We are told he was a community organizer, whatever that means.
Then he wrote a book, and served a term where Joe Lieberman was his mentor, and then BOOM, there he was, President of the World, the candidate from Langley.
I actually never heard of this though I have toured Monticello ЁЯд╖тАНтЩВя╕П
PS - NPR would have found constitutional problems and the use of it not so cool had the president been Trump ! Very sad state of double standardsтАжтАж.
The significance of difference is relative. Given that the subtopic here is the PATRIOT Act and who is responsible for it, your separation between fools and statists strikes me as more trivial than huge. This is because they did the deed and the damage was done (do we really care about their motives long after the fact?).
My view is that our political system needs more pluralism and less 'two wings of the same grisly gang' (h/t Bill). And the tendency to lump the opposition into a homogenous group is likely a bad call... on multiple levels that makes a huge difference in your ability to make accurate calls, plus differentiate yourself from the fools.
To me, the most appropriate response is often *both* substantive and mocking.
Well stated counter argument (the best one, imo, one of moot-ness!). Here's where I choose to attack it:
"And the tendency to lump the opposition into a homogenous group is likely a bad call..."
See, I not only *like* a 2 (two) Party system, I think it necessary (if used properly by the People, a huge if of course, and a failed condition today) to save the Constitution. I do not mean to be hyperbolic. I think the Constitution has failed, or the People have failed it (whatever Ben Franklin), and the only way short of a bloody (or not bloody?) revolution to re-corral the overgrown State is to have a *united* opposition.
The Dems made similar complaints about folks like Nader and then Sanders (undermining the opposition). In the short term, there may be some merit to the argument. But if we take a longer view, plus accurately describe the initial conditions, a 2P stranglehold on the system is good for corruption and bad for democracy.
To see how this works, maybe consider how your initial assessment of Citizens United was wrong and very short-sighted as opposed to big picture (and the analogy to weight classes in boxing was actually a good one, for what it's worth). With a smaller pool of possible candidates (as opposed to votes 'thrown away', as some like to say), they can be more choosy about which part of their constituency to Represent. In a more pluralistic scenario, with a relatively smaller base for each Rep plus more legit options for voters, they need to be more circumspect and less obviously bought.
And on the topic of being bought, with a 2P stranglehold and fewer Reps to choose from, there is a lower threshold cost to... buy them all. If it takes a dumptruck of money to buy a Rep, and there are (only) roughly 400 stars in the firmament to buy... then you need (checks math) ~400 dumptrucks of money to buy them all. And post Citizens United, how many dumptrucks of money do you reckon there are sloshing about in the influence-buying budget?
I'm just not that sold on a parliamentary system, for which you seem to be. I most certainly disagree that there exosts less graft and "sausage-like-in-construction" politics.
I had no idea and every Democrat blames Bush for this but Obama extended it. Wow
The autopen--from FRANCE.
NPR thought it was very cool:
Obama Wields His ... Autopen?
https://www.npr.org/2011/05/27/136717719/obama-wields-his-autopen
Obama came literally from nowhere.
We are told he was a community organizer, whatever that means.
Then he wrote a book, and served a term where Joe Lieberman was his mentor, and then BOOM, there he was, President of the World, the candidate from Langley.
Kathleen- nice find !
I actually never heard of this though I have toured Monticello ЁЯд╖тАНтЩВя╕П
PS - NPR would have found constitutional problems and the use of it not so cool had the president been Trump ! Very sad state of double standardsтАжтАж.
They are still raising $$ to build it but if you are ever in Medora, ND check it out.
Its funny anyone thinks there's a difference.
Two wings of the same grisly gang.
There is still a huge difference:
At least *some* of the Republicans supporting the extensions were *not* neo-cons and neo-libs. (Fools, yes, but *not* Statists *using* the issue.)
*All* of the Democrats were and are.
The significance of difference is relative. Given that the subtopic here is the PATRIOT Act and who is responsible for it, your separation between fools and statists strikes me as more trivial than huge. This is because they did the deed and the damage was done (do we really care about their motives long after the fact?).
My view is that our political system needs more pluralism and less 'two wings of the same grisly gang' (h/t Bill). And the tendency to lump the opposition into a homogenous group is likely a bad call... on multiple levels that makes a huge difference in your ability to make accurate calls, plus differentiate yourself from the fools.
To me, the most appropriate response is often *both* substantive and mocking.
Well stated counter argument (the best one, imo, one of moot-ness!). Here's where I choose to attack it:
"And the tendency to lump the opposition into a homogenous group is likely a bad call..."
See, I not only *like* a 2 (two) Party system, I think it necessary (if used properly by the People, a huge if of course, and a failed condition today) to save the Constitution. I do not mean to be hyperbolic. I think the Constitution has failed, or the People have failed it (whatever Ben Franklin), and the only way short of a bloody (or not bloody?) revolution to re-corral the overgrown State is to have a *united* opposition.
The Dems made similar complaints about folks like Nader and then Sanders (undermining the opposition). In the short term, there may be some merit to the argument. But if we take a longer view, plus accurately describe the initial conditions, a 2P stranglehold on the system is good for corruption and bad for democracy.
To see how this works, maybe consider how your initial assessment of Citizens United was wrong and very short-sighted as opposed to big picture (and the analogy to weight classes in boxing was actually a good one, for what it's worth). With a smaller pool of possible candidates (as opposed to votes 'thrown away', as some like to say), they can be more choosy about which part of their constituency to Represent. In a more pluralistic scenario, with a relatively smaller base for each Rep plus more legit options for voters, they need to be more circumspect and less obviously bought.
And on the topic of being bought, with a 2P stranglehold and fewer Reps to choose from, there is a lower threshold cost to... buy them all. If it takes a dumptruck of money to buy a Rep, and there are (only) roughly 400 stars in the firmament to buy... then you need (checks math) ~400 dumptrucks of money to buy them all. And post Citizens United, how many dumptrucks of money do you reckon there are sloshing about in the influence-buying budget?
I'm just not that sold on a parliamentary system, for which you seem to be. I most certainly disagree that there exosts less graft and "sausage-like-in-construction" politics.
It takes a village.