Obama

Well, great, but how do you think it would have been different under Hilary? Name the 60 senators who were going to vote for public option health care, the repeal of DADT, and the sunset of only the tax cuts above $250,000 marginal income because President Hilary Clinton and not President Barack Obama asked them to. (Recall that several of these 60 senators declined to vote for public option health care even though former President Bill Clinton asked them to, and Bill's the charismatic one.)Hilary was the one who voted for war, as you'll recall. And I don't see how she would have had more reason to suspend enforcement of DADT, given that it was one of the banner achievements of her husband's administration. Say what you will about Obama but the notion that Hilary's administration would somehow have produced more liberal outcomes is ludicrous, and - as I proved in the other thread - stems from a fundamental ignorance of the fact that it's the Senate, and not the President, that determines the maximum allowable progressiveness of legislation. Obama's a liberal - there's no doubt of this - but he's also a pragmatist, and his job as President is to sign legislation that solves problems, not make last stand after last stand for progressive principles. You can pretend like "oh, it would have passed if he'd just pushed a little harder" but this is politics, not an issue of Green Lantern, and the Constitution has no provision for the President to pass legislation just because he really, really, really (not just "really really") wants to.Who were the 60 senators who were going to vote for sunsetting tax cuts over $250,000 and for another year of unemployment? Be specific - name the senators.13 more months of unemployment. That's stimulus and it was a major progressive priority. If you don't like what it took to make that sausage, go back to not caring about politics. Well, they did get a liberal President. There's just no question about that. The problem is, a lot of people who don't know anything about our government think that getting a liberal President means we're supposed to get a liberal government, and that's not how it works at all.

...of why you all are so dumb:The bill's projected cost is about $940 billion.The tax cuts for the over-$250,000 income bracket cost approximately $120 billion.The extension of unemployment and other progressive priorities cost $450 billion.The tax cuts for the under-$250,000 income bracket - which apply to everyone, and which everyone was in agreement that it was important to extend, so as not to retard the economic recovery - cost $360 billion.So, in other words, Obama got $810 billion in progressive agenda items for the low, low cost of $120 billion less in future tax revenue, and you collective heads-of-chuckle all agree he's not a liberal. Jesus Fucking Christ. In Obama Tax Plan, Boost for Job Creation - David Leonhardt - The New York Times

Well, then next time get a hold of your emotions, calm down, and pay better attention.

No, it's been repeatedly and literally claimed that "Obama is not a liberal", and the evidence for this has been his supposed conservativism.Of course, we're using "conservative" to mean a "tax cuts for the rich, militaristic foreign policy, pro-big business" agenda, as the word is generally understood to be defined in the context of modern American politics. But, if you mean "conservative" in the sense of "generally opposed to intervention or change", which is kind of what we agreed Chomsky meant by it, then my argument still stands - Obama could be (and is) as liberal as any of you want, and still his administration could only produce fundamentally conservative policy, because of fundamental constraints on the power of the Presidency. What 60 senators were prepared to vote for public option health care, Oni? Be specific - name the senators.

You keep drawing unspecified distinctions between words understood to be synonyms. You understand we're talking about American politics, right? Would it be too much to ask that you interpret language in that context, as the rest of us are doing? See, I fundamentally reject the notion that we're talking about Obama's super-duper-secret "real" political stance on stuff. I reject the notion that there's any time when Obama "he himself shares his opinions about intervention and change" that is somehow fundamentally at odds with the policy he pursues as his administration.But there's a difference between the policies he attempts to pursue as his administration and the policies he can pursue as his administration, and the point - again - is that Obama is above all a pragmatist, and he recognizes that the liberal agenda is not advanced in any way by dying repeatedly on the hill of principle. The HCR bill that passed stands to provide life-saving care to millions of Americans who would not otherwise get it. The public option bill that would not have passed in the senate and never would have become law did not provide health care to even a single American because it did not ever become law.Nobody seems to be able to respond to the point that the Presidency is constrained by our Constitution and by the fact that the Senate doesn't operate by majority rule. Nobody seems to be able to respond to the point that the liberal agenda is advanced further by actual liberal legislation that becomes law instead of by futile last stands on principle. Their doubts are based on nothing more than the observation that Obama didn't get public option health care and other liberal agenda items passed. But as you've correctly identified, those items are impossible to pass.So how can that possibly be evidence that Obama is not a liberal? The argument - again - is that Obama could be (and is) as liberal as you all want him to be, and we're still not getting public option health care as a result of the fundamental structure of government and a legislature that doesn't operate by majority rule.Again - people who think electing a liberal President means we get a liberal government don't understand how our government is structured.

I don't know what that's supposed to mean. Would you agree that there are north souths? Plus minuses? Bipolar monopoles? He's withdrawn troops from Iraq, which is what liberals wanted. Dronester wants Obama to close our embassy there as well, which makes no sense at all, and for the most part that's just one more liberal who won't be happy no matter what Obama does. I don't know what you're referring to when you say that Obama has made "nationally broadcast speeches" in support of a "more conservative approach" on Iraq. And as I proved, that's fundamentally incorrect; "big pharma" and "big insurance" spent millions trying to block passage of the bill, indicating that they don't see it that way. They donated millions to the campaigns of people who opposed the bill, in special elections to try to switch up Congress before the bill passed, and spent millions on lobbyists to lobby against it. And in the aftermath of HCR, insurance companies are limited in terms of how much premium revenue can be taken as corporate profit, the minimum of coverage they have to provide, and so on. They were justifiably opposed to the legislation because it destroys the center of their profits - rescission and adverse selection.Your evidence that it was "pro-insurance" was the mandate, but the "mandate" is just a change in tax policy, not an actual legal requirement for you to buy insurance (in the way, for instance, that you have to buy homeowners or car insurance.) The mandate is "pro-insurance" only to the extent that it's the bare minimum that had to be done to prevent the entire collapse of the health insurance company due to fraud.You and Dronester seem to have this idea that the American people only benefit if insurance and pharmaceutical companies fail, which is why you're so obsessed with the notion that insurance and pharmaceutical companies got any benefit at all from the bill, never mind how those benefits might have been offset by incredible disadvantages to both industries as a result of the legislation. Apparently, what you guys wanted was a situation where millions of Americans could now afford life-saving medications but the pharmaceutical companies that would manufacture and provide them were put out of business, and how would that help anyone at all? Utterly wrong. The increase in clients, after all, is primarily clients who intend to make very expensive claims. Those with pre-existing medical conditions. Not every client makes money for the insurance company; many people file claims far in excess of their premium payments. Not surprisingly it was precisely these people that the insurance companies were in the business of not insuring. Obama put them out of that business and they're suffering for it. He's expressed his views that all Americans should have access to affordable medical care, that we should withdraw safely from both Afghanistan and Iraq, that the government should do more to support the unemployed and to create jobs via economic stimulus, that the government should regulate greenhouse gas emissions to forestall or ameliorate climate change, and the education of children and young adults, particularly in the STEM fields, should be a national priority.The views he's expressing are fundamentally liberal views. Particularly in the context of American politics. Conservatives don't believe in any of that stuff. To describe this President as "not a liberal" is completely and utterly wrong. And we did get a liberal president who is constrained by the legislature into delivering moderate or conservative outcomes.

Yes, but I wouldn't describe a person who held any combination of traditionally-progressive and traditionally-conservative views as a "conservative progressive", which makes about as much sense to me as "a black white." I know. I mean I read Andrew Sullivan so I feel like I'm pretty up on what "Burkean conservatives" tend to think about things, and I would completely agree that the invasion of another country really isn't very "conservative in the Burkean sense."That's neither here nor there, though, because when people say that Obama isn't a liberal, they don't mean he's a Burkean conservative. (Andrew Sullivan thinks Obama is a Burkean conservative, and he's probably right about that. But that's not the context of the complaint.) That's a bit dated, don't you think? I mean the invasion of Iraq hadn't even happened, yet - and Obama was against the war, whereas conservatives uniformly lined up in support. (Burkean conservative Andrew Sullivan famously referred to those who opposed war in Iraq as a "fifth column", dedicated to weakening the United States.)Again - we're talking about conservativism as it exists in the United States, not as Burke constructed it. Burke, frankly, just isn't an influential figure to America's conservatives, and the conservativism of Burke doesn't really have anything to do with the conservative movement. Burke didn't even call it "conservativism." So, again, enough with the attempts to change the subject, here. No, they don't! They're opposed to stimulus-created jobs. They're opposed to the notion of health care being affordable to low-income people. They're opposed to the government educating children. And if they wanted a "safe end" to two wars, they wouldn't have been the ones who started them in the first place. They think evolution and climate change are conspiracies.How do I know that? Because that's how they vote, and that's what they say. Mitch McConnell, the senate Minority Leader, believes that the number one policy priority of the Republican party is to "deny President Obama a second term." Those are his exact words. Does that sound like someone who wants solution to the problems that face the nation? Or does that sound like someone who things the problems that face the nations aren't meant to be solved, they're meant to be exploited for political gain? No, they don't, Oni. Do you get that? Conservatives think that many of the problems that face the country either don't exist at all - like climate change - or are actually features, not bugs. When a poor person can't afford life-saving care for their children, your average conservative thinks that's how it's supposed to work. When the median increase in GDP is captured almost entirely by the wealthiest 2% of the nation, they consider that the mark of a vibrant, healthy economy that is lifting all boats.I don't think you understand the extent to which a large amount of Americans - say, about 27% - fervently believe things that are completely and obviously false.

Barack Obama isn't the President of Canada. No, it's not, because those people don't mean "Burkean conservative." They mean "modern conservative", as typified by George Bush. "Conservative" applied to Edmund Burke and George Bush may refer to two different things, but that's no reason to conclude that it can only refer to Edmund Burke. Burke, for instance, didn't even call himself a "conservative."Again - we're using these terms in the context of American politics. If you understand "conservative" to refer to the philosophy of Edmund Burke, you're having a different conversation than the rest of us, just as if you had read PC Shopper and understood every instance of the word "computer" to refer to a person hired to perform calculations. The highest ranking Republican in the county can't speak for Republicans? If he doesn't speak for them why did they make him Minority leader? Yes, Oni, they are literally opposed to the government creating jobs. Yes, they are, Oni. They're literally opposed to the notion that low-income people should get health care. If you don't believe them, you can ask them! They don't believe that health care should be provided to anyone who can't pay what doctors ask; they believe that doctors should be able to charge whatever they like for a product and service people will literally die without. Of course they want it for themselves. Remember? "Keep your government hands off my Medicare"? They don't want it for any other poor person. They don't even think of themselves as poor, but as "not yet rich", and whenever they're harmed by the very policies they advocate, they're convinced that liberals are somehow responsible. Yes, literally opposed to educating children! Oni, you're at a creationism debate site. Are you just not payig any attention to what creationists want? They want to make sure children aren't educated in biology. When it comes to civic history, they don't want children educated in that, either. When it comes to sexual activity, they don't want children educated in that regard, either.They're simply opposed to the education of children. It's a matter of self-preservation for their ideology. No, we don't. Democrats want conditions for Americans to improve. Republicans want conditions for Americans to decline, so as to exploit those conditions for electoral gains and a return to power.How is that the same thing? You don't get it, yet. About 27% of Americans are complete fucking idiots: No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.newsweek.com/photo/2010/08/24/dumb-things-americans-believe.html

quote:

---

But it turns out that 21 percent of Americans believe there are real sorcerors, conjurers, and warlocks out there.... four in 10 Americans mistakenly believe the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act creates a panel that makes decisions about end-of-life care.... 20 percent of Americans were still sure in 1999 that the sun revolved around the Earth.

---

I don't think you yet appreciate the extent to which totally stupid, harmful, self-harming, and utterly fictitious ideas dominate the thinking of over one in four Americans, and the Republican party has substantially captured this demographic.

Please, it's "Crashfrog, that complete and utter tool; as countless as the stars are the ways of his idiocy," which is a translation of the original Arabic "Karashfrog al-dhumass bin wrongo."

Oh shit! Xongsmith is too cool for school!Oh, it's so sweet to see people at that precious age when they think striking the "everything serious is stupid and everyone is an idiot but me" pose is so original.South Park fan, by any chance? Had a hunch.

Really? You don't think the Republicans who are actually lying about the contents of the bill deserve any blame at all? You don't think the moneyed interests that spent millions to misinform people deserve any blame at all? You think all the blame lies on the Democrats, who over and over again very patiently explained precisely the goals, aims, benefits, and costs of the bill like adults?Or do you just see that 41% of Americans think the ACA has death panels, and assume that proves that, somehow, Democrats aren't doing enough? One camp is trying to solve the problems that face Americans. The other camp is trying to solve a very specific problem - they're not the ones in power, and they're doing whatever most advantages their electoral prospects. And because we don't have a government that runs by majority rule, but the American people think we do, it gives cover to minority obstructionism.All the Republicans have to make sure happens for them to win elections is nothing, and the unconstitutional rules of the senate give it to them. The government is fundamentally structured to privilege conservative governance. I have plenty of shit to do, myself, but somehow I'm able to find the incredibly small amounts of time and attention it takes to be up on politics. It's not hard. And the American people who keep getting repeatedly screwed by their own electoral decisions need to take responsibility. We're talking about adults who, ultimately, have to be the ones to take steps to educate themselves. Blaming Democrats for not acting like patrician elites and doing what is best for people against their wishes is asinine.

You're the one that brought up Canada in a discussion about the President. Your point, it would seem, was the one that was irrelevant. No, political science majors recognize a modern movement in American politics called "conservatives." They don't only apply the term to the philosophy of Burke, but to a legitimate and well-established movement in modern American politics. The notion that only Burkeans can be called "conservatives" is ideosyncratic to you and Andrew Sullivan, and playing "who's the real conservative" is utterly irrelevant, here. But they do agree with him. That's why the Republican minority in the senate has invoked the filibuster more times than any other Senate in American history. No, Oni, they're opposed to any attempt by the government to stimulate job growth. They see high employment as a feature - something that allows them to attack the President. They don't want it to go down until they're back in power. I didn't, but it's amazing how every creationist is a conservative. Of course, among conservatives creationism is so common that espousing creationism is considered a litmus test for conservative candidates and creationism is described as proven scientific fact at "Conservapedia", the community-edited conservative "encyclopedia." No, I came to this conclusion because that's what they said when they were asked. They don't want everybody to get health care; they believe that it's a fundamentally limited resource and that expanding access to it to others means less for themselves. And they want all they can get - scooters from Medicare, Viagra from Blue Cross Blue Shield, whatever they can get for themselves no matter who pays. Somebody under the poverty line needs chemo to live? Fuck 'em. The conservative ethos is "I got mine; you can fuck off and die." Oh, so they're not conservatives, which is who we're talking about. Why is it so hard for you to keep track of the subject, here? Maybe hold off - but, instead, ask him if it's appropriate for Senate Republicans to block every aspect of Obama's agenda, including the agenda items that Republicans until recently supported, like the coverage mandate in the ACA. They want smaller government that does more, universal religious freedom except for Muslims lower taxes that produce more revenue, deficits to be decreased by lowering taxes and increasing spending. They want freedom of speech but only for stuff they agree with. They want prayer in schools but only their own prayers. They want their children to learn the cold, hard truths about the world, except for the ones that might cause them to lose faith.Americans in aggregate, in other words, are complete fucking morons whose thinking on politics is dominated almost entirely by absurd, contradictory, idiotically false notions. And an entire political party has emerged to exploit these people for electoral gain. "Take your government hands off my Medicare," indeed. You understand that people in the Tea Party say that unironically, right?

Have you forgotten about Mitch McConnell? The only thing the Republicans want from Obama is nothing. Jeffords had a legislative priority which Bush held a knife to. The lesson the Republicans have learned from that is that having positive legislative priorities is a weakness - they can be held hostage to ensure your compliance, and as the minority party all of your legislative successes will be ascribed to the majority. The only thing they want from Obama is to block anything that could be construed as a legislative success, because the majority party is the only party that voters will credit with success (because Americans operate under the delusion that Congress works by majority rule.)If you've failed to remember that this Senate has used the filibuster more than any other Senate in American history, that the 60 vote requirement for the passage of legislation can be instituted by a single Senator, and that this isn't the Congress of 2001 that contained 50 Democrats and 50 Republicans (and thus a single senator changing parties represented a substantial swing in influence) then you've failed to recognize the critical context, here. Breaking ranks with Republicans to be the 58th vote for cloture is worthless, same with the 59th, because all that gets you is a Tea Party primary challenge. Now you're getting it! The only thing Republicans want from Obama is nothing. Of the Democratic party. And more importantly - the Democratic party determines leadership by seniority, not by appointment as the Republicans do. That's one less lever the leader of the DNC has over his party, which is why party discipline is so much higher among Republicans - the Republicans actually have rules that enforce it, and Democrats don't. And the President can neither change those rules nor change the precedent. Have you forgotten about Leiberman?Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

No, that's not accurate.

quote:

---

Obama has NOT withdrawn ALL troops from Iraq. He has re-labeled "combat-troops" with "counter-insurgency personal." 50,000 US troops are STILL in Iraq. I note you didn't respond to the 100,000 mercenary troops, PERMANENT bases, or MASSIVE US embassy.

---

quote:

---

The US "embassy" in Iraq is the largest in the world, the size of the vatican, and is not going anywhere.

---

Did you write those words, or did you not? Obviously you expressed a concern about the size, but that makes no sense as a complaint about Obama since it's already built. Obama didn't design the embassy, Obama didn't construct the embassy, and Obama didn't vote for the war that provided the excuse for the embassy. The size of the embassy can't really be what you're talking about because that has nothing to do with the Obama administration.The only thing you could possibly be blaming Obama for is that Obama hasn't torn down the embassy, and why would he do that? That makes no sense. "Pops"? I still don't get it. That's pretty typically classless. I guess we've all learned how you reply when someone proves you wrong.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

You're just proving me right. Did you write those words, or not? Please explain why you expect Obama to close the US embassy in Iraq. I never said that you never complained about the size. But your complaint is that the embassy has not been closed. Why would it be? We don't close embassies in allied countries. Why would we cease diplomatic relations with Iraq?Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.