FSTDT Forums
Community => Politics and Government => Topic started by: DiscoBerry on September 27, 2012, 02:53:57 pm
-
This is NOT a Dave Chappelle sketch. It is pertinent and hilarious.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zK7QfCEEiBs
-
I love that motherfucker. ;D
-
Obama 2012: Does He Look Like a Bitch?
-
Paid for by Jewish Council for Education and Research (http://www.jcer.info/) (that what the video says at the end).
I find it interesting that no matter how bullish the GOP tries to be on Israel, more Jews still vote Democrat. Not that I can blame them.
-
I'VE HAD IT WITH THESE MOTHERFUCKING REPUBLICANS IN THESE MOTHERFUCKING PLAINS
Uncensored version here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hDTT1yRNsFE
-
Obama 2012: Does He Look Like a Bitch?
Win. So hard.
-
...I am invigorated.
That ad, it just...did what I guess it was supposed to do. Wake me up.
I am gonna do something for the election. Something. Maybe raise money for Obama. I gotta do something. Mitt Romney is more dangerous than I thought.
-
I have said this before and will say it again:
USA in general is insane, US politics is even crazier.
...Although sometimes it is crazy-awesome.
-
Pssh, I'm gonna go right up to that cracker and piss on his shoes.
What? If he didn't want my piss on his shoes, he should've run faster.
-
This is exactly the sort of message we need. Democrats can't afford to get complacent.
We all need to get out there and VOTE. Not just for Obama, but in state and local elections too!
-
...I am invigorated.
That ad, it just...did what I guess it was supposed to do. Wake me up.
I am gonna do something for the election. Something. Maybe raise money for Obama. I gotta do something. Mitt Romney is more dangerous than I thought.
This is exactly the sort of message we need. Democrats can't afford to get complacent.
We all need to get out there and VOTE. Not just for Obama, but in state and local elections too!
Dear God, no. Obama is not the lesser of two evils. He has fucked over the American workers and poor just as much Bush did and Romney would. I am generally loathe to quote myself, but I will:
Boo hoo, Obama is so left -wing, he bends over backwards for the Republicans and is in the Democrat party. Didn't you know that liberals voted for him? And the CPUSA! Gosh, he must be a lefty, almost FDR, Ghandi and Marx rolled into one.
He doesn't hire neo-liberals. (http://archive.truthout.org/121708R)
He would never attack Medicare (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/15/AR2009011504114.html?sid=ST2009011504146) and Social Security. (http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/07/so-what-might-happen-if-we-get-to-august-3-with-no-deficit-deal.html)
He is a big friend (http://www.salon.com/2012/08/14/secrecy_creep/) to whistleblowers. (http://www.salon.com/2012/02/09/obamas_unprecedented_war_on_whistleblowers/)
Totally not against people working for free. (http://exiledonline.com/huffpo-america-from-arianna-huffington%E2%80%99s-unpaid-massage-therapists-to-obama%E2%80%99s-bridge-to-work-program/)
Wants to hold bankers accountable. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/08/criminal-charges-wall-street_n_1857926.html?placeValuesBeforeTB_=savedValues&KeepThis=true&TB_iframe=true&height=550&width=980)
Really, the bankers hate him. (http://wallstreetonparade.com/2012/09/who-says-wall-streets-not-backing-obama/?placeValuesBeforeTB_=savedValues&KeepThis=true&TB_iframe=true&height=550&width=980)
Timothy Geithner (http://exiledonline.com/are-obama-and-geithner-the-twins-from-hell/) and Larry Summers (http://exiledonline.com/is-larry-summers-taking-kickbacks-from-the-banks-hes-bailing-out/) are not on his economic team. Not at all.
This is aside from the usual support for Israel, American help in crushing revolts in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Yemen, the support given in Libya, expanding the war in Afghanistan and increasing drone strikes in Pakistan.
For the whole lesser evil argument, things were actually damned good under Nixon, real wages peaked, almost all troops left Vietnam and the EPA was passed.
-
Good message, and Sam is the man.
Not a fan of involving kids in political ads, though. I find it gross when repubs do it, and I'd be a hypocrite to not find it gross on my end of the spectrum.
-
...I am invigorated.
That ad, it just...did what I guess it was supposed to do. Wake me up.
I am gonna do something for the election. Something. Maybe raise money for Obama. I gotta do something. Mitt Romney is more dangerous than I thought.
This is exactly the sort of message we need. Democrats can't afford to get complacent.
We all need to get out there and VOTE. Not just for Obama, but in state and local elections too!
Dear God, no. Obama is not the lesser of two evils. He has fucked over the American workers and poor just as much Bush did and Romney would. I am generally loathe to quote myself, but I will:
Boo hoo, Obama is so left -wing, he bends over backwards for the Republicans and is in the Democrat party. Didn't you know that liberals voted for him? And the CPUSA! Gosh, he must be a lefty, almost FDR, Ghandi and Marx rolled into one.
He doesn't hire neo-liberals. (http://archive.truthout.org/121708R)
He would never attack Medicare (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/15/AR2009011504114.html?sid=ST2009011504146) and Social Security. (http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/07/so-what-might-happen-if-we-get-to-august-3-with-no-deficit-deal.html)
He is a big friend (http://www.salon.com/2012/08/14/secrecy_creep/) to whistleblowers. (http://www.salon.com/2012/02/09/obamas_unprecedented_war_on_whistleblowers/)
Totally not against people working for free. (http://exiledonline.com/huffpo-america-from-arianna-huffington%E2%80%99s-unpaid-massage-therapists-to-obama%E2%80%99s-bridge-to-work-program/)
Wants to hold bankers accountable. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/08/criminal-charges-wall-street_n_1857926.html?placeValuesBeforeTB_=savedValues&KeepThis=true&TB_iframe=true&height=550&width=980)
Really, the bankers hate him. (http://wallstreetonparade.com/2012/09/who-says-wall-streets-not-backing-obama/?placeValuesBeforeTB_=savedValues&KeepThis=true&TB_iframe=true&height=550&width=980)
Timothy Geithner (http://exiledonline.com/are-obama-and-geithner-the-twins-from-hell/) and Larry Summers (http://exiledonline.com/is-larry-summers-taking-kickbacks-from-the-banks-hes-bailing-out/) are not on his economic team. Not at all.
This is aside from the usual support for Israel, American help in crushing revolts in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Yemen, the support given in Libya, expanding the war in Afghanistan and increasing drone strikes in Pakistan.
For the whole lesser evil argument, things were actually damned good under Nixon, real wages peaked, almost all troops left Vietnam and the EPA was passed.
Yes, because Nixon was attempting to appeal to young and liberal voters. Romney is not doing that. He has written off 47% of the country as not worth campaigning for, and I can guarantee you that he knows he can't attract young people at all because of his stance on student loans and women's health care.
By saying that he is not the lesser of two evils, you are saying that Romney is a better choice. Are you seriously suggesting that a racist (http://open.salon.com/blog/chauncey_devega/2012/08/09/romneys_dog_whistles_are_clear_to_white_racists_online), homophobic, sexist, (http://www.mittromney.com/issues/values) privileged rich white dude who doesn't have any clear policies on anything (except, of course, fucking over the middle class (http://www.heraldextra.com/news/opinion/editorial/around-the-nation/marcus-romney-s-tax-plan-by-the-numbers/article_e3ad25e7-fad6-5e3d-b62a-e6cad7db1b79.html)) is a better choice than a right-of-center Democrat? Is that seriously what you are suggesting? Because I'm not seeing any evidence for that whatsoever.
-
Romney is not doing that. He has written off 47% of the country as not worth campaigning for, and I can guarantee you that he knows he can't attract young people at all because of his stance on student loans and women's health care.
It doesn't matter, Obama will campaign to attract non-white and poor voters, it doesn't mean he will actually do anything to help them.
By saying that he is not the lesser of two evils, you are saying that Romney is a better choice.
It certainly does not. Saying X is not better than Y does not say Y is better than X.
Are you seriously suggesting that a racist (http://open.salon.com/blog/chauncey_devega/2012/08/09/romneys_dog_whistles_are_clear_to_white_racists_online), homophobic, sexist, (http://www.mittromney.com/issues/values) privileged rich white dude who doesn't have any clear policies on anything (except, of course, fucking over the middle class (http://www.heraldextra.com/news/opinion/editorial/around-the-nation/marcus-romney-s-tax-plan-by-the-numbers/article_e3ad25e7-fad6-5e3d-b62a-e6cad7db1b79.html)) is a better choice than a right-of-center Democrat? Is that seriously what you are suggesting? Because I'm not seeing any evidence for that whatsoever.
Right of centre? This is what you describe someone who unashamedly supports the bankers, is more than happy to chum around with neo-liberals, attacks unions and workers (not that American unions are any good) and destroy social security? Just because Obama isn't as openly sexist and homophobic as Mitt Romney doesn't mean he has done anything good. Wow, he removed DADT.
A) The Democrats are losing support, which is also why he came out in support of same sex marriage rights though he hasn't done anything, and so they need to regain support.
B) The American military is facing a recruitment crisis
What's that about women's rights? A shit ton of states have passed laws attacking abortion and contraception rights? Especially in his first two years, where Obama held a majority in both the House of Reps and the Senate? But then, defer for the first two years and then blame everything on the Republicans. Easy.
I'm not seeing how Obama is any good. At all really.
Also, the idea of voting for the lesser evil is bullshit. Specifically for America, the Democrats are not a social democratic party, they are a liberal bourgeois party. There is a difference between the Democrats and the Labour/Labor/Social Democratic/Socialist parties of Europe and Australia. The latter, no matter how shitty and terrible they are, have some connection with the working class (though that is not to say that I would endorse them). Also, voting to keep the Republicans out allows the Democrats to move as far to the right as they want, they can simply point to the Republican menace to gain left-wing support, and then justify any rightward shift as a means to gain votes.
-
Holy shit, this makes two things I agree with Largeham about: The USA doesn't have a real left anymore (and hasn't had one for a while), and Richard Nixon was actually one of the better Republican presidents we've had (and would be considered liberal by today's standards).
-
When was the last time we had a real left?? The 60's maybe, all I know it was before my time, and over the last 30 years anything considered to be "left" has become dirty. Just look how "Obamacare" started as a republican idea from the Heritage Foundation to now SOCIALIZM!!! This is one the reasons I'm jaded as fuck when it comes to politics, and sometimes I want to watch this country burn to the ground, at this point I'll be more than happy to light the match. I really believe we need to just start all over again, let the Paultards amd the other randroids have their own little country, I'll be more than happy to let them go, since they don't want to be part of society as a whole.
-
You have a choice of being slapped in the face or having a finger cut off. If you choose neither, one will be chosen for you. That's fundamentally what's going on with America's fucked up 2 party system, but it's incredibly stupid to say the choices are equal. They're not.
We at least know, for better or worse, what Obama wants to do. Romney refuses to say anything at all specific about what his budget plans will be. That alone should be a massive red flag.
-
Romney is not doing that. He has written off 47% of the country as not worth campaigning for, and I can guarantee you that he knows he can't attract young people at all because of his stance on student loans and women's health care.
It doesn't matter, Obama will campaign to attract non-white and poor voters, it doesn't mean he will actually do anything to help them.
Right, because Obama doesn't care at all about poor (http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/poverty) or non-white voters (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/tiny-explainer-president-obamas-dream-act-executive-order/262041/).
By saying that he is not the lesser of two evils, you are saying that Romney is a better choice.
It certainly does not. Saying X is not better than Y does not say Y is better than X.
That's not what you said. You said Obama was not the lesser of two evils. If you have two evils, and Evil A is not the lesser of Evil B, then Evil B is the lesser of the two evils.
Are you seriously suggesting that a racist (http://open.salon.com/blog/chauncey_devega/2012/08/09/romneys_dog_whistles_are_clear_to_white_racists_online), homophobic, sexist, (http://www.mittromney.com/issues/values) privileged rich white dude who doesn't have any clear policies on anything (except, of course, fucking over the middle class (http://www.heraldextra.com/news/opinion/editorial/around-the-nation/marcus-romney-s-tax-plan-by-the-numbers/article_e3ad25e7-fad6-5e3d-b62a-e6cad7db1b79.html)) is a better choice than a right-of-center Democrat? Is that seriously what you are suggesting? Because I'm not seeing any evidence for that whatsoever.
Right of centre? This is what you describe someone who unashamedly supports the bankers, is more than happy to chum around with neo-liberals, attacks unions and workers (not that American unions are any good) and destroy social security? Just because Obama isn't as openly sexist and homophobic as Mitt Romney doesn't mean he has done anything good. Wow, he removed DADT.
A) The Democrats are losing support, which is also why he came out in support of same sex marriage rights though he hasn't done anything, and so they need to regain support.
B) The American military is facing a recruitment crisis
He has also stopped defending DOMA, increased rights for trans people (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/toni-newman/obama-transgender-rights_b_1420542.html), and signed the Byrd-Shepherd Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard_and_James_Byrd,_Jr._Hate_Crimes_Prevention_Act).
Also, if we're going to be snippy about motivations behind passing rights, women got the vote in America because President Wilson thought that their moral rectitude would cause them to vote for causes he supported (also, statewise, having women voters attracted women out West).
What's that about women's rights? A shit ton of states have passed laws attacking abortion and contraception rights? Especially in his first two years, where Obama held a majority in both the House of Reps and the Senate? But then, defer for the first two years and then blame everything on the Republicans. Easy.
Obama can't control state laws, since he is not in charge of individual states. That's just flat-out stupid as an argument.
I'm not seeing how Obama is any good. At all really.
Well (http://wellpoopstoyou.tumblr.com/post/26121146575/best-just-best), see (http://destroythegop.tumblr.com/post/20903468361/occupy-my-blog-this-is-a-given-no-one-wants), I (http://pilgrimkitty.tumblr.com/post/24592436264/bemusedlybespectacled-this-made-me-happy-i-was)do (http://avoidthewtf.tumblr.com/post/23353248333/atleedala-im-about-to-get-all-sorts-of).
Also, the idea of voting for the lesser evil is bullshit. Specifically for America, the Democrats are not a social democratic party, they are a liberal bourgeois party. There is a difference between the Democrats and the Labour/Labor/Social Democratic/Socialist parties of Europe and Australia. The latter, no matter how shitty and terrible they are, have some connection with the working class (though that is not to say that I would endorse them). Also, voting to keep the Republicans out allows the Democrats to move as far to the right as they want, they can simply point to the Republican menace to gain left-wing support, and then justify any rightward shift as a means to gain votes.
Yes, it's true that our two-party system sucks. That's not Obama's fault, and it's not a reason to not vote for him when the system is so thoroughly fucked that voting for literally anyone else (or not voting at all) is at best stupid and at worst deliberately malevolent, considering everything that's at stake. Please, tell me a solution that will actually work and I'll be behind it wholeheartedly, but considering that there isn't one, I'd rather vote for Obama and keep my rights as a woman and queer person than be subjected to a Romney presidency.
-
The U.S. does have a real leftist party, it's just that they're completely irrelevant in the national landscape. (http://www.gp.org/index.php)
-
Ownage
(http://thatschurch.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/tumblr_maq77ecMHG1qejf6u.gif)
-
"Especially in his first two years, where Obama held a majority in both the House of Reps and the Senate?"
We had 60+ Democrats controlling the Senate in 2009-2010? I don't remember this. I remember a lot of filibustering by the GOP. Wasn't it more like 50/49/1? I would not call that "control" myself. Also of note is that, just because the GOP automatons march lock, stock, and barrel (even against their own previously held stances) with one another doesn't mean the Democrats do or even should.
It shouldn't surprise anyone that the President had difficulty getting anything through a filibustering GOP Senate and House when their sole mission was to obstruct him just for the sake of it.
Sorry, I just get really tired of reading/hearing that somehow Obama ever controlled either branch of Congress, when that was never the case.
-
Ownage
(http://thatschurch.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/tumblr_maq77ecMHG1qejf6u.gif)
I will second that....
(http://i1225.photobucket.com/albums/ee381/randomuser6/applause.gif#applause%20gif%20357x296)
Oh...and a link to the video...
http://thecelebritycafe.com/feature/2012/09/samuel-l-jackson-obama-support-ad-wake-f-video (http://thecelebritycafe.com/feature/2012/09/samuel-l-jackson-obama-support-ad-wake-f-video)
-
"Especially in his first two years, where Obama held a majority in both the House of Reps and the Senate?"
We had 60+ Democrats controlling the Senate in 2009-2010? I don't remember this. I remember a lot of filibustering by the GOP. Wasn't it more like 50/49/1? I would not call that "control" myself. Also of note is that, just because the GOP automatons march lock, stock, and barrel (even against their own previously held stances) with one another doesn't mean the Democrats do or even should.
It shouldn't surprise anyone that the President had difficulty getting anything through a filibustering GOP Senate and House when their sole mission was to obstruct him just for the sake of it.
Sorry, I just get really tired of reading/hearing that somehow Obama ever controlled either branch of Congress, when that was never the case.
The Democrats did control both houses for a time, the problem is that there's a bunch of factions within the party itself, and there's a good deal of consevatives within the Democratic party(Blue Dogs) or caucus with them(like Joe Lieberman) that like to drag their feet when it comes to some issues. I remember a lot feet dragging was done over healthcare, because god forbid we have any decent kind of healthcare in this country.
-
What you're all forgetting is that unless you live in Ohio, Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Iowa, Colorado, or Nevada, your vote doesn't matter.
If you don't live in any of those states (especially Ohio), you can go ahead and vote for a third party because your vote will not make a single difference in the electoral vote count.
You have the electoral college and the first-past-the-post voting system to thank for that.
-
What you're all forgetting is that unless you live in Ohio, Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Iowa, Colorado, or Nevada, your vote doesn't matter.
If you don't live in any of those states (especially Ohio), you can go ahead and vote for a third party because your vote will not make a single difference in the electoral vote count.
For that you have the electoral college and the FTTP voting system to thank.
Why the Electoral College and the our entire voting system sucks balls part #567
-
Romney is not doing that. He has written off 47% of the country as not worth campaigning for, and I can guarantee you that he knows he can't attract young people at all because of his stance on student loans and women's health care.
It doesn't matter, Obama will campaign to attract non-white and poor voters, it doesn't mean he will actually do anything to help them.
Right, because Obama doesn't care at all about poor (http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/poverty) or non-white voters (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/tiny-explainer-president-obamas-dream-act-executive-order/262041/).
By saying that he is not the lesser of two evils, you are saying that Romney is a better choice.
It certainly does not. Saying X is not better than Y does not say Y is better than X.
That's not what you said. You said Obama was not the lesser of two evils. If you have two evils, and Evil A is not the lesser of Evil B, then Evil B is the lesser of the two evils.
Or the equal of two evils. 8)
-
What you're all forgetting is that unless you live in Ohio, Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Iowa, Colorado, or Nevada, your vote doesn't matter.
It still takes other states to win, your vote does count.
-
Please, tell me a solution that will actually work and I'll be behind it wholeheartedly, but considering that there isn't one, I'd rather vote for Obama and keep my rights as a woman and queer person than be subjected to a Romney presidency.
Quoted for motherfucking truth. Yeah, Obama isn't the perfect (or even) leftist candidate. WE GET IT. But trying to be a queer person or a person of color and not voting for the party mostly likely to guarantee your civil liberties as a queer person or a person of color. It's not an option for us.
-
Ok, I see where this is headed. Let's all agree the the U.S. electoral system is pretty crappy,with having only a real choice of shit or shit on a stick. Our third parties are more or less completely ignored by the media, and only serve as spoilers in swing states.Please don't bad mouth those who vote third party, especially if they live in a safe state., because remember they're sick of the 2 party system too. Also we need MAJOR ELECTORAL REFORM. There, saved a whole conversation and about 5 pages worth of bs.
-
Still doesn't change the fact I am getting out of my house and doing something for the election.
-
I never said anything about not voting or not volunteering. Hell, I'm going to start voting again, and I'm pretty politically jaded too. I mean look at my fucking sig...
-
We had 60+ Democrats controlling the Senate in 2009-2010? I don't remember this. I remember a lot of filibustering by the GOP. Wasn't it more like 50/49/1? I would not call that "control" myself. Also of note is that, just because the GOP automatons march lock, stock, and barrel (even against their own previously held stances) with one another doesn't mean the Democrats do or even should.
It shouldn't surprise anyone that the President had difficulty getting anything through a filibustering GOP Senate and House when their sole mission was to obstruct him just for the sake of it.
Sorry, I just get really tired of reading/hearing that somehow Obama ever controlled either branch of Congress, when that was never the case.
Actually, at one point it was 60-40, but only very briefly. There are two independents, Bernie Sanders (VT) and Joe Lieberman (CT), but both caucus with (and usually vote with) the Democrats. Al Franken arrived late, because the 2008 election result was so close in Minnesota that there was several weeks (maybe months, I don't remember exactly) of legal battles to determine whether he or Norm Coleman would get the seat. Shortly after Franken was finally seated, Ted Kennedy died, and Scott Brown took his seat. It shifted from 59-40 to 60-40 to 59-41 fairly rapidly, and since 60 votes are necessary to break a filibuster, the Democrats only had a very brief window with the necessary number of votes.
The Democrats also had a pretty substantial majority in the House until 2011.
-
I am thinking of doing something like selling Obama motivational posters and contributing the resulting funds to his campaign.
-
JTO has fun ripping them both.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpvHiLYu8gU
-
Since I have no idea who JTO is I will take Samuel L. Jackson.
The one thing I do know from that video is that JTO has that very simplistic view of things that many other have that are utterly pissed with the President.
-
Heh, well I stand corrected :)
-
JTO has fun ripping them both.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpvHiLYu8gU
Why should I care what this misogynist Randroid thinks?
-
JTO has fun ripping them both.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpvHiLYu8gU
Why should I care what this misogynist Randroid thinks?
He's an apparent "internet personality," you don't always listen to every word one of them says? For the record, I have no idea who this motherfucker is, either. Question. Is the whole video in black and white? I'd find out myself, but I honestly can't be arsed to actually watch the thing. If so, he's so adorable, trying to be all "deep." Because, as we all know, nothing has any intellectual value if it has any color.
...Hm.
-
JTO has fun ripping them both.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpvHiLYu8gU
Why should I care what this misogynist Randroid thinks?
How is he a misogynist or randroid?
JTO has fun ripping them both.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpvHiLYu8gU
Why should I care what this misogynist Randroid thinks?
He's an apparent "internet personality," you don't always listen to every word one of them says?
I had no reason to listen to him than some action movie celebrity. But they swear and make rhymes sort of so it's all good.
Question. Is the whole video in black and white? Because, as we all know, nothing has any intellectual value if it has any color.
All his videos are in black and white, with a few exceptions. I always assumed that he messed up the camera in the first video and decided to stick with it.
-
Right, because Obama doesn't care at all about poor (http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/poverty) or non-white voters (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/tiny-explainer-president-obamas-dream-act-executive-order/262041/).
The current form of the DREAM Act is quite weak to what is was in 2009. And Obama really cares for poor voters, what stimulus has there been since '09? And unemployment is still at Great Depression levels and real wages are still on the decline (since the early 70s).
That's not what you said. You said Obama was not the lesser of two evils. If you have two evils, and Evil A is not the lesser of Evil B, then Evil B is the lesser of the two evils.
Or you know,
Or the equal of two evils. 8)
Obama can't control state laws, since he is not in charge of individual states. That's just flat-out stupid as an argument.
Federal law doesn't take precedent over state law? Sure, it could be unconstitutional, but so what? How many modern presidents have stayed within their constitutional boundaries?
Well (http://wellpoopstoyou.tumblr.com/post/26121146575/best-just-best), see (http://destroythegop.tumblr.com/post/20903468361/occupy-my-blog-this-is-a-given-no-one-wants), I (http://pilgrimkitty.tumblr.com/post/24592436264/bemusedlybespectacled-this-made-me-happy-i-was)do (http://avoidthewtf.tumblr.com/post/23353248333/atleedala-im-about-to-get-all-sorts-of).
And in doing so have ignored all the evidence I showed above for why Obama is a piece of shit. But wait, (http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/12/report-obama-administration-sends-coast-guard-in-to-protect-ships-from-violent-union-members-occupiers/)there's more! (http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/12/obamas-new-chief-of-staff-jack-lew-a-union-buster/)
Also, if we're going to be snippy about motivations behind passing rights, women got the vote in America because President Wilson thought that their moral rectitude would cause them to vote for causes he supported (also, statewise, having women voters attracted women out West).
Yes, it's true that our two-party system sucks. That's not Obama's fault, and it's not a reason to not vote for him when the system is so thoroughly fucked that voting for literally anyone else (or not voting at all) is at best stupid and at worst deliberately malevolent, considering everything that's at stake. Please, tell me a solution that will actually work and I'll be behind it wholeheartedly, but considering that there isn't one, I'd rather vote for Obama and keep my rights as a woman and queer person than be subjected to a Romney presidency.
But we submit to it, hold our noses and vote and then complain when shit doesn't happen. Boo hoo, I keep voting Democrat and they keep fucking with me.
Don't bother with formal politics. As we saw with the suffrage movement, the progressive policies under Teddy Roosevelt, under FDR, the increase in rights for queer and black people in the 60s and 70s, it doesn't matter which party is is power as much as how willing people are to fight. No progressive reform has ever occurred due to the benevolence of politicians. We have seen how much pressure the Occupy movement has put on the Democrats (and the Republicans to a lesser extent).
"Especially in his first two years, where Obama held a majority in both the House of Reps and the Senate?"
We had 60+ Democrats controlling the Senate in 2009-2010? I don't remember this. I remember a lot of filibustering by the GOP. Wasn't it more like 50/49/1? I would not call that "control" myself. Also of note is that, just because the GOP automatons march lock, stock, and barrel (even against their own previously held stances) with one another doesn't mean the Democrats do or even should.
It shouldn't surprise anyone that the President had difficulty getting anything through a filibustering GOP Senate and House when their sole mission was to obstruct him just for the sake of it.
Sorry, I just get really tired of reading/hearing that somehow Obama ever controlled either branch of Congress, when that was never the case.
A) he did
B) yet the Democrats never did anything of the sort with Bush, they were more than happy to bend over
The Democrats did control both houses for a time, the problem is that there's a bunch of factions within the party itself, and there's a good deal of consevatives within the Democratic party(Blue Dogs) or caucus with them(like Joe Lieberman) that like to drag their feet when it comes to some issues. I remember a lot feet dragging was done over healthcare, because god forbid we have any decent kind of healthcare in this country.
Yet another reason to leave the party than stick with it's right wing trajectory in the vain hope of rebuilding whatever is left of the left-wing in the party. It is the exact same here, even nominally revolutionary groups will still pander to the craven, broken remnants of the Labor left, no matter how many times they surrender.
-
I'm sorry, I got about...2/3rds of the way into that video before I just had to stop. Obama's not a savior? No fucking shit. Anyone with a half-functioning brain can see that. He's still better than the other fucker because, while yeah, he's on the payroll of assholes like all the others, at least he gives us fucking something.
Am I saying we should just take our scraps and be happy? Fuck no. But, if its a choice between that or...not just nothing, but having my rights fucked right in the ass, while that fucking cracker smiles, you'd better bet I'll choose the guy that gives us something.
Our system is broke, its gonna take some time to fix. There are no saviors, there are no messiahs, nobody's going to come to fucking save us, and we shouldn't fucking expect it. We've all got to work, but the work's going to be gradual, there's no way around it. If you change too much, too fast, you run the risk of pissing off a lot of people, and may lead to, if nothing else, massive fucking riots, destruction of who knows HOW much property, and, most importantly, the loss of the lives of our citizens. I don't know about you, Lexi, or this...johntheother dickhead, but I'm not willing to run the risk of putting the lives of the people I love in danger because instant gratification isn't coming.
It won't. We'll probably be our parents' age before we get this shit sorted, if not older. Its more than the work of a single term, its more than the work of a single presidency, perhaps even a single generation. The road ahead is long and difficult, but at least it doesn't run us the risk of falling head-long off a god damned cliff.
-
I'm sorry, largeham.
Are you seriously saying that Obama is as bad as Mitt Romney? Really?
I find that to be a completely unreasonable conclusion, even with the evidence you've provided (especially considering it's you that has to ignore evidence proving that he's not a piece of shit)
I could see him being not a great president, hell, I could even see him being a bad president, but as bad as Mitt Romney?
Not a chance. Not unless you listen to Fox News.
EDIT: Oh, do you think you could use a source other than the Daily Caller? Something about that site makes it feel like Fox News' little brother. Especially since it seems to have nothing positive to say about Obama and nothing negative to say about the right wing.
Not to mention it's still going on about the "Fast and Furious" fiasco which I believe was debunked, if I recall correctly?
-
The Democrats did control both houses for a time, the problem is that there's a bunch of factions within the party itself, and there's a good deal of consevatives within the Democratic party(Blue Dogs) or caucus with them(like Joe Lieberman) that like to drag their feet when it comes to some issues. I remember a lot feet dragging was done over healthcare, because god forbid we have any decent kind of healthcare in this country.
Yet another reason to leave the party than stick with it's right wing trajectory in the vain hope of rebuilding whatever is left of the left-wing in the party. It is the exact same here, even nominally revolutionary groups will still pander to the craven, broken remnants of the Labor left, no matter how many times they surrender.
This is the reason why I really feel the Progressive caucus within the Democratic Party, would be better off if they were to spilt with the party, and team up with Greens, and other progressives. The Democratic Party ignores them for the most part anyway.
-
The current form of the DREAM Act is quite weak to what is was in 2009. And Obama really cares for poor voters, what stimulus has there been since '09? And unemployment is still at Great Depression levels and real wages are still on the decline (since the early 70s).
There has been no stimulus since the President can't just order one. Congress controls the money. The President has called for more stimulus, congress has not acted.
Oh, during the great depression unemployment was around 20%. Not the 8% we have now.
Federal law doesn't take precedent over state law? Sure, it could be unconstitutional, but so what? How many modern presidents have stayed within their constitutional boundaries?
For one the federal government is limited on what it can pass as legislation. Many issues are reserved for the states. You have the US constitution and the Supreme Court to make sure things are kept in line. That is why the federal government can't force state to expand Medicare and Medicaid.
And in doing so have ignored all the evidence I showed above for why Obama is a piece of shit. But wait, (http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/12/report-obama-administration-sends-coast-guard-in-to-protect-ships-from-violent-union-members-occupiers/)there's more! (http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/12/obamas-new-chief-of-staff-jack-lew-a-union-buster/)
Yes I can totally see how using the Coast Guard to protect ships and people from possible violence make a person a piece of shit.
If you could not tell that was sarcasm.
But we submit to it, hold our noses and vote and then complain when shit doesn't happen. Boo hoo, I keep voting Democrat and they keep fucking with me.
Don't bother with formal politics. As we saw with the suffrage movement, the progressive policies under Teddy Roosevelt, under FDR, the increase in rights for queer and black people in the 60s and 70s, it doesn't matter which party is is power as much as how willing people are to fight. No progressive reform has ever occurred due to the benevolence of politicians. We have seen how much pressure the Occupy movement has put on the Democrats (and the Republicans to a lesser extent).
They are not fucking with you, you just expect them to do more than they can or even promised. You are right just voting for a person is not enough. You have to keep fighting.
As fro pressure from the Occupy movement, maybe for awhile. It at least framed the argument of the 1% vs the 99%.
A) he did
No, the President did not. The party he is a member of did, but he did not control congress.
B) yet the Democrats never did anything of the sort with Bush, they were more than happy to bend over
The Democrats blocked Bush nominees and legislation plenty of times. Then when they had control they made the Bush White House and the GOP vote against policies they where pushing.
Yet another reason to leave the party than stick with it's right wing trajectory in the vain hope of rebuilding whatever is left of the left-wing in the party. It is the exact same here, even nominally revolutionary groups will still pander to the craven, broken remnants of the Labor left, no matter how many times they surrender.
Go right ahead. The problems is the the US simply is not left leaning enough as a country to support a wholly left party.
-
How is he a misogynist or randroid?
Watch his other videos. He unironically affiliates with A Voice for Men. He's an MRA shitlord of the worst kind.
He's also an Ayn Rand fanboy.
-
EDIT: Oh, do you think you could use a source other than the Daily Caller? Something about that site makes it feel like Fox News' little brother. Especially since it seems to have nothing positive to say about Obama and nothing negative to say about the right wing.
Not to mention it's still going on about the "Fast and Furious" fiasco which I believe was debunked, if I recall correctly?
The Daily Caller is a site run by Tucker Carlson, who you may know as "that conservative fucktard who wears bowties and used to be on Crossfire."
-
EDIT: Oh, do you think you could use a source other than the Daily Caller? Something about that site makes it feel like Fox News' little brother. Especially since it seems to have nothing positive to say about Obama and nothing negative to say about the right wing.
Not to mention it's still going on about the "Fast and Furious" fiasco which I believe was debunked, if I recall correctly?
The Daily Caller is a site run by Tucker Carlson, who you may know as "that conservative fucktard who wears bowties and used to be on Crossfire."
Isn't it funny when your gut feeling is right on the mark?
-
There has been no stimulus since the President can't just order one. Congress controls the money. The President has called for more stimulus, congress has not acted.
Oh, during the great depression unemployment was around 20%. Not the 8% we have now.
The way unemployment is measured ignores underemployment and those who have left the labour force.
For one the federal government is limited on what it can pass as legislation. Many issues are reserved for the states. You have the US constitution and the Supreme Court to make sure things are kept in line. That is why the federal government can't force state to expand Medicare and Medicaid.
Yet, the Republicans were more than happy to pass unconstitutional laws.
Yes I can totally see how using the Coast Guard to protect ships and people from possible violence make a person a piece of shit.
If you could not tell that was sarcasm.
Wow, that was tough. I had a lot of trouble trying to figure out what you meant, but thanks for clarifying.
Boo hoo, violence this, violence that.
A) allegations of violence
B) it's not about the violence, it is about Obama breaking up strikes and pickets, the great friend he is to the workers (he can't bear all the blame, the unions in America are craven as hell)
They are not fucking with you, you just expect them to do more than they can or even promised. You are right just voting for a person is not enough. You have to keep fighting.
As fro pressure from the Occupy movement, maybe for awhile. It at least framed the argument of the 1% vs the 99%.
They are not doing more than I want or expect, I have never expected more from politicians than they deliver.
No, the President did not. The party he is a member of did, but he did not control congress.
So his party is shit. See above where I talked about breaking away from the Democrats.
The Democrats blocked Bush nominees and legislation plenty of times. Then when they had control they made the Bush White House and the GOP vote against policies they where pushing.
Yet they supported both wars, the PATRIOT Act, the reauthorisation of the PATRIOT Act, the FISA amendments and many Democrats were against ending the Bush tax cuts for the rich.
Go right ahead. The problems is the the US simply is not left leaning enough as a country to support a wholly left party.
I would agree and disagree. Sure, the political terrain in America is very right-wing, but that is because few people are willing to stand up and fight back. Though that has changed lately, with OWS and recent labour struggles (e.g. the CTU strikes, the Democrats has been a great help to the teachers there) (http://www.salon.com/2012/06/30/parent_trigger_the_latest_tactic_for_fighting_teachers_unions/?placeValuesBeforeTB_=savedValues&KeepThis=true&TB_iframe=true&height=550&width=980)
If no one tries to actually push things towards the left, then nothing will change. And I guess part of the onus is on the Democrats considering how many left wing people look to them.
EDIT: Oh, do you think you could use a source other than the Daily Caller? Something about that site makes it feel like Fox News' little brother. Especially since it seems to have nothing positive to say about Obama and nothing negative to say about the right wing.
Not to mention it's still going on about the "Fast and Furious" fiasco which I believe was debunked, if I recall correctly?
The Daily Caller is a site run by Tucker Carlson, who you may know as "that conservative fucktard who wears bowties and used to be on Crossfire."
Isn't it funny when your gut feeling is right on the mark?
Here you go. (http://www.alternet.org/story/153935/obama%27s_union-busting_new_chief_of_staff_jacob_lew_helped_destroy_grad_students%27_union_at_nyu)
But you (http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/new-justice-department-documents-show-huge-increase) are right, (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/06/27/obama-administration-eyes-executive-action-to-combat-online-piracy/?placeValuesBeforeTB_=savedValues&KeepThis=true&TB_iframe=true&height=550&width=980) it really (http://www.offthechartsblog.org/over-500000-workers-are-out-of-jobs-%E2%80%93-and-prematurely-out-of-benefits/?placeValuesBeforeTB_=savedValues&KeepThis=true&TB_iframe=true&height=550&width=980) is. (http://www.inthesetimes.com/working/entry/13446/are_senate_democrats_to_blame_for_blocking_union_election_for_10000_america/)
-
Don't forget the decades of Republican propagada being played about and controlling the public discourse in this country, and there's been plenty of books written about it. I'm sure that has played a huge part in why this country is where it's at, right now.
-
What exactly is your solution, then? Go Green Party and have your vote mean nothing? Not vote and let your rights be stripped away? Become an expatriot and have the exact same problems as before?
Also, question, you wouldn't happen to be a straight white dude, would you? Because you seem to not really understand the horror that I'm trying to express.
-
The way unemployment is measured ignores underemployment and those who have left the labour force.
Yes, but unless you can show that unemployment was measured differently during the great depression your statement is still way off.
Yet, the Republicans were more than happy to pass unconstitutional laws.
...and the ones that are get shot down by the Supreme Court. The ones that are not are by the very nature of the court constitutional.
Wow, that was tough. I had a lot of trouble trying to figure out what you meant, but thanks for clarifying.
Boo hoo, violence this, violence that.
A) allegations of violence
B) it's not about the violence, it is about Obama breaking up strikes and pickets, the great friend he is to the workers (he can't bear all the blame, the unions in America are craven as hell)
There is a difference between breaking up strikes and protecting people. Plus your source is from one of the least trustworthy people on the planet.
They are not doing more than I want or expect, I have never expected more from politicians than they deliver.
It does not sound like it from your whining.
So his party is shit. See above where I talked about breaking away from the Democrats.
Members of his party are from conservative areas in the country and they go against the President and the Party to keep their jobs. Yes, the more liberal wing could break away, but in the end they would be a marginal party who would have to caucus with the more centrist and conservative Dems to get anything done.
Yet they supported both wars, the PATRIOT Act, the reauthorisation of the PATRIOT Act, the FISA amendments and many Democrats were against ending the Bush tax cuts for the rich.
Yes they did. You may not agree with those things but they are not the only issues. Unless you run for office yourself you are not going to find a party or politician that you will agree with 100% of the time.
I would agree and disagree. Sure, the political terrain in America is very right-wing, but that is because few people are willing to stand up and fight back. Though that has changed lately, with OWS and recent labour struggles (e.g. the CTU strikes, the Democrats has been a great help to the teachers there) (http://www.salon.com/2012/06/30/parent_trigger_the_latest_tactic_for_fighting_teachers_unions/?placeValuesBeforeTB_=savedValues&KeepThis=true&TB_iframe=true&height=550&width=980)
If no one tries to actually push things towards the left, then nothing will change. And I guess part of the onus is on the Democrats considering how many left wing people look to them.
If you think the Dems have not been pushing you have not been paying attention.
-
What exactly is your solution, then? Go Green Party and have your vote mean nothing? Not vote and let your rights be stripped away? Become an expatriot and have the exact same problems as before?
ELECTORAL REFORM would make a hell of a difference, and one's vote for a third party could actually mean something then. You know how many people I personally know, would love to switch to some type of proportioanal representation system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation), when I tell them about it. We need to keep pushing for it, and mind you this is coming from the queen of political jadedness.
Also I said before we need to stop attcking those who vote third party, these people are fucking sick of politics as usual and sick of being thrown under the bus after election season.There's nothing wrong with it, and we're not monsters. I'm only saying this because these threads always turn into "Let's attack third party voters" bs and I already see many hints of it.
-
What exactly is your solution, then? Go Green Party and have your vote mean nothing? Not vote and let your rights be stripped away? Become an expatriot and have the exact same problems as before?
ELECTORAL REFORM would make a hell of a difference, and one's vote for a third party could actually mean something then. You know how many people I personally know, would love to switch to some type of proportioanal representation system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation), when I tell them about it. We need to keep pushing for it, and mind you this is coming from the queen of political jadedness.
Also I said before we need to stop attcking those who vote third party, these people are fucking sick of politics as usual and sick of being thrown under the bus after election season.There's nothing wrong with it, and we're not monsters. I'm only saying this because these threads always turn into "Let's attack third party voters" bs and I already see many hints of it.
Yeah, but that would be a fix. And if we couldn't decide which party is the lesser evil, how would we know who's most qualified to screw us over lead this country? We can't have rational solutions to our problems, woman! What's wrong with you!?
-
As it stands now a vote for Green is a vote for Romney.
-
What exactly is your solution, then? Go Green Party and have your vote mean nothing? Not vote and let your rights be stripped away? Become an expatriot and have the exact same problems as before?
ELECTORAL REFORM would make a hell of a difference, and one's vote for a third party could actually mean something then. You know how many people I personally know, would love to switch to some type of proportioanal representation system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation), when I tell them about it. We need to keep pushing for it, and mind you this is coming from the queen of political jadedness.
Also I said before we need to stop attcking those who vote third party, these people are fucking sick of politics as usual and sick of being thrown under the bus after election season.There's nothing wrong with it, and we're not monsters. I'm only saying this because these threads always turn into "Let's attack third party voters" bs and I already see many hints of it.
Yes, convince the people in power to adopt a system that gives them less power. THAT WILL TOTALLY WORK.
Also, you want to know why people attack third-party voters?
As it stands now a vote for Green is a vote for Romney.
THAT.
-
As it stands now a vote for Green is a vote for Romney.
Not unless you live in a swing state, it isn't.
-
What exactly is your solution, then? Go Green Party and have your vote mean nothing? Not vote and let your rights be stripped away? Become an expatriot and have the exact same problems as before?
ELECTORAL REFORM would make a hell of a difference, and one's vote for a third party could actually mean something then. You know how many people I personally know, would love to switch to some type of proportioanal representation system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation), when I tell them about it. We need to keep pushing for it, and mind you this is coming from the queen of political jadedness.
Also I said before we need to stop attcking those who vote third party, these people are fucking sick of politics as usual and sick of being thrown under the bus after election season.There's nothing wrong with it, and we're not monsters. I'm only saying this because these threads always turn into "Let's attack third party voters" bs and I already see many hints of it.
Yeah, but that would be a fix. And if we couldn't decide which party is the lesser evil, how would we know who's most qualified to screw us over lead this country? We can't have rational solutions to our problems, woman! What's wrong with you!?
She must be on her period or something.
-
What exactly is your solution, then? Go Green Party and have your vote mean nothing? Not vote and let your rights be stripped away? Become an expatriot and have the exact same problems as before?
ELECTORAL REFORM would make a hell of a difference, and one's vote for a third party could actually mean something then. You know how many people I personally know, would love to switch to some type of proportioanal representation system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation), when I tell them about it. We need to keep pushing for it, and mind you this is coming from the queen of political jadedness.
Also I said before we need to stop attcking those who vote third party, these people are fucking sick of politics as usual and sick of being thrown under the bus after election season.There's nothing wrong with it, and we're not monsters. I'm only saying this because these threads always turn into "Let's attack third party voters" bs and I already see many hints of it.
Yes, convince the people in power to adopt a system that gives them less power. THAT WILL TOTALLY WORK.
Also, you want to know why people attack third-party voters?
So you're going to continue to hold your nose and hope it works out for the best?? As I said you have to fight for change, apparently you don't want to fight and just want to fall in line with rest of society. Some of the Democrats best ideas were borrowed from smaller left third parties. I would like the Democrats to start at least trying to understand why they lose people to the Green Party,and maybe adopting similiar policies(shit, I would love for them to pair up, and kick ass, but are too busy calling us names and such, acting like toddlers) but they're more interested in kissing up to and moving more and more to the right. Afterall this country is really center-left (http://www.alternet.org/story/106276/america_is_a_center-left_country_no_matter_how_much_the_corporate_media_say_otherwise), the problem is that the public has been brainwashed into voting for conservative polices for the past 30+ years, but that's easy to understand when they control the media, have most of the money, and the spin doctors to shape the public discourse, leaving the left to play catch up.
Also, ironbite, how the fuck did you know I'm on my period, have you been in my bathroom or something??
-
Aren't all women on their period or something?
-
Don't forget the decades of Republican propagada being played about and controlling the public discourse in this country, and there's been plenty of books written about it. I'm sure that has played a huge part in why this country is where it's at, right now.
Propaganda the Democrats haven't deigned to counter because...
unless you can show that unemployment was measured differently during the great depression
As it indeed was. The BLS started measuring unemployment in 1940. Since then their definition of unemployment has changed (the last and most significant time in 1994). There are five 'degrees' of unemployment, U1 through U5 (also U6, but that's never been significant). U3, which is currently called Unemployed means a person without a job who has actively looked for work recently. U5, the old definition of unemployed, includes 'discouraged workers' who don't look for work because there's no point doing so as well as 'marginally attached workers'. Those people are now classed as outside the participation rate, and therefore not unemployed. In 1932, they'd have been called unemployed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment#United_States_Bureau_of_Labor_statistics
This is why Krugman, for example, uses employment as a percentage of population rather than official unemployment. I can't be bothered looking that up, but feel free to do so.
My question for you is when this
Members of his party are from conservative areas in the country and they go against the President and the Party to keep their jobs. Yes, the more liberal wing could break away, but in the end they would be a marginal party who would have to caucus with the more centrist and conservative Dems to get anything done.
becomes an unacceptable lack of direction, organisation and political consistency. Do you accept the potential existence of such a phenomenon? Ultimately, in order for a group to exist, they have to share something, right?
The other question is when this
Yes they did. You may not agree with those things but they are not the only issues. Unless you run for office yourself you are not going to find a party or politician that you will agree with 100% of the time.
becomes "the politician has taken unacceptable, unconstitutional and tyrannical actions to restrict my rights. I refuse to support him or her in any way." Do you accept that tyranny is conceivably possible?
-
Don't forget the decades of Republican propagada being played about and controlling the public discourse in this country, and there's been plenty of books written about it. I'm sure that has played a huge part in why this country is where it's at, right now.
Propaganda the Democrats haven't deigned to counter because...
Democrats are historically much more diverse, which sometimes works in their favor and sometimes against. This is why, for example, there are certain definitive "conservative" texts (ex: the works of Ayn Rand) but no equivalent "liberal" texts. This is hilarious when you consider the idea that Democrats are all elitist intellectuals, when most of the books on conservative ideals are written by elitist intellectuals.
-
So you're going to continue to hold your nose and hope it works out for the best?? As I said you have to fight for change, apparently you don't want to fight and just want to fall in line with rest of society. Some of the Democrats best ideas were borrowed from smaller left third parties. I would like the Democrats to start at least trying to understand why they lose people to the Green Party,and maybe adopting similiar policies(shit, I would love for them to pair up, and kick ass, but are too busy calling us names and such, acting like toddlers) but they're more interested in kissing up to and moving more and more to the right. Afterall this country is really center-left (http://www.alternet.org/story/106276/america_is_a_center-left_country_no_matter_how_much_the_corporate_media_say_otherwise), the problem is that the public has been brainwashed into voting for conservative polices for thepast 30+ years, but that's easy to understand when they control the media, have most of the money, and the spin doctors to shape the public discourse, leaving the left to play catch up.
Also, ironbite, how the fuck did you know I'm on my period, have you been in my bathroom or something??
Center-Left, no. Polls can say what they want, it is the way people vote that counts. See the Dems could try and keep the people they lose to other parties like the greens, but in doing so they will lose more people that fall in the center. It is about numbers. If large numbers of people where falling from the Dems to the left other parties would be gaining traction. You don't see that happening, and it is not the media's fault.
One side does not own the media. That is way each side claims the others does.
The only way people are brain washed is when they don't really care. That's the problem. People don't put any thought into politics and voting. People will vote against Obama simply because things are not going right for them and he must be to blame. Others will vote against Romney because he is a rich out of touch white guy.
In the end the problems are not with the system, the problem is with the voters.
-
Don't forget the decades of Republican propagada being played about and controlling the public discourse in this country, and there's been plenty of books written about it. I'm sure that has played a huge part in why this country is where it's at, right now.
Propaganda the Democrats haven't deigned to counter because...
Democrats are historically much more diverse, which sometimes works in their favor and sometimes against. This is why, for example, there are certain definitive "conservative" texts (ex: the works of Ayn Rand) but no equivalent "liberal" texts.
Are you kidding?
Center-Left, no. Polls can say what they want, it is the way people vote that counts.
Three unexamined presumptions- 1) people know which party would do what (not true) 2) people vote entirely based on policy (not correct) and 3) there is no other factor (like racism, for instance) influencing voter behaviour. It's quite possible for a social democrat to always vote Republican.
-
becomes an unacceptable lack of direction, organisation and political consistency. Do you accept the potential existence of such a phenomenon? Ultimately, in order for a group to exist, they have to share something, right?
Which all democrats do. Take any two dems and they will agree on the vast majority of things.
becomes "the politician has taken unacceptable, unconstitutional and tyrannical actions to restrict my rights. I refuse to support him or her in any way." Do you accept that tyranny is conceivably possible?
Yes tyranny is possible. If you don't want to support a politician because of some of their actions that is your choice. However that choice, as with all choices, carry consequences. If you don't vote for that politician because of a few actions the other guy who is far worse may win.
-
becomes an unacceptable lack of direction, organisation and political consistency. Do you accept the potential existence of such a phenomenon? Ultimately, in order for a group to exist, they have to share something, right?
Which all democrats do. Take any two dems and they will agree on the vast majority of things.
Good, so you admit the possibility of such a phenomenon. What would you call the line an organisation would have to cross to become unacceptably disorganised? Where is it?
becomes "the politician has taken unacceptable, unconstitutional and tyrannical actions to restrict my rights. I refuse to support him or her in any way." Do you accept that tyranny is conceivably possible?
Yes tyranny is possible.
Fantastic. When would you say a mere violation of the law, breach of the constitution, illegal imprisonment without trial, torture, government-sponsored murder program becomes real tyranny?
-
Are you kidding?
If you haven't noticed that Dems control the White House and one chamber of Congress, and have so for four years. They have controlled the Senate for longer then that. Right now they are the most successful and powerful party in the US.
Three unexamined presumptions- 1) people know which party would do what (not true) 2) people vote entirely based on policy (not correct) and 3) there is no other factor (like racism, for instance) influencing voter behaviour. It's quite possible for a social democrat to always vote Republican.
All of those are irrelevant. It does not matter why people vote a certain way, it only matter that they do.
-
Are you kidding?
If you haven't noticed that Dems control the White House and one chamber of Congress, and have so for four years. They have controlled the Senate for longer then that. Right now they are the most successful and powerful party in the US.
Look closer, my padawan, at the question I was actually asking.
Three unexamined presumptions- 1) people know which party would do what (not true) 2) people vote entirely based on policy (not correct) and 3) there is no other factor (like racism, for instance) influencing voter behaviour. It's quite possible for a social democrat to always vote Republican.
All of those are irrelevant. It does not matter why people vote a certain way, it only matter that they do.
Well, yeah. Unless you're, you know, talking about that or something.
-
Good, so you admit the possibility of such a phenomenon. What would you call the line an organisation would have to cross to become unacceptably disorganised? Where is it?
When the party become irrelevant and powerless.
Fantastic. When would you say a mere violation of the law, breach of the constitution, illegal imprisonment without trial, torture, government-sponsored murder program becomes real tyranny?
When the people start to care enough to pay attention and make those things issues.
-
Good, so you admit the possibility of such a phenomenon. What would you call the line an organisation would have to cross to become unacceptably disorganised? Where is it?
When the party become irrelevant and powerless.
Which is, of course, virtually impossible in a two-party system. Nice double-think.
Fantastic. When would you say a mere violation of the law, breach of the constitution, illegal imprisonment without trial, torture, government-sponsored murder program becomes real tyranny?
When the people start to care enough to pay attention and make those things issues.
There are so many things wrong with this I'm not even going to go into it. Don't you see how this is completely fucked?
-
Don't forget the decades of Republican propagada being played about and controlling the public discourse in this country, and there's been plenty of books written about it. I'm sure that has played a huge part in why this country is where it's at, right now.
Propaganda the Democrats haven't deigned to counter because...
Democrats are historically much more diverse, which sometimes works in their favor and sometimes against. This is why, for example, there are certain definitive "conservative" texts (ex: the works of Ayn Rand) but no equivalent "liberal" texts.
Are you kidding?
I would say that generally Republicans and conservatives are more diverse, but act like a hive mind, whereas liberals usually have common goals but don't work with each other as much to secure them. I think that's why we have libertarians and Neocons saying we should vote for Romney while this forum is debating on whether we should vote for Obama.
-
Don't forget the decades of Republican propagada being played about and controlling the public discourse in this country, and there's been plenty of books written about it. I'm sure that has played a huge part in why this country is where it's at, right now.
Propaganda the Democrats haven't deigned to counter because...
Democrats are historically much more diverse, which sometimes works in their favor and sometimes against. This is why, for example, there are certain definitive "conservative" texts (ex: the works of Ayn Rand) but no equivalent "liberal" texts.
Are you kidding?
I would say that generally Republicans and conservatives are more diverse, but act like a hive mind, whereas liberals usually have common goals but don't work with each other as much to secure them. I think that's why we have libertarians and Neocons saying we should vote for Romney while this forum is debating on whether we should vote for Obama.
Democrats cover a more wide range of ages, ethnicities, genders, sexual orientations, and political beliefs than Republicans do. Furthermore, Democrats usually have a common goal (fighting for the underdog being one umbrella goal), but have very different ideas on how to achieve that - that's why we have feminists AND anti-racism activists AND people who are interested in the poor AND queer rights activists - and can't agree on what needs to be fixed first.
Whereas Republicans have a set series of talking points that everyone follows, like "balance the budget" or "they're taking our jobs".
-
You know, if the Democratic party isn't leaning far enough to the left for you take a page out of the tea baggers page and start organizing to get candidates you like on the ballot. It's a hell of a lot easier than getting another party off the ground in a two party system.
Just promise you won't be as fucking retarded as they are.
-
Democrats are historically much more diverse, which sometimes works in their favor and sometimes against. This is why, for example, there are certain definitive "conservative" texts (ex: the works of Ayn Rand) but no equivalent "liberal" texts.
Are you kidding?
I would say that generally Republicans and conservatives are more diverse, but act like a hive mind, whereas liberals usually have common goals but don't work with each other as much to secure them. I think that's why we have libertarians and Neocons saying we should vote for Romney while this forum is debating on whether we should vote for Obama.
[/quote]
Sorry, my mockery wasn't very clear. I thought this part was ridiculous:
there are certain definitive "conservative" texts (ex: the works of Ayn Rand) but no equivalent "liberal" texts
Ummm, Rawls? Bloody Keynes? Smith, Rousseau, Locke? If you want Americans; Fullbright, Krugman? I can give you a dozen definitive liberal texts for every Rand pot-boiled novel or silly Oakeshott nonsense.
Don't forget the decades of Republican propagada being played about and controlling the public discourse in this country, and there's been plenty of books written about it. I'm sure that has played a huge part in why this country is where it's at, right now.
Propaganda the Democrats haven't deigned to counter because...
Democrats are historically much more diverse, which sometimes works in their favor and sometimes against. This is why, for example, there are certain definitive "conservative" texts (ex: the works of Ayn Rand) but no equivalent "liberal" texts.
Are you kidding?
I would say that generally Republicans and conservatives are more diverse, but act like a hive mind, whereas liberals usually have common goals but don't work with each other as much to secure them. I think that's why we have libertarians and Neocons saying we should vote for Romney while this forum is debating on whether we should vote for Obama.
Democrats cover a more wide range of ages, ethnicities, genders, sexual orientations, and political beliefs than Republicans do. Furthermore, Democrats usually have a common goal (fighting for the underdog being one umbrella goal), but have very different ideas on how to achieve that - that's why we have feminists AND anti-racism activists AND people who are interested in the poor AND queer rights activists - and can't agree on what needs to be fixed first.
Which are legitimate areas of disagreement which should be respected (though ultimately a choice must be made). What is not a legitimate area of disagreement within a 'left' party is between people who believe in fighting for equal rights, the underdog ect and people who do not. A disagreement over whether to raise aid to the poor or cut it is not acceptable. There are, of course, many people within the parliamentary party of the second kind, allowed not only to hold and express those frankly Republican views openly, but to vote on them. They should either get with the program or out of the party. There's another political party for people who believe that, the Democrats are for the people who don't; we have the right to a way of expressing that belief.
-
Yes, but unless you can show that unemployment was measured differently during the great depression your statement is still way off.
Fred answered this, but I will concede the point, what I meant (and should have said) was that the percentage of the population affected by the current crisis is similar to that during the Great Depression. Also, I'm not that big a fan of Krugman (he is at best a Keynesian), but his method of measuring unemployment is by far better IMO.
...and the ones that are get shot down by the Supreme Court. The ones that are not are by the very nature of the court constitutional.
url=http://blogs.alternet.org/skeeterbitesreport/2010/04/06/33/]Yeah, like this.[/url]
There is a difference between breaking up strikes and protecting people. Plus your source is from one of the least trustworthy people on the planet.
Here. (http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2009/entries/rights-human/)
It does not sound like it from your whining.
No, I'm simply arguing that Obama is not the lesser of two evils.
Members of his party are from conservative areas in the country and they go against the President and the Party to keep their jobs. Yes, the more liberal wing could break away, but in the end they would be a marginal party who would have to caucus with the more centrist and conservative Dems to get anything done.
I would disagree. Were they actually to do something, they would gain support. Obama's election represented a massive left-wing shit among the American people, and pre-WW1 social democratic parties easily had active memberships of millions of people. It can be done, but I don't expect it to happen.
Yes they did. You may not agree with those things but they are not the only issues. Unless you run for office yourself you are not going to find a party or politician that you will agree with 100% of the time.
There is little I agree with the Democrats.
If you think the Dems have not been pushing you have not been paying attention.
Where and how?
Yes, convince the people in power to adopt a system that gives them less power. THAT WILL TOTALLY WORK.
Whoever said anything about convincing people at the top?
As for a solution, as I pointed out earlier history has shown that rights and freedoms are never acquired through the benevolence of rulers but through struggle and people fighting. That is what we need more of. OWS was a good start, the CTU strike is bloody great. Grassroots politics that allows people to take control of their won lives.
What exactly is your solution, then? Go Green Party and have your vote mean nothing? Not vote and let your rights be stripped away? Become an expatriot and have the exact same problems as before?
See above.
Also, question, you wouldn't happen to be a straight white dude, would you? Because you seem to not really understand the horror that I'm trying to express.
Many non white/straight/males vote for the Republicans, unless you are going to start calling them self-hating [insert group here]. Anyway, I only fit two out of three, take your pick.
Center-Left, no. Polls can say what they want, it is the way people vote that counts. See the Dems could try and keep the people they lose to other parties like the greens, but in doing so they will lose more people that fall in the center. It is about numbers. If large numbers of people where falling from the Dems to the left other parties would be gaining traction. You don't see that happening, and it is not the media's fault.
A) See above
B) The Democrats 1) have a shit ton of money that other left parties don't, 2) the Democrats also have a history of supporting and co opting left-wing movements to gain support
The only way people are brain washed is when they don't really care. That's the problem. People don't put any thought into politics and voting. People will vote against Obama simply because things are not going right for them and he must be to blame. Others will vote against Romney because he is a rich out of touch white guy.
In the end the problems are not with the system, the problem is with the voters.
Yep, people are becoming apathetic and disillusioned, who woulda guessed? And maybe it has something to do with the fact that American is a piece of shit with two parties fighting over who can brown nose corporations better than the other. But then you know, the problem is that people are stupid and weak. How dare they not take part in the voting farce. It is your fault that the state and companies are screwing you over!
Oh (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html?_r=2&hp=&pagewanted=all&placeValuesBeforeTB_=savedValues&KeepThis=true&TB_iframe=true&height=550&width=980&) yeah, (http://www.salon.com/2012/05/19/missile_defense_is_back/singleton/?placeValuesBeforeTB_=savedValues&KeepThis=true&TB_iframe=true&height=550&width=980) Democrats (http://www.inthesetimes.com/working/entry/13221/amid_sabotage_investigation_honeywell_lays_off_plants_entire_union_workforc/?placeValuesBeforeTB_=savedValues&KeepThis=true&TB_iframe=true&height=550&width=980) really (http://www.inthesetimes.com/working/entry/13130/department_of_labor_endorsing_the_trend_of_unpaid_internships/?placeValuesBeforeTB_=savedValues&KeepThis=true&TB_iframe=true&height=550&width=980) love the (http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=F4950EDF-0720-49B3-E9CF944947AD8F5C&placeValuesBeforeTB_=savedValues&KeepThis=true&TB_iframe=true&height=550&width=980) underdog! (http://www.inthesetimes.com/working/entry/13081/harkin_criticizes_white_house_omb_over_holding_up_workplace_safety_rules?placeValuesBeforeTB_=savedValues&KeepThis=true&TB_iframe=true&height=550&width=980)
-
Yeah, like this. (http://blogs.alternet.org/skeeterbitesreport/2010/04/06/33/)
Notice that how many time in that blog notes that courts have not ruled on the wiretapping constitutionality. Until the Supreme Court rules on this it is in limbo.
Here. (http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2009/entries/rights-human/)
Are you going to make an argument or just post non sequiturs?
No, I'm simply arguing that Obama is not the lesser of two evils.
Sounds like whining to me.
I would disagree. Were they actually to do something, they would gain support. Obama's election represented a massive left-wing shit among the American people, and pre-WW1 social democratic parties easily had active memberships of millions of people. It can be done, but I don't expect it to happen.
Obama's election does no represent a massive left-wing shift. Other than the GOP who wanted to paint Obama as a far left candidate few saw that in him. Even more so know that the far left things he is just as bad as anyone on the right.
There is little I agree with the Democrats.
You don't agree with equal rights and equal pay? You don't agree with a women's right to choose? You don't agree with universal health care? You don't agree with social safety nets?
I think there is a lot you agree with the Democratic party on.
Where and how?
Health care reform, fair pay act, repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, student loan program overhaul....
A) See above
B) The Democrats 1) have a shit ton of money that other left parties don't, 2) the Democrats also have a history of supporting and co opting left-wing movements to gain support
That money does not grow on some magic tree. It come to the party because of what the party believes. Yes, the Dems to take up causes of the left that have gained support. Why wouldn't they?
Yep, people are becoming apathetic and disillusioned, who woulda guessed? And maybe it has something to do with the fact that American is a piece of shit with two parties fighting over who can brown nose corporations better than the other. But then you know, the problem is that people are stupid and weak. How dare they not take part in the voting farce. It is your fault that the state and companies are screwing you over!
It is the people's fault. The people vote these representative in. Democracy is not a spectator sport. Don't like who is running, run yourself or get someone you do like to run. People have to put the work in. Right now not very many are willing to do that.
As for America being a piece of shit, you have your head planted so far up your ass it is staining your vision. There are few places on the planet better than the US right now. Even with the problems we have the quality of life here is far and above what it is in most countries.
-
You don't agree with equal rights and equal pay? You don't agree with a women's right to choose? You don't agree with universal health care? You don't agree with social safety nets?
These are not binary, yes/no issues. You can agree with these ideas, and still disagree about the best way to accomplish them. The Republicans support a social safety net too, but their idea of what it should look like (very small and largely privatized) is very different from the New Deal style liberal idea, which in turn is very different from the broader, more inclusive leftist perspective.
Trying to reduce these issues to "if you oppose the Democrats, you oppose (broad, generic good thing)" is not any better than when conservatives say "if you oppose our version of national security, you hate America." Political issues are almost always more complex than that, and it serves the debate poorly to pretend otherwise.
The most important one to me is healthcare. The Democrats' idea of "universal healthcare" is that everyone should be able to afford to buy private insurance. I think that's idiotic, and only fully support a single-payer system. That's not going to happen though. So, as a leftist, I have to decide if I can hold my nose, vote Democrat, and be okay with it. If so, great, if not, that's fine too. The lesser of two evils is still, by definition, evil, and there comes to be a point at which even the lesser evil is intolerable.
The only thing we're arguing about here is if we are already to that point with the Democratic Party.
-
PPACA can help states implement a single payer system.
The decision means Vermont will likely be able to draw down hundreds of millions of dollars in federal money to subsidize health insurance for low-income residents. It also means a green light, at least for now, for the state to move forward with its goal of implementing a single-payer health care system in 2017.
http://vtdigger.org/2012/06/28/supreme-court-obamacare-decision-good-news-for-vermont-reform-plans/
Here’s how the thinking goes: If the individual mandate falls, but the rest of the law stands, California still expects to receive a big pile of money to expand insurance coverage. The state has the highest number of uninsured people anywhere, meaning it will get one of the biggest funding boosts. For the Medicaid expansion alone, between 2014 and 2019, the state expects to receive $55 billion.
If California got the necessary waivers from the Obama administration, it could pool those dollars with existing funds to lay a foundation for a single-payer health care system. It’s an approach relatively similar to the one that Vermont is now pursuing.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/06/27/if-obamacare-falls-california-groups-plan-a-single-payer-push/
-
The ACA certainly does some good things, and if a few states can use it to build something better, then that's wonderful too. Hell, without it, my wife and I would be uninsured. I'm glad that it exists. But it is not only not a single-payer system, it doesn't create a universal healthcare system. There will still be people uninsured under it, even after it is fully implemented.
But the specific merits and flaws of the ACA are beside the point. The point is that one can agree with a party on broad goals of government while still opposing the policies that they support to accomplish those goals. Every citizen has the right to decide to whom they want to give their vote. I see no reason to criticize largeham for choosing to give it to somebody who he agrees with, even if that candidate cannot win.
-
You don't agree with equal rights and equal pay? You don't agree with a women's right to choose? You don't agree with universal health care? You don't agree with social safety nets?
These are not binary, yes/no issues. You can agree with these ideas, and still disagree about the best way to accomplish them. The Republicans support a social safety net too, but their idea of what it should look like (very small and largely privatized) is very different from the New Deal style liberal idea, which in turn is very different from the broader, more inclusive leftist perspective.
Trying to reduce these issues to "if you oppose the Democrats, you oppose (broad, generic good thing)" is not any better than when conservatives say "if you oppose our version of national security, you hate America." Political issues are almost always more complex than that, and it serves the debate poorly to pretend otherwise.
The most important one to me is healthcare. The Democrats' idea of "universal healthcare" is that everyone should be able to afford to buy private insurance. I think that's idiotic, and only fully support a single-payer system. That's not going to happen though. So, as a leftist, I have to decide if I can hold my nose, vote Democrat, and be okay with it. If so, great, if not, that's fine too. The lesser of two evils is still, by definition, evil, and there comes to be a point at which even the lesser evil is intolerable.
The only thing we're arguing about here is if we are already to that point with the Democratic Party.
My point is that even if you disagree with the party on how to accomplish these things you still agree with them that they are good things. Right now voting against that Dems in the US is akin to not supporting these things. Sure support other parties and candidates that are more to your liking when you can, but when you are left with one choice of the other you still have to choose.
The Dems idea of universal health care is not so everyone can afford private insurance as you said, but that everyone has access to health care. Having private insurance is one route. Only fully supporting a single payer system is a bit limited in my view. What is more important, people having access to health care or how they do?
-
My point is that even if you disagree with the party on how to accomplish these things you still agree with them that they are good things. Right now voting against that Dems in the US is akin to not supporting these things. Sure support other parties and candidates that are more to your liking when you can, but when you are left with one choice of the other you still have to choose.
The problem is that you can disagree with the party on how to accomplish these things to such an extent that you believe that their methods will accomplish nothing. Again, most Republicans probably wouldn't say that they are against a safety net, they just define the term differently than the Democrats. You and I would consider the Republicans' policy actions intended to "strengthen" the social safety net as inherently destructive to it. This is clearly what largeham thinks of the Democratic Party as well. Just because they profess to favor an idea does not mean that their policies will uphold it. I disagree with him when he says that Obama and Romney are equally bad, but I can see where he is coming from, and I do not think that there is a lot of difference between the two.
It is also worth nothing that strong third-party showings can force major parties to change. The Democratic Party became the more liberal party following the 1912 election, when Teddy Roosevelt's strong showing proved that there were enough progressives to shift elections. They wound up adopting progressive ideas, while the Republicans moved away from them (both parties housed progressives before this point). Starting in 1916, the Democratic presidential candidate has consistently been the more liberal candidate, despite the presence (and importance) of conservative Southern Democrats, who stayed in the party until well in to the 1960s.
The Dems idea of universal health care is not so everyone can afford private insurance as you said, but that everyone has access to health care. Having private insurance is one route. Only fully supporting a single payer system is a bit limited in my view. What is more important, people having access to health care or how they do?
You're right, I misread the Democratic platform, it is to ensure that everyone has access to affordable care. Of course, affordable means different things to different people. Nonetheless, doing so through a single payer system is the only acceptable system in my opinion, because it is both more cost effective (in terms of the percentage of each dollar spent that goes to actual care) and cheaper in absolute cost. This results in better care for everyone, regardless of income. I would argue that we will never actually have universal coverage without a single-payer system, and even if we do, it will be painfully inefficient and needlessly expensive. The important thing is to ensure that everyone has access to healthcare, and by far the best way to do it is through single-payer.
-
I don't see how anyone can say that there is not that much difference between Romney and Obama. Maybe if you are talking about what Mitt did in the past, but now? See to me that just looks like someone who is not paying that close attention.
It is true that the parties can express one thing, yet do another. The GOP does this when they talk about safety nets. They pay them only lip service. The Dems talk about cutting defense but never seem to do it. For the most part however the parties state their platforms and try and move in those directions. Things get messy because they have to compromise.
That is the reason why the Dems support universal health care and not single payer specifically. Right now getting a single payer system in is not in the cards. Heck the GOP is trying like hell to kill the very conservative health care reform the Dems passed.
Yes, third parties that do well can change the main parties. Voter groups can do the same. Look at the way the Tea Party has changed the GOP. The difference is the Tea Party changed the GOP, pushing it to the right, while not competing with it directly.
-
You can say that there is little difference between Obama and Romney if you reject the premise that the Democratic and Republican parties are the only viable options. Look at the Political Compass's take on the election (http://politicalcompass.org/uselection2012 (http://politicalcompass.org/uselection2012)).
As much as I hate the concept, think about it as a thought experiment. If Obama and the Democrats were a third party, and the everybody knew that either Mitt Romney or Virgil Goode would win the election, would you vote for Romney, whose ideas you so strongly oppose, just because you agree with him more than Goode?
That is fundamentally the choice that Socialists and other leftists have to face. The Democratic party is a center-right, pro-capitalist party, while the Republicans are a far right pro-capitalist party. Those of us who oppose capitalism are left with the choice between two parties that uphold an economic system that we dislike, though one has the slight redeeming quality that they are willing to also implement a few (very watered down versions of) policies that we support.
Personally, I'll probably vote for Obama (though it doesn't matter, Romney is currently polling 12 points up in my state), but I understand why somebody would vote for Alexander or Stein.
-
Yes I would vote for Romney if the choice was between him and Goode. That being said the feelings of political compass on US political figures is based on their interpretations of those people, not those people taking that test. They fail to take into account why Obama has done many of the things he has, such as signing the extension of the Bush tax cuts.
I understand why someone would want to support the Green party. I like most of what they stand for, minus their take on the military. Thing is if Jill Stein somehow did manage to become President she would end up accomplishing less that Obama could in the realm of progressive ideals. Unless there was also a wave of Green party candidates washed into congress Stein would be met with overwhelming opposition. It is most likely she would become the most overridden President in history.
-
Yes I would vote for Romney if the choice was between him and Goode. That being said the feelings of political compass on US political figures is based on their interpretations of those people, not those people taking that test. They fail to take into account why Obama has done many of the things he has, such as signing the extension of the Bush tax cuts.
I understand why someone would want to support the Green party. I like most of what they stand for, minus their take on the military. Thing is if Jill Stein somehow did manage to become President she would end up accomplishing less that Obama could in the realm of progressive ideals. Unless there was also a wave of Green party candidates washed into congress Stein would be met with overwhelming opposition. It is most likely she would become the most overridden President in history.
Given that being overridden has the same exact effect as just rolling over and signing a bill, I fail to see how that would be a bad thing. If even one thing failed to be overridden, it would be an improvement. Also, the negative publicity of congress overriding a grossly unpopular piece of shi legislation, like for example, extension of the patriot act, would have more of an effect (because it would be in the public consciousness for longer) than if it was quietly passed and signed.
-
Yes I would vote for Romney if the choice was between him and Goode. That being said the feelings of political compass on US political figures is based on their interpretations of those people, not those people taking that test. They fail to take into account why Obama has done many of the things he has, such as signing the extension of the Bush tax cuts.
They're based on what those people have said and done, though I freely admit that there are serious flaws with the test. The point is that of all the possible political viewpoints out there, the Democratic and Republican parties are not especially far apart.
I understand why someone would want to support the Green party. I like most of what they stand for, minus their take on the military. Thing is if Jill Stein somehow did manage to become President she would end up accomplishing less that Obama could in the realm of progressive ideals. Unless there was also a wave of Green party candidates washed into congress Stein would be met with overwhelming opposition. It is most likely she would become the most overridden President in history.
True, but winning isn't really the point. There are a number of reasons to vote third party, and none of them is the expectation of victory. It allows you to vote your conscience, if even the least objectionable choice that has a chance of winning is too objectionable. A strong showing has the potential to help third parties. Winning more than 5% of the popular vote qualifies a party for public financing in the next election. Plus, it raises the profile of the party and can help them win local offices, and small parties do win local offices. Gayle McLaughlin, the Mayor of Richmond, CA, is a member of the Green Party; a few Greens have been elected to state legislatures; and in four cities, Greens have at one point won a majority on town councils. There are currently over 130 members of the Green Party who currently hold elected offices across the U.S. That's not as impressive as the Presidency, but it does make a difference. And, as previously mentioned, when third parties gain strong support, the major parties often shift to absorb their ideas.
The question I have for you is this: how close does an election have to be before casting a vote for a third party becomes a waste? Mike Pence is going to be my state's next governor: he's polling 18 points ahead of the Democrat, John Gregg. Romney is polling 12 points ahead of Obama here. Would voting for a left-wing third party candidate for either office be a waste? The Democratic candidates have no chance of winning either, and in the case of Obama, he doesn't even need to win here. Why wouldn't voting for Gregg or Obama be a waste?
-
Are you defending the Military Industrial Complex there?? Seriously, the military has one of the most bloated budgets there is, I don't think it needs to be cut as much the Greens want it to be, but it needs to be cut. We don't need to be the world's policeman, shit I would say it's one of the reasons we're not so well liked.
Also I, personally don't think Single payer is possible here for certain reasons, and the best we could do is the something like the German model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Germany). But of course we would have to ship the randroids to an island first, so they don't have to be part of society anymore.
-
Or, better yet, have our own island (http://teamisland.tumblr.com/).
-
Or, better yet, have our own island (http://teamisland.tumblr.com/).
I'm not sure that being trapped on an island with a bunch of tumblr users is a preferable solution.
-
Notice that how many time in that blog notes that courts have not ruled on the wiretapping constitutionality. Until the Supreme Court rules on this it is in limbo.
It doesn't matter, it is ongoing.
Are you going to make an argument or just post non sequiturs?
Meant this. (http://www.alternet.org/story/153935/obama%27s_union-busting_new_chief_of_staff_jacob_lew_helped_destroy_grad_students%27_union_at_nyu)
Sounds like whining to me.
Then that's your problem.
Obama's election does no represent a massive left-wing shift. Other than the GOP who wanted to paint Obama as a far left candidate few saw that in him. Even more so know that the far left things he is just as bad as anyone on the right.
I'm not saying that a majority of American became radical leftists or saw Obama as such, simply that there was a general left wing shift. Also, why is that surprising? Of course radical leftists aren't going to like politicians.
You don't agree with equal rights and equal pay? You don't agree with a women's right to choose? You don't agree with universal health care? You don't agree with social safety nets?
I think there is a lot you agree with the Democratic party on.
The Democrats don't agree with this out of the goodness of their hearts.
Health care reform, fair pay act, repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, student loan program overhaul....
See above.
That money does not grow on some magic tree. It come to the party because of what the party believes. Yes, the Dems to take up causes of the left that have gained support. Why wouldn't they?
It is the people's fault. The people vote these representative in. Democracy is not a spectator sport. Don't like who is running, run yourself or get someone you do like to run. People have to put the work in. Right now not very many are willing to do that.
It takes a lot of money to run for office. Guess who's gonna give it? And people would be, but maybe they don't have time. I guess working, for those who can, and living takes some time up. But yeah, people are just lazy aren't they? Barack Obama worked hard sucking up to Wall Street.
Also, what is the main role of the president? To run the country. A main task? Running a capitalist economy. Doesn't sound like a good job for a socialist.
As for America being a piece of shit, you have your head planted so far up your ass it is staining your vision. There are few places on the planet better than the US right now. Even with the problems we have the quality of life here is far and above what it is in most countries.
Sure, America is pretty bloody good, why can't I complain. It's the same criticism of OWS, why are they complaining, things aren't that bad.
-
Sure, America is pretty bloody good, why can't I complain. It's the same criticism of OWS, why are they complaining, things aren't that bad.
That's not what he's saying, and you know it. Cut it out.
-
Given that being overridden has the same exact effect as just rolling over and signing a bill, I fail to see how that would be a bad thing. If even one thing failed to be overridden, it would be an improvement. Also, the negative publicity of congress overriding a grossly unpopular piece of shi legislation, like for example, extension of the patriot act, would have more of an effect (because it would be in the public consciousness for longer) than if it was quietly passed and signed.
Sure, for a situation like the patriot act it might be good. Budget fight might not go so well. I the House and Senate were split as they are now and you had Stein as President she would have to move from some of her positions or get overridden. That is if the Dems and GOP could compromise and get 2/3 to override a veto. If the the government shuts down.
Forcing the Dems and the GOP to work together might not be a bad thing. Thing is Stein would simple not have any support to accomplish almost anything she set out to do. It is often important to look at what a candidate can accomplish than what they promise.
They're based on what those people have said and done, though I freely admit that there are serious flaws with the test. The point is that of all the possible political viewpoints out there, the Democratic and Republican parties are not especially far apart.
Basing it on what the President has done, or any member of congress, is deeply flawed because it does not take into account that there is compromise to just about everything that gets passed.
You are correct that in the whole spectrum of political ideologies the US parties are not that far apart. I don't see that as a negative because I don't superscribe to the ideologies that are out on the fringes.
True, but winning isn't really the point. There are a number of reasons to vote third party, and none of them is the expectation of victory. It allows you to vote your conscience, if even the least objectionable choice that has a chance of winning is too objectionable. A strong showing has the potential to help third parties. Winning more than 5% of the popular vote qualifies a party for public financing in the next election. Plus, it raises the profile of the party and can help them win local offices, and small parties do win local offices. Gayle McLaughlin, the Mayor of Richmond, CA, is a member of the Green Party; a few Greens have been elected to state legislatures; and in four cities, Greens have at one point won a majority on town councils. There are currently over 130 members of the Green Party who currently hold elected offices across the U.S. That's not as impressive as the Presidency, but it does make a difference. And, as previously mentioned, when third parties gain strong support, the major parties often shift to absorb their ideas.
The question I have for you is this: how close does an election have to be before casting a vote for a third party becomes a waste? Mike Pence is going to be my state's next governor: he's polling 18 points ahead of the Democrat, John Gregg. Romney is polling 12 points ahead of Obama here. Would voting for a left-wing third party candidate for either office be a waste? The Democratic candidates have no chance of winning either, and in the case of Obama, he doesn't even need to win here. Why wouldn't voting for Gregg or Obama be a waste?
I don't think a vote is ever wasted. Voting for a third party to make a statement is fine. Your vote is your voice. What people have to understand that that statement being made by a large number of people might have an unintended and unfavorable consequence.
It doesn't matter, it is ongoing.
You're right it is ongoing, the court cases that is. That means until the Supreme Court rules calling them unconstitutional is nothing but opinion.
Meant this. (http://www.alternet.org/story/153935/obama%27s_union-busting_new_chief_of_staff_jacob_lew_helped_destroy_grad_students%27_union_at_nyu)
So the President's chief of staff was on the opposite side of a union fight near a decade ago and that means the President is anti-union?
I'm not saying that a majority of American became radical leftists or saw Obama as such, simply that there was a general left wing shift. Also, why is that surprising? Of course radical leftists aren't going to like politicians.
Sure it was a swing to the left. Two years later we saw a swing back to the right. You always have these kind of swings. They are nothing out of the ordinary.
The Democrats don't agree with this out of the goodness of their hearts.
Have you become a mind reader?
Health care reform, fair pay act, repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, student loan program overhaul....
Yes, because all of those things are super popular right?
It takes a lot of money to run for office. Guess who's gonna give it? And people would be, but maybe they don't have time. I guess working, for those who can, and living takes some time up. But yeah, people are just lazy aren't they? Barack Obama worked hard sucking up to Wall Street.
Yes it take a lot of money for bigger elections. People can and have started small.
Obama could have went after Wall Street and the Bankers, like they did in the EU. How did that would out over there again? The simple fact is Wall Street and the Banks are needed to help get the economy back up and running.
Also, what is the main role of the president? To run the country. A main task? Running a capitalist economy. Doesn't sound like a good job for a socialist.
The US is a capitalist country. That is not going to change anytime soon, nor do I think it should.
Sure, America is pretty bloody good, why can't I complain. It's the same criticism of OWS, why are they complaining, things aren't that bad.
...and you wonder why I said it sound like whining.
-
I don't think a vote is ever wasted. Voting for a third party to make a statement is fine. Your vote is your voice. What people have to understand that that statement being made by a large number of people might have an unintended and unfavorable consequence.
I won't disagree with that, but it can have positive consequences as well. Again: public financing, improved profile to help win local offices, and potentially forcing the major parties to shift the debate.
-
I won't disagree with that, but it can have positive consequences as well. Again: public financing, improved profile to help win local offices, and potentially forcing the major parties to shift the debate.
No doubt it can. It all come down to if one thinks those potential benefits outweigh potential risks.
-
There's a rebuttal now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNXw2ZATWvg