I don't understand this mentality. If Obama comes out as against Net Neutrality, it's him being evil. If he comes out in favor of it, he's lying.

I understand politicians often have ulterior motives but from the information provided, this is exactly what the majority of citizens were asking him (and the FCC) to do.

Sometimes people don't want a real discussion, they just want their existing views reinforced.

Sometimes people lie so often that you will never be able to trust them again.

I'd never trust a guy who signs secret kill lists, even targeting US citizens without having a trial. He even publicly joked about this, which is sign of insanity to me.

And then there's the case of a jailed journalist from Jemen (who reported about a drone bombardment in Jemen), where he personally called the president of Jemen to prevent him from releasing the journalist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulelah_Haider_Shaye

In your own way, you're doing the exact same thing that you're accusing your grandparent poster of doing. You're implying/assuming that he has no foundation for his argument.

When you have no trust in an authority, it's perfectly reasonable to question good news and be paranoid about true intentions.

Even this morning, I saw this video referenced: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G790p0LcgbI

It's an Obamacare architect admitting that they lied to obscure the tax/redistribution ramifications of the law. His direct message is that a lack of transparency is a weapon to get legislation passed.

And we should trust these people? Take them at their word? Why?

"often"? Try only. The problem is a cognitive dissonance, in that hired/owned men only do what their masters pay them to do. So following the money, who told him to propose this and make his speech?

So its a story either way, either he has new owners paying him to say this kind of stuff (who is paying for this point of view?), or the guys who do pay him are going to be really angry that he's being a loose cannon. Either way the reaction will be interesting to watch.

That might be the opposition position, but from his own side, I think the prevailing mood is generally disappointment. Look at the context. Nominating a former telecom lobbyist to run the FCC in the first place is not a sign of sincerity about reform.

It could be a way for him to involve the demographic that elected him.

Last week, Obama said, "To the two-thirds of voters who chose not to participate in the process yesterday, I hear you, too" - http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-tells-gop-br-my-mand...

It could be a way to make Democrats relevant again, by being the party they're supposed to be. They just lost big by playing it safe, they might as well push something progressive.

It's not like they could loose any worse.

Sometimes things are about legacy and not necessarily just political agenda. Has he not already reached the pinnacle of a political career?

I am distrusting him to such an extent that I'd even say he calls for open internet so his spying and subversion agencies have a better chance at creating unrest and chaos in other societies.

I don't think that his angle necessarily has to be at odds with our angle(s). It could perhaps be that he's trying to change course after a horrible (to him/Democrats) midterm election season, or just to boost popularity of his party in general, which I'm sure works out better for him in the long run somehow. Though, this is the term where presidents are known for pretty much doing whatever they want since there's no looming election so it's really a good question what his motives are.

Yup, easy way to make a lot of people happy[er] after an election indicating a lot of people aren't with him. He can just direct the FCC to "give the Internet common carrier status" and it can largely be worked out via Executive Order; if there are any legal objections, they can be tied up in the courts for years until supporting legislation catches up.

> or to see what's Obama's angle in this

My guess: He's bringing this up to drive a wedge between tech donors (pro-neutrality) and Republicans (anti-neutrality) in 2016.

This already seems to be working, with Ted Cruz calling Net Neutrality the "Obamacare of the Internet". Cruz knows he doesn't need tech sector money to get re-elected or to run in 2016.