Tell me one president in the last 60 years who did every thing he said he would do.
jar writes:
Actually, by design the US has a relatively weak presidency. There is little the President can do other then encourage.
In one important respect, the presidency has become too powerful: Congress has largely abdicated its power to declare war. This is the imperial presidency sought by Cheney & Co., the neocons who felt the effects of Watergate had too weakened the presidency.
Edited by Omnivorous, : Fixed first quote mistakenly attributed to xongsmith.
Have you ever been to an American wedding? Where's the vodka? Where's the marinated herring?! -Gogol Bordello
Technically, it is, at least on a small scale. Any restriction is essentially a from of control because you are seeking to prevent some people from obtaining some item.
But it's not the same thing as overturning the Second Amendment and taking away firearms from all American Citizens.
I would say that goes back before the NeoCons but I would like to see Congress take back greater control there. But I would also like to see a few conditions added to War Making. I suggest that before the US can make war on anything that mandatory conscription be declared with NO exceptions.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
I agree the tension between Congress and the Commander in Chief goes far back, with a waxing and waning presidential power to promote war.
And, yes, universal conscription would wonderfully inhibit the military adventures America loves so much.
I wonder about the target age, though. Maybe the cohort holding governmental and corporate sway should go. We could cross-train investment bankers as artillery and infantry lieutenants.
Have you ever been to an American wedding? Where's the vodka? Where's the marinated herring?! -Gogol Bordello
I wonder about the target age, though. Maybe the cohort holding governmental and corporate sway should go. We could cross-train investment bankers as artillery and infantry lieutenants.
There is always a need for cannoneers and cannon fodder. Make it 15-45 years old.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
quote:
As of June 2010, 40% of American voters identify themselves as conservatives, 36% as moderates and 22% as liberals. There has been a high level of stability over the last two decades. In 1992 40% of voters called themselves conservative, 35% moderate and 18% liberal.
I would say moderate/conservatives are the popular majority.
There aren't any "left" news sources.
I can agree with that; no actual corporate run news source is leftist. But their shows do have a lean, CNN and MSNBC have left leaning journalist and pundits, while Fox of course has right leaning. If you include the Daily Show as a news source, which many in the field do, it also has left leaning journalist/writers/host.
But since CNN and MSNBC are owned by Turner Broadcasting and General Electric, respectively, you're right that they aren't a "leftist" news station. And Comedy Central is owned by Viacom so they aren't a leftist company either.
How we get a handle on the media isn't going to be related to how we reach the one in five Americans who believes in a geocentric solar system. Those people are unreachable.
Of course the media is going to help, it is the ONLY way to reach people who are that disattached from reality. In fact, the US media, celebrities, music, and fashion has been the way to reach many in the middle east, especially the youth. Same goes for your one in five Americans.
They are reachable; a defeatist attitude never helps. Unless you could care less about them, then sure, ignore them. But they still get to vote at the end of the day.
Democrats were divided between liberal coastal Dems and conservative southern Dems; Republicans between southern social conservatives and northern fiscal ones.
This was also a different conservative than the neo-con's of today. Noam Chomsky, an admitted (classical) Libertarian also considers himself a conservative. But certainly not like the conservatives of today. In fact, many today would consider him a liberal, which he most certainly is not.
Different times, different people. Many similar social ideologies though, rather than today when it is almost divided down the middle, politically.
As for the American public, judging by voter turn out, and the steady yet stable moderate position, I'd say most Americans are either apathetic to the whole thing or moderates. The voting public falls into the percentages I gave above.
If you want our political parties to work together for the greater good, then we need to reform politics to take out the structural incentives against working together.
I think our political "parties" work a little too well together, at the cost of a disinformed, misguilded, public.
Tell me one president in the last 60 years who did every thing he said he would do.
But the American public, in the last 60 years, who has voted for the winning president, has believed they will. That's the ponit I'm trying to make using the current president as an example.
This is why it's so easy to make Americans think the worse of a president they didn't vote for, because they will almost surely go back on most, if not all, promises made during the campaign. The media can and is having a field day exploiting this, depending on their networks political affiliation and agenda.
Currently, this president, has not kept any promise, except for a complex, barely understood healthcare plan that benefits big business rather than the public.
Sure he's a democrat, and that gets liberals hard to think about. But what's so different about a dem. president who also caters to the needs and wants of big business? At that point, democrat is just a label to trigger voters, rather than a traditional political position with different values than republicans.
I would say moderate/conservatives are the popular majority.
You took me completely out of context, Oni. Bad form.
Here's what I actually said:
quote:A majority of Americans, who in polls support liberal agenda items with overwhelming majorities?
Again I think you're not correctly apprehending the degree to which liberals are an informal popular majority; the problem is that conservatives exert disproportionate influence over the government and media. Influence far in excess of the actual popularity of their positions.
Ask Americans to classify themselves, sure, and conservatives win out. Ask them what policies they support and suddenly they're almost all liberals. This is just proof of what I'm saying - conservatives are winning a branding victory, they're not actually convincing anybody do be conservative. They're just convincing people to say they're conservative.
If you include the Daily Show as a news source, which many in the field do, it also has left leaning journalist/writers/host.
Nobody "in the field" really considers the Daily Show a news source, and nobody who works on it does, either.
Of course the media is going to help, it is the ONLY way to reach people who are that disattached from reality.
Those people have detached themselves from reality by choice. They don't believe in a geocentric solar systems (or that Obama is a Muslim) because they just haven't seen the right TV shows yet - they've heard the refutations and discarded them. Ignored them. It makes them feel better to believe that Obama is a Muslim, so they do.
They're not reachable. It's not a matter of doing anything to the media.
Unless you could care less about them, then sure, ignore them.
Yes! Exactly. We're just going to have to learn how to operate a representative democracy that represents a populace where one in five Americans simply cannot correctly apprehend reality.
This was also a different conservative than the neo-con's of today.
No, they were pretty much the same - race baiters, gay bashers, Islamophobes, war mongers, proto-fascists. The South hasn't changed any. Really, not any.
Noam Chomsky, an admitted (classical) Liberitarian also considers himself a conservative. But certainly not like the conservatives of today. In fact, many today would consider him a liberal, which he most certainly is not.
Um, no. None of this is true.
Different times, different people.
Different times, different parties, same people, exact same ideological lines. There was never a "golden age of bipartisanship"; there was only a brief time in the late 20th century when ideological battle lines cut orthogonal to political ones. The regression to the mean we're experiencing isn't a unique symptom of a growing partisan divide; it's simply the alignment of political affiliation with ideology, just like it's almost always been.
You took me completely out of context, Oni. Bad form.
Sorry dude, that's how I read it. I wasn't trying to take it out of context.
Ask Americans to classify themselves, sure, and conservatives win out. Ask them what policies they support and suddenly they're almost all liberals. This is just proof of what I'm saying - conservatives are winning a branding victory, they're not actually convincing anybody do be conservative. They're just convincing people to say they're conservative.
But wouldn't someone who classifies themselves as conservative but supports policies that are favorable to the liberal side be considered a moderate?
quote:A political moderate is a person who holds values that are considered traditionally conservative as well as some that are considered traditionally liberal. Are you for a strong national defense and for good public education? Do you value the environment while you also value the need to provide decent jobs? Do you believe that it’s wrong to discriminate against people for housing or employment because they belong to some minority or religious group? What about voluntary prayer in schools?
Most people are more complex than fringe political wonks believe. Most people have a variety of views, and these often span the political spectrum. If you’re one of those people, one of the multitude that holds some conservative views and some liberal views, then you’re a political moderate — regardless of the political party to which you belong.
Nobody "in the field" really considers the Daily Show a news source, and nobody who works on it does, either.
quote:The Daily Show is much funnier than traditional newscasts, but a new study from Indiana University says it has the same amount of meat on its bones when it comes to coverage of the news. The brand of news coverage Jon Stewart and the rest of The Daily Show's staff brings to the airwaves is just as substantive as traditional news programs like World News Tonight and the CBS Evening News, according to the study conducted by IU assistant professor of telecommunications Julia R. Fox and a couple of graduate students.
quote:Before Katie Couric was signed last year, rumors surfaced that Comedy Central's Jon Stewart might be in the running to anchor "CBS Evening News." The idea may not be as ludicrous as it sounds. If Stewart did anchor a Big Three evening newscast, young adults might actually watch it.
Short of that, they will continue to ignore such traditional news sources in favor of mavericks like Stewart's "The Daily Show," which proudly bills itself as "the most trusted name in fake news." So say media experts, scholars, numbers crunchers, and, most important, young adults themselves."
Many do consider the Daily Show a good source of news. Even other journalist who have been on his show tell him he does news. Now I know Stewart doesn't like to bill himself as a news broadcaster, choosing to still refer to himself as a comic, but when a large portion of society watches you instead of traditional news, your a news source.
It makes them feel better to believe that Obama is a Muslim, so they do.
This is your opinion, I simply don't share it.
Yes! Exactly. We're just going to have to learn how to operate a representative democracy that represents a populace where one in five Americans simply cannot correctly apprehend reality.
Sure, that's the reality of it.
Oni writes:
Noam Chomsky, an admitted (classical) Liberitarian also considers himself a conservative. But certainly not like the conservatives of today. In fact, many today would consider him a liberal, which he most certainly is not.
CS writes:
Um, no. None of this is true.
None of it? How 'bout he tells you, not just me:
He considers himself a Libertarian, and at minute 4:43 he states "I consider myself one of the few conservatives around."
Sooo, yeah, everything I said was absolutely correct.
Different times, different parties, same people, exact same ideological lines.
Neither Clinton nor Obama are "liberals." They are both very much conservative/moderates.
This is very true. I have asked many cons to show me an example of the liberalism of Clinton and Obama. None of the things they bring up are liberal ideas or agenda items. "Obamacare" is a version of the Repub proposal in the 80's and Romneycare in MA. Not liberal at all. Personal responsibility is a conservative position. It goes to show that the Repubs are not conservatives. They are corporatists.
Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
But the American public, in the last 60 years, who has voted for the winning president, has believed they will. That's the ponit I'm trying to make using the current president as an example.
One would think that the American public would have wised up by now. I don't vote that way, I choose, what I consider, the lessor of 2 evils.
There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
But wouldn't someone who classifies themselves as conservative but supports policies that are favorable to the liberal side be considered a moderate?
No, why would they? A moderate is someone who holds both liberal and conservative positions. Someone who holds liberal positions is a liberal, no matter what they call themselves.
Many do consider the Daily Show a good source of news.
But it's not a news show. It doesn't have media access. They don't report. In almost every instance their "senior correspondent" is standing in front of a green screen, projected over a background of where he says he is.
Even other journalist who have been on his show tell him he does news.
Don't get me wrong - it's certainly not in the media's favor that the Daily Show frequently does better reporting by accident than the people who are nominally supposed to be doing it professionally.
But the Daily Show isn't "the liberal media." It's a comedy show.
when a large portion of society watches you instead of traditional news, your a news source.
More people are watching "Glee" than are watching the "traditional news." Does that mean "Glee" is a news show?
He considers himself a Libertarian, and at minute 4:43 he states "I consider myself one of the few conservatives around."
You're just proving my point about conservatives winning nothing but a branding victory, if even Noam Chomsky calls himself "conservative."
Tell me, what traditional conservative values do you think Noam Chomsky holds? Supply-side economics? Traditional marriage values? Do you think he's opposed to divorce and abortion? Do you think he supports interventionist, imperialistic foreign policy?
I didn't think so. Conservatives have won nothing but a branding victory. They've turned a neat trick by making "liberal" an American dirty word. They've not succeeded to any extent in making their policies more popular. People just don't want conservative policies put in place. In many cases, they don't even know what those polices are.
A moderate is someone who holds both liberal and conservative positions.
But someone who classifies themselves as a conservative and has liberal ideologies as well, IS someone who holds both a liberal and conservative position. How could they not be?
But it's not a news show.
Ehh, not by definition, but certainly by happenstance though.
More people are watching "Glee" than are watching the "traditional news." Does that mean "Glee" is a news show?
But no one is watching Glee for news. And according to the study done by IU that I link for you, many people, especially the youth, do get their news from the Daily Show.
I would say, when a large portion of people are watching specifically to get their news from you, even if you don't want to admit to it, you're a news show. If you'd like to say, by happenstance, then I'll concede.
You're just proving my point about conservatives winning nothing but a branding victory, if even Noam Chomsky calls himself "conservative."
Then you didn't listen to him. Chomsky isn't calling himself a conservative by today's definition, he's calling himself a conservative by a traditional definition.
Traditional marriage values? Do you think he's opposed to divorce and abortion? Do you think he supports interventionist, imperialistic foreign policy?
This is NOT what he considers traditional conservatism. He clearly stated that.
Conservatives have won nothing but a branding victory.
This is exactly Chomsky's point, the term conservative that he uses is NOT the same as is used in American culture. That's why he says, "I'm one of the few conservatives around." The other so-called conservatives are simply hijacking the word and changed the true meaning of it.
This is going to take use very, very off-topic. As long as you concede that he does consider himself a classical Libertarian, like he said he was, and a conservative, like he said he was, we can leave it at that.
How 'bout he tells you, not just me:
™ Version 4.2
(1)
