Is an Obama Defeat Better for the Progressive Cause?

1. 0

   Sooner28posted 11 years ago

   According to Roberto Unger, a Harvard law professor that taught Obama during his time there, Obama has done nothing substantial to further the progressive agenda, and in order to wake people up from their slumber, Obama must be defeated.  Otherwise, the Democratic party will continue to become more and more like the Republicans, which is obviously detrimental to all believers of justice.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/1 … 02812.html
   
   What are your thoughts?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      ib radmastersposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Obama had his turn at bat, and he failed to score.
      Neither the democratic nor the republican party has moved the country forward in the last one hundred years.
      
      The democrats move the country to the left..
      The republicans move the country to the right.
      Neither one of them move the country forward.
      
      Both parties had their turn in 2008 and after that and the country is where it is at today because of that.
      
      It took both parties to bring the country to its knees, and it will take both parties to get it standing. But historically this has never happened.

      replyreport
2. 70

   Cagsilposted 11 years ago

   What progressive cause? Explain?
   
   Since I need you to explain what it is, then it would be a safe bet I wouldn't know if a Obama defeat would be better or not.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Someone not controlled by the banks, in favor of universal health care, serious about addressing global warming, supportive of gay rights no matter what the politics, and not a war monger. 
      
      There's a very rough sketch.  That's my sketch though, not the professor's.

      replyreport
      1. 70

         Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Okay, let's see something....
         
         Well, I don't want anyone controlled by a bank, much less want a politician(s) controlled by one.
         I'm not in favor. Because, I don't find it the solution.
         Global warming? Here's a hint? The Earth is going to have climate change. The Earth is still continuing to evolve. The Earth doesn't need us to adapt to exist. It is we who must adapt to it.
         That's the problem. Politics shouldn't be involved, just like Religion shouldn't be involved. People want to marry in a church but cannot, can marry some other place. What difference does it matter if love is why you marry?
         War is not ever proven to be good for humankind. It has caused more deaths than anything else. To me, War is stupidity in motion. Or as George Carlin once said "It's nothing more than two males waving their pricks around".
         After all that, I have no clue how I would measure it.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this

            We are going to have to adapt to it due to our careless destruction of it.
            
            I'm not arguing all churches should have to perform gay marriage ceremonies.  I'm arguing that local, state, and federal governments should recognize same-sex marriage and give the same tax breaks heterosexual couples get.    Or, government could get out of the marriage business all together.
            
            I didn't think I'd get much disagreement on the war end .

            replyreport
            1. 70

               Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Careless destruction of it? Really? Do you really think humans have the power to destroy Earth? Make it uninhabitable?
               
               The problem lays in the fact that we're not properly educating people anymore. There's more distortion and misinformation than there's true information.
               Neither am I.
               Agreed.
               I wouldn't agree with this. Government has make money somehow, aside from taxation.
               Yeah, I didn't think you would either, but it appears as if I'm the only replying to your thread. So, at least we know we're unified on the position of war.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  We have the power to make it uninhabitable for many forms of life, including us.  Bacteria can thrive in many environments though!

                  replyreport
                  1. 70

                     Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     Oh good to know. And, here I thought it was just a negative thought you had.
                     Yes, true enough. But so can the powerful and wealthy...I guess you could say they are the same sort of thing.

                     replyreport
3. 63

   maxoxam41posted 11 years ago

   It is a misconception to think that the president of the U.S. is plenipotentiary. Congress and the lobbies weigh in his decisory power. His mandate is the proof of impotency or lack of action if you will.
   To really affect the government, the economy, money to corrupt should be removed from the equation.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Nice word usage.  It sent me to the dictionary!

      replyreport
4. 68

   Charles Jamesposted 11 years ago

   I hate the idea that the poor should suffer more to help the revolution - particularly when the suggestion comes from those who are comfortably off.
   
   Do the Rich want power? - Then don't let them have more.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I'm with you on that.  I don't want people's benefits to be cut just so Bill Gates can get another tax break.
      
      Yet, Obama has been terribly disappointing.  If he were to lose, and Romney were to remind everyone how much they hated Bush's economic policies, then it could springboard America forward.
      
      My vote doesn't matter anyway.  I live in Oklahoma :p.

      replyreport
5. 68

   Charles Jamesposted 11 years ago

   If Bush I and Bush II did not have that effect, then why should Bush III?
   
   The media will blame greedy pensioners like Olyhooch and put pressure on to abolish food stamps and the minimum wage. Or blame it all on the Mormon who is far too liberal.
   
   Or Romney can start a war. North Korea Syria and Iran all look good. Pakistan and Somalia are in the wings. Or Cuba - its nearer!
   
   I think progressives have to support Obama.

   replyreport