4 ms·

That also requires serious dishonesty on Obama's part, something which doesn't seem supported by people's accounts before his campaign. Unless you believe he k

by chton 12y ago

That also requires serious dishonesty on Obama's part, something which doesn't seem supported by people's accounts before his campaign. Unless you believe he kept up the pretense even years before holding a public office, the evidence is more in line with his viewpoints having changed than with constant dishonesty.

zo1 12y ago
So if I make a promise, and then "change my viewpoint" on it, then I'm allowed to break said promise? Am I understanding your argument there, or is there more to it? Or, we could go back to the author's point about the public being deluded. Which is supported by them voting the guy in a second time, even after they say him with his "changed viewpoint", and lack of promise-keeping.
- chton 12y ago
  You're allowed to break your promise if it turns out it would do more harm than good. If you're unwilling to change your views based on new information, you would be a zealot and unfit for government. I don't know what information Obama does base his policy on, but you bet there's a million factors we (and he in his campaign) don't consider that he now must. He has enacted positive policy changes too. He did pull troops out of Iraq, he did bring gay marriage equality forward by decades. Whatever you think of the man, saying he broke all his promises and essentially acted like a tyrant is unfair. The same can be said of Bush and others before them. On a related note, getting reelected isn't a measure of delusion. It depends on a lot of things, such as quality of the opponent, general approval, party approval, desire for stability, etc. People also reelected Bush, who had some of the same policies as Obama, and whose approval rating was even worse.
  - zo1 12y ago
    We never said anything about the promises being "harmful". It's also not his place to decide what is/isn't harmful, he was elected based on certain premises and promises of certain actions. Of course, he get's to interpret stuff/meaning, but directly not doing the things he promised without a valid reason to explain is quite immoral. Now if you want to argue that "he has a good reason, we just don't know it" then you're pretty much conceding that your people aren't really running the country a la democracy. It means that they're picking a president on completely imperfect information, and have nothing but promises and character to go by. Heck, they can't even rely on the candidates keeping/breaking their promises. Positive policy changes - good. No one is saying that he did only bad things or anything, that's not being discussed at all, and neither is his character or how good of a person he is. That's like saying: "Yeah, sure, my husband beats me... But yesterday he said he loved me, and he bought me flowers. I'm sure he beats me for a reason, and I don't know what information he bases my beatings on." The example is ridiculous, but it shows the irrelevancy of good deeds outweighing the bad, through extreme points.
    - snowwrestler 12y ago
      > It's also not his place to decide what is/isn't harmful, he was elected based on certain premises and promises of certain actions. It is his place. We elect leaders, not robots. Elected officials are supposed to govern, not just read popularity polls and enact the opinions they see there. The U.S. is very purposefully and carefully constructed to not be a direct democracy. We are a representative democracy. "The people" are kept at some distance from the daily decision-making of the government. We have the power to choose leaders, to remove them from power, and to freely express to them what we think they should do. But while in office, our leaders have broad power to use their own judgment and discretion, within the bounds of the law. This architecture arose from an awareness of the shortcomings of direct democracy. It's not a mistake.

by chton 12y ago

zo1 12y ago

So if I make a promise, and then "change my viewpoint" on it, then I'm allowed to break said promise? Am I understanding your argument there, or is there more to it? Or, we could go back to the author's point about the public being deluded. Which is supported by them voting the guy in a second time, even after they say him with his "changed viewpoint", and lack of promise-keeping.

chton 12y ago
You're allowed to break your promise if it turns out it would do more harm than good. If you're unwilling to change your views based on new information, you would be a zealot and unfit for government. I don't know what information Obama does base his policy on, but you bet there's a million factors we (and he in his campaign) don't consider that he now must. He has enacted positive policy changes too. He did pull troops out of Iraq, he did bring gay marriage equality forward by decades. Whatever you think of the man, saying he broke all his promises and essentially acted like a tyrant is unfair. The same can be said of Bush and others before them. On a related note, getting reelected isn't a measure of delusion. It depends on a lot of things, such as quality of the opponent, general approval, party approval, desire for stability, etc. People also reelected Bush, who had some of the same policies as Obama, and whose approval rating was even worse.
- zo1 12y ago
  We never said anything about the promises being "harmful". It's also not his place to decide what is/isn't harmful, he was elected based on certain premises and promises of certain actions. Of course, he get's to interpret stuff/meaning, but directly not doing the things he promised without a valid reason to explain is quite immoral. Now if you want to argue that "he has a good reason, we just don't know it" then you're pretty much conceding that your people aren't really running the country a la democracy. It means that they're picking a president on completely imperfect information, and have nothing but promises and character to go by. Heck, they can't even rely on the candidates keeping/breaking their promises. Positive policy changes - good. No one is saying that he did only bad things or anything, that's not being discussed at all, and neither is his character or how good of a person he is. That's like saying: "Yeah, sure, my husband beats me... But yesterday he said he loved me, and he bought me flowers. I'm sure he beats me for a reason, and I don't know what information he bases my beatings on." The example is ridiculous, but it shows the irrelevancy of good deeds outweighing the bad, through extreme points.
  - snowwrestler 12y ago
    > It's also not his place to decide what is/isn't harmful, he was elected based on certain premises and promises of certain actions. It is his place. We elect leaders, not robots. Elected officials are supposed to govern, not just read popularity polls and enact the opinions they see there. The U.S. is very purposefully and carefully constructed to not be a direct democracy. We are a representative democracy. "The people" are kept at some distance from the daily decision-making of the government. We have the power to choose leaders, to remove them from power, and to freely express to them what we think they should do. But while in office, our leaders have broad power to use their own judgment and discretion, within the bounds of the law. This architecture arose from an awareness of the shortcomings of direct democracy. It's not a mistake.