Du ... Let me ask you a question ...

[1StrongBlackMan]

After watching this site devolve into high partisan madness, I pose this question:

How many of you would be willing to play a game of chess, where you cannot actually see the board; rather, you have to rely on someone, or another someone, that you have never met, to tell you the lay of the board.

Now layer into this challenge ... you know, whichever your choice of "advisor" (the person describing the board) has an interest in the out come of the game you are playing; but, if you are honest with yourself, you can actually hear that little voice in the back of your mind that is telling you that you really don't know the agenda of any of the "advisors" ... you only know what the respective "advisors", are telling you and how they present themselves.

Now for a final layer ... If you are honest with yourself, because of various inconsistencies, you sense that all of the advisors have misrepresented the board position (but not being able to see the board, you do not know how) and you recognize that each of the advisor have reason to misrepresent the board position.

How confident are you that you can "win" the game?

Isn't this the game we are all playing?"

As I watch this board (and several others) engage in back and forths, it came to me ... Why are we doing this? The most we can do (in this democracy) is vote for the person (party) that we trust the most and trust that they will use their actual view of the board to do the things we elected them to do.

[Link Speed]

1. KnR. Great analogy.

We are so far gone.

[Liberal_in_LA]

3. no we arent

[Liberal_in_LA]

2. we can do more than just vote, look at the women in texas,

We can be active participants. Your post is kind of chilling

[KittyWampus]

11. Well, this is a Representative Democracy. So we can try and persuade elected representatives

to do this or that. But when it comes to law/policy… we have the vote.

[1StrongBlackMan]

12. Actually ...

when it comes to laws/policy ... THEY have the vote.

[Herlong]

148. when it comes to laws/policy ... THEY have the vote we have the voice.

Last edited Thu Jul 4, 2013, 03:51 PM - Edit history (1)

Yes they do. We have and we have the drive. And we believe. And we fight. And we are Americans. Have you forgotten that! MLK? One strong black man. Just like Martin Luther King. Talking about how we CAN'T fight back. They have the power. We have the people.

[HiPointDem]

45. there is no representative government without a trustworthy information broker, and there is

no trustworthy information. in fact, there is quite a bit of evidence that the political establishment works hand in glove with media to confuse and misinform the public.

and there's certainly enough evidence to know that the same people own both the media and the politicians.

[2naSalit]

30. It is also knoqn as

a participatory government which requires us to participate in it. Problem I see is that our participation is not welcome according to our elected representatives... something really stinks in every domed house of the people in this nation at present and it's high time to clean up our houses.

[graham4anything]

4. That is why I trust President Obama 100%. He might not be right 100 out of 100, but he knows more

I do

and he is smarter than me

I in effect hired him with my vote, and I have no reason to take anyone elses view over his.

Especially when every other office holder or talking head or writer with an ulterior motive.

Everyone has an angle, so I will stick with my vote.

Haven't been wrong yet.

[leftstreet]

8. "and he is smarter than me"

Good God

[Whisp]

10. You spelled God wrong in an incomplete sentence with no period. n/t

[1StrongBlackMan]

16. I would wager that ...

President Obama IS in fact smarter than most of the population, including most of this board's membership.

And I will go out on a limb and admit that I believe he is even smarter than me. There is no harm in admitting that someone might be (probably is) smarter than you. It is only ego that would prevent such an admission.

[sigmasix]

42. dont you know? Intelligence is bad.

The message being repeated by right wing media is that we shouldn't trust intelligent people- any old white guy with a maverick attitude and republican "common sense" knows everything about anything. Self discipline and studying is for librul nazi commies. No one is smarter than the guy with the "truth" about the latest conspiracy theory.

[graham4anything]

52. Yes. Sigh, if only Adlai had won in 1952 and 1956 and not the ruthless military leader that did.

and they portrayed Adlai as an egghead, and made fun of his smarts (and the audacity, they made fun of his bald head too,
which was so ironic in that wasn't Ike (I do not like Ike) also was hairless, but most did not see him under his helmet, just
his military helmet and shiny metals.

And Ike gave us Nixon. and Nixon gave us Bush.

and fracture in the democratic party could lead the wheels on the bus to spin round and round back to Jeb Bush.

Ah, I do believe I will trust President Obama.

[HiPointDem]

48. another gag-inducing comment. i see no evidence that obama is 'smarter' than me or

most people.

and even if he is, so what? intelligence does not override democracy, nor does it = good government, nor does it mean that someone won't do awful things.

i'll wager the banksters that wrecked the economy are 'smart'.

[1StrongBlackMan]

59. Harvard Law ...

Editor of the Harvard Law Review; Efective Community Organizer; U.S. Senator; President of the United States, that has accomplished a hell of a lot, despite opposition from within and outside of his party ...

Nope, no evidence at all! Please!

True ... intelligence doesn't over-ride democracy ... and that probably explains why, everything that President Obama has done HAS BEEN within the letter of the law ... whether you agree with the law or not.

[HiPointDem]

79. you know who else was editor of harvard law review? phyllis schlafly's son andrew.

you know who else was an 'effective community organizer'? jim jones.

you know who else was a senator? joseph mccarthy.

you know who else was a president? george w. bush.

[October]

107. Yes, but none of the others were ALL of those things, I think is the point.

[HiPointDem]

122. why do those items = super-intelligence, i think is the point.

[1StrongBlackMan]

126. If for no other reason ...

the rarity of occurrence suggests something ... doesn't it?

[HiPointDem]

129. no. that barack obama became the first black president is simply a matter of timing. someone

would be first, he was there with backers when the party decided to run a black candidate (which itself was a product of political calculations). the rarity has nothing in particular to do with BO's specialness, it's a product of history.

as for people coming out of harvard law & becoming senators, presidents, whatever -- it happens often enough to fill the limited slots.

[1StrongBlackMan]

144. Do you really want to argue that? ...

Before you do, please read this OP: http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/12891/

Then, distinguish its sentiment from that you present ... both of which would have been repugnant on this site just a few short years ago.

[HiPointDem]

149. um, you can't tell the difference between "that BHO became the first black president is simply

simply a matter of timing. someone would be" and "Obama was given a pass — held to a lower standard — because of the color of his skin"?

nowhere have i claimed that obama is not as intelligent as any other politician, or that he is below par for politicians, or that he was given a pass because he was black. Nowhere have I claimed that he is some kind of 'affirmative action president,' or that he did not have achievements, or that he is "a small and small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job".

what i have claimed is that i see no evidence BHO is some kind of supersmart paragon, that i do not consider accomplishments like editor of harvard law review or being a senator evidence of supersmartness, and that i don't consider politicians as a class to be any smarter than the general population, and that even *if* BHO is supersmart, it doesn't matter.

That BHO is the first president to be black I consider an accident of history rather than evidence for his peculiar individual supersmartness, and by 'accident of history' i mean a product of the whole convoluted history of race in america.

That BHO was chosen by the party to be the first black candidate because of political considerations I take as a given, in the same way that the party chooses *every* candidate because of factors like their region, their resume, current political considerations, their backers, etc. And yes, their race, religion, gender, ethnicity, when those factors are important or contested in light of current political considerations.

What i perhaps should have made more explicit is that the whole concept of 'smartness' is one that i find highly suspect. what do people mean when they talk about it? IQ? (It's the bunk, IMO). Accomplishments? (No necessary connection to some special global intelligence, IMO). Education? (again, no necessary connection to some special global intelligence & highly biased by class & personality factors). Grades? (ditto).

In short, a politician's alleged 'smartness' is unprovable and irrelevant. My concern is with their actions & policies, and people going on about politicians' 'smartness' & how they are 'smarter' than the general population grates on my sensibilities; it smells of a whole host of undemocratic values.

[1StrongBlackMan]

171. Okay n/t

[October]

175. I was merely pointing it out...

because of your "comparisons" to others who held similar office.

[HiPointDem]

176. thing is though, those others also have other accomplishments. joe mccarthy for example, had

a law degree from marquette (not harvard but still a decent school) & was the youngest circuit judge in wisconsin history. he became a senator and for some years a very powerful one, admired by many people. i'm sure he was intelligent, i'm sure he had access to more inside information than i as a citizen did -- and so what? The policies he supported were *abhorrent*.

the claim that someone is intelligent isn't made in a vacuum typically, it's typically put forth to support some claim that power/ position/freedom from interference/respect/subservience is due. I mostly reject such claims; 'intelligence' is too nebulous a construct to justify them.

[1StrongBlackMan]

125. And your point? ...

We/I are/am talking about the "smarts"/intelligence of President Obama relative to the general population.

Further, as much as we like to have former President Bush as a dim bulb, I would hazard to guess that even he stacks up well against the general population.

[HiPointDem]

130. i doubt it. the general population is average, and so is the political establishment.

it's *you* who are touting harvard law review editor as some marker of super-intelligence. either it's not, or phyllis schafly's son is also 'super-intelligent'.

[1StrongBlackMan]

133. I don't know Schafly's son ...

so I cannot speak to his intelleigence; but if he got into Harvard Law and was Editor of the Review, then YES, I'd have to say he was/is "super-intelligent.

You do know that political orientation and even evilness/criminality and high intelligence are not mutually exclusive ... right?

[HiPointDem]

138. uhh gee knoew

[1StrongBlackMan]

142. There you go showing ...

your smartitudity again.

[treestar]

146. So maybe those people were smart too

It does not always mean they use it for good.

[HiPointDem]

150. maybe they were, which is why the meme of 'smartness' is completely beside the point.

[treestar]

71. Oh please. Obama is in the Oval Office. You are posting here.

He's smarter than you are. Good grief.

[HiPointDem]

74. george bush 1 & 2 were in the oval office too. being in the oval office doesn't mean someone

is 'smart'.

[treestar]

86. They were members of the privileged class

Obama is not.

We're talking about the first black president of Harvard Law Review, just for starters. Geez, he's smarter than you and everyone else on this board.

[HiPointDem]

96. his mother worked for usaid under tim geithner's dad. his grandmother was a bank president.

he was never the 'poor black son of a single mother' the PR made him out to be.

president of the harvard law review is an elected office, and being the first black president of the law review doesn't mean he's any smarter than any other president of the law review, like phyllis schlafly's son.

politicians aren't 'smarter' than other people. having specialized knowledge doesn't mean you're 'smarter,' it means you're better educated. rich & connected people generally are better educated than most people, but it has nothing to do with their 'smarts'.

[BumRushDaShow]

98. How the fuck was his mother and grandmother equivalent to something like the Bush family?

Where Madelyn basically went from Rosie-the-riveter to working odd jobs in restaurants, and eventually landing in a local bank where she worked her way up (during the days of affirmative action and Gloria Steinem and the ERA), to be one the first female VPs of a LOCAL bank. NOT some fucking CEO of Bank of America or JP Morgan. A little VP of a local bank.

So in order to jam your fucking square peg into a round hole, you exaggerate shit. There was nothing fucking "rich and connected" about the Dunhams or the Obamas.

But your preference is that women must remain barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen and blacks must shine their shoes in order to be considered "poor".

[HiPointDem]

119. bank of hawaii = not some local bank. i didn't say the dunhams were equivalent to the bushes.

and this is just garbage:

"women must remain barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen and blacks must shine their shoes in order to be considered "poor"."

i live in a poor neighborhood. i resent the falsification of barack obama's history for political points. he was *never* poor. never.

[treestar]

110. That's nothing compared to being a Bush.

Not even close.

And the disadvantage of blackness.

I have no problem betting his intelligence outflanks yours by miles. His mother had a doctorate herself and paid particular attention to his education.

[HiPointDem]

120. it's not about *me*. it's about the assumption that political leaders are 'smarter' than the people.

which is a conservative assumption.

in saying 'his mother had a doctorate' you seem to be confusing education with intelligence.

[treestar]

145. What?

You can't get a doctorate, or get into the program without intelligence. You can't take advantage of an education without intelligence.

[HiPointDem]

154. every human being has intelligence. academic intelligence is only one kind of intelligence & it's

a cultivated kind. anyone who is mentally normal can 'take advantage of education' given the right upbringing. a south american peasant probably won't do well in college. doesn't mean he's unintelligent, means he didn't grow up in a book culture around people who valued book culture.

and fundamentally, political intelligence isn't about book culture anyway, or education.

[Whisp]

159. just rolling in dough and applications for the Skull & bones.

yep.

jaysuz,

[HiPointDem]

160. straw man much? obama has been repeatedly painted as the poor black son of an unwed mother

who was on food stamps, a description that while true in the basic facts distorts the material reality of his family history. He and family were never poor in any actual real world sense. and in fact, were basically upper middle class.

a false picture was painted for political reasons.

[Whisp]

162. If that is what you are going to gripe about -

that Obama wasn't poor enough for your taste...

Well let me join in with others here and add another BULLSHIT!!

Freaking weak sauce, HPD.

[HiPointDem]

163. another straw man. i don't care whether he was poor or rich or working class, i care about

the manipulation of public perceptions and the way said manipulation serves to obscure connections (such as stanley dunham's relationship with obama's treasury nominee's father) that should be wide public knowledge.

you apparently don't. not that it comes as a surprise.

[Whisp]

164. And I don't care what you care about.

ODS takes another.

[HiPointDem]

165. and as i said, no surprise there. there's a whole lot you don't care about that most ordinary

people *do* care about.

[LanternWaste]

116. I'd imagine that petulantly denying the relative intelligence of another person

I'd imagine that petulantly denying the relative intelligence of another person doesn't make them any less intelligent either.

It simply indicates that someone has little control over their own petulance...

[HiPointDem]

121. projection.

[1StrongBlackMan]

75. Shhh ...

Don't destroy the illusion ... no, the delusion.

Like I said ... This ODS is off the charts.

[ecstatic]

143. " i see no evidence that obama is 'smarter' than me"

That statement alone should be all the evidence needed. One crucial element of intelligence is having a realistic sense of where you rank in terms of intelligence.

[HiPointDem]

155. 'or most people'. i don't privilege myself. intelligence is not a 'ranking'. but your statement

shows your essentially illiberal orientation, that you consider it so, that you consider people have their 'place' in this great ranking scheme, that 'intelligence' is a unitary header under which people can be ranked and placed.

[sabrina 1]

66. I would wager that he is not. I would wager that few politicians are smarter than the average

American. If they were, they would not be politicians. They would be Doctors, Nurses, Teachers, Construction Workers, Firemen etc.

I know college kids who are smarter than the average politician. Really smart people will not allow others to influence their decisions when they know they themselves are right. This president has reversed himself on so many issues that he was right about, stating that his 'expert advisers' have 'informed him' etc etc.

A perfect example was lifting the ban on Offshore Drilling, stating that it was 'old and that his advisers had informed him that today, Oil Rigs are 'perfectly safe and will not spill oil the way the old ones did'.

That was very foolish, His slam against those who fought for 30 years to protect our environment boasting about his 'expert advisers' came just 18 days before his advisers were proven to be so tragically wrong and proving that those who had fought to keep that ban in place, were the smarter ones.

No one is better than anyone else. Politicians are just people we entrust for a while with our affairs and to give them any more credit than that is to make a very big mistake.

[1StrongBlackMan]

68. BULLSHIT ...

First, I am talking specifically about President Obama, not the "average politician."

Secondly, I am not talking about "better", I said "smarter."

Lastly, no one, let alone a Black man in America, gets as accomplished/as many accomplishments as President Obama has without being smarter than the vast majority of the population, including the vast majority of members on this board and including myself.

[sabrina 1]

70. Bullshit yourself. Speak for yourself, don't presume to speak for others.

You insult the many people who have accomplished some incredible things, by presuming that to be a politician takes more intelligence than any other profession, when in fact, in many cases it takes a lot less. I'm not all that impressed with politicians period. Except for those few, and they are few in number, who have done more than just win elections.

[1StrongBlackMan]

72. Bullshit! ...

To acknowledge the obvious only insults those lying to themselves. It is not a leap to say that President Obama ... the man that has accomplished so much in his life ... is "smarter" than most.

Boy ... this ODS has gone off the charts.

[treestar]

88. Not impressing you is not a sign of lack of intelligence

Getting admitted to Harvard Law School is. Being on the Harvard Law Review is. Getting a book published is. There is no way a black man is elected POTUS without being incredibly smart.

[HiPointDem]

97. four words: mitt romney, harvard law.

malcolm x dropped out of school in jr. high.

politicians are not 'smarter' than ordinary people.

[treestar]

111. This one is.

Malcolm X was smarter than you are, too. Rmoney came from a privileged family.

[HiPointDem]

115. It's a conservative position to assume power is 'smarter'.

[1StrongBlackMan]

136. Do you now ...

wish to argue that Malcom X is smarter than the average DUer?

Your unwillingness to acknowledge the intelligence of President Obama is gonna lead you to some very uncomfortable places!

[HiPointDem]

137. i'm not a bit uncomfortable, as the whole issue of 'smartness' is a big freaking joke.

[1StrongBlackMan]

141. A joke ...

that you were quite serious in arguing ... until it took you (back) to the place where you would have to admit that a Black man is/was smarter than you.

Intellectual dishonesty hurts, doesn't it?

[HiPointDem]

151. it has nothing to do with him being black. it has to do with him being a politician and president.

i would say the same about clinton (either one) or any politician that was being touted for their alleged 'smartness'.

there is no intellectual dishonesty in my position. The intellectual dishonesty is in those who imply that a politician's alleged 'smartness' should make him or her immune to criticism from the public (who supposedly are not as 'smart' as said politician).

The intellectual dishonesty is from those who tell us to trust pols because after all they are so much fucking 'smarter' than we are. It's an illiberal, conservative and near-fascist position.

[1StrongBlackMan]

173. Okay

[HiPointDem]

153. it leads me to no uncomfortable places, as i do not have the problem of thinking black people

are unintelligent.

nor do i have the problem of thinking white people who go to harvard & attain high political office are superintelligent paragons who must be trusted & not criticized because they are superior to the general run of humanity. nor do i have that problem where black people, females, asians, indians, catholics, jews, or any other identity group is concerned.

[1StrongBlackMan]

174. okay

[Sheepshank]

113. ....poster tends to repeatedly talk in terms of anecdotals

and generalizations. Your response is to a poster who rarely posts in substatiated specifics.

No one is unsulting any group...except in the minds of those that love to manufacture generous poutrages on behalf of all sorts of "others".

It gets really silly once you recognize the MO of that poster.

[HiPointDem]

157. lol. anyone who's followed my posts knows better.

[Sheepshank]

178. you're so vain......

[HiPointDem]

179. not vain at all. anyone who has actually followed my posts knows that i post a great deal of hard

research supported by links to reputable sources, research i do myself that's generally more in-depth than what you find in the news.

In fact, i'm working on such a story as we speak and will post it tonight. it's about the surveillance state. you can look for it.

[Sheepshank]

181. You're so vain....You probably thought my post was about you

and you keep going. Seriously, don't you think it's funny?

[HiPointDem]

182. no, just an misreading. please do continue your regularly scheduled personal attacks.

[1StrongBlackMan]

135. Thank you ...

This thread is being to remind me of the Malcolm X query: "What do you call a Black Mississippi doctor?"

[Herlong]

147. What DO you call a Black Mississippi doctor?

I'm from Los Angeles. I'm not familiar with that.

[1StrongBlackMan]

170. "Ni@@er" n/t

[Herlong]

177. WOW

[1StrongBlackMan]

180. I can't believe that you've never heard that.

It expresses that no matter how smart or accomplished a Black man, there are those that will refuse to acknowledge it.

Now ... re-read this thread.

[JustAnotherGen]

134. Again - he is more intelligent than average

And this thread would be a good one to share with your daughter before she heads off to University this fall. Though - I hope she doesn't have to deal with the side long, "sniff - you only got in here because you are black" glances - I suspect she will.


Mainly from older people (Gen X and older).

This upcoming generation seems to understand that it comes down to grades and test scores (ironically so does our SCOTUS majority opinion) and those determine who gets in where. 22 years ago I shocked my History 104 class with the knowledge that I had won one of the University's Presidential scholarships, was not eligible for a Stafford Loan, received no income based financial aid (Pell), and aside from that $2500 a year scholarship paid full effin tuition.

That shock exist today - in the strangest of places.

But I have hope for the next generation.

[treestar]

87. I would wager you are wrong.

College kids always think they are smarter than everyone else. Then comes the real world.

[JustAnotherGen]

102. +1

I think both his intelligence and work ethic far exceed mine.

I would have quit a few years ago with a great big old, "Take this job and shove it!"

[tularetom]

103. I KNOW he's smarter than me and that used to make me happy

I was glad that such a responsible position was in the hands of someone who was smart enough to do the job properly. And I believed that this brilliant man had my best interests at heart.

Sadly, I no longer believe that he does. And, because I know that he's so smart, I'm even more concerned about the future than if he were a dolt like his predecessor.

[hfojvt]

169. he's certainly smart enough

to make himself rich (and perhaps powerful)

but whether he will ever use any of those smarts to benefit somebody like me is another question.

I have an MA in economics. The President does not. Does he know more about economics than I do? I have a degree in math, a Bad Attitude. Obama does not. Does he understand math and statistics as well as I do?

Lots of other people in this country have advanced degrees and are very knowledgeable in their fields. People have told me that I was pretty smart, and I was dumb enough to believe them, but I don't think I know more about medicine than the average doctor, or about dentistry than the average dentist or about wiring than the average electrician, or about plumbing than the average plumber, etc. So I think it is kinda hubris, or hero worship to declare that any one person is smarter than most of the country.

And even if he is smarter than me, what does that imply? That I am supposed to believe him when he says things which seem untrue to me? That I am supposed to trust and obey when he promotes and passes policies that benefit the top at the expense of those at the bottom?

[baldguy]

9. +1000

Of course, for Snowden's chauvinists that means you're a Nazi, and a Stalinist, and a fascist, and a totalitarian, etc, etc, etc,...

[Skittles]

27. you should NEVER trust a politician 100%

NEVER

[kas125]

43. I spent my younger years doing nothing more than watching the debates

and choosing which person to vote for. I really thought that I didn't have to be concerned about politics because there were much smarter people than me in charge. Then I started paying attention and saw that sometimes there are idiots in charge and that none of them will do anything for us unless we force them to do the right thing. Trusting that they're smarter or that they have our interests at heart is dangerous and it's usually not true.

[HiPointDem]

46. gag. i can't explain how gag-inducing those comments are without name-calling.

[Fire Walk With Me]

5. When everyone who runs for top office is an employee of the plutonomy

we must do something better. I believe in horizontal, participatory Democracy which does not rely upon leaders or representatives.

[1StrongBlackMan]

18. IOW ...

You believe in a system of governance that does not exist. And, I would guess ... given the size of the U.S., cannot exist.

[Fire Walk With Me]

54. I believe the Greeks utilized a form of participatory horizontal democracy at some point

in history, or experimented with it. Despite its flaws, the Occupy movement General Assembly settled organically upon this method. People's Assemblies are cropping up across the nations currently protesting in rejection of pathetic governments, such as Brazil. (Bulgaria have just toppled their government so let's see what they do.)

I believe in humanity. I believe that we have problems which must be solved. I believe we are capable of solving them, and that this is a form requiring establishment. I'm sick and fucking tired of being "governed" by corporate talking heads and plutonomists. The government has failed. Time for the will and voice of the people (which is the definition of the word "democracy&quot .

Edit: "Participatory" is the key word. If you don't engage (the equivalent of voting), you don't have a right to complain.

[Hekate]

55. That only works for very very small populations. Plus the ancient Greeks excluded most of it....

Democracy's terrific when you exclude the following:
All women
All children
All slaves
All those who don't own land/property

That narrows it down to a very small percentage of men who can argue their case all day and all night in the agora. They can think great thoughts like nobody's business.

Meanwhile, somebody else is getting the real work done and getting no credit for it.

Other than that, ancient Greek democracy was terrific.

[Fire Walk With Me]

56. Thanks for that but I believe =we can do it better= and include everyone.

All power to all people!

[1StrongBlackMan]

61. There you go again ...

using facts to explode romantic myth. You really do had to stop ... How else am I gonna get that glitter farting unicorn?

[Hekate]

84. LOL The Greeks had some great ideas, but shoot, that business about "pure" democracy

... just makes me laugh.

And you made me laugh just now, which since I've been fighting a respiratory bug for a week means I wheezed and coughed a lot while trying to rofl.

[Romulus Quirinus]

118. I think you and Fire Walk both missed something important.

The Athenians didn't all vote all of the time. Citizens were chosen by lot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition) to fill the various governmental bodies that made decisions. THOSE people are the ones who voted using methods similar to those employed by recent protest movements. While Athenian society was highly inequitable to anyone who wasn't a male citizen, the system of government (in the abstract) itself is not directly invalidated anymore than our own is due to the Founding Father's personal failures.

Incidentally, it was none other than Socrates who taught that governments that consist purely of elected officials will develop toward oligarchy, and that a lot-based or mixed system was required to be a true democracy.

[malaise]

62. The real problem is that there is nothing in a single liberal democratic constitution about

governance. Governance is a neo-liberal concept with one aim - weakening government and giving power to persons and corporations not accountable to the electorate. The notion is governance is a complete violation of liberal democracies.

[pnwmom]

92. No leaders or representatives? Even the little towns in Vermont with their town halls

also have mayors.

Larger communities can't be run well by referendum. California has shown us what a disaster that can be. Prop 13 and Prop 8 got approved by popular votes. Luckily for them, only a small number of their laws are approved that way.

[Fire Walk With Me]

93. I believe this corrupt government is a real, present danger and that we as a people

are smart enough to do better, to figure out something better. I will point to the OWS General Assembly although it did have some weaknesses which I believe have been addressed by some in NYC, but anything more than that I'm not aware of.

I'm just fucking wasted from AGAIN giving my power to a "leader" who AGAIN proves a fucking liar and corporate fucking WHORE. I'm DONE with that bullshit. =I deserve a better world.= All of us do.

[pnwmom]

95. We the people include too many idiots who are voting the corrupt people in.

And they happily vote for referendums like Prop 13 that go directly against their own self interest. They won't do any better under a government with no leaders or representatives.

[MineralMan]

104. I think you may mean "We the people who agree with me."

In a true democracy, you'd probably not like what "We (all) the people" did. In fact, I'm very sure of it.

[BlueJazz]

6. You said: "After watching this site devolve into high partisan madness"

I disagree with your opening premise.
This site has always had discussions that are sometimes very spirited. Most of us on this board can argue and debate all night long but in the morning, still be friends.
I. for one, NEVER hold a grudge because others see life in a different way.
I might SEEM that way (rather hard-ass), but that's because I'm also part drama queen.
Also..I feel toward DUers the way most people feel about their family.
I can criticize them but let a Republican do the same ??...I'll kick their Ass!

[1StrongBlackMan]

20. I agree ...

I'd like to think I am the same way; but, having read too many over the top posts ... I don't you are representative of most of the most prolific posters here.

[DontTreadOnMe]

7. Good post

And I totally agree.

There are many people who have gone through life not trusting our government, and for valid reasons.

But then we have a new era where the Republicans want to tear down and "drown" all government, even the Post Office.

So who can you trust? I will tell you how I decide? I look at the Fox News Talking points... and almost 100% of the time I am on the other side.

Aren't most Republicans authoritarian? So you would guess that Fox News and their talking points would be totally for prosecuting a "leaker" and would be completely for the "spying program", in fact it was George Bush who started it.. right? But watch Fox NEws and see how they are spinning the Snowden Scandel. It's all Obama's fault. The "Guvermint" has gone too far! Scandel, scandel, another scandel!

Then you have the Obama-China meeting... how convenient Snowden came out right before this event... then the G8 Summit.

Go ask yourself what the 1% would support? Then you can decide who is lying to you.

[GoneFishin]

21. They are anti-Obama no matter what. It says nothing about the legitimacy of the various positions.

If POTUS does something good, they are against it.

If POTUS does something bad, they are against it.

It tells us nothing, except that they have no functioning moral compass.

[Starry Messenger]

13. We elect them, but we advocate for what we elected them for too.

It's on us to create the pressure to move on issues in any elected office, not just President.

[NRaleighLiberal]

14. Last paragraph is the key for me...

snip..."The most we can do (in this democracy) is vote for the person (party) that we trust the most and trust that they will use their actual view of the board to do the things we elected them to do."

I don't think that the most we can do is vote. We are seeing some great examples of activism - but there is still far too much apathy.

And trust is earned. I can't honestly say that any politician has truly, completely earned my trust. I will say that President Obama (who I worked for and voted for twice) appears to say and stand for the right things. Part of the chess game you allude to is in not being able to know if he indeed does the right things - or, can do them in this climate. For my liberal/progressive principles, the record is mixed.

I think what we are seeing the last few weeks - on DU (where it has gotten really, really weird) - are a few dynamics playing out - fear, trust, and skepticism/cynicism about how things really are. We are faced with another topic that divides and polarizes.

[Demo_Chris]

15. My vote and support has to be earned. That's all. Everything else is bullshit...

Right now I see "my" party and the Republican party marching in lockstep. I can no longer tell them apart and I see no reason to try. It's not my job to hunt for subtle differences. I am a LIBERAL.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

17. Interesting... justification for spying, but I say, if they can do it, why can't we?

What's good for the goose and all, right?


Edward Snowden is a modern day Paul Revere with a thumb drive full of the news that Tyranny is coming!

[treestar]

19. There may be times for cynicism towards certain politicians

when their acts come about, but always assuming the worst of anyone in the job is just giving up to some sort of anarchy that will be a lot worse and trample on the rights of a lot more people. We can vote, campaign, protest, and do all these things, but we need to use our heads about who we vote for and then let them do the job unless indications they are doing otherwise are there.

[DrewFlorida]

22. If we have a choice between Obama and Romney, that's and easy choice, even if Obama is not perfect!

[Luminous Animal]

23. Really. The most we can do is vote? What an idiot that Martin Luther King was...

all he needed to do was vote and trust!

[Purveyor]

26. +1000 eom

[1StrongBlackMan]

28. But ...

The evil that MLK opposed was real ... something experienced in his (our) everyday life; he did not have to rely on someone else to "expose" him to the wrong. This is very different from the evil, that we are told, is the NSA.

Do you see the difference?

[Luminous Animal]

32. Much of white America needed exposure to MLK and the civil rights movement...

Much of white America was wearing blinders. There were some incredible images that were broadcast that drew the average apathetic not-racist suburbanite out. There were powerful words spoken and powerful actions taken that forced good people to really see the evil and to take a side.

[1StrongBlackMan]

35. You're missing the point ...

The average apathetic not-racist suburbanite did not have to be told that Black folks were being mistreated and that it was bad ... all they had to do is open their eyes. In this NSA/Domestic spying thing, the average apathetic non-(?), still has to be told that they are being spied on and that this is bad because ... well ... "trust me, You might not see it now; but this is what it could become really bad."

[Luminous Animal]

39. MLK opened a nation's eyes to the reality of institutional and every day racism. Snowden is opening

our eyes to the surveillance state.

[Pholus]

58. Good thing our secrets only protect us and are NEVER misused...

Why did this require a "whistleblower" because CERTAINLY the victims must have known it was "real"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment

And I guess I should not worry about this because it required me "being told" it was happening.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/why-abuse-of-secrecy-in-the-catholic-church-is-the-real-scandal-behind-the-scandal-57443337.html

Thanks for letting me know that all the bad guys have to do is call it a secret and it's all okay with you.

[1StrongBlackMan]

24. I've noticed ...

that most of the responses to this thread ignore the premise of the thread ... Oh, well ... Par for the course.

[GoneFishin]

25. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me again, shame on me. Fool me again, shame on me again.

Fool me again, shame on me again.

Fool me again, shame on me again.

Fool me again, shame on me again.

Fool me again, shame on me again.

Fool me again, shame on me again.

Fool me again, shame on me again.

....

....

....

[stevenleser]

29. All of that analogy is based on the various misrepresentations of the NSA issue I have seen here...

... sprinkled liberally (no pun intended) with paranoia.

There was an easy alternative to the madness you talked about. It would have required a deliberate search for the facts and a discussion of where we want to be and what is actually necessary for us to be secure and how much risk we are willing to take vs. our privacy.

That coalescing discussion hasn't happened and will not happen because of the willingness of one side to devolve into running around with their hair on fire, interpreting all information in the most paranoid way possible and attacking those who want to more deliberately examine the facts.

[Zorra]

31. My aim is to clear the board and make it transparent for all to see.

Nothing else will do.

I have no absolutely no patience with, or respect for, anyone who works to keep on preventing me from seeing the board.

[Brewinblue]

33. I wouldn't play that game of chess.

To do so would be pure folly.

[1StrongBlackMan]

41. But we are! n/t

[Jamaal510]

34. It took me a while to get the analogy,

but I think I finally do. This is one of the reasons why I would never want to run for public office, because those jobs (especially being President) are so thankless, and less the half of the bystanders on the sidelines really know what is going on. I regularly hear people saying that Obama isn't being progressive enough, yet not seem to notice how Congress has blocked virtually all of the bills he wanted to pass (including 2011's Jobs Bill and his attempts to close GITMO).

[Marrah_G]

37. To say that his shift to the right is only because of congress is missing one big part

He appoints his cabinet and frankly, his choices leave a lot to be desired and are far from progressive.

And just so I am clear, I think if the nominee and president had been Hillary we would be in exactly the same boat. The problem is big money that is so entwined into our political system that no one gets elected without their approval.

[HiPointDem]

50. +1. also, he had a democratic majority in the early part of his presidency, at which time

posters who found fault with what he was doing were routinely told to 'wait' because it had only been 3 months - 6 months - a year....

he wasted all the capital he had from the campaign to get an insurance-care bill, he didn't mobilize the people who'd supported him in any meaningful way, & he didn't give them anything meaningful while he held the most power to do so.

and now, for many reasons, they're disillusioned with his presidency. well, boo-hoo.

[Sheepshank]

114. perpetuation and alluding to a lie, I see.

Obama had "6 months - a year" with a full 60 vote cohesive majority? Please expound on this.

[HiPointDem]

117. there was a democratic majority in congress 2007-2011.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774721.html

[Sheepshank]

124. and just how does this work without a filibuster proof Senate?

blowing smoke up our skirts?

[HiPointDem]

128. seems to work ok for the republicans. i'm not going to rehash that red herring, you know it's

bullshit.

[Sheepshank]

131. sure...ok haa haa haa n/t

[HiPointDem]

132. keep laughing; nobody believes the propaganda anymore.

[1StrongBlackMan]

40. That is exactly my point ...

"Less than half of the bystanders on the sidelines really know what's going on"; but have convinced themselves that they know exactly what is what ... even when they are basing their "know" on a media that they were had condemned as inaccurate (or worse) a few months ago; or, a flawed "leaker" of suspect motive and a journalist that makes no pretense at objectivity.

This is nuts. It is a real live demonstration of confirmation bias.

[Skidmore]

91. Yes. And in engaging in confirmation bias to this degree, the paranoia is stoked by

coming from the constant assumption of worst case scenario.

[1StrongBlackMan]

127. And ...

I would suggest, this is by design.

[pnwmom]

90. +1. n/t

[Marrah_G]

36. I agree about voting for the one we trust the most

But unfortunately time and again we are left wanting as those people cater to the best interests of the corporations. Money has crept into our system in a way that might never be able to be made right again. In each election we end up choosing between the two people that big money has chosen. Those of us who follow current events and care where society goes are vastly outnumbered by people easily swayed by propaganda paid for by those who continue to get wealthier and wealthier.

Is there an answer? I'm not sure there is. Not until the divide get so horrific that we end up like a third world country will there be any chance that the populous will start voting in their own interests.

[limpyhobbler]

38. Trust is over rated. nt

[HiPointDem]

44. what you say is true until you get to "the most we can do is vote for the person/party that we

trust the most & trust them".

you're wrong there. that's not the most or best we can do. in fact, that's a frightening POV.

we don't know what's going on, that's for sure. but it's pretty clear that *every* player is lying to us, repeatedly, and that players *repeatedly* violate our trust. we can also see that both parties are funded by the monied and generally do what their funders want.

in such a situation, there is no democracy and no representative government.

[DeSwiss]

47. Why are we doing this?

[center][font size=4]Growing-Pains. Catharsis. Awakening. Chaos.[/font][/center]

- Or, you can just all it what it is: ''EVOLUTION.''



You can NEVER GO WRONG when you're seeking the TRUTH........

K&R

Evey: All this riot and uproar, V... is this Anarchy? Is this the Land of Do-As-You-Please?

V: No. This is only the land of take-what-you-want. Anarchy means "without leaders", not "without order". With anarchy comes an age or ordnung, of true order, which is to say voluntary order... this age of ordnung will begin when the mad and incoherent cycle of verwirrung that these bulletins reveal has run its course... This is not anarchy, Evey. This is chaos. ~V for Vendetta

[Douglas Carpenter]

49. governments act when they are pressured to act. FDR carried out the New Deal when pressure was on to

do it. The same could be said for every other great movement of social change in history. Great change has seldom if ever come about simply by voting in the people who we think are saying that they are going to do the things we come the closest to agreeing with and then just waiting and trusting. The World just does not work that way and never has.

We are now in a situation where the full reality of the post September 11 Intelligence Industrial Complex is coming to light. I don't believe or can imagine any scenario where secretive and unaccountable institution of such power will just self regulate. I cannot imagine any scenario where it would be possible for such a web of data collection and profiling and given the screening and scanning technology that does now exist and is dramatically increasing - I cannot in my most optimist imagination conceive how such massive institution operating under the license of a frightened public and an obedient media cannot at least in time lead to an authoritarian society. The only hope we have is to shed light on it and to try to reverse this process.

[HiPointDem]

51. +1

[Harmony Blue]

60. +1

That sums it up.

[DirkGently]

123. Yes. Even "good" leaders act under public pressure, or not at all.

Or worse. In the absence of pressure to the contrary, leaders are left with with monied influence alone.

If we left the "invisible game of chess" to the elected, we'd still be fighting Vietnam and living in a segregated country.

I question the OP's sincerity. This is not a sentiment a Democrat would offer during a Republican Presidency.

This is a request have "faith" in whatever Barack Obama does. That is not citizenship. It's idolatry and it's facile and dangerous.

[LWolf]

53. I don't trust any of them,

and I think trusting politicians and the powers that wield them is foolish.

I think trusting a politician to act for the people when the power lies with the corporations is foolish in the extreme.

It is very, very rare that a politician that got my vote is going to do anything that I want him (or her) to do. That's because the people who WOULD do those things are very, very rarely even on the ballot, let alone end up winning.

[Pholus]

57. I like your story enough to continue it...

You have a bet riding on this game -- should you lose, you will lose a substantial amount of money. Further, you potentially could be incarcerated or be forced into indentured servitude. It's all a little hazy of course, though it is simply plain that if you lose you will likely be far worse off than you are right now not that that was all that great anyway.

As you contemplate what is personally on the line, trying to find out how the game is going, another "advisor" lets you know that the last three moves have led to the sacrifice of your queen, a bishop and a knight. Furthermore, you are currently in check. You peek to the extent you can and sure enough, the bishop at least is sitting on the side of the board in a much larger pile of captured pieces than should be comfortably allowed in any game of chess. You can't see the board of course, and get no further details because you're not allowed to look. You also can't see how many pieces the opponent has lost.

"How can that be? My Advisor is there to play this game on my behalf!" You talk to your friend

"What, you just have to trust him. He is the perfect chess player, much more skilled than any other advisor you could hope to have."

"But he's definitely losing pieces ... it appears he's almost throwing the game! "

"Trust him."

The wind blows, and out from under the curtain slides a rumpled sheet of paper. It is a pay stub from the opponent to your Advisor's best friend. It is also very generous, more generous than any pay stub you have ever seen. In fact, so generous it really can't even be connected with honest work.

Now, the description is slightly closer to the game that is being played.

[scarletwoman]

63. Excellent!

Bravo!

[immoderate]

81. I think you've caught it.

I like the analogy of professional wrestling.

You can root for the good guy or the bad guy. Either one can win. You pay, and the promoter gets the proceeds, either way.

--imm

[sibelian]

105. Nicely done...

[Logical]

64. Let me make it easier for you....."Vote for the lesser of two evils!". Dumb. n-t

[1StrongBlackMan]

65. And yet we choose ...

between the lesser than ideal alternatives each and every day of our real (and dumb) lives.

Voting for the lesser of two evils is called reality.

[Logical]

67. And as long as you do it, and do not demand more, you will keep getting crap candidates. n-t

[1StrongBlackMan]

73. Yeah ...

let's throw away our vote on the candidate that will never win ... then, we can sit comfortable bitching about how terrible the greater of those two evils is.

[Logical]

76. Wonder why they could never win? Think about it! n-t

[RainDog]

69. I agree with you

...and I also agree that the divisions here are arguments from people who don't know the full story concerning the NSA, etc., but some basic issues for people are part of that issue, and this basic concern is apart from who is in the oval office, who is leaking what, and which reporter is involved in this story. (But this still doesn't stop others here from making false accusations about things people say about civil liberties, sadly.)

Anyone who thinks that voting third party helps progressive causes isn't operating within the realm of reality.

We need more representation for various political positions, however, and because this is lacking, especially on economic issues, some people become apathetic about voting. I don't agree with their position, but I understand where it's coming from.

If Democrats vote to dismantle the social safety net, I wonder how many people will think it doesn't matter if they vote at all?

The reality is that if these hard right conservative policies continue, we will face massive unrest in this nation. It won't matter which party is in power at that time.

[HiPointDem]

82. Democrats ARE voting to dismantle the social safety net. already happening. been happening.

sometimes LED by democrats, as when clinton led welfare 'reform'.

[DirkGently]

77. God that is a horrible view of civics. Literally, fascist.

[pnwmom]

89. No, not literally fascist, just realistic. You're literally wrong. n/t

[DirkGently]

112. "Elect a leader then shut up?" Fascist. Period.

[HiPointDem]

140. fascist.

[VanillaRhapsody]

78. Because some people want to have a version of our own "purity" test that the Rightwingers use...

Some have decided THAT is how to conquer...by division.

[sibelian]

80. It's not so much that we can't see the board.

It's more that a small, vocal percentage of us have decided that it mustn't be looked at.

[MotherPetrie]

83. You lost me at "chess"

[mick063]

85. You lost me with the trust part

Find some two year old posts. I was singing a very different tune.

Then it changed.

Perhaps it was chained CPI.

Maybe it was "too big to prosecute"

Or possibly it was the Republican/Corporatist cabinet.

This isn't blind chess. This is blatant betrayal.

As for a choice?

My choice is to use my own personal judgment.

That would be......

Let the Tea Party shell shock the nation into sanity. Sort of like applying an electrical shock to a stopped heart.

Obama's "boiled frog" approach toward corporate conversion will lead us further into the abyss than a quick Teabilly slap in the face that might actually knock some collective sense into us.

Of course the best possible solution is to elect a real Democrat, but from viewing the multitude of apologists on DU, that will never happen. The enablers will have Hillary pulling the same "boiled frog" shit in no time.

[sibelian]

94. "Let the Tea Party shell shock the nation into sanity."

Oooh, dear. That's not going to be very comfortable.

[GoneFishin]

100. +1000. The sincere apologists (not the pros) are misguided, and like parents that won't

discipline their punk teenager, they may pay a high price for their denial and avoidance later.
Meanwhile those of us that are open eyed about what is happening waste all of our energy trying to convince the weak minded to wake up, instead of working as a group toward a solution.

I think hitting bottom may be necessary. This boiled frog shit is scary.

The pros have got to be laughing their asses off each time they divert the focus of a DU thread into a pissing match which pits those who recognize that something scary is happening against those who think everything is rosy.

[muriel_volestrangler]

99. You can fight to get more trustworthy candidates. Senators Warren or Wyden, for example

It's not simply down to the party being better than the Republicans. The biggest decision that faces most DUers will be whom to support in the 2016 presidential primaries; and each DUer may get a meaningful choice in primaries for elections at a lower level before then.

[lunatica]

101. Well if you put it that way....

LOL! I'm a chess player and I would never play if I couldn't see the board!

[NCTraveler]

106. Fire your advisor. Hire a new one. nt.

[kentauros]

108. I don't play chess.

But, I will eat chess

[Myrina]

109. K & R

Yes. This.

[Herlong]

139. I am not the best cheerleader.

Last edited Thu Jul 4, 2013, 02:56 PM - Edit history (3)

Fight like hell the make a better world?

Yes. That's more like me.

If you play chess. I need you.

And you better be playing chess.

[Major Hogwash]

152. It's just a message board.

Yet, what has become apparent over the last 6 months is that a lot of the people posting here don't have anything else to do but bitch about President Obama.

And you're right, President Obama is a genius, a man with a very high IQ.
And Michelle is brilliant in her own right, fantastic in every way, and looks hotter than hell in almost any dress she chooses to wear.

[TheKentuckian]

156. The set up makes the conclusion kind of silly. Even if the game isn't rigged, one has to assume it

is.

Even if the advisers aren't far closer to working together against you, one has to act as if the were.

Why? Because they can see the board and no matter what work in concert to make sure you don't and the consistency of outcomes for certain folks no matter which adviser calls the moves. Not to mention that the other guys moves seem to be played out by ours.

Trust your best choice my ass, you have outlined why the game must be played in the light or stopped rather than continuing under the same rules in foolish hopes of a different outcome by lucking on someone that desires and is capable of playing to our benefit somewhat more than the other one, if they aren't cooperating in a different game than we hope to be playing.

Lay back and take it and maybe in four to eight years maybe...er...something...but we can make our best choice of the pre-selected options of those that benefit from our losses and see if they screw us less than the other sockpuppet does.

The game sucks.

[kentuck]

158. Well said...

[Rex]

161. This is an internet forum, you expect gold from air.

Are you new here? THis is how DU is all the time!

[silvershadow]

166. Because maybe you can reach one more mind? Maybe you can change a mind? Maybe you can

change a vote? Maybe you can change apathy? Maybe you can learn something from the debate, or change something you were thinking. There is great value in the debate.

[TreasonousBastard]

167. Excellent point, but missed by those who...

think the opinions expressed here anonymously actually have some point to them, or some effect, however slight, on the real world.

Myself, I have always been to quick to shoot off my mouth when I only knew half the story, a character defect that I'm only lately properly dealing with. Just yesterday the local paper printed an oped about our "Meet the Candidates" night and before I read it someone quoted a part of it to show me how bad it was. I was all fired up to write a flaming rebuttle when I read the piece myself and realized it was quite sympathetic to us-- the complainer was off base.

I'm running for local office now, and finding that I really don't have the foggiest idea how many things in this town actually work. That being the case, I can't imagine pontificating on national issues with any credibility to the extent some here claim. This is, after all, the board that managed to drum out a highly placed Kerry campaign official because some here said he, or she, didn't know the first thing about running for office. It's no secret that here, as in many other places, working knowledge of a subject is a poor substitute for kneejerk opinion.

I find some interesting things here, but still prefer my NY Times, NPR, Atlantic, New Yorker, and PBS subscriptions for overall accuracy and reliability. Somewhat flawed they may be, but their hair is no quite so highly combustible.

And no, I have no idea what is behind many of the questionable actions of the White House-- is he forced to do some things, does he want to be forced to do some things, or does he just do them for reasons we are completely ignorant of...

[nolabels]

168. If you think voting is the only way to effect political change....

Then i have a bridge i would like to sell you. What we might be doing here is seeing how we are getting screwed or how we might be getting screwed in the future. Sometimes we are years ahead here and sometimes we miss the boat. That is the part you have to decide on and mostly we are not going anywhere. You can also bet that just like me or anybody else here is that we each only have one voice here. Who and how and why can be important as how much someone also wants to follows it, but then again it may or may not be important.

But one thing you surely can bet on though, is that many don't come here to play a hypothetical game of chess with somebody that seems to want to become overbearing and authoritative People come and go here just like it was tourist hotel and it's probably not for Halloween because that is still several months away.

Anyway have fun trying to herd the cats, I am taking off now and going to go have fun feeding mine

[liberal_at_heart]

172. not good enough for me anymore. The all work for the 1% now and have shown themselves to be

untrustworthy.

[NaturalHigh]

183. Not sure what you're getting at here.

Are you saying that we should just vote straight party and hope we'll get a few more crumbs than we would have from the other guys?

[1StrongBlackMan]

184. In a word ...

YES!

Would you rather have "a few more crumbs" or no crumbs?