5 ms·

With all that is going on with the DNC and election, Obama has gotten a lot of great press recently; his approval numbers are sky high. I'm not saying that I d

by sna1l 10y ago

With all that is going on with the DNC and election, Obama has gotten a lot of great press recently; his approval numbers are sky high. I'm not saying that I don't think Obama is a good president, but people seem to forget two big chunks of his lasting legacy -- drones and surveillance.

danieltillett 10y ago
It is not hard too look like a giant when surrounded by midgets. I think the American people are looking at what they have a choice of next and wishing that the 22nd amendment had never been passed [1]. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-second_Amendment_to_t...
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  > I think the American people are looking at what they have a choice of next and wishing that the 22nd amendment had never been passed [1]. Americans had a great candidate, who was sandbagged by the DNC. They deserve the president they get now.
- toolz 10y ago
  The American people have some decent choices. They just refuse to look past the big two parties.
  - danieltillett 10y ago
    Well with the current voting system it is hard to make a change. A vote for for one of the non-big two is unfortunately equivalent to not voting at all.
    - mikestew 10y ago
      A vote for for one of the non-big two is unfortunately equivalent to not voting at all. That's not true at all. Want your non-Big-Two party at the presidential debates? Vote, because last I looked the invites are sent based on how much of the popular vote the party got last time (15%, I think?). Maybe I'm wrong on that, or the rules changed, but it still matters. You tell your neighbor you're voting Libertarian and suddenly the Libs look like normal folk, not a bunch of pot heads who don't like to pay taxes. You think pols didn't pay attention when Perot garnered 19% even after he went all tin-foil hat and withdrew from the race at one point? No matter who you vote for, your vote makes a difference. It just probably doesn't make as much difference as you'd like it to.
      - maxerickson 10y ago
        Debate participation is based on the national polls. Federal election funds are scaled to the results of previous elections. http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/pubfund.shtml#General http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/pubfund.shtml#General
      - danieltillett 10y ago
        It is actually a bit more complex provided you have an opinion as to which of the two major party candidates is worse. If you consider both equally bad then yes voting for a minor candidate has some small positive value, but if you consider one of the major candidates worse than the other then not voting for the other is a negative. I don’t vote for a candidate - I vote against my least favorite candidate. I find it much easier to decide who I like least than who I like most.
    - ionised 10y ago
      > A vote for for one of the non-big two is unfortunately equivalent to not voting at all. That attitude is exactly why.
      - danieltillett 10y ago
        Not really - it is a function of using a first past the post voting system. What would help is for people to campaign for a new voting system starting at the local level, progressing to the state level, and eventually national level. Fix the voting system and the candidates you have a choice of will change.
isaacremuant 10y ago
It happens every time. Internet demography has a "liberal/democrat" bias and, every election cycle they'll forget every criticism they might've had because "The others are worse"and "Would you rather have Sarah Palin ordering drone strikes?" It's tribalism all the way down and it shows when the same group of people that condemned Bush's actions refuse to condemn them or rationalize them when it's Obama's doing. I'm very skeptical of the whole system, to say the least.

by sna1l 10y ago

danieltillett 10y ago

It is not hard too look like a giant when surrounded by midgets. I think the American people are looking at what they have a choice of next and wishing that the 22nd amendment had never been passed [1]. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-second_Amendment_to_t...

toomuchtodo 10y ago
> I think the American people are looking at what they have a choice of next and wishing that the 22nd amendment had never been passed [1]. Americans had a great candidate, who was sandbagged by the DNC. They deserve the president they get now.
toolz 10y ago
The American people have some decent choices. They just refuse to look past the big two parties.
- danieltillett 10y ago
  Well with the current voting system it is hard to make a change. A vote for for one of the non-big two is unfortunately equivalent to not voting at all.
  - mikestew 10y ago
    A vote for for one of the non-big two is unfortunately equivalent to not voting at all. That's not true at all. Want your non-Big-Two party at the presidential debates? Vote, because last I looked the invites are sent based on how much of the popular vote the party got last time (15%, I think?). Maybe I'm wrong on that, or the rules changed, but it still matters. You tell your neighbor you're voting Libertarian and suddenly the Libs look like normal folk, not a bunch of pot heads who don't like to pay taxes. You think pols didn't pay attention when Perot garnered 19% even after he went all tin-foil hat and withdrew from the race at one point? No matter who you vote for, your vote makes a difference. It just probably doesn't make as much difference as you'd like it to.
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      Debate participation is based on the national polls. Federal election funds are scaled to the results of previous elections. http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/pubfund.shtml#General http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/pubfund.shtml#General
    - danieltillett 10y ago
      It is actually a bit more complex provided you have an opinion as to which of the two major party candidates is worse. If you consider both equally bad then yes voting for a minor candidate has some small positive value, but if you consider one of the major candidates worse than the other then not voting for the other is a negative. I don’t vote for a candidate - I vote against my least favorite candidate. I find it much easier to decide who I like least than who I like most.
  - ionised 10y ago
    > A vote for for one of the non-big two is unfortunately equivalent to not voting at all. That attitude is exactly why.
    - danieltillett 10y ago
      Not really - it is a function of using a first past the post voting system. What would help is for people to campaign for a new voting system starting at the local level, progressing to the state level, and eventually national level. Fix the voting system and the candidates you have a choice of will change.

isaacremuant 10y ago

It happens every time. Internet demography has a "liberal/democrat" bias and, every election cycle they'll forget every criticism they might've had because "The others are worse"and "Would you rather have Sarah Palin ordering drone strikes?" It's tribalism all the way down and it shows when the same group of people that condemned Bush's actions refuse to condemn them or rationalize them when it's Obama's doing. I'm very skeptical of the whole system, to say the least.