Thread: What is Obama doing wrong?

All intelligent people who understand the US Constitution know that Obama is not eligible to be the President of the USA. So that alone makes everything he does while acting as president untenable. He has created a constitutional crisis because he has no right to be the president of the USA in the first place. He usurped the presidency. That's the worst thing he has done wrong.

Originally Posted by MattInFla

Well, one example is the ongoing, unconstitutional suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus by the Obama administration. This particularly odious violation began under Bush, and is being continued (and perhaps expanded) by the Obama administration.

Rather than re-hash the topic here, let me direct you to a thread I started about it: The ongoing suspension of Habeas Corpus

Matt

That is a deeply troubling situation. Yes, I agree that classified guidelines to hold suspected terrorists indefinitely sounds very ominous. My initial and secondary response is that this is a very bad thing.

Of course, the guidelines being classified means that it can contain either something very limiting, as in, very unique cases can be defined, with a lot of clauses ensuring that the rights of nearly all are protected to the utmost, and it can only be applied to those very few who qualify. But on the other hand it can contain the broadest strokes.

How much power does Obama truly have to stop the suspension of habeas corpus?

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

in me own eyes, the worst thing Mr. Obama has done has been to be the skipper 'o our reelin' nation in these unhappy times. our soft and pudgy and paunchy mindset hath made our nation ill equipped to deal with adversity, so in our outrage independents and democrats probably feel let down by man who had soarin' rhetoric as a candidate but now be grounded by reality.

Do you feel that his inexperience in big politics has caused him to be confronted with a rather steep learning curve, and with his lack of political savvy that has cost him a number of opportunities to create a better outcome.

I've heard quite a few democrats come to the realization that it would have probably been a lot better to have Hillary Clinton in the white house.

President Obama can build as many sails and masts as he and the congress are able...but thar be no wind to propel us forward.

Yes, that's my impression as well.

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

I agree with Matt's point here, and I'll add that he has pushed to keep and continued with warrantless wiretapping, he has gone heavily out of his way to cover up bush's torture policies. He favors bailing out giant corporations, although people bitch about the healthcare changes, in most cases it will be a huge boon to insurance companies .... for the first time in America's history, you will be mandated by the government to buy a specific product from private industry.

The Netherlands has the most wiretapping in the world, and I'm not even talking relatively speaking. It has literally the most wiretaps of any country in the world (except maybe Italy and North Korea, but they're so corrupt that they're not publishing accurate information on the matter). It's a very disturbing phenomenon. And most Dutch people don't even seem to care.

Do you think that Obama actually wants to do these things this way, or that his hands are basically tied?

The good things that Obama has done, imo, are taking a stance against ridiculous executive pay, he has toned down the war rhetoric (axis of evil, nothing is off the table, etc).

I agree. The war rhetoric was really hurting the US big time internationally. I'm sure that nationally it sounded good. But to other countries it was extremely offensive.

I can have a pretty strong American accent when I speak English and when I went out dancing one time, shortly after the US invaded Iraq, I pretended to be American. When just making idle talk with people, once I presented myself as an American, they debated Bush and the US's vagrant violation of the UN with me right there on the dance floor. It was not a good time to be an American.

At the end of the day though, the people who dislike Obama the most are the GOP supporters (Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter listeners). In their eyes he will always be despicable because he isn't a republican. In my eyes, that's stupid since the main things I dislike about his policies are the fact that he seems to be continuing every single bush violation of the constitution. So how come one third of the country dislikes him for continuing bush policies, another third of the country dislikes him because he's not a republican (seemingly at odds with him continuing important republican policies), and one third of the country still likes him.

Being partisan for sake of being partisan is so unuseful. That way you can never get a good government that actually looks out for your best interests.

Originally Posted by WFCY

I had a thread titled exactly the same way not too long ago. There is a poll on the top which may give you a quick summary of this forum's views. What I gotta say on the subject, has been said. Good that you brought it back up though. I havn't changed my mind though others may have during this time in between.

Yes, I noticed this after creating the thread. I apologize for not using your thread .

Originally Posted by EricOKC

You may want to rewrite your question as "What has Obama actually done?"

All sarcasm aside, while your question is simple, the answers are not. How detailed do you want people to be? Remember, there IS a character limit on posts...

I understand that my question leaves a lot of ground to cover. So yes, what I asked was a pretty tall order. But you are free to answer it to the extent that you feel comfortable with.

I could also rephrase my question to "What would Obama have actually been able to do, considering the complex situation and the actual distribution of power in the US?"

I admit that the latter question is of course vague and could easily go toward some kind of vast conspiracy that is preventing wonderful Obama to do wonderful things. But that's not my intent. I do think that money talks, especially in the US, and that a lot of very wealthy people have a stake in the policies not changing, or changing just so that it doesn't negatively affect their bottom line.

Originally Posted by hairballxavier

In what way was Bush antagonistic towards the Netherlands?

It's not so much that Bush was antagonistic towards the Dutch politicians or the Netherlands per se, because he wasn't. The Dutch politicians agreed with him and let the Netherlands join the war in Iraq (which is something that the Dutch population was heavily against).

It's more that his presentation of himself and the US was extremely unappealing to the Dutch mind set. He's stupid, a kind of cowboy, presented himself as a the biggest bully on the block, contradicted himself, lied about reasons for going to war, etc.

Of course, in essence I don't think he necessarily did more unpopular things that e.g. Clinton. But Clinton was just a whole lot better at presenting himself in an appealing way.

The Dutch cabinet recently fell because we (population) want to pull back our troops from Afghanistan, and half of the Dutch coalition didn't want to as the US asked them to stay. I don't necessarily think that it's a good idea to pull back from Afghanistan at this point in time.

The funny thing is of course that Obama isn't seen as an aggressor or as a warmonger, but more as a president that is trying to make the best of the mess his predecessor left for him. I'm not saying this is fair or reasonable. But a lot of politics is about appearance, especially US politics.

In a nutshell;



http://www.democracycorps.com/wp-con...cal.FINAL_.pdf

Originally Posted by phungus

This is my biggest issue, as he could correct it with the stroke of a pen. He has not, and like so many things has instead chosen to follow the precedents and policies of the Bush administration, the administration he de facto ran against in his campaign.

Is it possible that there are good reasons that he hasn't? I'm not asking this to make excuses for the man, because honestly, I'm not personally invested in Obama. And also, can he really stop it with the stroke of a pen? Or is it possible he needs to jump through quite a few hoops?

Further he campaigned as a Liberal Lion, but he hasn't done anything for the left. His healthcare bill only mandates PRIVATE insurance, WTF is that?

The best he could accomplish within the time frame he had?

He started the negotiations with the most obvious course of action, single payer, completely off the table, so no where to go but right, and what we have is a republican bill for all intents and purposes; there's not even a public option.

What is single payer as an option? Why was it off the table?

His economic stimulus plan was the exact same right wing Fat Cat rescue package pushed through by Bush, with virtually no socialist or left leaning policies.

Who is in place creating the economic stimulus plan? Are these things done by civil servants, or people he put in place? Is it possible that it's basically the same people as under Bush? That's one of the things we're confronted with in the Netherlands. We have different elected government, but then the civil servants are just career people and they just do things the way they do things. It's hard for politicians to truly effect change simply because the people who need to carry out the policies never really change.

Finally he hasn't addressed what I think are the biggest issues in the economy, the dispraportionate massing of wealth in the .1% upper income earners sucking out the economic wealth from the middle class. Mandate shareholder elections for Executive Stock options and Executive pay in excess of $1M or 100 times the average earnings of an employee in the corporation. The government doesn't need to, and really shouldn't impose wages on execs, but it can force the board to put these rediculous compensations to shareholder votes, and the shareholders wol't be so kind as the board is to itself.

Can the US government really reach into organizations and change the way executive earnings are established? How much of a public outcry would this create, or do you think it would be welcomed?

Also intelectual property laws need to be revamped, inovation in America is being destroyed by the draconian laws that exist now.

I completely agree that intellectual property laws are ridiculous. Let's hope that Obama finds time somewhere to address this issue, with everything else on his plate.

Do you think the US should have had a more experienced president at this point in time? I mean, Obama can make great speeches, but his inexperience has probably cost you guys quite a bit as he's just not that great at political maneuvering.

Originally Posted by hairballxavier

All intelligent people who understand the US Constitution know that Obama is not eligible to be the President of the USA. So that alone makes everything he does while acting as president untenable. He has created a constitutional crisis because he has no right to be the president of the USA in the first place. He usurped the presidency. That's the worst thing he has done wrong.

I'm quite sure that if Obama was truly ineligible to be president of the US, he would never have become president. There are enough people with vested interest in him not becoming president and a lot of power, who would have prevented his presidency if there was any truth to your supposition.

Originally Posted by hairballxavier

I disagree. I think his foreign policy would best be described as pragmatic and prudent.

Yes, but that is because his presentation of himself was attractive to you. It wasn't attractive to us. You can say that we are wrong to find it unattractive, but we're simply from a different culture and different things are appealing to us than are to you.

I'm not saying that Bush did more wrong than other presidents, I haven't kept count. But he's not been very good at appealing to the international arena. He antagonized a lot of countries, and a lot of people world wide.

Btw, I'm also not saying that it's wrong that he appealed to you. You've got different values and different opinions, and you are a product of your upbringing and culture.

But he made a clear choice to appeal to you and not to us, which is good for his national politics, but not good for his international politics. Of course, in the US his presentation was also extremely divisive. Which in the end, I don't think is very helpful. Although of course it helps sell newspapers.

Originally Posted by CYDdharta

In a nutshell;



http://www.democracycorps.com/wp-con...cal.FINAL_.pdf

Again:

Oh, and if at all possible, could you refrain from one liners, but post actual cases, and base them on factual arguments?

Thanks.

Originally Posted by Helene

That is a deeply troubling situation. Yes, I agree that classified guidelines to hold suspected terrorists indefinitely sounds very ominous. My initial and secondary response is that this is a very bad thing.

Of course, the guidelines being classified means that it can contain either something very limiting, as in, very unique cases can be defined, with a lot of clauses ensuring that the rights of nearly all are protected to the utmost, and it can only be applied to those very few who qualify. But on the other hand it can contain the broadest strokes.

How much power does Obama truly have to stop the suspension of habeas corpus?

As the Commander in Chief, the President has absolute power to cease the suspension of Habeas Corpus. He can, at any time, pick up the phone, call the Pentagon and say "You will either arraign or release every prisoner at Gitmo (and wherever else we are holding them) immediately." And that's the end of it. There is no appeal to an order from the CinC.

Matt