Anyone else think the president is irrelevant?

[Hobie]

I'm surprised by the Obama supporters. I remember on message boards when people bitched that those who supported Bush were supporting the man over his actions. "He's not making good on his campaign promises, he's fiscally like Clinton, war-monger, outside of social views he's liberal, bailing out banks blah blah blah."

Flash forward to today and it seems like those very same people are doing the very same thing, but it's just for their guy. Patriot act re-signed, bush tax-cuts re-signed, Gitmo still open, (as far as going back on campaign promises, probably more, just off the top of my head) bombing and drone strikes on approximately half a dozen countries, possibility of war with Iran looming, NDAA, more big business bail-outs. Maybe being too political with this point, but hasn't Obama killed over a dozen US citizens over-seas with drone strikes without so much as an indictment? Liberals would flip the fuck out if Bush had done this, but Obama does it and they don't bat an eye. Speaking of things liberals would flip out about, if Bush had tried to keep press from covering the BP spill they would be outraged. Obama does it and almost no one cared.

On a crazier level Romney supporters like the shit out of him and he's already flip-flopped on his platform and the election hasn't even occurred yet.

If someone had been on a deserted island just prior to the election and rescued today and you told them the political climate/history of the last 4 years how would they react? What if you told them some attack happened and Bush remained president under some crazy law? Judging by the history would they even be surprised?

It certainly seems like as a mass we choose on emotion and the person, the feeling they give us, is more important than their policy/actions/ability to stick with their plan.

Does it really even matter who is the president in terms of personal choice? It seems like people choose who they like on emotion, not action, and will find "logical" ways to support that choice no matter what the outcome has shown.

[mstng86]

No he isn't irrelevant and yes it does matter.

[Hobie]

No he isn't irrelevant and yes it does matter.

Excellent points, thanks for the insightful post, will read again and again!
























Is it just me or is this reply going to be a sign on things to come?

[Snatch Napkin]

Careful, with that type of free thought and sensible logic you just might get pegged as a racist, selfish, centrist, nut job with no real basis of formulating an opinion.

[A+]

Is it just me or is this reply going to be a sign on things to come?

A sign of things to come.
Each side has their own crazies that act like nothing ever happened whenever their candidate screws up.

[Hobie]

Careful, with that type of free thought and sensible logic you just might get pegged as a racist, selfish, centrist, nut job with no real basis of formulating an opinion.

I don't post much on the political forum on this board. This is a regional domestic board in a red state, hard to be more stero-typically republican than this. It's funny as in the past I've been told I'm a liberal quite a bit (I guess that was mostly on Canada) on this board but on every national/international general discussion type board I'm the crazy right wing gun totin' red meat eatin' domesitc v-8 rubber burning lunatic asshole. Perspective is a bitch.

However, responses here should be an interesting observation on choice along with likely many personal insults, lol.

I've got a friend that lives in Colorado, she went to a performing arts university, legally grows medical marijuana for a side-gig, manages some sort of all organic grocery store, yet drives a Lexus. I forget what she calls herself, some sort of super left wing contradiction like green-socialist-anarchist. I tell her I'll fuck the hippy out of her all the time, she thinks I'm joking, I'm not.

Anyways, it's just funny to observe people's choices and why they claim they make them.

[Forever_frost]

Personally, my favorite were the libs screaming about Bush being a war criminal but no word on Obama executing American citizens without due process.

[Strychnine]

Does it really even matter who is the president in terms of personal choice? It seems like people choose who they like on emotion, not action, and will find "logical" ways to support that choice no matter what the outcome has shown.

We could start a whole thread on psychology and it's impact on American politics.


Confirmation Bias

The Misconception: Your opinions are the result of years of rational, objective analysis.

The Truth: Your opinions are the result of years of paying attention to information which confirmed what you believed while ignoring information which challenged your preconceived notions.

Punditry is a whole industry built on confirmation bias.

Rush Limbaugh and Keith Olbermann, Glenn Beck and Arianna Huffington, Rachel Maddow and Ann Coulter – these people provide fuel for beliefs, they pre-filter the world to match existing world-views.

If their filter is like your filter, you love them. If it isn’t, you hate them.

Whether or not pundits are telling the truth, or vetting their opinions, or thoroughly researching their topics is all beside the point. You watch them not for information, but for confirmation.

“Be careful. People like to be told what they already know. Remember that. They get uncomfortable when you tell them new things. New things…well, new things aren’t what they expect. They like to know that, say, a dog will bite a man. That is what dogs do. They don’t want to know that man bites a dog, because the world is not supposed to happen like that. In short, what people think they want is news, but what they really crave is olds…Not news but olds, telling people that what they think they already know is true.”

Terry Pratchett through the character Lord Vetinari from his novel, “The Truth: a novel of Discworld

The Illusion of Asymmetric Insight

The Misconception: You celebrate diversity and respect others’ points of view.

The Truth: You are driven to create and form groups and then believe others are wrong just because they are others.

The researchers explained this is how one eventually arrives at the illusion of naive realism, or believing your thoughts and perceptions are true, accurate and correct, therefore if someone sees things differently than you or disagrees with you in some way it is the result of a bias or an influence or a shortcoming. You feel like the other person must have been tainted in some way, otherwise they would see the world the way you do – the right way. The illusion of asymmetrical insight clouds your ability to see the people you disagree with as nuanced and complex. You tend to see your self and the groups you belong to in shades of gray, but others and their groups as solid and defined primary colors lacking nuance or complexity.

Fanboyism and Brand Loyalty

The Misconception: You prefer the things you own over the things you don’t because you made rational choices when we bought them.

The Truth: You prefer the things you own because you rationalize your past choices to protect your sense of self

It’s purely emotional, the moment you pick. People with brain damage to their emotional centers who have been rendered into Spock-like beings of pure logic find it impossible to decide between things as simple as which brand of cereal to buy. They stand transfixed in the aisle, contemplating every element of their potential decision – the calories, the shapes, the net weight – everything. They can’t pick because they have no emotional connection to anything, no emotional motivations.

To combat postdecisional dissonance, the feeling you have committed to one option when the other option may have been better, you make yourself feel justified in what you selected to lower the anxiety brought on by questioning yourself.

All of this forms a giant neurological cluster of associations, emotions, details of self-image and biases around the things you own.

and on and on and on

[talisman]

Nice post, Matt.

[Dlachance]

I do disagree with post #8. Some people actuslly do their own research and their own vetting that bring to light things that Iwouldn't see otherwise. For instance, Glenn Becks vetting of Obama is second to none. He has examined every aspect of the life of young Barack and has correlated Obama with a bunch of people, and has brought to light all of the corruption Obama has been involved in during his formative years.

[talisman]

I do disagree with post #8. Some people actuslly do their own research and their own vetting that bring to light things that Iwouldn't see otherwise. For instance, Glenn Becks vetting of Obama is second to none. He has examined every aspect of the life of young Barack and has correlated Obama with a bunch of people, and has brought to light all of the corruption Obama has been involved in during his formative years.

Lmao

[Strychnine]

I do disagree with post #8. Some people actuslly do their own research and their own vetting that bring to light things that Iwouldn't see otherwise. For instance, Glenn Becks vetting of Obama is second to none. He has examined every aspect of the life of young Barack and has correlated Obama with a bunch of people, and has brought to light all of the corruption Obama has been involved in during his formative years.

Right, but that's only half the point.

If CNN did the same digging and came up with some dirty laundry on Romney and it were completely 100% factual the majority of the Beck viewers would dismiss it as bullshit simply because of the source.

People quickly forget that the world is made up of two-way streets and that it's completely possible for both sides to be correct.

[Dlachance]

I am sure that any level headed Conservative would be open to a debate on any credible Romney dirty laundry. Him beating up a kid in high school and suppossedly being responsible for the death of a dying woman is not dirty laundry..

[32valves_of_pleasure]

Does it really even matter who is the president in terms of personal choice? It seems like people choose who they like on emotion, not action, and will find "logical" ways to support that choice no matter what the outcome has shown.

that's how it goes. i've kinda likened the presidential race to the personalities you see in pro-wrestling. i'm waiting for ric flair to run, he'd get my vote i mean no one is going to outsell the guy, just listen

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3J8HC-sxiaY[/ame]

[likeitfast55]

I'm surprised by the Obama supporters. I remember on message boards when people bitched that those who supported Bush were supporting the man over his actions. "He's not making good on his campaign promises, he's fiscally like Clinton, war-monger, outside of social views he's liberal, bailing out banks blah blah blah."

Flash forward to today and it seems like those very same people are doing the very same thing, but it's just for their guy. Patriot act re-signed, bush tax-cuts re-signed, Gitmo still open, (as far as going back on campaign promises, probably more, just off the top of my head) bombing and drone strikes on approximately half a dozen countries, possibility of war with Iran looming, NDAA, more big business bail-outs. Maybe being too political with this point, but hasn't Obama killed over a dozen US citizens over-seas with drone strikes without so much as an indictment? Liberals would flip the fuck out if Bush had done this, but Obama does it and they don't bat an eye. Speaking of things liberals would flip out about, if Bush had tried to keep press from covering the BP spill they would be outraged. Obama does it and almost no one cared.

On a crazier level Romney supporters like the shit out of him and he's already flip-flopped on his platform and the election hasn't even occurred yet.

If someone had been on a deserted island just prior to the election and rescued today and you told them the political climate/history of the last 4 years how would they react? What if you told them some attack happened and Bush remained president under some crazy law? Judging by the history would they even be surprised?

It certainly seems like as a mass we choose on emotion and the person, the feeling they give us, is more important than their policy/actions/ability to stick with their plan.

Does it really even matter who is the president in terms of personal choice? It seems like people choose who they like on emotion, not action, and will find "logical" ways to support that choice no matter what the outcome has shown.

Best post on site to date.