If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Atlantic)   The case against casting a ballot for President Obama, even if you think he's better than Mitt Romney   (theatlantic.com) divider line 200
    More: Interesting, President Obama, Mitt Romney, fantasy land, adulterers, North Waziristan, Darwinism, casting, imminent threat  
•       •       •

3695 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Sep 2012 at 11:44 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



200 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-26 10:28:07 AM
This is, I think, the best argument I've heard. It's cogent, stands on fact-based ground, and isn't silly. That's just my opinion. Don't hate!
 
2012-09-26 10:29:40 AM
Because if you're going to vote for a liberal, vote for a real one and vote Green?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-09-26 10:35:43 AM

GAT_00: Because if you're going to vote for a liberal, vote for a real one and vote Green?


That worked out really well in 2000 didn't it?

Elections aren't about finding your soul mate, they are about selecting someone for an office.
 
2012-09-26 10:41:19 AM

vpb: GAT_00: Because if you're going to vote for a liberal, vote for a real one and vote Green?

That worked out really well in 2000 didn't it?

Elections aren't about finding your soul mate, they are about selecting someone for an office.


And I'm not voting for a pale imitation of a Republican, because I wouldn't vote for Republican.
 
2012-09-26 10:43:04 AM

vpb: GAT_00: Because if you're going to vote for a liberal, vote for a real one and vote Green?

That worked out really well in 2000 didn't it?

Elections aren't about finding your soul mate, they are about selecting someone for an office.


Seriously. We're not going to marry this person

/we're hiring for a temp position
 
2012-09-26 10:43:55 AM
It kills hundreds of innocents, including children. And for thousands of more innocents who live in the targeted communities, the drone war makes their lives into a nightmare worthy of dystopian novels. People are always afraid. Women cower in their homes. Children are kept out of school. The stress they endure gives them psychiatric disorders. Men are driven crazy by an inability to sleep as drones buzz overhead 24 hours a day, a deadly strike possible at any moment.

Even if our drones were not killing innocent people in those tribal areas, they would be keeping girls out of school and women would be cowering in the homes because they are not allowed out on their own and any man who feels slighted by them can throw acid in their faces. At least our drones make both men and women live in fear, which is a more equitable distribution of terror.
 
2012-09-26 10:45:06 AM

kbronsito: At least our drones make both men and women live in fear, which is a more equitable distribution of terror.


Even Fartbongo can make death from above socialist.
 
2012-09-26 10:46:57 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: vpb: GAT_00: Because if you're going to vote for a liberal, vote for a real one and vote Green?

That worked out really well in 2000 didn't it?

Elections aren't about finding your soul mate, they are about selecting someone for an office.

Seriously. We're not going to marry this person

/we're hiring for a temp position


Do you hire temps on popularity, or because one is better than the other three?
 
2012-09-26 10:48:35 AM
FTFA: Contrary to his own previously stated understanding of what the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution demand, President Obama committed U.S. forces to war in Libya without Congressional approval, despite the lack of anything like an imminent threat to national security.

Actual text of War Powers Resolution: Section 8b:

i.imgur.com

I'm a registered Green, but this is a bullshiat point debunked many times in the Libya threads. Committing forces pursuant to NATO headquartered-operations explicitly does not require or invoke the War Powers under Section 8b. This is explicitly addressed in the War Powers Resolution itself, regardless of what Obama may or may not have thought about it beforehand as a candidate or otherwise.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-09-26 10:51:25 AM

GAT_00: vpb: GAT_00: Because if you're going to vote for a liberal, vote for a real one and vote Green?

That worked out really well in 2000 didn't it?

Elections aren't about finding your soul mate, they are about selecting someone for an office.

And I'm not voting for a pale imitation of a Republican, because I wouldn't vote for Republican.


Well, that's a tiny bit of good news for Romney then.
 
2012-09-26 10:52:29 AM

GAT_00: MaudlinMutantMollusk: vpb: GAT_00: Because if you're going to vote for a liberal, vote for a real one and vote Green?

That worked out really well in 2000 didn't it?

Elections aren't about finding your soul mate, they are about selecting someone for an office.

Seriously. We're not going to marry this person

/we're hiring for a temp position

Do you hire temps on popularity, or because one is better than the other three?


If it's just my choice alone, I'd hire the best qualified

/in this instance I think it requires a bit more pragmatism
 
2012-09-26 10:53:20 AM
FTFA: Keen on Obama's civil-libertarian message and reassertion of basic American values, I supported him in 2008. Today I would feel ashamed to associate myself with his first term or the likely course of his second. I refuse to vote for Barack Obama?

That's a case for not casting a Presidential Ballot for either of the Democratic or Republican candidates. Fine. I disagree with his reasons but that's fine. That isn't a case for casting a ballot for either the Libertarian candidate or the Green Party ticket. The real question is: Who are you endorsing (if anybody) and why. Make a case for another candidate or take your ball, pout and go home.
 
2012-09-26 10:54:16 AM

vpb: GAT_00: vpb: GAT_00: Because if you're going to vote for a liberal, vote for a real one and vote Green?

That worked out really well in 2000 didn't it?

Elections aren't about finding your soul mate, they are about selecting someone for an office.

And I'm not voting for a pale imitation of a Republican, because I wouldn't vote for Republican.

Well, that's a tiny bit of good news for Romney then.


Is there a reason you're intentionally ignoring everything I say while pretending to respond to me, or do you just enjoy having your own conversation while talking to others? Because I don't know if you know this, but generally when you try having a conversation, you respond to what other people are saying.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-09-26 10:55:07 AM

kbronsito: It kills hundreds of innocents, including children. And for thousands of more innocents who live in the targeted communities, the drone war makes their lives into a nightmare worthy of dystopian novels. People are always afraid. Women cower in their homes. Children are kept out of school. The stress they endure gives them psychiatric disorders. Men are driven crazy by an inability to sleep as drones buzz overhead 24 hours a day, a deadly strike possible at any moment.

Even if our drones were not killing innocent people in those tribal areas, they would be keeping girls out of school and women would be cowering in the homes because they are not allowed out on their own and any man who feels slighted by them can throw acid in their faces. At least our drones make both men and women live in fear, which is a more equitable distribution of terror.


I don't get the obsession with drones. It's just a type of plane. We used to do the same thing with manned aircraft, except that we used 2000lb bombs and blew up entire neighborhoods instead of individual houses.
 
2012-09-26 10:55:18 AM
Unless you live in a swing state, it doesn't matter whatsoever who you vote for.

I live in CT. I could vote for Drew and it would have f*ck all to do with who wins the Presidency.
 
2012-09-26 10:56:35 AM

Aarontology: Unless you live in a swing state, it doesn't matter whatsoever who you vote for.

I live in CT. I could vote for Drew and it would have f*ck all to do with who wins the Presidency.


This is correct.
 
2012-09-26 10:58:12 AM
Yes, Obama continued the "war on terror" which sucks, although if the choice is between drones and invading a country the drones will kill fewer people.

On the other hand, Gary Johnson is like a less crazy Ron Paul. I generally agree with his positions on social issues and foreign policy, but he wants to cut a ridiculous amount from social programs. To me, domestic policy is more important than foreign policy, so I wouldn't vote for him.
 
2012-09-26 10:58:42 AM

vpb: kbronsito: It kills hundreds of innocents, including children. And for thousands of more innocents who live in the targeted communities, the drone war makes their lives into a nightmare worthy of dystopian novels. People are always afraid. Women cower in their homes. Children are kept out of school. The stress they endure gives them psychiatric disorders. Men are driven crazy by an inability to sleep as drones buzz overhead 24 hours a day, a deadly strike possible at any moment.

Even if our drones were not killing innocent people in those tribal areas, they would be keeping girls out of school and women would be cowering in the homes because they are not allowed out on their own and any man who feels slighted by them can throw acid in their faces. At least our drones make both men and women live in fear, which is a more equitable distribution of terror.

I don't get the obsession with drones. It's just a type of plane. We used to do the same thing with manned aircraft, except that we used 2000lb bombs and blew up entire neighborhoods instead of individual houses.


Nobody was killed in the bombing of Dresden. Lies I tells ya, all lies!
 
2012-09-26 10:58:57 AM
Dear Green party member.

Try winning something other than drain commisioner, Mayor the middle of nowhere or dog catcher on a consistent basis before trying to delude yourself that you can do anything at the Presidential level. Even if your guy wins the election he's going to need people in the house and senate to work with.
 
2012-09-26 11:01:52 AM

vpb: GAT_00: Because if you're going to vote for a liberal, vote for a real one and vote Green?

That worked out really well in 2000 didn't it?

Elections aren't about finding your soul mate, they are about selecting someone for an office.


Indeed.

Part of the reason our country is in such dire straights is that a thousand or so elderly Jews in Florida voted for Nader because they thought Gore wasn't liberal enough, even though they would have voted Gore over Bush without hesitation had those two been the only two on the ballot.
 
2012-09-26 11:06:47 AM

NuttierThanEver: Even if your guy wins the election he's going to need people in the house and senate to work with.


upload.wikimedia.orgupload.wikimedia.orgi.imgur.com

I think a Governor's seat is a far better target then these small ones, though you do have Green candidates at those levels. Angus King, Lowell Weicker and Jesse Ventura have proved that Independents can win Governorships.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-09-26 11:07:48 AM

GAT_00: vpb: GAT_00: vpb: GAT_00: Because if you're going to vote for a liberal, vote for a real one and vote Green?

That worked out really well in 2000 didn't it?

Elections aren't about finding your soul mate, they are about selecting someone for an office.

And I'm not voting for a pale imitation of a Republican, because I wouldn't vote for Republican.

Well, that's a tiny bit of good news for Romney then.

Is there a reason you're intentionally ignoring everything I say while pretending to respond to me, or do you just enjoy having your own conversation while talking to others? Because I don't know if you know this, but generally when you try having a conversation, you respond to what other people are saying.


You mean replying to what you say instead of what you are trying to say? TFA makes it clear that the author thinks that Obama is a pale imitation of a Republican" as you put it. Did you read the article or are you just surprised that people would read your comment in the context of the article you are commenting on?
 
2012-09-26 11:12:29 AM

Somacandra: NuttierThanEver: Even if your guy wins the election he's going to need people in the house and senate to work with.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 175x214][upload.wikimedia.org image 164x225][i.imgur.com image 202x250]

I think a Governor's seat is a far better target then these small ones, though you do have Green candidates at those levels. Angus King, Lowell Weicker and Jesse Ventura have proved that Independents can win Governorships.


and then not get shiat done because no one in the State Houses are going to work with them. It makes no sense to try and grab the Executive branch without support in the Legislative first. You'll be ineffective and after you are gone there will be a return to the status quo.
 
2012-09-26 11:13:10 AM

King Something: Part of the reason our country is in such dire straights is that a thousand or so elderly Jews in Florida voted for Nader because they thought Gore wasn't liberal enough, even though they would have voted Gore over Bush without hesitation had those two been the only two on the ballot.


This myth again? Over 300,000 registered Democratic Party members in Florida voted for Bush in 2000. Gore failed to break even with white women and Florida seniors, both of whom traditionally vote Democratic. Gore's fault was his own for failing to lock up the traditional Florida base. Gore lost the election that was his to lose. It wasn't Nader's fault. If he had gotten 1% more of registered Democrats, it would not have mattered.
 
2012-09-26 11:14:54 AM

Somacandra: This myth again? Over 300,000 registered Democratic Party members in Florida voted for Bush in 2000. Gore failed to break even with white women and Florida seniors, both of whom traditionally vote Democratic. Gore's fault was his own for failing to lock up the traditional Florida base. Gore lost the election that was his to lose. It wasn't Nader's fault. If he had gotten 1% more of registered Democrats, it would not have mattered.


This.

The only person who is to blame for Al Gore's defeat is Al Gore.
 
2012-09-26 11:15:07 AM
Obama is far from perfect, no candidate is going to agree with anyone on everything. However, the ways in which he is bad are the ways in which his policies are indistinguishable from the policies of the GOP. The ways in which the Democrats differ from the Republicans are what matters. We're not going to elect the Greens, the Libertarians, or any of the other "third party" candidates to the Presidency until they reach major party status, and that has to start at local and state levels. (Even if we did elect Johnson or Stein, they wouldn't get anything done, since neither of the major parties in Congress would work with them.) We've got a choice between Obama and Romney. As distasteful as you or I might find that choice, that's the choice we have.

Looking at those critiques in TFA, ask yourself what Romney would do differently, and would it be better or worse?

Would Romney stop sending drones to Pakistan? If so, what would he do instead? (We're not doing that just to be dicks, we're doing it because there is a real threat in Waziristan. We can confront that threat without risking American lives like we're doing now, or we can send in troops, which do you prefer?)

Would Romney stop the "extrajudicial killing" of American citizens who have chosen to fight against their own country? If so, what would he do instead?

The Libya critique is ridiculous, for the reasons that Somacandra has already stated, so I won't bother with that one.

It would be wonderful if we could elect a perfect candidate, but there isn't one. Finding reasons to vote against a candidate because s/he is less than perfect is easy, but it is not equivalent to finding reasons to vote for their opponent who is even worse.
 
2012-09-26 11:15:41 AM
this is asinine. if you are in a swing state and you don't vote for obama because you don't think he's liberal enough, you are effectively voting for mitt romney - a man who is a rightwing extremist who will make president obama look like dennis kucinich.

this is florida 2000 all over again. if everyone who voted nader in florida in november 2000 had voted gore, history would be very different. you can argue whether or not 9/11 would have happened, but it's highly unlikely we'd have invaded iraq and spent trillions of dollars and thousands of lives on that bullshiat elective war. we also wouldn't have john roberts or samuel alito on the court - and that means no citizens united.

and with several aging liberal justices on the court - your vote against obama is a vote to overturn roe v. wade and more.

again, this is asinine.
 
2012-09-26 11:16:57 AM

NuttierThanEver: and then not get shiat done because no one in the State Houses are going to work with them.


I already told you--that's been disproved. Look at the records of the Governors I cited like Angus King. You don't have to be a party member to work with party members. King won reelection with 59% of the vote. He was incredibly popular with the Maine electorate.
 
2012-09-26 11:19:24 AM

vans28: This is, I think, the best argument I've heard. It's cogent, stands on fact-based ground, and isn't silly. That's just my opinion. Don't hate!


I agree on just about everything in the article; I am still voting for him. There will never be a candidate liberal enough for me, but I am happy with a guy I can easily say is smarter than I am. The fact that he seems to actually give a shiat about people helps as well.

And even without those two, Romney scares the hell out of me. I have never seen someone with so little moral center. That alone is enough for me to cast a statistically unimportant vote for the President (I live in D.C.)
 
2012-09-26 11:24:08 AM

Somacandra: NuttierThanEver: and then not get shiat done because no one in the State Houses are going to work with them.

I already told you--that's been disproved. Look at the records of the Governors I cited like Angus King. You don't have to be a party member to work with party members. King won reelection with 59% of the vote. He was incredibly popular with the Maine electorate.


Of course this is why Maine is the only state with a strong Green party contingent in the State house and senate to this day. Oh wait...,
 
2012-09-26 11:25:43 AM

vartian: vans28: This is, I think, the best argument I've heard. It's cogent, stands on fact-based ground, and isn't silly. That's just my opinion. Don't hate!

I agree on just about everything in the article; I am still voting for him. There will never be a candidate liberal enough for me, but I am happy with a guy I can easily say is smarter than I am. The fact that he seems to actually give a shiat about people helps as well.

And even without those two, Romney scares the hell out of me. I have never seen someone with so little moral center. That alone is enough for me to cast a statistically unimportant vote for the President (I live in D.C.)



Yep and it's why he has my 'statistically unimportant vote'. I live in Cali.
 
2012-09-26 11:26:23 AM

Somacandra: NuttierThanEver: and then not get shiat done because no one in the State Houses are going to work with them.

I already told you--that's been disproved. Look at the records of the Governors I cited like Angus King. You don't have to be a party member to work with party members. King won reelection with 59% of the vote. He was incredibly popular with the Maine electorate.


King transcends party politics. This guy is a hell of a great leader. I am casting my vote for him to replace Snowe.

I dont agree with him most of the time on political issues, but when it comes to a very effective leader, you cannot get any better than King.
 
2012-09-26 11:26:51 AM

FlashHarry:

and with several aging liberal justices on the court - your vote against obama is a vote to overturn roe v. wade and more.


This is such a bullshiat argument, on both sides (so vote Republican? Wait a minute...) If you want to vote for a third party candidate, vote for them. No one owns your vote. If your most pressing concern is keeping the MittBott out of the oval office, fantastic...you have your motivation to vote. If you want to cast your vote for a Green candidate knowing they will not win but hoping that increased turnouts each election will help build momentum for the party, cast away. That's your right. Don't let anyone browbeat you about it. 

If Obama loses it is because he didn't earn enough votes. There will always be a justice stepping down or a major financial crisis or a truly horrible Republican candidate. These things are certain. That they are leveraged to coerce us to pull D or R is bullshiat.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-09-26 11:28:11 AM

Somacandra: King Something: Part of the reason our country is in such dire straights is that a thousand or so elderly Jews in Florida voted for Nader because they thought Gore wasn't liberal enough, even though they would have voted Gore over Bush without hesitation had those two been the only two on the ballot.

This myth again? Over 300,000 registered Democratic Party members in Florida voted for Bush in 2000. Gore failed to break even with white women and Florida seniors, both of whom traditionally vote Democratic. Gore's fault was his own for failing to lock up the traditional Florida base. Gore lost the election that was his to lose. It wasn't Nader's fault. If he had gotten 1% more of registered Democrats, it would not have mattered.


So it's a "myth" in the right wing blogosphere or to Greens?
Bush won Florida by 537 votes. Nader got 97,488 if 538 (less than 1%) of them were drawn away from Gore then Nader threw the election to Bush.

You can say it's Gore's fault because he should have been able to win despite being undermined by Nader, but that doesn't change the numbers.
 
2012-09-26 11:28:20 AM
You guys don't get to complain when Obama capitulates to GOP extremism any more though, and that means not complaining that the GOP got it's way.. Especially when it's something retarded like Obama resigning the Patriot Act or the Bush tax cuts.
 
2012-09-26 11:28:28 AM

Aarontology: Unless you live in a swing state, it doesn't matter whatsoever who you vote for.

I live in CT. I could vote for Drew and it would have f*ck all to do with who wins the Presidency.


Yup. 538 estimates Romney's chances of winning my state at 99%. Sucks, but I'll vote anyway.
 
2012-09-26 11:30:48 AM

sweetmelissa31: Yes, Obama continued the "war on terror" which sucks, although if the choice is between drones and invading a country the drones will kill fewer people.


To be fair, drones scare me more. I don't want to see our soldiers get blown up (or anyone, for that mater), but the idea of removing the human cost of war from only one side of the battle scares the farking shiat out of me.
 
2012-09-26 11:31:15 AM

vartian: This is such a bullshiat argument, on both sides (so vote Republican? Wait a minute...) If you want to vote for a third party candidate, vote for them. No one owns your vote. If your most pressing concern is keeping the MittBott out of the oval office, fantastic...you have your motivation to vote. If you want to cast your vote for a Green candidate knowing they will not win but hoping that increased turnouts each election will help build momentum for the party, cast away. That's your right. Don't let anyone browbeat you about it.


are you saying presidents don't appoint supreme court justices? because it seems like that's what you're saying.

i'll say it again: if you vote against obama in a swing state, you are voting FOR romney. and that means you're voting to overturn roe. you're voting for citizens united. you're voting for war with iran.

it's farking MATH.
 
2012-09-26 11:32:48 AM

Dogberry: Yup. 538 estimates Romney's chances of winning my state at 99%. Sucks, but I'll vote anyway.


The EC really, really does change how we perceive elections for the worse. It needs to be removed and replaced with a real popular vote.
 
2012-09-26 11:35:52 AM

FlashHarry: vartian: This is such a bullshiat argument, on both sides (so vote Republican? Wait a minute...) If you want to vote for a third party candidate, vote for them. No one owns your vote. If your most pressing concern is keeping the MittBott out of the oval office, fantastic...you have your motivation to vote. If you want to cast your vote for a Green candidate knowing they will not win but hoping that increased turnouts each election will help build momentum for the party, cast away. That's your right. Don't let anyone browbeat you about it.

are you saying presidents don't appoint supreme court justices? because it seems like that's what you're saying. It's farking MATH.


You didn't read a damn thing I wrote.
 
2012-09-26 11:37:53 AM

FlashHarry: vartian: This is such a bullshiat argument, on both sides (so vote Republican? Wait a minute...) If you want to vote for a third party candidate, vote for them. No one owns your vote. If your most pressing concern is keeping the MittBott out of the oval office, fantastic...you have your motivation to vote. If you want to cast your vote for a Green candidate knowing they will not win but hoping that increased turnouts each election will help build momentum for the party, cast away. That's your right. Don't let anyone browbeat you about it.

are you saying presidents don't appoint supreme court justices? because it seems like that's what you're saying.

i'll say it again: if you vote against obama in a swing state, you are voting FOR romney. and that means you're voting to overturn roe. you're voting for citizens united. you're voting for war with iran.

it's farking MATH.


You are with us or you are with the terrorists argument is old and outdated
 
2012-09-26 11:38:36 AM
The situation in Pakistan is long in the making and goes back to British colonialism and the UN partitioning of India/Pakistan in 1947 alongside Israel/Palestine. The fact is the Pakistan's central government has nuclear weapons, is incredibly weak, continually pissed off at fellow nuclear power India--and has little influence in its own rural areas. These areas are precisely where you need a strong central government to keep tribal issues in line and they can't. Its where the tribal roots of the Taliban come from. Drones are the least awful of a set of incredibly bad options to fight the Pakistani Taliban there that enables the Afghanistan Taliban. As for the extrajudicial killing of a high-ranking member of Al-Qaeda? GOOD. He was a high-level official of an organization that had repeatedly declared war against the USA and responsible for ongoing operations against Americans worldwide. I give less than a shiat about whatever happened to his bits and pieces. Even the Yemeni judicial system had issued a "dead-or-alive" order for him. If TFA wants to be all hand-wringing butthurt over Anwar al-Aulaqi, then fark him. For me that's a reason to vote FOR the President's re-election. No one is going to convince me that killing Al-Qaeda leaders is a bad thing, regardless of their formal nationalities. I'm sure many Farkers here will probably disagree with me on that last point and that's fine. We can agree to disagree on that issue.
 
2012-09-26 11:40:05 AM

FlashHarry: are you saying presidents don't appoint supreme court justices? because it seems like that's what you're saying.


That isn't the most pressing issue for every voter. If you want to make the case that it should be--fine. Make that case. But don't expect others to automatically agree with you without making that case first.
 
2012-09-26 11:41:09 AM

NuttierThanEver: Of course this is why Maine is the only state with a strong Green party contingent in the State house and senate to this day. Oh wait...,


All I said was they proved working outside the 2-party system is possible. I'm not claiming Greens have made the most of that situation. Far from it, I agree.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-09-26 11:43:53 AM

vartian: FlashHarry:

and with several aging liberal justices on the court - your vote against obama is a vote to overturn roe v. wade and more.

This is such a bullshiat argument, on both sides (so vote Republican? Wait a minute...) If you want to vote for a third party candidate, vote for them. No one owns your vote. If your most pressing concern is keeping the MittBott out of the oval office, fantastic...you have your motivation to vote. If you want to cast your vote for a Green candidate knowing they will not win but hoping that increased turnouts each election will help build momentum for the party, cast away. That's your right. Don't let anyone browbeat you about it. 

If Obama loses it is because he didn't earn enough votes. There will always be a justice stepping down or a major financial crisis or a truly horrible Republican candidate. These things are certain. That they are leveraged to coerce us to pull D or R is bullshiat.


Which would simply beg the question of why he didn't win enough votes. Nader might not be the SOLE reason Gore didn't get enough votes, but he was one of the reasons and he was a big enough reason to make the difference many times over. Super PACs with unlimited money may not be the only thing skewing the vote toward Romney, but they are certainly a factor.

The only thing "coercing" anyone is reality. The reality is that we have a two party system and the president will be either Obama or Romney (baring a death or something like that).

If you don't care which, then fine, don't vote. But trying to pretend that we have some sort of European style multiparty system when we don't is just silly and pointless.
 
2012-09-26 11:45:54 AM

vpb: vartian: FlashHarry:

and with several aging liberal justices on the court - your vote against obama is a vote to overturn roe v. wade and more.

This is such a bullshiat argument, on both sides (so vote Republican? Wait a minute...) If you want to vote for a third party candidate, vote for them. No one owns your vote. If your most pressing concern is keeping the MittBott out of the oval office, fantastic...you have your motivation to vote. If you want to cast your vote for a Green candidate knowing they will not win but hoping that increased turnouts each election will help build momentum for the party, cast away. That's your right. Don't let anyone browbeat you about it. 

If Obama loses it is because he didn't earn enough votes. There will always be a justice stepping down or a major financial crisis or a truly horrible Republican candidate. These things are certain. That they are leveraged to coerce us to pull D or R is bullshiat.

Which would simply beg the question of why he didn't win enough votes. Nader might not be the SOLE reason Gore didn't get enough votes, but he was one of the reasons and he was a big enough reason to make the difference many times over. Super PACs with unlimited money may not be the only thing skewing the vote toward Romney, but they are certainly a factor.

The only thing "coercing" anyone is reality. The reality is that we have a two party system and the president will be either Obama or Romney (baring a death or something like that).

If you don't care which, then fine, don't vote. But trying to pretend that we have some sort of European style multiparty system when we don't is just silly and pointless.


Its people like you who keep the two party system alive. Perception is reality, and people like you who refuse to consider 3rd party candidates as viable alternatives are the ones who are farking everyone over.
 
2012-09-26 11:46:00 AM

vpb: Bush won Florida by 537 votes. Nader got 97,488 if 538 (less than 1%) of them were drawn away from Gore


If you're going to be butthurt over 97,000 people of various stripes who voted 3rd party rather than the 300,000+ registered Democrats who voted for George W. Bush, the specific Republican opponent of the Democratic candidate then rational people are not going to take you seriously. I can't make it any plainer than that.
 
2012-09-26 11:46:02 AM

vartian: To be fair, drones scare me more. I don't want to see our soldiers get blown up (or anyone, for that mater), but the idea of removing the human cost of war from only one side of the battle scares the farking shiat out of me.


That's true, but for the ruling class the human cost has already been removed from war. How many people in their families have actually gone to war?
 
2012-09-26 11:49:18 AM
Obama established one of the most reckless precedents imaginable: that any president can secretly order and oversee the extrajudicial killing of American citizens.

Ooooh, al Awlaki thread? al Awlaki thread.

The ability to order and oversee the extrajudicial killing of American citizens is implicit in the 9/11 AUMF, passed in 2001, and this power is generally implicit in every exercise of war powers.
 
2012-09-26 11:51:01 AM
i.imgur.com

Oh shiat, we're Green. And not going to be Green but already Green. That was fast.
 
Displayed 50 of 200 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report