Well, he's been president for a little bit less than an hour now and nothing has changed. I hate to say I told you so, but his presidency has clearly failed to change anything. Just more business as usual.














No really. I look forward to this thread evolving throughout the next four years. It can be like the threads about "Lost": Obama presidency discussion thread *contains spoilers*. I wish we had a thread like this dealing with the Iraq war-- it would have been interesting to see how people's opinions changed throughout the ensuing debacle.

Obama's doing pretty good so far. I hope his speechwriters are well paid.

The man gives a great speech. I had shivers, at times. I just can't be too cynical about him yet.

the shit's hitting the fan again in the banking sector...the televisual apparatus has been focusing your attention on the rituals of transition, but the disaster visited upon us by the neo-liberal counter-revolution doesn't seem to want to wait for these rituals to run their course.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/21/bu...gewanted=print

we're about 3 1/2 hours in and the administration is in a tough position---very significant, very complicated, quite long-term problems require action and very quickly in some cases.

it did not help that the bush people went entirely passive over the past months, even as, given the idiocy of their policies in the main and the catastrophic results of them---one of which was an undermining of the political legitimacy of the bush administration so that passivity was perhaps the only option---maybe from a certain viewpoint that wasn't entirely a bad thing.


but it's a shame obama is not given time to even really adjust to the new reality he's in.
we're already in it.

Well folks, I haven't been around for quite a while but I just had to come back to this thread I started last October. My intent was to get a few predictions down and see what might actually happen. It's been interesting, hasn't it? My original post:

"In another thread ("Why should I vote for McCain") I had the idea that we should have a thread that we could look back on in a few months. Since it seems inevitable that Obama is going to be elected by those who think he's going to be their salvation (i.e. provider) or the agent of some sort of "change" of some unspecified kind, why don't we put some predictions of how he'll be doing in a few months. Then we can resurrect the thread next Spring or Summer and make observations on just how he is doing with the great promises he's made. I'll bookmark the thread, and put a calendar reminder for it on my personal calendar.

So, make a prediction. Take one or more of The Saviour's great promises and tell us what he will have accomplished by, say, May or June. I'd like to ask, please, that we not digress into rebuttals or arguments at this point in time of whatever a poster might predict. Let's just make those predictions, and wait and see what actually happens.

I'll start with a couple.

I predict that Obama's "tax cut" for 95 percent of the people will happen and will take the form of a "stimulus" check (welfare) for those who make less than some certain amount of income.

I predict that the Dow index will fall below 7000 after Obama is elected, or when it becomes obvious that he will be elected (10+ percent lead in the polls).

I predict that Obama will be "tested" with an international crisis as Biden has predicted. His response will be more conciliatory than anything else, and it will generally be agreed that he will have dimished the stature and standing of the US by doing so.

I predict that the quality of life in both Afghanistan and Iraq will be poorer, and that violence will increase."

So, how's that change workin' out for ya?

So what's your point? That you were wrong?

No "point," really. Arguing with Liberals has proven to be pointless. I'm just having a good laugh.

mcgeedo, try arguing with facts. You know, knowledge.

Tilted Politics isn't just for having a good laugh; Tilted Humor can be found here:
Tilted Humor - Tilted Forum Project - TFP - Sexuality, Philosophy and Political Discussion

I now invite you to make a point. How is Obama doing?

i would assume from the singular vacancy of re-entry that the thread was set up as a tautology: because obama is not a conservative, he cannot possibly do anything. only conservatives, geniuses of industry, friends of the children, conquerors of happiness, heroes of nations, only conservatives do things. i mean look around: see all the fine achievements of the past 8 bloody years. it's hard for anyone to manage autonomous agendas in the face of the multiple giant sucking sounds left behind by the right's last period of screaming across the sky.

As someone who is very cynical about all politicians... I can say now what I also could say in the run up to the election... Obama is the most inspirational political figure in my lifetime. Time will tell whether he up to the job, but in the first 100 days he has done very well.

I think I'd prefer him somewhat over a misanthropic Scot - however much we need a serious man for serious times (although I would admit that "this is no time for a novice" was an utterly superb soundbite)

From my point of view, filtherton and roachboy, he has done pretty much as I had guessed and events have come to pass pretty much as I and some other Conservatives had predicted. Much like Hitler with Mein Kampf, Obama told us who and what he was and he has come through on those things. I am not comparing him to Hilter except in the sense that he told us that he was just this sort of Liberal, and got voted in anyway. Thus my comment "How's that change workin' out for ya." Those of you who voted for him are getting exactly what he advertised. And you even seem happy about it.

My point, baraka, if I must have one in order to post in this particular forum, is that viewpoint means everything. In my world view, Obama threatened to threaten the North Koreans if they launched their little missile, and then went silent when his bluff was called. The Liberals will say (I'm guessing) that he is "improving America's image in the world" by doing things like this. My view point differs, of course. You and I will come to a completely different interpretation of events such as this even though we are reading the same basic facts about the event.

I suppose my original post was intended to be a source of amusement to myself and other Conservatives. Note a joke as such, baraka, just commentary with a little humerous irony. It's a shame that it devolved into a debate instead of my original intention of recording predictions for later discussion. There is no joke; there is a sadness in me regarding what is happening to my country.

I think we've solved the mystery of why you have a hard time arguing with people. Anyone acting under the impression that it is useful to compare someone to Hitler, but you know, not in the holocaust-ey kind of way probably is either intentionally trying to communicate badly, or honestly can't communicate well.

So your point is: "Ha Ha, you liberals are getting exactly what you voted for." Well, I guess you've certainly showed them, haven't you.

Let's look at your predictions:

I predict that Obama's "tax cut" for 95 percent of the people will happen and will take the form of a "stimulus" check (welfare) for those who make less than some certain amount of income.

This hasn't happened.

I predict that the Dow index will fall below 7000 after Obama is elected, or when it becomes obvious that he will be elected (10+ percent lead in the polls).

Anyone with an asshole could have predicted that the DOW would fall. That's like predicting that a conservative republican congressman will be caught in a gay sex scandal. Did you predict that the DOW would rise back up again after he got into office?

I predict that Obama will be "tested" with an international crisis as Biden has predicted. His response will be more conciliatory than anything else, and it will generally be agreed that he will have dimished the stature and standing of the US by doing so.

What, like sniping some pirates? I'm not sure which international crisis you're talking about. I am pretty certain that nothing Obama has done has diminished the stature and standing of the US in a generally agreed upon way. At least not if you ask someone outside of the conservative pundiblog echo chamber.

I predict that the quality of life in both Afghanistan and Iraq will be poorer, and that violence will increase.

Not sure what you're getting at here. How have things gotten any worse as a direct result of Obama's actions?

Name one President since Truman that's done anything at all differently.

Hint: you can't.

We have never called their bluff. The sheer weight of the artillery focused on Seoul keeps us from ever doing so. Until they make an openly hostile act (and "launching a satellite" isn't, but "testing a ballistic missle" is), we will never act. If we did, somewhere between 500,000 and 5,000,000 South Koreans would be dead in 2 weeks. So long as they have plausible deniability, there's not much we can do since there are very few realistic alternatives.

Unless you support an invasion and full-blown war, probably with the Chinese on the other side. And, given the current state of affairs, if you are actively endorsing that idea as the best course of action, you're as dumb as most liberals accuse GW Bush of being.

It's so weird, mcgeedo.... I'd SWEAR you're looking at different facts than me. I mean, I really truly do appreciate your point about differing interpretations (and, in fact, it was one of the main things the minority Left has been yelling about in the face of stony Rightness, Faith and Rigidity on the part of the majority Right for the last 8 years). So, I'm glad you're on board with that. But the things you seem to think have happened.... haven't happened. Which leaves me at a loss for how we can even talk about "how Obama is doing".

And Obama did protest the launch of the missile. North Korea is unhappy that we're unhappy with them, threatening to launch more missiles unless we apologize. Do you even read the news?

Wow, didn't expect this thread to be Godwin'd the moment it was bumped

Just for fun :-) a bump

It seems that no one is interested in defending Obama like they did last year. Or it may be that the forum is so much less active than it once was.

Anyway, I was re=reading the thread myself and found the post above about North Korea really funny. I guess Obama really scared the NKs back in May of last year, didn't he?

If you would do more besides "bump" the thread and wax nostalgic about it, maybe people would have more to say.

Why did you bump it besides "for fun"?

To be more accurate, I suppose, it's for the entertainment value of debating with committed Leftists. I harbor no illusions that any argument I may make will magically open a Liberal's eyes to the Conservative point of view. There is humor in listening to someone singing the praises of one who, in my mind, is an utter failure.

It is also educational. Having in mind the old expression "...and hold your enemies closer," it's informative to understand what the Opposition is thinking.

The entertainment comes from the blind faithful. The education comes from the thoughtful. There are (or at least were) both here. I've only recently come back to this venue after an absence of quite a while. It's sad that the forums have become so slow.

To speak to the topic, my original post predicted that the president would be ineffective and a serious disappointment to those who were so enamored of him. I think that's proven to be true.

If you feel that I'm simply trolling, then feel free to ignore me.

Well, between watering down the health care reform to an insurance scheme, messing up the repealing of DADT, maintaining a soft stance on gay marriage, and extending the tax cuts, I think you will find that most leftists are disappointed at Obama's right-leaning centrism. I'm sure many would readily admit he's pandering too much to the Republicans.

I haven't heard all that many praises being sung; however, calling him an "utter failure" seems a bit extreme, and I think this is a position you'd have difficulty defending.

..

Considering that the GOP has fillibustered over 150 bills in the Senate this year, I'm not sure how Obama can take the blame for his agenda failing to pass.

This is getting to be almost surreal.

The Bush tax cuts get extended for two years. Democrats and Obama have been saying the Bush tax cuts primarily benefited the "rich". They said there is no "trickle down" benefit for the economy. They said the tax cuts were not paid for and therefore harmful to our future. They win the WH, they get a super majority and they extend the Bush tax cuts???? Then, now this takes it over the top for me, the spin is how much leadership Obama showed by getting the deal done. Obama is taking credit for the Bush tax cuts after spending the last 6 years talking about how irresponsible they were.

Am I in the Twilight Zone, have I fallen through a rabbit hole, does Scotty need to beam me up?

I think your world is so surreal because you don't seem to acknowledge the existence of the republican party and the ease with which the senate can be brought to a standstill by a minority of its members.

His world is also so surreal because he doesnt believe in the concept of political compromise....unlike one of his heroes, Ronald Reagan:
Oh, and Bush compromised on the 03 tax bill....he only got half of what he wanted, threatened to veto it, but of course, signed it.

It's so surreal because I thought Obama was a leftist....

I fully recognize that Democrats and the President yielded to the Republicans - what I find amazing is the spin being put on it. I also have a basic understanding of the Senate rules, and generally the same rules were in place when Bush passed the tax cuts to begin with.

The Republicans, who nearly unanimously opposed extending unemployment insurance and expanding the earned income tax credit, yielded as well.

You still dont understand the concept of political compromise.

As to the Senate rules, the Democrats when in the minority during the Bush years honored the long-standing tradition of limiting filibusters rather than abuse the privilege to block nearly every piece of substantive legislation.

I'm not sensing the spin. Can you point to what the consensus is?

It's my understanding that many Democrats are giving flak for Obama, considering he and others were saying awhile back that America couldn't afford to continue Bush-type tax cuts. There are Democrats who are upset about this and look at it as Obama giving in to the Republicans.

I understand compromise, what I won't do or support is compromising my core values and beliefs. If that is what you do, or if you think that is a good thing, I am guessing that you are routinely compromising on those things you think are most important. I suggest adopting my approach for about 6 months, just as a trial, and see how much better your life will be.

I "compromise" on trivial matters all the time. In fact I will go into a negotiation with a long list of things, most trivial. At the end, if "compromise" is reached - it is only "compromise" in the mind of the other party or we simply reached a fair agreement meeting both our needs.

My view was that he was sell "snake oil", that he would say what people wanted to hear to get elected.

That's why most people don't actually think he's a leftist.

Its easy to stick to your beliefs when they dont manner in the grand scheme of things and have no impact on policy making. I would describe it as hard being a hard core ideologue.

Reagan understood that and compromised on his core belief and raised taxes (twice) as did Bush, on FISA, taxes and other issues.

And, my life is just fine, but to be lectured on compromise by a hard core ideologue is good for a laugh!

Yea, right.

There is a difference between what I understand and what I agree with or will accept. Feel free to politically compromise or support those who do, all you want. I won't.

Short version of the above: they got gamed.

Urban Dictionary: gamed

If you say so, ace.

But of course, you admittedly see things only in black and white.....a very rigid and myopic view of the political process and the world in general...which pretty much explains it to me.

Now it appears that there are things you don't understand.

A person's core beliefs or a strongly held views can change-but that is not compromise that is a change. Through persuasion I may be able to convince someone to adopt my core beliefs or a strongly held view, but if I do then they would communicate accordingly. Democrats are not doing that on this issue, are they?

For the record, I do not have a core belief that there should be no taxes. I like many conservatives can easily support fair taxation, and in some cases that may mean an increase for some.

---------- Post added at 05:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:29 PM ----------

I calls 'em, likes I sees 'em.:thumbsup:

Good luck with the compromise thing, I live to deal with folks like you.

I'm sure America was built on compromise.

The inability and/or unwillingness to compromise is a feature of dictators.

Ace, what you're hinting at with regard to compromise suggests that Democrats shouldn't stop being Democrats and Republicans shouldn't stop being Republicans. That's pretty simple, I think.

From the Democrat (or at least, my)perspective, the good in the bill:

keeping the tax rates for middle class and working families (the lower three brackets) at the current rate

a one-year payroll tax cut, benefiting those making under 100K

extending unemployment insurance

increasing the standard deduction for married couples

a more generous child income tax credit and a more generous earned income tax credit, benefiting working families.

interest deductions and tax credits on student loans (and on other college expenses), another benefit to working families.

a business tax credit for r%d

increased depreciation and expensing for capital investments by businesses

From the Democrat (my) perspective, the bad in the bill:

keeping the top tax rate at 35% instead of returning it to 39%

imposes a lower estate tax for the next two years, allowing couples to pass estates as large as $10 million to heirs tax-free

Objectively? IMO, not perfect...I would have preferred those bad provisions to be excluded or reversed....but I understand political realities.

Overall, not a bad deal for the Democrats..they got as much or more of what they wanted than they gave up.

---------- Post added at 12:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:34 PM ----------

It would be fun.

You would be out on the fringe (say hi to Sarah P for me)...sticking to your extremist ideology and getting nothing in return because you could never get the votes needed....starving, but patting each other on the back that you refused to compromise.

And I would be more pragmatic, accepting the fact that I might not get the whole loaf of bread that I want, but enjoying the benefits of the half that I can get.

There was no compromise with the British. America was founded based on a core belief of independence (general on purpose) and went to war for that belief.

I don't understand your point of view. Can you share some real examples of core beliefs worthy of compromise? I can not think of any, but I can think of many that real, honest, non-dictators have been willing to risk everything for, including life.



I rarely hint at what I try to communicate. I think Republicans should fight for what they believe in and Democrats should do the same. Finding common ground is not compromise. For example if I have a price range in mind for buying a car, and you have a price range in mind for selling it. If our ranges overlap, we have a deal. If they don't overlap, you compromise and we have a deal.

If you don't compromise, in the example above, I walk, but if you can convince me of some value I did not see or understand - I would change my price range. I don't see that as compromise, I see that as changing my belief based on new information.

---------- Post added at 09:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:36 PM ----------

Like Sara Palin, I would go to the negotiation table expecting to win. I would go to the table with a strategy to win. I perceive Obama's problem and your problem is that you go to the table expecting to compromise. With that knowledge, people like me and Palin will get what we want. I understand that you don't see this the way I do, that is not my problem. However, Obama represents this country on an international scale and he represents government to the business community. His perceived weakness and lack of conviction is my problem. Put this issue in perspective - was it all over a top tax rate swing of 4% points? It was not. I doubt you get what it was about and I doubt Obama does either.


Look at it this way if your resolve is 100 and mine is 100 and we have equal power and conflicting views of a point, the breakdown of those resolve numbers will determine the outcome, regardless of your pretense regarding compromise.

{added} I was just re-reading some of this stuff, and I am happy for the opportunity to interact with the line of thought some of you have here. I am going to have a conversation with my son on these issues, my fear is that he may get corrupted with this over-zealousness and fantasifull view on compromise. Thanks