Can someone give me a rational explanation

On how I went from this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7961280

to this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6853126

Because the explanation that I woke up one day hating the President doesn't seem logical to me.

President Palin in 2012 doesn't seem logical, but it will happen, thanks to you and all the other liberals who think they should just snap their fingers and expect one man to clean up a decades old mess that the Republicans, and apathetic Americans brought on us all. I don't fucking understand it, and no it isn't logical. I guess you forgot the shit we went through for 8 years and rather than let go of your contempt, have easily transferred it from Bush to Obama.

blaming liberals for being upset with the direction of the country seems to be a standard talking point.

Let us be honest, no President is re-elected from a grass roots movement so if there is a President Palin in 2012, it will be about the economy and no other issue.

It will be the overriding factor in 2010 & 2012.

If jobs are gaining dems win easily
If job are being lost, repubs will gain

It is as simple as that. Plz Realize that most voters have no clue
what the party platforms are.

I know I didn't vote for Obama because I supported the man.

I voted for Obama because I supported WHAT HE SAID.

Which is why when he seems to go back on the principals he said he believed in, the principals that made me want him to be President, I don't like it.

Yes, I understand that it will take years and years to fix Shrub's mess. But my problem isn't that. It's what he has done that seems ot violate the reasons we voted for him. As I think is the case for a great many.

Maybe if you wouldn't try to shut down any discussion with broad brushing everyone, you would understand what those concerns are and how they are different from the teabaggers and deathers.

I did really like the fact Obama is Constitutional scholar and professor, but I really did not like the McCain/Palin ticket.

followed by a bury your head in the sand answer.

you're just praying at a different altar is all.

Please reply, by the way. I need the lulz.

:thumbsup:

but thanks for the suggestion.

called Bye Bye Love. Teenager drives an old guy home from work and is invited in. Old guy (Ed Flanders) offers the kid a cup of tea. Kid says he notices when people get old they drink a lot of tea.

Flanders answers "Yes. And the word regular takes on a whole new meaning."

But back to your OP. I'm there with you. I spent time, money, and emotion getting this administration elected. Still glad it's not mccain, but golly. Surely all the hype and hope should have been about something more than the spit warm legislation that is leaking its way through congress and the deja vu foreign policy. It would be nice to be a brain dead zombie follower, but i just can't make my brain and my memory turn off.

Maybe if I get a little older and drink some more tea.

Now grab a mop or Sarah Palin will be President in 2012 :sarcasm:

When you resort to slogans and scare tactics to motivate or shame people you've played your hand.

Bush to Clinton, to Reagan.

The followers all act like followers.

I have it all the time. There have been multiple occasions where it has been triggered by the "but I thought that you said . . . . . ." and the only response has effectively been - "that was then, this is now."

There seem to be 2 roads forking in my own political development:

cynicism - a belief everyone's the same under the facade and campaign promises and rhetoric are only that. This road leads to disenchantment and disengagement from the process.

radicalism - engaging twice as much with twice as much fervor, but selectively. This is the mode I'm heading in. My new game plan is to stick with the better candidates through thick and thin. For instance, instead of playing the game, and voting for Obama over Hillary in the primary, I would have written in Kucinich.

...and that no president is free of corporate influence and power.

To make matters even more murky, this prez has surrounded himself with advisors that many progressives are not comfortable with, cut deals with corporate lobbyists, insists on catering to enemies rather than friends, and hesitates to fight unequivocally for progressive goals.

Your situation is perfectly logical imo.

Couldn't have written those thoughts better.

is that if Obama took a hardcore liberal stance and fought "unequivocally for progressive goals" he'd accomplish absolutely nothing because he'd run into too much resistance from the "Democrats" in Congress.

Do you actually believe your previous support of Obama offers any clues about your current state of mind? You could be unstable and prone to irrational anger. To quote you: "Whatever has you crazy bitter and angry I feel sorry for you"

:rofl:

Reading that is like reading an old love letter to an Ex.

Is there any DUer who actually spent more time in the trenches in than Allentown Jake?


Is it easier to see the upside in some place than others?


A more empathetic response is called for IMHO.

deserves being called out. Drivel is Drivel.

You betcha

your logic fails you.

instead of linking to the thoughts of others.

Karl doing?

You know the entire time I've been on here, I don't think I've seen you post one thing that wasn't the exact party line. It is almost like you are a robot...or paid staff.

Wouldn't you say and she never gets the talking points wrong or have rational explanations when there is a change of direction.

Ah, your last resort argument.

Take a look at Grantcart's posting towards me, and take a look at yours...now you notice how I'm more receptive to Grantcart than you?

deserves to be heard and embraced.


You do realize that the OP was asking a question and not condemning - I was over there and now I am over here - why do you think I got over there.


Your response was basically you were right over there and an idiot for going over there. I just don't find it a particularly effective manner in trying to persuade someone to your point of view.


Let me make it a little more explicit - It is very Un-Obama-esque. Part of what Obama has given us are better policy positions, an even more significant contribution is reminding us of more effective ways to communicate about politics.


If Obama can remain civil and engaging with complete idiots that disagree with him on every issue is it not too great a challenge to be positive with people who we agree substantatively on the issues and have only minor disagreements with on strategy?


Yes We Can. (there is no ironic emoticon.)

"If Obama can remain civil and engaging with complete idiots that disagree with him on every issue is it not too great a challenge to be positive with people who we agree substantatively on the issues and have only minor disagreements with on strategy?"

As in the "audacity of bullshit"?

and maybe your mother never taught you this.

If grantcart asked me to make a phone call for the green economy right now, I'd do it. Do you know why? Because Grantcart is nice.

When I was dealing with volunteers and they had concerns over the Afghan war or bombing in Pakistan, I didn't dismiss their concerns.

You do the man more harm than good. When I leave a discussion with you I'm more anti-administration. When I leave a discussion with Grantcart, I'm more pro-administration.

Do you know why, because Grantcart is telling me his thoughts and being genuine.

If your mission is to influence people, I think you would be better to take your cue from Grantcart than from what you are doing.

If you're searching for justification for your nonsense, look elsewhere.

because I have no skin in the game when I post something. You evidently do and your postings do more to piss people off and be negative to the President than mine do.

I want the President to be succesful but I have differences with him.

If your goal is to drum up support for Barack Obama, a shilling talking point posting from you will do more damage than one hundred Audacity of Bullshit threads. Because at least when I post something, people know its how I genuinely feel at that given moment in history.

:rofl:

Nothing and that is my point, you couldn't have expressed it more effectively.

Prosense and I are nasty to each other. I'm not really sure when it started. She was on ignore for 3 months till I cleared out my ignore list.

I also believe that many at DU are excellent tree watchers. They have gotten up so close that they see all of the infestations of a particular tree in detail. The forest not so good.


If this 4th rate Health Insurance Bill is passed then the US will have taken a major dramatic and huge step.

It will establish that the Federal Government is responsible for the overall health care of the citizens. For over 235 years the Federal Government has been seen as not having the authority. From the date of the passage of the bill until the end of the Republic the debate will on what is the most effective plan, but the issue of whether or not the federal government has the authority will never be debated again.

Just like the FDA, the EPA, the CDC and other major extensions of the Federal Government into American society, the initial step was not too impressive, but once established these agencies have performed some amazing accomplishments and are now supported by both parties.

And through the basement back door an important principle will be established: All Americans deserve health care. The public option will show the advantages of government running the revenue side of health care while not getting involved in actual medical treatment. Senator Hatch is absolutely right, this is a back door approach that will end in a single payer system.

Since you ask, and since I respect you so much I will also state that I thing you are too greatly influenced by what is happening in your own geographical area. While it is true that the US has declined in exporting of heavy rust belt type of manufacturing, the US continues to be the dominant exporter in the world. Go to any major shopping center outside the US and you will see that 80% of the international products sold are American made. It is very hard to even identify foriegn brands (outside of cars and a few other items). The greatest example of this is Sony which just a few years ago appeared to be so dominant.

But to understand exporting in the 21st century you have to understand that it is completely different than that of the 20th century and the question is no longer where an item is made but rather where the value is added. Take the IPOD and the IPhone for example. While the case and the components are made and assembled in China those elements equal only about $ 15 of the final price. Approximately $ 70 of the value added is the design, marketing and repatriated profit that all goes back to the United States. The US continues to dominant exports in the fastest growing and biggest dollar items of international trade: Movies, Electronic Games, Software, Personal computing and communication devices. It continues to dominate in many others including Passenger aircraft, Boeing is adding a second production line in South Carolina.

You asked the question and my friendly answer is that you are submerged in the trees. Get out and take a broader look. The forrest is looking pretty good. The President isn't able to do as much replanting as we all had hoped - there were and still are a lot of fires going on, but the improvment over a year ago is huge.

As for the Obama for America organization which you seemed to be disillusioned with I got 3 phone calls in the last 8 weeks to encourage me to continue to call Senators on the health care bill, specifically to push for the public option. Maybe they shouldn't be under the wire, maybe Obama should take a higher profile and not sharing the stage with Reid and Pelosi, maybe he should dominant it the way that we remember FDR did. You can make an argument for all of that, but here is my point - nobody else is calling me, kicking me in the ass making me sure I am calling and getting involved, only for Obama for America. You were a big part of that, its working, I thank you for your effort in helping to build it. Over 8 years I still think a lot of big things are going to get done and 30 years from now we will see this as a time when the forest had the greatest change.

I'll take what you said into consideration as you are one of the more thoughtful and rational posters on DU. In addition you are capable of orignal thought.

The scariest thing going on in my area right now is distribution centers are closed. Allentown was a major manufacturing area but evolved into an inland port of sorts for New York, New Jersey, and South Eastern PA. The location is ideal from an interstate rail prospective (the industrial rail from the Bethlehem Steel days never went away). When I drive through that district of the Lehigh Valley there every week there is a new for lease sign going up.

I have some strong misgivings about the economic policy. The regulatory framework, the stimulus, and the set of advisors. I honestly see a little bit too much optimism in the administration and I fear they are making Hoover's mistake of under estimating the problem and over estimating the solutions that they are implementing. Time will tell, but I can tell from the Janaury/Febraury 8% unemployment number quoted they were caught off guard with what has happened and is continuing to happen.

With the current congress it might not be the administration it might be lack of political will to do more and the administration is pragmatic with what it tries to propose not wanting a failure.

The mandate issue I think will be struck down by the supreme court.

The President's gift, I believe, is that he is determined to challenge the basic assumptions of the old conflicts.


It is absolutely true that there are many many many factors that effected American car production.


It is also true that a single factor could bring it back: If US manufacturers built the best electric car in the world we would be making them here and building plants on 5 continents.


The President will fight the battles - like health care - that we have been waiting for. He is also going to stir the pot and get us to look at the question from different points of view to take us into completely new directions.


After the health care issue is over I predict the President will start pushing very hard on changing the energy economy. By speeding up the transformation to sustainable energy production he will be creating higher paid jobs, reducing imports and improving the environment.


Oh and he is wearing the Republicans down. They cannot maintain a "no" to everything and survive. More and more Republicans will start to break with the party and support the President. The damn will break and we will be able to implement the changes you worked so hard for faster and faster.

With a ferocity like FDR. No improvement in the American economic system will take place till those who crashed the car accept speeding limits.

After that, he can tackle the new green economy.

no criticism of President Obama whatsoever. There was a time when criticism wasn't seen as outright hatred, as it is now, but rather a difference of opinion that could be debated.

It seems to me that the smaller the group of blind followers gets, the more frantic their defense of anything Obama becomes. Where once they schooled like piranhas, their numbers have dwindled because some of them have opened their eyes to the "business as usual" way things are being handled at the moment i.e. the people who've been appointed to "right the ship" after the election. Now they number so few that they swim alone like sharks for the most part, but they're still there.

This morning I saw a response to an OP in GD that there were (I paraphrase) TWO kinds of DU'ers: "Haters", and "Rational Observers (GD;P)" Hadta laugh at that notion.

I don't believe for a moment that you hate the President.

Still hangs on my wall.

that you deserve to have a picture of him shaking your hand.

I still personally like him and am inspired by his story. I have differences with his policies and the reverse course of mandates which is one of the reasons I supported him initially.

...and everyone's pissed that he's not a Dictator.

Have you not been paying attention these last few months to the healthcare debates in both Houses? It's a f'n nightmare! I hope they finish making this sausage soon because it's a disgusting process to watch.

Why don't you take some of your anger & frustration & aim it at Joe Lieberman?

The President isn't the villain in this opera...

that Health Care. When I saw the plan from OFA in June for the lobbying effort I knew not to expect the bill was going to be that good.

If his current economic policy fails, he will try a different approach.

Ask Herbert Hoover.

Unless you expect Obama to pretty much ignore the economy for the next 3 years.

They call it the Hoover Dam for a reason.

Hoover isn't exactly the free market boogey-man he's made out to be. On economic issues he's actually to the way left of the Blue Dogs.

Despite my ranting and raging here of late, I'm basically what could be called a moderate progressive. I liked Obamas approach and his rationality.

But I feel like I'm going through deja vu all over again. The 90's, when Clinton pushed a corporate "free market agenda" that hollowed out the real economy and the 00's, when Democrats allowed Bush to walk all over them with nary a peep of protest.

I thought (hoped?) that Obama and the new majority status of Congressional Democrats would set us going in a new direction. Nogt necedsarily overnight. Not necessarily "radical." But moving in the direction of true liberal/progressive reform and away from the stranglehold that the corporate oligarchs have placed on the system and on us.

Alas, as I said in my epic post yesterday, I feel a sinking feeling watching Obama turn to the same people that helped create this mess in the 90's. Watching him avoid stepping too hard on the toes of the rich and powerful.

It seems bigger then the issue watching healthcare reform devolve into mandates with very little real constraints on private insurance (can you say "regulation of prices" boys and girls?) and a lameass "public option"

I hope Obama shakes off the shackles of DLC conventional wisdom and allows his inner Liberal progressive" out.

None of us are going to get what we want, and maybe not all of any ONE thing, no matter how logical or good for the common good it seems to you and I.


The phrase "Don't hate the player, hate the game..." makes some sense to me, trite as it might seem.

As long as the corporations OWN the lawmakers in this country, we will not change the direction towards actual democracy.

They need to be outlawed from going anywhere close to Congress, by force if necessary.

No one, and I mean no one will change one fucking thing until that happens.

and say that guy makes a lot of sense...the country has gone a little to the big business side.

When there is a lack of honor in government, the morals of the whole people are poisoned.
Herbert Hoover

First of all, Bush left this country in such a mess that it is going to take a long, long time for Obama to fix things.

Second, and most importantly, Obama does NOT have a functional majority in Congress to work with. There me a Democratic majority, but there is not a liberal or progressive majority. Thus, in order to pass something like health care reform, significant compromises need to be made.

Cut the guy some slack and think about how much worse off we'd be if McCain/Palin had won!

Has to do far more over the primary. There were 3 reasons I campaigned for Barack Obama

1) Prevent the Clinton Economic Team from coming back into power.
2) Against Insurance mandates
3) I personally like his story.


Of those 3 reasons, there is only 1 that has not been violated.

the Obama presidency has turned out a lot like what I expected Hillary would have been like, I'll give you that.

Still far better than the Republican alternative.

during the primaries over nothing.

Oh well.

The General Election was nicer on here, worse in real life. Nobody got a long in real life during the General Election.

It was not a policy-based argument. It was a political argument. Transparently a political argument. The main reason why Obama and Clinton kept arguing about it was because it was one of the very few things that they actually claimed to disagree on.

In reality (and according to essentially every healthcare economist), if you want to ban discrimination on the basis of pre-existing conditions, you absolutely need a mandate. This isn't ambiguous, or open to interpretation. You either have to have a mandate, or you have to allow health-status disrcimination.

This mandate either has to be in the form of mandated premiums to the government (otherwise known as taxes), or mandated premiums to an insurance company. (Or a choice of the two.)

Given that Obama was obviously against single payer (he actually had campaign ads against it), you should have realized that the argument against mandated premiums to private companies was a dog and pony show meant to try to find a real policy difference with Clinton. I was not surprised when Obama changed his position, nor were any healthcare economists.

I can't think of any instance where the Federal Government mandated Americans pay a private organization for a good or service.

They had to ammend the constitution to allow the income tax.

You raise taxes by 1500 (or whatever the amount is) for everyone, and then you give a tax credit of 1500 if you choose to have health insurance (just like you get a tax credit if you have children, and just like many other tax credits).

The idea that it is unconstitutional is a right-wing fantasy. The Supreme Court will either not take the case, or they will vote 9-0 or 8-1 in favor of allowing Congress to do it.

What amazes me is that you seem to actually want the mandate to fall. As if that will somehow cause an automatic enactment of single payer. When in reality, if the mandate fell, Congress would immediately have to allow discrimination on the basis of pre-existing conditions. (Or, more likely, there will be a non-severability clause that links the mandate to the ban on discrimination. So if in a right-wing fantasy world the mandate gets stuck down, the ban on discrimination on the basis of pre-existing condition would get struck down automatically, with no Congressional input required).

Personally, if I am weighing whether or not to force everyone to pay premiums vs. whether to force a smaller group of people to go bankrupt, going with the former is not even a close call for me. I don't understand why it is even a close call to go with the former for any Democrat.

Requiring people to buy a product in the private market. It isn't constitutional. I don't see where in congress's powers they have been granted the authority to force Americans to buy something for something they have no control over.

If the public option was stronger the mandates wouldn't be necessary.

It is going to be a very unpopular provision and we are going to pay for it politically.

Because after all, there is a tax differential between people who have children and people who don't. (In fact, it is about the same amount as the tax differential between having health insurance and not having health insurance under this bill.)

And you say that if the public option were stronger, the mandates wouldn't be necessary?? The truth is the exact opposite. The stronger the public option, the more likely the public option is to go bankrupt without the mandate. The public option would require premiums. Those premiums spread the risk over everyone who chooses the option. If people don't buy the public option because there is no penalty for not having insurance (and then immediately sign up when they get sick and cancel when they get well), the lower premium pool has to cover the same amount of care that the higher premium pool did. That means that premiums for everyone in the option have to go up (or the option goes bankrupt). Which causes more people to leave, which makes premiums go up further.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8725039&mesg_id=8725039

And, yes, Obama changed his mind on the mandates. Personally, I slways support the mandate as that is the only way to ensure anything approaching Universal Coverage (as long as we had a PO and other means to make insurance affordable). So, I'm glad that Obama can admit he was wrong and change his mind.

Once you stop looking for validation on a message board that you will be ok.