Hillary to run again in 2020 (Op-ED)

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

Post Reply
User avatar
Ziggy Stardust
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3114
Joined: 2006-09-10 10:16pm
Location: Research Triangle, NC

Re: Hillary to run again in 2020 (Op-ED)

Post by Ziggy Stardust »

The big problem with using FDR (or any president before him) as a model for today is that the role of the president was very different (i.e. diminished) then compared to now. The president was a much less powerful figure in 1945 than in 2017. Really, Truman began the progression that led to the modern powerful president in the U.S., and a lot of that had to do with nuclear proliferation as well. But even Truman was less powerful than Bush Jr. or Obama. The pre-eminence of the executive branch is a distinctly post-war phenomenon in the U.S.
User avatar
TheFeniX
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4869
Joined: 2003-06-26 04:24pm
Location: Texas

Re: Hillary to run again in 2020 (Op-ED)

Post by TheFeniX »

Napoleon the Clown wrote:If they keep showing themselves to be beholden to rich fuckers and corporations, they're going to lose out on a lot of votes from people who are goddamned sick to death of rich fuckers and corporations running the show. If the Republican party weren't so actively harmful, maliciously so in some cases, I'd be much less inclined to vote for Democrats because the party's leadership has expressed disdain for anyone who doesn't want to register as a Democrat and swear fealty. The party leadership, quite simply, behaves as though they are owed votes, that they can simply expect them to come in because (D) isn't as bad as (R).
I'm nearly at the point that I'd fall in line behind anyone who said something to the effect of "the next time Wall Street (or whatever) fucks the American consumer, I won't rest until those in charge of the fraud are serving significant jail-time." If Republicans (or anyone) want to fight the idea that Wall Street should be held to the same ethical and criminal standard as normal people, let them. "You should step down and collect millions in retirement payouts for fucking us all" is not a sane response. That's not a punishment. It's taking the key to the Ferrari and making you drive the Porsche.

Give Americans a politician willing to fall on his/her sword for that singular issue (which would also have to include regulation) and I'd eat my hat if they didn't get a significant following. Instead, how many elected officials take a hard stance like that? Warren and maybe Sanders? Sanders gets shit on by Dems and Reps alike, but damned if I wouldn't take him over what anyone else is selling. Shame they are both just getting so old.

Abortion and homosexual rights are very important to me, but every time they get brought up by a politician, I feel they're a smoke-screen so they can continue trying to empty my wallet. For others I've talked to they "know" they are a smoke-screen. And when they get shit on for not being more in favor of what they consider side-issues while they drown in debt, they don't react positively.

I feel the same way about immigration: Republicans just like screwing over brown people. They don't care about the illegal workforce. If they did, they go to businesses like Wal-Mart and say "for every illegal we find here, we're fining you double what you paid them under the table." No, they'd rather pander to their base by bashing on Hispanics and accomplish nothing of value.

NOTE: My personal view on immigration is that anyone willing to work and pay taxes is welcome here.
Flagg wrote:What does any of that have to do with FDR, who died in 1945? The only way the changes put in by FDR were even possible is because you had Hoover who wanted to rely on the same invisible hand of the free market that gave us the Great Depression and FDR who wanted to do something. And the only thing that truly got us out of it was WW2. Everything you're talking abut is post-war when FDR was already worm food.
Fair enough about FDR in general, but the "black issue" was a long standing one since the foundation of the Union. It was such a polarizing one, we were chopping up sections of the landmass specifically to maintain the balance of slave states vs free states. It wasn't up until around the 60s that "black people are subhuman" started losing its validity as a political position.

Even then, FDR alone wasn't what pushed through the New Deal and there were massive, mostly partisan, battles over its passing.
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Hillary to run again in 2020 (Op-ED)

Post by Simon_Jester »

Gandalf wrote:
Simon_Jester wrote:
Flagg wrote:Yeah, that's my point. Why should Democrats compromise on issues that Republicans will bring up as some dire threat anyway? Did Obama get Gun control legislation passed? No, to the point that people on the goddamned terrorist watch list can still buy them and now President Pussygrabber wants to make it easier/possible for the severely mentally disturbed to buy them, too.
The point is to explicitly go out there and deliberately adopt a popular stance on issues that are not core values of the Democratic Party.
What exactly are the core values of the Democratic Party?
That is a conversation I would dearly love to be having. I think it is a very important conversation to have.

I would vastly prefer it over having to bang my head against a wall of compromise-allergy that prevents its victims from even seriously considering supporting anyone who doesn't tick off literally all the boxes on some arbitrary checklist of "blue" positions.

I have my own opinions on what those core values ought to be, but I suspect it would be a massive derail to bring it up in this thread.
TheFeniX wrote:
Napoleon the Clown wrote:If they keep showing themselves to be beholden to rich fuckers and corporations, they're going to lose out on a lot of votes from people who are goddamned sick to death of rich fuckers and corporations running the show. If the Republican party weren't so actively harmful, maliciously so in some cases, I'd be much less inclined to vote for Democrats because the party's leadership has expressed disdain for anyone who doesn't want to register as a Democrat and swear fealty. The party leadership, quite simply, behaves as though they are owed votes, that they can simply expect them to come in because (D) isn't as bad as (R).
I'm nearly at the point that I'd fall in line behind anyone who said something to the effect of "the next time Wall Street (or whatever) fucks the American consumer, I won't rest until those in charge of the fraud are serving significant jail-time." If Republicans (or anyone) want to fight the idea that Wall Street should be held to the same ethical and criminal standard as normal people, let them. "You should step down and collect millions in retirement payouts for fucking us all" is not a sane response. That's not a punishment. It's taking the key to the Ferrari and making you drive the Porsche.

Give Americans a politician willing to fall on his/her sword for that singular issue (which would also have to include regulation) and I'd eat my hat if they didn't get a significant following. Instead, how many elected officials take a hard stance like that...?
Okay, I get this. I totally get this.

Maybe, if we are fortunate, we can find a Democrat who will make that stand.*

On a related note, it seems to me that if said Democrat is to win the election, they're probably going to have to do it by very explicitly compromising with parts of the electorate. Compromising on gun rights, protectionism, and other issues that Trump and other Republicans would otherwise use as bludgeons against the Democrats. There are or ought to be things besides just "fuck Wall Street" that they refuse to compromise on, but we're certainly not going to get a candidate who provides ALL the warm fuzzies for extremely Blue voters just because they are the "fuck Wall Street" candidate.

*[No amount of good fortune will ever get us a Republican who will make that stand, not until the current generation of Republican Party leadership is either dead or forced out of office. Anyone who voted for Donald Trump (or for that matter Mitt Romney) in the expectation that he would ever consider holding Wall Street accountable for suffering on Main Street is a goddamn idiot.]
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
User avatar
Gandalf
SD.net White Wizard
Posts: 16285
Joined: 2002-09-16 11:13pm
Location: A video store in Australia

Re: Hillary to run again in 2020 (Op-ED)

Post by Gandalf »

Simon_Jester wrote:
Gandalf wrote:
Simon_Jester wrote:The point is to explicitly go out there and deliberately adopt a popular stance on issues that are not core values of the Democratic Party.
What exactly are the core values of the Democratic Party?
That is a conversation I would dearly love to be having. I think it is a very important conversation to have.
I think that politically it is perhaps the only discussion to have right now, and the Democratic Party hasn't had it this good since Bush shit the bed in 2005-6. As dissatisfaction with Trump grows, someone needs to be there to harness it and present a coherent alternative by the time of the midterms.
I would vastly prefer it over having to bang my head against a wall of compromise-allergy that prevents its victims from even seriously considering supporting anyone who doesn't tick off literally all the boxes on some arbitrary checklist of "blue" positions.
I concur.
I have my own opinions on what those core values ought to be, but I suspect it would be a massive derail to bring it up in this thread.
I would like to see that thread.
"Oh no, oh yeah, tell me how can it be so fair
That we dying younger hiding from the police man over there
Just for breathing in the air they wanna leave me in the chair
Electric shocking body rocking beat streeting me to death"

- A.B. Original, Report to the Mist

"I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately."
- George Carlin
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Hillary to run again in 2020 (Op-ED)

Post by Simon_Jester »

I'm not normally big on starting threads, but if I feel the impulse I might start it. I'll try to remember.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
User avatar
Gandalf
SD.net White Wizard
Posts: 16285
Joined: 2002-09-16 11:13pm
Location: A video store in Australia

Re: Hillary to run again in 2020 (Op-ED)

Post by Gandalf »

Simon_Jester wrote:I'm not normally big on starting threads, but if I feel the impulse I might start it. I'll try to remember.
I present the object of impatience: Ta fucking da!
"Oh no, oh yeah, tell me how can it be so fair
That we dying younger hiding from the police man over there
Just for breathing in the air they wanna leave me in the chair
Electric shocking body rocking beat streeting me to death"

- A.B. Original, Report to the Mist

"I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately."
- George Carlin
User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Re: Hillary to run again in 2020 (Op-ED)

Post by Flagg »

TheFeniX wrote:
Napoleon the Clown wrote:If they keep showing themselves to be beholden to rich fuckers and corporations, they're going to lose out on a lot of votes from people who are goddamned sick to death of rich fuckers and corporations running the show. If the Republican party weren't so actively harmful, maliciously so in some cases, I'd be much less inclined to vote for Democrats because the party's leadership has expressed disdain for anyone who doesn't want to register as a Democrat and swear fealty. The party leadership, quite simply, behaves as though they are owed votes, that they can simply expect them to come in because (D) isn't as bad as (R).
I'm nearly at the point that I'd fall in line behind anyone who said something to the effect of "the next time Wall Street (or whatever) fucks the American consumer, I won't rest until those in charge of the fraud are serving significant jail-time." If Republicans (or anyone) want to fight the idea that Wall Street should be held to the same ethical and criminal standard as normal people, let them. "You should step down and collect millions in retirement payouts for fucking us all" is not a sane response. That's not a punishment. It's taking the key to the Ferrari and making you drive the Porsche.

Give Americans a politician willing to fall on his/her sword for that singular issue (which would also have to include regulation) and I'd eat my hat if they didn't get a significant following. Instead, how many elected officials take a hard stance like that? Warren and maybe Sanders? Sanders gets shit on by Dems and Reps alike, but damned if I wouldn't take him over what anyone else is selling. Shame they are both just getting so old.

Abortion and homosexual rights are very important to me, but every time they get brought up by a politician, I feel they're a smoke-screen so they can continue trying to empty my wallet. For others I've talked to they "know" they are a smoke-screen. And when they get shit on for not being more in favor of what they consider side-issues while they drown in debt, they don't react positively.

I feel the same way about immigration: Republicans just like screwing over brown people. They don't care about the illegal workforce. If they did, they go to businesses like Wal-Mart and say "for every illegal we find here, we're fining you double what you paid them under the table." No, they'd rather pander to their base by bashing on Hispanics and accomplish nothing of value.

NOTE: My personal view on immigration is that anyone willing to work and pay taxes is welcome here.
Flagg wrote:What does any of that have to do with FDR, who died in 1945? The only way the changes put in by FDR were even possible is because you had Hoover who wanted to rely on the same invisible hand of the free market that gave us the Great Depression and FDR who wanted to do something. And the only thing that truly got us out of it was WW2. Everything you're talking abut is post-war when FDR was already worm food.
Fair enough about FDR in general, but the "black issue" was a long standing one since the foundation of the Union. It was such a polarizing one, we were chopping up sections of the landmass specifically to maintain the balance of slave states vs free states. It wasn't up until around the 60s that "black people are subhuman" started losing its validity as a political position.

Even then, FDR alone wasn't what pushed through the New Deal and there were massive, mostly partisan, battles over its passing.
It's actually a little known (or at least commented on) fact that FDR (who spent quite a bit of time in Georgia where he died) was a racist who saw the southern states treatment of African Americans as just peachy.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21559
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Hillary to run again in 2020 (Op-ED)

Post by The Romulan Republic »

Simon_Jester wrote:
Gandalf wrote:
Simon_Jester wrote:The point is to explicitly go out there and deliberately adopt a popular stance on issues that are not core values of the Democratic Party.
What exactly are the core values of the Democratic Party?
That is a conversation I would dearly love to be having. I think it is a very important conversation to have.

I would vastly prefer it over having to bang my head against a wall of compromise-allergy that prevents its victims from even seriously considering supporting anyone who doesn't tick off literally all the boxes on some arbitrary checklist of "blue" positions.

I have my own opinions on what those core values ought to be, but I suspect it would be a massive derail to bring it up in this thread.
TheFeniX wrote:
Napoleon the Clown wrote:If they keep showing themselves to be beholden to rich fuckers and corporations, they're going to lose out on a lot of votes from people who are goddamned sick to death of rich fuckers and corporations running the show. If the Republican party weren't so actively harmful, maliciously so in some cases, I'd be much less inclined to vote for Democrats because the party's leadership has expressed disdain for anyone who doesn't want to register as a Democrat and swear fealty. The party leadership, quite simply, behaves as though they are owed votes, that they can simply expect them to come in because (D) isn't as bad as (R).
I'm nearly at the point that I'd fall in line behind anyone who said something to the effect of "the next time Wall Street (or whatever) fucks the American consumer, I won't rest until those in charge of the fraud are serving significant jail-time." If Republicans (or anyone) want to fight the idea that Wall Street should be held to the same ethical and criminal standard as normal people, let them. "You should step down and collect millions in retirement payouts for fucking us all" is not a sane response. That's not a punishment. It's taking the key to the Ferrari and making you drive the Porsche.

Give Americans a politician willing to fall on his/her sword for that singular issue (which would also have to include regulation) and I'd eat my hat if they didn't get a significant following. Instead, how many elected officials take a hard stance like that...?
Okay, I get this. I totally get this.

Maybe, if we are fortunate, we can find a Democrat who will make that stand.*

On a related note, it seems to me that if said Democrat is to win the election, they're probably going to have to do it by very explicitly compromising with parts of the electorate. Compromising on gun rights, protectionism, and other issues that Trump and other Republicans would otherwise use as bludgeons against the Democrats. There are or ought to be things besides just "fuck Wall Street" that they refuse to compromise on, but we're certainly not going to get a candidate who provides ALL the warm fuzzies for extremely Blue voters just because they are the "fuck Wall Street" candidate.

*[No amount of good fortune will ever get us a Republican who will make that stand, not until the current generation of Republican Party leadership is either dead or forced out of office. Anyone who voted for Donald Trump (or for that matter Mitt Romney) in the expectation that he would ever consider holding Wall Street accountable for suffering on Main Street is a goddamn idiot.]
Pretty much the only issues that are no compromise for me at this point are upholding the Constitution, and particularly defending the right to vote, right to due process, right to freedom of belief/expression, and legal equality. That is the ground from which we must not retreat, not only because it would be a betrayal of our principles and our base, but because those issues are intrinsic to democratic government functioning at all.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

"The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan."-General Von Clauswitz, describing my opinion of Bernie or Busters and third partiers in a nutshell.

I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE TO REMOVE TRUMP FROM OFFICE.
User avatar
TheFeniX
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4869
Joined: 2003-06-26 04:24pm
Location: Texas

Re: Hillary to run again in 2020 (Op-ED)

Post by TheFeniX »

Simon_Jester wrote:On a related note, it seems to me that if said Democrat is to win the election, they're probably going to have to do it by very explicitly compromising with parts of the electorate. Compromising on gun rights, protectionism, and other issues that Trump and other Republicans would otherwise use as bludgeons against the Democrats. There are or ought to be things besides just "fuck Wall Street" that they refuse to compromise on, but we're certainly not going to get a candidate who provides ALL the warm fuzzies for extremely Blue voters just because they are the "fuck Wall Street" candidate.
Thinking about it more after the 2016 cock-up: I don't even think Democrats need to compromise on Gun Control. They just need to shut the fuck up about it for a few years and keep it's champions (such as Hillary) away from a camera and mic. Throw it back in their opponents face when it's brought up: "My opponent is trying to change the issue from the economy to gun rights, but my concern is that Americans are in the position to AFFORD to purchase a firearm." Or something, whatever. But people can and do respect: "I am strongly for X, but the people NEED Y right now, so X will take a backseat."

I don't have a lot of report from liberal land, but nearly everywhere else: no one gave a shit about guns this election cycle except those dipshit rednecks in Texas who think the gestapo is coming for them every time there's a popular Democrat around. They just "knew" Trump would be for them, Clinton would be against them. But once you have enough politicians with credibility on things such as "not fucking the American Worker," you'd be surprised what people, any people besides the batshit crazy ones who are becoming more and more a vocal minority, will go along with.

People haven't yet forgotten 2008 when they turned on the Republican party as a whole because they fucked up people's ability to earn a living. They were tired of being told be be afraid of terrorists and muslims, to SUPPORT THE TROOPS, and all the other bullshit while the GOP chopped up their country and sold it to everyone but them.

They banked on Democrats to save them and Congress and Head Office got stacked with Blue. This is what LEAD to the restructuring of the GOP. They could have looked in and said "maybe we SHOULD be a party of the people." Instead they went with "our problem is WE WEREN'T CONSERVATIVE ENOUGH" and they threw in with the Tea Party. That didn't just "happen." There was a reason for it. They needed a new base because "normal ass - normal people" were fucking done with the GOP.

Those same normal ass - normal people are now "done" with Democrats, though not nearly on the level as the GOP in 2008. Because nothing else fucking matters when you can't earn a living and support yourself or your family. They'll be "done" with the cratering hole of Reps in a given length of time and we'll back right fucking back here in God Damned 2020 or 2024.

And this is because neither party will actually take a stand for anyone who can't line their fucking pockets.
Flagg wrote:It's actually a little known (or at least commented on) fact that FDR (who spent quite a bit of time in Georgia where he died) was a racist who saw the southern states treatment of African Americans as just peachy.
That doesn't really refute my idea though. There's two parts here to fight against the idea that American is more partisan than ever and this is why nothing can get done:

1. FDR and Congressional Democrats fought multiple hard partisan battles to get the New Deal passed.
2. The debate on what to do/handle African-Americans has been a major partisan (though not always political partisanship) issue across the life of the Union. And it's just one such issue.

I think people just got comfy with the idea of Dems and Reps being so chummy with each other during the later parts of the 20st century, we've forgotten the shit they usually throw at each other. And now we have no idea how to once again get anything done when partisanship rules Washington. Actually, that's not true: Republicans know how to get shit done: they bark, Democrats cower. No matter how few Reps there are, Democrats don't like even the quietest of loud noises. There's a few stand-outs, such as Warren. But that's about it.
User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Re: Hillary to run again in 2020 (Op-ED)

Post by Flagg »

TheFeniX wrote:
Simon_Jester wrote:On a related note, it seems to me that if said Democrat is to win the election, they're probably going to have to do it by very explicitly compromising with parts of the electorate. Compromising on gun rights, protectionism, and other issues that Trump and other Republicans would otherwise use as bludgeons against the Democrats. There are or ought to be things besides just "fuck Wall Street" that they refuse to compromise on, but we're certainly not going to get a candidate who provides ALL the warm fuzzies for extremely Blue voters just because they are the "fuck Wall Street" candidate.
Thinking about it more after the 2016 cock-up: I don't even think Democrats need to compromise on Gun Control. They just need to shut the fuck up about it for a few years and keep it's champions (such as Hillary) away from a camera and mic. Throw it back in their opponents face when it's brought up: "My opponent is trying to change the issue from the economy to gun rights, but my concern is that Americans are in the position to AFFORD to purchase a firearm." Or something, whatever. But people can and do respect: "I am strongly for X, but the people NEED Y right now, so X will take a backseat."

I don't have a lot of report from liberal land, but nearly everywhere else: no one gave a shit about guns this election cycle except those dipshit rednecks in Texas who think the gestapo is coming for them every time there's a popular Democrat around. They just "knew" Trump would be for them, Clinton would be against them. But once you have enough politicians with credibility on things such as "not fucking the American Worker," you'd be surprised what people, any people besides the batshit crazy ones who are becoming more and more a vocal minority, will go along with.

People haven't yet forgotten 2008 when they turned on the Republican party as a whole because they fucked up people's ability to earn a living. They were tired of being told be be afraid of terrorists and muslims, to SUPPORT THE TROOPS, and all the other bullshit while the GOP chopped up their country and sold it to everyone but them.

They banked on Democrats to save them and Congress and Head Office got stacked with Blue. This is what LEAD to the restructuring of the GOP. They could have looked in and said "maybe we SHOULD be a party of the people." Instead they went with "our problem is WE WEREN'T CONSERVATIVE ENOUGH" and they threw in with the Tea Party. That didn't just "happen." There was a reason for it. They needed a new base because "normal ass - normal people" were fucking done with the GOP.

Those same normal ass - normal people are now "done" with Democrats, though not nearly on the level as the GOP in 2008. Because nothing else fucking matters when you can't earn a living and support yourself or your family. They'll be "done" with the cratering hole of Reps in a given length of time and we'll back right fucking back here in God Damned 2020 or 2024.

And this is because neither party will actually take a stand for anyone who can't line their fucking pockets.
Flagg wrote:It's actually a little known (or at least commented on) fact that FDR (who spent quite a bit of time in Georgia where he died) was a racist who saw the southern states treatment of African Americans as just peachy.
That doesn't really refute my idea though. There's two parts here to fight against the idea that American is more partisan than ever and this is why nothing can get done:

1. FDR and Congressional Democrats fought multiple hard partisan battles to get the New Deal passed.
2. The debate on what to do/handle African-Americans has been a major partisan (though not always political partisanship) issue across the life of the Union. And it's just one such issue.

I think people just got comfy with the idea of Dems and Reps being so chummy with each other during the later parts of the 20st century, we've forgotten the shit they usually throw at each other. And now we have no idea how to once again get anything done when partisanship rules Washington. Actually, that's not true: Republicans know how to get shit done: they bark, Democrats cower. No matter how few Reps there are, Democrats don't like even the quietest of loud noises. There's a few stand-outs, such as Warren. But that's about it.
The thing is, the parties during FDR's presidency were willing to compromise, and the Republicans of today view compromise as treason.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
TheFeniX
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4869
Joined: 2003-06-26 04:24pm
Location: Texas

Re: Hillary to run again in 2020 (Op-ED)

Post by TheFeniX »

Flagg wrote:The thing is, the parties during FDR's presidency were willing to compromise, and the Republicans of today view compromise as treason.
I read this and I get it. But I also look at the facts and see that Republicans are more than willing to compromise if they get their watered down legislation. That's compromise. Shitty compromising, but it is there. Republicans are more than onboard with Democrats when it comes to such "important" issues as destruction of civil rights and bombing brown people.

But Health Care and Banking reform is where they draw the line.... they compromise, just not when it comes to helping the American people.

That said, Obama actually had a fairly decent record of working with obstructionist Republicans. He got enough Congressional Republican to flip on the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell.

I like to bash on Obama, but the man is a fucking miracle worker at times.
User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Re: Hillary to run again in 2020 (Op-ED)

Post by Flagg »

TheFeniX wrote:
Flagg wrote:The thing is, the parties during FDR's presidency were willing to compromise, and the Republicans of today view compromise as treason.
I read this and I get it. But I also look at the facts and see that Republicans are more than willing to compromise if they get their watered down legislation. That's compromise. Shitty compromising, but it is there. Republicans are more than onboard with Democrats when it comes to such "important" issues as destruction of civil rights and bombing brown people.

But Health Care and Banking reform is where they draw the line.... they compromise, just not when it comes to helping the American people.

That said, Obama actually had a fairly decent record of working with obstructionist Republicans. He got enough Congressional Republican to flip on the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell.

I like to bash on Obama, but the man is a fucking miracle worker at times.
Oh, I'm aware that they compromise on things like making it easier for shit to get approved by the FDA, like the hernia mesh that cost me my teeth and makes me rely on pain medication to eat. But that's not the compromise we're talking about because it was basically less regulation which gives conservatives a boner. And yeah, that Obama got anything done is a minor miracle, but his signature legislative accomplishment, the ACA, is currently being dismantled.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
TheFeniX
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4869
Joined: 2003-06-26 04:24pm
Location: Texas

Re: Hillary to run again in 2020 (Op-ED)

Post by TheFeniX »

Flagg wrote:Oh, I'm aware that they compromise on things like making it easier for shit to get approved by the FDA, like the hernia mesh that cost me my teeth and makes me rely on pain medication to eat. But that's not the compromise we're talking about because it was basically less regulation which gives conservatives a boner. And yeah, that Obama got anything done is a minor miracle, but his signature legislative accomplishment, the ACA, is currently being dismantled.
Of course it had a huge bullseye painted on it. Obama tried over and over to work with Republicans, made major concessions, and it still had to pass with zero Republican votes. It's this big "fuck you" to them from Obama that says "I tried to play fair and you screwed me, but I still won." They've been eyeing it for more than a few years. But now the toys are unguarded and the toddlers just found daddy's claw hammer.

It didn't matter what the program was: they want to do whatever they can to discredit the idea that Obama was popular and did some good for the American people. They couldn't attack his foreign or domestic policy bullshit, that would make them completely transparent in their hypocrisy.

And they want to twist the knife by making their OWN "save the people" NOT-Obamacare package. Which, from everything I've read kicks the poor to the curb, does little to nothing for the middle-class except put them BACK to where they were under the Bush Admin, and gives major benefits to Insurance providers and larger businesses, as if they need it. Honestly though this "repeal" isn't nearly as bad as I figured it would be. Republicans seem to be hedging their bets by holding off a lot of the defunding until a few congressional elections and a run at 2020. They also left more than a few provisions in that, when you take into account the foaming conservatism of guys like Cruz, this legislation almost looks moderate. The fucking is happening, but there's more lube than I would expect.

It's another instance of people learning the hard way that "it wasn't good enough" (WRT to Obamacare) shouldn't be followed with "Don't do better, just tear it all down." I can only hope those people affected by this, either now or in the next few years, are on the warpath and don't get bogged down with "well, it could have been worse."
Post Reply