[McDoku]

Can you really blame the guy for being politically safe? I know it sucks but it is a war of inches.

Things change with the backing of the people. The Republicans know this well and uses that reaction. They are fundamentally populist (whether you agree with them or not, they have skill here).

Absolute justice gives way to a triage. Fundamentally with out that triage nothing gets treated. It is an unfortunate reality.

It will only change, if how we work is rethought. These are the scope of the actions available in our game. The pattern has been replicated consistently through similar models in history.

It could very easily become robbing Peter to pay Paul.

*edit Getting downvote....sigh.... I realize it is an unpopular opinion but it is a consistent pattern for republics through out human history. Please offer me a counter example to facilitate debate if you disagree.

[autokad]

i disagree. for one thing, he's in his 2nd term, there is no 'war of inches' to lose. when he has a political agenda, nothing stops him from shoving it through no matter what. for stuff he cares two licks about but knows his voters care about, he just retorts 'the republicans wont let me'.

[McDoku]

Would it not be irresponsible to poison the political landscape for the next candidate?

[thaumaturgy]

He already has; odds are that he has sunk any chances of a Democratic presidential victory in 2016. A significant portion of the base that rallied for his presidency two terms in a row are disillusioned with the government they got.

[JetSpiegel]

I thought Nobel prize winners should be willing to make sacrifices for the common good.

[McDoku]

That statement cuts both ways... If it is a choice between good and evil, the obvious moral choice is good. It is only a moral decision when it is between two evils.

Determining the lesser and potentially sacrificing for the common good. This the primary responsibly of any leader responsible for strategic decision making.

As you said, this means making sacrifices for the common good.

[MCRed]

No, good and evil are clear choices. Irradiating the flying public, taking pornographic pictures or molesting children are all evil, and Obama could have stopped that.

Domestic spying, Obama could have stopped it.

Hell closing guantanamo, he didn't even do that. And that's a straight up operation in violation of the constitution top to bottom.

We may have the choice between two evils at election time, but no politician is forced to choose evil.

[McDoku]

Okay here is an example. Enigma machine in WW2. Do you let a city get bombed and lose 10k lives or reveal that you have broken a code and lose the war?

How do you act and why?

[mijoharas]

> Irradiating the flying public, taking pornographic pictures or molesting children are all evil, and Obama could have stopped that.

Sorry, what are you talking about?

[McDoku]

This is actually a perfect microcosm of the subject in question :-)

Knowing the community and how they feel about these hot button issues I gain no reputation by making a point against the grain. In fact I have lost reputation...

Hahaha... If I had took my own advice and applied more PR(triage) or acted as a populist. Then would I not have gained votes instead of lost? Even if the position was invalid or it was not what I believed?

This is precisely the deficit that has held back democratic culture for centuries. It is our greatest weakness.

[bmelton]

Subscribe to the Org For Action mailing list and receive a few of those, and you'll see how fruitless that argument really is.

Yes, the president should stay somewhat politically neutral, lest he alienate roughly half of the population. That doesn't mean the responses can't be neutral.

Considering the emails that from from the president, his wife, and his supporters are routinely filled with provocative, if not downright incendiary statements, it's kind of silly that his responses (where applicable) are so entirely vapid on whitehouse.gov.

[McDoku]

I am not advocating neutrality. I am advocating avoiding snares.

Policy change is fundamentally dependant on the organization of the people. It is that organization that makes it a political reality.

A Presidents ability is constrained by this dynamic and it is a good thing! It keeps power in check.

The people enable absolute justice not the President. They are the arbitrators of liberty.

Whether you agree with the institutions actions or not there is a greater balance to be struck.

* edit I am concerned I did not address your point on vapid responses enough.

I just think it is a constant political liability and it would be better off if every senator, party, legislator ..etc could reply to the question. Then the people could get behind an idea to make it a political reality.

* edit 2 Also checked out Org For Action. I would guess that perhaps it is a different audience and it is not using the Presidential position? I do see your point. Perhaps it is simply different chains of command and therefore policy?