I.M. Gei Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 (edited) I can't disagree on the second point, but low enthusiasm/turnout from the once energetic Obama faithful says as much about their satisfaction about the current state of America as anything else ever could. Southern (and other high risk) Democrats were pointedly not seeking his endorsement, which shows the liability he had become in the months leading up to November. I expect it's not quite so bad now, but the damage was done and the results belong only to the American people. i'm not sure what the "high risk democrats" part is meant to prove, given that obama has always been deeply unpopular in kentucky, west virginia, louisiana, arkansas, etc even in 2008, and the democratic party has been on the wrong side of the post-1964 realignment in those states as well as for obama's faithful, most of them don't even live in the states where democratic senators went down last year, and seeing blue dogs like grimes and tennant and pryor trying to position themselves as republican-lite, being spineless and refusing to confirm if they voted for obama sure as hell won't bringing them out to the polls I also find it somewhat ironic that in this scenario, Republicans are the ones supporting more overall jobs, while the Democrats are supporting more money for those with jobs. Who's the party of the privileged now, eh? "right to work sure has created a job boom in this state," said the well-dressed businessman at a cafe "i know," said his waitress, struggling with untreated leg pains. "my husband and i are working four of them between us and still can't make ends meet" Edited August 12, 2015 by I.M. Gei Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClevelandSteve Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 (edited) i'm not sure what the "high risk democrats" part is meant to prove, given that obama has always been deeply unpopular in kentucky, west virginia, louisiana, arkansas, etc even in 2008, and the democratic party has been on the wrong side of the post-1964 realignment in those states as well as for obama's faithful, most of them don't even live in the states where democratic senators went down last year, and seeing blue dogs like grimes and tennant and pryor trying to position themselves as republican-lite, being spineless and refusing to confirm if they voted for obama sure as hell won't bringing them out to the polls To add on to that, Obama himself has basically been Republican-lite, which is why it's hard to be enthused about him these days. Nearly all his policies came from Republicans. Even his "OMG SOSHULIST!!!111!!!" Obamacare was invented by the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation in the 90's and first implemented by Mitt Romney of all people. And Republican frontrunner and deranged lunatic Donald Trump wants to replace it with pretty much the exact same thing except with his name on it instead of Obama's (and, according to Trump's poll numbers, the Republican base is fine with this). Edited August 13, 2015 by ClevelandSteve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duff Ostrich Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 (edited) No doubt you also think James Earl Carter was the last true Democrat to sit the presidency if you think Obama is a Republican. Speaking of things that aren't Republicans I would add Mitt Romney to the list. Centrist politicians tend to anger everyone from socialist to libertarian, and from progressive to reactionary. Nothing new there, but President Obama has been an awful leader regardless of where he falls on the political spectrum. need evidence for the first part of this statement I'm not sure you do. The second part was meant to serve as that evidence (unions campaign explicitly against the interests of workers to prevent Right to Work) but otherwise it should be immediately evident anyway. Unions are organizations. An organization's interests do not always line up with the interests of any given individual or even the group they claim to represent. Why else would they oppose voluntary membership? i'm not sure what the "high risk democrats" part is meant to prove, given that obama has always been deeply unpopular in kentucky, west virginia, louisiana, arkansas, etc even in 2008, and the democratic party has been on the wrong side of the post-1964 realignment in those states as well as for obama's faithful, most of them don't even live in the states where democratic senators went down last year, and seeing blue dogs like grimes and tennant and pryor trying to position themselves as republican-lite, being spineless and refusing to confirm if they voted for obama sure as hell won't bringing them out to the polls It was meant to suggest that he was unpopular at the time of the election and that this unpopularity (related at least in some way to the miserable early implementation of the ACA) cost the Democrats seats. Do you really disagree with this? Right to work states, on average, tend to have lower wages. I'm not sure correlation equals causation in this case, or that Right to Work and wages are related in any meaningful way. Edited August 13, 2015 by Duff Ostrich Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lantairu Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 what are your thoughts about the race so far? i am personally wondering where/what jeb bush is doing while trump is reveling in publicity. All I have to say is that we don't need another bush in office. They had their chances, and they blew it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted August 14, 2015 Share Posted August 14, 2015 (edited) I'm not sure you do. yes, actually, i do. that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. your rhetoric provides false insight. of course no organization has its interests congruent with a particular member of its group. that's the necessary consequence of having a heterogeneous organization. you might as well say that people working together is bad because no two people have the exact same interests. Why else would they oppose voluntary membership? this seems pretty obvious to me. a non-union worker freeloads on union efforts. Edited August 14, 2015 by dondon151 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaze The Great Posted August 14, 2015 Share Posted August 14, 2015 (edited) "right to work sure has created a job boom in this state," said the well-dressed businessman at a cafe "i know," said his waitress, struggling with untreated leg pains. "my husband and i are working four of them between us and still can't make ends meet" You realize that part of my post was a joke, right? I put a strike through it to indicate that I was being sarcastic.Also, in response to SDK, I was referring to federal groups, since they are all drawing money from the government at that level. My mistake, should've clarified, that looked really dumb. Edited August 14, 2015 by Blaze The Great Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duff Ostrich Posted August 14, 2015 Share Posted August 14, 2015 (edited) yes, actually, i do. that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. True enough, but sometimes appealing to common knowledge can be useful for the sake of expediency... But since you require it: http://www.mackinac.org/19280 This is simply a random lawsuit, and one I am somewhat familiar with. Teachers filed a suit against the union over bullying practices relating to their right to opt out of dues. The Mackinac Center for Public Policy has an agenda, of course, but one would assume that the individual teachers involved in the complaint are acting only in their own interests. Moving on: The Democrats, ever mindful of workers rights, tried to institute the Employee Free Choice Act. This was heavily supported by big labor and would have effectively limited the rights of union members to vote through on issues through secret ballot. You may or may not find longtime liberal icon George McGovern more convincing than myself. This was from eons ago but still relevant, I think. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afjp4Cx-3W0 This took me three minutes. I can provide more examples if necessary. Edited August 14, 2015 by Duff Ostrich Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted August 14, 2015 Share Posted August 14, 2015 you're going to have to cite more than a single example of 8 people being "bullied" by a union to illustrate the case that unions are systematically bad lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smartdumbkid Posted August 14, 2015 Share Posted August 14, 2015 I'm not sure correlation equals causation in this case, or that Right to Work and wages are related in any meaningful way. Oh come on now. How can disbanding unions, one of the few defenses that workers have against corporations, not be considered by you as one of the factors of a wage decrease? Please, for the sake of intellectual honesty, don't play dumb because you don't like the data presented to you. At least provide a source against what I posted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Cynthia- Posted August 16, 2015 Share Posted August 16, 2015 Hmm, Mike Huckabee has a similar abortion position to Scott Walker- but at least Huckabee doesn't come off as a heartless human being while discussing the issue. http://cnn.it/1TJR0NU Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smartdumbkid Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 (edited) Hmm, Mike Huckabee has a similar abortion position to Scott Walker- but at least Huckabee doesn't come off as a heartless human being while discussing the issue. http://cnn.it/1TJR0NU He is still just as heartlesshttp://www.inquisitr.com/2341204/mike-huckabee-believes-11-year-old-rape-victim-should-have-to-carry-child-to-term/ Edited August 17, 2015 by Smartdumbkid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Cynthia- Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 He is still just as heartless http://www.inquisitr.com/2341204/mike-huckabee-believes-11-year-old-rape-victim-should-have-to-carry-child-to-term/ Oh I find the position just as unlikeable, Huckabee just puts it a nicer way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowy_One Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 Is it just me, or are the Republicans REALLY blowing it? They've got a nice, clean, shot after Obama yet their leading candidate is a racist who doesn't seem to be all that good at international politics. Grrrr... Why can't we get a nice, solid, lead? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 The good news for the Republicans is that people like Trump and Cruz might not be Republicans for much longer, depending on if tithe party fractures completely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowy_One Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 The good news for the Republicans is that people like Trump and Cruz might not be Republicans for much longer, depending on if tithe party fractures completely. TBH I suspect that the entire system might crack soon, not just the Republican party. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthMikey Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 America's political system has been splitting and shifting and rolling around since it first existed, just as it is in most countries around the world. I wouldn't surprised to see a re-alignment across the board within the next twenty or thirty years. I don't have much hope for the Republicans this election to be honest. If they're not energized enough to win after four years of Hillary then we will probably be looking at a party on the verge of breakdown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Cynthia- Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 Is it just me, or are the Republicans REALLY blowing it? They've got a nice, clean, shot after Obama yet their leading candidate is a racist who doesn't seem to be all that good at international politics. Grrrr... Why can't we get a nice, solid, lead? Obama isn't super popular...but he's not wildly unpopular either. 45% approval is pretty average historically speaking (better than G.W. Bush and Truman, lower than Eisenhower, Clinton, and Reagan for instance). http://www.vox.com/2015/8/15/9154383/obama-approval-rating Also historically speaking, Trump's current lead in the polls isn't very significant. http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/donald-trump-is-winning-the-polls-and-losing-the-nomination/The more 'establishment' Republicans should get a larger share of the votes once candidates start dropping out. Do you have a favorite candidate at this point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClevelandSteve Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 To tell you the truth, Trump is oddly enough one of the scariest candidates in the race. If you've seen him in interviews recently, he seems to have discovered a viable way to attack opponents that's both truthful and meaningful (something that Republicans have struggled with for Obama's entire presidency). He went after both parties for being bought out by corporations and the wealthy, which is very true. If he gets the nomination, he'll probably immediately tone down the racist and misogynist shit while ramping up the "politicians are all bought out to serve interests other than yours" rhetoric (while leaving out the fact that, if elected, Trump will serve those same corporate interests as well. Not for campaign money, but because, as a corporate man himself, corporate interests are his own self-interest). I have a feeling that this will be a hit with independents and maybe even some Democrats, and most Democratic candidates would have no way to counter it. The only Democrat who could beat Trump if he continues this route is Bernie Sanders, who isn't taking corporate money and thus can battle Trump on actual policy issues, thus exposing Trump as the ignorant buffoon he is. The only candidates that scare me more than Trump are Rubio and Kasich. Rubio because he has that "living paycheck-to-paycheck" background he can play up to make himself look like he understands the poor and middle class, and enough charisma to make voters forget that he's trying to screw over said poor and middle class people. Kasich because he's able to trick people into thinking he's "honest and genuine" and, like many Republican governors, he likes to take credit for the recovery spurred on by Obama's policies that he campaigned against to get elected in the first place. As someone who lived under Kasich's rule until the summer of last year, he's an asshole whose actual accomplishments include attempting to pass a union-busting bill worse than Scott Walker's (thankfully, Kasich's bill was rejected by voter referendum), passing a law requiring women to stick an invasive probe in their vagina before they can get an abortion (among other abortion restrictions), turning away federal funding for a high-speed railway line between Cleveland and Columbus that would've helped my family quite a lot while I lived in Cleveland and my sisters lived in Columbus, and suppressing poor people from voting in the name of "preventing voter fraud" (something that doesn't happen anywhere near as often as Republicans want you to believe). As for who I actually support, I think I've been pretty obvious about liking Bernie Sanders. I hope he can score the upset in the primary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ansem Posted August 18, 2015 Author Share Posted August 18, 2015 wouldnt worry about rubio and kasich as they have little support. http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/16/politics/gop-poll-jeb-bush-scott-walker-marco-rubio-drop-2016/index.html i find carson being higher than jeb bush and scott walker amusing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Cynthia- Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 (edited) People are really anti-political establishment these days and I guess Carson is pretty likeable or something? I have a hard time getting past how unqualified he seems- it's like hiring a rocket scientist with no business background to be a CEO of a huge corporation. "I bet none of the other CEO candidates have landed a shuttle on Mars." Impressive, but not a relevant qualification obviously. "I may not have business experience, but I'm smart I'll figure it out." Who would hire anyone who said this? He also believes that prison makes people gay, which makes claims of his own supposed intelligence rather dubious. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/mar/04/ben-carson/ben-carson-many-prisoners-go-straight-come-out-gay/ Edited August 18, 2015 by -Cynthia- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ansem Posted August 18, 2015 Author Share Posted August 18, 2015 carson is famous for separating two twins who were conjoined, no? i dont understand his motivation to run for president either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.M. Gei Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 (edited) carson is famous for separating two twins who were conjoined, no? i dont understand his motivation to run for president either. as it turns out, there's lots of money to be made in being a publicly visible One Of The Good Ones™ the guy just makes me sad, since he's the platonic ideal of fuck you, got mine. he admits that he wouldn't have made it through childhood without food stamps, and yet he wants to gut it anyway since he's gotten his. from my point of view, he was a great american who threw away his career just so he could hop on the wingnut welfare gravy train Edited August 18, 2015 by I.M. Gei Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthMikey Posted August 18, 2015 Share Posted August 18, 2015 (edited) Whether you're towards the left or the right, I hope you can recognize the hypocrisy in criticizing Obama for lack of knowledge/experience before he was elected and then buying a Ben Carson bumper sticker. (Of course, I guess you could argue that Carson has more life experience in general, but the issue here really relates to knowledge of government and policy.) Edited August 19, 2015 by TheCosmicDude Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.M. Gei Posted August 19, 2015 Share Posted August 19, 2015 (edited) tbf obama was a state senator, professor of law, and then u.s. senator before he was elected, and his experience in community organizing, despite all the mud thrown at it by the right, was critical in his groundbreaking campaigns and victories carson strikes me as that one guy—you know that one doctor or engineer or whatever—who is clearly very gifted in his given field, but thinks that his extraordinarily competence in his profession obviously means that he's gifted at everything. that he might be a blithering moron in one or more areas outside of his field doesn't occur to him Edited August 19, 2015 by I.M. Gei Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthMikey Posted August 19, 2015 Share Posted August 19, 2015 I think it's a little disingenuous to say that Obama had a giant base of experience, but I do agree that he was more prepared than those with agendas against him would like you to believe. Carson's entire rise to fame confuses me a little. To my knowledge he only came to be viewed in pretty much any political light at all after the one speech he made at the National Prayer Breakfast a few years back. He at least seems nice and is obviously accomplished in his own field, but I don't understand where he thinks the rationale was for a presidential campaign when all he's really been doing politically is making comments on TV the last few years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.