3 ms·

What you're saying doesn't make any sense to me. Obama said different things than other people said in 2008, including Hillary. It didn't make anyone who believ

What you're saying doesn't make any sense to me. Obama said different things than other people said in 2008, including Hillary. It didn't make anyone who believed that Obama meant it gullible, especially looking at his history. And it doesn't AT ALL mean that anyone who believed him then would continue to believe him after he went against his promises.

smsm42 13y ago
He went against his promises many, many times. And he still was re-elected. Which drives me to the conclusion that his voters are gullible enough to still believe in "we're going to change Washington" - even though the person promising the change is has been in charge for years and the only change was to the worse. There was absolutely nothing to indicate that Obama is not a regular politician that would promise to change everything and change nothing. So I regard people that genuinely believed that would happen as gullible. Of course, some voted for him because of certain zero-sum agenda ("he'll take money/power from them and give to us") or because he's "our guy" and not "their guy" - those are not among the gullible ones, as both do not imply you actually believe whatever the politician says, only that he would deliver the good in terms of giving the power/money. For some people, that worked splendidly, they are not gullible at all.
- unclebucknasty 13y ago
  >he still was re-elected. Which drives me to the conclusion that his voters are gullible enough to still believe in "we're going to change Washington" There were actually many who were disappointed by 2012, and I am not aware of anyone (even Obama) who still discussed or believed that the 2012 campaign was about "changing Washington", as was the 2008 campaign. Even his campaign slogan had changed to reflect this. That election was more a repudiation of Romney than some zealous continuing belief in change. I mean, really, do you think the sort of person who would desire the type of change that Obama promised in 2008, would then vote for Romney? >there was absolutely nothing to indicate that Obama is not a regular politician that would promise to change everything and change nothing Seriously? Everything about the man suggested he was different. From his work as a community organizer, to his own experience and background, to his writings, to the fact that he would be the first African-American president, virtually everything about the man was different from a "regular politician". Not to mention the striking contrast with W. If ever there was a time in recent political history for Americans to cast off their well-justified cynicism regarding politicians it was with Barack Obama in 2008.
  - CWuestefeld 13y ago
    Not to mention the striking contrast with W Really? Because I have trouble finding even a hair's breadth of difference between the two. I'm serious about this: if you eliminate rhetoric and presentation from the equation, and examine only the actions of the two men, I find it very difficult to discern any contrast whatsoever.
    - unclebucknasty 13y ago
      While I wouldn't go quite as far as to say "not a hair's breath of difference between the two", I will say that there hasn't turned out to be as much of a difference as I would have liked in some areas. And, certainly not as much as was advertised. And, that advertising is the point here. The parent was arguing that people had no reason to believe that he was different at that time (without the benefit of hindsight). But, based on "rhetoric", "presentation", raw intelligence, proposed policy positions, etc., there certainly seemed to be a striking difference between Bush and Obama.
  - smsm42 13y ago
    >>>> to the fact that he would be the first African-American president, Exactly. The only thing suggested that he's in any way different is his skin color. Take that away, and he'd be the most regular politician, with nothing to distinguish him from hundreds of others that can artfully read calculated words from a teleprompter. I purposefully did not mention that because I think being of unusual skin color for a president is a personal accomplishment, but I agree that many people voted for him because of that, and this is "our guy" thing. It is sad that this is considered to be qualifying for the "leader of the free world", but that's what we have now. However, it in no way, shape or form - unless you subscribe to a racist notion that skin color determines behavior - suggests that his politics would be in any way different than usual. So the mere fact that you bring this as the indication that suggested his politics would be different is deeply symptomatic. >>>> From his work as a community organizer His work as community organizer was largely undistinguished[1]. You see it mentioned a lot as "he was great community organizer" but notice how many times you see it actually reported of what he achieved? I don't say he did nothing - he did some things that were helpful to some people, but nothing in those three years that distinguishes him an any way as being "everything different". [1] http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/225564/what-did-obama-do-community-organizer/byron-york http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/225564/what-did-obama... >>> to his own experience and background, His youth experience is largely unremarkable, except for the fact that while he did drugs with gusto when he was young, he still continues the insane war on drugs, and has absolutely no problem with doing it. Other than that, completely unremarkable mix of youthful dabbling in marxism and other trendy lefty things, mixed with occasional support from despicable creatures like Ayers. As for his background, he's a mixed-race Hawaiian who was educated in Indonesia and Hawaii and was presenting himself as Kenyan when it was needed to sell books, but reverting to being American when he decided to go into politics. What's remarkably different about it that suggests his politics would be radically different? Again, except for his race (for whatever reason, mixed-race politicians seem to be statistically rare) I don't see much. >>> Not to mention the striking contrast with W. He's a liberal while Bush was a conservative. So of course his politics is different from Bush's. But his politics in no way different from any left liberal's. And all his objections to Bush's expansion of the government on the wake of 9/11 turned to be purely partisan gamesmanship, just as for many other liberals.
- vl 13y ago
  Well, to be fair Romney was confused by his own lies even before being elected. When the choice was between Romney, who clearly wiggled to satisfy every group and failed to take a stand for at least something, and Obama, who at least could articulate his position, many voted for known lesser evil. Radicalization of the right wing basically made republicans unelectable, and on top of that pushed mainstream democrats severely right when they try to grab centrist republican votes. System is not working as intended, politicians are fine, people loose. On other hand in two-party state over time both parties degrade beyond point of distinction fighting for 1% of centrist votes anyway.
  - smsm42 13y ago
    You seem to claim both that Republicans are radicalized to the point of being unelectable (clearly wrong on the facts, as Republicans control the House and the difference between Obama and Romney vote results was not nearly large enough to deem Republicans "unelectable") and that both parties converge to the point of being indistinguishable. It seems to be pretty hard to reconcile both claims. Fortunately, if you look at the facts both appear to be wrong - Republicans are not more "radical" than they ever were unless you define "radical" as "disagreeing with a point of view I happen to support", they are plenty electable and the differences in parties' approaches can be clearly seen, even though important questions are not always divided along the party lines. For example, among people who favor expansion of government there are many Democrats and many Republicans, though they support it for very different tactical reasons probably.

smsm42 13y ago

He went against his promises many, many times. And he still was re-elected. Which drives me to the conclusion that his voters are gullible enough to still believe in "we're going to change Washington" - even though the person promising the change is has been in charge for years and the only change was to the worse. There was absolutely nothing to indicate that Obama is not a regular politician that would promise to change everything and change nothing. So I regard people that genuinely believed that would happen as gullible. Of course, some voted for him because of certain zero-sum agenda ("he'll take money/power from them and give to us") or because he's "our guy" and not "their guy" - those are not among the gullible ones, as both do not imply you actually believe whatever the politician says, only that he would deliver the good in terms of giving the power/money. For some people, that worked splendidly, they are not gullible at all.

unclebucknasty 13y ago
>he still was re-elected. Which drives me to the conclusion that his voters are gullible enough to still believe in "we're going to change Washington" There were actually many who were disappointed by 2012, and I am not aware of anyone (even Obama) who still discussed or believed that the 2012 campaign was about "changing Washington", as was the 2008 campaign. Even his campaign slogan had changed to reflect this. That election was more a repudiation of Romney than some zealous continuing belief in change. I mean, really, do you think the sort of person who would desire the type of change that Obama promised in 2008, would then vote for Romney? >there was absolutely nothing to indicate that Obama is not a regular politician that would promise to change everything and change nothing Seriously? Everything about the man suggested he was different. From his work as a community organizer, to his own experience and background, to his writings, to the fact that he would be the first African-American president, virtually everything about the man was different from a "regular politician". Not to mention the striking contrast with W. If ever there was a time in recent political history for Americans to cast off their well-justified cynicism regarding politicians it was with Barack Obama in 2008.
- CWuestefeld 13y ago
  Not to mention the striking contrast with W Really? Because I have trouble finding even a hair's breadth of difference between the two. I'm serious about this: if you eliminate rhetoric and presentation from the equation, and examine only the actions of the two men, I find it very difficult to discern any contrast whatsoever.
  - unclebucknasty 13y ago
    While I wouldn't go quite as far as to say "not a hair's breath of difference between the two", I will say that there hasn't turned out to be as much of a difference as I would have liked in some areas. And, certainly not as much as was advertised. And, that advertising is the point here. The parent was arguing that people had no reason to believe that he was different at that time (without the benefit of hindsight). But, based on "rhetoric", "presentation", raw intelligence, proposed policy positions, etc., there certainly seemed to be a striking difference between Bush and Obama.
- smsm42 13y ago
  >>>> to the fact that he would be the first African-American president, Exactly. The only thing suggested that he's in any way different is his skin color. Take that away, and he'd be the most regular politician, with nothing to distinguish him from hundreds of others that can artfully read calculated words from a teleprompter. I purposefully did not mention that because I think being of unusual skin color for a president is a personal accomplishment, but I agree that many people voted for him because of that, and this is "our guy" thing. It is sad that this is considered to be qualifying for the "leader of the free world", but that's what we have now. However, it in no way, shape or form - unless you subscribe to a racist notion that skin color determines behavior - suggests that his politics would be in any way different than usual. So the mere fact that you bring this as the indication that suggested his politics would be different is deeply symptomatic. >>>> From his work as a community organizer His work as community organizer was largely undistinguished[1]. You see it mentioned a lot as "he was great community organizer" but notice how many times you see it actually reported of what he achieved? I don't say he did nothing - he did some things that were helpful to some people, but nothing in those three years that distinguishes him an any way as being "everything different". [1] http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/225564/what-did-obama-do-community-organizer/byron-york http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/225564/what-did-obama... >>> to his own experience and background, His youth experience is largely unremarkable, except for the fact that while he did drugs with gusto when he was young, he still continues the insane war on drugs, and has absolutely no problem with doing it. Other than that, completely unremarkable mix of youthful dabbling in marxism and other trendy lefty things, mixed with occasional support from despicable creatures like Ayers. As for his background, he's a mixed-race Hawaiian who was educated in Indonesia and Hawaii and was presenting himself as Kenyan when it was needed to sell books, but reverting to being American when he decided to go into politics. What's remarkably different about it that suggests his politics would be radically different? Again, except for his race (for whatever reason, mixed-race politicians seem to be statistically rare) I don't see much. >>> Not to mention the striking contrast with W. He's a liberal while Bush was a conservative. So of course his politics is different from Bush's. But his politics in no way different from any left liberal's. And all his objections to Bush's expansion of the government on the wake of 9/11 turned to be purely partisan gamesmanship, just as for many other liberals.
vl 13y ago
Well, to be fair Romney was confused by his own lies even before being elected. When the choice was between Romney, who clearly wiggled to satisfy every group and failed to take a stand for at least something, and Obama, who at least could articulate his position, many voted for known lesser evil. Radicalization of the right wing basically made republicans unelectable, and on top of that pushed mainstream democrats severely right when they try to grab centrist republican votes. System is not working as intended, politicians are fine, people loose. On other hand in two-party state over time both parties degrade beyond point of distinction fighting for 1% of centrist votes anyway.
- smsm42 13y ago
  You seem to claim both that Republicans are radicalized to the point of being unelectable (clearly wrong on the facts, as Republicans control the House and the difference between Obama and Romney vote results was not nearly large enough to deem Republicans "unelectable") and that both parties converge to the point of being indistinguishable. It seems to be pretty hard to reconcile both claims. Fortunately, if you look at the facts both appear to be wrong - Republicans are not more "radical" than they ever were unless you define "radical" as "disagreeing with a point of view I happen to support", they are plenty electable and the differences in parties' approaches can be clearly seen, even though important questions are not always divided along the party lines. For example, among people who favor expansion of government there are many Democrats and many Republicans, though they support it for very different tactical reasons probably.