Social Obama’s blunt message for Democrats: ‘Toughen up’

Hmmm

“When somebody says something that you don’t like, but you still say, ‘You know what, that person has the right to speak…”

What is he suggesting be done to people who say things he doesn’t like? Of course they have the right to speak. What the hell is up with that?

The quote suggests they don’t and democrats should no longer accept hearing things they don’t like..as if that hasn’t been their mode of operation for a decade+

Basically it’s another call for democrats to get “mean” to combat what they view as the rights successful use of irreverence.

But that style of politics is most effective if people agree with you. And in many of the most important areas, democrats have chosen to fight and die on hills of fringe minorities that arent as powerless as they like to claim.

Also, while democrats don’t think they’re mean and cruel so much that they think it’s “time to get tough”: Most regular folk would differ and it’s mostly why they lose
lol man what in the world are you talking about? We are watching in real time like your inner monologue to twist this into something you can hate on.

Obama has always been outspoken about his dislike of cancel culture. Like, since it became a thing.
 
Last edited:
lol man what in the world are you talking about? We are watching in real time like your inner monologue to twist this into something you can hate on.

Obama has always been outspoken about his dislike of cancel culture. Like, since it became a thing.

I know he has in the past. Which makes the words he chose all the more interesting

How do you interpret it?
 
Cool to see Obama throw his weight behind the "Abundance" movement. The first local or state politician to embrace it and follow through with ambitious but timely and successful infrastructure projects will gain serious political capital.

What is the abundance movement? Never heard of it before
 
Toughen up ... you damn sissy la las.

WiISl9.gif


He can curl big too!

obamagym.jpg


<36>
 
I think it's too early to tell. JD looks to be next in line to run, but anything could happen. I don't see anybody on the Democrat side as a viable candidate right now, no matter the Republican that will be running. I think the 2026 midterms will give everyone a much better idea. Remember the 2022 midterms? Trump went into them already looking bad with the election denial shit yet we were supposed to get a Red Wave. It became a Red Trickle and everyone Trump backed underperformed. Biden looked destined to be wheeled right into a second term, no problem. Look how that all turned out. 2028 is far away, and these will be very long years until then.

Please, I hope someone besides jd becomes viable. And gavin gruesome is most likely going to be the dem nominee imo
 
He is trumps current mini me. I don’t like trump and Vance seems to espouse the same level of garbage hit he has that little man syndrome where he wants to be even more outrageous to prove himself

lol ok
 
What is the abundance movement? Never heard of it before
There's a book called Abundance written by Derek Thompson and Ezra Klein which argues that in US cities, particularly those run by Democrats, both the private and public sectors are burdened by onerous regulations that don't allow businesses or goverment to properly deliver on fundamental goods like housing and infrastructure. In many cases these regulations are hindering what should be progressive goals like expanding our green energy output, making housing more affordable, and investing in public goods line transit. The solution,according to them, is to slash this kind of red tape so that, for example, developers can more easily get their developments approved and local government can more efficiently build things like transit.

The argument has been embraced by some on the left, usually center-left, and rejected by others, usually progressives and socialists, though they're are exceptions like Mamdani who has hinted at incorporating some of these ideas into his admin. I'm generally in agreement with the core argument, that we need to make it easier for both the private and public sector to build things like housing, public transit, and renewable energy.
 
There's a book called Abundance written by Derek Thompson and Ezra Klein which argues that in US cities, particularly those run by Democrats, both the private and public sectors are burdened by onerous regulations that don't allow businesses or goverment to properly deliver on fundamental goods like housing and infrastructure. In many cases these regulations are hindering what should be progressive goals like expanding our green energy output, making housing more affordable, and investing in public goods line transit. The solution,according to them, is to slash this kind of red tape so that, for example, developers can more easily get their developments approved and local government can more efficiently build things like transit.

The argument has been embraced by some on the left, usually center-left, and rejected by others, usually progressives and socialists, though they're are exceptions like Mamdani who has hinted at incorporating some of these ideas into his admin. I'm generally in agreement with the core argument, that we need to make it easier for both the private and public sector to build things like housing, public transit, and renewable energy.

The red tape allows them control points at several levels. They label it as “safety restrictions meant to ensure that buildings are being built correctly” but the city leaders just want to control who and what can build/be built in the city or area of the city. Its zoning laws, for example. In my city, currently, there is an issue like this where a company wants to come in and build a car wash on a vacant lot and they have requested a zoning law change to allow them to build in this particular spot. The city council keeps deadlocking at every point. The company, a national chain of car washes, keeps telling city council that they are trying to invest five million dollars into the city to build this thing and those that object at the zoning level are citing traffic concerns when everyone knows that a wealthy family owns the other ten car washes in town. So once they pass the zoning laws, then they will have to get through the building plans being ok’d and I am sure they will deadlock on that. The businessman is telling the city he only has so much patience and then he will say fuck it and they lose their five million put into the city. This was on the news yesterday. The reason it made news was because the zoning board meeting, which is public, got heated. The news just happened to be there to shoot it. Why in the fuck would the need go to a zoning board meeting? Someone tipped them off this would get heated is why the need was there. Anyway, it’s shit like this that you’re talking about.
 
Jesus cottage, you are an unapologetic retard.

You are the kind of retard that thinks masculinity and toughness is about is taking photos with your shirt off in the wilderness.

Remember the clips of him lifting weights? Now his wife basically a podcast every week talking about how bad huessain was as a man and father. Lol, it is his own wife.

To ignore the jabs from his wife, and his own gayness shows you are the retard
 
Obama at a fundraiser: "Toughen up! DO something to change the status quo!!"

TRANSLATION: "GIVE MORE MONEY to a failing and historically unpopular Democratic party!!

Notice he doesn't get into any specifics on how to enact change or what policies to fight against. It's just a general "do something positive!"
 
Last edited:
Obama at a FUNDRAISER: "Toughen up! DO something to change the status quo!!"

TRANSLATION: "GIVE MORE MONEY to a failing and historically unpopular Democratic party!!

Notice he doesn't get into any specifics on how to enact change or what policies to fight against. It's just a general "do something positive!"
He's a bull trying to convince swans that his way is best. I actually don't think he's saying "do something positive", as that's all the Democrats are about(in their own heads).

He's telling a bunch of fairies who get spooked by their own shadow, to quit being little bitches and stop literally crying about everything, if they want to actually get shit done. If Democrats want to try and understand this strange and ever foreign "manosphere", they should start talking to him. Sure, he had some weird policies at the back end of his tenure, but he's still a man's man at the end of the day. He's the last lingering bit of testosterone in the party. He's the last man standing. If they lose him, Hillary Clinton is the next in line to take advice on such matters.
 
The red tape allows them control points at several levels. They label it as “safety restrictions meant to ensure that buildings are being built correctly” but the city leaders just want to control who and what can build/be built in the city or area of the city. Its zoning laws, for example. In my city, currently, there is an issue like this where a company wants to come in and build a car wash on a vacant lot and they have requested a zoning law change to allow them to build in this particular spot. The city council keeps deadlocking at every point. The company, a national chain of car washes, keeps telling city council that they are trying to invest five million dollars into the city to build this thing and those that object at the zoning level are citing traffic concerns when everyone knows that a wealthy family owns the other ten car washes in town. So once they pass the zoning laws, then they will have to get through the building plans being ok’d and I am sure they will deadlock on that. The businessman is telling the city he only has so much patience and then he will say fuck it and they lose their five million put into the city. This was on the news yesterday. The reason it made news was because the zoning board meeting, which is public, got heated. The news just happened to be there to shoot it. Why in the fuck would the need go to a zoning board meeting? Someone tipped them off this would get heated is why the need was there. Anyway, it’s shit like this that you’re talking about.
Yes exactly, they talk about how these bottlenecks stiffles even progressive initiatives as even things like homeless shelters and public transit run into these issues.

It's not always nefarious either, sometimes the politicians think they're doing the right thing. I have a part time gig at a local environmental initiative which is a partnership between a farm and the local government. One of the officials that sponsors our program ended up sponsoring a local ordinance which, had it succeeded, would've basically killed our project. But they weren't aware, they thought the ordinance was a good thing until another local official closer to our initiative told them otherwise.

Lots of examples like that where the government gets in it's own way.
 
Obama at a fundraiser: "Toughen up! DO something to change the status quo!!"

TRANSLATION: "GIVE MORE MONEY to a failing and historically unpopular Democratic party!!

Notice he doesn't get into any specifics on how to enact change or what policies to fight against. It's just a general "do something positive!"
Did you read the whole thing? He specifically mentions the Abundance movement which is all about policy reform.
 
There's a book called Abundance written by Derek Thompson and Ezra Klein which argues that in US cities, particularly those run by Democrats, both the private and public sectors are burdened by onerous regulations that don't allow businesses or goverment to properly deliver on fundamental goods like housing and infrastructure. In many cases these regulations are hindering what should be progressive goals like expanding our green energy output, making housing more affordable, and investing in public goods line transit. The solution,according to them, is to slash this kind of red tape so that, for example, developers can more easily get their developments approved and local government can more efficiently build things like transit.

The argument has been embraced by some on the left, usually center-left, and rejected by others, usually progressives and socialists, though they're are exceptions like Mamdani who has hinted at incorporating some of these ideas into his admin. I'm generally in agreement with the core argument, that we need to make it easier for both the private and public sector to build things like housing, public transit, and renewable energy.

One of my issues with the abundance idea is that by doing that you're basically going down the Republican rabbit hole. If you are going to do Abundance why not just vote Republican? They already campaign on those types of ideas. What I have trouble understanding is if you want things like affordable housing, public transit and renewable energy you cannot adequately rely on the private sector. So why play this game where you're for free market and for bureaucracy simultaneously? This is how Dems got into the mess they are in now.
 
Back
Top