Obama is Firing on All Cylinders Right Now

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by smallcoffee, Jan 17, 2016.

  1. smallcoffee, Jan 17, 2016
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2016

    smallcoffee macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Location:
    North America
    #1
    So as I'm watching his address on the prisoner swap, It's become clear to me that Obama is finally hitting his stride as president, and executing as an executive should. It's too bad given the paltry candidates we have for president for 2016 (literally Trump and Sanders are the only ones that aren't just simply going to perpetuate the current system) that we can't have another 4 more years.

    Even though I voted from him in both 2008 and 2012, I did so in order to prevent the nomination of candidates that I thought would have done a worse job. I'd vote for him again today over any of the other candidates. He knows what he's doing.

    4 more years!

    Sanctions Lifted
     
  2. thermodynamic Suspended

    thermodynamic

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #2
    Questions:

    1. Why are you discounting Clinton so quickly?
    2. Why did it take Obama 7 years, who is still pleading with Congress (for whom we know nothing will happen, which was the case even when Democrats had full control of House and Senate, despite it not being filibuster-proof)
    3. He still has a lot of executive orders to do before he catches up with at least two of his last five predecessors... will we see moving forward the way America's working class wanted it to be?
    4. About "4 more years", what system do you want to see in its place since it sounds like it's going to fail either way? We both know change as Obama pitched it in 2008 will never take place and he's quick to learn or else he wouldn't have worked to compromise (Bush tax cut extension, Romneycare = ACA, using GOP stalwarts like Robert Gates, Chuck Hagel, etc, though pundits like Cenk Uygur claim Obama got remarkably little in return for his compromising...)
    5. "I did so in order to prevent the nomination of candidates that I thought would have done a worse job" - isn't it usually in the best interest of a person to vote for the person that will likely do the best job, as opposed to making an attempt to prevent a perceived worse candidate from running just for the sake of it, no wonder we have such a stagnant two-party system as some people like to say? In other words, you're admitting to the usual "I will vote for the lesser of two evils" claim? Then with what you say immediately afterword, for someone you think is the lesser evil, you love lesser evil as opposed to more evil, or a chance at any good for that matter?

    And a question to myself:

    Am I always being too literal and linear in perception, missing out on details and believing in misunderstanding?
     
  3. smallcoffee thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Location:
    North America
    #3
    She's just a continuation of what we've had in the last however long. She's an establishment candidate. Sanders isn't.

    7 years for what? The Iran deal? Good question, no idea. Maybe it takes that long to build up enough trust to execute a deal?
    Not sure, guess we'll find out.
    I don't understand your question. Seems like you've drawn a conclusion about something and are asking me to answer a question in order to arrive at the same conclusion?

    Well it's the same thing. I would be voting for a person who would have done a better job in my view. If you have to choose between hiring people who will both do a poor job, but one will do a slightly better, although still poor job, you'd pick the better.

    There are a lot of problems with the current system, I understand them quite well, so you don't have to try here. But if you want to talk about actual fixes, or philosophy, I'm up for a discussion!


    Well if we're assuming strictly two choices, more evil versus less evil, and I value not having evil, I would always chose the view consistent with my values. If there was room for good (and I think both Trump and Sanders would be good for disrupting the political system) than I would vote in favor of that.
     
  4. thermodynamic, Jan 17, 2016
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2016

    thermodynamic Suspended

    thermodynamic

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #4
    I thought you were talking of his presidency, since you were also saying Clinton is as much establishment as he is?

    Not at all. I make inferences based on others' statements.

    Additional, via edit: Questions I ask in return are only for clarifying.

    That's a good way to look at it, since compromise itself involves things an individual could perceive as being "evil".

    I'd rather not try. So what is the most fundamental, core problem that affects everyone? And what would you say needs to be done to fix it? Everyone says everything is not sustainable yet nobody ever puts out solutions to discuss.

    Which goes back to my self-question about literalism and being linear. Rarely are there two strict choices as such, realistically, philosophically or otherwise. :)

    Disruption can be good or bad, depending on what the disruption actually is, and the outcome - especially unintentional outcomes, for which most if not all of today's societal problems - whatever those actually are since even the stuff I blab about is just as possible to have been read from misunderstanding or inaccurate media reporting - happen to stem from.

    Disruption for its own sake reminds me of the other quote, that if "research for its own sake is not profitable". And profit isn't always about monetary gain, though it can be.
     
  5. Technarchy macrumors 604

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #5
    Anyone but Clinton. That includes Sanders.
     
  6. smallcoffee thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Location:
    North America
    #6
    From what I've seen, Sanders would be great. I'm glad that he recognizes that we need universal health care here in the states.

    Well, actually I guess I should just say that we need to get the government out and lower taxes since I have amazing healthcare coverage. But that would be me not giving a crap about other people and just looking out for myself to the detriment of society as a whole.
     
  7. b0fh666 macrumors 6502a

    b0fh666

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2012
    Location:
    south
    #7
    yeah, keep ppl/parties in power indefinitely, that always ends well
     
  8. smallcoffee thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Location:
    North America
    #8
    That's not what I've said at all, in any way, shape or form.
     
  9. b0fh666 macrumors 6502a

    b0fh666

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2012
    Location:
    south
    #9
    oh, i understood that u were advocating 4 more years for obama in the chair. sorry then.
     
  10. smallcoffee thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Location:
    North America
    #10
    4 years != indefinite
     
  11. b0fh666 macrumors 6502a

    b0fh666

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2012
    Location:
    south
  12. LIVEFRMNYC macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #12
    Sander's talking points sound good on paper, but I just don't see much of it happening. I'm going with Hilary, cause she'll at least get things done on a realistic level.
     
  13. smallcoffee thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Location:
    North America
    #13
    I think that's one of the big problems, because "getting things done" translates into "status quo". I'd rather see Trump as president than Hillary. At least something will be different.
     
  14. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #14
    My impression is that the right created the Clinton boogey man woman, just because the last Clinton kicked their asses. :)
     
  15. smallcoffee thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Location:
    North America
    #15
    Well they're going to vilify anybody from the democratic party. I think she's gotten it pretty easy compared to how badly they went after Obama.

    Problem with Clinton is that she's a status quo type president, which is something I don't think this country needs right now.
     
  16. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #16
    Ah, but we need someone who can keep the GOP out of the White House. I'm genuinely puzzled as to why Obama is hated by the right. The only reasonable thing I can come up with is that he's black.
     
  17. smallcoffee thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Location:
    North America
    #17
    No that's stupid. He's disliked because the republicans disagree with his policies, like ObamaCare, gun control, etc....

    Well I don't see how Clinton is any more or less capable than Sanders is. She's more open to criticism (IE Benghazi) than Sanders is.
     
  18. d4rkc4sm macrumors 6502

    d4rkc4sm

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2011
    #18
    Low gas prices thanks to Barack Hussein Obama
     
  19. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #19
    Maybe it's naive to discount it, maybe not at all levels but some. He's given them all the oil drilling they've wanted, and 8 years of sweet war, yet he's weak. And gun control, they are imagining that. The Executive action he took was completely responsible. It's the political bogey man on steroids, that the GOP is known for to appeal to their grounded base. Not to mention, a half black guy in charge is enough. :rolleyes:
     
  20. smallcoffee thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Location:
    North America
    #20
    Ok? The republicans, like the democrats, are going to do this kind of stuff. Saying that "he's black therefore republicans hate him" is idiotic. Not even worthy of further discussion.
     
  21. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #21
    We can stop talking about it, but there is virulence that is unmatched with previous Democrat Presidents. I don't see a valid logical reason for the literal hate coming from the right wing. It's not like there are no references to it. You may be thinking of establishment GOP leaders. I'm thinking of the right wing blogisphere.
     
  22. smallcoffee thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Location:
    North America
    #22
    Last democratic president we had, there weren't even blogs.
     
  23. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #23
    The normal state of our political system, since just after its inception, has been dominated by two political parties.

    Considering how well America prospered, I think it could easily be argued that it worked out well for us.
     
  24. sodapop1 Suspended

    sodapop1

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    #24
    Sorry, but you just lost all credibility with this statement. How can anyone say that they voted for Obama twice and they would like to see him in office for another 4 year term but they are willing to support Trump over Hillary? Don't you realize that Trump is literally the anti-Obama response from the extreme right?
     
  25. smallcoffee thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Location:
    North America
    #25
    Fortunately you don't get to decide my credibility.

    I like Obama because I think he's doing an effective job. What I don't want though, is another establishment president. I'd rather have a disruptive president (and somebody who seems to be very driven, anti-pc, and not already owned by lobbyists). Additionally, it's a nightmare scenario for the Republicans because it means somebody from outside the party can win the party, and not be tied to the party. It's nearly a deathblow for the Republicans as a party.

    Things aren't black and white, or in this case red and blue.
     

Share This Page