Regarding Barack Obama’s apparent default excuse for everything – to wit: I had no idea that this was going on, and I’m just as shocked and angry as the rest of you about it- which would be worse:
- That he’s lying?
- Or that he’s telling the truth?
Think about the answer before you reply: the more I did, the less sure I was of mine.
They’re both equally bad…
–
If he’s lying then he is directly involved in all of the scandals and is a co-conspirator.
–
If he’s telling the truth then he is being criminally negligent.
–
That’s how I’d look at this situation.
We re-elected him; he has grounds to think we agree that the duties mainly involve being a warm body.
.
We re-elected him; he has grounds to think we are not really all that upset.
Don’t blame me, I held my nose and voted for Romney (even though I had a pretty good idea that Romney couldn’t win). Btw, I also voted for McCain in 2008, because unlike many other people in my age group, I don’t fall for greek pillars, lofty rhetoric, etc.
Agreed.
While both are bad, you have to look at it in the context of the question:
“If Buraq Hussein Obama were deliberately trying to destroy the country, what would he do differently from what he is currently doing?”
If he was merely incompetent, by accident occasionally he would not do harm and maybe even do some good, just by the law of averages.
Assume that he and his supporters are deliberately enemies of the country. If they are merely stupid, it will be a case of Darwin triumphing if we defeat them.
As the saying goes, “A sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.”
I think he’s telling the truth unfortunately, if it doesn’t directly impact him I think he has no idea what’s happening. I don’t think he’s criminally negligent so much as grossly ignorant, blazingly incompetent and utterly unaware of his failings. As Rumsfeld put it a wise man will be aware that there things he doesn’t know he doesn’t know. O’bama thinks he knows everything so he continues to blunder from one scandal to the next in blithless ignorance of his lack of knowledge.
I think it is likely a mix. Certain aspects of certain scandals speak to direction and compartmentalization. Other things speak to lack of foresight, or legitimately unforeseeable events.
“Blitheless”? ;^)
… blazingly incompetent and utterly unaware of his failings.
He’s a prime example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
(In fact, I’ve been calling him “President Dunning-Kruger” for several years in conversation, and most people I say it to agree with me.)
I had a case for lying being the least problematic, but I had forgotten that the Nolan Joker Obama model is in that category.
.
He isn’t telling the truth; some of his statements are certain falsehoods. Lying is a matter of intent and personal knowledge. Whether or not he has the mens rhea, the guilty or evil mind for that, need not depend on the falseness of his statements.
.
The case for ‘unaware’ not being so bad is that should pot be legalized, we will have a bunch of other stoner humanities majors in positions of responsibility for human welfare that we will be unable to remove.
The case for ‘unaware’ not being so bad is that should pot be legalized, we will have a bunch of other stoner humanities majors in positions of responsibility for human welfare that we will be unable to remove.
We do anyway! The trouble is, with pot being illegal we currently have a bunch of lawbreaking stoner humanities majors in positions of authority.
What difference, at this point, does it make?
.
I have pretty much the same response as the earlier discussion about whether he was deliberately trying the Cloward-Pivin play, or whether he’s epicly incompetent.
It doesn’t matter.
What mitigation we can preform is the same in both cases, and independent of whatever Obama’s motives may be.
.
My personal take is that he’s an idiot. He’s fumbled too badly, too many times for me to consider him an evil genius.
Also, I know that few things are more likely harm him than mockery and contempt. He reacts very emotionally to these, and not in a fashion that’s to his credit.
Let me expand on this slightly.
.
If Obama is lying, then Obama is conceivably in charge, the buck stops with Obama, and .. he really is that bad at running the country.
.
However.
.
If Obama is telling the truth, then there is no way in which Obama is conceivably in charge – he’s a figurehead, a pretty man-child recruited to play golf, give pretty-sounding speeches, and play golf.
.
We can, or could have .. if the gutless D.C.-centric wing of the GOP weren’t complete wimps .. have voted out an actual in-charge Obama…
.
If we had voted out figurehead-Obama .. where’s the actual Sith?
.
Mew
So much worse if he’s telling the truth. And I think he is. The theory “He is usually asleep at the switch” explains so much of this administration. No president since Coolidge seems to be as disengaged as Obama, and at least Coolidge’s lack of engagement corresponded with his view of government.
The question is unanswerable, since we aren’t mind readers; I have a policy against wasting my time with metaphysical questions without purpose. That’s navel-gazing.
Luke is correct that it mostly doesn’t matter, since the prescription is the same.
But if I’m to play this game, I will say it matters in only one way: if Obama is delusional, he will continue on that course because he can’t help himself.
It’s worse if he’s lying because he would still be a rational actor with the ability to alter course to evade correction.
He’s telling the truth because unless it is a photo op, fund raising, golfing, or talking about sports; he just doesn’t care