OnionAhaiReborn Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 I'm saying the years of certain Progressives bashing Landrieu as not a 'real Democrat' and a DINO took their took. Of course Reed tried to save her, but do you remember back in 2010 when the loss of the Blue Dogs was being celebrated by some of the far left? So what's the theory here, some kind of critical mass of progressive criticism was reached in 2014, striking several Democratic incumbents of varying time as officeholders all at once? But this didn't affect Democrats in 2012, including President Obama, who, as the party leader has faced a greater volume of criticism from the left than any other Democrat because... why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 So what's the theory here, some kind of critical mass of progressive criticism was reached in 2014, striking several Democratic incumbents of varying time as officeholders all at once? But this didn't affect Democrats in 2012, including President Obama, who, as the party leader has faced a greater volume of criticism from the left than any other Democrat because... why? from a margin of victory standpoint, it affected Obama Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 from a margin of victory standpoint, it affected Obama What? Didn't you just say no one changes anyone's mind? Now progressive criticism of Obama is the reason his vote share decreased in 2012? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 What? Didn't you just say no one changes anyone's mind? Now progressive criticism of Obama is the reason his vote share decreased in 2012? I misread that as criticism of progressivism rather than criticism from progressives Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 So what's the theory here, some kind of critical mass of progressive criticism was reached in 2014, striking several Democratic incumbents of varying time as officeholders all at once? But this didn't affect Democrats in 2012, including President Obama, who, as the party leader has faced a greater volume of criticism from the left than any other Democrat because... why? Yeah, I don't get this either. Sure, officeholders always manage to garner criticism on their extreme flanks, but there's no evidence to demonstrate that this necessarily makes them lose elections. Mary Landrieu lost because she's a Democrat in a state that's moving right, up for reelection in a year when Democrats didn't turn out very strongly. I've seen no evidence that it's anything more than that. And thank you Onion, for pointing out the level of unfounded criticism Obama has received from liberals. First, there needs to be a recognition that Obama is not the King of America; lots of reform cannot be enacted without the cooperation of Congress. Second, there's been a whole river of progressive reform in the last six years: Dodd-Frank, Lily Leadbetter, the ACA, the repeal of DADT, the partial repeal of the Bush tax cuts, the ARRA...the list goes on and on. Someday, people will see the Obama presidency as a time of great liberal achievements, but for now lefties are still angry that the Big O didn't wave a hand and institute single-payer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inigima Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 The worst Democrat is still better than the best Republican now. Maybe so, but the goal is better Democrats in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Maybe so, but the goal is better Democrats in the future. Dems don't have many competitive primaries, even for open seats. But are you arguing a more progressive Democrat would have done better than Landrieu? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Maybe so, but the goal is better Democrats in the future. Oh, I'm all behind using primaries to push Democratic officeholders to the left, or even replace them with more liberal alternatives. That, to me, is a smart use of democracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 I'm not pissed because of single payer. I'm pissed because the us is sliding into being a police state. I'm pissed because the executive branch has had an absurd amount of power given it. I'm pissed that under Obama income inequity has reached it's highest level ever. I'm pissed because the us is carrying out acts of war on civilians around the world and more people seem to care about whether Obama is a secret Muslim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 I'm not pissed because of single payer. I'm pissed because the us is sliding into being a police state. I'm pissed because the executive branch has had an absurd amount of power given it. I'm pissed that under Obama income inequity has reached it's highest level ever. I'm pissed because the us is carrying out acts of war on civilians around the world and more people seem to care about whether Obama is a secret Muslim. IIRC, the march of income inequality slowed a bit, most likely due to the ACA and the expiration of (some of) the Bush tax cuts. That's not great news, but it's better than the alternative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 why is income inequality the standard? Shouldn't it be median income or median net worth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 The reduction is a short term illusion. Over the long run Obamas quintupling of the estate tax exemption will do more to expand and entrench inequality than any post war president. He definitely guaranteed us a new gilded age with that nasty trick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Mord Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 lkkersnöw,The reduction is a short term illusion. Over the long run Obamas quintupling of the estate tax exemption will do more to expand and entrench inequality than any post war president. He definitely guaranteed us a new gilded age with that nasty trick.I'm sympathetic to both finding germane critique of this President and to curtailing estate tax exemptions, but this seems rather a bold claim. Do you have informed projections to back this up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Notorious Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 I am pissed because even though progressives scored a major win the the aca, the court has slowly chipped away reproductive rights. I am also pissed as our nation descent into lawlessness as white terrorists defied the federal government and our laws with impunity and rioters looted and burned the streets of Ferguson and Berkeley with impunity. I am pissed that Obama dragged his feet on immigration policies and it only took a beating in the midterm elections for him to finally do the right thing. I am pissed that despite the housing crisis leading to the great recession, Obama keep prodding and enabling Fannie and Freddie to lower the mortgage downpayment requirement. I am especially pissed off at people who loves the lower gas prices yet decry fracking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 why is income inequality the standard? Shouldn't it be median income or median net worth?thats gotten worse as well after adjusting for inflation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Notorious Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 The reduction is a short term illusion. Over the long run Obamas quintupling of the estate tax exemption will do more to expand and entrench inequality than any post war president. He definitely guaranteed us a new gilded age with that nasty trick.What are you talking about? When did presidents get the power to levy tax or extend exemptions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 In the deal to end the fiscal cliff Obama agreed to expand the bush era estate tax per person from 1 million per person to 5 million person. He also agreed to index the estate tax exemption to inflation. Oh and that's just the post fiscal cliff deal for a single person. Married couples can now leave estates up to 10.68 million tax free to their heirs. It was two million under bush and if he not taken the fiscal cliff deal it would be a very reasonable one million.Long term this guarantees a new gilded age, which is in keeping with all the other class stratifying trends in this country that are rapidly shifting us towards a new aristocracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 thats gotten worse as well after adjusting for inflation. And why is that bad for america? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 And why is that bad for america?Did I say it was? It's bad for a very large majority of Americans, but I guess the country as a whole is doing okay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Did I say it was? It's bad for a very large majority of Americans, but I guess the country as a whole is doing okay. How could it be bad for a majority but the country as a whole is doing ok? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.