[Itse]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I think this is the main difference: you don't think he should say anything; I think he should. As the leader of the democratic party, he's effectively the spokesman for the left in America. You think he's a centrist, because you're from Finland and by Finnish (and Canadian) standards, he is. In the USA, he's the standard bearer for politically left-wing people.

Obama being a centrist in the US political map that is generally disliked or even hated by the strongly liberal elements of Democrats is IMO pretty well established. Just because the conservatives call him a socialist doesn't actually make him one. I don't see how the liberals consider him a standard bearer of any kind.

As to why he bears the onus of doing this, there are, so far, two political options in the United States: Democrats and Republicans. If you're not voting Democrat, you're voting Republican.

No. The most popular option is to not vote.

When the average blue-collar worker looks at some of the craziness above, turns on his TV and sees BLM protestors suggesting that he's privileged and probably latently racist, sees Jezebel columns talking about how his enjoyment of porn makes him a soldier for the patriarchy, and feels like he needs to keep his mouth shut about how he isn't a big fan of Caitlyn Jenner for fear of being called transphobic, and worries about whether or not the government thinks Islamist terrorism really has nothing to do with Islam, he knows what side of the political spectrum all of this is coming from.

First of all, your vision of "average blue collar worker" is outdated and frankly a rather insulting generalization.

Also, so what if some people blame Democrats or Obama for everything? It doesn't change anything in the relationship between Obama and the extreme liberals.

When the Democratic resident either doesn't seem to notice a problem here, or speaks in a way that seems more or less okay with it all, he's far more inclined to think, "This Donald Trump guy is a blowhard, but the other guys don't seem to get it at all".

Again, you're trying to build a case that because some other people don't understand or like liberals, it's somehow Obama's fault.

That's why I say it's a missed opportunity for the Democrats, and for Obama, by ceding these conversations to Trump.

Let's just see if Trump even manages to get a presidential candidacy, and then who wins the election. After all, if we go by your definition that there are only Democrats and Republicans (which is btw IMO rather clearly false when you look at the primary process of both parties), one might also notice that Trump is considered by many Republicans to be an absolute disaster for the Republican party and a guaranteed loser if he's the actual nominee.

Still don't get this. I get now that what you mean by "fantasy Obama"

Everything you've said about why you think Obama is in the wrong is built pretty much completely on what you're NOT seeing and what you think this might mean. There are no actual facts that you're basing any of this.

In comparison, someone who calls Obama a centrist might point out that he's rather hawkish on whistleblowers and civil rights in general and might want to discuss his tax policies. All things that can be tracked to actual things he (or his government at least) has actually done. Someone who dislikes his drone war can point to actual people killed under his watch and by a program that he has very clearly said is closely monitored by him personally. Someone who really likes him might point out Obamacare, which he clearly had a lot to do with.

If the Dems would just speak candidly and honestly on all issues, Trump's bluster wouldn't resonate the way it does.

I really don't see that.

This stuff isn't small and irrelevant, as you suggest. It's an aspect of a problem within the left described in the James Lindsay link posted above. The right is well out in front in the race to batcrap crazyville - I fondly hope they've already arrived and aren't going to get any crazier from here, but that seems optimistic. My other hope, though, is that the left doesn't follow suit in the other direction, and we're starting to see it happen. The significant number of people who operate in this way, and treat their ideology as a sort of grievance based religion, are the precursors of our own version of the Tea Party.

This part I agree with you to some extent. The culture war in the US is clearly heating up again. That said, I don't think this is local phenomenon. The US is IMO leading the way in this, like they often do. Political extremism in general is clearly on the rise again.

Personally however I simply can not see any reason why Obama would be in any way to blame for it.

I want policy focused on addressing sexual assault. I don't want hyperbole and made-up stats to try to catastrophize the situation on campus, because that just makes people suspicious about the whole endeavour. "You've just lied about the extent to which the problem exists, why should I listen to you at all", that sort of thing. It's like writing a recruitment pamphlet for MRAs. I'm for the policy, I'm against the rhetorical style. And for what? He's advancing a worthwhile, laudable goal. It doesn't need the window dressing.

Yeah, but you seem to actually CARE more about the false stat. Which okay seems to be very characteristic of you personally, it's like your trademark almost, being overly focused on numbers and details I don't agree with you using that point like that, and I guess more importantly the argument, I don't think most people care about details in that way.

If I was to guess why they went with that particular stat, it's because it's what the US feminists want to hear. It's a sad state of affairs that the POTUS bows to such nonsense, and while I kind of agree that yeah maybe they shouldn't do that, it's one of those hills that you have to be ready to die on if you bring it up, and I get why he doesn't want to do that.

Still, as much as crazy feminists get a bad rap for driving people away from feminism, I still put the responsibility for people to not be crazy chauvinist a-holes on people themselves. Blaming the other side is rather childish IMO.

Your comment here suggests that by emphasizing the importance of a free exchange of ideas, this would somehow trench on people's right to oppose the free exchange of ideas. I know that's not what you're trying to say, but it follows necessarily from the suggestion that any "tone policing" by a President has free speech implications.

I'm not really suggesting that it does, I'm just saying that Obama seems to me like that professor who doesn't intervene even when students start shouting at each other, as long as they don't actually start making threats or something like that. Stuff that is actually illegal. Which is a completely different reason to not start criticizing extreme liberal rhetorics than him sort of going along with it, which is what you seem to be suggesting.

I don't think the rise of Trump is solely on Obama, or even mostly on Obama.

You did kind of sound like that at some point, but this does make more sense

But I do think the Left is in some measure complicit for failing to speak sensibly and honestly about certain issues, usually out of concern for the potential of offending anyone at all (thereby validating those people who will inevitably be offended by anything they can).

I think the generalizations you're making on who is doing what and why are just way overblown. One of the loudest group of people trying to get the worst of the PC police under control are various other liberals and feminists. It's clearly been one of the major topics of conversation in the last year or two in many liberal forums. I think I remember that you yourself considered yourself a liberal, and there you are blowing that same horn. I'm actually with you on that, to some extent. So no, I don't agree that "the left" is to blame here for being silently complicit, not anymore at least.

Frustration with this atmosphere has led a significant number of people to see Trump, bluster and all, as a breath of fresh air instead of the bag of gas he is - the most common thing you'll hear from any Trump supporter is that he's the best because "he tells it like it is", or "he calls it as he sees it". Consequently, the President and the Democratic party generally have missed an opportunity to stand up and say "let's all get some perspective and cut the crazy" - presumably because they benefit politically from the notion that Conservative Principles = Evil rather than Conservative Principles = Not Good for the Country.

I again fail to see why the Republican crazies are somehow the responsibility of the Democrats. Shouldn't it be the Republicans who should be reining in their crazies?

Besides, many Republican principles are in the axis of good or evil, not in the axis of good or bad for the country. Abortion bans don't mess up GDP, they mess up people's lives. Racism and a very poor and desperate lower class can actually be good for the everyone else, but it's still pretty evil. From a liberal point of view anyway. Gay rights are really insignificant for the country at large, but a huge deal for those people.

A really major point of the liberal movement since the age of Enlightenment is that there are fundamental human rights that should be measured on the individual level and not subjected to questions such as "is this good for the country".

Plus as I said: I don't see why the Democrats would want to hinder Trump. He's a terrible candidate making their political opponents look absolutely terrible.