To the forum,

"2012 Election Year"- Personally, I'm a "Jefferson" libertarian. I've learned not to buy into labels, so I mean that as a description.

My post is a portion of a current interview with President Obama. This is the portion on "defense/war" (to keep a topic).

I thought the interview showed some insight and BS, to the war(s), through the presidents own mouth.

Posted truly for the sake of views and opinions from are very diversified community.

Thank You
Earl




You came into office as a young president with no military experience. Can you tell us a bit about your experience with overseeing the Pentagon and how you've grown as commander in chief, how your leadership style has evolved?
I came in without having served in the military, but feeling a great reverence for our military, and in awe of the sacri­fices that our men and women in uniform make every single day. In the first year, the Pentagon had grown accustomed to basically setting the terms – not just tactics, but also strategy. There was some sense that we had a lot of hammers, so everything was a nail. In part because of really good work by Bob Gates, who I kept on as secretary of defense, and in part because of me really trying to engage and listen to the Joint Chiefs and have a frank and open and honest discussion, even when we had strong disagreements, they developed a sense that I care about our military – but that I very much believe in civilian control of our military, and that military decisions are in service of strategies and broader conceptions of diplomacy that are made here in this White House. And so I can say, with a lot of confidence, that at this point the relationship between me and the Pentagon is very good. I think they know I care about them and I respect them, and I think they respect me and listen to what I say. They understand that I'm the commander in chief.

The bin Laden raid was just one very dramatic expression of a very effective and constructive relationship that's developed, and our drawdown in Iraq is another good example. Iraq, obviously, still has challenges. I came in and I promised that I would end the war in Iraq in a responsible way, and we executed that plan. It wasn't as fast as some people would have liked. It was probably faster than some folks in the Pentagon would have liked. But we were able to arrive at an approach that has resulted in handing over to the Iraqis a country, a democracy, that allows them now to determine their own fate, and we're going through that same process now with respect to Afghanistan.

Let me ask you about the Middle East in general. Outside of Iraq, there seems to be more turmoil than ever – in Syria, Israel, Iran. What's your take on the region and the strategic challenges it poses?
What we've seen over the past year and a half is as significant a set of changes as we've seen since the Berlin Wall fell. I think the jury's still out in terms of how it unfolds. On the one hand, I'm very proud that we stood with the people of Tunisia when they aspired to democracy. I'm very proud of the fact that we stood with the people of Egypt and said that it would be unacceptable, from our perspective, to see all those tens of thousands of people in Tahrir Square subjected to violence, and that it was time to transition to democracy. I believe we did the right thing with respect to Libya, in a very surgical way, avoiding a potential massacre.

But what is also true is that these are countries that don't have deep democratic traditions. Because of repression, in part, the only organizing principle in these societies is religious, and there are sectarian divisions that date back hundreds, in some cases thousands, of years. As these transitions take place, democracy can easily turn to demagoguery, to civil strife. So it is going to be a bumpy road, and a challenging time. I think the American approach has to be to uphold core principles of universal rights, freedom and democracy. We're also going to have to show some humility, in the sense that we're not going to be able to completely impose our own vision on these countries.

How do you strike that balance?
What I've made very clear to the entire region is we have some core interests that we're going to protect, making sure that we don't have terrorists who are launching attacks against U.S. persons or interests for our homeland, and that's something that we're going to continue to pursue. We're going to make sure that friends of ours in a region like Israel aren't vulnerable to attack. But when we look back 20 or 30 years from now, we want to make sure that we were on the side of freedom and equality and justice. We're not going to always get it perfectly right, and there are going to be times when we're frustrated, because for all our good intentions, people still use anti-Americanism as an easy political tool to get the streets riled up.

The biggest worry I have in the region is actually economic. When you think about those young people in Tahrir Square, more than anything what they want is the same thing that people all around the world want. They want opportunity, they want the ability to get an education, get a job, raise a family. But this huge youth bulge that has taken place in North Africa and the Middle East demands that the region integrate itself with the world economy, to upgrade the skills of its population – including half its population of women, who too often are locked out of any participation in the economy. They have to start making things and designing things and selling things other than oil. If they don't move fast enough on that front, then that will make the project that much more difficult.

What about the two biggest concerns at the moment, Syria and Iran?
The ongoing massacre of civilians in Syria is an example where the international community has to speak out forcefully. There are no easy answers in terms of us putting a stop to these killings, but we have to apply every bit of pressure we can to effectuate a peaceful, or at least more peaceful, transition to a legitimate government inside of Syria.

As for Iran, I came into office in 2009 saying, "Let's see if we can end 30 years of mistrust between the United States and Iran." That outstretched hand was rebuffed, in part, because Iran embarked on repression of its own people after the elections in 2009, and they continue to pursue a nuclear program that nobody in the international community believes is simply for peaceful purposes. So we have another round of talks taking place between Iran and the P5-plus-1 – we just announced them today. There is a window of opportunity to resolve this issue diplomatically, and that is my fervent preference. There's no reason why Iran shouldn't be able to rejoin the community of nations and prosper. They have incredibly talented and sophisticated people there. But this continuing pursuit of nuclear weapons capability continues to be a major challenge, and it's going to be consuming a lot of my time and energy over the next several months.

Read more: www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/ready...120425#ixzz1tM6wumpF

Earl I continue to tell ALL of our American readers that unless/until they have a Third Party candidate with a VERY realistic chance of victory that the ONLY "patriotic" option available is to REFUSE to vote.

Change/reform of the present system is OBVIOUSLY impossible. We have seen proof of that in three cases: media sabotage of Ralph Nader; media sabotage of Russ Perot; and now media sabotage of Ron Paul.

Thus we see that:

a) No Third Party candidate will be ALLOWED a fair election.
b) No "reform candidate" WITHIN the Two-Party dictatorship (i.e. Ron Paul) will be allowed a fair election.

If no change is possible from either INSIDE or OUTSIDE the system and from EITHER SIDE of the political spectrum then precisely WHAT are Americans voting for?

This GENERAL reason to shun your FAKE "democracy" is reason enough not to vote. THEN there is Barack Obama.

HOW did Hitler turn Germany into "Nazi Germany"?

1) He was an EXTREMELY skilled orator/liar.
2) He consolidated power in the Executive Branch.
3) He inherited a destroyed economy.
4) He CREATED a "permanent enemy" (i.e. scapegoat) - the Jews.
5) He transformed the government into an iron-fisted, fascist machine.
6) He created the world's largest war-machine.

Compare that to Barack Obama and the U.S. in 2012:

1) He is an EXTREMELY skilled orator/liar.
2) He is consolidating power in the Executive Branch.
3) He did inherit a destroyed economy.
4) He already has a "permanent enemy" (i.e. scapegoat) - "Muslim terrorists".
5) He is transforming the government into an iron-fisted, fascist machine.
6) He already has the world's largest war-machine (in the history of the world).

Be afraid. Be VERY, VERY afraid !!!

Note that the so-called 2012 "election" was already over when it was announced (LAST YEAR) that the Bankers had AGAIN overwhelmingly thrown their financial support behind their Boy, Obama.

Since that time we have watched the ABSURD "Republican Muppett Show", where the only VIABLE, RESPONSIBLE candidate (the only possible worthy opponent for Obama, Ron Paul) was assassinated by the media - while all the rest of the ridiculous Muppets were EACH given their moment in the spotlight.

This allowed ALL of the Muppetts to under-cut each other - before an Obama-clone emerged: Romney. Not quite as smart. Not NEARLY as smooth. Not NEARLY as likable. But someone with virtually an IDENTICAL platform to Obama AND (like Obama) absolutely no PRINCIPLES at all. And someone who can ALSO be counted upon to do everything the Bankers tell him to do.

You call this an ELECTION???



Did anyone ever see the "Futurama" episode where the GLOBAL election literally featured two clones running against each other...?

How about the Simpsons' Halloween episode where "Kodos" and "Kang" (secretly) replaced Clinton and his Republican opponent (can't remember the name)? Even after they were unmasked, the punch-line of the episode was:

Ha! It's a two-party system so you have to vote for ONE OF US...

THAT is the "U.S. democracy" in 2012 (i.e. the two-party dictatorship). So what is it going to be American Voter: are you going to vote for Kodos or Kang???

P.S. Once Romney is officially confirmed and the "race" (lol) is officially on, I hope someone will remind me of this moment so that I can do a COMMENTARY titled:

"Election 2012: Kodos or Kang?"





en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kang_and_Kodos

With respect to the reality of elections in the united states I today read an article where the author claimed that the votes of the people in the US do not count, he said that
One is the Electoral College. Many Americans do not understand that their vote for president technically does not count. The Electoral College, besides being remarkably anti-democratic, promotes corruption in elections with its winner-take-all provision in states. It is amazing that a country more than two centuries old and making great claims for democracy still can’t hold honest national elections, both of George Bush’s victories, but especially the first, being as dubious as something in an emerging nation.

Can someone explain in detail what is meant by this Electoral College ? I tried the page on wikipedia and it seems that it is meant more to confuse rather than clarify.

Samix,

This link answers about all questions. Confusing (for me) to explain. Highlighted why it's probably confusing.

Earl

www.archives.gov/federal-register/electo...ege/faq.html#history




How did the terms "Elector" and "Electoral College" come into usage?

The term "electoral college" does not appear in the Constitution. Article II of the Constitution and the 12th Amendment refer to "electors," but not to the "electoral college." In the Federalist Papers (No. 68), Alexander Hamilton refers to the process of selecting the Executive, and refers to "the people of each State (who) shall choose a number of persons as electors," but he does not use the term "electoral college."

The founders appropriated the concept of electors from the Holy Roman Empire (962 - 1806). An elector was one of a number of princes of the various German states within the Holy Roman Empire who had a right to participate in the election of the German king (who generally was crowned as emperor). The term "college" (from the Latin collegium), refers to a body of persons that act as a unit, as in the college of cardinals who advise the Pope and vote in papal elections. In the early 1800's, the term "electoral college" came into general usage as the unofficial designation for the group of citizens selected to cast votes for President and Vice President. It was first written into Federal law in 1845, and today the term appears in 3 U.S.C. section 4, in the section heading and in the text as "college of electors."

Why do we still have the Electoral College?

The Electoral College process is part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution. It would be necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment to change this system.

Note that the 12th Amendment, the expansion of voting rights, and the use of the popular vote in the States as the vehicle for selecting electors has substantially changed the process.

Many different proposals to alter the Presidential election process have been offered over the years, such as direct nation-wide election by the People, but none have been passed by Congress and sent to the States for ratification. Under the most common method for amending the Constitution, an amendment must be proposed by a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress (continued)

samix wrote:
With respect to the reality of elections in the united states I today read an article where the author claimed that the votes of the people in the US do not count, he said that
One is the Electoral College. Many Americans do not understand that their vote for president technically does not count. The Electoral College, besides being remarkably anti-democratic, promotes corruption in elections with its winner-take-all provision in states. It is amazing that a country more than two centuries old and making great claims for democracy still can’t hold honest national elections, both of George Bush’s victories, but especially the first, being as dubious as something in an emerging nation.

Can someone explain in detail what is meant by this Electoral College ? I tried the page on wikipedia and it seems that it is meant more to confuse rather than clarify.


Thanks for the post Samix!

The precise STRUCTURE of any (supposed) "democracy" is a topic of ENORMOUS importance - and yet one which is almost ENTIRELY ignored by voters (no surprise) and academics (no surprise).

Naturally the POLITICIANS, their political parties, and the Oligarchs who OWN the politicians pay a great deal of attention to the STRUCTURE of government - since it is HOW they RIG elections, and extinguish any (real) vestige of "democracy".

We can split up these structures into roughly three types of systems:

1) Regional "winner takes all" districts (as is described here)
2) Absolute "proportional representation" where SMALLER (local) districts each have their own voice.
3) DIRECT, "one person/one vote" systems.

What takes this from a topic AMENABLE to analysis into a quagmire of pointless debate is that (as always) "the Devil is in the details".

You cannot say that any ONE structure is better than the others, because each of these GENERAL structures requires a system of rules to implement the process, and those "rules" can (and do) frequently and totally corrupt any system.

Further complicating things, the U.S. (as is true with many nations) uses elements of ALL THREE systems in its voting.

But this is all MOOT and IRRELEVANT until we deal with a much larger PREQUISITE issue: the IDIOT VOTER.

Suppose I was the world's foremost authority on fine wines. I give some fabulous speech describing the different types of fine wines in detail. What good would such a speech be if my AUDIENCE can't read/understand the LABEL on a bottle of wine???



What is the point of even TALKING ABOUT the optimal structure for a political system (let alone making a formal proposal) when roughly 75% of all voters wouldn't recognize a "good political system" if you beat them over the heads with it???



Ironically, I dropped out of my last philosophy class when my professor rejected my topic for my term paper: "The Theory of Voting".

He rejected it because (to the best of my knowledge) it has NEVER been seriously discussed/debated in the academic world, and so there were no research materials available. As readers know, I don't NEED the thoughts of others to form my OWN theories.

But my professor had ALREADY been very emphatic to the whole class: the LAST THING he wanted to see (in this PHILOSOPHY term paper) was "nothing but a bunch of our own ideas". (That is a verbatim quote.)



Create a society of academic drones.
Create a society of idiot-voters.
Create a crooked system.

And then NEVER, EVER talk about (heaven forbid: think about) the crooked system OR upgrading the idiot-voter.

No one questions that EVERYONE needs to pass a WRITTEN driver's test before they are considered KNOWLEDGEABLE enough to navigate the streets without (hopefully) engaging in "reckless driving".

Yet we turn loose LEGIONS of idiot-voters on election day - and look what it gets us???

P.S. If "reckless voting" was a crime, then the U.S. would have to QUADRUPLE the number of (secret) "private prisons" they are building all over the U.S....

Thank you Earl and Jeff for your inputs!

Jeff Nielson wrote:
Earl I continue to tell ALL of our American readers that unless/until they have a Third Party candidate with a VERY realistic chance of victory that the ONLY "patriotic" option available is to REFUSE to vote.

Change/reform of the present system is OBVIOUSLY impossible. We have seen proof of that in three cases: media sabotage of Ralph Nader; media sabotage of Russ Perot; and now media sabotage of Ron Paul.

Thus we see that:

a) No Third Party candidate will be ALLOWED a fair election.
b) No "reform candidate" WITHIN the Two-Party dictatorship (i.e. Ron Paul) will be allowed a fair election.

If no change is possible from either INSIDE or OUTSIDE the system and from EITHER SIDE of the political spectrum then precisely WHAT are Americans voting for?

This GENERAL reason to shun your FAKE "democracy" is reason enough not to vote. THEN there is Barack Obama.

HOW did Hitler turn Germany into "Nazi Germany"?

1) He was an EXTREMELY skilled orator/liar.
2) He consolidated power in the Executive Branch.
3) He inherited a destroyed economy.
4) He CREATED a "permanent enemy" (i.e. scapegoat) - the Jews.
5) He transformed the government into an iron-fisted, fascist machine.
6) He created the world's largest war-machine.

Compare that to Barack Obama and the U.S. in 2012:

1) He is an EXTREMELY skilled orator/liar.
2) He is consolidating power in the Executive Branch.
3) He did inherit a destroyed economy.
4) He already has a "permanent enemy" (i.e. scapegoat) - "Muslim terrorists".
5) He is transforming the government into an iron-fisted, fascist machine.
6) He already has the world's largest war-machine (in the history of the world).

Be afraid. Be VERY, VERY afraid !!!




Jeff;
Now you have me fired up!
This response applies to your immediately preceding post as well.
What we have here is a one party system, which I will explain to be fascist, disguised as a two party "democracy".

The fact of the matter is that we have a self perpetuating, one party "Republicrat" system that serves the same master: The Corporatocracy.

The rhetoric between the two "parties" only serves to reinforce the sense of a free democracy to the sheeple.
Thus it is that only a proven anti communist President, Richard Nixon, could visit communist China without being labeled "soft on communism", something a Democrat could never do.
Nixon also presided over the largest increases in social spending in history, to that time.
So it was that only a Democrat, Bill Clinton, could tear down the Glass Siegel act & hand unlimited financial mastery to the Wall Street banks without being labeled a "big business crony".
So it was as well, that only a staunch Republican, "W", could sign off on the largest social welfare program ever, the Prescription Drug Act, a gigantic boon to the Pharma companies.
Of course, only a "man of the people", like Obama, could sign off on something like the NDAA, which allows for repeal of the Magna Carta.

Each party does the dirty deeds of the other.
The NDAA passed the Senate 98-2.

One of the nay votes was, of course, Ron Paul.

Bonito Mussolini once said that fascism was akin to corparatism, for it was the perfect marriage between state power and corporate power.
The only difference between Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and the US today, is that they plainly had a one party system, and we obfuscate the one party system to appear as two.

Yes, we are on the path you describe.
Our hopes are slowly fading.
Ron Paul & his ideas can save us, but I fear the people are far too blind, and will vote for the best sounding rhetoric, the perfect hair, and the next game show host, be he Republicrat or Republicrat.