2020- a hypothetical.

[His Divine Shadow]

I wonder what that says about Obama considering his response to the 2008 crisis (0:25 to 1:55):
https://youtu.be/a0q_Ww1q1j8?t=25

[Simon_Jester]

It says about what most other measures say about Obama. That he got off to a promising start. Then he badly weakened his administration in its first year or so, in an attempt to 'compromise' with political forces that could never be anything but inimical to him and to the average American. The results weren't actively terrible, just as Obama's 2010-era cabinet wasn't actively terrible.

They were simply... mediocre.

[The Romulan Republic]

I've learned from experience that the fastest way to derail a thread is to debate Sanders' merits with you, so let's just agree to disagree, M'kay?

No. If you post something about Senator Crazy Hair that I find to be wrong, I'm going to say something. You're more than welcome to not respond.

In other words, every time I mention Bernie Sanders and it triggers you, you'll post another vapid one-liner or torrent of abuse and dishonesty, in which case, I get the choice of either responding and getting accused of thread-derailing, or ignoring you, and appearing to concede and/or violate board rules by refusing to defend my arguments.

Lovely.

I just want this post to stand as evidence: I tried to avoid another shit-show with Flagg. But sometimes the little prick is just asking for it.

[Flagg]

I've learned from experience that the fastest way to derail a thread is to debate Sanders' merits with you, so let's just agree to disagree, M'kay?

No. If you post something about Senator Crazy Hair that I find to be wrong, I'm going to say something. You're more than welcome to not respond.

In other words, every time I mention Bernie Sanders and it triggers you, you'll post another vapid one-liner or torrent of abuse and dishonesty, in which case, I get the choice of either responding and getting accused of thread-derailing, or ignoring you, and appearing to concede and/or violate board rules by refusing to defend my arguments.

Lovely.

I just want this post to stand as evidence: I tried to avoid another shit-show with Flagg. But sometimes the little prick is just asking for it.

Prove that I've been dishonest about Bernie Sanders or retract the statement immediately. I'm sick of your calling anything someone says that you don't like dishonesty or outright lies. I also object to your describing my criticism of Sanders as resulting from being "triggered".

I'm not required to "agree to disagree" and I will not do so on this issue. If you can't handle that, there are plenty of teen boards at your maturity level with an ignore function.

I'm so beyond sick of your shit. And it's not just me you have issues with, there are times I've not posted for weeks and you engage in the same behavior with others.

[Flagg]

It says about what most other measures say about Obama. That he got off to a promising start. Then he badly weakened his administration in its first year or so, in an attempt to 'compromise' with political forces that could never be anything but inimical to him and to the average American. The results weren't actively terrible, just as Obama's 2010-era cabinet wasn't actively terrible.

They were simply... mediocre.

Well, Obama took office under the mistaken impression that at worst he would be treated like Bill Clinton. I don't think he counted on the abject racism and Republicans plotting to essentially sandbag him at every opportunity. That said, by 4-6 months in it was apparent that they weren't going to treat him with even the minimum amount of respect that the office of POTUS is due and he should have used his executive authority more stridently.

[The Romulan Republic]

No. If you post something about Senator Crazy Hair that I find to be wrong, I'm going to say something. You're more than welcome to not respond.

In other words, every time I mention Bernie Sanders and it triggers you, you'll post another vapid one-liner or torrent of abuse and dishonesty, in which case, I get the choice of either responding and getting accused of thread-derailing, or ignoring you, and appearing to concede and/or violate board rules by refusing to defend my arguments.

Lovely.

I just want this post to stand as evidence: I tried to avoid another shit-show with Flagg. But sometimes the little prick is just asking for it.

Prove that I've been dishonest about Bernie Sanders or retract the statement immediately. I'm sick of your calling anything someone says that you don't like dishonesty or outright lies.

I do nothing of the sort. I call someone dishonest when I believe they're being dishonest, though accusing the accuser is always a handy means of deflection.

Further examples are in other threads, but I can go trawling for them if you insist. Starting with your claim in the Warren thread that Bernie Sanders supporters cost Clinton the election, which is at best a gross oversimplification.

I also object to your describing my criticism of Sanders as resulting from being "triggered".

That was somewhat facetious, but you do seem compelled to start a shit show every time his name is mentioned (or is it only if I mention him?).

I'm not required to "agree to disagree" and I will not do so on this issue. If you can't handle that, there are plenty of teen boards at your maturity level with an ignore function.

You're not required to do it, of course, but I foolishly thought I would give you the chance to show a tiny smidgen of restraint and not pointlessly rehash an argument where we both know the other is never going to agree.

I'm so beyond sick of your shit. And it's not just me you have issues with, there are times I've not posted for weeks and you engage in the same behavior with others.

I'm sick of you debating by ad hominem and thinking that you can turn every argument into a debate on my personality.

[Flagg]

Put your money where your mouth is you unfortunately non-aborted cunt. I'm done with you.

[Block]

Flagg, TRR is not the only one to notice your tendency to spew unsupported and unending bile where Sanders is concerned. It's boring, obnoxious and frankly makes you look like a troll. I don't know what your deal is, but Hillary is why Hillary lost. She did what she always does, which is not improve on her opening poll numbers. Screeching like a howler monkey at people who are essentially on the same side makes no sense, unless you're just trying to make everyone else as miserable as you are.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, I'd say Comey's FBI and voter suppression, and general third party jackassery, played a role in Clinton's loss too, but otherwise, pretty much yeah.

Flagg, if I truly believed that you were done with me, I'd be profoundly happy. Having to deal with your grudges and pissing contests is the single most miserable aspect of posting here.

[Simon_Jester]

It says about what most other measures say about Obama. That he got off to a promising start. Then he badly weakened his administration in its first year or so, in an attempt to 'compromise' with political forces that could never be anything but inimical to him and to the average American. The results weren't actively terrible, just as Obama's 2010-era cabinet wasn't actively terrible.

They were simply... mediocre.

Well, Obama took office under the mistaken impression that at worst he would be treated like Bill Clinton. I don't think he counted on the abject racism and Republicans plotting to essentially sandbag him at every opportunity. That said, by 4-6 months in it was apparent that they weren't going to treat him with even the minimum amount of respect that the office of POTUS is due and he should have used his executive authority more stridently.

I get that. The thing is, I'm criticizing him in large part because he kept trying well past the point of diminishing returns, and he didn't make the transition by openly saying "look, Congress is currently in the hands of a faction that is actively trying to stop the country from being governed, I'm going to do what is minimally necessary for us to have a functional government whether they like it or not, here are the details of what they're lying about and why it's a problem."

Not bad. Mediocre.

I also object to your describing my criticism of Sanders as resulting from being "triggered".

To be fair, if you throw mud literally every time TRR even mentions the guy... There kind of are only two ways to parse that.

One is "mentioning Sanders in earshot of Flagg is like mentioning 'Niagara Falls' to the crazy guy in the Abbott and Costello skit." And 'triggering' is a pretty good description of that.

The other is, well, you're just following TRR around yelling at him every time he mentions 'Sanders' whether you feel a need to or not. Which is kind of weird.

[The Romulan Republic]

The latter would also be a violation of the vendetta rule, would it not?

I guess I was actually opting for the more charitable conclusion when I said "triggered".

[LadyTevar]

Ok, you know what? FLAGG, TRR. GO TO YOUR ROOMS, DO NOT TALK TO EACH OTHER FOR A WEEK. Do not Post, Do Not PM, Do not even acknowledge the other exists.

And if I have to temp-ban your asses for a week, I WILL.

[Flagg]

It says about what most other measures say about Obama. That he got off to a promising start. Then he badly weakened his administration in its first year or so, in an attempt to 'compromise' with political forces that could never be anything but inimical to him and to the average American. The results weren't actively terrible, just as Obama's 2010-era cabinet wasn't actively terrible.

They were simply... mediocre.

Well, Obama took office under the mistaken impression that at worst he would be treated like Bill Clinton. I don't think he counted on the abject racism and Republicans plotting to essentially sandbag him at every opportunity. That said, by 4-6 months in it was apparent that they weren't going to treat him with even the minimum amount of respect that the office of POTUS is due and he should have used his executive authority more stridently.

I get that. The thing is, I'm criticizing him in large part because he kept trying well past the point of diminishing returns, and he didn't make the transition by openly saying "look, Congress is currently in the hands of a faction that is actively trying to stop the country from being governed, I'm going to do what is minimally necessary for us to have a functional government whether they like it or not, here are the details of what they're lying about and why it's a problem."

Not bad. Mediocre.

I also object to your describing my criticism of Sanders as resulting from being "triggered".

To be fair, if you throw mud literally every time TRR even mentions the guy... There kind of are only two ways to parse that.

One is "mentioning Sanders in earshot of Flagg is like mentioning 'Niagara Falls' to the crazy guy in the Abbott and Costello skit." And 'triggering' is a pretty good description of that.

The other is, well, you're just following TRR around yelling at him every time he mentions 'Sanders' whether you feel a need to or not. Which is kind of weird.

If I see it and I take a contrary view I say so. It's completely and 100% within the rules, I don't care who doesn't like it. To call me a fucking liar because I won't agree to disagree, something no one on this board is required to do, is beyond the pale. I'm taking this up with Dalton.

[Flagg]

Ok, you know what? FLAGG, TRR. GO TO YOUR ROOMS, DO NOT TALK TO EACH OTHER FOR A WEEK. Do not Post, Do Not PM, Do not even acknowledge the other exists.

And if I have to temp-ban your asses for a week, I WILL.

We'll see what Dalton wants to do.

[Flagg]

It says about what most other measures say about Obama. That he got off to a promising start. Then he badly weakened his administration in its first year or so, in an attempt to 'compromise' with political forces that could never be anything but inimical to him and to the average American. The results weren't actively terrible, just as Obama's 2010-era cabinet wasn't actively terrible.

They were simply... mediocre.

Well, Obama took office under the mistaken impression that at worst he would be treated like Bill Clinton. I don't think he counted on the abject racism and Republicans plotting to essentially sandbag him at every opportunity. That said, by 4-6 months in it was apparent that they weren't going to treat him with even the minimum amount of respect that the office of POTUS is due and he should have used his executive authority more stridently.

I get that. The thing is, I'm criticizing him in large part because he kept trying well past the point of diminishing returns, and he didn't make the transition by openly saying "look, Congress is currently in the hands of a faction that is actively trying to stop the country from being governed, I'm going to do what is minimally necessary for us to have a functional government whether they like it or not, here are the details of what they're lying about and why it's a problem."

Not bad. Mediocre.

I also object to your describing my criticism of Sanders as resulting from being "triggered".

To be fair, if you throw mud literally every time TRR even mentions the guy... There kind of are only two ways to parse that.

One is "mentioning Sanders in earshot of Flagg is like mentioning 'Niagara Falls' to the crazy guy in the Abbott and Costello skit." And 'triggering' is a pretty good description of that.

The other is, well, you're just following TRR around yelling at him every time he mentions 'Sanders' whether you feel a need to or not. Which is kind of weird.

To add more:
I don't throw mud when the name is mentioned, I give my opinion in direct terms on topic. The fact is that I and a certain someone who never actually backed their shit up (as usual) unfortunately frequent the same forums. The fact that I dare to think poorly of Sanders is beyond the point. I'm entitled to my opinion, to express that opinion, and I will do so within the bounds of normalcy whenever the fuck I please because it's within the rules and I'm not going to stop because it makes someone's asshair itch.

What I wont do is call someone a liar, say I'll prove it, and then not do so because the accusation is bullshit (just like it was for all the other people who have received the same accusation). No one on this board is expected to put up with such treatment and I sure as fucking hell wont.

[His Divine Shadow]

It says about what most other measures say about Obama. That he got off to a promising start. Then he badly weakened his administration in its first year or so, in an attempt to 'compromise' with political forces that could never be anything but inimical to him and to the average American. The results weren't actively terrible, just as Obama's 2010-era cabinet wasn't actively terrible.

They were simply... mediocre.

The way I see it, after winning on a completely different message, he just reverted to the normal democratic establishment politics that's in place since the great right winger, the destroyer of welfare and unions, the creator of nafta, Bill Clinton. Basically right wing neoliberalism with a blanket of social progressivism to hide the rotten feces ridden interior.

[Simon_Jester]

Which are, frankly, mediocre. Not good, not bad. Mediocre.

They're not THAT bad, not THAT rotten, the country could go a long time under such politics and things would be basically okay. A Clinton administration wouldn't have been a disaster for anyone even if it would be less than the left would like, either.

Which is why I keep using the word 'mediocre.' Disaster is avoided (and if you don't consider that important, you've never lived in a country experiencing disaster). But not much positive progress is made, and any good change tends to be incremental and accompanied by decline in other areas. Mediocrity in government.

The thing is, American politics is a contest between mediocrity and utterly fucking horrible. So I don't feel we should exaggerate how bad the 'mediocre' side of the equation is. Even while recognizing that the American left is going to have to climb above that mediocrity, in order to successfully combat the horrible side.

[His Divine Shadow]

That's where we disagree. And at this point anything but radical, extreme change is too little too late.

[Flagg]

That's where we disagree. And at this point anything but radical, extreme change is too little too late.

I tend to lean that way, myself. But I don't recall Obama as being the Christlike Uberliberal a lot of his supporters seemed to think he was (not that he ever claimed otherwise), he's a savvy enough politician to have let people believe that about him, but he never said he was, either. So Simon is right to say "mediocre", but only if you weren't expecting a center-left (center-right by overall western standards) politician.

But a lot of the stuff he did accomplish was cleaning up or at least mitigating the damage left by Chimpus Caesar. For instance America still has not just an auto industry, but a thriving one consisting of more than just Ford (assuming they would have survived) thanks to the auto bailout that conservatives claimed wouldn't work.
The ACA, while far from perfect (Thanks Joe Lieberman, you turncoat fucker) still enabled tens of millions to get insured or stay on their parents insurance until 26 and opened the market to people with preexisting conditions who were treated like lepers by the insurance industry, enjoy it while it lasts.

But there are some significant shortcomings. GITMO is still open (thanks to Congress, but when it became clear that Democrats were just as much whimpering pussies about it as Republicans he stopped pursuing it). We're still in Afghanistan despite his second term promises of getting the fuck out in 2014. While I'm glad Bin Laden got a lead lobotomy, I don't like the whole act of war to conduct what amounted to a Mafia style hit in order to achieve that goal.

So yeah, at least in my book, and I'm like left of Lenin (yes that's hyperbole), I think Simon's assessment of "mediocre" is appropriate when it comes to things he wasn't obstructed from doing more of, or at all.

[Flagg]

Flagg, TRR is not the only one to notice your tendency to spew unsupported and unending bile where Sanders is concerned. It's boring, obnoxious and frankly makes you look like a troll. I don't know what your deal is, but Hillary is why Hillary lost. She did what she always does, which is not improve on her opening poll numbers. Screeching like a howler monkey at people who are essentially on the same side makes no sense, unless you're just trying to make everyone else as miserable as you are.

Oh boohoo, you get a sad when I give my opinion about Bernie. Go have a cry, mature 20 years, and get back to me, you child.

I certainly don't seek out posts about Sanders, I simply share my opinion when he's mentioned in the forums I'm most active in (it's almost like that's the reason I see and comment on him and/or his actions if I find them objectionable) and I will continue to do so regarding him and anyone else when they are brought up and I take issue with how they're represented and/or what they may have said, which you are free to ignore.

Frankly, this pile-on reeks of vendetta bullshit. So far I've been accused of trolling, having a psychiatric issue concerning Sanders, and been called a liar because I refused to not comment on him and/or his issues when brought up, which I'm fully entitled to do.

And I'm still waiting for all that evidence proving I'm a liar, BTW. I guess I'll have to wait until we're all dust because there is no evidence of me being dishonest on that subject, just like there is no evidence of dishonesty against anyone else that particular entity accuses of lying when they don't agree with him, which is also never backed up when evidence is demanded.

Hopefully we can get that shit cleared up ASAP because I'm not going to stop bringing it up until action is taken because I'm finally so fed up with it I'm not going to let the issue die, as much as I'd love to.

[Ziggy Stardust]

And I'm still waiting for all that evidence proving I'm a liar, BTW. I guess I'll have to wait until we're all dust because there is no evidence of me being dishonest on that subject, just like there is no evidence of dishonesty against anyone else that particular entity accuses of lying when they don't agree with him, which is also never backed up when evidence is demanded.

Hopefully we can get that shit cleared up ASAP because I'm not going to stop bringing it up until action is taken because I'm finally so fed up with it I'm not going to let the issue die, as much as I'd love to.

Well, you DO repeatedly refer to Sanders as a "one-issue" candidate, which IS certainly not accurate. I'm not going to call it a lie, because I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are just being your usual (wonderful) hyperbolic self, but off the top of my head that's the one thing I can think of that you tend to repeat about Bernie that isn't, strictly speaking, true, unless you use a really, really loose definition of "one-issue" (at which point you can call Hillary a one-issue candidate, that issue being "more of Obama", and Trump a one-issue candidate, that issue being "less of Obama", etc.).

(I'm not posting this to try and flame you or get into an argument with you, but rather to show you how other people may have the perception you are being dishonest. I think the issue is that you tend to be quite a fiery orator on issues that you are passionate about, and that some people may mistake semantic flourishes for literal statements of fact. I am just giving my opinion as an outside observer on this rather bizarre feud.)

[Thanas]

Ok, you know what? FLAGG, TRR. GO TO YOUR ROOMS, DO NOT TALK TO EACH OTHER FOR A WEEK. Do not Post, Do Not PM, Do not even acknowledge the other exists.

And if I have to temp-ban your asses for a week, I WILL.

We'll see what Dalton wants to do.

Having launched an appeal to Dalton is no excuse for not obeying a supermod, Flagg. I am giving you a warning for that.

As this whole thread is nothing but a shitfest, I am going to lock it.

[Dalton]

Not. Happy.