On September 18 2012 00:25 brolaf wrote: Okay, but there are also bad things in 4 years that could make one dissatisfied with Obama.
5T more debt(+ the infamous off sheets liabilities US is known for) Household incomes smaller than 4 years ago Economy stagnant or in slight real recession the entire time(given how low the official inflation numbers are compared to real increase expenses) Joblessness RISING - the unemployment number is down but participation rate is ALSO DOWN, people are giving up and leaving the labor force Reckless monetary policy(huge monetization) putting govt in a difficult position when they are pressurised into stopping inflation
You do realize that Obama's powers are executive, not legislative. As such, Congress is responsible for most of those perceived shortcomings, as Obama's role in those matters is largely advisory, although he can pull some strings and hope for the best.
That's not to say he did a great job, but if we give it an honest look rather than partisan bullshit, we have to think about the fact that we can't compare the path that Obama's administration took with "the path not taken" for which we have no data (as it didn't happen, obviously). So, Obama was given very limited control of the US's economic policies at the beginning of a major economic crisis, and just like in every recession, unemployment goes up and in keynesian economies the debt goes up too.
Now you can look at that and say, look the debt is up and unemployment is up therefore its bad. Or, you can put on your critical thinker hat and say "well we don't know shit". Times are tough because it's a recession, so we can reasonably expect to get worse (and thus people will complain regardless). The question is, how much worse? So who's to say that things aren't better now than they would otherwise have been?
The rotten economy was left by the previous administration (Again, not Bush specifically - the decisions taken in Congress had a huge impact). To expect unemployment to be back after 4 years is probably quite crazy. And to put the blame on the executive branch of the government is just odd.
The unemployment isnt even going down, it is stagnating(when you look at the decreasing participation rate) while inflation is steadily picking up. I dare say there is no recovery. Given a more realisting GDP deflator it is been in stagnation/deflation the entire time which is what you would expect when you look at the dreadful labor market.
On September 18 2012 00:25 brolaf wrote: Okay, but there are also bad things in 4 years that could make one dissatisfied with Obama.
5T more debt(+ the infamous off sheets liabilities US is known for) Household incomes smaller than 4 years ago Economy stagnant or in slight real recession the entire time(given how low the official inflation numbers are compared to real increase expenses) Joblessness RISING - the unemployment number is down but participation rate is ALSO DOWN, people are giving up and leaving the labor force Reckless monetary policy(huge monetization) putting govt in a difficult position when they are pressurised into stopping inflation
You do realize that Obama's powers are executive, not legislative. As such, Congress is responsible for most of those perceived shortcomings, as Obama's role in those matters is largely advisory, although he can pull some strings and hope for the best.
That's not to say he did a great job, but if we give it an honest look rather than partisan bullshit, we have to think about the fact that we can't compare the path that Obama's administration took with "the path not taken" for which we have no data (as it didn't happen, obviously). So, Obama was given very limited control of the US's economic policies at the beginning of a major economic crisis, and just like in every recession, unemployment goes up and in keynesian economies the debt goes up too.
Now you can look at that and say, look the debt is up and unemployment is up therefore its bad. Or, you can put on your critical thinker hat and say "well we don't know shit". Times are tough because it's a recession, so we can reasonably expect to get worse (and thus people will complain regardless). The question is, how much worse? So who's to say that things aren't better now than they would otherwise have been?
The rotten economy was left by the previous administration (Again, not Bush specifically - the decisions taken in Congress had a huge impact). To expect unemployment to be back after 4 years is probably quite crazy. And to put the blame on the executive branch of the government is just odd.
The unemployment isnt even going down, it is stagnating(when you look at the decreasing participation rate) while inflation is steadily picking up. I dare say there is no recovery. Given a more realisting GDP deflator it is been in stagnation/deflation the entire time which is what you would expect when you look at the dreadful labor market.
Who's to say unemployment couldn't be 12% (figure picked at random). I'm not saying things were handled perfectly at all, but come on. People need to have a little modesty too.
On September 17 2012 19:15 Newbistic wrote: This thread's a pretty good snapshot of youth today. Someone asks for serious discussion on a serious issue, everyone pitches in but no one answers the question. Everyone wants their say but nobody has anything worth saying. First amendment rights in the hands of people who love to exercise it but do not understand its true value.
Today's youth is raised in an era of considerably less journalism than ever. It wouldn't seem like it, there's information everywhere, but 80-90% of it is generated by a small number of news sources then flung and reflected around the net (twitter, anyone?). The old pillars of the industry have eroded and left news stations at the mercy of their advertisers who wield this corporate interest extremely effectively. Furthermore, we've been raised during the emergence of the attack ad and simplified campaign messages. Why did this happen? Because, for the older generation, it worked. The politicians who used these tactics got elected. So we grow up media savvy, see through it, and become cynical about the whole system. In a typical 30 minute newscast, 10 is devoted to commercials. 6~7 each to sports and the god damn weather & traffic (seriously? the weather ISN'T THAT IMPORTANT), then 4 minutes for civic issues.
So politicians have to dumb down their messages even more, refine their talking points harder and pander to the media -- it's the only way they can be seen by their constituencies. C-span removes the right of congress to secrecy and disallows the intrinsic deliberation, debate and friction around issues which needs to take place for the result to be worth anything. Furthermore it can't do any justice to the complex voting and discussion system which takes place in Congress.
So we see more and more attack ads, more and more of the same messages and themes used by all politicians -- because that's what works. Media only focuses on conflict, winners and losers, and follows the narrative frame "look at the game these people are playing. It's dramatic, but you're helpless and this doesn't involve your interests. We'll just highlight different points of view from powerful people and set those as the full spectrum of inevitable outcomes." Not mentioned is how, to feed their families, these networks have to feed off this system. Because, you know, it's all that gets paid for. People aren't willing to pay for actual journalism since the internet (*fingers crossed* -- yet!) And everybody thinks journalists are jackasses even though they're the ones who keep the gov't clean.
Don't ever think there aren't smart people in the government who want to make our country better. There are, and a lot of them. But they have to represent their constituencies and remain loosely true to the vows they ran on. If they suck, it's our fault. There's much more I can expand on but, in short, it's everybody's fault but nobody in particular.
The reality we're at now is that democracy is completely malnourished and sick from lack of participation. But because it's sick and not working the way we don't want to feed it. Or, in my generation's case, if we're part of the silent majority who want to participate despite the rampant cynicism ripping hope from people, we don't know how to participate effectively because they don't teach you that shit in school or anywhere unless you're born into it.
Just remember this, cynicism is cancer. Every time you devalue your importance to the democratic process it becomes sicker. So when that first romney supporter posts, before you type a response you have to try and identify with and understand his, and really think about the merits. which group of people share his pov? why? do you actually? why or why not? what group of people share your interests? Wish I could get more specific.
So, it's your choice, but stop not participating. I've had a policy where I don't post things I wouldn't/haven't said to people irl for a while now. So I can say with full authority that if you're not happy with something and you're not trying to change it or talk about it, I don't respect your point of view and you're a useless person.
I can also tell you we still have enough time from terminal condition. I hope we cure the cancer.
On September 17 2012 10:58 iTzSnypah wrote: This is why I haven't signed up to be able to vote, I'm just not skilled enough to pick out the 1% that politicians say that isn't bullshit.
I have thought this way before as well, but the thing is, as little as someone may know about politics, there are millions of other citizens out there who know even less and will still be voting. So I will be voting this fall on who I think is the best nominee, even if I don't know every little aspect of each of their campaigns. Don't get me wrong, I won't go in to the voting booth completely ignorant, but I won't go in the most knowledgeable either.
On September 17 2012 10:58 iTzSnypah wrote: This is why I haven't signed up to be able to vote, I'm just not skilled enough to pick out the 1% that politicians say that isn't bullshit.
I have thought this way before as well, but the thing is, as little as someone may know about politics, there are millions of other citizens out there who know even less and will still be voting. So I will be voting this fall on who I think is the best nominee, even if I don't know every little aspect of each of their campaigns. Don't get me wrong, I won't go in to the voting booth completely ignorant, but I won't go in the most knowledgeable either.
That's very true. You can be sure that many will vote based on skin color or daddy's opinion.
On September 19 2012 07:42 rogzardo wrote: It's a blog, and my blog at that. No clean up necessary. If no one here can make any good points about Romney, that's telling.
Well, the Team Liquid user base is generally on the liberal side, so I wouldn't expect them to say good things about Romney anyway.
Something VERY minor here. 3 Pages in but I have to say that you cannot credit Obama with Bin Laden....That op goes 100% to the military and the intelligence community that put the whole thing together. That's like me crediting myself with killing a chicken today so I could have some wicked good Stir Fry. But that's semantics.
Can't say who I'll vote for yet. I need to see some debates and read the platforms (for all the good that will do me; because those get thrown out the window once elected).
On September 17 2012 11:11 Sadistx wrote: If you still think voting changes anything, and that at this point both parties haven't turned 100% corporate and the president is just a PR man of the country, well then, I've got some dehydrated water in a can to sell you.
This. Although if forced to choose between Romney or Obama i would still probably choose Obama because he seems less vocally pro-Israel and the way things are looking an Israeli strike on Iran is quite possible within the next couple of years.So if the US is less vocal in it's support of such an attack then possibly Israel will not undertake such an action.
Of course i would vote Libertarian or other third party before voting one of the two big parties so these hypotheticals are academic.
A question for the true Obamaheads out there though , has he actually given a detailed explanation why he broke his promise to close down guantanamo bay?
On September 17 2012 21:14 B.I.G. wrote: As an outsider, I'm still amazed you guys have only two parties to choose from..
That is an unfortunate side effect of the way our election system is designed. Any given election is winner-takes-all, which is a massive reason to not vote for anyone who you don't think has a reasonable chance at winning. It's not that we don't have more than two parties, because we do - green, libertarian, workers', etc., but they often share candidates with the Democrats or Republicans on the big tickets, because third party candidates don't work. In fact, voting for a third-party candidate in the US usually means that it's more likely your least preferred candidate will win.
Perot was leading in the polls back in 1992 i think it was but he pulled out and then re-entered later.It is possible he may have been pressured or blackmailed to leave the race that has always been my feeling on the matter.If he didn't pull out he may very well have won and personally i think the US would have been better off had he been in instead of the two big parties.
On September 17 2012 11:11 Sadistx wrote: If you still think voting changes anything, and that at this point both parties haven't turned 100% corporate and the president is just a PR man of the country, well then, I've got some dehydrated water in a can to sell you.
This. Although if forced to choose between Romney or Obama i would still probably choose Obama because he seems less vocally pro-Israel and the way things are looking an Israeli strike on Iran is quite possible within the next couple of years.So if the US is less vocal in it's support of such an attack then possibly Israel will not undertake such an action.
Of course i would vote Libertarian or other third party before voting one of the two big parties so these hypotheticals are academic.
A question for the true Obamaheads out there though , has he actually given a detailed explanation why he broke his promise to close down guantanamo bay?
The idea that both parties are exactly the same is ridiculous. It's really annoying to see hipsters from the left think like that, and it's sad that they won't vote because they're generally otherwise pretty decent ideologically. I wrote a big post somewhere about this and it's sad to see people being so deluded. And the worst part is, THEY think we're the deluded ones. Now I'll make a concession - both parties are similar in ways (they both have corruption, a lot of incompetents, they both accept some of the current US policies, the "core" of the US perhaps...)
However both parties do things extremely differently, when they're not busy being buried in filibusters. You'd have to be incredibly deluded not to see that, while the corporate world DOES have an important effect on the policies of both parties, there are still major differences between the parties. There are tangible differences that basement dwellers don't hear about because they don't even read the news and they have their retarded opinions about how both parties are the same because none of them have given them a new xbox.
*Taxes: Depending on who you vote for, the tax code can and WILL change, a lot. Neckbeards don't know this because of their lack of financial responsibilities. *Budget: The budget of the US changes DRAMATICALLY depending on who's elected. The focus is different. Neckbeards don't know this because they're busy thinking about how bad the government is. Do you think this is minor? Billions of dollars are moved all over the place. People lose jobs, others get jobs - sometimes jobs are lost, other times jobs are gained. This is huge, and lives are changed completely by this. Just because it's not you doesn't mean the US is not affected. *Moral stuff: Ask homosexuals and blacks. They'll tell you that some governments work much harder to provoke social change. I'll use an example that I've actually studied: Research done by my uni showed that riot police is a LOT more aggressive under a conservative government than it is under a liberal government. Similar things happen in the US depending on who's in charge. Think about the abortion debate, gay marriage, capital punishment to name a few (out of hundreds). *International stuff: Do you honestly think that Bush and Obama's administration have the same sort of behavior when it comes down to wars, globalization/protectionism, etc. *Economic policies: Night and fucking day. Do you think the republicans would have handled the recession in the same way? Come on! *Environmental policies: [More obvious stuff that YOU KNOW ABOUT] *Military: Need I say anything? *Laws: Tough on crime stuff from Republicans, looser drug laws from Democrats... *So much other shit
Can you just outright deny all that shit?
"Oh it's all the same". No - you only think that because it's a popular opinion to have. AGAIN, the reason why people think that is because the two party indeed share some similarities and they do both suffer from corruption. That is not to say that they are the same, or entirely controlled by corporations. Throw your conspiracy theorist hat of "they're 100% the same" and put on your critical thinking hat. Things are clearer when you allow your world view not to be a simpleton's black and white conception. There's a point at which you're so pessimistic about something that you end up being just wrong. I think people feel like they're pretty cool when they feel like they're onto something grand like "it's all the same DUDE I'm 16 and I'm totally into their schemes dude".
And just to make things clear, I understand the overarching idea behind that ridiculous idea that both parties are the same. Like I said in that post, there are major problems with the bipartisan system, and a lack of choice. There's also a perception that shit doesn't get done sometimes when the parties constantly block each other. There ARE big problems with the US political system. But "both parties are the exact same" is not true - it's an extrapolation of reality at best. Educate yourselves and go find out what the real problems are.
Lastly, you want to know why Obama didn't close Guantanamo? Why don't you read instead of asking here? You've undoubtedly heard about checks and balances: Obama doesn't have a "close Guantanamo" button, he's not a dictator who speaks orders and things get done. He's got the executive power, which means that he doesn't get to de-fund Guantanamo. Congress has to do that. They didn't want to. Also, Congress had to fund the new prison slots that Guantanamo's prisoners would occupy in the continental US. They didn't want to. On top of that, the Governors who would have had to host those prisoners, they didn't want to have them. Result: Guantanamo is funded, prisoners have no where to go. Guantanamo cannot be closed unless the prisoners go free. (Not happening). That's not solely the president's fault, that's Congress's. And given fresh blood, it could end up going through - but probably not under a neo-con POS.
I don't believe there is any smart human being on this forums, that would vote for Romney or any delusional republican. They are just filled with non-sense, no logic and hate against different and poor people. Seriously.
Lastly, you want to know why Obama didn't close Guantanamo? Why don't you read instead of asking here? You've undoubtedly heard about checks and balances: Obama doesn't have a "close Guantanamo" button, he's not a dictator who speaks orders and things get done. He's got the executive power, which means that he doesn't get to de-fund Guantanamo. Congress has to do that. They didn't want to. Also, Congress had to fund the new prison slots that Guantanamo's prisoners would occupy in the continental US. They didn't want to.
When did congress vote to support the military operations in Libya?
Both parties say one thing and do another , usually to the benefit of big banks and the military industrial complex.Here is a video of Dick Cheney from 1994 on why a land invasion into Iraq would be a bad idea.
Remind me how many people in the financial world have been jailed since the 2008 financial crisis.Don't try and tell me Bernie Madoff was the only guy doing dodgy deals , he was small fry.You really believe all the occupy stuff and how the democrats support that? Go do some research on how many of Obamas advisors were former Wall St then come back to me.Remember that Clinton was the one who repealed Glass-Steagal and set the financial scam into high gear back in 1999.The 1% owe the democrats big time for that move.Remember just because i am criticising the Democrats now does not mean i support the mainstream Republican party in any way.
Like I said, both parties have corruption and fraud, and both parties are partially controlled by corporate interests (although for the most part, mostly indirectly).
I don't know how your post supports the idea that they're both the same. They both have major failings and in fact I do believe that both parties suck to varying degrees. But they're not the same.
So to reiterate, whoever you vote for, you'll have corruption and fraud, but other things will change. Sometimes dramatically.
On September 19 2012 07:42 rogzardo wrote: It's a blog, and my blog at that. No clean up necessary. If no one here can make any good points about Romney, that's telling.
I stopped taking you seriously as soon as you said this.
You can't be "genuinely" trying to learn about the other side and keep having this mentality.
1. This forum board is international and "young" so it's going to be heavily liberal to begin with. 2. "any good points" is so vague; someone can make a "good point" and it wouldn't be "good" to you, so what's the point?
EPT
