Worldly Talk

Civil discussion and debate on real world events and issues.


Sandy's political fallout

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilRoeSlade View Post
You know there are a lot of nations with universal healthcare that I don't think should rightly be labelled collectivist societies. Canada, France, Germany for instance.
Let's agree to disagree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by diremage View Post
Honestly, John Smith from McDonalds might not be a bad choice for president. Bush grabbed a lot of power with the patriot act and legislation like it, and it might not be a bad thing to see Congress steal back a lot of that from a weak president. Not that that would solve any of the many other things wrong with the system, of course.
Yes, and it's one of my major complaints against the guy. I stopped supporting him when the Patriot Act went through. The Obama Administration is not innocent of this, though - the concerns of the conservatives about the single-payer healthcare being an increase of governmental control aren't invalid, and if memory serves there have been some quieter build-ups of government power (but I'd have to run those links down, and they tend to fall under the realm of blogs even I think are extremists).
So you know what? I think I would vote for John Smith from McDonald's. At least he'd be politically inept enough to get caught. The only problem would be that he'd turn out to be another Ulysses S Grant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solaris View Post
There's practically nothing I agree with Obama on. The only way I'd vote for Obama is if the alternative was someone I agreed with even less. I dislike the Republicans, and their platform is too right and too callous even for me. Unfortunately, the Democrats are even worse - they're intent on remaking the US into a collectivist society.
You are against a collectivist society....
... and you're voting for a Mormon.


And being Canadian, either I don't see us as very collectivist, or I don't find anything wrong with it...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wippit Guud View Post
You are against a collectivist society....
... and you're voting for a Mormon.
Yes, well, as soon as I see him trying to push the much-feared Mormon agenda I'll protest that, too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wippit Guud View Post
And being Canadian, either I don't see us as very collectivist, or I don't find anything wrong with it...
And not being a Canadian, I couldn't care either way - so long as it remains in Canada.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solaris View Post
Yes, well, as soon as I see him trying to push the much-feared Mormon agenda I'll protest that, too.
Wouldn't it be too late at that point? He'd be in office.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wippit Guud View Post
Wouldn't it be too late at that point? He'd be in office.
Not remotely. Presidents are not all-powerful. At this point, though, I haven't seen a thing to make me believe he's going to be bringing his Mormonism to the forefront while in office.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solaris View Post
Presidents are not all-powerful.
To say this, and then also say that Obama has not done everything he said he would do - I'm not saying you said it, but many do - seems a little oxymoronic (is that even a word?). Either he has the power to do what he said he'd do, or he doesn't have the power to do what he said he'd do.

I agree with the statement "presidents are not all-powerful." And yet people hold the President solely responsible, and not the people who are supposed to be checks and balances... and instead became a wall.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wippit Guud View Post
To say this, and then also say that Obama has not done everything he said he would do - I'm not saying you said it, but many do - seems a little oxymoronic (is that even a word?). Either he has the power to do what he said he'd do, or he doesn't have the power to do what he said he'd do.

I agree with the statement "presidents are not all-powerful." And yet people hold the President solely responsible, and not the people who are supposed to be checks and balances... and instead became a wall.
One of my major conceits is that Congress has a lot of the power, and most of the blame for all of the above lays at the feet of the voters. Presidents have some influence, but their direct power over legislature is not absolute by any stretch.

Personally, I'm glad he wasn't able to pull off most of what he campaigned for - and I'm displeased with much of what he did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Agricolus View Post
And, wow... if I hear another person castigating a republican for voting for Romney because he's white... (not you specifically, Ark) ...just as bigoted a reaction as one who actually DOES it.
Voting for Romney because he is white is not the same thing as not voting for Obama because he is black. The former implies a choice based in familiarity and presumed shared values, the other is predominantly racist.

By the same token, African-Americans may vote for Obama because he is black. To suggest that is the same as a black American who refuses to vote for Romney because Romney is white is not accurate.

Arkaelis' point was that there are people voting for someone who is actively against their interests because they refuse to vote for a black man for President. That would be the same situation as blacks refusing to vote for a white candidate who was going to preserve the things most important to them, preferring an African-American candidate who was going to remove many of their government services.

On topic: I think Sandy is actually giving Obama a boost in the polls.

It's also given me a look at the first Republican I've seen all campaign that I can respect in Chris Christie. You could hear jaws hit the floor in that interview with Fox, he pretty much said "to hell with politics, the people I work for need help." As long as he keeps to that attitude and doesn't revert to blindly following Romney, I wouldn't mind seeing him offer up for 2016.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solaris View Post
One of my major conceits is that Congress has a lot of the power, and most of the blame for all of the above lays at the feet of the voters. Presidents have some influence, but their direct power over legislature is not absolute by any stretch.
This viewpoint doesn't allow for the efforts of politicians everywhere to obfuscate their corruption and ineptitude. You can hold the populace accountable to a degree, but we are not living in a society where we as citizens have ready access to full information about the activities of our politicians.

The media we rely upon for reporting are, in large part, bought and paid for by corporate interests, who are also the controlling interests in government. We have a Supreme Court willing to make rulings like Citizens United (and what more can a populace do about that short of electing a President who might be able to get better justices into the Supreme Court). We live in a society politically polarized and paralyzed by partisanship, which is fueled in large part by corporate interests.

It is not so simple to say that all of our problems rest at the feet of the populace. We the people are certainly responsible for getting ourselves out of this mess --- we're the only ones who can -- but we aren't wholly responsible for the mess, just as the public-at-large isn't ultimately to blame for the entirety of the financial collapse of a few years ago. There are other actors and they wield tremendous influence on the state of affairs in the this country and in the world.

To deny that is to be in fairly steep denial.




 

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Blog   Myth-Weavers Status