A lot of people in this country really hates Obama. And it seems, when you take out all the other ugliness, they base that hate on the idea that he is not genuine.
> President Obama was the first to come up with a deliberate and explicit practice of 10 letters every day.
But reading things like this, and a myriad of other things about Obama, I think that if you could scientifically quantify genuineness, Obama would rank at the very top. So I find it really offensive when people attack the man on his integrity.
You can attack his policy, but if you attack the man, I can not, and will not, agree with you.
Seems like Obama was put on a spot more than other presidents. He could say the right things, act the right way[1]; yet if at any point something negative came (drones, nsa) he would be bashed generously. People expect A+ from him and scream at an A-. The sad part is that Trump is said to have been elected because he was felt like a true person; I understand their sentiment, his mouth seems unfiltered, so he's a true nasty person but people still prefer that to someone that looks like 90% good samaritan.
[1] you can find lots of videos where he would adress antagonistic crowds peacefully and wisely. Lots of times where he showed caring (his behavior toward his wife) and a sane personality (cracking turkey jokes with his daugthers).
> Seems like Obama was put on a spot more than other presidents.
Another element there is the benchmark against which he set himself up for -- Hope and Change. I remember having a lot of hope and now after 8 years, it feels kid of "meh". There were some good things, but also a lot of blunders. I guess I shouldn't expect much from that political office.
Not sure about Trump. Having lived in the Rust Belt I can see how people there understand and follow him. And I heard he just withdrew from TPP, not bad so far.
I agree that many people, particularly on the right, hold Obama to an unrealistic standard while willingly overlooking much more serious flaws among candidates they support. However, I'm not sure I agree that you can't attack the man, can you really separate the policy from the man at this level?
I for one find nothing offensive about attacking his integrity due to his massive expansion of state surveillance. To me that seems like a case of poor policy and poor integrity.
On a personal level, I find him much more genuine and likable than Trump, I'm sure Obama would be great to grab a beer or coffee with. On the other hand, I much rather the President be terrible to grab coffee with but in return not think it acceptable to order drone strikes on American citizens.
Just think about what it takes to be sitting on top of the massive hierarchy that is the govt.
If there is an issue X you need to know who to talk to, who to trust, who has power and influence to make things happen, what you can offer them in return etc etc. How the fuck was Obama ever qualified to know all that?
So if you have an issue with Education or Pakistan or Wall Street lots of delegation happens to random people who have their own agendas.
So what happened in his first couple years, was he was just used by much more savvy operators. And once he realized it, he spent the remaining years trusting no one.
You can't take someone with a few years of real world experience put them in charge of a massive org and expect them to know what they are doing.
But unfortunately as Daniel Kahnemen says there is huge demand for overconfidence. So we end up with leaders like Obama and Trump.
He was definitely in over his head. The constant vacations and 333 golf outings are telling imho. Major props to him for keeping us out of a large scale war though.
"someone with a few years of real world experience put them in charge of a massive org" is objectively not Trump. However you want to cut it, he has an adult life of real-world experience doing exactly that.
I wish the vacations bit would die a quick death. He was present more often than Bush. I haven't seen much that says he was in over his head, would appreciate some accounts of that.
I'd also argue the connection between running a large org and being skilled in any specific area - you don't expect Satya to understand the specifics on how the azure VM is set up, that's why you have a VP.
True about Trump having the experience with a large org and what it takes to run it, but its going to take him a while to learn the DC org chart being an outsider and thats going to be his biggest weakness in getting anything done.
EDIT: to be clear I don't think Trump is qualified
I wouldn't have considered myself an emotional person, but some of those letters touched me deeply. The anonymous letter from the partner of a soldier brought me to tears. I have often disagreed with Obama's policies and criticised him for his actions on drone strikes and mass surveillance. However I am now certain I could not do a better job than he did if I can't even read all the mail he got without crying.
Edit - the rationale behind some of his decisions is clearer. For example, he commuted more sentences than any other President. You would do that if you're reading mail from inmates and their relatives and friends on a regular basis. If you take the opposite approach and avoid such letters its much easier to insulate yourself from "criminals", telling yourself that they probably deserve to be where they are.
Similarly with engaging in the drone war and avoiding engagement in Syria. I hate the fact that so many innocent Yemenis and Pakistanis died in the drone war, but it makes sense that he would be much more cautious about deploying boots on the ground if he was regualarly reading the mail sent by servicemen and their families.
Do you really believe he had the time to read 10 letters every day? Even at 5 minutes per letter that'd take 50 minutes. I just don't see how that's possible.
I'm not sure why you're putting 5 minutes per letter in there. I'm sure he's a well-read guy. It's not crazy to think he could get through a one page letter in a minute or less.
I hear you, and my thoughts echo yours. But I did want to keep the conversation on point and civil.
If the currently elected president is indeed serious about his election platform of 'for the people', then he should be probably using the letters 'from the people' as his reference base to keep an eye on the pulse 'of the people'...
My biggest disappointment in Obama is that he spent 8 years trying politely to move things ahead where he could, while the opposing party decided on day one to completely reject any idea of compromise with him and say no to everything, even as the country headed towards depression.
I'm amazed anyone who has watched the last two decades of politics unfold can honestly see the modern incarnation of the republican party as anything other than a Saturday morning cartoon villain. Every time there is a decision to be made, it seems the Republican thought process is "How can I personally benefit most from this?" and "What is the most evil thing I can do in this scenario?".
Yes, that is hyperbolic a bit, but it's not far off.
Just look at the last two days and the first press conference, the KellyAnne Conway "alternate facts" quip as well as her insinuating that unless the press gets in line, they might be cut out.
Look at the currently assembled cabinet. Look at Kansas and see how any of these policies will play out. The freakin' wall.
Anyway. I don't get it. I understand some people just vote religion or whatever some TV channel tells them too. I just don't understand how people can fall for it. I really don't understand how someone on this site could possibly not see through all that smoke.
I think wishful thinking like that is what got us into this mess. It doesn't really matter what candidates say during campaigning because they all promise the same things: more jobs, less taxes, and even more vague pronouncements about making things better.
No one asked Trump how exactly he was going to give things back to the people and what exactly he was giving back? So everyone projected their own variation of what they wanted back. If instead we had been more diligent and critical who knows how things might have turned out.
No time for crying though. The women's march was truly something amazing to see. We should keep the momentum going.
> I think one reason he got elected is that people projected attributes onto him that just don't exist in the man.
People projected onto Obama even harder. Remember the hope and change? I do. What has Obama done for the Black community who voted pretty much as a block for him? Have the inner cities improved significantly in 8 years?
> made a few policy missteps here and there
Syria, Arab Spring mess, meddling in and then having Ukraine loose Crimea. A constant drone war (after preemptively receiving a Nobel Peace prize), increased surveillance, persecution of whistleblowers. That's more than a few missteps.
That refugee crisis in Europe wasn't an act of God, and wasn't created in the vacuum, Western intervention in the ME is a big factor there.
Let's criticize Trump like we should, but that's doesn't get Obama off the hook so to speak.
Aren't the Trump haters also projecting? And the Obama lovers as well. Obama is a smooth talker versus the crude talk of Trump. Obama's actions were dispicable. It remains to be seen if Trump's can reach that level.
Dictionary definition of 'despicable': "deserving hatred and contempt."
Really? I can think of many other leaders and people whose actions I would find despicable, but I don't see how that can apply to the 44th President as an all encompassing label? If you have actually read the article, and still think that, then I really don't know how we can even begin to discuss this in any sort of meaningful manner.
Being responsible for killing many kids over a long period of time is near the top of my list of despicable. If it's not near the top of yours then I agree we don't have any basis for a discussion.
Edit: Obama isn't the only one who thinks it's ok to kill kids in pursuit of their goals. Remeber when Madeleine Albright said it was worth the price of the death of 500,000 children to get Saddam? [1]. Obama is right up there with her.
I consider the continued expansion of mass surveillance to fit my definition of despicable. Drone strikes, particularly those directed at US citizens without trial, are also troubling for me. Obviously, Obama is neither the first nor last President who I would label as such.
His actions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and Syria are despicable to me. As well as increases in the surveillance state, making the Bush "tax cuts for the rich" permanent, overthrowing a democratically elected government in Honduras, torture of whistleblowers (as opposed to going after those who extra judicially killed journalists in Iraq), and keeping Gitmo open.
Sad that HN allows obviously hostile comments like these to remain...
Anyways, Trump listened to America. He listened quite a bit.
He not only visited and spoke to hundreds of thousands of people all over the country, but he held multiple (7 was his max) rallies everyday near the end of his campaign.
He also frequently sent long, detailed surveys (with both multiple choice and text box questions) to gauge public opinion.
On the contrary, Hillary was the candidate who failed to interact: from the lack of press conferences to lack of media interviews to lack of rallies to lack of presence in many states, Hillary's loss is arguably a direct reflection of her failed engagement with American people.
I will never understand any defence of Trump in 2017, At this point, it's not about Hillary, it's all about Trump. It should be about who he is, what he is doing, what he is saying and what he plans to do.
And we have enough data to unequivocally reject the man as well as his rhetoric. Look at his cabinet. Look at his twitter feed. Look at this constant stream of lies. See how unprepared he is. Skate to where the puck is going and see how this ends.
In the time from when he won (by being the biggest losing winner) to when his actions taking office, there is literally no defence of this man.
He might have listened, and he heard exactly what he needed to say to his "marks" (this would be his term from the Art of the Deal) to win and then he got on with his real agenda: making himself and his friends obscenely wealthy at the expense of the rest of America and the world.
Wouldn't he have quickly shuffled the US into signing the TPP, then, rather than boldly rejecting it (which was confirmed by WikiLeaks/Asian press today)?
I also never said I agree with pulling out of the TPP. I didn't like the TPP for tech, security, and intellectual property reasons. Though there is no denying that the TPP would economically benefit the US.
I also liked aspects of it quite a bit.
So, the real question is what was Trump's motivation for getting out of the TPP? If it was for economic reasons, then he's missed the mark.
If that's how you decide if someones actions are good or bad then you will always be able to come up with a way to justify liking the action while disliking the actor for it.
Of course one can like an outcome and still think the person enacting it was wrong (not dislike the person, that was your phrasing). There's even a pithy little statement about that: the ends don't justify the means. One can literally love an outcome and hate how it was brought about.
And in the case of leadership at the highest level, I for damn sure want to know the motivation behind some (or all) decisions. The decision, lacking context (or Why), is almost worthless to understand what is happening. In isolation any decision could be fine, or it could be the signal for a future unmitigated disaster.
We hammer this point home in the business world all the time. Context matters.
Great leaders understand this and deal first with 'why' then with 'what'. Bad leaders always deal with 'what' before 'why', or maybe never giving a 'why'.
And it's not about the liking or disliking a person. Ever. It's about the context that surrounds a person and asking yourself if you can trust them.
We cannot trust Trump. He has given us enough data points to know this. I want to know the 'why' on the TPP as a datapoint. It could either give me more trust in Trump, or less.
But, at a human level, if you are asking me if I dislike Trump? I don't care. I don't trust him. And I don't trust him because he has given me enough to go. And that is what matters.
People have bias. Are you are exempt? Is it _always_ scientific to decide what's in someone's head and then use that assumption to justify not liking them for a action you would appreciate if someone else did it?
You said in 3 different ways you do not trust Trump, are there specific actions you can imagine that he would need do to do to gain more trust from you? Can't you just cop-out by still arguing it's his intent (as decided by you) that matters?
Of course to everything. Doesn't mean any of what I said isn't true or spot on the mark. Everything I said still holds and because people have bias, it's even more important we talk facts and why's. It's never black and white, but understanding context and why sure helps us navigate the gray.
And, to answer directly, yes, I can imagine things that would make me trust Trump. I can also imagine things that he would do that would further erode trust. Yes to both those with Obama (as it played out over the 8 years he was in office).
I honestly don't know what we are arguing anymore. This thread started with the TPP I guess? I don't know.
Wouldn't bother if the other side was not so hypocritical. It is interesting that it's just fine to make fun of someone's skin color if you identify with the faux outrage side. Name-calling is such a hallmark of Trumps opposition, it's hard to not point it out.
Beyond the point that one might hold a pseudonymous internet forum and the leader of the free world to slightly different standards, you're erasing an awful lot of context around what comments about skin colour mean in each case.
One of my favourite reads on politics in a long while. "These were people writing, and you’re a person reading, and the president is a person."
But of course the president isn't just a person. The tone in his voice moves the stock market, and the stroke of his pen can kill or save millions. And a person is a person, but the people? They're a mass of voices so loud and chaotic that you would go instantly mad if you could ever truly hear them all.
So the aloofness, the distance, the abstraction of governance is a symptom, not a cause, of inhumanity. It's telling that to break through it in the smallest way, just 10 letters to simulate a sense of personal connection between the president and the people, takes "50 staff members, 36 interns and a rotating roster of 300 volunteers".
Any time we talk about having a beer with the president, it's important to remember that this isn't your buddy, this is the avatar of the world's most powerful and dangerous political machinery. It's like a surgeon taking the time to joke around with you before he describes how he's going to bisect your ribcage. It's a nice gesture, but we still get our surgeons from medical school, not clown college.
It seems to me (as an outsider) that people in the U.S.A. now more than ever judge the President for what he symbolises. Perhaps this explains the power of constitutional monarchy (not advocating one system over the other; just an observation).
As someone who lives in a constitutional monarchy (Australia). The Royal family is largely seen as a bit of an odd quirk the Queen's head is stamped on the back of our coins but other than that it means very little to most people. I honestly don't know the name of our current Governor General.
One thing that stands out to me is American's seem to have more respect towards elected officials then we do here. For example the sample letters in the article all address Obama as "Sir" or "Mr President". I cannot imagine people addressing our Prime Minister that Formally/politely.
I think it is a cultural issue most people here tend to be very cynical about government and distrustful of politicians.
I seriously hate political articles on HN. There are enough places in the net where you can finger-argue with strangers. Can't we just let HN be a place where we come to learn an talk about tech an tech business?
> President Obama was the first to come up with a deliberate and explicit practice of 10 letters every day.
But reading things like this, and a myriad of other things about Obama, I think that if you could scientifically quantify genuineness, Obama would rank at the very top. So I find it really offensive when people attack the man on his integrity.
You can attack his policy, but if you attack the man, I can not, and will not, agree with you.