On-Topic Obama pressed on failures at Univision forum

[CowboyBob]

I still haven't heard any Obama "failures". All I get is whining about how he hasn't cleaned up the Bush / Cheney mess fast enough.

The only fail is this thread.

 

[Rolyo85]

Yeah, and while marriage can be problematic from a religious viewpoint, civil unions simply aren't. When it comes to them, there is just NO good excuse to be opposed. It inevitably has to boil down to just hate.

 

[spooger]

*clip*

And I call bullshit on all right wing politics including the one you have posted in here before. What this country needs is a real leftist party in charge. Not a right wing one (and not a libertarian one either).

And yes, I just did tell you one is better then the other. And Obama is a pretty solid choice in leading this country. Sorry I don't subscribe to the right wing fear mongering.

and i call BULLSHIT on you, too ...

if you wish to live in a leftist society, move to one and leave the US ... that's pretty simple

i suggest you remember history so as not to repeat it ...

and yes, that includes right wing politics AND leftists ... as i've stated before WITHOUT support of far right wing ideology (read my posts -- don't just interpret it through your warped prism of BS) --- BOTH parties AND politicians of all affiliations have failed to do the peoples' business for decades here

because i despise leftist ideology DOES NOT MEAN that i support republican ideology

in fact, i defy you to find any post in which i have approved of or supported romney, bush or any of our present republican politicians ... you ASSume that because i disapprove of obama and the dems that i approve of or support romney or the repubs ... they ALL stink --- BADLY

but pushing the country to the far left is not desirable to me either ... get a grip

i'll continue to do my part to criticize ALL politicians i believe are doing us an injustice... repub AND dem ... that is what a free society allows ... dissent and discussion ... and i don't consider one better than the other and i won't favor a party or politician on a single issue preference ... even if it's gay rights or a wrongly crafted healthcare policy or whatever

it's people with myopic single preference allegiance that have allowed politicians to get away with the shit they have

 

[Rolyo85]

Well, the country isn't likely to be pushed even to the center any time soon, let alone the FAR left...

 

[CowboyBob]

Well, the country isn't likely to be pushed even to the center any time soon, let alone the FAR left...

Unfortunately there is no true liberal movement in the USA anymore. There was in the 60's and 70's, but it came to an end with the disastrous Reagan years. His voodoo economics started the collapse of the middle class. When the middle class goes so does the country.

Liberalism is the only true hope to return the United States back on top.

 

[spooger]

And I have read your posts well enough. And I'm not the one posting warped distortions.

You get a grip. It's happening.

apparently not ... you still can't see the larger picture because of your own political prejudices ... [Text: Removed by Moderator] ... i share my criticism for all who deserve it

and i didn't say it's everybody's fault ... just the crappy politicians ...

at least you're doing your part as you believe it ... i admire you for that ... just misguided idealism IMHO

and i've got a grip ... and squeezing mightily ... doing my part to replace the deadwood of both parties ...

and obtw ... just thought i'd share this ... i've been a registered and voting democrat longer than you've been alive ... lots longer ... but that doesn't mean i won't voice my disfavor with the party or the president and congress if i believe they're getting it wrong ... and i do

that's why you won't find any of my postings favoring the repubs or romney ... but you won't find any supporting the BS i see the dems engaging in, either ... but i don't expect you to understand that ... yet

 

[Mariatenebre]

1. Only a fool, or a foolish young man, would want to go through some sort of fake marriage ceremony with another man. Yo've been sold a bill of goods on that one, or perhaps you've simply drunk the Kool-Aid.2. It's always been possible to serve in the military if one is discreet.

Gay marriages are not fake, they are just as real and meaningful as straight ones. Further more no one should have to hide their sexuality or live a lie just to serve in the millitary.

Further more I constantly get on Liberals for wanting to hand over our rights to Islam but you are no different. You wish to sacrifice your rights as a gay man to conservative Christians for "security" of which you deserve neither.

So you want to engage in a sham marriage? Why? Are you that insecure in your homosexuality and/or relationship? So insecure that you feel an overwhelming urge to adopt the heterosexual model and get married, thus acquiring a sort of societal 'seal of good housekeeping' approval on your relationship?

Bah, humbug. Stand up and be a man. Declare your independence. Show the world that you're not ashamed of being gay and don't have to hide behind a false facade of respectability.

I've known who I am and have been comfortable with it for a good many years, and I don't need anyone's approval. My partner of 17 years and I would never dream of doing anyting so unutterably silly as going through the sham of a marriage. What a crock of heifer dust.

Oh, wait a minute, you said something about financial advantage. If you knew anything at all about current tax law you would know better. Sometimes MFJ (married filing jointly) is advantageous, sometimes not. It depends on the circumstances. A great many couples file as married filing separately because that is more to their advantage.

Except gay marriages are not sham marriages they are just as valid as heterosexual ones. [Text: Removed by Moderator]

I not that you said 'union' instead of 'marriage', and that is an important distinction. If the activist crowd had gone for federally recognized civil unions in the first place, it would most likely be a reality by now. Instead they chose the most radioactive topic they could and in so doing have set gay rights back two decades. The backlash is happening, and you have nobody but yourselves to blame.

Actually the backlash is being sent towards right wingers who wish to deny marriage equality. Gays deserve equal marriage, the whole seperate but equal thing is never equal.

 

[spooger]

Erhm what? I'm not even a democrat. [Text: Removed by Moderator] You're still trying to elevate your own political beliefs over others.

i don't care what you are and i never asked ... i only spoke about myself .. and stating my own beliefs doesn't place them above anyone else ... just a statement of my own ... [Text: Removed by Moderator]

Care to prove it? What am I believing? You haven't provided any proof for your accusations.

prove what? what you believe? i have no interest in that ... and what accusation do you refer to? that i admire your apparent dedication to your positions? [Text: Removed by Moderator]

Doubt it.

i don't give a rat's ass what you believe about me ... again only my statement about my own affiliation ... your opinion doesn't matter a soupcon to me

Uh huh, and see my part on trying to elevate yourself above other political beliefs.

see the above ... [Text: Removed by Moderator]

 

[Kulindahr]

There you go again with that "societal" nonsense. Who gives a rat's behind about societal recognition. That urgent need for "societal" recognition/approval reveals a total lack of self-confidence in yourself and who you are. [Text: Removed by Moderator]

Do your view would be that we didn't really need the XIIIth thru XVth Amendments?

 

[Kulindahr]

This is self-evident: if you cannot do those things in life, just in those ways, while straight couples can -- you are not equal.

 

[Kulindahr]

I not that you said 'union' instead of 'marriage', and that is an important distinction. If the activist crowd had gone for federally recognized civil unions in the first place, it would most likely be a reality by now. Instead they chose the most radioactive topic they could and in so doing have set gay rights back two decades. The backlash is happening, and you have nobody but yourselves to blame.

So your recommendation would have been to accept second-class status and be happy with it?

The only way to have fought for civil unions at the federal level would have been to throw out the word marriage and replace it with "civil union" for EVERYONE, gay or straight, monogamous or serial, monogamous or polygamous. Include everyone, or you don't really have liberty -- just privileges.

 

[Jack Springer]

My thread has been hi-jacked.

Please -- get back on topic.

 

[CowboyBob]

My thread has been hi-jacked.

Please -- get back on topic.

Says the derailer king.

How about you bringing up Elizabeth Warren's cheekbone placement?

 

[Kulindahr]

My thread has been hi-jacked.

Please -- get back on topic.

This, from you -- who had at least one very vitriolic and factless post deleted for being off-topic!

Besides, it hasn't been hijacked, it's just wandered to issues with substance. Sometimes digression is an improvement.

 

[opinterph]

Moderator Notice

Though this thread has deviated from the topic outlined in the opening post, the request for a return to topic is reasonable.

Please relate subsequent posts to Obama’s Interview at the Univision Forum.

 

[Kulindahr]

Let's look at this:

“There’s the thinking that the president is somebody who is all-powerful and can get everything done,” Obama responded. “In our branch, in our system of government, I am the head of the executive branch. I’m not the head of the legislature, I’m not the head of the judiciary. We have to have cooperation from all these sources in order to get something done. So I am happy to take responsibility for the fact that we didn’t get it done, but I did not make a promise that we would get everything done, 100 percent when I was elected as president.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81470.html#ixzz27QCZRj00

If you look at the Constitution, it's not really even the president's job to "get things done" in terms of legislation; his job is to run the executive branch. In corporate terms, he's the CEO who doesn't make policy, he runs the company in accordance with policy; the board makes policy and he implements it. Of course a CEO generally doesn't have veto power, but that power is really all the president has in the legislative realm: he can tell Congress, "This sucks -- we're not doing it" when they send him a piece of legislation -- and that's it. Even then, Congress can overrule him and make him do it anyway.

So Obama is quite correct: he can't do anything without the legislature. He can give orders to the executive branch on matters within the purview of the various agencies, of course, but that can only go so far. So he can't do anything contrary to standing law (though he and prior presidents have stretched the boundaries).


But that being said, he's also wrong. I'll go back to the example of LBJ and throw in Reagan as examples of presidents who got what they wanted from Congress. That pair is sufficient for the demonstration that a president with the right approach can "get things done" -- he just has to be the "persuader in chief".

What Obama has for a tool is eloquence, but eloquence hasn't been persuasive in Congress since about 1850. He needs to grow a pair (and bring in Hillary so they have two pair), visit Reagan's grace and borrow some charm, and do the appeal over Congress' head to the people.

In fact that latter is why right now he should shift attention to campaigning against this lousy Congress. Were I in his position, I'd say flat out that maybe there are two dozen members of Congress who are worth anything, and the rest should be thrown out and replaced, regardless of party -- so if a voter has any doubts that his or her congresscritter is not just okay but is superb, they should be thrown out.

And I think that would resonate well enough with Americans for a 1.5% boost in his numbers -- or more.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Moderator Notice

More specific to the forum in the first post:

The biggest complaint was immigration reform. But the Republicans people sent to D.C. aren't interested in reform, they're interested in punishment, the exercise of force and the threat of violence to throw out what honestly can only be classified as invaders -- so it's a given he's not going to get anywhere. But he's been a lecturer, so I presume he's good at presenting facts (and if he isn't, he can plead with Bill to have a go), so he ought to go to Congress and point out that many societies in history have been very successful in neutralizing invaders by accepting them and assimilating them -- and since they're not going away, that's the best bet, along with two other things: a huge effort on the borders (a new military base in Texas, which could have fast response teams to drug gangs would bring some Republican support), and a subtle propaganda program to hold up the benefits of traditional American values for immigrants already here.

Oh -- forget fines for companies that hire illegals; increase their tax rate that year by 5-10%.


Anyway, he can be regarded as a failure on this, or not, depending on perspective. I'd rate him "didn't try" rather than "fail", though -- it's more accurate.