Loading...
Welcome to Anarcho-Punk.net community ! Please register or login to participate in the forums.   Ⓐ//Ⓔ

Four more years of the same drone leader.

Discussion in 'General political debates' started by Harrison, Nov 7, 2012.

  1. Harrison

    HarrisonExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    187

    1

    2

    Nov 11, 2009
     
    So Obama won I guess. I reckon I don't really care either way except now that he's back I'm realizing how excited I was for a blatantly crazy capitalist regime under Romney. Like it would have been interesting to see Ryan try to take away people's contraception or just do crazy shit. People might have gotten angrier. Or would they of? Well one can hope. Obama keeps his shit more under the rug, which is honestly just no fun.
    At least I don't have to worry as much about my food stamps.
     

  2. nclpw

    nclpwExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    576

    0

    5

    May 25, 2012
     
  3. Spike one of many

    Spike one of manyExperienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    1,073

    4

    37

    Aug 14, 2012
     South Africa
    Thanks for posting the link. I's fucking hard to look at but I think everyone should check it out.
     
  4. nclpw

    nclpwExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    576

    0

    5

    May 25, 2012
     
    yeah, its really sick whats happening there.
     
  5. Harrison

    HarrisonExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    187

    1

    2

    Nov 11, 2009
     
    I hope Iran sends him another toy drone as a congratulation present.
     
  6. nclpw

    nclpwExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    576

    0

    5

    May 25, 2012
     
    Lovely. I also hope they follow russia and start curbing internet and later on ban sites about drugs or suicide. Also deploying national surveillance systems, legitimizing it by claiming it to be for the safety of people. Oh, that already happened.
    I honestly don`t see the difference between a totalitarian communist regime and this free market neo-liberal bullshit. North Korea is doing the same to their people, well not really comparable, but yeah.
    Brave new world, anyone? I don`t mean to sound like a conspiratist hippie and I know that Huxley most likely did not try to predict the future but its really happening isn`t it?

    And why on earth to people consider Obama left? Compared to the system here, he`s pretty far right.
     
  7. AgentOrange

    AgentOrangeExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    143

    0

    0

    Sep 28, 2010
     
    guess he's more left compared to the republican candidates.

    i'm curious what the republicans next candidate will be like, in four years.
    so, what they learned from romney could be that you cannot be president if you discriminate/offend women, immigrants, poor and coloured people THAT straight...

    is it true that all republicans possible candidates are just fucking dumb and hilarious? i'm from germany, and i'm not That interested in elections at all, but what i got over the least few years... bush? mccain? palin? romney? seriously?
    the demoncrats still managed to keep their candidates LOOK serious, but whatever...
     
  8. Shuei

    ShueiExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    532

    0

    0

    Jan 19, 2010
     
    My only conciliation is that he probably won't be able to do much, as the american system is really good at spreading the power so much that no one can get anything done. Not sure if it's really much of a comfort as things are bad enough already.

    You know, I really didn't want Romney to win, as it would be a disaster to homosexuals and women in the US, but I'm actually wondering if it would be better. We need a complete catastrophe so people can understand that they could do better... Their expectations aren't very high these days are they?

    Following the facebook updates about it is kind of scary though. People really think Obama is bringing peace?
     
  9. AgentOrange

    AgentOrangeExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    143

    0

    0

    Sep 28, 2010
     
    if peace means, no american soldier has to die, then yes, maybe he's bringing peace, replacing them with drones.... this is sick all the way. :ecouteurs:

    and america believes this shit...??
     
  10. Shuei

    ShueiExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    532

    0

    0

    Jan 19, 2010
     
    AgentOrange:
    Europeans believe that shit
     
  11. nclpw

    nclpwExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    576

    0

    5

    May 25, 2012
     
    Haha! Hey, I still haven't found a single European politician thats any smarter than the ones you mentioned now. In fact I think European politicians are worse, they're very good at covering up their lies and mistakes.

    Yeah Europeans believe that everything the UN deems ethical is in fact ethical, even when civilians are killed. Its funny how they don't even call it "war" anymore, its either "armed conflict" or "peace mission" depending on who were discussing. The last one being NATO of course.
     
  12. Harrison

    HarrisonExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    187

    1

    2

    Nov 11, 2009
     
    @Shuei/others (I'm still figuring out the quote system)

    Yeah that's how it could've gone methinks. First step to all out class warfare could have been R&R taking everyone's food stamps and contraception away (or something less dramatic). I was also interested to see if America would really prove its complete foolishness by electing a candidate that had no publicly known economic plan. Like nothing. No one had any grasp of what his economic plan could be. I would imagine that from a non-anarchist standpoint it's completely insane. It would have been borderline hysterical to watch. But yeah it would also have been horrid for homosexuals, womyn, and especially the poor. Possibly for everyone? We'll never know now.
    I can't wait to see who the parties pick next. Especially the Repubs. It's almost like a sitcom/wrestling match at this point, except that people halfway around the world die for it in large numbers.
     
  13. Shuei

    ShueiExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    532

    0

    0

    Jan 19, 2010
     
    ncipw:
    I think it's very much due to the way american politics is this huge media "circus" in some ways. When the politicians have to act like entertainers, they more often end up saying some silly things, and the politicians elected are very much the ones that can perform in the media.
    I'm not saying it isn't the same in Europe, but the amount of money put into voting campaigns etc. isn't as large, which makes for a lot of our politicians becoming more "serious" - as in, those good at covering it up and avoiding media conflicts.
    I don't know if that makes sense - all I'm saying is, that the media portrays the people behind the politics and makes "show" (think of all the talkshows etc. Obama has performed in), which ultimately, is great for capturing the masses, but might make them seem unserious in more politically trained circles...

    What you're saying is right, European politics is a huge contradiction. Preaching human rights and democracy while becoming less and less democratic and having institutions like the royal families that are complete opposites of human rights.
    We brag about our welfare and "humane" society, mocking americans for their "inhumane" systems - while we copy american politics more and more and sees welfare as a obstacle. It's contradiction on contradiction.

    Harrison:
    I see what you're saying... But really, people accepted Bush? I can't really come up with any way a president can fuck things up more, and sound less articulate and unintelligent... And still, the amount of people voting at the next election was record-high, as if people really believed in this system still.
     
  14. AgentOrange

    AgentOrangeExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    143

    0

    0

    Sep 28, 2010
     
    it's just that I'm really shocked every time i hear this plain bullshit blobbing out of a politicians mouth. here in europe, we are maybe not used to politicians telling people straight the truth about their aims, it's more about lying and doing it backstage. maybe the american demoncrats are doing it more european-style...
    i'm just asking myself everytime: are the reps just too dumb to hide their shit or are they just the most honest politicians available at the moment ( :ecouteurs: ...)? :/

    thats quite irritating... if your used to people lying to you and then... or are there just MORE ugly things the reps do additionally hide? well, this is absurd, anyway...
     
  15. AgentOrange

    AgentOrangeExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    143

    0

    0

    Sep 28, 2010
     
    edit: aww shit, double-posted...
     
  16. Shuei

    ShueiExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    532

    0

    0

    Jan 19, 2010
     
    I laughed. And I feel like a horrible human being for doing so.
     
  17. fubarista

    fubaristaExperienced Member Experienced member


    129

    0

    0

    Nov 13, 2011
     
    Harrison wrote, "At least I don't have to worry as much about my food stamps."

    You're kidding, right? As soon as he was reelected, Obama announced that with bipartisan Republican support, he was going to cut trillions of dollars from Medicare and Medicaid.

    You think he won't go after food stamps?

    I live in a senior building and we used to have a polling place here, but to make it easier to rig the elections, they promoted mail-in voting and eliminated a lot of polling places, so the nearest one is now about four blocks away. I saw a lot of senior citizens with mobility problems struggling to push their walkers or hobble with their canes to the polls so that they could vote for the guy who repaid them by promising to take away their medical benefits. No fool like an old fool, as the saying goes.

    I liked a Tweet I saw today by Guerilla Monk who said he wants to preemptively declare the day that Obama attacks Iran as National Punch-A-Liberal-In-the-Face Day. I'm nonviolent, but I retweeted it anyway. It was a pleasant thought, even if liberals are such idiots that they don't need any help in screwing themselves over.
     
  18. nclpw

    nclpwExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    576

    0

    5

    May 25, 2012
     
    Haha aw, we have our clowns too! Berlusconi and Sarkozy, not to mention some local and national politicians here. They're just not big enough to make it to international news.
    The leader of one of the right wing parties here has some really great ideas. She had this one to send immigrants(from all around the world) to Norwegian bases/camps in Africa where they could be controlled for diseases and have them examined by doctors and psychiatrists, and have their criminal records checked and THEN send their application for temporary citizenship(? no idea what its called) to the directorate of immigration. Apparently this method is cheaper than having them here.
    (HAHA there is a review of the directorate on yelp. Four stars?! Hardly).

    Haha yeah, the EU is really good at not telling anyone anything. I wonder how the hell they've gotten away with it for so long btw.
    But yeah you're right, the politicians here(the successful ones anyway) put a lot of work in their facades.
     
  19. nclpw

    nclpwExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    576

    0

    5

    May 25, 2012
     
    aaaaaaaah demoncrats. i just noticed that one. haha
     
  20. fubarista

    fubaristaExperienced Member Experienced member


    129

    0

    0

    Nov 13, 2011
     
    There's an old book by the late Walter Karp explaining how the two-party system in the US keeps its iron lock on US politics. It's called Indispensable Enemies.

    The job of the Rethuglicans according to Karp, is to represent the far right.

    The job of the Demoncrats is to co-opt the left so that there can't be any effective opposition to the far right.

    When they want the US public to vote for one of their candidates, the party that candidate belongs to will hire the best PR experts to give that candidate the necessary gloss, and the other party will nominate the most disgusting candidate they can find, to make the other party's candidate look better.

    Of course since both parties are funded by the same corporate and military-industrial interests, it's just a good cop/bad cop game. And without proportional representation third parties don't have a chance. They're locked out of the mainstream media (owned by defense corporations) and locked out of debates. They can't get more than 1% of the votes anyway. But even if a third party candidate got 49% of the votes and a major party candidate got 50% of the votes, the loser wouldn't get a single seat in Congress. It's winner-take-all in the US. Beyond that, the votes don't have to be counted, the elections are rigged, the results aren't verifiable, and there are at least a hundred critical problems with the US electoral system, such as gerrymandered districts, the Electoral College, that the official in charge of a state's elections can be the chair of one of the candidate's campaigns, that candidates can own the corporation that makes and programs the voting machines that will "count" the votes for their election, etc., etc., etc. According to California law, an election official may violate any election code or law they want with impunity, if they simply state that they felt that they had to do so in order to hold the election. The courts can't question their judgment. With federal elections, the US Constitution made Congress the sole judge of the "elections, returns, and qualifications" of their members (Article I, Section 5). The Federalists who wrote the Constitution wanted to ensure that the popular vote wasn't the final say, so that those who owned the country would always rule the country, and they established an electoral system specifically designed for that purpose.

    But apart from anarchists, about half the electorate continues to vote. Most consider it their civic duty, feel that voting makes them politically involved, and believe that their uncounted votes are their voice in government. Many immigrants are afraid not to vote. One woman who only became a citizen a few years ago, told me that she feared that if she didn't vote, the government might hold it against her and might not let her return the next time she went to visit her family in her native country. The pressure to vote is intense, with billions of dollars being spent to get out the vote and many selfish issues being put on the ballot. For example, how many innocent people in other countries are you willing to drone bomb in return for legal pot, marriage equality, reproductive rights, or GMO labeling here? Not that there's any guarantee that the federal government will respect such laws if they pass, or that the Supreme Court won't strike them down. But they do help get out the vote. And then there's the reverse psychology ploy of voter suppression: the same people who spend billions getting out the vote, spend a few million on Voter ID laws and other voter suppression tactics, to make people think that their votes must be valuable because somebody is trying to take them away.

    I do think that the Election Boycott Movement here is gaining ground, but probably much too slowly to be of any real use. Still, it's the only nonviolent way to delegitimize a government I know of, so I keep at it because violence against a military superpower that can claim to be democratically elected and therefore to be a legitimate government with the consent of the governed, is likely to fail, whereas once a government is seen as lacking the consent of the governed and not representing the will of the people, it loses its legitimacy, it's international credit rating is lowered, it can no longer pay its military and law enforcement agencies with a stable currency, and it becomes more vulnerable to change.

    The United States is a capitalist country, so most of the aging and unsafe nuclear power plants here won't be shut down before they melt down. It is profitable to keep them running and costly to decommission them. Once the string of meltdowns starts in the US, election turnout will decrease, not because fewer people want to vote, but because it is difficult for dying people to get to the polls. That's much too late, of course, but perhaps better late than never?
     
Loading...