Trust But Villify

[omega minimo]

This president quotes and credits Reagan and his "trajectory" which, in fact, destroyed the nation. Apologists ignore the facts.

Obama explains his Ronald Reagan comments
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJV5xUkWY-U
"I want some Obama Republicans.... Obamacans."

"I'm not running for president just to become president, I'm running to help the American people."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFLuOBsNMZA

"I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what's different are the times. I do think that for example the 1980 election was different.

"I mean I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America, in a way that ya know Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not.

"He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like you know with all the excesses of the the 60's and the 70's and ya know government had grown and grown and but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it's operating...

"And I think people just tapped in... he tapped into what people were already feeling, which was, we want clarity, we want optimism, we want ya know a return to that sense of dynamism and ya know entrepreneurship that had been missing."

http://whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/06/06/obama-praises-reagan-seems-more-realistic-on-foreign-policy/
(Colleville-su-Mer, France) President Barack Obama had praise for one of his republican predecessors and used a quote of his in discussing how to deal with Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions, Saturday in Caen, France.

"One of my famous predecessors, Ronald Reagan, I think said it pretty well when he said, "Trust, but verify,'" said Mr. Obama at a press availability with his French counterpart Nicolas Sarkozy."

[AZBlue]

1. Aren't you on the wrong website?

[omega minimo]

3. Are you able to be honest regarding facts and history? Like the T shirt says

"Freedom isn't free. You have to pay ATTENTION"

[AZBlue]

7. How ironic a question coming from you.

[omega minimo]

11. So you didn't read/watch any of it.

[AZBlue]

17. Check the definition of ironic and then we'll talk.

[omega minimo]

25. I do know

that ironic is not the same as snide and that you have inflicted your sneers on an OP that's vids and text only.

[Cha]

22. The petty hate from the

OP is ugly and has nothing to do with reality..poor thing.

[omega minimo]

26. Look

in a mirror

[MadBadger]

2. HE QUOTED HIM...THAT'S IT!!! GET OVER YOURSELF

And yes, I need caps because I'm yelling at you.

[omega minimo]

4. You can yell at me but you can't dispute the facts in the OP you didn't read/watch

:hi: :shrug:

Why is that?

[MadBadger]

5. I read your OP and its stooooopid

[omega minimo]

6. So you think our president is stupid.

It's nothing but facts, vids and quotes.

If you have anything coherent, please do post. :thumbsup:

[BzaDem]

8. Good for Obama on every single quote.

The fact that Reagan's change was in the opposite direction doesn't contradict any quote you have here, nor did Obama imply it did. What we have here is a president that understands history, and isn't afraid of "OMG he said Reagan ahhhhhh" people like you.

[omega minimo]

12. Well thank you. That was almost coherent. Can you show how ""Reagan's change was in the opposite"

"direction"?

[BzaDem]

15. You actually think that Reagan and Obama are taking the country in the same direction?

I guess that would be true if Obama cut taxes for the highest income earners while raising defense spending (instead of what he actually did, which was raise taxes for the highest income earners while lowering defense spending).

Or maybe it would be true if Obama said that keeping Medicare would cause us to one day wonder "what it once was like in America when men were free" (instead what he actually is doing, which is trying to institute a public option, available to all Americans, that would offer benefits similar to Medicare).

You act surprised that you are not getting coherent responses from people, as if all posts are equally entited to a response regardless of how inane the post is.

[PretzelWarrior]

9. I see you're on a mission. GET OVER YOURSELF

I think you're wasting everyone's time with this.

the fact remains that Reagan had a positive personality and aura to dramatically change the landscape. Whether you think those changes were for the good or not is beside the point.

Obama needs to channel such optimism and can do work ethic and trust of the American people. He's consolidating the coalition with a bunch of Obama Republicans to book end the Reagan Democrats.

I'm sorry you don't understand politics enough to even get that. Whatever. Go drink some more sour grapes.

[omega minimo]

13. Back atcha, PW

:crazy:

[PretzelWarrior]

19. nice coherent reply. nothing, eh? that's all you got?

why bring up such a provocative subject if you're not willing to back up your shit?

[NYC_SKP]

10. Nowhere does Obama say it was a good trajectory.

I don't understand why the drama. :shrug:

[omega minimo]

14. I don't understand why the drama either. It's a straightforward presentation of

recent comments, relevant to the day's news.

The drama is from the frothing at the mouth gatekeepers who -- I don't know what. It's hard to hear the rationale through the foam, but some are actually saying something, despite their histrionics.

:thumbsup:

[BzaDem]

18. "Apologists ignore the facts."

Please tell me how that is "a straightforward presentation of recent comments relevant to the day's nows," as opposed to insulting Obama supporters for supporting Obama for saying things that he should actually be praised for saying.

[omega minimo]

23. I'm sorry. I should have said, "Apologists ignore the OP"

"Please tell me how that is "a straightforward presentation of recent comments relevant to the day's nows," as opposed to insulting Obama supporters for supporting Obama for saying things that he should actually be praised for saying."

As you say, the OP is "a straightforward presentation of recent comments relevant to the day's nows,"

A presentation for DU consideration of facts that -- in my opinion --apologists ignore.

One reason for that opinion is this: If they didn't ignore them, they wouldn't pretend the facts (and other POVs about Obama's use of RR's words) don't exist and they wouldn't be apologists. They would have a differing POV and present in an informative -- NOT ABUSIVE AND HOSTILE AND REACTIONARY -- way.

Nowhere did I "insult Obama supporters for supporting Obama for saying things that he should actually be praised for saying."

I didn't mention "Obama supporters" at all. Are you equating "apologists" with "Obama supporters"? I'm not.

AFAIK the election is over and we now have -- and support -- a President Obama.

A discussion of his choice to borrow language and concepts from Ronald Reagan is valid.

I am not going to assume that the slightest mention of anything that isn't slavishly flattering to Obama is going to come under instant and blind attack by those who think it's ""insulting Obama supporters for supporting Obama for saying things that he should actually be praised for saying."

The assumptions and hair trigger reactions of some here are really dangerous. We do not want to become guilty of groupthink. :scared:

[Tarheel_Dem]

68. Come on NYC..you're a smart cookie. I think you understand the "drama" perfectly.

As we all do. ;-)

[BlooInBloo]

16. bwahaaha!!!! You're making my Saturday.

[Clio the Leo]

20. It's important that we not confuse policy with procedure.....

... President Obama empolying Reagan's strategy of "unite the American Public under a common cause and in so doing further isolate your opponents" and it's working like a charm.

He laid the whole strategy out in Audacity .... I have the Audio book, sorry I cant cite a page number.

[omega minimo]

24. Thank you Clio. I haven't read it. I'll check that out. Like your audiobook idea

:thumbsup:

[Phx_Dem]

21. Yeah, so? I fail to see a problem or an issue here.

Reagan was very good with words, so what?

[omega minimo]

28. RR did irreversible damage to US, the full effect we are now experiencing, with his lies & enablers

Capiche?

[masuki bance]

27. IBTL

[omega minimo]

29. that smells bad

[inna]

44. i hate when threads, especially legitimate ones, get locked.

i think it's ridiculous. :shrug:

[cherokeeprogressive]

30. I thought Reagan was paraphrasing Stalin

And that the original quote was "Trust But Check"

:shrug:

[camera obscura]

32. "Trust in God but keep your powder dry"

or the snappier "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition" :D

[inna]

41. no, it's simply a literal translation of a common russian saying...

from wiki:

Trust, but Verify was a signature phrase of Ronald Reagan. He used it in public, although he was not the first person known to use it. When Reagan used this phrase, he was usually discussing relations with the Soviet Union and he almost always presented it as a translation of the Russian proverb "doveryai, no proveryai" (Russian: Доверяй, но проверяй) - Trust, but Verify. At the signing of the INF Treaty he used it again and his counterpart Mikhail Gorbachev responded: "You repeat that at every meeting," to which Reagan answered "I like it."<1>

[omega minimo]

43. Thank you. Is that a literal translation from the Russian?

[inna]

46. yep. "trust but CHECK" would probably be even "more literal", but "trust but verify" is close enough

(Russian is my native language, btw.)

interestingly, Reagan was actually able to pronounce it in Russian ("doveriay no proveriay") with a surprisingly good pronunciation, and then he would translate it in English...

i detest Reagan as much as you do :) - but i must admit that he was a good communicator. :P

[omega minimo]

49. balshoi spaceba, ochin karashol

:toast:

[inna]

61. HAha, na zdarovye! :)

:toast:

:D

[omega minimo]

63. SZDNOOM RUSHDEYNA!!!!!

:woohoo: :party: :spray:


I thought na zdarovye! was for sneezes!! :think:

[inna]

66. that's "bud' zdorov!" ("be healthy!") (for sneezes) :D

"na zdorovye" (literally "for health") actually means "you're welcome" in russian (as in response to "spasibo" ("thank you"));

"na zdarovye" as a supposedly russian word for "cheers" is (i hate to say this...) a completely fake term and is only used in american movies about russians. :P i could never figure out why, but for some reason it's one of the most commonly known "fake" russian expressions...

proper term for "cheers" in russian is "za vashe zdorovye!" ("for your health!"), but... i guess it sounded too complicated for Hollywood and maybe this is why it got shortened/distorted to "na zdorovyeh" (which, again, means "you're welcome", not "cheers!"). :shrug:



anyway, enough "lecturing" on russian grammar, :P and ZA ZDOROVYE to fellow Northern Californians! :toast: :party:

:D

[camera obscura]

31. You know, I'm all for taking on Obama when it's needed, but come on.

It's just a quote.

Or should we just pretend that Ronald Reagan never existed?

[omega minimo]

35. Good point. Too bad we'd have to pretend Reagan never existed. It would be different world.

:thumbsup:

[AtomicKitten]

33. You can lay down your arms and come down from the hills now. The primaries are over. n/t

[omega minimo]

36. That makes no sense.

You think you're talking about someone else.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Odin2005]

34. Obama wasn't crediting Raygun for anything but his rhetorical skills.

Just because he said Reagan "changed the trajectory" doesn't mean he approves of the trajectory.

[omega minimo]

37. Hi Odin. Did you watch the video?

:hi:

[Odin2005]

39. Yes I did.

:P :)

[omega minimo]

40. What's your read on

Obama's manner? He seems to be talking to/for an audience of those who buy the Reagan myth, even if he may not be one. It's that nonchalance about it that irks, b/c of how toxic Reagan was and b/c we're living out his "legacy" right this minute. If Obama is aware of that, one might hope he didn't invoke Reagan.

It's harder to give him a pass for merely acting like a politician (by invoking RR), when we know the damage done, when we're living through it now and when invoking Reagan may as well be code for the Right and DINOs that brought us here.

[Odin2005]

45. Just sounds like typical Bullshitting rhetoric any politician has to do.

Unfortunately many people ignorantly hold positive views of Reagan. It's just like how every president having to go on about how religious and God-Fearing they are.

[omega minimo]

47. Someone recommended the book. He talks about Reagan in Audacity of Hope

[damonm]

48. Wrong before, wrong now.

You refuse to see that quoting reagan DOES NOT EQUAL praise of reagan. Reagan said ONE THING that was correct - "trust, but verify".

[omega minimo]

50. Well thank you for your black and white perspective

[damonm]

72. You're welcome.

[dionysus]

51. wow, you guys are really stretching by now...

:rofl:

why don't you toss in a rezko or two for good measure?

[AtomicKitten]

52. Those manufactroversies* worked out so nicely during the election,

... some here thought they'd bring 'em out for a spin and try again.

* nod to Bloo

[dionysus]

53. .

:hi:

[omega minimo]

54. I stayed out of the pileons during the campaign. Didn't know the pileon was prefab

[Occam Bandage]

55. You realize that Obama was saying he wanted to put us on a different trajectory from Reagan's.

He was saying that Clinton kept us on Reagan's trajectory, and Obama wanted to tap into the spirit of the nation to set a new one, just like Reagan changed the nation's trajectory away from FDR's.

He was not saying he wanted to keep Reagan's trajectory. He was saying the opposite. The statement makes no fucking sense if he was saying he wanted to keep Reagan's trajectory, because he was in the same statement attacking Clinton for keeping Reagan's trajectory.

[omega minimo]

56. Thank you for a coherent statement. You get that from the vid and transcript?

Or did you hear him elaborate on it elsewhere?

[Occam Bandage]

57. Yes, I do. As I said, your reading does not seem to mesh

with his critique of Clinton for not changing the trajectory of America. I believe he was saying he wanted to tap into the nation's zeitgeist as Reagan did, and change the trajectory of the country in the process. One cannot change the trajectory and remain on the Reagan trajectory. That does not make sense.

I understand your claims that Obama glossed over the fact that a great part of Reagan's charisma was based in lies, and the fact that he used underhanded tricks to win in 1980. Never mind that those claims are not a valid basis for your belief that Obama was talking about preserving the Reagan trajectory. They aren't really in conflict with what Obama said, either. Obama pretty clearly wasn't talking about the 1980 campaign per se. He was talking about the entire Reaganism movement, starting in the campaign and continuing for eight years. Reagan's triumph wasn't that he won an election (that is something every President does), it was that he convinced the country to let him radically alter government and society, and set a course that Bush, Clinton, and Bush followed, and he did so largely by effectively communicating.

Reagan's trajectory was of course extremely harmful to the nation, which is why Obama said he wanted to change from that trajectory, and to do so by tapping into the nation's spirit and convincing America to allow him to radically alter government and society. We can argue over whether he has actually done either, but I don't think the claim that Obama was intending to follow "the Reagan trajectory" is remotely defensible.

[omega minimo]

58. At face value

It appears Obama is talking about Reagan changing the "trajectory" and how he did that, without making any judgements or statements about what that trajectory was. One might guess an interpretation but that would be based on assumptions only.


"Never mind that those claims are not a valid basis for your belief that Obama was talking about preserving the Reagan trajectory."

I don't believe that. That's not the point. The trajectory had already been preserved before Obama came along. I didn't see him as a candidate indicating a big shift away from Reaganomics. Even after the crash, we haven't done.

"...but I don't think the claim that Obama was intending to follow "the Reagan trajectory" is remotely defensible."

I don't claim that or defend it.


My view is that trajectory continued through the decades and recently crashed and burned, which was inevitable and predicted. Obama's "innocuous" and -- our varied interpretations show -- ambiguous references to Reagan as a leader, send the message that Obama identifies with him, more than not.

If one argues the politics and policies are separate, even so, Obama appears enamored of the politics and associates himself with them and the man who used those "skills" to inflict the policies.

[Occam Bandage]

59. Would you mind settling on a single opinion?

Never mind the thread entitled "The Reagan Trajectory: How's That Workin' For Ya?" Let's set that (and everything you have written in every post regarding this comment for months) aside.

You say in one line that you do not claim that Obama is/was intending to follow the Reagan trajectory.

This is sandwiched between the lines, "I didn't see him as a candidate indicating a big shift away from Reaganomics. Even after the crash, we haven't done," and the line, "Obama identifies with him, more than not." Moreover, you claim this is consistent with what the intent he was indicating in the policies.

Your tendency to prevaricate regarding your positions is often disheartening. You have taken it to an new and supremely egregious level.

[dionysus]

60. wow, you just pwned him...bad

:spray:
:toast:

[omega minimo]

64. oh cool Beavis, thanks for confirming it's all about being pwned, nothing to do with common cause

:puke: :thumbsdown: :puke:

[dionysus]

71. well i don't expect *you* to enjoy being owned like that...

:rofl:

[omega minimo]

62. Are you just bent on misinterpreting?

Your cut and paste version of my words is not reality. You want to ignore context and self select what to note and what to ignore? I thought we were at least at the point (however fleeting) of an open exchange of ideas. Quite refreshing it was.


You projected and I rejected your assumptions about supposed "claims are not a valid basis for your belief that Obama was talking about preserving the Reagan trajectory" and "the claim that Obama was intending to follow "the Reagan trajectory" is remotely defensible."

Right. I never said any such thing. Oh sorry, that's where I SHOULD have called "Strawmen." :think:

"The trajectory had already been preserved before Obama came along."

(breathe, relax, wait for it........)
"I didn't see him as a candidate indicating a big shift away from Reaganomics. Even after the crash, we haven't done."

(breathe, relax, wait for it........)
"My view is that trajectory continued through the decades and recently crashed and burned, which was inevitable and predicted."

(breathe, relax, wait for it........)
"Obama's "innocuous" and -- our varied interpretations show -- ambiguous references to Reagan as a leader, send the message that Obama identifies with him, more than not."

All true, all consistent. None predicated on some blind allegiance that apparently colors your every thought here.

I was not expecting a lot more from either of our final two candidates. I didn't get into the primary wars. I didn't absolutely endorse or condemn either one.

While some are bent on the litmus acidic kool aid tests, many were already aware that the system, the candidates and the process are -- at this point -- monumentally compromised. Impeachment being "off the table" being a major clue.

That is not any sort of slight or slam on our president. I'm quite sure he's aware of it too.

In fact, that's what he's confirming with the "trajectory" video and the "trust but verify" reference.

He knows how to play the game. If he didn't, he wouldn't be where he is.


Your misreads continue:
"Moreover, you claim this is consistent with what the intent he was indicating in the policies."

Um WHAT? What I said was :evilfrown:

(breathe, relax, wait for it........)
"If one argues the politics and policies are separate, even so, Obama appears enamored of the politics and associates himself with them and the man who used those "skills" to inflict the policies."


Wow, it's a snaky game you play, isn't it? I dunno, I'm much more interested in what you and others think than these pathetic macho games ya'll cling to.

We have one coherent exchange without your frothings and then you go straight for the jugular. Congratulations. :thumbsdown: Not a worthy adversary at all.

"Your tendency to prevaricate regarding your positions is often disheartening. You have taken it to an new and supremely egregious level."


Aside from your ill intentions, maybe one difference here is I don't think all this is entirely in Obama's control, which is also why I don't entirely blame him for any of it.

Perhaps the biggest adherents to celebrity POTUS worship are the least inclined to admit that corporations have the country in the pocket.

Prevarication? Sometimes it is so hard to tell if people are misunderstanding on purpose or for ill purpose or for what bloody purpose. What a fucking waste of time and intelligence and opportunity.

[inna]

65. i don't see the OP as "prevaricating" at all.

as far as i can tell, he simply thinks critically, and asks questions.

also, i don't see him personally attacking anyone (while he's constantly being attacked and ganged up on).

:shrug:

[omega minimo]

67. Yes

some here consider "thought provoking" an insult. :spray:


Ne vizhu, ne slezhu, ne skazhul :yoiks: :toast:

[cali]

70. you missed the OP's locked thread on this subject with attacks galore

and what critical thinking is involved here? A critical thinker would grasp that Obama isn't talking about emulating Reagan re policy, but that he acknowldges that Reagan fundamentally changed the trajectory of the country, and that Obama wants to do the same thing, albeit in a reverse direction.

[cali]

69. and?

so what? does anyone really believe that Obama is emulating Reagan on policy? You'd have to be a complete moran to buy that, sweetie.