(April 21, 2015 at 9:39 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote: I'll vote based off of my hopes that a candidate won't take regressive social actions. I'd like to see more states rights.

Except it is the states rights shits who ARE taking the most socially regressive actions.

I'm not a complete liberal, but I am regarding gay marriage (seeing as this society will never ever get rid of hetero marriage). So for this reason, I don't really trust the states with everything either. I love our SCOTUS, but they shouldn't have to deal with this issue so much. Gay marriage should be federal. 

I haven't done too much study, because, until recently, I was unclear what any of our choices were. But I like Hillary better than any republican at this point. But I do hope for a lot more competition on the left.

(April 21, 2015 at 10:14 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: History will have to judge whether Obama was 

1. ...a tragically naive idealist who thought he could heal the divides of the nation if he was just nice enough, 
   
2. ....an inept product of the Peter Principle (promoted up to a level beyond his abilities, brilliant at state level politics but in over his head at the Federal level) or 
   
3. ...an ingenious 5th column agent secretly working for the Republican Party. 
   

I'm not enough of a conspiracy theorist to actually embrace #3 but you know, it would explain a lot. After all, he took a roaring progressive movement that gave him the White House and overwhelming majorities in both houses facing a GOP that was disgraced after the economic and foreign policy disasters and within two years he managed to thoroughly marginalize and demoralize liberals, gave the GOP room to regroup and revive and covered up for the abuses of the previous administration. He couldn't have done a better job if he really was acting as a 5th columnist. 

I think Obama will be viewed as a "centrist," or rather, as Mr. Establishment. The man who did a few good things, spoke a populist message, and most importantly for his legacy, cemented policies that the left rallied against during Bush's terms, by cleaning up and perfecting the latter's ad hoc, neo-con creation of a global battlefield abroad and a police state at home... all the while "liberals" and "loyal" "Democrats" will continue to hail the Great Leader as the GOAT and paint all of his accomplishments by the most petty means possible... the measure of his personal appeal (Fuck, he disappointed me quite a bit and I still find him to be a likable man). Like those before him, but with more art, he demonstrated how future ambitious (aka sociopathic) prostitutes in expensive dress can successfully run a campaign, portray themselves as victims of the "other side of the aisle" in their scripted performances to pretend to be battling it out for the little guy, and leave the White House with complete impunity... avoiding the jail house where they belong and with outrageous profit awaiting their return to private life, which for them, is actually private!

(April 21, 2015 at 10:14 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: History will have to judge whether Obama was 

1. ...a tragically naive idealist who thought he could heal the divides of the nation if he was just nice enough, 
   
2. ....an inept product of the Peter Principle (promoted up to a level beyond his abilities, brilliant at state level politics but in over his head at the Federal level) or 
   
3. ...an ingenious 5th column agent secretly working for the Republican Party. 
   

I'm not enough of a conspiracy theorist to actually embrace #3 but you know, it would explain a lot. After all, he took a roaring progressive movement that gave him the White House and overwhelming majorities in both houses facing a GOP that was disgraced after the economic and foreign policy disasters and within two years he managed to thoroughly marginalize and demoralize liberals, gave the GOP room to regroup and revive and covered up for the abuses of the previous administration. He couldn't have done a better job if he really was acting as a 5th columnist. 

I completely agree.  I do not, for whatever reason, feel lied to.  I feel like he really was number 1 or 2.  It has to happen, that people really do think they can make a difference, but working in a broken a corrupt system causes them to become broken and corrupt, or just realize they aren't cut out for it but can't back out at that point.  Look at Jimmy Carter.  Or Eva Perone.

History will tell, and it depends on who will write that history as well.

I voted for Obama twice. In his campaign for the first term, I felt like he went in there angry at certain things, and therefore really wanting to change them. And it was like "I'm Barack Obama, and I don't like this, this, and this about how our government is working. If you agree, I'd appreciate your vote." Something very genuine.

But as time wore on, it seemed like he slowly gave up that feisty demeanor, and accepted that he would be defeated at times. Compromise is the only thing he could count on having to do.

Only since Obamacare have a really felt like I wouldn't give him a third chance if I could. I'm ready for change. But not a Republican in his seat.

(April 21, 2015 at 10:14 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: History will have to judge whether Obama was 

1. ...a tragically naive idealist who thought he could heal the divides of the nation if he was just nice enough, 
   
2. ....an inept product of the Peter Principle (promoted up to a level beyond his abilities, brilliant at state level politics but in over his head at the Federal level) or 
   
3. ...an ingenious 5th column agent secretly working for the Republican Party. 
   

I'm not enough of a conspiracy theorist to actually embrace #3 but you know, it would explain a lot. After all, he took a roaring progressive movement that gave him the White House and overwhelming majorities in both houses facing a GOP that was disgraced after the economic and foreign policy disasters and within two years he managed to thoroughly marginalize and demoralize liberals, gave the GOP room to regroup and revive and covered up for the abuses of the previous administration. He couldn't have done a better job if he really was acting as a 5th columnist. 

Sadly, #2 is the only viable option here. In fact, Obama's means of getting into the Illinois legislature and his abysmal record once there makes the 'brilliant at state level' caveat non-existent.

The above is simply an observation and cannot be used to predict achievement in office; Lincoln immediately comes to mind as a President with a similar lack of traditional qualifications. Obama will be remembered as another Chester A. Arthur. So much potential, so much opportunity, yet nothing. Sad really.

Bill. Barry. On a tandem bicycle. The hip-hip-hurrahs on January 20. In 1993. In 2009. From there, it was just back-pedaling all the way, both administrations. Although Barry has kept his nose pretty clean: We haven't had the usual three-ring scandal circus in the Obama White House. Fox News has had to go through ridiculous contortions to find anything Obama's minions have done by way of nest-feathering. Instead they kept bringing his birth certificate up year after year.

(April 22, 2015 at 12:43 am)Cato Wrote: Obama's means of getting into the Illinois legislature and his abysmal record once there makes the 'brilliant at state level' caveat non-existent.

I'll cop to not knowing much about Obama's record at the state level. I'd heard he was good at that level and should have verified before typing that.

So retraction issued. 

I'm from Maryland. If O'malley runs I'm not voting. FUCK that guy.

(April 22, 2015 at 12:43 am)Cato Wrote: In fact, Obama's means of getting into the Illinois legislature and his abysmal record once there...

Ahh...Illinois, the Blagojevichian prairie where you could still purchase a vacant U.S. Senate seat as late as 2009. Although that was upon Mr. Obama's departure from the Senate. His 2004 entry to that body could perhaps be ascribed to luck when Jack Ryan's family court records doomed a Republican accession. Of his statehouse debut and record unfortunately I know little beyond the "present" votes via that yellow button and allegations of legal advocacy with behest linkages to Chicago slumlord Tony Rezko (Schaper on NPR, 1/23/08).
Yet Barry must pass his sceptre to Hillary and will be a political has-been on a comfortable pension. With lifetime health care to far higher standards than permitted by the Bronze Plans most of us have to settle for, assuming we were lucky enough to draw a plan rather than a penalty. The only thing is, what would McCain have done on health care?

(April 22, 2015 at 1:51 pm)Hatshepsut Wrote: The only thing is, what would McCain have done on health care?

He'd have made sure he had plenty.