It's a bit early for Obama to be a "lame duck President," but clearly that's his situation now.

He's failing to lead. His most recent appointees (Hagel and Kerry) seem to bumble along. The current "solution" to the WMD situatiion in Syria seems to have been a Kerry brainfart which has put Vladimir Putin in charge of American foreign policy.

He seems insular, seems to want to go on his own without interfacing with Congress, even members of his own party.

He seems lost. I almost wonder if he's starting to talk to the paintings of past Presidents, seeking their advice much as Nixon is alleged to have done.

I'm starting to wish the choice had been between Hillary Clinton and John McCain/Mitt Romney. I can't see her in the situation Obama is in.

I was proud that we elected a black President, and in no way will I vote for a Republican for President without a fundamental transformation of their philosophy, but I must say I'm depressed.

Anyone else with me?

Tags: John, McCain, Mitt, Obama, President, Romney

Views: 1050

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I am not 'Murican and I feel your pain.

I was happy that R-money didn't win, but Barry really shit the bed. The NSA stuff and how the Occupy protests were handled really left a bad impression on his presidency for me. 

And now, after all this peace talk, and his Nobel Peace Prize, he helps invade Lybia, and is planning to do the same in Syria even though the majority of US interventions ended up being a huge clusterfuck.

His attitude with this Syria stuff reminds me of Bush after 9-11. 

I don't think it's just his administration though. It seems to be a running trend with American presidents. They blatantly ignore international law, play the global police and not only expect, but demand that every other country twerks to their tune.

The purpose of this thread is mainly for people to vent and your thoughts are welcome.

I do not agree with some of Obama's recent decisions. On the Syrian issue at least he has heard and even considered the arguments of the average citizen against his position.

Remember the situation he inherited from Bush?  It was not good. Many authors, politicians, and business leaders were predicting doom and anarchy.

"God has called his children home"; I could have dome without that remark.  I give him a B- grade overall, considering the more recent Presidents; but a C- if we go back a few decades and set the bar a bit higher.

If I thought it would do any good, I would say we should impeach Obama for his support of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 and 2013, which negate the Constitution. We're supposed to have the right to a trial, and the right to know what we're accused of, but under the new law American citizens can be held indefinitely with no trial if it's linked to "terrorism." He has done nothing to weaken the Patriot Act, in fact he's strengthened it, which means nobody should be surprised that the Government is spying on us. Legally they no longer need any kind of warrent.

The Obama that was presented during the election, the Obama who wrote "Dreams from my Father," and the establishment Obama who did everything the same as GW Bush, are so different I don't even know who I voted for anymore.

Well depends on how it plays out. If Syria does give up its chemical weapons to Russian control, then Obama will come out looking on top as he got Assad to give up their arsenal without even having to fire any missiles or put boots on the ground.

From the beginning I thought Obama should have just acted like a Commander in Chief and used the War Powers act and went ahead with the limited strikes. He totally bobbled the situation, now he seems like he keeps contradicting himself, and his leadership abilities are totally coming off as a failure.

Well depends on how it plays out. If Syria does give up its chemical weapons to Russian control, then Obama will come out looking on top as he got Assad to give up their arsenal without even having to fire any missiles or put boots on the ground.

That's how it'll play out unless Syria torches the deal, only Obama will ensure it becomes "international" not "Russian" control. Obama doesn't have nearly enough votes in Congress to authorize force. The popular support among the public isn't there, either.

No, he'll parley the "give up your nerve gas" thing into a foreign policy victory: the only one he can still claim. He'll not use limited air strikes after Congress says no (or seems poised to say no) unless the Syrian deal falls through, the situation deteriorates completely and he's left with no other way out.

But that won't happen. The Syrians know the score. They'll cut a deal to keep the cruise missiles off their heads. Why wouldn't they? They've got plenty of other weapons from the mundane to the exotic: cluster bombs, thermobarics, suicide bombers, tanks, flamethrowers, systemic rape and torture, and mass kidnappings in the dead of night. Their campaign to indiscriminately pulverize, incinerate, brutalize, and terrorize civilian populations and rebels alike will proceed unabated after dispatching with this pesky chemical weapons business.

From the beginning I thought Obama should have just acted like a Commander in Chief and used the War Powers act and went ahead with the limited strikes. He totally bobbled the situation, now he seems like he keeps contradicting himself, and his leadership abilities are totally coming off as a failure.

My guess is he figured the nation is tired of war-- Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, the War on Terror-- so he decided to bring the full Democratic process to bear before risking another one.

Did Obama not know it would come across like this? Did he not know Republicans in Congress, who have fought him on everything, would resist him on this too? Maybe, maybe not, but I'm inclined to think he strongly suspected this would happen and did it this way regardless. Politically, it looks weak and it has cost him dearly, but ethically it was a responsible thing to do: don't assume the power to strike, ask for it. I won't condemn Obama for that, but of course his political enemies will.

That's how it'll play out unless Syria torches the deal, only Obama will ensure it becomes "international" not "Russian" control. No, he'll parley the "give up your nerve gas" thing into a foreign policy victory: the only one he can still claim. [...] The Syrians know the score. They'll cut a deal to keep the cruise missiles off their heads. Why wouldn't they? They've got plenty of other weapons[.]

Thus my prophecy above is fulfilled

"The United States and Russia reached a sweeping agreement on Saturday that called for Syria’s arsenal of chemical weapons to be removed or destroyed by the middle of 2014 and indefinitely stalled the prospect of American airstrikes."

"Obama administration officials say Russia’s role is critical since it has been a major backer of the Assad government, and the American assumption is that much, if not all, of the accord has [the Syrian government's] assent."

"At the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, the secretary general, pledged to support the agreement, and he announced that Syria had also formally acceded to the international Chemical Weapons Convention, effective Oct. 14."

Operation: dog and pony show. Troops march into war zones strewn with civilian casualties, gather chemical weapons (while bomb, flame and bullet weapons are still going full-blast), then march out again. That way, nobody can use chemical weapons to hurt anyone.

Thus, Obama saves face, the US avoids another unpopular military action, the Russians keep their only military bases in the mid-east, and the Syrians get to keep stuffing civilians and rebels alike into their Russian- and Iranian-provided meat grinder, sans the nerve gas seasonings. Everybody's happy.

The fist problem with the deal as it stands right now is that Syria and Russia want a carrot with no stick. In other words, no price to pay if Syria is found cheating.

The rebels have stated that they see Syria moving what is presumably poison gas across nearby borders, like into Lebanon.

Finally, sarin gas is apparently fairly easy to make, and how are we to be sure they don't just make more?

I'm sure part of it is that the Republicans have fought Obama over pretty much everything he wanted to do, especially since ObamaCare. Obviously, their purpose has been to be able to call him an ineffectual President with the implication that the public should vote Republican next time. 

As a result, he will come off looking like a do-nothing President, with the exception of ObamaCare, which they will say a majority of Americans don't like. (Of course, they're ignoring the fact that you only get that majority by adding those who wanted ObamaCare to be be stronger and cover more to those who don't want it at all.)

yep about 54% of those who "disapprove" ObamaCare, at least about 18-20% do it because they want even a better option like a single payer solution. If you reword the question ask them "Would you want ObamaCare or go back to status quo?", those 20% would all be for ObamCare, which would in the end, show that indeed majority of the country does want Obama Care.

Regarding the Syria case, I think a lot of had to do with what you said and also the reelection of 2014. Democrats can no way or shape can lose the Senate majority and they need to win back some of the House seats, so Obama probably had no choice than to play into the hands of the Congress. As you know they will have no basis for "impeachment", but that will not stop the Republicans from playing that card all the way till the next election.

I think a large part of it is the conservative counter-reaction to the President. I mean seriously, they've tried to repeal the Affordable Healthcare act 40 times! They don't do jack shit in the House except pass "symbolic" legislation that they know will never get past the Senate because they don't want to hand him a "win" and then they call him inept.

They are making a mockery of America and the experiment in democracy and sometimes I wish I could go up there and smack some sense into all of them. 15 bills have become law this year. They are sitting up there soaking up our tax money and enjoying the perks of lobbyists while we are all struggling along. And it looks like they might shut down the government again because they can't agree to a budget.

I personally find it insulting to pay someone to go do a job and they flat out refuse to do it and then act like they should be rewarded for fucking everything up!

I'm a little angry.

I'm very angry because I'm sure a large part of their obstructionism is to make sure no other uppity n*gg*r runs for President anytime soon.

RSS

Support T|A

Think Atheist is 100% member supported

All proceeds go to keeping Think Atheist online.

Donate with Dogecoin

Members

Forum

Science Isn't About Truth

Started by Ari E. S. in Philosophy. Last reply by Davis Goodman 3 minutes ago. 9 Replies

Blog Posts

Dead man's Switch

Posted by Philip Jarrett on April 18, 2014 at 11:29pm 0 Comments

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Into life hacks? Check out LabMinions.com

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service