disgust me, though I think the parties are shifting around like they did from the fifties and sixties where the Democrats are becoming more conservative and right to center.

The only question are the GOP going to become more progressive? It seems hard to imagine, though from 1828-1932 they were extremely conservative and were pretty conservative up to 1972 so anything is possible.
post #41 of 234
Closing Guantanamo Bay? Yeah.....well about that.

So I guess Obama's achievements since taking office was getting a health care act that the GOP is still trying to repeal, killing Osama Bin Laden, making the Bush Tax cuts permanent, pushing for marriage equality and oh that's right accepting the horrid sequester severely wounding government and threatening to do cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and social security, through chained CPI.

Great job so far by our progressive president! Hope and change indeed!


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2297620/Four-years-Obama-promised-close-Guantanamo-Bay-military-prison-195-million-dollars-renovations-new-construction.html
post #42 of 234
If Obama saw a path forward to close GB, he would. Congress obstructed him. He wisely chose other battles. I fault him for a lot, but not that.
post #43 of 234
Quote:
The only question are the GOP going to become more progressive?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha No.

post #44 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackyShimSham View Post

If Obama saw a path forward to close GB, he would. Congress obstructed him. He wisely chose other battles. I fault him for a lot, but not that.

I don't really buy that. Maybe he did want to close it but if he was any kind of leader he would of fought it. Closing GB would of been a path to step foward past the war crimes of Bush not closing that base and not indicting the Administration over Iraq and torture was a terrible lapse of judgement.

However it really hasn't since he has kept doing the policies from the drone program, illegal wiretapping and rendition. In fact has ratcheted them up in a lot of ways. On domestic issues he's mostly failed but pretty much agree with him. However on foreign issues and civil liberties he has been deplorable and should be censured by congress. Honestly I can't wait till 2017 to get a new president since I don't see Obama doing anything positive.
post #45 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arturo RJ View Post

This is a rather disconcerning article and really can't argue with the facts. Honestly on civil liberties he has been atrocious, worse than any recent president, I do like he is pushing for marriage equality and like he got some sort of health care reform done but everything else has massively disappointed me.
 

 

 

Obama: worse than TDKR?

post #46 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post


Obama: worse than TDKR?

No. Obama is far more depressing than TDKR. He's more like Green Lantern.
post #47 of 234

Yeah but you can understand what Obama's saying not like Bane in TDKR!

post #48 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post

Yeah but you can understand what Obama's saying not like Bane in TDKR!

Just had the awesome image of Obama in Bane mask saying to Boehner "when the Republican Party is in ashes than you have my permission to die"

By the way I actually liked TDKR, I think it's weird how many people hate it on this site
post #49 of 234
post #50 of 234
He didn't mean it! That how he tricks people into supporting him! He says nice thing than blammo drops bombs on you'd head he's pure evil and smells of sulfur!

Ha jk. I mean what president hasnt talked up a two state solution, and his speeches are awesome, everyone knows that but his actions and policies tend to be left a lot to be desired.

That being said glad we have Obama as president over Romney or McCain (or even Palin) but still I think he sucks, and I won't blindly support him for giving a good speech just because he has D by his name.

He has a lot of work to do in my opinion to get back my trust, the policy of drone strikes, indefinite detention, and illegal wiretapping is deplorable especially without giving a crap to get approval from congress, even Bush did that! And accepting the Sequester to happen by signing it into law was pretty dumb and awful.

I guess you can blame congress for being obstructionists but at the same time during the 2010 mid terms Obama did almost nothing in terms of rallying the base to get them out to vote and they all didn't vote thus the Dems badly lost governorships and the House (and almost the senate) and as the highest ranking Democrat in the country ultimately the fault lays directly at the feet of Obama. I think the term is "The Buck Stops here!".

Seriously though he probably is some what truthful in what he says except like most Democrats he lacks a spine and when the GOP questions his motives he cowers and begs forgiveness and does whatever they say he should do, You might say he's on an apology tour!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › President Obama's 2nd Term