2017 Democratic Thread

[StrangeSox]

The ACA was passed in 2010.

 

It was also pointed out to you previously that you campaigned on increasing the presence in Afghanistan while drawing down in Iraq.

 

Congress explicitly blocked his attempts to cost Gitmo.

 

Congress also did nothing in immigration reform, with Obama doing what he could via executive orders for the dream act.

 

 

Edited January 26, 2017 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

Rabbit honest question, when did you start following politics? Being unaware of when the legislative battle for the ACA took place seems kinda crazy to me.

[Bob Sacamano]

Trump is definitely moving quick on a lot of fronts. Must be difficult for the Democrats to figure out what they want to protest next.

[StrangeSox]

Meant "he" there, autocorrect/predict.

 

I think it's fair to say it both ways on immigration; yes Obama failed to accomplish what he set out to do, but it wasn't because he deliberately broke a promise or didn't try. He just simply couldn't get it done with an uncooperative Congress. The first two years were eaten up by the push for health care, and after the Republican/tea party wave in 2010, any sort of immigration reform was DOA.

[Reddy]

Trump is definitely moving quick on a lot of fronts. Must be difficult for the Democrats to figure out what they want to protest next.

It is. It's pretty overwhelming. Fortunately it will be tough for him to actually implement all of these "unconstitutional" EOs

[Reddy]

Rabbit honest question, when did you start following politics? Being unaware of when the legislative battle for the ACA took place seems kinda crazy to me.

Rabbit, you gonna answer this one?

[southsider2k5]

Rabbit honest question, when did you start following politics? Being unaware of when the legislative battle for the ACA took place seems kinda crazy to me.

 

And there it is. If you can't beat them, invalidate them.

[StrangeSox]

How long have you been following politics? The topic was whether he made good on what he ran on. There's no need for your recycled arguments from 2010.

 

I'm not sure why this post is so aggressive or what it's even supposed to mean. I was just pointing out the history of what Obama did and then why he failed to achieve what he wanted on immigration. He chose to focus on healthcare first, lost his congressional majorities, and then couldn't get the legalisation he wanted passed. That's not an argument, that's just what happened.

 

I asked when you started following politics because I know you're relatively young, and this isn't the first time you've missed something pretty major from early on in Obama's presidency. It wasn't an insult. If you don't know the timelines of the ACA battle and then the Republican wave, you really miss the whole setup of how we got to where we are now.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

And there it is. If you can beat them, invalidate them.

No, it was an honest question because he messed up the timeline of the ACA pretty badly there in an attempt to refute what someone else was saying.

 

Also the Afghanistan thing, which was pointed out to him before by NSS iirc.

[Quin]

Obama kept or compromised on 75% of his promises.

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/pr...bameter/browse/

[Soxbadger]

I dont even know what the point of these conversations are.

 

Clinton lost, Trump won. We could argue all day long why Clinton's campaign failed, I have my own opinions, but none of them are really going to be relevant to the next election cycle, because Clinton wont be the candidate.

 

Obama is the past. I dont even understand why we are comparing Obama to Trump, unless we are comparing what Obama and Trump did in the first week of their Presidency.

 

All of this is just obscures the real issues, it detracts from actual things that matter, and if you dislike Trump's agenda (whether you are Republican or Democrat) arguing about this stuff is playing right into what they want.

 

Yesterday I had a brief moment of hope when I saw some progress (of all places yahoo comments) where it seemed both party supporters had some sort of agreement on torture. Now that moment quickly washed away when I went to CNN and saw comments that just kept referring to it as a fake news site and Clinton News Network, but I digress.

 

Eventually there is just no point in re-litigating the past, especially if you were on the losing side.

[bmags]

Ha, I knew I'd get someone on that. In all seriousness, it's curious there's a lot of people here who are very much concerned with women's rights and "breaking the glass ceiling" for women (for good reason) here but no one seemed to acknowledge the history that was made in November. Trump's campaign was the first successful presidential campaign ran by a woman. That's quite a piece of progress in that respect. There was no mention of it here though. Are we for the advancement of women or not?

 

 

If you weren't around for 2008 would the policies Pres. Obama's campaign ran on change? I don't see the reason to include the bolded. It's a matter of record. Doesn't really change regardless of personal attributes.

 

In 2008, Obama ran on:

Universal health care - got it.

Taking troops out of Afghanistan - He escalated the amount of troops to numbers higher than any number during Bush admin. Still 10,000 troops there. Not sure how you could give him credit there.

Close Gitmo - Still rolling.

Immigration reform - Pres Obama referred to this as "maybe my biggest disappointment."

Iraq War - I don't remember the specifics of what he said on this one but he had a window of ending it and he did well with this promise.

Restore habeas corpus - He didn't do this in his first term and effectively did the opposite with the signing in of the NDAA Act in his second term. Afforded future presidents (Trump) scary powers here in the states.

Ending the war on whistle blowers - Prosecuted more whistle blowers than all previous presidents combined. Established precedent for some scary actions for Trump.

Bush tax cuts ending - Got it.

 

So he made good on Iraq War efforts, Health Care and Bush Tax Cuts. Failed on immigration reform and Gitmo. Did the opposite of what he ran on in Afghanistan, restoring habeas corpus and ending the war on whistleblowers.

 

It was poor phrasing but why I said it that way is in any campaign a ton of stuff comes up and most will not be actionable, but 08 the main focus was Iraq and Healthcare and then the economy as september happened. In 2012 immigration and economic recovery were huge, and then obamacare. A sizeable group was super pumped about Obama about net neutrality in 2008 but it was by no means a large focus of the campaign. I'm sure there's a bunch of other things from campaign stops that we're brought up but never could get legislative momentum.

 

But the major themes were certainly health care it was like 50 % of every dem debate, and the other 50% to foreign policy. Immigration to me was the one huge thing he absolutely campaigned on throughout his tenure but could only pull through with exec orders that, as we've seen, are flimsy.

 

But when 8 years pass I think the things that don't change seem like the things that were always the big items, but the things that did are forgotten about quickly. The lily Ledbetter act was pretty big at the time, barely mentioned now.

 

For you the foreign policy things like whistleblowing and reigning in presidential powers were big failures, but they were just pieces of an equally weighted campaigning on ending torture and unneccessary wars. His foreign policy is muddled and will continue to be for good reason.

 

[bmags]

Obama could not get through immigration due to an insane republican house but I still think it's a valid criticism because he ultimately prioritized healthcare when Immigration could have been first and passed. I think that's the right call, but it's kind of undeniable he could have passed it if he prioritized differently.

[StrangeSox]

Yes, that was the point I was trying to make originally which may not have come across clearly.

[Jenksismyhero]

I totally agree with you on the bolded in the first post and that's really all you had to say and I am with you. Congress and bipartisanship is a broken system. I certainly don't act like the President can control the economy or all legislation. It goes without saying that it's incredibly hard for a president to get things done when you have congress split and battling with each other.

 

The bolded in the second post basically is expressing the same idea but it's just unnecessary. Congress is a flawed system as you depicted in your first post. You have two opposing forces that disagree. Simple as that. I don't see the need to add that one is "insane." To say Congress is inept suffices but when you call a group ~250 people insane because they don't agree with your side of the aisle then your argument loses some of its validity. It takes two to fight. They'll fight until this democracy crumbles but it's not a matter of whether you support the left or right, they're both penetrated by special interests. They're both running on corporate money. They both have very little concern for the American people. It's a business and they're all complicit whether they're on your team on or not. To act as if one is superior to the other just emboldens this bastardized form of democracy we call our government.

 

The rest not directed at bmags but just my opinion.

 

Where I take issue with Pres. Obama is on things that aren't big public spectacles. Pres Obama running on the idea that he is a constitutional lawyer and all for freedom of information and then acting the way he did in office was a total deviation from what he sold himself as and a complete departure for what is good for the individual Americans. His expansion of the drone program and the murdering of all the civilians in the Middle East was a total deviation from the centrist, dove he purported himself to be. Then his administration had the gall to not even acknowledge the word drone for years while they're using cell phone data to blow up Yemeni's who may or may not be militants. That's not of public interest. That's not of Congressional importance. That's on him and his administration. Nobody on this site had their arms up in air or agreed with me when I brought it up in the past. I thought the left was suppose to be anti-war? I'll be interested to see the reactions if/when Trump (and he likely will) levies the same powers.

 

But to the point that nobody talks about the big things once they're done - Nobody is talking about the loss of rights for Americans or the expansion of power. Nobody was talking about his use of the Executive order. His actions as President went beyond what the position was supposed to entail. He created precedent and brought a wider range of powers to the executive branch. That's a problem. All of these changes are available for Trump to exploit and the people who weren't even acknowledging it during Pres. Obama's administration are going to have a big problem when Trump flexes the newly afforded powers. Frankly, no one knows what Trump is actually capable of, but from a legal standpoint, Trump's capabilities as President are more diverse than any President before him because of changes and precedent brought on by the Obama Administration. That's not a bipartisan issue, that's an American issue.

 

I think someone posted the link to the article in another thread, but let's not forget he (and his staff) also spent the first few months of his Presidency attacking Fox News and claiming it wasn't a journalistic news organization (much like Trump and CNN) and they required security reports to be vetted by the White House before release (much like Trump has done with the EPA). It's not apples to apples, but Obama is not a saint. It's amazing how people forget about the VA scandal. That was his Katrina and it's still not fixed and there's little to no coverage on it.

 

[BigSqwert]

The one good thing about the imbecile getting elected is that I am getting way more involved than I ever have. Will be attending an Americans for Refugees & Immigrants march in downtown Seattle on Sunday. I have a feeling a that I will be attending several protests each month for the foreseeable future.

 

Also started supporting JusticeDemocrats and Injustice Boycott, making monthly contributions to the ACLU, and calling my senators and representatives frequently to voice my concerns.

Edited January 27, 2017 by BigSqwert

[BigSqwert]

Half an Onion in a bag has almost 700K followers in a week. Goal is to get more followers than tRrump.

[caulfield12]

I totally agree with you on the bolded in the first post and that's really all you had to say and I am with you. Congress and bipartisanship is a broken system. I certainly don't act like the President can control the economy or all legislation. It goes without saying that it's incredibly hard for a president to get things done when you have congress split and battling with each other.

 

The bolded in the second post basically is expressing the same idea but it's just unnecessary. Congress is a flawed system as you depicted in your first post. You have two opposing forces that disagree. Simple as that. I don't see the need to add that one is "insane." To say Congress is inept suffices but when you call a group ~250 people insane because they don't agree with your side of the aisle then your argument loses some of its validity. It takes two to fight. They'll fight until this democracy crumbles but it's not a matter of whether you support the left or right, they're both penetrated by special interests. They're both running on corporate money. They both have very little concern for the American people. It's a business and they're all complicit whether they're on your team on or not. To act as if one is superior to the other just emboldens this bastardized form of democracy we call our government.

 

The rest not directed at bmags but just my opinion.

 

Where I take issue with Pres. Obama is on things that aren't big public spectacles. Pres Obama running on the idea that he is a constitutional lawyer and all for freedom of information and then acting the way he did in office was a total deviation from what he sold himself as and a complete departure for what is good for the individual Americans. His expansion of the drone program and the murdering of all the civilians in the Middle East was a total deviation from the centrist, dove he purported himself to be. Then his administration had the gall to not even acknowledge the word drone for years while they're using cell phone data to blow up Yemeni's who may or may not be militants. That's not of public interest. That's not of Congressional importance. That's on him and his administration. Nobody on this site had their arms up in air or agreed with me when I brought it up in the past. I thought the left was suppose to be anti-war? I'll be interested to see the reactions if/when Trump (and he likely will) levies the same powers.

 

But to the point that nobody talks about the big things once they're done - Nobody is talking about the loss of rights for Americans or the expansion of power. Nobody was talking about his use of the Executive order. His actions as President went beyond what the position was supposed to entail. He created precedent and brought a wider range of powers to the executive branch. That's a problem. All of these changes are available for Trump to exploit and the people who weren't even acknowledging it during Pres. Obama's administration are going to have a big problem when Trump flexes the newly afforded powers. Frankly, no one knows what Trump is actually capable of, but from a legal standpoint, Trump's capabilities as President are more diverse than any President before him because of changes and precedent brought on by the Obama Administration. That's not a bipartisan issue, that's an American issue.

 

Here's the problem, nobody can ever know with 100% certainty what is good for Americans...whether it's Guantanomo Bay, The Patriot Act, enhanced interrogations/renditions or drone strikes.

 

To say it's not of public interest is like the current administration arguing that Trump's taxes aren't important to anyone...we just don't or can't know, until we do know. Have you ever watched the movie Eye in the Sky? It's a pretty darned realistic case study in how these decisions get made. It's not indiscriminate carpet bombing wiping out thousands of civilians like the Vietnam War. Mistakes always are going to happen...but they have to be looked at in context. The intelligence mistake or overreading/political spin over Iraq lead to hundreds of thousands of deaths and an even more spilintered region now than 15 years ago.

 

The fact of the matter is that NOBODY in the US had the appetite for another foreign war...and precision drone strikes against ISIS or Afganistan/Taliban or Syria or wherever prevents the lives of American servicemen being lost. Isn't that in our best interests? If the Obama admin always fell back to negotiations, sanctions and diplomacy...it would be accused of being weak and lacking the cojones to strike back against America's enemies, yes? This charge has been thrown at every Democratic admin since FDR/Truman, that Dems were somehow weak or soft.

 

So how should we have eliminated those threats against America without putting boots on the ground, using subcontractors, negotiations/sanctions, CIA black ops, etc.???

 

As far as Yemenis not being relevant, are Syria, Paris, Belgium, Nice, Charlie Hebdo...? They're all interconnected. During the Clinton Administration, there was no hunger (after the Black Hawk Down incident) to go into Somalia, Sudan, the terorist training grounds for what would later end up in the 9/11 attacks. Or to help the victims of genocide in the Rwandan Civil War. But morally, President Clinton said he was wrong and that we had a leadership responsibility to help those in suffering when we had the resources to do so. A drone strike in 1997 or 1998 could have saved the lives of 3,000+ New Yorkers. They had their chances...they missed bin Laden a couple of times but weren't willing to authorize a war on the ground in Africa to take him out.

 

What about today? We can't just bury our heads in the sands and return to isolationism. Should we just completely abandon Europe and NATO to Russia? Allow China to set the rules for the world? Nobody knows. The point is we can never declare Yemenis unrelated to the bigger fight against terrorism...for the same reason that there's another bin Laden that we have turned our backs on and ignored somewhere in the world right now plotting against the US. Maybe history will say we're the heroes if we strike back in retaliation in a righteous way only after being attacked directly on American soil first, but it's never so black and white as to say wiretapping/drone strikes/suspending the writ of habeas corpus is always "bad" or not in the interests of protecting American families.

Edited January 27, 2017 by caulfield12

[Reddy]

Support Jon Ossoff for Congress, running in Georgia's 6th district for the seat vacated by Tom Price. Already endorsed by Rep. John Lewis. Head over to his site, like his page on facebook, donate to the campaign.

 

Election this spring.

 

https://electjon.com

 

 

[bmags]

Support Jon Ossoff for Congress, running in Georgia's 6th district for the seat vacated by Tom Price. Already endorsed by Rep. John Lewis. Head over to his site, like his page on facebook, donate to the campaign.

 

Election this spring.

 

https://electjon.com

 

Thank you

[illinilaw08]

Republican party line seems to be that it's "Paid Activists" and "Paid Protesters" are jamming their phone lines.

 

https://thinkprogress.org/anti-obamacare-co...e8e8#.xqubhgwnu

 

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2017/01/30/cory...olorado-senate/

 

 

[Steve9347]

Republican party line seems to be that it's "Paid Activists" and "Paid Protesters" are jamming their phone lines.

 

https://thinkprogress.org/anti-obamacare-co...e8e8#.xqubhgwnu

 

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2017/01/30/cory...olorado-senate/

The people have lost any power they may have had as those meant to uphold their constituents' wants and desires are no longer listening.

[illinilaw08]

The people have lost any power they may have had as those meant to uphold their constituents' wants and desires are no longer listening.

 

Seriously. If they are selling that the calls are coming from outside of the state by paid activists, it's a narrative that supports ignoring any of their constituents who are attempting to push back against Trump.

 

Gardner is particularly frustrating. He's in a state that is rapidly turning blue, but he isn't up for re-election until 2020. At a minimum, however, he should be a Senator that fights back on the sell off of public land - an issue that is deeply unpopular in the more populated areas of Colorado, that Gardner has publicly opposed in the past, and actually unites Conservative conservationists and liberal environment enthusiasts in his home state.

[Big Hurtin]

Did Trump fire Maxine Waters yet?

 

[bmags]

Looks like the people of colorado will just need to show up in person and give a piece of their mind.