Barrack, Cristina, what's the difference?

Cheney

Registered
There is no difference that I can see. They both believe that the opposition media (Clarin/Fox) is the problem.

There is no problem that can not be resolved by them getting on television and flapping their lips with their empty promises to placate the masses that can not be bothered with the details of what they are saying.

Can someone please identify some differences between these two fine statesman?
 

perry

Registered
Trying to compare Christina to Obama is futile considering there is really very little in common.

Number 1 . Christina is not controlled by a private Federal Reserve that can print trillions of dollars and then make the government via the citizens pay for this as is the case in the USA.

Number 2. If Argentina could print its own money that was accepted all around the world they also could fullfill many promises . Remember in Argentina we have the Argentine Peso .

Number 3. The USA and Argentina have nothing in common in regards to Military spending which takes a huge part of the USA budget.

Number 4 . People take too much credence in the Presidents and politicians in charge . The real power brokers are big business and they can topple and elect governments as is the case in many countries. Democracy is a false illusion to make people feel better.

Number 5. If we compare personal freedoms and human expression Argentina rates very high compared to many developed societies .

Number 6. Media controls peoples mind and they are not even aware of the fact . Subtle messages and signals create the desired effect causing a mass thinking mentality. I believe that free thinking should be encouraged and alternative points of views not be censored . I see this trend becoming more common with personal attacks of people who dare say something that is different from the norm. Calling someone conspiracy theorist or loonie is very common and is used by many to silence any different opinion.

Media should be balanced and not tied up in a few hands. I am very concerned that Obama is passing a new law prohibiting free expression on the internet. To me this is a sign of a dictatorship and will create a docile controlled society.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html
 

jp

Registered
Cristina bought her support base with hot dogs.

Obama won his support base from people who thought he represented the better choice of the two presented.
 

jp

Registered
bigbadwolf said:
Some choice. Poor suckers. USA = one-party state.
Politics in any developed country is largely theatrical. Its a sign that a country has stabilised and homogenised. In the UK you can barely tell the difference between the two main parties, and whilst people decry the death of politics - its also just a sign that people are largely in agreement over the things that matter. You're not going to see a civil war fought over the extent of state involvement in health and education.

There are significant divisions between the two parties in the US which fall along ideological lines. In the bigger picture they may be superficial differences, but they still impact on people's lives. Would a democratic government have invaded Iraq? Would it have blocked stem cell research? Would the president have exercised his power of veto in the same way Bush did? Maybe, maybe not. But you only have to ask anyone who's child died as a result of the decisions to go to war, what sort of impact voting republican or voting democrat can have.
 

bigbadwolf

Registered
jp said:
Politics in any developed country is largely theatrical. Its a sign that a country has stabilised and homogenised. In the UK you can barely tell the difference between the two main parties, and whilst people decry the death of politics - its also just a sign that people are largely in agreement over the things that matter. You're not going to see a civil war fought over the extent of state involvement in health and education.
If you look at the graph here you will see that roughly 40% of voters don't bother voting in the UK. Maybe some of them feel it doesn't make any difference. Many voters are disenchanted with Labour but don't see the Conservatives as any better.

In the US, to give one example, the majority of Americans are against further involvement in Afghanistan but both parties remain committed to further involvement. As Governor Wallace pointed out forty years ago, there isn't a dime's worth of difference between the two parties. Except on things like gay marriage ....
 

jp

Registered
Gay marriage is an issue that directly affects around 10% of the country. Thats not a small issue, and its not the only issue of its kind.

The juggernaut military industrial complex isn't going to be derailed by an idealistic young president or his left leaning government, but thats not to say there aren't differences between the parties which have a profound impact on people's lives.

The UK electorate disengaged from politics because there's nobody really worth voting for. Differences are so superficial and both parties are so savagely unpopular it just becomes a begrudging vote for the least worst.
 
Top