101 replies to this topic

[*Anastasia]

From Reddit, a good summary of my views towards the Obama administration:
 

Alright, here it goes:

I want to start this by saying that any President, regardless of their political affiliation, will always inherit the burdens of his predecessor. Obama did not walk into an easy situation. He had two wars going on, one of which (Afghanistan) had become totally neglected and was failing, miserably; the standing of the United States in the international community was less-than-stellar (although, now, it seems worse.. heh), the whole 2008 financial crisis was rearing its ugly head, when we already had more debt than we knew what to do with...

Obama promised CHANGE. He ran on a platform that painted him as the total opposite of President Bush in EVERY. SINGLE. WAY. He took advantage of a disenchanted public and exploited their fear of "Another 8 years of Bush.." He talked about closing Guantanamo Bay, ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, making healthcare affordable, reassessing the size and scope of the U.S. military presence around the world, reasserting the rights of the American people....

And all he really has done is just continue the Bush legacy in more ways than one. He didn't take us out of Afghanistan, he surged it with 30,000 troops (a result I think that resulted from the fact that he didn't realize that we couldn't just "pull out"). First it was "America will be out of Afghanistan by 2014," now it's 2016. We might be drawing down in Iraq, but guess what? The country is dealing with the biggest AlQaeda presence that it has ever seen. Offshoot groups like ISIS and ISIL control territory. AlQaeda almost retook Fallujah earlier this year. AlQaeda ITSELF is a bigger threat to US national security interests than it ever has been, even immediately before and immediately after 9/11. http://www.dw.de/al-...xpert/a-6087974

Obama has ramped up drone strikes, which actually create MORE terrorists than they kill. Imagine having a bunch of huge metal birds flying around your cul-de-sac because your neighbor is having a BBQ and it looks "suspicious". Suddenly, hellfire missiles are fired and your neighbors entire house and everyone that was at their BBQ are a pile of dust. This happens in PAKISTAN ON THE DAILY. And radical Imams, etc. use this as propaganda to get more people to rise up against "The West". The amount of drone strikes that the Obama administration has carried out within a year practically tops what Bush did during his entire presidency. http://axiomamnesia....men-somalia.jpg http://nopewar.files...jpg?w=497&h=216 http://media.mcclatc...g7aSC.La.91.jpg

Obama has twiddled his thumbs while missing perfect opportunities to shape the changing world to align with U.S. interests. He sat silently during the Arab Spring, drew line after red line, let the Syrian conflict rage for almost THREE YEARS before deciding to arm any rebels, and by then, there were no moderates left to even arm... and let's not even talk about how Putin has wiped his ass with him in Ukraine.

Jeeze, and this is just the FOREIGN POLICY side of it. I never thought a President could make us look worse than Bush did, but Obama has taken the cake. I know he doesn't want the U.S. to step up to bat every single time, and I GET THAT. But so many times he has let perfect opportunities to restore U.S. credibility pass him by. And instead, his actions have shown that he really is just running the same exact show that G.W. did.

I'm a registered DEMOCRAT. But lately, it doesn't even matter. Nothing will change until the electoral college is abolished and the United States puts their money where their mouth is... proportional representation is much more democratic than this majoritarian crap we have going on. How the hell does it make sense that 40% of the American population can vote a certain way and get 0 political representation? I was never a Bush fan, but George W. Bush never ordered 250+ drone strikes, launched FBI raids on antiwar activists, or authorized the assassination of U.S. citizens abroad. And I really truly believe that if he were President during the Arab Spring, the situations in Egypt and Syria today would be very, very different.

But then again, that's just my opinion. You can make your own. http://www.factcheck...arterly-update/

[Thrash]

Congrats, MvP, you've now joined me on the list.

[Locke]

Congrats, MvP, you've now joined me on the list.

I don't think you want to be on any of the lists she's on. :v

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

I agree with some of the stuff the poster said, maybe even most of it.  But I doubt anything would have been any different under Bush.  He probably would have had even more drone strikes.  And nothing about the Arab Spring would have been handled any better.  I wonder, what would the poster have had the administration do differently?  But no, Obama certainly didn't live up to the hype.

[Shokkou]

From Reddit, a good summary of my views towards the Obama administration:
 

Nothing will change until the electoral college is abolished and the United States puts their money where their mouth is... proportional representation is much more democratic than this majoritarian crap we have going on. How the hell does it make sense that 40% of the American population can vote a certain way and get 0 political representation?

 

This right here. Quoted for truth.

I don't care about the whole Bush vs Obama debate. The only real interest I have in it is that Obama did not live up to the hype and that people accept that.

[Thrash]

The only real interest I have in it is that Obama did not live up to the hype and that people sheeple accept that.

[*Anastasia]

And nothing about the Arab Spring would have been handled any better.

I agree with him that the situations in Egypt and Syria would likely be different under Bush, but I'm not sure it would've been for the better, either. The way I see it, the reason Obama's ramped up drone strikes is because there has actually been a shift in military policy: away from overt military actions to more covert ones. Not that a drone's that covert to those on the receiving end, but more drone strikes, arming al-Qaeda in Syria, the airstrikes on Libya... they all create less hype and, more importantly, less domestic controversy than two invasions and occupations.

So the Arab Spring? Yeah, it probably woulda been handled differently. Probably with less lip service and more boots on the ground. Would that'd've been better for the countries involved? Hard to say. Even when their current situation's not all that pleasant, it's hard to argue the point that the US turned Iraq into a magnet for extremists. It went from a country with no or negligible al-Qaeda presence to its main base of operations. That ain't Saddam's fault: that's on America.

[Shokkou]

I think it's unlikely the result could have turned out better. Regardless of the approach, you have people who want to make a point taking the quick and easy route barging into a cultural climate they don't understand. That can only end badly.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

The Electoral College is an abomination.  Try this exercise: Take a group of 30 nine-year-olds and divide them into five unequal groups of 10, 8, 6, 3, and 3.  Then tell them that each group has a certain number of "super votes."  The group with 10 people gets 5 super votes, the group with 8 gets 4, the group with 6 gets 3, and the groups with 3 get 1 each, for a total of 14 super votes.  Now explain to them that they're going to vote to pick either chocolate or vanilla ice cream, but they're going to vote by group, and whichever flavor gets the most votes in a group gets ALL that group's "super votes."  The flavor that gets 8 out of 14 "super votes" wins.  So, you tell them, even though 18 kids might vote for chocolate and 12 for vanilla, vanilla could still win because it got more "super votes."  After you've explained all this, enjoy the few moments of awkward silence that will follow while the children look at you with exactly the same expression as if you had just suggested in complete seriousness that they all take a shit on their desks.  Then try to answer their questions without sounding like an idiot.

[*Anastasia]

Then try to answer their questions without sounding like an idiot.

Then dodge pencils and various other projectiles when they realize there's actually no ice cream.

[*Anastasia]

Also, y'all should just act like civilized countries and have a President elected by Congress. </Westminster fangirl>

[Shokkou]

I can't be the only person who thinks it'd be a good idea to test what Jorost said in schools, right? Viva la revolucion~

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

One person, one vote.  That's basic democracy.  It need not be more complicated than that.

 

Think of how American politics would be fundamentally changed without the Electoral College.  There would be no more Red States and Blue States; there would only be voters.  Consider:  It makes no sense for a Democratic nominee to waste any time whatsoever in Texas, since there is effectively no chance that they can win, and therefore no chance of securing the Lone Star State's 38 electoral votes.  But 41% of Texans voted for Obama in 2012 — more than 3.3 million citizens whose votes, effectively, don't count.  But in a straight popular vote those votes would suddenly matter again, and going to Texas or the Deep South for a Democrat (or New York or California for a Republican) would no longer be a waste of time, because every vote that gets to the polls matters just as much as every other.

 

Here's another way to look at it:  I live in Massachusetts, a very liberal state.  Barring some unfathomable catastrophe, there is, for all intents and purposes, no chance that Massachusetts will vote for the Republican nominee, whoever it happens to be, in 2016.  The Bay State will vote Democratic, and overwhelmingly so.  So I really don't need to vote at all.  If I support the Democrat I can just sit back and do nothing, secure in the knowledge that they will win our state's electoral votes.  Or, if I support the Republican, I can throw my hands up in frustration, because even if I do go to the polls, it doesn't matter because my guy has no statistical chance of winning.  Is that representation?  It sure doesn't sound like it.

 

Yet still they tax us.  It seems to me that I heard something somewhere once about taxation without representation...

[*Anastasia]

One person, one vote.  That's basic democracy.  It need not be more complicated than that.

'One person, one vote' is also the mantra behind which first-past-the-post proponents hide. And look where that gets us; 37% of the popular vote went to the Conservatives in the last election, who won 54% of the seats in parliament. How is that any more democratic than the electoral college?

Personally, I'm a fan of Single Transferrable Vote. One person, one ranked ballot with as many marks as there are candidates. For best results, ban political parties and make every candidate run on her own merits (but that much is probably a utopian pipe dream).

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

I have no objection to political parties.  It is natural for like-minded people to ban together, and freedom of assembly and association are basic rights in any modern democracy.  I'd like to see a more parliamentary system where we could see more parties, quite honestly.  One of the side effects of our winner-take-all system is the tendency to polarize into two camps.  There is no realistic way for a third party to make any headway in American politics on a national level.

[Manoka]

Drone strikes aren't that bad. 

 

Nor is assassinating American citizens. 

 

 

Some American citizens are bad and need to be assassinated. 

 

Drone strike collateral damage has been way over hyped and estimated. 

Edited by Manoka, 07 June 2014 - 06:54 PM.

[Shokkou]

Yeah, we've definitely taken an idea that's sound at its core and pushed it to an unreasonable extreme.

 

EDIT: *sigh* That was directed at Jorost again.

[*Anastasia]

More parties would be better than two parties. The problem I see is probably more relevant in Canada than the US, where we have a strong tradition of party solidarity: that is to say, on most votes, if an MP doesn't vote the way the party leadership tells her, she'll be expelled from said party. My understanding is that that's not as common in the US. However, the US still sees high levels of partisanship regardless, and to my mind, that's demeaning to the democratic process. It makes it difficult for people with nonconformist views to get elected, even if they might have a local base of popular support, because they're forced to run as independents, which (surprise, surprise) do not tend to stand that great of chance against parties with not only better-organized fundraising machines, but who also tend to have laws skewed in their favor. For example, in Canada, political parties can not only keep fundraising money they collect from donors and don't use for use in the next election, but they can keep collecting donations outside of our 5-8 week campaign cycle. Independent candidates have neither ability: they cannot collect donations except during the campaign, and if they have any unspent donations left over at the end of the election, they must surrender this money to Elections Canada.

In other words, my view is that political parties are themselves undemocratic. They encourage (or force) both candidates and elected officials to support policies they may personally oppose, or whose constituents may oppose, because of the party line. They also encourage factionalization among those seeking election in order to ensure they can win party endorsement, because running as an independent is usually suicidal. It's just a bad system all around.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Yeah that sounds like something more specific to Canada.  And I agree, it's pretty lousy.

 

I'd like to see an instant-runoff type system implemented, in which the the head of government was chosen by the legislature, with a president as head of state, who would be elected by a simple majority in a series (if necessary) of runoffs.  The responsibilities of the presidency would be more limited and ceremonial in nature, more like a European president or the Canadian/Australian governor-general.

 

If I got to pick the names I would have a Congress consisting of two chambers, the House of Representatives, who would legislate, and a House of Lords, whose function would be more advisory and consultative.  Lords would be appointed for life, but there would be a mandatory retirement age, after which they became "Lords Emeritus" and could no longer vote or sit in the chamber for regular sessions; the titles would not be hereditary.  The head of state would be the Lord Protector, elected to a single seven-year term, after which they would take their place in the House of Lords.  And the country would be renamed Invicta. 

[Shokkou]

Just... no...