Obama picks Rick Warren to give invocation

[George]

I still stand by my dogma of realism, whereby I voted for Obama rather than a more radical third party candidate. The lesser of two evils in a two-party system is always the best choice.

Really? I think the American people need to be shaken out of this left-right paradigm and see that the two parties are just two sides of the same coin. Pawns to a corporate and global elite.

Dakryn has the right idea.

 

[Zephyrus]

Really? I think the American people need to be shaken out of this left-right paradigm and see that the two parties are just two sides of the same coin. Pawns to a corporate and global elite.

Dakryn has the right idea.

Again. Not enough people are going to subscribe to the anti-two-party-system idea to effect any paradigm shift.

 

[skeptik]

Those who think that the two major parties are identical are just as much tools as those who think they're worlds apart. This is seriously annoying. There are obvious and highly important pragmatic differences between a potential Obama administration with a democratic Congress and a potential McCain administration with a republican Congress, or even with mixed Congresses, and it expends far beyond mere policy. Even Chomsky admitted to a degree of pragmatism in conceding that it would have been better to vote for Kerry in a contentious state than Nader, because he knows better than to throw pragmatism out the window for full-fledged idealism when it means shooting the present in the foot.

 

[Ender Rises]

Again. Not enough people are going to subscribe to the anti-two-party-system idea to effect any paradigm shift.

.

 

[Death Aflame]

Those who think that the two major parties are identical are just as much tools as those who think they're worlds apart. This is seriously annoying. There are obvious and highly important pragmatic differences between a potential Obama administration with a democratic Congress and a potential McCain administration with a republican Congress, or even with mixed Congresses, and it expends far beyond mere policy. Even Chomsky admitted to a degree of pragmatism in conceding that it would have been better to vote for Kerry in a contentious state than Nader, because he knows better than to throw pragmatism out the window for full-fledged idealism when it means shooting the present in the foot.

He also recognizes that there are differences between the two parties. However, to say that they reflect anything close to the political views of the 300 million Americans is ridiculous (not that you said that, I am speaking generally here).

I think the two sides of the same coin analogy is apt, since, while there are obvious differences as you point out, at the end of the day each major political party is more or less two different arms of the business party, who principally represent the views of the elite and little more.

 

[Death Aflame]

Again. Not enough people are going to subscribe to the anti-two-party-system idea to effect any paradigm shift.

It's kind of tough too when the thoughts and ideas of the people are more or less controlled by the hegemonic media.

 

[Ender Rises]

Go suck a dick and shut the fuck up, none of us are interested in anarchism. God damn.

 

[skeptik]

I think the two sides of the same coin analogy is apt, since, while there are obvious differences as you point out, at the end of the day each major political party is more or less two different arms of the business party, who principally represent the views of the elite and little more.

Ignoring the pejorative language, do you not think this is pretty apt given the global society that we have no choice but to dwell in? Obviously there are problems, but these are problems in practice, not necessarily in theory. All theories are subject to corruption, and will pretty much inevitably be corrupted.

 

[Death Aflame]

Go suck a dick and shut the fuck up, none of us are interested in anarchism. God damn.

No one says you have to read my posts. And besides, when and where was anarchism brought up in this thread? You act as if criticizing Obama's administrative choices is personally affecting the quality of your own life. Go eat a bag of dicks you fucking tool.

 

[Ender Rises]

To continue where Dodens left off, the solution to this corruption isn't to throw the theory out the window. The solution is to demand a higher standard in our politics, and to convince more people to become involved. If this fails to work, and our leaders continue to be a bunch of idiots, America, in it's current weakened stance, will fall, and hopefully rise again with a similar system and Constitution. Very very few countries make it as long as we have without a metaphorical forest fire to clear out the waste and bullshit, and we're pretty fucking due.

 

[Death Aflame]

Ignoring the pejorative language, do you not think this is pretty apt given the global society that we have no choice but to dwell in? Obviously there are problems, but these are problems in practice, not necessarily in theory. All theories are subject to corruption, and will pretty much inevitably be corrupted.

I agree that voting for Obama in this election, if one decided to vote at all (another issue entirely), was generally the best thing that one could do in this case if only to keep Bush's bosom buddy out of power.

However, this doesn't mean we should not be critical of who Obama chooses for his administration as these choices are key in terms of determining how our (I mean the West's) world will look for the next 4 years.

Additionally, I would argue that people should not stop at voting--direct action needs to be upheld by popular movements to affect real change (not the corporate branded type).

 

[Ender Rises]

I'd rather wait and see what policy decisions he makes, what campaign promises he keeps, and what he does with the crises that always come up. I'm not going to rush to judgment and start criticizing and examining every move he does when all he's able to do is a small amount of political maneuvering.

 

[Zephyrus]

The best we can hope for is a gradual shift of successive anti-conservative platforms. As we move forward, what was presently considered liberal would then be considered more conservative, so we keep pushing the bar forward (this has been the trend throughout the history of the US). It's unrealistic to hope that the next administration will usher in a radical shift. Rather we should hope that the standards set by the current administration will continue to be challenged, and so long as that zeal for challenge has enough popular support (as was the case in this election) we can anticipate eventual furtherance towards what we consider a just society.

 

[skeptik]

The best we can hope for is a gradual shift of successive anti-conservative platforms. As we move forward, what was presently considered liberal would then be considered more conservative, so we keep pushing the bar forward (this has been the trend throughout the history of the US). It's unrealistic to hope that the next administration will usher in a radical shift. Rather we should hope that the standards set by the current administration will continue to be challenged, and so long as that zeal for challenge has enough popular support (as was the case in this election) we can anticipate eventual furtherance towards what we consider a just society.

This. I view Obama as merely as step in the right direction, or at least not another step backward.

 

[Death Aflame]

I'd rather wait and see what policy decisions he makes, what campaign promises he keeps, and what he does with the crises that always come up. I'm not going to rush to judgment and start criticizing and examining every move he does when all he's able to do is a small amount of political maneuvering.

Don't you think you should at least be aware of the history of the people he (that is, not the people) is putting into power? All I was trying to do was bring this to people's attention since it will rarely be discussed in the mainstream media.

edit: Zeph it seems you and I differ in our politics because I think it is far more sensible to get active directly than to merely sit on our hands *hoping* whatever vanguard is in power begins to move in the right direction.

For instance, the bill that bans gay marriage (prop 9? not entirely sure what it is called) should be actively demonstrated against, and people should not just sit around waiting for those in power to do the "right thing".

This. I view Obama as merely as step in the right direction, or at least not another step backward.

At least you are sober-minded about it, which is much more than can be said about a lot of Obama supporters indoctrinated by such meaningless propaganda as 'hope', 'change', etc.

 

[Zephyrus]

edit: Zeph it seems you and I differ in our politics because I think it is far more sensible to get active directly than to merely sit on our hands *hoping* whatever vanguard is in power begins to move in the right direction.

For instance, the bill that bans gay marriage (prop 9? not entirely sure what it is called) should be actively demonstrated against, and people should not just sit around waiting for those in power to do the "right thing".

Because these are minor parts of a comprehensive "liberal" paradigm. A realist like myself accepts that milestones such as gay marriage and abortion rights come little by little, rather than one giant shift. Again, this has been the historical trend, that shifts in the zeitgeist are gradual, and only appear large in retrospect, when in fact they are the accumulation of gradual shifts.

For example, look at the shift from considering black people as slaves to considering them as equal to white people. It took OVER A CENTURY. And if you examine the movements and legislation accompanying the process between the abolition of slavery and the legalization of racial equality, it is IN FACT the sum of lesser legislations that furthered equality, not all at once, but little by little.

Realism is like evolution. Those who don't believe in it only do so because they don't realize that minor changes add up to huge changes in the long term.

 

[Death Aflame]

So what exactly are saying with regard to active participation (beyond voting)?

Edit: I suppose I should assume that you would be in favor of it because popular movements have had a huge impact on things like racial equality in the past.

 

[Ender Rises]

Prop 8 (gay marriage ban in Cali) is being protested against. I can remember three separate demonstrations that I read about.

 

[Death Aflame]

Prop 8 (gay marriage ban in Cali) is being protested against. I can remember three separate demonstrations that I read about.

I am well aware of this (and I was not trying to imply that people aren't demonstrating against it), I was merely indicating that as many people who can, should show their support by joining the movement, instead of sitting at home wasting their time watching reality tv (yay for another generalization of American culture).

 

[Zephyrus]

So what exactly are saying with regard to active participation (beyond voting)?

That the entire fucking span of history has PROVEN that paradigms shift gradually. It's that simple. There will always be radicals and/or idealists such as yourself presenting the pressure toward a more liberal society. But rather than presenting an immediate option to convert an international superpower, it's this pressure that keeps the MAJORITY moderates voting for the more liberal of two candidates in a two-party system.

The reason we have a two-party system is that the simplest choice a person can make is between TWO options. Most people are apprehensive to radical change, either that they prefer to maintain the status quo (conservative) or make a small shift (liberal), which if it goes wrong will be easier to reverse. That will always be the case.