Author Topic: Samuel L. Jackson Obama Ad  (Read 20666 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline m52nickerson

  • Polish Viking
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1386
  • Gender: Male
  • Winning by flying omoplata!
Re: Samuel L. Jackson Obama Ad
« Reply #90 on: October 02, 2012, 07:45:54 pm »
Given that being overridden has the same exact effect as just rolling over and signing a bill, I fail to see how that would be a bad thing.  If even one thing failed to be overridden, it would be an improvement.  Also, the negative publicity of congress overriding a grossly unpopular piece of shi legislation, like for example, extension of the patriot act, would have more of an effect (because it would be in the public consciousness for longer) than if it was quietly passed and signed.

Sure, for a situation like the patriot act it might be good.  Budget fight might not go so well.  I the House and Senate were split as they are now and you had Stein as President she would have to move from some of her positions or get overridden.  That is if the Dems and GOP could compromise and get 2/3 to override a veto.  If the the government shuts down.

Forcing the Dems and the GOP to work together might not be a bad thing.  Thing is Stein would simple not have any support to accomplish almost anything she set out to do.  It is often important to look at what a candidate can accomplish than what they promise.

They're based on what those people have said and done, though I freely admit that there are serious flaws with the test.  The point is that of all the possible political viewpoints out there, the Democratic and Republican parties are not especially far apart.

Basing it on what the President has done, or any member of congress, is deeply flawed because it does not take into account that there is compromise to just about everything that gets passed.

You are correct that in the whole spectrum of political ideologies the US parties are not that far apart.  I don't see that as a negative because I don't superscribe to the ideologies that are out on the fringes.

Quote
True, but winning isn't really the point.  There are a number of reasons to vote third party, and none of them is the expectation of victory.  It allows you to vote your conscience, if even the least objectionable choice that has a chance of winning is too objectionable.  A strong showing has the potential to help third parties.  Winning more than 5% of the popular vote qualifies a party for public financing in the next election.  Plus, it raises the profile of the party and can help them win local offices, and small parties do win local offices.  Gayle McLaughlin, the Mayor of Richmond, CA, is a member of the Green Party; a few Greens have been elected to state legislatures; and in four cities, Greens have at one point won a majority on town councils.  There are currently over 130 members of the Green Party who currently hold elected offices across the U.S.  That's not as impressive as the Presidency, but it does make a difference.  And, as previously mentioned, when third parties gain strong support, the major parties often shift to absorb their ideas.

The question I have for you is this:  how close does an election have to be before casting a vote for a third party becomes a waste?  Mike Pence is going to be my state's next governor:  he's polling 18 points ahead of the Democrat, John Gregg.  Romney is polling 12 points ahead of Obama here.  Would voting for a left-wing third party candidate for either office be a waste?  The Democratic candidates have no chance of winning either, and in the case of Obama, he doesn't even need to win here.  Why wouldn't voting for Gregg or Obama be a waste?

I don't think a vote is ever wasted.  Voting for a third party to make a statement is fine.  Your vote is your voice.  What people have to understand that that statement being made by a large number of people might have an unintended and unfavorable consequence.

It doesn't matter, it is ongoing.

You're right it is ongoing, the court cases that is.  That means until the Supreme Court rules calling them unconstitutional is nothing but opinion. 

Quote
Meant this.

So the President's chief of staff was on the opposite side of a union fight near a decade ago and that means the President is anti-union?

Quote
I'm not saying that a majority of American became radical leftists or saw Obama as such, simply that there was a general left wing shift. Also, why is that surprising? Of course radical leftists aren't going to like politicians.

Sure it was a swing to the left.  Two years later we saw a swing back to the right.  You always have these kind of swings.  They are nothing out of the ordinary.

Quote
The Democrats don't agree with this out of the goodness of their hearts.

Have you become a mind reader?

Quote
Health care reform, fair pay act, repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, student loan program overhaul....

Yes, because all of those things are super popular right?

Quote
It takes a lot of money to run for office. Guess who's gonna give it? And people would be, but maybe they don't have time. I guess working, for those who can, and living takes some time up. But yeah, people are just lazy aren't they? Barack Obama worked hard sucking up to Wall Street.

Yes it take a lot of money for bigger elections.  People can and have started small.

Obama could have went after Wall Street and the Bankers, like they did in the EU.  How did that would out over there again?  The simple fact is Wall Street and the Banks are needed to help get the economy back up and running.

Quote
Also, what is the main role of the president? To run the country. A main task? Running a capitalist economy. Doesn't sound like a good job for a socialist.

The US is a capitalist country.  That is not going to change anytime soon, nor do I think it should.

Quote
Sure, America is pretty bloody good, why can't I complain. It's the same criticism of OWS, why are they complaining, things aren't that bad.

...and you wonder why I said it sound like whining.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2012, 08:24:08 pm by m52nickerson »
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. ~Macbeth

Offline Veras

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1097
  • Gender: Male
  • I aim to misbehave
Re: Samuel L. Jackson Obama Ad
« Reply #91 on: October 02, 2012, 08:26:53 pm »
I don't think a vote is ever wasted.  Voting for a third party to make a statement is fine.  Your vote is your voice.  What people have to understand that that statement being made by a large number of people might have an unintended and unfavorable consequence.

I won't disagree with that, but it can have positive consequences as well.  Again:  public financing, improved profile to help win local offices, and potentially forcing the major parties to shift the debate.
RIP Tony Benn (1925 - 2014)

"There is no moral difference between a stealth bomber and a suicide bomber. Both kill innocent people for political reasons."

“If we can find the money to kill people, we can find the money to help people.”

"I'm not frightened about death. I don't know why, but I just feel that at a certain moment your switch is switched off, and that's it. And you can't do anything about it."

Offline m52nickerson

  • Polish Viking
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1386
  • Gender: Male
  • Winning by flying omoplata!
Re: Samuel L. Jackson Obama Ad
« Reply #92 on: October 02, 2012, 08:56:54 pm »
I won't disagree with that, but it can have positive consequences as well.  Again:  public financing, improved profile to help win local offices, and potentially forcing the major parties to shift the debate.

No doubt it can.  It all come down to if one thinks those potential benefits outweigh potential risks.
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. ~Macbeth

Offline KZN02

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 881
  • Gender: Male
  • The Master of Tediousness
Re: Samuel L. Jackson Obama Ad
« Reply #93 on: October 04, 2012, 07:29:04 pm »
There's a rebuttal now.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNXw2ZATWvg" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNXw2ZATWvg</a>
What is, is not; what is not, is.