Page 1 of 4 [ 54 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

chaotik_lord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Mar 2009
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 597

08 Feb 2010, 6:51 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Obama is an "empty suit" and he will be gone after 2010.


Is the situation that bad, do you think? Or were you thinking of 2012?



JetLag
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Aug 2008
Age: 74
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,762
Location: California

08 Feb 2010, 6:56 pm

but, on the other hand...
"If God wanted us to vote, he would have given us candidates." ~Jay Leno


_________________
Stung by the splendor of a sudden thought. ~ Robert Browning


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

08 Feb 2010, 8:04 pm

MissConstrue wrote:
rmctagg09 wrote:
Personally, I feel that if you really thought that all of our problems would be fixed in a year, you're either naive or an idiot.


Well said.


Even so, Our Fearless Leader and Messiah Barak Obama lacks substance.

ruveyn



SilverStar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,058
Location: Ohio, USA

09 Feb 2010, 12:05 am

SirLogiC wrote:
From what I gather a lot of people are unhappy with the progress he has made however it seems like those people are ignorant that he has tried.


SirLogiC wrote:
It just seems like a lot of the "good" things he is trying to do he can't because of politics getting in the way. US politics just seems so messed up to me.


There are some issues with Obama that I don't really agree with, but for the most part, he seems to be at least trying to do the right thing. The problem with the US, is that there are too many ignorant, selfish, and brainwashed people in this country, arguing back and forth, and throwing up road blocks to any positive change...everywhere you turn. I don't think it would really matter who was in there, because people wouldn't like anything they do either. People say they want "change", but when anyone try's to change anything, they throw a fit, if it doesn't benefit them personally, even though it may be the right thing to do.

From what I have seen, Obama seems pretty intellegent, straightforward, honest, and open-minded, but all of the resposibility can't be placed on him only. People serving in office and the general public themselves have a resposibility to to do what is right as well.



NeantHumain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,837
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

09 Feb 2010, 8:50 pm

SilverStar wrote:
From what I have seen, Obama seems pretty intellegent, straightforward, honest, and open-minded, but all of the resposibility can't be placed on him only. People serving in office and the general public themselves have a resposibility to to do what is right as well.

Yes, I can imagine, if I were to sit down and have a conversation with him, I would come out of it feeling more confident that the country's in the right hands: He is confident, articulate, and thoughtful. The trouble is the twenty-four news cycle isn't. This contrasts strikingly with President George W. Bush, who was able to give off the Joe Sixpack vibe quite strongly. Unfortunately, relatability isn't a good basis for governing a country. It helped that Bush had Karl Rove and others who are able to push Republican talking points into everyday discourse quite easily.

Obama's longer-term focus may be good in a sense, but if his political capital erodes because his staff isn't doing enough to combat the news cycle, well, he'll find even Democrats in Congress are wary of pushing some things through. His continuation of Bush policies despite campaign promises to change also don't help. On national security issues, the detainment center at Guantanamo Bay is still open; Iraq and Afghanistan are both ongoing; Obama may order the assassination of U.S. citizens abroad if they are believed to be associated with terrorism; those responsible for the previous U.S. policies of torture have not been tried (okay, Obama didn't promise that one, but it'd be nice); more security theater is going into U.S. airports because of the underpants bomber. On the home front, economic reform centered around continuing the Bush administration's bailing out of "too-big-to-fail" financial institutions and then American car companies. Reforms to the financial industry are still not in place. Most of the Democrats' signature legislative proposals still have not passed Congress (and quite possibly won't).

Many Americans think he's already done too much and is pursuing some socialist agenda. Many others (including myself) don't think he's brought enough change yet.



SilverStar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,058
Location: Ohio, USA

09 Feb 2010, 10:54 pm

NeantHumain wrote:
Many Americans think he's already done too much and is pursuing some socialist agenda. Many others (including myself) don't think he's brought enough change yet.


I don't think there has been enough change either. There needs to a big shake-up in Washington, if anyone ever wants to see real change, but the problem with doing that, is that it will piss a lot of people off, and will create a whole bunch of problems for the president. I say, do what needs to be done to get this country back on the right track, whether someone else likes it or not. :wink:

If it was me running things, and I had the power to do so, people would be kicked to the curb, if they stood in the way of doing what is right for the country.



Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

09 Feb 2010, 11:04 pm

SilverStar wrote:
NeantHumain wrote:
Many Americans think he's already done too much and is pursuing some socialist agenda. Many others (including myself) don't think he's brought enough change yet.


I don't think there has been enough change either. There needs to a big shake-up in Washington, if anyone ever wants to see real change, but the problem with doing that, is that it will piss a lot of people off, and will create a whole bunch of problems for the president. I say, do what needs to be done to get this country back on the right track, whether someone else likes it or not. :wink:

If it was me running the country, and someone stood in my way of doing the right thing, then they would be kicked to the curb.


Formula for "big change"

1) Blits the media with ads for single-payer
2) Use the Presidential Podium as a "bully pulpit" to spout pro-single payer healthcare lines
3) When it comes to the compromising, compromise down to "private healthcare system with a public option".

Formula for "business as usual"

1) Campaign in favour of a public option during the primaries but be very unclear as to whether you support it during the presidency
2) After pressure from the left flank, tentatively favour a "public option".
3) Let the Republican right compromise you down to basically a bill granting corporate welfare to the private-insurance industries.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

10 Feb 2010, 5:36 am

chaotik_lord wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Obama is an "empty suit" and he will be gone after 2010.


Is the situation that bad, do you think? Or were you thinking of 2012?


2012. Nothing to do with the Mayan Calendar.

ruveyn



Chevand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jul 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 580
Location: Vancouver, BC

11 Feb 2010, 5:24 am

I'm quite honestly very disappointed with Obama myself. He's intelligent, a fantastic speaker, and he's far more competent and diplomatic than Bush-- but the problem is, sometimes I feel he's too diplomatic. I'm not entirely sure if it's because he's naive, or if he's angling to be the "better man" in the arguments over various issues, but he's been far too passive and far too trusting of the rationality of his detractors. The truth is, the Republicans are not acting rational, and their contempt for Obama and the American people is so great that they aren't even trying to hide it anymore-- they figure they can continue to get away with it as they have. Consistently siding with corporate interests over the interests of your constituents is not rational. Obstructing legislation which Obama has endorsed, even the ones they've proposed themselves, simply to ensure Obama's failure, is not rational. Abusing the filibuster in the way that they have over the past year is not rational. Did you see the way the Republicans sat like spoiled children and pouted as Obama gave his State of the Union a few weeks ago? Obama keeps approaching this problem as if it can be solved with bipartisan compromise-- it's admirable, but in this case, with the Republicans so dead set on not compromising, it's a terrible strategy. The party wants to see him fail at any cost, even at the cost of the lives, livelihoods, and money of the taxpayers who put them in office, and right now they're getting exactly what they want, despite having lost the Presidency and still being in the minority in both houses of Congress, because Obama's playing right into their strategy of gridlock. If it's naivety, I hope Obama wises up soon; if it's a desire to compromise his way into silencing his detractors, I hope he realizes that what he's doing is really political appeasement, and he's bargaining with issues that are too important to the American people to be used as poker chips. The Rush Limbaughs and Glenn Becks and Sarah Palins and Michael Steeles are never going to stop bashing him, even if he gives them everything they say they want-- so if they're going to complain anyway, it makes far more sense to just steamroll over them. He has every right; no one can honestly say he hasn't been infinitely patient with them, or that he hasn't sincerely tried to reintroduce bipartisanship into the process. If the Republicans are going to insist on playing these stupid childish games, then it's time for the Democrats, Obama included, to grow spines and move on without them.



Unorthodox
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 9 Feb 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 95
Location: Northwest USA

11 Feb 2010, 7:33 am

I happen to think that his main problem has been over reaching, he jumped right into an issue that he's acknowledged that numerous former presidents have tried and failed to navigate, and rather than trying incrementally reform a huge and incestuous mess, he's tried to do it all at once with a giant omnibus bill that even his own party is radically split on. If memory serves, Clinton had similar problems, and on other issues he had better luck by co-opting traditionally Republican issues and giving them his own twist than by either straight compromise or by ramming things through over their objections. The steamroller approach may work in the short term, but as was shown in the 1994 mid term elections following the Crime BIll it tends to cause a lot of voter backlash, which makes it even harder to sell fellow Dems who are feeling vulnerable on it.

A smarter play might have been to keep health care reform as a political centerpiece, but not the only one, and gradually push through the necessary reforms in between less controversial issues over the course of his first term, hopefully culminating in a complete or nearly complete effort right around the time of the 2012 elections. As it is, he's stuck with what looks like a dead bill, massive voter backlash, and rapidly eroding support both within his own party and among the voters.

At the end of 2008 the Republicans were on the ropes, vilification of and opposition to Obama was the strongest card in their hand, and he could have defused it by throwing them a few bones that they would have been and looked extremely stupid to spurn, before starting in on this health care thing. I think he could have done that without impacting his base of support, and gained the backing of even more moderates and independents who are the real deciders of elections. That support would have given him a bit of breathing room to both play hardball with some of the more strident elements of his own party, and negotiate with the opposition from a position of both strength and moral high ground.

Alas, he seems to have missed those opportunities, and backed himself into a place where he looks weak and ineffective, and the Republicans smell blood in the water come November and the midterms, and his Democratic allies are having to seriously consider whether supporting his policies is worth the risk to their seats. His best plan at this point might be to strip out the most popular clauses in the monster that the health bill snowballed into, and push them through as "Phase One", simply to get on the board and have a jump off point for round two of trying to fix this system. He's also going to have to face down the Trial Lawyers at some point, a traditional Democrat stronghold that have their own part to play in rising medical costs, and that won't be much fun at all. It would however be an excellent bone to through the Republicans though, tort reform has been a major issue for them for years, and a Bill Clinton style co-opting of the issue might go a long way in jump starting some actual bipartisanship.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

11 Feb 2010, 8:04 am

Unorthodox wrote:
I happen to think that his main problem has been over reaching, he jumped right into an issue that he's acknowledged that numerous former presidents have tried and failed to navigate, and rather than trying incrementally reform a huge and incestuous mess, he's tried to do it all at once with a giant omnibus bill that even his own party is radically split on. If memory serves, Clinton had similar problems, and on other issues he had better luck by co-opting traditionally Republican issues and giving them his own twist than by either straight compromise or by ramming things through over their objections. The steamroller approach may work in the short term, but as was shown in the 1994 mid term elections following the Crime BIll it tends to cause a lot of voter backlash, which makes it even harder to sell fellow Dems who are feeling vulnerable on it.

A smarter play might have been to keep health care reform as a political centerpiece, but not the only one, and gradually push through the necessary reforms in between less controversial issues over the course of his first term, hopefully culminating in a complete or nearly complete effort right around the time of the 2012 elections. As it is, he's stuck with what looks like a dead bill, massive voter backlash, and rapidly eroding support both within his own party and among the voters.

At the end of 2008 the Republicans were on the ropes, vilification of and opposition to Obama was the strongest card in their hand, and he could have defused it by throwing them a few bones that they would have been and looked extremely stupid to spurn, before starting in on this health care thing. I think he could have done that without impacting his base of support, and gained the backing of even more moderates and independents who are the real deciders of elections. That support would have given him a bit of breathing room to both play hardball with some of the more strident elements of his own party, and negotiate with the opposition from a position of both strength and moral high ground.

Alas, he seems to have missed those opportunities, and backed himself into a place where he looks weak and ineffective, and the Republicans smell blood in the water come November and the midterms, and his Democratic allies are having to seriously consider whether supporting his policies is worth the risk to their seats. His best plan at this point might be to strip out the most popular clauses in the monster that the health bill snowballed into, and push them through as "Phase One", simply to get on the board and have a jump off point for round two of trying to fix this system. He's also going to have to face down the Trial Lawyers at some point, a traditional Democrat stronghold that have their own part to play in rising medical costs, and that won't be much fun at all. It would however be an excellent bone to through the Republicans though, tort reform has been a major issue for them for years, and a Bill Clinton style co-opting of the issue might go a long way in jump starting some actual bipartisanship.


You just have to look at the members Obama chose for his cabinet to be informed that the "change" slogan was a fraud from the word go.



SilverStar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,058
Location: Ohio, USA

12 Feb 2010, 3:40 pm

Chevand wrote:
Did you see the way the Republicans sat like spoiled children and pouted as Obama gave his State of the Union a few weeks ago? Obama keeps approaching this problem as if it can be solved with bipartisan compromise-- it's admirable, but in this case, with the Republicans so dead set on not compromising, it's a terrible strategy


If you have ever studied Narcissistic Personality Disorder, beyond just the basic symptoms, this describes them perfectly. They acted the same way at the House Republican retreat that Obama attended.



NeantHumain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,837
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

13 Feb 2010, 2:52 am

SilverStar wrote:
Chevand wrote:
Did you see the way the Republicans sat like spoiled children and pouted as Obama gave his State of the Union a few weeks ago? Obama keeps approaching this problem as if it can be solved with bipartisan compromise-- it's admirable, but in this case, with the Republicans so dead set on not compromising, it's a terrible strategy


If you have ever studied Narcissistic Personality Disorder, beyond just the basic symptoms, this describes them perfectly. They acted the same way at the House Republican retreat that Obama attended.

It's about projecting the right image to the public rather than hoping Republicans will come around. Americans tend to value bipartisanship. The problem is Republicans see bipartisanship as getting exactly what they would want if they were in the majority. Obama is giving them another chance for the olive branch, and he seems to be rebuking them more strongly when they snub him, which is good strategy.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

13 Feb 2010, 5:24 am

NeantHumain wrote:
SilverStar wrote:
From what I have seen, Obama seems pretty intellegent, straightforward, honest, and open-minded, but all of the resposibility can't be placed on him only. People serving in office and the general public themselves have a resposibility to to do what is right as well.

Yes, I can imagine, if I were to sit down and have a conversation with him, I would come out of it feeling more confident that the country's in the right hands: He is confident, articulate, and thoughtful. The trouble is the twenty-four news cycle isn't. This contrasts strikingly with President George W. Bush, who was able to give off the Joe Sixpack vibe quite strongly. Unfortunately, relatability isn't a good basis for governing a country. It helped that Bush had Karl Rove and others who are able to push Republican talking points into everyday discourse quite easily.

Obama's longer-term focus may be good in a sense, but if his political capital erodes because his staff isn't doing enough to combat the news cycle, well, he'll find even Democrats in Congress are wary of pushing some things through. His continuation of Bush policies despite campaign promises to change also don't help. On national security issues, the detainment center at Guantanamo Bay is still open; Iraq and Afghanistan are both ongoing; Obama may order the assassination of U.S. citizens abroad if they are believed to be associated with terrorism; those responsible for the previous U.S. policies of torture have not been tried (okay, Obama didn't promise that one, but it'd be nice); more security theater is going into U.S. airports because of the underpants bomber. On the home front, economic reform centered around continuing the Bush administration's bailing out of "too-big-to-fail" financial institutions and then American car companies. Reforms to the financial industry are still not in place. Most of the Democrats' signature legislative proposals still have not passed Congress (and quite possibly won't).

Many Americans think he's already done too much and is pursuing some socialist agenda. Many others (including myself) don't think he's brought enough change yet.


The concept that most Americans think Obama has done too much is one of the most peculiar viewpoints. He has, admittedly seen to it that the Wall Street gangsters have done beautifully while millions of American workers and home owners have been totally screwed. That food stamps is a major item in a huge number of households is hardly a stride towards socialism. And his ass-kissing of the Republicans (who brought down the avalanche of painful problems) is not particularly encouraging. The only reason the unemployment figures are as good as they are is that lots of people have been out of work so long they are marked down as no longer unemployed. Obama talks change but has done nothing in that direction squandering billions on useless military hardware and the hopeless and useless conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq cozying up to outright brutal crooks, fanatics and drug dealers and murdering innocents by the thousands as "collateral damage" as a friendly gesture to the local populace.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

13 Feb 2010, 6:22 am

For a detailed analysis of current US economic history and Obama's policies by an economist see http://www.counterpunch.org/zadeh02122010.html



maleb
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 7 Feb 2010
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 55
Location: Northern VA

13 Feb 2010, 9:13 am

MissConstrue wrote:
rmctagg09 wrote:
Personally, I feel that if you really thought that all of our problems would be fixed in a year, you're either naive or an idiot.


Well said.



Absolutely agree! That has been my feeling since he started campaigning! You can't change a machine that has been turning for 200+ years, especially when human nature is what keeps the wheel spinning.
I mean, if I knew that all it took to be president was promising things I would never have to keep and keep making up excusese with more lies, I would of ran! .... ok, probably not :)


_________________
For me, living a "normal" life is a lot like learning a new language. I can pick-up a lot of the words as I go, mimick the slang, but I will always have an accent!