Obama: ‘You get the politicians you deserve’

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jkcerda, May 9, 2017.

  1. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #1
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/obama-get-politicians-deserve-135736065.html
    OMG, I feel so dirty for agreeing with him.
    then again he was the clown who was against war before he was for it.
    http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/23/politics/countries-obama-bombed/
     
  2. ibookg409 Suspended

    ibookg409

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2016
    Location:
    Portsmouth, NH
    #2
    I thought he was "present" for war before he was against it.
    --- Post Merged, May 9, 2017 ---
    “The mark of a good leader is somebody who is able to empower other people,” Obama said. “So often we think of leadership as somebody at the top who is ordering other people around … but it turns out, for me at least, what made me understand leadership was when I could see somebody who thought they didn’t have a voice, thought they didn’t have influence or didn’t have power, and teach them how to speak up on the things that were affecting their lives.” Obama.

    This from the guy who spent millions in 2016 fighting FOIA requests to silence the voice of the people. What a pig.
     
  3. poloponies Suspended

    Joined:
    May 3, 2010
    #3
    Jeez, he's just paraphrasing a quote from Joseph de Maistre from 300 years ago, roughly "Every nation gets the government it deserves."

    And it's hard to argue with him. We live among idiots.
     
  4. Zenithal macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
  5. fitshaced macrumors 68000

    fitshaced

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2011
    #5
    I've never agreed with this. People have little to no input into policy as they get played by all politicians. Vote for someone who shouts for something you want, they fold to the highest bidder and change their mind. People don't get to choose theor government, just the bobbing heads that make it up.

    We can't blame those who didn't vote on empty promises or corruption. We can't even blame Trump supporters for electing Trump. They were most likely just completely against Clinton and didn't have a likely alternative that would keep her out.

    Democracy seems to divide more than include. A divided country can't 'get the government they deserve' when they only have a choice between A or B. A country deserves the right to not vote and encourage real change.
     
  6. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #6
    And people who can't choose a proper candidate to run.
     
  7. jpietrzak8 macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #7
    Yeah, it's just terrible that the American citizens are not allowed to vote in primaries -- you know, those events held before the general election, where political parties do the actual work of choosing between myriad different options for who will represent their party. ;)

    Come on, man, if you're a citizen of the United States, did you never have a civics lesson in school? Yes, in the general election, you only have choices between the representatives of each party. Which is why the real work is done long before the general election, when those representatives are actually chosen. I don't know why, but it seems like most folks in this country prefer not to participate in the primaries, and only think about voting during the general election. :(

    People who have little or no input can only blame themselves!
     
  8. Gutwrench Suspended

    Gutwrench

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
  9. v0lume4 macrumors 68000

    v0lume4

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    #9
    What an entitled way of wording that, Barack. Please, tell me more from your high throne of apt judgement as to what I, and all the citizens of this country, deserve. Here's a different phrase, "You get the politicians you vote for." In my case, he'd be right!

    Here's an excerpt from a book I started the other day (Unscripted by MJ DeMarco). On the topic of the government:

    The battlefront for this high-stakes game plays out in a political duopoly that feigns citizen representation. One party promises freebies; the other promises freedom--but neither can be trusted. The joke's on you. No matter the promises, your vote is merely symbolic in determining where power shifts and consolidates among special interests and oligarchs.

    It's a notion that I agree with, which is why I thought, hey, I'd at least rather take a chance on this guy that isn't from the Washington gang than someone who is.
     
  10. RootBeerMan macrumors 6502

    RootBeerMan

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    #10
    He's definitely not wrong. Look at the cronyism and corruption in DC and state capitols around the country then look at the rate of reelection for incumbents. It becomes painfully obvious that the electorate thrives on sadistic masochism. They keep putting the worst of our population back in office and then complain about it. Barrack, like many other that are out there just happened to state a truth. He is also one of those politicians about whom he speaks.
     
  11. Thomas Veil, May 9, 2017
    Last edited: May 9, 2017

    Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #11
    And the very real possibility that he might be worse than those alternatives never entered your mind?

    Edit: By the way -- not pointing at v0lume4 specifically-- I'm getting tired of people complaining that all of Washington is just a game in both parties are equally useless and corrupt. It's the excuse people give for not voting; it's the excuse people give for not caring; it's the excuse people give for electing lunatics. And it's bull****.

    There are good people in Washington, but they are swimming against a ****ing riptide. The reason they're outnumbered by idiots is we keep electing those idiots -- Trump foremost among them.

    Which brings us right around to the point Barack was making.
     
  12. v0lume4 macrumors 68000

    v0lume4

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    #12
    Yes. I almost voted for Ted Cruz during the primaries, but then went with my original gut choice. I was/am sick and tired of the status quo on both sides of the aisle and thought maybe, just maybe, this guy [Trump] can shake things up. And frankly that is still to be determined. It isn't for me or you to say how things will go right now (unless either of us has a magic crystal ball; I don't! :p), so this isn't really a conversation that we will be informed about for 3-4 years (end of Trumps current term). But I absolutely hope for the best. As should we all.

    edit -- Witty signature. :p
     
  13. dogslobber macrumors 68030

    dogslobber

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2014
    Location:
    Apple Campus, Cupertino CA
  14. Chew Toy McCoy macrumors regular

    Chew Toy McCoy

    Joined:
    May 13, 2016
    #14
    I'm not sure when the Democrats became the "It's all your fault. Yes, you specifically." party but it did happen and I don't like it. To them you should be too busy trying to improve yourself to worry about their corruption and moving the success goal posts out of your reach.
     
  15. fitshaced macrumors 68000

    fitshaced

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2011
    #15
    Way to miss the point. It doesn't matter who you vote for in the primaries or in the election, you get someone who doesn't represent you.

    Not voting actually does more than voting and supporting a system where you are not represented.

    Plus, when a majority vote for someone who doesn't even win, what is the point in voting at all?
     
  16. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #16
    Thank you.

    I do agree that the status quo has to go. That is axiomatic at this point. I think a lot of the frustration everyone feels is we can't agree on what to replace it with.
     
  17. jpietrzak8 macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #17
    Hmm. So, I'm guessing you've never put your own name forward during the primaries? Both of the major parties seem desperate to find good candidates for all sorts of offices across the land -- I don't see why people choose not to participate in government, and then constantly complain that their government doesn't represent them.

    Again, this is not missing the point, this is the point -- the United States government is exactly as representative as its people desire it to be. The people who are truly interested in government are the ones running the government. If you can't stand the way this country is run, why are you not participating in running it?

    Way to miss the point. It sounds like you're peeved about the general election process. But everything is pretty much settled by the time you reach that point! If you don't choose to participate in the primary mechanism, where there are often dozens of candidates competing for each position, then yes, you've already missed the real action.

    The presidential candidates in last year's general election both enjoyed enormous support during the primaries. And so, they were the choices offered in the general election. The people who participated did get the candidates they wanted!

    The electoral college is, indeed, a byzantine structure that defies all logic. ;) But man, it isn't that far off; Trump was the favorite for a whole lot of people across a whole lot of the country. And other offices (congressional, state, and local) tend to be much more straightforward.

    Again, there are lots and lots of people who got exactly the representation they wanted. Again, particularly the people who voted in the primaries, and those are the people who really count.
     
  18. fitshaced macrumors 68000

    fitshaced

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2011
    #18
    Just to clarify (as you seem to have arrived at some unqualified assumptions), I'm not American but I do vote. But when I vote I support a system that does not give me my say. It just gives me a chance to say yes or no to certain individuals who turn their back on those who elected them (probably before a single vote is cast). Our system and your system do not work. They just empower the already powerful.

    If Sanders was up against Trump, do you think Sanders would have won? I do. Obviously that's only my opinion but when it seems many Trump voters who simply anti-Clinton it seems likely. If Sanders got the same level of financial backing as any other candidate, I think he would have won. And if that is true, how can it simply be about getting what you deserve? You got what lobbyists wanted you to get.

    And way to go on talking down the majority vote, just because you think it wasn't by much. If it was that close it could have triggered a recount. It wasn't that close but even still, it was a case of biggest prize going to second place.
     
  19. jpietrzak8 macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #19
    Can I ask, have you ever tried talking to those officials? This may not be an option for an office like president of the United States, but local officials around where I live just love to talk to people. The people who win local elections tend to be the ones who have stumped around the area, holding meetings, going door-to-door. And when they do something unpopular, they get earfuls about it.

    At least, from the people who choose to participate.

    Sometimes I think the American system gives people too much say in how their government works. ;) The people who live in my area of the country seem simply delighted that a man like Trump got elected to the office.

    ABSOLUTELY NOT! Sure, Clinton had a lot of folks against her in this region, but she was still a fairly standard Democratic candidate, and received plenty of support from the usual Democratic base in this area (limited though it may be). Sanders, a Leftie Socialist from the East Coast? He would never have gotten out of the starting gate anywhere here in the Midwest. Not. A. Chance.

    Ah, perhaps you really didn't keep a close watch on the campaign last year. In particular, this was the campaign where an outsider (Sanders) raised more money for his primary campaign than the presumptive nominee (Clinton):

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/21/politics/2016-bernie-sanders-fundraising-hillary-clinton/

    Well, ok, you've got me there. I can find no good rationale to defend the Electoral College mechanism; it was a bad idea when it was first implemented, and is a terrible idea today...
     
  20. fitshaced macrumors 68000

    fitshaced

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2011
    #20
    Yes, I've spoken to local representatives in my electorate and they have a very well rehearsed script on federal policies and how bad the opposition are. It's really no different in any democracy. Where there is no attempt for governments and opposition to governments to find common ground or to see the good in either side, we only end up with playground politics. It's all about winning and winning again. Trump was obviously the most vocal in that regard.

    Sanders could have beaten Trump if the purpose of Trump was to shake up a rigid and flat system with a hand grenade. No-one knows what the outcome would be but the idea of Trump being elected 12 months ago was simply laughable.

    I guess Sanders wasn't heavily lobbied like Clinton or others. The donations he received were not big gifts of cash but smaller donations.

    The electoral college was actually what could have saved the shambles of a democracy in the last election. But it is just another example of why that system needs to change. For a President, a majority vote should win. That means any individual vote is exactly equal to any other. Even if it means New York City get a much larger say in an election than a city of similar size in land mass but much smaller population.
     
  21. unlinked macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2010
    Location:
    Ireland
    #21
    Tis true. Look at the way 6 states flipped from 2012 because voters didn't think another Democratic president was going to help people like them. If they had continued to vote D they deserve to get more of the same policies.
     
  22. Solomani macrumors 68040

    Solomani

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2012
    Location:
    Alberto, Canado
    #22
    Hard to argue with Obama. After all, the USA elected someone with the same (Reality TV) credentials as the Kardashians.
     
  23. ibookg409 Suspended

    ibookg409

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2016
    Location:
    Portsmouth, NH
    #23
    I always found it hard to argue with Obama because I didn't want the IRS loosed on me; to be detained indefinitely; or have a drone extrajudicially "rule on me".
     
  24. daflake macrumors 6502a

    daflake

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2008
    #24
    We are, in a sense, reaping what we sow. Why would anyone with a sane mind want to run for any position in our government when we have "the people" waiting there to tear them apart and strip what little dignity they may have away. We air all their dirty laudry and then wonder why many of them become bitter.
     
  25. s2mikey macrumors 68020

    s2mikey

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2013
    Location:
    Upstate, NY
    #25
    Absolutely, positively. Drives me crazy to hear things like this. Same for "If you dont vote you cant complian". The HELL I cant. What are actually voting for? For most people they are voting against a certain indivudual rather than for someone. Lesser of two evils type of thing.
     

Share This Page