ThePlayDrive
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2011
- Messages
- 19,610
- Reaction score
- 7,647
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Barack Obama is the most divisive figure in America. At the end of the day, we're in exactly the same place we were two weeks ago. Republican/Tea Party controlled House, Democratic Senate, and Obama.
Same input, same output. More gridlock in Washington. More bickering, and nothing getting done for 2 years until the next senatorial races.
It doesn't matter whether you’re black or white or Hispanic or Asian or Native American or young or old or rich or poor, able, disabled, gay or straight, you can make it here in America if you’re willing to try. - Barack Obama after his re-election on November 6, 2012
That's not divisive.
It doesn't matter whether you’re black or white or Hispanic or Asian or Native American or young or old or rich or poor, able, disabled, gay or straight, you can make it here in America if you’re willing to try. - Barack Obama after his re-election on November 6, 2012
That's not divisive.
While I watched Obama's speech last night, I certainly felt happy, reassured and excited for the future. He is an exceptional orator who makes those who stand with him truly feel that they are a meaningful part of something important. At the same time, in the back of mind I could not help but wonder if he's going to live up to the vision he painted for the country last night. He said things that he hasn't said in this entire election season and, in some ways, in the past four years.
I wonder if he now feels he get more done now that he doesn't have to worry about re-election or if it will be another four years of Obama not going as far as should have gone. In my opinion, he didn't push hard enough on Healthcare, he was too cautious about same-sex marriage, he significantly overreached by supporting warrant-less surveillance, his education policies weren't ideal and he didn't do enough to increase employment. (There's more, but I'll stop there.)
So, my question, mostly to those who voted for Obama:
Do you think Obama will live up to nation he painted in his victory speech and throughout the campaign?
Video of speech: President Barack Obama - 2012 Re-election Acceptance Speech - YouTube
Transcript of speech: Transcript: Obama’s Victory Speech - Washington Wire - WSJ
While I watched Obama's speech last night, I certainly felt happy, reassured and excited for the future. He is an exceptional orator who makes those who stand with him truly feel that they are a meaningful part of something important. At the same time, in the back of mind I could not help but wonder if he's going to live up to the vision he painted for the country last night. He said things that he hasn't said in this entire election season and, in some ways, in the past four years.
I wonder if he now feels he get more done now that he doesn't have to worry about re-election or if it will be another four years of Obama not going as far as should have gone. In my opinion, he didn't push hard enough on Healthcare, he was too cautious about same-sex marriage, he significantly overreached by supporting warrant-less surveillance, his education policies weren't ideal and he didn't do enough to increase employment. (There's more, but I'll stop there.)
So, my question, mostly to those who voted for Obama:
Do you think Obama will live up to nation he painted in his victory speech and throughout the campaign?
Video of speech: President Barack Obama - 2012 Re-election Acceptance Speech - YouTube
Transcript of speech: Transcript: Obama’s Victory Speech - Washington Wire - WSJ
Barack Obama is the most divisive figure in America. At the end of the day, we're in exactly the same place we were two weeks ago. Republican/Tea Party controlled House, Democratic Senate, and Obama.
Same input, same output. More gridlock in Washington. More bickering, and nothing getting done for 2 years until the next senatorial races.
You sound like a victim of black magic..
I have no idea what that means.
If your Congressman is lazy and too obstinate to work with the administration to pull the ox out of the ditch... raise hell.
You say, "Obama is divisive".. You are a man.. you don't have to be "divided"..
Barack Obama is the most divisive figure in America. At the end of the day, we're in exactly the same place we were two weeks ago. Republican/Tea Party controlled House, Democratic Senate, and Obama.
Same input, same output. More gridlock in Washington. More bickering, and nothing getting done for 2 years until the next senatorial races.
No we aren't. We now know that most Americans don't agree with the old, rich, religious, white guy GOP platform. We also know that women get to maintain ownership of their vaginas for another 4 years. We know that the Tea Party drains life out of the GOP. We now know that unless the GOP begins to champion mainstream positions it's going to continue to suck hind tit. America is changing and the GOP is out of touch. The election proves it.
By "not going far enough" it seems you're suggesting he did not push far enough down the Democratic/Liberal mindset on those issues.
I'm not quite sure if that's wise or being a good steward of the country. You had a 2% popular vote victory with even lower turnout then the year before...hardly a mandate of "we are gungho behind your ideology 100%, push push push". You have the American people revote in a split Congress, allowing the Republicans to keep the house that money originates from.
It seems to me that the little parts of his speech talking about reaching across the aisle is what needs to be true in the best interest of the country.
On the Democratic side, the Obama administration and the Democrats in the Senate need to look at the Republican party in the house TODAY. NOT looking at Republicans 20 years ago, in another time and an entirely different complex, and figure out what it is they say they want and desire. They need to show good faith attempts to find bipartisan solutions, NOT simply offer up a few token scraps as a means of "bipartisanship". And I say "Good Faith" attempts at BIPARTISANSHIP for a reason...actual attempts undertaken with the express purpose and intent of gaining REPUBLICAN votes and support to build a consensus on something, not taking moderating steps to shore up one's own party members who won't even agree with you and attempting to present that as "reaching across the aisle". Winning over the more moderate people in your own PARTY is not "bi-partisanship" as there's no second party there to make the "bi" appropriate. There's no aisle you're reaching across. That's you just dealing with being so far to the left that you have to reach to just cover your own side of the aisle.
On the flip side, Republicans in the House need to see that the American People ALSO want them to compromise as well. They voted the President back in narrowly, and added additional people in the senate largely at the expense of Abortion views. They need to approach honest, good faith attempts at bi-partisanship in a similar honest way. They need to look at the President's plans and instead of saying "how can we stop it" say "is there any way we can accomplish the goal, but in a method that is more in line with how we view things but is able to be agreed upon by both sides".
The American People are pissed off at our government....and yet has elected it back into power in basically the same way. It seem's the message to me is clear....we either want Gridlock when both sides are trying to push their "Do it primarily in our ideological way of get bent", or we want both sides to find a way to actually successfully compromise.
SUCCESSFULLY compromise. That's the key. Compromise is not "You win a little and lose a little, I win a little and lose a little". That's dumb compromise, and it's not going to work for any side. True compromise is looking at a situation, determining the goals and desires both sides have with said situation, and then trying to find the common ground that is a "win" for both in terms of their goals and going with that.
If Obama decides to continue to try and push as left as his own party can allow him to go on most domestic things then the Republicans in the house are likely to push back in a similar fashion, and we're going to see next to nothing done. And frankly...based on the election, I think that's a result more welcomed by the American people than Obama OR the Republicans succeeding at going as left or as right as they are feasibly able to go.
Liberals say the same thing every time they win. And every time, the Republican base just gets more energized, more fired up, and we give you a George W Bush for your trouble.
Two things:
Thing one - I am an Independent.
Thing two - I voted for Gary Johnson.
Thing three - You need to calm the **** down.
Liberals say the same thing every time they win. And every time, the Republican base just gets more energized, more fired up, and we give you a George W Bush for your trouble.
It doesn't matter whether you’re black or white or Hispanic or Asian or Native American or young or old or rich or poor, able, disabled, gay or straight, you can make it here in America if you’re willing to try. - Barack Obama after his re-election on November 6, 2012
That's not divisive.
What form would such compromise take?
So, my question, mostly to those who voted for Obama:
Do you think Obama will live up to nation he painted in his victory speech and throughout the campaign?
I have always believed that hope is that stubborn thing inside us that insists, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that something better awaits us so long as we have the courage to keep reaching, to keep working, to keep fighting.
Barack Obama is the most divisive figure in America. At the end of the day, we're in exactly the same place we were two weeks ago. Republican/Tea Party controlled House, Democratic Senate, and Obama.
Same input, same output. More gridlock in Washington. More bickering, and nothing getting done for 2 years until the next senatorial races.
Liberals believe in using the government to help people. Conservatives believe in using the government as little as possible - to merely oversee our laws and land. Together, we can create a government that helps people with much greater efficiency, and we can cut back or cut out any expenditures which are not helping people. If you wish to see bickering and no action, that's fine, but to me it looks like you're endorsing a strategy that would harm our nation in the name of revenge. That's not something to be proud of, it's something to be ashamed of.
Let me try to take an example that I think SHOULD be reasonable if both sides are able to give a bit and compromse.
Immigration. Specifically, looking at children brought here illegally.
Republicans don't want to simply give them free citizenship, free government services, or "reward" them with citizenship for doing something that is viewed as a privilege (college) or simply common sense necessary for survival (having a job). They want to see people here illegally go to the back of the line in terms of getting legal citizenship rights.
Democrats don't want children brought here by their parents to essentially suffer the sins of the parents and wish to give them a method in which they can, relatively speaking, easily gain citizenship in a manner that doesn't require them to self-deport. They would like to see people have some kind of pathway to citizenship.
A compromise type law that would provide some "wins" for both sides could be something like this...
A law that institutes the Military side of the Dream Act, allowing those over 18 and brought here illegally to enter into a standard military service contract and provisional citizenship that, upon completion of their initial service, becomes full citizenship. To be able to enter into such a program, their immediate relatives must come forward with them. Their records will be checked, and if they have no criminal record and are gainfully employed they will be allowed to stay in this country for the length of their childs military service in a way similar to our Work Visa (IE, not eligible for the various civil services, etc) during which they can apply to become a permanent citizen. During this time period, 2% of their salary and their child's military salary is garnished by the government as penalty for the illegal entry into the country. Additionally, the business in which they are gainfully employed will be tagged for an automatic check of their employee records for any other illegal workers they may have in their employee.
This would do a few things...
For Republicans:
- It's not allowing citizenship "For free", or "for doing something that's a privledge", or for doing something that's a "basic need to survive" but rather by putting their life at risk serving this country. This provides military manpower AND will help facilitate further "assimilation" into the American Culture by instilling a military mentality into the individuals
- The requirement of the immediate family coming forward allows us to identify and track more of the illegal population in this country. The designation as a Guest Worker allows a trackable method to check in terms of their attempted use of public services, and the garnished wages help provide a "punishment" for the illegal activity while also provide revenue. The fact they are "Guest Workers" doesn't give them a vote, and they don't get any enhanced movement up the line towards citizenship.
- The requirement to automatically trigger a check on the place of business allows us to crack down on businesses propagating the support of illegal immigration by hiring them, and potentially discovering a large group of illegals to remove from the country.
For Democrats:
- Children of illegals gain a way in which they can become a citizen of this country without having to leave and come back. They also, through access to the military, become eligible for additional government programs to assist them with furthering their education after their military service if they so choose.
- The Parents of said child get to stay in the country their child is putting their life on the line for, and attempt to gain citizenship without returning to their original country.
- Business owners are who are paying their individuals under the table, potentially paying inhumane low wages and who are not paying the appropriate government taxes in order to line their own pockets, are able to be discovered and dealt with.
To me, this is the type of compromise that SHOULD be able to work.
Democrats have to give up some of the SPECIFICS of how they want to accomplish some of their goals (provide citizenship to the children of illegals, provide expedited path to citizenship to illegals) or accept that they can't go to the EXTENT they want right this moment (ALL illegals), but their general goals are met at least for some of the population and that's better than not being met at all.
Republicans have to give up some of the SPECIFICS of how they want to accomplish some of their goals (no easy/free citizenship, get illegals out of the country) or accept that they can't go to the EXTENT they want right this moment (ALL illegals need to leave the country), but their general goals are met at least for some of the population and that's better than not being met at all.
This is a different sort of compromise than saying "Look...YOU vote for the Dream Act as it stands, and we'll vote for a border fence". In that situation, one side is having to go along with something that when taken in total actually goes strongly against some of their goals and the other side is then having to do the same. In the situation I stated above, I think it's more of a case of looking at what both sides want to get out of a situation, and attempting to find a THIRD solution that satisfies goals from each without largely stepping on the goals of each as well. Would both sides like MORE? Sure. But compared to status quo, it would be a net gain for both where as the traditional style "compromise" that is talked about currently is more of trading in a net wash (status quo) for a net wash (one thing you love / one thing you hate) which is also a net wash.
No we aren't. We now know that most Americans don't agree with the old, rich, religious, white guy GOP platform. We also know that women get to maintain ownership of their vaginas for another 4 years. We know that the Tea Party drains life out of the GOP. We now know that unless the GOP begins to champion mainstream positions it's going to continue to suck hind tit. America is changing and the GOP is out of touch. The election proves it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?