Why is Obama not being asked tough/obvious questions

Victor

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?

1. Obama plays the Irish card.
2. Obama hasn't got a million people / 10,000 Americans killed under his watch.
3. It is refreshing to see a black / mixed-race person in authority.

epluribusunum

cupcake83 wrote: »

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!

Okay, I can tell you have a little concept of U.S. politics. Mainly because everything you said is general or commonly said by the same people. First, do not jump to a party before you are old enough to gain an opinion on the issues. Or, maybe better do not jump to a party at all and just be objective on each issue and prioritize the issues for yourself and vote that way. Second, stand for what you believe is right and now what is popular or commonly said.

Lastly, I will address the little content of your post that I can.

1.
Benghazi is still unanswered and is not blown out of proportion.

2.
Obama has had an easier ride than Bush so I do not know where you are getting these thoughts that Obama has been ridiculed falsely. Most Americans who do not cling to the left for their life and on every issue no matter what would agree would agree that the media has taking it easy on Obama.

Just think for yourself, I know I sound condescending but you need to start doing that because you did not mention a single issue outside of Benghazi which is still developing.

cupcake83

epluribusunum wrote: »

Okay, I can tell you have a little concept of U.S. politics. Mainly because everything you said is general or commonly said by the same people. First, do not jump to a party before you are old enough to gain an opinion on the issues. Or, maybe better do not jump to a party at all and just be objective on each issue and prioritize the issues for yourself and vote that way. Second, stand for what you believe is right and now what is popular or commonly said.

Lastly, I will address the little content of your post that I can.

1.
Benghazi is still unanswered and is not blown out of proportion.

2.
Obama has had an easier ride than Bush so I do not know where you are getting these thoughts that Obama has been ridiculed falsely. Most Americans who do not cling to the left for their life and on every issue no matter what would agree would agree that the media has taking it easy on Obama.

Just think for yourself, I know I sound condescending but you need to start doing that because you did not mention a single issue outside of Benghazi which is still developing.

Well honestly I don't have time to get into it right now for one thing. Second I am 30 years old and was in the us military (I'm a female btw not that it's relevant but politically it is ). I didn't say that Benghazi was not important but it's something that conservatives have attached themselves to whenever they refused to be outraged over other atrocities committed by their parties leaders! Second as for drone strikes, I do not in any way agree with drone strikes at all and I never will regardless so yes there should be answers for that. I never said he was falsely ridiculed and if you would quit putting words into my mouth and making assumptions then maybe we could get somewhere here. However... I am a very liberal American for many reasons and I d can admit 100% that Obama has done things that are wrong but I also can tell you this, he hasn't committed near the destruction or war crimes bush did. I
It sickens me that there was no public outrage for 8 years. There should be public outrage over all of it! Lastly, don't even fool yourself into thinking because I made two wee replies on this thread that I know nothing of politics in my own country! Foolish talk! I can assure you that I say what I believe and don't go along with popularity, I also don't go along with crazy right wing lunacy either and prefer to just be honest and get it out there from the start !

epluribusunum

cupcake83 wrote: »

Well honestly I don't have time to get into it right now for one thing. Second I am 30 years old and was in the us military (I'm a female btw not that it's relevant but politically it is ). I didn't say that Benghazi was not important but it's something that conservatives have attached themselves to whenever they refused to be outraged over other atrocities committed by their parties leaders! Second as for drone strikes, I do not in any way agree with drone strikes at all and I never will regardless so yes there should be answers for that. I never said he was falsely ridiculed and if you would quit putting words into my mouth and making assumptions then maybe we could get somewhere here. However... I am a very liberal American for many reasons and I d can admit 100% that Obama has done things that are wrong but I also can tell you this, he hasn't committed near the destruction or war crimes bush did. I
It sickens me that there was no public outrage for 8 years. There should be public outrage over all of it! Lastly, don't even fool yourself into thinking because I made two wee replies on this thread that I know nothing of politics in my own country! Foolish talk!

Thank you for your service.

I am also an American and I appreciate that you recognize weakness in your party. There are very few if any liberals like you. Now, If you think Bush committed war crimes than you must also think Obama has. The deaths have switched from Iraq to Afghanistan. Secondly, I do not think either are responsible for murdering anybody but if you do think one than it has to be the other. And I believe Obama is actually on pace to have more American soldiers killed than when Bush was in office. The numbers in Afghanistan are staggering and he still has 3 years of conflict in him.
Most vets dislike Obama because he has initiated several policies which make it harder for them to serve, however he has also provided them with more benefits overall so I guess you pick your poison.

But you would agree that the press has taken it easy on him right?

Considering how many of the media moguls are supporters of him it makes sense. I personally feel it is noticeable and that most outlets lean left. But people think the mainstream is fair.

cupcake83

epluribusunum wrote: »

Thank you for your service.

I am also an American and I appreciate that you recognize weakness in your party. There are very few if any liberals like you. Now, If you think Bush committed war crimes than you must also think Obama has. The deaths have switched from Iraq to Afghanistan. Secondly, I do not think either are responsible for murdering anybody but if you do think one than it has to be the other. And I believe Obama is actually on pace to have more American soldiers killed than when Bush was in office. The numbers in Afghanistan are staggering and he still has 3 years of conflict in him.
Most vets dislike Obama because he has initiated several policies which make it harder for them to serve, however he has also provided them with more benefits overall so I guess you pick your poison.

But you would agree that the press has taken it easy on him right?

Considering how many of the media moguls are supporters of him it makes sense. I personally feel it is noticeable and that most outlets lean left. But people think the mainstream is fair.

Thank you I appreciate it! I am well aware of the weaknesses of both yes ! Especially during war time there is a lot that still needs to happen and that should not be happening. i am sure you know as well as I do that we're all screwed no matter who is in office and in charge of this right? I personally go with my lesser of two Evils when voting and that just so happens to be democrats for me! I would actually vote Green Party if I thought they had a chance ! I have mixed feelings on obamas favoritism with the media , I guess it's just a matter on what it's about most days. I do think the drone issue wasn't taken as seriously as it should have been for obvious reasons .

epluribusunum

cupcake83 wrote: »

Thank you I appreciate it! I am well aware of the weaknesses of both yes ! Especially during war time there is a lot that still needs to happen and that should not be happening. i am sure you know as well as I do that we're all screwed no matter who is in office and in charge of this right? I personally go with my lesser of two Evils when voting and that just so happens to be democrats for me! I would actually vote Green Party if I thought they had a chance ! I have mixed feelings on obamas favoritism with the media , I guess it's just a matter on what it's about most days. I do think the drone issue wasn't taken as seriously as it should have been for obvious reasons .

Yeah, I see where you are coming from. I am a Rand Paul supporter myself because I think he is more than just an empty suit. As I said in one of the earlier posts the reasons I support him. He puts people first. Like you said, both parties want war but his policy is actually peace. Surprising, I know. Google rand paul filibuster if you get the chance and research it, it addresses drones which you clearly do not like haha.

Liberals mainly do not like that he is against abortion, because for some reason most liberals have the exact same ideals on every topic, but to be honest I would rather have someone stand for what they believe in than to set their agenda for votes.

Victor

epluribusunum wrote: »

The deaths have switched from Iraq to Afghanistan.

Old news. This year's deaths of coalition soldiers is likely to be less than any year since 2006. All the jihadis are off in Syria.

epluribusunum

Victor wrote: »

Old news. This year's deaths of coalition soldiers is likely to be less than any year since 2006. All the jihadis are off in Syria.

Have the deaths not switched from Iraq to Afghanistan over his tenure?

You just pointed out a single fact and than ran with it to some place I never went or was going to...

But while you are here I would like to remind you that you should not vote for someone based on the color of their skin.

Victor

epluribusunum wrote: »

Have the deaths not switched from Iraq to Afghanistan over his tenure?

No the switch happened in 2007-2008, a year before he was elected.



Data:icasualties.org

epluribusunum

Victor wrote: »

No the switch happened in 2007-2008, a year before he was elected.



Data:icasualties.org

Do you understand how graphs work?

This clearly supports my argument than there have been more deaths in Afghanistan than Iraq. Look at the intersection in mid 2008. Use the legend and axises. You will figure it out from there.

Victor

My graph clearly points out that there has been a sharp fall in casualties in Afghanistan. To suggest they are still increasing or are an increasing issue would be wrong. The shift in casualties from Iraq to Afghanistan is old news.

epluribusunum wrote: »

Do you understand how graphs work?

Better than most.

It is clear that the surge during 2007 and then withdrawal in 2008 and the consequent changes in casualty levels indicate something happened before Obama became president.

epluribusunum

Victor wrote: »

My graph clearly points out that there has been a sharp fall in casualties in Afghanistan. To suggest they are still increasing or are an increasing issue would be wrong. The shift in casualties from Iraq to Afghanistan is old news.

Better than most.

It is clear that the surge during 2007 and then withdrawal in 2008 and the consequent changes in casualty levels indicate something happened before Obama became president.

Ahh I see. You misinterpreted what I meant by "switch." I was saying that the deaths that were occurring in Iraq were replaced with Afghanistan. Meaning, instead of people dying in Iraq under Bush they are dying in Afghanistan under Obama. I was not referring to anything regarding the timetable, just that there were people dying in Iraq under Bush and now Afghanistan under Obama. Next time, it would be simpler to ask.

I really think you are just a big fan of Obama based on your posts and you were trying to find some way to get one up though. Given that you had to scale a post not written to you and then misinterpret it and waste both our time.

Also, while you are here you should not vote for or against someone because of their race.

Jonny7

epluribusunum wrote: »

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

It was semantics which I edited, have pointed out the European allied spying on this and other threads

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.

Your ISP has this information, that's a private company, so is your bank, so are your employers..

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

Again, I should mention, this happens all the time, at airports, crossing borders, applying for a loan

Paranoia needs to stop over-riding common sense. This isn't Eastern Europe in the 80's.

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.

I feel that the US in particular needs to gain people's trust in this program and show that it is for their benefit, their security and their peace of mind. More transparency, less cloak and dagger, and abuses shouldn't be tolerated.

InTheTrees

cupcake83 wrote: »

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!

Exactly.

The republicans are obstructing Obama at every single opportunity and for any reason they can, all the while cackling about how unfairly they're being treated.

Anyone that thinks that bush had it hard is forgetting the lead up to the invaision of Iraq, whre against all evidence to the contrary the bush administration got everything it wanted in spite of the massive amount of objections and protests etc.

Only now the history books are being written ten years later, do we learn how extensively the bush administration lied to the american people.

InTheTrees

Republican ideology is floundering right now. They're being dragged all over the place as the "tea party" fights it out with the traditional conservatives.

The main fight is ObamaCare. This is the pandoras box that once opened will never be able to be closed again and is the major threat to conservative principals, so their main thrust has been to oppose that.

But their opposition is in disarray because they're busy fighting each other and they've left it far too late to be effective. Their "war on women" was an attempt to get the party on message and united but look at the shambles that has resulted in. they'll probably lose seats in the mid term elections net year.

Basically a party that is contracting into a club for middle aged white men gets very easily confused about popularity of issues among their own small clique and what the american people really want.

Manic Moran

Lyric Thousands Valor wrote: »

In fairness, Obama inherited Bush's legacy which is still ongoing

Since he's in his second term, I think that ship has sailed.

The main fight is ObamaCare. This is the pandoras box that once opened will never be able to be closed again and is the major threat to conservative principals, so their main thrust has been to oppose that.

ACA is proving to be somewhat flawed. Article on CNN last week about how employers are reducing working hours for employees in order to get around the provision mandate, union leaders have written to the White House asking for changes to be made, several health-care insurers are pulling out of California instead of participating in the 'exchange' system, reducing, not increasing options, the fight isn't just about conservative principles.

I personally go with my lesser of two Evils when voting

Heh. Welcome to US Politics.

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.

That's a slightly rose-tinted position. Some of those achievements were already under-way, some are of arguable merit. (I probably qualify as a 'gun nut' under your definition of disagreeing with his position). He's had administrative successes, and administrative failures under his watch. He's had foreign policy successes, and foreign policy failures. (Actually, I'm kindof at a loss to think of many foreign policy successes that he's had. Libya, I guess). Occasional domestic success, occasional domestic failure. He has been anything but flawless. But he has also been anything but an abject failure as well.

1. Drone Strikes
2. Edward Snowden
3. Bradley Manning
4. NSA spying program

1. I don't think his drone strike policy is that controversial at home. How effective it is, I'm not sure. Then again, as it's all classified, I'm not sure anyone's sure.
2. After Putin granted the man asylum, Obama's been left with a little egg on his face. I think Obama's safe on the actual NSA surveillance op, though.
3. Not Obama's position to say much, it was a matter of internal US military discipline. He failed, however, to follow this concept a few months ago on the matter of sexual violence in the military, with a judge ruling that defendants could not be punitively discharged from the military if found guilty of sexual assault as the military's Commander in Chief was exerting undue command influence in the military justice process.
4. See point 2. It seems he has his bases covered by the various court and congressional panel approvals.

NTM

esteve

He still has a lot to answer for on the NSA programme, especially as only last week on television and since this whole thing was brought to our attention, he has categorically stated that it is not used to spy on domestic civilians, and that has been shown to be a complete lie.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jennifergranick/2013/08/14/nsa-dea-irs-lie-about-fact-that-americans-are-routinely-spied-on-by-our-government-time-for-a-special-prosecutor-2/

v638sg7k1a92bx

Manic Moran wrote: »

3. Not Obama's position to say much, it was a matter of internal US military discipline. He failed, however, to follow this concept a few months ago on the matter of sexual violence in the military, with a judge ruling that defendants could not be punitively discharged from the military if found guilty of sexual assault as the military's Commander in Chief was exerting undue command influence in the military justice process.

NTM

Also, it didn't stop him from publicly weighing in on the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case.

Fr Tod Umptious

Victor wrote: »

1. Obama plays the Irish card.
2. Obama hasn't got a million people / 10,000 Americans killed under his watch.
3. It is refreshing to see a black / mixed-race person in authority.

Three very interesting points

1. I totally agree that this is a factor in why the Irish media are very positive towards him. Personally I find it cringewothy.

2. But he is still responsible for a huge increase in drone strikes, the fact that no US soldiers are being killed in this action is something that I can see working in his favour in the US, but why are the Irish media so quiet about it. The fact is he is dropping bombs on places other than Afghanistan and Iraq and no one seems to give a damn

3. Why is this even a factor.The fact that he is a black / mixed-race person makes no difference at all.
What if I said after 8 years of Obama that it would be refreshing to see a white person in authority if a white person was president ?
What would the reaction to that be.

Victor

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

the fact that no US soldiers are being killed in this action is something that I can see working in his favour in the US, but why are the Irish media so quiet about it.

Do many Irish people really care about Yemen or the North West Frontier? And to be fair, the North West Frontier seems to be happy to turn a blind eye to harbouring militants - they can't have it both ways.

3. Why is this even a factor.The fact that he is a black / mixed-race person makes no difference at all.
What if I said after 8 years of Obama that it would be refreshing to see a white person in authority if a white person was president ?
What would the reaction to that be.

But there are loads of senior white politicians in the USA and Europe and relatively few non-white ones. I'm not saying choose people by their origin, but that there is a collective expectation that senior politicians are white.

Manic Moran

Lyric Thousands Valor wrote: »

Also, it didn't stop him from publicly weighing in on the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case.

Different issue. The President holds no authority of rank when it comes to the civilian structure, unlike the the military hierarchy.

Jonny7

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

2. But he is still responsible for a huge increase in drone strikes, the fact that no US soldiers are being killed in this action is something that I can see working in his favour in the US, but why are the Irish media so quiet about it. The fact is he is dropping bombs on places other than Afghanistan and Iraq and no one seems to give a damn

The drones are targeting militants who are attacking US/NATO forces, fledging Afghan forces and large numbers of civilians in NW Pakistan and outlying regions. From a cold technical point of view - of all the weapons available to US and Pakistan forces, the drones are ironically the most accurate and relatively cause the least innocent deaths and injuries.

karkhanas

There are very, very few differences between Obama and Bush. In Ireland our media is still hung up on any hint of an 'Irish Connection', one needs only look at the fawning deference shown to such a foul person as JFK, a womanising, lying, cheating charlatan. But none of that matters, like Obama, he has the most important characteristic to sell papers, an Irish connection.

What 'change' has Obama really brought to the US or the world stage?

I for one find him to be particularly reprehensible, especially in light of the NSA scandal and his involvement in the Treyvon Martin case, he proven himself to be as ham fisted and as dismissive of peoples rights and feelings as Bush ever was.

Can we have a President who has better PR skills than the last one but has very little difference with him?

Yes. We can.

v638sg7k1a92bx

Manic Moran wrote: »

Different issue. The President holds no authority of rank when it comes to the civilian structure, unlike the the military hierarchy.

Exactly, he has no place weighing in on a criminal trial before. Could potentially contaminate the Jury pool before the trial has started.

Jonny7

karkhanas wrote: »

There are very, very few differences between Obama and Bush. In Ireland our media is still hung up on any hint of an 'Irish Connection', one needs only look at the fawning deference shown to such a foul person as JFK, a womanising, lying, cheating charlatan. But none of that matters, like Obama, he has the most important characteristic to sell papers, an Irish connection.

What 'change' has Obama really brought to the US or the world stage?

I for one find him to be particularly reprehensible, especially in light of the NSA scandal and his involvement in the Treyvon Martin case, he proven himself to be as ham fisted and as dismissive of peoples rights and feelings as Bush ever was.

Can we have a President who has better PR skills than the last one but has very little difference with him?

Yes. We can.

The Irish connection? he must have a world connection because he polls relatively high virtually everywhere.

He's popular in Ireland because people generally see him as a decent president (despite recent setbacks) and he is not really comparable to George W who was universally unpopular.

Clinton was also a womaniser but he left office with the highest rating of any US president.