Political Discussion

Indymisanthrope said:
Very true, and one of the things that isn't getting enough play in the discussion of this election cycle is how the census is going to impact redistricting maps. The gerrymandering of our country to keep a minority in power is one of the most critical issues facing our country and we only get a comprehensive shot at fixing it once per decade.
Click to expand...

It's also incredibly frustrating when the judiciary rules against certain things like gerrymandering and one party just seems to ignore the outcomes of those cases and there are no repercussions...that's been one of the craziest things in the past 4 years for me. The complete deterioration of checks and balances.
 
jaycee said:
If you don't think that Obama saying small town people clinging to guns and religion wasn't a giant fuck-up I don't know what to tell you. I get it. Biden sucks and your boy Bernie shit the bed but Obama nearly cost himself the nomination with that comment and I think it continues to haunt the democratic party and Joe Biden. The person that confronted Biden about guns likely got their narrative from the NRA in 2008 when they pounced on Obama's comments. It was significant and influenced if not directly caused a run on ammunition that lasted throughout Obama's first term. Maybe you were not a voter then so it didn't matter to you but it sure as hell mattered to blue collar workers and further polarized the country.

Someone who is more into weapons can help clarify that ammunition run timeline. Obama lost Pennsylvania in the '08 primary because of it.

From wikipedia entry on Obama '08 primary:

After Obama's win in Mississippi on March 11, 2008, the campaign turned its attention to Pennsylvania. Mid March polls by Rasmussen Reports,[155] Franklin & Marshall College Poll,[156] Quinnipiac University Polling Institute[157] and Public Policy Polling[158] had Obama trailing Clinton in Pennsylvania by 12 to 16 points. Dozens of campaign offices were opened around the state, including 8 in Philadelphia.[159] By the beginning of April, polls of Pennsylvanians showed Obama trailing Clinton by average of 5 points.[160]

Speaking about small-town Pennsylvania at a private April 6 fundraising event in Kentfield, CA, a small suburb of San Francisco located in neighboring Marin County, his remarks would be widely criticized after they were reported:




Hillary Clinton described the remarks as "elitist, out of touch, and frankly patronizing."[162] Noting he had not chosen his words well, Obama subsequently explained his remarks, "Lately there has been a little typical sort of political flare-up, because I said something that everybody knows is true, which is that there are a whole bunch of folks in small towns in Pennsylvania, in towns right here in Indiana, in my hometown in Illinois, who are bitter."[163] Obama had addressed similar themes in a 2004 interview with Charlie Rose,[164] and his strategists countered that Bill Clinton had made similar comments in 1991.[165]

Just hours prior Obama's remarks in San Francisco, he spoke in Silicon Valley at another private event, and expressed a much more nuanced understanding of the second amendment and rural America. He stated,




That Obama's comments in San Francisco made wide media play but not the ones he spoke in Silicon Valley became a source of speculation about the media and its political coverage.[167]

On Friday, April 18, 2008, Obama spoke in Independence Park in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to a crowd of 35,000, the largest audience yet drawn during the campaign. The crowd was nearly twice what had been projected[168] and spilled over into nearby streets.[169] The next day, Obama conducted a whistle stop train tour from Philadelphia to Harrisburg, drawing a crowd of 6,000 at a stop in Wynnewood and 3,000 at a stop in Paoli.[170]

The last big event in the final week of the campaign was the April 16 debate on ABC-TV. Many pundits gave the edge to Hillary Clinton, though many were critical of moderators Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos.[171] A two-month-old controversy gained more exposure when Stephanopoulos questioned Obama during the debate about Obama's contacts with Weather Underground founder Bill Ayers.[172]

Polls during the debate week showed the momentum that had cut Clinton's lead by half had stalled. Despite being outspent by three to one,[173] Clinton would win the April 22 primary election with 54.6 percent of the vote, a solid nine-point margin over Obama's 45.4 percent.[174] Although Clinton remained behind in delegates, the press soon ran cover stories about Obama's apparent trouble connecting with less educated whites and Catholics.
Click to expand...

All of this is spot on. I’d call Obama the best president of my lifetime but that isn’t saying much. And the reality is that those comments, much like the basket of deplorables comment, are directly responsible for polarizing the country. So were many of his decisions that alienated progressives or disillusioned young voters or white working class that had made up portions of his base. In particular his refusal to put the white collar jackasses that caused the recession in prison and the decision to spend his final two years in office pushing the TPP.

The media’s refusal to critique his presidency also laid the groundwork for “fake news” and / or began to pull back the corporatist curtain that would later be fully open during Bernie 2016 / 2020
 
Enaz Fox said:
I'm aware you can't just "move forward" with what has happened in the last 4 years but I don't think we have to come to a complete stop to get back to that point either. Why not try and get back to something better was more my point, sorry if I didn't get that out properly.
Click to expand...
I think that's what Biden is proposing - get back to the Obama years. And for as much as people are revisionist and suddenly under the impression Obama was a phony progressive, let's recall that he risked his political career and Presidency on making the largest change to health insurance in a generation, lost his congress over it; all to ensure A) people with preexisting conditions - the sickest and most vulnerable Americans - could get coverage B) allowing young Americans to stay on their parents' plans much longer and C) boosting overall coverage rates.

The Obama years brought us stability of moderate growth, the longest run of monthly job gains in history, controlled inflation, diplomacy used on the world stage to begin thawing tensions with a rising nuclear threat, and a general sense of maturity/compasion/leadership that we are badly lacking now.

Was it perfect? No. But I'd take it in a heartbeat if I could snap my fingers and make it so. I think Biden offers the chance to do something like that. We need to restore the pillars of the ACA that the GOP has chipped away for the past 6 years. We need to reach a final deal on Dreamers and Immigration - the Gang of 8 bill from 2013 was a perfect approach. We need to restore trade relations with Europe, and refocus Chinese negotiations on intellectual property rights and away from meaningless trade balances. We need to restore repealed regulations that keep Americans safe and out of financial harm. We need someone who trusts experts. We need a return to sanity. I think Biden can do all of that in 4 years.
 
DownIsTheNewUp said:
All of this is spot on. I’d call Obama the best president of my lifetime but that isn’t saying much. And the reality is that those comments, much like the basket of deplorables comment, are directly responsible for polarizing the country. So were many of his decisions that alienated progressives or disillusioned young voters or white working class that had made up portions of his base. In particular his refusal to put the white collar jackasses that caused the recession in prison and the decision to spend his final two years in office pushing the TPP.

The media’s refusal to critique his presidency also laid the groundwork for “fake news” and / or began to pull back the corporatist curtain that would later be fully open during Bernie 2016 / 2020
Click to expand...

Are you less than 20?

Just because looking in from the outside the only even remotely competent president you've had since maybe Kennedy, or because he died before he could implement too much perhaps even Truman or FDR, was Clinton, warts and all. The run of Presidents from Lyndon Johnson onwards is not an inspiring one!
 
Joe Mac said:
Are you less than 20?

Just because looking in from the outside the only even remotely competent president you've had since maybe Kennedy, or because he died before he could implement too much perhaps even Truman or FDR, was Clinton, warts and all. The run of Presidents from Lyndon Johnson onwards is not an inspiring one!
Click to expand...
Gonna have an undoubtedly hot and unpopular take here...

Nixon and Ike were the most competent Presidents post WWII.

Nixon, in particular, was very good at the job. Obviously he was also a crook, and a cheat, and a list, and a criminal. And you shouldn't over look those things. But he did the duties of a President well.
 
Btsvinylfarm said:
Gonna have an undoubtedly hot and unpopular take here...

Nixon and Ike were the most competent Presidents post WWII.

Nixon, in particular, was very good at the job. Obviously he was also a crook, and a cheat, and a list, and a criminal. And you shouldn't over look those things. But he did the duties of a President well.
Click to expand...

I mean acting criminally and using your position as president to subvert the democratic process might just be carrying out your duties as president in a subpar manner?

And Eisenhower? Isn’t his legacy that of a presidency of inaction? I mean his lack of a public opposition to McCarthy? Or his inaction on civil rights?
 
Joe Mac said:
Are you less than 20?

Just because looking in from the outside the only even remotely competent president you've had since maybe Kennedy, or because he died before he could implement too much perhaps even Truman or FDR, was Clinton, warts and all. The run of Presidents from Lyndon Johnson onwards is not an inspiring one!
Click to expand...

That’s sort of my point. And I was born at the beginning of 87. So Reagan technically.

I detest Clinton though and view him as the guy who embraced neoliberalism while moving the entire party to the right.
 
Last edited:
Btsvinylfarm said:
I think that's what Biden is proposing - get back to the Obama years. And for as much as people are revisionist and suddenly under the impression Obama was a phony progressive, let's recall that he risked his political career and Presidency on making the largest change to health insurance in a generation, lost his congress over it; all to ensure A) people with preexisting conditions - the sickest and most vulnerable Americans - could get coverage B) allowing young Americans to stay on their parents' plans much longer and C) boosting overall coverage rates.

The Obama years brought us stability of moderate growth, the longest run of monthly job gains in history, controlled inflation, diplomacy used on the world stage to begin thawing tensions with a rising nuclear threat, and a general sense of maturity/compasion/leadership that we are badly lacking now.

Was it perfect? No. But I'd take it in a heartbeat if I could snap my fingers and make it so. I think Biden offers the chance to do something like that. We need to restore the pillars of the ACA that the GOP has chipped away for the past 6 years. We need to reach a final deal on Dreamers and Immigration - the Gang of 8 bill from 2013 was a perfect approach. We need to restore trade relations with Europe, and refocus Chinese negotiations on intellectual property rights and away from meaningless trade balances. We need to restore repealed regulations that keep Americans safe and out of financial harm. We need someone who trusts experts. We need a return to sanity. I think Biden can do all of that in 4 years.
Click to expand...

He was a left if center moderate who campaigned as a progressive in 08. He did some good but also a lot of corporate whoring.

Biden also happens to be substantially and unapologetically to the right of him. Hell, he might be to the right of Bill too.
 
Last edited:
Joe Mac said:
I mean acting criminally and using your position as president to subvert the democratic process might just be carrying out your duties as president in a subpar manner?
Click to expand...
Nixon was just paranoid. He had no need to send in the plumbers to Watergate. He won 49 states and 60% of the popular vote AFTER the scandal broke.

But as far as policy and action a President goes? Nixon oversaw the creation of the OMB and EPA. In his first term her pursued welfare/healthcare/civil rights/environmental reforms. He signed Title IX; banning sexual discrimination in education benefits. He expanded enforcement of affirmative action. He supported the amendment to lower the voting age to 18. And my personal favorite, the "peace dividend" - using funds available from reduction of troops in Vietnam to finance social services and enforce civil right. From '70-'75, spending on human services exceeded defense spending for the first time since WWII.

Joe Mac said:
And Eisenhower? Isn’t his legacy that of a presidency of inaction? I mean his lack of a public opposition to McCarthy? Or his inaction on civil rights?
Click to expand...
I don't know, I think the interstate system is a...to quote another..."big fucking deal" ;)
 
Btsvinylfarm said:
Nixon was just paranoid. He had no need to send in the plumbers to Watergate. He won 49 states and 60% of the popular vote AFTER the scandal broke.

But as far as policy and action a President goes? Nixon oversaw the creation of the OMB and EPA. In his first term her pursued welfare/healthcare/civil rights/environmental reforms. He signed Title IX; banning sexual discrimination in education benefits. He expanded enforcement of affirmative action. He supported the amendment to lower the voting age to 18. And my personal favorite, the "peace dividend" - using funds available from reduction of troops in Vietnam to finance social services and enforce civil right. From '70-'75, spending on human services exceeded defense spending for the first time since WWII.


I don't know, I think the interstate system is a...to quote another..."big fucking deal" ;)
Click to expand...

Nixon is literally responsible for the continuation of Vietnam War post '68. How many young people were sent to die so that Nixon could gain power, give an image of someone who was moving things "forward" and begin the steep dismantling of regulations and social programs in the U.S. that has left us with a legacy of corporate fraud and monopolies?

Things like the OMB and the EPA were tokens that were ultimately playing the soon to be yuppies of CA to say to themselves. "he's not such a bad guy." Just my opinion of course but the EPA in particular has done just as much harm, if not more, than good when it comes to addressing the use and abuse of natural resources.

I do agree that he was good at his job as long as you see his job as destroying inner-cities and screwing the country over for self-benefit.... which sadly is more common than just the Nixon administration.

debianlinux said:
Quintessential corporate whoring case study.
Click to expand...

If this isn't the subtitle of the Deb memoir it should be
 
Last edited:
DownIsTheNewUp said:
I detest Clinton though and view him as the guy who embraced neoliberalism while moving the entire party to the right.
Click to expand...

I have an enormous amount of respect and time for him given the huge impact he had on our peace process. His intervention, together with George Mitchell, were incalculably important and that peace process, as tenuous as the peace can sometimes feel, was an absolute cornerstone to the beginning of the modernisation of our country. Clinton will always be a friend to Ireland.
 
jaycee said:
I do agree that he was good at his job as long as you see his job as destroying inner-cities and screwing the country over for self-benefit.... which sadly is more common than just the Nixon administration.
Click to expand...
Exactly, like Ike's interstate, for example, which was used as an excuse for "urban renewal" and erased countless marginalized and minority communities from city centers.
 
Last edited:
DownIsTheNewUp said:
I detest Clinton though and view him as the guy who embraced neoliberalism while moving the entire party to the right.
Click to expand...

This argument is the mirror of the one that the UK has over Blair achieving power in 1997 and it can be summarised thus;

Would you rather have someone who does 40-50% of the stuff you want from a position of power or one who offers 100% of what you want and a warm fuzzy feeling in your nethers but does so from a position of perennial opposition?
 
Last edited:
Also actually on the point of embracing neo-liberalism and moving the party to the right. The same is frequently thrown at the new labour years and it’s bollocks and the unwillingness of the outgoing labour leadership to acknowledge their achievements was an absolute joke.

I’ll preface this by saying that I cannot stand Blair as a personality and that his decision to follow Bush into Iraq and the deception to push it through were reprehensible.

it was impossible to get elected in the 90s without moving to the right and embracing new-liberalism. The only way to help the constituents that vote for labour was to get in promising not to change that status quo, raise the taxes and invest the money. The left failed spectacularly in the 80s. The record of New Labour investment in Education and Health and the impact of in work tax credits and schemes like SureStart should not be wiped from history because necessary political compromises were made to get to power, regardless of feelings about the leader.

Equally, Clinton inherited a budget deficit and relinquished a budget surplus and was an important figurehead internationally in repairing America’s reputation.

Edit: @Ed Selley beat me to it this time!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top