And I just don't 'see how you can come to that conclusion. Libya was a rather huge international success, compared to, say Afghanistan and Iraq. He seems extremely intelligent, actually, becuase he got accomplished what we wanted accomplished, didn't piss off a bunch of radicals, didn't mire us in a country for decades, and spent a fraction of the money. What exactly is stupid about that? You and I may disagree with the general policies, but there isn't anything stupid about it.
It's not about whether or not what he did was stupid. It's the perception of him by other foreign leaders. Maybe other foreign leaders feel differently. But whenever I see him talk about foreign policy, it never comes off well. Maybe he just sucks at being diplomatic.
Is there any proof for this, other than personal opinion? Honest question, I tried to look up data for this, but it doesn't seem to be available. What I do know is that even the American people look at the President as empathetic, and an overall good person, etc. I'm sure that translates to other countries, especially other foreign leaders. He's a moderate, pragmatic person, and he doesn't seek to elevate the situation, from what I can tell.
Also - additional thing i thought of - I still hate the way he handled Afghanistan. He put on a show of caring that didn't require serious troop commitment until the American public got sick of the war and just wanted to go. Politically ingenious, not good for accomplishing the military objectives of the war or making sure soldiers aren't purposelessly killed.
I heard someone much more experienced than either of us explain that Afghanistan has also become a mission to save NATO. I don't agree with the policy, I think it's crap that we weren't out of Afghanistan years ago, let alone official troops till 2014, and commitment to 2024. However, I will point out that this position is moderate, and if the NATO tidbit is true, very pragmatic. I horribly disagree with it, but it's a compromise with a different foreign policy view.
This statement right here makes me know you know nothing about foreign countries, their health systems, how they work, etc. We allocate resources much more improperly in our system than any other system out there. It's not a matter if you believing this, you're just factually and comparatively wrong.
Wait, when did I say our system was more efficient than the systems of other countries? I didn't.
Then you have to explain how it is that Universal Health Care systems don't relocate resources well. I'm sure the first problem is going to be how you're goin to make every system of Universal Health Care the same, governmentally run, etc. I mean, the system which has become known as Obamacare solves the problem with a private insurance market.
I guess what I'm saying is, I don't see how your point is comparatively valid. Either way, other countries do it better than we currently do, so I see no logical reaosn why we shouldn't at least emulate them for now. No one's come up with a better idea as of yet, and there are strong logical reasons to see why a for-profit market based health care system isn't going to work well.
? So you're agreeing with me while disagreeing with me? Pragmatism, in an elected official, isn't about properly running the country, it's about getting something actually done. Obama could have gotten NOTHING done, and then you'd be here complaining about how he got nothing done, or he could have gotten something done, as he did.
I'm not entirely sure what this means. Don't you want the president to do what's best of the country? If that's true, then why are you praising Obama for placing less emphasis on that goal than political success?
I'd rather have a President who compromises with different parties and ideologies, and get's something done, than a President who is so stubborn that he's correct, that he won't listen to other-view points, and won't compromise. What I consider proper and bets for the country and what you consider proper and the best for the country are not the same, being pragmatic is democratically consistent.
I'm also just making a point about how you're damming him if he does, and damming him if he doesn't.
90% of the government does is useless when the necessary positions aren't filled and there isn't any leadership in a department. Nominating the right person would have done nothing ,ti would have just guaranteed a filibuster and that he wouldn't be able to properly run the bureaucracy he heads. Then, when he cant' properly run the bureaucracy he heads, you'd be blaming him for that as well.
I'm not talking about his relationship with Bureaucracy, I'm talking about his relationship with Congress.
So, if he appointed the right people, Congress would suddenly not be corrupt, and he'd get his appointees nominated? Republicans would suddenly not be so political, and nominate someone who they think would be good for the government? I've been talking about Congress, and explaining why that relationship is so horrible. And it's becuase Senate and House Republicans basically said they weren't going to work with the President, AT ALL. I can think of numerous bills and ideas that were once Republican ideas, that Republicans turned against the moment Obama supported them.
Important things missing:
- He said he wouldn't detain American without trial. He didnt put a mechanism in place to prevent future administrations from doing so. He didn't address whether or not he could have.
Because that's not in his power. If a President can do something, any other President can undo something. You basically want God to create a rock that even he could not lift.
In his statement he even talks about wanting to have the descrition to do what's necessary to protect the country. That's what he cares about.
I thought that was in his job description?
As for the whole privacy thing, I think a lot of what you bring up is valid, and I won't really disagree with you. In an ideal candidate, we'd have someone doing more about this issue. However, I think some of the fear is overblown, and that technology and the private market for technology is more of a problem than the current government. I think it's also easy for us all to say what we would like to do, but if we were actually put in charge of defending 330 million people, we might rethink some things.
It'd be nice of this country could have an intelligent debate regarding new technology. Instead, it's apparently either anarchy, or some sort of Stalinist regime.
And what would vetoing it do? It would make him look like a do-nothing, it would make him look like he's not willing to compromise, get anything done, etc. Vetoing everything would be worse.
Worse politically. In terms of foreign policy, perception is more important than reality because other world leaders make their decisions based on perception. In terms of domestic policy, keeping up political appearances is not irrelevant but also not the primary goal of your actions.
Worse for the country. We have a government because problems arise which need addressing. Not addressing those problems means, well, there's a festering problem. Health care, for example, needed addressing. Not doing anything would have been worse. For all the problems Obamacare has, it did do some good.
Topic: Conservative Media Bias is a Fantasy (Read 5306 times)
