General Discussion

blm

(113,183 posts)

37. Fear is probably a factor, but, more likely someone going INTO the position EXPECTS

Mon Aug 19, 2013, 12:56 PM

Aug 2013

Last edited Mon Aug 19, 2013, 03:20 PM - Edit history (1)

that they will accrue far greater power than they actually do.

Like going into a marriage where you believe you can change the person to better fit your vision of an ideal family.

I don't think Obama expected to stay as weak as he has. People constantly taking shots at him certainly are no help for any cause.

BTW - I never said he was a powerless figurehead - I said that he never accrued enough power to overcome the intel/security machine that has been built over the last 5 decades.

What president has?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

60 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

At what point in the last 4 years did Obama accumulate the power base needed [View all] blm Aug 2013 OP

So you're saying "game over"? MannyGoldstein Aug 2013 #1

Yeah Harmony Blue Aug 2013 #8

No. I'm saying that keeping a presidency weak is a goal that strengthens the fascists. blm Aug 2013 #10

1933-1945. Jackpine Radical Aug 2013 #14

That makes my point. Kennedy couldn't even gain control of it. blm Aug 2013 #19

I see no evidence whatsoever that Obama has tried to reduce the security state n2doc Aug 2013 #2

Unfortunately accurate. +1 Egalitarian Thug Aug 2013 #3

An alternate narrative: Cheney's NSA got the drop on Obama and other key players in HardTimes99 Aug 2013 #4

Possible, but unsubstantiated n2doc Aug 2013 #6

Consistent with his policy contortions, his right-wing appointments and his HardTimes99 Aug 2013 #7

+1, An important distinction Puzzledtraveller Aug 2013 #5

Also, I wonder, how much of this is fueled by 'not on my watch' and hence the RKP5637 Aug 2013 #9

IMO, you're wrong to assume the Oval Office = instant control over intel/security that blm Aug 2013 #11

Big difference between 'control' and 'support' n/t n2doc Aug 2013 #18

Big difference between IN the office and ON a discussion forum. blm Aug 2013 #21

Well I guess you must know n/t n2doc Aug 2013 #23

You and I rarely disagree, but, I think I probably see BushInc as far more blm Aug 2013 #29

Obama appoints the heads of NSA, CIA, etc. HooptieWagon Aug 2013 #33

The Executive branch directly controls all of these agencies. dawg Aug 2013 #12

Ideally, yes. In practice - no. blm Aug 2013 #13

Then all you are saying is that we have had 5 decades of weak Presidents 1-Old-Man Aug 2013 #15

I will guarantee you that the Cheney regency, at the very least, was ... dawg Aug 2013 #17

I'm saying that BushInc has been firmly in control of intel/security infrastructure since 70s. blm Aug 2013 #24

The President obviously supports what the NSA is doing. dawg Aug 2013 #16

I think he does what he can when he can, knowing he has yet to accumulate the real blm Aug 2013 #25

When the things a person says matches the things they do ... dawg Aug 2013 #26

Sorry, but, I still see Snowden as a useful dupe for Bush legacy rehab tour blm Aug 2013 #28

winger reply: "...Obama is a dictator from Chicago and Kenya... Benghazi" uponit7771 Aug 2013 #20

The laws authorize, they don't require. Savannahmann Aug 2013 #22

Ah...IDEALISM. Cute. When all those private firms were contracted to handle US intel and blm Aug 2013 #27

Idealism? Try reality. Savannahmann Aug 2013 #31

I meant that it is SUPPOSED to work that way, but, it it doesn't and hasn't for many decades. blm Aug 2013 #32

I'm sorry, I'm not moving to Delusional Street to be a neighbor. Savannahmann Aug 2013 #35

Well, you are welcome to forget how JEdgarHoover controlled a number of presidencies and blm Aug 2013 #38

So now you are claiming that it is blackmail? Savannahmann Aug 2013 #39

You keep trying to put words into my mouth - you FAIL. blm Aug 2013 #41

Really? Let's review shall we? Savannahmann Aug 2013 #42

You failed to connect key points. I have said that no president would have blm Aug 2013 #43

Again, your argument is fatally flawed. Savannahmann Aug 2013 #45

In your strawman argument world, I suppose. Where YOU misinterpret then blm Aug 2013 #46

Ah Savannahmann Aug 2013 #48

it seems some folks Dustin DeWinde Aug 2013 #53

Again, it's the we're afraid of being labeled as soft on terror Savannahmann Aug 2013 #54

if you voted for obama Dustin DeWinde Aug 2013 #55

but he kept so many Bush holdovers bigtree Aug 2013 #30

Practically speaking, what president WOULD do that before BinLaden was eliminated? blm Aug 2013 #34

So now you're back to supporting my argument that it is fear that motivates? Savannahmann Aug 2013 #36

Fear is probably a factor, but, more likely someone going INTO the position EXPECTS blm Aug 2013 #37

Would be more relevant if it appeared he was trying. DirkGently Aug 2013 #40

If this is an NSA thread, isn't NSA part of the Executive Branch? Bake Aug 2013 #44

So did Carter. So did Clinton. They couldn't, could they? blm Aug 2013 #47

Couldn't? Or just DIDN'T. Same as Pres. Obama. Bake Aug 2013 #57

Wonder what stopped them? blm Aug 2013 #58

Lack of political will. Bake Aug 2013 #59

It is...but, the political appointee gets the information from the same blm Aug 2013 #60

I believe if Obama had made a concerted effort to change certain things already in place Samantha Aug 2013 #49

BFEE and the MIC are alive and well, and they are not alone ... ConcernedCanuk Aug 2013 #50

ROFL- He always as powerless as a mouse until something positive happens Marrah_G Aug 2013 #51

Never to me. I've seen his as a weak presidency for the last 4 years. blm Aug 2013 #56

I heard these same arguments about Hoover and the FBI. rug Aug 2013 #52