Obama General Discussion, vol. 5

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Diemen

Irvine already responded to your first two points quite well, but just to follow up on this. I see plenty of claims that Obama doesn't compromise, or is "ramming things down our throats" or acting by executive fiat only, but that just doesn't quite mesh with reality. Prior to the government shutdown, Obama and the Democrats made a huge compromise by agreeing to the Republican proposed budget numbers, numbers that were significantly below both Democrat proposals and even the Paul Ryan budget of last year. The ACA, as Irvine pointed out, was originally a Republican idea. One that was implemented rather successfully and touted as a significant achievement by Mitt Romney (until he realized he'd be better politically served to pretend it never happened). And it certainly didn't pass into law in its original state without any changes due to compromise.

Well - I guess we will have to leave it to the historians. If you guys think he's been awesome, there's little I can say to convince you otherwise.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by AEON

Well - I guess we will have to leave it to the historians. If you guys think he's been awesome, there's little I can say to convince you otherwise.

That's pretty reductionist, don't you think? I really did spend some time today responding.

I will reiterate my main point.

I'm less concerned with whether or not Obama has brought about good policy than I am with the fact that for a segment of the population ANY policy he advocates will bring about the collapse of American civilization. It's the hysteria and moreover sheer anger that baffles me. You can say that it was bad with Bush 2, and I'd agree to an extent, but the difference is that ears were going in and people were getting killed and being tortured.

Obama is so calm and centrist and almost boring that I'm rather astonished at the vitriol. My big hope was that he would help us get beyond the Baby Boom cultural fault lines that were created during Vietnam. He hasn't succeeded. But that's not for lack of effort.

All that said, my life is better now than it was in 2008. I can get married, I have employer subsidized health care, I have a mortgage at a great rate in a city that gets better by the month, and my portfolio is doing well. While not all of those things are due to Obama, why would I not think he's pretty good?

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by AEON

Well - I guess we will have to leave it to the historians. If you guys think he's been awesome, there's little I can say to convince you otherwise.

I don't understand this binary way of viewing things. Has anyone here said he's been just awesome? There's a whole range of choices in between awesome and ineffectual weakling. I think saying "he's not a disaster" or "he actually has demonstrated he's intelligent and has shown competency in several meaningful ways" is quite a bit different than "he's awesome and can do no wrong!"

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

That's pretty reductionist, don't you think? I really did spend some time today responding.

True. I apologize. My free time for the afternoon is running out. I will try to respond as best I can later (unless someone beats me to it). Your posts above do deserve more of a response.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by AEON

Also, another way to work with those obstructing your political path...compromise

With people who have openly declared that they will make his healthcare act his Waterloo?

As for him being not intelligent enough, well that's a new one. I think that he's as intelligent as Bill Clinton, the difference is that he's an academic intelligent person whereas Bill Clinton was more intelligent in an EQ sense.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

... his accomplishments are numerous. just to name a few:

1. passed health care
2. passed wall street reform
3. bailed out the auto industry
4. repealed DADT
5. passed the stimulus
6.
7. drawdown in Afghanistan
8.
9. recapitalized banks
10. toppled Gaddafi
11. ended torture
12. improved our image abroad
13. tightened sanctions on Iran
14. new START treaty
15. expanded hate crimes protections

If these are "accomplishments" I will give thanks next Thursday for the "anarchists" and "obstructionists" in Congress.

\

[Irvine511]

So you love torture and hate gay soldiers.

This proves my points exactly.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

i'm sorry but, objectively, you're simply wrong. if anything, the criticism against Obama is that he's too smart -- too professorial, too aloof, too much of an intellectual.

The man seems utterly incapable of speaking unless he's on script. He struggles for words (just count how many ummms you hear in the interviews) and rambles into incoherence. This is going to sound terrible - but I think that if he was white, we would not hear statements that he was "professorial" and "aloof" - but simply dumb.

Originally Posted by Irvine511

as for competency, aside from winning two elections, his accomplishments are numerous. just to name a few:

1. passed health care
2. passed wall street reform
3. bailed out the auto industry
4. repealed DADT
5. passed the stimulus
6. ended the war in Iraq
7. drawdown in Afghanistan
8. killed OBL
9. recapitalized banks
10. toppled Gaddafi
11. ended torture
12. improved our image abroad
13. tightened sanctions on Iran
14. new START treaty
15. expanded hate crimes protections


now you may not agree with the merits of these accomplishments, or think they are bad things, but we can't argue that these are accomplishments. in the way that i think the Bush tax cuts are bad, they are, nonetheless, an accomplishment.

There are some good ones in there. I did not say his presidency was a complete disaster, only that it will be considered weak.

Originally Posted by Irvine511

does that make sense? you're really conflating your opinions on what happened with the fact that something has actually happened.

That's always possible. But lately it seems Obama is becoming a nightly punchline for John Steward - not a good sign.

Originally Posted by Irvine511

i'd argue that what's so bad about the rollout of the ACA is that it's the first time Obama's actual competency has been called into question. that's his chief challenge right now.

And it's a big one - since it is his "signature" reform.

There has been a definite turn in the attitude of the mainstream press these last few months. The press conferences are getting more hostile (they're tired of the same excuses and back peddling.)

And Obamacare is not his only disaster. His lack of the control on the NSA has definitely eroded support from the twentysomethings (just go into reddit and see what the precailing attitude is). His back peddling on Syria and mishandling of the Benghazi incident certainly lost him some fans in the international affairs arena.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

So you love torture and hate gay soldiers.

This proves my points exactly.

I don't think he said that.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by anitram

With people who have openly declared that they will make his healthcare act his Waterloo?

People can "declare" anything they want. Waterloo can only be Waterloo if Napoleon loses. And regarding the apparent loss on ACA - Obama will only have his lack of leadership to blame. You know - leadership goes both ways folks. You can't take all credit for success - yet, pass the blame on "obstruction" for all failures.

Originally Posted by anitram

As for him being not intelligent enough, well that's a new one. I think that he's as intelligent as Bill Clinton, the difference is that he's an academic intelligent person whereas Bill Clinton was more intelligent in an EQ sense.

When I think of academic intelligent I think of Bernanke and Petreus. Unlike them and any number of public figures with advanced degrees from Ivy League schools - Obama has not demonstrated a keen understanding of history, philosophy, law, economics, literature, science...or, anything "academic." Also - Greenspan said Clinton was the brightest president he worked with (dating back to Ford) - combined with that high EQ score, perhaps we can see why Clinton is still popular today. Also - wasn't Clinton a Rhodes Scholar?

[deep]

breakthrough on Iran nuclear deal

they should give Obama the Noble Peace Prize

[Irvine511]

I'm sure it was by accident.

[nbcrusader]

Agree with me or you love torture and hate gay soldiers? The absurdist reduction argument does come in handy I suppose. The list of “accomplishments” has almost a Pelosi-like spin, with many representing bloated legislation or enormous government spending.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by nbcrusader

Agree with me or you love torture and hate gay soldiers? The absurdist reduction argument does come in handy I suppose.

your posts have a very interesting way of accusing others of what you are exactly doing in that post itself.

if you'll go back and read, INDY carefully removed #6 (ended Iraq) and #8 (killed OBL), and left the rest.

left on that list of Obama's accomplishments was the repeal of Dont Ask Dont Tell, and torture.

it is entirely reasonable to think that INDY hates gay soldiers -- he would prefer them to have to lie in order to serve -- and that he endorses the Bush/Cheney regime torture techniques like waterboading and other illegal "enhanced interrogation techniques" were used (and proved ineffective).

so, as you see, it's not "agree with me, or else ..." as you have implied. please, in the future, it would be great if you could not distort what i've posted.

as i said repeatedly, you can dismiss -- as you did -- the merits of these accomplishments, and believe that we would have been better off taking a different course of action (allowing a 2nd great depression, collapse of the auto industry, retaining the most inefficient health care system in the world, firing servicemen fluent in Arabic and Farsi for being gay), and that's all legitimate.

what isn't legitimate was AEON's contention that Obama hasn't done anything but kill OBL. (he's also decimated Al Qaeda). that's what prompted the (very quickly thrown together) list.

you've made your your fundamentalist views on government spending and government in general very clear, and i'm sure that's why you would take issue with what parts of Obama's agenda (though i don't remember much worry about you about the $1T Iraq War or Medicaid D or the deficits of the Bush years ... but there was a lot going on so i'm sure it was just an oversight and you were always concerned about the overspending when the GOP controlled all branches of government from 2001-2007 while they lowered taxes).

but to say that Obama hasn't done anything is false.

and we can now add this enormous breakthrough with Iran to the list. at a minimum, we can all give that a

[BEAL]

Seriously, how anyone can state Obama hasn't had success in foreign policy is just nuts.

Ghadafi is gone.
Syria to give up chemical weapons
Iran nuclear deal.

Now, none of this means that region will stabilize or worse things can happen, but we didn't lose any American soldiers lives and we used diplomacy instead of bombing everything.

We could end up right back to where we are now (war as option) but at least we tried other options

[AEON]

I agree - the Iran nuclear deal is a BIG win if it holds up.

[BEAL]

Worst case we are back to where we are now.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

your posts have a very interesting way of accusing others of what you are exactly doing in that post itself.

if you'll go back and read, INDY carefully removed #6 (ended Iraq) and #8 (killed OBL), and left the rest.

left on that list of Obama's accomplishments was the repeal of Dont Ask Dont Tell, and torture.

it is entirely reasonable to think that INDY hates gay soldiers -- he would prefer them to have to lie in order to serve --

Or he would prefer to side with those in the military that oppose its repeal. Or do they all hate gays too?

and that he endorses the Bush/Cheney regime torture techniques like waterboading and other illegal "enhanced interrogation techniques" were used (and proved ineffective).

And I prefer to side with those that say we gained a great deal of intel from the enhanced interrogation of a few select enemy combatants. Torture is your word for this not mine, if I thought we were truly torturing people I'd be against it also.

Besides, you still haven't explained how water-boarding (under medical supervision and congressional oversight) is more vile and inhumane than being atomized by a drone missile.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

So you love torture and hate gay soldiers.

And torturing gay soldiers above all.

This proves my points exactly.[/QUOTE]

Back at u.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by BEAL

Worst case we are back to where we are now.

Not really because we'd be 6 months closer to a world with Atomic Mullahs.

Why should we trust the world's most involved state sponsor of terrorism again?