2012 U.S. Presidency

[DeletedUser16008]

I read that list a log time ago HS and the Pulitzer prize winning site which we both read dosn't mean its a class list just a list of ticks and crosses. Come on don't try and tell me otherwise we went through this ages ago. in another thread someplace.

What do you wish me to say ? that Obama is a better option than Romney ? np with that someone has to win it but i fail to see either as a good choice.

Ill stay jaded and you can bang the guys drum but please don't tell me hes anything other than the best option of a poor choice. In fact I know your not comfortable with the way things have been going there, youd have to be an idiot to think otherwise, and i know your not that.

 

[DeletedUser]

lol, I knew your pride wouldn't let you toss in the towel. Ah well...

 

[DeletedUser16008]

lol, I knew your pride wouldn't let you toss in the towel. Ah well...

What am i supposed to be throwing the towel in for, that Obama is the light in your tunnel or that theres no choice of a good candidate so you may as well tick box A rather than none of them ?

Ill tell you what I do with candidate options like this, I go to the pub rather than vote at all and I dont subsrcibe to the mantra that is "if you don't vote you can't complain" which is BS. I subscribe to the mantra of " I can complain because I never voted for any of these clowns so don't blame me when it goes to pot cos I'm not responsible for putting them there" If i have no confidence in any party then my vote is nil and one of "no confidence" thats the message I send not suckered into choosing either tweedle dee or tweedle dum because the media tells you that you must.

 

[DeletedUser]

blah blah blah, you didn't vote because you're a British citizen. At least be honest, silly Victor.

The responsibility of any voting citizen is to examine the facts, not swallow the propaganda and chase it down with a mug of cheap beer. But seeing as you're not a voting citizen, by all means get plastered in indignation and then puke your blissfully ignorant guts out.

Good luck with that homey.

 

[DeletedUser16008]

blah blah blah, you didn't vote because you're a British citizen. At least be honest, silly Victor.

The responsibility of any voting citizen is to examine the facts, not swallow the propaganda and chase it down with a mug of cheap beer. But seeing as you're not a voting citizen, by all means get plastered in indignation and then puke your blissfully ignorant guts out.

Good luck with that homey.

Doh did I hit a nerve ?

Don't be a plum HS I don't vote for clowns here either my vote matters to me more than just casting it on broken glass, when there is one worth voting for I vote, in fact my last I voted http://www.ukip.org/ simply because the only thing that matters here atm is getting out of Europe before it drags us under. Everything else is secondary. Yours is your economy, your out of control use of torture camps and destruction of your personal freedoms, everything else is just smoke being blown up your behind. Not my fault youve got your head firmly suck up there too.

Because you get suckered every few years into whatever muppet party that waves a particular colour and ticks as many ridiculous boxes as it can think up dosn't mean others have to. Get over the crap you so happily swallow, stop being a puppet and get down the pub occasionally and loosen up or the poncy wine bar if shining your ego is your thing, it may clear your head of the minor rubbish that seems to fill it. Whilst the Elephants remain in the room you so conveniently and consistently like to ignore you are just fooling yourself and just as much to blame by association and support whilst the country you profess to care so deeply about continues to sicken and die. How very patriotic.

I shall leave you to your delusional dreaming, your silly little stickers of vote Obama and bid you adieu.

 

[DeletedUser]

As far as I knew, isn't PolitiFact.com extremely biased in favor of the Democrats? Can I start using Fox News to support the GOP?

 

[DeletedUser]

As far as I knew, isn't PolitiFact.com extremely biased in favor of the Democrats? Can I start using Fox News to support the GOP?

There goes another person attempting to discredit the messenger rather than verify the facts presented. Politifact reviews both parties virtually equally, with differing results. Commentators from both sides of the aisle have argued in contention to Politifact's rating system. That you want to toss out a false claim in the form of a question merely demonstrates a propaganda agenda.

Everything I posted regarding the promises is factual and verifiable.

Doh did I hit a nerve ?

Nope, just posing facts. You stated very clearly that you don't vote and instead chase down beers. I pointed that was an irresponsible behavior for a citizen. You also inferred that you didn't vote, and don't intend to vote, in the U.S. elections because of the candidates, when in fact you can't vote because you're not a U.S. citizen.

In short, you were posing a pathos (emotional) argument, trying to harness emotions out of the readers through your faux righteous indignation. But, seriously, you're not demonstrating emotion, you're demonstrating apathy.

 

[DeletedUser16008]

In short, you were posing a pathos (emotional) argument, trying to harness emotions out of the readers through your faux righteous indignation. But, seriously, you're not demonstrating emotion, you're demonstrating apathy.

I am not apathetic, jaded yes, apathetic never.

Mmmm the very first thing that most everyone will do is want to decide on emotion. Do they like this guy, is he worthy ?

You strip away all of the other BS and focus on what is key, that and only that, the rest will come but you need to stay focused and ignore the white noise they use to cover up what matters most.

Are there fundamental abuses of people still going on ? yes
Are your freedoms still being eroded ? yes
Is there still rampant financial incompetence and corruption ? yes

Do you support this ? Yes or No ?

These are all key to the health of your nation and children both physically and mentally. This is what people care about, this is what matters. This is real.

If I have an emotional conflict where a nation is doing something as obviously wrong as torture and unlimited incarceration without trial, then promise to end it on an International stage by their leader then fail to deliver, thats it for me, im done with them.

I dont care what else they profess to, if you willingly allow the abuses to continue you are no better.... thats it and no amount of spin or excuses will change my mind into supporting a regime like that....

What you are saying and doing is excusing the unlimited incarceration without trial and torture of human beings as being acceptable AND whats worse saying they should and can continue to do so by voting them in again...

Don't avoid these points HS you cannot vote for such without supporting torture, your hands are not clean if you do so.

I was advocating the right to withhold your vote or fringe vote to show lack of confidence in the main players, this is the only way to send a message to all parties, you end up with a coalition usually and they sometimes even take notice in the larger ones if they want a majority in the future. THEN they might close down the camps for starters not continue. This is NOT apathy, this is direct action taken in the best way you can, by removing your support you weaken the regime that supports such crimes. Never think withholding your vote from an unworthy party is a waste because it isn't.

No idea if you have such a thing as a coalition option there though. However IF a party wins with less than a 30% of the voting population, for me that is a vote of no confidence. by removing my vote from the main parties that conflict with my core beliefs I would be contributing to that message not wasting my voice or supporting them and betraying my self respect in doing so.

The only thing a party understands is LOSING, slap them in the face with a loss and they take notice. Government fears the people ONLY when the people show loss of confidence in the main players, the threat of anarchy, the rise of small or fringe parties and unrest are all signs of the people saying LISTEN TO US.

Your not really ready for it there in the States maybe but Europeans and other nations here will know exactly what im talking about. In time so will Americans.

People should not fear their government, the government should and secretly DO fear the people but until the people show they have had enough nothing will change.

 

[DeletedUser]

I am not apathetic, jaded yes, apathetic never.

If you don't act, if your protest efforts are to sit on your butt and drink beers, that's apathy. Perhaps it was birthed by becoming jaded, but the end result is the same. You are apathetic and claiming your form of protest to the status quo is to binge until you barf doesn't lend you any credibility.

Just sayin'

Are there fundamental abuses of people still going on ? yes
Are your freedoms still being eroded ? yes
Is there still rampant financial incompetence and corruption ? yes

One of the first things Obama did when he entered into office was to define waterboarding and other actions as torture and outlawing the use of them. Many of the freedoms removed from Americans, by the Patriot and subsequent acts, were reversed by Obama in the first year. That you don't know this merely demonstrates your "jaded" state of mind is interfering with your intake of facts and evidence (but clearly not your intake of alcoholic beverages, hehe).

As to financial incompetence and corruption, perhaps you would like to define specifically what you're rambling about here.

If I have an emotional conflict where a nation is doing something as obviously wrong as torture and unlimited incarceration without trial, then promise to end it on an International stage by their leader then fail to deliver, thats it for me, im done with them.

Torture was done away with (or, at the least, clearly defined as illegal), as previously indicated. The issue of incarceration, as I discussed in a different thread <click here>, was initiated by Bush and it is the GOP in Congress that has prevented Obama from removing this. Once again, you have a disconnect, in that you are blaming one elected official for the actions of other elected officials. And yes, the GOP in Congress was elected, it's they that should not be re-elected because it's them that has maintained the status quo on issues you disagree with.

But see, that's the problem here Victor. You're too busy getting drunk to get the facts, instead swallowing the propaganda with a vodka chaser.

 

[DeletedUser]

"One of the first things Obama did when he entered into office was to ........ Many of the freedoms removed from Americans, by the Patriot and subsequent acts, were reversed by Obama in the first year."

Do you have a source for that claim? Obama not only renewed the patriot act, but expanded its scope via executive order. Perhaps it isn't his jadedness but rather someone's fanboyism getting the better of reality here?

 

[DeletedUser17649]

Vic. I disagree, I'd say if you vote blank or perhaps on, what you consider to be, the better option you have the right to complain, or not really, you lost in a hopefully fair game.
If you, however, refrain from voting, at all, you're basically handing the victory over to one of the clowns, not even trying and then what? You'll going around people who're trying to do something complaining about them not doing enough?

 

[DeletedUser16008]

Vic. I disagree, I'd say if you vote blank or perhaps on, what you consider to be, the better option you have the right to complain, or not really, you lost in a hopefully fair game.
If you, however, refrain from voting, at all, you're basically handing the victory over to one of the clowns, not even trying and then what? You'll going around people who're trying to do something complaining about them not doing enough?

This is a rhetoric ive heard for decades from the establishment and hailed by all main parties simply because they wish to have the sympathy or apathy vote based on disagreeing with the others and I totally reject it. If there are no main party's worthy of my vote I do not vote for them let alone for their opponents simply for the sake of using it, if theres a fringe party addressing something the others are blanking then ill cast it there if it coincides with my opinions rather than waste it on a clown. If none measure up it goes in the bin, for me its as simple as that.

I absolutely do not subscribe to default voting for red simply because I disagree with blue. To do that I would have to agree and support red which I clearly do not, ergo my vote would be a lie and worse contributing to the red clown belief that he has my vote and red will continue on that path suspecting they are worthy of my vote, :ie support, which of course is incorrect.

 

[DeletedUser33353]

I did not expect HS to reply to kid kade's observation...I was hopeful though. For a candidate that got elected on "change", he kinda shot the pooch. And if anyone needs any nice sources for that statement, I can provide them.

 

[DeletedUser]

I was considering replying, but figured most would be smart enough to realize he cut & pasted my comments to come out as something other than what I stated.

 

[DeletedUser]

I'm sorry, English is my first language. I just checked and yes, your post even after being edited states "Many of the freedoms removed from Americans, by the Patriot and subsequent acts, were reversed by Obama in the first year".

Is that supposed to mean anything other then what it sounds like?
The media in the US has presented the story almost completely opposite from your understanding assuming you didn't get lost in translation somehow.

And no, if there is a failure in the statement, it was not because of me. I quoted the complete sentence.

 

[DeletedUser17649]

Victor, the first option I used was to vote blank (a.k.a. protest vote). If you don't use your vote you're simple one of those whose opinions doesn't matter.
In hindsight, what's the difference between not having any weight to use and not having used once weight (when it actually might have mattered)?

Apparently the turnout in UK's last General election was 65.1%.
Which means that around 44,9& of the British people don't matter. As long as the parties aren't doing anything really outrageous near the election they can fight about the 65& that matter.

Tell me what would happen if 10% of the people, not even a fourth of the non-voters, were to vote blank as a protest, showing that they do care about their society but not for the ruling parties?

 

[DeletedUser]

Out of curiosity,

if someone, lets say the people, are dissatisfied with the political leadership, would it be more effective in expressing this dissatisfaction to

A: not vote, thereby decreasing the amount of people needed for the politicians to pander to in order to get elected

B: vote for the most likely to win challenger to the incumbent, thereby holding the politician to his/her words and attempting to show that business as usual is not a way to get reelected.

C: vote for a candidate who is not likely to win at all, but gives lip service in the least to the issues you consider important and possesses some if not a majority of qualities you find important

D: a combination of the above, but in a coordinated way that ensures the message is delivered to the politicians. This is somewhat like how the Tea Party and Conservative Party have infiltrated the Republican Party by battling during the primary process and inserting their own candidates instead of fracturing the strength of the republican party into minority parties and having another Ross Pero or Ralph Nader third party situation that siphons enough votes to ensure the politically polar opposite party wins.

I added the effect I see as each choice having. Perhaps you see it differently, so I'm interested in that also. Personally, I'm for ousting the incumbent until they realize there are no free rides but I probably do not share the same concerns as some in here as to what or where the problems are.

 

[DeletedUser16008]

Victor, the first option I used was to vote blank (a.k.a. protest vote). If you don't use your vote you're simple one of those whose opinions doesn't matter.
In hindsight, what's the difference between not having any weight to use and not having used once weight (when it actually might have mattered)?

Apparently the turnout in UK's last General election was 65.1%.
Which means that around 44,9& of the British people don't matter. As long as the parties aren't doing anything really outrageous near the election they can fight about the 65& that matter.

Tell me what would happen if 10% of the people, not even a fourth of the non-voters, were to vote blank as a protest, showing that they do care about their society but not for the ruling parties?

As our system is representative rather than direct democracy ( which stinks btw ). I tend not to worry about British main party politics. Besides I have always found, bar 1 time a party to vote for and ill probably do the same again, leaving Europe is the key to addressing so many of our current problems. I may blank vote in the next local elections as it only ever gives a choice of a couple and usually I bin it, only problem with that is no one takes much notice of locals at all.

In the US maybe the Blank Vote carries some weight, personally I like the idea of descending on DC in millions to protest outside the White house during the election date to actually show the peoples dissatisfaction.

 

[DeletedUser]

I'm sorry, English is my first language. I just checked and yes, your post even after being edited states "Many of the freedoms removed from Americans, by the Patriot and subsequent acts, were reversed by Obama in the first year".

I didn't respond earlier because I didn't think it was necessary, but also because I'm busy managing the U.S. beta release of Forge of Empires.

In your earlier presentation, you omitted relevant parts inbetween sentences, changing the meaning. In this latest presentation, you omitted again relevant parts. In particular, you omitted the link I provided to a previous post I made. But since it seems you're going to continue to misrepresent my posts, I'll just copy/paste my previous post here and then address your flawed assertion.

There is simply no way Obama could have obtained the authorization to afford maintaining the military without approving of the bill as is.

These are the games being played by Republicans, exploiting the circumstances to undermine the U.S., and discredit the President. Let's face it, Obama succeeding at anything hurts the GOP, a party that was left floundering after 2008. It is the dogma posed by the GOP, in attempting to keep their party viable, that is undermining the United States and attacking the U.S. Constitution at every turn. They are, in no uncertain terms, putting their Party before the People.

So, what I'm saying here is, do not judge a book by its cover. Look deeper into the issues and you see the facts, the Machiavellian actions of an unscrupulous political party that will do "anything" to remain viable. In this, and other instances, such as the extension of the tax cut for the wealthy, Obama has compromised. Not out of diplomacy, not because he agreed to all aspects of these bills, but because of necessity, of the need to ensure the economy doesn't collapse, the employment rate not skyrocket, and the military not fail.

It is the collapse of the U.S. economy, the rise of employment, and/or the failure of military actions that helps the Republican party to claim Obama is incompetent and unable to function as the President. It is a win/win situation for the Republican party when they pose such bills, knowing Obama cannot say no to a need, yet must swallow a very bitter pill at each signing.

Once again are you guys still wanting a Republican in the White House, someone who will pose laws/acts into effect because it's what the GOP wants instead of what's good for the country? Obama is forced to do so sparingly, and under great reservation, and with a dependency for the Supreme Court to rule such additive provisions as unconstitutional. But a Republican President? He'll sign it, and many more, willingly and without reservation, then celebrate his pwning of the People with his fellow party affiliates and corporate cohorts.

Let's also make it clear, the NDAA did not change anything in regards to indefinite detention. This was already previously posed in Bush' so-called Patriot acts. What it did was impose an Obama administration "okay" to what's been going on already since the first Bush term. Just as the telecom and tax cut issues, these are things installed during the Bush administration, which the Obama administration is having a hard time getting rid of, because Republicans in Congress are ensuring that when Obama "needs" something, the Republicans slip in some clause that reaffirms the continuation of policies posed during Bush's administration. It's dirty politics at its dirtiest. The fix is not easy. Indeed, I frankly don't know what is the fix. However, I do know for sure that a Republican President won't fix it because they don't see it as broken.

Now, that presented, we discuss the Patriot Act directly. Most of the provisions posed in the original-state Patriot Act were removed or edited to abide by the Constitution (previously it was in violation of the Constitution on many fronts). The original Patriot Act was sweeping, even overreaching, and violated many tenets of the Constitution and the attached Bill of Rights. Since 2002, the Patriot Act and subsequent acts were struck by legal challenges, Congressional adjustments, and Executive overrides. Still, they existed. However, Congress was wise enough to include a Sunset clause in this act and subsequent related acts, which is a clause that requires re-authorization of provisions. Provisions expire if not re-authorized and many have already expired.

Three provisions were extended by Obama for an additional year, each of which has been modified to abide by the Constitution:

• Authorize court-approved roving wiretaps that permit surveillance on specific phones.
  
• Authorize court-approved seizure of specific records and property in antiterrorism operations.
  
• Permit surveillance against a non-citizen engaged in terrorism (independent of any recognized terrorist group).

The inclusion of court approval dependency, and the restriction of non-citizen to address "lone wolf" terrorist activities, are major changes that have resulted since the initial authorization of the Patriot Act. It is these changes that makes these three provisions in accordance with the Constitution.

So, the song and dance of trying to dirty Obama in this particular issue is deceptive and misleading. Look, there's far more to this particular aspect of the discussion, but it warrants a different thread. So, if you wish to discuss the Patriot Act and how it has morphed over the past 10 years, start a new thread. As it is, I firmly demonstrated that:

1. The force behind many of the issues you tend to blame Obama, are the GOP in Congress.
2. The Patriot Act is no longer the horrendous monster it was when first put into law by the Republicans.
3. Only three "since-edited" provisions were extended by Obama, in a package deal with the Republicans.​

Right, anyway, chat later.

 

[DeletedUser]

First, I did not omit anything. You made a statement, I asked about it. I did not care about all the other non-related crap you spewed, just the context of the one sentence which is out of line with the popular view of the US media and Civil Rights organizations like the ACLU, EFF, and others. Politifact even says no changes in the law was made, just voluntary procedures enacted by executive order or department policies that are not legally binding.

I noticed that you even concede to that and make excuses for Obama in the process. I also like how the sunset provisions are considered by you as affirmative action by President Obama despite the fact that he renewed the most offending provisions of the Patriot act.

This president is no different then the last. In fact in many ways, he is even worse as he thinks he can target US citizens for execution without ever charging them with a crime or or bothering with Due Process. At least under Bush, they would still be alive while indefinitely incarcerated.

The problem with hypocritical idiots is that they aren't smart enough to know when they have been dupped. They fall in love with the idea or concept and ignore, even make excuses for the offensive actions their blind love takes them to. No one is trying to dirty Obama at all, simply stating true facts and asking questions does not in anyway make a conspiracy. Stripping the butterflies and pink ponies from the conversation is not either. It is stating reality the way it is without the sugar coating that is often self imposed in order to maintain the fallacy.