Elections Greatest?

[Jack V Savage]

It's been several years, of course, but I do not recall his candidacy being that of a "moderate technocrat" at all. That sounds like Clinton's 2016 campaign. Obama's Hope and Change campaign was not that.

Like I said, I think you're confusing "inspiring" for "populist." Obama has never been a populist and didn't run as one.

I do agree that he was fairly centrist, but I am also of the opinion that he detrimentally relied on the (increasingly nonexistent) returns of his conscious centrism.

Sure, that's all fine. I agree. But it kind of makes my point, doesn't it? Obama has always had a belief in centrism for its own sake and in trying to find common ground with the other side. That predated his presidency and continued into it.

If you've seen my posts on this subject, you likely know that I blame Hillary Clinton much, much more than Obama for some missteps in this sphere (I think Kerry was for the most part fairly good). But he certainly continued the American legacy of "democracy spreading" while consciously backing and supporting autocratic regimes that benefit the United States against populist insurrection and, in the case of places like Venezuela and Honduras, consciously undermining democracy to further US economic interests.

I don't think it's possible even in theory for U.S. foreign policy to be satisfactory to the far left, and I think too many people make the mistake of thinking: I dislike X; I dislike Y; therefore X=Y.

 

[Trotsky]

Obama the guy who turned Libya from richest most just Nation in Africa to a literal hellhole with Slave markets (Francis addressed this in a post fight speech). Continued with Bush's slaughter of muslims around the world and generally in bed with bankers and wall street. Only people saying Obama don't know anything but he's cute or looks like them.

(1) NATO was the perpetrator of the Libya invasion, and the US wasn't even a primary leader in it
(2) The fact that the Libyan intervention (as egregious as it was) is the single worst showing of his presidency speaks volumes of how competent he otherwise was, especially when you compare it against some of the violent blunders of past greats.

Let's be honest: if Republicans weren't desperately grasping for a war-related talking points against Obama, only the far left in America would give a shit about the Libyan intervention.

Obama is, by current historians' appraisal, at top-third president. It's my opinion that he'll settle somewhere between #7 and #12 in the end.

 

[IGIT]

....do you still think that was a good thing? Airlines have consolidated and prices have increased considerably in the past ten years, despite further developments toward fuel efficiency.

Also, saying deregulation caused the drop is prices is ignoring a bunch of variables, such as exponential growth in amount of flights (and therefore ability to offer less per flight) and technological innovation.

hio Trotsky,

hmmm.

i don't know. i think blaming President Carter for the airline industry consolidating is a bit off base. if Federal anti-trust laws failed to protect the consumer in the wake of deregulation, its not really Mr. Carter's fault.

also - without President Carter's actions, to this day we'd still have specific airlines dominating specific hubs. zero competition. that really was not a good thing back in the 1970's.

finally, i added the bit about deregulation because that is one of the cause celebres of conservatives...but you won't hear any hosannas from the right for Mr. Carter's actions. nor will you hear any praise from the right for Carter being a devout Christian...or his military history (top 10% grad of Annapolis, along with being an officer at the inception of the Navy's nuclear sub program)...or his fiscal conservatism in managing the US debt...or the percentage of his jobs creation (which surpassed Kennedy and Eisenhower).

to them (and to many so-called Democrats), Carter was just a schmuck.

- IGIT

 

[12ga.]

It's very possible. Public funded elections instead of sucking up to Wall Street for billions every senator and president must do so they are in thrall before they even announce to TPTB.

No liberal makes X=Y mistake. We still vote democrat for more scraps than republicans throw our way but holding nose.

 

[Trotsky]

I don't think it's possible even in theory for U.S. foreign policy to be satisfactory to the far left, and I think too many people make the mistake of thinking: I dislike X; I dislike Y; therefore X=Y.

Satisfactory? Perhaps not. But could it be just less appalling? Absolutely. Hell, persons such as I aren't expecting the US to disassemble the American military's foreign placement and fund an international syndicalist-socialist revolution - the ideal foreign policy to be sure.

But ceasing the funding of right-wing subterfuge, ceasing the undermining of labor rights movements, beginning diplomatically neutral treatment of Israel and Saudi Arabia, ending or at least tempering or better monitoring the facilitation of huge arms deals - really just adoption of overall decency - would tickle me greatly.

 

[sub_thug]

Voted for George Washington. Teddy Roosevelt is a great contender, probably my 2nd pick. Thomas Jefferson was a great POTUS as well, and there are some other fantastic ones in the annals of our history.

 

[Trotsky]

Voted for George Washington. Teddy Roosevelt is a great contender, probably my 2nd pick. Thomas Jefferson was a great POTUS as well, and there are some other fantastic ones in the annals of our history.

I thought you were a Trump supporter/sympathizer (I deeply, sincerely apologize if you are not). If that's the case, the Teddy adoration makes impossibly little sense, as I said earlier in this thread. Complete opposite figures in every single way.

 

[sub_thug]

I thought you were a Trump supporter/sympathizer (I deeply, sincerely apologize if you are not). If that's the case, the Teddy adoration makes impossibly little sense, as I said earlier in this thread. Complete opposite figures in every single way.

I don't like President Trump. I voted for the man because I thought that he presented the lesser of two awful options, but I understand when someone else of similar sentiment selects the alternative as the lesser evil (the analogy I am so fond of using is decided what is worse: being punched in the face or kicked in the crotch, as in the end, both are fucking awful). In modern politics, I find myself permanently disappointed and without a champion for my causes In principles, I find myself much more aligned with Washington and Teddy, despite their own differences between the two.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

....do you still think that was a good thing? Airlines have consolidated and prices have increased considerably in the past ten years, despite further developments toward fuel efficiency.

Also, saying deregulation caused the drop is prices is ignoring a bunch of variables, such as exponential growth in amount of flights (and therefore ability to offer less per flight) and technological innovation.

Yes?
View attachment 340635

View attachment 340637

 

[Trotsky]

Yes?
View attachment 340635

View attachment 340637

It seems that you didn't read my post...

 

[Seaside]

I not know much american politics or president. But whoever gained you guys most land has to be pretty great. nations not built by nice guys. I say what makes USA so powerful today is resources so your push west seem really help that like texas and california right?

I heard Andrew jackson paid off debt, expanded land and did other good stuff this true? Also FDR won you WW2 the entire pacific war and help Britain a lot in battle with nazis. I just look it up Woodrow wilson help you in WW1 but i see some people not think ww1 should of had america in it.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

It seems that you didn't read my post...

technological advancement in fuel efficiency did not significantly outpace the increase in jet fuel costs -- fact remains, in 1974, it was mandated by government that a flight between LA- NY couldnt cost less than (inflation adjusted) 1440. Are you paying that now?

 

[Trotsky]

technological advancement in fuel efficient did not significantly outpace the increase in jet fuel costs -- fact remains, in 1974, it was mandated by government that a flight between LA- NY couldnt cost less than (inflation adjusted) 1440. Are you paying that now?

There are literally >6x more seats sold per year than then. That's going to decrease price, even in the event that the biggest variable cost (fuel) is static (it wasn't).

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

There are literally >6x more seats sold per year than then. That's going to decrease price, even in the event that the biggest variable cost (fuel) is static (it wasn't).

Is that an argument against deregulation? Obviously decreasing the mandated cost opened up competition and allowed prices drops.

and revenue per mile in the US dropped “airline revenue per passenger mile has declined from an inflation-adjusted 33.3 cents in 1974, to 13 cents in the first half of 2010'

Fuel efficiency increased 45% roughly over the time frame -- even if fuel prices were not static, they on average outgrew the year pace of burn efficiency.

Flights are cheaper and more people are flying -- the main reason, deregulation

 

[Scott Parker 27]

FDR, crazy shit he had to navigate us through most of WW2 and implemented public works projects etc. Pulled us out of depression.

 

[Trotsky]

Is that an argument against deregulation?

No...?

It's just a detraction from the insinuation that deregulation was the sole cause of price drops.

and revenue per mile in the US dropped “airline revenue per passenger mile has declined from an inflation-adjusted 33.3 cents in 1974, to 13 cents in the first half of 2010'

This bears the exact same vulnerability.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

No...?

It's just a detraction from the insinuation that deregulation was the sole cause of price drops.

Ok, so your argument is that deregulation was notthe absolute cause of modern prices -- but, its probably the 90% range of the reasoning. Pre-regulation 20% of the nation had flown, 2010 - 50% 1440 dollars from NY to LA - now 300?

This bears the exact same vulnerability.

Care to expand on that statement?

 

[stephen90]

JFK is my opinion. He was helping was race relations big at that time.
If JFK doesn't die then we probably don't end up in Vietnam.

 

[Trotsky]

Ok, so your argument is that deregulation was notthe absolute cause of modern prices -- but, its probably the 90% range of the reasoning.

No, because similar reductions in price followed highly regulated air travel systems.

Care to expand on that statement?

More passengers allows more less profit derived per passenger while still increasing profits. This is due in part by relaxation of boarding capacity standards as well.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

No, because similar reductions in price followed highly regulated air travel systems.

example?

More passengers allows more less profit derived per passenger while still increasing profits. This is due in part by relaxation of boarding capacity standards as well.

Airline profits have steadily decreased over the past 40 year.