Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Wait Obama maintained the status quo when it came to foreign wars? Funny, I thought Obama launched fewer foreign wars during his term (no Syria and Libya don't count, bombing selected targets is not the same as a full scale ground invasion and occupation). I also swear Obama made peace with both Iran and Cuba, something previous presidents had refused to do.
But sure, that's the status quo there. Do folks not remember a Bush at all?
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran@179041: Okay, I'll concede that point. But the other issues I mentioned where Obama kept the OW where it is still stand and I see no reason to think we'll ever get leftward progress on those issues without movements like the ones that almost everyone on the thread seems to be against. Plus, some of those issues are kind of urgent. I mean, how many more innocent civilians in the Middle East have to die while we move incrementally towards an end to nation building and needless wars overseas? How much longer can we afford to not do much about climate change besides nudge the market in the right direction with green tech subsidies?
![]()
Because we elected fucking Donald Trump. Did you not notice?
We wouldn't be downgraded if Hillary Clinton were in office. Or Bernie Sanders, for that matter.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"But you know Obama actually kept a lot of Bush's foreign policy advisors too and the drone campaign expanded under him.
He also deported more people than Bush did.
He increased funding for charter schools too.
He extended Bush's tax cuts and tried to make them more permanent from what I've heard.
And then there's Obama bailing out the banks.
edited 22nd Mar '17 3:57:00 PM by MadSkillz
That's not actually want why. It would've been downgraded either way according to the group who did the study because people have lost trust in their government.
We're at a 7.98(flawed democracy) right now but even before the election year we were barely above 8.
We were more plutocratic than democratic even before Trump (not that Trump's made it any better). From this
2014 Harvard study, page 575: "When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy."
When 90% of our drone strikes kill civilians, I think it's fair to say we're losing a lot more than "a few". We may even be giving more people a reason to join ISIS, since we allow ISIS to say "we'll protect you from the big bad Americans who just killed your" grandchildren/cousins/grandparents/parents/children/friends/other loved ones, etc.
I honestly think the people of Syria would be better off if we left them alone. ISIS wouldn't exist if we hadn't toppled Hussien. Our supposed attempts to make the Middle East better never seem to work (I say "supposed" because I don't believe that's our government's real motive to begin with).
edited 22nd Mar '17 4:10:08 PM by SeriesOfNumbers
Obama bailed out the banks because, get this, not bailing out the banks was one of the things Herbert Hoover did to exacerbate the Great Depression. The economic advisor for the Obama administration wrote his entire thesis on the ways and means by which to avoid turning an economic depression into a meltdown.
Had he not bailed them out, millions more Americans would have lost their jobs than already did. That he failed to prosecute them afterwards is a wholly different, actually relevant discussion.
Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.
(4X) What is democracy to you actually? Democracy and progressiveness isn't one and the same. Ancient Greece is democratic, but it isn't progressive. As long as there are more than one valid political party, there is a change of leadership, and there is no monopoly, it's still democracy. That electoral voting stuff is more harmful to American democracy than corporations. Not to mention the democrats can still oppose the republicans and even won the next election.
(3X) So, after you guys messed up, your first response is to bail out and abandon the house that is on fire?
edited 22nd Mar '17 4:12:54 PM by Advarielle
Only an experienced editor who has a name possesses the ability to truly understand my work - What 90% of writers I'm in charge of said.Why would they have paid her millions of dollars for speeches if they weren't expecting a return on investment? Why did she turn against universal health care after receiving tens of millions of dollars from insurance companies? I'm not saying Clinton is uniquely corrupt, mind you. The overwhelming majority of both parties are bought by corporate interests.
You know, Series, it's getting very hard to have this conversation with you. It's the same broken record over and over.
HRC supported a public option for ACA, which could eventually have turned into a full single-payer system with enough support. She was not going to chase a pie-in-the-sky idea that would almost certainly fail to pass, especially if it meant destabilizing or even repealing a less-perfect system that nevertheless got 30 million people insured who had not been before.
edited 22nd Mar '17 4:31:58 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Yeah. Speaking for fees is a pretty standard thing that a lot of influential people do. They get paid for the speech. There's no implied obligation thereafter. Anyway, there is no evidence that HRC made any political decisions that were influenced by those fees.
edited 22nd Mar '17 4:37:58 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"As far as I know, you've heard wrong. Obama attempted to permanently end them, Republicans threatened to shut down the government in response, Obama eventually let them continue as part of a bargain.
No. As I'm pretty has been pointed out to you in the past, BUSH bailed out the banks. In October 2008, before Obama was even elected.
Type [[quoteblock]]Copy and paste the text you want to quote here, then type [[/quoteblock]]
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |Yeah, the context for the speeches was probably Goldman-Sachs going to her and saying "Hey, we're having a corporate event. Would you be willing to speak at it for five million dollars? Oh, we'll keep the copyright to the speech." And Clinton would probably just said "Yeah, okay." and then created a really generic speech so that she wouldn't run into any trouble with future speeches or plans. And then it backfired in a genuinely really stupid way and created an incredibly ridiculous false dilemma.
The other thing is that when you look at Goldman Sachs? They aren't nearly as awful as people make them out to be. They aren't saints, to be sure, but they kind of want to be able to continue running. Their major executives keep releasing statements condemning the really stupid side of modern American corporate economics. Basically, there's a reason they barely got hit long term by the financial crisis while Lehman Brothers went down in flames, because Lehman Brothers really was the worst of the American banking stereotypes.
edited 22nd Mar '17 4:52:11 PM by Zendervai
![]()
And anyway, the banks had to be bailed out or the nation's financial system would have collapsed. Since I presume most of us don't enjoy eating out of garbage cans, I think we can agree that we're better off this way. The lack of jail time for financial executives is truly a national embarrassment, however.

Well, here's the thing. Citizens United helped exacerbate the problem of big money influencing elections — not necessarily by being able to buy votes with advertising, but by being able to shower candidates with funding and buying their allegiance thereby. This isn't going to get solved by refusing to elect Democrats because they aren't ideologically pure enough.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"