Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Looking at our past 4 presidents, what is it our country wants?

Looking at our past 4 presidents, what is it our country wants?
Thread Tools
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2018, 06:19 PM
 
Shower Thoughts
Trump, Obama, W., Clinton.

Is it possible to make any conclusion about what motivates our populace or drives their politics from looking at the last four people elected to represent the entire country?

(My early conclusion is, hell no)
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2018, 08:55 PM
 
The populace wants government to DO stuff for them, they just have different ideas of what that means. When they get tired of one party's corruption & forget how angry it made them, they elect the opposite party, preferably a candidate that will 'punish' the last candidate's policy. Rinse & repeat. The populace is motivated by hate, anger, laziness, characters & fad/extremism. The fad extremism part is the exciting part of politics; like marketing a product... Notice how none of the presidents are just middle of the road people, they all extremists in some respect and fit a caricature pretty easily.
the largest problem for Americans today is they eat too much food and dont have enough work to do to keep their heart healthy
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 13, 2018, 01:46 AM
 
To me the fundamental problem is this: An increasing share of the US population has a strong disdain for government, one that has been cultivated deliberately at times. (Just look no further than the approval numbers for Congress and all the nick names and analogies for both sides of the aisle — Trump ran on “Drain the swamp!”, for example.) And the winner-takes-all (as opposed to proportional representation system) created an environment where there are only two viable parties — and people pick their party and stick with it, even if it decides to put sex offender on the ballot. There are extremely few inner city Republicans and rural Democrats. People feel as if they are wasting their votes. Sometimes you despise both options, but because you don't want to waste your vote, are forced to vote for the “lesser evil”.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 14, 2018, 11:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
The populace wants government to DO stuff for them, they just have different ideas of what that means. When they get tired of one party's corruption & forget how angry it made them, they elect the opposite party, preferably a candidate that will 'punish' the last candidate's policy. Rinse & repeat. The populace is motivated by hate, anger, laziness, characters & fad/extremism. The fad extremism part is the exciting part of politics; like marketing a product... Notice how none of the presidents are just middle of the road people, they all extremists in some respect and fit a caricature pretty easily.
Clinton was an extremist? I seem to recall the criticism on him was his views followed the political winds.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 14, 2018, 11:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
To me the fundamental problem is this: An increasing share of the US population has a strong disdain for government, one that has been cultivated deliberately at times. (Just look no further than the approval numbers for Congress and all the nick names and analogies for both sides of the aisle — Trump ran on “Drain the swamp!”, for example.) And the winner-takes-all (as opposed to proportional representation system) created an environment where there are only two viable parties — and people pick their party and stick with it, even if it decides to put sex offender on the ballot. There are extremely few inner city Republicans and rural Democrats. People feel as if they are wasting their votes. Sometimes you despise both options, but because you don't want to waste your vote, are forced to vote for the “lesser evil”.
That's rather neither here nor there to me. What is the link between your post and the OP?
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2018, 01:23 PM
 
I recall a lot of disillusionment with Bush I, after he broke his no new taxes pledge. Clinton was the first time we "rocked the vote" and got younger people back into voting. Guess who younger people vote for.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2018, 01:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
Guess who younger people vote for.
Bernie?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2018, 01:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Is it possible to make any conclusion about what motivates our populace or drives their politics from looking at the last four people elected to represent the entire country?
Every 8 years they get sick of this shit.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2018, 01:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
I recall a lot of disillusionment with Bush I, after he broke his no new taxes pledge. Clinton was the first time we "rocked the vote" and got younger people back into voting. Guess who younger people vote for.
I was younger but my impression was weak economy and weak personality did him in.

Was a dem president not seen as tax and spend back then?
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2018, 02:44 PM
 
Clinton had done a good job in Arkansas with their budget. He ran very heavily on "it's the economy, stupid" and cutting back on cruft. I recall Al Gore breaking a $500 ashtray on Letterman's desk, saying the process for getting things approved was too costly and wasteful.

     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2018, 02:51 PM
 
I was 21, but don’t have the best recollection.

What sticks out in my mind is Clinton and Brown were the first politicians in a long time, from either party, who weren’t dull.

Look at who came before... Carter, ****in Walter Mondale, Dukakis, and Bush. Reagan was interesting, but only with a script. By the end, the guy could barely make a coherent sentence when he was off-book.

Gary Hart disappeared too quickly for me to get a read other than he slept with a woman who wasn’t his wife. Can you imagine?
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2018, 03:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Every 8 years they get sick of this shit.
Getting warmer (to my take)
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:22 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,