To you Americans, your view on politics.

[televator]

By the way, Obama as the "sacrifical Republican?" This confuses a foreigner who assumes he's a Democrat.

His views and actions have demonstrated otherwise. He agrees/caves in easily to republican demands while making little or no strides toward progressive legislation. Make no mistake though, a whole lot of other Democrats are in the same category. They caved on healthcare reforms and public option is tossed like an old shirt. They cave on tax cuts and the budget problem goes unanswered. They caved on finance reform, and the banks got to keep on trucking with much of the same white collar crime schemes that largely put us in this financial bind in the first place. They cave on spending cuts and there's barely a whisper about revenue increases from the Dems. On that last one, the Obama admin openly invited suggestions to cut SS and medicare without any provocation. This is a republican cabinet. No doubt about that.

Further more, the Obama admin has gone so far as to actually attack its own base. The very people Obama once called on to have real hope for change, he now calls whiners. Hell he openly boasts about it in public speeches. He referred to progressives as "you progressives". Admitting that he sees himself as removed from that group's ideology.

 

[Andiferous]

Do you think that Obama's initial decision to unite his supporters and critics behind him might be at all responsible for the rightward shift? I wasn't terribly keen on Obama when I saw him elected; I was impressed that he tried to unite critics and supporters in his administration; and now it seems to me that he's just paralyzed by the huge far-right spin machine that brought about the likes of the Tea Party.

But the debt thing is likely all theatrics and spin?

And why, do you think, is there such a strong movement to the far right in general opinion and politics if the Obama administration seems to be sliding toward the right anyways? (Sorry for all the questions, I'm just curious about what's going on down there). I wonder if there's much of a leftward opinion shift in reaction to it, too, or if there is generally a rightward movement all around.

My government has shifted to the right in recent years (granted, our right is far left of yours. )

 

[kenandkids]

By the way, Obama as the "sacrifical Republican?" This confuses a foreigner who assumes he's a Democrat.

Obama is to real Democrats as Reagan is to modern Republicans... which is to say they aren't...

 

[televator]

Do you think that Obama's initial decision to unite his supporters and critics behind him might be at all responsible for the rightward shift? I wasn't terribly keen on Obama when I saw him elected; I was impressed that he tried to unite critics and supporters in his administration; and now it seems to me that he's just paralyzed by the huge far-right spin machine that brought about the likes of the Tea Party.

Hmmm... It's hard to see how that really flies when, according to polls, it would often appear that Obama would have the people behind him in opposing the already proven to fail policies of the republican party in most cases. Plus, even when the public does rise up, as we saw in Wisconsin, Republican policy gets shoved through regardless...all the while Obama went on like it was never happening.

But the debt thing is likely all theatrics and spin?

We lovingly refer to this false posturing as "Kabuki theater" here in the US. Yes, this particular narrative is all theatrics. Especially when you consider that the debt ceiling has been a non-eventful issue in the past. It's important to keep the government up and running after all...that is until now that the republicans just can't seem to find a level low enough to sink to. They are no longer afraid of holding jobs, 9/11 first responders, or the government itself hostage in order to ram through everything that they want. Yet the Dems just don't seem to have the backbone to call them out on this. Nor do they really appear to care anymore. More and more we see Dems just taking up conservative stances on issues themselves, but the media is happy to portray an epic showdown between Democrats and Republicans as though there's really an ideological battle going on. The reality of it all though is that they're all pretty much on the same side now. So the "theatrics and spin" pretty much applies to any issue recently.

And why, do you think, is there such a strong movement to the far right in general opinion and politics if the Obama administration seems to be sliding toward the right anyways? (Sorry for all the questions, I'm just curious about what's going on down there). I wonder if there's much of a leftward opinion shift in reaction to it, too, or if there is generally a rightward movement all around.

My government has shifted to the right in recent years (granted, our right is far left of yours. )

Hmmm...that's a tricky one. About the polling I mentioned earlier, people generally DON'T want their benefits cut, and there is more agreement on things like raising taxes on the wealthy to help pay for the deficit. So while the "general opinion" probably isn't slanting far right, perhaps the most vocal as well as the most financially well backed groups just tend to be far right lunatics. There certainly is a "leftist" presence in the US, but they don't own and demagogue with anywhere near as far reaching of a media presence like the conservatives. Nor do "leftist" causes really warm up to corporate interests like they do on the right, so it's not where the bulk of the campaign money is to be found.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Do you think that Obama's initial decision to unite his supporters and critics behind him might be at all responsible for the rightward shift? I wasn't terribly keen on Obama when I saw him elected; I was impressed that he tried to unite critics and supporters in his administration; and now it seems to me that he's just paralyzed by the huge far-right spin machine that brought about the likes of the Tea Party.

But the debt thing is likely all theatrics and spin?

And why, do you think, is there such a strong movement to the far right in general opinion and politics if the Obama administration seems to be sliding toward the right anyways? (Sorry for all the questions, I'm just curious about what's going on down there). I wonder if there's much of a leftward opinion shift in reaction to it, too, or if there is generally a rightward movement all around.

My government has shifted to the right in recent years (granted, our right is far left of yours. )

All of this is predicated on Obama living in the right-wing bubble of the D.C. Beltway media, not affectionately known as "the Village" by progressives. In this bubble made up of the Washington movers and behind-the-scenes shakers, everything that Republicans do is acceptable, and everything Democrats do is wrong. Bush "won" his second election by less than a million votes and the Village declared that he had a mandate for right-wing change. Obama won his election by nearly 10 million votes and the Village declared that he had no mandate for left-wing change and needed to move closer to Republicans to be successful.

Obama's every move has been to adopt a right-wing idea and then compromise it further to the right. "Obamacare" used Republican proposals as a template and then moved to the right. Obama's debt plan started out by giving Republicans more than they asked for and then moved to the right. Since Obama starts with Republican positions every time, it has emboldened the Republicans to go ahead and threaten treason so that they can get everything they want.

It is like the Republicans are muggers, and Obama is a too-willing victim. They say "give me your wallet" and he says "hold on, let me sign over title to my car real quick... can I drive you to my house? I have some nice stuff there you can steal too." By the time he's opening up the hidden safe, the mugger is like "fuck it, sign the house over to me too!"... at which point Obama balks, and the media elites show up to claim that Obama isn't willing to compromise.

 

[televator]

Joe, that last point of yours is what really rubs the salt in my eyes. Because Obama and the Dems narrowly avoid a total and instantaneous catastrophe, Obama pulls out the mission accomplished flag and declares legislative victory. And the media -- those sycophantic worms that they are -- are all to happy to comply in telling this false narrative.

Obama: "What's that you progressives say? We gave republicans all the cuts they wanted and more? Well buck up, we could very well have let them shut down the government. What? There was no progressive compromises in the bill? Sure there was...Keeping the government running in order to pay out some benefits and keeping some government employee jobs is a progressive value, right? What more did you want? Quit whining and fall back in line. You see that Republicans? I love bitch slapping my own base. What else can I do to you...err...for you?"

Really? This is how the Dems want us to measure success? Avoiding the absolute worst case scenario is now a victory. Well I fail to see much difference between a Republican president who does as a Republican does and a Democratic president who does everything the Republicans would do themselves. It's my real hope that someone like Russ Feingold would step up against Obama and ideologically bitch slap Obama and punch the Repugs in the mouth, but I'm not holding my breath. I get the feeling that Washington is digging its own grave though. Lots of people suddenly finding themselves unemployed, which leaves them a lot of time to contemplate their situation. Only a matter of time before they start using that time to organize.

BTW, I've really been enjoying this man's return to the cameras:

 

[Andiferous]

Bush "won" his second election by less than a million votes and the Village declared that he had a mandate for right-wing change.

Actually, I watched the results of both Bush elections on their respective nights (probably on CNN, although we do have a couple American satellite channels), and I remember first hand the media response to both.

Obama won his election by nearly 10 million votes and the Village declared that he had no mandate for left-wing change and needed to move closer to Republicans to be successful.

Bush seemed to hang by a narrow margin if any, the first time - (as dictated by Florida vote-bots) and I was quite surprised to see him re-elected a second time (although I suspect this may have been due to emotional response to 9/11). I really was quite surprised the second time, even though I had the time and opportunity to watch CNN and war coverage several hours a day at that period.

Obama seemed to me - and perhaps by my distance - largely a product of the popular media, hyped beyond any means he could realistically deliver. I worried that this strategy would ultimately lead to failure no matter what he did. Plus, he was left with the task of correcting the many problems wrought in the Bush administration, but had no uniting tragedy to provide leniency.

Obama's every move has been to adopt a right-wing idea and then compromise it further to the right. "Obamacare" used Republican proposals as a template and then moved to the right. Obama's debt plan started out by giving Republicans more than they asked for and then moved to the right. Since Obama starts with Republican positions every time, it has emboldened the Republicans to go ahead and threaten treason so that they can get everything they want.

I did think his stance of compromise was very excellent at the time.Although, I didn't see how much this made him vulnerable. This original position is likely why he got a Nobel Prize in Europe.

So is the media responsible for driving popular opinion in the USA? I've since stopped watching television, but it sounds a bit like this is the case. Obama still looks useful from this vantage - but the media looks a bit screwed up. From my point of view, maybe Obama would have been better off not being directly answerable to popular media in the first place. But on the other hand, he is the first president in a particular minority position.

Love to hear more opinion, criticize at will

 

[televator]

So is the media responsible for driving popular opinion in the USA? I've since stopped watching television, but it sounds a bit like this is the case. Obama still looks useful from this vantage - but the media looks a bit screwed up. From my point of view, maybe Obama would have been better off not being directly answerable to popular media in the first place. But on the other hand, he is the first president in a particular minority position.

Love to hear more opinion, criticize at will

The media certainly is in a deplorable state over here, but it would be best described as a "mouthpiece". Its purpose as a whole isn't so much about influencing politicians (only Fox has that much capacity) as it is to spread the propaganda of the established powers for the sake of maintaining prestige and access. In many cases the press are no better than stenographers.

What Obama really did have going for him was a "grass roots" strategy that was long in the making and bore really good fruit for him. That iconic red white and blue "HOPE" image of him wasn't a product of any media outlet. It was made by an artist who just did it because he liked Obama. Movie stars were falling all over themselves as they tried to associate with him, people wrote songs about him, he had a massive presence on the internet, etc...

There was a few attempts to knock him down/derail him in the press with stories like "Joe the plumber", "Lipstick on a Pig", "Palin' around with terrorists", that crazy pastor from his church, so on...so forth... but he remained pretty untouchable within the large popular following he built up. Which was largely his own doing. "Yes we can", "Hope", "Change", "Not allow interest groups to run the white house"....those words came out of his mouth. So at the end of the day, the person responsible for hyping Barack Obama is....Barack Obama.

 

[Andiferous]

The media certainly is in a deplorable state over here, but it would be best described as a "mouthpiece". Its purpose as a whole isn't so much about influencing politicians (only Fox has that much capacity) as it is to spread the propaganda of the established powers for the sake of maintaining prestige and access. In many cases the press are no better than stenographers.
What Obama really did have going for him was a "grass roots" strategy that was long in the making and bore really good fruit for him. That iconic red white and blue "HOPE" image of him wasn't a product of any media outlet. It was made by an artist who just did it because he liked Obama. Movie stars were falling all over themselves as they tried to associate with him, people wrote songs about him, he had a massive presence on the internet, etc...

There was a few attempts to knock him down/derail him in the press with stories like "Joe the plumber", "Lipstick on a Pig", "Palin' around with terrorists", that crazy pastor from his church, so on...so forth... but he remained pretty untouchable within the large popular following he built up. Which was largely his own doing. "Yes we can", "Hope", "Change", "Not allow interest groups to run the white house"....those words came out of his mouth. So at the end of the day, the person responsible for hyping Barack Obama is....Barack Obama.

I remember the Oprah and celebrity endorsement of Obama at the time of his campaign. (Disregarding other conspiracies of the time). He sounded very charismatic and did have quite a celebrity following at the time (or it seemed).

"Lipstick on Pig" Palin (well, I don't sympathise with her too much overall) vs. "Yes we can."

.those words came out of his mouth. So at the end of the day, the person responsible for hyping Barack Obama is....Barack Obama.

Palin seems to have come off as a ready made car-wreck over the years. I'm not sure any more millions in publicity might have saved her. I suspect you or I might have been more sensible candidates.


Obama really did have far too much publicity (which may have been why I didn't accept him initially). Maybe my pessimistic viewpoint has tempered my expectation. I never really thought expectation could be fully met within his campaign.

Televator: While I am always critical of politicians; why is Obama singled out in this situation? Why would this intelligent and mediating personality (who happens to be black) be any worse than someone like Bush Jr?

In your situation, I'd be desperate enough to give the Tea Party power just to see what chaos will ensue.

That sounds terrible of me...

 

[nemesiss]

Obama really did have far too much publicity (which may have been why I didn't accept him initially). Maybe my pessimistic viewpoint has tempered my expectation. I never really thought expectation could be fully met within his campaign.

Televator: While I am always critical of politicians; why is Obama singled out in this situation? Why would this intelligent and mediating personality (who happens to be black) be any worse than someone like Bush Jr?

In your situation, I'd be desperate enough to give the Tea Party power just to see what chaos will ensue.

That sounds terrible of me...

to extend on that point, with the current (failing) climate of us politics... have the actions of the last years give more credibility to those conspiracy theorists?

 

[televator]

Well let me see. Is Obama any worse than Bush? First off he's not "mediating" at all on finance, and on rights he's damned near neutral at best (He might as well not even exist) or he is just as bad as Bush was on some issues.

Take gay rights. If it were the Bush admin, they would have thrown their full weight to damn near criminalize gay marriage. The Obama white house? **crickets** Obama says his views are "evolving".

This suddenly came to my mind when I heard that:



Oh my! Did you all hear that? Obama has spoken. Everyone stay exactly the same. :lol:

Immigration? Obama has actually been tougher on immigration than Bush. Sure he fought 1070, but he hasn't really done or suggested much else to really take care of the problem comprehensively. He just increased the number of deportees.

The patriot act? Obama's continued to put it to full use. In fact, he signed the extension of it. One of the greatest stains of the Bush legacy upon our constitutional rights he signed to extend.

Foreign wars? Still raging. Still letting his generals lead him by the balls. Still sapping billions from the economy and into war profiteers' pockets.

And on all the previous issues of finance specifically? I refer to my and Joe's previous posts in which I've made it clear how he's just let the Republicans not only do all the driving, but also gave them directions on how to best mess things up.

So why is he "singled out"? I'm not sure what to say about that. Personally, I didn't like Bush's policies. I still don't like Bush's policies under Obama's White House. So saying that I'm singleling him out just kinda boggles me a bit.

In the broader context, I think my sentiment still applies. Keep in mind, the general atmosphere toward the end of Bush's last term. People were absolutely sick of the man. This is confirmed by the political ramifications of simply associating with him at the time. It was almost comical watching John McCain try to get as far away from Bush as humanly possible. Let's put it this way: If Bush were on his third term right now, you'd still see the same (if not more) discontent with the presidency that you are now seeing with Obama.

What makes Obama's presidency even more disappointing to me, is that he also specifically ran on the message that "the last 8 years" were a mess due to failed policies and that he would "change" that. Policies that he now still continues. He duped us. He lied. He didn't have better policies. He brought more of the same.

So about letting the tea baggers run the place... Again I'm tired of the measure of success being the avoidance of total catastrophe. Secondly, I don't really have much more fear about the tea baggers running the country, because the tea baggers could never really come to power even if their candidate won. The tea bagger idiots are a puppet group. If you look under the table, you'll see the large fist of corporate interest rammed up their arse. Corporate interest is already running the show currently. The only difference about the tea party is that it might be a means to bring about their changes more quickly, but I think there's only so much the rest of the country can take regardless of how fast or slow that happens.

Would I vote tea party? Hell no. Would I stop voting at all? Nope. Will I vote for Obama? I don't vote Republican.

 

[kenandkids]

Would I vote tea party? Hell no. Would I stop voting at all? Nope. Will I vote for Obama? I don't vote Republican.

+10

 

[ImprobableJoe]

The worst thing about Obama is that he's enacted a far-right agenda under the Democratic brand. So when it fails, as right-wing policies always do, Democrats get to take the blame for it. Idiots screaming "liberal!" at Obama will shift the blame to progressivism, even though the policies are standard Republican nonsense.

 

[Andiferous]

But you run on a two-party system... Without Obama, what are your choices?

 

[kenandkids]

But you run on a two-party system... Without Obama, what are your choices?

Pretty much only teathugs and Obummer, that is the option next election. Obama is a republican lite and the teathugs are batshit crazy...

 

[televator]

But you run on a two-party system... Without Obama, what are your choices?

What use would it be to anyone if there was a 10 party system where all candidates had the same ideology? It's a total farce of a free choice system.

You have the freedom to choose whatever conservative you want. Wait....what?

Also, it's true that we have a 2 party system in the sense that we have to 2 dominant parties, but we aren't exclusively limited to formally maintaining only 2 parties.

 

[nemesiss]

But you run on a two-party system... Without Obama, what are your choices?

What use would it be to anyone if there was a 10 party system where all candidates had the same ideology? It's a total farce of a free choice system.

You have the freedom to choose whatever conservative you want. Wait....what?

Also, it's true that we have a 2 party system in the sense that we have to 2 dominant parties, but we aren't exclusively limited to formally maintaining only 2 parties.

here in holland we have a multi party system which seems to work.
small explenation how works: we have elections, party that gets the most votes wins, then must make a group with the other parties to get a majority. this newly formed coalition with be the ruling party till next elections (4 years later), the rest is in the opposition. every party has its own priorities and lays them open to display ( so no fake democrat nonsense here), so you know who you vote for.

also, when we loaned money to the banks in 2008 to make sure the banks wouldn't fall, we got money back... with interest!

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

America only has two parties because, well, no other parties were in the game just to get elected and running political machines.

I am at the point where I really stopped just giving a fuck - as long as I receive my paycheck, I'm fine. Also, I'm looking into other countries for immigration. :I
After that fiasco last week, there's no hope for our government. There are plenty of Navies out there, and I'm sure if I walked into any country in the world's recruiting office with my brag sheet, I would have some bouncing advantages over your typical fresh-out-of-schooling youngster. I'd still get to keep my achievement medals, too.

Fucking sad, ain't it?

 

[WarK]

America only has two parties because, well, no other parties were in the game just to get elected and running political machines.

Choosing between two right wing parties seems like an illusion of a choice. Do you think it's possible in future for America to have more parties? Or are people too fed up with politics or maybe they feel like choosing between just two parties is enough. After all, in principle, everyone could run for presidency. In practice, it seems all you need is a lot of money for the campaign and for you opponent to have a retard for his sidekick

I am at the point where I really stopped just giving a fuck - as long as I receive my paycheck, I'm fine. Also, I'm looking into other countries for immigration. :I
After that fiasco last week, there's no hope for our government. There are plenty of Navies out there, and I'm sure if I walked into any country in the world's recruiting office with my brag sheet, I would have some bouncing advantages over your typical fresh-out-of-schooling youngster. I'd still get to keep my achievement medals, too.

Do you mean French Foreign Legion? Because I don't think foreigners are welcome in the military, I may be wrong though.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Choosing between two right wing parties seems like an illusion of a choice. Do you think it's possible in future for America to have more parties? Or are people too fed up with politics or maybe they feel like choosing between just two parties is enough. After all, in principle, everyone could run for presidency. In practice, it seems all you need is a lot of money for the campaign and for you opponent to have a retard for his sidekick

Yeah...
:I
But you need to raise a certain amount of money to be included on a state's ballot - something almost unachievable without a party. It requires a political machine to work.

Do you mean French Foreign Legion? Because I don't think foreigners are welcome in the military, I may be wrong though.

There's always slides under the door.
I am Special Warfare. I can disarm any bomb and render any ordinance produced. Training for which takes about a million or so dollars total.
I am trained to keep up with SEAL units and be dropped in with Rangers. I can also ride with SWCC and keep pace with any Marine Unit.

I'm sure SOME country would have an interest in my training. xD