SOTU Address & Your Interview With The President

Well according to all the submitted and voted questions, it is a big issue as determine by this: 228,045 people have submitted 133,205 questions and cast 1,630,523 votes. It's not until you get to about the 35th-40th top questions that the issue finally changes.

There are a lot of big issues. We get FIVE questions. IMO, if 3/5 of those are marijuana related, it's stupid. It's not THAT huge of an issue to overrule some of the better questions that were mentioned before. I will consider it a failure.

I think it's more than 5, not entirely sure. But yes I would like to see one question for each issue, like one for weed, one for the internet, one for foreign policy or something, etc.

Here we go!

Sweet, we got someone from NJ.

Yawn, still no weed questions.

lol yeah where's the weed questions?! I'm going to guess the guy from NJ will ask, just a hunch.

He said not as many casualties as people think or something of the sort.

at least drones don't tape and piss on people

it is a big issue due to the fact that if you legalize it and tax it on state and federal levels (hefty mind you) it would be a great income for the government and cut a lot of loss.

not to mention it would lower the overall crime rate.

I don't get high nor ever have but it's stupid to keep something like that illegal. I feel similar about legalizing prostitution.

not to mention both of these policies would create jobs...


also I didn't realize that the limit was 5, but if it's what the community wants to discuss let them.

Personally I want to know why the man doesn't grow a set of balls.

I feel like it shouldn't be that many questions though. It may be an issue, but it should be narrowed down to one topic.

There were so many questions, I think people had trouble deciding which to vote on (40+ marijuana questions that is)

its SOPA time~

Last question, and not a single weed question... weak, very weak.

Glossed over that #1 question. He didn't denounce or condone the DOJ on their action to extradite him with a treaty designed for terrorists.

I do agree that they shouldn't have totally avoided the topic though...

This was *** stupid, but what can you expect?!

I'd also like to know when we're going to change the voting system to remove a two party system and get rid of the Crony capitalism that we have created.

(/cries to himself a little).

kinda disappointed ACTA wasn't even mentioned

Sigh ... and nothing on the Chris Dodd bribery either. Oh well.

I did like (imo) was the dialog about foreign aid spending - it really is pretty small, and I think people forget that. I think 1% of budget is a reasonable amount to spend on aid, I agree with him that spending nothing would end up costing us more anyway.

He did seem to get a bit surprised about the H-1B visa question (all of us in the industry already knew it). What didn't really get discussed is that the H-1B's don't care where they live, the full residents do. This means that as jobs shift from city to city, the H-1Bs can find the jobs fine, but the permanent residents don't have as much flexibility.

^ This too. You knew it was going to go downhill when he started with, well it's not me doing it...

you need to get rid of winner take all voting to get rid of the two party system.

I know.

Neat video, I've seen some of his stuff before. However, I would argue that the other voting types, although an improvement on what we have in the U.S., where the government is run by lobbyists. Even if you succeed in getting a good representative group, that group still has to have up or down votes, and then you're back to the same two party issues, except now it's "yes" vs. "no".

Well the reason why the alternative vote is better in my view, is because it allows people to vote for 3rd party candidates without having to worry about their vote being "wasted" or not using their vote to stop the greater evil.

Although our voting system will never ever change because the people in charge like it the way it is, it really should be. It would make politics as a whole better because politicians don't have to relax knowing they are only one party of two.

Ugh, did some reflecting over the interview, then decided to re-watch it. Really, the overall tone of the interview was "Me, me, me". "What can YOU, Obama, do for ME?"

The first video had a person who said that he was working a 40hr week and going to school, and what Obama had planned to help him or people like him.

The woman from Texas couldn't help talking about her husband and children. "Why doesn't MY husband have a job, he's an engineer!" She was pleased that Obama's people would check out the guy's resume - not answering the greater problem, the lack of jobs.

The guy from Michigan states that he was glad that Obama helped bail out the auto-industry because it helped his father stay employed. "It helped ME out, so I approve!" Rather than thinking the damage done as a whole to the larger group of taxpayers(and future debt of our children). Even if GM had been shutdown, the demand would have been distributed among other car manufacturers, such as Ford. This slightly increased demand would require more workers to fulfill it. This would weed out the companies that can't keep a proper business model, and help the stronger businesses grow.

The small business advocate, from New Jersey, couldn't help but ask Obama, "If you need a small business guy, don't hesitate to call me!"

It was especially disturbing to hear the woman at the end say, "I have a book! *nervous laugh*" It just goes to show that these people have little concern for the betterment of the future, just of themselves and THEIR kids.

It's typical for a gay person to argue for gay rights, but it's truly a noble cause for one to not argue the case for "gay rights", but for universal human rights.

The questions asked today(barring the UK extradition question) weren't for great causes, most of them had a selfish interest - help ME. It left me with distaste and was reminiscent of a nest of baby birds chirping for their worm.

If the majority of people are like this, it's unquestionable that the majority of elected officials relentlessly serve their own needs as well, despite the costs to others.

/nohopeinhumanity

I tuned in when some lady was asking him why they kept issuing work visas (or something) to foreign engineers when her own husband(also an engineer) was unable to find work. Watching Obama dance around that question reminded me that yes he is indeed a politician. I turned it off in disgust.

That lady had a valid concern and wanted a simple answer. What she got was a politician trying to deflect blame and avoid giving a straightforward answer.

We need fewer politicians in politics, because it's getting to the point where I want to club them all over the head regardless of party lines and policy.

I understand the fact that Obama wouldn't have wanted to take a firm stance for or against marijuana as it is election season.

But to totally avoid the issue all together considering of the top 40 questions, at least 38 of those were about it, that's just disrespectful to everyone who participated.

companies don't just go hiring foreign born employees to work in the us just because they can. they have to sponsor someone, it costs money, and they aren't quite sure that they have the same standards.

If the woman's husband is having trouble finding a job he probably needs to get more qualified so he can actually compete.

the reason he danced around the issue is 1) he didn't know the details beyond a vague question that was asked and 2) it would seem insulting if he said "your husband probably isn't qualified"