|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Do you trust Obama?
A simple enough question. Vote Yes or No.
[MOD - title edited. Bikerman]
[MOD - title edited. Bikerman]
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?
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?
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.
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.
| 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?
| jmi256 wrote: | ||
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.
| liljp617 wrote: |
| I'm skeptical when any politician speaks. Healthy skepticism, however, is a great thing to have toward government. |
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.
No way would I ever trust him. Not only is he a politician, he is a lawyer to boot!
| deanhills wrote: | ||
|
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.
| 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...
| 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.
^Well, that was predictable.
Really... I can think of another president that I see people not being objective about...
| 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...
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.
| 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.
| liljp617 wrote: | ||
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. |
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| ^Well, that was predictable. |
And the truth.
| ocalhoun wrote: | ||
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.
| 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.
| ocalhoun wrote: | ||
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.
| handfleisch wrote: | ||
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.
[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
Bikerman
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!
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!
| 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! |
| 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...
| Quote: |
| Where did you get that name for him? Since when was he ever silent?
Biden, now, he's being silent... |
| Ophois wrote: | ||
|
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.
Obama is trying to retain the US hegemony in the world by a new way.
| 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'?
Related topics
 |