• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

obama 'speech'

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,206
19,030
136
We-ull, Pil-grum! I saw the shit piled high throughout the two terms. And all I see in Obama's public statements are witty retorts of common-sense to the shit-shovelers.

I never heard anything like "Oh, Gee! You folks have been so meee-an to me!"

About the only remark to the unspoken aspect of it, which I heard coming from the Prez in an interview, was an oblique reference to "my particular demographic." And that was pretty much "it" for the first time in almost seven years. I wanted to congratulate him on his choice of words . . . too . . .
I've consistently heard from conservatives about how Obama should have been more of a 'uniter' and shown more 'leadership' but they are always completely unable to articulate what exactly they wanted him to do differently. (other than simply pass Republican policies into law)

When people talk about Clinton working across the aisle they completely miss the radicalization of the Republican Party over the last 15 or so years. Notice how the Democrats have barely moved, but the Republicans have gone through the roof.



Republican radicalization has let do unparalleled polarization:



In short it was much easier for previous presidents to work across the aisle because there was actually considerable overlap between the parties. In previous years quite a few conservative Democrats were more conservative than more liberal Republicans but this is no longer the case:



People who point to Clinton and say he worked across the aisle and that Obama should emulate him miss the fact that the 'radicals' Clinton was fighting against were people like John Boehner, the man who was recently outsted from his position for being way too moderate.
 

Bird222

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2004
3,647
132
106
The presidency isn't meant for sissies who get butt hurt and reactionary over comments from the peanut gallery. Doesn't matter who you are or what party you belong to...you're going to take a lot of shit. It's how you react to it that defines you.
How do you think a president Trump would do with this?
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,468
389
121
The Overton Window has been moving left for quite some time now and the pressure to keep it moving left has been relentless...now Trump comes along. Here's a decent article on the subject.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428200/donald-trump-overton-window-american-political-debate

For Good and Ill, Donald Trump has Brought Discussion of Political Impossibilities into the Open
by DAVID FRENCH December 8, 2015 3:22 PM

Here’s a term you need to know — the “Overton Window.” Developed by the late Joseph Overton, a former vice president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, the “window” refers to the range of acceptable political discourse on any given topic. As the Mackinac Center explains, “the ‘window’ of politically acceptable options is primarily defined not by what politicians prefer, but rather by what they believe they can support and still win re-election.” The key to shifting policy lies not so much in changing politicians but in changing the terms of the debate. In other words, “The window shifts to include different policy options not when ideas change among politicians, but when ideas change in the society that elects them.” The Left — dominating the media, the academy, and pop culture — is unmatched at moving the Overton Window. Consider gay marriage, a subject once so far outside the mainstream that less than 20 years ago, Republicans and Democrats united to pass the Defense of Marriage Act to define marriage under federal law as the union of one man and one woman. Now? That view is such an anathema that it’s difficult to get — or retain — a job in entire sectors of the economy if you openly hold to the traditionalist position on marriage. The Overton Window moved even faster on transgender rights. Ten years ago the notion that a man with emotional problems and breast implants could be named “Woman of the Year” was unthinkable. Now, in some quarters it’s just as unthinkable to refer to Bruce Jenner — Bruce Jenner! — as a man. At the moment, the Left is working hard to move the Overton Window on the gun debate. The same president who mocked the idea that he was interested in confiscating guns is now openly admiring Australia’s confiscation program. But the president isn’t leading this charge. He’s following the emerging conventional wisdom on the left: that gun “control” is not enough, that advocating outright gun bans is the only morally serious position, and the Second Amendment — at a minimum — must be judicially reinterpreted into irrelevance.

The leftward pressure on the Overton Window has been relentless, with conservatives reduced to applying herculean effort to simply maintain the cultural and political status quo. Yes, the Tea Party has nudged Republicans just a bit to the right, but it’s a sign of the success of the Left that a relatively unchanged GOP can be labeled as ever more extreme and “reactionary.” And few realities show this leftist success better than the fact that the Window now enables expressions of overt leftist hatred and bigotry — against Christians, against conservatives, against whites, and often against Jews. Then along came Donald Trump. On key issues, he didn’t just move the Overton Window, he smashed it, scattered the shards, and rolled over them with a steamroller. On issues like immigration, national security, and even the manner of political debate itself, there’s no window left. Registration of Muslims? On the table. Bans on Muslims entering the country? On the table. Mass deportation? On the table. Walling off our southern border at Mexico’s expense? On the table. The current GOP front-runner is advocating policies that represent the mirror-image extremism to the Left’s race and identity-soaked politics.

Critically, the Overton Window was smashed not by a politician but by a very American hybrid of corporate/entertainment titan — a man rich and powerful enough to be immune to elite condemnation and famous enough to dominate the news media. How many people can commandeer live television simply by picking up the phone and calling in? How many politicians can cause Twitter to detonate seemingly at will? While many of Trump’s actual proposals are misguided, nonsensical, or untenable, by smashing the window, he’s begun the process of freeing the American people from the artificial and destructive constraints of Left-defined discourse. Serious and substantive politicians like Ted Cruz will get a more respectful hearing, and PC shibboleths about allegedly boundless virtues of Islam and immigration will be treated with the skepticism they deserve.

To be clear, this change is occurring both for good and for ill. The shattering of the window reflects the shattering of the American consensus, and the result will likely be deeper polarization, and even less civility, with further strains on the ties that bind our nation together. At the same time, however, the Left’s very success at defining the terms of discourse meant that the price of civility and unity was all too often an acceptance of liberal norms and manners. It meant swallowing liberal pieties and confining your discourse to Left-approved terms. In other words, it often meant surrender.

The marketplace of ideas is getting raucous indeed. What’s a person to do? As I wrote yesterday, now is the time to speak with informed conviction, apathetic to the demands both of political correctness and the mindless reactions against PC. Use the new-found room in the public discourse to speak your mind, but at the same time model the values you wish to see in others. In the new free-for-all, the Golden Rule still matters, reason still matters, and attitude is not everything. Trump should not rule the world he has made.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,206
19,030
136
The Overton Window has been moving left for quite some time now and the pressure to keep it moving left has been relentless...now Trump comes along. Here's a decent article on the subject.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428200/donald-trump-overton-window-american-political-debate
Oh good, a right wing opinion piece. I bet that's a great source of objective analysis. Sources, sources, sources.

Regardless, none of that relates to the radicalization of the Republican Party that I was discussing. We've been over how DW-NOMINATE scores people and it would not be affected by what you linked to. (first order DW-NOMINATE measures economic issues) Even if it were, it would likely act to understate the degree of radicalization by moderating Republican votes on contentious social issues.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,468
389
121
Oh good, a right wing opinion piece. I bet that's a great source of objective analysis. Sources, sources, sources.

Regardless, none of that relates to the radicalization of the Republican Party that I was discussing. We've been over how DW-NOMINATE scores people and it would not be affected by what you linked to. (first order DW-NOMINATE measures economic issues) Even if it were, it would likely act to understate the degree of radicalization by moderating Republican votes on contentious social issues.
So I guess it's safe to assume that you don't believe that the Overton Window has been moving left. Got it.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,146
13,088
136
There should be a corollary to Godwin's Law when someone links to a Krugman's blog as if he's the oracle of irrefutable fact.
Dispute the facts, not the personalities putting them forth.

Go ahead- read it, unless you think it'll poison your mind & your precious bodily fluids or something.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,468
389
121
Dispute the facts, not the personalities putting them forth.

Go ahead- read it, unless you think it'll poison your mind & your precious bodily fluids or something.
For me, your condescending communication style does not lend itself to the level of mutual respect I personally would like to see in order to engage in relatively honest discussion. When I feel like being a complete dick, I'll get back to you.
 
Last edited:

michal1980

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2003
8,019
43
91
When people talk about Clinton working across the aisle they completely miss the radicalization of the Republican Party over the last 15 or so years. Notice how the Democrats have barely moved, but the Republicans have gone through the roof.

.

This bad chart again?

Your right the republicans have moved to the right rapidly in the past 20 years.

The left has just been steadily going further to the left since 1935.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,206
19,030
136
Not in any way relevant? It's relevant to party polarization which you mentioned as the primary reason why working across the aisle is so hard now.
Again, all of the polarization that I have linked to is first order DW-NOMINATE scores which are entirely economic. The author of the extremely biased piece (i'm sure you realize it's very biased, right?) focuses entirely on culture war issues which have been largely irrelevant in terms of the federal government's operation or lack thereof.

Can you offer up a major bill or initiative where Democrats and Republicans haven't been able to work together due to gay marriage, trans rights, or their stance on Muslim immigration? I mean come on. Look at sequestration, look at the debt ceiling standoffs, look at major funding bills, look at the ACA and the infinite ACA repeal attempts, etc. etc.

Why is it so hard for you to accept the evidence staring you in the face that polarization is asymmetric?
 

michal1980

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2003
8,019
43
91


People who point to Clinton and say he worked across the aisle and that Obama should emulate him miss the fact that the 'radicals' Clinton was fighting against were people like John Boehner, the man who was recently outsted from his position for being way too moderate.
Looks like republicans are much more open minded that democrats. All the dems are clustered around .5 on that scale, republicans cover a nice range. Seems like one party really has a litmus test to join.

And if you belive that chart, then Ryan and Boehner are as radical as pelosi
 

BonzaiDuck

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
14,528
940
126
There should be a corollary to Godwin's Law when someone links to a Krugman's blog as if he's the oracle of irrefutable fact.
I can say something about economists. Krugman, Stiglitz, Friedman, Buchanan -- all won the Nobel. It's sort of like "climate change denial" of climatological consensus to ignore that.

So how did Friedman "get in there?" Friedman, monetarist, conservative -- author of "Free to Choose" and Buchanan -- liberal and populist -- come from the same generation and the same Chicago school. They stood together, quoted in December, 2003 Forbes Magazine "brief," saying that Bush would "kill the goose that lays the golden eggs" with his war-spending.

Nobody is an "oracle of irrefutable fact," but a lot of people cherry-pick their facts to make thin arguments that only mislead. Then Stiglitz wrote his book about the "Three Trillion Dollar War," which only expands on the "dead goose" observation. Krugman studied under Stiglitz, but the mentor doesn't determine the student's thoughts.

Tell ya what. If you can read the articles of any one of these men in American Economic Review, understand it and explain it with your critique, I'll accept the possibility that you have anything worthwhile to say about any of them.
 

Subyman

Moderator <br> VC&G Forum
Mar 18, 2005
7,876
32
86
I take it you see that one side of the different reactions to Obama's speech as insane and dangerous..????
An uninformed rant certainly isn't helpful especially when a demographic chooses to accept the rant at face value.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,468
389
121
I can say something about economists. Krugman, Stiglitz, Friedman, Buchanan -- all won the Nobel. It's sort of like "climate change denial" of climatological consensus to ignore that.

So how did Friedman "get in there?" Friedman, monetarist, conservative -- author of "Free to Choose" and Buchanan -- liberal and populist -- come from the same generation and the same Chicago school. They stood together, quoted in December, 2003 Forbes Magazine "brief," saying that Bush would "kill the goose that lays the golden eggs" with his war-spending.

Nobody is an "oracle of irrefutable fact," but a lot of people cherry-pick their facts to make thin arguments that only mislead. Then Stiglitz wrote his book about the "Three Trillion Dollar War," which only expands on the "dead goose" observation. Krugman studied under Stiglitz, but the mentor doesn't determine the student's thoughts.

Tell ya what. If you can read the articles of any one of these men in American Economic Review, understand it and explain it with your critique, I'll accept the possibility that you have anything worthwhile to say about any of them.
Although I'm not an economist, I can show you that Krugman is indeed fallible and has been wrong on some fairly significant economic issues in the past which has diminished his overall credibility.

And if you expect others to be essentially experts in the field of discussion before they have anything worthwhile to say, I look forward to your applying this standard to yourself and setting a good example for us all to live by....otherwise, you're just self-righteous hypocrite imposing impossibly lofty standards on others that you're unwilling to apply to yourself.

Tell ya what. If you can read Krugman's articles, understand them and explain the past errors he's made within your critique, I'll accept the possibility that you have anything worthwhile to say about him. Deal?
 
Last edited:

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,515
3,281
126
There should be a corollary to Godwin's Law when someone links to a Krugman's blog as if he's the oracle of irrefutable fact.
If you have a brain defect, and it's rather clear that you do, anything you look at that's not conditioned by that brain defect will look defective to you. It's not Godwin's Law you see but DSF's altered reality. The Republican party is a party of traitors who unified to destroy the will of the American people in their choice for Pres. of the US. These filthy scumbags chose wining over governing to the benefit of the nation. The great fault of Obama was that he accorded his opposition to much courtesy and respect, as if he were dealing with decent human beings instead of dangerously sick psychopaths. Hope that isn't to sissified for you.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,515
3,281
126
And if you expect others to be essentially experts in the field of discussion before they have anything worthwhile to say, I look forward to your applying this standard to yourself and setting a good example for us all to live by....otherwise, you're just self-righteous hypocrite imposing impossibly lofty standards on others that you're unwilling to apply to yourself.
I think he does that all the time. He is diligent. in my view, about stating the personal nature of his views, how he came to them, etc. I think you just criticized one of the people posting here to which your criticism least applies.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,146
13,088
136
For me, your condescending communication style does not lend itself to the level of mutual respect I personally require in order to engage in relatively honest discussion. When I feel like being a complete dick, I'll get back to you.
I've never noticed you being anything else.

If you perceive me as condescending towards you it just means I'm being gentle.

You've told us what you believe but when it comes to facts to back it up you offer none while rejecting contrary information. It seems as though you find greater emotional satisfaction in the truthiness of your linked National Review piece than in the truth itself.

Question what you want to believe before you believe it. Question your attitude. Otherwise you have a blind spot that's easily exploited by skilled propagandists who'll make you look like a fool.
 
Feb 4, 2009
27,938
8,400
136
So if we are to assume what you say is correct, what we've had for the past seven years is a president who is unable to work with the other side. He what, decided it was just too hard? Although not a Senator for long, he was one and he should have had a pretty good idea how the process works as dysfunctional as it it.

But I get it. It's mentally soothing to foist the blame on others. He attained the office with high aspirations and a slew of promises. Instead, he choomed out on the nation and improved his golf game.

That's how it appears to me here in the wilds of the nation, far outside of the beltway. I see a nation that by every metric, if one decides to use the real numbers and not the current truth as presented by the administration, that has declined and in some cases greatly. In some cases by design and in others through incompetence. "Wasn't me" works for kids just once typically. After that good parents let them know that it doesn't cut it anymore. I can put up with one more year of "wasn't me". I can also endure the high pedestal he has been put on and the even higher one that will be fabricated out of thin air after he leaves office. That pedestal will get taller and taller over time. Whatever.

We haven't heard the last of him. His ego will take over and just like Carter, we'll hear from him one more time in January of 2017 before he leaves office. He'll need to tell himself how wonderful he is in public one last time.

I predicted early in his first term that his ultimate goal was to be the head honcho at the U.N. Of course I had no idea how lazy he actually was at that time. But, his ego is not going to be happy with him out of the spotlight and he knows he can be a slacker quite easily there after being one for eight years as preezy. We'll see if I'm right.
*necro*
I read that the current President has golfed nearly 3 times as much as the former President did at this time in his Presidency.
However I found this thread which I find funny in 2020. The discussion of a divisive President whom has little experience and President Obama’s tendency to brag and perceived laziness plus a side serving of blame shifting.....


All I can say is Hahahahahhahahhahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahhahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahhahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahhahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahhahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahhahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahhahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahhahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahhahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahhahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahhahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahhahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahhahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahhahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahhahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahhahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahhahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahhahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahhahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahhahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahhahaahahahahahahahahaha

Any 2020 second thoughts?
 
Last edited:
Feb 4, 2009
27,938
8,400
136
So, no crying this time? No channeling his inner Boehner? How many times did he say "I"? Last time he said "I" 76 times in a 33 minute speech.

The man is delusional on a lot of levels. Why anyone would bother to listen to him and then take anything he says seriously is a mystery.
Haha another, up for a bet as to how many times the current President has said I in his most recent sotu speech? Shit I’m not sure our current President has done one in the preceding year. Talk about lazy.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: iRONic and ch33zw1z

ASK THE COMMUNITY