Why is Obama not being asked tough/obvious questions

v638sg7k1a92bx

Without turning this into a media bias debate and maybe Obama is being asked tough questions and I haven't seen the coverage, but why is nobody posing questions to Obama particularly on the following issues

1. Drone Strikes (in fairness I did see a press conference where he touched on this)
2. Edward Snowden
3. Bradley Manning
4. NSA spying program

I was never never a fan of George Bush but overall I think Obama has got a very easy ride in comparison to the criticism that Bush got, particularly in the Irish media where I don't think there has ever been a negative word written about him?

Amerika

If you eliminate media bias, then you eliminate the majority of the answer.

But if you look at the last 4.5 years, whenever there were tough questions aimed at the president, there were always shouts of racism from his defenders and yes... the media. And in the current US climate, nobody in politics, the media or anyone else wants to be accused of racism.

v638sg7k1a92bx

Amerika wrote: »

If you eliminate media bias, then you eliminate the majority of the answer.

But if you look at the last 4.5 years, whenever there were tough questions aimed at the president, there were always shouts of racism from his defenders and yes... the media. And in the current US climate, nobody in politics, the media or anyone else wants to be accused of racism.

No sure if entirely agree with that, how can a legitimate question regarding the use of drone strikes be deemed as racist?

Amerika

Lyric Thousands Valor wrote: »

No sure if entirely agree with that, how can a legitimate question regarding the use of drone strikes be deemed as racist?

It’s the default argument on any negative questions posed at the POTUS. If you say anything negative regarding his questionable policies or actions, and there is no direct correlation to a race issue, you are guilty of racism by default because you can’t stand the thought of a black man as the sitting president. See how it goes?

v638sg7k1a92bx

Amerika wrote: »

It’s the default argument on any negative questions posed at the POTUS. If you say anything negative regarding his questionable policies or actions, and there is no direct correlation to a race issue, you are guilty of racism by default because you can’t stand the thought of a black man as the sitting president. See how it goes?

Not so sure. My own opinion is that the only outlet that appears to be publicly opposing Obama is Fox News where the lunatics have taken over the asylum so anything they say can't be taken seriously.

Amerika

Lyric Thousands Valor wrote: »

Not so sure. My own opinion is that the only outlet that appears to be publicly opposing Obama is Fox News where the lunatics have taken over the asylum so anything they say can't be taken seriously.

Therefore if you publicly oppose Obama you are either a racist or a lunatic?

Jonny7

1. Drone strikes - there still seems to be majority support for this in the US, I would wager stronger among Republicans, the administration seems to be addressing the issue more, trying to become more transparent, shifting control more to the army than the CIA, probably resembles more of a grim task than a highly decisive issue to most Americans.

2. Snowden - this is still developing, ironically I'd imagine there'd be many more questions if the admin were to decide not to pursue Snowden

3. Manning - they were always going to be tough on this guy - the drop in the "aiding the enemy" charge seemed to soften it. There's a lot of noise on the net about these issues, but in reality, doesn't seem to be a burning issue with the general public

4. NSA - been a fair bit of focus on this. It's not like it wasn't known about in the media. Post-911 bloated security projects, there only has to be a large incident for it to be a non-issue, it has occupied the front pages for months, again, considering what we knew already, doesn't seem that shocking. Not exactly a Watergate.

esteve

Jonny7 wrote: »

3. Manning - they were always going to be tough on this guy - the drop in the "aiding the enemy" charge seemed to soften it.

He was acquitted of this charge, it was not dropped so to speak, he was found not guilty. They tried all they could to prosecute him for this. The fact he was charged with this to begin with was absurd. He still potentially faces life in prison, I think that is a tough as you can get not withstanding the death penalty and also lets not forget his already long bout in solitary confinement.

While discussing Obama, isn't it also a marvel to wonder at the fact that he is a Nobel Peace Prize winner.

v638sg7k1a92bx

Jonny7 wrote: »

1. Drone strikes - there still seems to be majority support for this in the US, I would wager stronger among Republicans, the administration seems to be addressing the issue more, trying to become more transparent, shifting control more to the army than the CIA, probably resembles more of a grim task than a highly decisive issue to most Americans.

2. Snowden - this is still developing, ironically I'd imagine there'd be many more questions if the admin were to decide not to pursue Snowden

3. Manning - they were always going to be tough on this guy - the drop in the "aiding the enemy" charge seemed to soften it. There's a lot of noise on the net about these issues, but in reality, doesn't seem to be a burning issue with the general public

4. NSA - been a fair bit of focus on this. It's not like it wasn't known about in the media. Post-911 bloated security projects, there only has to be a large incident for it to be a non-issue, it has occupied the front pages for months, again, considering what we knew already, doesn't seem that shocking. Not exactly a Watergate.

Appreciate you addressing the issues but the person who should be addressing them is BO. Point is that why is the Irish media who turned themselves inside out for almost eight years about GWB, when it comes to BO there's not a dickybird?

epluribusunum

When asked the rare tough question by reporters who do not have a liberal bias, pretty much only FoxNews, his response is usually something along the lines of:

"Uh, well now uh listen, uh this a tough battle that we will continue to uh work with. Uh, I am asking everyone in Congress to uh do what is right for the American people uh. We need to uh realize the potential for uh growth in our economy and get uh Americans back to work. We have uh to get this economy grown uh from the middle-out uh and we need to decrease the gap from uh the high earners to the uh low earners. Uh, now listen that is not uh fair to make those uh allegations because uh this is uh an ongoing issue that we continue to uh work with."

And yet everybody ridiculed George Bush's command of the English language when Obama has to say "uh" every other word.

And everybody knows FoxNews is conservative-based, but you are kidding yourself if the other networks do not have a liberal bias. CNN Global's President is a staunch supporter of Obama, and he will also be issuing a documentary on Hilary Clinton's life in preparation for 2016, unless the RNC shuts it down which is unlikely. Most people turn to CNN because they think it is fair, and it is more fair than FoxNews clearly but it has a liberal bias. I think they are just smarter about their agenda to be honest.

Amerika

Rule # 10 of the "73 Rules For Running For President As A Republican"

10 - You will be called a racist, regardless of your actual life history, behavior, beliefs or platform. Any effort to deny that you’re a racist will be taken as proof that you are one. Accept it as the price of admission.

http://www.redstate.com/2013/08/06/73-rules-for-running-for-president-as-a-republican/

Jonny7

Lyric Thousands Valor wrote: »

Appreciate you addressing the issues but the person who should be addressing them is BO. Point is that why is the Irish media who turned themselves inside out for almost eight years about GWB, when it comes to BO there's not a dickybird?

Because Bush was an exception in almost every respect.

Compare Obama to Clinton.

v638sg7k1a92bx

Jonny7 wrote: »

Because Bush was an exception in almost every respect.

Compare Obama to Clinton.

In fairness, Obama inherited Bush's legacy which is still ongoing so although they're both Democratic candidates I don't think it's comparing like with like.

My overall point is that it appears that Obama has made it through his presidency virtually unchallenged in the media with the exception of Fox News! Correct me if I'm wrong but is this just my observation or am I missing something?

theUbiq

Jonny7 wrote: »

Because Bush was an exception in almost every respect.

Compare Obama to Clinton.

I don't see how Bush was an exception... he was a puppet, Clinton was puppet and now Obomba is a puppet. They were all involved in dubious overseas military operations, weren't they?

How is Bush an exception? besides having an exceptionally poor grasp of the English language he was just like every other american president.
Obomba is not being asked any difficult questions because Amerika is a totalitarian Fascist state, simple really. Sorry if this statement offends any brainwashed Amerikans but you need to wake the **** up.

Jonny7

If only there were some sort of "insiders" who could blow the lid off the whole thing..

epluribusunum

theUbiq wrote: »

I don't see how Bush was an exception... he was a puppet, Clinton was puppet and now Obomba is a puppet. They were all involved in dubious overseas military operations, weren't they?

How is Bush an exception? besides having an exceptionally poor grasp of the English language he was just like every other american president.
Obomba is not being asked any difficult questions because Amerika is a totalitarian Fascist state, simple really. Sorry if this statement offends any brainwashed Amerikans but you need to wake the **** up.

True, but they are all puppets of AIPAC and other SuperPACs, not America or its people. Every U.S. President and prominent politician who their political/media machine supports is-they have to be in order to have a chance. It is the most powerful lobby in D.C without question.


And as a European and an American, I can safely say that Americans have virtually nothing to do with their foreign policy. I do not know if you believe this ( do not think you do from your posts) still but this is a common misconception that they are war-hungry. I have never met the stereotypical gung-ho Americana preaching about war, etc. Nonsense, they do not like wars anymore than you or I- the civilians not the government of course. There is never a candidate that does not want to make wars out of nothing though (atleast in today's society), and the media just perpetuates it. It is either elect this guy or this guy but either way their foreign policy does not really change on either side of the aisle- both parties have the same foreign policy though because of AIPAC and their alliance with their main ally Israel. The only hope America would have is if a guy like Ron or Rand Paul, who I support, went into office.I truly believe that if all or close to all Americans were informed that Rand Paul would have the next election for sure, he is far more aligned with the electorate than the others and what America stands for. But they have become one of the largest totalitarian states secretly. But is is comical the way the media and other politicians treat those type of guys: The media and fellow politicians refer to them as "isolationists". I am sure they would not back down from a just war, but the problem is that, like most Americans I know there military use is not currently just all the time. They no longer declare war formally but just go into places because they can. And, I agree it is their government's fault. And I will say that Americans are extremely susceptible compared to other nations to the media outlets, many would never do independent research on politics. Many feel as though their foreign policy is currently a joke but the media, special interest groups, and the (yeah, i guess you are kind of right) totalitarian state perpetuates it.

Plus, as I said before when Obama and his administration are faced with tough questions they never answer- like more so than any other administration if you go back. There is no transparency with this administration. Everything is a secret, people wanted answers for Benghazi and the government is still silent. This is not acceptable in my opinion, at least not if you are going to refer to yourself as the most transparent government in the world. And yet a week later everybody forgets, the Snowden thing lasted like 2 days and there were no major protests (atleast covered by the media), and all the other stuff the government does is forgotten soon after. More people talked about it on this website than in the U.S., seriously. I mean, there is domestic spying and the NSA has the capability of intercepting their personal messages and more but most did not reject that thought. Most Americans agree that this is acceptable because of their totalitarian government I would agree with you on that aspect for sure. It is ironic though because it is suppose to be a "limited government" for the "people", but to be honest there are many more nations that I think reflect the ideals of their people better and are far less restricting. Most Americans do not like war in the Middle East, but the Government does. The vast majority of Americans do not want to be in anymore wars or even have been in past wars, but do not really have a choice because ironically the only people that do are the ones that get to decide. But they cannot just "wake up" because their government is no longer in their own hands, it is in the hands of "super PACs". All of their competitive and prominent politicians have the same ideals on foreign policy and things such as domestic spying (besides for guys like the Pauls) except for the way they would handle their economy.

So, no your statement is not offensive, at least to me but the problem is that the lobby and therefore the government is too powerful against its citizens. Obama and Bush's foreign policy as well as technological use against citizens are practically identical. Actually, according to Snowden Obama advanced the capabilities of the government against the citizens and that is why he came out.They are already going against their main ideas- they are suppose to be the most "free" people but they are spied on by their own government and nobody really cares lol.

That is why a guy like a Ron Paul did not win before- because they completely dismiss him in the media and it is virtually him vs. every other politician in a debate. Their government is run by special interest groups not the people and AIPAC is by most accounts the most powerful. And the government and powerful political lobbies takes advantage of them.

These are at least my observations anyway.

Jonny7

Again, the word "totalitarian" being used, a bit dramatic.

Would've loved to see Nader or Ron Paul get in, many forget the US presidency is not a dictatorial position - more a balancing act between many interests and needs.

Lest people forget, the spying program is there to prevent/investigate/prosecute domestic and international terrorist acts. Norway have their own extensive system. The debate should be whether it's too over-the-top. The "scandal" is over various country's uses of these surveillance systems to spy on other countries and allies - a realistic and far more serious charge in light of trade negotiations, UN meetings, and high level talks.

sin_city

It's not a good idea to be tough on Obama. America is losing its tolerance for a free press.

The death of Michael Hasting, who did ask the hard questions should be a strong deterrent to anyone thinking of doing similar.

Bradley Manning got in trouble for the video showing reporters from Reuters being shot. Don't think the people doing the shooting were convicted of anything.

If you want to see the real story of anything, best to bypass the propaganda from mainstream TV.

epluribusunum

sin_city wrote: »

It's not a good idea to be tough on Obama. America is losing its tolerance for a free press.

The death of Michael Hasting, who did ask the hard questions should be a strong deterrent to anyone thinking of doing similar.

Bradley Manning got in trouble for the video showing reporters from Reuters being shot. Don't think the people doing the shooting were convicted of anything.

If you want to see the real story of anything, best to bypass the propaganda from mainstream TV.

Could not agree more.

One of the scariest parts is that is has resulted in people holding back their opinion. Whether it be reporters, government employees, or when citizens are afraid to speak their opinion online or in an email that can be a slippery slope. If the citizens cannot keep them in check then it will continue to become an administration of exerting power to get what they want. No transparency, all intimidation.

Jonny7

epluribusunum wrote: »

Could not agree more.

One of the scariest parts is that is has resulted in people holding back their opinion. Whether it be reporters, government employees, or when citizens are afraid to speak their opinion online or in an email that can be a slippery slope. If the citizens cannot keep them in check then it will continue to become an administration of exerting power to get what they want. No transparency, all intimidation.

This is simply not true. People seem to leave their brains at the door and decide to misunderstand the whole issue as the US government is somehow spying on people to keep them in line. It's not China.

Edit: available knowledge, and that of insiders, confirms the US is primarily using surveillance for security purposes, exceptionally it was used to spy on allies, this has rightfully angered several friendly European countries.

As I have pointed out before, the use of intelligence to get a "leg-up" in trade negotiations and high-level talks is nothing new and opposition to it is mainly political.

Information gathering anywhere, e.g. local supermarket, online banking, the airport - has the potential to be abused.

It's just up to the US government to be more transparent and honest about these programs because there is too much temptation for people to run wild with their imaginations on the issue.

esteve

Jonny7 wrote: »

All this surveillance is for security.

That is simply not true, but you know that yourself as you go on to say, and beautifully contradict yourself when you point out..

Jonny7 wrote: »

Even the abuse of the surveillance to spy on allies is ultimately protectionism for US business, jobs and interests.

Jonny7

esteve wrote: »

That is simply not true, but you know that yourself as you go on to say, and beautifully contradict yourself when you point out..

That's called nit-picking, as I pointed out the abuse.

If this debate is going to get like that I better lawyer up with my words; edited

esteve

Jonny7 wrote: »

That's called nit-picking, as I pointed out the abuse.

If this debate is going to get like that I better lawyer up with my words; edited

Fair enough so, but it remains to be seen how far abuses of this surveillance reach to.

Sunglasses Ron

Amerika wrote: »

Therefore if you publicly oppose Obama you are either a racist or a lunatic?

From what I can gather most of his opponents are one or both. Under his watch unemployment has fallen back to the pre recession level. He has pulled out of a costly war in Iraq and is on the way out of Afghanistan, along the way developing a programme of striking at terrorists without resorting to ground invasions. Bin Laden gone. Attempting (though ultimately failing) to rein in the gun nuts. Apart from the concerns about who exactly he is arming in Syria he has done a pretty flawless job thus far.

So yes, in conclusion it is hard to see why anyone who is not a racist gun nut would think he had done a bad job.

theUbiq wrote: »

because Amerika is a totalitarian Fascist state, simple really. Sorry if this statement offends any brainwashed Amerikans but you need to wake the **** up.

The very fact that Americans can sit on the internet typing this all day whilst cradling a military grade weapon would seem to cast doubt on this notion of an all controlling government.

epluribusunum

Jonny7 wrote: »

This is simply not true. People seem to leave their brains at the door and decide to misunderstand the whole issue as the US government is somehow spying on people to keep them in line. It's not China.

Edit: available knowledge, and that of insiders, confirms the US is primarily using surveillance for security purposes, exceptionally it was used to spy on allies, this has rightfully angered several friendly European countries.

As I have pointed out before, the use of intelligence to get a "leg-up" in trade negotiations and high-level talks is nothing new and opposition to it is mainly political.

Information gathering anywhere, e.g. local supermarket, online banking, the airport - has the potential to be abused.

It's just up to the US government to be more transparent and honest about these programs because there is too much temptation for people to run wild with their imaginations on the issue.

Leaving our brain at the door? You just contradicted your own argument as pointed out by someone else.

This is more important though:

It is not that they are spying on citizens to control them, It is the fact that they have the capability to do so and that is a slippery slope. Why should some 30 year old high school dropout army dropout have the right to access and investigate my personal data? Or anyone for that matter even the President, unless I am a suspect of course. I am fine with spying on suspects with warrants, but you can not just collect everyone's data no matter what position you hold. They should have a warrant for a suspect.

You say people's imaginations may run wild, rightfully so. The guy who disclosed this stuff said that he could access anybody's info. And that the warrant was just filling out a sheet and that no real steps were taken. So yeah you pretty much can use your imagine as to what a government employee could do with your information. Snowden was a government employee and he is a high school dropout with a GED and no degree so it does not take a rocket scientist to have access to the data. You are putting way too much trust in the individuals of the government. Even the President should not have collections of your data to see.


I do not believe the government should have the right to spy on personal, private information from the computer, phone, or any other means.

I presume you differ in opinion and are okay with it because you believe that by them having the capability it gives you more security. We differ in that opinion, but that does not make either one right.

Although Ben Franklin would disagree with you:

Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security.

epluribusunum

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

From what I can gather most of his opponents are one or both. Under his watch unemployment has fallen back to the pre recession level. He has pulled out of a costly war in Iraq and is on the way out of Afghanistan, along the way developing a programme of striking at terrorists without resorting to ground invasions. Bin Laden gone. Attempting (though ultimately failing) to rein in the gun nuts. Apart from the concerns about who exactly he is arming in Syria he has done a pretty flawless job thus far.

So yes, in conclusion it is hard to see why anyone who is not a racist gun nut would think he had done a bad job.



The very fact that Americans can sit on the internet typing this all day whilst cradling a military grade weapon would seem to cast doubt on this notion of an all controlling government.

Jay Carney is that you?

cupcake83

Amerika wrote: »

Therefore if you publicly oppose Obama you are either a racist or a lunatic?

No because if you are a person with reasonable Internet skills and half of a brain you'll know that faux news isn't a reliable source of info. Also it's full of lunatic liars who bait small minded conservatives into frenzies over non issues instead of focusing on the real important issues. Here.

epluribusunum

cupcake83 wrote: »

No because if you are a person with reasonable Internet skills and half of a brain you'll know that faux news isn't a reliable source of info. Also it's full of lunatic liars who bait small minded conservatives into frenzies over non issues instead of focusing on the real important issues. Here.

I find it funny that someone who regurgitates the old fauxnews bit is blasting someone else for having a small mind. That is an old joke and is no longer funny in the slightest- if it ever even was. But let's get to the more important stuff, you know what the thread was designed for which you did not contribute anything to.


What are these non-issues you speak of that are made up by certain news outlets?

P.S. I do not rely on FoxNews for my information.

cupcake83

epluribusunum wrote: »

I find it funny that someone who regurgitates the old fauxnews bit is blasting someone else for having a small mind. That is an old joke and is no longer funny in the slightest- if it ever even was. But let's get to the more important stuff, you know what the thread was designed for which you did not contribute anything to.


What are these non-issues you speak of that are made up by certain news outlets?

P.S. I do not rely on FoxNews for my information.

Are you an American? If not then I assume you aren't familiar with people like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. I know plenty of small minded conservatives who are worried about things like obamascbirth certificate and gosh a million other things which should not be issues to provoke panic and fear into people oh things like banning gay marriage etc. Yes our country is in the worst economic downturn but lets worry about the gays getting married! Makes perfect sense. As an American myself , I do know about faux Ned and many of the people who work for it and yes the people who turn in are mostly small minded rednecks from the south. Lol oh and P.S. News outlets do not have feelings so if that makes me a small minded person for calling it faux news. Then so be it!

bumper234

Lyric Thousands Valor wrote: »

Appreciate you addressing the issues but the person who should be addressing them is BO. Point is that why is the Irish media who turned themselves inside out for almost eight years about GWB, when it comes to BO there's not a dickybird?

Bush is not Oirish.

cupcake83

Not to downplay Benghazi but that's another issue that conservatives blew up over ! I can say it was a tragic thing that happened but..... Where on earth was all the outrage from the conservatives in our country during the lies about the wars and cover ups during the bush administration? There was very little outrage ! I mean amazingly when Obama is in office there is all of this media and public outrage huh that's funny because there was justifiably much more to be outraged about from a liar who got us and our allies into two wars and one was over weapons of mass destruction that they never found btw. Not to mention all the cover ups of so many sickening lies and atrocities. Yes the Obama administration is guilty of doing things as well this is true. However the conservative criers seem to forget and deny the 8 years of s*** we went through prior ! Welcome to corrupt American politics!