21–30 of 43 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But Obama was "new to DC" - I don't get your logic here.
> But Obama was "new to DC" When he was elected to the Senate, he was new to DC. When he was elected to the Presidency as a sitting US Senator, not so much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But Obama was "new to DC" When he was elected to the Senate, he was new to DC. When he was elected to the Presidency as a sitting US Senator, not so much.
It's a tough thing. If you vote for someone with no ties to Washington, you are "voting for someone with no experience." If you vote for someone entrenched in DC, you are "voting for a career politician." It's a lose/lose proposition haha
1) You should not vote for someone with no experience in the the federal government, and
2) You should not vote for someone with experience in the federal government.
Of course, these are individually ridiculous criteria in electing a President, and even more ridiculous in combination.
Selecting a President requires more than verifying the presence or absence of a "past experience in federal government" line on a resume.
The man who promised to closed Guantanamo Bay... And didn't. They say a country gets the government it deserves, and America deserves Sarah Palin in 2016.
As someone who voted for Obama twice (once for change and once against Romney) I will be voting from now on for anyone and everyone who would be new to DC. At this point that's the best hope for change that I can see.
The man who promised to closed Guantanamo Bay... And didn't. They say a country gets the government it deserves, and America deserves Sarah Palin in 2016.
I don't think we got the person we elected in 2008 and 2012 ... what makes you think that Palin would be worse? Have you noticed that after all the "Tea Partyism" during the last election, the Republican party seems to have congealed back into its original form? I really don't see how we elect change without a third party - yet I think the way elections are run (especially financially) virtually guarantees we'll neve…
That so many young people who idealistically embraced him can't stand him now doesn't mean he changed, just that they woke up to who he really was all along.
Seriously, no surprises here. If you believed the impossible promises he made on the 2008 campaign trail, I'm sorry, but you were warned.
(Incidentally I intend to pay a lot of attention to the negative reporting done on candidates I support in the future, because it represents a worst-case scenario if the pundits actually turn out to be right)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think we got the person we elected in 2008 and 2012 ... what makes you think that Palin would be worse? Have you noticed that after all the "Tea Partyism" during the last election, the Republican party seems to have congealed back into its original form? I really don't see how we elect change without a third party - yet I think the way elections are run (especially financially) virtually guarantees we'll neve…
It's interesting to me that this is exactly the person that the Republicans didn't want to see elected in 2008 (In 2012 I think they wanted him to win, because Romney never had a chance). That so many young people who idealistically embraced him can't stand him now doesn't mean he changed, just that they woke up to who he really was all along. Seriously, no surprises here. If you believed the impossible promises he m…
The man who promised to closed Guantanamo Bay... And didn't. They say a country gets the government it deserves, and America deserves Sarah Palin in 2016.
> The man who promised to closed Guantanamo Bay... And didn't. Yeah, I mean its not like Congress passed a law specifically prohibiting the actions the President proposed in order to close the detention facility at Guatanamo Bay. [1] [1] They didn't pass a law, but several, on different occasions.
Our "leaders" really mostly follow. They follow votes. They follow money. Increasingly, the influence of money (and the votes, and redistricting into "safe" districts, that it can buy) appears to be superceding that of raw, individual votes.
But it is still the citizens who cast those votes.
It's not just "them." It is "us." (For U.S. citizens. And for non-citizens who have various forms of influence upon U.S. policy, directly or in response to it.)
In that sense, it might be argued we have very much gotten the government we deserve.
If we think we deserve better, it is up to us. Not them.
Any comments submitted here may be stored in for-profit corporate databases ran by the likes of Booz Allen Hamilton. Your comments are not data, they are meta-content. No data is collected to be stored in this database, any incidental data that does get stored in the database will be carefully minimized so a worker has to press a key to expose the information. This data will be pitched to the likes of US Chamber of C…
...
> These comments may be used against you by any nation-state that pays, or entity that leaks information from the database
Uhm...HN comments are by design available to anyone in the world who wants to read them. What is the point of leaking something that is freely available from the original source?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm curious to see if any candidates will run on an anti-surveillance state message in the upcoming presidential elections. The danger of this (from a politician's POV) is that it paints a giant target on your head, to the extent that the public is spooked about bad guys. Especially if something bad happens while you're in power, and the public rises up demanding the ability to catch all the bad guys whatever it ta…
You point out the excellent reasons for politicians not taking any action -- who wants to be the guy that changed the rules so the next 9-11 could happen? But my point is more along the lines of happy-talk: red meat to throw at some energetic segment of the population to get them to donate and come out and vote. We see this same pattern on many issues, take for instance welfare for Republicans. They'll talk up their…
Although the cynical side of me asks, if a politician goes against the surveillance state, who has both the motive and opportunity to sabotage that politician's career? Answer: the surveillance state.
Any comments submitted here may be stored in for-profit corporate databases ran by the likes of Booz Allen Hamilton. Your comments are not data, they are meta-content. No data is collected to be stored in this database, any incidental data that does get stored in the database will be carefully minimized so a worker has to press a key to expose the information. This data will be pitched to the likes of US Chamber of C…
> Any comments submitted here may be stored in for-profit corporate databases ran by the likes of Booz Allen Hamilton ... > These comments may be used against you by any nation-state that pays, or entity that leaks information from the database Uhm...HN comments are by design available to anyone in the world who wants to read them. What is the point of leaking something that is freely available from the original sour…
The comment was more a gesture at how all this public/semi-public/private/extremely private data can end up being used. Or indeed how it has been used or pitched to be used. When you have NSA affiliates like Palantir mucking about with firms like Hunton & Williams. Teaming up to do attack work on generally anyone who opposes the persons who make up the facade that is US Chamber of Commerce, you have a shipwreck in progress.
How much you are targeted by these entities is a matter of how much of a nail you are to their hammer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You mean they passed a law specifically blocking the actions the President took : he gave the executive order to close Guantanamo 2 days after the inauguration. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ClosureOfGuantana... Sure, he could find a way to push it through, but given the Republicans' historical success at demanding the world from a Democrat with a mandate (e.g. cutting capital gains tax by a third in exc…
C'mon it is not the Republicans. At the time that executive order was issued Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. There is no bad team and good team (i.e. your team) but a rotten sport. Your thinking has fallen victim to their divide and conquer strategy.