The Political Discussion Thread

[Coco Pops]

yeah well in the US the only way a president can have some measure of true authority is if he has a military background. Obama is 100% civie thus has no backing from the military ie. no real authority which means he's just a puppet giving out the orders he's ordered to give

But isn't that true of every President, that they are merely puppets and figureheads for people in the back rooms who actually make the decisions? Why is that?

Oh and this
http://www.policestateusa.com/2013/t...nts-labor-day/

And I've looked beyond this website and it's true

[Womble]

The Term “conspiracy theorist” is a label used by the establishment to dismiss the idea that powerful people might get together and actually plan anything. -George Carlin

Powerful people- yes, ALL powerful people- never. It requires a tremendous degree of social idiocy to believe that all powerful people- in the world or in the US- share the same interests.

The problem with grand conspiracy theories is that they are fallacies of a single cause. Everything ties in together, no exceptions to the rules, the number of active agents is reduced to a minimum and the rest of the world is declared to be passive scenery. But the world is too big and complex for it to be the case. One has to ignore the cutthroat competition between the "ultra-rich" and the multitude of competing pressures on the "all-powerful politicians". One has to forget that outside of the borders of their country, there's a bunch of other countries who play their own roles and make their own impact, including on your country.

I can believe in Google and Samsung conspiring to strip Apple and Microsoft of their market share, but I cannot believe in Google, Apple, Samsung and Microsoft amiably dividing the data market between them to the consumer's detriment. I can very much believe in politicians violating your constitutional rights, but not in a grand party-transcending conspiracy to do so.

The thing about the "ultra-rich" and large corporations, by the way, is that we're so awed by their power we barely notice how transient it is. Just a short time ago, in the 1990-s, Bill Gates' Microsoft was an iron-fisted monopoly on PC software and IBM on PC hardware, Apple was a niche company struggling hopelessly to compete, Netscape was worth $3 billion and no one knew the name of Sergey Brin or Mark Zuckerberg. Since then, IBM surpassed Microsoft in worth, then tumbled and is selling itself to the Chinese (Lenovo) piece by piece, Netscape is a thing that only people my age remember, Microsoft has been pushed to the fringes of the computing market by a penniless son of Russian immigrants who made his way into the ranks of the ultra-rich, and one of the most powerful corporations in the world is a social network.

The average lifespan of a S&P 500- listed company is 15 years. The people and the companies that will rule the world by 2020 are ones whose names we haven't yet heard of. That's capitalism; power and money are transient.

The Rotschilds are the favorites of conspiracy mongers for three reasons. First, they are Jewish, and the conspiracy mongers are invariably savage bigots. Second, they were synonymous with banking in the 19th century, so there's 150 or so year history of conspiratorial thinking to draw on. Third, because it freaks some people out that a single family can stay wealthy for so long. In Japan, they have 20 000 corporations that are more than 100 years old, and a few who are close to 1000 years old, still controlled by the same families. In the West, such things are rare so people see it as suspect. That's all there is to it. The Rotschilds are just another investment business these days, nowhere near the biggest. They survived because they didn't seek to be the biggest but rather then most durable. They are extremely conservative investors who shun association with politics, they keep small (by the investment banking standards) and they leverage their flawless reputation as people whose clients never lost money. Stock exchange is like a cold shower, they say- quickly in, quickly out. All there is to it. The dynasty's total wealth is about $400 billion including assets- that's ALL their branches and personal wealth and by the highest estimate - about as much as Google or Exxon.

[Womble]

But isn't that true of every President, that they are merely puppets and figureheads for people in the back rooms who actually make the decisions? Why is that?

In layman terms?

No one person can be an expert on foreign policy, domestic policy, military affairs, healthcare, infrastructure etc. So there can be no one-person decision making; it's always a team doing it. But in a representative democracy, you cannot market to the voter a team; you market the representative. The President is the leader- or at least the face - of a team producing policy.

[Womble]

yeah well in the US the only way a president can have some measure of true authority is if he has a military background.

What kind of military background? Did Reagan have a military background that gave him truer authority than Obama has?

[Womble]

Meanwhile the nature of a two party system means that whatever policies are brought forth by one party, are ultimately negated before their full fruition. Sometimes this is down to pure selfishness and a need to get one up on the opposition and sometimes it is down to how politicians believe that a policy is legitimately the wrong thing to do. Either way it's a sign that the system is broken.

Oh yes, the woes of not being able to govern unopposed. Horrible thing, democracy.

For Obama's part in this I think it's fairly clear that what has actually occurred is that people misread what legacy he would leave. People look around them and see that nothing has changed when really they should recognise that it is still a very special thing that a coloured man is President of the united states. That's what has changed and that will be his legacy. Everything else will be judged in the decades to come, simply because most things in politics are.

Obama's race as the one proper yardstick to judge him by? His skin color as the measure of his presidency? How fascinatingly racist.

[Coco Pops]

OH My Gosh........... What did I just read?

[Gatefan1976]

Today I am disappointed to be an Australian.

To hear the response from the mainstream media over John Oliver's 4 minute skit about our PM is frankly pathetic. The guy is a clown and deserves no more than to be treated as such, but to hear the media speculate on "how this will effect his US visit" and how "damaging" it will be is just laughable. All it proves is that the Aussie media is just as pathetically poor as the US 24/7 media.
I honestly thought we were better than that, I guess I was wrong.

[Coco Pops]

Today I am disappointed to be an Australian.

To hear the response from the mainstream media over John Oliver's 4 minute skit about our PM is frankly pathetic. The guy is a clown and deserves no more than to be treated as such, but to hear the media speculate on "how this will effect his US visit" and how "damaging" it will be is just laughable. All it proves is that the Aussie media is just as pathetically poor as the US 24/7 media.
I honestly thought we were better than that, I guess I was wrong.

But that's the media for you........ I love a free press and I took it as satire... Not helped by the fact our PM is a bit of a douche

[Gatefan1976]

But that's the media for you........ I love a free press and I took it as satire... Not helped by the fact our PM is a bit of a douche

That's because you have a BRAIN CoCo.
Even better, John Oliver is not the Press, it's a comedy show in the vein of the daily show, the Colbert report and real time.
Pity our press is so stupidly ignorant that they have to jump on such stuff......

[P-90_177]

Oh yes, the woes of not being able to govern unopposed. Horrible thing, democracy.


Obama's race as the one proper yardstick to judge him by? His skin color as the measure of his presidency? How fascinatingly racist.

I fail to see what's democratic about a system that pretty much relies on only two parties. And likewise there's nothing democratic about parties who indiscriminately slag each other off just to score points with the voters. Each party says that its opposite number was a complete failure during their tenure and they can do it so much better. What's undemocratic about simply looking about about when you're in power and saying "Well you know what we opposed this bit of legislation before because we thought it would break the system, but it actually seems to be doing some good so we think we may have been wrong,"? What is wrong with a party being magnanimous and simply recognizing the oppositions successes rather than dwelling on their defeats? Otherwise it no longer is democracy. It's a popularity contest for clowns. And we end up with a system where people are encouraged to hate any political view other than their own and more likely become jaded and disengaged with the political system as a whole. Thus people stop voting and thus a country's fate is slowly decided by fewer and fewer people.
This is the nature of having only two major parties with no others being able to get a look in. It turns politics into just matters of black and white, "You're wrong! I'm Right!" That's not democracy. That's not debate. That's not balanced.


I didn't say that his skin colour is a measure of success for his presidency. But it will be his legacy whether he wants it to be or not. And to say that 50-60 years ago black men and women were still getting lynched and treated as second class citizens. In the face of that level of hostility it's a special thing that an African American from that generation may fulfill MLK's highest hopes. But that's a big change. There's a high chance that would not have been able to happen in American politics before, and demonstrates that the presidency is not just a white men's club. But yet because of this historical significance he was unfairly put on a pedestal and expected to change the rest of society in the United States over night. They expect him to be this messianic figure to solve all the countries woes. How's any man supposed to live up to that?

[SoulReaver]

What kind of military background? Did Reagan have a military background that gave him truer authority than Obama has?

Ronnie had 3 years of active military experience & was promoted to rank of captain during that time if Ms Wiki ain't lying. he may not have left US land during his service but - compared to Obama who probably never held a gun his whole life (much less a military one) - even junior Bush could be called a badass war vet

how would you explain Obama signing the 2012 NDAA bill despite having "serious reservations" with some of its provisions
(funny episode this one: american conservatives complained about the bill but had the exact same text been signed by the previous president they'd have hailed it as Patriotic™. lol)

[SoulReaver]

now if a person is trying to support a family of say 4 on $20,000/yr....then yeah I'd say he should start looking for a job within his skill set that pays better or go back to school to learn new skills that are higher in demand in the job market and obviously get some help with basic necessities (food, clothing, housing, etc.) in the meantime

ea$y as pi

[Coco Pops]

Someone on FB sent me this video..

[Womble]

I fail to see what's democratic about a system that pretty much relies on only two parties.

What prevents you from establishing a third party? I never did understand that part.

Here in Israel, the complaint is exactly the other way round- too many parties, the governing coalition is too fragmented and weak. We used to have two large parties, but neither of them was big enough to govern by itself so they required support from smaller parties, which could in turn position themselves as "kingmakers" and gain disproportionate influence. Now the fragmentation has increased and it's hard to tell if we still have any large parties.

And likewise there's nothing democratic about parties who indiscriminately slag each other off just to score points with the voters. Each party says that its opposite number was a complete failure during their tenure and they can do it so much better. What's undemocratic about simply looking about about when you're in power and saying "Well you know what we opposed this bit of legislation before because we thought it would break the system, but it actually seems to be doing some good so we think we may have been wrong,"? What is wrong with a party being magnanimous and simply recognizing the oppositions successes rather than dwelling on their defeats? Otherwise it no longer is democracy. It's a popularity contest for clowns. And we end up with a system where people are encouraged to hate any political view other than their own and more likely become jaded and disengaged with the political system as a whole. Thus people stop voting and thus a country's fate is slowly decided by fewer and fewer people.

That is an ubiquitous problem of democracy everywhere, including everywhere. Make people compete, and you get polarization. Unless the difference between parties' ideologies is so insignificant that the people no longer care which one gets elected- they'll do the same thing once in office anyway.

I didn't say that his skin colour is a measure of success for his presidency. But it will be his legacy whether he wants it to be or not. And to say that 50-60 years ago black men and women were still getting lynched and treated as second class citizens. In the face of that level of hostility it's a special thing that an African American from that generation may fulfill MLK's highest hopes. But that's a big change. There's a high chance that would not have been able to happen in American politics before, and demonstrates that the presidency is not just a white men's club. But yet because of this historical significance he was unfairly put on a pedestal and expected to change the rest of society in the United States over night. They expect him to be this messianic figure to solve all the countries woes. How's any man supposed to live up to that?

Actually, Obama has put himself on the pedestal. He gave grand promises and set out to enact fantastical changes, try what hasn't been tried before. Then it turned out that many things have not been tried for a reason- because only a complete blithering idiot would think they were worth trying.

I remember a LOT of talk about "the Obama effect", meaning the world changing its opinion on the USA overnight because of Obama's persuasion magic. I remember worshipful analysis of his body language during speeches. I remember Obama setting out to enact a grand change in the USA's relations with the Muslim world, the Cairo speech, and how it got everyone excited. Nobody wants to remember the Cairo speech anymore- it was full of vision but completely and utterly detached from any tangible reality, and if you re-read it now you realize the sheer magnitude of stupidity on which Obama's foreign policy was founded.

Obama deliberately positioned himself as a messianic figure who would solve all the world woes. Now he is the victim of his own worshippers? Oh please.

[SGalisa]

What prevents you from establishing a third party? I never did understand that part.

We actually do have more than 2 parties on our election ballots. I've seen up to seven or more to vote for.
The majority is ruled by the most voted in. The rest of the lot seem scattered, if they even hold a position in the USA gov't.

I remember a LOT of talk about "the Obama effect", meaning the world changing its opinion on the USA overnight because of Obama's persuasion magic. I remember worshipful analysis of his body language during speeches. I remember Obama setting out to enact a grand change in the USA's relations with the Muslim world, the Cairo speech, and how it got everyone excited. Nobody wants to remember the Cairo speech anymore- it was full of vision but completely and utterly detached from any tangible reality, and if you re-read it now you realize the sheer magnitude of stupidity on which Obama's foreign policy was founded.

Obama deliberately positioned himself as a messianic figure who would solve all the world woes. Now he is the victim of his own worshippers? Oh please.

And right now, he and his administration apparently have their hands full with deciding whether to save Iraq from ISIS on its slaughtering binge, and whether or not to team up with IRAN to help save Iran's buttts (both types of but ttz) from being next on ISIS' neighborly hit-list. *sigh*