|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
United Kingdom13775 Posts
In contrast to not beating the drums of war in the first place...
|
On April 09 2017 03:17 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2017 03:07 Nyxisto wrote:
Isn't really surprising though, the "anti-imperialist" left and the isolationist right share pretty much the same FP positions. It's 'America first' in both camps, for different reasons. Can anyone give me an explanation as to why/how Trump haphazardly wielding Americas military went from being a "threat to humanity" to "another Friday" among so many Democrats?
Liberals just remember the little drowning kid and are happy we bombed people who made the little kid drown. Hooray, hashtags work!
|
On April 09 2017 03:17 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2017 03:07 Nyxisto wrote:
Isn't really surprising though, the "anti-imperialist" left and the isolationist right share pretty much the same FP positions. It's 'America first' in both camps, for different reasons. Can anyone give me an explanation as to why/how Trump haphazardly wielding Americas military went from being a "threat to humanity" to "another Friday" among so many Democrats?
Probably because the retaliation against Assad was not a haphazardly wielding of the US military and many Democrats wanted something to be done after Assad used chemical weapons?
I would not compare this to his threats of invading Mexico or sacrificing Seoul to screw around in NK.
The question is if Trump actually has a plan going forward if Assad does it again.
|
On April 09 2017 03:25 LegalLord wrote:
In contrast to not beating the drums of war in the first place...
What is the last war Democrats didn't support getting into? Is there a war during Hillary's political life that she didn't support entering?
|
On April 09 2017 03:28 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2017 03:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2017 03:07 Nyxisto wrote:
Isn't really surprising though, the "anti-imperialist" left and the isolationist right share pretty much the same FP positions. It's 'America first' in both camps, for different reasons. Can anyone give me an explanation as to why/how Trump haphazardly wielding Americas military went from being a "threat to humanity" to "another Friday" among so many Democrats? Probably because the retaliation against Assad was not a haphazardly wielding of the US military and many Democrats wanted something to be done after Assad used chemical weapons? I would not compare this to his threats of invading Mexico or sacrificing Seoul to screw around in NK. The question is if Trump actually has a plan going forward if Assad does it again.
So Trump is perfectly capable of appropriately wielding the military (like not going to congress for approval) when he's doing things Democrats want, but when it's not on Democrats agenda, he's a madman who can't be trusted with such power?
That's not how any of this works.
|
Well he is in office now anyway, no matter what any Democrat thinks, so I'm not sure I follow. I also think most people trust the American administration to be capable of carrying out military strikes, it's not like Trump is planning the operation here
|
On April 09 2017 03:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2017 03:28 Gorsameth wrote:On April 09 2017 03:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2017 03:07 Nyxisto wrote:
Isn't really surprising though, the "anti-imperialist" left and the isolationist right share pretty much the same FP positions. It's 'America first' in both camps, for different reasons. Can anyone give me an explanation as to why/how Trump haphazardly wielding Americas military went from being a "threat to humanity" to "another Friday" among so many Democrats? Probably because the retaliation against Assad was not a haphazardly wielding of the US military and many Democrats wanted something to be done after Assad used chemical weapons? I would not compare this to his threats of invading Mexico or sacrificing Seoul to screw around in NK. The question is if Trump actually has a plan going forward if Assad does it again. So Trump is perfectly capable of appropriately wielding the military (like not going to congress for approval) when he's doing things Democrats want, but when it's not on Democrats agenda, he's a madman who can't be trusted with such power? That's not how any of this works.
Or, and this is a shocker, an action can been seen as acceptable while the overarching direction is still worrying.
Heaven forbid something is not utterly black or white.
|
On April 09 2017 03:36 Nyxisto wrote:
Well he is in office now anyway, no matter what any Democrat thinks, so I'm not sure I follow. I also think most people trust the American administration to be capable of carrying out military strikes, it's not like Trump is planning the operation here
Trump was going to plan operations, that's why people thought his control of the military was a threat to humanity? But now they realize that's not how the military works so they are fine with it?
Just to be clear, you guys and (democrats) WANT Trump to escalate the conflict in the middle east while his most staunch supporters think him escalating in Syria is a terrible idea. And none of you see the comedy in that?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Mattis plans, Trump gives the seal of approval. It might be notable that Mattis took his place virtually unopposed - an oddity given the fact that despite being a perfectly qualified DefSec, he is a known warhawk. If Democrats cared, perhaps they would have raised a fuss about that.
|
On April 09 2017 03:16 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2017 03:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 09 2017 02:58 LegalLord wrote:On April 09 2017 02:54 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 08 2017 23:29 Karpfen wrote:On April 08 2017 09:49 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 08 2017 09:24 Godwrath wrote:On April 08 2017 07:43 zlefin wrote:
So? there's a nontrivial portion of EVERY base that are idiots. that doesn't mean much other than every side has idiots.
nor does it change that there were in fact some russian interference, that racism/sexism/xenophobia do have some real effect on the election.
so many people gotta be disingenuous pricks about the topic, trying to cover the actual facts with misrepresentations and strawmen. Correct. It's also true that the electability for the presidential run as a postitive trait to vote for Hillary during the primaries was a recurrent argument around here so it's not actually unrelated to the thread itself. But to be honest, i am more interested to know where is the democrat party moving from their loss: Has it seen Trump's victory as an own failure and a need to change in some issues ? Or do they feel like the voterbase still don't know what's best for the country* and after a Trump's term they can be persuaded back? *due to fake news, Russians, racism/sexism, ignorance... I can understand frustration from some people if it's the second, and i can also see it backfiring again. I would say that the voter-base legitimately does not understand what is in their own best interest, let alone the country. Which is why the mark of a good politician is the ability to wrap unpalatable but effective policies into a popular message. So, are you willing to make the only logical step from your premise and declare democracy a failure? You basicly said that that a good politican has to make things sound good to people but the thing is, they can be made to sound good even if they are not good. In any case you do not trust the decisions of the people which is fine, but I wonder how much that is related to them electing a person you don't like. Failure compared to what? Because that's the key question, not about how bad democracy is, but if there is any alternative that would be better. And absolutely, a politician can take a bad plan and sell it. That's, more or less, the situation you have right now. But I wouldn't call them a good politician for it - sure, they're good at the getting elected part, but it doesn't matter when they fail at their actual job. I'd say Obama, more than anyone else in recent memory, is a good example of everything I've said. He took complex, difficult plans and sold them to the voting population in easy to swallow messages, and after implementing them it took years for people to realize how beneficial the changes were for themselves. He's also a perfect example of expectations of voters not meeting the reality of the leadership, which lead a lot of people toward politicians who were promising those things. Obama's policies were not particularly popular and even now they are only reluctantly approved on their own merits when assessed devoid of context. I'm afraid that what really gave Obama his popularity is his personal charisma, his ability to sell very mildly palatable plans to the public in a package that they would reluctantly accept by talking a very good talk. Which was more or less my point? I mean, obviously ymmv depending on which party line you're sitting on. But something like Obamacare wouldn't have been implemented if he wasn't good at selling the plan to the public, and then the voting public flip-flopped on electing Republicans campaigning to remove it, then crying out when they realized they'd lose health care coverage if it was gone. Obama left with popularity, and yet both possible successors were deeply disliked - and the base of both parties is as polarized as ever. Not to mention that despite his personal popularity the party he led has been thoroughly wiped out at the local and state level. That doesn't sound like particular popularity for his policies - merely acceptance. Even among the Democrats who should be with him all the way. I'm not sure that could be called a particular success of "selling his policies" considering that they are far from safe right now.
Not sure what you're arguing, because you're just reiterating my point.
Actual policy is difficult, complex, and largely unpalatable compared to what people want. To get it implemented, you basically have to trick the voting population into wanting it.
|
On April 09 2017 03:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2017 03:36 Nyxisto wrote:
Well he is in office now anyway, no matter what any Democrat thinks, so I'm not sure I follow. I also think most people trust the American administration to be capable of carrying out military strikes, it's not like Trump is planning the operation here Trump was going to plan operations, that's why people thought his control of the military was a threat to humanity? But now they realize that's not how the military works so they are fine with it? Just to be clear, you guys and (democrats) WANT Trump to escalate the conflict in the middle east while his most staunch supporters think him escalating in Syria is a terrible idea. And none of you see the comedy in that?
I don't really think anybody believed that Trump was a "threat to humanity" in the literal sense, as in "he is going to push the big red button". People are afraid of Trump making strategically bad decisions, but if you are in favour of intervening in Syria the biggest factor isn't who is president, at least not in any direct operational sense. A decision you would have supported under Clinton isn't bad if Trump executes it.
|
On April 09 2017 03:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2017 03:16 LegalLord wrote:On April 09 2017 03:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 09 2017 02:58 LegalLord wrote:On April 09 2017 02:54 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 08 2017 23:29 Karpfen wrote:On April 08 2017 09:49 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 08 2017 09:24 Godwrath wrote:On April 08 2017 07:43 zlefin wrote:
So? there's a nontrivial portion of EVERY base that are idiots. that doesn't mean much other than every side has idiots.
nor does it change that there were in fact some russian interference, that racism/sexism/xenophobia do have some real effect on the election.
so many people gotta be disingenuous pricks about the topic, trying to cover the actual facts with misrepresentations and strawmen. Correct. It's also true that the electability for the presidential run as a postitive trait to vote for Hillary during the primaries was a recurrent argument around here so it's not actually unrelated to the thread itself. But to be honest, i am more interested to know where is the democrat party moving from their loss: Has it seen Trump's victory as an own failure and a need to change in some issues ? Or do they feel like the voterbase still don't know what's best for the country* and after a Trump's term they can be persuaded back? *due to fake news, Russians, racism/sexism, ignorance... I can understand frustration from some people if it's the second, and i can also see it backfiring again. I would say that the voter-base legitimately does not understand what is in their own best interest, let alone the country. Which is why the mark of a good politician is the ability to wrap unpalatable but effective policies into a popular message. So, are you willing to make the only logical step from your premise and declare democracy a failure? You basicly said that that a good politican has to make things sound good to people but the thing is, they can be made to sound good even if they are not good. In any case you do not trust the decisions of the people which is fine, but I wonder how much that is related to them electing a person you don't like. Failure compared to what? Because that's the key question, not about how bad democracy is, but if there is any alternative that would be better. And absolutely, a politician can take a bad plan and sell it. That's, more or less, the situation you have right now. But I wouldn't call them a good politician for it - sure, they're good at the getting elected part, but it doesn't matter when they fail at their actual job. I'd say Obama, more than anyone else in recent memory, is a good example of everything I've said. He took complex, difficult plans and sold them to the voting population in easy to swallow messages, and after implementing them it took years for people to realize how beneficial the changes were for themselves. He's also a perfect example of expectations of voters not meeting the reality of the leadership, which lead a lot of people toward politicians who were promising those things. Obama's policies were not particularly popular and even now they are only reluctantly approved on their own merits when assessed devoid of context. I'm afraid that what really gave Obama his popularity is his personal charisma, his ability to sell very mildly palatable plans to the public in a package that they would reluctantly accept by talking a very good talk. Which was more or less my point? I mean, obviously ymmv depending on which party line you're sitting on. But something like Obamacare wouldn't have been implemented if he wasn't good at selling the plan to the public, and then the voting public flip-flopped on electing Republicans campaigning to remove it, then crying out when they realized they'd lose health care coverage if it was gone. Obama left with popularity, and yet both possible successors were deeply disliked - and the base of both parties is as polarized as ever. Not to mention that despite his personal popularity the party he led has been thoroughly wiped out at the local and state level. That doesn't sound like particular popularity for his policies - merely acceptance. Even among the Democrats who should be with him all the way. I'm not sure that could be called a particular success of "selling his policies" considering that they are far from safe right now. Not sure what you're arguing, because you're just reiterating my point. Actual policy is difficult, complex, and largely unpalatable compared to what people want. To get it implemented, you basically have to trick the voting population into wanting it.
Pretty sure this is a significant reason as to why organized religion is a thing.
|
On April 09 2017 03:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2017 02:58 LegalLord wrote:On April 09 2017 02:54 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 08 2017 23:29 Karpfen wrote:On April 08 2017 09:49 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 08 2017 09:24 Godwrath wrote:On April 08 2017 07:43 zlefin wrote:
So? there's a nontrivial portion of EVERY base that are idiots. that doesn't mean much other than every side has idiots.
nor does it change that there were in fact some russian interference, that racism/sexism/xenophobia do have some real effect on the election.
so many people gotta be disingenuous pricks about the topic, trying to cover the actual facts with misrepresentations and strawmen. Correct. It's also true that the electability for the presidential run as a postitive trait to vote for Hillary during the primaries was a recurrent argument around here so it's not actually unrelated to the thread itself. But to be honest, i am more interested to know where is the democrat party moving from their loss: Has it seen Trump's victory as an own failure and a need to change in some issues ? Or do they feel like the voterbase still don't know what's best for the country* and after a Trump's term they can be persuaded back? *due to fake news, Russians, racism/sexism, ignorance... I can understand frustration from some people if it's the second, and i can also see it backfiring again. I would say that the voter-base legitimately does not understand what is in their own best interest, let alone the country. Which is why the mark of a good politician is the ability to wrap unpalatable but effective policies into a popular message. So, are you willing to make the only logical step from your premise and declare democracy a failure? You basicly said that that a good politican has to make things sound good to people but the thing is, they can be made to sound good even if they are not good. In any case you do not trust the decisions of the people which is fine, but I wonder how much that is related to them electing a person you don't like. Failure compared to what? Because that's the key question, not about how bad democracy is, but if there is any alternative that would be better. And absolutely, a politician can take a bad plan and sell it. That's, more or less, the situation you have right now. But I wouldn't call them a good politician for it - sure, they're good at the getting elected part, but it doesn't matter when they fail at their actual job. I'd say Obama, more than anyone else in recent memory, is a good example of everything I've said. He took complex, difficult plans and sold them to the voting population in easy to swallow messages, and after implementing them it took years for people to realize how beneficial the changes were for themselves. He's also a perfect example of expectations of voters not meeting the reality of the leadership, which lead a lot of people toward politicians who were promising those things. Obama's policies were not particularly popular and even now they are only reluctantly approved on their own merits when assessed devoid of context. I'm afraid that what really gave Obama his popularity is his personal charisma, his ability to sell very mildly palatable plans to the public in a package that they would reluctantly accept by talking a very good talk. Which was more or less my point? I mean, obviously ymmv depending on which party line you're sitting on. But something like Obamacare wouldn't have been implemented if he wasn't good at selling the plan to the public, and then the voting public flip-flopped on electing Republicans campaigning to remove it, then crying out when they realized they'd lose health care coverage if it was gone.
it's less flip-flopping and more a result of one of the standard biases in human thought (the one wherein losses are valued stronger than equivalent gains). which inevitably gives rise to inertia and counteraction against change.
|
On April 09 2017 03:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2017 03:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 09 2017 03:16 LegalLord wrote:On April 09 2017 03:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 09 2017 02:58 LegalLord wrote:On April 09 2017 02:54 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 08 2017 23:29 Karpfen wrote:On April 08 2017 09:49 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 08 2017 09:24 Godwrath wrote:On April 08 2017 07:43 zlefin wrote:
So? there's a nontrivial portion of EVERY base that are idiots. that doesn't mean much other than every side has idiots.
nor does it change that there were in fact some russian interference, that racism/sexism/xenophobia do have some real effect on the election.
so many people gotta be disingenuous pricks about the topic, trying to cover the actual facts with misrepresentations and strawmen. Correct. It's also true that the electability for the presidential run as a postitive trait to vote for Hillary during the primaries was a recurrent argument around here so it's not actually unrelated to the thread itself. But to be honest, i am more interested to know where is the democrat party moving from their loss: Has it seen Trump's victory as an own failure and a need to change in some issues ? Or do they feel like the voterbase still don't know what's best for the country* and after a Trump's term they can be persuaded back? *due to fake news, Russians, racism/sexism, ignorance... I can understand frustration from some people if it's the second, and i can also see it backfiring again. I would say that the voter-base legitimately does not understand what is in their own best interest, let alone the country. Which is why the mark of a good politician is the ability to wrap unpalatable but effective policies into a popular message. So, are you willing to make the only logical step from your premise and declare democracy a failure? You basicly said that that a good politican has to make things sound good to people but the thing is, they can be made to sound good even if they are not good. In any case you do not trust the decisions of the people which is fine, but I wonder how much that is related to them electing a person you don't like. Failure compared to what? Because that's the key question, not about how bad democracy is, but if there is any alternative that would be better. And absolutely, a politician can take a bad plan and sell it. That's, more or less, the situation you have right now. But I wouldn't call them a good politician for it - sure, they're good at the getting elected part, but it doesn't matter when they fail at their actual job. I'd say Obama, more than anyone else in recent memory, is a good example of everything I've said. He took complex, difficult plans and sold them to the voting population in easy to swallow messages, and after implementing them it took years for people to realize how beneficial the changes were for themselves. He's also a perfect example of expectations of voters not meeting the reality of the leadership, which lead a lot of people toward politicians who were promising those things. Obama's policies were not particularly popular and even now they are only reluctantly approved on their own merits when assessed devoid of context. I'm afraid that what really gave Obama his popularity is his personal charisma, his ability to sell very mildly palatable plans to the public in a package that they would reluctantly accept by talking a very good talk. Which was more or less my point? I mean, obviously ymmv depending on which party line you're sitting on. But something like Obamacare wouldn't have been implemented if he wasn't good at selling the plan to the public, and then the voting public flip-flopped on electing Republicans campaigning to remove it, then crying out when they realized they'd lose health care coverage if it was gone. Obama left with popularity, and yet both possible successors were deeply disliked - and the base of both parties is as polarized as ever. Not to mention that despite his personal popularity the party he led has been thoroughly wiped out at the local and state level. That doesn't sound like particular popularity for his policies - merely acceptance. Even among the Democrats who should be with him all the way. I'm not sure that could be called a particular success of "selling his policies" considering that they are far from safe right now. Not sure what you're arguing, because you're just reiterating my point. Actual policy is difficult, complex, and largely unpalatable compared to what people want. To get it implemented, you basically have to trick the voting population into wanting it. Pretty sure this is a significant reason as to why organized religion is a thing.
It's a significant reason as to why a lot of things are a thing.
|
On April 09 2017 03:42 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2017 03:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2017 03:36 Nyxisto wrote:
Well he is in office now anyway, no matter what any Democrat thinks, so I'm not sure I follow. I also think most people trust the American administration to be capable of carrying out military strikes, it's not like Trump is planning the operation here Trump was going to plan operations, that's why people thought his control of the military was a threat to humanity? But now they realize that's not how the military works so they are fine with it? Just to be clear, you guys and (democrats) WANT Trump to escalate the conflict in the middle east while his most staunch supporters think him escalating in Syria is a terrible idea. And none of you see the comedy in that? I don't really think anybody believed that Trump was a "threat to humanity" in the literal sense, as in "he is going to push the big red button". People are afraid of Trump making strategically bad decisions, but if you are in favour of intervening in Syria the biggest factor isn't who is president, at least not in any direct operational sense. A decision you would have supported under Clinton isn't bad if Trump executes it.
Democrats didn't support it UNTIL Trump was the one in charge of it (unless you count Hillary the Hawk). SO basically everyone was lying and exaggerating when they said Trump couldn't be trusted. They absolutely think he can be trusted to execute international missile strikes on hostile countries. In fact they are suggesting that he isn't going far enough, he needs to use more bombs, destroy more Syrian resources, and risk more American lives.
It's bullshit.
|
The US has a very, very long history of electing anti war, isolationist leaders who promptly say "fuck all that" and invade the next thing that looks at them funny. In fact, I'd say that's the basis of our foreign policy since at least 1898.
|
On April 09 2017 03:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2017 03:36 Nyxisto wrote:
Well he is in office now anyway, no matter what any Democrat thinks, so I'm not sure I follow. I also think most people trust the American administration to be capable of carrying out military strikes, it's not like Trump is planning the operation here Trump was going to plan operations, that's why people thought his control of the military was a threat to humanity? But now they realize that's not how the military works so they are fine with it? Just to be clear, you guys and (democrats) WANT Trump to escalate the conflict in the middle east while his most staunch supporters think him escalating in Syria is a terrible idea. And none of you see the comedy in that?
I'm fine with escalating or not escalating so long as there's a decent plan with reasonable odds of success and a solid end-game. I haven't seen one yet from Trump on syria; I don't recall seeing one from Hillary (other than the parts about continuing what Obama did). I found Obama's overall methods in syria to be an adequate option.
I do see the comedy in that. :D
the problem wtih trump re: military is that he may be too willing to engage in escalating tit-for-tat behavior and to authorize firing too readily in certain provocative situations. at least from my PoV, different people probably feared different things. iirc what I said long ago (and stlil seems plausible) was: hillary is more likely to intentionally get us into a war. trump is more likely to unintentionally get us into a war.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On April 09 2017 03:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2017 03:16 LegalLord wrote:On April 09 2017 03:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 09 2017 02:58 LegalLord wrote:On April 09 2017 02:54 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 08 2017 23:29 Karpfen wrote:On April 08 2017 09:49 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 08 2017 09:24 Godwrath wrote:On April 08 2017 07:43 zlefin wrote:
So? there's a nontrivial portion of EVERY base that are idiots. that doesn't mean much other than every side has idiots.
nor does it change that there were in fact some russian interference, that racism/sexism/xenophobia do have some real effect on the election.
so many people gotta be disingenuous pricks about the topic, trying to cover the actual facts with misrepresentations and strawmen. Correct. It's also true that the electability for the presidential run as a postitive trait to vote for Hillary during the primaries was a recurrent argument around here so it's not actually unrelated to the thread itself. But to be honest, i am more interested to know where is the democrat party moving from their loss: Has it seen Trump's victory as an own failure and a need to change in some issues ? Or do they feel like the voterbase still don't know what's best for the country* and after a Trump's term they can be persuaded back? *due to fake news, Russians, racism/sexism, ignorance... I can understand frustration from some people if it's the second, and i can also see it backfiring again. I would say that the voter-base legitimately does not understand what is in their own best interest, let alone the country. Which is why the mark of a good politician is the ability to wrap unpalatable but effective policies into a popular message. So, are you willing to make the only logical step from your premise and declare democracy a failure? You basicly said that that a good politican has to make things sound good to people but the thing is, they can be made to sound good even if they are not good. In any case you do not trust the decisions of the people which is fine, but I wonder how much that is related to them electing a person you don't like. Failure compared to what? Because that's the key question, not about how bad democracy is, but if there is any alternative that would be better. And absolutely, a politician can take a bad plan and sell it. That's, more or less, the situation you have right now. But I wouldn't call them a good politician for it - sure, they're good at the getting elected part, but it doesn't matter when they fail at their actual job. I'd say Obama, more than anyone else in recent memory, is a good example of everything I've said. He took complex, difficult plans and sold them to the voting population in easy to swallow messages, and after implementing them it took years for people to realize how beneficial the changes were for themselves. He's also a perfect example of expectations of voters not meeting the reality of the leadership, which lead a lot of people toward politicians who were promising those things. Obama's policies were not particularly popular and even now they are only reluctantly approved on their own merits when assessed devoid of context. I'm afraid that what really gave Obama his popularity is his personal charisma, his ability to sell very mildly palatable plans to the public in a package that they would reluctantly accept by talking a very good talk. Which was more or less my point? I mean, obviously ymmv depending on which party line you're sitting on. But something like Obamacare wouldn't have been implemented if he wasn't good at selling the plan to the public, and then the voting public flip-flopped on electing Republicans campaigning to remove it, then crying out when they realized they'd lose health care coverage if it was gone. Obama left with popularity, and yet both possible successors were deeply disliked - and the base of both parties is as polarized as ever. Not to mention that despite his personal popularity the party he led has been thoroughly wiped out at the local and state level. That doesn't sound like particular popularity for his policies - merely acceptance. Even among the Democrats who should be with him all the way. I'm not sure that could be called a particular success of "selling his policies" considering that they are far from safe right now. Not sure what you're arguing, because you're just reiterating my point. Actual policy is difficult, complex, and largely unpalatable compared to what people want. To get it implemented, you basically have to trick the voting population into wanting it.
I mean, besides healthcare which survives because the Republicans are stupid (and it's still a troubled policy and will be for a while), Obama's actual policy legacy is rather checkered. People are happy with neither the policies nor the results of what Obama did. They only like Obama himself.
People didn't "realize how good the policies were for them." Most of what he did is pretty unpopular and relatively unsuccessful. Every major push he had in FP has basically fallen apart over the years. Healthcare survives by a thread, with major challenges from both the left (UHC) and right (kill it dead). Immigration "reform" is being slowly but surely dismantled and most of the population isn't really rising up in protest. Social movements survive by a thread, hoping the courts will support them. The Garland nomination died a death that people care about on a party-line divide. And so on...
No, what Obama managed to do was to be able to take credit for the things that went right while convincing people not to blame him for what went wrong. His policies as a whole can hardly be evaluated as a widespread success. He didn't convince people to take a bitter medicine that cured them, he convinced them to blame a different pharmacist for the migraines while giving him credit for slightly less trouble with the original condition.
And I say that as someone who doesn't look at Obama in a particularly bad light and who thinks Obama was a pretty good president overall.
|
On April 09 2017 03:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2017 03:42 Nyxisto wrote:On April 09 2017 03:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2017 03:36 Nyxisto wrote:
Well he is in office now anyway, no matter what any Democrat thinks, so I'm not sure I follow. I also think most people trust the American administration to be capable of carrying out military strikes, it's not like Trump is planning the operation here Trump was going to plan operations, that's why people thought his control of the military was a threat to humanity? But now they realize that's not how the military works so they are fine with it? Just to be clear, you guys and (democrats) WANT Trump to escalate the conflict in the middle east while his most staunch supporters think him escalating in Syria is a terrible idea. And none of you see the comedy in that? I don't really think anybody believed that Trump was a "threat to humanity" in the literal sense, as in "he is going to push the big red button". People are afraid of Trump making strategically bad decisions, but if you are in favour of intervening in Syria the biggest factor isn't who is president, at least not in any direct operational sense. A decision you would have supported under Clinton isn't bad if Trump executes it. Democrats didn't support it UNTIL Trump was the one in charge of it (unless you count Hillary the Hawk). SO basically everyone was lying and exaggerating when they said Trump couldn't be trusted. They absolutely think he can be trusted to execute international missile strikes on hostile countries. In fact they are suggesting that he isn't going far enough, he needs to use more bombs, destroy more Syrian resources, and risk more American lives. It's bullshit.
Is that really true though? Didn't Democrats also criticise Obama publicly when he swayed away from his red line after Assad used chemical weapons the first time? Is not punishing the use of chemical weapons really a mainstream line in the Democratic party?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
One more itty bitty Wikileak on the CIA hack: Source
Microsoft malware framework.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
