FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Do you trust Obama?






Do you trust Obama?
Yes
25%
 25%  [ 2 ]
No
75%
 75%  [ 6 ]
Total Votes : 8

jmi256
A simple enough question. Vote Yes or No.

[MOD - title edited. Bikerman]
liljp617
It's not a simple question.

Trust him on what?

Do I trust that he's not some undercover commie trying to recreate the USSR? Yeah, pretty damn certain of it.

Do I trust him in general any more than other politicians? Not really. He has as many vested interests and groups pressuring him as any politician does, and his goal first and foremost is to play to his constituents and get re-elected.

Do I trust him to get us out of the Middle East? Not particularly.

Do I trust he's listening to his advisers and putting thought and effort into the tasks he's taking on? Sure. I may or may not agree with his particular stances on them, but I'm pretty sure he's not waking up in the morning and making drastic decisions on a whim just because he can.


What are you talking about specifically?
deanhills
We perhaps do not know Obama long enough to really cast a final verdict. Given only two choices, I could not vote "yes", but if only given two choices, my "no" would be stronger than my "yes" for NOW.

Some of the reasons for my vote that I can think off immediately are:
1. He is a marketing campaigner first. As a result his election campaign completely took everyone by storm. He is good at that. He is good with speeches up to a point. But there has to be more than that in order to be a true leader of men. For me it would appear also that he is a people pleaser. Problem is when you try and please everyone, there may be some who will end up not trusting you.
2. He took pretty strong positions during his election campaign to the equivalent of being to the left in politics, however once President, he more or less stayed the course of the previous administration in being right centre. Gitmo is a good example of nothing having moved yet. Perhaps much more was moving in Gitmo towards the end of the previous administration, than in the first six months of the new administration. I'm relieved however that Obama is obviously trying to please Defence Secretary Gates. But of course there has to be people in his own Party who would have problems with "trust" as a consequence.
3. I did not like him butting into police affairs when he took the side of his Harvard Professor buddie against the unfortunate police officer who had to calm the professor down. Nor did I like his speech to school children, as that to me was an obvious marketing gimmick again to get his battered ratings up again. The speech was good, as they usually are, but it was obviously a gimmick.
4. He is expensive. I'm still waiting on a report-back on the 1.2-trillion package at the beginning of the year. As well as presentation of the budget. Two major issues to test trust in Obama. However, even when it is quite clear that the healthcare bill cannot be possible because of financial concerns, he is still keeping at it. Obviously this is the people-pleaser again to please those in his own Party? Rather than a leader that should know that there are other much more urgent issues, first and foremost the economy, as of course if that can be improved, then the healthcare bill could be much more feasible.

So far anyway. Time will tell! The verdict is still out there.
jmi256
liljp617 wrote:
It's not a simple question.
Trust him on what?

Do I trust that he's not some undercover commie trying to recreate the USSR? Yeah, pretty damn certain of it.

Do I trust him in general any more than other politicians? Not really. He has as many vested interests and groups pressuring him as any politician does, and his goal first and foremost is to play to his constituents and get re-elected.

Do I trust him to get us out of the Middle East? Not particularly.

Do I trust he's listening to his advisers and putting thought and effort into the tasks he's taking on? Sure. I may or may not agree with his particular stances on them, but I'm pretty sure he's not waking up in the morning and making drastic decisions on a whim just because he can.

What are you talking about specifically?


I just meant overall, not specific issues. I understand what you're saying about having different positions/agreements on specific issues, but what I'm talking about is Trust. So for example you may agree with him on X (and therefore trust his judgment on that issue) but disagree with him on Y (and therefore distrust his judgment on that issue). But when he says something, regardless of whether you agree or disagree, do you automatically trust what he's saying? Or are you skeptical?
liljp617
jmi256 wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
It's not a simple question.
Trust him on what?

Do I trust that he's not some undercover commie trying to recreate the USSR? Yeah, pretty damn certain of it.

Do I trust him in general any more than other politicians? Not really. He has as many vested interests and groups pressuring him as any politician does, and his goal first and foremost is to play to his constituents and get re-elected.

Do I trust him to get us out of the Middle East? Not particularly.

Do I trust he's listening to his advisers and putting thought and effort into the tasks he's taking on? Sure. I may or may not agree with his particular stances on them, but I'm pretty sure he's not waking up in the morning and making drastic decisions on a whim just because he can.

What are you talking about specifically?


I just meant overall, not specific issues. I understand what you're saying about having different positions/agreements on specific issues, but what I'm talking about is Trust. So for example you may agree with him on X (and therefore trust his judgment on that issue) but disagree with him on Y (and therefore distrust his judgment on that issue). But when he says something, regardless of whether you agree or disagree, do you automatically trust what he's saying? Or are you skeptical?


I think you'll find the vast majority of the active posters in this particular forum are very much skeptics on almost all fronts.

I'm skeptical when any politician speaks. Healthy skepticism, however, is a great thing to have toward government.
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
I'm skeptical when any politician speaks. Healthy skepticism, however, is a great thing to have toward government.
A good point and very true. As to healthy skepticism, that probably depends on the quality of the Government as well. If you have reasonable doubts about a Government (and I'm not only talking about just the United States, but any Government in the world), how can one have a healthy skepticism? A very easy example is Bush and his Government. There were an overwhelming number of people who thought he was a really bad President and that his Government was really bad (not my view), but I did not note any "healthy" skepticims towards him or his Government.
handfleisch
I'm curious about something. Before the election there was a lot of ditto talk about how we didn't know enough about Obama to trust him. Seems like some people are continuing to embrace that reaction. Leaving aside discussing the faults of that point of view, I would like to know how many of you have bothered to read either of the two semi-autobiographical books Obama authored before he ever knew he would be president? It would seem a good way to learn something about a person.
Voodoocat
No way would I ever trust him. Not only is he a politician, he is a lawyer to boot!
liljp617
deanhills wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
I'm skeptical when any politician speaks. Healthy skepticism, however, is a great thing to have toward government.
A good point and very true. As to healthy skepticism, that probably depends on the quality of the Government as well. If you have reasonable doubts about a Government (and I'm not only talking about just the United States, but any Government in the world), how can one have a healthy skepticism? A very easy example is Bush and his Government. There were an overwhelming number of people who thought he was a really bad President and that his Government was really bad (not my view), but I did not note any "healthy" skepticims towards him or his Government.


Reasonable doubts are a form of healthy skepticism, yes? Skepticism is a synonym for doubt.

The small number of people who, prior to the Iraqi invasion, showed skepticism about the Bush Administration's decision to invade was healthy skepticism. Doubt and some of the criticisms toward the No Child Left Behind legislation was healthy skepticism. I think you're hitting another point, though -- that healthy skepticism is quite often drowned out by the mass amount of ignorant exaggeration on almost anything important.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
I would like to know how many of you have bothered to read either of the two semi-autobiographical books Obama authored before he ever knew he would be president?

I never read autobiographies. -That's a strict policy.
(I'll also never write one... just seems kind of arrogant to me...)
Also, in questioning whom to support, I spent more time vetting candidates that had potential for my support. Obama's policies disqualified him from that; I wouldn't support him if I trusted him or not, because I don't agree with what he's doing to the country.
Quote:
It would seem a good way to learn something about a person.

Perhaps, but autobiographies can be heavily biased.
To the astute reader, a fiction work can give tremendous insight into the author, unless he/she was very careful in writing it to avoid that. Obama didn't happen to write any fictional books did he? It would be nice to find out what's going on inside his head...
handfleisch
liljp617 wrote:
The small number of people who, prior to the Iraqi invasion, showed skepticism about the Bush Administration's decision to invade was healthy skepticism. Doubt and some of the criticisms toward the No Child Left Behind legislation was healthy skepticism. I think you're hitting another point, though -- that healthy skepticism is quite often drowned out by the mass amount of ignorant exaggeration on almost anything important.


"the mass amount of ignorant exaggeration" is a good enough term for what's behind the anti-Obama hysteria, to be sure. And while there was something of a "Bush Derangement Syndrome", where people could not be objective when it came to him, I have to disagree with some of your points, if I understand them correctly.

First of all, there was plenty of reason to be extremely suspicious -- filled with dread, in fact -- in terms of Bush gaining office. There was the healthy fear that a man who preached the same glib deregulation that his president father did would lead the country into another financial scandal and crisis, like his father did (BCCI, if anyone remembers). That came true, tenfold. There was the healthy fear that a someone so connected to the oil and military industries would lead the US into another war like his father did -- and that happened too, to great death and disaster. There was the well-founded suspicion that someone so cavalier about the role of gov't would not oversee important safety and security functions of the gov't -- and then 9/11 happened followed by FEMA's disastrous handling of the Katrina hurricane. There was also the skepticism about anyone who gained office via judicial fiat after their political party sent operatives to bully a ballot-counting station, as in the infamous Brooks Bros. riot, in just one such example of such undemocratic tactics.

And much more than a "small number of people...showed skepticism" about the Bush going to war. You forget the literal millions on the streets, the crowds who for the first time ever protested a war before it happened.
ocalhoun
^Well, that was predictable.
handfleisch wrote:


"the mass amount of ignorant exaggeration" is a good enough term for what's behind the anti-Obama hysteria, to be sure. And while there was something of a "Bush Derangement Syndrome", where people could not be objective when it came to him, I have to disagree with some of your points, if I understand them correctly.


Really... I can think of another president that I see people not being objective about...
deanhills
Handfleisch, as far as I can see there is zero sceptism on your part regarding Obama. Your accolades about the man are probably one of the reasons I am more sceptical than I usually am. No one is perfect, and his Government definitely is not. There is lots of room for healthy criticism, however it would seem that when people do air those that you seem to feel they lack in patriotism. And then when we criticize Bush, that is patriotic? There seems to be one rule for Bush and another for Obama. I also did not like the way Bush got voted in. I was very sceptical about that, but remember he got elected a second time round as well, and if he had been really bad, how did he get elected a second time round? I'm not approving or disapproving of him as a President here, but perhaps as "your elected President", he also deserved the same brand of patriotism that you feel so strongly about for Obama.
liljp617
deanhills wrote:
There seems to be one rule for Bush and another for Obama. I also did not like the way Bush got voted in.


It is like this every time when a President of the opposite party comes in. Actually...it's like this all the time. Both sides always make this exact claim and play victim.
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
deanhills wrote:
There seems to be one rule for Bush and another for Obama. I also did not like the way Bush got voted in.


It is like this every time when a President of the opposite party comes in. Actually...it's like this all the time. Both sides always make this exact claim and play victim.
Good point! Looks as we are back to being sceptical, healthy scepticism being the preference, but sometimes there could be cause for negative scepticism, depending on whose fence you are on as well.
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
^Well, that was predictable.

And the truth.
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:

"the mass amount of ignorant exaggeration" is a good enough term for what's behind the anti-Obama hysteria, to be sure. And while there was something of a "Bush Derangement Syndrome", where people could not be objective when it came to him, I have to disagree with some of your points, if I understand them correctly.


Really... I can think of another president that I see people not being objective about...

What do you know about objectivity? Your belief that Obama "might be" a "terrorist sympathizer" airballs over the ignorant exaggeration category and lands in the derangement box.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:

What do you know about objectivity? Your belief that Obama "might be" a "terrorist sympathizer" airballs over the ignorant exaggeration category and lands in the derangement box.

At the time, there were rumors of that. (I can't find the exact post, but didn't I say that over a year ago? You need a fresher example.)

Anyway, keeping an open mind about it seems to me more objective than automatically dismissing it.
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:

What do you know about objectivity? Your belief that Obama "might be" a "terrorist sympathizer" airballs over the ignorant exaggeration category and lands in the derangement box.

At the time, there were rumors of that. (I can't find the exact post, but didn't I say that over a year ago? You need a fresher example.)


Oh, there's a time limit for kooky beliefs now?

ocalhoun wrote:
Anyway, keeping an open mind about it seems to me more objective than automatically dismissing it.

Yeah, we know, and some people think all the evidence isn't in on rumors that cows can fly.

In other words, some people open their minds so wide their brains fall out.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:

ocalhoun wrote:
Anyway, keeping an open mind about it seems to me more objective than automatically dismissing it.

Yeah, we know, and some people think all the evidence isn't in on rumors that cows can fly.

In other words, some people open their minds so wide their brains fall out.

Better to err in the direction of an open mind than to err in the direction of a closed mind.
handfleisch
[MOD - this image contained language which I do not deem suitable for young teens. I appreciate the Bruce Willis reference, but I think it is possible to 'make the point' without it]
Bikerman
spinout
Obama - the silent polititian!
Well, he reached the headlines here once - he had the guts to be willing to alter the medical insurance that everone (or more than today) can get medical help!

My advice: Just do it! Then he becomes the greatest of all time!
deanhills
spinout wrote:
Obama - the silent polititian!
Well, he reached the headlines here once - he had the guts to be willing to alter the medical insurance that everone (or more than today) can get medical help!

My advice: Just do it! Then he becomes the greatest of all time!
The American system is democratic, even Obama's own Democratic Party is democratic, consisting of both centrists and people to the left. The legislation process is a democratic system too. "Being greatest of all time" comes with a much greater standard of being able to work with everyone under one roof and to follow the rules of the legislation process. Obama is good at working with people, but being good is not enough, there are major concerns about cost, so thank goodness that the political system has checks and balances in it so that something as large as this bill would be looked at with great skill and care from all angles.
ocalhoun
spinout wrote:
Obama - the silent polititian!

Where did you get that name for him? Since when was he ever silent?
Biden, now, he's being silent...
Ophois
Quote:
Where did you get that name for him? Since when was he ever silent?
Biden, now, he's being silent...
Uncharacteristically so, I might add. One of the things I always liked about Biden was that he spoke his mind and was not afraid to be loud about it, even if he offended people. But now, it just seems like he has been de-fanged.
deanhills
Ophois wrote:
Quote:
Where did you get that name for him? Since when was he ever silent?
Biden, now, he's being silent...
Uncharacteristically so, I might add. One of the things I always liked about Biden was that he spoke his mind and was not afraid to be loud about it, even if he offended people. But now, it just seems like he has been de-fanged.
Good point. Hillary Clinton seems to have got active again in the international arena in the last couple of months, but at one point I was also wondering why she had become so quiet, especially in areas of foreign policy where the Foreign Secretary usually gets to do the travelling and all the talking to the media. I guess Obama must be so energetic and "talented" with marketing, that there is not much space for Biden and Clinton to operate in, unless Clinton has been given her own territory and specific brief. She seems to have done pretty well with the latest peace agreement between Armenia and Turkey. Hope that it will be passed by their Governments, it apparently took lots of manouvring to get things signed in Zurich. Next on her "to do" list in Geneva seems to be Iran and getting a nuclear weapons inspection visit arranged. Think that one is going to be much tougher to swing.
chatrack
No. Becouse foreign polycy of US is determined by a Caucus led by Israelite.
Obama is trying to retain the US hegemony in the world by a new way.
ocalhoun
chatrack wrote:
No. Becouse foreign polycy of US is determined by a Caucus led by Israelite.

Influenced, perhaps, but not led.
Quote:

Obama is trying to retain the US hegemony in the world by a new way.

Quite so. Would you trade 'leader of the free world' for 'leader of the USA'?
Starrfoxx
The poll is simple. I don't trust him on some issues and not on others. I just plain don't trust him... PERIOD. He's shaking up the country in ways that are not good, and that could be done better. Health Care Reform is just one of them. What they are proposing to do with public radio stations is another. This guy is going to screw up our country! He is just too suspicious for me to trust. I didn't trust McCain either, but he was the lesser of two evils.
deanhills
I saw an old programme of Obama in discussion with David Letterman last night, and the way he talks is pure vintage marketing, he is really eloquent and does the marketing thing really well. But with the little I have learned over the last two years about him and all the major issues, I can't help but think about that Republican who shouted out loud "liar!" when he was talking about healthcare reform in Congress. As "liar" came up in my mind every now and then during his talking about the major subjects. I have to hand it to him however, he is really good at making things sound completely convincing. He has the gift of the gab.
Related topics
Nvidia Firewall.. Any good??
bush and condi talking...
Chat Bots - Do you trust them?
President bush
The thin line beetween trust and jealousy in relationships!
"Make Monkey quick with pay pal" Do you think it i
[Official] Security: Anti-Spyware/Virus, & Firewall
President Obama Calls for Elimination of Nuclear Weapons
Obama down in polls
Obama's speech to students Kindergarten through 12
Obama's strategy on Iran shows progress, success
Mitt Romney for President
Unhappiness with Obama?
Health Care Summit vids: Obama's struggle for bipartisanship
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.