Obama’s Path From Critic to Overseer of Spying • Hacker News Board

Re: Obama’s Path From Critic to Overseer of Spying

#151

Post by joe_the_user » Thu, Jan 16, 2014, 7:27 PM UTC

grandalf wrote: post #3

The headline might as well be a more Onionesque "After gaining power, politician turns out not to actually hold the strongly principled views he expressed while campaigning". I'd be surprised if Obama holds any of the views he expressed during his campaign. A campaign is a marketing effort intended to install a team of people in power. Generally speaking, the vast majority of power holders agree that aggressive spyin…

And you throw-in the even more Onionesque: "A review of candidates speeches reveals the apparent 'strong principles' were actually a clever packaging of euphemisms, glittering generalities, rainbow-ruses and Barnum-statements"

I think Obama probably holds those small number of positions he unambiguously stated as a Candidate. He like doesn't hold doesn't hold the positions that he seemed to articulate but didn't really, unambiguously assert. Which is of the things people thought he said.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

Re: Obama’s Path From Critic to Overseer of Spying

#152

Post by mturmon » Thu, Jan 16, 2014, 7:30 PM UTC

aaronem wrote: post #113

mturmon wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your analysis does not take into account the 2000 election.

In saying this, you seem to express the opinion that I've missed something crucial. Would you like to explain what that is? If anything, I should think that having seen the express popular will set at naught, by the actions of a few professional gerrymanderers, would add even more point to my analysis.

You could take the outcome as indication that the popular will is always thwarted -- I'm not here to convince you otherwise, and your wording indicates you are up on the soapbox (Augean stables, really?). There's no outer bound to cynicism.

My interpretation is that a thousand votes in Florida would have swung the election, so Florida voters and abstainers were quite powerful indeed.

Often it's hard to tell for sure which election will be like that. The California ballot propositions (where I live) are an excellent example.

Re: Obama’s Path From Critic to Overseer of Spying

#153

Post by dllthomas » Thu, Jan 16, 2014, 7:32 PM UTC

fleitz wrote: post #139

dllthomas wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia says: "Depending on the class model used, the middle class constitutes anywhere from 25% to 66% of households." Fewer than 5% of Americans make more than 250k/yr. So either that is not the cut-off for middle class, or a huge percentage of the former middle class is now lower class.

It's the middle class , not middle income quintile. It would seem to be pretty ridiculous to me that more than 5-10% of America were doctors, lawyers, etc. Perhaps in the US it's the middle class includes the working class but in my estimation middle class means you still derive most of your income from working but you own a decent portion of the means of production. If the middle class means households making 100K t…

"It's the middle class, not middle income quintile."

I made no claim to the contrary. But if we are looking at income figures to try and guess class, 1) we're going to be doing a poor job if we're missing at least 4/5 of middle class people, 2) we're going to be talking about something other than what everyone else means when they say middle class, or 3) the situation has changed and it's a recent development that so few people are middle class and the models haven't caught up. If 3, we've either seen tremendous immigration/reproduction in the lower classes (somewhat possible in the small, but a five-fold increase would mean the earlier figures were pre-1900, which is unlikely) or we've seen a lot of people leave the middle class in a downward direction - which doesn't say good things regardless of how well the remaining middle class is doing. If 2, we might be able to have a meaningful discussion but it's likely a different one than most people in the discussion thought we were having. If 1, we should pick better numbers or simply refuse to include income in driving our estimates.

Re: Obama’s Path From Critic to Overseer of Spying

#154

Post by fleitz » Thu, Jan 16, 2014, 7:38 PM UTC

dllthomas wrote: post #153

fleitz wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the middle class , not middle income quintile. It would seem to be pretty ridiculous to me that more than 5-10% of America were doctors, lawyers, etc. Perhaps in the US it's the middle class includes the working class but in my estimation middle class means you still derive most of your income from working but you own a decent portion of the means of production. If the middle class means households making 100K t…

"It's the middle class, not middle income quintile." I made no claim to the contrary. But if we are looking at income figures to try and guess class, 1) we're going to be doing a poor job if we're missing at least 4/5 of middle class people, 2) we're going to be talking about something other than what everyone else means when they say middle class, or 3) the situation has changed and it's a recent development that so…

I think it's an intentional political doublespeak that people who are making a median wage think they are middle class.

Thus policies for the 'middle class' are policies they identify with despite those policies not actually being particularly well suited to their economic situation.

IIRC I believe 90% of Americans think they are middle class, even from a quintile perspective this is probably skewed.

Re: Obama’s Path From Critic to Overseer of Spying

#155

Post by sliverstorm » Thu, Jan 16, 2014, 7:49 PM UTC

mcv wrote: post #58

aaronem wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is fascinating how people lay blame. Oh, yes, very much so! For example, you seem quite effortlessly to lay blame on three hundred or so million people, and that's only counting those alive right now, with no consideration for those who've predeceased us, at least some of whom presumably could be expected, in your formulation, to have had a hand in creating the situation you so readily decry. But laying blame, w…

> What would you have us do? -- all three hundred million of us, of course. Vote. For for better people. That is the basis of any democracy. You don't blindly follow your leaders, and you don't blame them for their mistakes and carry on as if there's nothing you can do about it, because you can do something about it. You can vote them out, and vote better people in. The fact that those three hundred million Americans…

And what would you have those of us already doing that do?

Re: Obama’s Path From Critic to Overseer of Spying

#156

Post by dllthomas » Thu, Jan 16, 2014, 7:49 PM UTC

fleitz wrote: post #154

dllthomas wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It's the middle class, not middle income quintile." I made no claim to the contrary. But if we are looking at income figures to try and guess class, 1) we're going to be doing a poor job if we're missing at least 4/5 of middle class people, 2) we're going to be talking about something other than what everyone else means when they say middle class, or 3) the situation has changed and it's a recent development that so…

I think it's an intentional political doublespeak that people who are making a median wage think they are middle class. Thus policies for the 'middle class' are policies they identify with despite those policies not actually being particularly well suited to their economic situation. IIRC I believe 90% of Americans think they are middle class, even from a quintile perspective this is probably skewed.

The more reasonable "100k+" number that others have cited is still all in the top 20%, so while there may broadly be some inappropriate conflation of "middle class" and "most people" or "median income", that's not most of what's going on here.

Re: Obama’s Path From Critic to Overseer of Spying

#157

Post by sliverstorm » Thu, Jan 16, 2014, 7:53 PM UTC

wmeredith wrote: post #97

jasonlotito wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm agains the NSA spying as well, but saying they haven't cited anything isn't the same thing as proving they haven't stopped terrorist attacks. Please don't read more into this than what I said.

The NSA existing in a state that doesn't stop terrorist attacks is the status quo (it's the same as them not existing at all). It doesn't need proving. If they want to spy on everyone in the world all the time and their reasoning is that it makes Americans safer, then the burden of proof is very much on them.

the burden of proof is very much on them

But who do they have to prove it to? The public, or the people they actually report to?

Re: Obama’s Path From Critic to Overseer of Spying

#158

Post by booruguru » Thu, Jan 16, 2014, 8:09 PM UTC

downandout wrote: post #116

grandalf wrote: post #3

The headline might as well be a more Onionesque "After gaining power, politician turns out not to actually hold the strongly principled views he expressed while campaigning". I'd be surprised if Obama holds any of the views he expressed during his campaign. A campaign is a marketing effort intended to install a team of people in power. Generally speaking, the vast majority of power holders agree that aggressive spyin…

I'd be surprised if Obama holds any of the views he expressed during his campaign. A campaign is a marketing effort intended to install a team of people in power. Usually we at least get to learn about candidates' fundamental views before electing them. A pro-life candidate, for example, isn't suddenly going to change that view after taking office. Even the much-maligned George Bush generally acted in keeping with th…

> This is what is so disturbing about Obama and his supporters. He told them bald faced lies about his fundamental views, and is fairly unapologetic about it.

Can you give some examples? Seriously. I can't recall Obama giving a definitive opinion on anything. (e.g. his evolving "views" on gay marriage.)

His detractors keep calling him a leftist, socialist even though he doesn't seem to have a strong (or passionate) opinion on any subject.

Re: Obama’s Path From Critic to Overseer of Spying

#159

Post by afterburner » Thu, Jan 16, 2014, 8:13 PM UTC

grandalf wrote: post #3

The headline might as well be a more Onionesque "After gaining power, politician turns out not to actually hold the strongly principled views he expressed while campaigning". I'd be surprised if Obama holds any of the views he expressed during his campaign. A campaign is a marketing effort intended to install a team of people in power. Generally speaking, the vast majority of power holders agree that aggressive spyin…

Come on now. He's still a Democrat, with Democratic views, hardly pursuing the agendas the Republicans were pursuing before (for example, trying to get rid of social security; do you remember all the Bush town halls on that?). He's not going to suddenly oppose abortion.

First and foremost on his platform was bringing back bipartisanship in Washington. And he sure tried his damndest to do that, trying time and time again to compromise with Republicans, trying to get them on board, trying to meet them halfway. That was him keeping that promise, and it's one I think he fundamentally believes in. He's always trying to build a consensus, not trying to be a firebrand. If others chose to ignore that repeated refrain in his campaigning, then too bad.

He also expended nearly all his initial political capital on health care, as promised. And reformed health care. Please let's not forget this, as it's skewered the Democrats more than once in the last 50 years.

Re: Obama’s Path From Critic to Overseer of Spying

#160

Post by narrator » Thu, Jan 16, 2014, 8:13 PM UTC

alexeisadeski3 wrote: post #122

downandout wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be surprised if Obama holds any of the views he expressed during his campaign. A campaign is a marketing effort intended to install a team of people in power. Usually we at least get to learn about candidates' fundamental views before electing them. A pro-life candidate, for example, isn't suddenly going to change that view after taking office. Even the much-maligned George Bush generally acted in keeping with th…

>Even the much-maligned George Bush generally acted in keeping with the fundamental beliefs that he told the country he held prior to his election. Bush promised a humble foreign policy with no nation building. He had criticized the Clinton-Gore Administration for being too interventionist: "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious prob…

What's really funny about GWB is he did a negligible amount for the pro-life crowd. He dangled that fish in front of the rabid pro-lifers but did nothing for them except lip service. I don't want to get into an abortion debate. I'm just saying that the pro-lifers hardly get anything from any politician and it's just funny how they vote based on whatever the lip service is. The politicians have an incentive to never settle anything because those single issue voters would just move on to other issues and weaken their power base.