Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Obama deserves a second term


Off-Topic Discussions

301 to 350 of 810 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Cheliax

thejeff wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
doctor_wu wrote:
Yet none of these threads really talk that much about congress which is important for legislation.

Yeah, a lot of the issue there is that most of us can't do much about it. It's not "our" congressman that's the problem, its every other districts. I live in Minnesota, but I don't live in Michelle Bachmann's district. And the problem is that her district is fairly strongly republican, so unless she's seriously challenged in the primary, she's almost guaranteed to be re-elected.

The problem there is now non-competitive a lot of districts are. The real race becomes the primary, which seems to produce more extreme candidates over time.

This is also having the effect of making the parties more extreme over time as well, which is filtering into the senate a little more slowly. Two of the most moderate senators are retiring this year, making the gap between the parties further apart.

Is that really true though? Or is that Republicans are becoming more extreme? I may be biased, but I don't really see any evidence that Democratic primaries have been moving the party to the left. The Tea Party revolt was quite obvious these last 2 cycles, but even in 2006 & 2008 which were strong Democratic years, I don't recall a lot of moderate Dems losing primaries. Moderate Dems who won conservative districts in those years often lost in 2010, but that's a different trend.

Isn't that because the dems have moved to the possition that the republicans had and the republicans went further to the right than that?


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Brox RedGloves wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

It wouldn't make me angry at all, but when are the flamewars about the Chicago teachers strike and the Libyan killings going to break out?

[Continues to wait patiently]

Did not know you have sock puppet named Urizen...
Well, he has been spotted yelling "Vive le Galt!" recently...

I love it when the radicals self identify; makes it that much easier for the evil plutocrats, I mean, guardians of decency and civilization.


@Citizen Ulgulanoth--Yes.

They're stooges of the plutocracy, each and every one.

@Lord Dice--Down with you!!!!


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I don't really get why people are blaming President Obama for the stuff happening with the teacher's union. Since when is it the President's job to negotiate between a mayor and his employees? Aren't the republicans complaining about federal government interfereing with local governments already?


Is that what the Republicans are saying?

I would've thought they'd be thrilled the Democrats were axing public education.

Down with the, etc., etc.!


Well, if the one Fox News article I read is any indication, it's what I thought they'd say. Basically it's an attempt to drive a wedge between the Democrats and the Teachers Unions, which are, of course, among Obama's biggest campaign contributors.

Of course, I'm all in favor of that wedge, just from the other side!

Down with etc., etc!


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Is that what the Republicans are saying?

I would've thought they'd be thrilled the Democrats were axing public education.

Down with the, etc., etc.!

He is getting heat for his "lack of leadership" on the issue. Not sure why they think he should weigh in at all. Its not really his place.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

@Citizen Ulgulanoth--Yes.

They're stooges of the plutocracy, each and every one.

@Lord Dice--Down with you!!!!

Well, Doodlebug, Let me quote Neil Gaiman:

"It is the fool's prerogative to point out that emperor is wearing no clothes, but the fool remains a fool, and the emperor remains an emperor."

On second thought , let me put that in language a goblin will understand:

"Goblin can yell all goblin wants, Lord Dice still live in big house."


Caineach wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Is that what the Republicans are saying?

I would've thought they'd be thrilled the Democrats were axing public education.

Down with the, etc., etc.!

He is getting heat for his "lack of leadership" on the issue. Not sure why they think he should weigh in at all. Its not really his place.

He's getting heat for not being more openly anti-union. Meanwhile, the clearance sale at the Department of Education is still on-going...


Lord Dice wrote:


"Goblin can yell all goblin wants, Lord Dice still live in big house."

!!!!!!


"A" is for Agitation: Radical Chicago Teachers on Parade, Michelle Malkin on the strike.

I imagine a certain right-wing Chicagonian poster, stuck in traffic, surrounded by Che t-shirt wearing teachers, and I smile.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Is that what the Republicans are saying?

I would've thought they'd be thrilled the Democrats were axing public education.

Down with the, etc., etc.!

He is getting heat for his "lack of leadership" on the issue. Not sure why they think he should weigh in at all. Its not really his place.
He's getting heat for not being more openly anti-union. Meanwhile, the clearance sale at the Department of Education is still on-going...

Speaking as a plutocrat, I'm really torn. Rahm Emanuel's the mayor of Chicago; That's very close to nepotism, and we plutocrats love nepotism. (Well, so long as we're the ones administering it, but separate issue.) On the other hand, Comrade Obama won't step in to bust the unions, and we plutocrats hate that sort of irresponsibility.

Sometimes an election is just about choosing the lesser of two good I guess. /sigh


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Is that what the Republicans are saying?

I would've thought they'd be thrilled the Democrats were axing public education.

Down with the, etc., etc.!

He is getting heat for his "lack of leadership" on the issue. Not sure why they think he should weigh in at all. Its not really his place.
He's getting heat for not being more openly anti-union. Meanwhile, the clearance sale at the Department of Education is still on-going...

Meanwhile his former Chief of Staff is the mayor they're striking against. And some of the issues are tied to his policies (Race to the Top).

But Romney will still attack him for being pro-union.

When will Democrats learn that adopting the Republican position on an issue won't keep them from attacking you on it?


By all indications: never.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
When will Democrats learn that adopting the Republican position on an issue won't keep them from attacking you on it?

Well the main Republican strategy since Karl Rove first slimed his way onto the scene, has been 1)attack your opponent's strengths, framing them as weaknesses 2)if you're doing something unethical or distasteful, vocally accuse your opponent of doing that exact thing 3)lie, lie, lie.

And, considering their success in the last 10 years with a more and more transparent platform of "just give me all your money you damn peasants!", it's been a very effective strategy.


Ooh, I just thought of a new analogy to depict the difference between the two parties (since my last one was removed by the management BOO!).

Both parties treat you like a dog. The Democrats want to give you table scraps. The Republicans just want to give you the boot.

Table Scraps 2012!!

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Posted without comment:

Romney after his press conference on the embassy attack in Benghazi.

Taldor

A Man In Black wrote:

Posted without comment:

Romney after his press conference on the embassy attack in Benghazi.

Nice little smirk.

Silver Crusade

A Man In Black wrote:

Posted without comment:

Romney after his press conference on the embassy attack in Benghazi.

I'm french. From our point of view, voting Romney would be the worst thing that could happen to your country when we see the current state of the republican party, while you finally have a president that seems to care a bit more about his people than about his lobbyists and wealthiest citizens. It seems that even our right wing candidates would be called democrats in your political system.

That said, isn't this smirk currently provoking a s*&$ storm in USA ? Because it sure looks to me that smiling like a cold-blooded manipulative politician right after a press conference involving the death of your compatriots is the kind of stain you don't simply wash off when you are trying to get elected as the god*amn president.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Maxximilius wrote:
A Man In Black wrote:

Posted without comment:

Romney after his press conference on the embassy attack in Benghazi.

I'm french. From our point of view, voting Romney would be the worst thing that could happen to your country when we see the current state of the republican party, while you finally have a president that seems to care a bit more about his people than about his lobbyists and wealthiest citizens. It seems that even our right wing candidates would be called democrats in your political system.

That said, isn't this smirk currently provoking a s%!+ storm in USA ? Because it sure looks to me that smiling like a cold-blooded manipulative politician right after a press conference involving the death of your compatriots is the kind of stain you don't simply wash off when you are trying to get elected as the god*amn president.

Its causing a lot of talk in liberal circles, but most of our national media is ignoring it and most in the right wing are never going to see it.

As far as your right politicians being democrats in the US, I'm pretty sure that would be true of any Republican before ~2000. Reagan's policies were more in line with democrats IMO than current republicans.


Caineach wrote:


As far as your right politicians being democrats in the US, I'm pretty sure that would be true of any Republican before ~2000. Reagan's policies were more in line with democrats IMO than current republicans.

Though there's a nasty nationalist/racist streak on the far right in much of Europe including France that wouldn't fit well with Democrats. The mainstream right parties would match Democrats fairly well. The Front National is closer to the Republican party.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Caineach wrote:
As far as your right politicians being democrats in the US, I'm pretty sure that would be true of any Republican before ~2000. Reagan's policies were more in line with democrats IMO than current republicans.

IF you had substituted Nixon instead of Reagan in that paragraph I'd agree with you. But much of the insane rhetoric being pushed out as policy by the Teapublicans is pretty much a legacy of the Reagan school of thought that now dominates the GOP. Nixon on the other hand, was more of the Barry Goldwater school, along with Eisenhower.


Caineach wrote:
Maxximilius wrote:
A Man In Black wrote:

Posted without comment:

Romney after his press conference on the embassy attack in Benghazi. [/QUOTE

That said, isn't this smirk currently provoking a s%!+ storm in USA ? Because it sure looks to me that smiling like a cold-blooded manipulative politician right after a press conference involving the death of your compatriots is the kind of stain you don't simply wash off when you are trying to get elected as the god*amn president.

Its causing a lot of talk in liberal circles, but most of our national media is ignoring it and most in the right wing are never going to see it.

Gail Collins in the NYT

Quote:
It didn’t seem to be a lot to ask, but when the crisis in the Middle East flared up, Romney turned out to have no restraining inner core. All the uneasy feelings you got when he went to London and dissed the Olympic organizers can now come into full bloom. Feel free to worry about anything. That he’d declare war on Malta. Lock himself in a nuclear missile silo and refuse to come out until there’s a tax cut. Hand the country over to space aliens.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Down with Romney!

Down with Obama!

Down with Emanuel!

I don't need a link for Romney, because it's just so obvious.


Caineach wrote:

I don't really get why people are blaming President Obama for the stuff happening with the teacher's union. Since when is it the President's job to negotiate between a mayor and his employees? Aren't the republicans complaining about federal government interfereing with local governments already?

Do you think they actually care? Or are they b+&**ing just to b$#&%. Or are they b!~&@ing just to piss and moan about Obama?


Brox RedGloves wrote:
Caineach wrote:

I don't really get why people are blaming President Obama for the stuff happening with the teacher's union. Since when is it the President's job to negotiate between a mayor and his employees? Aren't the republicans complaining about federal government interfereing with local governments already?

Do you think they actually care? Or are they b&%$@ing just to b+%#%. Or are they b*%&~ing just to piss and moan about Obama?

Scoring political points.

Unions bad. Obama bad. Link the two together and it's double bad!!

Teachers are selfish and greedy and don't care about your kids.

Why highly educated selfish and greedy people would go into a low paid profession instead of something more suitable, like finance, if they didn't care about the kids is beyond me.


I have to say I find it pretty amazing when I look at the comments sections in bourgeois newssites. Man, there's some people out there who really hate teachers!


Chicago, like most cities, helped itself to pension funds, saying it would be paid back. Of course, it wasn't.

Money for teachers was diverted to money for police. You need more police when you have less educated people running around.


A highly regarded expert wrote:
You need more police when you have less educated people running around.

Imagine that. ;-)

Silver Crusade

thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:


As far as your right politicians being democrats in the US, I'm pretty sure that would be true of any Republican before ~2000. Reagan's policies were more in line with democrats IMO than current republicans.
Though there's a nasty nationalist/racist streak on the far right in much of Europe including France that wouldn't fit well with Democrats. The mainstream right parties would match Democrats fairly well. The Front National is closer to the Republican party.

In France, the Front National is mostly a nationalist/conservatist party ; while it often shares the point of view of racists and openly feeds on their votes, it is also seen by some people as the only true alternative to the politicians coming from a highly regarded school and knowing the right people in the right places, getting in their position through networking instead of true meritocracy (or heck, forgetting where they come from to the point they don't even understand anymore how the real people lives or survives).

It doesn't mean these people would really vote for the Front National in a meaningful election, but voting this way is seen as a kick in the ass of the traditional powers to express anger over insecurity and economic/idealistic injustices ; especially since the party is also national-socialist in his actions and objectives (in the pure sense of the word, meaning social protection and support for french people in difficulties but basically nothing for anyone else).
Even if rightly despised for their program and overall mentality, this is nothing compared to Greece's Aube Dorée, or other european borderline right-wing parties who channel their suffering toward migrants or born-from-migrants, for example.

As we see it from our POV, the american republican party is basically the greedy, manipulating, two-faced bastard, capitalistic, tub-thumping uncle lost in time, feeding on the people's fear by turning everyone against each other, still believing to be the major power in the world and getting his votes from people who hope they (or their children) can someday reach the same status than it's most powerful and wealthy members.

I'm simply surprised, because in my country, what Romney did in this photo would probably have cost him the election and most of his political carreer by the same opportunity. It's just painful to imagine being treated as so much of a pawn by a candidate that he smiles right after talking about your death, just because he believes he's winning points against his opponent in some kind of elite competition.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Maxximilius wrote:
As we see it from our POV, the american republican party is basically the greedy, manipulating, two-faced bastard, capitalistic, tub-thumping uncle lost in time, feeding on the people's fear by turning everyone against each other, still believing to be the major power in the world and getting his votes from people who hope they (or their children) can someday reach the same status than it's most powerful and wealthy members.

That pretty much matches my perception, and I live here. :P

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Down with Obama!

G#&!$%mit, Anklebiter.

Quote:

Richard Nixon, a Republican, carried out what today would be considered an extremely liberal set of policies. He established the EPA and OSHA to feder­ally protect the environment and workers’ safety, ended U.S. combat operations in Vietnam, expanded Affirmative Action and the federal welfare pro­gram, and enforced desegrega­tion in public schools.

The Democrat Clinton, on the other hand, bombed the Balkans, got NAFTA passed, dismantled the federal wel­fare program, cracked down on undocumented workers, and signed the anti-gay Defense Of Marriage Act into law.

It's the same old "the president controls everything" crap. The laws that passed under Nixon were passed by a Democratic congress. The laws that passed under Clinton were passed by a Republican congress. Hell, they can't even get timing right. The CRA passed under JOHNSON.

What's more, it's damaging to the cause of building third parties. Third parties can win downticket races! The US isn't Canada. There's nothing wrong with voting D/R for president (where first-past-the-post on a national level means that third parties can only ever hope to become or affect one of the two main parties) and G/L/I/(whatever) down ticket. It's a false dilemma.

(I also love the bit about how the AFL-CIO could sponsor a socialist party. The AFL-CIO is pretty center-right themselves.)

Maxximilius wrote:
I'm simply surprised, because in my country, what Romney did in this photo would probably have cost him the election and most of his political carreer by the same opportunity. It's just painful to imagine being treated as so much of a pawn by a candidate that he smiles right after talking about your death, just because he believes he's winning points against his opponent in some kind of elite competition.

False equivalence is huge in US political reporting and voter political determination is very solid in the US, so it's hard for a blunder to hurt a candidate. A fleeting smirk after an awful press conference isn't going to hurt a candidate much, but the whole situation is a lost opportunity. If Romney had handled this well, it could've energized his base and made Obama supporters more ambivalent. Instead, it energized people who thought he was a craven opportunist and did nothing to excite his base.

Romney's campaign seems to be doing a lot of that.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
bugleyman wrote:
Maxximilius wrote:
As we see it from our POV, the american republican party is basically the greedy, manipulating, two-faced bastard, capitalistic, tub-thumping uncle lost in time, feeding on the people's fear by turning everyone against each other, still believing to be the major power in the world and getting his votes from people who hope they (or their children) can someday reach the same status than it's most powerful and wealthy members.
That pretty much matches my perception, and I live here. :P

Yeah, have to agree. Its a pretty accurate assessment of the Republican party from my point of view.

Dems aren't much better. They're better, but not by that much. They at least pretend to like the common man and use significantly less divisive rhetoric.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Maxximilius,

In a smaller election that smirk would have likely downed a candidate in a close campaign. It wouldn't down someone who has a sweeping majority.

Currently, something like 80% or more of the people likely to vote have already made up their minds and wont change them. Anything against their candidate is propoganda by the other side, regardless of how true. Republicans are convinced that all news has a huge liberal bias, despite very little evidence to this. Currently Republican sites are shouting about how unfair it is to pick on Romney for his horrible foreign policy display. Democrats are equally likely to dismiss negative information about a candidate they like, though from what I can tell are slightly more likely to listen to reason.

That smirk might matter to that undecided 20%, if it even hits a major news station. I've only seen it circling liberal sites like Daily Kos.


A Man In Black wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Down with Obama!

G++!&&mit, Anklebiter.

Quote:

Richard Nixon, a Republican, carried out what today would be considered an extremely liberal set of policies. He established the EPA and OSHA to feder­ally protect the environment and workers’ safety, ended U.S. combat operations in Vietnam, expanded Affirmative Action and the federal welfare pro­gram, and enforced desegrega­tion in public schools.

The Democrat Clinton, on the other hand, bombed the Balkans, got NAFTA passed, dismantled the federal wel­fare program, cracked down on undocumented workers, and signed the anti-gay Defense Of Marriage Act into law.

It's the same old "the president controls everything" crap. The laws that passed under Nixon were passed by a Democratic congress. The laws that passed under Clinton were passed by a Republican congress. Hell, they can't even get timing right. The CRA passed under JOHNSON.

What's more, it's damaging to the cause of building third parties. Third parties can win downticket races! The US isn't Canada. There's nothing wrong with voting D/R for president (where first-past-the-post on a national level means that third parties can only ever hope to become or affect one of the two main parties) and G/L/I/(whatever) down ticket. It's a false dilemma.

(I also love the bit about how the AFL-CIO could sponsor a socialist party. The AFL-CIO is pretty center-right themselves.)

G%@!%+nit, yourself.

Where does it say that the Civil Rights Act was passed under anyone other than Johnson? In fact, I don't even see a mention of the CRA in the article.

So, you don't think Nixon could have vetoed any of that shiznit? And didn't he actually propose the EPA?

You think Clinton wanted to veto any of that shiznit? Oh, wait a minute why would he want to: "NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement." And when he "reformed" welfare, wasn't he just fulfilling his campaign promise to "end welfare as we know it."

As far as the AFL-CIO, yeah, they are a bunch of Democrat-ass-kissing bureaucrats who couldn't find class struggle if it bit them, like it did in Wisconsin. But still, the point is pretty valid: $400 million and 400,000 volunteers could easily be the basis for a third party movement. But first, they've got to

Break with the Democrats!

Vive le Galt!

EDIT: Also, this article is a little too right-wing for me. Voting (even for Greens or Roseanne) is for ninnies! For international proletarian socialist revolution!

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Where does it say that the Civil Rights Act was passed under anyone other than Johnson? In fact, I don't even see a mention of the CRA in the article.

It includes examples of enforcing the CRA, desegregation in particular. Plus it has Nixon "ending" Vietnam, when he conspired to extend it so he could take credit (and he embarked on the Cambodian and Laos debacles to boot).

Quote:
You think Clinton wanted to veto any of that shiznit?

DOMA was part of a deal to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, a deal the Republicans reneged on. The welfare bill and the awful 1996 immigration law were passed with a veto-proof majority (although Clinton didn't do much to fight the latter).

Decrying neo-liberalism is fine. Saying that both parties are neo-libs is also true. But crediting Nixon for laws passed in the last Congress where the Progressive Caucus mattered while blaming Clinton for laws passed with a veto-proof majority is nuts.

Quote:
EDIT: Also, this article is a little too right-wing for me. Voting (even for Greens or Roseanne) is for ninnies! For international proletarian socialist revolution!

You don't want a third party, you want a one-party system. That's great and all, but for those of us who want to fix the government without stacking the bodies in the streets, the way you make a third party influential is by supporting them downticket and doing the kind of political volunteer work that gets people elected, not s@*!ting on people who agree with you for tactically voting upticket.

Perot and the Reform Party pulled the Republicans right. (The Contract With America was basically Perot's platform.) In Canada, the Reform Party merged with the PCs to pull the Canadian right pretty far right, and the NDP is currently in the process of overtaking the Liberals.

But hey, voting never changed anything, right?


Stooge, where have I ever called for a one-party system? Any party that accepts the legitimacy of the international proletarian socialist revolution will be able to stand for elections to the Supreme Soviet.

Anyway, your fixation on those two paragraphs is kind of missing their point:

"Clearly, this wasn’t because the infamously corrupt Nixon was such a good guy compared to Clinton. It’s because the political climate and the balance of class forces was different, largely due to the huge strug­gles taking place in Nixon’s day against the Vietnam War and for civil rights. Clinton’s presi­dency, immediately following the fall of the USSR, occurred during one of the all-time low points of social struggle.

So that is why it is crucial to make electoral choices that will help build the strongest social movements. Support for the Democrats often spells death for progressive movements because the logic of selling the lesser-evil candidate to the public during election season means covering up or justifying their betrayals and putting protests on hiatus to avoid embarrassing them.

That is why it is vital to build an all-out fight against the ongo­ing bipartisan rightward shift by posing a clear alternative that people can rally to."

(Added some more paragraphs)

What else? Yeah, Nixon didn't end the Vietnam War.


I did.

Vive le Bachuan!


A Man In Black wrote:


Quote:
You think Clinton wanted to veto any of that shiznit?

DOMA was part of a deal to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, a deal the Republicans reneged on. The welfare bill and the awful 1996 immigration law were passed with a veto-proof majority (although Clinton didn't do much to fight the latter).

So, the answer is he didn't want to veto any of that shiznit?

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
So that is why it is crucial to make electoral choices that will help build the strongest social movements. Support for the Democrats often spells death for progressive movements because the logic of selling the lesser-evil candidate to the public during election season means covering up or justifying their betrayals and putting protests on hiatus to avoid embarrassing them.

Yes, but voting third-party at top-ticket races isn't an electoral choice that helps build the strongest social movement. Again, the article's problem is that it's focused on the president when it should be focused on where third parties can make a real difference: legislative and downticket races. Obsessing about the presidency perpetuates the myth that third-parties can't get anything done, when that's merely the one place where they can't get anything done. The Congressional Progressive Caucus still exists, they're just outnumbered. Challenge Blue Dogs in the primaries. (This is what the Tea Party did.) Run for office or support your candidates at lower levels. (Euro Greens, Canadian NDP.)

First-past-the-post and a single-person executive means that the presidential election will always be voting for the lesser evil. It cannot ever be anything but voting for the lesser evil. FPTP (and any single-person election is FPTP regardless of how the electoral process works or how the ballot is structured) automatically gravitates to a two-party system, or two candidates who matter and the also-rans.

Find out why your mayor, your city council, your state rep, your governor, your Congress rep, and your Senator aren't left enough for you, and do something about them. On that kind of scale, you can pull things left. Presidential politics don't lead these trends, they follow them.

Quote:
So, the answer is he didn't want to veto any of that shiznit?

If you demand Quixotic defiance from every public official, then you're going to be extremely disappointed.


A Man In Black wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Where does it say that the Civil Rights Act was passed under anyone other than Johnson? In fact, I don't even see a mention of the CRA in the article.
It includes examples of enforcing the CRA, desegregation in particular. Plus it has Nixon "ending" Vietnam, when he conspired to extend it so he could take credit (and he embarked on the Cambodian and Laos debacles to boot).

Desegregation in education stems from the decade older Brown vs. Board of Education decision, not the Civil Rights Act, as I'm sure you already know. However, I don't really know what they're talking about when they say Nixon enforced deseg in edu. Also, IIRC, Nixon's Affirmative Action plan, the "Philadelphia Order" was union-busting, pure and simple. I'm surprised the comrades at Socialist Alternative included it in their list.


A Man In Black wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
So that is why it is crucial to make electoral choices that will help build the strongest social movements. Support for the Democrats often spells death for progressive movements because the logic of selling the lesser-evil candidate to the public during election season means covering up or justifying their betrayals and putting protests on hiatus to avoid embarrassing them.

I, of course, didn't write that. Some other dude did.


A Man In Black wrote:


If you demand Quixotic defiance from every public official, then you're going to be extremely disappointed.

Are you saying that Clinton opposed NAFTA? Welfare reform? DOMA? Repeal of Glass-Steagall? But that he didn't act on it because it would be tilting at windmills? If so, stop lying.


Hey, where'd you go? I'm not done yelling!

!!!!

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Is it really necessary to quadruple-post?

Quote:
Desegregation in education stems from the decade older Brown vs. Board of Education decision, not the Civil Rights Act, as I'm sure you already know. However, I don't really know what they're talking about when they say Nixon enforced deseg in edu.

The CRA led directly to the programs that Nixon enforced, such as busing and whatnot. Brown v. BOE made it illegal to exclude based on race, but didn't force schools to do anything about existing segregation beyond that.

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Are you saying that Clinton opposed NAFTA? Welfare reform? DOMA? Repeal of Glass-Steagall? But that he didn't act on it because it would be tilting at windmills? If so, stop lying.

No, he didn't oppose NAFTA. (I don't recall claiming that he did?) Clinton didn't propose any welfare reforms and opposed the (wildly popular!) Republican plans to reform welfare, and vetoed two bills before the one that passed, which passed with a veto-proof majority. (His reluctance on welfare reform was one of Dole's main talking points in '96, for crap's sake.) He didn't veto DOMA as part of a deal that the Republicans reneged on. Glass-Steagall wasn't repealed under Clinton; it was amended to weaken the separation between banks and security/insurance vendors in order to apply the civil rights protections of the CRA to non-bank groups. (In practice, it didn't do this and ended up spreading the investment culture to banks rather than vice versa.) In fact, Clinton did threaten to veto a couple versions of the G-S amendments that did deregulate banks to a greater degree.

Do you know why the Republicans pushed all these bills? Because they had just tacked right to absorb the agenda of the Reform Party, caused by a combination of primary challenges and heading off third-party candidates downticket.

It's historical revisionism to claim that the president at all matters with regard to legislation when that legislation is being passed with veto-proof majorities. It plays into the misconception that the president is somehow in control of everything that happens during his term and that anything that doesn't change the president's politics is useless. It's especially ludicrous that they use an example of third party supporters switching to a main party and thus dominating the American political narrative (the Contract With America laws) as an example of why third party supporters shouldn't switch to a main party!

It's fine to not like Clinton, but voting for Bush or Dole (or not voting) wasn't going to help the progressive cause at all. It just would have made those awful laws easier to pass and less watered down. If you want to see change, make it where you can, and focus on limiting harm where you can't.


A Man In Black wrote:
Is it really necessary to quadruple-post?

Now you're going to tell me how to post?


A Man In Black wrote:


The CRA led directly to the programs that Nixon enforced, such as busing and whatnot. Brown v. BOE made it illegal to exclude based on race, but didn't force schools to do anything about existing segregation beyond that.

Yeah, and who smashed busing? Yup, Democrats.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Yeah, and who smashed busing? Yup, Democrats.

She ran on abolishing busing, against other Democrats. This wasn't a "lesser of two evils" thing, the people who voted for her wanted busing gone. In fact, in her runs for office higher than city council, both times she was defeated by a Democrat to her left.

What's your point? What does this have to do with presidential politics?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The other issue when comparing presidents in different eras is to compare the times themselves. Nixon lived in a vastly more liberal era than Clinton and he fought, largely unsuccessfully, to shift the country to the right.
Clinton came in after the conservative backlash, after Reagan's all out attack on government. He had to govern in that atmosphere. He couldn't even suggest the kinds of policies that Nixon opposed, without massive criticism. He stemmed or at least slowed the country's shift to the right.
I'm not at all fond of Clinton, for many reasons, but examining these kinds of policies in isolation without considering the state of the country just isn't helpful.


A Man In Black wrote:


It's historical revisionism to claim that the president at all matters with regard to legislation when that legislation is being passed with veto-proof majorities. It plays into the misconception that the president is somehow in control of everything that happens during his term and that anything that doesn't change the president's politics is useless. It's especially ludicrous that they use an example of third party supporters switching to a main party and thus dominating the American political narrative (the Contract With America laws) as an example of why third party supporters shouldn't switch to a main party!

I think you're kind of missing what the article is saying.

What it is saying is that it DOESN'T matter at all who is president if there is a massive class struggle movement on the streets.

All your stuff about the Reform Party of billionaires and bigots is interesting and shiznit, but the article is not talking about third-parties in the abstract, they are talking about building a left, "anti-corporate" party. I doubt that Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan are going to be much of a model in that regard.

301 to 350 of 810 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Off-Topic Discussions / Obama deserves a second term All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.