Not at all, since they are responses to different aspects of your statement, and one which you changed in the middle of the argument. iNow rebutted your claim that there were no citizen-voters to the left of the president, as did I in another post. But once you changed that to the voters to the left are now without a voice in their representation, the meaning changes, and that was what I was responding to. And I stand by that: if you think that electing Obama allows him to ignore the fringe that has a more extremist view, that's true of every president, and so it's unsurprising. But I then argued that it's not actually true.

 

 

No. That's not the statement to which I was responding. It was: if there's any truth to the claim that anyone to the left of Obama will "now have no one in the political structure, the formal American political, and esp. electoral, system, simply doesn't extend to them" then it's true of the extrema for any president, and meaningless. In fact, one could argue that people to the right of Obama "such people now have no one in the political structure, the formal American political, and esp. electoral, system, simply doesn't extend to them" as well, and that would be ludicrous, given the makeup of the house. Which is why I then argued that the statement cannot be true.

 

——

 

Do you mind defining "vetiginous" for me? It's not in my dictionary.

 

Also, the user name is swansont. Once is a typo. Consistently getting it wrong eliminates that as an excuse.

 

 

No, it was misspelled due to a my faulty recollection of it. Since I had it in mind incorrectly, I used that misspelling repeatedly and without noticing it or checking. Are you angry with me? I made a mistake in my recalling the spelling. I apologize for that mistake, which I regret it and I have corrected the error.

 

Likewise, my spelling of "vertiginous" was misspelled as "vetiginous". I also hadn't noticed that error and it is now corrected with a few synonyms for definition.

 

 

----------------------------------

 

this next, the remainder here below, I must return to later, after an interruption

 

If either you or iNow understood me to have argued above that claiming " that there were no citizen-voters to the left of the president" then I accept that I did not make myself clear. What I mean and meant is that these supposed voters to the left of Obama--who, by the way, do these disaffected voters who, being to his left, reject Obama as their proper choice, who do they vote for?-- are in the present circumstances orphaned; they have no

 

 

so, to explain briefly, my keyboard typing is so loud that it disturbed others in the vicinity and I had to interrupt the post above; in addition, I don't have time to conveniently finish it now.

 

instead, I'll just offer for the interim that, if there have been some failures in clarity on my part, I accept them and will try to correct them. I also grant that in the course of any discussion of differing opinion, it's going to be common for readers to misunderstand at first pass some of what they read and for writers to express themselves in terms which are inevitably not clear in the same sense to every conceivable reader.

 

What I dispute, though, is that, whatever my meaning may have seemed to Swansont to have been, it is not and it never was my point or purpose to contend some of the absurdities that he is attributing to me--- namely, that Obama's own failures as a "liberal"--whatever that means--imply somehow that there aren't in actual fact various people and groups politically to the left of Obama who have been abandoned, betrayed by him, and his policy positions, or that these people and groups magically disappeared soon before, during or after his re-election.

 

Such an interpretation strikes me as too absurd to even conveive. But, then, one can read some perposterous stuff on the internet.

 

In the meantime, though, think about what such a ridiculous assertion as theirs implies: had I thought that " there were no citizen-voters to the left of the president" then there'd be no basis on which to fault Obama, as I do, for being, in effect, as Isee it, the Neo-Con's and organized wealth's favorite guy to have in office, doing their bidding, even as they figuratively beat up on him in the goofy upside-down world of mass-media.

 

As for,

 

"you changed that to the voters to the left are now without a voice in their representation, the meaning changes, and that was what I was responding to."

 

I "changed" nothing--either in meaning or in text. when you write, swansont, that

 

"And I stand by that: "if you think that electing Obama allows him to ignore the fringe that has a more extremist view, that's true of every president, and so it's unsurprising. But I then argued that it's not actually true,"

 

you're either demonstrating my point: that the upshot of the re-election means that people now see things as you portray them--everyone who critcized Obama from his left are now, according to this warped view, a "fringe" group, people whose views are--because they're not in line with Obama's now "standard position", the "extremist view".

 

That is what this election has given us--a new and changed view of who and what constitute this "fringe..., a "more extremist view."

or, otherwise, you're using a very common deabte tactic which consists of asserting, despite my clarifications, that I'm insisting on a position which it happens is both absurd and conveniently so for your view of things. Sorry, but that won't wash.

 

The pertinent point is not what you'd like it to be--that every president ignores "the fringe". The point is about who constitutes that and how and why.

 

more on this another day.

proximity1, while I thought Romney was for lack of a better word an "insult" to anyone with the power of minimal reasoning skills that wasn't already a huge part of the problem Obama is still too far to the "right" and just as suspect in being owned by corporate and financial interests that have no interest in the people of this nation other than how to make money off them.

 

I think the worst part of the political system in the US is that it only peripherally represents the population and has evolved into nothing but a bad and worse choice driven by fringe elements of both sides.

 

The majority of the people who are in the middle are irrelevant and are being lied to by both sides... In fact I would be willing to say the entire highway has taken a sharp right turn

 

Financial conservatism has lost all meaning with the rise of so called neo-conservatism, and is being driven by fringe elements that have no interest in our country other than getting richer and richer running it. Democrats are only marginally better in that they seem to be willing to throw the rest of the population a few more bones than the republicans.

 

Republicans are no more the anti thesis of big government than a great white shark is less of a predator than a killer whale.

 

We are in dire need of a government that is used for more than a route to riches for the elected officials.

 

In my mind the two things have to happen, government officials have to be made to get their hands out of the cookie jar and some truth in politicking has to be enforced, the media has become incapable of doing this and the truth is too damaging for either side to tell it without spinning it like a turbo prop, most of the time it's just see who can tell the most convincing lie.

 

Limiting religious interests in who wins would be a good idea as well IMHO but is unlikely any time soon.

 

Personal freedom has become nothing but freedom to make everyone do what "I" think is right and damn anyone who wants to do anything "I" don't think is right.

 

It's a sad state of affairs and this idea of my way or the highway has to stop.

 

This mindset of only ideas from one side or another of some imaginary line are valid is simply stupid and is slowly doing what both sides claim to be saving us from... the very idea of a Left and a Right is invalid...

 

I was once asked by a close friend who was a staunch conservative (in a conversation about guns) how I could support Democrats and still believe in personal freedoms I replied that democrats were less likely to round up the people who disagreed with them, now days I'm not so sure there is much of a difference when you come right down to it... other than that one thing... Both sides seem to willing to destroy everything just to win. Winning at all costs has become more important than running the country.

 

The local election and the batshit crazy liars on both sides has made me begin to wonder if there is any hope...

Are there those here who support Obama and yet who'd be interested in reading and discussing the contrary case which holds that this election outcome augers yet more very serious ill for the nation?

Sure. All the lefties. We've been pointing this out for fifty years now - most recently, when Obama won in 2008.

 

We were pointing this out when Clinton won, in 1992. Again in 1996. As Tom Tomorrow cartoon penguins put it: "He's not on our side".

 

Anyone who thinks that is a good reason to vote for somebody like Romney is invited to review the record of W's presidency, and the outcome of seeing the worse of two alternatives given the keys to the Pentagon and nomination power for the Supreme Court - granted it was years and years ago, but the intertubes provide a wealth of memory jogging material.

proximity1, while I thought Romney was for lack of a better word an "insult" to anyone with the power of minimal reasoning skills that wasn't already a huge part of the problem Obama is still too far to the "right" and just as suspect in being owned by corporate and financial interests that have no interest in the people of this nation other than how to make money off them.

 

I think the worst part of the political system in the US is that it only peripherally represents the population and has evolved into nothing but a bad and worse choice driven by fringe elements of both sides.

 

The majority of the people who are in the middle are irrelevant and are being lied to by both sides... In fact I would be willing to say the entire highway has taken a sharp right turn

 

Financial conservatism has lost all meaning with the rise of so called neo-conservatism, and is being driven by fringe elements that have no interest in our country other than getting richer and richer running it. Democrats are only marginally better in that they seem to be willing to throw the rest of the population a few more bones than the republicans.

 

Republicans are no more the anti thesis of big government than a great white shark is less of a predator than a killer whale.

 

We are in dire need of a government that is used for more than a route to riches for the elected officials.

 

In my mind the two things have to happen, government officials have to be made to get their hands out of the cookie jar and some truth in politicking has to be enforced, the media has become incapable of doing this and the truth is too damaging for either side to tell it without spinning it like a turbo prop, most of the time it's just see who can tell the most convincing lie.

 

Limiting religious interests in who wins would be a good idea as well IMHO but is unlikely any time soon.

 

Personal freedom has become nothing but freedom to make everyone do what "I" think is right and damn anyone who wants to do anything "I" don't think is right.

 

It's a sad state of affairs and this idea of my way or the highway has to stop.

 

This mindset of only ideas from one side or another of some imaginary line are valid is simply stupid and is slowly doing what both sides claim to be saving us from... the very idea of a Left and a Right is invalid...

 

I was once asked by a close friend who was a staunch conservative (in a conversation about guns) how I could support Democrats and still believe in personal freedoms I replied that democrats were less likely to round up the people who disagreed with them, now days I'm not so sure there is much of a difference when you come right down to it... other than that one thing... Both sides seem to willing to destroy everything just to win. Winning at all costs has become more important than running the country.

 

The local election and the batshit crazy liars on both sides has made me begin to wonder if there is any hope...

 

 

I suscribe wholeheartedly to just about everything you've said here. And, maybe the one point on which I have a reservation is only due to a misinterpretation of your point --that is, where you say,

 

"the very idea of a Left and a Right is invalid..."

 

If, by that you mean, it has become invalid, emptied of meaning, rendered useless except as a convenient tool for duping the credulous into believing that a an electoral system worthy of the name still exists--if that's what you mean when you say "a Left and a Right is invalid", then on every point, I agree with your assessment.

 

It's a good reply and offers a number of very useful points of departure for continuing this discussion.

 

For example, based on all you describe, it should be clear that we don't have anything even remotely resembling a working democratic system. By the way, France held a presidential election last April/May, and things are no better on these points in France than in the U.S. In fact, it's striking how much the election of François Hollande and the subsequent disappointment and disillusionment among both voters and non-voters with Hollande's failures to stick to the things he's promised to try to do resembles the sad story of Barack Obama's betrayal of his former supporters. Hollande's approval rating has set new records for the depth and the speed of its descent. I see it as a virtual re-play of the experiences concerning Obama and his betrayal of those now on Obama's "Left"--and on his Left, because Obama not because they "moved" but because, after being elected the first time, Obama at last revealed (openly) who and what he really is and was all along.

 

In his post (see N° 20, above) iNow listed some of the important things that need to be done in the way of reforms to make the nation politically better. At this point, I want to come back to those to point out what our dilemma indicates. If the U.S. had a working democratic system worthy of the name, not only could everything on that list be accomplished, it could be accomplished--or at least well begun--both quickly and easily. If that laundry list of needed reforms leaves me and many others with no idea of how to actually accomplish those things, that is simply because there is no such democratic system available.

 

So, the preliminay work has to be done and that requires a recognition of the things that you have spelled out in your reply here. Instead of a democratic system, we have the circumstances you've listed. And they're the negation, the antithesis of, a democratic system. On the other hand, they're just what a closed oligarchy of plutocrats would want as a system for the effective and perpetual thwarting of democratic reforms.

 

Where is Obama in all that? He's in the role of a person who is, to a degree which is truly fascinating as a laboratory case, incapable of recognizing his own capture by the system. My view is that, for all his (much overrated) supposed intellect, this man has nothing like the insight into himself that he probably imagines that he has. He has no "purchase" on himself as an objective observer, or even as an astute subjective observer of himself. He lives and works in a hermetically-sealed bubble, surrounded by people who he picked and who keep their positions by treating him with slavish deference. That's not unique to his presidency but you certainly couldn't have faulted those who'd hoped, before his first term, that he'd run things differently as being complete and utter naïve fools. Now, however, with the experiences of his first term, to continue to believe in him does indicate something of a hopeless naïveté, it seems to me.

 

As a thorough-going centrist-right-winger, the very next-best if not the best thing that Neo-cons could hope for in his office, Obama, believing he's actually a man of the people is all the more a ruinous mischief-maker.

 

And that is why this, from overtone, at post N° 28, simply misses the point:

 

(RE: "[ "He's not on our side" ["He" being Barack Obama] )

Anyone who thinks that is a good reason to vote for somebody like Romney is invited to review the record of W's presidency, and the outcome of seeing the worse of two alternatives given the keys to the Pentagon and nomination power for the Supreme Court - granted it was years and years ago, but the intertubes provide a wealth of memory jogging material.

 

Sheer nonsense. No one in this thread has advocated (either before election, or for next time, any voting support of Romney or anyone else like him). No one, having found Obama a hopeless and lost cause as a candidate, was, on that account, obliged to then vote for Romney. But that is exactly what Overtone's post reasons--- "Anyone who thinks that [ i.e. the fact that "He's not on our side" ["He" being Barack Obama] is a good reason to vote for somebody like Romney is invited to review the record of W's presidency,...

--is claiming to be the case.

 

Again, no one is arguing that. But, once again, "Overtone" 's post makes my point for me: there is now nowhere for such voters to go. And that is why I referred previously to "a now non-existent species of citizen-voter". Those are the once-able voters now made "ghosts," disaffected from a political system that no longer offers them any place on the national level (or, for that matter, as I may argue later, on the state or local level either since, with extremely few exceptions, the strangle-hold that organized money has achieved on the national political/electoral level is even more solid and complete at the state and local level).

 

These people (Obama's disaffected supporters), as Swansont himself tells us, are relegated to the "fringe", they make up the new "extreme"--and so, they are now officially homeless, orphaned in the political system, not because they "moved" but because Obama did -- even if that means that he really only made his true aspects apparent where before he'd taken care to present himself as a determined defender of the causes of the Left. Once in office, Obama showed that he is anything but that. So in the sense that his real aspect is revealed to us, that is effectively a "movement" on the political spectrum--making him the place-holder, ratified by re-election, of what constitutes the practical limits of the "Left" 's highest office-holder --as pathetic as that is. And the reason that this is the case is, indeed, precisely because, as swansont's argument puts it, these now-officially disaffected voters have become, de facto, by Obama's re-election, the new and apparently accepted idea of the "fringe", the "extremists" which, according to swansont, are, practically by definition, always and necessarily left out of account by any sitting president.

That overlooks the key factor here: these same disaffected Leftists used to have at least an arguably real place in the political "mainstream". If, today, they do not, that's a measure of the extent to which Obama has made himself pliably shiftable ever-Rightward, for crying out loud!!

Edited November 10, 201213 yr by proximity1

I suscribe wholeheartedly to just about everything you've said here. And, maybe the one point on which I have a reservation is only due to a misinterpretation of your point --that is, where you say,

 

"the very idea of a Left and a Right is invalid..."

 

If, by that you mean, it has become invalid, emptied of meaning, rendered useless except as a convenient tool for duping the credulous into believing that a an electoral system worthy of the name still exists--if that's what you mean when you say "a Left and a Right is invalid", then on every point, I agree with your assessment.

 

 

 

 

That is precisely what I meant, it's like there is some significant difference in sitting on the left or right side of a vehicle plunging headlong into a concrete wall... both sides are steering in the same direction while pointing fingers at each other arguing about who should be in control while the vehicle inexorably travels on.

These people (Obama's disaffected supporters), as Swansont himself tells us, are relegated to the "fringe", they make up the new "extreme"

I would caution you not to make the mistake of thinking that paraphrasing you in a discussion means that it is my position, given that I disagree with you. I thought that was obvious, but apparently it is not.

I would caution you not to make the mistake of thinking that paraphrasing you in a discussion means that it is my position, given that I disagree with you. I thought that was obvious, but apparently it is not.

 

 

Well, in order to avoid another misunderstanding, allow me to ask you---

 

You have directly cited this, from me, (which I'll refer to below as "Citation P / "A" ")

 

You (refers to swansont) are confusing two different things---one is my view of Obama as the now-sole-embodiment of the what constitutes the poltical spectrum's Left extreme. And I made that point clear at the outset; this isn't a redefintition of the point, no "moving of the goal-posts,". I stated that " Obama now embodies the extreme Left-ward limits of the real-world political spectrum." That didn't and doesn't mean that in the world, suddenly every person or group holding views to the left of Obama's simply disappeared. It means what I thought was obvious: such people now have no one in the political structure, the formal American political, and esp. electoral, system, simply doesn't extend to them. They lie beyond, outside the limits of what is now represented and representable or, more precisely, what's happened is that their lying beyond it has now been made manifest whereas previously, any astute observer might have already recognized what this recent electoral outcome, for me, confirms as true--unless and until that political order is reformed, refashioned to once again--as in long past decades, at least to some pathetically puny extent--it once did "represent" them. My argument is that the re-election of Obama sounds the mourning bell for such people, until things change and change rather profoundly.

 

and, if I"m not mistaken, you answered that with this (which I'll refer to below as "Citation S / "1" "), which I took to be your own opinion, not a "devil's advocate" response:

 

To the extent that this can be considered true it is meaningless, since it applies to every president.

 

But this ignores the fact that every citizen has representation at multiple levels of government. Obama can't ignore people to the left if he needs their vote in congress to pass legislation, and there is legislation happening at the state and local level over which he has no control whatsoever. Colorado and Washington just voted to legalize marijuana, an arguably more liberal position than he has advocated; evidence that the people still have a voice.

 

There are extreme liberals, and true socialists and communists, too (not the faux definitions applied to Obama), and they didn't suddenly lose representation in government. If it's gone it's because they had no clout to begin with.

 

So, I have two questions, or perhaps even three,

 

Do the words I cited by you above ( "Citation S / "1" "), ) represent your own views? If not, then not only did I fail to recognize that, I still fail to recognize how I ought to have known better. Could you explain how the above citation is fairly to be understood, if it is the case, as other than your own views? If it does represent your view, then I ask, where do I misrepresent you in my stating that, as it seemed to me, it is your contention that, as I wrote (and which I'll reference as "Citation P / "B" ") :

 

"These people (Obama's disaffected supporters), as Swansont himself tells us, are relegated to the "fringe", they make up the new "extreme" ?

 

 

Which of my assertions (in Citation P / "A") do you mean when, in direct referenc to it, you assert that it, " ...is meaningless, since it applies to every president..." ( I'll break them down for examination purposes)

 

 

"Obama now embodies the extreme Left-ward limits of the real-world political spectrum." ( "Cite P / "C")

 

"That didn't and doesn't mean that in the world, suddenly every person or group holding views to the left of Obama's simply disappeared." ( Cite P / "D" )

 

"It means what I thought was obvious: such people now have no one in the political structure, the formal American political, and esp. electoral, system, simply doesn't extend to them." (Cite P / "E" )

 

"They lie beyond, outside the limits of what is now represented and representable or, more precisely, what's happened is that their lying beyond it has now been made manifest whereas previously, any astute observer might have already recognized what this recent electoral outcome, for me, confirms as true ... " ( Cite P / "F" )

 

" ... it (Note: i.e. a "pre-Obama political order") once did "represent" them (Note: i. e. those to Obama's Left). My argument is that the re-election of Obama sounds the mourning bell for such people, until things change and change rather profoundly." (Cite P / "G" )

 

As I read it, you contend that each of these, "C" through "G," are "meaningless since it (i.e. they) apply to every president." And I took that to be your position, not one made for the sake of argument alone.

 

If it's your view that some or all of "C" through "G" are true, because they "apply to every president" --every president's relationship to a set of the electorate, that is-- but, at the same time, that some or all of "C" through "G" are by the same token, meaningless (for the purposes of our discussion here?) then I haven't understood how is it that these same elements are not quite correctly just another way of stating that,

 

"These people (Obama's disaffected supporters), ... are relegated to the "fringe", they make up the new "extreme"--" (Cite P / "H")

 

If "H" isn't the same thing, in effect, as my claims in "C" through "G" above, and if you're granting those claims as, (I quote) "To the extent that this can be considered true it is meaningless, since it applies to every president", then did you actually mean that these things ("C" through "G") , in your view, are false, but, even if they were true, they'd still be "meaningless" because, (someone, you?) asserts or might assert, that they could arguably apply to every president ('s administration)?

 

Am I to understand that when you wrote,

 

"To the extent that this can be considered true..."

 

you didn't actually mean, in effect "To the extent that I can consider this to be true..." (where "I" refers to you) ? And am I to understand that I should have been aware that you meant not yourself but some other hypothetical participant?

 

Do I have that right?

 

Please clarify this for me. Where and how should I have construed things differently and, on what basis should I have been able to do that, given your comments as cited above, because, from the record here, I certainly don't see that yet.

 

-----------

 

2nd Edit to add : Please note: In order to help me better understand you in further comments, would you please, when paraphrasing my comments, indicate clearly whether in citing them and commenting, the extent to which the paraphrase or the commentary you post in reference to the pararphrase represents a view other than your own? Because it appears that I am not ably to reliably distinguish the one from the other.

 

That is precisely what I meant, it's like there is some significant difference in sitting on the left or right side of a vehicle plunging headlong into a concrete wall... both sides are steering in the same direction while pointing fingers at each other arguing about who should be in control while the vehicle inexorably travels on.

 

 

Good. Thank you. At least I can read and interpret something correctly.

 

There is this aspect, though, I think. In using the metaphor, (or even speaking in plain unmetaphorical terms) I think these circumstances are not so much that "on the left side of the vehicle" there is necessarily an occupant/& sometime-driver properly viewed as, in actual fact, "Leftist", though he (or she) may be "sitting on that side of the car". Our trouble is, at least in part, that the two people in the car aren't really good, valid representatives of, on one hand, "a Left politics" and, on the other, "a Right" politics. Instead, at any one given time-- and in our times, it's nearly always the case of the "Left-side" occupant--one of the two is more properly seen as a pseudotype of his wing of the political spectrum and it is that falsity which makes for the "erratic ride", plunging headlong toward a concrete wall, because, if it really were a genuine model of the opposition "Left," shouldn't we and couldn't we, in that case, assume and expect that at some point, there'd be a real correction in course (if only temporary) and not just a phoney one?

 

We might reflect: when was the last time that a change in the White House occupant's party after an election produced an actual and meaningful (measurable?) "change in course"?

 

(The following is very much off-the-cuff stuff, not a carefully-considered or documented set of views)

 

Truman to Eisenhower? a modest but genuine effect, I think.

 

Eisenhower to JF Kennedy? for me, no real appreciable change of political course. In fact, I see Lyndon Johnson as departing more from JF Kennedy's legacy than Kennedy departed from Eisenhower's.

 

Lyndon Johnson to Nixon? no genuine and important change in national course, in my opinion (with, of course, the exception that Nixon broke new ground in turning the apparatus of the federal government into a personal tool for his own devious ends; Johnson did a bit of that, but, as I see it, Nixon blazed new paths in that sense.)

 

Ford to Carter? No lasting change that we can point to, in my view; and much, much lost and wasted time and opportunity.

 

Carter to Reagan? Yes, a significant change, but not so much of direction as of faster acceleration of he given situation. Reagan immensely increased things: debt, spending, an attack on organized labor, etc. But Carter hadn't done much of anything to protect and preserve what he inherited in coming into office.

 

Reagan to G. H. W. Bush? I don't think Bush (the elder) consulted crystal-ball-gazing psychics as Reagan did. Other than that, no significant changes of national political course.

 

Bush to Clinton? Yes, the political complexion of the nation altered in the following way--- Clinton was in fact, as I see it, correctly seen (as indeed some described him only partly in jest) as the "first Black president of the U.S. and in fact, compared to Obama, who couldn't be more "White" even if his skin was caucasian, Clinton did seem to actually intend to do things directly for the benefit of Black Americans in particular. But Clinton also represented more importantly, the first major break in our time from a clear political distinction between Democrat and Republican. In more ways than not, Clinton was the president that served Right-wing power interests generously and in return received their prentended scathing contempt--which, outside the actual party hierarchy, was pure faked bluster and pantomine stuff. The real right-wing corporate power interests in fact very much liked Clinton for what he actually did, if not for what he tried to seem to stand for in symbolism and ritual, where it didn't much count in hard cash and physical goods.

 

Clinton to George W. Bush? Again, an acceleration increase in speed of the already-existing tendencies. More imperialism, more war, more ideological silliness and social division and confusion.

 

Bush to Obama? Yes. Some changes in actual governing approach. Bush actually had serious "principles"--tjhough they were extreme right-wing and deplorable, at least they were held as principles. Obama, a pure robotic technocrat has only one principle: quantitatively measured "efficiency" and mind-numbing conventionality of thought.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

More Postscript obiter dicta:

 

Since this is a science forum, allow me to take a moment and post some of the elements which, in a seat-of-the-pants fashion, I'd regard as good disconfirming indications--stuff that would require me to scrap or seriously revise the views I've (well, tried to) maintain consistently here from the opening post.

 

So, what would some disconfirming things be?

 

When Obama

 

takes a startlingly different course,

 

breaks with his first-term habits --wearisome and feckless compromise (or, as I'd describe it, prostrating abject surrender toward the so-called opposition party, the Republicans) ---

 

each time we see such instances, if you do a double-take,

 

or shake yourself and say, "Huh?! What did I just see/hear?,

 

or you fall out of your chair because this plodding and predictable president does something--I mean really does something, not just spouting his usual empty rhetorical drivel--

 

then that is an instance which means serious empirical trouble for my case.

 

Instead, when you see an endless litany of excuse-making, of yielding up again and again to the Republican demands or their expectations, for whatever reason this is done--because I do not expect honest, forthright admissions from Obama that "X, Y, or Z" isn't good enough---oh, wait, he does that, but nothing changes and it makes no real difference in his practice--then we have another instance of the president acting "true-to-form" and in accord with my argued view of who and what he is in fact--symbol and empty talk, no substance.

 

There you are, for your reference.

Edited November 10, 201213 yr by proximity1

The local election and the batshit crazy liars on both sides

That, and the dozens of other phrasings of that assertion found throughout this thread and endemic to the public discourse (see any major media news analysis program), is false.

 

There is only one significant and well-populated faction of batshit crazy liars, and it is and has been on one side only - the rightwing "conservative" side. There is no such situation as "both sides doing it" in the current US political arena.

That, and the dozens of other phrasings of that assertion found throughout this thread and endemic to the public discourse (see any major media news analysis program), is false.

 

There is only one significant and well-populated faction of batshit crazy liars, and it is and has been on one side only - the rightwing "conservative" side. There is no such situation as "both sides doing it" in the current US political arena.

 

 

I don't know about where you live but it became a shrill contest of who could convince who of what by pointing fingers at the other side around here. There was very little truth involved in any of it, one jack ass actually got his grandma to make a commercial saying he was a good boy, it nauseated me to watch how badly the democrats tried to out lie the republicans, the democrats weren't very good at it and it made the republican lies almost look like the truth... Neither side seemed to have enough confidence in their true stance to try and go head to head with the other side.

Do the words I cited by you above ( "Citation S / "1" "), ) represent your own views? If not, then not only did I fail to recognize that, I still fail to recognize how I ought to have known better. Could you explain how the above citation is fairly to be understood, if it is the case, as other than your own views? If it does represent your view, then I ask, where do I misrepresent you in my stating that, as it seemed to me, it is your contention that, as I wrote (and which I'll reference as "Citation P / "B" ") :

 

"These people (Obama's disaffected supporters), as Swansont himself tells us, are relegated to the "fringe", they make up the new "extreme" ?

I never said they were relegated to the fringe by the election — that's your sentiment, AFAICT — and did not say they made up a new extreme.

 

 

Which of my assertions (in Citation P / "A") do you mean when, in direct referenc to it, you assert that it, " ...is meaningless, since it applies to every president..." ( I'll break them down for examination purposes)

I already pointed this out. Since you apparently did not read it, here it is again: "It means what I thought was obvious: such people now have no one in the political structure, the formal American political, and esp. electoral, system, simply doesn't extend to them."

it nauseated me to watch how badly the democrats tried to out lie the republicans,

No examples, as always.

 

It never happened. There has been nothing from the Dems even approaching the blatancy, the impudence, or the sheer volume of the crazy coming from the Reps in the US for the past thirty years.

the democrats tried to out lie the republicans

 

In their defense, it's hard to out lie professional liars.

No examples, as always.

 

It never happened. There has been nothing from the Dems even approaching the blatancy, the impudence, or the sheer volume of the crazy coming from the Reps in the US for the past thirty years.

 

 

No examples as always? Moi? That was a rather unfair exaggeration don't you think?

 

Locally one example that stands out was the push to built a baseball stadium in our little county, both sides supported it, both sides lied to everyone and said the studies said it was great idea... yes the studies done by the people who would be making millions of dollars off it. After the election it turned out that neutral party studies had shown that baseball stadiums rarely made money in such a small market. $300,000 of the cities money was spent in an abortive attempt by both sides to build something we needed like a second ass.

 

By and large on any level above local politics the Republicans can't tell the truth because their entire platform rests on issues that cannot be supported.

 

In local elections the Dems reacted to the Reps in a very bad way, the Dems couldn't support issues like abortion or gay marriage in fear of pissing off their base and the Reps just blasted away with claims the Dems supported Obama in his drive to destroy the american family and tried to make it look like the Dems were evil incarnate while the Dems tried to say they didn't support Obama it was an insane election.

 

The real joke was that these local people have no real influence either way in national politics...

I never said they were relegated to the fringe by the election — that's your sentiment, AFAICT — and did not say they made up a new extreme.

 

 

 

I already pointed this out. Since you apparently did not read it, here it is again: "It means what I thought was obvious: such people now have no one in the political structure, the formal American political, and esp. electoral, system, simply doesn't extend to them."

 

 

Thank you for drawing my attention to what I somehow didn't recognize as the reference target of your comment.

 

I have a number of things to post in response to your comments. The delay in doing that, among other things, is in deciding whether to preent them in a more or a less devoloped form. I'm also thinking of working on an elaborate poll of readers here on these and related issues--a poll which, unlike the thing already attached, should be of some general interest for others rather than something which was of use and interest mainly in my decisions on whether and how much I should post on this topic.

 

But, due to some other pressing demands on time right now, all that willl have to come later.

Some feedback... It would be better if you chose to use 3 bullet points to make your comments as opposed to 3 novels IMO. The fact that you're not concise suggests you don't really understand your subject matter very well.