- Joined
- May 11, 2007
- Messages
- 20,569
- Reaction score
- 4,814
- Location
- youtu.be/QRruBVFXjnY
- Website
- www.ifoundaknife.com
Oh, I would have voted for him in a heartbeat if he'd ever run for President.
I remember him on the Smothers Brothers show as well as other variety shows of the time. I specifically recall a skit he did on voter polarization (including dramatic effects such as a voter's image being replaced by its negative). Regrettably (and unlike Haggis), I was too young to vote for him.'68 and you didn't vote for Pat Paulsen?
You are a traitor to the Comedianist cause!
Links for those too young to know about Pat Paulsen:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Paulsen
http://www.paulsen.com/pat/
I totally agree with that, Richard. I've continually been amazed by why new attempts at party creation go for the top prize in politics, where they – if they actually won – would be a lame duck because they didn't invest in where the decision lays.
I think a more fruitful route for, say the Libertarian Party, would be to over the next ten years contest congressional seats and have a realistic aim of claiming 20 percent of Congress. They should forget about the Presidency. At this point in the party's evolution, it is out of reach.
Like moths drawn to a flame, every new party contest the presidency instead of congressional seats. I think it might be because congress is much messier, and the symbolic value of the presidency would be great. Until it was clear that they could get absolutely nothing done. Then the win would become negative, and the presidency would be seen as failed and horrible.
If a new party managed to gain 20 percent of the seats in Congress they could exert real power, and force the parties to compromise. Neither the democrats nor the republicans would be able to get legislation through without that 20 percent block.
But then you have the thing that libertarians aren't really interested in compromising about anything, as the “Nobody but Ron Paul”-thing shows. You have two large camps – the Paulites with maybe five percent of the vote, and the Libertarian Party with another five percent. And they refuse to cooperate unless purity is established.
Libertarians are impractical to the point that they disqualify themselves from being able to achieve their aims over time. I constantly shake my head over the libertarians.
"Accomplished very little..." "Didn't do enough..."
People say these things like the man has absolute power. He had to deal with and appease a majority of people who hated (and outright disrespected to a degree no president in history has ever been shown) him and did everything in their power to stop or deny him from attaining his goals. Even when they were things the Republicans themselves wanted years ago. It just irks the shit out of me that so many people say this man hasn't done anything. Okay, give him absolute power so his efforts can't be blocked by the stuffy bigots who want to see him fail. Then we'll talk.
There are times when it's hard to argue against that distrust.Yes. The electoral college is an archaic, outdated relic. And even in the beginning, it was a bad idea - it's primary rationale being that the people couldn't be trusted to pick a leader. The Founding Fathers basically weren't willing to give up aristocracy altogether.
"Accomplished very little..." "Didn't do enough..."
People say these things like the man has absolute power. He had to deal with and appease a majority of people who hated (and outright disrespected to a degree no president in history has ever been shown) him and did everything in their power to stop or deny him from attaining his goals. Even when they were things the Republicans themselves wanted years ago. It just irks the shit out of me that so many people say this man hasn't done anything. Okay, give him absolute power so his efforts can't be blocked by the stuffy bigots who want to see him fail. Then we'll talk.
Thanks for pointing that out. People in this country seem to be forgetting we don't elect a king. Can we imagine the bitching that would ensue if Obama ever did try to take and use the power necessary to do what so many either expect or accuse him of?
I hope there are many, many people who feel this way.
I think what bothers me now is that initially I didn't feel like he was playing the game--he was trying to get people over the idiocy and the partisanship and the inability to agree on anything. Now he's playing the game (well, I might add), and that's just disappointing. However, I still don't hold him responsible for that. I have been absolutely appalled at the news coverage and the comments people are willing to make and the completely disrespectful ways of talking about Obama that are apparently considered perfectly acceptable.
I don't remember people ever going to the extremes with Bush even at his weakest. Were people ever mocking his name and making up stupid nicknames for him like they were in third grade the way people do with Obama? Maybe I just missed it, but I honestly don't remember. It was like there was an understanding that even if you couldn't stand the guy, he was still president. I feel like with Obama, there is an intentional talking down to him as if his position is meaningless in order to devalue him.
Agreed. The one thing I thought Hilary had over Obama was that she already had a clue how the game was played and Obama would have to learn the rules--just like every newly elected politician with little-to-no experience has to. Hilary, even if she didn't personally know, had Bill as a resource, after all.
And the whole thing about disrespecting Obama, totally ignoring his position that has always gotten respect regardless of who occupied it. That just irks me. I didn't like several of the presidents who've served in my lifetime, but he always deserved the respect for the job he had. It's probably the saddest thing I can say about my country right now.
'68 and you didn't vote for Pat Paulsen?
You are a traitor to the Comedianist cause!
Links for those too young to know about Pat Paulsen:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Paulsen
http://www.paulsen.com/pat/
I remember him on the Smothers Brothers show as well as other variety shows of the time. I specifically recall a skit he did on voter polarization (including dramatic effects such as a voter's image being replaced by its negative). Regrettably (and unlike Haggis), I was too young to vote for him.
I may still vote for Mickey Mouse. I certainly won't "waste my vote" on robeiae.
Something to keep in mind, though, is that part of the reason people like me voted for Obama in the first place was because we hated the game. I saw in him hope that maybe, just MAYBE there was a chance that the stupid idiotic system we have could be changed and intelligence and logic and compromise would be what we started basing things on. I hoped that it would be a message to the politicians out there that voters like me didn't appreciate the stupid games and that we wanted something that was more honest and more focused on what really mattered.
It's disappointing to me because when the person who was supposed to be able to change things starts doing it, it's just another sign that it's stuck this way and there's nothing we can do.
I think it's telling that all the focus is going on the president and not where I think it needs to be, but that's also what I expect out of the media anymore.
I've thought about your post overnight and what strikes me is that you expected one single man to do all the work to make the changes the government seriously needs to happen. The president doesn't have that much power, by design. He has to work with the Congress, who are the ones who actually pass the laws. When that branch is stacked against him, what the president's trying to do won't get done.
It's why I'm more interested in what's happening in Congress this year. As men (party agendas aside), I see them as about equal in what they're going to be able to do. Depending on what happens in Congress determines how much the president's agenda (and promises--regardless of who wins) will get done.
I think it's telling that all the focus is going on the president and not where I think it needs to be, but that's also what I expect out of the media anymore.
I've thought about your post overnight and what strikes me is that you expected one single man to do all the work to make the changes the government seriously needs to happen. The president doesn't have that much power, by design. He has to work with the Congress, who are the ones who actually pass the laws. When that branch is stacked against him, what the president's trying to do won't get done.
It's why I'm more interested in what's happening in Congress this year. As men (party agendas aside), I see them as about equal in what they're going to be able to do. Depending on what happens in Congress determines how much the president's agenda (and promises--regardless of who wins) will get done.
I think it's telling that all the focus is going on the president and not where I think it needs to be, but that's also what I expect out of the media anymore.