6 ms·

I thought people said that Obama really understood technology!

by uriel 17y ago

elai 17y ago
Obama isn't congress, the senate, or the democrat party. He is not king obama.
- pyre 17y ago
  True, but I don't believe that Congress is allowed to negotiate foreign treaties. So I would assume that the onus for anything that the US government proposes at these discussions falls on his administration, making it all his responsibility.
- nhebb 17y ago
  Trade policies are crafted by the Executive branch, and Ron Kirk, the US Trade Representative, is a member of President Obama's Cabinet.
  - _delirium 17y ago
    For some reason, though, they seem to mainly do the same thing under both parties' administrations, which makes me suspect that trade policies are really crafted by a set of career bureaucrats who stay there under all kinds of administrations, aiding a revolving door of people with largely the same political viewpoints. As far as I can tell, ACTA negotiations have been exactly the same under Bush and Obama, such that if you were looking at U.S. politics through them you would barely know there was more than one political party in the US.
- sailormoon 17y ago
  He is not king obama. I wish he was, actually. Every four years, vote in a new king, with near-unlimited power to do practically anything they want, excepting the extension of their own power. Then he might actually get something done.
  - pyre 17y ago
    If history is anything to go by, such a foundation for government can only end in tears.
    - sailormoon 17y ago
      Which history? There are many examples of multi-hundred years of stable government by kings. And there are plenty of failed democracies. Remember that democracy is still a fairly young experiment, which has only recently encountered its mortal enemies - the middle classes and the permanent bureaucracy. I do not claim to know the future but I can tell you which direction things look like they're going to me, and it's not up. In many ways it's looking like we have created the worst of both worlds - a royal court of privileged elite governing only for themselves, with a neutered king serving only to take the blame. That must end in tears, too.
      - drats 17y ago
        Which history are you reading? Democracy is not a "fairly young experiment". The ancient Athenians had an impressive democratic government from 508BC until it was destroyed, from the outside, in 322BC. You cite "multi-hundred years of stable government by kings" like there are no power struggles when a given king dies, and like "stable" is even remotely near what we'd call stable or desirable (freedom?). Which history are you reading in which these wonderful benevolent king-systems (not just singular kings if you want "multi-hundred years") exist? Cite one. There is no counter-corruption in a system with a powerful executive and no democracy for long. Without checks on corruption and a powerful state there is no freedom for very long. I can't believe the suggestion that the west moves to the model of voting in leaders with "near-unlimited power to do practically anything they want" is being taken seriously in a time when questionable wars have been started and torture policies implemented by the already too strong executives.
        jacoblyles 17y ago
        Your biases are showing pretty strong here. There's no reason we can't ponder alternative forms of government that have and have not been tried and consider their benefits and drawbacks. For what it's worth, I do think democracy is too irrational to run itself very well, and it may cause its own demise. In my estimation it depends on whether or not technology saves us by producing wealth faster than our leaders can squander it on interest group politics. 250 years is a pretty good run for a country, even if it falls short of the monarchies of Europe.
CamperBob 17y ago
This would be the same Obama who appointed half the RIAA's legal staff to the Justice Department?
- uriel 17y ago
  And the same Obama that picked Biden (well known as one of the main DMCA promoters and great friend of the RIAA AND MPAA) for VP. So this is not a surprise to me, I was just trying to sarcastically point out how the claims of some Obama supporters have been shown to be quite incorrect to say the least. And I don't agree with the grandparent that the issue is lack of understanding of technology, I'm sure Obama understands technology, just as he probably understand that the War on Drugs doesn't work, but he prefers to not rock the boat and keep pushing the policies that have become political sacred cows, because doing so would imply that the political class as a whole has been completely wrong for decades.

I thought people said that Obama really understood technology!

by uriel 17y ago

I thought people said that Obama really understood technology!

elai 17y ago

Obama isn't congress, the senate, or the democrat party. He is not king obama.

pyre 17y ago
True, but I don't believe that Congress is allowed to negotiate foreign treaties. So I would assume that the onus for anything that the US government proposes at these discussions falls on his administration, making it all his responsibility.
nhebb 17y ago
Trade policies are crafted by the Executive branch, and Ron Kirk, the US Trade Representative, is a member of President Obama's Cabinet.
- _delirium 17y ago
  For some reason, though, they seem to mainly do the same thing under both parties' administrations, which makes me suspect that trade policies are really crafted by a set of career bureaucrats who stay there under all kinds of administrations, aiding a revolving door of people with largely the same political viewpoints. As far as I can tell, ACTA negotiations have been exactly the same under Bush and Obama, such that if you were looking at U.S. politics through them you would barely know there was more than one political party in the US.
sailormoon 17y ago
He is not king obama. I wish he was, actually. Every four years, vote in a new king, with near-unlimited power to do practically anything they want, excepting the extension of their own power. Then he might actually get something done.
- pyre 17y ago
  If history is anything to go by, such a foundation for government can only end in tears.
  - sailormoon 17y ago
    Which history? There are many examples of multi-hundred years of stable government by kings. And there are plenty of failed democracies. Remember that democracy is still a fairly young experiment, which has only recently encountered its mortal enemies - the middle classes and the permanent bureaucracy. I do not claim to know the future but I can tell you which direction things look like they're going to me, and it's not up. In many ways it's looking like we have created the worst of both worlds - a royal court of privileged elite governing only for themselves, with a neutered king serving only to take the blame. That must end in tears, too.
    - drats 17y ago
      Which history are you reading? Democracy is not a "fairly young experiment". The ancient Athenians had an impressive democratic government from 508BC until it was destroyed, from the outside, in 322BC. You cite "multi-hundred years of stable government by kings" like there are no power struggles when a given king dies, and like "stable" is even remotely near what we'd call stable or desirable (freedom?). Which history are you reading in which these wonderful benevolent king-systems (not just singular kings if you want "multi-hundred years") exist? Cite one. There is no counter-corruption in a system with a powerful executive and no democracy for long. Without checks on corruption and a powerful state there is no freedom for very long. I can't believe the suggestion that the west moves to the model of voting in leaders with "near-unlimited power to do practically anything they want" is being taken seriously in a time when questionable wars have been started and torture policies implemented by the already too strong executives.
      - jacoblyles 17y ago
        Your biases are showing pretty strong here. There's no reason we can't ponder alternative forms of government that have and have not been tried and consider their benefits and drawbacks. For what it's worth, I do think democracy is too irrational to run itself very well, and it may cause its own demise. In my estimation it depends on whether or not technology saves us by producing wealth faster than our leaders can squander it on interest group politics. 250 years is a pretty good run for a country, even if it falls short of the monarchies of Europe.

CamperBob 17y ago

This would be the same Obama who appointed half the RIAA's legal staff to the Justice Department?

uriel 17y ago
And the same Obama that picked Biden (well known as one of the main DMCA promoters and great friend of the RIAA AND MPAA) for VP. So this is not a surprise to me, I was just trying to sarcastically point out how the claims of some Obama supporters have been shown to be quite incorrect to say the least. And I don't agree with the grandparent that the issue is lack of understanding of technology, I'm sure Obama understands technology, just as he probably understand that the War on Drugs doesn't work, but he prefers to not rock the boat and keep pushing the policies that have become political sacred cows, because doing so would imply that the political class as a whole has been completely wrong for decades.