This is a philosophical discussion that I don’t have the intellectual heft to handle -
But in some regards I think Singapore has it right with their rules and regulations - over here, if you want to make a claim or an accusation on the campaign trail (or indeed in pubic in general) you damn well better be able to back up your factual claim with evidence. And Singapore doesn’t let you hide behind weasel words either.
IF trump had made his repeated claims about Obama’s birthplace here in Singapore - he would have been sued into oblivion. And for all that I think Singapore overdoes this, I also think it’s a good policy. If you want to make a public claim or accusation, it needs to have some basis in fact.
We’ve got an ongoing case here right now were we’ve got two editors of a vile “news” site being tried for sedition. What they were doing was making up racist stories to fan / incite biases. Very similar sorts of stuff to the blatant trolling Trump was doing with his black crime statistics. And I LIKE that they are being charged.
In my mind - opinion is fair game. As is advocating for anything from pure socialism to some form of Randian dystopia. But facts need to be protected. You cannot lie or distort. And I don’t mind that the law comes down on you if you do.
Now this is not the “American Way” - I get that, and it does also need to be respected - however I can’t help but think that 'Mercans are in some sense getting what you deserve - if you are unwilling to censure blatant trolls and liars under force of law, don’t be surprised if blatant trolls and liars prosper. If the law doesn’t punish such behaviour or call it “wrong” don’t be surprised if the general populace buys into the idea that it doesn’t matter what you say so long as it works.
Once again participating in the bait and switch that was the Obama Presidency. All he had to do was abandon the practices that he condemned during his campaign. Instead of abandoning the “old politics”, he doubled down on it.
Well, now we have real outsiders running and actually threatening to become President. As much as they aren’t qualified to be President, I would love to see Obama’s face if he had to hand over power to one of them. He’s earned it.
And I love how Obama’s failure to change Washington is blamed on Republicans winning to many elections. How did Obama change Washington in his first two years? Oh wait, he didn’t. Instead, he tried to get all kinds of legislation passed, using the old methods of doing so and relying on heavy spin of the kind he condemned during the campaign in order to sell his desired legislation to the public.
I guess the change was going to come later, but darnit the Republicans ruined everything by winning 2 of the next 3 elections!
The change wasn’t in trying to get legislation passed: That’s what politicians do, and anyone who expects otherwise is an idiot. The change was in what legislation he tried (and in some cases, succeeded) to pass.
It’s logically impossible to elect someone who’s not part of the establishment, because electing them makes them part of the establishment.
What were Republicans doing during the Inaugural balls Jan. 20, 2009? In case you forgot, they were meeting to pledge undying opposition to anything Obama proposes. Obama made concession after concession to Republicans on the stimulus, most of the disastrous Bush tax cuts, and the ACA. The Republican response was to extend the middle digit, not giving one vote in favor of those measures that helped to end the great recession and provide health care to millions of Americans. It was more important for them to obstruct, obstruct, obstruct than it was to get the economy moving or to give more access to health care.
You can’t claim that Obama didn’t change politics. Never before had an opposition party vowed on Inauguration Day that they would do everything in their power to destroy a presidency. Never before had a party leader in the Senate state that his number one goal was to deny a president a second term. Never before had a member of Congress shout “you lie” during a State of the Union address. Never before had a Congress invited a foreign head of state to address Congress in order to undermine the president. Never before had a Congress vowed to not consider a president’s Supreme Court nomination. Never before had a Congress vowed not to consider a president’s budget before receiving it. Yet in the bizarro world of Republican sycophants, it’s all Obama’s fault.
Which is only relevant if the “change” was that Obama would represent a fairly typical, ordinary Democratic Presidency.
Somehow I don’t think that’s what the non-Democrats who voted for him thought they were getting. They could have voted for Clinton if they wanted that.
Who is blaming “Obama’s failure to change Washington … on Republicans winning to [sic] many elections”?
How would you suggest a president effect change, if not through proposing legislation? Cabinet members and heads of federal agencies? Executive orders? Judicial appointments?
Can you provide a specific instance of Obama’s use of “heavy spin of the kind he condemned during the campaign”, with evidence of both the spin and his condemnation?
Obama is not responsible for spreading a culture of hate, bigotry, and obstructionism. (Or the union busting that destroyed the blue collar economic middle class, but that’s another topic.)
The “non-Democrats” who voted for him in the primaries? That was their chance to pick Clinton. If they had no party affiliation, why did they vote in the Democratic primaries?
I thought Obama’s “Change” was a change from idiot-boy Bush. He was obviously a Democrat, not a revolutionary. His presidency has hardly been typical, bedeviled by the hateful Republican stubbornness.
Your party has encouraged racism, xenophobia & hatred of the government. You have earned the result–Trump, Cruz, etc.
When I was a kid, there was a kid down the block who wasn’t that bright.
One summer, the people in the house behind his had a wall built at the back of their property (for handball) but he was pissed that it kept him from cutting through their back yard to the next block.
One day, a good month after it was up, I was walking past his house & heard loud cursing from his backyard. I walked down the driveway and found him cursing and kicking the brick wall!!!
“Fucking Wall!!!” he yelled, holding his foot. And then he wound up his foot to kick it again.
“What the hell are you doing you idiot!” I yelled. “That’s a brick wall. If you even do manage to break it, they’ll make your parents pay to fix it. Don’t be stupid, stop before you get hurt.”
His response?
“I already AM hurt! Fucking Wall!” and he wound up to kick it again.
Yeah, it was ALL the WALL’S fault. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
I don’t understand what your point is either. The legislation Obama passed was sold during his campaign- the ACA, tax increases for incomes over $250k, that kind of thing. The final results were diminished by compromise, but other than maybe his support for TPP, I can’t think of any big surprises off the top of my head.
Maybe you could flesh out your point with some specifics?
Bullshit – he reached out tremendously, and when it didn’t work, switched to other strategies (that actually worked in getting legislation passed and goals accomplished). But he avoided personal-destruction politics, and in general was far, far more honest than his ideological opponents.
Yes, you personally hate Obama, and it oozes through every post you make about him.
In 50+ years of watching things play out in Washington, I have NEVER seen a President bend over backwards as far as Obama did in 2009 to work with the other party. Never.
That it didn’t do any good was due to a decision by the GOP that he should be thwarted at all costs from any victories that he might run on in 2012.
I was thinking of “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”, but since that’s attributed to Einstein, the science-allergic Republicans probably haven’t heard it (“Who’s this Einstein?” I hear them asking).
They’d do well to check out your link. They could use professional help.
That’s the thing with Trump, the intellectual arguments don’t matter. Trump never gets “dismantled”. It’s like trying to say you are smarter than a goose that’s honking at you.
