Fake and fraud?

[ModCon]

I have heard several people label President Obama as a fake and a fraud.

Fake;

to conceal the defects of or make appear more attractive, interesting, valuable, etc., usually in order to deceive: The story was faked a bit to make it more sensational.

Anyone seeking election to office will conceal the defects.

Fraud:

deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.

Compared to any other politician, I do not see Obama as any worse then any other.

He did not claim to have experience that he did not. He did not hide that he had no leadership experience, no executive experience, no real life experience.(Either existing in the elite Rich college enviroment or existing in the extreme poverty sector. Neither being the average)

Fraud; previously, no. Did he make it sound like he/his administration had thought up the "topkill" idea? Hinted at it.
Does the goverment have thousands(new) on staff to deal with the spill? No BP does.

I believe Obama is inexperienced, out of his league, and out gunned.
But the American people knowingly elected this person. While they might have believed he was more moderate then he was, they knew his experience and friends, and didn't care.

No more of a fraud/fake than any politician, (yes,even some Conservatives.)

Please limit Obama bashing to fake/fraud, not open season.(we have enough of those) PLease limit Obama defending to fake or fraud(ie don't feed the trolls.)

in short, I believe the American people got the exact leader they elected.

 

[DaisyDay]

As much as I'd like to argue with you (compulsive nitpicker) I can't find fault with what you said.

 

[Toot La-Rue]

< snip >
in short, I believe the American people got the exact leader they elected.

QFT.

And the problem with fake/fraud is that it always trumps naive/trusting.

 

[Wolseley]

I think it needs to be borne in mind that the 2008 election was less an election for Obama than it was an election against Bush; people were so tired of Bush that they would have voted for the reincarnation of Adolf Hitler, just as long as he wasn't Bush.

And Bush wasn't even running.

So, they flocked to the candidate most un-Bush-like. They thought McCain would be (as the mainstream media incessantly kept telling them) "another Bush" (which I have my doubts about---Bush and McCain were never exactly bosom buddies), and voted less, I think, for Obama than they did for the "change" aspect.

Now, I also firmly believe that Obama's victory also hinged on the massive black turnout, as they saw him as some sort of champion of the black community (re: the woman in Miami (?) who was recorded saying, "I never thought this day would come---I won't have to worry about putting gas in my car anymore, I won't have to worry about making my mortgage payment"), in which I think they have been sorely disillusioned; but it also hinged on ACORN voter fraud on a massive scale. I'm sure that if the thousands of deceased, duplicated, or fictional voters that ACORN registered for that election hadn't all voted (some of them numerous times!) that the outcome probably would have been different.

As for me, I await November.

 

[TheNewWorldMan]

in short, I believe the American people got the exact leader they elected.

Since the Reagan years, we've gotten the exact leaders the corporate-controlled media have selected for us.

Anyone who might actually change things...you know, threaten the corporate order...is ignored or painted as a wacko kook.

 

[Wolseley]

Since the Reagan years, we've gotten the exact leaders the corporate-controlled media have selected for us.

Anyone who might actually change things...you know, threaten the corporate order...is ignored or painted as a wacko kook.

I agree with you; but let us also not forget that The Republicans™ and The Democrats™ control the election laws---and they have made sure that in very few exceptions, nobody except a Republican™ or a Democrat™ can get elected, and one who has carefully been groomed within their monopoly-like system:

....this system is rigged. The two major parties have effectively cemented their grip on power by creating laws that make it virtually impossible for upstarts to compete with them. They have effectively done with campaign laws what federal business regulations tend to do in the private sector — protect the behemoth, entrenched dinosaurs that dominate the industry by making it too expensive and difficult for anyone to challenge them.

Ada Fisher, a woman attempted a low-budget, longshot run for Congress in North Carolina with a staff of volunteers. She found it impossible to comply with the election law without hiring a team of lawyers — which of course, she couldn't afford. Written in small print, single spaced, the federal election code spanned one-and-a-half football fields. Eventually, Fisher and her volunteer campaign treasurer were personally fined $10,000 by the FEC for filling late reports.

University of Missouri professor Jeff Milyo ran an experiment in which he asked dozens of college-educated people to try to fill out various campaign finance forms and applications. Of the more than 200 people Milyo tested every one of them violated the law. One participant added, "I'd rather not participate in the political process if it means I have to go through the nonsense I went through today."

That's exactly what the two major parties and the incumbents in Congress had in mind. Come up through their party structure, and you'll have a team of lawyers to help guide you through the process. Challenge them from the outside, and the laws they designed will cripple your candidacy.

....the Democrats and Republicans have ensured that the vast majority of the country will chose only between one of two candidates this year — candidates who, when it comes right down to it, really aren't all that different.

The system we have now selects for the sorts of people who want to make a career of politics. If, in order to successfully run for high office, you have to spend years culling favors and working your way up through one of the two major parties, the winners in this game are going to be the party loyalists and power-hungry climbers who couldn't hack it in the private sector — frankly, the last personality type we want governing.

As it is now, the first task of anyone challenging an incumbent for federal office is to raise enough money to hire a team of lawyers to ensure that they're complying with the law. It's difficult enough to raise enough money to mount a credible challenge that overcomes the name recognition and other advantages of incumbency. Congress then continually adds to that the enormous costs of navigating more and more layers of an expensive and confusing web of legalese. Defenders of these complex laws then justify them under the guise of "getting the influence of money out of politics."

How clever of them. What they're really doing is ensuring that incumbents stay in office, and that one of two same-ish parties always remains in power.

(emphasis mine)

The Two-Party Monopoly - Opinion - FOXNews.com

So what this basically boils down to is, unless you're a multimillionaire with enough street smarts to navigate through this mess and actually want to run for public office (and how many of those are there out there?), you don't have a chance. The only ones who will make it are the ones who have come up through The System. So don't hold your breath waiting for an independant to come along and change the system. The Powers That Be have this thing sewn up tight.

 

[Voegelin]

Compared to any other politician, I do not see Obama as any worse then any other.

Yeah we know. Everybody does it. There is no difference between any of them. A $200 billion deficit run by the last Republican congress is no better or worse than a $1.2 or $1.9 trillion run by the current Democrat congress. Not nationalizing health care, not seizing car companies is no worse than seizing both.

But well, I guess, like there is no other defense possible of Obama, is there?

 

[TheNewWorldMan]

Yeah we know. Everybody does it. There is no difference between any of them. A $200 billion deficit run by the last Republican congress is no better or worse than a $1.2 or $1.9 trillion run by the current Democrat congress. Not nationalizing health care, not seizing car companies is no worse than seizing both.

But well, I guess, like there is no other defense possible of Obama, is there?

You've raised these arguments before, and had them debunked. I'll debunk them again. The choice was between running that huge deficit and keeping the economy propped up, or letting us crash into full-blown depression. As in having tens of millions of armed people running around with nothing to lose.

No one have nationalized health care. All the Big Insurance giants that were price-gouging Americans, are still privately held and still price-gouging Americans.

The car companies are still in existence, still privately owned. Ford posted a profit last quarter.

In short, none of the doomsday Stalinist horror stories you and your fellow right-wingers trumpeted came to pass.

 

[LUColt27]

You've raised these arguments before, and had them debunked. I'll debunk them again. The choice was between running that huge deficit and keeping the economy propped up, or letting us crash into full-blown depression. As in having tens of millions of armed people running around with nothing to lose.

No one have nationalized health care. All the Big Insurance giants that were price-gouging Americans, are still privately held and still price-gouging Americans.

The car companies are still in existence, still privately owned. Ford posted a profit last quarter.

In short, none of the doomsday Stalinist horror stories you and your fellow right-wingers trumpeted came to pass.

The problem with keeping all this bad debt in the economy is that sooner or later, it's going to have to be dealt with. Propping it up is simply attempting to delay the inevitable. Since this nation has already been through a depression without armies running around during it, I don't think the picture you painted will occur, especially since an armed group that big will attract military attention of some kind.

 

[Billnew]

I think it needs to be borne in mind that the 2008 election was less an election for Obama than it was an election against Bush; people were so tired of Bush that they would have voted for the reincarnation of Adolf Hitler, just as long as he wasn't Bush.

And Bush wasn't even running.

So, they flocked to the candidate most un-Bush-like. They thought McCain would be (as the mainstream media incessantly kept telling them) "another Bush" (which I have my doubts about---Bush and McCain were never exactly bosom buddies), and voted less, I think, for Obama than they did for the "change" aspect.

Now, I also firmly believe that Obama's victory also hinged on the massive black turnout, as they saw him as some sort of champion of the black community (re: the woman in Miami (?) who was recorded saying, "I never thought this day would come---I won't have to worry about putting gas in my car anymore, I won't have to worry about making my mortgage payment"), in which I think they have been sorely disillusioned; but it also hinged on ACORN voter fraud on a massive scale. I'm sure that if the thousands of deceased, duplicated, or fictional voters that ACORN registered for that election hadn't all voted (some of them numerous times!) that the outcome probably would have been different.

As for me, I await November.

I agree, They voted against the party of Bush, but that also put into office the inexperienced president we have in office.
But he did not claim any experience that he did not have, he didn't mislead the public, anymore then any politician does.
He is the president, the people elected him. He is not qualified to be in this position, but he is there by the people. If the people so choose, they can elect an unemployed homeless person to this office.(as long as he has a birth certificate.)

Yeah we know. Everybody does it. There is no difference between any of them. A $200 billion deficit run by the last Republican congress is no better or worse than a $1.2 or $1.9 trillion run by the current Democrat congress. Not nationalizing health care, not seizing car companies is no worse than seizing both.

But well, I guess, like there is no other defense possible of Obama, is there?

I take it from OP, that he was talking about how he was elected, not his actions in office.
But how does anything you offer, make him a fraud or a fake? He is wrong to do them or as close as he has done them, but they are real, not fake,nor fraud.
I also believe some of what you claim, he said he would do, thus supporting that he is not a fake or a fraud.

 

[TheNewWorldMan]

The problem with keeping all this bad debt in the economy is that sooner or later, it's going to have to be dealt with. Propping it up is simply attempting to delay the inevitable. Since this nation has already been through a depression without armies running around during it, I don't think the picture you painted will occur, especially since an armed group that big will attract military attention of some kind.

Then just write off all the debt, issue a new dollar, and be done with it.

During the last Depression, America still had an abundant resource base, as well as a robust industrial base. It just wasn't being used for a time. If we knew then what we know now, the Depression could have been managed far more effectively.

 

[windrivereagle]

One man's reality is another man's dillusion. Prayer changes things.