This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Both of these guys, got into Harvard Law?
Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have been campaigning for at least a year now... What new ideas have they come up with?
Seriously, what single policy, that either of them have, has evolved, or changed in the last year? Have neither of them had a single creative idea?... In a whole year?
Is this how you get into a good college, by never formulating new ideas? Aren't they supposed to let smart people into good universities? Shouldn't they have a new idea every week or so?
Are our leaders mentally handicapped? Almost every human being I know has tried a new weird political idea out on me in the last year. Why haven't Barack Obama or Mitt Romney?
Well... Obviously neither one of them is very smart... Have we got anyone else?
John Smith 30+
Both Obama and Romney are no geniuses but they are not dumb either. There are no doubt people out there who are better qualifief, but even they wouldn't have wonderful new ideas every other week.
Regarding their educations, it may be Harvard but it's still law (learning to win arguments with fallacies), which has a huge reputation in overall society, but whose students are the laughing stock at universities all over the world (both in and outside of the US the girls are seen as easy and shallow, the boys as pretty boy jocks/airheads, both are seen as being in it for the money, which is often true). Anyone with average IQ can get a law degree, even at Harvard, if they wen to good primary and secondary schools, work hard enough and are taken care of financially (in fact the majority of the population has the capacity to get a university degree in something). Even Rick Santorum holds a J.D. (not from Harvard, but still).
David Hamilton 50+
When starting from positions so backwards and incompetent, one would expect them to occasionally evolve. Surely, if they were smart human beings, with rational plans to solve problems right now... I would not expect them to have new ideas next week.
Linda Taylor 50+
my two cents
Gail . 50+
EXAMPLE: All first year law school students learn about the infamous supreme court decision, McCulloch v. Maryland. The decision is documentary evidence of a coup d'etat of the Constitutional government by monied interests who found the Bill of Rights so offensive that they wanted them thrown out, and who believed that the common people, not being angels, needed to be governed (by the wealthy).
If you were to go to the government web sites that talk about our history, you will not find the anti-federalist papers mentioned, even though the anti-federalist papers (and speeches) were successful at rejecting the proposed constitution unless a Bill of Rights was added to it. Nor will you be forwarded to links from the Avalon Project that show that the Constitution was conditionally ratified by VA, NY, MA, NH, CT, & RI. Nowhere will you find a history of the concept of Judicial Review that the Supreme Court ASSUMED, because it marks the very first time in western civilization that a court assumed the role that it has today - to overturn government's laws or establish law by decree.
To get a degree, you have to agree (on tests) with those giving them. To become president, you have to lie to everyone so that you can get bribes (campaign donations).
Both Obama and Romney know about Marbury v. Madison and Mc Culloch v. Maryland. They know that when they say "constitution", you think they refer to the written one. But they know that they refer to the unwritten one - British Common Law - a body of judicial precidents and laws.
They're both snakes in the grass.
Craig Patterson 10+
David Hamilton 50+
James Zhang 30+
Like the AMA on Reddit, that was a really good move to appeal to young adults.
David Hamilton 50+
The military can now murder US citizens with drones, on US soil, provided it can first brand them "enemy combatants", without seeing a judge. We no longer have a bill of rights. Bradley Manning is still in jail. We are trying to extract Julian Assange. Medicare, is 20 trillion dollars under funded, and the baby boomers are about to retire. Gitmo, still open. Patriot Act? Expanded.
The fact that Mitt Romney supports all these same policies does not give Obama a pass. We are in a state of national emergency, and our economy is collapsing... Both Obama, and Romney have promised not to raise taxes on the middle class, thus they have both promised to preside over the collapse of the American dollar... It's really that simple.
No one is effectively communicating to the American people what they need to do about these problems.
Wade Crum
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnAyr0kWRGE&feature=related
Helen Hupe 30+
Craig Patterson 10+
David Hamilton 50+
Andres Aullet 10+
As always, you know how to spark a heated debate (and hey, I meant that as a compliment).
There is an assumption in your question that i find hard to buy into, and that is the assumption that Harvard Law School graduates (and any smart lawyer in general) should come up with new ideas. Look around your desk (or your kitchen table, or your bedroom) and name one single thing that has come about thanks to a new idea proposed by any lawyer.
Politicians in general are not creators, but decision makers, and the decisions presented to them are usually put forward by lobbyists not by the public in general.
I think they are both smart, but smart in a political sense, which is mainly smart as a sales men. they both talk nice and fun and have a very clear understanding on who their sponsors are.
And thanks to the human nature, which has changed very little in the past hundred thousand years, politicians know that people decide (and vote) based on their emotions and seldom based on reasoning, and they also know from experience that a good salesman (with good histrionic abilities) given enough air time (advertising) can sell the most useless crap to vasts numbers of people.
I think that rather than asking the two presidential candidates to become more creative and smart, we should probably promote a culture of inoculation to alleviate the human bias of deciding with emotions, and we should also request more air time to real proposal presentation and access to supporting facts, than the air time dedicated to sale us a new president
my two cents
cheers
David Hamilton 50+
I guess, my only response, is that in my own strange, and eccentric voice I mean to "promote a culture of innoculation to alleviate the human bias of deciding with emotions". I want us to expect more out of the two of them... So next time, maybe we'll get a bit more.
Ken brown 30+
Robert Winner 50+
I do not think it is the people running I think it is the system and the "great con" to get into office.
So here is my plan that would be fair: If you are in office you run off of your record for the last four years.
If you are a challanger you get to submit a plan for what is wrong and how to improve it.
I see a crush of politicing in the "swing states". We will hear about deminishing health care for the elderly on one side and free health care for the illegals on the other siide. The election has came down to who carries the swing states. It is a shame that the economy, health, and jobs will not be the deciding factors.
Many years ago Barry Goldwater attacked the issues and scared the voters to death. John Kennedy let him state the issues and after the elections he went to work on many of the very same issues knowing that Goldwater was correct. The point being that the public does not want to hear the facts. They want to know what is in it for them. The latinos do not care that what the president wants to do is against the Constitution. They do not care that the programs will cost both the federal and state governments trillions that we do not have is not their problem. He is addressing their needs and that is good enough.
Years ago we sat around the cafe and barber shops and discussed issues not parties. There is little of that occuring now. People have accepted that government is currupt and it is beyond them to correct. We have no education process to inform school kids about government. We teach dates in history. Not policy and issues.
You are right we have problems. They do not have to be smart .. just know how to play the game.
All the best. Bob.
David Hamilton 50+
Robert Carter
David Hamilton 50+
Selling the mohave national preserve to solar investors.
Ending the patriot act and the NDAA.
Ending the drug war.
Ending the cap on social security, and medicare contribution for rich people.
Original copyright laws.
Closing overseas millitary bases.
An online public school system K-University.
Placing government salaries on the same level as salaries at not for profit corporations. In other words, making people who work for the government public servants rather than middle class.
Reducing management.
Releasing the NASA and CIA patents denied under the Bush Administration for national security reasons.
Legallize hemp.
End oil subsidies.
End corn subsidies.
Make it illegal for the Fed to give 0% interest loans to major corporations, without telling the government.
David Hamilton 50+
Ehis Odijie 10+
Politics is nothing but the reflection of the people . . After all, It was the people who turned the clown, from Alaska, into a political heavyweight .
David Hamilton 50+
l aresu
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
How about bickering about your senator? I would imagine that your local chamber of commerce does more for you directly than the president.
Democracy doesn't exist when we are concerned what one of our leaders are doing... It exist when our leaders are concerned with what we do as the people.
Politics today means gossiping about politicians - and - the politics politicians deal with is worrying about the money flow, while casually entertaining the masses.
Oh and Ron Paul may be extremely liberal and just flat out crazy, but he isn't a billboard for major corporations. Which is why he is entirely under-covered via media, he isn't going to help out any of the businesses which really control this country.
And this 'freedom' you may have to bash these candidates, also an illusion...
David Hamilton 50+
Presidents set the war agenda. Ron Paul, was the only person who didn't want to murder people with my money. Gary Johnson now represents that voice... I will not pay attention to either major party candidate, I will continue to describe them both as morons, who want to murder people, with my money.
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
First off, again, a president doesn't make the call to go to war unless in extreme circumstances - which any of the occupations right now were not except Iraq, and that war was PUBLICLY supported.
We are a democratic state (or we should be), which means it is not any one or group of people's fault we are destructive, it is every citizens fault who allows it. You waived your right to be a citizen when you do not actively participate in politics.
For the last time, a president is not responsible for ill behavior of a nation, and it is not a politicians fault the system is as shitty as it is, it is our fault. Blame Americans, not America. PEOPLE PEOPLE PEOPLE - not persons or a person.
David Hamilton 50+
I agree that it is the peoples fault for supporting both political parties which are evil and destructive... I would like them to stop, and find new leadership... It's our fault, I want us to fix it, by not electing idiots who want to murder people indescriminately with our money.
In order to do that. First we all have to admit that we've been choosing the lesser of two evils for 30 years, and it destroyed our once strong economy.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
David Hamilton 50+
Ken brown 30+
I'm not racist but his colour to me, was used in the game,i like his voice though but even i knew it wouldn't be enough,too much was expected of him,probably an unrealistic expectation,one man can't carry the world.
David Hamilton 50+
The idea that this is too much to ask for is beyond me... These aren't revolutionairy programs.
Barry Palmer 50+
During the campaign, the politicians say what they think the people want to hear, and it has nothing to do with creativity. The basic problem with democracy today is the same as it has always been, the people.
Ehis Odijie 10+
pat gilbert 50+
give me a break
David Hamilton 50+
pat gilbert 50+
David Hamilton 50+
Timeless ideas... Returning to a 25 year copyright. Ending the patriot act and the NDAA. Reducing the number of incarcerated non violent criminals. Ending oil subsidies. Stopping the Fed from bailing out, or sponsoring corporations... I love timeless ideas, one of the parties should bring them back.
pat gilbert 50+
The point about timeless is the Constitution, none of these agencies are constitutional including TSA or the subsidies.
David Hamilton 50+
You do realize that the Paul Ryan budget is 4 trillion dollars in cuts underfunded right?
pat gilbert 50+
David Hamilton 50+
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/14/marc-faber-stimulus-federal-reserve-destroy-world_n_1884709.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003
In order of likelyhood to make cuts, fix the fed, and end the patriot act.
1 Gary Johnson
2 Barack Obama
3 Mitt Romney
pat gilbert 50+
Robert Galway 20+
Fritzie Reisner 100+
Beyond this I am reminded of a lament in an article I read that the smartest and most creative people (he was thinking mostly of your generation and a little older) were applying their ingenuity to how to market stuff and manipulate people to click on links.
We are continuously bombarded with the results of a combination of people's tried-and-true and novel marketing ideas for swinging benefits in their own favor.
Law schools may favor those who are excellent convergent thinkers as a first priority and divergent thinking only secondarily. Beyond this, intelligence and creative thinking are not as closely correlated as people may think.
David Hamilton 50+
Fritzie Reisner 100+
You are not in their line of work. Most of us would not choose their line of work. They have and made that choice with a pretty good understanding, I think, of what was involved.
What's more, if you just quit you lose any real chance of making a difference. Sitting on the sidelines checking their pulses and complaining about what others are doing would probably be less satisfying to them than continuing to try to make a difference.
Different strokes for different folks.
David Hamilton 50+
You are basically trying to tell me that leadership, of the most powerful nation on the planet, should have nothing to do with creative problem solving... I refuse to accept that.
If they were trying to make a difference, ie generating creative solutions to problems, and bringing them before congress, and the people to vote, they would not be obviously, and preposterously incompetent... However, when auditioning for the most powerful leadership position in the world, I would expect someone to generate at least one creative idea that his party can support every year or so... Otherwise what to we pay them for? To look pretty?
Every human being I have every met, has more creative ideas to solve our problems than either of these gentlemen... I suggest a write in vote "Random Homeless Guy 2012"
Fritzie Reisner 100+
You are free to believe, of course, that these people are not trying to make a difference, but I am certain you are wrong. When they describe what difference they are aiming to make, I do not think it is only charade.
You may believe that every human being you have ever met has more creative and practical solutions to offer than either of these gentlemen, but let's just say that sounds like a bit of exaggeration to me.
I do not like either one either, but I would suspect I would not prefer for the nation's future to be in the hands of any of your random associates.
David Hamilton 50+
To try and solve problems requires that when one solution fails, or fails to gain support, you come up with new ideas... So there is no evidence that either one, is making any effort to solve any problems. You talk about compromise as if it is something you have observed, again, I don't see any evidence of this.
Fritzie Reisner 100+
Again, you are entitled to your suspicions. I will leave you with them.
David Hamilton 50+