As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Dictatorships and US government: Extra cheese edition

124»

Posts

  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    syndalis wrote:
    Synthesis wrote:
    syndalis wrote:
    rockrnger wrote:
    I would say that the best measure is how much the government is about one person/family rather than the citizens.

    Our dear departed leader for example.
    The Bushes and Clintons come very close to this. Especially if Hilary had got elected president. That god we dodged that bullet.

    ...

    Hillary Clinton would have made a fine president. Some areas she would have handled better than Obama, others probably far less. But she wouldn't have been a cataclysm or a "bullet" to dodge.

    Right now, she is straight-up kicking ass as the Secretary of State (her recent speech at the UN was stellar), and if she still has that kind of fire in 2016, I would throw my hat into the ring behind her.

    I think it's worth noting that Secretary of State is an office that is not subject to the same political jockeying, name calling, and partisan hate as the Presidency (don't get me wrong, it is still subject to some). Given how absolutely hated Hillary Clinton was for almost 20 years by the other end of the political sphere, I can't help but think that would have remained a very severe political obstacle, putting aside the bullshit endorsement from people like Sean Hannity when they hoped to split the Democratic vote.

    Please tell me how this is any different from the Secret Muslim, Born in Kenya, not real american, taking our guns, socialist marxist communist hitler crap that gets thrown at "No-Bama"

    The Clintons were not unique; they were successful Democrats, which is generally what raises the ire of the Right in this country. Same with Obama.

    I mentioned it because I don't think Clinton being in office would have overcome those existing obstacles. It's not a statement on her strengths/weaknesses, competence, etc. Just that I think we'd be confronted by the same political jockeying, name calling, and partisan hate. Just in a different flavor.
    Republicans hate Hilary as much as you think. She fits into their mold politically than liberals, for example. I've spoken to Republicans who have even admitting they don't hate her, it's just an act. Not to mention in college or university she was a Young Republican.

    While being white would certainly work in her favor in this case, I think that sheer length of time she'd been in the spot light could really lead to some very nasty exchanges, even compared to what we have now. I'm not prepared to comment how the GOP would respond to a woman elected to the Presidency they hated as opposed to a mixed-race man.

    Synthesis on
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    syndalis wrote:
    Please tell me how this is any different from the Secret Muslim, Born in Kenya, not real american, taking our guns, socialist marxist communist hitler crap that gets thrown at "No-Bama"

    Republicans don't know how to deal with Obama. They're throwing everything at the wall hoping something sticks. They know how the Clinton's work. That's why they wanted Hilary to win in 2008. She is much closer to them with political interests than Obama, too. It doesn't matter who would win in an election between Hilary or McCain, they're both right wingers.
    The Clintons were not unique; they were successful Democrats, which is generally what raises the ire of the Right in this country. Same with Obama.
    The more I learn about Bill's time in office the weaker he seems to become. He folded far to much for my liking.


  • syndalissyndalis Getting Classy On the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Products regular
    Bill did a lot of "right for the time, small steps forward" stuff, that were a series of compromises to get SOME forward momentum happening. He had to deal with the same level of obstructionist bullshit on the senate/house floor that Obama faces today, including full shutdowns of the government and a general do-nothing attitude because they didn't want to do anything that made Clinton look good.

    Judging by how you look back on him, it seems to be a very effective tactic.

    SW-4158-3990-6116
    Let's play Mario Kart or something...
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    syndalis wrote:
    Bill did a lot of "right for the time, small steps forward" stuff, that were a series of compromises to get SOME forward momentum happening.
    True. Compromise in itself isn't a bad thing, but he needed to stand up to the Republicans much more than he did. Obama has the same problem, unfortunately. For example, the Glass-Steagle Act IIRC. That would have stopped the recent financial crisis from occurring. A huge blunder we're still paying for because Bill was to weak, incompetent or corrupt to tell the right people to get out.
    He had to deal with the same level of obstructionist bullshit on the senate/house floor that Obama faces today, including full shutdowns of the government and a general do-nothing attitude because they didn't want to do anything that made Clinton look good.

    I don't blame him for everything that went wrong, everyone has their flaws. This flaw is tied to who he hired, which he clearly couldn't control. This becomes a failure in leadership on his end because being president means he wasn't able to lead the Democrats in situations that they were able to succeed or at least have a stalemate with the Republicans. Now you bring it up both the Clinton and Obama administrations have many things in common. This goes beyond just those two men IMO. Its a system problem. The Clinton people became the Obama people. A major mistake Obama made by re-hiring them or keeping them in place. You won't see much change if the same people are in place. It's in their best interests to keep the status quo or, in some case, go in the conservative direction.
    Judging by how you look back on him, it seems to be a very effective tactic.

    True. Nonetheless Bill can't blame them for his own decisions. He was president, they weren't.

    Harry Dresden on
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    And the President isn't a dictator with unlimited power. The sooner people realize that, the sooner we can actually fix things.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    And the President isn't a dictator with unlimited power. The sooner people realize that, the sooner we can actually fix things.

    Nor are they powerless. A president doesn't need to be a dictator to get things done. That's why competent and uncorrupt middle management is vital.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    And the President isn't a dictator with unlimited power. The sooner people realize that, the sooner we can actually fix things.

    Nor are they powerless. A president doesn't need to be a dictator to get things done. That's why competent and uncorrupt middle management is vital.

    So tell me - what, exactly, do you propose the President do when Congress doesn't want to play ball?

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited January 2012

    So tell me - what, exactly, do you propose the President do when Congress doesn't want to play ball?
    I'm not saying I have all the answers. However, whoever is the president should damn well have some back-up plans for this type of thing. They're supposed to be much smarter than I am, yet it is infuriating watching them being outsmarted with similar or identical tactics the Republicans use.

    When I mentioned middle management in my prior post I meant minority/majority leaders and the like. Harry Reid is someone the president should have done something to legally replace or find some method of making him actually do his job better. Like not folding to Republicans who threaten to filibuster something.

    Harry Dresden on
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular

    So tell me - what, exactly, do you propose the President do when Congress doesn't want to play ball?
    I'm not saying I have all the answers. However, whoever is the president should damn well have some back-up plans for this type of thing. They're supposed to be much smarter than I am, yet it is infuriating watching them being outsmarted with similar or identical tactics the Republicans use.

    When I mentioned middle management in my prior post I meant minority/majority leaders and the like. Harry Reid is someone the president should have done something to legally replace or find some method of making him actually do his job better. Like not folding to Republicans who threaten to filibuster something.

    Reid doesn't report to the President. Nor should he ever do so. What part of separation of powers don't you understand?

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Reid doesn't report to the President. Nor should he ever do so.

    He is apart of the Democratic party, though. He does benefit from the president endorsing him (a huge mistake IMO).
    What part of separation of powers don't you understand?
    Forgot about that. My mistake.

    Since the president can't legally do anything is there any productive means for the Democrats to punish or replace him after he's been elected?

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Reid doesn't report to the President. Nor should he ever do so.

    He is apart of the Democratic party, though. He does benefit from the president endorsing him (a huge mistake IMO).
    What part of separation of powers don't you understand?
    Forgot about that. My mistake.

    Since the president can't legally do anything is there any productive means for the Democrats to punish or replace him after he's been elected?

    Yes, they can primary him. The issue is that doing so is a gamble for several reasons. It takes a lot for primarying a sitting senior Senator to look like a good idea.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2012
    Being on the ground while stuff happens may make you brave, it may make you courageous, but it doesn't grant you particularly wide-ranging situational awareness.

    If your choice is between the word of someone who was there for something else but was throw into a volatile situation, boots on the ground, first hand account versus someone who saw the former's point of view and deconstructed simply because he doesn't like the message, who are you gonna lean towards being more accurate?



    Choice quotes:
    Indeed, according to the 2011 Pew finding, “nearly eight-in-ten Egyptians have an unfavorable opinion of the U.S.” That tracks opinion in the Arab world generally, where the two nations perceived as the biggest threat are — by far — the U.S. and Israel (not Iran), and the three most admired foreign leaders are Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan, followed by Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinijad.
    Even if you’re indifferent to the moral questions involved in actively trying to impede democracy in Egypt — suppose you’re a hard-core adherent of Henry Kissinger and realpolitik and want to the U.S. to act only to advance its interests without regard to moral and ethical questions – the foolishness of this approach is manifest. It’s what the U.S. has been doing, so disastrously, in that part of the world for decades: feigning support for democracy while working against it.

    Sheep on
Sign In or Register to comment.