Obama Offers Kudos and Caution in Final SOTU

THANK GOD, or whatever superior being you trust/believe in. I did notate that in the final SOTU he acted as though he had a backbone in his little frail silver headed self. I dont really know where he was headed with this, but I for one am glad to see the final fiasko from this POTUS.

NO disrespect of course... maybe, maybe not....

Democracy breaks down when the average person feels their voice doesn't matter; that the system is rigged in favor of the rich or the powerful or some narrow interest. It's one of the few regrets of my presidency — that the rancor and suspicion between the parties has gotten worse instead of better," the president said. "There's no doubt a president with the gifts of Lincoln or Roosevelt might have better bridged the divide, and I guarantee I'll keep trying to be better so long as I hold this office."

Obama included several lines that seemed to be direct rebuttals of the rhetoric of Donald Trump, an acknowledgment that the mogul seems to have convinced some Americans of his controversial views.

"We need to reject any politics that targets people because of race or religion," Obama said. "This isn't a matter of political correctness. It's a matter of understanding what makes us strong."

Here is the cough couch linker

a reply to: ReadLeader

My favorite was when he claimed that Guantanamo was "expensive" when it is something like half of the cost of his last vacation annually.

Embarrassing and cringeworthy throughout.

a reply to: greencmp

Agreed; and on the other side of his mouse,

"We need to reject any politics that targets people because of race or religion," Obama said. "This isn't a matter of political correctness. It's a matter of understanding what makes us strong."

- we all know what he is eluding to....

I know I am setting myself up for a lambasting, but I thought Obama gave a wonderful SOTU. I really feel more people should take note of something he said towards the very end.

A better politics doesn’t mean we have to agree on everything. This is a big country, with different regions and attitudes and interests. That’s one of our strengths, too. Our Founders distributed power between states and branches of government, and expected us to argue, just as they did, over the size and shape of government, over commerce and foreign relations, over the meaning of liberty and the imperatives of security.
But democracy does require basic bonds of trust between its citizens. It doesn’t work if we think the people who disagree with us are all motivated by malice, or that our political opponents are unpatriotic. Democracy grinds to a halt without a willingness to compromise; or when even basic facts are contested, and we listen only to those who agree with us. Our public life withers when only the most extreme voices get attention. Most of all, democracy breaks down when the average person feels their voice doesn’t matter; that the system is rigged in favor of the rich or the powerful or some narrow interest.
Too many Americans feel that way right now. It’s one of the few regrets of my presidency — that the rancor and suspicion between the parties has gotten worse instead of better. There’s no doubt a president with the gifts of Lincoln or Roosevelt might have better bridged the divide, and I guarantee I’ll keep trying to be better so long as I hold this office.
But, my fellow Americans, this cannot be my task — or any President’s — alone.

Source

You may not like Obama as a person and/or for his policies but to just dismiss him with hate and malice will do little to convert others to your own ideas. I really wish Americans could have disagreements with others without the fear of someone getting so mad they want to publically destroy your character or worse kill you.

My favorite was when he claimed healthcare was a success, providing care for our Vets was a success (what exactly has been done with the VA to fix the system? How many kill themselves every year still? How many are without care all together still waiting?) , and the Iranian nuclear deal was a good deal.

All of which for obvious reasons are a lie, one could argue more to the point on the Iranian deal depending on your viewpoints, but the other two are absolutely bullpoop.

And yet the applause was thunderous on both.

He's pathological and that should bother people

Love Love,
AlienSupernova

But democracy does require basic bonds of trust between its citizens. It doesn’t work if we think the people who disagree with us are all motivated by malice, or that our political opponents are unpatriotic.

Where was this thinking for the last 7 years... if he had taken an approach even remotely like this he could have driven republicans off a cliff... instead he kept choosing sides based on whatever poll he saw rather than actually do silly things like take a stand and lead.

a reply to: hubrisinxs

You may not like Obama as a person and/or for his policies but to just dismiss him with hate and malice will do little to convert others to your own ideas. I really wish Americans could have disagreements with others without the fear of someone getting so mad they want to publically destroy your character or worse kill you.

Thats nice and all but thats the exact tactic Obama uses, he even took shots exactly like that through out his speech towards the right.

He has done it his whole presidency

Its cute that he made that statement, all while partaking in the very same tactic he is trying to demonize.

Love Love,
AlienSupernova

a reply to: hubrisinxs

NO lambasting here- as a matter of fact, his speech (written by Cody Keenan ) source is, as of all the others very well put together. I agree, nice speech.

Note- he kept eluding to 'the future' he said that (I didnt count how many times) so much, you knew when he was going to say it again...

he did not however, go into what he has actually done in the past 8yrs... without derailing to terriiby bad, here is a quick
top 50 things that he did not do,,,,

a reply to: hubrisinxs

The problem is that I know that he knows what democracy means so when I substitute the actual definition in place of the deceitful buzzword, it makes no sense.

But majority rule does require basic bonds of trust between its citizens. It doesn’t work if we think the people who disagree with us are all motivated by malice, or that our political opponents are unpatriotic. Majority rule grinds to a halt without a willingness to compromise; or when even basic facts are contested, and we listen only to those who agree with us. Our public life withers when only the most extreme voices get attention. Most of all, majority rule breaks down when the average person feels their voice doesn’t matter; that the system is rigged in favor of the rich or the powerful or some narrow interest.

Ignore the imperiousness and obvious insinuation of callous obstinance toward his political opponents for a moment and ask yourself the following.

What is he saying?

What does he mean?

Is there a better word that would make his statement cogent?

a reply to: AlienSupernova

But are you not doing the same thing by demonizing him?(that is you paint his character in a negative light)

I am not saying he is perfect, nor did he really follow what he preached, but his message is still good, and I myself try and live by that idea of agreement and compromise.

I am always open to hearing others arguments and giving them equal attention and respect, but I find that if I don't just regurgitate what I heard after listening most people get mad and attack my character, not my ideas.

a reply to: greencmp

The problem is that I know that he knows what democracy means so when I substitute the actual definition in place of the deceitful buzzword, it makes no sense.

Of course it doesn't make sense when you use the term democracy in an inapplicable context.

What he said and what he meant was that people need to work together, even if they disagree, compromise and don't let the loudest and extreme among us drown-out the voice of the people.

I think what he said used the correct term and it appears that the overall premise of what he meant is now being intentionally obfuscated for one of the very reasons he mentions in that statement.

Malice.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: greencmp

The problem is that I know that he knows what democracy means so when I substitute the actual definition in place of the deceitful buzzword, it makes no sense.

Of course it doesn't make sense when you use the term democracy in an inapplicable context.

What he said and what he meant was that people need to work together, even if they disagree, compromise and don't let the loudest and extreme among us drown-out the voice of the people.

I think what he said used the correct term and it appears that the overall premise of what he meant is now being intentionally obfuscated for one of the very reasons he mentions in that statement.

Malice.

You're capable of understanding this deception, majority rule is exactly what this country was founded to avoid.

a reply to: ReadLeader

Just cause you got me curious, I used control+f on a transcript of the speech and found the word future 11 times.

Now I do agree, he did spend more time on what is going to happen than on what has happened.

a reply to: greencmp

Yes, but his speech has nothing to do with majority rule. In fact, quite the opposite. Did he not talk about the voice of the average guy and a need to compromise? That does not occur in a majority rules system.

Democracy is also defined as a system in which the people use the process to have their voices heard and to affect change.

I think you are being intentionally obtuse.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: greencmp

Yes, but his speech has nothing to do with majority rule. In fact, quite the opposite. Did he not talk about the voice of the average guy and a need to compromise? That does not occur in a majority rules system.

Democracy is also defined as a system in which the people use the process to have their voices heard and to affect change.

I think you are being intentionally obtuse.

Thank you for acknowledging his dissembling.

originally posted by: hubrisinxs
a reply to: AlienSupernova

But are you not doing the same thing by demonizing him?(that is you paint his character in a negative light)

I am not saying he is perfect, nor did he really follow what he preached, but his message is still good, and I myself try and live by that idea of agreement and compromise.

I am always open to hearing others arguments and giving them equal attention and respect, but I find that if I don't just regurgitate what I heard after listening most people get mad and attack my character, not my ideas.

No im pointing out the lies in his speech, thats not partisan those are facts.

There is quite the difference, and lies should always be brought to the light.

Your suggestion was that we need not to "play the game" and demonize etc etc.

Lies demonize no one, lies are absence of truth and therefore hold no political agenda, that fault lay squarely on the one telling the lie.

Love Love
AlienSupernova

a reply to: greencmp

I guess obtuse it is.

There was no "disassembling". You're just making some odd, obscure interpretation for your own purposes.

One of his famous world saving SOTU speeches. The world will be at peace soon and everything for everybody thanks to the latest"just words , just speeches SOTU ( or maybe if you are a realist, after his last day in office.Which is the more likely)

a reply to: AlienSupernova

He gave his opinions in the SOTU, just like you are doing now.

Calling him a liar without dismantling the lies(yes, I noted where you pointed out what you thought he was lying about, but you did not explore those issues, you just lambasted Obama for lying) he has said is the "game" I speak of and how you "demonize" someone.

Last, I have never said that Obama was right and that I was in total agreement with his worldview, but I won't call him a liar for saying that Obamacare gave more people insurance, but I will point out how here in NC my premiums under blue cross blue shield have gone way up and I lost my coverage to a specialist doctor.

What I am trying to say is if you say something like, "Obamacare does not work, so Obama is an idiot" your attacking a person's character to make a point, but if you say something like "Obamacare does not work because of x, y and z" you are attacking policy.

I won't ever say you do not have a right to your opinion, but I feel if you would stop attacking Obama and start pointing out his fallacies in policy we would agree on more than you could imagine.

a reply to: hubrisinxs

quote]I won't ever say you do not have a right to your opinion, but I feel if you would stop attacking Obama and start pointing out his fallacies in policy we would agree on more than you could imagine.

I really appreciate the way you expressed that thought. I'm going to remember this, and try to do better myself -- on either side of an issue.

Thank you