Calling Radicalism by it's Name - Barack Obama Strikes Back at GOP Rhetoric and Budget Policy
83 replies, posted
[QUOTE=wakarimasen;35444781]When the Great Depression hit, it was the inevitable result of capitalism. As the means of production and technology improve, the market can't keep up with it, and thus things lose their value (boom and bust capitalism).[/QUOTE]
I hate to burst your bubble, scooter, but that's not a flaw of capitalism, that's an inherent flaw of any system with economic growth, be they private companies or entire nations. If growth involves predicting the future (last I checked time wasn't flowing backwards), and people are the ones doing the predicting (humans not known to have precognition), there will be a boom and bust cycle.
You're laughably oversimplifying a multicausal event.
"Flourish" is a strong word for a handful of positions on the state legislature. Elections at the state and local level often go unopposed, and voter turnout for these elections is almost embarrassingly low. America is a diverse country, and while a state legislator may have a loyal show of support from his home town, highly ideological views set him apart from the country at large.
I have no problem with socialistic values, and I'd love to see the rise of strong third parties because I can't say that the current power players fully represent my ideals, but the democratic process, as it stands, is extremely unfriendly to new competition.
An average of fifty percent of the American public shows up to vote for presidential elections. Of that group, about 1/3 of them are swing voters that don't strongly identify with either party. What that leaves is 2/3 of the vote essentially already being decided. Consider what would happen if a socialist candidate did run for president in the US today.
1/3 of voter population votes straight party Republican, finding the new candidate's highly idealistic platform completely antithetical to their values.
The Democratic party identifies with some of the new candidate's positions, but the bulk of the party finds him too idealistic. They launch attack campaigns and attempt to shut him out with their massive budgets and highly organized campaign. Still, he plays his cards well and manages to win a big chunk of the Democratic vote.
The undecided voters find him extremely idealistic. Those undecided voters who tend to identify more conservatively think his head is in the clouds, and go with the Republican candidate. The more liberally minded swing voters also tend to find him a bit too idealistic, but he again manages to pick up a respectable chunk of the liberally-canted independent vote.
Republicans win in a landslide victory. The highly ideological independent candidate only managed to divide the liberal voter base among itself, doing nothing more than securing defeat for both parties. In fact, if I were a politically savvy Republican candidate, I would make generous donations to the socialist candidate's campaign, predicting exactly that outcome. Come the next cycle, the once-rising socialist independent party is effectively quashed.
The only third party that could hope to win the US presidency would have to be a party with extremely centrist beliefs, so that it could attempt to win the swing vote [I]and[/I] leach the moderate Republican and Democratic voters away from their parties. However, even this would be extremely difficult, given the massive resources and organizational skills of the both the dominant parties working to bring down their common enemy.
To summarize, highly ideological third parties will inevitably be shut out of serious office by the current partisan system.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;35446404]"Flourish" is a strong word for a handful of positions on the state legislature. Elections at the state and local level often go unopposed, and voter turnout for these elections is almost embarrassingly low. America is a diverse country, and while a state legislator may have a loyal show of support from his home town, highly ideological views set him apart from the country at large.
I have no problem with socialistic values, and I'd love to see the rise of strong third parties because I can't say that the current power players fully represent my ideals, but the democratic process, as it stands, is extremely unfriendly to new competition.
An average of fifty percent of the American public shows up to vote for presidential elections. Of that group, about 1/3 of them are swing voters that don't strongly identify with either party. What that leaves is 2/3 of the vote essentially already being decided. Consider what would happen if a socialist candidate did run for president in the US today.
1/3 of voter population votes straight party Republican, finding the new candidate's highly idealistic platform completely antithetical to their values.
The Democratic party identifies with some of the new candidate's positions, but the bulk of the party finds him too idealistic. They launch attack campaigns and attempt to shut him out with their massive budgets and highly organized campaign. Still, he plays his cards well and manages to win a big chunk of the Democratic vote.
The undecided voters find him extremely idealistic. Those undecided voters who tend to identify more conservatively think his head is in the clouds, and go with the Republican candidate. The more liberally minded swing voters also tend to find him a bit too idealistic, but he again manages to pick up a respectable chunk of the liberally-canted independent vote.
Republicans win in a landslide victory. The highly ideological independent candidate only managed to divide the liberal voter base among itself, doing nothing more than securing defeat for both parties. In fact, if I were a politically savvy Republican candidate, I would make generous donations to the socialist candidate's campaign, predicting exactly that outcome. Come the next cycle, the once-rising socialist independent party is effectively quashed.
The only third party that could hope to win the US presidency would have to be a party with extremely centrist beliefs, so that it could attempt to win the swing vote [I]and[/I] leach the moderate Republican and Democratic voters away from their parties. However, even this would be extremely difficult, given the massive resources and organizational skills of the both the dominant parties working to bring down their common enemy.
To summarize, highly ideological third parties will inevitably be shut out of serious office by the current partisan system.[/QUOTE]
Well again, the crux of the problem is this money-driven, first past the post system we are using now.
It's only a problem if you have an idealistic vision of [I]"how the country should be."[/I] While the American political system makes change come somewhat slowly, it does guarantee some level of centrist policy and stability.
While your preferred socialist party is highly unlikely to win control of the government, the flip side is also true: nutters like the Tea Party are passing fads.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;35447429]It's only a problem if you have an idealistic vision of [I]"how the country should be."[/I] While the American political system makes change come somewhat slowly, it does guarantee some level of centrist policy and stability.
While your preferred socialist party is highly unlikely to win control of the government, the flip side is also true: nutters like the Tea Party are passing fads.[/QUOTE]
Money influencing politics is only a problem if you're an idealist? I'm afraid I don't follow. Also, of course Socialists wouldn't be swept into government if the electoral system was different, I'm just saying across the board it would allow for more adequate representation of the peoples' political leanings.
Wow. Proof that the whole nation isn't all stupidity. Someone actually knows what's sensible!?
[editline]6th April 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Aman VII;35444624]As said before it's just PR.
Act all strong now but do shit all after.
Deja vu?[/QUOTE]
Whatever. It's still better than a Theocracy, is it not? I thought so.
[QUOTE=Bomimo;35447641]Wow. Proof that the whole nation isn't all stupidity. Someone actually knows what's sensible!?
[editline]6th April 2012[/editline]
Whatever. It's still better than a Theocracy, is it not? I thought so.[/QUOTE]
OK we get it you hate america and americans.
[QUOTE=archangel125;35444219]Can I take a moment to say that I absolutely love your avatar?[/QUOTE]
shark man is pleased
i like your avatar too :>
[QUOTE=Megafan;35447475]Money influencing politics is only a problem if you're an idealist? I'm afraid I don't follow. Also, of course Socialists wouldn't be swept into government if the electoral system was different, I'm just saying across the board it would allow for more adequate representation of the peoples' political leanings.[/QUOTE]
I don't think I've seen anybody miss the point quite so thoroughly.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;35448362]I don't think I've seen anybody miss the point quite so thoroughly.[/QUOTE]
Well like I said I don't think I understood what you were saying. Perhaps you could explain it?
[editline]5th April 2012[/editline]
I mean I simply didn't understand it, but if you've got a point to make I'd like to hear it.
[QUOTE=Falchion;35443750]I don't get why left wing and socialism yadda yadda has to be considered weak and evil in US politics.[/QUOTE]
It's considered such because the USSR/Soviet Union was America's archenemy for two solid generations. Naturally, America had to oppose them in every way possible, physically and ideologically(especially the latter, in the form of often blatantly false propaganda). It's quite difficult to break that particular stigma that Socialism is the root of all evil when most of the individuals currently holding an elected office in this country grew up thinking Gorbachev was the Boogeyman.
How about the Japanese Lower-House system? They've managed to combine the PR system and the FPTP system, with each getting so many of tht total of seats. The result is still a two-party dominance, but with greater representation of the niche groups that can only exist (and do only exist) by PR, such as the Communists.
[QUOTE=thisispain;35447896]OK we get it you hate america and americans.[/QUOTE]
I was just remarking that it was nice to see something sane from the sidelines for a change. If anything, rather than take it as an indication of my personal opinion, take it as an indication of how it looks from the outside instead.
Did you watch his speech? Did he ever bring up the idea of making laws that only apply to, or benifit one religious group while restricting another? I think not. Show me a republican that does this as well, then let's see how many votes they get and THEN tell me that the rating of stupidity in America isn't at a dangerous level. I betcha anything that many of these have mental defects as well. Whether caused by culture or birth.
[editline]6th April 2012[/editline]
It's getting so bad, you can feel/ just barely hear his frustration whenever he talks about their policies... He thinks they're not just bad, but totally off the rails. He knows that under normal circumstances, with an educated and sensible public, he'd be an insta-win versus these billion-dollar priests. But he just KNOWS that more than 30% are either stupid or insane enough to vote for their own slow execution.
Really, i'm thinking that if fact-sheets were passed around to the press (which they probably have been) so they could follow his statements by looking at the numbers and facts, no one should be able to dismiss what he says and anyone who actually does would have to prove that they have any kind of education and capability of objective thinking.
[QUOTE=R3N3GADE;35453189]How about the Japanese Lower-House system? They've managed to combine the PR system and the FPTP system, with each getting so many of tht total of seats. The result is still a two-party dominance, but with greater representation of the niche groups that can only exist (and do only exist) by PR, such as the Communists.[/QUOTE]
But why would you want a two party dominance? Japanese politics are even slower than American politics.
[QUOTE=Bomimo;35453540]I was just remarking that it was nice to see something sane from the sidelines for a change. [/QUOTE]
yes and anytime there's something American you make some callous and ignorant remark about it.
America is huge and there's good and bad, there's amazingly smart people and amazingly dumb people.
In regards to the thread title, I have to nitpick that Republicans are more reactionaries than radicals.
[QUOTE=GeneralFredrik;35438872]He's the only who's actually stands by what he says![/QUOTE]
He is? He's always been floppin' his acceptance of homosexuality.
Now his [I]policies[/I]? For better or for worse, he's yet to falter.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;35447429]It's only a problem if you have an idealistic vision of [I]"how the country should be."[/I] While the American political system makes change come somewhat slowly, it does guarantee some level of centrist policy and stability.
While your preferred socialist party is highly unlikely to win control of the government, the flip side is also true: nutters like the Tea Party are passing fads.[/QUOTE]
I disagree. There has never been such an urgent time for change in 2008, yet we got nothing. The entire house was ready to do REAL change, yet the senate was fucking things up. Yes, we did have enough votes to pass anything the democrats wanted, but that's the failing of the president & leadership. The senate just doesn't make sense in my opinion. Campaign finance reform, or even publicly funded elections is the first step, getting rid of the senate is the next, and perhaps lastly getting rid of the electoral college. Nobody should get more votes than the guy who won. It has nothing to do with expediency, the current system is rigged and flawed. We have the internet and aircraft, things have changed.
I can't recall his name but a representative said that he would spend nearly his entire time raising money for the next election, the system is meant to sell out. This representative left in 2010 because he didn't want to sell out in a time of great despair, and I'm glad he didn't, even if he didn't get anything done.
as for the tea baggers, they have gotten control, and their freshman congressmen have been acting in a rather petulant way. Passing fad they are not, I'm doubtful the republicans have the balls to distance themselves from those right wingers. It's not going to change , at least not any time soon.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;35443015]Yeah, I would've voted for Huntsman if he weren't toeing off against Obama, but he's out of the race now anyway. It's better that way. Dropping out early might allow him to return for 2016, when he might actually stand a chance. All that's left are sacrificial sheep.[/QUOTE]
Huntsman won't make it in the current political climate of soundbites and DEY TIK IR JERBS. Actual competence is the least valued thing in the Republican party right now.
[editline]7th April 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=wakarimasen;35444781]The Cold War, a battle between capitalism and a state-capitalism, resulted in nationalism, and the modern far-right.[/QUOTE]
Hahaha, oh wow. Thanks Professor, I had no idea nationalism didn't exist until the Cold War!
what
nationalism existed before the cold war - it played a large role in the beginning of the first world war
[QUOTE=thisispain;35461926]yes and anytime there's something American you make some callous and ignorant remark about it.
America is huge and there's good and bad, there's amazingly smart people and amazingly dumb people.[/QUOTE]
I'm just going by what i'm being shown. (I've said this before and if you're really annoyed by me bringing this up often, then you must have seen this counterpoint before too, which makes you bringing it up moot.) The press only shows us stupid inbred fucks and the fact that 4 representatives, in grave seriousness, base their campaigns on who can restrict the most and sound the most crazy just further shows us a stupid America from the sideline. That your president has to spend 40 minutes debunking their extremely stupid economic theories and make it painfully obvious to everyone that their domestic plans are to restrict and exploit.
The fact that in his own speech, the closest you get to bias from him, is indirectly admitting that his opponents are whiny bitches who won't compromise, also speaks heaps about what kind of people they are. Yet people will still vote for them. The fact that everyone who wants to persecute everyone else for their sexuality, colour, social status and so on are people who claim to support family values and goodwill also speaks heaps about America.
That, as i said before, 30% AT LEAST, are ready to vote for their own slow execution also shows a dumb America. That 30% are either dumb or insane enough to vote for budget cuts that could and will put their lives or quality of life at stake.
The fact that the only one so far that puts up an objective view on the economy and speaks of equality for everyone actually has to fear for his chances speaks a ton about Americans who've got their own cultural heritage very wrong.
This does not seem to be a minority, if it was, no one would really care. It's a huge part of the population. They are really the most off-the-rails western developed country right now and tons are wrong with it. If Santorum and Romney (being IRL trolls) having support doesn't help you see this, then i don't know what will. I'm not calling the whole population stupid, but all of those clever folks you talk about are either passive or in full action at exploiting the dumb, because on average, America looks like a really stupid nation from the sides. If they weren't, Obama wouldn't be getting flack for doing nothing, the republicans would be getting flack for being bitches. Interviews with protesters who are well articulated would not remain unaired.
[QUOTE=ironman17;35439178]Also, tying into fox '09s concerns of mineral depletion, the mining industry should turn it's gaze Beltwards, towards the great mass of space rocks between Mars and Jupiter; plenty of minerals there, all we need is better space travel tech (and space travel motivation) to get to mining up there.[/QUOTE]
'all we need'
[QUOTE=Splendor;35465754]
Hahaha, oh wow. Thanks Professor, I had no idea nationalism didn't exist until the Cold War![/QUOTE]
wasnt implying that lol
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.