Has Obama joined the Republican Party?

[GBO Possum]

EDIT:- The question in the title is tongue-in-cheek and rhetorical. Please don't take it literally.


Looking at what is happening in the Middle East, and is happening with massive new investments in nuclear weapons, it seems that the Obama who won the Nobel Peace Prize has been replaced with a puppet of the vast military/industrial complex.

Again, we have the best democracy money can buy.

Here are two disturbing articles on the subject. There are other examples.

"It is part of a nationwide wave of atomic revitalization that includes plans for a new generation of weapon carriers. A recent federal study put the collective price tag, over the next three decades, at up to a trillion dollars."​

Read on:-

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/22/us/us-ramping-up-major-renewal-in-nuclear-arms.html

"For all his vaunted love of nuance, President Obama’s recent speech announcing our new war against ISIS (or ISIL, to the White House) denounced them in terms strikingly similar to George W. Bush’s language waging war on “evil doers,” and that’s a development that should trouble us all."
​

Read on:-

http://www.salon.com/2014/09/20/thi...g_the_bushcheneyrove_approach_just_wont_work/

After the Bush years of shameful conduct, the world not only hoped, but expected better from this man of peace and political morality.

Are you disappointed? Do you sense the overwhelming presence of money as the driving force behind Obama's political transformation?

 

[Danoff]

it seems that the Obama who won the Nobel Peace Prize has been replaced with a puppet of the vast military/industrial complex.

The Obama who won the Nobel Peace Prize had done nothing to earn it and was quite consistent with the Obama of today.

Are you disappointed? Do you sense the overwhelming presence of money as the driving force behind Obama's political transformation?

No and no.

Democrapublicans are Democrapublicans. Since Bush's term (and earlier) there has been almost no real difference between the two parties except perhaps their hypothetical stance on issues that they have no control over (like abortion). What disappoints me is all of the people who voted for Obama thinking for a moment that "hope and change" were what they were actually voting for.

 

[Blitz24]

The Obama who won the Nobel Peace Prize had done nothing to earn it and was quite consistent with the Obama of today.




No and no.

Democrapublicans are Democrapublicans. Since Bush's term (and earlier) there has been almost no real difference between the two parties except perhaps their hypothetical stance on issues that they have no control over (like abortion). What disappoints me is all of the people who voted for Obama thinking for a moment that "hope and change" were what they were actually voting for.

They were hoping for Hope and Change that would result in a redistribution of wealth. If they weren't then they are sadly disappointed.

 

[Keef]

Obama hasn't changed at all. What has changed is that people realized how bad they screwed up when they voted him into office.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Back when Bill Clinton was bombing the hack out of Yugoslavia, I said then that Clinton was governing by polls, in other words, he was governing by whatever the latest poll results were.

Obama can't really do that, even though he is trying to do that now with the ISIS issue.

 

[Dennisch]

Obama hasn't changed at all. What has changed is that people realized how bad they screwed up when they voted him into office.

Seeing that you guys basically have the one party system, did it really matter who won the elections? Except of course the 2nd (3rd) parties, who never stand a chance.

 

[XS]

A lot of good points already stated. I'll just add that people are very quick to forget the past. When was the last time we had a President that stood up for what they believed and didn't try to be all things to all corporations and people? Theodore Roosevelt and even Franklin??? They're the closest I can think of right now. There's your answer right there.

 

[Danoff]

Seeing that you guys basically have the one party system, did it really matter who won the elections? Except of course the 2nd (3rd) parties, who never stand a chance.

Nope.

 

[Tornado]

Nothing like trouble in the middle east around 9/11 to find a reason to invade Iraq over.

 

[Liquid]

What was that point about Kennedy Democrats now being Republicans? "I didn't leave the party, the party left me."

Either Obama is a very talented liar and always has been like this, or there has been an actual shift amongst senior Democrats, but not necessarily the voters.

 

[EF12345678]

Looking at what is happening in the Middle East, and is happening with massive new investments in nuclear weapons, it seems that the Obama who won the Nobel Peace Prize has been replaced with a puppet of the vast military/industrial complex.

Again, we have the best democracy money can buy.

A lot of good points already stated. I'll just add that people are very quick to forget the past. When was the last time we had a President that stood up for what they believed and didn't try to be all things to all corporations and people? Theodore Roosevelt and even Franklin??? They're the closest I can think of right now. There's your answer right there.

This. ^

In a striking shift for a president who has been reluctant to take military action in the past, Obama declared that force is the only language the militants understand. He warned those who have joined their cause to "leave the battlefield while they can."

He's doing his job. He is the commander in chief; he controls the military. We need to continue bombing ISIS and other Muslim nations supporting ISIS. Wipe them out! Otherwise, go ahead and welcome the next level of terrorism into the US, Britain, etc. Some things are because of politics, but I believe this one is not. ISIS has become a national security threat.

 

[Danoff]

He's doing his job. He is the commander in chief; he controls the military. We need to continue bombing ISIS and other Muslim nations supporting ISIS. Wipe them out! Otherwise, go ahead and welcome the next level of terrorism into the US, Britain, etc. Some things are because of politics, but I believe this one is not. ISIS has become a national security threat.

...and Obama is almost copying Bush Jr. speeches verbatim.

 

[JMoney]

First of all Obama, is still a democrat, Political leaders don't just change parties. A better title would be "Has Obama become a conservative"?

Either way, the answer is no. Obama is doing what any member of his party would do. If you've got a group of fighters committing war crimes, airstrikes are the right move. Bill Clinton would do the exact same thing, and he DID in Yugoslavia. If either of the Bushes, or McCain, or Romney, were in office right now, there would probably already be special forces on the ground in Iraq.

Point being, taking action against evil is his job, and it doesn't make him a Republican just because Bush did as well.

 

[Dotini]

Obama has not become Republican or conservative. He was and is a neo-liberal. Which means, despite his previous rhetoric and joke Nobel peace prize, at the end of the day a member of the War Party. Once he allowed his female dominated State Department, almost as a hobby, to pursue regime change in Libya, Ukraine and Syria, he finally got in over his head and now finds himself having to bomb in Syria without a law by Congress or a mandate from the UN. He is, IMO, a failure as a man, a leader, and as a President. His remaining two years will be excruciating for himself and our nation. I wish him good riddance.

I hope and predict that the Republicans will take the Senate, Biden the Presidency, and that the US will be bound in harmless gridlock for years to come.

 

[Liquid]

Biden the Presidency

Why?

As much as a quite like Joe Biden in a "blundering old buffoon" kind of way, and he looks like he'd be fun after a few drinks, I wouldn't have him as President.

 

[Dotini]

Why?

As much as a quite like Joe Biden in a "blundering old buffoon" kind of way, and he looks like he'd be fun after a few drinks, I wouldn't have him as President.

That's exactly why he should be President. He'd have Republicans controlling the House and Senate, so he'd be powerless to enact any new laws, realize that, and be content to drink and joke away his term in office without doing much. The Perfect President - next best thing to abolishing the office for 4 years.

 

[Danoff]

That's exactly why he should be President. He'd have Republicans controlling the House and Senate, so he'd be powerless to enact any new laws, realize that, and be content to drink and joke away his term in office without doing much. The Perfect President - next best thing to abolishing the office for 4 years.

I agree with the sentiment. Biden is a crazy dude though. He used to speak his mind on policy matters when he was in the senate and he is a full-up wackjob. If he got anything through, you can be sure it would be awful.

 

[JMoney]

I have a feeling that Biden being president would be much like the Carter administration. Which might not be as bad as Obama at this point.

 

[Liquid]

They said about Carter that he was a better man than President. He presided over a tumultuous period in world history and his unfavourable time in office coincides with a similar situation in the UK; James Callaghan was deeply unpopular as Prime Minister despite his jovial, good nature and was replaced by someone who was the perfect foil for Ronald Reagan in Margaret Thatcher.

Coincidence?

 

[Keef]

I think the best presidents have been the ones whose names you don't remember. They didn't do anything important. Good for them. The bigger the spread in a history book, the less they mention all the negative side effects to it.

I'm pretty sure Rand Paul has just enough mainstream likability to get elected but enough libertarian to gladly disagree with a Republican congress on various issues. Once he gets elected by showing his fake Republican blood he can flip flop, like everybody else does, back to a solid libertarian and the country will be "stuck" with that for four years. I wouldn't mind being stuck with it, honestly.

 

[Blitz24]

I think the best presidents have been the ones whose names you don't remember. They didn't do anything important. Good for them. The bigger the spread in a history book, the less they mention all the negative side effects to it.

I'm pretty sure Rand Paul has just enough mainstream likability to get elected but enough libertarian to gladly disagree with a Republican congress on various issues. Once he gets elected by showing his fake Republican blood he can flip flop, like everybody else does, back to a solid libertarian and the country will be "stuck" with that for four years. I wouldn't mind being stuck with it, honestly.

William Henry Harrison. Try to find one thing wrong with his policies .

 

[TenEightyOne]

Has Obama joined the Republican Party?

When I was at school I was taught that the best thing to do with question headlines is simply say "no, actually" and move on.

Works for me here

 

[GBO Possum]

When I was at school I was taught that the best thing to do with question headlines is simply say "no, actually" and move on.

Works for me here

I'm sorry to mislead you. The question was tongue-in-cheek and rhetorical. I didn't really expect anyone to take it literally.

I should have inserted a disclaimer I guess.

 

[Dotini]

William Henry Harrison. Try to find one thing wrong with his policies .

Please allow me to add President John Tyler to the list of those who did little harm.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I'm sorry to mislead you. The question was tongue-in-cheek and rhetorical. I didn't really expect anyone to take it literally.

Ah...I wonder how much satire I've missed through using that answer-headline-questions-No theory? I mostly use it on the British press so probably not much

 

[Liquid]

William Henry Harrison. Try to find one thing wrong with his policies .

His "no coat wearing during cold and wet inauguration speech" policy sort of backfired.

@Keef I do like your presidential logic. Who was the better president: Franklin Pierce or Chester Arthur?

 

[Blitz24]

His "no coat wearing during cold and wet inauguration speech" policy sort of backfired.

@Keef I do like your presidential logic. Who was the better president: Franklin Pierce or Chester Arthur?

His goal was to insist that the capital be moved to Miami, so he could chill with the supermodels .

 

[Keef]

Who was the better president: Franklin Pierce or Chester Arthur?

Lightening quick research on my part but here's my take:

Pierce authorized the Kansas-Nebraska Act which designated the territories and allowed the citizens of said territories to decide if slavery would be legal there or not through "popular sovereignty". Good! This is liberty in action. Freedom of choice. Unfortunately it led to a local border war but that wasn't the president's fault, that was the fault of the local retards who couldn't find a more peaceful solution.

Also, Pierce is blamed for his "inability to ease tensions" with concern to slavery and often blamed for fast tracking the Civil War. Bull ****. The Civil War was going to happen anyway. It is not the president's job to "ease tensions". Slavery was a thread to the union and the fact that the Nebraska-Kansas conflict occurred and "set the stage" for the big war wasn't his fault. Hell, he was out of office in 1857!

I think one good measure of a president's character us who he nominates to the Supreme Court. Pierce eventually chose John Archibald Campbell who was a proponent of States' rights. States? What? What are these? States have virtually no sovereignty in current times. States are supposed to function almost as autonimously as countries themselves but this clearly is not happening. These days we desperately need proponents of state sovereignty, a concept which is almost exclusive to libertarians. Pierce nominated one. That was a great decision.

Economically, all he did was attempt to enforce existing laws. That's his job. Keep in mind that the laws of the time were extremely simplistic and free so he really wasn't doing anything that somebody would bat an eye at today. Nothing to see here.

Overall, I think Pierce was a good president. He supported social liberty and state sovereignty. Both of those things are good decisions, especially the latter. He didn't break any laws in spectacular fashion as is the norm today.

Related, Pierce's successor, James Buchanan, was alright I suppose. From Wikipedia: "Buchanan's view of record was that secession was illegal, but that going to war to stop it was also illegal." And he was half right. Such a war could be illegal. But secession wasn't illegal and still isn't. It conforms to peoples' and states' rights as defined in the Tenth Amendment.

Then there was Lincoln. Written about profoundly. Oh, he abolished slavery? He was also a disgusting war monger, going to war with a sovereign country (the Confederate States of America), effectively invading them and annexing them by force. Every elected or appointed official in support of such a thing was a despicable human being and should be written about with scorn in all historical records. Whether the US would even exist as it does today isn't the issue - the issue is that in the land of the law, the law was broken.

I don't have time at the moment to research Chester Arthur but I will soon. Til then, consider what I've said. It's too bad you aren't an American with voting rights. We could really use sensible people like you. Famine also comes to mind. I feel like like US citizens are one of few groups of people in the world who cry when they sing the national anthem simply because of an idea, one that is simple and makes sense but nearly every person of power works as hard as they can to strip away.[/I][/I]

 

[Liquid]

Excellent post, sir. I plucked Pierce and Arthur out purely as two Presidents I thought might have fallen under the radar.

Your details on F Pierce are duly noted.

 

[GBO Possum]

I'd like to see Obama provide some guidance and leadership rather than follow the media frenzy over beheadings and the polls which say that the majority of Americans like dropping bombs.

Given the choice of spending money on bombing, followed inevitably by loss of American lives on the ground vs spending on more present life threatening issues at home, I'd like to see him present a case for a rational approach.

Let him recognize that bombing will inevitably lead to boots on the ground.

Let him recognize that we have better ways of spending money.

Let him use his position of authority to put forward a case for avoiding the "endless war".

I know, it's not going to happen.