Barack Obama 2012 Containment Thread

[MrWookie]

Originally Posted by sterlinguini

[ ] Rebuttal

Cloture is the rebuttal. There is no definition of "free rein" that one could reasonably say Obama had when working on a health care bill. There was steep opposition within congress to any of a large number of alternatives that were floated to what was ultimately passed, both from the GOP and from the Dems. I mean, I know you'd love to forget the months of haggling and debate that went on leading up to the passage of the bill and pretend that Obama simply shoved his hot, veiny, throbbing agenda right down your throat, but that's not what happened.

[Bluffzorz]

I'm not voting Obama, so depending on who the Republican candidate is I might not vote. Like, if it's Newt then I really don't wanna vote for him. If it's Paul I would throw him a vote though. Mitt well I'd have to really think about it haha.

I could also vote for the third party but that is usually pointless anyways.

[sterlinguini]

Originally Posted by MrWookie

Obama simply shoved his hot, veiny, throbbing agenda right down your throat

Kudos for the Obama-raping-my-mouth-with-his-****ty-regulation humor, but you seem to be willfully ignoring that he never even put single payer on the table.

[lagdonk]

Originally Posted by drugsarebad

Well, an incumbent who knows that 100% of his original party-base will vote for him no matter what he does has no political reason to listen to those voters. It's a way of reminding candidates that they still need to satisfy those within their party, not just excite the independents and swing voters. Obviously there is some point on a scale of

Romney <---------------------> Hitler

where I draw the line and say **** it I'm voting for the alternative. But until it hits that point, another option is staying home & sending the message that neither candidate excited me enough to earn a vote.

Good reply; I was overlooking this factor somehow.

[MrWookie]

Originally Posted by sterlinguini

Kudos for the Obama-raping-my-mouth-with-his-****ty-regulation humor, but you seem to be willfully ignoring that he never even put single payer on the table.

Yeah, because it was a complete non-starter with a majority of Congress. I mean, if you've got a citation that supports your notion that single payer was favored by 60 senators and a majority of the house, then provide it, but I don't think you can. The Blue Dog democrats were against it.

[sterlinguini]

Lol it's not my job to provide a citation that X # of Senators would've voted in any particular way on a bill that was never proposed. Gimme a break.

I give you credit for admitting you can't in good faith actually vote for the guy but you are still playing the "apologize for Obama and blame the big bad Republicans" game, and that's very sad.

[MrWookie]

Originally Posted by sterlinguini

Lol it's not my job to provide a citation that X # of Senators would've voted in any particular way on a bill that was never proposed. Gimme a break.

I give you credit for admitting you can't in good faith actually vote for the guy but you are still playing the "apologize for Obama and blame the big bad Republicans" game, and that's very sad.

If you were paying attention, there was actually a lot of news coverage regarding the feelings of prominent Congresscritters and blocs of Congresscritters regarding their feelings on alternatives to Obamacare. I mean, it's not like the President or Congresscritters introduce a dozen different versions of a bill and then let the one that gets the most votes win. No, they negotiate with each other in advance of introducing a bill so they figure out what they can get passed.

This isn't me apologizing for Obama. It's me correcting you on history. Your assertions about the health care debate were just wrong.

[sterlinguini]

Dude, try harder. The abortion which was passed has nothing in common with single payer.

There is a steep cliff of difference between trying to get what you campaigned on passed, and giving a bj to health insurance companies. Everybody knows that Obamas "mistake" has been starting out with a compromise to the Right with every bit of legislation the administration dreams up and winds up settling even further right than that - that's why he gets called Bush-lite (or Bush on steroids) so often... or have you been asleep the last 3 years?

[MrWookie]

Originally Posted by sterlinguini

Obamacare is a pyrric victory (and I wonder if you're going to keep bringing it up, since it obviously is a whorish, horrible solution he provided at a time when had full reign to do so much better).

So, let's just look at this again.

Here are some actual citations from Nate's discussion on the debate, as his archives are easier to search:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/...hs-to-218.html
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/...8-is-long.html

Two articles discussing the difficulty of just getting a majority in the House. Not all the House Dems were by any means guaranteed to vote for whatever Obama proposed.

Some senators were if fact very explicit about their opposition to a public option:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/...have-been.html
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/...ic-option.html

And Nate even thought the public option was completely impossible to pass several months earlier:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/...lic-option.htm

Many senators were quite clear, even, about not only their opposition to the public option, but exactly what sort of system they'd support and what sorts they wouldn't:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/...ld-in-two.html

Much of the early wrangling over the health care bill was done entirely in the two houses of Congress without Obama coming out and supporting anything specific until it looked like there was something that could actually get passed:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/...rticulate.html

[seattlelou]

What administration changes would you like to see? Of course I would like to see Cantor go. I would be interested to see what Wynton/other attorneys think but he seems to be in over his head.

[will1530]

Originally Posted by seattlelou

What administration changes would you like to see? Of course I would like to see Cantor go. I would be interested to see what Wynton/other attorneys think but he seems to be in over his head.

Cantor? Eric Cantor the House Majority Leader? wat? Do you mean Eric Holder?

[seattlelou]

Originally Posted by will1530

Cantor? Eric Cantor the House Majority Leader? wat? Do you mean Eric Holder?

Holder is what I meant, thanks.

On a positive note I think Panetta and Hillary would be worthy of keeping there jobs in a Romney administration.

[BurningSquirrel]

Obama's HC is really ****ty by any standard, he should have held it back - he did not do the people a favour installing this half-baked compromise - and in the long haul he harmed himself, since it is doomed to fail and will make state run care worse than it is, fitting in with US sentiments.

[Ineedaride2]

Originally Posted by bahbahmickey

Gutting the EPA sounds like a pretty solid idea. Obama isn't cleaning up gas wells for the environment he is doing it to drive up gas prices to make clean energy look better. Which is disgusting how he (or the govt) is picking winners.

When looked upon in history Obamacare will be looked at as another way government intervened when it had no right to. In 25 years it will be looked at the same way social security is looked at today. Yes, it too will be create problems for govt debt and also hurt the US economy.

As I recall, gas REALLY started going up for the first time under George Bush's presidency.



Why was George Bush pushing so hard for clean energy? That ****ing winner picker. All my life I had cheap gas, and then George Bush and Barack Obama had to go and ruin it for me.

[suzzer99]

Originally Posted by bahbahmickey

When looked upon in history Obamacare will be looked at as another way government intervened when it had no right to. In 25 years it will be looked at the same way social security is looked at today.

As a triumphant achievement of modern civilization?