7 ms·

> But seriously this is a critical test for Pres. Obama. A critical test? He doesn't have enough power to do anything about it. He can't even get rid of Guanta

> But seriously this is a critical test for Pres. Obama. A critical test? He doesn't have enough power to do anything about it. He can't even get rid of Guantanamo, which was central to his campaign. His response to the Snowden leaks was entirely supportive of the intelligence community, against the general public's perception of what happened. A political figure like him supporting Snowden would have made a massive difference in the public's perception of the events that took place, but he had to side with the NSA. You're absolutely wrong if you think he has even the slightest bit of control over the CIA. The executive agencies that are supposed to be directed by the president are probably much more directing the president than the other way around. Maybe you consider it to be conspiratard nonsense, but there's a bit of history behind what happens to presidents who are at odds with the intelligence community.

hueving 13y ago
So is the summary of your message that it's acceptable for the President to just give in to pressure from his subordinates? He is either incompetent or complacent, whichever you position you align with doesn't change the end result for the country.
- fragsworth 13y ago
  Don't put words in my mouth - I didn't say it was acceptable! It's fucking terrifying. And it's also very difficult to say whether the reason is that the President is incompetent, complacent, inherently aligned with the intelligence community, or threatened by the intelligence community, or a combination of any of these things.
- TeMPOraL 13y ago
  I'd say it's not acceptable, it's not even inevitable, it's just obvious. You can't get that high in politics without owing lots of things to lots of different people and groups, and I doubt they'd let people who are not loyal to them that high. Maybe the first presidents had some real power, but the current system is designed to filter out quickly people who are too much of a trouble for the status quo. I find this another reason to stay as far away from politics as possible if one wants to really change anything in this world.
jtfrench 13y ago
>> A critical test? He doesn't have enough power to do anything about it. If this is indeed true, then it would mean that the US political system (which is regarded as the best example of democracy, globally) is corrupt from the core and the idea of checks & balances is completely bogus. If this is case, and if we as (Americans? people?) tolerate it, then I guess it's our implicit way of saying "corruption is indeed the best way — it keeps everyone happy" (pan e circo). If we don't tolerate it and change it somehow, then maybe our particular multiverse trajectory goes another direction. Who knows if Obama is actually the one to do this. I'm not expecting much of anything from him, no more/less than I do of any other past President. I have no clue what it's like to be POTUS, but I assume it's like inheriting the CEO/President role at a super old, well-known established company, with an even older and power-hungry Board. Sure, they'll let you be the CEO, but they hold all the political "preferred stock" and can make sure the CEO is ousted if he doesn't do what they want.
- thaumasiotes 13y ago
  >> A critical test? He doesn't have enough power to do anything about it. > If this is indeed true, then it would mean that the US political system (which is regarded as the best example of democracy, globally) is corrupt from the core and the idea of checks & balances is completely bogus. Ever since someone asked me if I thought GWB was "a good president", I've been mildly interested in what the president is (a) supposed to do, and (b) empowered to do. It turns out both questions are quite difficult to answer, and in particular the answer to (b), as best as I've been able to tell, is "almost nothing". At this point, I'm a little confused as to why the position is so prestigious.
  - debugunit 13y ago
    Douglas Adams satirised precisely this point with his Zaphod Beeblebrox character in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. To quote wikipedia[1], his was "a role that involves no power whatsoever, and merely requires the incumbent to attract attention so no one wonders who's really in charge, a role for which Zaphod was perfectly suited" [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaphod_Beeblebrox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaphod_Beeblebrox
captain_mars 13y ago
Immediately after Obama won his presidential election in 2008, this was one webcomic's take on Obama's promise of "Change": http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=2994 http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=2994

hueving 13y ago

So is the summary of your message that it's acceptable for the President to just give in to pressure from his subordinates? He is either incompetent or complacent, whichever you position you align with doesn't change the end result for the country.

fragsworth 13y ago
Don't put words in my mouth - I didn't say it was acceptable! It's fucking terrifying. And it's also very difficult to say whether the reason is that the President is incompetent, complacent, inherently aligned with the intelligence community, or threatened by the intelligence community, or a combination of any of these things.
TeMPOraL 13y ago
I'd say it's not acceptable, it's not even inevitable, it's just obvious. You can't get that high in politics without owing lots of things to lots of different people and groups, and I doubt they'd let people who are not loyal to them that high. Maybe the first presidents had some real power, but the current system is designed to filter out quickly people who are too much of a trouble for the status quo. I find this another reason to stay as far away from politics as possible if one wants to really change anything in this world.

jtfrench 13y ago

>> A critical test? He doesn't have enough power to do anything about it. If this is indeed true, then it would mean that the US political system (which is regarded as the best example of democracy, globally) is corrupt from the core and the idea of checks & balances is completely bogus. If this is case, and if we as (Americans? people?) tolerate it, then I guess it's our implicit way of saying "corruption is indeed the best way — it keeps everyone happy" (pan e circo). If we don't tolerate it and change it somehow, then maybe our particular multiverse trajectory goes another direction. Who knows if Obama is actually the one to do this. I'm not expecting much of anything from him, no more/less than I do of any other past President. I have no clue what it's like to be POTUS, but I assume it's like inheriting the CEO/President role at a super old, well-known established company, with an even older and power-hungry Board. Sure, they'll let you be the CEO, but they hold all the political "preferred stock" and can make sure the CEO is ousted if he doesn't do what they want.

thaumasiotes 13y ago
>> A critical test? He doesn't have enough power to do anything about it. > If this is indeed true, then it would mean that the US political system (which is regarded as the best example of democracy, globally) is corrupt from the core and the idea of checks & balances is completely bogus. Ever since someone asked me if I thought GWB was "a good president", I've been mildly interested in what the president is (a) supposed to do, and (b) empowered to do. It turns out both questions are quite difficult to answer, and in particular the answer to (b), as best as I've been able to tell, is "almost nothing". At this point, I'm a little confused as to why the position is so prestigious.
- debugunit 13y ago
  Douglas Adams satirised precisely this point with his Zaphod Beeblebrox character in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. To quote wikipedia[1], his was "a role that involves no power whatsoever, and merely requires the incumbent to attract attention so no one wonders who's really in charge, a role for which Zaphod was perfectly suited" [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaphod_Beeblebrox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaphod_Beeblebrox

captain_mars 13y ago

Immediately after Obama won his presidential election in 2008, this was one webcomic's take on Obama's promise of "Change": http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=2994 http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=2994