Back to TheU.ca
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Banned Users List
Usergroups
RSS Feeds
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log inTheU.ca Forum Index - General Discussion - Obama - Reply to topic
|
Hey everyone I heard lately that people don't ilke Obama so much any more. I'm not really sure why, but I think it has to do with the fact that he's a dissapointment of a precedent, and the economy is still not doing better. I wasn't really confident in him to begin with, because he seems like he's got a lot of talk, but not much action. Also, I was never sure on what side of the fence his religious beliefs were. So it didn't seem like a goodf plan to put someone like that in the white house. What do you think? |
|
Lock
Russia's greatest love machine  Joined: 09 Jul 2009 Posts: 752 Location: The wrong place    votes: 6 View user's profile |
Stop being make believe. I don't like him because he's such a pussy. Way to waste a filibuster-proof Senate, retard. |
|
The US senate is full of problems. One is that it is designed to provide overrepresentation to the smaller, more backward states. SO they end up ruling by majority. The second problem is that obama is not a good enough leader to enact laws through the senate without going through the house first. THis usually results in the watering down of legislation. |
|
Jimmy Big Ears
X-talk mobster  Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 3256 Location: St. Francis Xavier University  votes: 38 View user's profile |
Lock, you posted that primarily to get a reaction. Nonsense. Obama's not to blame; the US system makes it ridiculously hard to change anything decisively. If the House hadn't gotten into a pissing contest with the Senate over ego people would be talking about how accomplished he was; the bill already passed the Senate and does not actually have to pass it again if the House okays the Senate version. Something close to this (EDIT: the Senate version) was always bound to be the reality since (thanks to the filibuster) it is harder to pass a bill in the Senate. The US has a system where the president has no official legislative power and the unofficial power depends upon people buying into the idea that they should support his agenda. In addition, it has one of the stupidest systems of changing laws in existence. Consider this: in Canada and Britain to pass a bill there are two hurdles: committee vote and floor vote. Then it becomes law. In Germany they have two houses but a) Unlike in the US the head of the government is part of the more powerful Bundestag where laws generally begin and b) The Bundestag can override the Bundesrat by passing a law for a second time as long as it is a federal matter. It goes committee, B-stag vote, B-rat vote, or committee, B-stag vote, B-rat vote, B-stag vote. There are 3-4 legislative hurdles. In the United States it goes House committee, House vote, Senate committee, Filibuster-breaker Senate vote ( I'm excluding the floor vote since it always comes with ending the filibuster), Inter-house conference, presidential veto - so any law has six major hurdles to get over. At every hurdle the bill can be modified, compromised over, watered down. To get anything through, a bill has to have the support of the Presidency, a majority in the House and a supermajority of 60%+ in the Senate - and even then the dangers of it getting watered down are considerable. When you add in the President's lack of any official legislative power you get a recipe for gridlock and paralysis, particularly when the House Democratic caucus is in a snit because they won't get the same chance to influence whatever legislation ends up being present to the extent the Senate did. Obama risked a Bill Clinton-style failure if he pushed things on Congress too much; too little and he risked this. I'm not sure if there ever was any path that did not lead to a major quaqmire. _________________ "Ah, sleek vigilant puma. Principal of the mountains." -Seymour Skinner. |
|
Lock
Russia's greatest love machine Joined: 09 Jul 2009 Posts: 752 Location: The wrong place votes: 6 View user's profile |
Bush managed to push all kinds of controversial legislation through without having a majority in either the House or the Senate. Obama had a year of everything rosy, and did absolutely nothing with it. Even aside from health care reform, he hasn't done anything that is in his power to do that he promised to do before his election, like repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell. As Commander-in-Chief he can sign an executive order to eliminate that practice, and has been asked to do so by a committee working on it in the House, but has not done so despite his campaign promises. He's said a lot about how he would prefer to be a good one term President than a mediocre two term President, but if he couldn't get anything done in the last year it's not looking good for him even being a mediocre one term President. I'm not saying McCain would have been better, but what a fucking disappointment. Edit: This may have something to do with Republicans tending to have more party solidarity than Democrats, but that's not much of an excuse. Either way, there is apparently no point in electing a Democrat if you want anything to get done. Their only purpose is to keep Republicans out. |
|
Rogue
X-Talk Prodigal  Joined: 29 Jun 2006 Posts: 3732 Location: The Legendary Island of Poutine  votes: 42 View user's profile |
The Don't Ask, Don't Tell nonsense is particularly disappointing. Here's an interview between Jon Stewart and Bill O'Reilly where Stewart outlines exactly how Obama is a wimpy President. _________________ He is so coarse and yet so clean; so brutal, yet so kind; scorns the whole world, yet talks baby language to a girl, and will die, can we doubt it? in a madhouse. |
|
Jimmy Big Ears wrote: Consider this: in Canada and Britain to pass a bill there are two hurdles: committee vote and floor vote.
What no Senate or royal assent? Do you mean to imply that in Canada statutes don't get bounced back and forth between houses, and back and forth from floor to committee? I appreciate that your point is to show the degree of complexity of the U.S. system, but downplaying the procedural rigour of the Westminister system doesn't help this. I would suggest that while the Westminister system(s), with their plethora of unspoken rules and traditions represent an equally complex, but quite different form of federal government than the heavily codified, rule-oriented structure in the U.S. |
|
Jimmy Big Ears
X-talk mobster Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 3256 Location: St. Francis Xavier University votes: 38 View user's profile |
I disagree to the extent that a) a bill need only pass one body and b) While things bounce back and forth here there are still only two real hurdles. Westminster is more complex than my attempted summary but is far easier than in the US. Rogue wrote: The Don't Ask, Don't Tell nonsense is particularly disappointing.Here's an interview between Jon Stewart and Bill O'Reilly where Stewart outlines exactly how Obama is a wimpy President. With no intend to offend I think you guys are channeling stereotypes. Jon Stewart said in the earlier part of the interview "I'm not sure if he's a Jedi master who's three or four moves ahead of the rest of us or if he doesn't know what he's doing." Stewart himself is conflicted, not decisive, in his viewpoint, nor is he the most knowledgeable about the president's dealings with Congress as astute as he is.
Obama deliberately played the health care debate starting out fairly hands off because of what happened with Clinton. That approach paid off in the House when he was able to weigh in to get that bill passed in spite of anger on the part of the liberal wing. In the Senate, well, what was he supposed to do? Waive a wand and get Landrieu, Conrad, Nelson et al. to vote for a bill that would have funded abortions? Pound some sense into Joe Lieberman or forcibly convince Olympia Snowe? In the Senate very little was his fault and the House passed a bill partly because of Obama. What is Obama's fault to some extent is the time it has taken; he should have put forth a few more requirements for the bill at the outset instead of his relatively limited number. If a bill actually passes, and I still think the odds are for it rather than against it, people will be talking about how Obama did a solid job walking a tightrope in a tough situation. If the House passes a version close to the Senate's version then a deal could very well be struck with Olympia Snowe, especially if the House passes the Senate bill to give the Democrats leverage in negotiations since they could always default to sending it to Obama's desk. Lock you raise a point I'd like to address, namely the difference between the Democratic and Republican cultures. People strike a balance between their personal opinions and the need to support a party agenda. Both parties' leadership can leverage certain pressures - campaign funding help, the House or Senate's timetable for bills, doing a few legislators favours in one bill or (negatively) removing something they want. The GOP's M.O. is pressuring people into voting the party line; legislators may modify things in meetings and can argue fiercely in the GOP caucus but they are expected to ultimately vote with the party. This is good for passing things on the party agenda but can lead to the whole party following a few leaders over the edge, as with Bush. The Democrats have a different culture. Theirs is more independent, partly from the nature of having been an opposition party which needed support, partly from relying more than the GOP on moderates who leaned their way (left of centre) and partly because that's the way their culture always was going back to the days of the Solid South. This makes it harder to pass things but also provides a safety cushion that prevents the more liberal wing of the party from alienating voters by pushing through items that people don't like such as affirmative action plans in the previous era. It is a trade-off of sorts, and while it has upsides it makes things harder on the health bill. Finally, I'd like to address the point that most of what Bush did was not concerned with changing things significantly at home. The tax cuts were the only thing he got without too much trouble. When he got the Medicare prescription drug bill passed it was extremely difficult. It took a special three-hour roll call for the House to pressure enough more conservative members to vote for the bill and it barely passed through the Senate. It also passed due to strong pressure to do something about the increasing drug cost to senior citizens. Liberals sometimes seem to think that it is relatively easy for the other side, but it frequently is not so. Also, Rogue, your timing on 'Don't ask, don't tell' is not very good. He just appointed a committee to essentially tell him how to repeal it; it's a classic political maneuver. It's tactics, not weakness. In any case, 'wimpy' is just a crude approximation of the attitude that here equates a strategic decision to be less confrontational with weakness. _________________ "Ah, sleek vigilant puma. Principal of the mountains." -Seymour Skinner. |
|
http://vodpod.com/watch/1162664-celebrate-good-obama-clips-south-park- studios speaks for itself, don't it? |
|
Oh shut up all of you. Man, what a bunch of whiners. Sure, bush got a bunch of legislation through Lock, and it all sucked dick. Yes, Obama needs to man up an push things through with a bit more force, but he's also been stuck with a massive deficit and a unruly opposition. And more importantly, Bush had the backing of 'terrorism' IE: No Democrat would vote against half his policies because they were tagged either as something socially beneficial (IE: No Kid left behind) or for the military/security. Bush didn't do shit. Obama promised to. He's trying, and is going to continue to. Oh shit, things didn't go as planned? This must be the first time ever in politics that has happened. |
|
Lock
Russia's greatest love machine Joined: 09 Jul 2009 Posts: 752 Location: The wrong place votes: 6 View user's profile |
Jimmy Big Ears wrote: Also, Rogue, your timing on 'Don't ask, don't tell' is not very good. He just appointed a committee to essentially tell him how to repeal it; it's a classic political maneuver. It's tactics, not weakness. In any case, 'wimpy' is just a crude approximation of the attitude that here equates a strategic decision to be less confrontational with weakness. The gay community in general is very disappointed with him. He made a lot of promises to gay rights lobbies in return for campaign donations, and hasn't followed through on anything. Repealing DADT has practically no opposition, and it's something he could have done at any point in the last year to throw a bone to his base (liberals), but all he's done is stall. I really don't think he's a Jedi master either. I think he's overwhelmed. |
|
pedal2000 wrote: Yes, Obama needs to man up an push things through with a bit more force, but he's also been stuck with a massive deficit and a unruly opposition. And more importantly, Bush had the backing of 'terrorism' IE: No Democrat would vote against half his policies because they were tagged either as something socially beneficial (IE: No Kid left behind) or for the military/security.
Don't you think that's a result of failing to control the dialogue and a lack of clear communication on policy stands though? The Bush administration seized every opportunity to control the conversation about policy by hook or crook, which the Obama administration has abjectly failed at. It's not as though Bush had zero opposition or inherited some utopian nation to run into the ground. |
|
Jimmy Big Ears
X-talk mobster Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 3256 Location: St. Francis Xavier University votes: 38 View user's profile |
For once pedal and I have wound up on the same side. Lock wrote: I saw that. He didn't need to appoint a committee, because there has been a committee working on it in the House since before he went into office. They asked him to repeal it by Presidential order as soon as he was sworn in to get the practice stopped while they were working on the bill to permanently remove it. All he has to do to repeal it is sign an order telling the military to stop practicing it.
Not quite. DADT is actually law, so he can't just change it. Another thing that might be something most people don't think about is that there can (and would) be resistance among military ranks to the change. If he forces it through quickly and there was lots of rankling among the upper echelons it would be a considerable and unnecessary source of trouble. The House committee is a legislative committee; his is an administrative plan to implement it, so they fulfill separate functions. Obama's M.O. is that he does not risk political capital when it is not necessary, and this is well advised. You say he's overwhelmed, but you want him to fight administrative battles while he's dealing with everything else?
The gay community in general is very disappointed with him. He made a lot of promises to gay rights lobbies in return for campaign donations, and hasn't followed through on anything. Repealing DADT has practically no opposition, and it's something he could have done at any point in the last year to throw a bone to his base (liberals), but all he's done is stall. I really don't think he's a Jedi master either. I think he's overwhelmed. And finally, the idea that he's done nothing for gays is nonsense. The US made crimes based on sexual orientation a hate crime; that's a major piece of legislation if anything is. Every complaint a gay group makes is not necessarily on target; he helps to get gays covered under hate crime legislation and is in the process of reversing DADT and you say he's doing nothing because he's not doing it fast enough. I think you and Rogue are determined to be unsatisfied. No one should even contemplate claiming he hasn't followed through on anything regarding gay rights; he has not made it priority number one but he has followed through. DADT shouldn't be priority #1 anyway; any president who would put it ahead of health care should have their judgment questioned. Lance Uppercut wrote: Don't you think that's a result of failing to control the dialogue and a lack of clear communication on policy stands though? The Bush administration seized every opportunity to control the conversation about policy by hook or crook, which the Obama administration has abjectly failed at. It's not as though Bush had zero opposition or inherited some utopian nation to run into the ground. It has not 'abjectly failed'; the results have been mixed but things went quite well with the stimulus package's passing - in that Obama was remarkably skillful - and in fact the health care legislation is the first major setback message-wise. And it is a major setback, but you can't expect anything to have the pull terrorism had in the wake of 9/11. No one is considering the economy, but it is nearly impossible to control discussion when the discussion inevitably reverts to the fact that people can't get jobs. The economy is primarily responsible for Obama's drop in Approval ratings; he still has a positive point spread and has held up quite well in polls.
Mostly what I see is complaints with lots of vehemence but little evidence. _________________ "Ah, sleek vigilant puma. Principal of the mountains." -Seymour Skinner. |
|
I totally disagree. The argument against most Obama-supported legislation hasn't been about the economy, with the exception of the stimulus, which wasn't widely opposed at the time. Furthermore, blaming the economy is a crutch; the entire world has dealt with or is dealing with similar problems. In terms of health and social programs, many public policy experts would actually argue that it's easier to make substantial reforms in a recession. Health is their biggest battle right now, and I have no idea where the Obama administration stands on it from a policy standpoint. I thought maybe I did in July before the pruning shears went to work on the bill, but now I don't. It's because of that waffling that the legislation has gone from a truly innovative policy shift to something that's merely better than nothing. I mean, it's a marathon, not a sprint, and I'll hold off on overall judgement until I see the administration's body of work closer to the 4th year. But I also refuse to be an apologist for someone who was sold to the public as a political saviour. |
|
Senther
Xtalk Drifter  Joined: 29 Jun 2006 Posts: 2296 Location: The Deadlights votes: 42 View user's profile |
Lock wrote: He's said a lot about how he would prefer to be a good one term President than a mediocre two term President, but if he couldn't get anything done in the last year it's not looking good for him even being a mediocre one term President.
Jimmy Big Ears wrote: 'Don't ask, don't tell'... He just appointed a committee... it's a classic political manoeuvre. It's... 'wimpy'
pedal2000 wrote: Yes, Obama needs to man up an push things through with a bit more force... He's trying
I think Obama is a bit of a disappointment, but that was pretty much guaranteed as soon as people started worshipping him as the Second Coming. I don't think he's doing a bad job, he's just doing a reasonable job. One certainly not deserving of a Nobel Peace Prize... _________________ To avoid complications, she never kept the same address In conversation, she spoke just like a baroness |
|
Lock
Russia's greatest love machine Joined: 09 Jul 2009 Posts: 752 Location: The wrong place votes: 6 View user's profile |
Jimmy Big Ears wrote: Not quite. DADT is actually law, so he can't just change it. Another thing that might be something most people don't think about is that there can (and would) be resistance among military ranks to the change. If he forces it through quickly and there was lots of rankling among the upper echelons it would be a considerable and unnecessary source of trouble. The House committee is a legislative committee; his is an administrative plan to implement it, so they fulfill separate functions. Obama's M.O. is that he does not risk political capital when it is not necessary, and this is well advised. You say he's overwhelmed, but you want him to fight administrative battles while he's dealing with everything else? You're missing the point. Obama has the power, as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, to sign an executive order that will stop the enforcement of an undisputedly discriminatory law. He was asked to do this, not only by gay rights groups but by the Congressional committee that has been working on getting the law repealed. He wouldn't risk political capital because, as you'd know if you've been paying attention to this issue, the vast majority of Americans polled (including self-identified conservatives and evangelicals) want the law repealed. He claimed he was going to be a "fierce advocate" for gay rights, and as a result received a disproportionately large amount of campaign funds from people who care about that. Never mind that he publicly compared gay marriage to incest and pedophilia while defending the Defense of Marriage Act, never mind that he's been waffling on support for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, but he has it completely within his power to stop the enforcement of Don't Ask, Don't Tell at any point while the majority of Americans want him to do so. He prefers to pass the buck to Congress and wait for them to repeal it.Jimmy Big Ears wrote: And finally, the idea that he's done nothing for gays is nonsense. The US made crimes based on sexual orientation a hate crime; that's a major piece of legislation if anything is. The Matthew Shepard Act has been working its way through Congress since 2001. It has nothing to do with Obama. Jimmy Big Ears wrote: DADT shouldn't be priority #1 anyway; any president who would put it ahead of health care should have their judgment questioned. That's the thing - it doesn't have to be a priority. It would take him literally five seconds to sign the order to stop the practice while Congress is working to get the law repealed. He said outright that he won't consider working on the DOMA until his second term (of course, he said this after he was already elected), so this is something he could do right now, that wouldn't cost him anything, and would make his supporters think he wasn't lying about his feelings on an issue that is important to a lot of people (not to mention that it would stop the US military from forcibly discharging skilled personnel during a time of war). He hasn't done it. That makes it look to me like he doesn't want it repealed.
I think Jimmy has been reading too much of the New Yorker. A lot of the big American media giants have become more apologetic for Obama than Fox News ever was for Bush. |
|
And if Congress doesn't repeal the law? Keep in mind the US is a lot more right wing than we are. |
|
Lock
Russia's greatest love machine Joined: 09 Jul 2009 Posts: 752 Location: The wrong place votes: 6 View user's profile |
Congress likely will repeal the law eventually, because most Americans want it repealed. If he signs the order stopping the practice and they don't repeal the law, that means the next President could come along and start it up again. If he doesn't sign the order and they don't repeal the law, then I guess Obama gets what he wanted, which was campaign money from liberal Americans without following through on his promises to them. |
|
Jimmy Big Ears
X-talk mobster Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 3256 Location: St. Francis Xavier University votes: 38 View user's profile |
Lance Uppercut wrote: In terms of health and social programs, many public policy experts would actually argue that it's easier to make substantial reforms in a recession...It's because of that waffling that the legislation has gone from a truly innovative policy shift to something that's merely better than nothing. I am no apologist; I was the one who argued that most of his early speeches had little to no content. I think, though, that he is being blamed for something that has chiefly to do with America's ridiculously paralytic legislative system. Nor is the current proposal bad; it addresses quite a few problems, although it leaves some (notably cost) unsolved.
On the economy I was referring to the battle to control political dialogue; it is very hard to do that when the main subject of discourse is always the rate of joblessness. You are also attributing most of the changes to Obama rather than a legislative process that is notorious for giving immense trouble to any proposed set of changes. I ask you: what was Obama supposed to do to those last couple of senators? People should remember that he has no official legislative power, which contrasts sharply with most other systems. Remember, Bush too had immense trouble with his major domestic initiative. Lock wrote: He wouldn't risk political capital because, as you'd know if you've been paying attention to this issue, the vast majority of Americans polled (including self-identified conservatives and evangelicals) want the law repealed. I said he would risk political capital if he got resistance from the military ranks. Did you read my post at all? Stop replying to imaginary points just because they are easier to address. If he got bogged down in battles with the military's upper echelons it would cause a great deal of trouble. You seem to think that changing a culture is as easy as giving orders.Quote: Never mind that he publicly compared gay marriage to incest and pedophilia while defending the Defense of Marriage Act, Find this reference for me. What you're describing is a lot different than, say, explaining that he has to uphold the law while describing other things that such laws are there to prohibit.Quote: Never mind that he's been waffling on support for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, but he has it completely within his power to stop the enforcement of Don't Ask, Don't Tell at any point...The Matthew Shepard Act has been working its way through Congress since 2001.
Nonsense. Comparing the media giants treatment of Obama to Fox News and Bush shows you don't know anything about what Fox News actually did for Bush, nor are you paying attention to the vast media attention to the GOP protests. Try actually reading news, not something you read on a liberal blog.
It would take him literally five seconds to sign the order to stop the practice while Congress is working to get the law repealed...He hasn't done it. That makes it look to me like he doesn't want it repealed. I think Jimmy has been reading too much of the New Yorker. A lot of the big American media giants have become more apologetic for Obama than Fox News ever was for Bush. One commenter on such a blog wrote "Mr Obama has pledged to sign an ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act for any casual readers) bill were it to cross his desk, and for which I am grateful. But, he has yet to do more than give simple rhetoric. He has not done any arm twisting or provided any guidance or any interest for that matter to get this, bill passed." This is accurate. Note, however, that like you the poster failed entirely to grasp the idea that Congress takes a while to do things and that President Obama has, to say the least, had a full agenda. Do you always consider any delay, no matter how warranted, to constitute waffling? The Matthew Shepard Act passed finally because Obama was president as well as the Congressional majorities. It could not pass while Bush was president and while the GOP organized defense spending (partially via the presidency). On DADT there is a legitimate problem with an American president telling people to ignore a law that is on the books. You hated Bush for his signing statements; well, that goes a nice sight beyond signing statements. Just because the president follows the law rather than liberal activist groups (apparently your prior source of information) does not mean he opposes it. I'm the one who actually reads up on stuff; you're the one who buys every line floated out by an ultra-liberal group. People who think it would be right for the president to tell the military to ignore the law are simply ignorant of the fundamental nature of the law. Fortunately, President Obama is not. Destroying the integrity of law for liberalism is still destroying the integrity of law. You hyper-partisans are the ones who really bought the 'magic wand' theory, namely, the idea that Obama can just waive a wand and change things and therefore any changes that haven't happened are the result of either a) incompetence or b) Obama failing to care at all about it. The idea that Obama has had a finite timetable or actually has to uphold the law does not seem to have occurred to anybody. Obama is no magician and will not go down as a good president without serious action on the deficit (among other things) but it is ludicrous that he is actually being smeared by his own wing. _________________ "Ah, sleek vigilant puma. Principal of the mountains." -Seymour Skinner. |
TheU.ca Forum Index - General Discussion - Obama - Reply to topic
