2016: Obama's America

Anyone else seen this documentary?

I just watched it, and it certainly made me realize that perhaps I was wrong in thinking voting makes a difference.

 

I saw it in theaters, and enjoyed it. It's an interesting theory and a good explanation for Obama's policies. It's conclusions are mostly conjecture, but it does provide plenty of evidence linking him to radical socialist / communists / anti-capitalist types. Ideals which, at least in theory, America is entirely against.

Only by voting for a 3rd party would your vote stand a chance of making any difference.

 

I'd love to hear how an administration stuffed full of Goldman Sachs alumni is "anti-capitalist". Please try and explain without resorting to the No True Scotsman fallacy.

And the only thing in America more worthless than voting for one of the two major parties is voting for a third party.

 

I have studied politics for over 20 years, I am SURE voting makes no difference....but making folks understand that is nearly impossible....

 

Alright,voting makes no differance. Let's see if I can prove that wrong. In order to prove a point,the easiest way to get that done is to take any proposition to it's ridiculous extreme and then back it down to reasonableness.

Here's what I mean: We have candidate A and candidate B. If there are,say, a hundred million voters and every one of them votes for candidate A,then of course A will win. Conversly if voters voted for B=winner.
Now back it down=75 % vote for A. Still a winner. 55% for A. Yup-a winner. 50 % for A. Begins to be close. 45% for A. Might lose. 35% Adios A.

Now ,of course whether A or B wins depends on the desires of the voters according to the differances in the policies of A and B as to who gets the most votes.

( same with how many illegals cross the borders and how many should be allowed. I have asked numerous people that are for open borders=what is the right number? 5 million?50 million? 500 million? Give me a number. None forthcoming. Same with the population of earth. 7 billion?70 billion? 7oo billion? No answer. I just mention these situations to help understand how to use another way to address a situation. In extremis,for sure,but a bottom line can be established. At least somewhat.)

So voting doesn't matter? If one has certain beliefs,shouldn't it follow that one should indicate those beliefs in a country that has had and still has, huge problems in MANY,MANY areas? Or is "fuck it--my vote doesn't count" now the clarion cry of quitters? Believe you me--the right will never quit.

 

The right to vote gives us the power to choose between two equally vetted and wholly owned candidates who pose no danger to the status quo. It has nothing to do with changing the direction of anything that isn't temporary and superficial.

 

I understand your point. However ,in the current presidents behalf,I know from looking at,listening to and watching the way he went about his early life/career,he was always interested in helping those who were less fortunate, but I think he was very naive to the rough and tumble of politics on the national level. I don't think he had an inkling of just how much the repubs would dislike him and determine to stop anything and everything he wanted to get done. And they pretty much have accomplished that. From my perspective,he should have proposed a single payer medical program,jerked every last service member out of the middle east immediately upon getting elected and any other progressive ideas that are around and should have let the chips fall where they would.. Of course ,that's what the Kennedys did. Conservatives took care of that little problem.

In the debate,I think he was stunned to hear Romney change his positions that he has held over the years and is too nice a fellow to flat out call someone a liar. Which Romney is.

 

Right...this is why voting makes no difference. The two candidates are always bought and chosen by lobbyists and CEOs looking out for their personal gain.

 

And that's why america needs someone to change all that shit. Although I don't know who that would be. Money out of elections would be a good start. PBS should carry all debates ---why should ABC-NBC-FOX,et al, make millions and millions on the information citizens are entitled to-free? Information on the prospective leaders of this country? I've been on this site long enough to know I'm just pissin' in the wind here. Add: 3rd and 4th parties are needed. Should be some way to get that done. Aw fuck it. Let's just get stoned and lick someones ass . So it goes.

 

Ill give you a hint. If the only evidence it has is conjecture its not a good argument.

I saw the movie with a friend hoping it would be funny. His argument is:

• Obama grew up in some post-colonial hell holes.
• Obama's brother wrote a book about how colonialism was ok.
• Obama's Dad was against colonialism. I think, the movie never really went into what Obama's father actually believed.
• Obama knew a communist once.
• Obama returned a statue of Winston Churchill

All of this leads to the completely logical conclusion that Obama hates white people and is trying to destroy America.

 

I'm unsure how it works in the US but in the UK the No. of people voting directly effects how much your vote matters.
This is obviously in a world where you subscribe to the notion there are differences in the political parties.
If you think the political parties are the same - obviously you will think voting does not matter.
I read something the other day, it said that the president does not matter it is those tasked with implementing policy that matter.
Are those second tier politicians and government officials effective in changing tier one policy?
Do those people change when you vote in a new president/prime minister?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmOvEwtDycs&feature=relmfu"]If the right people don't have power - Yes, Prime Minister - BBC - YouTube

 

The only reason voting makes no difference, is because 95% of voters are so fuking stupid that they continue to vote for the same two parties that caused the mess. If Ralph Nader would have become POTUS in 2001, we wouldn't have a national debt, we wouldn't have a collapsed economy, 9/11 wouldn't have happened, and we wouldn't have gone to war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Who becomes POTUS makes a big difference, just ask the Germans about Hitler. And if Romney becomes POTUS, we'll have our own little Hitler, and WWIII.

 

Didn't see this movie. Don't want to see it. I did see clips, and from what I gathered it is based around the same crap we have been hearing about Obama for the past 4 years -- how he has communist ties, sympathizes with terrorists, is anti-capitalist, etc. These are all diversions, since Obama is a puppet, and even if he did have these views/connections (which I don't doubt), it doesn't matter since he answers to somebody else anyway. Obama is nothing more than a tool of the same powerful elite that have pulled the strings of every other president. What Obama believes is irrelevant. I call bullshit on this so-called documentary, even though I have not seen it. I still know what it is about.

 

Good point, but I have found over time that socialism is administered and controlled by the same people who administer and control capitalism, which are the central banks. The elite, contrary to popular belief, actually LOVE socialism because it is a great tool for confiscating the people's wealth, while using that wealth to increase the size and power of the state. Socialism is a very beloved tool of the rich and powerful, though establishment history teaches us that it's about helping the poor and creating equality. Nothing could be further from the truth. Governments help to create poverty, then use that as an excuse to grab even more power for themselves under the guise of solving the problems it initially created.

I see capitalism and socialism as being part of the same hydra head.

 

Ugh. Yeah, because before all those socialist programs like Social Security and Medicare, and all those Communazi plots against Freedumb™ like child-labor laws, America was a perfect country where people never starved to death in the Dust Bowl or sent their 10-year-olds off to work in textile mills or anything else bad.

Do you even read history, or did you give up after the 3rd chapter of Atlas Shrugged and decide you had it all figured out?

 

But isn't that irresponsible in a time when a 3rd party doesn't stand a chance?

 

Covering all bases?

 

Sorry, but no.

You see, ruler's dont need fancy excuses like "Socialism" to take people's wealth. Historically, if a ruler wanted wealth, he'd take it, with a bunch of soldiers, usually privately paid for, backing him up. Whatareyougonnado? Exactly.

And it's not much different in the modern world. I dare you to try and set up a legitimate, profiting business in Uzbekistan without paying Gulnara Karimova her cut. You wouldn't last a week with your kneecaps intact. Leaders don't need excuses, because they already have money and lots of armed men. The Golden Rule is he who has the gold makes the rules.

Furthermore, pay attention to what people in the financial world actually say and do. They spend millions and billions on undermining unions, backing pro-financial capitalist candidates. Usually such people will accept a minimal social safety net, which as I understand it most Americans consider Commie-Socialist nonsense, but in reality they see it as insurance. Throwing tidbits as inducements to prevent riots and revolution.

And that's all it is. A very low level safety net (which is not the same as socialism or communism, far from it) to offset the possibility of a Russian-style revolution. Of course, that actually misunderstands the nature of the Bolshevik revolution, but history tends to not be such people's strong point.

Oh, and incidentally, there is a high correlation in political science literature between high taxation levels and democratic accountability. Lower taxes normally mean a government as other means of income (nationalized natural resources) which means they don't care what the masses think (it's no coincidence Saudi Arabia sits on a sea of oil and is a Kingdom). If an elite is pushing socialism (though it's not: see above) it would eventually be their own undoing.

 

Whatever the case, whoever wins, America will be nearly or completely totalitarian by the end of the next election, and my country up north will be following right along...

On the point of socialism, Kaliayev couldn't have put it better. To call Obama a socialist/communist is the height of absurdity. Both candidates clearly support the aristocracy, and I would guess neither have revolutionary tendencies. Why would they, when they make so much money off of the current system? This is Tea-party/Fox News hysteria, and belongs in the 1950's. It's the same nonsense rhetoric spewed by insane political candidates like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman.

If a country is taxed, and has socialized services, are they socialist? Both America and Canada have socialized schools, police, etc. Canada takes it one step further with socialized health care. But Canada is not socialist, and neither is America.

 

Mission accomplished.