• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2013 |OT1| Never mind, Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Status
Not open for further replies.

Qazaq

Banned
However, I think you totally bought the right-wing narrative if you focused at all on his community organizer career, which was 10 years prior to election. He was an IL state senator with a constiuency larger than Alaska's population before he was a US Senator. That doesn't mean he wasn't light in qualifications, but it's a far cry from community organizer. He was also a Constitutional Law professor, which is not inconsequential at all.

I know, but like I mentioned, I think it's because of all the presidential elections that I'd followed/remembered, of all the people that had a serious shot to win, he seemed to have the lightest credentials by far.

Then obviously during and after 2008 I followed politics more closely, and I see the likes of Herman Cain, it's a bit different.
 

pigeon

Banned
I know, but like I mentioned, I think it's because of all the presidential elections that I'd followed/remembered, of all the people that had a serious shot to win, he seemed to have the lightest credentials by far.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but cmon, did you somehow forget about George W. Bush and his five years of political experience plus one failed run for the House?
 

Qazaq

Banned
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but cmon, did you somehow forget about George W. Bush and his five years of political experience plus one failed run for the House?

1) I didn't follow the 2000 election Republican primaries, considering I was not even a teenager.

2) Two terms as governor of one of the largest states doesn't really seem that peculiar to me.
 

Aylinato

Member
1) I didn't follow the 2000 election Republican primaries, considering I was not even a teenager.

2) Two terms as governor of one of the largest states doesn't really seem that peculiar to me.


You need to take a history course on the presidency if you think Obama is the least qualified candidate.
 

pigeon

Banned
1) I didn't follow the 2000 election Republican primaries, considering I was not even a teenager.

I think this is a source of the difficulty you're encountering. When you say that Obama was the most inexperienced presidential candidate you'd ever seen, you mean "Obama was less experienced than Hillary Clinton or John Kerry."

2) Two terms as governor of one of the largest states doesn't really seem that peculiar to me.

But three terms as a state legislator and one as a senator is somehow weird? I dunno, man, it seems kind of arbitrary to me.
 

Qazaq

Banned
You need to take a history course on the presidency if you think Obama is the least qualified candidate.

I. don't. I. said. that. at. the. time. when. I. began. following. I. thought. in. general. he. was. very. underqualified.

I think this is a source of the difficulty you're encountering. When you say that Obama was the most inexperienced presidential candidate you'd ever seen, you mean "Obama was less experienced than Hillary Clinton or John Kerry."

When I say that

That I had just never seen presidential candidates like Herman Cain run before, so maybe my barometer for what was considered qualified was a bit skewed. After all, Hillary Clinton and John McCain have been around quite a long time and done quite a lot -- moreso maybe than the average Presidential contender.

Yes, it DOES sound quite an awful lot like your paraphrase. As in... I already said that.

But three terms as a state legislator and one as a senator is somehow weird? I dunno, man, it seems kind of arbitrary to me.

Erm, well, yes, in a sense, because everyone has a different opinion on what being qualified consists of.
 

pigeon

Banned
Yes, it DOES sound quite an awful lot like your paraphrase. As in... I already said that.

No, you didn't? There's a big difference between "Of course, I hadn't seen Herman Cain yet" and "Of course, I hadn't read up on any Presidential candidates before 2004."

Erm, well, yes, in a sense, because everyone has a different opinion on what being qualified consists of.

Well, yes, but some opinions are based on more sensible premises than others. We call those opinions "well-founded," and the opposite sort of opinion "arbitrary" and even "bizarre" or "silly." That's why I'd like to inquire into your premises. What do you think are the qualifications for being President? Why do you think Obama didn't have them, but George W. apparently did?
 

Qazaq

Banned
That's why I'd like to inquire into your premises. What do you think are the qualifications for being President? Why do you think Obama didn't have them, but George W. apparently did?

There was no COMPARISON to 2004. I was like 14, I didn't sit there and analyze George W. Bush's qualifications while he was running for President.


And no, I don't think two terms of Governor of Texas is an underqualified thing. And yet, during 2008, I thought that being a state senator and not even a full term in the senate remotely rivaled Hillary, McCain, or anyone serious.

That was what was I was experiencing during those times. If you don't like it or don't agree, that's fine, but it's absolutely irritating as all fuck to keep being pounced on. I'm just relaying my thought processes, and you know what, shock of shocks, it's not the worst thing ever to hear them, because people have them.

You all sit there and make fun of scores of people as if they're totally nut jobs for thinking what they're thinking. That's fine, a lot of the opinions ARE nutty. It's not about respecting all those nutty opinions, but you can at least hear out an anecdotal account of what perpetuates and propels those views; I'm not sitting here trying to DEFEND them. I'm just explaining how certain thoughts can to lead to other thoughts in an echo chamber.

This thread is absolutely impossible sometimes.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
You guys realize that Qazaq was talking about views he had in 2008, right?

Like, there's no way that your argument, as beautiful and biting and well-constructed as it might be, is going to travel 4-5 years backwards through time and change his mind. Right?

Yeah, I've been very confused this whole time...everything he's said has been past tense.
 
But three terms as a state legislator and one as a senator is somehow weird? I dunno, man, it seems kind of arbitrary to me.

Anyone one can be a state senator. Just run in a safe district and appeal to the masses. You need to win a state wide election to be even be a serious contender for the president. That is why Obama went to be a US senator. But he only had that job for like 2-3 years. He won in November 2004, but began campaigning for president in 2007. We also don't elect many random senators for president. The last one before Obama was Kennedy. You have to admit he was under qualified compared to McCain and Hillary. But he proved himself in beating them. He knows how to campaign.
 

Qazaq

Banned
Anyone one can be a state senator. Just run in a safe district and appeal to the masses. You need to win a state wide election to be even be a serious contender for the president. That is why Obama went to be a US senator. But he only had that job for like 2-3 years. He won in November 2004, but began campaigning for president in 2007. We also don't elect many random senators for president. The last one before Obama was Kennedy. You have to admit he was under qualified compared to McCain and Hillary. But he proved himself in beating them. He knows how to campaign.

Word to all of this, including the last part.

Granted during 2008 I really couldn't stand Obama's technical, methodical campaign of assuming delegates little by little. I'm sure many Hillary fans can agree.


But now that I'm removed from it, I think it really spoke volumes about his ability to govern and manage. The Obama campaign was truly expert, and I think it really is a good test and measure of that ability.

I don't understand why so many Obama fans continue to defend or gloss over or maybe just pretend like Obama in 2008 had qualifications that rivaled Hillary or McCain, in almost any traditional measure that we could maybe use in judging this kind of thing. To me, it's as obvious as anything that he didn't.

It doesn't change that he's been quite a good president (imo), that this administration is run league's better than the previous one, and that fears about his lack of qualification ultimately didn't mean anything because he's proven that he HAS been able to lead.
 

pigeon

Banned
In amongst his Senate predictions for 2014, Nate Silver makes a point I hadn't considered:

nytimes said:
One last factor to consider is that as difficult as the Democratic Senate map looks in 2014, Republicans could face an equally challenging one in 2016. In that year, seven Republican-held seats will be up in states won by Mr. Obama in 2012, while no Democrats will face re-election in states won by Mr. Romney.

Thus, as ridiculous as it might seem to look so far ahead, the most important reverberations from the 2014 Senate races might not be felt until 2016 and beyond. Republicans will need to make considerable gains next year to open up the possibility of a Republican-controlled Congress after 2016. If Democrats hold their ground, conversely, it would provide for the outside possibility of their holding a filibuster-proof majority after 2016.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/20/can-republicans-win-the-senate-in-2014/

The Republican senators in blue states up for reelection in 2016 are Mark Kirk (IL), Rob Portman (OH), Pat Toomey (PA), Ron Johnson (WI), Kelly Ayotte (NH), Chuck Grassley (IA), and of course Marco Rubio (FL). And of course we'll also have John McCain and Rand Paul to watch. It's all up to Hillary now!
 

RDreamer

Member
There was no COMPARISON to 2004. I was like 14, I didn't sit there and analyze George W. Bush's qualifications while he was running for President.


And no, I don't think two terms of Governor of Texas is an underqualified thing. And yet, during 2008, I thought that being a state senator and not even a full term in the senate remotely rivaled Hillary, McCain, or anyone serious.

That was what was I was experiencing during those times. If you don't like it or don't agree, that's fine, but it's absolutely irritating as all fuck to keep being pounced on. I'm just relaying my thought processes, and you know what, shock of shocks, it's not the worst thing ever to hear them, because people have them.

You all sit there and make fun of scores of people as if they're totally nut jobs for thinking what they're thinking. That's fine, a lot of the opinions ARE nutty. It's not about respecting all those nutty opinions, but you can at least hear out an anecdotal account of what perpetuates and propels those views; I'm not sitting here trying to DEFEND them. I'm just explaining how certain thoughts can to lead to other thoughts in an echo chamber.

This thread is absolutely impossible sometimes.

I've been following the argument and I agree with you for the most part. Obama was pretty unqualified, and I can see why that would easily push someone over, and once you're over there you tend to pick up a few other things along the way. Echo chambers will do that.

Personally I was able to overlook the unqualified thing because I didn't necessarily want someone entrenched in the system and combined with the fact that McCain felt to me like G.W. Bush 2 he definitely had my support.

For the primaries I think I still harbored a lot of my earlier day Hillary prejudices instilled on me by my dad, unfortunately.
 
In amongst his Senate predictions for 2014, Nate Silver makes a point I hadn't considered:



http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/20/can-republicans-win-the-senate-in-2014/

The Republican senators in blue states up for reelection in 2016 are Mark Kirk (IL), Rob Portman (OH), Pat Toomey (PA), Ron Johnson (WI), Kelly Ayotte (NH), Chuck Grassley (IA), and of course Marco Rubio (FL). And of course we'll also have John McCain and Rand Paul to watch. It's all up to Hillary now!

Toomey is gone. as a senator he's been virtually invisible compared to say, Casey. and 2016 being a presidential election year means democrats turn out in force. especially if it's Hillary or Biden.
 
Holy shit, the Breitbrats are definitely living up to their namesake's legacy:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journa...its-Breitbart-Friends-of-Hamas-Story-Accurate

How can they not see that they look like idiots?

Daily News: 'Friends of Hamas': My role in the birth of a rumor
A Daily News reporter explains how he inadvertently created the myth that Chuck Hagel spoke to a non-existent group.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/friends-hamas-rumor-started-article-1.1268284#ixzz2LTY5RbZf

Breitbart response: DAILY NEWS REPORTER ADMITS: BREITBART 'FRIENDS OF HAMAS' STORY 'ACCURATE'


WTF?
 
I know, but like I mentioned, I think it's because of all the presidential elections that I'd followed/remembered, of all the people that had a serious shot to win, he seemed to have the lightest credentials by far.

Then obviously during and after 2008 I followed politics more closely, and I see the likes of Herman Cain, it's a bit different.

Yeah, I think you get it. I just brsitled at the "community organizer" mention as that was a meme so pumped up by the GOP that you would have never guessed he was a state senator of a very large (and presumably very competitive) district in IL.

Yes, we was inexperienced (and I think that he really has been a weaker POTUS in some ways which were predicted by that) but not as inexperienced as was made out. He was straight-up compared to Palin a lot, who had about a decade less political experience with much smaller populations.
 

CHEEZMO™

Obsidian fan
How can they not see that they look like idiots?

Daily News: 'Friends of Hamas': My role in the birth of a rumor
A Daily News reporter explains how he inadvertently created the myth that Chuck Hagel spoke to a non-existent group.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/friends-hamas-rumor-started-article-1.1268284#ixzz2LTY5RbZf

Breitbart response: DAILY NEWS REPORTER ADMITS: BREITBART 'FRIENDS OF HAMAS' STORY 'ACCURATE'


WTF?

They only look like idiots to people who dont blindly swallow their shit. The people who do probably don't even read past the headline before hitting "Share".
 
So according to the news twitters Rick Scott will announce medicaid expansion at 5pm

Kind of confusing early report

Gov. Rick Scott on Wednesday called for a 5pm ET press conference on Wednesday to announce that the Sunshine State would be expanding Medicaid under Obamacare. Scott reportedly made the decision after receiving a waiver from the federal government allowing the state to privatize the program, according to the Tampa Bay Times.

Hours after the federal government agreed to grant Florida a conditional waiver to privatize Medicaid statewide, Gov. Rick Scott appears ready to endorse a plan to conditionally expand the health care program to about 1 million Floridians or more.
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/gov-scott-feds-reach-deal-on-medicaid-privitization

wut
 
Several health plans also dropped out of the pilot program, saying they couldn’t make enough money. Patients complained they were bounced from plan to plan with lapses in care. Nearly half of the 200,000 patients enrolled in the pilot have been dropped from at least one plan, federal health officials noted at one point during negotiations.

Lawmakers say they have fixed the pilot program’s shortcomings, with provisions including increased oversight and more stringent penalties, including fining providers up to $500,000 if they drop out. The measures also increase doctors’ reimbursement rates and limits malpractice lawsuits for Medicaid patients in hopes of increasing doctor participation in the program.

Advocates noted that the pending agreement with federal health officials is very different from the state’s original proposal.

“The version of the experiment currently awaiting approval significantly limits the ability of managed care plans to vary benefits, evade accountability and consumer protections, and implement other dangerous elements of the original experiment ... additionally, stronger accountability, oversight, and transparency requirements that will come with this waiver approval alleviate many of our worst fears,” said Greg Mellowe, policy director of the health care advocacy group Florida CHAIN.

Earlier this month, the feds gave Florida the green light to move tens of thousands of older Medicaid recipients to get long-term care through managed care organizations, including home and community-based services to keep them out of nursing homes. But the feds are requiring an ombudsmen monitor that portion of the program.

As part of the federal health care law, the state must decide whether to participate in a planned expansion of the Medicaid program. The expansion could add at least 1 million people to Florida’s Medicaid rolls, with the federal government covering most, but not all, of the cost.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/02/20/3244176/fla-medicaid-privatization-plans.html#storylink=cpy

###
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom