@Whitehouse Hosting Twitter Town Hall On Wednesday

CWmike writes "In another milestone, the White House will hold its first Twitter town hall forum on Wednesday. President Barack Obama, known for using technology and Web 2.0 tools since his presidential campaign, will answer Twitter users' questions (submit them here) in a live webcast about the U.S. economy and jobs at 2 p.m. Eastern time on Wednesday. Twitter co-founder and Executive Chairman Jack Dorsey will moderate a conversation between Obama and Twitterers across the country. Twitter users can submit questions using the hashtag #AskObama. Some questions will be taken up in advance and others will be grabbed real-time during the event, Twitter said. In a blog post, Twitter executives said a conversation about the U.S. economy will fit right in with regular Twitter activity."

Comments

You gonna end prohibition?

[countertrolling]

I don't see so well.. Will that fit into a twitter post?

Re:You gonna end prohibition?

[causality]

Because the first black president wants to be known as the guy who legalized pot?

If he wants any real respect, then yes. Politicians worthy of real respect can admit when something has failed and are willing to stop doing that failed thing and start doing something else.

I don't really see what his race has to do with it. It doesn't change the fact that marijuana prohibition was a bad idea.

Re:You gonna end prohibition?

[c0lo]

If he wants any real respect, then yes. Politicians worthy of real respect can admit when something has failed and are willing to stop doing that failed thing and start doing something else.

One may think that getting out of Afghanistan and Iraq and start using part of the defense budget at home would mean enough of a proof.

Re:You gonna end prohibition?

[countertrolling]

One may think that getting out of Afghanistan and Iraq...

And Libya and Germany and Japan etc etc etc...

Re:You gonna end prohibition?

[causality]

If he wants any real respect, then yes. Politicians worthy of real respect can admit when something has failed and are willing to stop doing that failed thing and start doing something else.

One may think that getting out of Afghanistan and Iraq and start using part of the defense budget at home would mean enough of a proof.

Contrary to prevailing Slashdot wisdom, multiple unrelated items are rarely mutually exclusive. Mentioning one of them doesn't mean you're against the others. Yet that won't stop someone from chiming in to remind you that you have not mentioned every possible issue concerning each one of their personal pet subjects... Look, marijuana was the subject that had already been mentioned and I merely responded to that. Sorry if I didn't see that as an opportunity to evangelize about each nuance of federal domestic policy.

Having said that, for what it is worth, I'd like to see all of those things. Reducing the defense budget so we're "only" 2-5 times more powerful than the second-strongest military wouldn't be a bad thing. That and a more sensible approach to so-called entitlements might help us work on this deficit problem. Though if you *really* want to get rid of national debt, and if you're like me in the sense that you want to address the single root of a problem and not the hundreds of side-effects that spring from that root, then you need a currency system that isn't fundamentally based on debt...

The way I see it, one thing at a time. Ending an obviously idiotic Prohibition when most people can see it's not working is a relatively small, achievable step. It can help build a pro-freedom inertia. Shrinking the size, influence, and power of the military-industrial complex will be much more difficult. They have grown fat and wealthy by encouraging and profiting on useless wars and they won't cede control of the budget easily. Getting a real currency system would mean taking on international banking interests and that would be the most difficult task of all. You'd have more than enough propaganda and demagoguery to overcome just to legalize marijuana. The bankers might get downright nasty.

Re:You gonna end prohibition?

[c0lo]

Though if you *really* want to get rid of national debt, and if you're like me in the sense that you want to address the single root of a problem and not the hundreds of side-effects that spring from that root, then you need a currency system that isn't fundamentally based on debt...

This I'd like, though I don't think it is going to happen. You see, in a sane amount, debt is not bad: the problem is when the lifestyle switches totally on "living on the expense of the future" (apres moi, le deluge) and "access to credit is a human right".

However, what is(are) the alternative(s)? Personally, I like some elements in the 2001 winning essay of the Utopian World Competition (warning: quite a long essay, save the reading for leisure time).

Re:You gonna end prohibition?

[causality]

The whole problem with the current currency system is that there is always more debt than there are dollars in circulation. If everyone perfectly tried to pay back all debts what would happen is there would be no more money in circulation at all and there would still be debt left over.

It's a deliberately fundamentally broken system. It's designed so that there is only one temporary way out: borrow more money to cover the interest on the debt, and then borrow more money to cover the interest on that, until the debt becomes such a great weight on the economy that someone has to hold that debt and the economy begins to collapse.

Sure, it would be possible to have a fiat currency that isn't fundamentally based on debt. It would be really easy, in fact. Just have the actual government control, manage, and distribute it and not an international cartel of private corporations. Just don't attach any interest to the money at the time of creation. Charge interest only to private parties who choose to borrow it after it leaves the central banks, not to the federal government the moment it is created. Then you could repay all debts and there would still be money circulating. Lincoln's Greenback was a lot like this.

The most desirable of all is to have a representative currency (gold standard, silver standard, etc). Then it can't be fundamentally debt-based.

Amazing.

[Seumas]

What an amazingly useless waste of time, money, and energy. The best way for any president at this point in time to get re-elected would be to get some real fucking work done in the final year of their term instead of campaigning with goofy publicity stunts, like this. I don't want my president spending time twittering or facebooking any more than I want to sit and have a beer with them.

Re:Amazing.

[MischaNix]

If Will Smith were president, he'd get shit done. Just sayin'.

Re:Amazing.

[artor3]

Unfortunately, when the entire opposition party has made their one and only goal your destruction, you can't really do anything about it. They're willing to push the country into default for the first time in history, destroying the lives of millions. You can't negotiate with that sort of hatred.

Obama's not a dictator. He can't "get some real fucking work done" all on his own. The only way this country can get on track is for the Republicans to come to their senses, or for every last one of them to be given the boot. If Obama get's re-elected, maybe the Republicans can finally set aside their hate and work with the guy.

Re:Amazing.

[MacTO]

A leader who cannot face the questions of his constituents and provide them with answers that they accept is an authoritarian, not a democrat.

And yes, I realize that the questions are filtered so that this will end up being more of a public relations exercise. But that is still a heck of a lot better than the leaders of some nations who refuses to be questioned at all. Here's to you Mr. Harper (Prime Minister of Canada, for ye foreigners.)

Re:Amazing.

[Seumas]

And by "filtered", I think you mean "planted" as they usually/always are at this type of function.

Re:Amazing.

[the linux geek]

The Republicans, on their own, are pushing the country into a default? And failure of the Democrats to agree to cuts has nothing to do with it?

Re:Amazing.

[Wyatt Earp]

Bull, the President and the Democratic Party held the Executive Branch and both houses of the Legislative Branch for two years and pushed only two things, more debt and the worst, most convoluted, ill conceived health care proposal ever attempted.

In the 2010 mid-term the Democrats hemmed and hawed without getting a budget passed which made the House and Senate leadership look like idiots, that all in turn gave the Republicans the House and nearly gave them the Senate.

Don't blame the Republicans for the Democratic Party's incompetence. The real problem in Washington isn't the Teabaggers or the base GOP, it's Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi failing for four years straight.

Re:Amazing.

[MikeD83]

Unfortunately, when the entire opposition party has made their one and only goal your destruction, you can't really do anything about it. They're willing to push the country into default for the first time in history, destroying the lives of millions.

The only people who are saying "default for the first time in history" are Democrats who are fear mongering to scare little girls like you; and it has happened before. The reality is that the United States would not default; the government would use the money it brings in to service the debt and there would be a partial government shutdown.

Re:Amazing.

[MimeticLie]

Democrats not agreeing to spending cuts has as much to do with the deadlock as Republican refusals to increase taxes, yes.

Re:Amazing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody ever held the Senate, the Senate is completely dysfunctional. They've decided they need a 60-vote supermajority to pass anything that isn't the budget, so almost nothing gets passed, because neither party has held 60 seats in decades. (If you're about to post that the Democrats did for like six months between when Franken finally got seated and when Ted Kennedy died, you're wrong, because you're counting Joe Lieberman. He isn't a Democrat, he's an independent and he campaigned for John McCain in 2008.)

This is aside from the point that it isn't proportionally representative, so a citizen in Bumfuck, Montana gets a thousand times more representation, proportionally, than one from California or Texas or New York. (State legislatures are not even legally allowed to do this, so why the fuck is our federal government still working this way?)

The House version of the health care bill was simple and effective and went to a vote after a couple months of debate. By the time it got through the Senate it took fourteen months and was two thousand pages long, and almost all of the good parts were taken out, leaving little more than some half-assed bullshit and a bailout to the health care middlemen (sorry, I mean "insurance providers").

Re:Amazing.

[Raenex]

he only people who are saying "default for the first time in history" are Democrats who are fear mongering to scare little girls like you; and it has happened [spectator.org] before.

Nice article. There's also the Nixon Shock.

Re:Amazing.

[guruevi]

The health care bill was ill conceived because the Dems thought that compromising with Reps was going to give them something. It was good in it's "promise stage" but then the compromising started and now it's a toothless piece of toilet paper with the remains of all the benefits going only to the insurance companies.

It's not that Dems would've done it any better if they were alone, they just as well are inside the pockets of the insurance companies but to blame it on either party is just wrong. The blame is on the electorate being able to be bought.

Re:Amazing.

[dkleinsc]

Err, yes, they are. For instance, David Brooks, who's definitely on the Republican side of the aisle, wrote this just yesterday:

If the debt ceiling talks fail, independents voters will see that Democrats were willing to compromise but Republicans were not. If responsible Republicans don’t take control, independents will conclude that Republican fanaticism caused this default. They will conclude that Republicans are not fit to govern.

And they will be right.

The Democrats have proposed several compromises that are most of what the Republicans wanted plus closing some tax loopholes. The Republicans, Eric Cantor in particular, walked out, and added to their list of demands. Safe to say they aren't interested in dealing.

Re:Amazing.

[bennett000]

The only people who are saying "default for the first time in history" are Democrats who are fear mongering to scare little girls like you; and it has happened before. The reality is that the United States would not default; the government would use the money it brings in to service the debt and there would be a partial government shutdown.

The spectator goes on to point out that at the time the dollar was backed by gold. Presently the US dollar is backed by the US dollar, which makes a potential default impossible as the Fed can just print more money.... unless the rest of the world stops using the US dollar as its reserve currency. I'm not an economist or an accountant, but it seems to me that the resulting inflation would make it impossible for the government to service the debt. Again, this hinges on the rest of the world changing reserve currencies, but really what incentive to non-US nations have to stick with the US dollar?

Re:Amazing.

[scharkalvin]

Drastic cuts to medicare and social security? There are many people that depend on those programs who will be hurt badly. How about cuts to farmers that get paid for growing nothing. Or to prop up producing fuel from corn that only ends up increasing food prices without reducing the carbon footprint due to the energy (from oil!) required to produce it. Fact is there isn't enough we CAN cut to turn the debt cycle around we need to enhance revenue, which means higher taxes aimed at those that can afford to pay them. The GOP needs to face up to the fact that it's a two way street and that "W"'s war against Iraq to find imaginary WOMD plus his tax cuts got us into this hole (from a SURPLUS under Clinton). If the GOP puts this country into default the resulting kaos will be worse than the great depression of 80 years ago. The result will be a putting a bull'seye target on the back of every member of the GOP, literally! I can't guess who will be shot first.

Re:Amazing.

[Jason Levine]

I don't think a question filter is a bad idea. Otherwise, President Obama would be faced with questions like:

"Why have you lied about your birth certificate? Tell us the truth that you were born in Kenya."

"What is the real story behind the UFO's from Area 51?"

"My neighbor's dog barks so loud that it keeps me up all night. What're you gonna do 'bout it?"

"Do you prefer Disney World or Disneyland?"

"I don't really have a question but I just wanted to say 'Hi mom!' Ok, I'm done."

Re:Amazing.

[cayenne8]

Democrats not agreeing to spending cuts has as much to do with the deadlock as Republican refusals to increase taxes, yes.

We're taxed enough already. I do NOT need to pay any more fucking taxes and they should not raise it a penny, until they learn to stop SPENDING us into oblivion.

The only way I'd lean towards ANY new taxation..is if it was first tied to some sort of balance budget law....and have a hard ceiling put on spending.

I'm convinced from past action...that if they raise taxes, it will ONLY go towards more spending on federal worthless programs and hand outs to backers (Unions, corportations, welfare recipients).

Re:Amazing.

[sanzibar]

Scenario: Your spouse rang up 50K in credit card debt and you only make 80K. What do you do?

1. Take away the credit card and cut spending to accelerate debt pay down.
2. Give spouse another credit card and seize a portion of your children's pay check to cover the interest.

These are the basic plans of each party. The debt ceiling has to be raised because the money is already spent. The debate is over how much more to spend and who pays for it. Somehow, they have done a great job convincing you to hand over even more of your paycheck

And by the way - That surplus under Clinton was the result of a Republican controlled congress. The debt under Bush was the result of a Democrat controlled congress and yes, they voted to spend the money on war. Further, Its debt that will drive us into a depression. Do you think people file for bankruptcy because they save money or spend? Wake up brother. I know your drunk on Obama but you need to get off the kool-aid just for a moment to realize what is going on. I hope this helped.

Re:Amazing.

[bjk002]

^Mod this guy up^, then wake the hell up.

Re:Amazing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Where have your taxes gone up in the last 10 years. Not Federal or State, your taxes have gone up at the local level or property taxes. These in some cases have doubled mainly because tax cuts have shifted the divided burden of all people and corps. to just the individual tax payer. Yes, there are handouts, which to you and me, is a lot of money but is small change depending on where the money is going. You want to reduce debt, then we can start with cutting 60% out of DOD (to 2000 levels) and getting us out of these wars. We will still need to rebuild this country and it will take taxes to pay for it.

Re:Amazing.

[slinches]

Drastic cuts to medicare and social security?

Absolutely. Why do these programs exist at the federal level at all? If you want the government to provide a retirement plan and health insurance for everyone, move to state that has it or try to get it passed in your state.

Fact is there isn't enough we CAN cut to turn the debt cycle around we need to enhance revenue, which means higher taxes aimed at those that can afford to pay them.

That's not true at all. It can be done purely through cuts, but that would necessitate shrinking the size of the federal government. Federal tax revenue has increased by 9% while expenditures have grown 85% since 2001 (chosen since it was the last year receipts covered outlays). I think reform of the tax code is necessary, but more to simplify it and reduce overhead costs than to increase revenues.

As far as your rant about the Iraq war and republican spending goes, I think both sides of the aisle are to blame. Neither has made even the slightest attempt to curb deficit spending. It wasn't until the tea party movement started that there was any willingness to talk about cuts of any kind.

If the GOP puts this country into default the resulting kaos will be worse than the great depression of 80 years ago. The result will be a putting a bull'seye target on the back of every member of the GOP, literally! I can't guess who will be shot first.

A fan of hyperbole, I see. There will be repercussions if the US defaults, but I don't believe either side will let that happen. Either way we will still be facing a mountain of debt that will require some fairly significant changes to surmount. It isn't impossible and the doomsday scenarios aren't necessary at this point, but it will take some very significant cuts and at least maintaining revenues to start chipping away at the debt we've allowed our government to accrue.

On a lighter note, your post does sound a lot like a KAOS plot. Hopefully Agent 86 and the others at CONTROL will be able to thwart it.

Re:Amazing.

[phantomfive]

Opposing raising the debt limit is destroying millions of lives? Here is what Obama said when he was senator (emphasis mine):

The fact that we're here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. Leadership means 'The buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit.

When Bush was in office, Democrats strongly opposed raising the debt limit, because it's something not many people like (do you like the debt? Really?) Now Republicans feel the country is on their side in this issue, which is why they feel they can avoid compromise and not lose votes (and they are correct to a degree: most Americans don't want to raise the debt limit, and most American don't want higher taxes. They also don't want cuts in services, so who knows what will happen).

It's a dangerous game. Remember when the government shut down in the 90s because of the debt limit? The Republicans in congress took the full blame. That may happen again, who knows?

Strangely, default is unconstitutional under the fourteenth amendment. The government will shut down, not default.

Re:Amazing.

[MischaNix]

Where did you learn mathematics? From a goat? Because that's all I took away from these statements.

Taxes in this country are so skewed, wrong, dumb, absolutely idiotic that our federal revenue will never be enough to support all the programs we run. The one party that wants to cut spending doesn't want to cut spending from the largest sector (defense), and the one party that wants to make taxes for the rich and for corporations a sane amount is too full of do-nothing, try-hard pussies to get anything done to this effect.

The political system in this country has been like this for the last quarter century. I'm surprised it's taken this long for it to come back and bite us in the ass. The only way I see out of this is another Great Depression, which is why I'd urge everyone to vote Republican--their primary goal is to trash this country faster than humanly possible.

Re:Amazing.

[cayenne8]

Where have your taxes gone up in the last 10 years. Not Federal or State, your taxes have gone up at the local level or property taxes. These in some cases have doubled mainly because tax cuts have shifted the divided burden of all people and corps. to just the individual tax payer. Yes, there are handouts, which to you and me, is a lot of money but is small change depending on where the money is going. You want to reduce debt, then we can start with cutting 60% out of DOD (to 2000 levels) and getting us out of these wars. We will still need to rebuild this country and it will take taxes to pay for it.

I agree we should be winding down and getting out of Iraq/Afghanistan...that would save a great deal of $$.

While at it...let's re-evaluate and shut down a LOT of the bases we have around the world.

On the other hand...I don't have a problem with peace time spending levels for the defense being fairly high. For one thing...defense is one of the FEW enumerated duties the federal govt is cited with in the Constitution.

Also, most of that money, defense spending is kept within the US....going to pay decent salaries, and actually helping the economy. With they way the world is now, I don't see right now as being the time to cut defense abilities drastically.....but just do it for ourselves, and get out of the policing the world mentality.

But defense spending, while a large part of the federal budget...is not nearly as large or projected to go as large as SS/Medicare/Medicade....those programs are going to bankrupt us.

It will really go ballistic if we all of a sudden give full citizenship to the 15+M illegal immigrants we have in the US now. That's a powderkeg just waiting to explode.

Re:Amazing.

[phantomfive]

lol way to parrot talking-points. The senate is completely disfunctional? Sounds like you need a history lesson.

Hope and change

[Anonymous Coward]

If every slashdotter ask him about guantanamo, wars, and "hope and change"' wonder what will happen?

Medical Marijuana

[xanadu113]

What I'd like to know, is why he keeps dodging the question of medical marijuana when it's THE most requested question...

Re:Medical Marijuana

[Keruo]

Really?
The budget deficit is through the roof, economy is declining, jobs are being lost and the presidents main concern should be legalizing drugs?

Re:Medical Marijuana

[wikileaks]

I'm *sure* it's the most requested question...
Or not.

Americans in general should have much better things to ask their president.

Re:Medical Marijuana

[srussia]

Really? The budget deficit is through the roof, economy is declining, jobs are being lost and the presidents main concern should be legalizing drugs?

Think of all the money that could be saved by stopping the war on drugs (law enforcement, prisons). Think of the potential productivity of all those people in jail convicted of victimless "crimes". Think of all the tax income from the legal sale of drugs.

All in all, legalization is a simple step that helps address the problems you bring up.

Re:Medical Marijuana

[kronosopher]

It's very common for people to dream of veering off the road or href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organized_crime">driving from the backseat

Re:Medical Marijuana

[kronosopher]

It's very common for people to dream of veering off the road or driving from the backseat.

Re:Medical Marijuana

[wikileaks]

While I don't agree with the way people are treated for minor drug offenses in America, I think there are more important things to handle than dealing with that particular issue. Further, drug violence and organized crime wouldn't suddenly disappear if you legalized pot, you'd have to legalize all illicit substances across the board. Good luck with that.

Also, why did you link to slavery?

Re:Medical Marijuana

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple? It would take half a decade to have any economic effect, meanwhile there'd be chaos across the nation wrt police departments and prisons, and the media would be in uproar for years.

Re:Medical Marijuana

[gambino21]

What I'd like to know, is why he keeps dodging the question of medical marijuana when it's THE most requested question...

From what I've seen he hasn't been dodging the question at all, he's just not giving you the answer you want. He has flat out stated more than once that he is against legalizing marijuana.

Re:Medical Marijuana

[gambino21]

Really? The budget deficit is through the roof, economy is declining, jobs are being lost and the presidents main concern should be legalizing drugs?

This seems to be a popular rationalization/argument among Obama defenders: he really wants to legalize marijuana, it's just that all those more serious issues keep getting in the way. But there is no reason why he can't try to legalize marijuana at the same time as he works on all those other issues. Most progressives would be perfectly happy just to hear him say that he is in favor of legalization, he doesn't even need to put any effort into it. But if he really wanted to work at it (i.e. write a bill and push it through congress), then it could have positive effects on the "very serious issues". We could reduce the budget deficit by cutting spending on the war on drugs and creating a new tax on marijuana. Create jobs and improve the economy by spending some of the marijuana tax on job creating infrastructure projects. And there would be new local business opportunities forr things like marijuana bars/depots in various cities.

In addition, Obama has stated more than once that he is against legalization. I've never heard him even make the argument that he's for legalization but it's not possible due to other priorities.

Re:Medical Marijuana

[Korin43]

... and the media would be in uproar for years.

The media is always in an uproar.

Re:Medical Marijuana

[EvilStein]

Exactly. But that's just what this is going to turn into.. one big "legalize it, maaan!" festival. Despite what you said.

Obama is not giving the "legalize it" crowd the answers that they want to hear, so they stick their fingers in their ears and ask it louder.

We can't even get alcohol laws right in this country. Why do people think Obama can just wiggle a pen and make marijuana legal in all 50 states? He's said he wanted to leave it up to the states, and even pot friendly California has been seeing what can happen. Clubs wind up crime dens and have been closed down, and really it's done jack shit to curb gang activity. Sorry to break it to you, but the gangs have simply moved on to other markets.

A politcians dream...

[RL78]

I town hall where being saved by the bell is the format.

call me when he shows up on efnet

[Reed Solomon]

barackoba .. oh so that's why.

stupid 9 character limit. You'd think they'd up that to something sensible. Visa cards can go to 21 characters

That's why Greece hates Efnet and their economy collapsed as a result.

the free internet is gradually being replaced by the proprietary internet.

Re:I thought he was dead

[SuperKendall]

I will give him props if the opening tweet is "The tweets of my death were greatly exaggerated".

That would be pretty funny.

Why?

[uofitorn]

I fail to see the significance of this. It's just another town hall meeting, except the questions are being submitted via Twitter. That's newsworthy? There are plenty of more efficient methods of gathering questions. It's like that whole push-to-talk craze 10 years ago. "Hey, I got a great idea, full-duplex communication is nice, but half-duplex is even better!"

Sometimes an idea is stupid, even if it's novel.

Re:Why?

[retroworks]

It is better than Bill Clinton's "write your questions on the back of a box of kleenex" town hall, or Reagan's "chalkboard" town hall. We have to keep trying, until we get it right.

Good luck with that

[AmiMoJo]

The BBC uses Twitter during its Question Time programme that gets a few million viewers. There are usually several tweets per second, far too fast for anyone to read or respond to. People resort to re-tweeting the same thing over and over again just to be heard.

In a room full of journalists they have to pick one to ask questions and have everyone else shut up. Try doing that on Twitter.

Re:Good luck with that

[drinkypoo]

And that is, of course, why they are doing this. They will be able to answer any questions they want, because all the possible questions they might want to answer will be asked (and they can always stuff the box if they aren't) and yet they can't possibly have time to answer all the questions. That way, when the change.org debacle is repeated, they will have an excuse for not addressing the #1 question. Perhaps they will also "accidentally" drop some of THOSE questions by keyword.

Bread and Circuses

[CountBrass]

They knew this trick back in the time of the Roman Empire.

Bread and Circuses: bribe the population with free bread and distract them with circuses whilst the ruling classes do whatever they want.

In this case Obama is seeking to distract the US from the fact he's renaged on all of his campaign promises, Gitmo is still open for business, the PATRIOT act was renewed (dishonestly snuck through Congress by a Democrat) and the US will be defaulting on it's debts any time now (whilst members of congress invest in funds that will make money when the US goes bust).

But never mind all of that: Obama is a Twit now!

Re:Bread and Circuses

[travbrad]

You are spot on with that. Also a big part of the reason he won in 2008 was from the "youth vote", so I think this whole Twitter thing is trying to appeal to them (and hopefully make them forget that he is basically just George W. Obama)

Re:Bread and Circuses

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not an American nor do I live in the US. I consider myself a liberal. From my perspective, Obama must be the worst president you ever had, based on the expectations he had to live up to. This is arguable in many ways by his supporters, but can you argue that there is not much "change"?

Could someone from the US enlighten us on exactly where is the change? And I mean change for the better obviously. From across the pond we see more wars being fought, more radicalization and more drug wars, whilst fewer people get an education, fewer jobs are available and there is an overall reduction in the quality of life of the average American.

Re:Bread and Circuses

[Wyatt Earp]

Big difference between now and the late Republic and Empire eras.

The middle and noble classes feared the Mob. The Plebeians outnumbered everyone else, they would vote in a bloc and they'd disrupt the commercial and infrastructure of the city. That doesn't happen in the modern United States and really hasn't happened since the Civil Rights/Vietnam War era.

The Congress and President doesn't fear the people, so they don't have to fix what's broken.

Re:Bread and Circuses

[c0lo]

But never mind all of that: Obama is a Twit now!

Better than a twat, don't you think?

Re:Bread and Circuses

[magamiako1]

@AC

Having lived in the US I can tell you that the problems you mentioned aren't actually that of the President's, but of the general populous. The entire economy and country is going to shit and it's a foundational problem with our core beliefs here in the US. It starts in school born out of initial social groups and anti-intellectualism. One could argue that we could change the schools to focus more on intellectual ability, but when you have extroverted people running the schools this is the sort of thing you get.

This starts in High School, but continues well into University. All across the US universities are trying hardest to get NCAA basketball teams and college football teams. They are building arenas, stadiums; while their science education programs fall by the wayside. Invest in more computers!? HA! No! We need that money to repaint the football team's field!

There are all sorts of arguments one can make about "oh well, you wouldn't HAVE a computer lab if the university couldn't generate money from the sports to build them!"--meanwhile, tuition costs continue to rise with no drops in sight. And ultimately, regardless of how you spin the numbers it still all boils down to the fact that we are VERY anti-intellectual here.

It's not an easy problem to fix. A President didn't cause it, and a President can't fix it. It's a fundamental problem that digs down deep into our society. It permiates VERY deeply. I'll put it another way. Our job interview process has become so insignificant about whether or not you can do the job and so much more about how you can "impress" someone during the interview. We have very specific do's and don'ts of interviews that are laid out very meticulously that have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not you can do the job. The ability to potentially MAYBE do the job (i.e. you have a university degree) merely gets you through the HR trash pile. The interview itself involves a lot of things like "speak assertively, be confident." "Make direct eye contact." "Smile, shake hands." "Dress appropriately." and lovely interview questions such as "What are your strengths and weaknesses?"

In fact, this process has boiled down to even the lowliest of retail jobs: Best Buy and others make you take a personality test before you're invited in for a job interview. They are looking for extroverted, bubbly, happy people.

And this doesn't even get into the extremely polarized issues such as healthcare and "gay marriage". But we do have an enterprising group of people that are keenly aware of this and take massive advantage of it.

Until the country as a whole can overcome these issues, it doesn't ultimately matter who is in office--we're still fucked.

Re:Bread and Circuses

[Anonymous Coward]

In this case Obama is seeking to distract the US from the fact he's renaged on all of his campaign promises, Gitmo is still open for business, the PATRIOT act was renewed (dishonestly snuck through Congress by a Democrat) and the US will be defaulting on it's debts any time now (whilst members of congress invest in funds that will make money when the US goes bust).

All of his promises, eh? Here's the breakdown from politifact.com:

* Promise Kept 137
* Compromise 40
* Promise Broken 43
* Stalled 69
* In the Works 217
* Not yet rated 2

"Renaged [sic] on all of his campaign promises", indeed.

Also, as someone else pointed out above, the guy's not a dictator. Like it or not, he has to work with others to get things done.

Re:Bread and Circuses

[kevinNCSU]

How this got modded interesting is beyond me. Are we just up modding any historical reference whether it makes a lick of sense or not? I'm not an Obama fan but this comparison is so wrong it's embarrassing. You're actually claiming that the president is hosting a discussion about jobs, the deficit and the economy in order to pull a "bread and circus" act to distract people from important issues like jobs, the deficit, and the economy? The cognitive dissonance that must be required to either claim or up mod such an inherently self-defeating argument is absolutely staggering. This is not a bread and circus act, this is a discussion about issues by someone you don't like using a technology you don't like.

Re:Bread and Circuses

[dcw3]

This is in no way a discussion. It's pure and simple media manipulation. They'll screen the questions, or have specific ones they've set up with canned answers. To believe otherwise is simply naive. And this isn't a slam against Obama...it's political posturing.

Re:Bread and Circuses

[orgenegro]

All modern press Q&A involve the president picking not only whose questions he'll answer, but who is allowed to be there. If you think this twitter conference is bread and circuses, I'm sorry to inform you we've been at the circus for awhile.

Re:Bread and Circuses

[EvilStein]

politifact is run by a very liberal newspaper that has an obvious pro democrat/pro Obama bias. They have really stretched it with some of those "promises" just to inflate that figure.

Re:Bread and Circuses

[dkleinsc]

The basic story that you're after but didn't quite say: The US is right now a society that does not value the ability to separate fact from fiction.

There are a lot of reasons for this, and you touch on some of them, but that's the fundamental issue. Some of the reasons you don't get into:
* Even among the nerdy intellectual types, most people are not taught how to dissect an argument and see if it holds water. And I include a lot of academics in this, mostly concentrated in the humanities and social sciences.

* A lot of the psychology research that has been well-funded in the last 50 years has been focused on how to convince people of 'facts' that are flat wrong. For instance, "You can save by buying a Chevrolet!" is not remotely true if your current car is running fine or if you can get where you need to go by bicycle. It's always been possible to buy expert opinion to convince people of complete lies, but it's never before been this well-researched.

* Television, the primary form of mass communication for most of the last 60-70 years, is not a medium that is conducive to lengthy explanation. If an academic gets on TV and tells the world that the population of marmots is dropping dramatically and that all sorts of dire things will happen when they do, while a representative of the industry that is killing the marmots states "no, nothing bad will happen", without the time to go into what evidence the academic or the industry is basing their conclusions on (which neither can do in the 2-5 minutes at most they'll have) all the viewer sees is "there's controversy on whether killing the marmots is bad" and "Ooh, look, marmots are so cute!"

* If you're a person in authority who can't separate fact from fiction, you're going to prefer subordinates who also can't separate fact from fiction, because those subordinates won't be able to expose your lying. In organizations where the people in the top of the hierarchy are those sort of idiots, your best chance of advancement is to behave like that sort of idiot, whether you are or not.

Re:Bread and Circuses

[dcw3]

I'm sorry to inform you we've been at the circus for awhile.

Then we're in complete agreement.

Re:Bread and Circuses

[magamiako1]

I think all of these issues tie together into this massive anti-intellectualism movement in the US. You are certainly correct on not being able to think independently (and challenge the status quo) in addition to people not being taught how to dissect arguments and even defend their own points.

Re:Bread and Circuses

[yuhong]

Doesn't mean the claim of all the promises are correct.

Re:Bread and Circuses

[yuhong]

Personally I think the real problems are in Congress.

Not only...

[CountBrass]

Not only will the questions be filtered but I am willing to bet he won't give a straight answer to a single serious question.

As Moe on the Simpsons would say "Wha!"

[uofitorn]

Really? Since when does the 'population' use Twitter? I've been in IT since 2001 and even I stay clear of that medium. Take a step back outside your web 2.0 bubble and look around you at your family, when you're riding the train or the bus, or at the museum. The majority of people don't know what Twitter is, let alone what a hashtag is.

I agree with most of your points but you're simply using this as a thin veil to turn this into a partisan disagreement, just like every other political argument online. Thanks for polluting the Internet!

Very Wrong or a Polical Shill - which is it?

[FriendlyLurker]

You can't negotiate with that sort of hatred.... If Obama get's re-elected, maybe the Republicans can finally set aside their hate and work with the guy.

As this video repeatedly references - the "extreme" Republican right have been publicly heaping praise on Obama's policies for some time now. Hardly "hate", and hardly a sign that they do not wish to work with Obama. You Sir are so far off the mark it is not funny - or a political shill - which is it? Follow the references given everything is on the public record. Convince yourself on un-debatable fact that hardline Republicans have indeed been praising Obama's continuation (and escalation!) of Bush/Cheney's assault on civil liberties ... and get back to us (unless your a shill, of course).

Re:Very Wrong or a Polical Shill - which is it?

[tbannist]

Actually, I think you're proving the point you are trying to disagree with, even though Obama has continued many Republican policies, the Republican right still hates him. What this has shown is that every time the Democrats move a little to the right, the Republicans also move further to the right. Obama implements a Republican health care act, and suddenly it's the worst thing ever. Obama continues Bush's policies on the war on terror and suddenly that's "weak on defence". It goes on and on, as soon as Obama or the Democrats publicly like something, the Republicans publicly hate it.

The Republican should love Obama, but they don't because it's more important to score political points than to do something good for the country. That, right there, is what is wrong with America.

Re:Very Wrong or a Polical Shill - which is it?

[bjk002]

Yes... and that they are (excuse the tinfoil) in it together to move this country further and further right should concern every citizen of this land, including those on the right. Facism is but the end result of a continual spiral away from center.

Re:Very Wrong or a Polical Shill - which is it?

[sanzibar]

Obama implements a Republican health care act..

Whenever a democrat speaks your getting some spin from the truth. One states experiment hardly constitutes a Republican plan but party devotion overrides your honesty and beacons you to echo the talking point no matter how obscene or dishonest.

Most people recoiled at the Health Care Act because no one knew what the fuck was in it or who the fuck wrote it but everyone knew it would affect them in some way. It was also an unprecedented encroachment on what was perceived to be within each States domain. Any normal freedom loving individual should have been skeptical and critical. Had it been Bush, you would have been. But foolishly, you jumped on the train and surrendered your freedom to a thing you knew nothing about.

And it looks like the opposition was right. The full extent of this new law is just being revealed and what we are learning is not good. It was clearly a failed bill and an excellent example of what not to do!

Re:Very Wrong or a Polical Shill - which is it?

[tbannist]

Sorry, bub, I'm a neutral observer. I don't like in your screwed up country. I have my preference for rational, intelligent policies, but other than that I have no affiliation or loyalty to your political groups. I'm not repeating dishonest talking points, but rather pointing out that the health care act was largely based on proposals floated by previous Republican presidential candidates.

My impression is that the goal was to quickly and painless end the problem of uninsured Americans. Obviously that didn't happen. Perhaps you should take a closer look at what you believe and see if you've been suckered by "obscene or dishonest" "talking points". Your post is rife with factual errors, incorrect conclusions, and not a little bit of hostility and disdain for anyone who dares to disagree with you. You, sir, are another example of what is wrong with America.

Re:Very Wrong or a Polical Shill - which is it?

[sanzibar]

Huh?

Democrats are screaming for higher tax burdens to fund failed social programs that they control (education, healthcare, retirement, family planning etc)

You clearly do not understand what a fascist is. It happens to be an excellent description of the current democrat party.

They support a regulated, multi-class, integrated national economic system.
Are anti-capitalists
Believe in the rule by the Elites
Industrial Management by labor Unions
Social Darwinism
Call for a "progressive biomedical model" aka eugenics
Seek the mass mobilization of a nation through indoctrination, physical education, and family policy

If your worried about fascism your focused on the wrong party pal.

Re:Very Wrong or a Polical Shill - which is it?

[bjk002]

As opposed to a socially regulated, feudal system advocated by the republicans who believe in being ruled by corporate overloads and strict biblical interpretation of how we should live our lives??

You completely misinterpret my intent. I am neither pro-democrat, nor am I pro-republican. Both parties are moving this country toward facism.

I'm worried about both parties, as they are both idealogical, which is useless to me as I do not share either of their ideologies. However, IMO, we are too far right of center at the moment, and moving ever more so in that direction as of late.

I support a "regulated, multi-class, integrated national economic system." - it is the only sensible way to govern a populace, and the only economic system that ever existed in the U.S.

Well I'm not "anti-capitalist", but I'm not purely pro capitalist either. Pure capitalism can justify your harvesting my organs for resale without consent. Pure capitalism has no qualms with you dumping your toxic waste in my back yard.

"Believe in the rule by the Elites" - This goes with both parties. Its a matter of which group do you want to be "ruled" by. God and CEO's or politicians and lawyers.

"Industrial Management by labor Unions" - I still cannot comprehend how anyone has been able to be convinced that unions of workers are a bad thing for workers. I prefer not having to work 20 hour days for not enough money to feed myself.

"Social Darwinism" - Again, This goes with both parties.

Call for a "progressive biomedical model" aka eugenics - Not sure what you are going on about here, but I do support medical advancements and treatments, does that count?

"Seek the mass mobilization of a nation through indoctrination, physical education, and family policy" - pure hyperbole, nothing more to say.

I prefer a nice, central

This political discourse sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

Really slashdot, I expect this crap from the comment sections of MSNBC and FOX news. Not from here. I've been reading since 1998. It's only 50 comments right now, I expect that to balloon to 700 or so with flame wars abound. Rather than having a pissing contest, how about we discuss the use of technology by the president (an office that still deserves some respect)? I think it's a fine use of this new fangled Web 2.0 BS that I wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole.

WOW, you mean they are operating like the other

[Shivetya]

side of the aisle did when their guy was not in the top position? It seems to me that if you go back years and years all you see is that the opposition party does their best to undermine the guy at the top when he is not theirs. Hell, even when he is theirs they do it. Obama had two years of Democrat majorities and he got what? Oh, that's right, used as a puppet by his own party.

He also won't get work done unless he decides to lead. Trouble is, sometime earlier this year he went back into campaign mode. In other words, he gave up being President Obama and became candidate Obama. Those two job titles have conflicting objectives.

Sorry, but I blame Obama first. He should be more focused on fixing things but instead is more focused on how any decision he makes effects his reelection. He doesn't give a rats ass about anything other than that.

You're projecting.

[CountBrass]

I'm not a Republican, I'm not even an American.

In Europe our main stream political parties are all more left-leaning than either of the US parties. In essence the US has two right-wing parties who are, in all the important ways, indistinguishable to anyone outside of the US.

As far as I can tell the only difference between the Democrats and Republicans is that the latter includes witches. ;)

Re:You're projecting.

[uofitorn]

Agreed. It's like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douche_and_Turd. However, my point was that your post really had nothing to do with the topic at hand.

You're assuming...

[CountBrass]

You're assuming I think the two are mutually exclusive.

I've always thought he was a twat for renaging on his campaign promises.

Now he's a twit as well. ;)

My predictions...

[Anonymous Coward]

1. It'll all be the republican's fault.

2. No question will be answered which stands a chance of violating the desired image.

The president tweeting? Get real. It's just a magic act, "Watch this hand right here, don't pay any attention to the other hand..."

I wish people would wake up and realize that both republicans and democrats are responsible for the problems facing the country. I find it hard to believe people still think there is a difference.

Illegitimate

[Jawnn]

Until "long form" Tweets are available, I refuse to take part in this illegitimate government farce.

The odds are low but

[makubesu]

perhaps everyone on slashdot should send him a twitter message about software patents? It seems like an issue that everyone here is concerned about, and maybe if enough people get on him about it, we'll actually see something done.