Supporters and critics of Obama, please lend me an ear. Or a pair of eyes, maybe?

[Zalatix]

I've been reading DU for months, watching people go back and forth about whether to support or severely criticize Obama for this thing and that thing.

(Edited: Denounce is a bad choice of words, since I've no ill-will for those who oppose some things Obama has done.)

I think I can offer a new perspective on this. Granted it sounds like a conspiracy but my defense is that history has little, if anything, to contradict what I am saying. What I also say, I offer, is also a guide to what will happen every time we do elect a new President.

I believe that Obama, like every President since Jimmy Carter (AT LEAST), has encountered Plutocrats who have threatened to bring America down if they do not comply with their agenda. Jimmy Carter was made an example of - he refused to cooperate and was kicked right out of office. Obama refused to cooperate and got hit with the Tea Party: he got made to know that the threats against him would be carried out, in a way that he was utterly powerless to stop.

The Presidents we elect, along with the Congresscritters that we elect, fall into one of three camps: those who obey the Plutocrats, and those who get broken for resisting. Our Presidents fall into those two camps. Our Congress falls into those two groups. Only Senator Bernie Sanders defies the Plutocrats and holds office. Barney Frank did, and now he's leaving. Rep. Alan Grayson resisted the Plutocrats and he got kicked out. Bush, Reagan, and Bush II, they went along with the Plutocracy quite willingly. Clinton may have, depending on one's opinion, been the lone holdout that didn't get kicked out. I think he caved on a number of issues (i.e., NAFTA). But my point is, every President, and Congress, has handlers - ultra rich people who let them know, in no uncertain terms, that America is sitting on financial time bombs that they WILL set off if the politicians do not comply in some way with their agendas.

The fact is, you can threaten the President with economic ruin and the FBI is powerless to stop you. You can promise to tell the Middle East to stop allowing oil to come here; in my opinion, this happened in 1978. You can say you will convince China to call in America's debts, you can say you will let the bond markets downgrade America to "junk" status, you can say "America cannot pay its debts" to the wrong currency markets. Even if the President wigged out and had you put down ON THE SPOT, your threat will still be carried out and America would get trashed. Yeah, I know my theory is crazy, but if you think about it for a second, this scenario is far too easy to happen.

I offer the additional example of Ireland. Remember Fianna Fail? They were swept out of power because of a revolt against Ireland's austerity cuts. Fine Gael and the Labor Party, the two left-of-Fianna Fail parties that overthrew them, ran on an anti-austerity platform. But what happened RIGHT after they got elected? More austerity cuts. Their Plutocrat handlers got a hold of them and the only thing that COULD have happened was they threatened to drag Ireland's economy under if more cuts weren't made.

The same thing is happening all over Europe. Big threats about economic collapse are being made, and the leaders of the Western world are not seeing that a collapse is going to happen anyway.

These threats probably don't come in the form of, "Do what we say, or else". It's more like, "Well, you know, Mr. President-equivalent, if things aren't done this way, then this thing COULD happen... oh look, the Ayotollah just took office. Oops, there's an oil embargo going on. Oops, S&P just downgraded your country. We... uhm... feared that could happen."

So what is my point here? Don't blame Obama entirely for what's going on. Obama falls into the camp of the President who gives some resistance to his handlers, but at some point he has to yield; he doesn't want to be the President that oversees a MASSIVE economic collapse, triggered by angry Plutocrats who are like jilted spouses that would rather commit murder-suicide than go through a divorce.

If you replace Obama... the handlers will simply shackle them, too. Then we'll be right back here at Square Zero.

[FarPoint]

1. I support President Obama.

Keeping it simple.

[mdmc]

2. why not?

me too..

[Scuba]

3. Sounds like a load to me. If the President can order drones to ...

... kill Americans without trial, he should zap the treasonous plutocrats if your premise is correct.

[nobodyspecial]

4. Yes, Obama would send drones

after corporate executives if he was truly a man of the people.

I'm not sure if that is setting the bar too high or low -- or just plain crazy.

[CJCRANE]

5. The plutocrats have the support

of the media, Wall Street, the MIC and at least 40% of the population (via the GOP/TP)...so that wouldn't really work or be possible.

[annabanana]

9. "zapping the plutocrats" ??

1) You would have to zap ALL of them, foreign & domestic.

2) That probably wouldn't stop their underlings from carrying out their plans.

[Zalatix]

14. Sure he could.

And the Plutocrats that he didn't catch, would carry out said threats.

Obama would have to destroy every banker and corporate captain of industry to weed them all out. THAT ain't gonna happen. I doubt he, or anyone else, even knows all of this group of people.

I can point to the Koch family as one part of the group, but they're just the most visible. You've also got the Rothschilds, the Bildeberger groups, etc. - again, they're just the visible ones.

[dawg]

6. President Obama is a centrist.

He's misinformed or just flat-out wrong on lots of issues.

I don't believe he's being oppressed by any conspiracy of plutocrats.

The only logical choice we have right now, is to support the centrist over his eventual right-wing adversary.

Doesn't mean we have to like it.

[sabrina 1]

7. I think you are right to a great extent.

And I think it is the major Corps, Wall St Banks, Oil Cartels who are controlling things mostly

They own the media which is their biggest weapon, and there are all those think tanks which time and money to smear anyone who stands up against their policies.

The truth is the whole system is rotten and to try to work inside it is almost futile, unless we get smarter than we have been.

That is the quandary for millions of people now.

However, with the people finally waking to that fact, that it is the system itself that is the problem, I feel there is hope to begin the changes, even though it will probably take many years and fierce battles along the way.

Max Keiser eg, said this week that now that the people of the World, not just here, have finally figured out why their leaders do not listen to them, and your Ireland reference is a perfect example, France is another one of how the Leaders simply ignore their people now, Greece too, and are uniting across the globe, they need to realize they have a powerful weapon in their hands, which according to him, is their purchasing power. No matter how they can control the Governments and the economic and foreign policies of these countries, they still have to sell their stuff to the people.

Something to think about. Because if THEIR biggest asset, cheap labor in third world countries, then selling the products to first and second world countries, and bringing down the wages in those countries, can be totally undermined, bringing UP the wages in Third World countries, keeping the pay levels in First World countries stable, we can level the playing field, reduce their profits and maybe start getting people into elected office whose main platform becomes to refuse to take Corporate money.

[Romulox]

8. Occam's Razor: Obama is a centrist who supports privately the positions he puts forward publically.

[bvar22]

10. I am NOT an Obama "denouncer".

I AM a Mainstream/Center loyal Working Class FDR/LBJ DEMOCRAT,
and have been for over 46 years.
I denounce "Centrism" and "Triangulation", Republican Appeasement, "seeking Bi-partisan approval", and policy that 20 years ago was Mainstream Conservative Republican Policy.

My choice to "approve" or "disapprove" is simple.
If a Policy moves TOWARD these traditional Democratic Values, I approve:

"In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

*The right of every family to a decent home;

*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

*The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being." ---FDR, 1044

If a policy moves AWAY from the above traditional Democratic Party Values
I will OPPOSE that policy.

I have NEVER and will never "denounce" President Obama.
He seems a decent person and an excellent father.

I do OPPOSE much of his "Centrist" policy,
and the current conservative direction of the Democratic party Leadership.
THAT is way different from "denouncing".




You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[99Forever]

11. ^I wish I had said that.^

Or could at least channel it.

[Zalatix]

15. Can one also say "Teddy Roosevelt" Democrat?

He was a Republican by name, but woah, he was far, FAR to left of anything today short of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

Other than that I agree with EVERYTHING you just posted. Well, yeah, I am an FDR Democrat, too, without reservation. BTW bvar22 I've read your stuff around here... impressive! Thanks.

[bvar22]

18. I would vote FOR Teddy Roosevelt in a heartbeat today!

Teddy KNEW what to do about "Too Big to Fail",
and had the GUTS to Do IT!



[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[Zalatix]

20. It is indeed the whole GUTS thing

Teddy had the guts to do a lot of things that pissed off the Plutocracy at the time. He knew how to throw his weight around.

Today, though, that task falls to us. We need to start throwing our numbers around. OWS is the proverbial "first into battle". We should be backing them up... enthusiastically. Raucously, no less.

[Scuba]

19. What bvar22 said, in spades. n/t

[LynneSin]

12. When Bush was elected a 2nd term he got even worse than the first term for a reason..

Once you get elected to your 2nd term you are officially a lame duck for 4 more years. Whatever you do doesn't matter since you never have to run for re-election again. Bush got ballsy with his executive signings and appointing people to office when congress was out of session.

To me I see Obama playing both sides of the field which pisses alot of people off including me. But he has had a history of progressive ideologies and I keep hoping that we'll see that Obama should he get elected in November.

[Bluenorthwest]

13. Barney Frank was in Congress for what, 30 years?

And also, if any President was 'told what to do' that President's duty would be to tell the American people, and personal safety is not a mitigation. That is, you take that oath, then sell out the nation to protect your hide or your kid's hide? Sorry, no one forced you to take that oath, and that is what that oath means.
I also take issue with the word 'denounce'. To oppose his anti equality policy and advocate for equality is not to denounce him, it is to disagree with him and oppose his nut laced policy. That choice of words stinks to the rafters.

[Zalatix]

16. Done. n/t

.

[NashVegas]

17. History Has Been Very Kind to Jimmy Carter, for the Most Part

To this day, the overwhelming majority of the press he gets is still respectful. That little hiccup in El Salvador barely rates a mention.

Barack Obama had and has a choice. His ambition led him to the White House, and if he is serving the 1% rather than the 99, that's his choice to serve that ambition.

[Zalatix]

21. But what power has Jimmy Carter had to change events?

The press is quite nice to Carter now, but what can he do to stop the GOP? Most polls still rank him as one of the worst Presidents ever, thanks to the Plutocracy's manipulation of the news and facts.

If Obama fights too hard, this is his future.