Obama will stop Bernie from being a Dem nominee

[Lion Heart 15,041]

Can't wait for him to stump for Tom Steyer and the other billionaire. 

[KingRedd 3,139]

4 hours ago, derpmonster said:

Obama is much better than Trump, of course, and he was the best candidate at the time. Let's not act like Obamacare wasn't a mess of a compromise that basically worked in favor of private insurance companies. Let's not act like Obama isn't responsible for significantly expanding the drone program and killing tons of civilians including children in the middle east. He decided to ramp up immigrant family separation and deportations. I don't know how you think that's excusable.  We all wanted Obama to be a great president but he really wasn't. We all want to believe it so we can brag to the Republicans but it's simply not true. We wanted it to be true so we could fight all the racist attacks that conservatives made against Obama. But he didn't live up to it and he is a war criminal and an especially horrible one at that, plain and simple.

I wanted to love Obama, I really did. And I called him a great president for a long time. But then I learned of the real awful stuff he did. You really want me to think of 200 people who died at a wedding from a drone strike and ignore it? Just call it "collateral damage" and move on? It's a f*cking disgusting mentality. 

Again... no offense to you but did you actually read my entire post? It was long so if you skimmed and missed the part where I said 'no president was perfect and all had their flaws' its in there some where in the post. I never said he's the best or the greatest on any of that that you seem to think I said as you based the reply of that assumption. I simply said to the people saying he "did nothing" that they are wrong. Obama cleaned up a republican mess. Saying he did nothing all of  a sudden because he "insulted" Bernie is fickle and kind of weak minded. One day Obama is great then the next he's a horrible tyrant who did nothing. That's what I was saying. Obama didn't do "nothing" with his presidency. 

Yes killing innocent people is clearly wrong and don't ever imply that I am okay with that because I'm not. It's sad and was a huge disgrace as an american. 

[joannesrats 26]

All I got from this is that he's heavily critical of all of the current candidates, and rightfully so. If anyone has any room to judge any democratic candidates it's our most recent democratic president. That being said, he needs to think before speaking. 

Also, f*ck Sanders.

[PoshLife 17,019]

1 minute ago, KingRedd said:

Again... no offense to you but did you actually read my entire post? It was long so if you skimmed and missed the part where I said 'no president was perfect and all had their flaws' its in there some where in the post. I never said he's the best or the greatest on any of that that you seem to think I said as you based the reply of that assumption. I simply said to the people saying he "did nothing" that they are wrong. Obama cleaned up a republican mess. Saying he did nothing all of  a sudden because he "insulted" Bernie is fickle and kind of weak minded. One day Obama is great then the next he's a horrible tyrant who did nothing. That's what I was saying. Obama didn't do "nothing" with his presidency. 

Yes killing innocent people is clearly wrong and don't ever imply that I am okay with that because I'm not. It's sad and was a huge disgrace as an american. 

Yeah, memories don't seem to last long on this site. Like, his administration combined with Pelosi's and Reid's Congress did some amazing things for the American people - from the Recovery Act and saving the American auto industry, to healthcare reform (yes it was a compromise, but they could not  get the votes in the Senate to do it the way they wanted to and it DID result in millions more Americans insured), to repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell and passing hate crimes legislation, to Lily Ledbetter, to the Clean Power Plan and vehicle emissions rules... I could go on. It's amazing what having Democrats in charge can get us, but then the next generation comes along and it wasn't good enough. 

Nobody should rest on their laurels - we can always do more and do better - but a do-nothing President Obama wasn't, and the far-left definitely throws the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to his time in office.

[Mer Girl 134]

I've lost a lot of respect for him after his stunt at Flint where he dismissed the water issue... and it's only gone downhill from there.

[Mer Girl 134]

6 minutes ago, PhillipBagshaw said:

Also, f*ck Sanders.

I would like to hear why that's your opinion

[LilyLark 10,213]

1) The Hill is the political equivalent of tabloid garbage. It twisted/misrepresented the Politico article, which itself wasn't great—there's a reason it was in Politico and not the New Yorker, WaPo, NYT, or the Atlantic. Y'all are leaving out that others strongly denied Obama would "step" in if Bernie became President, too.

2) My politics are left of Obama, but this whole "big bad Black man coming to wrong socialist white grandpa" is frankly racist AF. It's a paranoid conspiracy theory trotted out by (mostly) white progressives—I rarely see progressives who are POC indulge in this cr*p. As it is, Bernie is likely not getting the nom so it doesn't even make sense (Biden regularly polls between 40-50% of Black voters, and Bernie only gets about 10-15%, and Bernie ain't winning unless he improves those numbers with Black voters).

3) Drones. It was terrible, as were some other actions. But all presidents have done awful, horrendous actions—h*ll, if Yemen bothers you Jimmy Carter was a hundred times worse with his actions in Timor-Leste. There are multiple countries involved in Saudi's actions in Yemen and if we backed out of selling them weapons...it's not like they won't get them somewhere else. Meanwhile, the US was the main provider for Indonesia to invade Timor-Leste and to sustain their illegal occupation and the straight up genocide that occurred there, and it's long been said if we didn't provide weapons at the time to Suharto he wouldn't have been able to afford them/buy them (since a lot of people were basically sanctioning/ignoring him) at the time. And I rarely see people mentioned that Trump has increased drone strikes by tremendous amounts.

4) I forgot how young some of you are. Again, my politics are way left of Obama's, but society has shifted A LOT in the past fifteen years and he was considered relatively left for the time he served. People have been trying to pay Universal Health Care long before Sanders, and the support was nearly zero until the past five or so years. The ACA got tens of millions of more people on insurance, and it did away with the pre-existing clause which was a huge f*cking deal. It's flawed and we need M4A, but acting like it's a conservative plan (that Heritage sh8t has been debunked for years, but people keep repeating it) or did nothing is bull. Even Ady Barakan, who is a strong activist for M4A, has talked about how ACA was a tremendous step forward even if we need better—which is m4A. Judging Obama and ACA by 2019 terms, when 2009-2011 was a very different time, is absurd.

 

[Whispering 18,865]

Obama didn’t say that.

I mean, Bernie isn’t a Democrat. That is true.

If you read the Politico article, it sounds as if Obama sees some negative of some sort with all the candidates. He doesn’t sound like he favors one of them over all of them, but sees strengths and weaknesses in all. 

Obama isn’t President anymore. He can’t stop anyone from being the nominee. 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

3 hours ago, Whispering said:

Obama didn’t say that.

I mean, Bernie isn’t a Democrat. That is true.

If you read the Politico article, it sounds as if Obama sees some negative of some sort with all the candidates. He doesn’t sound like he favors one of them over all of them, but sees strengths and weaknesses in all. 

Obama isn’t President anymore. He can’t stop anyone from being the nominee. 

1) Party identification is a matter of self identification, not a strict adherence to being entirely inline with a party's positions across the board.  Nothing Bernie Sanders is running on is against the values of the Democratic party at all, so there is no reason to oppose him on the basis that hes running as something undemocratic. For that matter, he along with other candidates signed a pledge declaring himself a Democrat who will uphold Democratic principles and values and positions, run for the Democratic nomination only, and serve as an officially Democratic president if elected.

Quite literally though, the DNC cannot determine if someone is a Democrat or not, there's no legal rule or apparatus for this at all. Bernie is a Democrat because he says he is one, and he can also have a history of being an Independent that does not contradict this. Furthermore, if someone were to run as an independent on paper, the Democratic party can still nominate them. It's really not *that* unusual to have mixed filings, and Bernie has been both Democratic and Independent many times in his 40+ year career. Even people who are elected to Congress can change their party affiliation after being elected. It's only a big deal if you buy into the idea that Bernie's past Independent status cost Hillary the election or whatever  

Also, about Obama not being able to decide who the nominee is... That's just really naive, sorry.

He has massive political standing as one of the most popular presidents in recent history, especially amongst Democrats and Older African American Voters... If Obama came out and said anything official and intentionally disparaging about any specific candidate he would be effectively helping to sink that candidate's campaign... This would hurt people like Bernie, Yang, less than people like Pete or Joe because significant portions of their current support comes from people that were rightfully critical of Obama, but independent voters, people that aren't politically engaged (yet, or who just vote on instinct when it comes time) will certainly take into account what the last guy they voted for has to say. It's him tipping the scales at the bare minimum. 

If Obama came out tomorrow and said "Look, Joe is an old out of touch white guy that doesn't care about Black people. He referred to me as "articulate" in 2007 and is lowkey racist, I only picked him to help secure the white vote in the south-midwest. " would you not classify that  as Obama stopping Joe Biden from being the nominee? The reason he hasn't been explicit in any of his statements is because he knows the sway he has. Most presidents have this power. It's literally been Trump's entire strategy in all elections for the Republican party. If multiple people are running in any state election in one party, whoever Trump says "I support" to IS the candidate that is chosen. 

In a situation where no candidate is able to reach 51% of the delegate requirement to be the nominee next year, Obama and Obama democrats have massive power in picking essentially whoever they want to be the nominee. If Bernie won the most delegates and the popular vote in aggregate and Biden won the 2nd most, and Obama came out and said "I endorse Joe Biden" - he would become the nominee. If your point is just that Obama doesn't literally cast the deciding vote and isn't officially the person who declares the nominee is, why is something so specific worth distinguishing at all?

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

6 hours ago, PoshLife said:

Yeah, memories don't seem to last long on this site. Like, his administration combined with Pelosi's and Reid's Congress did some amazing things for the American people - from the Recovery Act and saving the American auto industry, to healthcare reform (yes it was a compromise, but they could not  get the votes in the Senate to do it the way they wanted to and it DID result in millions more Americans insured), to repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell and passing hate crimes legislation, to Lily Ledbetter, to the Clean Power Plan and vehicle emissions rules... I could go on. It's amazing what having Democrats in charge can get us, but then the next generation comes along and it wasn't good enough. 

Nobody should rest on their laurels - we can always do more and do better - but a do-nothing President Obama wasn't, and the far-left definitely throws the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to his time in office.

Obama did good things. Here I am, the representative of the far left, sincerely saying it, you've got us cornered  

...  

You're missing the point if you really think that's what's being said... Obama had both house and Senate and massive political capital because he ran as a candidate about social and economic change (some would call it populism, but its contentious). He squandered it pretty heavily, and we may not have that sort of sweeping victory again in the forseeable future. Its just as fair to point out that during this time, Obama did severe damage to working class people and helped create an environment where someone like Trump (or anyone running on economic populism) could easily gain massive support.

Not to mention Obama's constant capitulating to Republicans on things like the ACA, and while he may have been personally pretty progressive socially, he only supported things when he saw an opportunity for them to be politically expediant or acceptable.  The biggest issue his critics have though is that he squandered his political capital instead of using it to help middle and working class people and eroded the conception of the Democratic party as the "party of the people." 

He helped save our financial system after the banks were bailed out by allowing them to keep their standing

Refused to prosecute them for criminal activity even though most Americans wanted them charged

Prioritized creditors instead of borrowers in the aftermath

Screwed over homeowners by the millions by encouraging foreclosures

Refused to stand in the way of monopolization of industries like big pharma, internet, airlines, telecom, etc. Many of the monopolies candidates like Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders are now saying are "too big" and need to be regulated or broken up in the case of Warren. 

So, in the grand scheme of things, while Obama did objectively good things, he's also very responsible for the circumstances that led to Trump, for eroding the trust of Democratic voters in the rust belt especially, which resulted in record low voting turnout in 2016, exactly what Clinton was most vulnerable to. Until a democratic president rectifies these holes that Obama created or exacerbated, there will always be an avenue for someone like Trump (not necessarily a racist, but a liar) to win, because people care about the economy.

Then you add in how imperialistic he was and bad on issues like aggression in foreign policy... especially with issues like excessive drone strikes... Obama did good, but to ignore all the bad he did is just setting yourself up for failure. This youngest generation is starting to feel the impact of the things Obama did (and are just generally more socially conscious about other people's issues beyond their own...) so ofc they dislike Obama.  Even Trump has banned bump stocks  Does that mean we shouldn't still call him a bad president? No and its for every individual to decide, there's no objective consensus to be had here, geesh If we get caught up in only acknowledging the good of someone's career just because we identify with him, we're doing ourselves a disservice.

[Guillaume Hamon 6,992]

4 hours ago, LilyLark said:

this whole "big bad Black man coming to wrong socialist white grandpa" is frankly racist AF.

Nobody framed it like this or made it about race in any way except you. When a LONG string of white journalists oppose(d) Sanders they also get/got keen critics from the progressives.

4 hours ago, LilyLark said:

I rarely see progressives who are POC indulge in this cr*p.

Plenty of progressives disagreed with Obama's comments about not "going too far left" that seemed to be a warning about sanders and warren tho, not only the white ones.

7 hours ago, KingRedd said:

One day Obama is great then the next he's a horrible tyrant who did nothing.

Actually pretty much nobody says "he did nothing", the main critic toward him is that he didn't do enough and, according to some, that he was even far to do enough or downright didn't follow the political line that he promised. But nobody deny the fact that more people were covered after him when it comes to healthcare or that his LGBT rights record is great for example.

Also plenty of left wing folks were critical of Obama when he was a president so he didn't get critics from the left overnight. These critics from progressives are louder now since he  appeared  to "warned" folks about sanders and warren but it's not like if these progressive crowds weren't tough on him back then.

Don' you remember all the people who blamed him for not going after the CEOs of the banking/ assurance giant companies who strongly contributed to the 2008 crisis? I heard many people saying he was a sold out pretty much letting these dudes alone at the time.

Same with the foreign policy. These progressives were already there saying "How tf did he get a peace nobel price seing all the civilians he had killed?" and Obama himself joked about he didn't know why he got this price.

Many of them also were blaming Obama for being part of an"eco-friendly" doc' at the end of his second term while not pushing for massive change when it comes to the environment during his 2 terms. The negative nickname "deporter in chief" given by a part of the left also appeared under Obama. Many thought he started quite toughly against Israel actions  in the first months of his first mandate before to switch strongly which disappointed a part of the leftists as well.

I could go on and on but what I mean is he already was seen as very disappointing by a part of the left back then. Only a part of the left was originally finding him overall "great" after seing the whole of his action.

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

4 hours ago, LilyLark said:

2) My politics are left of Obama, but this whole "big bad Black man coming to wrong socialist white grandpa" is frankly racist AF. It's a paranoid conspiracy theory trotted out by (mostly) white progressives—I rarely see progressives who are POC indulge in this cr*p. As it is, Bernie is likely not getting the nom so it doesn't even make sense (Biden regularly polls between 40-50% of Black voters, and Bernie only gets about 10-15%, and Bernie ain't winning unless he improves those numbers with Black voters).

4) I forgot how young some of you are. Again, my politics are way left of Obama's, but society has shifted A LOT in the past fifteen years and he was considered relatively left for the time he served. People have been trying to pay Universal Health Care long before Sanders, and the support was nearly zero until the past five or so years. The ACA got tens of millions of more people on insurance, and it did away with the pre-existing clause which was a huge f*cking deal. It's flawed and we need M4A, but acting like it's a conservative plan (that Heritage sh8t has been debunked for years, but people keep repeating it) or did nothing is bull. Even Ady Barakan, who is a strong activist for M4A, has talked about how ACA was a tremendous step forward even if we need better—which is m4A. Judging Obama and ACA by 2019 terms, when 2009-2011 was a very different time, is absurd.

 

2) I Literally have never ever heard of this trope before. Is there some established stereotype about black men opposing socialism somewhere and I've just missed it? (For that matter, since the majority of the country are anti- socialism, wouldn't such a thing be accepted into mainstream as a positive depiction of blackness, not a negative... ? Food for thought  ) Upon doing brief research, I found no such thing, but there were some tangentially related few historical studies and academic papers about how older forms of socialism tended to be headed by white people and ignore issues of gender, race, etc. That's a given though, capitalism and communism were also quite unforgiving of diversity in the 20th century and continue into modern times as well... like everything everywhere tbh I don't think this is persistent enough of a thing to say that the visual or perception of a black man talking up to old white socialists is a racist caricature or anything though. 

That being said, Bernie Sander's campaign is very diverse, and his supporters are as well. As for the 10-15% thing, that's true. Older AA voters basically only support Biden, but of those that don't support Biden, they support Sanders over other candidates and hes a second pick for many Biden supporters as well  He does beat Joe Biden pretty heavily with young AA voters as well. He's easily got the 2nd most approval from black people as a whole. That this only translates to 10-15% of self defined "registered, likely voters" by pollsters in the primary season is a symptom of our broken approach to primaries, voter suppression, and political disengagement. Thankfully, he's reaching out and trying to get new young people (especially of color) to vote  He needs to improve on his support with older AA voters though, everyone does. I disagree with it, but one of the ways to do so is to win or get close to winning in the early 4 states because this voting bloc attached to Biden is only with him because they think he is reliable and electable and will win easily. They can be shaken if this idea is destroyed, combined with active outreach to their communities ofc.

Anyway, the anger at Obama re: socialist ideas is about his constant flip flopping to appease the establishment, not that he's a big bad black man that hates socialist white people... Just last year Obama called M4A and several of Bernie's other proposals that he has known of for decades exciting new ideas  and ideals he was proud that the Democratic party believed in, now he's telling people to not go "too far left" and implying that progressivism is mostly on twitter and not in the real world   Obama and Bernie also knew each other lol, Obama supported single payer with Bernie back in 03 and still supported the idea up until he began considering running for President, and not because he didn't think its what should happen, but because being in the senate made him think it would be hard to pass with corporate weight on the scales.

4) Let's not be revisionist about the ACA.
Obama quite literally campaigned against the individual mandate provision that marked the main goal of Romney's success in Massachusetts when he ran against Hillary Clinton. It was successful in reaching near universal coverage (about 98%), but he turned against his promise to not support it once he was in office. Then, quite literally as soon as it became a tenant of the ACA, Republican's swore that they would oppose it, and called it unconstitutional. It wasn't about the proposal, it was about who suggested it. That the ACA was better than what we had before is not the debate, what is being said is that Obama should never have spent his immense political capital by giving into something he didn't even personally believe in just because he thought it might appease Republicans and the Private Health Insurance Industry. He could have been absolutely insistent on a single payer transition, or more likely a public option back then, since as you say, the political climate wasn't where it is now. (Fun fact, a public option was on the table in the first drafts of the ACA - it was removed after massive Republican and Democratic backlash on the behalf of private insurance lobbyists!  )

It isn't a "conservative" goal, the intent of it was to increase the amount of people who are covered drastically and to also drastically reduce spending overall. An Individual Mandate is only necessary in a private insurance dominated market to protect people with pre-existing conditions, and marginally help poorer people be able to afford insurance when the market works against them by subsidizing premiums.

In Massachusetts it succeeded in increasing coverage, but failed to really reduce costs. The ACA partially succeeded in the first and also failed in the second. People forget that despite political parties having differing opinions on policies, there are many ways in which both parties want the same goals when they do not become politicized or partisan. Everyone wants healthcare to be for everyone, and everyone wants healthcare to cost less (and to spend less overall). Republicans acting brand new about it doesn't make an individual mandate system a regressive or "conservative" concept ideologically - it is conservative because it doesn't guarantee universal coverage, it doesn't drastically reduce costs/spending, and it does not ensure quality of coverage. Democrats support equal access to opportunity and inclusivity in Democracy, Republicans do not. 

That being said, as long as we agree that a single payer system like M4A has to be the end goal, I'm not upset at the rest  

[NCgaga 4,345]

Trump is going to get the win in 2020 because of things like this. The dems have to be very careful who they trash, and need to keep a unified force. Of course Obama is going to push for Biden- that was his VP. The article is a little misleading though and not very direct.  

[Petie Estie 5,707]

13 hours ago, Economy said:

Right and left political philosophies both suck anyway...

I'm not talking about a left and right I'm just saying specifically Obama's unity over everything strategy, where he bowed to republican interests even when dems had 100% control of the government -- thinking that we would all come together and he would end partisan red states/blue states....only led to republicans taking advantage, dems looking weak and not doing enough to help American families, and even further, extreme partisanship. 

[Economy 52,861]

1 hour ago, SEANGT said:

I'm not talking about a left and right I'm just saying specifically Obama's unity over everything strategy, where he bowed to republican interests even when dems had 100% control of the government -- thinking that we would all come together and he would end partisan red states/blue states....only led to republicans taking advantage, dems looking weak and not doing enough to help American families, and even further, extreme partisanship. 

U talked about going further to the right that's why I mentioned my opinion

 

I think ppl obssess too much about right and left... U can be both competent or incompetent with either strategy and there's both successful and unsuccessful nations with different political spectrums

 

I think common sense is more important and better still, an ideology that allows for flexibility

 

Left wingers focus too much on wealth redistribution and representing the population and don't give enough attention to business needs (the fact some corporations are too wealthy doesn't change the fact that not all corporations are thriving or the fact that even the rich ones could have problems holding back faster hiring or expansion)

 

Right wingers always focus on business and entrepreneurs and sometimes seem to forget there's the bottom 99% of people who are struggling and in today's economic reality, trickle down economics doesn't work as well as it did earlier last century. People have needs they often refuse to acknowledge or shrug off.

 

We need all classes of people to thrive as well as businesses and that means the current political status quo of "representing" someone is always ultimately gonna fail. Good politics can't be focused on just someone it has to be on everyone...

 

The economy is like a broken clock... U need to fix all the broken pieces not just some or it won't work

 

I think we need to start acknowledging that both the left ant the right have good ideas and depending on the issue and the circumstances one may work better than another for one problems and perhaps for another problem it's the opposite

 

Even typical centrist can be a problem because they don't usually pick stuff from each side in common sense like I'm saying. It's usually more like a compromise in the middle and for some stuff you have to take a more left or right approach... A compromise in the middle is not always particularly effective.