General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Matt Damon Blasts Obama: “One-Term President With Balls” Would Be Better [View all]MrScorpio
(73,772 posts)However, there is a sizable amount of people who are waiting in the wings who will not accept him under any circumstances and a lot of these people vote. Most of them have voted against their own and the country's best interests many times in the last 30+ years. Not to mention others:
- There are those who don't understand how the government or the economy actually works, such as giving corporations tax breaks actually makes life harder for ordinary Americans.
- Or, the ones who live with underlying prejudices against ethnicities, religious beliefs or sexual orientations other than their own and take the idea of full equality in any form as some kind of UnAmerican plot against "ordinary" Americans.
- Or, so many who are willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater, with a pox on everyone's house, because their own individual agendas aren't being followed to the letter without compromise and cooperation. The No-Agenda-Is-Better-Than-Not-Having-My-Radical-Agenda folks.
Despite his fervor, it's clear that Damon's position is short-sighted and too narrowly focused on the White House itself.
No "President with Balls" would be able to come close to achieving any kind of desirable result with the Congress and courts that we have in place today, or a voting public that's resolved in keeping a faulty system in place that works the way that it does today. It's an exercise in futility to think that just one man in the White House can reverse everything.
Even after our hypothetical "One Termer" leaves office, what's to stop whatever gains that he or she had made from being summarily reversed by a successor, an untouched Congress, a compromised court system and a public that's too ill-informed to vote for a better way?
I understand his anger
I just wish that he placed his focus on the much bigger picture.