US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1871

On April 23 2015 00:24 always_winter wrote:
Obama won't touch this because he'd instantly polarize the issue around race. Not because of what he says; I'm sure he'd say all the right things because he's incredibly intelligent, and he knows how to play this fucked up system. It's because of his fucking skin color, which is so goddamned depressing considering it's 20 mother fucking 15. It's due to his intelligence, his understanding of his surroundings, that he won't touch the issue because he knows a depressingly large population of Americans, the same people who questioned his birth certificate for years and claim he's the worst president we've ever had despite not offering any palpable proof (i.e., racists), will immediately claim he's pandering to his black homies and promoting racial division (the hypocrisy of which is remarkable).

The fact we elected Obama twice is awesome. There's a lot of other things our country does right, and things we do really well. There's also a lot of fucked up shit within our country right now. None is more pressing or more obvious than law enforcement and the judicial system. Unfortunately I don't believe it can be resolved under the current administration, meaning we've years to go before we see actual change. Couple that with the gross ineptitude of Congress, more concerned with childish partisan politics than meaningful reform, and we likely won't see meaningful change for a decade or more. Don't even get me started on lobbying.

I've long considered myself a realist. Lately I've been overcome with pessimism. The more I try to make myself a medium of change, the more I realize my efforts are largely in vein. The blogs, the forums, the social media and even the letters to state representatives: What are they really accomplishing? One man's voice is so easily drowned by the masses. This nation needs a youth movement, something akin to Occupy but much, much larger. Something willing to challenge the establishment, willing to take the reins of its own future and to stand up to this blatant fucking corruption. Who will lead it? This nation has often had the right person step up at the right time- Washington, Lincoln, MLK, FDR, etc.- who will step up now?

On April 23 2015 01:36 Millitron wrote:

First of all, is it really that great that we've elected Obama twice? Did he do anything he said he would in either campaign?

He didn't close Gitmo, we're back in Iraq, we're still in Afghanistan, we're bombing Syria now, he's ordered hundreds of drone strikes, he's done nothing about the NSA. For all his talk about how Bush was a warmonger, he hasn't been very peaceful.

I think the only reason you say its "awesome" that we've elected him twice is that he's black. I agree that there are people who don't like him just because he's black, but likewise, there are people on the other side who only like him because he's black. Because really, he hasn't done much else that the left wants.

I'm also not so sure he'd try not to polarize people about race. Remember during the George Zimmerman case he totally picked sides. He said that if he had had a son, he would've looked like Trayvon Martin. That seems pretty polarizing to me. The president shouldn't pick sides in a court case, he should support the rule of law.

On April 23 2015 04:39 cLutZ wrote:
The problem for the Democrats/Republicans on trade deals is they have to explain their contradictory viewpoints vis-a-vis immigration:

Republicans: Pro Foreign Goods, Anti Foreign People
Democrats: Anti Foreign Goods, Pro Foreign People

Both have similar effects of suppressing wages of Americans, while lowering prices for consumers.

When you break it down like that, you see that the immigration debate is really only about the party's perception of who they expect immigrants to vote for.

On April 23 2015 09:43 Yoav wrote:


It's a lot more than this.

Republicans (of the neocon stripe) are pro-foreigner in the sense that they think Arabs/Islam capable of democracy, where far-left democrats think the opposite. That said, they're also less likely to bomb the "bad" foreigners.

And even the immigration thing is complicated. There's a lot of Democratic pressure to keep out high-skilled people from India and the like.

On April 23 2015 09:49 Gorsameth wrote:

Everyone is capable of Democracy. The problem is trying to implement it in a tiny time frame.
You cant just have people hold an election and declare them a working Democracy. The culture, the checks and balances all require time and effort and the west in general is not willing to commit to that so instead we leave behind broken countries that descend into anarchy.

On April 23 2015 09:53 Millitron wrote:

I'm not so sure everyone is capable of democracy. Democracy is only possible in a culture that highly values the individual.

On April 23 2015 10:23 WolfintheSheep wrote:

Which seems rather ignorant of other cultures, like Asian ones that value duty to family, duty to society, and avoidance of public shame before individual rights and freedoms.

I would say that democracy is largely an extension of individuals having the means and desire to gain more rights. I mean, what's the point in having an uprising to overthrow a government if you'll remain just as poor and destitute before and after? Or, who cares about democracy while the dictator is actually doing an acceptable job?

On April 23 2015 10:38 cLutZ wrote:
Democracy is fairly easy to establish. A democracy that is not just as tyrannical as your average dictator is.

On April 23 2015 10:56 Millitron wrote:

Aside from valuing individuals, the culture also has to value rule of law. Without rule of law, any democracy that gets started will just be done away with by the first guy to be elected. The people have to not put up with that kind of shit if democracy is to survive in a nation. That's why it's failed so often in the Middle East and Africa. The people are simply indifferent to the brutal cult of personality politics that go on. They're used to politicians bullying and murdering their way to the top. And even when a dictator does finally piss off too many people and gets overthrown, he's often just replaced with a different dictator.


Not all dictators are bad guys, and not all democracies are good. Oliver Cromwell was pretty good to his people.

One advantage a dictatorial society has, as far as the people are concerned, is that if things do get too bad, you know who to go after. If a democracy was tyrannical, it's not very clear what you can do.

Consider the French Revolution. They knew exactly who to guillotine; the king and his ministers. Now imagine if they were a democracy instead and had a huge supporting bureaucracy. It wouldn't be so obvious who is causing the problems.

On April 23 2015 11:48 oneofthem wrote:
i thought all along militron was a libertarian.

On April 23 2015 11:52 Millitron wrote:

Libertarianism isn't necessarily pro-democracy. You can have a libertarian dictatorship. What makes a society libertarian is how much autonomy individuals have, not how much control over the whole society individuals have. It's about how much control people have over their own lives, not how much control they have over other people's lives.

On April 23 2015 11:52 Millitron wrote:

Libertarianism isn't necessarily pro-democracy. You can have a libertarian dictatorship. What makes a society libertarian is how much autonomy individuals have, not how much control over the whole society individuals have. It's about how much control people have over their own lives, not how much control they have over other people's lives.

On April 23 2015 11:52 Millitron wrote:

Libertarianism isn't necessarily pro-democracy. You can have a libertarian dictatorship. What makes a society libertarian is how much autonomy individuals have, not how much control over the whole society individuals have. It's about how much control people have over their own lives, not how much control they have over other people's lives.