[peeb]

Apathy, not ignorance elected George Bush - Eyes On Obama

This article suggests apathy, and points to a system that does not allow candidates that people actually want to vote for to emerge.

[nonhuman]

I buy it. I voted for Bush in '00, because I expected him to actually be a Republican. When he failed at that, I wasn't about to vote for him in '04. Unfortunately, the only candidates that impressed me at the time (McCain, Dean, and Nolan) all failed to get their parties' nominations, and I was thoroughly unimpressed with Kerry and highly disappointed with Badnarik. As a result I just didn't vote in the '04 presidential election; there was no one I could really get behind and support.

Happily things seem a little better this time around. I'm not longer a McCain fan, but I am very impressed by Obama (though I don't agree with his politics). Paul's campaign, though pretty much a non-starter, at least threw some interesting ideas into the mix and got a lot of people asking questions they might not have before. And both Paul and Gravel have brought a lot more attention to the Libertarian party than it usually gets. Hopefully they'll nominate someone I can get behind this time around (Ruwart and Phillies seem pretty good) rather than the usual moonbat crazy (Badnarik) or pseudo-Republican (Barr).

I still think we'd be better off with a system that encouraged more diversity of opinion and choice though.

[besson3c]

nonhuman: Can I ask why/how you find Obama impressive when you don't agree with his politics? That statement is intriguing to me... I'm not suggesting that I can't find reason for you to say that, I'm just wondering what yours is

[Uncle Skeleton]

"Trash the US?" That's a little melodramatic. I think he did worse than the alternatives would have been (which probably would have been to do basically nothing), but it's not really all that bad. The status quo may be boring and frustrating, but it's not the worst outcome, not by a long ways.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

nonhuman: Can I ask why/how you find Obama impressive when you don't agree with his politics? That statement is intriguing to me... I'm not suggesting that I can't find reason for you to say that, I'm just wondering what yours is

I've listened to his speeches, I've read one of his books, I saw him in the debates. He strikes me as an extremely intelligent and competent man who isn't some sort of strict ideologue and will be willing to compromise and seek bi-partisan support rather than pursuing a unilateral agenda. While I don't agree with all (perhaps most) of his political positions, I do think that his record shows him to at least be thoughtful, adaptive, and open to new ideas. I would consider these qualities to be more important than whether or not we have the same ideas about how to improve healthcare.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

"Trash the US?" That's a little melodramatic.

I don't really think so. Economy in the toilet? Check. Massive unnecessary war? Check. Diplomacy in tatters? Check. No movement on the greatest environmental threats? Check.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The status quo may be boring and frustrating,

Holy Crap. You think war and eviction from your home is 'boring'?

[ghporter]

This mess was not just because we have some of the lowest voter turnouts in our history, nor is it because GWB is evil. George hired a bunch of people to advise him, and after a while, he fired some of them because they disagreed with him (demonstrating that he's still a mid-ranking CEO at heart), and hired people that said they agreed with him. These advisors had agendas about things like Iraq and a few other things, and THAT is where our policy issues came from.

And just like Bill Clinton inherited an upswing in the economy, George inherited a downswing. George didn't write the rules that allowed housing speculators to fornicate the market, nor did he have anything to do with lending rules that allowed the subprime crash to occur. Maybe he "should have" had something to do with them, but he isn't responsible for the current downturn.

He's a poor manager and not a great judge of advisors, but he's hardly evil or bent on destroying the Constitution. (Some of his employees might be, but that's beside the point.) Frankly, George isn't crafty or smart enough to do much real damage to the Constitution; the courts are much better at undoing policy and bad legislation than most give them credit for. He's just a schmuck who's schlepping along doing "C" work in a time when we really, really could use at least a B+ kind of president. If it weren't for 9/11, he probably wouldn't have been reelected, and we'd have someone like John Kerry goofing things up. Don't give the guy in the White House as much credit as you're doing with George, because that person is just part of the issue.

[peeb]

Actually, the course he and his advisors were on was clear in 2004. Apathy allowed him to steal the 2000 'election', and to actually win the 2004 one. Too few people cared to stop him. Haggling about whether it was him or the people who he appointed misses the point.

[Chuckit]

Is this thread flawed because of a false dilemma or a misleading question?

It's pretty certain that the American populace, by and large, is both apathetic and ignorant on most matters. These two things actually tend to go together. If somebody is apathetic about something, why would he bother taking the time to learn about it? On the other hand, if you don't know about something, you generally don't know why anyone would care about it. That's why activism so often boils down to forcefully teaching people.

America is a big country full of big cities and big companies and that makes people feel pretty small. Having a life and knowing everything that's going on are contradictory goals unless you happen to run with a crowd of gossips (and yes, I'm including most political activists in that category). This raises the question: Why even care? So people don't — not really. They'll be annoyed when something gets right in their way, but when it comes to the big picture, they'll go along with whatever lets them get back to what they were doing before they were so rudely interrupted.

You'll see the same thing in business. Everybody gets personally involved in everything that happens in a small company. Then look at a big mega-corporation and you'll find the vast majority of people don't know or care what's going on elsewhere as long as they can keep doing their jobs and collecting their paychecks.

[peeb]

So the problem is that the US is too big? Perhaps splitting it into a series of smaller states (four or five) would improve it?

[nonhuman]

I've proposed that idea several times in the past. Never really gets a whole lot of support...

[Dakar the Fourth]

For some reason the Jesusland pic comes to mind.

[Lateralus]

We could just let Texas secede.

Wouldn't mind selling Florida to somebody either.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by peeb 

I don't really think so. Economy in the toilet? Check. Massive unnecessary war? Check. Diplomacy in tatters? Check. No movement on the greatest environmental threats? Check.

Sky is falling? Check. No one listening to Chicken Little? Check.

All this has happened before, and it all will happen again. This certainly isn't a bright point in US history, but it's nothing to start hyperventilating about.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by peeb 

So the problem is that the US is too big? Perhaps splitting it into a series of smaller states (four or five) would improve it?

I would advocate for splitting it into 50 states loosely associated through a small federal government.

[Luca Rescigno]

I don't know and I don't care.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I would advocate for splitting it into 50 states loosely associated through a small federal government.

Didn't that fail once already?
oh the melodrama

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Dakar

Didn't that fail once already?

That wasn't with 50 though. 50 is the magic number.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Is that directed at me?

[design219]

It was Ralph Nader that got Bush elected.

[Dakar the Fourth]

I think Gore deserves some credit too.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

All this has happened before, and it all will happen again. This certainly isn't a bright point in US history, but it's nothing to start hyperventilating about.

I presume you are speaking as someone who has not lost a relative in Iraq or lost their home and job?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

I've listened to his speeches, I've read one of his books, I saw him in the debates. He strikes me as an extremely intelligent and competent man who isn't some sort of strict ideologue and will be willing to compromise and seek bi-partisan support rather than pursuing a unilateral agenda. While I don't agree with all (perhaps most) of his political positions, I do think that his record shows him to at least be thoughtful, adaptive, and open to new ideas. I would consider these qualities to be more important than whether or not we have the same ideas about how to improve healthcare.

Thanks for this... This position sort of supports my theory about us entering a post-partisan time.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by peeb 

I presume you are speaking as someone who has not lost a relative in Iraq or lost their home and job?

I presume you think that soldiers never died in war and people never lost their jobs or houses before GWB "trashed" the country?

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I presume you think that soldiers never died in war and people never lost their jobs or houses before GWB "trashed" the country?

The idea that other wars happened and the economy has been bad at other times does not mean a get-out-of-jail free card for the damage Georgie did.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by peeb 

The idea that other wars happened and the economy has been bad at other times does not mean a get-out-of-jail free card for the damage Georgie did.

What did George Bush do to the economy?

[besson3c]

It's not that George Bush single-handedly did something to the economy, but I think that his problem is that his ideology seems to make him sluggish and not terribly perceptive and receptive to the realities that play out. It seems that his administration has none virtually nothing to adjust for their failing programs: No Child Left Behind, Iraq, etc. Moreover, they've been caught with their pants down on a number of things which they could have saw coming: the mortgage crisis, Katrina, etc.

Like I said, they just seem to be mostly incompetent, perhaps disconnected, and not terribly perceptive. I agree that I don't think that "evil" accurately characterizes Bush himself, although his fervent belief in wanting to spread Democracy around the world is a little frightening at times.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by peeb 

The idea that other wars happened and the economy has been bad at other times does not mean a get-out-of-jail free card for the damage Georgie did.

Was the country "trashed" every time we were at war? Or every time there was a slump in the economy? Did Clinton "trash" the country by getting us into Yugoslavia? Did Kennedy "trash" the country by getting us into Viet Nam? You're making more of this than it is. He trashed Iraq, not America.

[besson3c]

Bush's trashing of America is not one thing, but the sum of all that has gone on over the last 7-8 years.

[Uncle Skeleton]

People, America is not "trashed." You're falling for the hype. The people who are worst off due to this "trashing" are people that put themselves there. They signed up to take bullets for the country and now they have taken bullets for the country. Or they signed up to lend money to people who couldn't afford to pay it back, and those people didn't pay it back. Or they signed up to live in a house they couldn't afford, and then they couldn't afford to keep living in that house. That's sad for them, but it no more constitutes the "trashing of America" than when daredevils miss their marks and break 17 bones, or when gamblers bet their nest egg on red but it comes up black.

peeb, what happened to your "let them eat cake" attitude about gas prices? How is this any different? People bet on cheap transportation so they can get ahead by working in a rich area and living in a poor area, then they lose when transportation costs rise. People bet on peacetime so they can work in the army for uncle sam but not risk getting shot at, then they lose when we go to war. People bet on the housing bubble and the proverbial "bigger chump" so they can buy a house they'd never be able to afford, but lose because the bubble finally breaks. What's the difference between the first scenario and the others?

There are always going to be fluctuations in both the peace and prosperity of any nation. Calling each downturn the "trashing of the country" is petty.

[smacintush]

I agree with you Uncle Skeleton, but why are you wasting your time? The "BUSH IS TEH SUXXORS!!!1111!!!!" thread has been done to death and your points, accurate as they may be, will fall on deaf ears.

[TheWOAT]

"Trashed" is a little too much... Although one could argue that he heled trash New Orleans..."weakened" wouldnt get any objections from me.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I agree with you Uncle Skeleton, but why are you wasting your time? The "BUSH IS TEH SUXXORS!!!1111!!!!" thread has been done to death and your points, accurate as they may be, will fall on deaf ears.

I've never argued this side of it before, the novelty is appealing

[Atomic Rooster]

It's all a problem of how the U.S. goes about nominating and electing presidents. Get rid of the Electoral College would be a major first step.

Or maybe first the freaking long nomination process.

No both.

Make it so.

[PaperNotes]

GWB critics are fat spoilt kids who had a dime taken away from them. They blame him for hijacking planes. They call him Hitler as if he makes soap out of babies. They blame him for all of Clinton's laziness. They blame him for not jumping out of the seat and acting like a wild gunman when he hears of an attack. They blame him (but not Congress and the Senate because that includes Democrats) for removing Saddam and lending huge amounts of money to the developing world. They blame him for taking and offering sub-prime loans. They blame him for the crumbling of one little ****ing area of the Antarctic that has been crumbling for thousands of years.

American's economy is rich, it's soo damn rich that it can ride out just about anything including an attack from an 10 mile wide asteroid. Same goes for the world. Movement is all forward.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

American's economy is rich, it's soo damn rich that it can ride out just about anything including an attack from an 10 mile wide asteroid. Same goes for the world. Movement is all forward.

You haven't been paying attention to the continuing decline of the dollar, and the fact that other countries own a very large chunk of our debt. The reality is that the U. S. is no longer as necessary for the rest of the world to prosper. India, China, and even Russia (which has large energy reserves) are the next superpowers. If you've ever looked on a label of anything you buy, it doesn't say "Made In the U.S.A" on it very often, and it's very likely that you or your neighbor work more often in a service industry, as opposed to a manufacturing industry. With approximately 60% of working Americans making $50K and under annually, while energy costs skyrocket (which raises costs for everything else in our lives), and peoples' incomes stagnate, I wouldn't be so sure of your sense of security, and superiority. History is full of civilizations that thought they were going to be king of the hill forever.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

You haven't been paying attention to the continuing decline of the dollar, and the fact that other countries own a very large chunk of our debt.

What is this continuing decline of the dollar except more fear mongering hype?

The dollar to the sterling in early 2005 was $1.94. It's $1.98 now. Four cents in three years! And since there is a margin of movement then it can be concluded that there hasn't been much weakening at all. The Euro has gained strength in the last year and that is all.

It's a myth that only a strong currency helps an economy. Try telling that to companies that are competing against cheap Chinese exports and a fixed Yen. A weak dollar has helped American exports by making them cheaper for foreign businesses and has also increased tourism to the US.

The reality is that the U. S. is no longer as necessary for the rest of the world to prosper.

Bullshit!!! And the reason why will be explained in my next response.

India, China, and even Russia (which has large energy reserves) are the next superpowers.

These three nations have yet to give an example of what they could contribute to the world in terms of ideas and innovation. Name me five (or even two) recent inventions or innovations that have helped the global economy that have come out of China, Russia or India? If you can name five, which I don't think you can, then I'll name twenty American or British inventions and innovations......from that last year alone!!

Those three nations you mention are only capable of joining the world economy as major consumers and manufacturers. A nation needs to be much more than that to be a super power. It needs to be extremely charitable (like the US), sacrificial (like the US) and a tremendous innovator (like the US). In short, the US is what it is because of it's capacity to be an innovator and creator of products and market conditions that lead to prosperity.

I also come back to your previous remark

The reality is that the U. S. is no longer as necessary for the rest of the world to prosper.

The US has never wanted to be the only reason for a prosperous world. The more nations that are developed and prosperous, the bigger the market is for everyone. That's what the aim of the free market is.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Lateralus 

We could just let Texas secede.

Wouldn't mind selling Florida to somebody either.

I don't think secession is a good idea for the rest of the country. Nor would the other option Texas retains: we could split into FIVE separate states. Having 8 more senators from Texas could definitely shift the politics of the Senate...