Obama "The Demagogue"

[gl45]

demagogue definition:

one who manipulates public emotions to gain power or popularity

I don't know much about this subject, but evry time he open his mouth I get scared.

http://www.drw.utexas.edu/roberts-miller/handouts/demagoguery

[jdhanover]

Why bash Obama on this? Isn't this true of virtually every politician? And, nowadays, every so-called journalist on Fox or MSNBC?

[gl45]

he's the president u nut...the rest are just working their journalistic trade.

[jdhanover]

he's the president u nut...the rest are just working their journalistic trade.

So O'Reilly, Maddow etc are just 'working the trade'? C'mon.

[bigmack]

So O'Reilly, Maddow etc are just 'working the trade'? C'mon.
If you have access to a dictionary, feel free to crack it open, dial into the D's and get a feel for what demagogue means. That should clear things up for ya.

[jdhanover]

demagogue definition:

one who manipulates public emotions to gain power or popularity


We differ in opinion here....these journalists are certainly trying to maniuplate public emotion to gain popularity (which can be measured via their ratings and their associated income).

But enough here. I am done on this thread.

[NJ Stinks]

Why bash Obama on this? Isn't this true of virtually every politician? And, nowadays, every so-called journalist on Fox or MSNBC?

How dare you bring common sense into this thread, JD!

[gl45]

We differ in opinion here....these journalists are certainly trying to maniuplate public emotion to gain popularity (which can be measured via their ratings and their associated income).

But enough here. I am done on this thread.

jd,
pleez don't go...
Sgt.... who....how do you spell schultzy
u know butch has a partner.... I like Susan...she/he a very good artist
they ask me if I would give an interview with a guy name chris....I request a bib, he does spit a lot tho....

[johnhannibalsmith]

How dare you bring common sense into this thread, JD!

Nice to see NJStinks support the premise that Obama is nothing more than another politician and literally on par with talking heads that say whatever it takes to get ratings. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[bigmack]

Nice to see NJStinks support the premise that Obama is nothing more than another politician and literally on par with talking heads that say whatever it takes to get ratings. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:
Not only that but he talks of 'common sense' when good ole horse sense says the poster he was slappin' on the back has no clue what demagogue means.

NJ has an excuse for not knowing. He was a federal employee.

[NJ Stinks]

Nice to see NJStinks support the premise that Obama is nothing more than another politician and literally on par with talking heads that say whatever it takes to get ratings. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

I support the premise that GL45 has a lot to be scared about come November. :cool:

[Lefty]

Stinks, so do you have a lot to be scared about. But you just don't realize-yet.

[JustRalph]

So O'Reilly, Maddow etc are just 'working the trade'? C'mon.

Neither of these two are journalists. They are pundits, commentators etc.

They both report, but they always provide follow on analysis.

That's a difference.......although I do agree that in no way is Obama on his own when it comes to the subject at hand

[jdhanover]

Neither of these two are journalists. They are pundits, commentators etc.

They both report, but they always provide follow on analysis.

That's a difference.......although I do agree that in no way is Obama on his own when it comes to the subject at hand

Ok, I will chime in a bit more (cant resist!). JustRalph - I agree. I dont know that there is much journalism anymore. Every topic (in the media and on this board) tends to disintegrate into a shouting match without anyone (a) listening to the other side, (b) thinking about real well thought out solutions (vs platitudes) and (c) acknowledgment that almost all these issues are terribly complicated...and most of those involved with them in the political arena are driven by money (lobbyists, fund-raising, etc). Real journalism would be a breath of fresh air...but wont sell ad space nor magazines. Sigh....

[bigmack]

Real journalism would be a breath of fresh air...but wont sell ad space nor magazines. Sigh....
Thanks for logging in your feelings of the media. Earth shattering stuff. :rolleyes:

Being the thread is about Obama being a demagogue do you agree or should he not be, how you put it, 'bashed' because everyone's doing it?

[boxcar]

Ok, I will chime in a bit more (cant resist!). JustRalph - I agree. I dont know that there is much journalism anymore. Every topic (in the media and on this board) tends to disintegrate into a shouting match without anyone (a) listening to the other side, (b) thinking about real well thought out solutions (vs platitudes) and (c) acknowledgment that almost all these issues are terribly complicated...and most of those involved with them in the political arena are driven by money (lobbyists, fund-raising, etc). Real journalism would be a breath of fresh air...but wont sell ad space nor magazines. Sigh....

This is why the conventional, old-school journalism is going the way of the dinosaur. Try the new fangled alternative sources on the web. You may like them better. I haven't bought a newspaper or mag in over ten years, but somehow I manage to keep myself informed.

Boxcar

[jognlope]

He has to come out strong and with conviction, he's the president.

[Lefty]

He came out strong with conviction when he said he would cut the deficit in half. But all he did was add to it!

[Lefty]

He came out strong with conviction when he said he would cut the deficit in half. But all he did was add to it!

[jdhanover]

This is why the conventional, old-school journalism is going the way of the dinosaur. Try the new fangled alternative sources on the web. You may like them better. I haven't bought a newspaper or mag in over ten years, but somehow I manage to keep myself informed.

Boxcar

Where do you find BALANCED info? Everything I see has an agenda in or behind it.

[bigmack]

Where do you find BALANCED info? Everything I see has an agenda in or behind it.
Why do you continue to obfuscate the actual issue at hand and insist on derailing the thread with talk of the media?

[Lefty]

JDHanover, I see a lot of liberals on Fox News, every night! I don't see many conservatives on the other networks.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Let's take this forum for example.

An interesting subject comes up and all of the usual suspects chime in. Chances are, you've gotten a fairly balanced overall reaction. Perhaps disproportionately towards one persuasion or the other in terms of volume of respondents, but you'll get it hashed out from a number of angles even within each pidgeonhole with opposing sides rebutting actual claims and statements made about each facet of whatever the debate revolves around.

At the end, rarely do we find anyone's initial positions significantly changed. I find the claim that people want "balanced" news and information to be a questionable one. I rarely meet the people that actually want what they claim. What they want is someone with more credibility than they have to support the position that they already have so they can defend their position effectively.

The point is, if you are truly one of the minority that truly wants balanced information - it's all around you. Unless your television is stuck on a single network, your internet home page is stuck, or the radio is broken - you have everything that you need to find "balance" in the vast disparity in opinion on any single subject. We have more data, conclusions, opinions, and hocus pocus studies at the end of our nerves than ever before.

We don't need "balance" from any singular source, we just need the werewithal to extract the useful perspectives from each opinion to form that balance for ourselves. If that's REALLY what we're after.

[boxcar]

Where do you find BALANCED info? Everything I see has an agenda in or behind it.

You can start with listening to Limbaugh and Levin. And also Johnhannibialsmity gave good advice. "Balance" is all around you. You need to exercise discernment to sift through garbage (unfortunately) to find the kernels of truth. I critically analyze anything I want to know because I operate on the biblical premise that all men are liars. Or if that's too harsh for you, all have their agendas.


Boxcar

[jdhanover]

You can start with listening to Limbaugh and Levin. And also Johnhannibialsmity gave good advice. "Balance" is all around you. You need to exercise discernment to sift through garbage (unfortunately) to find the kernels of truth. I critically analyze anything I want to know because I operate on the biblical premise that all men are liars. Or if that's too harsh for you, all have their agendas.


Boxcar

Limbaugh......please - he is as out of balance as they come.

I am now definitely out of this thread. Back to the horses...

Later

[bigmack]

Limbaugh......please - he is as out of balance as they come.
I am now definitely out of this thread. Back to the horses...
Later
What a lamebrain. Thanks for sharing. Oh & stop 'bashing' the media. :D

Later. As in much.

[Tom]

He has to come out strong and with conviction, he's the president.

There is much more to it than that.......are you happy with jut another convicted mad man?

[mostpost]

Definition of "Demogogue' FROM Merriam Webster.
: a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power

The last part of that definition could apply to many. As far as making use of popular prejudices, does that include prejudice against gays; Rick Santorum. against immigrants; Jan Brewer, against union members; Scott Walker, against welfare recipients; too many to name.

[Tom]

Come on mostie, that post is light-weight.
There is a difference between issues and what Obama does.
But you knew that.

[Lefty]

mostpost, Your most ignorant post in a long array of them.

So if you're for marriage between a man and a woman you're against gays...
If you're against illegal immigration then you're against immigrants...
If you're against the public sector getting perks the private sector does not that makes you against unions...
OMG!

I guess Obama is against gays too because he's not for gay marriage either.
He's also on record as being against illegal immigration.
He does love the unions though...

[bigmack]

Definition of "Demogogue' FROM Merriam Webster.
: a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power
Every time BO opens his muzzle he shows his prejudice of success & wealth, in order to gain power. Goof ain't got a thing but - "Tax the rich", and you come waltzing in here with Santorum & Walker?

Answer this. Is Obama a demagogue?
(Now accepting wagers on number of posts it will take for him to answer. 'Never' is already taken)

[mostpost]

demagogue definition:

one who manipulates public emotions to gain power or popularity

I don't know much about this subject, but evry time he open his mouth I get scared.

http://www.drw.utexas.edu/roberts-miller/handouts/demagoguery

This is one of the weakest openings to a thread that I have seen here. After admitting you don't know much about the subject, you imply that Obama scares you because you see him as a demagogue. Yet you supply no evidence to back that up. No examples of what you see as demagoguery on his part.

Your link supplies a good discussion of demagoguery and good evidence why Obama is not one.
Demagoguery is polarizing propaganda that motivates members of an ingroup to hate and scapegoat some outgroup(s)
Perhaps you can point out to me the outgroup which Obama is trying to scapegoat. Remember, by definition, an outgroup can not be a majority or near majority and it can't be group with power, such as the one percent.

Polarization
This is one of the two most important qualities of demagoguery. To polarize is to divide a diverse range of things into two poles. Thus, a demagogue breaks everything into two camps: the one s/he represents (what people call the in-group), and evil (the out-group). This kind of polarization recurs throughout demagoguery—there are only two options, there are only two policies, there are only two groups
Obama has sought to find common ground with Republicans to a fault. Many of the measures passed in the last three years would have been much better had he ignored them completely. Instead he tried to work with them even long after it was apparent they had no intention of negotiating honestly.

Another constant in demagoguery is that the demagogue tries to promote and justify hatred of the "out-group." That is, demagogues identify some group as "in"—people like them—and some other groups as "out"—often, but not necessarily, a racial minority. Sometimes it's members of a particular political persuasion (communists, liberals, feminists), sometimes a religious group (Catholics, Quakers, Muslims, secular humanists), often people of a certain nation or cultural tradition (Americans, Jews, "the west"). Thus, it's very common for the exact nature of the "out" group to be vague
This is much more the tactic of those opposing Obama than Obama himself.
Welfare recipients are a popular source of disgust on these forums. It is common for member here to be accused of being communists if they disagree with the majority opinion. Muslims are a popular target of disdain from conservative politicians and posters here.

[/Quote]A demagogue never claims that the situation is complicated to explain, nor that the solution is difficult to grasp. Demagoguery depends upon the perception that political problems and solutions are easy to understand; while demagogues often grant that it may be difficult to implement their solution(s), they almost always assert that the basic concept of the solution is straightforward.[/QUOTE]
An example of this is the oft repeated claim that all we need do to solve our economic crisis is to lower taxes. All we need do to end unemployment is to stop illegal immigration. All we need do to stop homosexuality is to deny Gays the right to marry each other.

An Ethos of Sincerity
Given that demagogues are willing to lie, and are often caught out in lies which they often don't even bother to contradict (see the various webpages on Limbaugh's lies), it's striking that they always claim for themselves the ethos of a person devoted to a sincere expression of the Truth. Even more striking (and almost inexplicable) is that their followers accept that ethos; they always describe the demagogue as "sincere" and "authentic" and they privilege that quality over things like intelligence, accuracy, compassion, and other things that might seem fairly important in a leader. It's inexplicable because followers hold on to this image of the demagogue as sincere and honest even when s/he is continually caught out in lies, misrepresentations, and errors. (I've sometimes heard people rationalize the demagogue's inaccuracy by saying that it's okay because s/he is sincere.)

A perfect example of this is right in this very thread. Boxcar presents Limbaugh and Levin as paragons of honesty and virtue. If I cared to take the time, I could provide hundreds if not thousands of examples of where they have lied, distorted or misrepresented the facts. Yet Boxcar accepts everything they say without question. He does this simply because he can not stand to have any of his beliefs questioned. It would literally kill him to think that everything he believes is a sham.

The out-group is associated with disease and filth (through names, adjectives, adverbs, and similes); association with them (or defence of their rights) is compared to treachery.
One of our posters here uses the word "Filth" in almost every post. It is so bizarre that it is almost funny.

Last but not least, demagogues promote nationalism. Nationalism is best understood in contrast to patriotism. Whereas patriotism is simply love for one's country and institutions, nationalism is the sense that one's nation is the best, often because it is more sacred than other countries. (Because you can't have two "best" countries, the achievements of other countries and cultures have to be denigrated.) Nationalism is love for one's country plus contempt for other countries mixed with worshipping the symbols of one's nation.

Patriotism is often the result of pride in specific achievements, so it is perfectly compatible with vigorous criticism (that is, there is nothing unpatriotic about criticizing one's country),but nationalism is grounded in total loyalty to some perceived (or projected?) essence of the national identity, and therefore cannot tolerate criticism

The criticism here is that Obama is anti-American. Since demagogues are notoriously nationalistic, he cannot be a demagogue. On the other hand most of your conservative politicians are highly nationalistic. They all have a sense that anything the United States does is all right simply because it is the United States that is doing it. On the other hand, any action by any other country that is not in concert with US policy is in error.

To summarize, the very link you posted shows us that the demagogue in this equation is not Obama. It is the people accusing him of demagoguery.

[mostpost]

Every time BO opens his muzzle he shows his prejudice of success & wealth, in order to gain power. Goof ain't got a thing but - "Tax the rich", and you come waltzing in here with Santorum & Walker?

Answer this. Is Obama a demagogue?
(Now accepting wagers on number of posts it will take for him to answer. 'Never' is already taken)
One. But I cheated

[bigmack]

Can you imagine mosty set against ChuckK in a debate of this? mosty would be in a pile of his own dung within minutes.

Just one case of demagoguery from mostpost's hero & godlike redeemer.

1vvx9KV4WVc

[johnhannibalsmith]

...Your link supplies a good discussion of demagoguery and good evidence why Obama is not one.

...

Kudos on formatting this reply so that those of us that often stumble through your replies, but at least try, can do so without having to visit an optometrist.

Why did you inject this new definition of demagoguery that relies on outgroup/ingroup and reminders of who cannot be classified this way or that way? What was wrong with the definition that you supplied earlier that relied on "prejudice" as a lynchpin - the one that came from Merriam-Webster which I'm sure you consider a solid, objective source of definitions? Did using that original definition exclude one of the groups that you referred to if you tried to exclude the "wealth/power class"?

[bigmack]

Kudos on formatting this reply so that those of us that often stumble through your replies, but at least try, can do so without having to visit an optometrist.

Why did you inject this new definition of demagoguery that relies on outgroup/ingroup and reminders of who cannot be classified this way or that way? What was wrong with the definition that you supplied earlier that relied on "prejudice" as a lynchpin - the one that came from Merriam-Webster which I'm sure you consider a solid, objective source of definitions? Did using that original definition exclude one of the groups that you referred to if you tried to exclude the "wealth/power class"?
I took note of that as well. It's merely one of his parlor tricks.

Nutty part of this magician? He believes his own slight of hand!

Dumbfounded by himself, he is.

Shou'nt the JerseySmell have been along already to 'high-cinco' mostly for another dishonest display of debating?

[NJ Stinks]

Shou'nt the JerseySmell have been along already to 'high-cinco' mostly for another dishonest display of debating?

Damn! I was gonna do it, Macky, but I've been busy trying to find reverse. :faint:

Still, I would be remiss if I failed to salute the sharpshooter from Illinois. :2: :3:

[johnhannibalsmith]

...
Still, I would be remiss if I failed to salute the sharpshooter from Illinois. :2: :3:

Stu?



http://blog.koldcast.tv/media/nhl/pic14.jpg

[mostpost]

Kudos on formatting this reply so that those of us that often stumble through your replies, but at least try, can do so without having to visit an optometrist.

Why did you inject this new definition of demagoguery that relies on outgroup/ingroup and reminders of who cannot be classified this way or that way? What was wrong with the definition that you supplied earlier that relied on "prejudice" as a lynchpin - the one that came from Merriam-Webster which I'm sure you consider a solid, objective source of definitions? Did using that original definition exclude one of the groups that you referred to if you tried to exclude the "wealth/power class"?

One is a definition. One is a discussion. The definition is fine if you want to have a basic conversation, but it is inadequate if you want to go into the subject in depth.

Wikipedia defines "Lake" thusly.
A lake is a body of relatively still fresh or salt water of considerable size, localized in a basin, that is surrounded by land. Lakes are inland and not part of the ocean and therefore are distinct from lagoons, and are larger and deeper than ponds.

That seems a good definition, but wikipedia follows up with a longer discussion of lakes which involves ten or more sub topics. Of course entire volumes have been written on the subject of lakes and their environs.

You are correct that the definition alone did not afford the opportunity to make all the points I wished to make. That does not make those points invalid.

[bigmack]

You are correct that the definition alone did not afford the opportunity to make all the points I wished to make. That does not make those points invalid.
Has anyone ever seen such an exponential tool?

[mostpost]

Damn! I was gonna do it, Macky, but I've been busy trying to find reverse. :faint:

Still, I would be remiss if I failed to salute the sharpshooter from Illinois. :2: :3:

You're going to have to explain this one to me. What is the reference to finding reverse. I can't find anything about that in this thread. Is it a reference to one of Burger boys incessant insults from another thread.
Then there is the :2: :3: Micheal Jordan? or BigMack's IQ? Oh, am I going to get in trouble for that one. :( :(

[bigmack]

Look away.

The exchange you're about to witness between post toasties & Stinky is incestuous.

[johnhannibalsmith]

.

Wikipedia defines "Lake" thusly........

Classic. I'm thinking of using this one as my new signature line...


You are correct that the definition alone did not afford the opportunity to make all the points I wished to make. That does not make those points invalid.

Okay, okay - we'll agree that the "discussion" definition granted you a lot more latitude to exclude Obama while including whom you wanted to, all the while not having to retreat from that one special group to you which you mentioned that gets tossed too if we exempt Obama's favorite whipping class.

Other than the "filthy" part, which made me laugh, much of the rest of your supporting evidence making those points "valid" using the definitions was obviously your own opinion. It's hard to get all jumping and up and down over every microspeck of a word and its definition in one post during a quest for validity and then claim you've made a herd of valid points by applying opinion to a definiton. Sorry, I'm too tired to make any more sense than that.

[johnhannibalsmith]

You're going to have to explain this one to me. What is the reference to finding reverse.

Here, I'll beat NJStonker and hand over the goods.

Stop now, he'll just powershift from fourth to reverse by stipulating that any old candidate would have been in the same boat. This is why the real "Truth Team" has a GM, Manager, Bench Coach, Pitching Coach, etc, etc...

From the thread you posted about how good government is to cjs dad. I know that doesnt narrow it down too much.

[NJ Stinks]

You're going to have to explain this one to me. What is the reference to finding reverse. I can't find anything about that in this thread. Is it a reference to one of Burger boys incessant insults from another thread.
Then there is the :2: :3: Micheal Jordan? or BigMack's IQ? Oh, am I going to get in trouble for that one. :( :(

Yes, the reverse thing was a reference to a blistering response from John of all people. :eek: ( In the 'What Sheer Idiocy!' thread when he wasn't so tired, of course.)

And yes, the #:2: :3: is a reference to Jordon. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[NJ Stinks]

Here, I'll beat NJStonker and hand over the goods.



From the thread you posted about how good government is to cjs dad. I know that doesnt narrow it down too much.

Sonofagun if you didn't beat me. :)

[bigmack]

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/HorseRacingForum-PaceAdvantageCom-HorseRacingMessageBoard-Obama-TheDemagogue-.png

That's right. He looked up 'Lake' in Wiki.

I'm tellin' ya, this cat is "out there", man.

http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lytbb16avl1qe0eclo1_r9_500.gif

[PaceAdvantage]

Let's take this forum for example.

An interesting subject comes up and all of the usual suspects chime in. Chances are, you've gotten a fairly balanced overall reaction. Perhaps disproportionately towards one persuasion or the other in terms of volume of respondents, but you'll get it hashed out from a number of angles even within each pidgeonhole with opposing sides rebutting actual claims and statements made about each facet of whatever the debate revolves around.

At the end, rarely do we find anyone's initial positions significantly changed. I find the claim that people want "balanced" news and information to be a questionable one. I rarely meet the people that actually want what they claim. What they want is someone with more credibility than they have to support the position that they already have so they can defend their position effectively.

The point is, if you are truly one of the minority that truly wants balanced information - it's all around you. Unless your television is stuck on a single network, your internet home page is stuck, or the radio is broken - you have everything that you need to find "balance" in the vast disparity in opinion on any single subject. We have more data, conclusions, opinions, and hocus pocus studies at the end of our nerves than ever before.

We don't need "balance" from any singular source, we just need the werewithal to extract the useful perspectives from each opinion to form that balance for ourselves. If that's REALLY what we're after.Damn you're good...

[bigmack]

Damn you're good...
Not so fast, fella.

We got a misspelling.

where·with·al

But you ain't bad, JHS. :cool: