It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama headed for transformative presidency

page: 1
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 02:56 PM
link   
Welcome to 1982. Obama is changing this country in a manner (not in content) in a Reaganesque way. His presidency is on the transformative path he planned all along. Look at what Reagan's situation and poll numbers were in 1982:



But what's actually most remarkable about the trajectory of Obama's numbers - and of his presidency - is how closely it hews to the model of Reagan's first term. And if it's the Reagan path that Obama is following, then Republicans might want to re-think their giddiness.

Consider this first sentence from a Washington Post story dated November 25, 1981: "Americans enter the 1981 holiday season with gloomy expectations for themselves and increasingly critical views of Ronald Reagan's handling of the economy, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll." Sound familiar?

At the time, the country had just plunged into a recession. Unemployment in November '81 stood at 8.3 percent - nearly a full point jump from Reagan's inauguration - and it was clear that things would get far worse before they improved. Reagan had, months earlier, pushed his massive tax cut program through Congress, but voters were increasingly tuning out his pleadings that - given enough time - it would help combat the economic downturn.

Only 45 percent of voters approved of his handling of the economy, and just 41 percent thought his tax cuts would help the economy....Like Reagan's claims about his tax cuts, the administration's insistence that its stimulus program is helping the economy just isn't washing with the public.


www.observer.com...

Look what happened to the Republicans during Reagan's first midterm election in 1982. GOP: keep demonizing Obama in a petty, insulting manner to your own peril.



Furthermore, there is already a body of thought within the Obama administration that it would be advantageous to have a split government so that triangulation tactics can be employed, and that Republicans will once again have some burden to actually govern and do something else than the simple tactics that allow it proudly to proclaim that it is the party of 'Hell No!'



VS.



Obama already will have appointed 2 SCOTUS justices in less than 2 years. What's the over/under on total SCOTUS appointments by the time he's done--I'd say 4, 4/9, that's influence, alone, that will span a generation. Seriously, Scalia does not live healthfully and is 74, Ginsburg (w/ cancer) age 77 will retire w/ Obama in power, and there is at least a 50/50 chance that Kennedy, age 73 (the last swing-vote) will retire. That would give Obama an unprecedented 5 SCOTUS appointments w/o a vacation from Thomas (age 69 average age of death for black males), or Roberts (who suffers from some-sort of seizure disorder).

By the way, if you want my guess on who Obama will nominate this time, here is a link:



blogs.abcnews.com...

Former Georgia Supreme Court chief justice Leah Ward Sears is also on the short list, a senior White House official tells ABC News.‬‪ Sears, who will turn 55 in June, was the first female African-American chief justice in US history, and when nominated for the state supreme court by then-Gov. Zell Miller in 1992, she became the first woman and the youngest person to ever sit on the court.‬‪ She stepped down from the court last year and currently practices law at Schiff Hardin.‬‪ A graduate of Emory University Law School, Sears was on President Obama’s short list last year. A member of the left-leaning American Constitution Society, she is also a friend of conservative Justice Clarence Thomas.‬


You all are walking right into Obama's trap. He's laughing his ass off at the focus on the birth certificate, and the fawning over Palin. Did you see how he incited more Palin-mania by belittling her qualifications on the nuclear arms treaty? You think he didn't know how to answer that question to get the result he wants?? You seriously think he didn't know that question was coming??



President Obama said today that he isn't too concerned with former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's critique of his nuclear policy. "Last I checked, Sarah Palin's not much of an expert on nuclear issues," the president said on ABC's "Good Morning America."

"I would say to them is that if the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff are comfortable with it, I'm probably going to take my advice from them and not from Sarah Palin," he said.

www.cbsnews.com...


As for 2012, all politically-savvy conservatives know that, as of now, Romney is really both the favorite, and best hope, for the GOP. However, politically savvy observers also know how fraught w/ peril a Romeny led ticket truly is. If any decent percentage of tea-partiers reject Romney (and thus stick to their principles), due to Romney-care, flip-flops on abortion, and so many other issues, he doesn't stand a chance. Furthermore, if a decent percentage of evangelicals and other 'christian-conservatives' reject Romney due to his Mormonism, this also creates an almost untenable electoral scenario for victory.

Obama is on-track to be a transformative president. Yes, the health-care reform maintained, even promotes, our current American system of private coverage. However, it also transfers vast wealth away from the richest of the rich, and was thus the fight that it was (a fight Obama won). Unless the average ATS member is extraordinarily wealthy compared to average, this will be beneficial to the average poster, even here. Sure, this may not be fair, as one personally defines it, but it is one of the aims of this first-step of the health-care reform agenda. As the economy improves, believe me, there will be other steps.



HELENA - Sen. Max Baucus is getting grief from conservative circles over his comments last week that the health-reform package passed by Congress is an "income shift" to help balance a "maldistribution of wealth" toward wealthy people.

Baucus, D-Mont., a key architect of the health-reform package passed by Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama last week and Tuesday, made the comments at a Washington, D.C., news conference last Thursday, after the Senate passed the final bill of the package.

"Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income Americans," Baucus said. "This legislation will have the effect of addressing that maldistribution of income in America, because health care is now a right for all Americans, because health care is now affordable for all Americans."

www.mtstandard.com...


So, in conclusion, I believe Obama is much closer to where he wants than most people think. Obama is cool-blooded, and has a game-plan. He planned to follow Reagan's trajectory all along. The economy is improving, and 600,000(!!) employees are about to get hired at $18/ hr. to conduct the census taking mandated by the constitution. Yes, the economy could collapse, but don't bet on it (and honestly do you really want to).

The extremes of both the conservative and liberal fringes are very unhappy w/ Obama. However, by all reasonable evaluations, Obama is a left-centrist, perhaps at the border of the classification, and this is where he is shifting this country. Here is a visual representation of such (and a very interesting site in its own right):



www.quiz2d.com...

Best,
Skunknuts

[edit on 4/12/2010 by skunknuts]

 

mod edit, spelling in title

[edit on Tue Apr 13 2010 by DontTreadOnMe]




posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Hey, thanks for a evidence-based opinion that is unique and interesting ... and in my opinion, way more accurate than not

Surely, though, you could have added some stuff about the birth certificate?



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Hadrian
 





Hey, thanks for a evidence-based opinion that is unique and interesting ... and in my opinion, way more accurate than not


Thanks. I wanted to express what I think is likely happening.



Surely, though, you could have added some stuff about the birth certificate?


True, true; but that has to be the silliest, most overdone topic ever here at rational central. I did include that in the paragraph on Palin, and how the ascension of both those topics plays right into places on the court that Obama can trap....

Best,
Skunknuts



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 06:16 PM
link   
IN the play Metamorphosis, an ordinary man goes to bed and wakes up a cockroach.

Perhaps this will be similar.

Obama will go to bed and wake up no longer a cockroach.



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by abcdef
IN the play Metamorphosis, an ordinary man goes to bed and wakes up a cockroach.

Perhaps this will be similar.

Obama will go to bed and wake up no longer a cockroach.


As is typical with conservatives parroting the media talking-points these days, your analysis of a fine-piece of complex literature is largely wrong, vastly over-simplified, and patently destructive for our country.

Best,
Skunknuts

P.S. The metaphor of Gregor Samsa illustrates his becoming the opposite of how you all like to portray the president, so your attempted analogy is even more stupid

[edit on 4/12/2010 by skunknuts]



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Are you serious? Reagan called the old USSR the Evil Empire. Obama says the United States is the Evil Empire. (at least when he's out of the country apologizing to others about us.)

Reagan reduced the Nuclear arsenal by developing Ballistic defense systems so that we needed fewer of the nuclear weapons for our defense. Obama is destroying the ballistic defense systems and the nuclear weapons increasing our vunerability to attack

Reagan won the cold war by using ballistic defense systems the bring down the USSR,s economy.
Obama is bringing down the US economy all by himself. (health care and cap and trade and producing more deficit spending in one month than Bush did in an entire year.) He dosen't need any help from anyone.

[edit on 12-4-2010 by fatboyinternational]



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by fatboyinternational
 


ARE YOU SERIOUS???

We have 10,000 nukes. If we cut those to half...do you think 5000 nukes wouldn't be enough to protect ourselves? Come on.




Reagan won the cold war by using ballistic defense systems the bring down the USSR,s economy.


Reagan didn't win the cold war. The USSR lost it because it's unwinnable war in AFGHANISTAN. Sound familiar????



Obama is bringing down the US economy all by himself.


All by himself? Walking into a crumbling economy, 2 wars, widespread turmoil all across the world, 10 trillion dollar deficits, etc....and he did it all by himself?

What do you want him to do? Geezus your whole post sounded like Sean Hannity.



(health care and cap and trade and producing more deficit spending in one month than Bush did in an entire year.)


The yearly deficit when Bush left office was 407 billion...and that didn't include war spending which he kept separate to pad the numbers. I've heard Hannity speak this fallacy many times on his radio show. It's what he does.

Fact: Reagan tripled the national debt by the time he left office and every Republican President since has as well.

Read my sig.

Ever heard of the Two Santa Clause theory?

Read this:
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 


Yeah, man. Sometimes I think some of the responses here prove the existence of alternate realities....

Best,
Skunknuts



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by skunknuts
 

I just think that comparing Obama to Reagan is the stupidest thing I've heard in a long time. That's what this thread is about. (at least I thought it was.)

Reagan failed because he did not bring about smaller government and lower tax's.

Obama will fail because he is building too large of a government and too big of an increase in tax;s. Both the Democrats and the Republicans are failing because of corruption, not listening to their constituants.

Arguments about who is responsible for what and when and comparing Reagan to Obama in order to win back the independent vote will backfire on who-ever tries it. A free market system that Reagan touted and Socialism, that some say that Obama touts, is just not compatable, or comparable.

What we need is less corruption and more listening.

How about actually including Republicans as part of the Debate. You can't hold them responsible for what happens when Democrats push everything through on a party line vote.

When Obama said he would change everything, who would have thought that things in Washington would get worse.

By the way the biggest difference between Obama and Reagan was that Reagan actually worked with the opposition party. He had to, they were the majority in both houses of congress.

go figure




[edit on 12-4-2010 by fatboyinternational]



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by skunknuts
 


I know one thing...Mitt Romney definitely won't be President. He is instant fail. Obama will throw out Romneycare and run with it. As you stated, if Republicans are really going to stand by the rhetoric they have been spewing the last year...then they can't vote for Romney...and if they do....well....(I won't go there.)

Republicans also have to hope that people don't begin to see any benefits from the HCR....because if they are wrong...they will look like liars. What's even more crazy is that if Obama was Romney...they would have been promoting this thing as the best thing since sliced bread.

We'll see what happens. It's going to be tough for any legitimate candidates to get into office when corporations can slander any politician endlessly after the supreme court ruling that will blow the doors open on corruption.

Crazy times.



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by fatboyinternational
 


Thank you for this reply, honestly. It is much more honest. original, and discussion worthy.



Reagan failed because he did not bring about smaller government and lower tax's.

Obama will fail because he is building too large of a government and too big of an increase in tax;s. Both the Democrats and the Republicans are failing because of corruption, not listening to their constituants.


Even if I disagree about the 'failure' part, isn't this making my point? I mean, they sound very similar (from your perspective).



Arguments about who is responsible for what and when and comparing Reagan to Obama in order to win back the independent vote will backfire on who-ever tries it. A free market system that Reagan touted and Socialism, that some say that Obama touts, is just not compatable, or comparable.


See, this, I think, makes an unnecessary polarization. There is black and white (in theory), but it never works. I'm for capitalism, yet regulation is necessary. I hate corporatism. If anything, Obama has been too corporatist, and thus too much of a pure capitalist than a pure socialist.



What we need is less corruption and more listening.


Absolutely agree. This is a big part of what will determine if the tea-party has real character.



How about actually including Republicans as part of the Debate. You can't hold them responsible for what happens when Democrats push everything through on a party line vote. When Obama said he would change everything, who would have that things in Washington would get worse.


Here I'm not sure we will see eye to eye. I really saw Obama make an honest attempt at bi-partisanship (more than I liked, honestly). The republicans have not been honest players, we both know that. Also, I disagree, whole-heartedly, that DC is worse because of Obama.



By the way the biggest difference between Obama and Reagan was that Reagan actually worked with the opposition party. He had to, they were the majority in both houses of congress. go figure


Like I said in the OP:
Furthermore, there is already a body of thought within the Obama administration that it would be advantageous to have a split government so that triangulation tactics can be employed, and that Republicans will once again have some burden to actually govern and do something else than the simple tactics that allow it proudly to proclaim that it is the party of 'Hell No!'

Best,
Skunknuts



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by David9176
reply to post by skunknuts
 


I know one thing...Mitt Romney definitely won't be President. He is instant fail. Obama will throw out Romneycare and run with it. As you stated, if Republicans are really going to stand by the rhetoric they have been spewing the last year...then they can't vote for Romney...and if they do....well....(I won't go there.)

Republicans also have to hope that people don't begin to see any benefits from the HCR....because if they are wrong...they will look like liars. What's even more crazy is that if Obama was Romney...they would have been promoting this thing as the best thing since sliced bread.

We'll see what happens. It's going to be tough for any legitimate candidates to get into office when corporations can slander any politician endlessly after the supreme court ruling that will blow the doors open on corruption.

Crazy times.


So, who do you think could win?? I HONESTLY can't think of a popular w/ the base person that could win. Romeny--what you said. Palin--only the fringiest of the fringe could imagine her as commander in chief. Gingrich--big hypocrisy issues w/ clinton affair. Also, I get the feeling that insiders see him as though he takes '___' (as he is an idea person). Huckabee--that dude he pardoned that killed all those cops killed his chances at getting out of the GOP primary. Pence/Bachman/ etc., etc.--I'm sorry, but they speak about freedom, but we all know they are McCarthy wannabes who rate as Authoritarian not Libertarian. Ron Paul--he's less of a republican than Obama. Paul Ryan--he's a total lightweight. I met him when he was going door to door, and he's not at all personable, nor does he have leadership abilities.

Obama seems to know all this too.

Best,
Skunknuts

[edit on 4/12/2010 by skunknuts]



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by skunknuts
 


Quite honestly...I have no idea. Gingrich and Huckabee are probably the real frontrunners...although I don't like either of them. Gingrich especially. He is beyond tainted with the passage of the WTO and NAFTA. He's a job and wage killer.

Ron Paul may have gotten first in the first straw poll and second in the last one...but he caters only to libertarians.

When you add up all the other nominees...it dwarfs Ron Paul's number...and they are most likely not to vote for him.

It's really to early to tell. I imagine...whomever Mr. Beck promotes will have a shot as well.



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by David9176
reply to post by skunknuts
 


Quite honestly...I have no idea. Gingrich and Huckabee are probably the real frontrunners...although I don't like either of them. Gingrich especially. He is beyond tainted with the passage of the WTO and NAFTA. He's a job and wage killer.

Ron Paul may have gotten first in the first straw poll and second in the last one...but he caters only to libertarians.

When you add up all the other nominees...it dwarfs Ron Paul's number...and they are most likely not to vote for him.

It's really to early to tell. I imagine...whomever Mr. Beck promotes will have a shot as well.


Speaking of Mr. Beck, now that Ron Paul said that Obama is more of a corporatist, rather than a socialist, has his head exploded. I imagine after all of his ill-informed name calling of everything from maoist to socialist to marxist to..., he is hyperventilating, crying, and is probably confusingly calling Obama an evil Opthamologist.....

Best,
Skunknuts



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by fatboyinternational
Are you serious? Reagan called the old USSR the Evil Empire. Obama says the United States is the Evil Empire. (at least when he's out of the country apologizing to others about us.)

Reagan reduced the Nuclear arsenal by developing Ballistic defense systems so that we needed fewer of the nuclear weapons for our defense. Obama is destroying the ballistic defense systems and the nuclear weapons increasing our vunerability to attack

Reagan won the cold war by using ballistic defense systems the bring down the USSR,s economy.
Obama is bringing down the US economy all by himself. (health care and cap and trade and producing more deficit spending in one month than Bush did in an entire year.) He dosen't need any help from anyone.

[edit on 12-4-2010 by fatboyinternational]


Alright buddy let's play with a little bit of fact here that other people have not yet brought up:

The Strategic Defense Initiative (commonly called "Star Wars Program" in the United States and "Ronny's Ray-Gun" in the United Kingdom and Canada) never put into service and largely never was built!

What did happen was that billions upon billions of dollars have been spent since 1984 on a program that has been renamed twice (it is now called the Missile Defense Agency) and lasted 5 presidents, without ever attaining the lofty "space-laser" goals that President Reagan had.

No form of strategic missile defense has ever actually been used anywhere on the planet because no strategic ballistic missile has ever been used in anger.

Currently every nation with ballistic missile nuclear weapons is allied with the United States! North Korea does not yet have a working long range ballistic missile and also does not have a miniaturized nuke to put on one.

Bottom line: Ronny's Ray-Gun never existed and other anti-missile systems have done nothing to keep the United States safe as of yet.



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by skunknuts
 





Speaking of Mr. Beck, now that Ron Paul said that Obama is more of a corporatist, rather than a socialist, has his head exploded.


Strangely, I've been saying the same thing!!!!! he cut deals with the health industry and peeps are acting like it didn't happen.

They will make money off the deal...it's fact. Stocks went up after it happened as well. People were bagging on it and I'm sure many made a good chunk of change because of it.

There are some good things in the bill...I'm just not sure about all of it. I do like what is being done with student loans though which was added in the bill...even if it has nothing to do with health care.

Just think...we get to hear Obama being called a Marxist, Communist, Radical Revolutionary, Chairman Mao lover, Racist with a deep seeded hatred for white people, Terrorist, Muslim, Socialist, Destroyer of our Economy, non US citizen....for at LEAST 3 MORE YEARS.

Yippie.


[edit on 12-4-2010 by David9176]



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by David9176
[
Just think...we get to hear Obama being called a Marxist, Communist, Radical Revolutionary, Chairman Mao lover, Racist with a deep seeded hatred for white people, Terrorist, Muslim, Socialist, Destroyer of our Economy, non US citizen....for at LEAST 3 MORE YEARS.

Yippie.


[edit on 12-4-2010 by David9176]


That's the thing. I really hope you are right, especially as we have shown him likely to be reelected (as I think they MIGHT have the decency not to say such things in eulogy). This country might not be able to take an assassination, and that might be the point....

Best,
Skunknuts



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 09:12 PM
link   
As a citizen of the United States of America, I know that some things are true when it come to politics:
All Politicians lie. They will make promises, about of which there should always be a means to hold them accountable for what they say, do, and do not do while in the position to which they were elected.
Neither party is correct for the United States of America, cause one side is always too conservative and limits, the other side usually is more liberal and too free with what they believe they can get away with.
However, when the President of the United States can not or will not infront of the very people he is suppose to be leading, lies to those people, and or fails to show leadership, even in the light of his harshes critics, to include having those who advises him demonize and slander those people who speak ill of his policies, shows more than many people care to admit too.
The citizens of the country are not happy with the direction of the country, we see where things are not adding up, too many mistakes on the part of the federal government and alot is spanning from the White House.
I don't think that he will get elected, nor a female, all cause of the slander against people who speak out about policies and are called names.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
The citizens of the country are not happy with the direction of the country, we see where things are not adding up, too many mistakes on the part of the federal government and alot is spanning from the White House.


Plenty were not happy with the course of the country under the last president which is in part why we don't have another republican in the White House right now. It all comes down to how you react to this, and what you do to institute change.

Most of the problems we are currently having are very old as opposed to new.

- Lee



new topics

top topics



 
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join