Horza Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 By the way Horza, great previous post. This is a really excellent point that requires some serious consideration. Maybe, as voters, we should demand that people run on making reforms to the legislative process.Thanks, Raidne.Sadly, with a few shining exceptions most major legislative and electoral reforms happen because one side of politics thinks they'll benefit from it and has the numbers to pass the bills. At present both parties appear to be comfortable with much of the status quo, and where it is changing it's largely for the worse. On the upside, that does mean there is a lot of low hanging fruit... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempra Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 If you are on the left and are disappointed in Obama and I have 2 reasons why you should vote Obama. Actually I have many more, but this 2 are irrefutable.1) Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 782) Antonin Scalia is 75It is highly likely that both will step down before Jan. 21, 2016. For anyone on the left it should be vitally important that both are replaced by another Kagan or Sotomayor.A Romney presidency would ensure that even if Kennedy does swing towards the liberal side of the court on a case it will still be a 5-4 decision in favor of the conservative side.ETA: Reason 3) Kennedy himself is 75. So there's another. Don't you want a liberal court again?If Obama wins, you better pray Kennedy and Scalia die, because they will not step down voluntarily.This issue tears me up. I will probably vote Obama out of self interest as a federal worker, but the thought of three new liberal judges for 30 years makes me sick. We should go back to the practice of nominating older (60-70) justices instead of 45-50 year olds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The GRRumbler Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 For the ones saying that won't vote for Obama, do you really think any of the republican candidates are better? And not voting at all will just help the republicans.I'm not american but i surely am terrified of the possibility that one of the nutjobs in the republican party winning the elections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Raidne,I think, as I said in the other thread, the US is fundementaly too large, our national legislative process too far removed from the electorate, and our population too diverse to develop a ture concensus for the path the Nation should take. As such I fear we are doomed to vote for the least common denominatior until the cows come home or the US finally collapses. I'm going to vote out of shear stubborness but I have little hope for meaningful or useful change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horza Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 For the ones saying that won't vote for Obama, do you really think any of the republican candidates are better? And not voting at all will just help the republicans.I'm not american but i surely am terrified of the possibility that one of the nutjobs in the republican party winning the elections.I agree, and I think its only fair that we in the periphery should have a say in who runs our global hegemon. I'm pretty sure Australia could deliver about 8-9m votes for Obama, and I imagine it would be likewise for most of us non-USans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Doran,It is sad that we live in a nation where one of the persuasive arguments to vote for X is that, "He's not as bad as Y". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Lord of Winterfell Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 I will probably vote Obama out of self interest as a federal worker....Out of curiousity, do you normally cast votes based on which candidate promises you the most "stuff"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Raidne Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Right Scot, and I'm a little dismayed the conversation has gone that way, because that's NOT what I was trying to say in the OP at all, which was that people who agree with his policy positions should come out and vote for the guy because, for the first time in recent history, the Democrats actually managed to field a real human being.Or you could look at the Clinton years and ask if that really matters? Does it really matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Raidne Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 FLOW, am I right in guessing that you think Obama is a salesman who promises entitlements in order to hold on to power? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buy one get one free Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Raidne,I think the politician-saleperson analogy is a very apt one, but a flaw in Wallace's definition affects your conclusion about Obama: But even a truly great salesman isn’t a leader.This is because a salesman’s ultimate, overriding motivation is self-interest—if you buy what he’s selling, the salesman profits.and But to ask a more debatable question for many - does anyone think Obama is really a salesman? I admit to being cynical about the Obama administration from the start. But phrased this way - do I think the guy is out for his own interests, his own reputation? No, no I really don't.First, I believe that sales people can be leaders. There are two types of successful sales people that come to mind: the stereotypical salesperson -- loud, charismatic, extrovert, knows his stuff inside and out, and persuasive as shit, but has, at heart, low self esteem issues. His success in sales is to compensate. These folks will not be leaders, though. Another type of successful salesperson has some of those characteristics--extrovert, knows his stuff--but is quieter and exudes self-assuredness. This is the type that can also lead. The first has great personal success and I believe what Wallace is thinking of when he says salesmen aren't leaders. The second kind can be changers of industries and thought. They are selling not only their product or service to benefit themselves, but a way of thinking that advances their target-market's industry as a whole. Such is Obama. I don't agree with your implication for one second that Obama doesn't receive personal gratification from his position as (arguably) the most powerful person in the world. He didn't become president solely out of the want for public service. You must have an ego the size of Texas that needs to be fed in order to successfully run for president. This doesn't make him--or any presidential candidate--a bad person. I don't find egotism necessarily a bad trait, though.This would also explain why Ron Paul will not be elected president. He's not a salesperson. And if you look at the recent history of presidents who inherited the office -- Ford, Bush I, Johnson-- you'll find all were one term presidents that couldn't/wouldn't win an election. It just isn't in them.I mourn the loss of Harry Browne to this world. He was 15-20 years ahead of his time and I think would have a much much better showing than he did in '96. He enveloped the qualities of a salesperson/leader with the ideals I and many others now behold, and I believe be a force for the GOP and Dems to reckon with.edit for formatting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempra Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Out of curiousity, do you normally cast votes based on which candidate promises you the most "stuff"?No, but like a good conservative, I vote with my checkbook. The democrats want to do less damage to me financially. Romney and Huntsman are/were the only candidates I would consider voting for on the republican side. Huntsman is gone now so I will withhold judgment on Romney until after the primaries (should he win). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kouran Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Raidne I am going to have to disagree with a significant portion of the article and the idea of voting for BO. Leadership is the ability to provide purpose, direction and motivation to accomplish the mission. Exactly what purpose and direction has BO provided the country? I wont even touch on motivation, you see so much disdane and disgust with the system and the way things are run now that it is essentially impossible for the country to be motivated.Sure BO came into office during a huge crisis, that comes with the shoes and if you cant manage your way through the crisis you get managed by the crisis which is exactly what BO has been. He has played hop frog with the crisis through his first term. Should we put a man back in office who has just jumped from one crisis to the next, with no clear direction for the country, and no integrity? Take Gitmo as an example, either put those men on trial in real federal courts or shoot them in the back of the head and dump them in the ocean, just get it the fuck over with. Either this country has the balls to stand up for what we are supposed to believe in, ie the Constitution, or we turn our backs on the belief in freedom, truth and justice this country was founded on. Right now we are trying to half-ass our way through the problem by acting like kangaroo courts are just fine.BO needs to go, but for gods sake dont put Romney in the office. Romney is such a corporate whore I think he spreads his legs and gets wet at the mention of Goldman Sachs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salt Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 As such I fear we are doomed to vote for the least common denominatior until the cows come home or the US finally collapses. Wait, what? Can you elaborate? Surely you don't think that you not being excited about the Presidential candiates from the two biggest parties means that the richest, most powerful institution in the history of the human species is going to "collapse". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Lord of Winterfell Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 FLOW, am I right in guessing that you think Obama is a salesman who promises entitlements in order to hold on to power?No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Raidne,Given that the Obama Years have been nothing like the Clinton years why would that matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Salt,Wait, what? Can you elaborate? Surely you don't think that you not being excited about the Presidential candiates from the two biggest parties means that the richest, most powerful institution in the history of the human species is going to "collapse".All Nations will collapse or be absorbed by other nations, eventually. The US cannot decide how it wants to go forward. We end up with a bare majortity taking us one way while the remaining bare minority screams bloody murder. All the while the two parties, one of which is always in power, entrench to preserve their own power by making the "other" into the boogyman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ormond Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 No, but like a good conservative, I vote with my checkbook. Sorry, but why do you see "voting with your checkbook" as a "good conservative" value? To me that seems to be neither "liberal" nor "conservative" but just pragmatically selfish.I think it would be nice if people voted for what they truly believed was best for the future of the nation and the world rather than just their personal finances. But I would have to sadly agree that in modern consumerist culture that's not a common motive among voters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyanna Stark Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Doran,It is sad that we live in a nation where one of the persuasive arguments to vote for X is that, "He's not as bad as Y".Scot,This is what politics is everywhere. You'll rarely find a candidate people are really excited about. I guess this is where countries differ as we northerners tend to like our candidates a bit on the boring side. It gives an air of stability that we rather like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Lord of Winterfell Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 No, but like a good conservative, I vote with my checkbook. Well, I'd disagree that's what makes a good conservative. From my personal perspective, Obama will put lots more money in my pocket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Lyanna,That may be the case but it remains sad in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.