• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Romney: "What we feared is happening...the administration has made things worse"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tell you one thing the Tea Party does right is that they're constantly up congressman's asses. The left could learn to do the same honestly. Shit.

I said this the other day as well. I wish Occupy Wallstreet had 1/10th the focus and drive the tea party does.


He's completely right, in my opinion. Of course I've always supported Romney above President Obama, who seems completely inept at any domestic issues.

I'll bite. What domestic issues has Obama flubbed on that Romney would have succeeded in implementing?

http://www.economist.com/news/unite...victory-never-was-what-if-mitt-romney-had-won

Here's and article on his plan for his first 200 days.

Team Romney’s 200-day plans included immediate, 5% cuts to public spending excluding security and social payments (though more money for defence), a weakening of the rules that Republicans say favour trade unions, a squeeze on public-sector jobs and pay, and a global push for free trade. Mr Romney would also have proposed lower income- and corporate-tax rates, offset by closing loopholes. Abolishing the Environmental Protection Agency, a conservative dream, was not on the cards. But “personnel is policy”, notes Glenn Hubbard, Mr Romney’s chief economic adviser. Those chosen to regulate energy and tackle climate change would have weighed costs against benefits minutely. A long-term squeeze on welfare and health spending was a priority: wholesale immigration reform was not.
 

mustafa

Banned
When did the goalposts get moved to, "He can't pass laws"?

How about not collecting all of my phone call data and hacking my emails? How about not unilaterally deciding to delay parts of Obamacare til after the election? How about not embarrassing our country by taking actions that led to the Bolivian president being treated like nothing? How about actually allowing the legality of drone strikes to be challenged in courts, and not issuing convoluted legal interpretations that try to retain the right to use drones whenever you feel like it?

How about not straight up lying to low-information voters like he did on Leno last night? "Nobody's spying on you"...really? Really?

Does Mitch McConnel have a gun to his head, forcing him to do all of this? We don't even have to discuss embarassments like not being able to get watered-down gun control to pass in the Democrat-controlled Senate.

What has he accomplished so far in this illustrious second term?
 

quickwhips

Member
assuming for a moment that we live in fantasyland where she would've conceivably won, what makes you believe she wouldn't capitulate on most everything she promised when having to work with an asshole congress.

I don't want to jump to far off subject but she didn't win. To compete at all right now you already have to be in someone pocket.
 
How Obama, who won the presidency by using the power of the energized masses twice, can't seem to figure out how to trump a broken GOP base is beyond me. Did he not notice how he changed the minds of millions of Americans when it came to gay rights overnight? Odd he doesn't need to be reminded of his job when pertaining to military power.

America needs a martyr. Someone to be hated for a better cause, sacrifice his political career in the process. Real change. Obama is not it. Neither was Romney, of course.

Obama did not change gay rights overnight. The same-sex marriage issue has been on an almost perfectly steady direction for over a decade now. The only thing is that the pro overtook against during Obama's 1st term.
 
When did the goalposts get moved to, "He can't pass laws"?

How about not collecting all of my phone call data and hacking my emails? How about not unilaterally deciding to delay parts of Obamacare til after the election? How about not embarrassing our country by taking actions that led to the Bolivian president being treated like nothing? How about actually allowing the legality of drone strikes to be challenged in courts, and not issuing convoluted legal interpretations that try to retain the right to use drones whenever you feel like it?

How about not straight up lying to low-information voters like he did on Leno last night? "Nobody's spying on you"...really? Really?

Does Mitch McConnel have a gun to his head, forcing him to do all of this? We don't even have to discuss embarassments like not being able to get watered-down gun control to pass in the Democrat-controlled Senate.

What has he accomplished so far in this illustrious second term?

He put off Obama Care for a good reason. It wasn't completely ready and the repubs would have had a field days had it been implemented poorly.

He's been shit with regards to civil rights and privacy. I don't think anyone in here has argued otherwise.

With regards to McConnel and gun control ... have you been paying attention to the amount of obstruction from the right? Blaming Obama for not getting laws through this shitty congress is short sighted at best.

commedieu said:

Who cares where the movement started or how much funding it has? It has focused goals and ideals and they are successful in getting their representatives to act like complete assholes.

It's not like Occupy wasn't taking the fuck off. It sprung out organically and before it could really take off and gain momentum, it was high jacked by other fringe political nut jobs. They never delivered a clear message and in doing so allowed the right to distort the whole 1% message as liberals just being lazy good for nothings.

The movement quickly became something a focused lib did not want to be a part of.
 

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
I'm not sure you understand how democracy works. To get your ideas turned into law, you need to convince other people to support them. Being hated usually doesn't help with that.

Obama can't just pass laws on his own, regardless of whether he is willing to sacrifice his political career or not.

Obama can't pass laws, period.
 

@____@

Banned
When did the goalposts get moved to, "He can't pass laws"?

How about not collecting all of my phone call data and hacking my emails? How about not unilaterally deciding to delay parts of Obamacare til after the election? How about not embarrassing our country by taking actions that led to the Bolivian president being treated like nothing? How about actually allowing the legality of drone strikes to be challenged in courts, and not issuing convoluted legal interpretations that try to retain the right to use drones whenever you feel like it?

How about not straight up lying to low-information voters like he did on Leno last night? "Nobody's spying on you"...really? Really?

Does Mitch McConnel have a gun to his head, forcing him to do all of this? We don't even have to discuss embarassments like not being able to get watered-down gun control to pass in the Democrat-controlled Senate.

What has he accomplished so far in this illustrious second term?

Do you expect the President to go on Jay Leno and say 'Yes, your government is spying on you.'?

Gun control passing or not didn't have anything to do with Obama. Talk to the House. Talk to the Senate.
 
Comparing the Tea Party to OWS is a bit unfair considering how one was an impeccably organized and funded astroturf campaign with a corporate-friendly message and the other... wasn't.

IMO, this doesn't excuse the lack or a leader and the lack of a clear message. In fact, the lack of central funding the tea party enjoyed made it all that more important for the the Occupy movement to have a clear message and central person to deliver that message in order to fight off the opposition (tea party). Wasted opportunity at best.
 
Comparing the Tea Party to OWS is a bit unfair considering how one was an impeccably organized and funded astroturf campaign with a corporate-friendly message and the other... wasn't.
Yeah the Tea Party had a former GOP House Speaker (Dick Armey, FreedomWorks), a GWB campaign manager (Karl Rove, Crossroads GPS), a couple multi-billionaire conservatives with their PAC (Koch Bros, Americans for Prosperity) as well as Fox News behind it. No comparison at all.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
IMO, this doesn't excuse the lack or a leader and the lack of a clear message. In fact, the lack of central funding the tea party enjoyed made it all that more important for the the Occupy movement to have a clear message and central person to deliver that message in order to fight off the opposition (tea party). Wasted opportunity at best.

I feel like they didn't really need a leader at that point, but more of a clear message. They were all over the place with that.
 

Baraka in the White House

2-Terms of Kombat
I feel like they didn't really need a leader at that point, but more of a clear message. They were all over the place with that.

I tend to disagree with the perception that their message was vague or undefined. Certainly complex and multi-faceted but I think the whole, "What do they wannnnt???" thing was exaggerated. And at any rate organizing proved challenging with such a concentrated push by local governments to contain and disband protests.
 
Yeah the Tea Party had a former GOP House Speaker (Dick Armey, FreedomWorks), a GWB campaign manager (Karl Rove, Crossroads GPS), a couple multi-billionaire conservatives with their PAC (Koch Bros, Americans for Prosperity) as well as Fox News behind it. No comparison at all.

Yet, no body from the left grabbed onto OWS. Any attempts made were shot down as the movement was above being shilled out by dems looking to make a name for themselves. The movement was intentionally vague which is what allowed the crazy fringe in. Once Guy Fawkes masks, libertarians and fluoride conspiracy nuts started showing up armed with iPads and smart phones ... the whole thing was starting to spiral downward.

I tend to disagree with the perception that their message was vague or undefined. Certainly complex and multi-faceted but I think the whole, "What do they wannnnt???" thing was exaggerated. And at any rate organizing proved challenging with such a concentrated push by local governments to contain and disband protests.

Maybe not at first. The message was distorted slowly over time. Each time the media asked the question, "but what do they want", the movement needed a prominent figure shouting, "THIS IS WHAT WE WANT". Instead the media got a bunch of people on the front lines shouting 50 different things.
 

Baraka in the White House

2-Terms of Kombat
Yet, no body from the left grabbed onto OWS. Any attempts made were shot down as the movement was above being shilled out by dems looking to make a name for themselves. The movement was intentionally vague which is what allowed the crazy fringe in. Once Guy Fawkes masks, libertarians and fluoride conspiracy nuts started showing up armed with iPads and smart phones ... the whole thing was starting to spiral downward.

I see a lot of factors contributing to OWS's downfall, not least of all:

- progressive issues in America tend to cover a much more broad spectrum than conservative ones. The Tea Party itself was proof of this. "Less taxes, fuck regulations" fits much easier on a bumper sticker than, "moneyed interests have poisoned our representative bodies and strangled socioeconomic opportunity" Not surprisingly, corporate America found one movement much more palatable than the other and it really showed.

- America struggles with the perception of its poor and needy. Everyone thinks they're a hardworking go-getter who just happens to be going through a rough patch while everyone else around them are just lazy leeches, or in the case of OWS, "dirty hippies" and what not. We're never going to support a true progressive movement with the bootstraps mindset/gospel of wealth that's become so pervasive these days.
 

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
It's really sad that people claim obama is worse than bush on civil liberties.

Under Bush, the NSA ran a warrantless wiretapping program, where they could, without a warrant, view the contents of anyone's emails, listen in on any of their phone calls, and view the contents of all of their text messages, without a warrant. It ran from 2001 to 2007 and was closed under public pressure. It was part of a broader range of completely un-regulated surveillance policies, known as the President's Surveillance Program. After 2007, oversight of such programs was returned to the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC, AKA the FISA Court). I'm not talking about basic information like who called what numbers (this is all information your telecoms and ISPs have access to and can sell and use freely with anyone they please.). I'm talking stuff like knowing that on March 2, 2005, George called Sally and told her, quote, "I am a porcupine," then using this to self-authorize a 5150 hold on George. Actual, unregulated, spying.

Do you know what happened next?

I'll tell you what happened. In 2007 and 2008, Congress relaxed the FISA court's oversight, and expanded surveillance programs, including authorizing PRISM, by passing the Protect America Act of 2007 and the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.

And once again, Congress renewed these programs for 5 years (through 2017) back in 2012.

The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 specifically authorizes such activity. It declares that the executive branch become one of the 3rd party customers of such telecoms and ISPs, essentially.

So no, it's not the Executive Branch you need to be upset with. It's the legislative branch for authorizing such programs and relaxing oversights (Keep in mind that every single federal court in the country, except for the Supreme Court, is an extension of Congress. Congress establishes such courts through legislation and dictates their rules, management, funding, and operations. They also do this for federal agencies under the executive branch, as well.)

Congress tells the executive branch what to do and how to do it, and they tell the executive branch who will be in charge of the various agencies and departments they tell the executive branch to keep operational, and they create the courts and tell the executive branch what powers the courts will have in relation to them, and who will run the courts.

It all goes back to Congress. And the telecoms who force you to surrender certain information to them for use as they see fit.


My landlord, unless there is an emergency or reasonable suspicion of a crime, can not come into my apartment without giving me at least 24 hours notice, and they own the damn thing. that's the terms they dictated. Does your ISP give you the luxury of knowing who they sell your information to, or what they use your email metadata for, or even notification of when they'll access such information, even though you're "renting" their lines just like how a tenant rents an apartment from a landlord? Nope.

And now we get into the REALLY fun domain, where a government can't compel you to give up certain information, but a corporation can, and the bastardization of consumer rights, corporate lobbying, etc...
 
I see a lot of factors contributing to OWS's downfall, not least of all:

- progressive issues in America tend to cover a much more broad spectrum than conservative ones. The Tea Party itself was proof of this. "Less taxes, fuck regulations" fits much easier on a bumper sticker than, "moneyed interests have poisoned our representative bodies and strangled socioeconomic opportunity" Not surprisingly, corporate America found one movement much more palatable than the other and it really showed.

- America struggles with the perception of its poor and needy. Everyone thinks they're a hardworking go-getter who just happens to be going through a rough patch while everyone else around them are just lazy leeches, or in the case of OWS, "dirty hippies" and what not. We're never going to support a true progressive movement with the bootstraps mindset/gospel of wealth that's become so pervasive these days.


Don't get me wrong, I agree with 110% of what you just said. At risk of sounding like a broken record though, I see these as just more reasons for a focused and centralized movement around one or several prominent figureheads instead of the jumbled mess we got.
 

Link

The Autumn Wind
How is he supposed to do that? The house is gerrymandered to all hell. A good portion of that GOP gerrymandered house is being primaried on the simple basis that they do or don't work with the man.

He's been trying to paint them as obstructionists. He's even just recently put out a proposal for adding jobs with the compromise of giving into tax rates. They still didn't work with him. They've still not given into the sequester. They're threatening government shutdown etc etc. THe house GOP is actively trying to sabotage anything this man wants to do for political gain and are doing so at the cost of their constituents well being (PPACA as an example). How the hell do you fight a group of people who would throw their own constituents under the buss for political gain? This is only expounded by the fact that the same constituents who just got tossed under the buss will now see their loss as a victory and cement their vote for their same shitty congressmen.
Also this.

Republicans are going to block fixing a glitch that will help churches just so Obamacare can look bad to them. They don't give a shit about helping anyone. Party before country.

We don't even have to discuss embarassments like not being able to get watered-down gun control to pass in the Democrat-controlled Senate.
Ignoring all your other ranting, you need to learn what a filibuster is. It's quite obvious you're not very informed.
 
Also this.

Republicans are going to block fixing a glitch that will help churches just so Obamacare can look bad to them. They don't give a shit about helping anyone. Party before country.


I did not know this. What a bunch of slime-balls.

We're too busy calling each other lazy assholes and whining about how, "they're all the saaaaaame" to organize politically.

I think a large reason Libs have a hard time organizing is that we're mostly younger - youngerish. This board is an example of that. The SOPA thread was full of people screaming and ready to start online protests and such, yet start a thread about the growing income inequality or living wage and see if you get anywhere near the same level of motivation. Young people tend to not care about things that don't seem to directly affect them. (maybe they are affecting them, they just don't realize it yet)
 

Slavik81

Member
Obama can't pass laws, period.

Where are you going with this? I was saying that he requires the support of Congress to turn the ideas he proposes into law. No, he cannot submit bills directly for Congress to vote on, but with the support of Congress he doesn't need that. No, he cannot vote on bills himself, but with the support of Congress he doesn't need that. (And, typically, it's his signature that passes a bill into law.)

Is it commentary on how he doesn't currently enjoy the support of Congress?
 

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
Where are you going with this? I was saying that he requires the support of Congress to turn the ideas he proposes into law. No, he cannot submit bills directly for Congress to vote on, but with the support of Congress he doesn't need that. No, he cannot vote on bills himself, but with the support of Congress he doesn't need that. (And, typically, it's his signature that passes a bill into law.)

Is it commentary on how he doesn't currently enjoy the support of Congress?

Just FYI, the president's signature is nothing but a formality. If a bill passed by congress goes untouched by the president for 14 days (not including Sundays), it's law, period. With or without his signature.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom