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
No, it's not a good thing. He set up people to put him on a pedestal and people were disappointed that he misled them. His actions are one of the factors that led Trump to winning.
The Tea Party Movement and Occupy Wall Street Movement were in part a protest against Obama's actions.
I mean was it a good idea for Obama to hire some of the people responsible for the financial crisis into his government? Probably not, no.
edited 21st Apr '17 1:25:13 PM by MadSkillz
That's just a difference in style. FDR got political mileage out of being a traitor to his class. Obama went with No-drama-Obama. Plus the issue of the country's different overton window from the 30s. Of course style has practical effect but, it doesn't mean there was a secret conspiracy in the works.
And that can be taken two ways. One the risk of any negotiation is that you lose out on potential gains, because no one can read minds. Or two, he gave them the impression he wanted, and these stakeholders were too busy relying on President Obama to keep armies of sans-culottes from their gates to rally opposition to what he did help reform.
He had both houses of Congress filled with Dems and he had the population on his side.
If his own party was opposing him then the Dems should get the blame too but you know he still could've rallied the population to put enormous pressure on his party. He didn't though. He wanted the anger to go away not be channeled.
This is Lofgren's account:
It's hard for me not to agree with it.
edited 21st Apr '17 1:15:50 PM by MadSkillz
![]()
![]()
Putin is far, far too competent to be Adolf Hitler.
Which is not so much an admittance of Putin's strengths as it is acknowledging the fact that Adolf Hitler was a disaster on a level almost unfathomable to us today.
edited 21st Apr '17 2:24:08 PM by math792d
Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.
If by 'state capitalist' you mean 'authoritarian communist single-party dictatorship,' then yes.
Also, it depends on whether we're talking pre-Great Purge or post-Great Purge Soviet Union. After that one, suddenly the state didn't have as much in terms of misgivings towards Stalin.
Mostly because they didn't like the idea of getting their teeth pulled out.
Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.You'd probably be better off comparing Trump to Mobutu if worse comes to worst. Tis not like he has any ideology besides cash and ego, not even the chaos inherent in fascism. Besides, tis too early to put Trump alongside the bywords for ultimate evil. Trump's just fine being a plain old national shame.
An Update:Bernie Sanders on Jon Ossoff: It’s ‘imperative’ he be elected
“Let me be very clear. It is imperative that Jon Ossoff be elected congressman from Georgia’s 6th District and that Democrats take back the U.S. House,” said Sanders, a one-time presidential candidate, in a statement. “I applaud the energy and grassroots activism in Jon’s campaign. His victory would be an important step forward in fighting back against Trump’s reactionary agenda.”
edited 21st Apr '17 3:03:13 PM by CenturyEye
Look with century eyes... With our backs to the arch And the wreck of our kind We will stare straight ahead For the rest of our lives
Seems he realized he fucked up.
And since we're probably going to end up there anyway, The Atlantic has managed a feat I believed to be impossible: reporting on the "berniecrats" vs. "establishment Democrats" fight without using the entire articles to take potshots at the one side while insulting the other
.
Yeah, that's probably what's going on with Sanders. I would still like to understand how he defines people as progressives or not progressives.
edited 21st Apr '17 3:03:11 PM by IFwanderer
1 2 We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be. -KVYeah, Obama didn't want to throw bankers in jail. Yes, that's a bad thing and he could have done better there. But I understand why he didn't do it.
@MadSkillz, let me ask you a serious question. Do you think that choosing an attack dog as an AG and sending him to Wall Street with a mission would, A, have resulted in an appreciable number of convictions, or B, actually led to systematic change in the banking industry?
That, plus I don't think he was speaking against Ossoff's candidacy in the first place. Tone-deafness is a Sanders staple, remember; he can literally not realize that "nah, he's not a progressive" could be taken to mean endorsing his enemy.
Problem with Sanders in general, there. He has a lot of good ideas program-wise, but politically speaking, he hasn't learned the concept of watching what he says. He's a gaffe machine.
edited 21st Apr '17 3:01:01 PM by Ramidel

Open interference by the US president in the democratic process of an allied nation.
Jesus Christ.
Granted, I doubt Donald is popular in France (outside of those who vote FN anyway), so this probably won't make a difference.
edited 21st Apr '17 12:55:34 PM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.