Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
in practice, if not in person
what is it 'we' can do Barak?
Even a lot of his initial supporters realised this ages ago. Sounds like you must have been blindly in love and couldn't see. Thought you watched the news, surely you notice it.
Fair play to Obama though, he's been able to carry on the Bush policies without everyone getting in a stink over it. He's also very handsome and he's pretty good at public speaking.
he was a bit meh, i never understood why he roused strong passions.
I dont particularly follow american politics, ho_fo has that covered, theirs is such a perculiarly particular brand of politics that I am sure i miss all the subtleties and motivations that makes them quite so bizarre
yeah but http://is.gd/changeeee
I think anyone would struggle to do anything good in the current american political context
yes having the republicans being able to veto stuff he wants to do, in the senate, limits his direct actions.....but the thing is he has played the opposition very badly, whilst the opposition has played him for a fool.
I would expect a leader who is chosen, who is that powerful, should be a remararkable person whi would struggle and prevail in the current american political context......but then again i want the moon on a stick
I dont think even the most hardcore anti republican would have been surprised at just how reckless, unreasonable, self destructive, disingenuous and plain stupid the opposition have been. And Imagine being the leader of a country where trying to do anything however reasonable gets you demonised, and not only that but you actually have to pander to those people because they have actual power, even before they had control of the senate the actions he could take were limited because he knew anything they didnt like would lead to a hammering limiting his power more. I think the countries problems are too big, even if he was the most charismatic and intelligent person ever there are people there that would not listen to what he had to say just because their irrational beliefs are that ingrained. It almost makes me feel lucky that over here atleast everyone is generally near the center. I think the repulicans need to kick out the tea part and make them form their own party because they are dangerous embarrassment, but I guess they cant because they are a significant share of the vote
because even if he had lots of virtues, he still obviously did not have the virtues needed......maybe even if those are 'cunning' and 'luck'
i have more detailed, "what he should have dones"but they are long winded and are with the benefit of hindsight.....although one would hope that a brilliant president would have the foresight and clarity TO see the enemys of the US in their true colours and strengths.
Im a hard taskmaster in this respect, but world leaders should expect to be judged VERY hard.
I am also suprised at how utterly self destructive the 'tea baggers' are, of course they are indescribable piles of turds, but we knew that, Obama knew that, I guess even i am suprised by how high the pile went.....but so what, Obama is meant ot be better than me, more astute, more capable, more intelligent, otherwise what sort of insane system would not promote a leader that was more astute and wise than you or I
I often defend obama to my boss, he's always banging on about what a let down he is where as I think he is doing what he can in the given circumstances, my boss is quite idealistic and thinks 'bama should be doing more good where as im more realistic and think if he tried to do more good he would hit opposition and soon lose power probably to someone alot worse than him, so he does what he can which isnt that much but the lesser of two evils
capable and intelligent than you or anyone he ran against for Mayor of London. Anyone who thinks otherwise has clearly done absolutely no research into him.
Maybe he is, maybe he isn't, but to get to where he is means that he's already passed the test of being safe enough to not be a threat to the hegemony.
Obama should deliver the speech of his life explaining how utterly fucked the US is, how immature it is in comparison to the position it holds within the world. And then just sack it off, put his feet up, and watch the world burn. There's sod all he can do within the current setup that'll make any difference so why bother banging your head against a brick wall?
Have any previous presidents jacked it in mid-term?
That's as close as there's been I think.
What misunderstandings about the phrase 'mid-term' has charliepanayi made to elicit ^this?
I thought it was a fairly succinct and innocuous answer.
rather than just the first line on its own.
to mean after four years and between two terms.
Maybe I could have just said 'whilst in office', but meh, the question was asked, and the answer understood.
All I remember from the time is the claims about how he was gonna reach out across the faiths, and the hope for a more rational line of thinking. Perhaps that's selective memory on my part, but it was definitely an angle that was being touted.
and has played it all right, all things considered.
I've heard the rhetoric, of course. He's not left enough to satisfy the lefties. And he's the anti-Christ to those on the right...
The Republicans, thanks in large part to the tea party movement, have become unwilling to compromise...on anything. Which sounds good in theory, but doesn't work very well within the context of politics in a democracy, which by it's nature requires a certain amount of give and take.
It's easy to sit back and say: well, he should have done this and that...yes, I know he's tried to do this and that, but he didn't accomplish them...when a savvy politician like Bill Clinton did. Mm, okay, maybe there's a certain truth in that. That Obama is destined to be remembered like Jimmy Carter. I hope that's not the case, but we'll see.
I, for one, like how our system works. It's a two-party system where nothing really gets done. Which works out well for me, because I don't really want them to do any more or less than they do.
I like Obama. And I'd vote for him. You know, if they allowed me to vote. Which they don't. *shrugs*
I remember much talk about imitating them over here during all the talk of electoral reform at the last election. Boundary commissions chosen a bit like jury duty, with random selections of democrats, republicans, and independents.
That's why the system has broken down - partisanship along party lines has hardened extraordinarily with the new Tea Party representatives, and they're acting as a caucus unto themselves. Most Democrats and Republicans are actually quite willing to 'cross the aisle' and vote on things with people in the other party, but now there's this massive wedge of Tea Party guys and girls who are clogging everything up by refusing to compromise on anything, and so far there hasn't been an issue to split them up. Until that happens the legislature's pretty much fucked on passing anything that the Tea Party group doesn't like.
there isn't likely to be an issue that's going to split them anytime soon. They define themselves by a total unwillingness to budge on any issue, to compromise upon anything. As demonstrated by the recent economic crisis they really will stick at nothing to get what they want; half of them actually want the apocalypse to happen.
The Tea Party, despite how it is normally portrayed in the British media, is very much an economic movement. Whilst it does contain a lot of the god-botherers of the Republican base, religion is not something they campaign on, or seem to worry about much - in a way it's just a kind of libertarian causus. It unites a lot of independents and Republicans (and even a few people who probably saw themselves at Democrats) who are very pro-small government - it kind of goes across class and cultural boundaries (which I think is why many left-wing commentators find it particularly enraging, that the most successful new political movement to unite the people in America is right-wing). But those cultural divisions are still there under the surface, and if the Tea Party actually found itself with a President and control of both houses I think quite quickly cracks would start to appear on issues of religon and social policy.
it has to be said how impressive it is that what is essentially a pressure group for the very rich has managed to capture the imagination of some of the poorest.