Supreme Court Role- Wait for a white President?

[Dukasaur]

America has thee lowest voting participation among democracies in the world. We should make voting easier not harder!

You're missing the real story there.


Voter participation, in and of itself, is not a real problem. Studies show that the opinions of the people who don't vote break down among roughly the same lines as the people who do vote. Therefore, if more people voted the outcomes would be roughly the same, perhaps with some regional variation.

The real problem is what you should be learning from the low voter turnout: that many people realize how irrelevant it is. This Tweedlee-Tweedledum system you have, where two parties have wildly different campaign rhetoric, but behave identically once in office, just isn't fooling enough people any more. Why on earth would anyone bother voting when they know that the results will be the same regardless of who wins?

If I was an American, I'm not sure I'd bother voting. Probably would in local elections. Not so sure about state or federal ones.

[saxitoxin]

Barrack Hussein Obama was POTUS while KKK member Byrd was in Congress.

And George Bush was POTUS while segregationist and "N-word this" / "N-word that" user Strom Thurmond was leading the Senate Republicans and having statues built to him by the GOP. And you were a member of this Catholic outfit at the same time its officers were sodomizing helpless little boys and spreading anti-Semitism.

Now I'm not saying the Republicans were always bad, because they were indeed an old illustrious radical party. The Republicans ended slavery, broke the monopolies, and created the FDA. The Republicans ran the Catholics out of Tammeney Hall and cleaned-up Catholic/Democratic corruption in the Northeast.* So you're right to idolize the GOP of 1860 to 1964 (and to a lesser extent, '64 to '78).

"We are Republicans and don't propose to leave our party and identify ourselves with the party [Democrats] whose antecedents are Rum, Romanism [Catholicism] and Rebellion [slavery]."

Show me a current bishop's remarks

"Our society [Society of St Pius X] is being tested by the devil. Who was the most opposed that the Church would recognize the Society? The enemies of the Church: the Jews, the Masons."
- Bishop Bernard Fellay, 2012

*crickets*

[Symmetry]

Well, I guess it's what Tzor asked for. I don't know if it will change his mind.

[Symmetry]

America has thee lowest voting participation among democracies in the world. We should make voting easier not harder!

You're missing the real story there.


Voter participation, in and of itself, is not a real problem. Studies show that the opinions of the people who don't vote break down among roughly the same lines as the people who do vote. Therefore, if more people voted the outcomes would be roughly the same, perhaps with some regional variation.

The real problem is what you should be learning from the low voter turnout: that many people realize how irrelevant it is. This Tweedlee-Tweedledum system you have, where two parties have wildly different campaign rhetoric, but behave identically once in office, just isn't fooling enough people any more. Why on earth would anyone bother voting when they know that the results will be the same regardless of who wins?

If I was an American, I'm not sure I'd bother voting. Probably would in local elections. Not so sure about state or federal ones.

I think you're being a tad naïve. Voter participation is a long standing problem in the US. If you get a bit of time look up "grandfather clause", " Jim Crow", "gerrymandering", or " southern strategy".

Hell, just take a look at the right wing attacks on Acorn.

[tzor]

All over the United States, Republican Governors and legislatures are doing everything in their power to make it MORE DIFFICULT TO VOTE. This is all to discourage NEGROES and other minorities, elderly and those in schools to vote.

Let me fix this for you ...

All over the United States, Republican Governors and legislatures are doing everything in their power to make it MORE DIFFICULT TO CHEAT ON ELECTIONS BY HAVING SCABS VOTE FOR THOSE WHO NORMALLY DON'T VOTE IN ELECTIONS. They take advantage especially of African Americans and other minorities, elderly and those in schools who are too lazy to apply for absentee ballots to vote.

The sad thing is that such cheating benefits the ESTABLISHMENT person in the Democratic Party, and you are not that person.

And please don't give me this sob story. In a nation where you absolutely need photo ID in order to purchase booze, you better have a photo ID. Period, end of story. And if you choose not to vote you shouldn't have some party boss bus some nobody to be your illegal proxy.

Hell, I have to flash my photo ID when I'm in the seats of Yankee Stadium and I want to order beer from the beer guy.

Frankly, I would love to see more people vote, especially African Americans. And if they continue to vote Democratic, well they deserve the hell they voted for, right?

[Dukasaur]

America has thee lowest voting participation among democracies in the world. We should make voting easier not harder!

You're missing the real story there.


Voter participation, in and of itself, is not a real problem. Studies show that the opinions of the people who don't vote break down among roughly the same lines as the people who do vote. Therefore, if more people voted the outcomes would be roughly the same, perhaps with some regional variation.

The real problem is what you should be learning from the low voter turnout: that many people realize how irrelevant it is. This Tweedlee-Tweedledum system you have, where two parties have wildly different campaign rhetoric, but behave identically once in office, just isn't fooling enough people any more. Why on earth would anyone bother voting when they know that the results will be the same regardless of who wins?

If I was an American, I'm not sure I'd bother voting. Probably would in local elections. Not so sure about state or federal ones.

I think you're being a tad naïve. Voter participation is a long standing problem in the US. If you get a bit of time look up "grandfather clause", " Jim Crow", "gerrymandering", or " southern strategy".

Hell, just take a look at the right wing attacks on Acorn.

The first three I'm familiar with. The Acorn business was new to me. It's been a long time since I've paid attention to politics. Just did a quick search and some reading. Despicable business indeed.

Nothing about that, however, disproves anything I'm saying. Having more people vote would not change anything about that. What would change something would be if the American media stopped being drooling lap dogs to officialdom and started reporting the truth. (See my other post this evening.) Note that it was the allegedly liberal New York Times that swallowed the right-wing bait, hook, line, and sinker, and led the charge against Acorn. Note that the allegedly liberal network CNN swallowed it without hesitation also. As long as the media is happy to crucify without trial anyone whom the power brokers accuse, no social activist will ever be safe.

More people voting would not change any of that. Like I said, the breakdown of prejudice is pretty constant. The people who vote have roughly the same attitudes as the people who don't vote. The people who vote are a large enough block to be a valid statistical sample of the population as a whole. If 40% of the people who vote believe in banning abortion, you will quite likely find that 40% of the people who didn't vote also believe in banning abortion.

You may have this fantasy that the marginalized poor, if only they would see their enlightened self-interest, would rise up and effect change. The truth is that the marginalized poor don't understand economics any more than any one else, and if they rose up they would split into different factions along approximately the same lines as everyone else.

The stupidest, smelliest, most obviously proletarian driver on my staff announced to me last week that if Donald Trump wins the election, he is going to leave Canada and move to the U.S. He has faith (very loudly and obnoxiously proclaimed) that Donald Trump will

• "Make a lot of money for everybody"
• "throw the ragheads back in the sea", and
• "make us{sic} proud to be living on this continent."

These aren't the droids you're looking for.

[notyou2]

The Democrats don't have "members of the KKK being in high positions of Congress." They did. Recently.

Recently as in say ... six years ago?

Robert Carlyle Byrd was a United States Senator from West Virginia. A member of the Democratic Party, Byrd served as a U.S. Representative from 1953 until 1959 and as a U.S. Senator from 1959 to 2010.

That's right Barrack Hussein Obama was POTUS while KKK member Byrd was in Congress. And why not not? Because it was discouraged by Byrd himself, In 1997, Byrd told an interviewer he would encourage young people to become involved in politics but also warned, "Be sure you avoid the Ku Klux Klan. Don't get that albatross around your neck. Once you've made that mistake, you inhibit your operations in the political arena."

Stop it Tzor, you are being silly with that partisan talk.

All over the United States, Republican Governors and legislatures are doing everything in their power to make it MORE DIFFICULT TO VOTE. This is all to discourage NEGROES and other minorities, elderly and those in schools to vote.

America has thee lowest voting participation among democracies in the world. We should make voting easier not harder!

THIS!!!

[notyou2]

America has thee lowest voting participation among democracies in the world. We should make voting easier not harder!

You're missing the real story there.


Voter participation, in and of itself, is not a real problem. Studies show that the opinions of the people who don't vote break down among roughly the same lines as the people who do vote. Therefore, if more people voted the outcomes would be roughly the same, perhaps with some regional variation.

The real problem is what you should be learning from the low voter turnout: that many people realize how irrelevant it is. This Tweedlee-Tweedledum system you have, where two parties have wildly different campaign rhetoric, but behave identically once in office, just isn't fooling enough people any more. Why on earth would anyone bother voting when they know that the results will be the same regardless of who wins?

If I was an American, I'm not sure I'd bother voting. Probably would in local elections. Not so sure about state or federal ones.

Yes you are absolutely right, Obama is identical in all aspects to George Junior. ARE YOU BLIND????

The problem is not necessarily the parties behave identical,the problem is hindering the parties 2 years into their power.

[rishaed]

America has thee lowest voting participation among democracies in the world. We should make voting easier not harder!

You're missing the real story there.


Voter participation, in and of itself, is not a real problem. Studies show that the opinions of the people who don't vote break down among roughly the same lines as the people who do vote. Therefore, if more people voted the outcomes would be roughly the same, perhaps with some regional variation.

The real problem is what you should be learning from the low voter turnout: that many people realize how irrelevant it is. This Tweedlee-Tweedledum system you have, where two parties have wildly different campaign rhetoric, but behave identically once in office, just isn't fooling enough people any more. Why on earth would anyone bother voting when they know that the results will be the same regardless of who wins?

If I was an American, I'm not sure I'd bother voting. Probably would in local elections. Not so sure about state or federal ones.

I think you're being a tad naïve. Voter participation is a long standing problem in the US. If you get a bit of time look up "grandfather clause", " Jim Crow", "gerrymandering", or " southern strategy".

Hell, just take a look at the right wing attacks on Acorn.

The first three I'm familiar with. The Acorn business was new to me. It's been a long time since I've paid attention to politics. Just did a quick search and some reading. Despicable business indeed.

Nothing about that, however, disproves anything I'm saying. Having more people vote would not change anything about that. What would change something would be if the American media stopped being drooling lap dogs to officialdom and started reporting the truth. (See my other post this evening.) Note that it was the allegedly liberal New York Times that swallowed the right-wing bait, hook, line, and sinker, and led the charge against Acorn. Note that the allegedly liberal network CNN swallowed it without hesitation also. As long as the media is happy to crucify without trial anyone whom the power brokers accuse, no social activist will ever be safe.

More people voting would not change any of that. Like I said, the breakdown of prejudice is pretty constant. The people who vote have roughly the same attitudes as the people who don't vote. The people who vote are a large enough block to be a valid statistical sample of the population as a whole. If 40% of the people who vote believe in banning abortion, you will quite likely find that 40% of the people who didn't vote also believe in banning abortion.

You may have this fantasy that the marginalized poor, if only they would see their enlightened self-interest, would rise up and effect change. The truth is that the marginalized poor don't understand economics any more than any one else, and if they rose up they would split into different factions along approximately the same lines as everyone else.

The stupidest, smelliest, most obviously proletarian driver on my staff announced to me last week that if Donald Trump wins the election, he is going to leave Canada and move to the U.S. He has faith (very loudly and obnoxiously proclaimed) that Donald Trump will

• "Make a lot of money for everybody"
• "throw the ragheads back in the sea", and
• "make us{sic} proud to be living on this continent."

These aren't the droids you're looking for.

Heck, I'm almost tempted to vote for trump just cause of shits and giggles, and a like 1% hope that someone who's not a career politician might actually change the system. Then I go to sleep and wake up the next morning and am like. Oh wait. It wouldn't matter anyways so i might as well save my time. The problem with politics is not that there aren't people who aren't educated about it, its that all the educated people realize that it really doesn't matter who you vote for, the result is still the same. That and the fact that if you actually know what the president can do, the promises that people expect the president to fufill by himself is insanity. You have candidates making promises (that they know they can't keep) because the public swallows it hook line and sinker, while forgetting the large system of checks and balances in place to stop a dictatorship or monarchy from being established. The ironic thing is that dictators can largely enact reforms quicker and more efficiently than our government, but are also susceptible to far more corruption and abuse of power because of how much power they have. Tja. Everyone here can just keep arguing. Carry on.

[Dukasaur]

Yes you are absolutely right, Obama is identical in all aspects to George Junior. ARE YOU BLIND????

Have the political prisoners at Guantanamo received a fair trial yet?
Has the U.S. stopped bombing and destabilizing nations in the Middle East?
Has the right of habeas corpus been restored in the U.S.?
Has the militarization of American police and their increasingly blatant violence toward their own citizens been curbed?
Has the Patriot Act been repealed?
Has anyone been brought to trial for the fraudulent loan schemes which almost destroyed the American dollar?
Have sweetheart deals with Wall Street stopped?
Have the banks been forced to repay the money they looted from the treasury?
Has industrial-scale wiretapping and snooping by the government been curtailed?
Have any rights previously suppressed been restored?
Deficit reduced any?
Oh, any sign of that "peace dividend" that was supposed to happen when the size of the military was reduced after the collapse of the Soviet Union?

Tell me who's blind.

[Symmetry]

America has thee lowest voting participation among democracies in the world. We should make voting easier not harder!

You're missing the real story there.


Voter participation, in and of itself, is not a real problem. Studies show that the opinions of the people who don't vote break down among roughly the same lines as the people who do vote. Therefore, if more people voted the outcomes would be roughly the same, perhaps with some regional variation.

The real problem is what you should be learning from the low voter turnout: that many people realize how irrelevant it is. This Tweedlee-Tweedledum system you have, where two parties have wildly different campaign rhetoric, but behave identically once in office, just isn't fooling enough people any more. Why on earth would anyone bother voting when they know that the results will be the same regardless of who wins?

If I was an American, I'm not sure I'd bother voting. Probably would in local elections. Not so sure about state or federal ones.

I think you're being a tad naïve. Voter participation is a long standing problem in the US. If you get a bit of time look up "grandfather clause", " Jim Crow", "gerrymandering", or " southern strategy".

Hell, just take a look at the right wing attacks on Acorn.

The first three I'm familiar with. The Acorn business was new to me. It's been a long time since I've paid attention to politics. Just did a quick search and some reading. Despicable business indeed.

Nothing about that, however, disproves anything I'm saying. Having more people vote would not change anything about that. What would change something would be if the American media stopped being drooling lap dogs to officialdom and started reporting the truth. (See my other post this evening.) Note that it was the allegedly liberal New York Times that swallowed the right-wing bait, hook, line, and sinker, and led the charge against Acorn. Note that the allegedly liberal network CNN swallowed it without hesitation also. As long as the media is happy to crucify without trial anyone whom the power brokers accuse, no social activist will ever be safe.

More people voting would not change any of that. Like I said, the breakdown of prejudice is pretty constant. The people who vote have roughly the same attitudes as the people who don't vote. The people who vote are a large enough block to be a valid statistical sample of the population as a whole. If 40% of the people who vote believe in banning abortion, you will quite likely find that 40% of the people who didn't vote also believe in banning abortion.

You may have this fantasy that the marginalized poor, if only they would see their enlightened self-interest, would rise up and effect change. The truth is that the marginalized poor don't understand economics any more than any one else, and if they rose up they would split into different factions along approximately the same lines as everyone else.

The stupidest, smelliest, most obviously proletarian driver on my staff announced to me last week that if Donald Trump wins the election, he is going to leave Canada and move to the U.S. He has faith (very loudly and obnoxiously proclaimed) that Donald Trump will

• "Make a lot of money for everybody"
• "throw the ragheads back in the sea", and
• "make us{sic} proud to be living on this continent."

These aren't the droids you're looking for.

I'm not sure how to reply to this if you genuinely consider disenfranchising voters to be a non-problem. If you truly believe that to be the case, why do you think it's been pursued so fervently by the Republicans?

[notyou2]

Yes you are absolutely right, Obama is identical in all aspects to George Junior. ARE YOU BLIND????

Have the political prisoners at Guantanamo received a fair trial yet?
Has the U.S. stopped bombing and destabilizing nations in the Middle East?
Has the right of habeas corpus been restored in the U.S.?
Has the militarization of American police and their increasingly blatant violence toward their own citizens been curbed?
Has the Patriot Act been repealed?
Has anyone been brought to trial for the fraudulent loan schemes which almost destroyed the American dollar?
Have sweetheart deals with Wall Street stopped?
Have the banks been forced to repay the money they looted from the treasury?
Has industrial-scale wiretapping and snooping by the government been curtailed?
Have any rights previously suppressed been restored?
Deficit reduced any?
Oh, any sign of that "peace dividend" that was supposed to happen when the size of the military was reduced after the collapse of the Soviet Union?

Tell me who's blind.

Valid points and Obama promised to address many of them. He also promised a far more comprehensive public medicare system. We all know what happened there.

So you think it's Obama's fault none of the planned changes happened? Your a smart guy, could there be other factors and influences?

[Dukasaur]

Yes you are absolutely right, Obama is identical in all aspects to George Junior. ARE YOU BLIND????

Have the political prisoners at Guantanamo received a fair trial yet?
Has the U.S. stopped bombing and destabilizing nations in the Middle East?
Has the right of habeas corpus been restored in the U.S.?
Has the militarization of American police and their increasingly blatant violence toward their own citizens been curbed?
Has the Patriot Act been repealed?
Has anyone been brought to trial for the fraudulent loan schemes which almost destroyed the American dollar?
Have sweetheart deals with Wall Street stopped?
Have the banks been forced to repay the money they looted from the treasury?
Has industrial-scale wiretapping and snooping by the government been curtailed?
Have any rights previously suppressed been restored?
Deficit reduced any?
Oh, any sign of that "peace dividend" that was supposed to happen when the size of the military was reduced after the collapse of the Soviet Union?

Tell me who's blind.

Valid points and Obama promised to address many of them. He also promised a far more comprehensive public medicare system. We all know what happened there.

So you think it's Obama's fault none of the planned changes happened? Your a smart guy, could there be other factors and influences?

Do I think it's all Obama's fault? No, of course not. Could there be other factors and influences? Yes, of course.

I didn't come here to criticize Obama. He has been a big disappointment to me, but that is not the point here. The point is that the people who don't bother voting are making a rational decision not to participate in the charade. The Tweedledum and Tweedledee system is that the two big parties have wildly different rhetoric, and make people think they are on opposite sides of every issue, but in fact they mostly agree, and their actions while in office, unlike their rhetoric, are mostly indistinguishable.

[Symmetry]

Oh please, your Alice Through the Looking Glass rhetoric is fun, but doesn't stand up to adult scrutiny.

At some point you have to engage with the real world

[notyou2]

Yes you are absolutely right, Obama is identical in all aspects to George Junior. ARE YOU BLIND????

Have the political prisoners at Guantanamo received a fair trial yet?
Has the U.S. stopped bombing and destabilizing nations in the Middle East?
Has the right of habeas corpus been restored in the U.S.?
Has the militarization of American police and their increasingly blatant violence toward their own citizens been curbed?
Has the Patriot Act been repealed?
Has anyone been brought to trial for the fraudulent loan schemes which almost destroyed the American dollar?
Have sweetheart deals with Wall Street stopped?
Have the banks been forced to repay the money they looted from the treasury?
Has industrial-scale wiretapping and snooping by the government been curtailed?
Have any rights previously suppressed been restored?
Deficit reduced any?
Oh, any sign of that "peace dividend" that was supposed to happen when the size of the military was reduced after the collapse of the Soviet Union?

Tell me who's blind.

Valid points and Obama promised to address many of them. He also promised a far more comprehensive public medicare system. We all know what happened there.

So you think it's Obama's fault none of the planned changes happened? Your a smart guy, could there be other factors and influences?

Do I think it's all Obama's fault? No, of course not. Could there be other factors and influences? Yes, of course.

I didn't come here to criticize Obama. He has been a big disappointment to me, but that is not the point here. The point is that the people who don't bother voting are making a rational decision not to participate in the charade. The Tweedledum and Tweedledee system is that the two big parties have wildly different rhetoric, and make people think they are on opposite sides of every issue, but in fact they mostly agree, and their actions while in office, unlike their rhetoric, are mostly indistinguishable.

Entirely dodged the question. You are quite agile for a 50 something year old.

[Dukasaur]

Yes you are absolutely right, Obama is identical in all aspects to George Junior. ARE YOU BLIND????

Have the political prisoners at Guantanamo received a fair trial yet?
Has the U.S. stopped bombing and destabilizing nations in the Middle East?
Has the right of habeas corpus been restored in the U.S.?
Has the militarization of American police and their increasingly blatant violence toward their own citizens been curbed?
Has the Patriot Act been repealed?
Has anyone been brought to trial for the fraudulent loan schemes which almost destroyed the American dollar?
Have sweetheart deals with Wall Street stopped?
Have the banks been forced to repay the money they looted from the treasury?
Has industrial-scale wiretapping and snooping by the government been curtailed?
Have any rights previously suppressed been restored?
Deficit reduced any?
Oh, any sign of that "peace dividend" that was supposed to happen when the size of the military was reduced after the collapse of the Soviet Union?

Tell me who's blind.

Valid points and Obama promised to address many of them. He also promised a far more comprehensive public medicare system. We all know what happened there.

So you think it's Obama's fault none of the planned changes happened? Your a smart guy, could there be other factors and influences?

Do I think it's all Obama's fault? No, of course not. Could there be other factors and influences? Yes, of course.

I didn't come here to criticize Obama. He has been a big disappointment to me, but that is not the point here. The point is that the people who don't bother voting are making a rational decision not to participate in the charade. The Tweedledum and Tweedledee system is that the two big parties have wildly different rhetoric, and make people think they are on opposite sides of every issue, but in fact they mostly agree, and their actions while in office, unlike their rhetoric, are mostly indistinguishable.

Entirely dodged the question. You are quite agile for a 50 something year old.

Maybe we speak different languages. Looking at the exchange above, it looks to me like I answered your questions unequivocally and without hesitation.

Maybe in your part of the country that's called dodging. Don't know that dialect.

[saxitoxin]

GOP Rep - Catholics are the Minions of the Anti-Christ Founding Fathers Warned About

"I was actually referencing the papacy. And what I wrote after that 'do your research,' if you read the Geneva Bible, which is the Bible I use when we study, the commentary is—actually by the founders of the United States actually, the Protestant Church—their commentary references the papacy as the anti-Christ," DeLemus said.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/p ... z40yMMAvBK

Seems to check-out; only one of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence was Catholic and he was non-practicing. America was built on certain values and those values were, obviously, based on the disposition of the signers of the declaration, not Catholic. It appears Catholics may not be part of the authentic American experience.

[saxitoxin]

I love this William Wall painting showing Governor John Endicott ripping the cross from the Massachusetts flag in 1634 because of its Catholic imagery. This first, bold act of defiance, as told by Nathaneal Hawthorne -

"Officer, lower your banner!" said he.

The officer obeyed; and, brandishing his sword, Endicott thrust it through the cloth, and, with his left hand, rent the Red Cross completely out of the banner. He then waved the tattered ensign above his head.

"Sacrilegious wretch!" cried the high-churchman in the pillory, unable longer to restrain himself, "thou hast rejected the symbol of our holy religion!"

"Treason, treason!" roared the royalist in the stocks. "He hath defaced the King's banner!"

"Before God and man, I will avouch the deed," answered Endicott. "Beat a flourish, drummer!--shout, soldiers and people!--in honor of the ensign of New England. Neither Pope nor Tyrant hath part in it now!"

With a cry of triumph, the people gave their sanction to one of the boldest exploits which our history records. And forever honored be the name of Endicott! We look back through the mist of ages, and recognize in the rending of the Red Cross from New England's banner the first omen of that deliverance which our fathers consummated after the bones of the stern Puritan had lain more than a century in the dust.

Should we follow the guidance of the founding fathers? Or should we ignore the founders and become the communist Catholic dictatorship they warned about?

[notyou2]

Yes you are absolutely right, Obama is identical in all aspects to George Junior. ARE YOU BLIND????

Have the political prisoners at Guantanamo received a fair trial yet?
Has the U.S. stopped bombing and destabilizing nations in the Middle East?
Has the right of habeas corpus been restored in the U.S.?
Has the militarization of American police and their increasingly blatant violence toward their own citizens been curbed?
Has the Patriot Act been repealed?
Has anyone been brought to trial for the fraudulent loan schemes which almost destroyed the American dollar?
Have sweetheart deals with Wall Street stopped?
Have the banks been forced to repay the money they looted from the treasury?
Has industrial-scale wiretapping and snooping by the government been curtailed?
Have any rights previously suppressed been restored?
Deficit reduced any?
Oh, any sign of that "peace dividend" that was supposed to happen when the size of the military was reduced after the collapse of the Soviet Union?

Tell me who's blind.

Valid points and Obama promised to address many of them. He also promised a far more comprehensive public medicare system. We all know what happened there.

So you think it's Obama's fault none of the planned changes happened? Your a smart guy, could there be other factors and influences?

Do I think it's all Obama's fault? No, of course not. Could there be other factors and influences? Yes, of course.

I didn't come here to criticize Obama. He has been a big disappointment to me, but that is not the point here. The point is that the people who don't bother voting are making a rational decision not to participate in the charade. The Tweedledum and Tweedledee system is that the two big parties have wildly different rhetoric, and make people think they are on opposite sides of every issue, but in fact they mostly agree, and their actions while in office, unlike their rhetoric, are mostly indistinguishable.

Entirely dodged the question. You are quite agile for a 50 something year old.

Maybe we speak different languages. Looking at the exchange above, it looks to me like I answered your questions unequivocally and without hesitation.

Maybe in your part of the country that's called dodging. Don't know that dialect.

You said Obama has done nothing as the status quo from your examples remain. I asked if you felt that was Obama's fault and left the door open for you to contemplate and elaborate, but you didn't what-so ever. That's a dodge.

[Dukasaur]

Have the political prisoners at Guantanamo received a fair trial yet?
Has the U.S. stopped bombing and destabilizing nations in the Middle East?
Has the right of habeas corpus been restored in the U.S.?
Has the militarization of American police and their increasingly blatant violence toward their own citizens been curbed?
Has the Patriot Act been repealed?
Has anyone been brought to trial for the fraudulent loan schemes which almost destroyed the American dollar?
Have sweetheart deals with Wall Street stopped?
Have the banks been forced to repay the money they looted from the treasury?
Has industrial-scale wiretapping and snooping by the government been curtailed?
Have any rights previously suppressed been restored?
Deficit reduced any?
Oh, any sign of that "peace dividend" that was supposed to happen when the size of the military was reduced after the collapse of the Soviet Union?

Tell me who's blind.

Valid points and Obama promised to address many of them. He also promised a far more comprehensive public medicare system. We all know what happened there.

So you think it's Obama's fault none of the planned changes happened? Your a smart guy, could there be other factors and influences?

Do I think it's all Obama's fault? No, of course not. Could there be other factors and influences? Yes, of course.

I didn't come here to criticize Obama. He has been a big disappointment to me, but that is not the point here. The point is that the people who don't bother voting are making a rational decision not to participate in the charade. The Tweedledum and Tweedledee system is that the two big parties have wildly different rhetoric, and make people think they are on opposite sides of every issue, but in fact they mostly agree, and their actions while in office, unlike their rhetoric, are mostly indistinguishable.

Entirely dodged the question. You are quite agile for a 50 something year old.

Maybe we speak different languages. Looking at the exchange above, it looks to me like I answered your questions unequivocally and without hesitation.

Maybe in your part of the country that's called dodging. Don't know that dialect.

You said Obama has done nothing as the status quo from your examples remain. I asked if you felt that was Obama's fault and left the door open for you to contemplate and elaborate, but you didn't what-so ever. That's a dodge.

No, you asked if I thought it was ALL Obama's fault, and I answered quite forthrightly that no, it is not. That doesn't mean that NONE of it is his fault, it only means that it's not ALL his fault.

I understand that dealing with a hostile Congress has made it difficult, but not impossible, to put his own stamp on things. He didn't even try to repeal the Patriot Act, or curtail the industrial-scale domestic surveillance that goes on. He didn't even try to bring any bankers to trial for their role in the 2008 farce. He didn't even try to roll back the militarization of American police and their predation on their own citizens. He rushed in to destabilizing the governments of Libya and Syria with poor comprehension of the consequences. He expanded the program of extralegal execution of suspected enemies by drone strike, including in some cases his own citizens who were guaranteed a right to trial by jury and were robbed of that right. He did try, briefly, to shut down Guantanamo, and gave up at the first roadblock.

I understand your point, that with a very hostile and partisan Republican caucus controlling one or both Houses for much of his term, he would have had a tough time effecting change. But the point is, that he didn't even really try. Not on the things that mattered. I actually expected much better of him. I was quietly optimistic when Obama was first elected, and he has been a big disappointment. I didn't expect him to wave a magic wand and fix everything, but I did expect some small, marginal improvements in civil liberties and America's warmongering posture abroad, and he didn't even try.

You're missing the bigger picture, and Obama is just a distraction from that. The overall point is that the actual behaviour of Democrats and Republicans while in office is virtually identical. Only their rhetoric on the campaign trail makes them seem like diametric opposites. It's just smoke and mirrors.

[Symmetry]

Wow, Obamacare kinda passed you by, huh?

Normalising relations with Cuba? No?
Getting Bin Laden? Nothing?
Lily Ledbetter Act? No?
The Iran negotiations? Not at all?
Reducing the deficit? Zilch?
Dismantling Guantanemo? Passed you by?

You really have a problem with false equivalencies dude.

[saxitoxin]

Harry Reid backing Brian Sandoval, the Republican governor of Nevada, for Supreme Court -

http://www.mediaite.com/uncategorized/r ... eme-court/

So the Democrats are thinking of nominating a Catholic, meaning 2/3 of the court will be Catholic. In 230 years and 112 judges there have only been 12 Catholics on SCOTUS, but 50% of them are sitting right now. All of the original 7 justices appointed by George Washington were Episcopalian (except William Cushing who was a Unitarian), but now none are.

This is the progressives at work. The same people (Catholics) who couldn't be bothered to sign the Declaration of Independence now have a supermajority on the court it brought into being. Who will the progressives appoint next? A Scientologist? Julia and Ethel Rosenberg? Tokyo Rose?

[notyou2]

Thank you Duk. That was the kind of response I was expecting and trying to elicit. I agree with most of what you have said, but I think Obama did accomplish more than you credit him, as Sym has illustrated. Furthermore, I believe history will show that he was an excellent president, but too many Americans are colour blind and he was thwarted repeatedly by a hostile congress and senate.

I believe the American political system is broken. The money of big business as well as the lobbying needs to be removed.

I am glad we have stringent limits on those things in Canada, it lessens corporate influence and the influence of the super rich.

[Bernie Sanders]

Thank you Duk. That was the kind of response I was expecting and trying to elicit. I agree with most of what you have said, but I think Obama did accomplish more than you credit him, as Sym has illustrated. Furthermore, I believe history will show that he was an excellent president, but too many Americans are colour blind and he was thwarted repeatedly by a hostile congress and senate.

I believe the American political system is broken. The money of big business as well as the lobbying needs to be removed.

I am glad we have stringent limits on those things in Canada, it lessens corporate influence and the influence of the super rich.

Hillary will do NOTHING about Corporate and Wall Street influence, she's been bought and sold.

Bernie Sanders is now leading Clinton in 3 national polls. She'll win South Carolina and Bernie is concentrating for BIG TUESDAY, where 880 delegates are waiting to be scooped up.

President Obama is facing a Congress that will stall any nominations for Supreme Court. Fine with me, Bernie will shove a very Progressive Judge into the Supreme Court. The Republicans might as well deal with President Obama and settle for a Centrist candidate. Why do I say that? Trump will win the Republican nomination, but will be beaten in November. The Independent vote is crucial in November and they will reject Trump for what he is, a reality star.