2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumI hate to say this but part of this is the Presidents fault
For constantly negotiating supposedly in good faith with these nuts.They think he's a bad negotiator.Case in point Boehner said he got 98 percent of what he wanted.The President was totally naive to think he could have bipartisanship with them.I hope he's learned his lesson on this
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Xipe Totec
(43,890 posts)Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)but many here will continue to tell us how brilliant Obama is.
Eleventy-dimensional chess, you know...
mikeysnot
(4,757 posts)Harvard Law School graduates.
PeteSelman
(1,508 posts)Having a degree, even from an Ivy League school, doesn't mean anything as far as intelligence goes.
Hell, Dubya had degrees from Harvard and Yale.
Also, intelligence does not equal wisdom.
I don't think the President is a stupid man but it was incredibly foolish and naive to ever think he could work with the "loyal" opposition. He could barely get his own party in order with majorities in both houses.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)Millicent Fenwick, Nelson Rockefeller, or hell even Bob Dole.
In reality, the modern GOP is The Terminator:
"It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead."
mikeysnot
(4,757 posts)Having a degree, even from an Ivy League school, doesn't mean anything as far as intelligence goes.
Actually it does mean a lot, two examples does not make a fact.
But you are entitled to your opinion....
Cruz actually believes what he is doing is right. He is a true believer, but that does not make him stupid, just shrewd.
Read the book The Family by Jeff Sharlet. These people are dangerous.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)He may truly believe the various lies and follies he spouts, but this makes him "shrewd" how?
Also, a lie is still a lie, no matter how many people sincerely believe it.
mikeysnot
(4,757 posts)shrewd
adjective
1.
having or showing sharp powers of judgment; astute.
"she was shrewd enough to guess the motive behind his gesture"
synonyms: astute, sharp-witted, sharp, smart, acute, intelligent, clever, canny, perceptive, perspicacious, sagacious, wise; More
antonyms: stupid
2.
archaic
(esp. of weather) piercingly cold.
"a shrewd east wind"
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)is Ted Cruze "astute" or "showing sharp powers of judgment? "
If he is, every 5 year-old in America having a temper tantrum is now classified as "shrewd".
mikeysnot
(4,757 posts)Cruz is an ideologue. Even if he fails with this, he knows there is money to be made shilling for the .1%.
This is his time to shine, in his mind.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)an example of shrewdness.
mikeysnot
(4,757 posts)shrewd
adjective
1.
having or showing sharp powers of judgment; astute.
"she was shrewd enough to guess the motive behind his gesture"
synonyms: astute, sharp-witted, sharp, smart, acute, intelligent, clever, canny, perceptive, perspicacious, sagacious, wise; More
antonyms: stupid
2.
archaic
(esp. of weather) piercingly cold.
"a shrewd east wind"
cun·ning
adjective
1.
having or showing skill in achieving one's ends by deceit or evasion.
"a cunning look came into his eyes"
synonyms: crafty, wily, artful, guileful, devious, sly, scheming, designing, calculating, Machiavellian; shrewd, astute, clever, canny; deceitful, deceptive, duplicitous, foxy; archaicsubtle
"a cunning scheme"
antonyms: honest
ingenious.
"plants have evolved cunning defenses"
2.
attractive; quaint.
"the baby will look cunning in that pink print"
noun
noun: cunning
1.
skill in achieving one's ends by deceit.
"a statesman to whom cunning had come as second nature"
synonyms: guile, craftiness, deviousness, slyness, trickery, duplicity; shrewdness, astuteness
"his political cunning"
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)well thumbed copy of the O.E.D. on my desk.
I know the definition of the words, so you will note that I wrote of "animal" cunning, which is a completely different level of cunning from human cunning.
By the anthropological definition of intelligence, Cruz may indeed be cunning. But by the same definition, so are chimpanzees, but I wouldn't want one one as leader of the free world...
Oh, hang on...
Shit!
OK, who's responsible for THIS?!
We are?
mikeysnot
(4,757 posts)magical thyme
(14,881 posts)I don't think they're happy with this either. If the teabaggers blow up the world economy, the .1% economy blows up with it.
mikeysnot
(4,757 posts)because he is tipping their hand and grabbing attention for himself.
Fox news gig or head of a nice PAC is what he is going for...
I do agree he has delusions of grandeur.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)Monster, Doctor Frankenstein.
Sadly, these people are crazy enough to kill us all economically speaking.
lancer78
(1,495 posts)is the antonym of shrewd. He is stupid. Reminds me of this kid I went to high school with. Scored a 1550 on the SAT (under the old system when max was 1600) and had a 4.8 GPA. This kid had the common sense of a rock.
Reminds me of a scene in The Phantom Menace:
Qui Gon Jin "You almost got killed, are you brainless?"
Jar Jar Binks "I said."
Qui Gon Jin "The ability to speak does not make you intelligent"
Can't believe a lot of liberals, especially Chris Hayes, are d**k riding Ted Cruz so much because of his Harvard Law Degree.
mikeysnot
(4,757 posts)and get back to us how easy it was....
In fact try getting any four year degree today and see how easy it is...
College was the hardest part of my life. Grad school was even harder.
Everything else now seems fine by comparison.
Cruz is an ideologue.
Read The Family by Jeff Sharlet. The "Christian" K Street lobbyist group.
These people are creepy, rich and powerful.
And they are not stupid.
They are dangerous.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)That's what happens to "knee jerks". In addition...remember the guy (see OP) reading/holding/whatever a goat story book...upside down?
You can't out think that kind of stupid. But I will agree that Obama far "misunderestimated" the intellectual wasteland and sheer racist screeching, only thinly disguised, he inherited as the other half of bi-partisan.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)Bush the Lesser had a degree from Yale.
mikeysnot
(4,757 posts)He did not earn that.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)then claims that possession of such a degree confers intellectual legitimacy is void.
That said, I have no doubt that Obama earned his degree. However, the degree conferred no special wisdom or morality for his current job.
mikeysnot
(4,757 posts)you are entitled to your opinion. Broad sweeping generalizations are not argument makers.
Do you have an advanced degree in anything?
Did you graduate college?
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)That just because Obama has a Harvard degree: Competence.
You now shift to an ad hominen attack by inference. If I did not graduate from college and/or have an advanced degree I am somehow unqualified to express my views.
mikeysnot
(4,757 posts)First I didn't infer anything. You assumed I was attacking you for not having a college education. I did not.
I do not infer ever. I am blunt and I do not beat around the bush. I am direct.
I directed a question to you and you did not answer. I am guessing you don't since you did not answer my questions.
I was going to state as in my case, my degree from my university is not cheapened by a Cruz like character that may have also have graduated from the same University. Nor is the school cheapened. As you were stating. here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=327231
I did not engage in any attack on your character. I was just going to make a comparison for you.
I guess I should have worded my point better in first person than use you in my analogy.
And as far as thinking Obama is not competent, good luck with that.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)due to lack of a college degree(s) then why ask the question in the first place?
And for the record, no, I don't have a degree. At the age of 20 I left college to become my 15 year-old sister's legal guardian and could not afford that and raising a teenager. I worked to put her through high school, then college (she major in math, minored in CompSci).
Then I got married and we discovered my wife had multiple sclerosis, so that kind of ruled out anything but keeping a job to keep health insurance. In that time I have taught myself sufficient skills to get jobs as a network engineer, network admin, a weekly newspaper columnist, a tech writer and tech instructor, and ran my own publishing company for 10 years. (I also did some work on e-voting, a lot of which is documented here at DU).
I was turned down for a tech job at a hospital 20 years back because I lacked a degree. I then got a job with a company teaching computer repair and maintenance. My first class included the guy the hospital hired instead of me, a guy with a CompSci degree, which would have been very useful if the hospital was running mainframes instead of PC networks.
A degree doesn't mean much in and of itself without context as to what discipline and how it was earned. I have corrected lawyers on issues that are ConLaw 101. I have spoken to econ majors who didn't know who Adam Smith was. I have heard guys with masters in history hold forth on a version of the revolutionary war straight out of Parson Weems. A Harvard law degree means very little compared to a mechanical engineering degree from almost any public university.
As to Obama's competence, for a professor of Constitutional law, he seems to have failed to grasp the most basic elements of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th Amendments. Also, his dealings with the GOP have been inept, to put it charitably.
mikeysnot
(4,757 posts)I was trying to put you in my shoes and that was wrong.
Sounds like you are a brave man with a slight chip on your shoulder against people with degrees.
I had to work and pay for my education myself and go into debt doing so.
I waited till my debt was eliminated before my wife and I got married.
I was lucky compared to what you went through..
But to believe that a four year degree doesn't mean anything... good luck with that.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)I paid for my sister's education, going into debt to do it. I just do not automatically assume that possession of a degree is an de facto indicator of competence and/or intelligence.
(Of course, anthropologically speaking, Cruz is "intelligent", but so is my cat. I would hope we are discussing a different standard of intelligence.)
All of this brings to mind the old joke:
"What do you call a medical student who finishes at the bottom of his class?"
"Doctor."
At no point have I said a four year degree doesn't mean anything. A four year degree means several things. One thing it definitely means is somebody wrote a damned big check to a bursar. The other thing it means is that you had enough dedication and perseverance to navigate the course registration process for eight semesters, attend (most of) your classes and meet the minimum requirements to be given a piece of paper with a nice watermark and (maybe) some Latin on it, suitable for framing.
Beyond that is open to evaluation.
Back in my 20s when I was serving five to life in fast food management at a chicken franchise (no, not that one) I was sent to a two week management course in Atlanta. After my two weeks at Cluck U., I was given a diploma (which I still have) and went back home with the following important tidbits of wisdom:
1) NEVER eat at a restaurant with anything below an "A" sanitation grade.
2) Chicken with a green pallor should never be eaten.
3) A manager who cares only about the bottom line (his profit check) will wash green chicken in Clorox, rinse it off, cook it and sell it (no, I never did that and never would, and fired a manager who did).
4) Side items are where the money is, which is why "do you want fries with that" and "do you want to super-size that" are the unofficial mottoes of the industry.
5) If you want to sell the large drink every time to a guy, hold up the large and small cups (I know I am dating myself by revealing there used to be such a thing as a "small" drink) and ask him, "Do you want the man-sized drink or the wussy-sized drink?" He may punch you, but he will buy the large drink.
6) If you want to see how hard it can be to teach someone something, stand back to back with a person and instruct them on how to tie a tie, while they follow your instructions verbatim.
7) Buying whole chickens and cutting them down yourself is cheaper than buying pre-cut, but only if you keep all ten of your fingers in the process.
8) NEVER visit a slaughter house after you have eaten.
9) 450 degree shortening will strip the skin right off.
10) No one looks good in orange and brown.
College degrees cost too damned much in this country, which is why I could only afford one, and it went to my sister. If I had the money and the time, I would go back and get my degree. Not likely the way things are, so I have to just be satisfied with reading and listening to university lectures on my ipod. No one tests me unless I come to a place like DU and have to argue a point intelligently.
I don't the piece of paper with the nice watermark, but the education is cheaper, on-going, and fairly comprehensive.
Squinch
(50,954 posts)
Gothmog
(145,291 posts)Why would anyone believe Boehner on anything?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)boehner made the 98% claim when his caucus started complaining about the bad deal he cut ... and boehner was forced to walk away from that claim.
I can't believe "Democrats" are using anything that comes out the mouth of the guy that yesterday they were claiming is unable to tell the truth!
Wow ... the MUST ... FIND ... PRESIDENT ... OBAMA ... AT ... FAULT ... is strong on DU.
Cha
(297,275 posts)the freaking sociopath, boner.
Suckers.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)That was the second time I saw that same argument, yesterday, from two different posters.
Cha
(297,275 posts)grasping at straws.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)to post a "Put Down Your Coffee" alert!
Now my dog is looking at me , like, "Mannn, why'd you dump that coffee on me?" as he walks away.
Cha
(297,275 posts)
DCBob
(24,689 posts)
bigdarryl
(13,190 posts)Mark Thompson on Sirius Left has been saying since the President has been in office that he's obsessed with trying to copy Lincoln when it comes to bipartisanship
DCBob
(24,689 posts)the economy was more fragile, the issues weren't so clear cut and the President was up for reelection. Now, he can be more bold and aggressive and furthermore this issue is simply absurd to negotiate.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)have the luxury of not having to actually attempt to govern this nation.
It's kind of like me second guessing the quarter-back's play calling ... so easy to say; much harder to do.
meanit
(455 posts)but with that said, the nuts are once again showing America what they are really all about and we have a chance to hammer the GOP back under their rocks like we could have in 2009, but didn't.
I too hope the president has indeed learned his lesson.
BeyondGeography
(39,374 posts)But if he didn't give it a good try in his first term, he never would have been re-elected. Viewed from the other side, he has been winning much more than losing which is why the Republicans have been goaded into doing what they're doing. At this rate, they will be ruined as a national party, and it will be the reasonable Mr. Obama who pushes them over the edge.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)After refusing to negotiate at all in the six months leading up to this last-minute crisis, they suddenly tried to rescind an enacted law they didn't like (and hadn't been able to rescind legislatively, even though they tried 42 times) by holding the government's continued funding hostage to it. That sets an entirely new precedent that could be used against any administration by any political party that can't get what they want through the normal democratic process.
Obama was and is still willing to negotiate--once a clean CR is passed--but this was crazy extortion that was an affront to democracy and a dangerous precedent.
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)Regardless how any of us feel about the President's attempts to compromise with Boehner and the Republicans a couple of years ago, had he not done that, he would not have been able to stand as firm as he is now. The primary reason that only right wing nuts are blaming him is that everyone else with a brain has seen very clearly how hard the President has tried to be reasonable. Now that the President has said, "Hail no!" most people are saying, "That's right. Stand your ground. You have done enough and don't have to give them a damned thing more."
Had he not bent over backwards to work with these people, you can bet that there would be a groundswell of people parroting the Republican whines that the President isn't reaching out to them and attacking the him for not trying harder. Many of the same people who now support his position would not have supported it had he not demonstrated a willingness to go the extra mile.
As frustrating as it was for many of us at the time, the President's efforts a couple of years ago the major reason that he can stand tough now.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)
JustAnotherGen
(31,828 posts)Explanation/point of view. He has been measured, calm, and polite - now its his time to be stubborn.
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)Regardless how any of us feel about the President's attempts to compromise with Boehner and the Republicans a couple of years ago, had he not done that, he would not have been able to stand as firm as he is now. The primary reason that only right wing nuts are blaming him is that everyone else with a brain has seen very clearly how hard the President has tried to be reasonable. Now that the President has said, "Hail no!" most people are saying, "That's right. Stand your ground. You have done enough and don't have to give them a damned thing more."
Had he not bent over backwards to work with these people, you can bet that there would be a groundswell of people parroting the Republican whines that the President isn't reaching out to them and attacking the him for not trying harder. Many of the same people who now support his position would not have supported it had he not demonstrated a willingness to go the extra mile.
As frustrating as it was for many of us at the time, the President's efforts a couple of years ago the major reason that he can stand tough now.
stillcool
(32,626 posts)But it's still Obama's fault. Everything is.
Cha
(297,275 posts)
Except..
So true Cha! So very true!
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)it will match my t-shirt: somewhere in Texas a village is missing its idiot.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)No matter what, it's always Obama's fault.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)me thinks, someone has lived in the real world of negotiation and/or managing people and/or relationships. 
Cha
(297,275 posts)Empowerer!
Not to mention boner did not get "98%" of what he wanted. He's a sociopathic tool for Kochs' teaparty. As witnessed by his OP today.. saying that "PBO owns this Shutdown".. No.. it's these guys.
The gop have been planning since early Spring. And freaking Cheered when it happened.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts) politicaljunkie41910
(3,335 posts)President of all these United States even the Red States who hated him and let him know this every chance they could. He was met from day one with a hostile and disrespectful GOP Congress who took every opportunity they had to show heir contempt for him and this established a permanent tone amongst their constituents as well.
So in the face of his enemies, the pundits seem to think that all President Obama needed to do to win them over is to invite them over for a drink. How naive they are. Instead of the first black President being a source of price for this nation, the rightwing hate machine didn't even try to shield their contempt for him from the very beginning. Initially they presented the reason for their contempt for him was the bank bailout and the stimulus, but the bank bailout began under Bush, and stimulus spending had been used previously by Bush 43 and Reagan, with no such push back, and Reagan had the debt ceiling raised 18 times during his administration, and Bush 43 exploded the deficit as well and the GOP in Congress never said one word about it while He was in office. Anyone who thinks the Tea Party rise to power is purely out of their concern about the deficits is in serious denial. Racism is alive and well in America and when the GOP's constituents say they want they country back, we know what they are talking about.
On Hardball last night, Chris Matthews brought up the point that the 5 states with the highest percentage of federal employees are almost all RED States. (He didn't include New Mexico as a Red State) His Source: New York Times/Bureau of Labor Statistics
They were:
#1 Wyoming 25.2%
#2 Alaska 24.9%
#3 New Mexico 23.7%
#4 Mississippi 22.1%
#5 Oklahoma 21.5%
He also said that the bottom 12 states with the fewest percentage of government jobs were all BLUE states.
Repugs just can't admit that they like sucking from the Government's teats, just like everyone else.
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)Cha
(297,275 posts)was on some tv show saying.. Clinton could handle this without having the government shutdown. rofl It's all Obama's fault!
They know they can say anything and the media will Chuck Todd them.
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)correct inaccuracies or misrepresentations
Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)The DNC could've run ads back in 2009 countering the tea-bag hysteria about the ACA. They decided the money was needed elsewhere. A lot of good it did them...
Yes, that the President rolled over in prior negotiations and also the fact that Democrats were willing to pass a CR at 75% levels when they control the Presidency and the Senate is fucking ridiculous. But even if that's the case, these people are fools if they did this because they think he's going to roll over on this matter. More likely, they think that they can win because they can convince the public that the ACA needs to be repealed.
Which is why now is as good a time as any to start running ads on national television explaining that thousands of people will DIE next year due to lack of health coverage if the ACA is delayed.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)
What was the point of this (original) message? Why can't we just fight the fight at hand -- the fight in front of us -- without re-litigating the past or sneaking in some bit of self-criticism or some purity test or some other such bullshit?
