Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Some Socialist)   The left have convinced themselves of fiction that Obama is the only chance they have for real social change. Of course, BSABSVR, so vote Obama anyways   (socialistworker.org) divider line 207
    More: Obvious, obama, Mayor Rahm Emanuel, SDS, Wall Street protests, fictions, Lyndon B. Johnson, historiographies  
•       •       •

1096 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Oct 2012 at 8:14 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-29 08:59:13 AM  

gameshowhost: Strategy. A simple, 2x2 game theory matrix with the goal of minimizing loss. *That's* why I will vote for Obama.

/in the end, protest/ideological votes garner you nothing - the air of superiority quickly wears off
//you really want more hard-right scotus justices? really?
/because that's what 'not voting for obama' boils down to


I like the scare approach. Damn does it work well. Vote for Obama or ROMNEY WILL WIN OMG THE EARTH IS GONNA SHAKE RATTLE AND ROLL AND THE REPTILIANS WILL DESCEND FROM THE SKYS
 
2012-10-29 09:00:01 AM  

runwiz: An Obama reelection will only at best be marginally better than a Romney victory and could be worse.


Not for women, soldiers, black people, Hispanic people, gay people or people without health insurance.
 
2012-10-29 09:01:10 AM  

Fluorescent Testicle: Not for women, soldiers, black people, Hispanic people, gay people or people without health insurance.


His job isn't to worry about those people.
 
2012-10-29 09:02:57 AM  

jso2897: I don't think socialism as a formal system of government works anywhere. Socialism as a useful toiol of civilization, on the other hand, works here and a lot of other places. Just like capitalism - it's a good idea that becomes a bad idea when it becomes an ideology.
Capitalism and socialism are tools, not philosophies.


Actually capitalism and socialism are philosophies and not tools.
 
2012-10-29 09:04:58 AM  
The election of Romney will bring real social change.

The destruction of the social safety net, the further empowerment of the wealthy and corporations and the destruction of the middle class is significant social change.
 
2012-10-29 09:06:03 AM  
You all vote to the right of the reagan now.
 
2012-10-29 09:06:35 AM  
Both sides are bad so vote Republican so vote Obama anyway?
 
2012-10-29 09:08:22 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: The election of Romney will bring real social change.

The destruction of the social safety net, the further empowerment of the wealthy and corporations and the destruction of the middle class is significant social change.


And the criminalization of homosexuality.
 
2012-10-29 09:09:40 AM  

PonceAlyosha: Philip Francis Queeg: The election of Romney will bring real social change.

The destruction of the social safety net, the further empowerment of the wealthy and corporations and the destruction of the middle class is significant social change.

And the criminalization of homosexuality.


Yeah, that aint happening at all. You are full of it if you think that way. Romney is an asshole flip-flopping idiot but outlawing homosexuality is not possible
 
2012-10-29 09:11:47 AM  

Amdam: Anybody that still thinks Obama is a socialist is a farking moron


socialistpartyp.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-10-29 09:12:12 AM  

cman: PonceAlyosha: Philip Francis Queeg: The election of Romney will bring real social change.

The destruction of the social safety net, the further empowerment of the wealthy and corporations and the destruction of the middle class is significant social change.

And the criminalization of homosexuality.

Yeah, that aint happening at all. You are full of it if you think that way. Romney is an asshole flip-flopping idiot but outlawing homosexuality is not possible


I don't think he'd try to 'criminalize' homosexuality. But he'd definitely sign that constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. He may also even try to return to DADT.
 
2012-10-29 09:13:18 AM  

cman: PonceAlyosha: Philip Francis Queeg: The election of Romney will bring real social change.

The destruction of the social safety net, the further empowerment of the wealthy and corporations and the destruction of the middle class is significant social change.

And the criminalization of homosexuality.

Yeah, that aint happening at all. You are full of it if you think that way. Romney is an asshole flip-flopping idiot but outlawing homosexuality is not possible


He promised to amend the constitution to make it impossible for people of the same sex to get married. And that is only day one.
 
2012-10-29 09:13:47 AM  

GAT_00: Really? Because there's a reason I'm voting for Jill Stein.


President Romney thanks you for your vote.
 
2012-10-29 09:16:13 AM  

PonceAlyosha: cman: PonceAlyosha: Philip Francis Queeg: The election of Romney will bring real social change.

The destruction of the social safety net, the further empowerment of the wealthy and corporations and the destruction of the middle class is significant social change.

And the criminalization of homosexuality.

Yeah, that aint happening at all. You are full of it if you think that way. Romney is an asshole flip-flopping idiot but outlawing homosexuality is not possible

He promised to amend the constitution to make it impossible for people of the same sex to get married. And that is only day one.


Banning gay marriage is not outlawing homosexual relations. Sure it is a stupid hateful thing to do indeed, but Romney wouldn't dare to even submit that much. Romney is a politician who says a lot of shiat to get elected. However, he is pretty damn moderate in many respects. If Romney became President he would not submit such a constitutional amendment. I could see Santorum doing it, but not Romney.
 
2012-10-29 09:17:47 AM  
You didn't think through the implications of your strategy of voting for dems no matter how corporatist and authoritarian they could possibly become and now your party is essentially the early 1990's republican party because the dems realize they can move as far away from you as they want to pick up the middle and corporate cash and you progressives will not only vote in lock step but still canvas and contribute as well. You marginalized yourself. Brilliant.
 
2012-10-29 09:18:30 AM  
I like this because it misrepresents and insults both parties. It's like if Fark and Free Republic had a baby and the placenta got put up on the Internet.
 
2012-10-29 09:18:39 AM  

Muta: jso2897: I don't think socialism as a formal system of government works anywhere. Socialism as a useful toiol of civilization, on the other hand, works here and a lot of other places. Just like capitalism - it's a good idea that becomes a bad idea when it becomes an ideology.
Capitalism and socialism are tools, not philosophies.

Actually capitalism and socialism are philosophies and not tools.


That's what ideologues believe, yes. I am stating my disagreement with them, if that isn't clear.
 
2012-10-29 09:18:43 AM  

cman: PonceAlyosha: cman: PonceAlyosha: Philip Francis Queeg: The election of Romney will bring real social change.

The destruction of the social safety net, the further empowerment of the wealthy and corporations and the destruction of the middle class is significant social change.

And the criminalization of homosexuality.

Yeah, that aint happening at all. You are full of it if you think that way. Romney is an asshole flip-flopping idiot but outlawing homosexuality is not possible

He promised to amend the constitution to make it impossible for people of the same sex to get married. And that is only day one.

Banning gay marriage is not outlawing homosexual relations. Sure it is a stupid hateful thing to do indeed, but Romney wouldn't dare to even submit that much. Romney is a politician who says a lot of shiat to get elected. However, he is pretty damn moderate in many respects. If Romney became President he would not submit such a constitutional amendment. I could see Santorum doing it, but not Romney.


Yeah, PonceAlyshoa, I have to agree with cman here. Romney would be no friend to the gays, but I can't see him lining us up for 're-education camps,' or anything like that.
 
2012-10-29 09:18:46 AM  

make me some tea: GAT_00: Really? Because there's a reason I'm voting for Jill Stein.

President Romney thanks you for your vote.


I find it quite funny how well that kind of marketing works.

Fear is a hell of a good selling point. You are appealing to one of the most basic ancient emotions.

Republicans ran with VOTE FOR US LEST 911 2.0 HAPPENS in 2004. They got a lot of votes from that. Now the Dems are using it to convince those who are disappointed with Obama to ensure that they still have the White House.
 
2012-10-29 09:18:46 AM  

cman: PonceAlyosha: cman: PonceAlyosha: Philip Francis Queeg: The election of Romney will bring real social change.

The destruction of the social safety net, the further empowerment of the wealthy and corporations and the destruction of the middle class is significant social change.

And the criminalization of homosexuality.

Yeah, that aint happening at all. You are full of it if you think that way. Romney is an asshole flip-flopping idiot but outlawing homosexuality is not possible

He promised to amend the constitution to make it impossible for people of the same sex to get married. And that is only day one.

Banning gay marriage is not outlawing homosexual relations. Sure it is a stupid hateful thing to do indeed, but Romney wouldn't dare to even submit that much. Romney is a politician who says a lot of shiat to get elected. However, he is pretty damn moderate in many respects. If Romney became President he would not submit such a constitutional amendment. I could see Santorum doing it, but not Romney.


Romney will sign whatever regressive, hateful legislation the Eric Cantor sends his way. If you think he will stand for a second for "moderation" against the radicals in his party you are delusional.
 
2012-10-29 09:19:00 AM  

cman: PonceAlyosha: cman: PonceAlyosha: Philip Francis Queeg: The election of Romney will bring real social change.

The destruction of the social safety net, the further empowerment of the wealthy and corporations and the destruction of the middle class is significant social change.

And the criminalization of homosexuality.

Yeah, that aint happening at all. You are full of it if you think that way. Romney is an asshole flip-flopping idiot but outlawing homosexuality is not possible

He promised to amend the constitution to make it impossible for people of the same sex to get married. And that is only day one.

Banning gay marriage is not outlawing homosexual relations. Sure it is a stupid hateful thing to do indeed, but Romney wouldn't dare to even submit that much. Romney is a politician who says a lot of shiat to get elected. However, he is pretty damn moderate in many respects. If Romney became President he would not submit such a constitutional amendment. I could see Santorum doing it, but not Romney.


Guess what asshole, some of us can not afford to hedge our bets. Some of us are farking tired of being a political football. I take the man at his word, if he does not want to be associated with homophobia he shouldn't make it part of his platform.
 
2012-10-29 09:20:47 AM  

Cythraul: He may also even try to return to DADT.


I think that one is a lost cause. DADT is dead and it isnt coming back.

Federal court ruled against it.
 
2012-10-29 09:21:52 AM  
I used to take the Green Party seriously. Then they nominated Shiella Mckinney for president in 08. That pretty much ended my interest in third parties.
 
2012-10-29 09:22:48 AM  

make me some tea: GAT_00: Really? Because there's a reason I'm voting for Jill Stein.

President Romney thanks you for your vote.


Cut GAT_00 a break, he lives in Tennessee. He may as well cast a vote that means something.
 
2012-10-29 09:23:44 AM  

PonceAlyosha: cman: PonceAlyosha: cman: PonceAlyosha: Philip Francis Queeg: The election of Romney will bring real social change.

The destruction of the social safety net, the further empowerment of the wealthy and corporations and the destruction of the middle class is significant social change.

And the criminalization of homosexuality.

Yeah, that aint happening at all. You are full of it if you think that way. Romney is an asshole flip-flopping idiot but outlawing homosexuality is not possible

He promised to amend the constitution to make it impossible for people of the same sex to get married. And that is only day one.

Banning gay marriage is not outlawing homosexual relations. Sure it is a stupid hateful thing to do indeed, but Romney wouldn't dare to even submit that much. Romney is a politician who says a lot of shiat to get elected. However, he is pretty damn moderate in many respects. If Romney became President he would not submit such a constitutional amendment. I could see Santorum doing it, but not Romney.

Guess what asshole, some of us can not afford to hedge our bets. Some of us are farking tired of being a political football. I take the man at his word, if he does not want to be associated with homophobia he shouldn't make it part of his platform.


I understand your frustration. I am pro-gay marriage myself. Unlike Obama, however, I dont think this should be left to the states to decide. It should be a federal civil rights issue.

Things are changing. They are not at the pace that most of us are comfortable with, but they are changing. It is only a matter of time until a man and another man can get a marriage license in Texas. It sucks that you have to wait for rights (not privileges).
 
2012-10-29 09:24:10 AM  

mat catastrophe: GAT_00: Really? Because there's a reason I'm voting for Jill Stein.

Because you want to encourage third parties to keep wasting their time, money, and effort on national elections they cannot win (and even if they did, would find themselves powerless to effect any change) instead of focusing on local elections first and building up a base of support in communities that would, in the short term, have a greater effect on your day-to-day life than who the President is and, in the long term, lead to the actual possibility of national gains?


Yeah, voting for the lesser of two evils has worked out so great for the past 60 years, let's keep doing it!

Vote for whoever you want (Obama, Romney, Stein, Johnson or wheover the fark you want), and fark those who try to tell you otherwise.
 
2012-10-29 09:26:34 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Romney will sign whatever regressive, hateful legislation the Eric Cantor sends his way. If you think he will stand for a second for "moderation" against the radicals in his party you are delusional.


This. Romney's personal beliefs don't matter because he doesn't farking have any.
 
2012-10-29 09:27:48 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Romney will sign whatever regressive, hateful legislation the Eric Cantor sends his way. If you think he will stand for a second for "moderation" against the radicals in his party you are delusional.


Cythraul: Yeah, PonceAlyshoa, I have to agree withcman here. Romney would be no friend to the gays, but I can't see him lining us up for 're-education camps,' or anything like that.


cman: Cythraul: He may also even try to return to DADT.

I think that one is a lost cause. DADT is dead and it isnt coming back.

Federal court ruled against it.


Sorry, but you're wrong. These people won't stop. They passed DOMA, that wasn't enough. They banned gays from the military and that wasn't enough. They fought tooth and nail against Lawrence Vs. Texas. To imagine they're done because the Supreme Court ruled is lunacy. The Supreme ruled on Roe Vs. Wade decades ago they're still trying to get rid of it, still fighting their retarded fight. These people aren't just going to go away. There is a huge political impetus to remove the ability for people like us to live like normal farking people with the same rights as everyone else. They won't stop. Don't give them inch, they'll take a farking mile.
 
2012-10-29 09:27:52 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Romney will sign whatever regressive, hateful legislation the Eric Cantor sends his way. If you think he will stand for a second for "moderation" against the radicals in his party you are delusional.


This. If there's one thing Rmoney has made clear during his campaign (and it may be literally the only thing) it's that his actual opinions on any issue take a backseat to his personal advancement.
 
2012-10-29 09:29:54 AM  

TV's Vinnie: Amdam: Anybody that still thinks Obama is a socialist is a farking moron

[socialistpartyp.files.wordpress.com image 500x334]


"Honk if you're paying my mortgage" doesn't even make any sense.
 
2012-10-29 09:30:06 AM  
It's funny really that even while whining about Obama he still manages to be... Completely wrong about everything.

could not be more different from the high hopes and expectations that surrounded his 2008 campaign

Something about Obama being an incompetent idiot who was completely unqualified for the office has everything to do with that. Aside from that, his sanctimonious garbage ran up against cold hard reality once he got in office and had to face facts.

pointing out the disgusting racist attacks on Obama
explains why opinion polls suggest he will get close to 0 percent of the Black vote.
racist racist racist...!


Are there some racists that don't like Obama? Of course.

But one day it will get through your very thick skull that well in excess of 95% of the people who don't like Obama don't give a rats rear end about his race and would dislike him just as much if he were any race.

We dislike him for precisely the same reason we dislike every other liberal, because his ideas are terrible and they will screw up everything in the name of "fairness".

There can be no doubt that Mitt Romney in office will do his damnedest to makes things worse for all workers and poor people, but especially for people of color.

Have you checked the unemployment rate for African Americans lately? In no way, shape, or form are they better off now than they were four years ago. 5 trillion in debt, soaring numbers of people on welfare and other government assistance programs, economic growth nearly stagnant. The 'workers' and particularly people of color had better hope to hell Obama doesn't get reelected based on his track record.

As opposed to Mitt Romney. Did you want one example? Dunkin Donuts. I would imagine that the people working there now who still have a job... You know 'workers'... Really appreciate still having a job.

But.. but that one steel company! Romney did terrible things...!

Yes, clearly, he did all those "terrible" things while saving three other steel companies. Sorta doesn't fit in to the whole 'evil corporate' raider thing when you consider the whole picture now does it? Do you suppose the 'workers' at those steel companies are glad they still have a job?
 
2012-10-29 09:30:21 AM  

cman: Cythraul: He may also even try to return to DADT.

I think that one is a lost cause. DADT is dead and it isnt coming back.

Federal court ruled against it.


Federal court also ruled against abortion restrictions twice, but that won't stop Mittens. The fact that a case was settled means very little when you're an ideologue (or beholden to them).
 
2012-10-29 09:31:23 AM  

mat catastrophe: Because you want to encourage third parties to keep wasting their time, money, and effort on national elections they cannot win (and even if they did, would find themselves powerless to effect any change) instead of focusing on local elections first and building up a base of support in communities that would, in the short term, have a greater effect on your day-to-day life than who the President is and, in the long term, lead to the actual possibility of national gains?


The most telling part of the third party debate was the last question. If they were given a guarantee to pass on one constitutional amendment of their choice, what would they pick? None of them picked anything that would let third parties compete.

They're morons.
 
2012-10-29 09:32:06 AM  

Dr Dreidel: cman: Cythraul: He may also even try to return to DADT.

I think that one is a lost cause. DADT is dead and it isnt coming back.

Federal court ruled against it.

Federal court also ruled against abortion restrictions twice, but that won't stop Mittens. The fact that a case was settled means very little when you're an ideologue (or beholden to them).


And even what's been discussed thus far completely ignores the still standing discriminatory policies against homosexuals in adoption, housing, employment, visitation rights and everything else you straight mother farkers take for granted.
 
2012-10-29 09:33:57 AM  

PonceAlyosha: Dr Dreidel: cman: Cythraul: He may also even try to return to DADT.

I think that one is a lost cause. DADT is dead and it isnt coming back.

Federal court ruled against it.

Federal court also ruled against abortion restrictions twice, but that won't stop Mittens. The fact that a case was settled means very little when you're an ideologue (or beholden to them).

And even what's been discussed thus far completely ignores the still standing discriminatory policies against homosexuals in adoption, housing, employment, visitation rights and everything else you straight mother farkers take for granted.


Thats why we still have got to fight for that shiat. Passing federal civil rights laws recognizing homosexual marriage will take care of all of those problems. There will be hiccups along the way of course, but it will happen.
 
2012-10-29 09:34:45 AM  

GAT_00: Really? Because there's a reason I'm voting for Jill Stein.


Tennessee? Yeah, doesn't matter who you vote for.

I'm in Kentucky and I may do a write-in vote for Magneto
 
2012-10-29 09:34:53 AM  

sprawl15: mat catastrophe: Because you want to encourage third parties to keep wasting their time, money, and effort on national elections they cannot win (and even if they did, would find themselves powerless to effect any change) instead of focusing on local elections first and building up a base of support in communities that would, in the short term, have a greater effect on your day-to-day life than who the President is and, in the long term, lead to the actual possibility of national gains?

The most telling part of the third party debate was the last question. If they were given a guarantee to pass on one constitutional amendment of their choice, what would they pick? None of them picked anything that would let third parties compete.

They're morons.


They're not morons, at least not for that reason, they're ideologues rather than political operators [example Santorum vs. Romney]. You'd need a party exclusively devoted to government access for third parties to get anything done, as their goal wouldn't be able to be subsumed by one of the major party platforms ,unlike the Libertarians or the Greens whose electoral base gets a bone thrown to them by the two major parties every so often.
 
2012-10-29 09:35:04 AM  

Fluorescent Testicle: Romney's personal beliefs don't matter because he doesn't farking have any.


Actually, that was a little hyperbolic; he does have two apparently-firm personal beliefs.

Of course, neither "Tax cuts for the rich" nor "Bomb bomb bomb Iran" have much to do with gay rights or other social issues.
 
2012-10-29 09:36:38 AM  

cman: Thats why we still have got to fight for that shiat. Passing federal civil rights laws recognizing homosexual marriage will take care of all of those problems. There will be hiccups along the way of course, but it will happen.


Actually it won't help reduce adoption, hiring or housing discrimination at all. Those need to be solved by the passing of actual statutes, which has to happen locally unless the Feds are going to pass a gay version of the Civil Rights Acts.
 
2012-10-29 09:37:18 AM  

Altair: Oh we're still pushing the "Obama = Socialist's Hope" narrative? Damn. I guess that's why liberals completely ignored Kucinich en masse during the primaries, huh?


I was too busy checking out his wife.
 
2012-10-29 09:38:32 AM  

PonceAlyosha: They're not morons, at least not for that reason, they're ideologues rather than political operators [example Santorum vs. Romney]. You'd need a party exclusively devoted to government access for third parties to get anything done, as their goal wouldn't be able to be subsumed by one of the major party platforms ,unlike the Libertarians or the Greens whose electoral base gets a bone thrown to them by the two major parties every so often.


No, they are morons, specifically for that reason. They spent the pre-show doing nothing but whining about the two party system and half the debate whining about the two party system, and when they were offered one question where they could have offered a solution to the two party system they picked a bunch of utter nonsense that had nothing to do with the fundamental political issues.

The greatest threat to our democracy right now is the inability of the electorate to be represented. Both parties know the score, and they play the two party system to the hilt. And this problem can ONLY be solved by deep Constitutional meddling. The third parties seem to simply not know the score and are content simply complaining and whining.
 
2012-10-29 09:39:01 AM  
I like the idea that it should be fine to vote anyone into power, whether Hitler or a member of the KKK, or Romney, because the worst parts of their ideology probably wouldn't be able to be put in place.
 
2012-10-29 09:41:45 AM  

Cythraul: And what kind of 'social change' is the 'Right' offering us, Subby?


Everything will be mandated to be just like a 50's TV show, even down to being in black and white (except no black)
 
2012-10-29 09:42:09 AM  

sprawl15: PonceAlyosha: They're not morons, at least not for that reason, they're ideologues rather than political operators [example Santorum vs. Romney]. You'd need a party exclusively devoted to government access for third parties to get anything done, as their goal wouldn't be able to be subsumed by one of the major party platforms ,unlike the Libertarians or the Greens whose electoral base gets a bone thrown to them by the two major parties every so often.

No, they are morons, specifically for that reason. They spent the pre-show doing nothing but whining about the two party system and half the debate whining about the two party system, and when they were offered one question where they could have offered a solution to the two party system they picked a bunch of utter nonsense that had nothing to do with the fundamental political issues.

The greatest threat to our democracy right now is the inability of the electorate to be represented. Both parties know the score, and they play the two party system to the hilt. And this problem can ONLY be solved by deep Constitutional meddling. The third parties seem to simply not know the score and are content simply complaining and whining.


There is a big problem with constitutional reformation. Many of us want the people to choose what we in the third party have to offer. If the people dont want it, they shouldnt be forced to accept it. We will do our damnedest to ensure that our message gets out there, but giving ourselves a little of a leg up is simply undemocratic.
 
2012-10-29 09:42:48 AM  

sprawl15: PonceAlyosha: They're not morons, at least not for that reason, they're ideologues rather than political operators [example Santorum vs. Romney]. You'd need a party exclusively devoted to government access for third parties to get anything done, as their goal wouldn't be able to be subsumed by one of the major party platforms ,unlike the Libertarians or the Greens whose electoral base gets a bone thrown to them by the two major parties every so often.

No, they are morons, specifically for that reason. They spent the pre-show doing nothing but whining about the two party system and half the debate whining about the two party system, and when they were offered one question where they could have offered a solution to the two party system they picked a bunch of utter nonsense that had nothing to do with the fundamental political issues.

The greatest threat to our democracy right now is the inability of the electorate to be represented. Both parties know the score, and they play the two party system to the hilt. And this problem can ONLY be solved by deep Constitutional meddling. The third parties seem to simply not know the score and are content simply complaining and whining.



Your picture is on the BSABSVR poster.
 
2012-10-29 09:44:21 AM  

Fluorescent Testicle: Philip Francis Queeg: Romney will sign whatever regressive, hateful legislation the Eric Cantor sends his way. If you think he will stand for a second for "moderation" against the radicals in his party you are delusional.

This. Romney's personal beliefs don't matter because he doesn't farking have any.


He believes he's been chosen by God to lead America and start a dynasty that will last a thousand years.

Really. No shiat.
 
2012-10-29 09:44:56 AM  

bmongar: GAT_00: Really? Because there's a reason I'm voting for Jill Stein.

Because you want a Romney presidency but aren't self loathing enough to actually vote for him?


Terrified Asexual Forcemeat: mat catastrophe: GAT_00: Really? Because there's a reason I'm voting for Jill Stein.

Because you want to encourage third parties to keep wasting their time, money, and effort on national elections they cannot win (and even if they did, would find themselves powerless to effect any change) instead of focusing on local elections first and building up a base of support in communities that would, in the short term, have a greater effect on your day-to-day life than who the President is and, in the long term, lead to the actual possibility of national gains?

BUT ROMENY == OBAMA!!!


mat catastrophe: GAT_00: Really? Because there's a reason I'm voting for Jill Stein.

Because you want to encourage third parties to keep wasting their time, money, and effort on national elections they cannot win (and even if they did, would find themselves powerless to effect any change) instead of focusing on local elections first and building up a base of support in communities that would, in the short term, have a greater effect on your day-to-day life than who the President is and, in the long term, lead to the actual possibility of national gains?

 

So, it's three to one enablers of the Republican-Democratic Electoral Machine to people who actually do something about it?

/If those numbers were reversed, third parties might actually have a chance.
//But no, don't throw your vote away. Save it for when it will be more valuable.
 
2012-10-29 09:46:17 AM  

PonceAlyosha: cman: Thats why we still have got to fight for that shiat. Passing federal civil rights laws recognizing homosexual marriage will take care of all of those problems. There will be hiccups along the way of course, but it will happen.

Actually it won't help reduce adoption, hiring or housing discrimination at all. Those need to be solved by the passing of actual statutes, which has to happen locally unless the Feds are going to pass a gay version of the Civil Rights Acts.


The administration could do a lot right now. They hand out a lot of cash, and I'm not seeing whatbis stopping them from tying much of it to an expansive reading of the equal protecyion clause.
 
2012-10-29 09:46:33 AM  

Altair: Oh we're still pushing the "Obama = Socialist's Hope" narrative? Damn. I guess that's why liberals completely ignored Kucinich en masse during the primaries, huh?


...that's cute, thinking Kucinich is a socialist.

/Americans wouldn't know a real socialist if he bit them in the ass.
 
2012-10-29 09:47:59 AM  

Altair: Oh we're still pushing the "Obama = Socialist's Hope" narrative? Damn. I guess that's why liberals completely ignored Kucinich en masse during the primaries, huh?


It should be more clear that you were referring to 2008 Kucinich. 2012 Kucinich deserved what he got -- even though his 2010 vote wouldn't have made or broke the ACA, he supported a mandate to purchase a corporate product that's not even regulated by anti-trust regulations, which will feed the private health insurance industry with guaranteed subsidies. The industry fought tooth and nail to prevent single payer or a "public option", and they'll have even more resources than ever before to fight against such reform. Not nearly enough people in this country are bold enough to go beyond the two party system, so we are never going to have single payer. Ever.

/Voting for Stein
 
Displayed 50 of 207 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report