Breaking the illusion of a 2 party system

    • onlyhalfminotaur@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      17 days ago

      Yeah he’s probably actually right but only because our government has pretty much always been insanely corrupt.

  • GardenGeek@europe.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    16 days ago

    What did he actually say/ mean?

    My bet is that this is once again a statement generalized/taken out of context to push ones agenda.

    • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      16 days ago

      Obama argued that reforms that reduced patronage and other forms of political dealing also stripped away some of the transactional tools lawmakers once used to build coalitions.

      He pointed to former President Lyndon B. Johnson’s era, saying reforms before and after Watergate “eliminated or greatly reduced” the ability of political machines to trade votes and favors. “It’s part of the reason why things got a little harder to get done because that was sort of some lubrication…to help to bridge some of the ideological differences that were out there,” he said.

      Reality check: Obama was talking specifically about bribery, patronage and favors. Polls asking Americans whether government corruption is “widespread” capture a much broader perception, making the two measures difficult to compare.

      • GardenGeek@europe.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        16 days ago

        Thanks for the clarification! So it was generalized and he didn’t deny the widespread corruption in general.

  • wangaBanga@feddit.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    17 days ago

    Remember when we were naive enough to think he’d reverse all those George Dubbya policies?

    • Freeposity@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 days ago

      I remember arguing with people in 2008 who insisted he was the most liberal candidate, which he wasn’t. Ronald Reagan was one of his idols, FFS.

      People saw a charming black man and then put all their hopes and aspirations onto him without actually realizing what he was about. In a sense he was very Trump like in that regard. He was a walking horoscope for his supporters. He didn’t have to say anything concrete, the followers would dutifully fill in the blanks.

      Hell, I still like Obama. He’s a pretty decent guy, but he was not going to disabuse people of their inaccurate notions of him.