Quote:
Originally Posted by Freebase Dali
@ Big3
I don't disagree on the whole, but at the same time, I can't not point out things like how Clinton uses his own experience and history as a comparison, followed by the statement that he didn't have it as bad, with the comparison meant to be evidence that re-electing Obama would produce the same results he saw in his own situation. That's fundamentally flawed reasoning.
Furthermore, the message becomes one of "trust me". Essentially it's a message that downplays the failure of initial general promises that were never realistic for one term to begin with, and extends those promises over another electable period, which might not even qualify as a gamble considering the state of politics.
If I thought "hope and change" was a 2 term proposition, I would simply have elected Obama twice during the first vote, assuming that magically, during the second round, he will have been able to somehow make everything better just because I voted for him the second time.
Considering the variables that are in play with who will hold the majority seats in the house and senate, I won't even base an opinion off the possibility of one or the other, seeing as how we've had both under the current administration, and still it has not amounted to anything but partisan undermining on both sides.
Also, the latest controversial comment by Obama saying "You can't change it from the inside"... I don't know if that's a contextual thing, or an admission of incapability, but either way, I'd like to have that explained by someone like yourself in regard to what Obama meant.
|
So who are you voting for again? Because this sounds oddly familiar to the same arguments made for moving to a communist government in the Soviet Union. It went something like this: "Our system is in tatters, we can't repair it, so the best possible solution is to create a new, pristine government. That will solve everything."
While its overly simplified, you get the point. Just because not everything goes your way doesn't mean scrap everything and start over. No one you vote for will ever fulfill your promises, hopes, or dreams in total. Ever. So, you can either acknowledge that, or continue to play the "I think the both suck" argument which I'm going to refrain from commenting on.
As for Clinton's supposed flawed message, I don't know what to tell you. Clinton says Obama is enacting the same policies, and assuming this obstructionist Congress decides to help people, the Economy will grow by leaps and bounds. You're suggesting "Well, we can't vote out congress, so let's not vote for Obama." I can't frame that simply enough to show its "flawed reasoning" so let me use this image:
As for the recent quote you're asking about, I hadn't heard of it when I read it in your post. But I could gather what he meant. So I googled it to be sure. Here's the quote:
Quote:
|
“I’ve learned some lessons,” he said at the University of Miami forum, hosted by Univision. “Most important is you can’t change Washington from inside, only from the outside. That’s how some of our biggest accomplishments like health care got done — mobilizing the American people.”
|
Which is what I thought. If you really thought he would
A. Think that then
B. Say it. More over at a
C. Scripted rally being filmed
then I don't know what to tell you. You strike me as a collapsing voter. Someone who's ready to give it all up because you just found out Santa Clause isn't real. Well, he's not. Politics is a rough game, its not for the fragile which is why you're never allowed to talk about it at parties of well manners. Some folks just don't like how unpleasent it is.
To them, I am never sure what to say. We could have a one-party state, or a multi-party state as an alternative and in both ways things get worse. Too many American's look at politics and see terrible things because we, as a nation, believe fairy tales constantly. We think a pioneer spirit settled the West, not the nation (including the Federal Government). We think that the Free Market really will solve everything, and too many believe to the poor are just lazy and they've done that to themselves. Moreover, that anyone can go become a millionaire tomorrow if they just want it badly enough.
To me, Politics in this country is so earnest and refreshing that I don't know where else I'd want to live. For all the bad, we have innumerate protections on liberties - protections - that some countries can't imagine because they don't have the liberties to protect in the first place. Our two-party system is abstract enough to have 6 different parties in each of the "majors" (which is why 3rd parties are ****, by the way).
I think its overly nice to say "everyone sucks" or "they're all corrupt" because god forbid anyone have the nuts to stand up and say "you know something, I don't think the system really is fair to everyone and thats why I support this candidate." because then you're either a crazy liberal or a lunatic right-winger. Well, those people, as bat**** as they might be, have some conviction, and they're the ones out there fighting and dragging the parties to the fringe. The parties move away from the center because the normal folks in the middle are too busy trying to figure out whats for dinner that they gave up on being half-informed. It became politically fashionable to just say "well I don't vote for evil." How clever of you, please let me know what response you get from that at your next dinner party.
America has a lot of problems; we could do a lot of things better. And if we don't, don't blame the system you don't partake it, the system you refuse to "fix" and the government that is responding to the only people who vote because saying you think The Dutch, Swiss, or Finnish are better off isn't the same as voting to make us better off. Its lazy, and if we should blame anyone, its not politicians or Washington, its the lazy scumbags who don't do a damn thing but complain.
Edit: Also, try this:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democ...-obamas-record
Linear Mode
