Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

The Obama Administration

11718202223100

Posts

  • LochielLochiel Registered User regular
    edited December 2011
    Burtletoy wrote:
    Lochiel wrote:
    I'm sorry, but this conversation is showing a surprising lack of knowledge about how the electoral college works. Yes, our election system is flawed, and yes it is horribly stymied by ballot-access laws. But your vote isn't going to be part of a national tally, it's only going to decide your election district's vote. In many states we will have an option of a 3rd party candidate or write in candidate. And everyone here should be able to figure out if their vote could help swing their election district one way or another. If your lucky enough to have a 3rd party option that supports your cause and your vote isn't going to swing the district one way or another, then voting for the guy you like least is you telling him to keep doing what he is doing.

    This attitude of "I have to vote X or Y will win" is exactly the attitude that lead to the party stagnation we have, which is a direct cause of the problems we have today. Regardless of which party wins, big money & big government will be the winners because those are the only options. The flames might be different colors, but the house is still on fire.

    Ummmm...

    First-Past-The-Post is what leads to the 'party stagnation' we have right now. Not any of those other words you just said.

    First-past-the-post = 2 party system.

    Always and forever.

    Voting third party will not change that our system of elections is first-past-the-post

    FPTP is a problem, won't argue that. About the only thing that FPTP has going for is that a mentally retarded 1st grader can understand it. And voting in a 3rd party won't fix this problem. Voting in a 3rd party won't even address this problem. But fixing the FPTP problem wasn't the point of the discussion.

    But if you think that FPTP is the /only/ thing causing party stagnation, then your understanding of the situation is incomplete. Let me ask you this, if FPTP alone causes a two-party system and forces party stagnation, then why has the US had 3rd party upsets in the past? Why do other governments (such as the UK) that use FPTP have 3rd party representation? (Anouther example: My county uses FPTP, yet has a 3rd party represented in it's government)

    And the question I'm currently trying to understand better myself; why haven't we had serious 3rd party representation in so damn long? Even if we move away from FPTP, if there are other causes of party stagnation that go unaddressed then we haven't fixed the problem. I know that ballot access laws and the attitude of "A 3rd party vote is a thrown away vote" contribute to this problem. Any insights and contributions to answering this problem are welcome.

    Lochiel on
  • dojangodojango Registered User
    The last time a US had a third party "upset" was 1860, just about the same time that the two original political parties were falling apart due to the slavery issue. Ever since then, we've had the same two parties. Sure, we've had a few third parties burst on to the scene and then burn out like a falling celebrity, but they were mainly due to a having a charismatic/wealthy independent try to buck the system (1912/1992).

    We won't have viable third parties as long as each district is winner-take all, and the party machine is capable of enforcing voting discipline in Congress. You mainly see viable third parties in places where they have a parliamentary list system (or strong ethnic divides).

  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    KungFu wrote:
    Does anyone here actually fault Obama for Iraq's instability?

    You can't credit Obama for ending the occupation of Iraq and then turn a blind eye to when the bullets start flying again. That's not fair.

    easybossfight_zps4752c132.gif
  • DeebaserDeebaser Alpha Teemo Fake Board GamerRegistered User regular
    emnmnme wrote:
    KungFu wrote:
    Does anyone here actually fault Obama for Iraq's instability?

    You can't credit Obama for ending the occupation of Iraq and then turn a blind eye to when the bullets start flying again. That's not fair.

    It is if I didn't give a wet fart about the state of affairs in Iraq in 2002 and I still don't in 2011. We fucked up and shouldn't have gone in in the first place. That shithole was never going to be a shining beacon of democracy and freedom in the region and our bombing the shit out of it didn't set it on a much better path.

  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Harrisonburg, VARegistered User regular
    dojango wrote:
    The last time a US had a third party "upset" was 1860, just about the same time that the two original political parties were falling apart due to the slavery issue. Ever since then, we've had the same two parties. Sure, we've had a few third parties burst on to the scene and then burn out like a falling celebrity, but they were mainly due to a having a charismatic/wealthy independent try to buck the system (1912/1992).

    We won't have viable third parties as long as each district is winner-take all, and the party machine is capable of enforcing voting discipline in Congress. You mainly see viable third parties in places where they have a parliamentary list system (or strong ethnic divides).
    Hello, Scotland and Wales! What's that? You say you're not the same as England, and your parties are different even though you're all electing people to the same parliament? Huh!

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    So suddenly, we have a fucking president. It's about goddamn time he started getting angry.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited December 2011
    He's been angry for a couple months. Basically he gave up and got partisan after the debt ceiling debacle. I think slightly pushed by that Warren video that went viral, but that might be me loving her and reading in things that aren't true.

    enlightenedbum on
    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited December 2011
    Thanatos wrote:
    So suddenly, we have a fucking president. It's about goddamn time he started getting angry.

    I'm not sure what value comes from him being visibly angry. It seems like it makes the people on the left who actually read particular relevant instances of reporting marginally happier for a time without actually doing anything with respect to legislation.

    Loren Michael on
    2ezikn6.jpg
  • lonelyahavalonelyahava One day, I will be able to say to myself "I am beautiful and I am perfect just the way I am"Registered User regular
    Thanatos wrote:
    So suddenly, we have a fucking president. It's about goddamn time he started getting angry.

    I'm not sure what value comes from him being visibly angry. It seems like it makes the people on the left who actually read particular relevant instances of reporting marginally happier for a time without actually doing anything with respect to legislation.

    it's cathartic for us.

    My Little Corner of the World || I am ravelried! || My Steam!
    You have to fight through some bad days, to earn the best days of your life.
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited December 2011
    Thanatos wrote:
    So suddenly, we have a fucking president. It's about goddamn time he started getting angry.

    I'm not sure what value comes from him being visibly angry. It seems like it makes the people on the left who actually read particular relevant instances of reporting marginally happier for a time without actually doing anything with respect to legislation.

    Nothing he does affects legislation in the short term because the GOP response will always be the same. So things that a) draw a contrast between the parties that is clear and b) make his base happier are a good thing. As those things alter the composition of Congress, which does affect legislation.

    enlightenedbum on
    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    Thanatos wrote:
    So suddenly, we have a fucking president. It's about goddamn time he started getting angry.

    I'm not sure what value comes from him being visibly angry. It seems like it makes the people on the left who actually read particular relevant instances of reporting marginally happier for a time without actually doing anything with respect to legislation.
    If he's angry, it makes it easier to shift the blame to the Republicans in Congress.

  • nightmarennynightmarenny Registered User regular
    Basically their are a bunch of people who are convinced that when the president stays calm and does the pragmatic thing he's complicit in whatever is happening.

    But if he's mad then he's against it.

    Quire.jpg
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited December 2011
    Basically their are a bunch of people who are convinced that when the president stays calm and does the pragmatic thing he's complicit in whatever is happening.

    But if he's mad then he's against it.
    I... am not entirely convinced that this is wholly irrational.

    Thanatos on
  • lonelyahavalonelyahava One day, I will be able to say to myself "I am beautiful and I am perfect just the way I am"Registered User regular
    Thanatos wrote:
    Basically their are a bunch of people who are convinced that when the president stays calm and does the pragmatic thing he's complicit in whatever is happening.

    But if he's mad then he's against it.
    I... am not entirely convinced that this is wholly irrational.

    not to mention the cathartic nature of it all. I mean we can be as pissed off as we want, but when the President himself, mr. Cool and collected, is also visibly pissed off, then we KNOW that we are right and we cna get even more pissed off without just sounding like a bunch of petulant babies.

    but that's just my take on it....

    My Little Corner of the World || I am ravelried! || My Steam!
    You have to fight through some bad days, to earn the best days of your life.
  • KiplingKipling Registered User regular
    Thanatos wrote:
    Basically their are a bunch of people who are convinced that when the president stays calm and does the pragmatic thing he's complicit in whatever is happening.

    But if he's mad then he's against it.
    I... am not entirely convinced that this is wholly irrational.

    not to mention the cathartic nature of it all. I mean we can be as pissed off as we want, but when the President himself, mr. Cool and collected, is also visibly pissed off, then we KNOW that we are right and we cna get even more pissed off without just sounding like a bunch of petulant babies.

    but that's just my take on it....

    Angry only works if you reserve it for special occasions.

    Also, the house GOP has no good options at this point. After the Super Committee failed, I doubt basing your entire argument on that another one of those will work to fix this is a good idea.

    3DS Friends: 1693-1781-7023
  • ChanusChanus Registered User regular
    Kipling wrote:
    Thanatos wrote:
    Basically their are a bunch of people who are convinced that when the president stays calm and does the pragmatic thing he's complicit in whatever is happening.

    But if he's mad then he's against it.
    I... am not entirely convinced that this is wholly irrational.

    not to mention the cathartic nature of it all. I mean we can be as pissed off as we want, but when the President himself, mr. Cool and collected, is also visibly pissed off, then we KNOW that we are right and we cna get even more pissed off without just sounding like a bunch of petulant babies.

    but that's just my take on it....

    Angry only works if you reserve it for special occasions.

    Also, the house GOP has no good options at this point. After the Super Committee failed, I doubt basing your entire argument on that another one of those will work to fix this is a good idea.

    God, the worst part is none of this matters at all because their moron base will just eat up whatever they put out there.

    Cantor saying this is just kicking the can down the road, so the answer is more obstruction? YEAH! HE'S A HERO!

    It's so fucking demoralizing. Nothing gets through to stupid and (often willfully) ignorant.

    If Obama gets tough, he's a communist dictator, if he doesn't get tough, the Republicans walk all over him.

  • RchanenRchanen Registered User regular
    Chanus wrote:
    Kipling wrote:
    Thanatos wrote:
    Basically their are a bunch of people who are convinced that when the president stays calm and does the pragmatic thing he's complicit in whatever is happening.

    But if he's mad then he's against it.
    I... am not entirely convinced that this is wholly irrational.

    not to mention the cathartic nature of it all. I mean we can be as pissed off as we want, but when the President himself, mr. Cool and collected, is also visibly pissed off, then we KNOW that we are right and we cna get even more pissed off without just sounding like a bunch of petulant babies.

    but that's just my take on it....

    Angry only works if you reserve it for special occasions.

    Also, the house GOP has no good options at this point. After the Super Committee failed, I doubt basing your entire argument on that another one of those will work to fix this is a good idea.

    God, the worst part is none of this matters at all because their moron base will just eat up whatever they put out there.

    Cantor saying this is just kicking the can down the road, so the answer is more obstruction? YEAH! HE'S A HERO!

    It's so fucking demoralizing. Nothing gets through to stupid and (often willfully) ignorant.

    If Obama gets tough, he's a communist dictator, if he doesn't get tough, the Republicans walk all over him.

    Yeah, but their moderates and the independents. They are going to be pissy about this.

    Toldo wrote:
    Preacher wrote:
    Skinny guys fight till their burger. Screw debates lets have Barack Obama and Willard Romney rumble in the mofoing jungle.
    Obama punches Romney.
    "Okay, now wait a minute. You've had your turn. Let me have a turn. Wait a minute," Romney says.
    Obama punches Romney.
  • lonelyahavalonelyahava One day, I will be able to say to myself "I am beautiful and I am perfect just the way I am"Registered User regular
    My father is going to be thrilled to see the president get angry about something. That's been one of his biggest complaints about Obama is that he's 'too soft' and doesn't get angry enough.

    Anything that helps me beat my father into submission when it comes to voting is a good thing.

    My Little Corner of the World || I am ravelried! || My Steam!
    You have to fight through some bad days, to earn the best days of your life.
  • No-QuarterNo-Quarter Registered User regular
    edited December 2011
    dbrock270 wrote:
    So Iraq seems to be drifting back into violence.

    Another point off for Obama.

    I'm sorry this is dumb. What did you expect? Or want for that matter? Stay there till we went bankrupt? Iraq was going to blow up regardless how many more years and billions of dollars we stayed and spent there. Houses built on awful foundations tend to collapse.

    Blaming the guy that put the sunk-cost-effect-monster to sleep for the shitshow that happens (and was always going to happen) afterwards is disingenuous in the extreme.

    Do we have some sort of moral imperative to fix what we've broken? Sure, but like it or not the American people aren't having or paying for it.

    EDIT: Unless you were being facetious...

    No-Quarter on
  • LolkenLolken Registered User, __BANNED USERS, Dumbasses
    Thanatos wrote:
    Basically their are a bunch of people who are convinced that when the president stays calm and does the pragmatic thing he's complicit in whatever is happening.

    But if he's mad then he's against it.
    I... am not entirely convinced that this is wholly irrational.

    not to mention the cathartic nature of it all. I mean we can be as pissed off as we want, but when the President himself, mr. Cool and collected, is also visibly pissed off, then we KNOW that we are right and we cna get even more pissed off without just sounding like a bunch of petulant babies.

    but that's just my take on it....

    My take is that the educated mr. Obama has lowered himself to the level of the hoi polloi. Less Jackson, more Adams and Madison, please, Obama.

    "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" - Lord Acton.

    "Money tends to corrupt, and lots of money corrupts lotsely" - Me.
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Harrisonburg, VARegistered User regular
    The hoi polloi is redundant. Hoi means the. Just so you know. Also, the President is not above the people.

  • LolkenLolken Registered User, __BANNED USERS, Dumbasses
    So, to be consistent, Captain Carrot, I expect you to say the gebra, the chemy, and the garisms.

    If the level of discourse of "the people" is just one step away from the gnarling of rabid beasts, then yes, I'd expect a President to rise above it. Or else the body politic becomes an ochlocracy.

    "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" - Lord Acton.

    "Money tends to corrupt, and lots of money corrupts lotsely" - Me.
  • Tim-YatesTim-Yates Registered User
    People still holding on to that hope and change with Obama thing need to wake up. You want change, vote for Ron Paul

    failhunter_banner2_by_timyates-d4jn83j.jpg
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited December 2011
    Tim-Yates wrote:
    People still holding on to that hope and change with Obama thing need to wake up. You want change, vote for Ron Paul

    Yes, back to the 1880s!

    EDIT: Hi5 AMFE

    enlightenedbum on
    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • Z0reZ0re Registered User regular
    Tim-Yates wrote:
    People still holding on to that hope and change with Obama thing need to wake up. You want change, vote for Ron Paul

    Ron "I don't understand the concept of fiat currency" Paul?

    I wasn't aware a return to an antiquated and idiotic model of government constituted positive change.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Tim-Yates wrote:
    People still holding on to that hope and change with Obama thing need to wake up. You want change, vote for Ron Paul

    Agreed, if you miss how America used to be in the 1850s, vote for Ron Paul! No jobs, no healthcare, no infrastructure, no education, but hey you can get all the drugs you want!

    Lh96QHG.png
  • LolkenLolken Registered User, __BANNED USERS, Dumbasses
    I would like a return to the North's 1850s. At least there people had the guts to sacrifice for a common good that was beneficial, without asking for any bribes, excuse me, Social Security incentives.

    "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" - Lord Acton.

    "Money tends to corrupt, and lots of money corrupts lotsely" - Me.
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    Lolken wrote:
    I would like a return to the North's 1850s. At least there people had the guts to sacrifice for a common good that was beneficial, without asking for any bribes, excuse me, Social Security incentives.

    and the poor had the decency to die in the streets

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Also, black people weren't human! I mean, at least they weren't chattel, right?

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    Thanatos wrote:
    So suddenly, we have a fucking president. It's about goddamn time he started getting angry.

    So the republicans are opposing a tax cut and Obama is attacking them for it.


    I don't understand this any more.

  • LolkenLolken Registered User, __BANNED USERS, Dumbasses
    Also, black people weren't human! I mean, at least they weren't chattel, right?

    Frederick Douglass > any black person alive today.

    "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" - Lord Acton.

    "Money tends to corrupt, and lots of money corrupts lotsely" - Me.
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Julius wrote:
    Thanatos wrote:
    So suddenly, we have a fucking president. It's about goddamn time he started getting angry.

    So the republicans are opposing a tax cut and Obama is attacking them for it.


    I don't understand this any more.

    It's the SSI tax, so it only applies to income under 93k.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • nightmarennynightmarenny Registered User regular
    Julius wrote:
    Thanatos wrote:
    So suddenly, we have a fucking president. It's about goddamn time he started getting angry.

    So the republicans are opposing a tax cut and Obama is attacking them for it.


    I don't understand this any more.
    Man, Health care Reform was their idea. It doesn't matter what Obamas position is the Republicans will always take the opposite.

    Quire.jpg
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Julius wrote:
    Thanatos wrote:
    So suddenly, we have a fucking president. It's about goddamn time he started getting angry.

    So the republicans are opposing a tax cut and Obama is attacking them for it.


    I don't understand this any more.

    It's pretty enraging. The GOP spent a month saying they didn't want to extend the tax cuts at all. Then they passed a bill full of the porkiest of pork, the Senate rewrote it (the Senate GOP kept them from extending the thing for a full year) and pass a not really better one this weekend.

    The House GOP was behind it, then Cantor forgot to wipe the santorum off and so now the House GOP is pretending that they're looking out for the little guy. The worst is when you see the freshmen congressmen who honestly think they're doing the right thing because they're just lock step in with the Cantor club.

    The idea is we put the band-aid on, then come back next year to put out a full bill. It's not an ideal situation, but on December 21st it's probably the best we're going to get.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • Z0reZ0re Registered User regular
    Lolken wrote:
    I would like a return to the North's 1850s. At least there people had the guts to sacrifice for a common good that was beneficial, without asking for any bribes, excuse me, Social Security incentives.

    ...
    Lolken wrote:
    Also, black people weren't human! I mean, at least they weren't chattel, right?

    Frederick Douglass > any black person alive today.

    Who the hell taught you history?

  • LolkenLolken Registered User, __BANNED USERS, Dumbasses
    Also, black people weren't human! I mean, at least they weren't chattel, right?

    Meh, if you're going to go sarcastic on me, I'll go realistic on you and say that the thousands of people who died (or are still dying) - who are black, by the way - at Congo or Rwanda (by God, what is the name of the capitals of those curious tribes?) so videogame developers could have their cassiterite or coltan so "enlightenedbum" could play Ultima VII or Civilization 4 haven't bothered you in the least.

    "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" - Lord Acton.

    "Money tends to corrupt, and lots of money corrupts lotsely" - Me.
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    Julius wrote:
    Thanatos wrote:
    So suddenly, we have a fucking president. It's about goddamn time he started getting angry.

    So the republicans are opposing a tax cut and Obama is attacking them for it.


    I don't understand this any more.

    It's the SSI tax, so it only applies to income under 93k.

    Oh it's a tax cut for the not-rich?


    Well obviously you can't support that. They'd probably spend it on refrigerators instead of job-creating.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Lolken wrote:
    Also, black people weren't human! I mean, at least they weren't chattel, right?

    Meh, if you're going to go sarcastic on me, I'll go realistic on you and say that the thousands of people who died (or are still dying) - who are black, by the way - at Congo or Rwanda (by God, what is the name of the capitals of those curious tribes?) so videogame developers could have their cassiterite or coltan so "enlightenedbum" could play Ultima VII or Civilization 4 haven't bothered you in the least.

    What the fuck are you talking about?

  • Professor PhobosProfessor Phobos Registered User regular
    shryke wrote:
    Lolken wrote:
    Also, black people weren't human! I mean, at least they weren't chattel, right?

    Meh, if you're going to go sarcastic on me, I'll go realistic on you and say that the thousands of people who died (or are still dying) - who are black, by the way - at Congo or Rwanda (by God, what is the name of the capitals of those curious tribes?) so videogame developers could have their cassiterite or coltan so "enlightenedbum" could play Ultima VII or Civilization 4 haven't bothered you in the least.

    What the fuck are you talking about?

    Several minerals key to modern computer technology are in/were in war-torn regions of Africa. If western companies purchase raw materials from shady regimes, those regimes then use that money to finance their wars and oppression, etc, etc.

    It's one of the (many) dark things underlying the global economy that most people don't know much about. (Including myself, I'm just pretty sure that's what he's talking about)

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    What does any of that have to do with the 1850s being a horrible time to live and Ron Paul having terrible ideas?

This discussion has been closed.