Obama blamed for Trump

[Pete at Home]

Obama, meeting Canadian dignitaries, denied that he had created Trump.  No mention in the article who had made the original allegation.  I dont even understand how anyone could blame Obama for Trump.  Trump is a backlash to overweening political correctness to be sure, but Obama didnt start that. Any ideas?

[Fenring]

Obama, meeting Canadian dignitaries, denied that he had created Trump.  No mention in the article who had made the original allegation.  I dont even understand how anyone could blame Obama for Trump.  Trump is a backlash to overweening political correctness to be sure, but Obama didnt start that. Any ideas?

Maybe the argument was that Obama represented progress and change to the system (yes we can) but ended up being another status quo candidate for two terms, and now people don't trust people groomed through the political system to be able to effect real change. People probably now believe takes a 'maverick' or outsider to make any waves in Washington, whether that's a Trump or a Bernie. They're probably right. It takes a bit of overstatement to blame Obama for this, but surely his Presidency was part of it.

[Seriati]

Lol.  I heard that earlier and nothing flattering comes to mind.  It wouldn't be the first time though he's made news by denying something no one heard in the first place.

[AI Wessex]

Lol.  I heard that earlier and nothing flattering comes to mind.  It wouldn't be the first time though he's made news by denying something no one heard in the first place.

Nor the first time someone who strongly opposes Obama says, "Who, me?"  If you haven't noticed, Obama has been avowedly and outspokenly blocked by Congressional Republicans and blamed on a daily basis on conservative media for virtually every ill that the country has to deal with and given no credit for anything he's actually done.

[Seriati]

I'll write the Republican Congressmen and ask them to stop blocking any non-partisan proposals President Obama makes (of course they really haven't blocked those, but it's a pretty meme to claim to claim otherwise).  I've no problem with given credit where credit is due, but you're continual complaints about it are just grievance mongering.

[AI Wessex]

Isn't your point that it's a fantasy that Republicans are themselves are partially responsible for Trump?  He stands for a great many things that the people who most hate Obama, including many elected officials and representatives, say.  Do they need to sign a confession for you to accept that?

[Fenring]

If you haven't noticed, Obama has been avowedly and outspokenly blocked by Congressional Republicans and blamed on a daily basis on conservative media for virtually every ill that the country has to deal with and given no credit for anything he's actually done.

Is it your belief that the only types of change a President can bring must go through the Congress? It seems like this claim plays right into the mistaken belief that it's a President's job to make laws. There are plenty of areas in which Obama could have, and did not, make substantial changes to how America does things, all within the specific purviews of his powers. I think the general consensus is that he didn't do so. Whether this is because he didn't want to, or was blocked by some other forces, I don't know (I assume the latter is at least partially true).

[Wayward Son]

Lol.  I heard that earlier and nothing flattering comes to mind.  It wouldn't be the first time though he's made news by denying something no one heard in the first place.

Does that mean that no one reads the New York Times?

[Pete at Home]

Lol.  I heard that earlier and nothing flattering comes to mind.  It wouldn't be the first time though he's made news by denying something no one heard in the first place.

Nor the first time someone who strongly opposes Obama says, "Who, me?" 

Who exactly are you accusing of what? 

I dont think Obama was responding to Seriati if that's what you meant.

[Pete at Home]

Lol.  I heard that earlier and nothing flattering comes to mind.  It wouldn't be the first time though he's made news by denying something no one heard in the first place.

Does that mean that no one reads the New York Times?

almost thou persuadest me to be a Saletanist.  but that's Slate, darling.  not New York Times.,

[Wayward Son]

Dang it!  I mean to link to the original New York Time opinion piece. 

But at least it's good to know somebody checks out the links...

[AI Wessex]

I dont think Obama was responding to Seriati if that's what you meant.

Pedantically correct, but you managed to miss my meaning, somehow.

[rightleft22]

May have been responding to a Fifth estate documentary on Trump that showed the Diner were Obama made fun of Trump.
Trump is seen in the audience fuming. (very Mussolini like which apparently Trump admires)

There was a suggestion that this could have been the moment Trump decided to get even by running for president.

[AI Wessex]

Yes, an eye for an eye.  Makes sense now...

[DonaldD]

Lol.  I heard that earlier and nothing flattering comes to mind.  It wouldn't be the first time though he's made news by denying something no one heard in the first place.

Are you really suggesting Obama made up the allegation from whole cloth, Seriati?  Because it seems like a pretty consistent meme right now, and one would need to keep oneself pretty insulated from Republican and right-wing dialog in order to miss it...

http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/03/10/bill-oreilly-blames-president-obama-for-the-ris/209158

BILL O'REILLY (HOST): So I don't think the president is ever going it cop to the fact that we live in a polarized country and he is responsible for much of that polarization. Out of the polarization rises one Donald Trump. Correct?

http://www.salon.com/2016/03/04/bobby_jindals_trump_fantasy_whos_to_blame_for_the_rise_of_an_anti_muslim_bigot_obama_of_course/

Per Jindal: “You can draw a straight line between a president who dismisses domestic terrorist attacks as incidents of workplace violence and a candidate who wants to ban Muslims from entering the country.”

http://theweek.com/articles/593880/republicans-are-now-blaming-barack-obama-donald-trump-seriously

If Trump gets the nomination, Fox News star Bill O'Reilly tells his viewers, "he should send Barack Obama a very nice gift for making that possible."

<snip>

Writing in the National Review, Victor Davis Hanson insists that Trump's rise is a response to Barack Obama's unserious leadership

<snip>

"It is no accident that President Obama's America has given rise to Donald Trump," writes Ben Domenech.

[Pete at Home]

Per Jindal: “You can draw a straight line between a president who dismisses domestic terrorist attacks as incidents of workplace violence and a candidate who wants to ban Muslims from entering the country.”

Ah.  I hadnt thought of that.  Ok, now the allegation makes sense.

[Greg Davidson]

On “Meet The Press” Sunday morning Cruz again criticized both Obama and Trump for being divisive. When Chuck Todd asked Cruz whether what Trump has been doing is worse, his reply was: “To be honest, I think it’s very much the same.”

Think about that. There is no President in American history who has been appreciably less divisive in his words or his actions than Obama. If you disagree, please name your candidate. Those who can't see the difference between Trump and Obama, are perhaps looking at something other than words and actions when they look at Obama.

[AI Wessex]

And on the same show Trump said he doesn't advocate violence against protesters at his rallies, that the guy who sucker-punched the protester was acting and self-defense and that he might pay his legal bills.

[Seriati]

Lol.  I heard that earlier and nothing flattering comes to mind.  It wouldn't be the first time though he's made news by denying something no one heard in the first place.

Are you really suggesting Obama made up the allegation from whole cloth, Seriati?

Not at all.  I said specifically, it wouldn't be the first time this administration has used a high profile denial as a way to frame an issue, where the underlying accusation was barely in the consciousness.  This President is absolutely great a public image and electioneering, when he wants to be. 

I take your point from your quotes, but there a soft set of connections.  Trump's rise is mostly out of the fact that politicians make promises they can't and don't intend to keep and have been doing so for decades.  It's only by Obama's denial that the issue gets taken seriously and that he gets to frame how he wants it to play out.

Isn't your point that it's a fantasy that Republicans are themselves are partially responsible for Trump?

Not my point, the Republican party is clearly responsible for the rise of Trump.  Getting elected on promises to do things and then not doing them leads to this kind of backlash.

He stands for a great many things that the people who most hate Obama, including many elected officials and representatives, say.  Do they need to sign a confession for you to accept that?

I'd like to see this list of many elected officials and representatives that "hate" President Obama.  You so overdue the rhetoric.  He's an awful President but that doesn't mean that everyone hates him.  Opposing his policies is not a personal indictment. 

Honestly, no one (figure of speech, I'm sure you can locate a pure racist voter) is voting against anyone nor did they against any policy based on personal animus towards the President.

[Seriati]

On “Meet The Press” Sunday morning Cruz again criticized both Obama and Trump for being divisive. When Chuck Todd asked Cruz whether what Trump has been doing is worse, his reply was: “To be honest, I think it’s very much the same.”

Think about that. There is no President in American history who has been appreciably less divisive in his words or his actions than Obama. If you disagree, please name your candidate. Those who can't see the difference between Trump and Obama, are perhaps looking at something other than words and actions when they look at Obama.

Get in the back of the bus, elections have consequences.

You're usually a sensible poster, if you honestly believe what you just said it may be a sign that being in the public discourse during this election is going to get too partisan and nasty to make it worthwhile.

[AI Wessex]

I'd like to see this list of many elected officials and representatives that "hate" President Obama.

"Hate" is a pejorative meaning that they oppose everything he does in a kneejerk visceral way, not that they have a deep and abiding personal hatred for him as a person.  Some do hate him enough to twist their perceptions of him into a Muslim Socialist former-prostitute anti-Christ figure, but they are in the minority.  You know who all of those people are; I don't have to go through the GOP phone book and list them for you.

[Seriati]

No.  You make your claims in an incendiary "kneejerk visceral way," and you do have to prove them or else you're no better than what you are decrying.  The fact is that this President's policies are extreme enough that you can legitimately disagree with virtually everything that he's done on a rational basis.  That is what has occurred, and notwithstanding the political rhetoric you love to cite about making him a one term President and similar (that is absolutely identical to sentiments by Democrats when a Republican is in charge), you don't get to hand-waive away a claim that opposition to those policies is somehow personal and irrational.  I'm tired of it.  This is not supposed to be an echo chamber.  If you want to make the claim that opposition to a policy was inconsistent with a party's previously stated positions and/or planks do so, this is not a kiddy discussion where you get to impute things.

[AI Wessex]

You're not listening to the noise levels all around you.  If Trump is the natural result of the GOP Party's attitudes, then it grows out of the GOP Party itself.  They have used the amplifiers of the echo chamber of the right-wing media to make Obama the object of more than reasonable disagreements into a vilified lightning rod inside the halls of Congress and state legislatures, and on the streets as well.  It's not reasonable; it only seems that way to you because you think he is extreme.  That leads you to insist that he and Hillary are guilty of gross deceptions and even crimes when none of those things are proven.  It's like you think that GOP *censored* doesn't stink.

[Seriati]

I think your confused about what I said.  I never said that President Obama was responsible for Trump.  In fact I said that several times.

There's nothing wrong with my thought processes on Hillary, she's broken the law, and it's only her political connections that will possibly keep her from being indicted for it.

President Obama is an incredibly divisive figure.  He won't compromise, which means where ever he starts (which is far left of center - as anyone in the actual center and everyone on the right can tell you) is the only place he ends up.  He's a lightening rod because he won't compromise, no other reason.

[AI Wessex]

I think your confused about what I said.  I never said that President Obama was responsible for Trump.  In fact I said that several times.

Ultimately, the GOP is responsible for Trump because they made Obama the villain in their own reality show about Democracy going down the tubes.

There's nothing wrong with my thought processes on Hillary, she's broken the law, and it's only her political connections that will possibly keep her from being indicted for it.

This is the right-wing meme.  She broke the law, so the feds will bust her for it.  BUT IF THEY DON'T bust her, she still broke the law and they are covering for her.  QED.  There is no other way to think about it.

President Obama is an incredibly divisive figure.  He won't compromise, which means where ever he starts (which is far left of center - as anyone in the actual center and everyone on the right can tell you) is the only place he ends up.  He's a lightening rod because he won't compromise, no other reason.

Anything you don't agree with is divisive.  Teletubbies were divisive because Falwell thought they were gay, which poisoned the minds of vulnerable and susceptible children.  Hell, EVERYTHING is divisive, including an elected President who doesn't follow or cave to the demands of Congress in a divided government. 

You might as well say that Congress is divisive, because they aren't Democrats.  Actually, that sounds pretty reasonable after 7 years of their abject opposition to everything he has tried to do.  I'll even one-up you and say that if Obama is divisive, then the Republicans are destructive.  Prove otherwise, if you can.

[Pyrtolin]

Hell, EVERYTHING is divisive, including an elected President who doesn't follow or cave to the demands of Congress in a divided government. 

Heck, don't forget about how divisive it is to be a president that doesn't bow to demands from the minority to abdicate power to them in a _undivided_ government, as was the case when Obama took office. He had the nerve to bend over backward to compromise with them instead of just letting them call the shots, so they had to work hard to create and sell the lie that he was divisive in order to be divisive enough to undermine him.

[NobleHunter]

President Obama is an incredibly divisive figure.  He won't compromise, which means where ever he starts (which is far left of center - as anyone in the actual center and everyone on the right can tell you) is the only place he ends up.  He's a lightening rod because he won't compromise, no other reason.

It's odd, 'cause one of the big criticisms of Obama from the left was that he spent most of his term being too compromising. Rather than starting from a position on the far left, he'd start from the center-right (presumably on the assumption it would speed up getting the GOP to sign on). Congress would then decry this center-right position as too far left and they couldn't work with it. They seemed unwilling to recognize when concessions were baked into the initial proposal and consistently demanded further compromise which would mean a far right policy. Then it dies because Congress democrats weren't willing to sign off on far right policies.

[Seriati]

I think your confused about what I said.  I never said that President Obama was responsible for Trump.  In fact I said that several times.

Ultimately, the GOP is responsible for Trump because they made Obama the villain in their own reality show about Democracy going down the tubes.

And?  How are you disagreeing with me?

There's nothing wrong with my thought processes on Hillary, she's broken the law, and it's only her political connections that will possibly keep her from being indicted for it.

This is the right-wing meme.  She broke the law, so the feds will bust her for it.  BUT IF THEY DON'T bust her, she still broke the law and they are covering for her.  QED.  There is no other way to think about it.

No, she broke the law.  Period.

I however, think there is a very good chance she is "above the law," at least with respect to this Admin.  We'll see I suppose.

President Obama is an incredibly divisive figure.  He won't compromise, which means where ever he starts (which is far left of center - as anyone in the actual center and everyone on the right can tell you) is the only place he ends up.  He's a lightening rod because he won't compromise, no other reason.

Anything you don't agree with is divisive.

Can't you even pretend to argue in good faith?  I said President Obama is divisive.  I've said any number of times on this board and the prior one, I've given reasons on multiple occasions.  Why do you even post if you're not going to make a good faith argument?

Teletubbies were divisive because Falwell thought they were gay, which poisoned the minds of vulnerable and susceptible children.

Couldn't just be that Falwell is a divisive and exclusionary moron who overreacts?  Lol, you don't know me at all if you think I backed that moron or stopped letting the kids watch Teletubbies.  Heck, I'd loved it if they were expressly gay.

Hell, EVERYTHING is divisive, including an elected President who doesn't follow or cave to the demands of Congress in a divided government.

I have to wonder, can you even turn right out of your drive way, or do you have have to make 3 lefts to get your car to align with your view of the world? 

You might as well say that Congress is divisive, because they aren't Democrats.

Congress is over 500 people that don't agree, not some singular entity.  How would they be divisive in a meaningful sense?

Plenty of Senators and Reps are just as and more divisive than the President, but the vast majority are not (and never even have the opportunity to be, given that the most control they might ever have is being a vote on a "small" committee).

Actually, that sounds pretty reasonable after 7 years of their abject opposition to everything he has tried to do.  I'll even one-up you and say that if Obama is divisive, then the Republicans are destructive.  Prove otherwise, if you can.

I'm going to just stick my tongue out at you!  Your so absurd at this point.

[Seriati]

Hell, EVERYTHING is divisive, including an elected President who doesn't follow or cave to the demands of Congress in a divided government. 

Heck, don't forget about how divisive it is to be a president that doesn't bow to demands from the minority to abdicate power to them in a _undivided_ government, as was the case when Obama took office.

I would have given you a like if you'd stopped just there.  Go back and look, I never supported the Republican tactics of trying to dictate to the President and govern as a minority. 

They didn't have to support him and were legitimate to oppose him, but they were beyond arrogant to attempt to dictate as the minority party.

He had the nerve to bend over backward to compromise with them instead of just letting them call the shots, so they had to work hard to create and sell the lie that he was divisive in order to be divisive enough to undermine him.

But then you went on to this fantasy and I couldn't give you the like.

[Seriati]

NobleHunter, I'm not going to play the game of arguing the lie that the President governed center right.  Maybe if you're in Europe you'd see it that way, but he's not taken any position that is center right in American politics, and most of his positions were solid left (no center in sight) even if not socialist or extreme left.

[NobleHunter]

Are you saying his foreign policy has been left-wing?

I'm not saying that he's governed center right but that his administration frequently adopted center right positions in order to appeal to the Republicans in Congress. That they refused to consider it doesn't mean those were far left positions.

[Seriati]

I think false meme to claim he's "adopted center right positions in order to appeal to the Republicans in Congress."  You may have some points on his foreign policy, what do you mean specifically.  In my view he's been authoritarian and naïve in foreign policy, not sure what he's done that would be right or center right though.

[NobleHunter]

Authoritarian and naive sounds like a good description of right-wing foreign policy. I was thinking of his drone campaigns and his response to ISIS. When dealing with non-state actors, all his policies seem to be pretty close to what a Republican President would have done. You'll note that the GOP's plans were generally what Obama's doing but more of it.

There's also a categorization problem as left/right doesn't really map well to foreign policy. He certainly hasn't been progressive in his approach to most foreign policy issues.

[Wayward Son]

No, she broke the law.  Period.

I however, think there is a very good chance she is "above the law," at least with respect to this Admin.  We'll see I suppose.

Driving on the freeway to work this morning, I saw dozens of people who broke the law.  Period.

Are they all too "above the law?"  Or could there be another reason they weren't all cited while I was driving by? 

[AI Wessex]

Authoritarian and naive sounds like a good description of right-wing foreign policy. I was thinking of his drone campaigns and his response to ISIS. When dealing with non-state actors, all his policies seem to be pretty close to what a Republican President would have done. You'll note that the GOP's plans were generally what Obama's doing but more of it.

They haven't even funded his actions when they've agreed with them.

[Seriati]

Authoritarian and naive sounds like a good description of right-wing foreign policy. I was thinking of his drone campaigns and his response to ISIS. When dealing with non-state actors, all his policies seem to be pretty close to what a Republican President would have done. You'll note that the GOP's plans were generally what Obama's doing but more of it.

What he did was a continuation of President Clinton's style not President Bush's.  Not clear why you'd think this is center right?  In my view, it's boots on the ground or not acting at all for the Right.  And for the left its incremental actions, air campaign and assassinations (formerly by CIA now by drone).

There's also a categorization problem as left/right doesn't really map well to foreign policy. He certainly hasn't been progressive in his approach to most foreign policy issues.

I agree with this, which is why I was confused.

[Seriati]

They haven't even funded his actions when they've agreed with them.

Wanh, wanh, wanh Republicans bad.

[NobleHunter]

Supporting the military-industrial complex by wantonly blowing stuff up seems right wing.

[Seriati]

Why?  You have 16 years of recent Democrat Presidents that have used air strikes in exactly that manner, why do you still think it's "right wing"?

[AI Wessex]

They haven't even funded his actions when they've agreed with them.

Wanh, wanh, wanh Republicans bad.

Was that not a predictable response?

[Pyrtolin]

Why?  You have 16 years of recent Democrat Presidents that have used air strikes in exactly that manner, why do you still think it's "right wing"?

Because right wing describes it and where the Democrats have ended up by choosing to follow the Republicans in that direction, if a bit more slowly. That's Clinton's policy triangulation in a nutshell.

You're talking like the parties define what's left and right, rather than left and right being measurements used to evaluate the positions that the parties take.

[Fenring]

Supporting the military-industrial complex by wantonly blowing stuff up seems right wing.

You're right that this sounds right-wing, but the reality is that the MIC is baked into both parties quite deeply. The difference is that Democrat PR obscures this fact and allows for the illusion of choice on this topic when deciding which party to support.

[Wayward Son]

They haven't even funded his actions when they've agreed with them.

Wanh, wanh, wanh Republicans bad.

Eh?  You've stated that Republicans only oppose Obama because they oppose his (radical) policies.  Then, when AI points out that they won't fund his policies even when they agree with them, you go "wanh, wanh, wanh?" 

Doesn't defunding policies they agree with, but Obama proposed, pretty much prove it is not only policies they disagree with that make them oppose Obama?  Am I missing something?

[NobleHunter]

Why?  You have 16 years of recent Democrat Presidents that have used air strikes in exactly that manner, why do you still think it's "right wing"?

Because it's basically corporate welfare and the right seems to consider the defense industry an of "good" government involvement in the economy. Also by opposition, as defunding the military-industrial complex is a far left position (by American standards). Therefore, supporting it is a position of the right.

[Pyrtolin]

Supporting the military-industrial complex by wantonly blowing stuff up seems right wing.

You're right that this sounds right-wing, but the reality is that the MIC is baked into both parties quite deeply. The difference is that Democrat PR obscures this fact and allows for the illusion of choice on this topic when deciding which party to support.

Which is to say that the Democratic party is further to the right than it tries to present to itself, not taht it's not a right wing position to take.

[Fenring]

You're right that this sounds right-wing, but the reality is that the MIC is baked into both parties quite deeply. The difference is that Democrat PR obscures this fact and allows for the illusion of choice on this topic when deciding which party to support.

Which is to say that the Democratic party is further to the right than it tries to present to itself, not taht it's not a right wing position to take.

Why employ this kind of semantic posturing? If neither side has a monopoly on allegiance to the MIC then ipso facto allegiance to them is not a left-right thing. There may be other left-right divides between the parties, but having the same master in one area of interest doesn't mean the parties share right-wing ideology in that milieu. It just means they'll do what they're told when they must, and will pursue their own left/right agendas when they can squeeze that in. I do not believe it's the case that the right/left spectrum accounts for much of what happens in politics. If a senator is on the take for big pharma, is that "right-wing" or "left-wing"? Those terms are irrelevant when dealing with generic corruption, and so it makes no sense to call war profiteers on either side as "right wing" unless you're more interested in impugning the right than you are the MIC itself.

[Seriati]

Eh?  You've stated that Republicans only oppose Obama because they oppose his (radical) policies.

No, I said they oppose his radical policies, nothing more or less.  Show me an only?  I also said that they have in fact supported bipartisan policies (notwithstanding the "do nothing" claims Congress has actually put an awful lot on the Presidents desk - could they have done more?  of course).

Then, when AI points out that they won't fund his policies even when they agree with them, you go "wanh, wanh, wanh?" 

AI's is a one note horn.   Show me anywhere his argument has been more advanced than either Republicans bad, or Republican bad faith.

He didn't "point" anything out, he just made another throw away assertion that's in line with the meme he wants to sell.  Again these aren't arguments they are sound bites the left accepts as truth without requiring evidence.

Doesn't defunding policies they agree with, but Obama proposed, pretty much prove it is not only policies they disagree with that make them oppose Obama?  Am I missing something?

Yes, we both are, the explanation of which policies "they agree with and defunded" other than of course in connection with a massive defunding or grand negotiation.

[Pete at Home]

Why?  You have 16 years of recent Democrat Presidents that have used air strikes in exactly that manner, why do you still think it's "right wing"?

Because right wing describes it and where the Democrats have ended up by choosing to follow the Republicans in that direction, if a bit more slowly. That's Clinton's policy triangulation in a nutshell.

Cough Cough [Kent State] Cough Cough

Just because we've had one Democratic presidential term in the last 100 years, Carter, that wasn't a whore of the military industrial complex, doesn't mean that you can blame the MIC entirely on Republicans.

Obama has launched more drones strikes than Bush Jr.

He got gays in the military, I give him that positive credit, but that's the full extent of his liberalism a vis the military.  As best I can tell, rapes within the US military have not gone down on his watch, but the press has stopped reporting them out of courtesy to his nobel prize winning administration.  And he supported taking out Gadaffi despite our agreements to the contrary ... and that didn't exactly work out in our favor.

[Pyrtolin]

Just because we've had one Democratic presidential term in the last 100 years, Carter, that wasn't a whore of the military industrial complex, doesn't mean that you can blame the MIC entirely on Republicans.

No a claim anyone made. Instead, again, it points to the rightward orientation of both parties. They take places on the spectrum, they don't define the spectrum.

[AI Wessex]

AI's is a one note horn.   Show me anywhere his argument has been more advanced than either Republicans bad, or Republican bad faith.

Seriati, I don't oppose Republicans because they are Republicans, but because they have bad policies and a take-no-prisoners absolutism to get their way.