Robot-voice Obama explains the difference between his administration and Bush's

I don’t think that’s the real question. I think it’s “Why is he so much worse – and so much more like a Republican – than he promised he would be?”

Your “real question” gives him a pass.


Because he’s actually a politician not an idealist. An idealist would never have gotten elected. Thank God many of GWB’s campaign promises were never kept! My city just elected a young reformer Mayor after a century of corruption (and the unusual fact of Obama endorsing the incumbent), and I’m already pissed at him about something he did pandering to a supporting minority of citizens. Do I regret my vote? NO. The bar to be better than a corrupt machine candidate was insanely low.

Why are libertarians stereo typed as flabby? Did I miss the memo?

The same folks (ALEC) that seem to be coordinating the blitz of abortion bans are also responsible for the “stand your ground” laws that just helped George Zimmerman off the hook. It is only a matter of time before a couple Klansmen kill some anti-Klan protesters because they felt “threatened” by cardboard signs.

If you think that’s far-fetched, read up on the Greensboro Massacre that killed 5 anti-Klan protesters in 1979.

I guess if that happened now, the state would not even bother to charge them.

1 Like

Why shouldn’t we “get [you] started on 3rd parties”? Is it because your arguments on that topic are even weaker?

How far down the lesser-of-two-evils hole must we dig? What I don’t get is how supposed adults can’t be disappointed in some actions of people, but are also expected to ignore the other disappointing actions of those same people, in the name of being a supposed adult. At a certain point, supposed adults have the right to write other adults off as complete losses.


Intellectual heft of a Happy Meal, relentless consumption of corporate slop. total lack of accomplishment, the Homer Simpson of politics.


Wait, what?

Her real question ensures that she’ll never get what she really claims to want. Her opinion on issues doesn’t matter if she gives one Party a pass to keep the other out. She can safely be ignore by her preferred candidate.

1 Like

The right solution to this is to primary challenge Democrats who vote to renew the PATRIOT Act and who vote to fund these programs. The threat of a challenge is usually enough to align sitting politicians with their ideological base. The Republican base has bee very effective at this. Mounting primary challenges is not pretty but it is better than throwing away your vote on a 3rd party or doing something actively harmful by voting Republican.

I don’t like it either. I funded him to get re-elected, and now I’m having second thoughts. Not really about him as much as just everything is going to shit in a handmaiden’s basket case. Or whatever the saying is.

An interesting tidbit I found while looking at Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator information on Wikipedia:

Under type description for ENFJ, reputed to be Obama’s indicator, “Extraverted feeling types seek continuity through harmonious relationships and collective values. They excel at picking up on values, simply because shared values are what create harmony. Some will profess the importance of tough-minded logic, justice and scholarly debate because their environments have these shared values. They tend to adopt the collective values of those in their social group.”

So…Obama goes along to get along? How disappointing.

I’d love a real option to the 2 parties, and not having to hold my nose to vote for the “least bad” every single time I vote. But till there’s change of voting law it’s throwing away your vote to support a 3rd party which has the deck institutionally so stacked against it it has no chance of winning, only spoiling.

Personally, I’m in favor of “instant runoff”, so I could vote my true love 1st, but the “least bad” to win. Eventually under that system a 3rd party could win some elections.

Not really disappointing. That’s pretty typical for many politicians. Politicians always style themselves as leaders but in reality, probably more so than in the general population, they are followers. And that’s a good thing in a representative democracy. Good politicians are the ones that are responsive to their constituencies.

If Obama’s chief constituencies make a big huff about the 4th amendment, then there is a good chance he will “miraculously” see the light. Remember Obama’s opposition to gay marriage? Activist on the left made it a big deal and then he flip-flopped. 4th amendment supporters need to do the same thing and eventually he will go along to get along.

Well, thanks for elaborating, and for doing so without matching my (admittedly testy) tone.

Instant runoff type systems do hold out some hope for eventually shifting the entrenched false choice into something a bit less demoralizing. We’ve been flirting with this where I live, although only in a provisional/locals-only form. We’ll see how it plays out, over time. I’m sure you’re familiar with the basic argument, but in case anyone is curious:

The current system, designed for an era in which there were typically only two parties on the ballot, doesn’t fit the current political realities of Minnesota, where more than 70 percent of voters say they would consider voting for an independent or a third-party candidate. Minnesota voters’ growing independence has fueled an increasing number of winners who gather less than a majority of the votes.

Split elections like these create “spoiler” dynamics and compel voters to vote tactically, not sincerely, as they fear that by voting for their preferred candidate they’ll either “waste” their vote or unwittingly help elect their least preferred candidate. - FairVote Minnesota

The thing that makes the whole, “keep voting for the lesser-of-two-evils and things will eventually work out” argument so damn frustrating is that there are other ways of doing this. Prosperous, established nations around the world use different forms of ranked voting, or otherwise allow greater competition. The bedrock reason that a spoiler vote has to be a spoiler vote is that we keep being told that it’s a spoiler vote.

Personally, I’ve had it with that mentality. Recent events have convinced me that it’s a losing game, and from now on, I’ll be voting for third party candidates whenever I feel so compelled. Rather than asking me why I “waste” my vote, let them ask themselves why they keep voting for (less) evil people.

The squeaky wheel gets the grease - complain enough and someone might listen. That’s the best deal anyone is going to offer, so you’d better be willing to work with it.

The trouble with the “man of unyielding principles and character” is that they are usually cruel despots in addition to being hopelessly corrupt, because the “principles” were all a scam to bilk the rubes anyway.


What is this “endgame” you speak of? Is it beneficial or non-beneficial?

@Rhyolite & @PrestonSturges

Well, it’s the conclusion statement in that passage that I was reacting to the most. I mean, currently his social group is the gang within the inner circle, rather than the regulars on Capitol Hill, or even the folks back home, right? I’d always been left with the impression that you really don’t know what’s going on in the kitchen until you’re hired on as back-of-house.

This is not a Wonderful Thing.

Flabby? Nooooo. Wiry and self-reliant All of 'em. Honest.

If Obama was against this then when Snowden revealed it he should have said, “This is a terrible thing that I have been working to stop. There are secret laws governing a secret program that could be used to violate the rights of any American citizen. I know what the government would have done with this during the civil rights movement. If you are against this, contact your representatives immediately and let them know how you feel.”

That’s what we would have heard if Obama wasn’t able to change this himself. He is complicit. Oh, and he does know who this would have been used against during the civil rights movement. He just doesn’t care.