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
Changing the way cost of living increases are calculated is not the same thing as raising the retirement age or straight-up cutting benefits, and implying otherwise is disingenuous. Yes, the end result is the same (less money being paid out by those programs), but it's money that those people theoretically weren't entitled to in the first place, since all it's really doing is changing the way inflation is measured.
And the article you yourself link points out that it wasn't something Obama actually supported, but rather a compromise offering to the GOP. Screaming your head off when you have to give something to get something is exactly what we've been lambasting the GOP for for years at this point.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.My point is that the "this is sacrosanct, it shall never be touched for any reason, ever, and that is final" is a terrible attitude to take, especially in politics, where compromise is necessary for effective governance and shouldn't be demonized.
The reason I bring up that it wasn't his idea is because it's important that he offered it as a compromise — as in, something he didn't like but was willing to do in exchange for something else — which is a rather different beast than being something he wanted to do because he thought it was good policy.
edited 17th Mar '16 4:47:09 PM by NativeJovian
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.![]()
A lot of people don't like President Obama exactly because of his obscene willingness to compromise. Look where it got him. Look where it got the nation.
I personally love Big O, but you cannot say that compromise was such an important approach when he couldn't even unite his party under him. Half the Democrats opposed him on this—not just Sanders, which was the original smear over this.
President Obama was perfectly willing to compromise, yet we still faced—and endured—how many government shutdowns?
edited 17th Mar '16 4:51:21 PM by SolipsistOwl
The other two considerations were apparently Paul J. Watford[1]
and Sri Srinivasan[2]
. Oh and according to The Other Wiki "Garland has more federal judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in history."
You can always debate what exactly constitutes an effective compromise — that's healthy. Some will argue that he offered too much, others will say that he offered too little, and still others will say that the entire thing is stupid and we should be looking at some other issue entirely. Business as usual.
The fact that nothing got done and we had so many artificial budget crises isn't because Obama was willing to compromise, it was because the GOP (or at least the Tea Party) wasn't. Blaming Obama's willingness to compromise for the Tea Party's lack of it is silly.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
1. Their were multiple years with just extensions instead of budgets though.
![]()
You honestly think people give a shit about qualifications anymore. Now it's all about who will rule with the party line.
edited 17th Mar '16 4:57:16 PM by JackOLantern1337
I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.Oh and their was also sequestration, which mostly hit the pentagon, frankly I think Obama deliberately engineered that requirement knowing the Republicans would force the issue, and giving him an excuse to slash the Pentagon's budget without getting into another political fight.
I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.When they might get an EVEN MORE LEFT Judge or whatever clown Trump bounces at them?
Fundamentally the current Republican Establishment is anti-everything. They want the government to stop working.
And that angers the Far Right voters who now flock to Donald Trump. The way I see it, he's more devious than he acts at rallies. He is a total fascist, and is riding to power based on the anger and rage of the lower class Whites who see the Republican Party as shills who shuttered their benefits just to feel better about themselves.
Keep in mind - those of you who bring up the fact he used to be a Democrat and have moderate positions - that Mussolini used to be a socialist himself before his big moment.
Trump sees the way the wind is blowing, and that for a large number of the working class, they want to knock down the big wigs who control everything and not just see the safety net they want established, they want the people "taking too much of it" dealt with.
Mix in the fact left wing people actually shut down a Trump Rally / in their minds took Dear Leader's right to freedom of speech, and you have people who are now FAR more energized than before. They have a crisis, an open opponent, who has vowed to shut down their rallies and in their minds silence their beliefs.
And you know what they said in response to that? "You want Nazis? FINE, WE'LL BE FUCKING NAZIS!"
Donald Trump may not be literally Hitler, but I think he's trying to repurpose Hitler's politics and Mussolini's methods into a United States political climate.
Clinton, Trump, Cruz, and Kasich are all now confirmed to speak at AIPAC. Sanders is the only candidate to decline.
Members of the press and various protest groups have also confirmed being barred from the event.
https://twitter.com/AIPAC/status/710651962153418754
It just goes to show that all of these candidates—neo-cons and neo-libs alike—are essentially the same. I mean, Donald Trump sought Bill Clinton's advice prior to running. In all likelihood, Bill suggested it.
It's the pro-Israel lobby, so it probably can be determined that all the mentioned candidates have similar positions on Israel, but drawing more from it then that would be absurd.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

edited 17th Mar '16 4:26:07 PM by SolipsistOwl