Hit a nerve?

Not particularly. I'll be frank-- it's not good satire. Democrats and Republicans are equally divided on the issue. So the irrational cult of personality premise misses the mark. And the Obama cult of personality is not what it once was... The disillusionment people feel towards Obama is the realization that nothing can be achieved in federal politics because our democracy has essentially become a self destructive clusterfuck.

why the fuck are you using hashtags on poetv

Poetv has a hash tag system now-- didn't you know? Ask Chet.

I disagree. Obama's Cult of Personality is the only thing that's keeping him from being run out of office. He spent the first four years of his presidency being Bush all over again. Despite this, he STILL got re-elected, and now it looks like he's ready to make Bush look like a frolic through the daisies. Yet few people seem willing to call him on his bullshit; it's always, well, this policy is understandable I guess, or it's someone else's fault, like the Republicans, or maybe Republicans and a few Democrats, you know, the moderate Democrats who aren't getting on board with the Innocent President of Peace's plan of attack. The only few times Obama's held responsible for his actions, it's always not REALLY his fault. His heart's in the right place, it's just that the world has corrupted his vision, or the American people are too stupid and selfish to do what what he needs of them, or blah blah blah whatever.

If Bush had done all the things Obama did for the last four years, and then topped it off with this Syria crap, what do you think would happen? I mean for fucks sake, Al Franken of all people has been cheerleading for the war in Syria! The Cult of Obama may not be what it once was, especially amongst fringe-leftists (not that anyone cares about them), but it's still there, and, like with America's other truly great warmonger-in-chief, FDR, it's letting him do whatever he wants with no more than the occasional stern finger wag from the sort of people nobody cares about in the first place.

Make no mistake, Obama and his cronies are the worst rat bastards in American politics since the last guy was in office. As long as we can agree on that, it's a start!

#buckthisimmovingtoequestria

Obama is basically George W Bush without any kind of liberal opposition.

If he was trying but failing, he wouldn't be outperforming Bush at pretty much everything we voted him into office to stop.

Bush had liberal opposition? When? 2009?

Evilhomer I can't tell if you're trolling or if the pony disease has completely eaten away your brain.

Blue is pretty dead on. I'm glad to see this video is already pissing off all the right people here.

I agree with Jack Dalton.

We have a system where the President's power in domestic affairs is virtually non-existent due to the impossibility of getting meaningful legislation through two highly-polarized houses of Congress, whereas the President's authority in military and foreign affairs has been virtually unchallenged due to his constitutional status as Commander-in-Chief. As a result, we have a system where a President can order torture, assassinations, and airstrikes at a whim, but in order to pass hardly any domestic legislation he must water it down to the point of being nearly useless (the healthcare act, for example.)

This is the reason why parliamentary forms of government are associated with better outcomes in empirical studies, whereas presidential systems are associated with a higher likelihood of civil war (when non-governmental actors try to break out of the system), dictatorship (when the President or military tries to break out of the system), or outright paralysis (when nothing is done and the presidential system is maintained). If, instead, you have a parliamentary form of government then not only is the prime minister accountable to, and recallable by, Parliament (addressing the excessively-high power in foreign and military affairs), but the parties must also maintain party discipline in order to avoid the collapse of the administration and new elections (addressing the weakness on domestic legislation.)

Obama is trying to do the best he can within this failing system. It has been an international norm for much of the twentieth century and all of the twenty-first century that the use of chemical weapons was condemned and that any use of them would result in collective international action. The enforcement of this norm has kept many countries from developing or using these weapons because the risks of using them far outweighed their benefit. If we now allow one country to use these weapons with impunity this could establish a new precedent and many of the countries who have refrained from using such weapons may instead decide to utilize them. Since Obama cannot maintain the international norm against the use of chemical weapons through the United Nations, he is trying to establish a coalition of nations to maintain it through a limited strike. In order to ensure that he has support from Congress (in case the situation becomes worse or further funding or authorization is needed) he is requesting authorization for military action from Congress. Obviously, now that a possible diplomatic solution has appeared, he is attempting to pursue that lead rather than face probable defeat in Congress.

Not only does this satire miss the nuances of the situation, it is also a poorly done satire.

I also agree with Jack Dalton but maybe it got better after 29 seconds, which is as far as I could get.