The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum (http://www.startrekmovie.com/forums/index.php)
-   Off Topic Discussions (http://www.startrekmovie.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   Obama re-elected (http://www.startrekmovie.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11965)

Roysten 11-07-2012 04:31 AM

Obama re-elected
 
"Four more years"

What's people's thoughts on Obama back in the White House? I'm personally pleased but not being American I obviously can't judge how it might be for people on the ground living through changes that happen. How does everyone else feel?

kevin 11-07-2012 04:39 AM

I guess it's hard to say.

I suppose it was the outcome that as a casual outside observer I would have rather seen happen. I guess, while he actually won the electoral college vote a little more cleanly than I thought he would have going in, the popular vote is narrower (though not relevant to the outcome), the best that can be said is he's been given the benefit of the doubt I think.

I watched a few hours of the outcome this morning only because toothache kept me up early. But I don't know what will happen if each side can't start making moves to co-operate more. I suppose, whichever belief people had - the result is in. Just see what happens next.

Akula2ssn 11-07-2012 06:43 AM

Hard to say. I watched the nation split and grow apart under Bush, and quite frankly that rift has continued to widen under Obama and I suspect will continue to widen under Obama and would still have continued under Romney. Personally I didn't care for and still don't care for either of their policies or methods. It's also become very difficult here to trust anything that is being said. One of my coworkers who is a marine science major took a journalism class. All I can say is that the journalism majors are...well...they're a "special" lot...They pretty much take whatever is spoon fed to them without question. The marine science major is not only at the top of the class but the curve breaker. The scientist questions. As for the journalist? I have no idea.

samwiseb 11-07-2012 09:35 AM

Short of real bi-partisanship, which no longer seems to be the watchword anyway, I'm happy with the way it turned out. Although we basically paid an insane amount of political money just to keep our presidential/congressional chessboard pieces 'mostly' in the same place, when we still have this huge national debt to pay off.

I facebooked: "So it was against Romney's principle to have a concession speech written. That's okay, Rom. I'm sure Obama will let you borrow his. I mean he doesn't need it."

kevin 11-07-2012 09:57 AM

Yeah, some of the coverage I watched had a statistic that the estimated total spend between both campaigns in full was something like $3 Billion got spent to end up basically in the same place as the day before the election. I don't know if that figure is accurate. But the pundits also claimed (to put it into perspective) that the US consumer spends $6 billion on Halloween paraphenalia for just that holiday alone. So maybe it's not that much after all!

In a perfect world it would be better if they took the possible sign from the voters (who are kind of evenly split popular vote wise) that working together is what's actually needed, what's perhaps wanted by the moderate central block (outwith the more vocal extremes on both sides) and not to continue the polarised partisanship that often appears (from afar I acknowledge) essentially just to lead to not getting anywhere on issues.

martok2112 11-07-2012 10:45 AM

Once upon a time, I used to believe in "USA, land of the free, home of the brave."

Now it's just "USA, surviving four years at a time!"

horatio 11-07-2012 11:15 AM

After Citizens United corporate influence upon public life increased even more than it has in the past and this campaign has not been spared by it.
About the POTUS, his administration has intensified the war in Pakistan, killing mainly civilians and low-level Al Qaeda members, he has not closed Guantanamo Bay (which has mainly symbolic value and would not have implied that all the other torture prisons are closed!), Habeas corpus has not not restored, this administration has been as opposed to whistleblowers as perhaps no previous one, the extra-judicial killings violate the very basic democratic principle of separation of powers and last but not least giant deficit spending (we are still in a liquidity trap, i.e. conventional monetary policy is ineffective ... which does not imply that the Fed should not have bought up crappy assets as reducing private debt is quintessential) has not being implemented in the name of bi-partisanship and centrism. Lawrence Summers, Chrissy Romer, all the good economists left Team Obama for a good reason.
So yeah, as a German chancellor once said, entscheidend ist was hinten rauskommt, all that matters is the output and this administration has not dealt adequately with the Great Recession (although it has done far better than we austerity-crazy Europeans) and in terms of foreign policy and authoritarian post 9/11 trends it is probably worse than the previous one. I do not think that the change people had in mind four years ago has been that their president can carry around secret kill lists and execute them if he wishes to.

All this doesn't imply that I might not have voted for Obama if I were an American citizen but I cannot stand these pseudo-progressive upper middle class fu*ks who think that Obama is a great president just because he gives nice speeches or because he is for gay rights or whatever. It is extremely decadent to care about abortion or gay rights or other ideology-intense BS during the worst recession since the thirties and the emergence of extreme weather like Sandy.

I also like to emphasize that a focus upon the issues I mentioned in the first paragraph reveals that the difference between the two main parties is not as large as they wanna make us believe (anybody remember how presidential debates worked in the seventies, with an independent organization running these debates, without a bi-party monopoly, with third-party candidates and thus more political competition?) and I also like to point out that the most important issues of our time are systemic ones and to a large degree beyond the influence of one president or one administration.
Let us not forget that making an X on election day is one but not the only duty of a democratic citizen. Our job is not to vote the best guy into office but to force whoever is in office to listen to us between the two election dates. To quote FDR: "I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it."

omegaman 11-07-2012 11:31 AM

From what I've heard unless the US political system gets it act together for the good of the country then come January 2013 the country will be back in recession and the world soon after.

Akula2ssn 11-07-2012 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kevin (Post 327138)
In a perfect world it would be better if they took the possible sign from the voters (who are kind of evenly split popular vote wise) that working together is what's actually needed, what's perhaps wanted by the moderate central block (outwith the more vocal extremes on both sides) and not to continue the polarised partisanship that often appears (from afar I acknowledge) essentially just to lead to not getting anywhere on issues.

The thing is that I believe that the political parties actually thrive on the polarization of the population. By creating a polarizing atmosphere both sides obtain a concrete base upon which they can rely upon to support them. After that it just becomes a game of trying to out maneuver to other side to gain some kind of majority each election season, but even if they fail to gain that majority, they still have that large enough base to fall back upon so that even as a "minority" they still have enough numbers to cause problems for the majority. Both side can then just claim to do what they do out of "principle" to placate to their bases. Quite reminiscent of the trench warfare of WWI which resulted in countless lives lost for little more than a stalemate. The saying that "War is politics with bloodshed, and politics is war without bloodshed," is quite apt here because of how polarized it has become.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlC6mUnN6uM

This sums up most of my sentiments, especially the closing statements.

Quote:

Originally Posted by horatio (Post 327143)
After Citizens United corporate influence upon public life increased even more than it has in the past and this campaign has not been spared by it.
About the POTUS, his administration has intensified the war in Pakistan, killing mainly civilians and low-level Al Qaeda members, he has not closed Guantanamo Bay (which has mainly symbolic value and would not have implied that all the other torture prisons are closed!), Habeas corpus has not not restored, this administration has been as opposed to whistleblowers as perhaps no previous one, the extra-judicial killings violate the very basic democratic principle of separation of powers and last but not least giant deficit spending (we are still in a liquidity trap, i.e. conventional monetary policy is ineffective ... which does not imply that the Fed should not have bought up crappy assets as reducing private debt is quintessential) has not being implemented in the name of bi-partisanship and centrism. Lawrence Summers, Chrissy Romer, all the good economists left Team Obama for a good reason.
So yeah, as a German chancellor once said, entscheidend ist was hinten rauskommt, all that matters is the output and this administration has not dealt adequately with the Great Recession (although it has done far better than we austerity-crazy Europeans) and in terms of foreign policy and authoritarian post 9/11 trends it is probably worse than the previous one. I do not think that the change people had in mind four years ago has been that their president can carry around secret kill lists and execute them if he wishes to.

All this doesn't imply that I might not have voted for Obama if I were an American citizen but I cannot stand these pseudo-progressive upper middle class fu*ks who think that Obama is a great president just because he gives nice speeches or because he is for gay rights or whatever. It is extremely decadent to care about abortion or gay rights or other ideology-intense BS during the worst recession since the thirties and the emergence of extreme weather like Sandy.

I also like to emphasize that a focus upon the issues I mentioned in the first paragraph reveals that the difference between the two main parties is not as large as they wanna make us believe (anybody remember how presidential debates worked in the seventies, with an independent organization running these debates, without a bi-party monopoly, with third-party candidates and thus more political competition?) and I also like to point out that the most important issues of our time are systemic ones and to a large degree beyond the influence of one president or one administration.
Let us not forget that making an X on election day is one but not the only duty of a democratic citizen. Our job is not to vote the best guy into office but to force whoever is in office to listen to us between the two election dates. To quote FDR: "I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it."

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

EXACTLY

kevin 11-07-2012 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akula2ssn (Post 327146)
The thing is that I believe that the political parties actually thrive on the polarization of the population. By creating a polarizing atmosphere both sides obtain a concrete base upon which they can rely upon to support them. After that it just becomes a game of trying to out maneuver to other side to gain some kind of majority each election season, but even if they fail to gain that majority, they still have that large enough base to fall back upon so that even as a "minority" they still have enough numbers to cause problems for the majority. Both side can then just claim to do what they do out of "principle" to placate to their bases. Quite reminiscent of the trench warfare of WWI which resulted in countless lives lost for little more than a stalemate. The saying that "War is politics with bloodshed, and politics is war without bloodshed," is quite apt here because of how polarized it has become.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlC6mUnN6uM

This sums up most of my sentiments, especially the closing statements.

I don't entirely disagree with you, I think the polarisation in reality isn't going to go away but intransigence on both sides ultimately isn't going to fix the external systemic issues alluded to elsewhere that are beyond the traditional stances of both sides. That's how it will need to be overcome unless the people give one side a clear mandate.

Which, they haven't done here.

I tend to not believe so many voted for Obama because they ALL thought he was doing so great (some will of course, as well as those who will think he's been disastrous) but I wonder if enough simply felt that circumstances even he couldn't fully control in the last few years meant they were willing to give him that second term to try and deliver. There's obviously a lot of thoughts as to why things went as they did but it's probably more complex than they think he's great because of the many reasons why one individual may have voted they way they did. For instance, one pundit I watched pointed out the claim that in the US and for women voters especially, abortion is still one of the main topics they consider important. Issues like that remain fundamental for a section of the voting group. So, a candidate's stance there could sway them in the 'lesser of two evil's' direction. That is their right as individual voters to prioritise the issues that matter to them of course. But it's a sign that in election terms there's obviously a lot of issues fight for control. I don't know if it's correct but some claims from exit polling were supposed to have suggested that while the economy was the biggest issue singularly, the deficit issue was lower down their list of concerns.

It all gets quite fascinating and easy to ramble over though. Anyways, it's over now until the midterms. I've heard some fairly mixed things about 'Newsroom' though I haven't seen any episodes in full.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:37 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.