When I think of evil villains rubbing their hands together in their ivory towers laughing maniacally, Obama doesn't come to mind.
Cheney, however...
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Obama live press conference NOW - Damage control mode on
- Thread starter TCRS
- Start date
- Status
When I think of evil villains rubbing their hands together in their ivory towers laughing maniacally, Obama doesn't come to mind.
Cheney, however...
Angry Fork
Member
Where do you think we are right now? Honest question, do you think we're in the center? Like from 0-100, 0 being leftist collective wet dream and 100 being corporate dictatorship, pervasive fascist ideology etc.
I completely agree with this, but I also say I don't want America to be an empire, that's the main point of modern day leftist criticisms. It's doing what it's doing because that's what it is. And I have no doubt other governments would do the same.
That being said it is fact that some other countries have radically different politics and so I don't think it's wrong to point out their positives or negatives. It's weird to say we shouldn't praise Finland's education system because they don't have to spend so much on being global police. That's somehow turning a good thing into a bad thing without reason.
So you define your morals and ethical outlook on life solely in terms of extremes propagated to you by fictional television programs. kewl
This is why we primary Hillary and try to force her left, or find someone better. I'm pretty much anyone but Hillary at this point. Hoping Warren runs.
Um... I don't know how to respond to that statement. I am not sure if you're combating sarcasm with sarcasm or if you are truly being serious.
So you're a Sith?
flyinpiranha
Member
I'll go out on a limb here. Mine is not. I actually thought he'd try. While I know 90% of the position is a talking head and the real change comes from (unfortunately) the rest of 'capital hill', I was hoping he'd realize that he didn't need a re-election and try to actually improve things. I think he has in some ways but he has turned his back on the people and ideals that got him into office. It's a shitty feeling being lied to so blatantly. I get it, that's politics. But I almost feel that I should have voted for Romney because at least I knew where his interests were. I feel like I got played.
SlickShoesRUCrazy
Member
isn't preventing terrorism preventing murder?
JesseEwiak
Member
My point is, Obama has a certain window he can move in as far as policies go and his policies in some areas can effect his position on other issues.
To be blunt, a black Democrat from Chicago can't be the one to try to tear apart the national security state. Just like he can't be the one to take down the War on Drugs either. Remember, Obama ran, won the nomination and general election on increasing troops in Afghanistan.
I mean, do you want Obama to unilaterally try to shut down this program, get attacked for endangering national secuirty by Republican's (which by the way, what they would've done if he hadn't defended the programs) and as a result, lose the Senate and have the GOP make further gains in the House in 2014?
Also, I think we're a solid 65. Which is farther to the right than every other single First World nation, but no, we're not far-right. We still have a free press, a safety net, and so on. The idea we're far-right insults people who actually had to live in far-right dictatorships like Chile and Franco's Spain.
The Librarian
Banned
Can someone explain the thread title to me? How was this press conference damage control?
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Either bad sarcasm or earnest hate.
This pretty much.
People are pissed because Obama promised all this stuff, and then did the complete opposite. But at least Bush said he was going to do terrible things X, Y, Z and then went ahead and actually did it.
JesseEwiak
Member
I think you're voting for the Magical Fantasy Version of Obama that never actually existed. Obama never promised to destroy the National Security State. Hell, he voted to give telecommunication companies protections from lawsuits about privacy during the '08 election, for crying out loud.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Clicks>accuracy
Warren doesn't have a chance in hell and this is coming from someone whose only political donation ever went to Warren last year.
JesseEwiak
Member
Next week, the whole Democratic Party is going to resign and turn the White House over to Rand Paul because of the NSA scandal.
Choke on the Magic
Banned
Watched the press conference. Didn't hear anything new. Meh. Overraction confirmed.
The Librarian
Banned
Well, that's horrible "damage control" given how long it took to organize the press conference. It didn't come off that way during the press conference at all. If this was damage control, it was ineffective.
responding to NSA and FISA revelations with steps for greater transparency and oversight is seen as damage control for OP.
Also Obama is seen as goddamn evil by some
yes you see, that's exactly what damage control is. an attempt to appease or calm people after a revelation that makes them upset.
Link
The Autumn Wind
If 0 is left, I'd say we're hovering around 60 and trending downward.
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
Bush ran as a very centrist "compassionate conservative".
depends on if one feels that there was any damage to begin with
Then 9/11 happened which can be seen as an event that justified his turn.
JesseEwiak
Member
Yup.
Again, this is another case of people in their early 20's not actually being politically aware for the 2000 Election. The reason why Nader got such a big percentage in that election is that it seemed like, to low info voters, that Bush and Gore agreed on everything. Of course we should cut taxes, the only question is how much. Of course we should have a humble foreign policy. Of course we should reform immigration. The biggest fight was over whether we should throw a massive amount of extra money we had in a lockbox or not.
If not for 9/11, Bush likely would've been remember as somebody like his Dad, only with a slightly worse legacy for his one term because of how he got into office.
Angry Fork
Member
I think it's wrong that Republicans would gain from dems trying to take away the surveillance state or war on drugs. The majority of Americans already think the war on drugs is a failure, and how they feel on surveillane/anti-terrorism may be up in the air but it certainly isn't some sort of easy clinch for the right.
If Americans got a taste of real nationalized healthcare they simply wouldn't want to give it up, same goes for strong civil liberties, strong labor rights, free universal college education, etc. But these are not even being presented as serious options let alone attempted.
Obama can't do everything, I don't expect him to, I don't expect democrats to be able to do everything. However I do expect them to hold reasonable opinions, advocate them in public, and argue the defense of leftist ideas as best they can, if they were a legitimate left party (some do, many don't). Obviously center-right democrats (republicans) aren't going to do that though, which is what Obama is. So they should be criticized for that, and grassroots movements should inform the public of alternative ideas that dems or the media aren't displaying.
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
You just said he promised to do all the shit he actually did and we voted him in for it.
America, your leadership is weak (and has been for a long time for you Republicans) and your citizens are even weaker (when was the last time you have ever rallied over anything for change). To implement universal healthcare, you can't go halfway or transition it slowly. You need leaders like Tommy Douglas and Clement Attlee.
quickwhips
Member
Need to rename patriot act to snitches get stitches act and more people will be ok with it.
Yeah, if you're 13 years old.
I never voted for Obama and yet I'm still pissed because people need to be held accountable.
Saying all this "change" and "hope" and then doing the complete opposite is cruel and exploitative. He needs to be held responsible by voters IMHO. All of which is beginning to happen.
stufte
Member
You're generalizing a bit. He promised a LOT of things. Some things he followed through on, some things he was blocked by Republicans from doing, and some things he absolutely reversed his position on. I think overall he's been a good president, and this isn't going to change that in my mind, but he's definitely fucking this particular shit up.
TheLaughingStock
Member
Snowden is not a patriot y'all.
~BO
~BO
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
No, because he never made a campaign promise to do any of those things. That's disingenuous anyways. People aren't mad because Obama broke some implicit or explicit promise; they're mad that he's not the Great Liberal Hope they (and right wingers, for that matter) delusionally belived him to be.
Name these promises please.
JesseEwiak
Member
Again, I think you're getting Internet opinion confused with actual opinion. Yes, 50% of people want marijuana legalized. But, that's among all adults. Among likely voters in a midterm election or even Presidential election? If I had to guess, it's a few ticks lower and even a lot of those people who want marijuana legalized, don't want a complete end to the War on Drugs. They still like DARE, they still like the DEA running a tank through the wall of a meth lab, and so on. Among people under 30? Sure.
On the second thing, again, a lot of the opposition to this is political. A decent chunk of Republican voters would've been 'convinced' the right thing to do would've been whatever the opposite of what Obama did.
I absolutely agree with you, but you have to understand it's a process. We didn't become a nation where the rightist party embraced a destruction of the welfare state, complete bans on abortion, and so on in one election cycle. The conservative movement worked for decades to install themselves at magazines, as Republican local commiteemen, on school boards, city councils, and so on and so forth.
The social democratic/leftist/etc. movement needs to do the same thing. Want to impress me? Don't march. Don't complain on the Internet. Get involved in your local Democratic party. Go run for a school board or county council spot. Volunteer for a progressive ballot initiative. Those are the things that will slowly shift the nation left, not voting for Jill Stein because Obama upset you.
Again, Obama never spoke that he was a leftist on national security issues. He never would've gotten elected as that. I have no problems with the information coming out. I do have a problem with people acting upset because Obama is reacting like a President with multiple policies pulling at him instead of a guy in his dorm room getting high.
I have no issues with grassroots movements. But, grassroots movements for issues that a supermajority of the nation support or don't care about won't do much in the long run.
He didn't?
Let me check.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/07/obama-guantanamo.html
Oh
All the important stuff that specifically distinguished Bush (overblown wars + paranoia on terrorism, drone strikes, suspicious breaches of law, growing divide between rich and poor, guantanamo, etc.) has continued under him.
Didn't he also delay his own healthcare because of "discussing it with busniesses?" lol. None of that important stuff can be stopped by Republicans.
You mean, the Guantanamo that he tried very hard to close but was prevented by the Republicans? The President isn't a dictator.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
You can't just find a random promise he hasn't acted on (and for the record, he's 7 months into his second term, not 2 months from the end of his term) and connect it to NSA bulk spying as though they are equivalent. That's called "bullshiting."
Besides, the premise is off anyways. Its not like that's a unilateral decision of the President anyways; it isn't like Obama rules America by fiat declaration.
You know nothing about politics. How can the President do most of those things without the consent of Congress?
I read that there was a way he can easily prevent that by simply moving the prisoners out by executive order.
In other words, Guantanmo would still exist but it would basically be useless (and therefore closed in the most important sense of the term). But Obama just made pretend that the Republicans "stopped" him from closing Guantanamo.
How about this, we make OBAMA DICTATOR, instead of PRESIDENT!
Bam! All of a sudden every promise is kept! We all know democracy is inferior to autocracy anyways.
You read wrong. It's not that simple for many many reasons.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=75593595&postcount=230
Also he didn't promise to try hard. He promised to do it. Instead he even signs acts, that actually prevent closure of Guantanamo. Which is the complete opposite of what he promised.
And again - he should have known the laws. And then just not promised it IN THE VERY FIRST PLACE. Isn't that so hard to understand?
uh, Occupy Wall Street? Tea Party? Regardless of what you think of their politics, those are pretty obviously protest movements rallying for change.
Isn't the war in Iraq over? Aren't troops in Afghanistan withdrawing en masse by the end of next year?
JesseEwiak
Member
Yes, because he doesn't want to suspend payment to soliders over whether Guantanamo is closed or not. That monster!
I was scanning through the white paper and the section on relevance is interesting.
Their basic argument is that even though all the data they are collecting isn't directly related to an investigation, it is still permissible to collect it because said database might help find relevant information.
I don't understand what this clause is even limiting if you are going to interpret it that broadly.
Also as much as I hate it, the section on the fourth amendment is pretty cut and dry. I don't see how the meta-data collection could be ruled unconstitutional considering the precedents.
Their basic argument is that even though all the data they are collecting isn't directly related to an investigation, it is still permissible to collect it because said database might help find relevant information.
I don't understand what this clause is even limiting if you are going to interpret it that broadly.
Also as much as I hate it, the section on the fourth amendment is pretty cut and dry. I don't see how the meta-data collection could be ruled unconstitutional considering the precedents.
- Status