Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

news.cnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 321 posts

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#81

Post by arcadeparade »

monsterix wrote: post #5

Chhi... Compare it with the words and deeds of Abraham Lincoln 250 years ago: "If slavery isn't wrong, then nothing is wrong." [1][2] There is a stark change in quality of leaders available today. There is so little correlation between words spoken and execution. [1] http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/trt027.html [2] http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/images/ltoh1.jpg

Obama isn't a leader, he's a product, advertised in a way no different from toothpaste.

Chomsky speaks: >Political managers are well aware that on issues the public often disagrees sharply with the architects of policy. Accordingly, electoral campaigns avoid issues in favor of slogans, oratorical flourishes, personalities, and gossip. Every year, the advertising industry gives an award for the best marketing campaign of the year. In 2008, it was won by Obama, who beat out Apple computers. Executives were euphoric. They exulted openly that this was their greatest success since they began marketing candidates as they do toothpaste and life-style drugs, a technique that took off during the neoliberal period, first with Reagan.

http://www.zcommunications.org/the-unipolar-moment-and-the-o...

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#82

Post by malvosenior »

astine wrote: post #64
edw519 wrote: post #36

"I have solved this political dilemma in a very direct way: I don't vote. On Election Day, I stay home. I firmly believe that if you vote, you have no right to complain. Now, some people like to twist that around. They say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain,' but where's the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they get into office and screw everything up,…

George Carlin is (was) a right fool. The whole problem is that people don't have enough control over the government. Not voting only allows those who would have control over you to have more power. Even a protest vote or a third party vote is worth more than no vote.

A large non-voting would-be constituency means that there is little mandate for politicians to drive policy.

If say 90% of the population didn't vote, plus there were public demonstrations of discontent, officials would be so afraid of a revolution (or other radical action) it would in theory temper their ambitions.

Tocqueville touches on this in Democracy in America.

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#83

Post by bluetooth »

freyr wrote: post #6

"My job this morning is to be so persuasive...that a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Barack," In other words, say whatever needs to be said to get elected. Worry about the details later. Or not.

It's almost as if he's speaking to a cult. Might as well have said something along the lines of "Obama is the savior of the US. Let him into your heart and soul and you will know it to be true. Go forth and vote!"

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#84

Post by plackemacher »

ihsw wrote: post #72
astine wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

George Carlin is (was) a right fool. The whole problem is that people don't have enough control over the government. Not voting only allows those who would have control over you to have more power. Even a protest vote or a third party vote is worth more than no vote.

> Even a protest vote or a third party vote is worth more than no vote. Actually, it's not. The US election process operates under the Electoral College[1], so a state majority vote changes all votes to that majority vote (eg: Democrats win majority in Illinois, so all votes in that state end up voting for Democrats in the presidential election). The disparity between the electoral vote and the popular vote is usuall…

Actually, it is. If a third party gets more than 5% of the popular vote, they have rights to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund[1] which can further help in future years to get said third party elected.

[1] http://www.fec.gov/press/bkgnd/fund.shtml

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#85

Post by JulianMorrison »

astine wrote: post #64
edw519 wrote: post #36

"I have solved this political dilemma in a very direct way: I don't vote. On Election Day, I stay home. I firmly believe that if you vote, you have no right to complain. Now, some people like to twist that around. They say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain,' but where's the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they get into office and screw everything up,…

George Carlin is (was) a right fool. The whole problem is that people don't have enough control over the government. Not voting only allows those who would have control over you to have more power. Even a protest vote or a third party vote is worth more than no vote.

The reality of voting is that you pick the least worst choice. "Representative democracy" isn't democracy. It's bloodless regime change. You get a choice of who you can work with.

Actual liberatory politics begins the day after the election, and involves things like pressure groups, petitions, protests and lobbying.

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#86

Post by crazcarl »

ihsw wrote: post #72
astine wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

George Carlin is (was) a right fool. The whole problem is that people don't have enough control over the government. Not voting only allows those who would have control over you to have more power. Even a protest vote or a third party vote is worth more than no vote.

> Even a protest vote or a third party vote is worth more than no vote. Actually, it's not. The US election process operates under the Electoral College[1], so a state majority vote changes all votes to that majority vote (eg: Democrats win majority in Illinois, so all votes in that state end up voting for Democrats in the presidential election). The disparity between the electoral vote and the popular vote is usuall…

The difference between a third party getting 1% of the vote versus 10% could have some impact on politics even if it doesn't affect the outcome of the election.

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#87

Post by nnnnni »

ihsw wrote: post #72
astine wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

George Carlin is (was) a right fool. The whole problem is that people don't have enough control over the government. Not voting only allows those who would have control over you to have more power. Even a protest vote or a third party vote is worth more than no vote.

> Even a protest vote or a third party vote is worth more than no vote. Actually, it's not. The US election process operates under the Electoral College[1], so a state majority vote changes all votes to that majority vote (eg: Democrats win majority in Illinois, so all votes in that state end up voting for Democrats in the presidential election). The disparity between the electoral vote and the popular vote is usuall…

Thanks, people seem to forget about the Electoral College.

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#88

Post by JamisonM »

bluetooth wrote: post #83
freyr wrote: post #6

"My job this morning is to be so persuasive...that a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Barack," In other words, say whatever needs to be said to get elected. Worry about the details later. Or not.

It's almost as if he's speaking to a cult. Might as well have said something along the lines of "Obama is the savior of the US. Let him into your heart and soul and you will know it to be true. Go forth and vote!"

Wait.. are you being sarcastic or you really don't realize that Obama was making a joke when he said that? I remember when he said it and certain media outlets sort of went crazy - but the audience just laughed.

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#89

Post by bsg75 »

genwin wrote: post #73
bsg75 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently more than half of the voting population of the US. And most of the media. A ton of bloggers. Maybe Europe.

Or they made what they thought was the best choice among the only two viable choices. The biggest problem in the US, maybe the world, is that we don't have instant run-off voting to allow competition in federal gov't. We're trapped by this one oversight of the Founding Fathers.

It would seem that two choices is approaching none. Different speeches, same game.

Re: Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me (2008)

#90

Post by jmilloy »

ihsw wrote: post #72
astine wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

George Carlin is (was) a right fool. The whole problem is that people don't have enough control over the government. Not voting only allows those who would have control over you to have more power. Even a protest vote or a third party vote is worth more than no vote.

> Even a protest vote or a third party vote is worth more than no vote. Actually, it's not. The US election process operates under the Electoral College[1], so a state majority vote changes all votes to that majority vote (eg: Democrats win majority in Illinois, so all votes in that state end up voting for Democrats in the presidential election). The disparity between the electoral vote and the popular vote is usuall…

I don't think everyone agrees that votes only matter if they lead to a tally in the Electoral College. Funding is one example.
Post reply on HN