The OFFICIAL Unofficial Achewood Message Board
Trivial Pursuits => History => Topic started by: pmcd9 on August 31, 2011, 11:07:02 pm
-
I like election '12 because most political discourse is on about the level of a 12 year old.
Anyway, these are the people that have a great deal of control over our lives. And let's face it, political theater can be very compelling. Given our current political climate that's seems especially true. So as we brace ourselves for the coming onslaught of negativity and hatred this Presidential election cycle will bring I offer you, my friends, this thread as an oasis in a desert of negativity. It is only here where we few, who value civility of discourse above all else, are able to discuss the issues of the day without resorting to negativity.
Ladies and Gentlemen of TOUAMB, I give you the Election thread for 2012. Thank You!
-
nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
I can't face it.
-
But you must!
-
yeah mickey penis!
-
Obama has utterly disappointed me but, on the other hand, the entire Republican field is either religious psychotics or discredited used car salesmen so...
Obama '12 - "I guess we can."
-
You just go and compromise the fuck out of them, Philippe.
-
The Tea Partiers are awful cocksuckers.
Obama sold out his mandate (at that is very uncomfortable for me to say).
I give up.
-
I knew we could get along here.
-
Oligarchy, bitches!
-
Admiral Stockdale?
"Gridlock!"
-
I'm leaning towards Ron Paul again. Help me.
-
What was the goal again?
-
Admiral Stockdale, what is the goal?
"Gridlock (http://www.hulu.com/watch/4123/saturday-night-live-joyride-with-perot)!"
-
Obama sold out his mandate (at that is very uncomfortable for me to say).
I give up.
Has he done anything besides slobber on Boehner's dick? And no, that watered down health care bill don't count. It's taken me a decade or so but I've finally realized that not only voting is pissing in the wind, unless you are Daddy Warbucks, you really can't make a difference on the national level. Don't matter how hard you work for whatever, it don't mean shit unless you've got money. So get arrested and sentenced, DeChristopher, they gonna keep fracking. Fuck, I don't know what I'm talking about.
-
Obama drives me fuck*ng mad sometimes.
Is he really just this much of a fuck*ng coward?
Is he really just this much of a fuck*ng milquetoast fuck*ng moderate? Which would be about the funny-saddest thing in politics ever, when the fuck*ng Teabaggers paint the guy as Josef fuck*ng Stalin ideologically when in any sane political context, if anything he's fuck*ng slightly right of centre in his actual functional policies?
Or is he just overthinking the shit out of his place in history, thinking that because he's the first minority (whatever that will mean in the long stretch of history) president, he's gotta be a centrist compromiser, to set a historical precedent or something, nevermind what this country needs or what he was elected to do?
And the worst part of it is... he's be the least bad option of all the people in the 2012 election and I'll end up holding my fuck*ng nose and voting for him.
Jesus. Can we get a fuck*ng parlimentary system, please? Yesterday, maybe?
-
Sometimes all I can do is try to feel proud that I'm living at a point in history where a black man can be just as disappointing a president as a white one. Because you know, it's not really equality if you have to be twice as good to get as far, right?
-
I'm really, really glad he got elected and that I helped. And I'm glad I got to take part in those waves of good feeling about the US, when we all felt like we had come so far. I'm just disappointed that it turns out I got suckered again.
-
All I wanted was free health care and those who disagree with me politically paraded through the streets in cages like circus animals.
It wasn't that much to ask.
-
If George Bush's supporters were unhappy with his job as president they have been awful quiet about it. I was under the impression the right saw him as one of their best ever. Are Bush supporters secretly disappointed with his performance?
Edit: Removed use of the term "baby rape the planet."
-
As far as GWB, he was the president that did so poorly that a black man got the office, what more backlash do you want?
Uh no that's not quite right. The "backlash" as it were was that the republicans nominated McCain who, in their eyes, did not lean far enough to the right. And I'm sure there were some reasonable Republicans that realized he was much too old and that Palin was/is an idiot.
But Obama, like all presidents, was elected by the independent majority who would rather vote for an upbeat hopeful young guy instead of the mean and cranky old (possibly senile) alternative. But I'm not talking about those people, I'm talking about the dyed in the wool Republicans. I've never heard any wavering from that camp. To them George Bush is a mother fuck*ng hero. Not like their counterparts on the left such as our sMets who are by and large pretty disappointed in Obama.
-
Anyone who thinks the Democrats are "leftist" in the same vein as what the Europeans got is seriously deluded. All successful American politicians run (and work) right of center. Why? Because we have a cultural ideal that elevates the individual; we revere "freedom" over "order".
And that's the way I like it.
-
Anyone who thinks the Democrats are "leftist" in the same vein as what the Europeans got is seriously deluded.
I heard a pundit once say that we don't have a left and a right in this country we have a right and a further right. The Democrats are conservatives and the Republicans are fascists.
-
I heard a pundit once say that we don't have a left and a right in this country we have a right and a further right. The Democrats are conservatives and the Republicans are fascists.
There are probably some Republicans (coughCheneycough) who, if or when (coughCheneycough) they showed their true colors, could fit the loose definition of a fascist that some liberals love to use. But mostly they are for reducing centralized power. The most consistently conservative Republican legislator, Ron Paul, is like the embodiment of the opposite of fascism. I know you are paraphrasing that pundit, but I just felt the need to point out that he is an idiot. And I know doing that is redundant.
-
Uh no that's not quite right. The "backlash" as it were was that the republicans nominated McCain who, in their eyes, did not lean far enough to the right. And I'm sure there were some reasonable Republicans that realized he was much too old and that Palin was/is an idiot.
But Obama, like all presidents, was elected by the independent majority who would rather vote for an upbeat hopeful young guy instead of the mean and cranky old (possibly senile) alternative. But I'm not talking about those people, I'm talking about the dyed in the wool Republicans. I've never heard any wavering from that camp. To them George Bush is a mother fuck*ng hero. Not like their counterparts on the left such as our sMets who are by and large pretty disappointed in Obama.
Unless I'm way off, the backlash from the far right of the Republican party that you are referring to did not get Obama elected. I can't imagine those particular disappointed voters would have switched sides or stayed home in large enough numbers to make a difference. If someone closer to Bush had been nominated I imagine Obama's margin of victory may have been wider. Unless again I am way off and there were enough conservative voters who skipped the polls that year who would have been energized by a Huckabee/Romney ticket or something. I admit I could be totally wrong there.
I think Ash is right in saying that 8 years of Bush was enough for the majority of Americans to give the other guys a chance. Even if just a few decades ago the guy in particular wouldn't have been able to eat at many of the campaign stops in some of the states he carried. A lot of people who voted for Bush in '04 voted for Obama. That the nation was already in recession and the indicators were rapidly and increasingly appearing didn't hurt, either. And, Obama is one hell of a campaigner. Of course, '12 will be much tougher with a supremely disappointing governing record. It was easier to not have one at all.
But I also agree that there is less noise from Bush supporters, though I think the disappointment is there. Liberals just whine louder.
Edit: I just realized that I misread: "The "backlash" as it were was that the republicans nominated McCain who, in their eyes, did not lean far enough to the right. And I'm sure there were some reasonable Republicans that realized he was much too old and that Palin was/is an idiot." Because much of my post basically says what your second paragraph says. I guess I'm not clear on what the backlash is in that sentence. The nomination of McCain was a reaction from the primary voters (who are largely the dyed in the wool Republicans you mentioned) to the more conservative Bush administration? Anyway. Sorry for the confused and unnecessary post. Carry on.
-
People like Ron Paul THINK they're the opposite of fascists but the end game of their extreme positions would be a fascism driven from the seat of big business, more or less functionally equal to the fascism driven from the seat of government that they claim to fear.
-
Sometimes all I can do is try to feel proud that I'm living at a point in history where a black man can be just as disappointing a president as a white one. Because you know, it's not really equality if you have to be twice as good to get as far, right?
I think about this when I talk to my bigoted lesbian coworker. Like, good for America that being a lesbian does not mean you have to adjust your other beliefs.
-
I read somewhere an analogy about President Obama's handling of the debt ceiling fiasco... it was like going into a car dealership and saying "alright, just so you know, I am committed to buying a car from you today. There is no situation in which I can see failing to buy a car, today, from you."
-
I was musing to myself this evening as I waited for my cinnamon toast to be ready. I was thinking that Rick Perry might prove to be a really strong candidate for the Republicans. He's got that same charm as GWB.
Unrelated to this there was a story on Yahoo that the other candidates were attacking him about his stance on Social Security. He called it Ponzi scheme. I found that interesting because I heard Rush Limbaugh say the exact same thing on his radio show yesterday. Is Rush backing Perry?
But there was something else in the article that made my head spin. He used Galileo to support his anti climate change position. “Just because you have a group of scientists who stood up and said here is the fact. Galileo got outvoted for a spell.” Wow, I mean wow, the man has huge titanium balls. I don't know how he gets his ##### on, quite frankly. Wow. To be able to deliver that line with such sincerity. It truly boggles the mind. He has turned the tables and recast himself and his gang of science deniers as Galileo; fighting against the scientific simpletons trying to peddle their unproven theories. I gotta tell you, the man looks absolutely Presidential.
-
he looks presidential according to the model the last guy set, and that scares the holy fuck out of me
-
He's got that same charm as GWB.
Is there a word missing from that sentence or something? Because right now it just isn't making any sense at all.
-
Was it Rick Perry about whom someone recently said, he's the candidate for people who felt GWB was too much of an intellectual?
-
But that Galileo thing isn't dumb, it's fuck*ng brilliant. Such chutzpah.
-
So far the best rebbuttal to Rick Perry the libs have is that photoshop job of him going down on a corndog. It's not looking too good for Perry. Ha ha ha... Oh my God, Rick Perry is going to be our next President.
-
Stay Classy Republicans (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/09/22/gop_debate_florida)
-
And cheering executing people. And cheering taking people off life support to save tax dollars.
Shit looks like Thunderdome at the damn things.
-
That's the thing, isn't it, it's so confused.
It's like the Christians wanting revenge on the Romans... after the Roman empire adopted a bastardized authority-friendly version of Christianity and all the Romans were Christians and nearly all the Christians were Romans. Who do you get revenge on when the roles that were enforced when the shit went down are completely obsolete?
These people are booing down soldiers that they were putting tacky yellow slacktivism magnets on their cars for three years ago, demanding that their own grandmothers have their Social Security checks taken and thrown out of hospitals, etc etc. Demanding their corporate overlords get tax cuts for more yachts so that their own children can get shittier educations.
Up is down, cats and dogs living together, weirdness. It's all muddled up, they're going through the motions of the ridiculous hate they were programmed for but all the targets have been completely shuffled and it becomes morbidly hilarious.
-
As long as the poor folks don't rise up and kill the rest of us until I'm gone, I'm cool with it. Good luck to your kids, though.
-
I agree with everything you just said.
-
Yeah, I think that's the difference between myself and some of my leftie friends...
There's a lot of friends of mine who think that we're just... weeks away from widespread Greek-style anti-austerity strikes and... uh... no. No.
We couldn't be FURTHER as a culture from open resistance to the situation we're in without being in comas in Matrix tubes.
The people out there who are feeling it and might have the will to act in some way are basically all either working three part time jobs to hang onto the ashes of the American dream, looking for three part time jobs to hang onto the ashes of the American dream or bitching about minor changes to websites. I'm guilty of at least two of these myself.
It is difficult to imagine a situation with more reason to have open unrest and less will to act on that reason than America today. Oh, I'm not saying that we are in Depression level fucked or anything yet but... like... the lack of will to act is astonishing.
-
A distorted version of an argument I may have read somewhere states that the problem is that back in the depression years, and in popular revolts before that, big businesses and the political system needed people to run. They needed workers in their factories, people to vote for them, etc. Now they don't in the same way they once did.
Alternative version: they still need us, but we've convinced ourselves they don't.
Every once in a while I watch this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYlMEVTa-PI) and reflect on what's happened to political discourse in this country. Unlike some people, I don't hold myself innocent (although I guess most of this shift happened before I was born or while I was too young to vote/count on neilson ratings of news programs). It seems pretty inevitable that people will like yellers, will bare their teeth with pleasure/bloodlust when a politician they don't like gets quoted out of context saying something stupid. I'm absolutely guilty of it myself.
But goddamn do Dr. Chomsky and Mr. Buckley look classy as hell in this video. I don't even remember anymore what they're talking about. But they're discussing it like grownups, and look great doing it.
Some gross part of me just wants to have a mid-atlantic accent and wear suits every day. I guess I missed that train when I didn't go to Choate and Yale.
-
See, I tend to believe that it comes with the more straightforward explanation that the total media saturation we live with today has managed to cripple with fear those who can be crippled with fear and distract with digital narcissism those who can be distracted with digital narcissism and... a lack of momentum takes care of the rest.
Of course, I went to communications school so, of course, I'm going to ascribe the power to media.
-
I wasn't clear. I feel like the populace wouldn't strike out or revolt to make changes and institute real reform. I think the populace would revolt because the trucks that bring Cheetos to their local am/pm have stopped delivering. And when they get pissed, their going to go after the haves, not the guys who instituted the policies that fucked them over in the first place.
-
I have an issue with the whole "taking shit as social justice" concept. At the end of the day, you're still a fuck*ng thief, someone who thinks whatever they have going on gives them the right to abrogate the dignity of others. Not only that, but it tends to get perpetrated on some poor fuck who has nothing to do with nothing that troubles you.
Of course, having philosophical discussions only cuts so much ice when it's you they're lining up against the wall.
-
Now, I just eat others peoples abuse and disrespect and shit right up to the point where John Law says I can do something about it without going pokey bound.
It is insane to me that you think you are someone who puts up with other people's disrespect.
-
It is insane to me that you think you are someone who puts up with other people's disrespect.
I enjoyed this.
-
When I took the oath of office to become a licensed attorney, I had to swear that I had neither participated in a duel nor acted as a second.
I've also administered that same oath multiple times to other officeholders.
-
I am pretty sure stealing from large corporations is fine. I stole from Wal mart for the sole purpose of taking shit from them (I didn't need or want what I stole, I stole only because i could steal from that particular entity). Right now I work at a large soulless place as a cashier (I will have this job for less than a month thank god). I let people steal if I see it and sometimes I purposely don't ring shit up. Stealing from people is different, but only sorta. You say it's you and yours over all else but, well that conflicts sometimes and if people stealing from you are using the exact same argument I don't really think you have a solid point.
-
I make no bones about it...if it's me and mine or you and yours, well, tough shit for you, buddy.
Oh, sorry.
And you go ahead and do what you please. Just realize that if you wind up with a rap sheet for it it pretty much validates you're doing wrong.
I don't believe you, you're a liar (play fuck*ng loud).
-
On a macro and slightly tangential level, though, I think we're getting near the question at the heart of what's fucked up about political discourse today...
Not at all what y'all were talking about but... it's the idea of "me and mine" versus "you and yours" and how... other than moments of direct physical conflict amoungst individuals, you can't really apply those concepts to the political and economic world today. The world's too small, we're too interdependent, we're all too entwined. On different levels and time scales, the difference between the private sphere and the social sphere is so blurred that the notion of such a false dichotomy is really only useful as theoretical debate fodder.
I mean is this the whole Teatard problem, that scared rubes are being convinced by corporate forces through sturm-und-drung shills and out-of-touch academics that if they just keep more of their tax money to "them and theirs" everything is going to be better when... history proves pretty much the opposite? That the great solvent to class unrest is allowing middle classes to exist and thrive through shared social effort, to buffer and translate between the rich and the poor, stabilizing the whole goddamned Jello mold?
If we give of our taxes, giving of "us and ours", to create social mobility, education, health care, housing, cops, firemen, roads that obstensively help "everyone other than us" the benefits come back to us indirectly and magnified by the power of bulk buying... what does it even mean to be us and them? Yet corporate interests use preacher-thieves and possibly well-meaing-reality-dislodged libertarian theorists to try and try and try to tear that all down for the quick thrill of a couple new yachts this quarter at the risk of society twenty years down the road? Smashing the eggs that make new golden geese?
Isn't the illusion that there CAN be a difference between benefit to self and benefit to society on a macrolevel the same way it honestly can exist on an individual's level, as promligated by bastards thieves and priests, isn't this new-old confusion the whole reason everything's going to shit and the middle classes are going to be dead in America before I am?
Or am I just drunk? Am I just unconscionably drunk and sentimental for the idea of a world where we can help ourselves by helping others?
-
I am pretty sure stealing from large corporations is fine. I stole from Wal mart for the sole purpose of taking shit from them (I didn't need or want what I stole, I stole only because i could steal from that particular entity). Right now I work at a large soulless place as a cashier (I will have this job for less than a month thank god). I let people steal if I see it and sometimes I purposely don't ring shit up. Stealing from people is different, but only sorta. You say it's you and yours over all else but, well that conflicts sometimes and if people stealing from you are using the exact same argument I don't really think you have a solid point.
We've been down this road as much as we have the great pubic hair debate, and I can say it never gets a lot of takers. You rock on with your bad self, though.
Stealing from people is different, but it's also exactly the same. You steal from Wal-Mart, they figure shrink into their calculations, they raise prices on the next guy.
-
Maybe if we steal enough from those cracker assholes and their slick-ass stockholders, though, eventually they have to raise prices so much that small businesses can compete again?
I mean, it might take a lot of stolen gum but it might be a good goal to work toward.
-
Maybe if we steal enough from those cracker assholes and their slick-ass stockholders, though, eventually they have to raise prices so much that small businesses can compete again?
I mean, it might take a lot of stolen gum but it might be a good goal to work toward.
I'm a slick-ass stockholder. Well, not of Wal-Mart, because they are soulless white devils, but y'know.
-
Stealing from people is different, but it's also exactly the same. You steal from Wal-Mart, they figure shrink into their calculations, they raise prices on the next guy.
I think that is good.
We have been down this road before, sorry. Ash, you are more right than I originally thought, but yeah, ain't no one gonna change so whatever.
-
Maybe if we steal enough from those cracker assholes and their slick-ass stockholders, though, eventually they have to raise prices so much that small businesses can compete again?
I mean, it might take a lot of stolen gum but it might be a good goal to work toward.
I would steal printer cartridges, shampoo and conditioners and expensive small electronics. I have some folding scissors I stole from wal mart that I would use to steal from walmart. Basically the most expensive stuff you can get out of there is what you steal.
-
You'd have less impact on your fellow consumers (and more impact on the fuckhead corporation) if you just went ahead and murdered the CEO.
-
Nah, there's always another man without a conscience ready to step in and CEO a multinational.
That's like trying to cure a case of the clap by erasing the wikipedia page about the clap.
My favourite saying on matters economic ever is "just when you think you're hanging the last capitalist, some guy comes along and tries to sell you the rope".
Now, of course, I am a pacifist who hates killing and I am not a communist, I am more of the northern European model where there is socialism for greater good things like education and health care and heavily-regulated-but-open-capitalism for the rest of the marketplace.
However. That is a fuck*ng badass quote.
-
You'd have less impact on your fellow consumers (and more impact on the fuckhead corporation) if you just went ahead and murdered the CEO.
People who shop at Wal mart (or target or pretty much any corporation that isnt a grocery store or gas station) are not my fellow consumers.
-
http://www.nataliedee.com/092311/ (http://www.nataliedee.com/092311/)
I wanted to insert this comic into this thread because it seemed like some of youall might want to use it but I have too much work to do today to spend time on the technical details so you will have to settle for the link.
-
I knew I shouldn't have come in here to begin with. Wombat has it exactly right, and it applies to me as much as anyone.
-
I knew I shouldn't have come in here to begin with. Wombat has it exactly right, and it applies to me as much as anyone.
Yep.
Rationalize it however the hell you want, but you're only kidding yourself.
You're not engaged in some noble enterprise and you make things more expensive for everybody.
-
Even Fox News (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/03/hank-williams-compares-obama-to-hitler_n_992513.html) thinks Hank Jr. is an idiot. Of course the rest of us already knew that. (http://youtu.be/D2MKG2hFWao)
-
Yep.
Rationalize it however the hell you want, but you're only kidding yourself.
You're not engaged in some noble enterprise and you make things more expensive for everybody.
I apologize for making things more expensive. I don't try to.
-
I apologize for making things more expensive. I don't try to.
It's ok because you're so rad.
-
Local elections here today. Hoping the bastard chairman of the school board gets tossed out on his ass. News at 11.
-
Fuck that guy.
-
Hooray! He's out by a slim margin of 600 votes! Bracing for the inevitable recount in 4...3...2...1...
-
Can I mention again how wonderful it is to be involved in electing people who aren't assholes (for a change)?
-
Hey, we have an election thread!
I'm really pleased that Huntsman is making such a strong showing in NH, relatively anyway. I like the guy. Mostly because he made it easier to drink beer in Utah. Standing up for drinkers in Utah takes some balls, and the new governor has already started to roll some things back. Thanks a lot, Obama.
I have no idea if I'd vote for him in a general election, but good for him.
-
So I keep hearing about how this is the Republicans election to win because Obama's approval rating is super low, is this really the case? Without knowing much of his domestic policy it seems that he hasn't started a bunch of wars, I guess he brought in the universal healthcare thing? And the economy isn't doing so great, but then no one is at the moment, right (NB: Aus totally is, well not terrible anyway).
But mainly I look at the republican line up and they all just seem like crazy assholes. Except Romney, I kind of like Romney but I get the feeling he's gone a bit McCain and has basically had to betray his own principles to get the support of the party and I don't think that works out in the long run.
Anyway, what's the inside scoop?
-
Anyway, what's the inside scoop?
Everybody's fucked, just like every other time.
-
Anyway, what's the inside scoop?
Fuck if I know.
But I'll comment anyway. Thing is, no one is popular right now. And I think a lot of it will come down to what the unemployment rate is leading up to the election. And the only one who strikes me as a crazy asshole is Gingrich. Maybe Perry. Santorum may be a shit stain but mostly he's just strongly committed to a set of values I don't agree with but that don't make him crazy.
What Nabu said.
-
At least Tim Tebow can't run for president.
-
At least Tim Tebow can't run for president.
Not for another decade or so anyway.
-
Yeah I guess I'd mainly been hearing about Gingrich, Bachman and Cain but I guess those latter two are long gone by now?
And Ron Paul of course.
-
Somewhere or other, someone suggested "What a coup it would be for any of the Republican candidates to get a Tebow endorsement right now."
As for WTF is going on with this election: I am holding on to hope that the crazy-selgiraffe-asshole vote is overrepresented in the country's news and popular culture right now. That when November rolls around, relatively sane people will look at the Republican nominee and say "No way I'm voting for this maniac." The trouble, of course, is getting the sane people to give a shit. Or the possibility that this country really does have a majority of crazy, selgiraffe assholes.
-
I'm pretty sure most people are going through the motions of caring about the Republican offerings just because, you know, we do this stuff every 4 years. Unless Obama or his minions seriously crap the bed in the next year I don't think there will be any serious interest in putting one of these loons into office.
-
I wish I could agree with that, but I work with a demographic that is seriously committed to seeing Obama as the antichrist no matter what he does, and the right is punching that button pretty hard.
-
I'm pretty sure most people are going through the motions of caring about the Republican offerings just because, you know, we do this stuff every 4 years. Unless Obama or his minions seriously crap the bed in the next year I don't think there will be any serious interest in putting one of these loons into office.
I feel that exact way, but I think Ron Paul maybe could give him a run.
-
I wish I could agree with that, but I work with a demographic that is seriously committed to seeing Obama as the antichrist no matter what he does, and the right is punching that button pretty hard.
This.
On the other hand, Mitt Romney is pretty uninspiring and will receive tepid support at best from social conservatives. Would not be surprised to see a third party challenger, either Paul or someone along the Bachmann/Santorum/Perry/Palin spectrum, which would immediately doom Romney.
-
Not for another decade or so anyway.
Not even then unless they amend the constitution.
-
Not even then unless they amend the constitution.
Ah, born in the Philippines. Because he was born to American citizens just living abroad, though, isn't this not entirely clear?
-
I need to stop talking about serious things with my roommate. This might become a problem.
"If Ron Paul had won the Republican nomination, I would start making plans to move to another country."
When we are talking in generalities he makes sense, and then he says that anyone who likes Ron Paul is a bigoted idiot.
Yikes.
-
I want to like Ron Paul but then it makes me feel like a bigoted idiot.
I think that he is the only one who would do things that would help to fix our country (cut way back on our ridiculous military, legalize all drugs) and that would probably last forever (my lifetime). I also think that if you were a poor person in this country during his presidency you would be pretty screwed. I think that maybe we could and would just fix this as soon as he left office, but yeah, it would be a rougher time for a lot of people. Like don't get sick or you will die in the streets rough.
-
I wish they'd pass this Buffet thing, but they won't. I wish they'd just constantly publish who doesn't support it and where their money comes from, which is a little more likely.
-
Knowing these jackasses, they'll say they granted "a" Buffet thing and they'll just grant each corporate personhood a lifetime supply of cheeseburgers in paradise.
-
At least Tim Tebow can't run for president.
Tim Tebow would consider a career in politics (http://www.newser.com/story/139088/tim-tebow-i-might-go-into-politics.html).
But back to my earlier question, does the fact that he was born in the Philippines make him ineligible to run for president? The term natural born citizen seems pretty hazy.
-
My biggest Tebow nightmare is him in a Seahawks jersey.
I just shuddered.
Well, and there's also the one that involves Tebow, Elway, Mister Ed (or just a donkey, it alternates), two girls and a cup, but I'll spare you guys the details.
-
I thought Mr. Ed was a kicker for the Seahawks back in the day. Oh wait, that was Gus (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074599/plotsummary).
-
Nah, if his parent(s) were in good standing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_nationality_law#Through_birth_abroad_to_United_States_citizens), citizenship wise, he could run for show runner.
So there's your nightmare fuel, kids.
Hm. That reads to me that it gives him citizenship, but I don't see where it makes him any different than naturalized.
-
If his parents were citizens, then he was born a citizen. Isn't a naturalized citizen one who wasn't born a citizen of that country?
I imagine this came up in the '68 Republican primary when George Romney ran. He was born in Mexico. Of course he sabotaged his campaign so I don't know if it ever had the chance to become an issue.
-
An April 2000 CRS report by the Congressional Research Service, asserts that most constitutional scholars interpret the phrase "natural born citizen" as including citizens born outside the United States to parents who are U.S. citizens under the “natural born” requirement.
Yeah, that seems pretty clear. Curses. I have just learned that it is thought that Chester Arthur was born in Canada with only one parent a US citizen.
-
So, this straight-up racist motherfucker in Alaska is trying to get Obama's name off the ballot on the grounds that "the United States Supreme Court's Dred Scott v. Sanford rul(ed) that a Negro had no rights under the Constitution for the United States to either obtain rights of citizenship or rights of suffrage" (http://www.14th-amendment.com/Miscellaneous/Articles/Archivist/Archivist.pdf) (there's a bunch of lawyer talk in there, but this is his goal).
Last time around, he wasn't cool with either candidate:
It appears that we have entered into a period of history where a Candidate for
the Office of the President of the United States does not have the qualifications of Office
as required by U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.
Candidates
John McCain and Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., are not “natural born” citizens nor are
they citizens of the United States at the time the Constitution was adopted. Let us hope
that the qualifications of these two Candidates are resolved before the day
of General Election.
I don't know. I could go on, but . . . . I mean, he reads like he's smart, but hasn't it occurred to him that he'd probably have a better chance of knocking Obama out if he based his argument on what dude has actually done while in office as opposed to tinfoil hat shit? I'm looking forward to the Republicans losing because they got too caught up in crazy to mount a serious campaign.
-
Holy crap, no kidding. 3 days ago I paid $8.95 for my 2.2 gallons of gas. Today it was would have been over $10, but all I had was 10 so I didn't even get a full tank. A 10% hike in 3 days?
-
Time to get a UTA pass from work. At least we have a really good light rail system in Salt Lake.
-
Most of my fuel expenditures are funded by my employer. Of course, most of them are av gas.
-
It seems like every couple of days one of my left leaning politico friends post an article on Facebook with a headline exposing some ridiculous thing that Rick Santorum has said. Not something that he has said by mistake, but something he has said that he is presumably proud of. I haven't read any of the articles, but is this guy that far out of touch that he's actually making porn a political issue in 2012, for instance?
-
Our cork board has a little editorial comment posted running Obama down for the high price of gas. Leaving aside the fact that the person who pinned it up there gets paid by an oil company (said company having at least a little to do with the price of fuel), imports have dropped and domestic production has gone up since Obama took office, relative to the average numbers the last guy who had the job tossed on the ol' tote board. Is it a more complex issue than that? Yes, but if my local hammerheads are going to reduce everything in the world to a dichotomy, I will engage them and just bring tighter facts and cites. I love cork board battle season.
-
At least they haven't put this up there on the ol' corkboard.
(http://www.inflexwetrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/ifwt-obama-renig1.jpg)
I hope they didn't, anyway.
-
I've got a friend in PDX who seems to have spent a bit of time tracking that down and unfortunately it does not appear to be a hoax, although sales of it seem to have ceased. First spot I saw it was Yo, is this Racist?
-
Laruchebags at the St. Patrick's Day Parade (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pmcd9/6993303771/).
Hey, did I just invent a new term?
-
What am I missing with the dude on the right? What does his sign mean? LaRouche is Kennedy?
-
What am I missing with the dude on the right? What does his sign mean? LaRouche is Kennedy?
Beats the hell out of me man. My favorite part of the picture is the unguarded look of disgust on their wives faces.
-
I'm utterly baffled. What the hell are they saying?
-
The two ladies on the left hand side seem to be quite enjoying the PMCD experience.
-
The two ladies on the left hand side seem to be quite enjoying the PMCD experience.
I'm sure they weren't even noticing me. They were either checking out the dancer on top of the car or the flames.
-
And how is that not the PMCD experience? Is it a different flaming car with a dancer on top of it than Dragonfire?
-
Point taken. I did get a few smiles too.
-
I ain't got a flaming car. I've owned a car that caught fire, but I didn't have any control over it.
-
I ain't got a flaming car. I've owned a car that caught fire, but I didn't have any control over it.
I had a truck that caught fire on me. It was this truck (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pmcd9/2210876793/).
-
I thought it was going to be the one where you lost the Rick.
-
Our cork board has a little editorial comment posted running Obama down for the high price of gas.
My counter-query to that: if Obama COULD score cheap political points by lowering gas prices in an election year, don't you think he would have already done so?
(And if he didn't, wouldn't the editorial commenter then criticize him for doing something to score cheap political points?)
-
Isn't it pretty clear that the gas price run-up has been a mix of trader profiteering and sabre-rattling against Iran?
Hasn't Obama been trying to fight against both those things as much as the situations reasonably allow?
-
Yes and Yes. But some people just like inventing reasons to be mad at Obama.
-
What am I missing with the dude on the right? What does his sign mean? LaRouche is Kennedy?
I take it to mean that the President should be assassinated. And since I've written that in plain text, this whole board is now being monitored by the FBI.
-
You know, Tersk, ROT13 was invented for a reason!
-
He doesn't get credit for chasing down and executing Osama Bin Laden. Indeed, he is blamed for being soft. I am pretty sure he could not do anything positive in the ultra-right's minds.
-
Why are we talking nice about any of these cocksuckers?
The least harmful poison is still poison.
Rock it up and all, but I'm down with several things my president has done. I would not characterize him as a cocksucker.
-
This reminds me, I saw some Parks & Rec yesterday and suddenly I get the Ash/Ron Swanson thing.
-
This should save you some time (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_on5gEMAfM).
-
Dude, you may wish to back that off a notch. I get you're hella pissed. Feel free to get that I don't share that, and that doesn't make me wrong. Or don't, you know - I ain't give a fuck.
-
This should save you some time (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_on5gEMAfM).
When he tossed the computer I lost it.
-
Unless my usage of a sexual act as a hella-mojo slur bugged you. I'm sorry if that did.
Actually, that sort of bothered me. I wasn't gonna say nothin', but since you bring it up, calling these dudes cocksuckers is an insult to cocksuckers. I mean, I have sucked a few cocks in my day, and that shit is work. Sucking cock is an art form that ought to be appreciated and respected.
Call them douchebags, call them assholes, call them motherfuckers if you must, but you leave all the good, honest cocksuckers of the world out of this mess.
(Also, when you use that word against dudes, it's just like derisively calling them faggots. I know you're not a gay-hating bigot, it would be nice if you also didn't sound like one. Consider it.)
-
Sometimes Pedro says things that make him sound like a jerk and doesn't realize it 'til it's pointed out to him. Just looking out for you, dude.
-
Now, who wants a warm chocolate chip cookie, a cold glass of milk, and a big hug?
-
There is no right or wrong in this and I ain't get a fuck given neither. I'm proclaiming here, the only hearts and minds I want to win are the ones I'll stew up for dinner. Don't take it personal, you just rolled the ball out on the court.
Unless my usage of a sexual act as a hella-mojo slur bugged you. I'm sorry if that did.
Now back to our regularly scheduled anti-freeze...
Tell you what, I won't take it personal when you don't wrap up a quote from me in your bumpkin-speak logical fallacy smokescreen that's about how liking what the president has done right isn't doing enough to save the planet/country/whatever.
And yeah, the cocksucker deal is pretty fuck*ng weak.
Now I'll go ahead and return you to your Angry Samoans or whatever.
-
call them motherfuckers if you must
Actually, that sort of bothers me. I wasn't gonna say anything, but since you bring it up, calling these dudes motherfuckers is an insult to motherfuckers everywhere. I mean, I have fucked a few mothers in my day, and that shit is work. fuck*ng a mother is an art form that ought to be appreciated and respected.
Call them douchebags, call them assholes if you must, but you leave all the good, honest motherfuckers of the world out of this mess.
-
Don't forget to tip your waitress, folks.
-
This type of administration being better than another is the logical fallacy that's going take us right to shit.
So what are we to do? The perfect administration is not available to us. We are only able to choose between more and lesser flawed options.
Yes, our system is flawed. Yes, we need to make major structural changes to it. Yes, we're headed toward the ditch.
But failing to make a distinction between the guy who is making some effort to step on the brakes and the guy who is stomping on the accelerator is overly simplistic.
Now, you cocksuckers and motherfuckers can go back to arguing amongst yourselves.
-
fuck*ng a mother is an art form that ought to be appreciated and respected.
As a mother who enjoys being fucked, I agree! But I always assumed that the word "motherfucker" was a way of accusing a man of fuck*ng his own mother. Which -- I'm gonna go ahead and take a stand on this one -- is just wrong.
I'm keeping motherfucker, Paul, and you can take your pansy-ass liberal PC bullshit somewhere else. ;) But you keep on fuck*ng mothers -- if ever there was a population that needed and deserved to be fucked, we're it.
-
I prefer Do-Si-Dos, ultimately, but Samoas are really good too.
-
I was going to go down this road this morning, but my heart's not in it. You don't think a dude is helping, that's fine. I know a dude is helping.
-
Call them douchebags
Lay off the douchebags. It's a tough job. Douching ain't easy.
-
Too much ching-chong wing-wong.
-
They were talking about the Republican primaries on the radio this morning and I was once again bemused by the fact that Rick Santorum is making a legitimate run for the nomination.
Then I got home to find this on my facebook wall.
(http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6059/7000723661_74c6b4a992_o.jpg)
I've concluded that a reasonable candidate on the right simply doesn't stand a chance.
-
They do, they just run as Dems.
-
You know, Tersk, ROT13 was invented for a reason!
I had to Google that, man. For a minute, I thought you were telling me I should join ROTC.
I still very much like the President, in spite of the many things that are either going un-fixed or are being actively broken all the while. Some issues I'll be an apologist for him and talk about the real limits of the office, some issues I'll choose to trust that he is working away still in bleak conditions, some issues I'll admit that I disagree. Fundamentally, I still trust his motivations.
People are just people, institutions are the real problem. I've heard that opinion expressed pretty well by Noam Chomsky and David Simon (who wrote The Wire) and both are pretty critical of the President anyway. So perhaps though they acknowledge that good people are compromised by institutions, they at the same time distrust Obama's motives or character? For what it's worth, I don't.
A captain of a sinking ship might face hard choices, but just because the ship keeps edging towards catastrophe, doesn't mean to say he fucks his own mother.
Try to envision or imagine a candidate - doesn't even have to be a real life person you've heard of, you can make that candidate up. You can attribute any kind of level of competence and righteousness to them you like, and deep down they agree with you about every single issue. Then imagine that they are President tomorrow. What changes? I think the answer would be not a lot.
What's happening (has been happening for a long time, too) isn't the fault of a person. It's a collective moral failure. Or so I think. For my money, Obama is about as good as you're able to get, and a hell of a lot better than we usually do get. Neither Bernie Sanders nor Ron Paul, not Naomi Klein or the ghost of Woody Guthrie would actually execute the functions of the office better than Barack Obama. It isn't good enough, I know. He's just this guy, you know? It's a long way from that 2008 feeling, but that's my two cents.
-
everyone is a fucker and everyone is getting fucked, willingly and otherwise.
-
Just asserting my old-skool geek credentials.
-
I'm feeling you, JT.
-
I caught the tail end of a local public radio show and they were discussing this painting (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qtHQE2zNpwc). I guess he's a local Mormon artist, and I read that Sean Hannity bought the painting. From his facebook page:
I am an artist who feels deeply about what is happening to our country. If my art causes someone to think and to feel, then it is successful.
I find it just about as provocative as I found stupid shit like this last decade:
(http://sabbah.biz/mt/wp-content/uploads/2007/feb/Bush__s_Fascism__Ben_Heine_.jpg)
-
Isn't he a day late and a dollar short? What's the point of a political cartoon about the last administration?
-
the painting he made is at the youtube link, and it's middling at best. the worst thing about it is how he derides the left for being divisive, when the painting is just about the most divisive thing i've seen this year. kettle, pot; glass house, stones; etc.
-
I am still waiting for the specifics on how Obama is "trampling on" (or in this case, burning) the Constitution. What article or amendment? And by what law or policy? It sounded good when Glen Beck said it, I guess.
-
Oh I understand now. Your post confused me. I totally didn't see the link. I thought the painting in question was the one of Hitler Bush. Yeah, I completely disagree with everything that dude says, but I gotta admit, that's a pretty cool painting. It's Obama all cool, calm, and collected while the Constitution is burning up in his hand. His steely gaze is fixed right on you as if to say "Yeah bitch, what are you gonna do about it." The video with the talented dipshit droning on about how Obama is going to steal our freedoms away sends it straight over the top.
I wonder if he has prints for sale.
-
Oh yeah, and I love how he's pointing at the flames like "yeah, I did that."
-
When you put it that way that is a pretty badass painting.
-
I shit you not some jackass actually posted Obamaphone (http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/cellphone.asp) on our corkboard here at work. Jesus.
-
I shit you not some jackass actually posted Obamaphone (http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/cellphone.asp) on our corkboard here at work. Jesus.
For some reason that reminds me of Patton Oswalt's Time Travel bit (http://youtu.be/Ztcc_JSemEg).
-
North Carolina Voters Pass Same-Sex Marriage Ban (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/09/us/north-carolina-voters-pass-same-sex-marriage-ban.html)
As expected, North Carolinians voted in large numbers on Tuesday for an amendment that would ban same-sex marriages, partnerships and civil unions, becoming the 30th state in the country and the last in the South to include a prohibition on gay marriage in the state constitution.
I'm fairly liberal, particularly on social issues. But I understand where the other side is coming from on most issues. Abortion, for example, is far more ethically and legally complex than some on either side wish to admit, I think. Same with capital punishment, church/state issues, drug legalization and so on.
And maybe this issue is more complex than I feel it is, but what shocks me is how quickly gay marriage opposition has gathered support, and how widespread it is. I seem to recall there being some states where bills restricting abortion that were voted down at or near the same time gay marriage was constitutionally banned in those states. If those on the right truly believe that abortion is murder, it seems that they'd want to take the enormous amount of time and resources being spent on fighting gay marriage and devote all of it to that battle. I really don't get it.
-
Or to pick out some issues that are even more closely related, abortion and birth control and sex education. Why spend a bunch of time and effort trying to restrict access to birth control and to teach abstinence only if you are against access to abortion? Fewer people would have abortions if there was more access to birth control and more/better sex education.
And shit, many gay people are never in a position to worry about whether or not to have an abortion. Might as well encourage them to get married.
-
Hey Michele Bachmann, how come you hate America (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/michele-bachmann-becomes-swiss-citizen-054706406.html)?
Comment from that page: Makes sense, given that she has so many holes in her brain. No offense to the Swiss.
-
The thing that kills me about this amendment is that it will hurt unmarried straight couples, by sheer numbers, far, far more than it will hurt gay couples. For whom marriage is already illegal by a non-constitutional statute defining marriage. Straight people, especially those who are unmarried for whatever reason but who have kids together, are going to suffer for this one.
I have to wonder if my over-60 neighbor, whose daughter has two kids with a long-time partner with whom she cohabits but is not legally wed, voted for or against? I have to wonder, if she voted for, if her daughter or grandchildren will suffer for it. And I have to wonder if she will put two and two together if they do.
-
well, obama just came out (heh) in favor of gay marriage
nytimes blog about it (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/09/obama-likely-to-speak-about-same-sex-marriage-in-interview/?emc=na)
-
Hey Michele Bachmann, how come you hate America (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/michele-bachmann-becomes-swiss-citizen-054706406.html)?
It's pretty obvious that Bachmann's husband is as gay as they come, but in that clip for the first time I can see that she is totally a lesbian.
-
The level of political rhetoric on Facebook has reached beyond ridiculous proportions already and the election is still almost 5 months away.
-
I'm enjoying the show. No need to engage if it gets you mad.
-
I'm enjoying the show. No need to engage if it gets you mad.
This is a good rule for 83% of the human experience, not just politics.
The key is to know which seventeen to actually put max effort into.
-
I'm enjoying the show. No need to engage if it gets you mad.
I made the decision to disengage myself from politics, at least a bit, after 2004 in consideration of my mental health. After 2008 I decided to pretty much view it as theater. Or probably television. There are issues that I care about, but I care more about not freaking the fuck out every time I hear someone in Congress open his or her mouth, or at every other email and facebook status update that I see. And yeah, I had the SCOTUS live blog up and running on my phone right around 9:30 ET this morning and waited for the decision with bated breath, but more just so I could tell my co-workers before they heard from anyone else and witness their reactions. Also, Roberts! No he didn't! I did not see that coming.
Seriously, it's like Mad Men to me.
-
Well, at least now I can say with confidence that the reactions from the liberals after the NC ban on domestic partnerships were much, much tamer and less inflammatory than the responses I'm seeing from conservatives on the health care plan.
One guy actually posted as his status a passage from NC's declaration of secession to protest -- and I quote -- "the unconstitutionality of Obamacare." This guy is a bar-certified lawyer in both NC and SC. (And an ex-boyfriend, eek!)
A cousin of Pedro's posted, "I didn't vote for this shiz." You know what I didn't vote for? Aggressive military action in three countries that dragged on for eight years. Guess which one's gonna cost more? And guess which is gonna save lives instead of spending them?
FFS. Maybe this should go in the "Shit my ____ says" thread, but whatever. I'm trying SO HARD not to engage on FB with these folks, but they are not making it easy.
-
I'm enjoying the show. No need to engage if it gets you mad.
I get this and I usually have a good time laughing at the stupid republicans, but now, at least on my wall, the democrats are acting just as stupid and douchy as the repubs. In my experience the dems have always been more even handed and reasonable. This new paradigm is taking some getting used to.
-
This came to my mind yesterday as I was driving home from the Independence Day fireworks.
"The Boston Tea Party was about taxation without representation. Now we have a new tea party which is about representation without taxation."
Pretty clever, huh... I thought that up myself.
-
The "Tea Party" has no platform, leader, or planks to stand on. It appears to be a bunch of angry old people who want to yell at clouds and hope for rain.
-
Angry old people with no cohesive agenda, being whipped into a froth by sickeningly rich people with very very real agendas, no less.
-
I can't be arsed to actually read the articles, but lots of political people on Facebook keep telling me that Congress has symbolically repealed ObamaCare like 30 times or some shit. Is this a real thing?
-
TLDR: The House has tried, yeah. The Senate continues to throw that junk out the window and unapologetically ignores it.
-
A (fairly biased) opinion piece I read somewhere basically equated their actions to wasting time and being proud of it.
-
Well, yeah. The Senate isn't going to pass it, and if they did, the president would veto it, and they know it. I don't see how it's a biased opinion that they're wasting time that could be spent on really getting something done.
-
Probably should go in the Shit my Facebook says thread, but it relates to this topic.
Seen this graphic a bunch lately.
(http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/389014_449906885043734_283445360_n.jpg)
Does it really cost $30 million dollars a day to run Congress? That can't be right.
-
174000 avg salary for a congressperson who works 128 days a year breaks down to 1359 per person per day and at 535 members I get 727265 a day for everyone. The remaining 29.5 million would be a fuck ton of overhead, but keeping the staff going and the lights on happen whether or not these guys are on the floor talking at each other. So wherever this number came from, its useless to any kind of argument.
-
Well, yeah. The Senate isn't going to pass it, and if they did, the president would veto it, and they know it. I don't see how it's a biased opinion that they're wasting time that could be spent on really getting something done.
I only said biased because I don't really know what the deal is and didn't want to come in spouting something from a crazy partisan blog as fact.
-
The remaining 29.5 million would be a fuck ton of overhead, but keeping the staff going and the lights on happen whether or not these guys are on the floor talking at each other. So wherever this number came from, its useless to any kind of argument.
Well obviously it's a bullshit argument, that's not even up for debate. My real question is, does it really cost 30 million a day to keep the lights on at the capital? that seems high even for the Government.
-
That's why I qualified it with "would be"
I also doubt that number and have no idea where it came from other than some agenda driven crackpot who makes facebook images.
-
A FB friend posted this quiz, which appears fairly unbiased, but I wonder.
http://www.isidewith.com/presidential-election-quiz
I got a score of 84% with Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate. That was surprising. I got a score of 81% for Obama, that was not surprising at all. And the candidate I agreed with the least was Ron Paul, just 2 percentage points behind Romney, 37 and 39%, respectively.
I'd be interested to see what others score. I don't think the Green Party is even on the ballot in my state.
-
obama 89, which surprises me.
stein 86, which doesn't.
i wish the green party would try to grow a bit more organically, if you'll pardon the pun. they need to win seats as sheriffs and judges and state house reps before they can hope to take the national stage. start that off with a run at congress from vermont or oregon, somewhere they might have a chance at winning. their marketing-based campaigns for president just piss me off.
ron paul 34
romney 13, but that might change with his ... updated position stances?
-
I was at 66% with the socialist candidate, also. I was surprised it was that low. But when I looked through the answers where we diverged, though, it looked like there were some places where we seemed to agree, but I chose an answer with more detail and he only chose "yes" or "no."
Also, when it comes to foreign policy, he is much more of a protectionist, whereas I am only a quasi-pacifist.
-
Obama 82%
Johnson 81%
Ron Paul 69%
Romney 61%
No really surprised. Obama benefited in the rankings from my great concern over science and technology issues. I like this tool. Johnson is probably going to get my vote in November.
-
Should children of illegal immigrants be granted citizenship!?? What does that even mean! It's in the goddamn constitution that if you are born here you are a citizen. COME ON PEOPLE.
Jill Stein (?) 95%
President Obama 90%
Stewart Alexander 79%
Paul 51%
Romney 20% ("no major issues")
-
Gary Johnson (whoever the fuck that is) 91%
Ron Paul 82%
Jill stein (again, who is this person and why does she agree with me) 77%
Obama and Mittons come in at 66%.
I'm ambivalent towards Mr.Mittons and the other guy. I have no clue who Jill Stein is and even less of an idea who Gary Johnson is. Uncle Ron is just silly.
-
Should children of illegal immigrants be granted citizenship!??
You know what? Why not? Let in every one who doesn't seem to be a violent criminal or a terrorist, make 'em all citizens.
At this point, at least if they're citizens, labour laws apply to them and they can't be exploited.
-
I just really didn't understand that question. Are we talking about children born back in the old country? Children born here? Are we talking about the Dream act?
-
Should children of illegal immigrants be granted citizenship!?? What does that even mean! It's in the goddamn constitution that if you are born here you are a citizen. COME ON PEOPLE.
Jill Stein (?) 95%
President Obama 90%
Stewart Alexander 79%
Paul 51%
Romney 20% ("no major issues")
I understood that the question is asking as a matter of policy if children of illegal immigrants born here should be granted citizenship. It's not a quiz question asking if children of illegal immigrants born here are granted citizenship. I answered yes, by the way. Of course if the answer is no then the Constitution would need to be amended, as it was to include the clause to which I'm guessing you refer.
But maybe the question is asking something else.
-
That site is a nice idea but that question makes me wonder what kind of mistakes they are making over issues that I don't understand as well.
-
Stein 97, Obama 87, Romney 15. Hardly surprising.
-
Jill Stein 92%
Obama 83%
Stewart Alexander 72% (who the hell is this?)
RON PAUL! 62%
Mitt 36%
-
Alexander is the Democratic Socialist ticket.
-
About this Paul Ryan fella... Of course my lib FB Friends are going off the handle on him, but they have gotten more ridiculous than my right wing friends lately so I can't trust them anymore. Was listening to Dennis Miller tonight, don't put too much stock in what he says either, but he was talking about Ryan like he's a highly intelligent person that really knows what the fuck he's talking about. Apparently he's the main architect of the Republican's budget proposals of late. He's all about cutting spending, which seems extremely necessary to me, but he's also big on cutting taxes which seems to be working against the spending cuts if paying down the deficit is the goal.
Miller also said he was squeaky clean and there wouldn't be any dirty laundry. At this stage of the game I'm pretty sure I'd rather see a candidate that isn't such a goody two shoes prig. But that's a whole 'nother issue. Of course Miller's probably full of shit and he's as dirty as they come, but whatever...
I'd be encouraged for the right wing if I thought they were supporting an intelligent candidate because of his intelligence, regardless of their positions on the issues. I mean, after George Bush and Sarah Palin I'm inclined to believe that the intelligence of their candidates is not a big priority for the right wing, but you know...
Anyway, I guess my question to you, my brain trust, is... What do you think of Paul Ryan?
-
Look into what it is he wants to cut Paul.
-
Look into what it is he wants to cut Paul.
Yeah I figured as much. He wants to starve senior citizens, etc...
-
Yeah I figured as much. He wants to starve senior citizens, etc...
Not sure what you're saying here.
-
Not sure what you're saying here.
If my liberal Facebook friends are to be believed he wants to kill medicare.
-
Well, yeah. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Path_to_Prosperity#Changes_to_Medicare)
-
If my liberal Facebook friends are to be believed he wants to kill medicare.
Are you saying you don't believe it? What would it take to make you believe it?
Because it's true and all.
-
Paul Ryan wants to kill every government programme that doesn't involve shooting foreigners or giving money to Christian churches.
Dude has basically said it.
-
Are you saying you don't believe it?
No, I'm saying that most of my vocally liberal Facebook friends don't have a lot of credibility. That's why I have turned to TOUAMB, where I can hear voices I trust.
-
No, I'm saying that most of my vocally liberal Facebook friends don't have a lot of credibility.
Case in point!
(http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/547915_448755221825086_1556703645_n.jpg)
-
So, what's your point?
-
I liked this. (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/08/are-liberals-being-unfair-to-paul-ryan/261082/)
-
So, what's your point?
Are you goading me?
-
So, what's your point?
My point is I want your opinion on Paul Ryan. Where have I been unclear on this?
-
Paul Ryan wants to kill every government programme that doesn't involve shooting foreigners or giving money to Christian churches.
Dude has basically said it.
I find this hilarious since the only people I've seen on FB supporting invariably compare him to Ayn Rand. And I've yet to have anybody adequately explain a way for a person to be both a Randian objectivist and a christian.
-
My point is I want your opinion on Paul Ryan. Where have I been unclear on this?
I was referring to the Sarah Palin/Fascism image. Seems pretty spot on to me. The Sinclair Lewis quote is accurate (although it's from 1935 instead of 1835). Sarah Palin supports some pretty authoritarian policies, although "Fascism" may be a little bit of hyperbole -- but only a very little bit. And she is literally wrapped in a flag and holding a cross.
I guess I'm just one of those crazy liberals whose opinion you seem to be looking for a reason to dismiss.
My opinion on Paul Ryan is negative. My opinion on the entire GOP is very very negative.
-
All I know is, I can't vote for the GOP ticket. They done broke me.
Roadmap to prosperity my hairy nuts.
But...but... You're the token conservative!!!
-
OMFG.
I was thinking the other day - wouldn't it be better to live in a world where the presidential election is at least a slightly hard choice? Instead of one where I feel like the other side is a bunch of nutcases. Is it too much to ask for a Republican party that I think is simply wrong, not out of its freaking mind? Wouldn't that be better for the country?
So maybe this Asherdan Moment is good news - a sign that the party will realize soon that it needs to swing the pendulum back toward the center?
-
Your liberal friends are overreacting to Paul "The Wonk" Ryan. If he were to become VP he would be about as effective as Joe Biden has been. He is a tea party ideologue and nothing more.
-
I was referring to the Sarah Palin/Fascism image. Seems pretty spot on to me. The Sinclair Lewis quote is accurate (although it's from 1935 instead of 1835). Sarah Palin supports some pretty authoritarian policies, although "Fascism" may be a little bit of hyperbole -- but only a very little bit. And she is literally wrapped in a flag and holding a cross.
The quote is misattributed as you've mentioned and the picture is heavily photoshopped. I've come to expect that kind of bullshit from the Right, but it's new to me to see it coming from the left as well. It strains the credibility of the people who've posted it and makes me cast a dubious eye toward everything else they post.
I guess I'm just one of those crazy liberals whose opinion you seem to be looking for a reason to dismiss.
You've known me long enough to know that we are mostly on the same side of this issue, but if you start posting fake pics of Romney having dinner with Hitler or whatever, then I'll tune you out too.
Until that happens, thanks for sharing your opinion.
-
Ryan's a hardcore Randian and a fundamentalist Catholic, according to everything I've read.
I don't know how you can be both kinds of dead inside at the same time either but... I mean... looking for intellectual consistency in the modern Republican party sounds like the set-up for a joke.
He's probably just a hardcore Randian posing as a fundamentalist Catholic for political gain, I dunno.
-
The only people calling him a "Randian" (whatever that is) are those coming from the left trying to attack him. Even though a person can be inspired by a particular thinker/writer at one time in their life does not mean they are forever crsytalized in that position (points to self as example). The Wonk is not a "hardcore" adherent to Rand's philosophy. His policy includes perpetuating the social welfare safety net and a strong pro-life agenda. Both of which don't jive with Rand.
If you want to label him, go with Tea Party. He meets all the criteria for that club and is quite proud of it.
-
The only people calling him a "Randian" (whatever that is) are those coming from the left trying to attack him. Even though a person can be inspired by a particular thinker/writer at one time in their life does not mean they are forever crsytalized in that position (points to self as example). The Wonk is not a "hardcore" adherent to Rand's philosophy. His policy includes perpetuating the social welfare safety net and a strong pro-life agenda. Both of which don't jive with Rand.
If you want to label him, go with Tea Party. He meets all the criteria for that club and is quite proud of it.
Tea Partier is worse. A true Randian would at least be internally consistent. With a Tea Partier, all bets are off. Nothing has to (or should) make even a lick of sense. Keep your government hands off my Medicare.
-
I agree.
Also, this:
(http://cdn.crushable.com/files/2011/01/celebrity.jpg)
Gabe from The Office/Wonkmaster2012/ Crispin Glover in Willard.
-
The only people calling him a "Randian" (whatever that is) are those coming from the left trying to attack him.
I've only heard this from my right-wing friends. One of the statuses yesterday was something like "Paul Ryan is awesome and if you would just read The Fountainhead/Atlas Shrugged you would understand why." If that isn't calling him Randian I don't know what is.
-
Until that happens, thanks for sharing your opinion.
Sorry if I was snarky, bro.
-
Obama has a brewery in the White House (http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20120814/NEWS09/120814014/Revealed-Obama-administration-brews-its-own-White-House-beer)
-
OH DEAR GOD NOT THAT WHERE DOES HE GET OFF
(he also has a 24/7 kitchen staff and omg a vegetable garden)
(i bet that jerk even has flies on a private plane when us plebes gotta fly coach)
i have six neighbors that brew beer. it makes for fun times, and apparently it's easy and cheap to do. mrs|choop has an ex that used to brew, so that's off the table for me due to respect for feelings.
seriously asking here: is there some kind of problem with a white house home brew?
-
What!!! Obama is breathing oxygen now!!!???
The nerve! How's that hopey-changey thing working out for you libs now, huh?
-
seriously asking here: is there some kind of problem with a white house home brew?
Some might have a problem with it. I think it's pretty fuck*ng cool.
-
I think that just beats the piss all out of Billy Beer, f'sure.
Billy Beer was made in Louisville and was essentially Falls City. (http://www.falstaffbrewing.com/falls.htm)
Even though I don't drink anymore, I miss local/regional beers and I'm glad they're making a comeback.
-
I've only heard this from my right-wing friends. One of the statuses yesterday was something like "Paul Ryan is awesome and if you would just read The Fountainhead/Atlas Shrugged you would understand why." If that isn't calling him Randian I don't know what is.
Calling him Randian would be calling him Randian. Saying if you read her books you would have a better understanding of where he is coming from is just that. You see, Rand was clearly against anything like "Randianism" or "Randian". "Randian Hero" might fly because its just a literary description.
-
seriously asking here: is there some kind of problem with a white house home brew?
Who is saying it is a problem? I guess it was called a "startling observation" in the article, but is this seriously getting negative press elsewhere? That's silly. Tell you what though, that brewery just went to the top of Romney's "things to throw out the first day" list, right above Obamacare.
Calling him Randian would be calling him Randian. Saying if you read her books you would have a better understanding of where he is coming from is just that. You see, Rand was clearly against anything like "Randianism" or "Randian". "Randian Hero" might fly because its just a literary description.
I have read that Ryan explicitly rejected Objectivism as a philosophy and said that he basically just liked her novels (here, for example (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/08/14/paul_ryan_rejects_ayn_rands_objectivism_philosophy.html)), but there are videos of him going on and on about her.
There does seem to be quite a few religious conservatives who claim Rand as a strong influence, and I think LFM made a good point that it's strange for an observant Christian to strongly identify with a philosophy incompatible with Christianity. You could say that they are cafeteria Objectivists, but the ideas central to Objectivism are the rejection of altruism and the moral superiority of selfishness. The ideas that some tea partiers associate with Rand, like small government and the free market, have older and stronger roots elsewhere.
-
My theory is that the Tea Party is a Dada political party. It's intentionally absurdist, so contradictory beliefs like "the virtue of selgiraffeness" and "love thy neighbor as thyself" are de rigeur.
-
I think my initial question about Ryan still remains. Is he well spoken? Is he intelligent? I don't want to take Dennis Miller's word for it and I don't want to have to listen to him speak either. So, you know, what's the truth here?
-
I have read that Ryan explicitly rejected Objectivism as a philosophy and said that he basically just liked her novels
Is that meant to be a point in his favour? I've only read Atlas Shrugged and found the philosophy quite interesting, largely since it was my first exposure to objectivism, but that was not a well written book.
Why yes I do think bad literary taste is worse than nasty political ideologies. Snob 2012!
-
I don't want to take Dennis Miller's word for it and I don't want to have to listen to him speak either.
Following up on my earlier point... is it too much to ask that in this great country of ours, a major political party can pick a nominee that doesn't make a person feel this way? We only have two parties and only need to find a total of four humans beings to fill up the presidential election tickets. It's not that many, it can't be that hard.
-
wants the job vs. should be trusted with it etc.
-
I know, I know... but we're just talking about FOUR people in a country of how many million? There really aren't four reasonable, qualified people who could be convinced to run who aren't in it for purely crappy reasons?
-
There is but they can't muster up the gumption to feed people made up lies and pander to the lies people tell themselves.
You'd think there would be loads of well spoken, intelligent, evil people who are more than up to the task. I know it's too much to expect our leaders to tell us the truth, but I can't believe it's too much to ask that they at least don't sound like a fuck*ng pinhead while they are lying to us.
We need another Nixon. Man, that guy was good.
-
I can't believe it's too much to ask that they at least don't sound like a fuck*ng pinhead while they are lying to us.
Yeah, I would settle for that.
You know what else I would settle for? If a party is going to run a guy who's supposedly qualified on the basis of having been a governor, pick one who doesn't have to claim he doesn't believe in any of the things he did as governor. There is more than one Republican governor out there, so how hard can this be? Just pick a different one. Seriously.
-
Those evil doer's you mention are also smart enough to stay in the background. Those pinheads we all dislike are their automated meat puppets.
Exactly this. This system actually works okay until a Dick Cheney tells the useful idiot to fuggedabout the advisers.
-
Is that meant to be a point in his favour? I've only read Atlas Shrugged and found the philosophy quite interesting, largely since it was my first exposure to objectivism, but that was not a well written book.
No, not at all. I've only read The Fountainhead and didn't like it, but I've had great conversations with objectivists, so I agree with you. I was mostly rambling, but mainly meant to point out that Ryan doesn't claim to be a disciple of Rand.
Mitt Romney once named Battlefield Earth as his favorite novel. Could this be the ticket with the worst taste in literature ever?
Maybe that's unfair because I've never read Battlefield Earth. And I guaranfuck*ngtee you that unless someone pays me to do it, I never will.
-
I read The Fountainhead as a young reader and enjoyed it. I enjoyed the movie too. Admittedly I was inspired to read Ayn Rand by Rush's 2112.
-
I enjoyed the movie too.
Given this information, no one should ever take Paul's movie recommendations seriously. Ever.
-
I read The Fountainhead as a young reader and enjoyed it. I enjoyed the movie too. Admittedly I was inspired to read Ayn Rand by Rush's 2112.
You mean the old one with Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal?
-
You mean the old one with Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal?
Yes. There is another?
-
Yes. There is another?
They made the first part of Atlas Shrugged into a movie a couple of years ago. It sucked pretty bad.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/SLAlB.jpg)
-
I guess I dodged a bullet by reading The Fountainhead instead. Ha ha.
-
Interestingly, I read "Breakfast of Champions" at fourteen.
-
Maybe that's unfair because I've never read Battlefield Earth. And I guaranfuck*ngtee you that unless someone pays me to do it, I never will.
I read it because a friend had recommended it and I thought it would be good to chat about (we talked endlessly about the Sci-Fi and action books we were reading). Even as a 15 year old I found it turgid and laborious.
-
I guess the republicans have secured the pro rape vote.
-
Interestingly, I read "Breakfast of Champions" at fourteen.
Breakfast of Champions was my first Vonnegut, in eighth grade. Older kids on the bus to a cross-country meet were reading it and cracking up at the drawings.
So it goes.
-
Breakfast of Champions was my second Vonnegut book. My first was "Harrison Bergeron" which has since been made into a great movie called 2081. Every adaption of Rand to film blows hard.
-
Breakfast of Champions was my second Vonnegut book. My first was "Harrison Bergeron" which has since been made into a great movie called 2081. Every adaption of Rand to film blows hard.
Wasn't HB a short story/novella? I read it in 9th grade but I remembered it being somewhat less than book length.
-
Yes. It was a short story and the movie is less than hour.
-
inside the romney family home (http://www.ijreview.com/2012/09/15567-15567/)
hm. im not voting for him and im not completely buying the "rolled up sleeves/working dude" angle. im just glad to see a little glimmer of humanity in the ***** facade(whether earned or blown out of proportion by the press).
-
I think that presidential candidates should be banned from making "on day one, I will..." promises, because you know that the first thing on their agenda is really gonna be jumping on the Lincoln bed.
-
The scales are finally falling from your eyelids.
-
It's not like I suddenly crave sucking on Donkey Junk, y'know?
How do you know sucking on Donkey Junk is bad?
-
Why find out?
-
I'm glad someone other than me is reading the stuff I put up. I try not to post utter garbage so that those who do see it know my signal:noise is worth checking out. I'm still a registered Republican, but at this point the national party has almost totally alienated me. I think the only thing keeping me from actually registering as a Democrat would be the glee of my brothers and stepfather.
-
I'm still a registered Republican, but at this point the national party has almost totally alienated me.
Replace Republican with Democrat and that describes me. But the Republican party alienated me years ago at a young age already, so I have nowhere else to go. Except political apathy, I guess. Who am I kidding, I've been there for years now.
-
I'm registered unaffiliated. I've swung both ways in the past, but with politics the way they are right now I lean heavily Democratic.
-
I have never been aware of politics in any other era. So I am registered Democrat.
I might vote for my buddy who is running for a weird city administrative position as a Republican.
-
I used to think myself libertarian, but then I realized there was in fact a social contract, and that it's a mostly good thing for nearly every level of society.
After that I thought myself republican, until I realized that social issues were as important as economic ones.
Next I thought myself centrist, as good ideas can come from anywhere. And then I stopped hearing very many good ideas from very many places.
Then I thought myself democratic, until the national Overton window shifted so far to the right that the democrats couldn't see through both it and my personal Overton window.
Now I just wish the green party was at all viable. But then, nobody seems to know how to build an actual third party.
In the future I might find myself a complete socialist, if only as a reaction to how consistently more conservative the elephant and donkey get as they age.
Hey, there's a neat idea for a study: party platforms judged through the years on the political compass.
-
I live in a state where the Republican party is lead by Mitch fuck*ng McConnell.
You bet your ass I'm a Democrat.
-
I live in one of five states where my vote matters. I am not voting for Obama. I am sure as shit not voting for Romney either though.
-
and this is exactly how romney will win.
in states where votes count, it's more important to vote against the guy you like less. in states like mine (georgia), your vote doesn't count in the big race, so voting for the candidate you REALLY want sends more of a message.
-
and this is exactly how romney will win.
Predictions, anyone?
-
Doesn't it send more of a message by saying my vote matters and Obama isn't getting it? Like, to what's the difference to me if Romney or Obama mean? Nothing. Why shouldn't my vote reflect that?
-
Wait, you honestly think that an Obama administration and a Romney administration would not be different? I mean, a couple potential Romney Supreme Court appointments alone should give a liberal night terrors. I may be feeling apathetic but that's because I'm not rich enough to make a difference and as a Utahn my vote means absolutely fuck all.
-
They would be different, but not on the issues I care about/ Obama has not done one big thing I agree with and has done multiple things I disagree strongly with.
My hope is more of a Romney wins and makes our country as shitty as possible as fast as possible and we get actual change the next time. I can't actually vote for that though. I am willing to concede that people with actual jobs, who haven't gone negative in their bank account at least once a month for like the last year, with families and shit, should probably feel differently. I don't have those things and don't care about burning this shit to the ground so we can start again.
-
Like- who do I think is more competent? Obama.
Who do you pick if you want a better world though? I am going neither.
I had to be talked into voting really hard too, and I am only doing it because of the legalizing weed amendment in CO (though I feel a little dirty about that- like once I vote for that I lose the moral high ground of who the fuck are you to tell me what to do. It is actively buying in. I will have to be a hypocrite on this issue I guess.)
George Carlin says it best- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIraCchPDhk
Clif Notes- The public sucks, fuck hope.
-
Carlin's logic is flawed.
-
Every time I go into society in anyway I deal with idiots. They are all over the fuck*ng place.
-
For some reason the thing that makes me want to flip out is the "food stamp president" thing. Yeah, more people have gone onto food stamps under Obama. Rather than attempting to argue that it isn't his fault, we should embrace that. Why have more people gone onto food stamps?? Because our president made it a priority to help people who needed assistance by expanding that program. Studies have shown that it is one of the most cost-effective ways to help struggling families, and also has a positive effect on the economy.
This article (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/19/magazine/obama-poverty.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0) discusses this and is interesting.
-
Who would you rather be appointing Supreme Court justices?
If you think there's not a difference and that difference will not have an effect on you, I'm sorry, but I think you're a dumbass.
-
Obama has not done one big thing I agree with and has done multiple things I disagree strongly with.
i understand disagreeing with the affordable care act: either it goes too far or not far enough. what that statement makes me wonder is that maybe you disagree with repealing don't ask don't tell? or expanding the enforcement of equal pay for women? or turning our iraq situation into more of a germany in the '80s than a 'nam in the '60s?
keith, i hardly knew ye
-
Who would you rather be appointing Supreme Court justices?
If you think there's not a difference and that difference will not have an effect on you, I'm sorry, but I think you're a dumbass.
Exactly. Not that you're a dumbass, but that this is a perfect example of how the election directly impacts you. Although judging by Gonzales v. Raich marijuana legalization at the state level is probably fucked. But, an Obama administration is less likely to challenge it than a Romney administration, so at least you'd have a chance of enjoying legal recreational pot, should the law pass, for a few years.
-
i understand disagreeing with the affordable care act: either it goes too far or not far enough. what that statement makes me wonder is that maybe you disagree with repealing don't ask don't tell? or expanding the enforcement of equal pay for women? or turning our iraq situation into more of a germany in the '80s than a 'nam in the '60s?
keith, i hardly knew ye
I disagree with not just making gay marriage legal. I disagree with saying the war in Afghanistan is over and leaving the same number of (or more) troops there. I don't have confidence in the dude to get what he wants through congress. And most importantly, I disagree strongly with forcing people to give their money to private corporations just for being alive and saying he would reconsider our drug laws as a candidate then laughing about it and busting more medical marijuana businesses than W as president.
He made crack and cocaine punishment somewhat more equal, where at least you have to be a dealer to get the mandatory minimum 5 years for crack (28 g vs 5 g in the past), but to get the minimum 5 years for cocaine it is still 500 grams- which is still fucked but better.
I am kind of a single issue voter and fuck both of them on personal freedom. Until I can get high on whatever I want, pay anyone who is willing to fuck me and marry who ever I want I am kinda out. To be fair- I am not gay and have never been/would never go to a prostitute. I get high all the time off of everything.
A small piece of me knows I should vote for Obama, and this isn't hurting, so y'all can keep trying if you want- I just think I am probably out.
-
oh boy...
-
Who would you rather be appointing Supreme Court justices?
If you think there's not a difference and that difference will not have an effect on you, I'm sorry, but I think you're a dumbass.
And oh yeah, I don't think it is possible to stutter in type- I "don't care about burning this shit to the ground so we can start again." That doesn't really leave room for worrying about Supreme Court bullshit. I am talking there would not be a supreme court. That is my number one goal- to get this country completely fucked so we can just start from scratch.
-
Yeah, totally. FUCK the rule of law.
-
yeah man anarchy, it makes worrying about drugs like vanish
and food and gas too, they'll be just as easy to get hold of as ever. also guns and ammo, everybody'll have the same amount and type so nobody will feel threatened or desperate so nobody will threaten or endanger anybody else, and everybody will band together to shape a new utopia without years of civil war and riots and with rights and freedoms for all, amen
keith, hasta la vista. i think the world might be better off without you voting, even if you accidentally also pick the hoss i'm backing. yours might be the most childish world view i've come across in years, and i'm including a couple of children in that tally
(edit: sorry about going all asherdan there but it's pretty well earned)
-
Or like, you know, we could just have a decent government. One that made space for actual liberal thought. I still don't really worry about Supreme Court in that circumstance. I feel like the only way to get this would involve going through major disorder, I guess that is why I don't worry about the supreme court. I am not advocating anarchy, just working together in a reasonable way.
-
Hey what whoa! You didn't nearly fit enough cusses in there!
And you didn't make up a single word.
-
keith this system is built for stability, that's the whole point. you can't just take it down, especially by inaction or meaningless gestures. "working together in a reasonable way" is kind of the opposite of "burning this shit to the ground so we can start over."
jesus dude, unfog your brain for three weeks and read some actual political theory that doesn't start on ken kesey's clown bus
-
jesus dude, unfog your brain for three weeks and read some actual political theory that doesn't start on ken kesey's clown bus
You're being unfair to Ken Kesey.
-
probably so, but extraordinarily fair to keith
-
If you vote for the least horrifying person with a chance of winning every time, slowly but surely, politicians will adapt becoming less horrifying.
That's the attitude I'm sticking with.
-
If you vote for the least horrifying person with a chance of winning every time, slowly but surely, politicians will adapt becoming less horrifying.
That's the attitude I'm sticking with.
Or at least they'll become more horrifying less quickly.
There are days when I feel that there is not going to be any way for things to ultimately get fixed without falling apart first, but the system falling apart is a process I will probably not personally survive. So instead, I can at least vote against the party that thought Rick Santorum being president might be a swell idea.
-
I disagree with not just making gay marriage legal. I disagree with saying the war in Afghanistan is over and leaving the same number of (or more) troops there. I don't have confidence in the dude to get what he wants through congress. And most importantly, I disagree strongly with forcing people to give their money to private corporations just for being alive and saying he would reconsider our drug laws as a candidate then laughing about it and busting more medical marijuana businesses than W as president.
I agree that he has been a disappointment when it comes to drug policy, and I hope that if he is re-elected he'll come around. He can't afford to appear soft on crime at all right now. I also agree that healthcare reform was a big disappointment, although that can't be blamed entirely (not even mostly I'd say) on him. And has he really said that the war in Afghanistan is over? That's not rhetorical, I am curious.
But you do realize that Obama can't make gay marriage legal, right? He can introduce legislation and use his bully pulpit, but because marriage laws are determined state by state he can't just waive his magic pen and sign an executive order to make it legal in every state. At least I don't think he can. Can he? But anyway my point is, social change like this takes years because it can only be done by electing new members of congress, or electing presidents who appoint Supreme Court justices who will uphold or overturn legislation to support the social change.
People give the office of the US president WAY too much credit and blame in the short term, but underestimate the lingering effects of an administration. The result is that people get impatient and vote a guy out just because he can't eliminate unemployment, poverty and all of our enemies all while magically erasing all of our debt and instituting a flat tax, and vote the next guy in who promises that he can. OR people get disillusioned because he can't do those things and correctly realize that no one can, but forget that change takes time.
Seriously though, predictions anyone? Or are you all too terrified?
-
the only predictions i trust are nate silver's. and even then, i'm worried he's wrong. this race is way too close, and i can't figure out why. nobody even likes romney, the republican party just kind of settled for him. and after tonight's debate i can't see how his base will have his back at the polls. he dropped his stance on most of the foreign policy issues and agreed that obama was doing everything right. if the republican party hadn't ruined the term "flip-flopper" in '04, the democratic party would be ruining it tonight and tomorrow.
-
Oh man, Romney is the Muhammad Ali of flip-flopping. The best, he knows it, and isn't afraid to brag about it.
-
I'm looking forward to watching the polls tonight. It's gonna be a close one.
-
I'm looking forward to watching the polls tonight. It's gonna be a close one.
Is it? It's really hard to judge from the outside how close this stuff is and how much the media just like to push a down to the line race for ratings.
-
Which is the one the republicans took back in 2010?
-
The lower house of Congress, the House of Representatives. They serve a 2-year term, so they are subject to popular mood shifts like the Tea Party.
-
My prediction- Obama easy and Amendment 64 passes.
-
So even if Obama wins you're probably looking at least at another 2 years of stalemates (stop smiling Ash)?
-
GRIDLOCK! (http://www.hulu.com/watch/4123)
ALSO: Tomorrow is my day off from roadwork so I've determined that Evan Williams bourbon is perfect for poll watching.
I recommend a generous pour of Evan in your morning coffee.
-
Barleywine here. Sadly I didn't think ahead and lay up a stock. I may have to switch to IPA.
-
So apparently Colorado passed marijuana legalization? I guess even single-issue voters whose single issue is weed can come out of this election with some comfort.
-
I'm pretty pumped about that. The first place in the world where weed is truly legal? Haha!!!
I voted for 64 and the socialist presidential candidate (and to raise taxes for schools and against every judge). I have never not voted straight democrat and I didn't vote for a democrat at all this time. It was the proudest I've ever been in my I voted sticker, so fuck y'all if that's an issue. I also stood there for like 5 minutes deciding between Obama and socialist dude.
-
I'm pretty pumped about that. The first place in the world where weed is truly legal? Haha!!!
I voted for 64 and the socialist presidential candidate (and to raise taxes for schools and against every judge). I have never not voted straight democrat and I didn't vote for a democrat at all this time. It was the proudest I've ever been in my I voted sticker, so fuck y'all if that's an issue. I also stood there for like 5 minutes deciding between Obama and socialist dude.
I can respect "I voted third-party" a lot more than "I'm not going to vote". I've voted Green a few times, it's the act of not voting that's really throwing your vote away. Even if you're pissing in an ocean, third-party votes are at least a message of some kind sent to someone.
-
Thing is, I would totally vote for an increase in property taxes to benefit the parks & rec program & build new schools. But I wasn't given that option, and I want them to finish that proposed park in my neighborhood, dammit, so yes I voted for a bond issue that may result in a sales tax increase (but...probably won't?).
I am appalled by the childishness of some of the republican responses in my feed. Almost as much as the childishness of the democrats in 2000. Grow up, kids. It's not electing the "wrong" leader that ruins things, it's your shitty attitude.
We got the president I wanted but the Governor I opposed, which IMHO is going to impact my daily life significantly more. I am not running around pissing myself because I think my state is doomed. Yeah, I think McCrory is probably going to try to wreck the state's economy with trickle-down economics. But that's why we have checks and balances.
CHECKS AND BALANCES, PEOPLE. They work.
-
i think next time around i'm going to vote-swap with somebody in one of these battleground states that have to count so late into the night, so we might get a concession speech earlier. my vote doesn't count here. it'd be nice if it did for once.
-
On the other hand, living in a battleground state means a lot more political ads. So it's a trade-off.
Virginia went for Obama, and our county did by a fairly healthy margin. So I guess it was worth waiting an hour twenty to vote.
-
Yeah, those silly dems in 2000... it's not like that president authorized torture or got us involved in any decade-long wars.
A thing that has always bugged me (although it seemed less pronounced this year) is the mania for concessions. Why can't they just wait until the votes are counted? Sure, maybe not every single provisional ballot, but... is it so horrible to wait until at least all of the districts are reporting? I recall in the past hearing people go on and on about how such and such politician waited too long to concede.
-
Anybody noticed the Dow this morning?
I'm hoping they remember soon that what the market really wants isn't a specific set of policies but rather certainty over time. You would think that four more years of policy certainty would have made things better, not churning like this. Some eggs must've been in the wrong baskets.
Interesting. I view the stock market as primarily an expression of mass psychology with tenuous ties to underlying financial fundamentals. I expect you're exactly right. Some folks bet wrong and are making adjustments today. I think the real reaction will shape up over the next couple of weeks. It hasn't sunk in fully yet.
-
Not quite a fair line being drawn there, Inev. A kinda map changing event intervened to put us on that course and a lot of people joined hands to make it happen.
Yeah, that was definitely a case where hindsight was 20/20. Who knows what Gore would've done differently -- it was a stupid crazy time for everyone, and there are very few people who were in power at the time that erred on the side of liberty, regardless of what side of the aisle they stood on before or after.
You were a young teen in 2001, right Inev? I was only 22 and I think my youth at the time gave me a different perspective from what I would think and feel if something similar happened today. It's like looking back on 'Nam and saying, "WTF?" Sure, we know now that we couldn't win...but the view is always better from the cheap seats, is what I've learned about that.
Did I support the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act, etc? Not in the slightest. But I certainly understand that it was not former president Bush's fault that most of the people in power thought we needed them at the time.
Besides, the bellyaching and complaining about the 2000 election started WAY before we had an inkling about 9/11.
-
I'm still kinda mad at Clinton about 2000. Yeah, there were definitely shenanigans that went down in Florida, and I agree completely with Ash's point about not knowing who won the next morning. But I can't help but think that if ol' Bill could've kept his dong under control, Gore wins that election easily. And who knows how things would have turned out. Maybe we wouldn't have the Bush tax cuts, and the national debt that is, according to some, currently the source of all evil, would be in much better shape today. Maybe the reaction to 9/11 is much different, or maybe it doesn't happen at all (REAL hard to know that, but we can dream). Maybe we'd have made realistic progress towards dealing with climate change.
I could be completely wrong. Clinton has enjoyed a resurgence in recent years as an elder statesman for the Democratic party, and there's a lot of things for a liberal Dem to love about the guy. But for chrissakes, if he could have abstained from a couple of blowjobs our recent history could be COMPLETELY different.
-
I don't love Hills as a person, but she'd have had my vote for her healthcare plan.
-
The Monica Lewinsky scandal is when I realized that the republicans were out of their minds. The election of George Bush only confirmed that fact.
Romney was the best choice the Republicans could make. It's the same strategy they used in 2004 with McCain. Nominate the moderate and choose someone from the far right as a running mate. It didn't work with McCain because he was a senile cranky old man and Palin was laughably stupid. Romney killed his chances because he had to repudiate everything he accomplished as governor in order to get the nomination.
-
Have we decided that healthcare is a basic human right and that it should be provided to all, not necessarily earned via purchase?
'Cause I'm cool with that concept and all, especially if it means I can ditch that coupla hundo a month I'm pitching at that right now.
I'm actually a little surprised to see you say this, Ash. I'd have figured you for the "get the guv'mint's hands off my prostate" kind of guy.
-
Romney was the best choice the Republicans could make.
Romney killed his chances because he had to repudiate everything he accomplished as governor in order to get the nomination.
Those seem to me like contradictory statements. To me the amazing thing about Romney is - in a country of millions of people, the party couldn't find a single candidate with a record that was just a teensy bit more consistent with what they were going to say in the campaign? He was really the best choice they could make, someone who had done the opposite of what they wanted him to do as President?
-
The thing I don't get, as an outsider again, is that when you look at McCain and Romney the party obviously didn't want to elect fringe candidates, they wanted moderates (as close to as they've got anyway) but then as soon as they've got the nom they hitch their wagon to a star full of crazy like Palin and Ryan. I would have thought republicans are nominating moderates because they don't want those kinds of nutbars?
-
Those seem to me like contradictory statements. To me the amazing thing about Romney is - in a country of millions of people, the party couldn't find a single candidate with a record that was just a teensy bit more consistent with what they were going to say in the campaign? He was really the best choice they could make, someone who had done the opposite of what they wanted him to do as President?
do you remember the rest of the candidates? the only one romney didn't outclass and outqualify was just like him on paper but without the funding; was actually quite different from romney on policy and experience; and was probably the only good contender in the republican field this year: John Huntsman. also mormon, also utah, also governor, also businessman. however, he's also a chinese-fluent former ambassador with more public service experience than i think every other candidate in those giant "debate" sideshows. unfortunately he couldn't get any money behind him because he's fairly moderate and seemed so romney-like. maybe in 2016 he'll make the field again and we'll actually see a republican party candidate who's not just a malleable creeper without convictions or recall or forethought.
what i'm saying is, if he runs as a republican, i might consider voting repubican. depends on the rest of the parties' nominees.
The thing I don't get, as an outsider again, is that when you look at McCain and Romney the party obviously didn't want to elect fringe candidates, they wanted moderates (as close to as they've got anyway) but then as soon as they've got the nom they hitch their wagon to a star full of crazy like Palin and Ryan. I would have thought republicans are nominating moderates because they don't want those kinds of nutbars?
play to the center of the party for the primaries, bring in the fringe of the party for the general. standard strategy. the tea party has taken such a hold over the GOP that the nominee is beholden to their INSANE wishes and demands, and can't afford not to appear far-right so as to keep those votes.
to be honest, i'm kind of hoping for a GOP/Tea party split in the republican party, which might be what the left needs to break into smaller parties (green, etc). we might be able to find ourselves evolving into a more parliamentarian representation in the house and senate, which would really alleviate a lot of the gridlock that d.c. is so full of (and introduce innovative new forms of gridlock to replace that)
-
Those seem to me like contradictory statements. To me the amazing thing about Romney is - in a country of millions of people, the party couldn't find a single candidate with a record that was just a teensy bit more consistent with what they were going to say in the campaign? He was really the best choice they could make, someone who had done the opposite of what they wanted him to do as President?
What I meant is that his positions had the most appeal the electorate at large, but he had to swing hard to the right to get the nomination. This is a major problem for the Republican party.
-
do you remember the rest of the candidates? the only one romney didn't outclass and outqualify was just like him on paper but without the funding; was actually quite different from romney on policy and experience; and was probably the only good contender in the republican field this year: John Huntsman. also mormon, also utah, also governor, also businessman. however, he's also a chinese-fluent former ambassador with more public service experience than i think every other candidate in those giant "debate" sideshows. unfortunately he couldn't get any money behind him because he's fairly moderate and seemed so romney-like. maybe in 2016 he'll make the field again and we'll actually see a republican party candidate who's not just a malleable creeper without convictions or recall or forethought.
I predict that 2016 will be Chris Christie's year. He's got that down to earth everyman quality about him that George Bush had. He's a guy you would want to go have a beer with is what they used to say about Bush and you could say the same about Christie. Plus he doesn't seem to be nearly as dumb as Bush (not that it matters much to the republicans).
-
The essential formula in American politics is complicated by the fact that we can stay home and not vote if we're not feelin' it. The Republicans are hooked on the cheap votes the Religious Right guarantees if you spout the nonsense they want to hear. Mandatory voting for every citizen would reveal what a minority the nutjobs actually are; its also un-American. Bleah.
-
Mandatory voting for every citizen would reveal what a minority the nutjobs actually are.
If the non voters were forced to the polls it would be the mightiest force in American politics.
-
Mandatory voting for every citizen would reveal what a minority the nutjobs actually are; its also un-American. Bleah.
That's a thought. Would it be compelled speech? It may also violate the free exercise clause. I suppose that one could argue that allowing all voters to cast blank or written-in ballots would solve the first problem. And I guess there could be allowance for a kind of conscientious objection.
-
My gut reaction is that there is nothing more un-American than requiring people to vote.
I'm also not sure it's a good idea. You can force people to vote but you can't force them to do it thoughtfully. I think it's OK with me if people who are ignorant of the issues stay home. Speaking from personal experience, my mother has never voted, and from what little she says about what little she knows about politics, it's probably just as well.
-
The essential formula in American politics is complicated by the fact that we can stay home and not vote if we're not feelin' it. The Republicans are hooked on the cheap votes the Religious Right guarantees if you spout the nonsense they want to hear. Mandatory voting for every citizen would reveal what a minority the nutjobs actually are; its also un-American. Bleah.
I read an article earlier this year with some people win SW Virginia that normally vote a strict religious right ticket but were learning towards Obama because of something to the effect of "they say he might be a Muslim and might be Christian but Romney is definitely Mormon and that's like a cult."
-
Cort, did you mean to post this in the Shit my ___ says thread? It could go either way. Ha ha...
-
Just caught this (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/11/06/krauthammer_soul-searching_of_party_will_produce_reaganite_conservative_candidate.html) off Fark, particularly struck by this passage:
I think, this is an unusual election because Romney was a transitional figure. I think he ran as honorable a campaign as he could. He did moderately well. He came pretty close, but he was a northeastern liberal and that’s not where we’re going. The two northeastern liberal Senators who ran as moderates in New England lost. That’s not where the future of the party is.
So, you got hosed because you didn't run 'conservative' enough? (quotation marks because I don't think he and I agree on what that word means) After it was demonstrated that the brains trust of the party are just spectacularly out of touch with reality the plan going forward is to double down and just push it even harder next time? Really?
-
Sadly, yes.
http://secotm.tumblr.com/post/35530036625/following-my-post-yesterday-heres-a-summation-of
-
That's what I've been hearing. The GOP is bound and determined to drive the party into a minority position. I have no idea what would take its place, but the leadership is clearly not getting the message that the people who have voted for them over the years are getting fed up with their new message.
-
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." - Mark Twain