The Wow I Can't Believe That News Story Thread

[Trollheart]

Originally Posted by OccultHawk

Even if I'm being ignored, he's not strawmaning me. I'm dismissing democracy in general.

Good. That's what I thought. Thanks. So my comment stands. to you Frown.

[OccultHawk]

Originally Posted by Trollheart

FTR, are you confining your comments to America or does this include other countries?

Other countries. All countries. Your arguments about Ireland are applicable to my position.

[Trollheart]

Originally Posted by OccultHawk

Other countries. All countries. Your arguments about Ireland are applicable to my position.

AAMOI then, what do you think about my contention that by voting for "ordinary guys" from your locality that you can get things done? How does that fit in with not voting? Just curious.

[Oriphiel]

Originally Posted by Chula Vista

2008 Election: Obama won 68% of the electoral vote and beat Romney by 9.5 million in the popular vote

2012 Electrion: Obama won 62% of the electoral vote and beat Romney by 5 million in the popular vote

2016 Election: Trump won 57% of the electoral vote but lost the popular vote by 3 million.

Can you explain in more than simple cliches how these 3 election results were "orchestrated" by the rich and powerful?

Why did the top want Obama, a candidate who ran on raises taxes for the rich, equal pay for women, affordable health care, raising the minimum wage, and tightening environmental regulations? None of which would seem desirable to the rich and powerful.

Why did the top want Trump, a candidate who ran on mostly snake oil and catch phrases, as well as basically promising to undo everything that Obama did. A possible third world war, restricted trade with China, and alienating our most powerful allies are things that would be negatives for the rich and powerful.

Because rich people have ideals just like we do, except they have the clout to make those ideals a reality. Obama promised the right things to the right people, and successfully funded his campaign. Looks like this time the conservatives were the ones who threw their money and promises around harder. Sometimes the liberals win, sometimes the republicans win, but either way, both benefit from this system where people are polarized between joining one side or the other.

My point isn't that there is some shadowy room in washington where rich people hang out and make decisions. Hardly. My point is that most of the wealthy in America are connected to either the liberals or the conservatives, and get richer off of their constituents. They benefit from funneling people into one of two sides.

Of course, as soon as someone expresses discontent with bipartisan politics, or suggests a system more similar to what Trollheart described is in place in Ireland, where people have more options, and there's more transparency with their local politicians and local issues, both the liberals and the conservatives get angry, and shame them into not supporting either side.

[Trollheart]

Originally Posted by Oriphiel

Because rich people have ideals just like we do, except they have the clout to make those ideals a reality. Obama promised the right things to the right people, and successfully funded his campaign. Looks like this time the conservatives were the ones who threw their money and promises around harder. Sometimes the liberals win, sometimes the republicans win, but either way, both benefit from this system where people are polarized between joining one side or the other.

My point isn't that there is some shadowy room in washington where rich people hang out and make decisions. Hardly. My point is that most of the wealthy in America are connected to either the liberals or the conservatives, and get richer off of their constituents. They benefit from funneling people into one of two sides.

Of course, as soon as someone suggests a system more similar to what Trollheart described is in place in Ireland, where people have more options, and there's more transparency with their local politicians and local issues, both the liberals and the conservatives get angry.

On a smaller level, our system can work well. Our govt has been forced into either backing down or changing systems they wanted to implement by the work of independents and coalitions of same. A good example is the water charges, which were finally defeated and thrown out, but only because of the work of independents who actually did what they were elected to do.

[OccultHawk]

Originally Posted by Trollheart

AAMOI then, what do you think about my contention that by voting for "ordinary guys" from your locality that you can get things done? How does that fit in with not voting? Just curious.

It doesn't sit well with me philosophically because I'm opposed to democracy as a political structure in general.

[Ol’ Qwerty Bastard]

Originally Posted by OccultHawk

For the record, and hopefully for the last time, it's not my position that voting doesn't matter. My position is that voting is actually harmful. So that's my excuse. I'm not even going to make even a minimum effort to hurt myself and society as a whole.

For most not voting is simply political apathy, that's true. But voting, on the other hand, is the action of someone too intellectually lazy to understand how harmful it is.

you ride the line between being a brilliant troll and a pseudo-intellect so well that it can be really hard to tell if you actually believe these things or not

[OccultHawk]

Sometimes I'm not so sure either.

[Chula Vista]

Originally Posted by Frownland

Obama's expansion of the executive office opened up the door for plenty of lobbyists. Of course they love the guy.

Lobbyists for the rich and wealthy? Most of the stuff he bulldozed through was being blocked by republicans and the big business lobbies.

The administration’s regulatory legacy has become an issue in the campaign to replace Mr. Obama, as Donald J. Trump has sharply criticized regulatory overreach and promised to undo many of the new rules. But executive power has expanded steadily under both Republican and Democratic presidents in recent decades, and both Mr. Trump and Hillary Clinton have promised to act in the service of their own goals.

The new rules built on the legislative victories Mr. Obama won during his first two years in office. Those laws — the Affordable Care Act, the Dodd-Frank Act and the $800 billion economic stimulus package — transformed the nation’s health care system, curbed the ambitions of the big banks and injected financial support into a creaky economy. But as Republicans increased their control of Capitol Hill, Mr. Obama’s deep frustration with congressional opposition led to a new approach: He gradually embraced a president’s power to act unilaterally.

History may now judge the regulations to be one of Mr. Obama’s most enduring legacies. At the least, his exercise of administrative power expanded and cemented a domestic legacy that now rivals Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society in reach and scope.

[Frownland]

Ah I forget that bad guys opposed him which makes him a good guy. Thanks Chules.