The idolized Obama

[Loppan Torkel]

I just have to say that my respect for CFC has increased by looking at the result of this poll. It seems that some basic degree of critical thinking is still going on here.

The next years will be interesting.

Skepticism is good to a degree, but one shouldn't confuse skepticism, or cynicism for the matter, with critical thinking.

I'm not an overly positive when it comes to politics, but I think too much cynicism is negative for a democratic society. People getting uninterested and voting going down are obvious effects.

From what I've seen and heard from Obama, he seems capable. I'm not sure if it's just as it seems because he's a great speaker, or if he really is, but I think there's a good chance he's much better than the alternative.

If I could vote, I'd vote for him. Why shouldn't I put some faith in him then? It's not impossible that he's a better president than most before him and if he is and he gets enough support, he'll probably succeed in more decisions/actions.

 

[luiz]

Skepticism is good to a degree, but one shouldn't confuse skepticism, or cynicism for the matter, with critical thinking.

People who think critically are always more skeptical and even cynical than those who don't.

I'm not an overly positive when it comes to politics, but I think too much cynicism is negative for a democratic society. People getting uninterested and voting going down are obvious effects.

Cynicism and apathy are not necessarily connected, though I see your point. But I disagree with it. I think political choices should be very cold, rational and thought through. I know it is impossible for it to be that way, but that's how I'd like it to be. Excessive enthusiasm over politics is dangerous; over politicians it is nothing short of cathastrophic. A South American should know.

From what I've seen and heard from Obama, he seems capable. I'm not sure if it's just as it seems because he's a great speaker, or if he really is, but I think there's a good chance he's much better than the alternative.

Given that he has never done anything really noteworthy and has precisely zero executive experience (and a very mediocre senator career, to put it lightly), I don't see a single reason to be excited. Well, Bush is going away, which is good news, but that's about it.

If I could vote, I'd vote for him. Why shouldn't I put some faith in him then? It's not impossible that he's a better president than most before him and if he is and he gets enough support, he'll probably succeed in more decisions/actions.

If you agree with him more than with the other guy you should vote for him, it's that simple. I just don't see any evidence that he would actually be anything surprising. How exactly can you expect him to be any better than Bill Clinton? Vote for him if you generally agree with him, sure, but put too much faith on him and you'll like a fool in a couple of years. Guaranteed.

 

[DaveShack]

The truth of it is, US Presidents don't actually do much of anything.

Congress passes the laws, Presidents merely sign or veto.
The people run the economy, by buying things and selling things, and setting the prices of things by what they'll be willing to pay when buying and accept when selling. The President has next to zero input on the economy. Corporation executives have a lot more impact, and so do shareholders.
Foreign policy is strictly a big picture thing. Presidents are either willing to intervene, or not. They draw a line, or don't. The policy itself is carried out by career diplomats.
Ditto the military -- all the President does is decide to use force or not, and how much.

Presidents are good at taking credit for the work of others, and getting blamed for the mistakes of others. And once in a while being inspirational.

Reagan was inspirational. He made the people believe it was good to be an American, good to own a business, good to volunteer to serve, good to defeat communism. We'll see if Obama can inspire anything other than legalized robbery in the form of increased taxation and government control of everyday life. I doubt it.

 

[Cutlass]

The truth of it is, US Presidents don't actually do much of anything.

Congress passes the laws, Presidents merely sign or veto.
The people run the economy, by buying things and selling things, and setting the prices of things by what they'll be willing to pay when buying and accept when selling. The President has next to zero input on the economy. Corporation executives have a lot more impact, and so do shareholders.
Foreign policy is strictly a big picture thing. Presidents are either willing to intervene, or not. They draw a line, or don't. The policy itself is carried out by career diplomats.
Ditto the military -- all the President does is decide to use force or not, and how much.

Presidents are good at taking credit for the work of others, and getting blamed for the mistakes of others. And once in a while being inspirational.

Reagan was inspirational. He made the people believe it was good to be an American, good to own a business, good to volunteer to serve, good to defeat communism. We'll see if Obama can inspire anything other than legalized robbery in the form of increased taxation and government control of everyday life. I doubt it.

That's not really true. In recent decades the president has become much more powerful. And Congress less so. The president does not get all of what they want, but they now lead the legislative process, rather than following it as they used to.

The balance of power has shifted, and it won't easily shift back.

 

[RulerOfDaPeople]

The truth of it is, US Presidents don't actually do much of anything.

Congress passes the laws, Presidents merely sign or veto.
The people run the economy, by buying things and selling things, and setting the prices of things by what they'll be willing to pay when buying and accept when selling. The President has next to zero input on the economy. Corporation executives have a lot more impact, and so do shareholders.
Foreign policy is strictly a big picture thing. Presidents are either willing to intervene, or not. They draw a line, or don't. The policy itself is carried out by career diplomats.
Ditto the military -- all the President does is decide to use force or not, and how much.

Presidents are good at taking credit for the work of others, and getting blamed for the mistakes of others. And once in a while being inspirational.

Quoted for Truth. I asked my 74 year old grandfather way back in March or so what he thought about the presidential election. He basically said the exact same thing you just did.

All the President really is is a Commander in Cheif with command over the military and who gets to be boss over specific sectors of the executive and judicial government. (Cabinet secratary appointees & Justices). Congress is the ones who legislate the policy agenda. All the President can do is say yes or no to what they come up with. He doesn't legislate it.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

The truth of it is, US Presidents don't actually do much of anything.

Congress passes the laws, Presidents merely sign or veto.
The people run the economy, by buying things and selling things, and setting the prices of things by what they'll be willing to pay when buying and accept when selling. The President has next to zero input on the economy. Corporation executives have a lot more impact, and so do shareholders.
Foreign policy is strictly a big picture thing. Presidents are either willing to intervene, or not. They draw a line, or don't. The policy itself is carried out by career diplomats.
Ditto the military -- all the President does is decide to use force or not, and how much.

Presidents are good at taking credit for the work of others, and getting blamed for the mistakes of others. And once in a while being inspirational.

Reagan was inspirational. He made the people believe it was good to be an American, good to own a business, good to volunteer to serve, good to defeat communism. We'll see if Obama can inspire anything other than legalized robbery in the form of increased taxation and government control of everyday life. I doubt it.

Quoted for Truth. I asked my 74 year old grandfather way back in March or so what he thought about the presidential election. He basically said the exact same thing you just did.

All the President really is is a Commander in Cheif with command over the military and who gets to be boss over specific sectors of the executive and judicial government. (Cabinet secratary appointees & Justices). Congress is the ones who legislate the policy agenda. All the President can do is say yes or no to what they come up with. He doesn't legislate it.

All this and being the face of the US. It's not that little power he'll hold.

People who think critically are always more skeptical and even cynical than those who don't.

In general, it's true, but you can't conclude that being skeptic, or cynical, about a subject comes from a critical thinking-process that make that belief more valid. It's pretty cheap to suggest that a certain choice shows a higher degree of critical thinking just because it's the skeptical one. I'm aware that Obama becoming an exceptional president is riskier to say than saying he'll be like the rest more or less, but I think he seems more capable than most, so I hope he'll be a very good president.

Cynicism and apathy are not necessarily connected, though I see your point. But I disagree with it. I think political choices should be very cold, rational and thought through. I know it is impossible for it to be that way, but that's how I'd like it to be. Excessive enthusiasm over politics is dangerous; over politicians it is nothing short of cathastrophic. A South American should know.

After being critical and after having analyzed the candidates, why couldn't there be some enthusiasm over a candidate?

Given that he has never done anything really noteworthy and has precisely zero executive experience (and a very mediocre senator career, to put it lightly), I don't see a single reason to be excited. Well, Bush is going away, which is good news, but that's about it.

I'm not sure anyone has enough experience to become president, but Obama has a good education, seems to have reasonable beliefs, have had great success in organizing the campaign, is a great speaker that inspires people, brings hope to many, seems smart and all around very capable. It will be interesting how he'll do as president, no one knows yet.

If you agree with him more than with the other guy you should vote for him, it's that simple. I just don't see any evidence that he would actually be anything surprising. How exactly can you expect him to be any better than Bill Clinton? Vote for him if you generally agree with him, sure, but put too much faith on him and you'll like a fool in a couple of years. Guaranteed.

I wasn't into American politics enough under the Clinton years to be able to compare them. I'm not sure I'm expecting that much more of him either. I expect him to do the best of the situation, a situation that's pretty bad, make the right decisions and be an inspiration to people, which is needed at the moment. I don't think that is too much faith to put in a president that seems smart. I don't expect him to turn around the financial crisis on his own or anything...
If I'm way off with Obama, my mistake will be voting at the wrong choice in this poll and possibly looking like a fool to you. I can live with that, it's not like I voted for Bush or anything...

 

[RedRalph]

I just have to say that my respect for CFC has increased by looking at the result of this poll. It seems that some basic degree of critical thinking is still going on here.

The next years will be interesting.

do you respect me more now?

 

[I'm Cleo!]

The President can do a lot. Congress is seriously constrained in what it can do by the fact that the President can send someone down the street to tell them, "I'm going to veto a bill with X, Y, and Z," or "I'm not going to veto the bill if it includes X, Y, and Z." Moreover, the decisions made in terms of executing the laws really do make a difference. There are limited government resources, and decisions have to be made regarding the focus of the SEC, for a timely example. Appointing judges is tremendously powerful, as many litigants have learned before the Roberts Court. And, of course, the President conducts the nation's foreign policy, and controls intelligence and defense efforts.

I don't understand how someone can look at the eight years of the Bush administration and say, "Well, it doesn't really matter who the President is." It boggles the mind. Whether you think he made the right or wrong decisions, he made a ton of them and they profoundly affected the nation.

Cleo

 

[luiz]

do you respect me more now?

I respect die hard communists more than cheerleaders of whatever is hype. Though I think you're wronger, sorry.

 

[Masquerouge]

Reagan was inspirational. He made the people believe it was good to be an American, good to own a business, good to volunteer to serve, good to defeat communism. We'll see if Obama can inspire anything other than legalized robbery in the form of increased taxation and government control of everyday life. I doubt it.

I'm pretty sure the high turnout in this election is already proof that he is inspirational.

 

[luiz]

In general, it's true, but you can't conclude that being skeptic, or cynical, about a subject comes from a critical thinking-process that make that belief more valid. It's pretty cheap to suggest that a certain choice shows a higher degree of critical thinking just because it's the skeptical one. I'm aware that Obama becoming an exceptional president is riskier to say than saying he'll be like the rest more or less, but I think he seems more capable than most, so I hope he'll be a very good president.

One thing is to hope, another is to actually believe it to be the most likely scenario. I too hope he will be a great president, preferably the best in history. But I don't believe in that for a fraction of a second. There's no evidence to support that, believing in that is not to be expected of critical thinkers.

After being critical and after having analyzed the candidates, why couldn't there be some enthusiasm over a candidate?

I can understand some enthusiam over some policies, not over a person. That's sheep-like and dangerous.

I'm not sure anyone has enough experience to become president, but Obama has a good education, seems to have reasonable beliefs, have had great success in organizing the campaign, is a great speaker that inspires people, brings hope to many, seems smart and all around very capable. It will be interesting how he'll do as president, no one knows yet.

Alot of people have a good education. I do too. Reasonable beliefs are your opnions, many would disagree, and that's pretty much a requirement for anyone you are about to vote for. He run an excellent campaign, he has that credit for sure.
But you still have not worked around the fact that his career in Senate was mediocre at best, that he never produced anything really noteworthy. I can't help but be skeptical about such a man. If he is going to be such a great president, why wasn't he a great senator? Or even a good one? Talk is cheap, what has this man actually done to earn your enthusiams?

I wasn't into American politics enough under the Clinton years to be able to compare them. I'm not sure I'm expecting that much more of him either. I expect him to do the best of the situation, a situation that's pretty bad, make the right decisions and be an inspiration to people, which is needed at the moment. I don't think that is too much faith to put in a president that seems smart. I don't expect him to turn around the financial crisis on his own or anything...
If I'm way off with Obama, my mistake will be voting at the wrong choice in this poll and possibly looking like a fool to you. I can live with that, it's not like I voted for Bush or anything...

Putin is much smarter than Obama, and I never put much faith in him. There are dozens of smarter heads of state out there. My point is that Obama has absolutely no credentials to do a better job than Clinton did. And Clinton was president just 8 years ago. So it's not like this guy is going to be a great revolutionary. Expecting too much is irrational and unfounded. Anyone can make good speeches, actions are the only that matter.

 

[Agent327]

It seems the whining has already started before a day in office...

Anyone can make good speeches, actions are the only that matter.

Not anyone can make good speeches, nor can ayone deliver good speeches. In politics speeches are certainly as important as actions, in many cases they are even identical.

As concerns your judgement on Sen Obama's qualifications: Sen McCain's campaign has already done that, so nothing new there.

I'll leave it at that.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

One thing is to hope, another is to actually believe it to be the most likely scenario. I too hope he will be a great president, preferably the best in history. But I don't believe in that for a fraction of a second. There's no evidence to support that, believing in that is not to be expected of critical thinkers.

Since I hope he'll be a great president (not the messiah) and after evaluated him in a critical way, although not to any extreme depths I admit, I can either put some faith in him beforehand or after there's evidence about his capabilities. If he's a good president I think he'll accomplish less if he's unsupported because of general skepticism. Likewise if more people were skeptical against Bush's plans he might have done less damage. I try to choose when to be skeptical and I think it's worth a slight risk to show Obama support beforehand, even though it really doesn't matter with me being a Swede...

I can understand some enthusiam over some policies, not over a person. That's sheep-like and dangerous.

Sorry, but showing enthusiasm, support and faith in a person is not sheep-like behavior. What is dangerous is incapability to know what and whom to trust and what degree of trust to put in a person.

Alot of people have a good education. I do too. Reasonable beliefs are your opnions, many would disagree, and that's pretty much a requirement for anyone you are about to vote for. He run an excellent campaign, he has that credit for sure.
But you still have not worked around the fact that his career in Senate was mediocre at best, that he never produced anything really noteworthy. I can't help but be skeptical about such a man. If he is going to be such a great president, why wasn't he a great senator? Or even a good one? Talk is cheap, what has this man actually done to earn your enthusiams?

A lot of politicians don't have good education. The "reasonable beliefs" is subjective, but still a valid reason feel confident about a person.
I don't know why he wasn't a better senator and that might be a flaw in his credentials. I know too little about Obama's time as a senator to argue. Oth, you haven't brought up any mistakes he's done as a senator either.

Putin is much smarter than Obama, and I never put much faith in him. There are dozens of smarter heads of state out there. My point is that Obama has absolutely no credentials to do a better job than Clinton did. And Clinton was president just 8 years ago. So it's not like this guy is going to be a great revolutionary. Expecting too much is irrational and unfounded. Anyone can make good speeches, actions are the only that matter.

Putin might be smarter, but it's not enough for me to put any trust in him, I've never argued such thing.
We'll see how Obama does, if he's better than Clinton and continues to inspire people with great speeches I'm happy and the trust I put in him was well put.

Cynicism and skepticism take away all potential placebo effects. If you don't trust him because of something, then being skeptical is understandable, but not just for the sake of playing safe until things are proved or disproved, not when this skepticism is more harmful than helpful. Of course it's up to each one to decide when's when.

 

[alcal]

Want a laught?

http://it.youtube.com/watch?v=ThEAO0lt4Dw