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.

(Reason Magazine)   Obama supporters are interviewed about Mitt Romney's policies on surveillance, detention, and kill lists...then they find out Obama has endorsed those policies too. Their reaction? Just watch   (reason.com) divider line 250
    More: Dumbass, Mitt Romney, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, make excuses, Burning Man, Dear Leader, child custody  
•       •       •

3080 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Nov 2012 at 2:56 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-11-01 10:35:01 PM  
So, vote Republican obviously.
 
2012-11-01 10:41:29 PM  

The Third Man: So, vote Republican obviously.


Such a tactic would NEVER work on a Romney supporter. Mostly because Romney doesn't have a stance on anything but also because Romney supporters only care about getting the near out of their White House.
 
2012-11-01 10:43:14 PM  
It's fine to disagree with Obama on that shiat, but if you think any of it will get better under Romney, you're not paying attention.
 
2012-11-01 10:44:32 PM  

The Third Man: So, vote Republican obviously.


Obviously. I mean, if you're mad at Obama for something and Romney promises to continue it, you should clearly vote for Romney! Because, you know, he's white.
 
2012-11-01 10:56:53 PM  
So some voters are uneducated? The hell you say!
 
2012-11-01 11:00:06 PM  
So you're saying he's much more aggressive in anti-terrorism than Bush was, has a hell of a track record under his belt, and has turned "Al-Qaeda's number two man" into a synonym for "zero life expectancy"?

Ok. I concede your point.

Go ahead. Bring up the DJIA next. I dare you.
 
2012-11-01 11:04:25 PM  

kingoomieiii: t's fine to disagree with Obama on that shiat, but if you think any of it will get better under Romney, you're not paying attention.


Even worse are the people who will vote Romney because of the economy.

Obama wants to raise taxes so vote for the guy who profits from closing businesses.
 
2012-11-01 11:43:48 PM  
Done in one.
 
2012-11-01 11:51:16 PM  

The Third Man: So, vote Republican obviously.


or don't vote as a lot of dems have apparently decided to do.
 
2012-11-02 12:07:55 AM  

Mrbogey: or don't vote as a lot of dems have apparently decided to do.


If you vote, you have no right to complain.
 
2012-11-02 12:17:10 AM  

The Third Man: So, vote Republican obviously.


No, vote for neither party. The point is there's little real difference between the 2 other than rhetoric.
 
2012-11-02 12:25:02 AM  

slayer199: The Third Man: So, vote Republican obviously.

No, vote for neither party. The point is there's little real difference between the 2 other than rhetoric.


I like how you say they are the same and prove it by saying they're different. It's real convincing. Also that trying to save SS is clearly the same as privatizing it, they're definitely the same. The endless stream of Republicans saying both sides are the same continues. Mostly because no Democrat is dumb enough to say something like that.
 
2012-11-02 12:27:17 AM  

Krymson Tyde: So some voters are uneducated? The hell you say!


This. There are dumbshiats on both sides.

The point is to NOT elect the dumbshiat as president. America did that from 2000-2008 and it left us really farked up.
 
2012-11-02 12:52:24 AM  

slayer199: The point is there's little real difference between the 2 other than rhetoric.


yeah. The koch brothers are pumping tons of cash into the Romneys campaign because both sides are the same in every thing but rhetoric. that makes total sense.
 
2012-11-02 01:02:26 AM  

slayer199: The point is there's little real difference between the 2 other than rhetoric.


This is a lazy, bullshiat argument.

It's possible that one can find them equally distasteful, but this "they're the same" crap is ridiculous.
 
2012-11-02 01:08:03 AM  
Romney does actually support the NDAA, warrantless wiretaps, the TSA, and all forms of Orwellian government. So does Obama. So we're kinda farked either way, huh?
 
2012-11-02 01:17:09 AM  

adjmcloon: the TSA, and all forms of Orwellian government.


Ha!
 
2012-11-02 01:21:43 AM  
The sad thing is: we are stuck with detentions. We cannot try the folks that the Bush Administration put into Gitmo. We can't. Not because we don't want to, but because the chain of evidence, and the whole of their incarceration would get them sprung in minutes in the US justice system. We are stuck with this mess, because GW wanted to get folks, not try them.

Our prisons already hold several terrorists. We HAVE tried them. We cannot do so in many of the cases in Gitmo, because things were run without any thought to what to do with folks after we got them. Now, we can't let them go, but we can't try them, so these folks are in legal Limbo. GW handed Obama the tiger, and now he has to hold on just as tight. That isn't quite the same as endorsing what has been done, that's dealing with the mess handed to you. In for a penny, in for a pound. And oddly enough, a lot folks understand this. Including many of our partners overseas.

There is a bit of a difference as dealing with the issues handed to you, and advocating it from the get go. And if folks are so happy with the policies that Obama has been forced to go along with, why aren't they supporting the guy who has been much more aggressive in combating terrorists, as opposed to changing horses midstream with a guy who waffles more than an IHOP?
 
2012-11-02 01:26:22 AM  
We told you guys repeatedly, Republicans won't be in charge forever. Whatever precedent is set will be used by future administrations. If the tools are available, even a decent guy like Obama is going to be tempted to use them. Road to hell and all that.
 
2012-11-02 01:29:05 AM  

hubiestubert: The sad thing is: we are stuck with detentions. We cannot try the folks that the Bush Administration put into Gitmo. We can't. Not because we don't want to, but because the chain of evidence, and the whole of their incarceration would get them sprung in minutes in the US justice system. We are stuck with this mess, because GW wanted to get folks, not try them.

Our prisons already hold several terrorists. We HAVE tried them. We cannot do so in many of the cases in Gitmo, because things were run without any thought to what to do with folks after we got them. Now, we can't let them go, but we can't try them, so these folks are in legal Limbo. GW handed Obama the tiger, and now he has to hold on just as tight. That isn't quite the same as endorsing what has been done, that's dealing with the mess handed to you. In for a penny, in for a pound. And oddly enough, a lot folks understand this. Including many of our partners overseas.

There is a bit of a difference as dealing with the issues handed to you, and advocating it from the get go. And if folks are so happy with the policies that Obama has been forced to go along with, why aren't they supporting the guy who has been much more aggressive in combating terrorists, as opposed to changing horses midstream with a guy who waffles more than an IHOP?


perfectly stated.
 
2012-11-02 01:33:44 AM  

hubiestubert: We cannot try the folks that the Bush Administration put into Gitmo. We can't. Not because we don't want to, but because the chain of evidence, and the whole of their incarceration would get them sprung in minutes in the US justice system.


If we believe in the supremacy of our system, we let that happen.

Otherwise we have a justice system of "Hold ma beer and watch this!"
 
2012-11-02 02:07:45 AM  

hubiestubert: The sad thing is: we are stuck with detentions. We cannot try the folks that the Bush Administration put into Gitmo. We can't. Not because we don't want to, but because the chain of evidence, and the whole of their incarceration would get them sprung in minutes in the US justice system. We are stuck with this mess, because GW wanted to get folks, not try them.


Sounds like they should never have been detained. And if so, then we have to let them out and face the consequences. This is why so many were opposed to the detentions and the subsequent torture they endured.
 
2012-11-02 02:22:31 AM  

Frederick: Sounds like they should never have been detained.


I think that was kind of his whole point.
 
2012-11-02 03:02:42 AM  

The Great EZE: The Third Man: So, vote Republican obviously.

Such a tactic would NEVER work on a Romney supporter. Mostly because Romney doesn't have a stance on anything but also because Romney supporters only care about getting the near out of their White House.


THIS. The guy has taken more positions than Sasha Grey.
 
2012-11-02 03:08:51 AM  
We're all missing the real story here, which is that Mitt Romney apparently has a policy on something other than the black guy is socialist and magic underwear is awesome.
 
2012-11-02 03:09:50 AM  
Honestly, there are a lot of progressives that are less than thrilled with Obama's approach to this stuff, but I mean, what are we going to do? We can either vote for the guy who we mostly like except on this issue, or we can vote for the guy who is a total garbage monster on every issue, including this one.

Or yea, yea we can strike a meaningless blow at the heart of the two party system by voting for a third party candidate that will get 1 or 2% of the vote, but many of us prefer to be more pragmatic about it.
 
2012-11-02 03:11:05 AM  
Democrats failed to stop the Republicans from advancing their authoritarian policies, so vote Republican.
 
2012-11-02 03:12:07 AM  
Let's see...

There's the guy I disagree with on a few things, and the guy I disagree with about everything.

It's a good thing I already voted.
 
2012-11-02 03:12:15 AM  

Frederick: hubiestubert: The sad thing is: we are stuck with detentions. We cannot try the folks that the Bush Administration put into Gitmo. We can't. Not because we don't want to, but because the chain of evidence, and the whole of their incarceration would get them sprung in minutes in the US justice system. We are stuck with this mess, because GW wanted to get folks, not try them.

Sounds like they should never have been detained. And if so, then we have to let them out and face the consequences. This is why so many were opposed to the detentions and the subsequent torture they endured.


Welcome to the point. They should NEVER have been in Gitmo in the first place. But now we're stuck with them unless you can find a President and a Congress willing to take risk of freeing them and having one turn around and bomb a plane because a decade in Gitmo turned him into a terrorist.
 
2012-11-02 03:12:59 AM  

stoli n coke: The Great EZE: The Third Man: So, vote Republican obviously.

Such a tactic would NEVER work on a Romney supporter. Mostly because Romney doesn't have a stance on anything but also because Romney supporters only care about getting the near out of their White House.

THIS. The guy has taken more positions than Sasha Grey.


What did porn stars ever do to you?
 
2012-11-02 03:14:43 AM  
I wish I had a double burger...
 
2012-11-02 03:15:30 AM  
The real lesson to be learned is this; if a stranger wants to interview you on camera, make sure you know what the hell you're talking about or keep your damn mouth shut.
 
2012-11-02 03:16:44 AM  

hubiestubert: The sad thing is: we are stuck with detentions. We cannot try the folks that the Bush Administration put into Gitmo. We can't. Not because we don't want to, but because the chain of evidence, and the whole of their incarceration would get them sprung in minutes in the US justice system. We are stuck with this mess, because GW wanted to get folks, not try them.


What is this world coming to? It's so annoying when you can't arbitrarily imprison innocent people!
 
2012-11-02 03:18:03 AM  

James F. Campbell: Democrats failed to stop the Republicans from advancing their authoritarian policies, so vote Republican.


I read a David Brooks editorial that basically boiled down to "You should vote for Romney because Obama won't be able to get anything done due to congressional obstructionism from the GOP".

/BSABSVR
 
2012-11-02 03:18:56 AM  
Obama and Romney have incredibly different positions and would have incredibly different administrations. "They're virtually the same" is absolute horseshiat.

That said, there are several issues the two major parties fail to address, and it's alarming to say the least that there's no real choice on things like drone strikes or drug policy. But just because your most important issues aren't being represented doesn't mean the election's outcome has no consequences.
 
2012-11-02 03:20:25 AM  
I'm sure if you unleashed a reporter in rural trailer parks in Alabama they would offer articulate, well-informed opinions on why they're voting for Mitt Romney.
 
2012-11-02 03:21:21 AM  

Aaron Haynes: Obama and Romney have incredibly different positions and would have incredibly different administrations. "They're virtually the same" is absolute horseshiat.

That said, there are several issues the two major parties fail to address, and it's alarming to say the least that there's no real choice on things like drone strikes or drug policy. But just because your most important issues aren't being represented doesn't mean the election's outcome has no consequences.



Exactly. Perfectly stated.

fusillade762: I read a David Brooks editorial that basically boiled down to "You should vote for Romney because Obama won't be able to get anything done due to congressional obstructionism from the GOP".


Ugh. "These guys are so insane they won't work with the President towards the common good, so we should probably just give them what they want."

 
 
2012-11-02 03:21:37 AM  

Genevieve Marie: Honestly, there are a lot of progressives that are less than thrilled with Obama's approach to this stuff, but I mean, what are we going to do? We can either vote for the guy who we mostly like except on this issue, or we can vote for the guy who is a total garbage monster on every issue, including this one.

Or yea, yea we can strike a meaningless blow at the heart of the two party system by voting for a third party candidate that will get 1 or 2% of the vote, but many of us prefer to be more pragmatic about it.


Except that on almost every issue regarding civil liberties, Obama has been garbage as well. It's not about disagreeing on just one issue. Numerous issues including the ones in the article have been black eyes on his first term, at least to those people holding him to a decent standard of a progressive. His half-hearted attempt at support for gay marriage can barely count. I'm sick of hearing people continuing the mistakes of supporting a broken system and calling that pragmatic. Pragmatism is about what works and what's practical and clearly the system we have isn't working any more.
 
2012-11-02 03:24:58 AM  
And Romney supporters wear shirts like this. Stupid people occupy all positions on the political spectrum. However, I will still never support Romney.

ayannanahmias.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-11-02 03:27:46 AM  

FedExPope: Genevieve Marie: Honestly, there are a lot of progressives that are less than thrilled with Obama's approach to this stuff, but I mean, what are we going to do? We can either vote for the guy who we mostly like except on this issue, or we can vote for the guy who is a total garbage monster on every issue, including this one.

Or yea, yea we can strike a meaningless blow at the heart of the two party system by voting for a third party candidate that will get 1 or 2% of the vote, but many of us prefer to be more pragmatic about it.

Except that on almost every issue regarding civil liberties, Obama has been garbage as well. It's not about disagreeing on just one issue. Numerous issues including the ones in the article have been black eyes on his first term, at least to those people holding him to a decent standard of a progressive. His half-hearted attempt at support for gay marriage can barely count. I'm sick of hearing people continuing the mistakes of supporting a broken system and calling that pragmatic. Pragmatism is about what works and what's practical and clearly the system we have isn't working any more.


Facts are that no radical overhaul of the system is going to occur in the next five days, and the next President is going to pick Supreme Court Justices that will hang out on that bench for the next several decades. It strikes me as very pragmatic to choose the person you think will at least pick competent justices and who won't make the system any worse than it is currently.
 
 
2012-11-02 03:32:50 AM  
I live in Ohio and I voted on 10/17/2012. Went to a Bill Clinton rally at OCC today.

You'll like the prez I pick for you guys.

Trust me, trust Ohio.
 
2012-11-02 03:33:18 AM  

hubiestubert: The sad thing is: we are stuck with detentions. We cannot try the folks that the Bush Administration put into Gitmo. We can't. Not because we don't want to, but because the chain of evidence, and the whole of their incarceration would get them sprung in minutes in the US justice system. We are stuck with this mess, because GW wanted to get folks, not try them.

Our prisons already hold several terrorists. We HAVE tried them. We cannot do so in many of the cases in Gitmo, because things were run without any thought to what to do with folks after we got them. Now, we can't let them go, but we can't try them, so these folks are in legal Limbo. GW handed Obama the tiger, and now he has to hold on just as tight. That isn't quite the same as endorsing what has been done, that's dealing with the mess handed to you. In for a penny, in for a pound. And oddly enough, a lot folks understand this. Including many of our partners overseas.

There is a bit of a difference as dealing with the issues handed to you, and advocating it from the get go. And if folks are so happy with the policies that Obama has been forced to go along with, why aren't they supporting the guy who has been much more aggressive in combating terrorists, as opposed to changing horses midstream with a guy who waffles more than an IHOP?


There are attempts to try prisoners in Gitmo, but everytime we attend one of these dog and pony shows a trial accidentally breaks out. This isn't even getting into the fact that the GOP Congress uses it's spending oversight to block the financing of trials for Gitmo prisoners, and blocked the acquisition of a state prison in Illinois to transfer Guantanamo detainees to.
 
2012-11-02 03:35:06 AM  

Atomic Spunk: The real lesson to be learned is this; if a stranger wants to interview you on camera, make sure you know what the hell you're talking about or keep your damn mouth shut.


For these kinds of "Look at how stupid group X is!" interviews, they'll usually talk to an enormous number of people until they find a few either ignorant enough or nervous enough on camera to make dumb mistakes. Add a few leading questions and a sprinkle of dishonest editing and you can make a room full of Mensa grads look like inbred morons.
 
2012-11-02 03:35:21 AM  

Atomic Spunk: The real lesson to be learned is this; if a stranger wants to interview you on camera, make sure you know what the hell you're talking about or keep your damn mouth shut.


applies to all life. not just when you're before a camera.
 
2012-11-02 03:35:35 AM  
George Washington killed a bunch of British people, but Britain is our ally. So isn't he a war criminal?

/same logic
 
2012-11-02 03:39:33 AM  

Genevieve Marie: FedExPope: Genevieve Marie: Honestly, there are a lot of progressives that are less than thrilled with Obama's approach to this stuff, but I mean, what are we going to do? We can either vote for the guy who we mostly like except on this issue, or we can vote for the guy who is a total garbage monster on every issue, including this one.

Or yea, yea we can strike a meaningless blow at the heart of the two party system by voting for a third party candidate that will get 1 or 2% of the vote, but many of us prefer to be more pragmatic about it.

Except that on almost every issue regarding civil liberties, Obama has been garbage as well. It's not about disagreeing on just one issue. Numerous issues including the ones in the article have been black eyes on his first term, at least to those people holding him to a decent standard of a progressive. His half-hearted attempt at support for gay marriage can barely count. I'm sick of hearing people continuing the mistakes of supporting a broken system and calling that pragmatic. Pragmatism is about what works and what's practical and clearly the system we have isn't working any more.

Facts are that no radical overhaul of the system is going to occur in the next five days, and the next President is going to pick Supreme Court Justices that will hang out on that bench for the next several decades. It strikes me as very pragmatic to choose the person you think will at least pick competent justices and who won't make the system any worse than it is currently.


And five days from the next Presidential election we'll be having this same conversation. It's never going to be the perfect time to overhaul the system. In another 4 years, we'll be in the same position and people will be saying then, as they are now, how this isn't the election to make these changes. We're not going to have any less on the line 4 years from now. Now, I realize that nobody is ever going to be truly and completely aligned with any one party, but if Obama is the best we can do, then I have little hope that the next election will present us with better options unless we make it known that we will no longer support having the mere appearance of a choice.
 
2012-11-02 03:43:18 AM  

Genevieve Marie: fusillade762: I read a David Brooks editorial that basically boiled down to "You should vote for Romney because Obama won't be able to get anything done due to congressional obstructionism from the GOP".

Ugh. "These guys are so insane they won't work with the President towards the common good, so we should probably just give them what they want."


"Give in to the blackmail, it's your only choice."
 
2012-11-02 03:43:43 AM  

FedExPope: but if Obama is the best we can do


Obama is, simply put, the best president we've had in at least my lifetime.
 
2012-11-02 03:44:52 AM  

log_jammin: Atomic Spunk: The real lesson to be learned is this; if a stranger wants to interview you on camera, make sure you know what the hell you're talking about or keep your damn mouth shut.

applies to all life. not just when you're before a camera.


I agree. But it REALLY applies when you're on camera because then your bullshiat can't be denied or forgotten. If you're not on camera, you can always use the old " I didn't say that" excuse.
 
2012-11-02 03:47:30 AM  
Let's interview republicans about the individual parts of the ACA, like coverage for pre-existing conditions, and see their reactions when they find out they support Obamacare.
 
2012-11-02 03:49:43 AM  

kingoomieiii: It's fine to disagree with Obama on that shiat, but if you think any of it will get better under Romney, you're not paying attention.


Exactly. These asshats have some weird logic. They pick a topic, show how pissed Dems are, then do the big reveal where they show it's actually Obama in the examples. They never deny that Romney has the same stance today, but have the expectation that now the Obama voters will switch.

I just don't get it.
 
2012-11-02 03:51:48 AM  

Baryogenesis: Let's interview republicans about the individual parts of the ACA, like coverage for pre-existing conditions, and see their reactions when they find out they support Obamacare.


It won't work. I tried that with one guy who loves that he can keep his kids on the policy until they're 26. I don't think he understood that the ACA made that possible. 

That's also why Romney's "first-day repeal" is bullshiat. Do you think his base will like him taking away something they didn't realize they like.

His healthcare plan is to take the ACA, cross out Obama's name on the cover page, and add his own.
 
2012-11-02 04:08:38 AM  
So, let me get this straight: If Romney's doing x, y, and z, and Obama's doing x, -y, and -z, I should...what?

kingoomieiii: It's fine to disagree with Obama on that shiat


This. Anyone who says they agree with a candidate 100% on every issue is most likely the candidate.
 
2012-11-02 04:19:52 AM  

GAT_00: The Third Man: So, vote Republican obviously.

Obviously. I mean, if you're mad at Obama for something and Romney promises to continue it, you should clearly vote for Romney! Because, you know, he's white.


You mad, BRO?
 
2012-11-02 04:24:53 AM  

Mikey1969: kingoomieiii: It's fine to disagree with Obama on that shiat, but if you think any of it will get better under Romney, you're not paying attention.

Exactly. These asshats have some weird logic. They pick a topic, show how pissed Dems are, then do the big reveal where they show it's actually Obama in the examples. They never deny that Romney has the same stance today, but have the expectation that now the Obama voters will switch.

I just don't get it.


I believe the larger point is that Obama hasn't convinced the Congress to close Gitmo, therefore we must invade Iran.
 
2012-11-02 04:28:41 AM  

Krymson Tyde: So some voters are uneducated? The hell you say!


Yeah, The hell you say! 
 
2012-11-02 04:33:23 AM  

InmanRoshi: Mikey1969: kingoomieiii: It's fine to disagree with Obama on that shiat, but if you think any of it will get better under Romney, you're not paying attention.

Exactly. These asshats have some weird logic. They pick a topic, show how pissed Dems are, then do the big reveal where they show it's actually Obama in the examples. They never deny that Romney has the same stance today, but have the expectation that now the Obama voters will switch.

I just don't get it.

I believe the larger point is that Obama hasn't convinced the Congress to close Gitmo, therefore we must invade Iran.


Well, we can't close Gitmo. Because... Freedom, and stuff.

Next you'll be telling us to try them IN AMERICAN COURTS ON SACRED AMERICAN SOIL!!!BLAHH!!!111

/sure hope we get to see what obama can try to fix with a 2nd term mandate
 
2012-11-02 04:34:59 AM  

Krymson Tyde: So some voters are uneducated? The hell you say!


uneducated or busily living their lives, attending school, working, commuting, getting some sleep at night, tending to their families and having very little actual free time to themselves? and during that free time when they may seek to be less uneducated about current affairs their media sources are biased, slanted, watered down opinion programs being passed off as news?

we live in a fast paced complex society where it is difficult at best to be informed. most people don't stand a snowballs chance in hell of staying abreast of factual information of the world around them.
 
2012-11-02 04:48:04 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: Krymson Tyde: So some voters are uneducated? The hell you say!

Yeah, The hell you say!


thank you for that.
 
2012-11-02 04:50:36 AM  

KrispyKritter: Krymson Tyde: So some voters are uneducated? The hell you say!

uneducated or busily living their lives, attending school, working, commuting, getting some sleep at night, tending to their families and having very little actual free time to themselves? and during that free time when they may seek to be less uneducated about current affairs their media sources are biased, slanted, watered down opinion programs being passed off as news?

we live in a fast paced complex society where it is difficult at best to be informed. most people don't stand a snowballs chance in hell of staying abreast of factual information of the world around them.


I wouldnt have a problem buying in to your theory if it werent for those same people you mention being informed on who is left on Dancing With the Stars, what Snooki is up to, and the latest WWE drama.
 
2012-11-02 04:50:52 AM  

hubiestubert: The sad thing is: we are stuck with detentions. We cannot try the folks that the Bush Administration put into Gitmo. We can't. Not because we don't want to, but because the chain of evidence, and the whole of their incarceration would get them sprung in minutes in the US justice system. We are stuck with this mess, because GW wanted to get folks, not try them.


Our system of justice is framed by rules that do not permit prosecutors to run roughshod over due process. How is "We don't want them to go free" an argument against due process? Dubya eff'ed up; if we hold dear the principle of due process, then we have to set free those illegally detained.

hubiestubert: Our prisons already hold several terrorists. We HAVE tried them. We cannot do so in many of the cases in Gitmo, because things were run without any thought to what to do with folks after we got them. Now, we can't let them go, but we can't try them, so these folks are in legal Limbo. GW handed Obama the tiger, and now he has to hold on just as tight. That isn't quite the same as endorsing what has been done, that's dealing with the mess handed to you. In for a penny, in for a pound. And oddly enough, a lot folks understand this. Including many of our partners overseas.


This makes no sense. A mess handed to us demands we clean it up. You keep saying we can't try them, but that's not true. And if we don't have evidence to hold them-- evidence that would be admissible in our own venerable courts of law-- then we should let them go. Either we believe in the ideals of our system, or we don't. Wrt pennies and pounds, we're the ones spouting off on human rights and due process, criticizing governments for detentions with no due process-- how 'bout we put our money where our mouth is?

hubiestubert: There is a bit of a difference as dealing with the issues handed to you, and advocating it from the get go. And if folks are so happy with the policies that Obama has been forced to go along with, why aren't they supporting the guy who has been much more aggressive in combating terrorists, as opposed to changing horses midstream with a guy who waffles more than an IHOP?


The difference you're trying to highlight begs the question entirely. The fact of warrantless wiretaps, special renditions, phantom indictments and denial of due process is the question. How can these be allowed to underpin indeterminate detentions? We cherish the constitutional rights to counsel, from self-incrimination, to a fair and speedy trial, and from cruel and unusual punishment. Explain how it is that anyone should be denied these rights, especially if these are rights we exhort other nations to grant their citizens? If the mere accusation is sufficient, then what, exactly, is the standard at which any of these rights realize their effect??
 
2012-11-02 05:09:00 AM  

jodaveki: f we hold dear the principle of due process


Doesnt the evidence indicate that, in fact, we dont?

jodaveki: how 'bout we put our money where our mouth is?


Because being a hypocrite is so much easier and self serving.

jodaveki: Explain how it is that anyone should be denied these rights, especially if these are rights we exhort other nations to grant their citizens?


Your living in the past, man. Hasnt the war on drugs proven yet to you that rights are subjective?
 
2012-11-02 05:16:05 AM  

FedExPope: Genevieve Marie: Honestly, there are a lot of progressives that are less than thrilled with Obama's approach to this stuff, but I mean, what are we going to do? We can either vote for the guy who we mostly like except on this issue, or we can vote for the guy who is a total garbage monster on every issue, including this one.

Or yea, yea we can strike a meaningless blow at the heart of the two party system by voting for a third party candidate that will get 1 or 2% of the vote, but many of us prefer to be more pragmatic about it.

Except that on almost every issue regarding civil liberties, Obama has been garbage as well. It's not about disagreeing on just one issue. Numerous issues including the ones in the article have been black eyes on his first term, at least to those people holding him to a decent standard of a progressive. His half-hearted attempt at support for gay marriage can barely count. I'm sick of hearing people continuing the mistakes of supporting a broken system and calling that pragmatic. Pragmatism is about what works and what's practical and clearly the system we have isn't working any more.


What exactly about his support was "half-hearted" or an "attempt"? He supports gay marriage. He's the first president to do so, and he did it in an election year. The Democratic Party has adopted it into their platform, only eight years after Bush arguably used it as a wedge to win a second term. The cultural turnaround on this issue has been incredible. He repealed DADT and stopped defending DOMA. He supports all of the state ballot measures this year. This is the most gay-friendly president in US history. The idea that it's some throwaway gesture and it barely matters is ridiculous.

I'd be a lot more understanding of people who argue against voting for Obama because of the deep flaws in the system if there was even the slightest nod toward the value of incremental good. But I never see it, just this fatalistic sneering about how far everyone is from the perfect ideal. It's all solution and no strategy.
 
2012-11-02 05:27:44 AM  

Aaron Haynes: I'd be a lot more understanding of people who argue against voting for Obama because of the deep flaws in the system if there was even the slightest nod toward the value of incremental good. But I never see it, just this fatalistic sneering about how far everyone is from the perfect ideal. It's all solution and no strategy.


Before the repeal of DADT, I was talking to someone here and they were angry that Obama hadn't repealed it. I told them that congress had to repeal it and that it couldn't be reversed by executive order. The reply was priceless, "well he should just do it anyway!".
 
2012-11-02 05:31:14 AM  
Dredge up all the morons you want. Obama's never lied to me. Lying is Romney's way of life.
 
2012-11-02 05:33:26 AM  

The Third Man: So, vote Republican obviously.


Reason is supposedly a Libertarian rag. It's been tracking Republican over the past decade or so, but still, the point is more likely BSABSV this guy:

www.tampabay.com


/Rolls dice...
//the site the dude mentions, wearechange.org, is a Gary Johnson blog. Looks kinda official.
 
2012-11-02 05:37:08 AM  
That's the entire point of an election. Who are you comfortable with wielding the same executive power? The former community organizer, or the former corporate raider?

Of course I feel way better about Obama than Romney on the exact same policies. He's proven far more consistency between what he says and what he does. Romney can't even be consistent between what he says and what he says.
 
2012-11-02 05:40:28 AM  

andrewagill: the point is more likely BSABSV this guy:


Who is a republican.
 
2012-11-02 05:44:19 AM  

log_jammin: Aaron Haynes: I'd be a lot more understanding of people who argue against voting for Obama because of the deep flaws in the system if there was even the slightest nod toward the value of incremental good. But I never see it, just this fatalistic sneering about how far everyone is from the perfect ideal. It's all solution and no strategy.

Before the repeal of DADT, I was talking to someone here and they were angry that Obama hadn't repealed it. I told them that congress had to repeal it and that it couldn't be reversed by executive order. The reply was priceless, "well he should just do it anyway!".


Hahaha, sheesh.

I'm skeptical of how he might lead the charge on a federal recognition of same-sex marriage, too. Setting aside the political difficulty, a lot of states have it banned through their constitutions. Does a federal law immediately overturn that? Wouldn't there be a massive legal battle? Do we really want the Roberts Court deciding this? I'm all for holding Obama to his promises, but sometimes the criticism seems to just be that "he should do better", avoiding any discussion of how you actually make it happen.
 
2012-11-02 05:49:30 AM  

Aaron Haynes: I'm skeptical of how he might lead the charge on a federal recognition of same-sex marriage, too.


It' going to come down to the SCOTUS, IMO. we'll just have to hope the right people retire in the next 4 years.
 
2012-11-02 05:59:06 AM  

log_jammin: andrewagill: the point is more likely BSABSV this guy:

Who is a republican.


Fair enough. Much like Reason Magazine, the Libertarian Party has been tacking Republican since about 2000.

It's sad, but at least he's not Babar.
 
2012-11-02 06:13:57 AM  

balloot: We're all missing the real story here, which is that Mitt Romney apparently has a policy on something other than the black guy is socialist and magic underwear is awesome.


Apparently is the key word here. Romney apparently wanted to abolish FEMA until this week.
 
2012-11-02 06:32:41 AM  

Triumph: Mrbogey: or don't vote as a lot of dems have apparently decided to do.

If you vote, you have no right to complain.


If you DON'T vote, you have no right to complain.
 
2012-11-02 06:37:04 AM  

Atomic Spunk: The real lesson to be learned is this; if a stranger wants to interview you on camera, make sure you know what the hell you're talking about or keep your damn mouth shut.


The hidden lesson is this: If you actually KNOW what you're talking about during the on camera interview, you're most likely to wind up on the cutting room floor.

/Maybe with Sasha Grey
 
2012-11-02 06:37:58 AM  
Look I'm as anti-murder as the rest of you


Oh wait nobody is? Support the troops? Fing Terrists everywhere?
Ok then.

//at least obama doesn't want to add 2 trillion random dollars to DoD so they can build more invisible tanks and spider robots
///they'll just ask congress for a separate "trivial inventions that cost incredible amounts" bill
//// or a rider on the "sacrifice twentysomethings so old people don't yell at clouds" bill
 
2012-11-02 06:39:13 AM  

slayer199: The Third Man: So, vote Republican obviously.

No, vote for neither party. The point is there's little real difference between the 2 other than rhetoric.


about 1% of your dna is different than a chimps. Are you telling me that there isn't 1% difference? Or are you a chimp?
 
2012-11-02 06:40:19 AM  

X-boxershorts: Atomic Spunk: The real lesson to be learned is this; if a stranger wants to interview you on camera, make sure you know what the hell you're talking about or keep your damn mouth shut.

The hidden lesson is this: If you actually KNOW what you're talking about during the on camera interview, you're most likely to wind up on the cutting room floor.

/Maybe with Sasha Grey


I got briefly interviewed by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch at a John Kerry rally in 2004, was asked questions about my situation and why I supported him. The final story in the paper mentioned the rally, but not a word on me.
 
2012-11-02 06:45:47 AM  

jodaveki: hubiestubert: The sad thing is: we are stuck with detentions. We cannot try the folks that the Bush Administration put into Gitmo. We can't. Not because we don't want to, but because the chain of evidence, and the whole of their incarceration would get them sprung in minutes in the US justice system. We are stuck with this mess, because GW wanted to get folks, not try them.

Our system of justice is framed by rules that do not permit prosecutors to run roughshod over due process. How is "We don't want them to go free" an argument against due process? Dubya eff'ed up; if we hold dear the principle of due process, then we have to set free those illegally detained.

hubiestubert: Our prisons already hold several terrorists. We HAVE tried them. We cannot do so in many of the cases in Gitmo, because things were run without any thought to what to do with folks after we got them. Now, we can't let them go, but we can't try them, so these folks are in legal Limbo. GW handed Obama the tiger, and now he has to hold on just as tight. That isn't quite the same as endorsing what has been done, that's dealing with the mess handed to you. In for a penny, in for a pound. And oddly enough, a lot folks understand this. Including many of our partners overseas.

This makes no sense. A mess handed to us demands we clean it up. You keep saying we can't try them, but that's not true. And if we don't have evidence to hold them-- evidence that would be admissible in our own venerable courts of law-- then we should let them go. Either we believe in the ideals of our system, or we don't. Wrt pennies and pounds, we're the ones spouting off on human rights and due process, criticizing governments for detentions with no due process-- how 'bout we put our money where our mouth is?

hubiestubert: There is a bit of a difference as dealing with the issues handed to you, and advocating it from the get go. And if folks are so happy with the policies that Obama has been forced to go along with, why are ...


Congratulations. You got my point. It IS shameful. It is also what we handed a fella, and then told him as a nation, that we don't want these folks in OUR prisons or courts. Worse, we ignored due process and then demanded that he do SOMETHING about terrorists, but not in our backyard.

Just to be clear: when the chain of evidence IS preserved, we CAN try folks. And have.

Ramzi Yousef-Captured in Pakistan, convicted for role in Bojinka plot in 1996, convicted for role in 1993 WTC bombing, sent to ADX Florence.

Wali Khan Amin Shah-Captured in Manila, convicted for role in Bojinka plot, sent to ADX Florence

Abdul Hakim Ali Hashim Murad - Captured in Manila, convicted for role in Bojinka plot, sent to ADX Florence

Eyad Ismoil - Captured in Amman, extradited to US, convicted of role in 1993 WTC bombing, sent to ADX Florence

Khalfan Khamis Mohamed-Captured in Cape Town, convicted of 1998 Embassy bombings, sent to ADX Florence

Mahmud Abouhalima-Captured in Egypt, convicted of 1993 WTC bombings, sent to ADX Florence

Mohamed Rashed Daoud Al-Owhali-Convicted of 1998 Embassy bombings, sent to ADX Florence

Mohammed Odeh-Captured in Karachi, convicted of 1998 Embassy bombings, sent to ADX Florence

Mohammed A. Salameh-Convicted of involvement in 1993 WTC bombing, sent to ADX Florence

Mohammed Ali Hassan Al-Moayad-Captured in Germany, convicted of federal crimes related to funding Hamas, sent to ADX Florence

Apparently, Colorado hasn't disappeared in a geyser of radioactive vapor from all the pure EVIL concentrated there...
 
2012-11-02 06:46:46 AM  

kingoomieiii: It's fine to disagree with Obama on that shiat, but if you think any of it will get better under Romney, you're not paying attention.


sure, but election time is a good time to put pressure on an incumbent
 
2012-11-02 06:48:51 AM  
Democracy requires an informed electorate, so there ya go.

This is what happens when you treat politics like a team sport.
 
2012-11-02 06:50:52 AM  
OMG that video was so powerful it made me forget Romney/Ryan are the incarnations of everything I find disgusting, detestable, and wrong with humanity and American culture.
 
2012-11-02 07:03:10 AM  

Genevieve Marie: Or yea, yea we can strike a meaningless blow at the heart of the two party system by voting for a third party candidate that will get 1 or 2% of the vote, but many of us prefer to be more pragmatic about it.


Which is why it continues.
 
2012-11-02 07:13:44 AM  
A neoliberal is nothing but a neoconservative from Chicago.
 
2012-11-02 07:20:29 AM  

Magruda: Which is why it continues.


No... it continues because 3rd parties are so weak they can barely get elected to low level local governmental positions and haven't proved that they can be trusted with a high level elected position at all...

You want there to be a viable 3rd party, start small, prove your 3rd party is worth voting for on a local level and get them in control of the majority of positions in your town. Then, if they're successful at improving the situation, get them into the state level until they're in control of that by running on their success at a local level... prove that they can run a state government and be successful. You do that and I'll THINK about voting for your 3rd party candidate for President.

The problem with most of you '3rd party' whiners is that you want to go "Straight to the top". You're not interested in learning the ropes... having them learn and earn their way to the top. You just want us to hand over all the reins and trust that these folks who have NO experience at running things and have no serious support structure would do a million times better than one of the two parties we have, yet you have zero proof upon which to base your faith in your 3rd party... BUT... you want us to vote for them...
 
2012-11-02 07:21:17 AM  
Clearly, the only remaining option, then, is to vote for cancer.
 
2012-11-02 07:26:18 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: A neoliberal is nothing but a neoconservative from Chicago.


Account created: 2011-10-21 10:53:51

OH hey! Fresh out from under your bridge, eh? How about a steaming hot cup of STFU? I'll put some tasty mini-marshmallows in it for ya. We love when new folks show up and say blatantly trollish things that are devoid of meaning or consideration. It's SO COOL!...
 
2012-11-02 07:29:30 AM  

JohnnyC: No... it continues because 3rd parties are so weak they can barely get elected to low level local governmental positions and haven't proved that they can be trusted with a high level elected position at all...


Plus, you have to deal with defenders of the status quo. I mean these guys will do what ever they can to convince you that voting 3rd party is a waste of time, when in reality they are just helping continue the two party system.

Some of them even think they are helping when they are all just clogs in the machine.
 
2012-11-02 07:30:36 AM  

Magruda: Some of them even think they are helping when they are all just clogs in the machine.


A little Liquid Plumr will take care of that. Or, did you mean "cogs?"
 
2012-11-02 07:32:49 AM  
Not diificult when Romney has taken every position on every issue.
 
2012-11-02 07:34:41 AM  

Magruda: Plus, you have to deal with defenders of the status quo. I mean these guys will do what ever they can to convince you that voting 3rd party is a waste of time, when in reality they are just helping continue the two party system.


you are the very first person to make this argument. fo realz yo.
 
2012-11-02 07:36:42 AM  

MurphyMurphy: /sure hope we get to see what obama can try to fix with a 2nd term mandate


It won't be a hell of a lot, as 2nd terms generally always suck ass for every President who gets one. While you see "2nd term mandate", political opponents see "lame duck President who won't be in Washington in 4 years".
 
2012-11-02 07:37:40 AM  

Magruda: Plus, you have to deal with defenders of the status quo. I mean these guys will do what ever they can to convince you that voting 3rd party is a waste of time, when in reality they are just helping continue the two party system.


Defenders of the state in which... what? You'll need to be more specific. You're waving your gun around and missing the target entirely. Maybe try aiming a bit before you pull the trigger?
 
2012-11-02 07:40:47 AM  
I have been pissed with Obama for turning into a Republican since shortly after he won the primary. What exactly is the news here?
 
2012-11-02 07:43:02 AM  
FARK: The partisans prove themselves completely oblivious to the point, thus unwittingly reinforcing it.
 
2012-11-02 07:43:37 AM  
The utter nerve of this, when Romney is their candidate, is farking impressive.
 
2012-11-02 07:44:00 AM  
Summary: Stupid people exist and some of them vote Democratic.

[Imokwiththat.gif]

If only intelligent folk voted Democratic, we'd never win a single election.
 
2012-11-02 07:45:51 AM  

EyeballKid: Magruda: Some of them even think they are helping when they are all just clogs in the machine.

A little Liquid Plumr will take care of that. Or, did you mean "cogs?"


Yes.

log_jammin: you are the very first person to make this argument. fo realz yo.


And you are the first to point that out.

JohnnyC: Maybe try aiming a bit before you pull the trigger?


You fail at basic reading comprehension. My claim is thus, the argument to dissuade 3rd party voting is exactly in line with the wishes of a two party system.
 
2012-11-02 07:47:49 AM  
Wow, out of the first four comments, fully half play the race card.
 
2012-11-02 07:52:49 AM  

kingoomieiii: It's fine to disagree with Obama on that shiat, but if you think any of it will get better under Romney, you're not paying attention.


Why is this so hard for certain people to get? Obama is a centrist. None of his policies are too liberal for liberals. Liberals will not "solve" the problems they have with Obama by voting in such a way that a more right-wing person takes office. Both sides are not the same, and, yes, a vote for Jill Stein is a vote for Romney because there are only one of two people will will, and their names are not Stein or Johnson.
 
2012-11-02 07:54:51 AM  

GoSlash27: FARK: The partisans prove themselves completely oblivious to the point, thus unwittingly reinforcing it.


Really? Well then, let's hear it.
 
2012-11-02 07:55:25 AM  

dittybopper: Wow, out of the first four comments, fully half play the race card.


aww pouty face
 
2012-11-02 07:56:57 AM  

pciszek: I have been pissed with Obama for turning into a Republican since shortly after he won the primary. What exactly is the news here?


Obama *ran* as a conservative. He has tacked mildly to the right since taking office but nearly everything he's done is what he said he would do while campaigning.

My man was Kucinich but we all know how that worked out.

My continuing hope is that we'll see a sharp tack to the left in Obama v2.0. His personal writings and biography indicate someone who *should* be a fairly hardcore leftist. I hope that the Obama we have seen is one created by political expediency and we'll see the real deal in the second term.

That said, he hasn't promised or even hinted at such a thing so I can't exactly complain if that isn't what we get. And I am OK with that. Because even Corporate Tool Obama and Patriot Act Action Obama are *far* better than the alternative.

He's improved social justice, pushed green energy, and pushed for health care reform and a Keynesian recovery (though the last two were heavily watered down by compromise).

Couple that with a successful foreign policy and I'd call the whole deal a qualified win for progress.
 
2012-11-02 07:58:43 AM  

Magruda: JohnnyC: No... it continues because 3rd parties are so weak they can barely get elected to low level local governmental positions and haven't proved that they can be trusted with a high level elected position at all...

Plus, you have to deal with defenders of the status quo. I mean these guys will do what ever they can to convince you that voting 3rd party is a waste of time, when in reality they are just helping continue the two party system.

Some of them even think they are helping when they are all just clogs in the machine.


You want to start a third party? Start from the ground up.

Get your people in the unopposed offices, then get them in the opposed offices. Make a goddamn name for yourself.

Don't fark around in the election with guys who spent half a billion dollars each. The money you raise nationally could put useful people into city councils, state legislatures and congress and affect meaningful change in communities. Then you can start looking at a straight ticket option for your party.

The Greens did this shiat a dozen years ago and nothing happened. Don't pretend the third party presidential candidate is promotion for the party. It's a waste of money. Find your local candidate or BE your local candidate. There's nothing superhuman about either of these dildos but they managed to make a name for themselves.
 
2012-11-02 07:59:18 AM  

Magruda: You fail at basic reading comprehension. My claim is thus, the argument to dissuade 3rd party voting is exactly in line with the wishes of a two party system.


You haven't even been specific about a 3rd party you're interested in. Do you realize how many 3rd parties there are? But you're endorsing people vote for... any of them? Yeah, that's really going to change things.

Let me guess... you're voting for the Republican who failed to get an endorsement from his party and so is running on a 3rd party ticket that was so desperate for a 'name' to put on their top billing that they literally would have taken almost ANYONE with any kind of name recognition? You know... Gary Johnson?

And you know what... I encourage any Republican leaning voter who thinks Gary Johnson is great to vote for him. It'll help us get the better of the two viable candidates into office more easily.
 
2012-11-02 08:04:53 AM  

JohnnyC: You haven't even been specific about a 3rd party you're interested in.


I don't have too, i'm not endorsing anyone.

JohnnyC: Let me guess...


By all means, paint the picture you want to see.

moothemagiccow: You want to start a third party? Start from the ground up.


I love how everyone likes to say it's being done wrong and then offer suggestions about how to fix it. What they are really saying is until it is fixed business as usual. Which is really just defense of the status quo.

ryarger: Couple that with a successful foreign policy and I'd call the whole deal a qualified win for progress.


Lipstick on a pig.
 
2012-11-02 08:07:18 AM  

ryarger: My man was Kucinich but we all know how that worked out.


He can be a little kooky sometimes, but I'll say one thing for sure... Running for President was one of the best things that guy could have done for himself. Mostly because he ended up getting such a hot wife as a result. Good for him! :)

ryarger: My continuing hope is that we'll see a sharp tack to the left in Obama v2.0. His personal writings and biography indicate someone who *should* be a fairly hardcore leftist. I hope that the Obama we have seen is one created by political expediency and we'll see the real deal in the second term.


I didn't get the same impression from reading his books. I consider him more of a pragmatic progressive than a "leftist". Which to a modern Republican is probably a "hardcore leftist" but those folks don't seem to have much of a grasp of what is moderate anymore, let alone "leftist".
 
2012-11-02 08:09:12 AM  

Magruda: I don't have too, i'm not endorsing anyone.


So you have no horse in the race... but complain when other people pick one of the favored to win ones. Gotcha. Thanks for wasting our time.
 
2012-11-02 08:10:08 AM  

jodaveki: Our system of justice is framed by rules that do not permit prosecutors to run roughshod over due process. How is "We don't want them to go free" an argument against due process?


They aren't being held by criminal jurisdiction, but rather authorization of war powers. We don't need to try them any more than we needed to prosecute or release German soldiers captured during WWII. That said, the Bush administration came up with some insane classification to try to get around international protections on treatment of POWs.

jodaveki: This makes no sense. A mess handed to us demands we clean it up. You keep saying we can't try them, but that's not true. And if we don't have evidence to hold them-- evidence that would be admissible in our own venerable courts of law-- then we should let them go. Either we believe in the ideals of our system, or we don't. Wrt pennies and pounds, we're the ones spouting off on human rights and due process, criticizing governments for detentions with no due process-- how 'bout we put our money where our mouth is?


The primary problem with Guantanamo isn't that those detained there aren't on trial. It's that they weren't afforded the rights required by international law, including protections against torture. And that is because we have an open ended exercise of war powers that has no clear cut end point.

Magruda: I mean these guys will do what ever they can to convince you that voting 3rd party is a waste of time, when in reality they are just helping continue the two party system.


This is like saying people trying to convince you that you are not able to fly no matter how much acid you take are trying to maintain the status quo. National third parties, at best, act as nothing but spoilers. If you want third parties to exist, you'll have to try to overhaul our entire system. Not that that's a bad thing, but simply wishing a bit harder on the internet isn't going to make it happen. I'd suggest you educate yourself.
 
2012-11-02 08:10:10 AM  

Magruda: Genevieve Marie: Or yea, yea we can strike a meaningless blow at the heart of the two party system by voting for a third party candidate that will get 1 or 2% of the vote, but many of us prefer to be more pragmatic about it.

Which is why it continues.


If you want it to stop "continuing" the best way to do it is make changes on the local level, infiltrate the Democratic Party and make changes from the ground up. That's precisely what the Christian Right did. They used to be the laughing stock of the GOP, and now they damn near run it.

Of course, that actually takes hard work and effort, as opposed to just pulling a leaver for a 3rd party presidential candidate and patting yourself on the back with your self satisfaction about how "above it all" you are.
 
2012-11-02 08:11:23 AM  

Magruda: What they are really saying is until it is fixed business as usual.


No shiat. If your toilet is clogged, then it remains clogged until it is fixed. That's kind of how things work on this planet.
 
2012-11-02 08:12:48 AM  

JohnnyC: So you have no horse in the race... but complain when other people pick one of the favored to win ones. Gotcha. Thanks for wasting our time.


Nice obfuscation. You wasted your own time.
 
2012-11-02 08:13:23 AM  
Don't think the left is any smarter (or dumber) than the right. Bth sides migrate fords "journalism" that supports preconceived notions of the readers...I.e. biased media. They both think its unbiased and therefore the truth. They both end up thinking they are smarter and know more as a result. Meanwhile, neither side gets intellectually challenged. To even discuss alternate experience and perspective is hate crime, so name calling is a nice antidote to meaningful discussions. Open mindedness is a complete aberration. Everyone thinks they have it, as they dismiss the opinions of anyone who disagrees.
S when called upon our shallow value system, by someone who did his homework we can't see it coming. W aren't intellectually prepared. And even this interviewer is taken by whatever he said, almost no one challenged his facts. They must be true because he said so. It's as useless as reading the huffing ton post.
 
2012-11-02 08:14:57 AM  

GAT_00: The Third Man: So, vote Republican Democrat obviously.

Obviously. I mean, if you're mad at Obama for something and Romney promises to continue it, you should clearly vote for Romney Obama! Because, you know, he's white black.

 
2012-11-02 08:16:05 AM  
Let's see - more bogus James O'Keefe style shiat?
Yup.
Shiat-for-brains rightwingers playing "candid camera".
Nothing to see here.
 
2012-11-02 08:17:20 AM  

Magruda: I love how everyone likes to say it's being done wrong and then offer suggestions about how to fix it. What they are really saying is until it is fixed business as usual. Which is really just defense of the status quo.


A vote for Johnson or Stein is defense of the status quo. It means nothing. It's been done wrong before and trying the same path again isn't going to work. There's no magic tactic to change the status quo but this one definitely isn't it.

You want our help or you want to troll? Stop being so obnoxious in your promotion.
 
2012-11-02 08:20:55 AM  
And so everyone comes out with the same arguement.

sprawl15: No shiat.


InmanRoshi: If you want it to stop "continuing" the best way to do it is make changes on the local level


Yes i get it, you like things the way they are or else you'd be advocating local grassroots movements yourself. So don't tell me the best way to make a change that you openly oppose.
 
2012-11-02 08:21:54 AM  

Proteios1: Bth sides migrate fords "journalism" that supports preconceived notions of the readers...I.e. biased media.


Telling us what we want to hear sells, like you telling yourself there's no one you can trust in the msm.

You want to tell the unvarnished truth? Good luck competing with the conspiracy theorists.
 
2012-11-02 08:22:33 AM  

moothemagiccow: A vote for Johnson or Stein is defense of the status quo. It means nothing.


"The biggest way people give up power is by not knowing that we have it to start with." - Alice Walker
 
2012-11-02 08:23:08 AM  

Magruda: you like things the way they are


You do realize I'm probably the loudest advocate of a fundamental change to our system to allow third parties, right? That I'm a huge advocate of going as far as abolishing state sovereignty and the Senate to allow proportional representation of the citizenry in a way that is sensible?

Of course not. You'd rather just slam your dick in a car door then declare you're a martyr on Facebook.
 
2012-11-02 08:26:54 AM  

sprawl15: Of course not. You'd rather just slam your dick in a car door then declare you're a martyr on Facebook.


Yeah, keep painting that picture.

sprawl15: You do realize I'm probably the loudest advocate of a fundamental change to our system to allow third parties, right?


Meanwhile telling us it is a waste of time to advocate for them? Right.....
 
2012-11-02 08:26:56 AM  
Holy shiat where did they find uninformed voters? No way!
 
2012-11-02 08:29:11 AM  

Magruda: And so everyone comes out with the same arguement.

sprawl15: No shiat.

InmanRoshi: If you want it to stop "continuing" the best way to do it is make changes on the local level

Yes i get it, you like things the way they are or else you'd be advocating local grassroots movements yourself. So don't tell me the best way to make a change that you openly oppose.


Advocating? I was the local grassroots movement. Ran for office. Yanno what I found out?

The local green branch is full of morons who care more about petitions to save a lake that wasn't in trouble than understand how urban living can prevent sprawl from overtaking the outdoor shiat they love so damned much. They're more likely to ally with fringe morons who rally against the futility of voting than ally themselves with like-minded leftists compromising and voting democratic out of pure ignorance to a viable alternative.

Again: you being smug and judgmental about being indie isn't helping your movement.
 
2012-11-02 08:29:16 AM  

Magruda: And so everyone comes out with the same arguement.


A half dozen people are patiently making the same argument to you and you're just dismissing it out of hand. That doesn't seem strange to you? If it were me, I'd start to reconsider their argument. Maybe they've got a point.

Or perhaps you're right and third parties should just keep wasting their resources running a candidate every 4 years for a a position they currently have zero chance of getting elected to, achieving precisely zero of their goals.

What's that old proverb about how the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?
 
2012-11-02 08:31:42 AM  

moothemagiccow: Magruda: And so everyone comes out with the same arguement.

sprawl15: No shiat.

InmanRoshi: If you want it to stop "continuing" the best way to do it is make changes on the local level

Yes i get it, you like things the way they are or else you'd be advocating local grassroots movements yourself. So don't tell me the best way to make a change that you openly oppose.

Advocating? I was the local grassroots movement. Ran for office. Yanno what I found out?

The local green branch is full of morons who care more about petitions to save a lake that wasn't in trouble than understand how urban living can prevent sprawl from overtaking the outdoor shiat they love so damned much. They're more likely to ally with fringe morons who rally against the futility of voting than ally themselves with like-minded leftists compromising and voting democratic out of pure ignorance to a viable alternative.

Again: you being smug and judgmental about being indie isn't helping your movement.


Citation needed
 
2012-11-02 08:33:21 AM  

Gunther: Magruda: And so everyone comes out with the same arguement.

A half dozen people are patiently making the same argument to you and you're just dismissing it out of hand. That doesn't seem strange to you? If it were me, I'd start to reconsider their argument. Maybe they've got a point.

Or perhaps you're right and third parties should just keep wasting their resources running a candidate every 4 years for a a position they currently have zero chance of getting elected to, achieving precisely zero of their goals.

What's that old proverb about how the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?


They gain more support every year. Despite your attempts to stop them.
 
2012-11-02 08:33:33 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: Krymson Tyde: So some voters are uneducated? The hell you say!

Yeah, The hell you say! 


The stupid, it burns!
 
2012-11-02 08:35:48 AM  

Magruda: Meanwhile telling us it is a waste of time to advocate for them?


It absolutely is.

The problem is systemic - without a fundamental change to our voting system, third parties at best act a spoiler and produce the type of government you want the least. Take a simple situation; 30% of the electorate are Democrats, 30% are Greens, 40% are Republican. What is the optimal voting strategy for Democrats and Greens? Under our system, if they vote their values they get nothing and the GOP takes over. Under a proportional representation system, they get exactly the representation they hold among the populace and hold a general liberal majority in congress despite the differences in their values - which would lead to the Greens voting against Democrats when they want to check certain policies.
 
2012-11-02 08:36:08 AM  

Magruda: Meanwhile telling us it is a waste of time to advocate for them? Right.....


Third parties are hopelessly outmatched financially in the presidential race. It's like trying to compete against an entire national chain like Bank of America. There's no way you can put an ATM on every street corner of every big city by word of mouth. Either find one branch and beat them or stop being a dick and get a lot more money out of thin air.
 
2012-11-02 08:36:56 AM  

Magruda: moothemagiccow: Magruda: And so everyone comes out with the same arguement.

sprawl15: No shiat.

InmanRoshi: If you want it to stop "continuing" the best way to do it is make changes on the local level

Yes i get it, you like things the way they are or else you'd be advocating local grassroots movements yourself. So don't tell me the best way to make a change that you openly oppose.

Advocating? I was the local grassroots movement. Ran for office. Yanno what I found out?

The local green branch is full of morons who care more about petitions to save a lake that wasn't in trouble than understand how urban living can prevent sprawl from overtaking the outdoor shiat they love so damned much. They're more likely to ally with fringe morons who rally against the futility of voting than ally themselves with like-minded leftists compromising and voting democratic out of pure ignorance to a viable alternative.

Again: you being smug and judgmental about being indie isn't helping your movement.

Citation needed


Bout you bein' smug? The post I just quoted, and your trolling of the rest of this thread.
 
2012-11-02 08:37:08 AM  

Magruda: They gain more support every year. Despite your attempts to stop them.


Yeah, I'm just sitting here wailing and rending my clothes in anguish over the 1-2% Gary Johnson is gonna take.
 
2012-11-02 08:37:45 AM  
Article 1: Romney is being dumb
Article 2: Romney is acting dumb
Article 3: Romney isn't speaking to the press anymore
Article 4: Romney is being duplicitous

Article 5: We found some really stupid Obama voters. What now libs?

Uh... I fix the cable Vote for Obama?
 
2012-11-02 08:38:21 AM  

moothemagiccow: Advocating? I was the local grassroots movement. Ran for office. Yanno what I found out?

The local green branch is full of morons who care more about petitions to save a lake that wasn't in trouble than understand how urban living can prevent sprawl from overtaking the outdoor shiat they love so damned much. They're more likely to ally with fringe morons who rally against the futility of voting than ally themselves with like-minded leftists compromising and voting democratic out of pure ignorance to a viable alternative.

Again: you being smug and judgmental about being indie isn't helping your movement.


I attended several local Liberterian Party events in my younger, more naive days. I've never witnessed a more unorganized clusterfark. Every meeting devolved into a shouting match over whether or sidewalks should be privately funded or whether National Parks should be parceled out and sold to private land owners.

I quickly came to the conclusion that I would want these guys to run a Jiffy Lube, much less the government of the United States. No wonder lifelong GOP hacks like Bob Barr and Gary Johnson can walk into their party and on Day 1 get their Presidential Nomination. It's like the entire party said "Hey, here's someone who looks like he might know what the fark he's doing, let's nominate him!!"
 
2012-11-02 08:40:19 AM  

InmanRoshi: I attended several local Liberterian Party events in my younger, more naive days. I've never witnessed a more unorganized clusterfark. Every meeting devolved into a shouting match over whether or sidewalks should be privately funded or whether National Parks should be parceled out and sold to private land owners.


Did you watch the third party debate? Larry King was their big draw, and he was only there because the venue had a free lunch buffet. It was farking hilarious.
 
2012-11-02 08:43:27 AM  
Do you know what happens in countries that don't have a two party system? The various parties quickly join alliances and improve their leverage until it basically amounts to a two party system. Just like environmentalists and autoworkers have formed an alliances in the Democratic Party, when they really have nothing in common. Just like Wall Street bankers and fundamentalist evangelists have formed an alliance in the GOP.

Welcome to the democratic republic system. Now matter how you start out the game, in the end it devolves into a race to get to 51% of the vote and a legislative majority.
 
2012-11-02 08:45:52 AM  
Meanwhile, republicans credit Mitt Romney for Bin Laden's death.
 
2012-11-02 08:47:23 AM  

Mentat: We told you guys repeatedly, Republicans won't be in charge forever. Whatever precedent is set will be used by future administrations. If the tools are available, even a decent guy like Obama is going to be tempted to use them. Road to hell and all that.


And now these assholes want him to put the genie back in the bottle. And are trying to convince me that failure to do so is as bad or worse than inventing a legal justification for torture and going to war based on false intelligence.

For TORTURE. Fark's sake... if you think Romney won't take the path of least resistance on every issue or problem, you haven't been paying attention. And that's the exact attitude that led to the refitting of gitmo as an overseas extralegal prison. It's the attitude that led to tax cutapalooza. It's the attitude that led to torture. It's the attitude that led to the use of farking MERCENARIES...

People can pretend both sides are the same, but to pretend that Obama and Romney are "the same"? What are you people... 13? 14?
 
2012-11-02 08:50:18 AM  
The level of cognitive dissonance displayed by people who say they support change yet fight against it is astounding. You say you have the same goals but you don't like thier tactics, but unless those tactics harm your efforts your objection only helps your supposed common enemy. To not see this you must either be extremely stupid or a liar.
 
2012-11-02 08:51:04 AM  
i224.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-02 08:55:55 AM  

sprawl15: Magruda: Meanwhile telling us it is a waste of time to advocate for them?

It absolutely is.

The problem is systemic - without a fundamental change to our voting system, third parties at best act a spoiler and produce the type of government you want the least. Take a simple situation; 30% of the electorate are Democrats, 30% are Greens, 40% are Republican. What is the optimal voting strategy for Democrats and Greens? Under our system, if they vote their values they get nothing and the GOP takes over. Under a proportional representation system, they get exactly the representation they hold among the populace and hold a general liberal majority in congress despite the differences in their values - which would lead to the Greens voting against Democrats when they want to check certain policies.


A few things about 3rd parties running national candidates:

1. They want to qualify for federally matched funds, and that's why they run national candidates for office. They have to cross a certain threshold on the national vote to accomplish this, so doing state elections alone won't do that.

2. If they don't have a national platform, then they likely won't have a well-organized convention, and they don't have a comprehensive plan and framework for their party. If they only focus on state and local races, then those parties are more likely to break up and become even more regional and marginalized. The weaker the center of the organization is, the more out of control the branches become.

3. So even if a national 3rd party candidate acts as ineffectual at least (When it comes to voting percentage) or spoiler at best/most, they still perform the job of being the voice/face of the party. Chipping away at that small percentage, going from 1% to 2% and upward, ensures more support (And more money) for the next election.

That's how it's supposed to work in theory, anyway. What doesn't help is when the parties themselves choose crappy candidates and rejects from the bigger, two parties. I think the Greens made a pretty good choice in Jill Stein, mainly because her opposition was Kent Meslay, a guy who barely even campaigned, and Roseanne Barr, and that would've killed the party if she'd been nominated. I think she's derailed her own campaign though by doing all her civil disobedience actions, though. People don't think she's presidential when a candidate gets arrested. If she wants to pratice civil disobedience after the election, good on her, but the Greens need a candidate, not a protest orchestrator right now.

The Greens are always in danger of becoming what became of Occupy and the anti-Iraq War movement: broken down into various, barely connected groups, each pushing one issue as the issue, and nobody providing a central framework to carry the entire movement forward, putting an underline underneath the name and core message of the organization.
 
2012-11-02 08:57:29 AM  

Krymson Tyde: So some voters are uneducated? The hell you say!


This.

So farking what?
 
2012-11-02 09:07:21 AM  

Magruda: The level of cognitive dissonance displayed by people who say they support change yet fight against it is astounding


We aren't fighting against it, we're pointing out why their current strategy cannot possibly work. We're also suggesting a strategy (focusing on the local and state level and building an actual party before you go for the big chair) that has a good chance of success.

The fact that you take constructive criticism as an attack is not a good indicator of psychological health on your part.
 
2012-11-02 09:13:37 AM  

verbaltoxin: 1. They want to qualify for federally matched funds, and that's why they run national candidates for office. They have to cross a certain threshold on the national vote to accomplish this, so doing state elections alone won't do that.


Funding doesn't matter when the problem is from the perspective of the voter. If we force all campaigns to be federally funded, and set the threshold ludicrously low (say, 5000 people in the party to qualify for top tier funding), it won't come close to addressing the problem of a FPTP system.

verbaltoxin: 2. If they don't have a national platform, then they likely won't have a well-organized convention, and they don't have a comprehensive plan and framework for their party. If they only focus on state and local races, then those parties are more likely to break up and become even more regional and marginalized. The weaker the center of the organization is, the more out of control the branches become.


While sort of true, every race other than President is on the state/local level. What they should be doing is not trying to push for national relevance, but take up one or two states that are particularly in favor of their politics. Get it in action, show that they know what the fark they're doing, etc. It won't make a third party viable on the national stage, but it sets them up for stepping in during power vacuum; the GOP would LOVE a viable third party to come in and take all the GOP votes while washing the stink of the last decade and a half away.

verbaltoxin: 3. So even if a national 3rd party candidate acts as ineffectual at least (When it comes to voting percentage) or spoiler at best/most, they still perform the job of being the voice/face of the party.


When they're ineffectual, they're the face of nothing. That's why the public doesn't know or care who the Modern Whig party are. When they're a spoiler, they're viewed as a disappointment by those most likely to convert to their side. Which is why Nader lost a pile of support after his reasonably solid showing in 2000, rather than rode a wave of momentum. Neither are conducive to the propagation of the party.

verbaltoxin: What doesn't help is when the parties themselves choose crappy candidates and rejects from the bigger, two parties.


Non-crappy candidates understand Duverger's law and either shoot for local success or give in and pick a side.

Ultimately the best any third party can hope for is to replace one of the two primary parties. And that bypasses the real goal that third parties should be shooting for - a replacement of the two party system. If you watched the third party debate, three of the four candidates said (to a question that allowed them to make up a Constitutional amendment that could automatically pass via magic) they would change our election system...but by instituting term limits or by repealing citizen's united. Neither would do a farking bit to change the two party system. They're clueless - like Magruda is - to the actual problems, so they waste all their time stomping their feet instead of educating people about alternative methods of voting. If the people supporting RONPAUL or Stein or Johnson or whoever decided to just group up and assault the FPTP system, they might actually have a chance at changing things. But getting 2% of the voters to piss away their vote in meaningless gestures is childish at best.
 
2012-11-02 09:16:49 AM  
sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2012-11-02 09:20:20 AM  
Here's a picture of a rabbit competing in the Olympics. Since the rabbit rode a bicycle to the Olympics, you can be sure that doping was involved. Name other combinations of Dopes and Olympics.

a.abcnews.go.com
 
2012-11-02 09:20:55 AM  
Progressives that think they are supporting a candidate that doing the things they want without actually paying attention to what he is doing bothers me more than the guy voting Romney that knows what he is getting, and is fine with it.

Instead of throwing up their hands and saying "what are you going to do about it?" and telling me how bad the other guy is (like I don't know that) why not demand accountability? Look at what happened with Obama and gay marriage. He tired to play both sides until some donors finally stood up and said it was not good enough to be "evolving" on the issue. The President finally came out and took a stand, and it was the right one.

There are other choices out there. If you stay with the herd the only thing you can be sure of is that nothing will change.
 
2012-11-02 09:23:04 AM  

ManRay: Progressives that think they are supporting a candidate that doing the things they want without actually paying attention to what he is doing bothers me more than the guy voting Romney that knows what he is getting, and is fine with it.


Does anyone vote for Romney knowing what they're getting? I don't think even Romney knows what he stands for at this point.
 
2012-11-02 09:23:48 AM  

ManRay: Progressives that think they are supporting a candidate that doing the things they want without actually paying attention to what he is doing bothers me more than the guy voting Romney that knows what he is getting, and is fine with it.

Instead of throwing up their hands and saying "what are you going to do about it?" and telling me how bad the other guy is (like I don't know that) why not demand accountability? Look at what happened with Obama and gay marriage. He tired to play both sides until some donors finally stood up and said it was not good enough to be "evolving" on the issue. The President finally came out and took a stand, and it was the right one.

There are other choices out there. If you stay with the herd the only thing you can be sure of is that nothing will change.


When the other choices are viable we will consider them. A viable third party will not come about through grassroots support. There is too much money and there is too much of an establishment in DC. The only way we will get a viable third party is a splintering. For example, fiscal conservative social liberals split from the GOP, sick of the Derp, and steal some democrats who want to hold their socially liberal positions but consider themselves fiscal conservatives too.
 
2012-11-02 09:24:03 AM  

HeartBurnKid: I don't think even Romney knows what he stands for at this point.


Whatever you're talking about, you can be assured he'll probably stand by it unless it's bad.
 
2012-11-02 09:25:16 AM  

CPennypacker: The only way we will get a viable third party is a splintering.


Only for a short while. When one party collapses, others can take its place. But there needs to be a reconstruction at some point to return to a two party state because any more parties swinging their dicks around on a national level is effectively a one party state.
 
2012-11-02 09:26:31 AM  

sprawl15: without a fundamental change to our voting system, third parties at best act a spoiler and produce the type of government you want the least.


Use fewer words. Tell them to read and understand Duverger's Law.

InmanRoshi: Do you know what happens in countries that don't have a two party system? The various parties quickly join alliances and improve their leverage until it basically amounts to a two party system.


... for the duration of the parliament. Then the parties go off separately, run for seats, and recompile into new coalitions based on the new seat distribution. And there was much bargaining, horse-trading, and smoky backrooms.

There is some stability of coalitions in multi-party states, but they tend to follow ideological or other "cleavages" (i.e. the socialist or social-democrat party is unlikely to invite the fascist party into their coalition...unless they have to to get the slimmest of majorities.)
 
2012-11-02 09:32:21 AM  

ManRay: Instead of throwing up their hands and saying "what are you going to do about it?" and telling me how bad the other guy is (like I don't know that) why not demand accountability? Look at what happened with Obama and gay marriage. He tired to play both sides until some donors finally stood up and said it was not good enough to be "evolving" on the issue. The President finally came out and took a stand, and it was the right one.

There are other choices out there. If you stay with the herd the only thing you can be sure of is that nothing will change.


I should probably respond to the rest of this too, with something other than snark, so... look. I know your heart is in the right place. But third parties as they stand are a waste of time. There are precisely two circumstances in which a third party becomes viable in this country:

1) A third party displaces one of the big parties
2) We scrap first-past-the-post voting entirely for another system, like IRV, approval, or Condorcet.

As much as I'd like to see the second happen, and will support any method to make the second happen, it's not very likely. So if you want your third-party to be viable, concentrate on the first. Run for state and local offices, especially in areas that are heavily red or blue (and thus haven't had a viable alternative for decades). Put everything in those races. Build a power base. Get people in Congress, and in governor's chairs. THEN run for the Presidency. Then you might actually get votes. If your platform isn't a pile of hyper-religious bullshiat or Randian wet dreams, I might even vote for you.

Or keep ranting about how everybody but you is a sheeple and anybody who actually chooses to use their vote on the guy they only kinda like, but actually has a shot at winning is a shill. Up to you.
 
2012-11-02 09:34:13 AM  

HeartBurnKid: There are precisely two circumstances in which a third party becomes viable in this country:

1) A third party displaces one of the big parties
2) We scrap first-past-the-post voting entirely for another system, like IRV, approval, or Condorcet.


There is a third option, depending on your definition of viability: regional parties. They won't ever be able to take the Presidency, but they can survive within the current system within Congress.
 
2012-11-02 09:37:06 AM  

ArcadianRefugee: So, let me get this straight: If Romney's doing x, y, and z, and Obama's doing x, -y, and -z, I should...what?

kingoomieiii: It's fine to disagree with Obama on that shiat

This. Anyone who says they agree with a candidate 100% on every issue is most likely the candidate.


In a rational world. In this world, even Romney only agrees with himself about half the time.
 
2012-11-02 09:38:02 AM  

Gunther: Magruda: The level of cognitive dissonance displayed by people who say they support change yet fight against it is astounding

We aren't fighting against it, we're pointing out why their current strategy cannot possibly work. We're also suggesting a strategy (focusing on the local and state level and building an actual party before you go for the big chair) that has a good chance of success.

The fact that you take constructive criticism as an attack is not a good indicator of psychological health on your part.


That would be fine as cinstructive critisism if the position were supported. However offering from the side of the opposition taints the advice.
 
2012-11-02 09:41:22 AM  

Magruda: Gunther: Magruda: The level of cognitive dissonance displayed by people who say they support change yet fight against it is astounding

We aren't fighting against it, we're pointing out why their current strategy cannot possibly work. We're also suggesting a strategy (focusing on the local and state level and building an actual party before you go for the big chair) that has a good chance of success.

The fact that you take constructive criticism as an attack is not a good indicator of psychological health on your part.

That would be fine as cinstructive critisism if the position were supported. However offering from the side of the opposition taints the advice.


Magruda: Gunther: Magruda: The level of cognitive dissonance displayed by people who say they support change yet fight against it is astounding

We aren't fighting against it, we're pointing out why their current strategy cannot possibly work. We're also suggesting a strategy (focusing on the local and state level and building an actual party before you go for the big chair) that has a good chance of success.

The fact that you take constructive criticism as an attack is not a good indicator of psychological health on your part.

That would be fine as cinstructive critisism if the position were supported. However offering from the side of the opposition taints the advice.


If you want to get anywhere, you'll actually have to win people over from the "side of the opposition". They're telling you how to do that. Only a fool would ignore that advice.
 
2012-11-02 09:45:56 AM  

Drubell: George Washington killed a bunch of British people, but Britain is our ally. So isn't he a war criminal?

/same logic


Sure you want to open that up?


Orders of George Washington to General John Sullivan, at Head-Quarters May 31, 1779

The Expedition you are appointed to command is to be directed against the hostile tribes of the Six Nations of Indians, with their associates and adherents. The immediate objects are the total destruction and devastation of their settlements, and the capture of as many prisoners of every age and sex as possible. It will be essential to ruin their crops now in the ground and prevent their planting more.

I would recommend, that some post in the center of the Indian Country, should be occupied with all expedition, with a sufficient quantity of provisions whence parties should be detached to lay waste all the settlements around, with instructions to do it in the most effectual manner, that the country may not be merely overrun, but destroyed.

But you will not by any means listen to any overture of peace before the total ruinment of their settlements is effected. Our future security will be in their inability to injure us and in the terror with which the severity of the chastisement they receive will inspire them.[4]
 
2012-11-02 09:49:41 AM  
I just don't understand how someone can stand there and say " That is unconstitutional and horrible. I would never support that" and then turn around and say they will vote for a person that is actually doing that exact thing. Even if you think that your candidate will make perfect decisions with that power, at some point someone else you do not like will be in office that will not be as restrained.
 
2012-11-02 09:50:05 AM  

HeartBurnKid: 2) We scrap first-past-the-post voting entirely for another system, like IRV, approval, or Condorcet.


All of those systems still have one common feature: single-seat districts.

If you want a system that isn't out to exclude small parties, you need every voter to have multiple representatives representing them (together with some system that divides those seats somewhat proportionally, relative to how the district voted).

(Note: both "approval" and "Condorcet" are fragile systems; they're more interesting for theoretical reasons than they are as practical suggestions.)
 
2012-11-02 09:50:40 AM  
Health and Cancer overlap in some of their conditions, so make sure to vote Cancer!
 
2012-11-02 09:53:36 AM  

Zagloba: (Note: both "approval" and "Condorcet" are fragile systems; they're more interesting for theoretical reasons than they are as practical suggestions.)


I have to admit, that statement piqued my curiosity. How are those systems fragile?
 
2012-11-02 09:58:55 AM  

adjmcloon: Romney does actually support the NDAA, warrantless wiretaps, the TSA, and all forms of Orwellian government. So does Obama. So we're kinda farked either way, huh?


The strange thing is, there are candidates that are actually AGAINST those things. But those candidates are the "crazy" ones with all the "crazy" ideas.

/yea, we're farked either way
 
2012-11-02 10:00:33 AM  

thismomentinblackhistory: I live in Ohio and I voted on 10/17/2012. Went to a Bill Clinton rally at OCC today.

You'll like the prez I pick for you guys.

Trust me, trust Ohio.


Your write-in vote for Bill Clinton means absolutely dick for everyone else.
 
2012-11-02 10:01:03 AM  

Magruda: That would be fine as cinstructive critisism if the position were supported. However offering from the side of the opposition taints the advice.


Wow, I was actually teasing earlier with that comment about how you must be a little crazy to take constructive criticism as an attack, but I'm starting to think I might have called it. You discard the advice of people who disagree with you, because if they disagree with you they're the opposition, and thus their advice is suspect.
 
2012-11-02 10:04:36 AM  

HeartBurnKid: I have to admit, that statement piqued my curiosity. How are those systems fragile?


Have to run to work, so can't write it all out, but briefly: a Condorcet winner is defined as the candidate whom a majority of voters prefer to each other candidate in a head-to-head. If there are more than maybe four or five candidates, there's unlikely to be a Condorcet winner at all.

The problem with approval is that it's vulnerable to strategic voting.
 
2012-11-02 10:07:32 AM  
That's why the GOP is so awful. Everything that you can fault the Dems for, the GOP does the same thing, and usually moreso.

So we have two choices in this country: one partially bad party and one completely bad party.
 
2012-11-02 10:10:30 AM  

Gunther: Magruda: That would be fine as cinstructive critisism if the position were supported. However offering from the side of the opposition taints the advice.

Wow, I was actually teasing earlier with that comment about how you must be a little crazy to take constructive criticism as an attack, but I'm starting to think I might have called it. You discard the advice of people who disagree with you, because if they disagree with you they're the opposition, and thus their advice is suspect.


Any advice from the opposition should always be suspect, only a fool would claim otherwise. Claims that 3rd party support is a waste of time is opposition in my book.
 
2012-11-02 10:11:03 AM  

sprawl15: Ultimately the best any third party can hope for is to replace one of the two primary parties. And that bypasses the real goal that third parties should be shooting for - a replacement of the two party system. If you watched the third party debate, three of the four candidates said (to a question that allowed them to make up a Constitutional amendment that could automatically pass via magic) they would change our election system...but by instituting term limits or by repealing citizen's united. Neither would do a farking bit to change the two party system. They're clueless - like Magruda is - to the actual problems, so they waste all their time stomping their feet instead of educating people about alternative methods of voting. If the people supporting RONPAUL or Stein or Johnson or whoever decided to just group up and assault the FPTP system, they might actually have a chance at changing things. But getting 2% of the voters to piss away their vote in meaningless gestures is childish at best.


The rest of your points I agree with, but this one right here needs extra highlighting. The Libertarians don't want to be the viable 3rd party. They want to be one of the other two parties. The Greens at least write this into their platform:

8. We demand choices in our political system. This can be accomplished by proportional representation voting systems such as:

Choice Voting (candidate-based)
Mixed Member Voting (combines with district representation), and
Party List (party based);
and semi-proportional voting systems such as

Limited Voting, and
Cumulative Voting


But of course the Greens are terrible at getting their sh*t together. They needed 2,500 signatures to get Jill Stein on the ballot here in Nebraska, and managed only 500.

The Libertarians though have the benefit of a coming influx of newly-declared independents and libertarians, whom are embarrassed to be called Republicans. The Libertarian Party won't seize the advantage though, and by 2016, most of them will be registered Republican again. It sounds weird but getting sane conservatives back in government might have to come through the libertarians.
 
2012-11-02 10:16:16 AM  
Gary Johnson is looking better every day, chaps.
 
2012-11-02 10:17:08 AM  

Magruda: The level of cognitive dissonance displayed by people who say they support change yet fight against it is astounding. You say you have the same goals but you don't like thier tactics, but unless those tactics harm your efforts your objection only helps your supposed common enemy. To not see this you must either be extremely stupid or a liar.


I'm not sure you quite understand how this works.

You see, I'm a potential liberal voter, and apparently I have some things of value ... namely a potential vote and potential funds and time to donate. I don't mean to sound full of myself, I say these things have "value", because I receive numerous solicitations by politicians asking me to give these things to them. So evidently they are in demand. As a 3rd Party, or 3rd Party Advocate, you have to SELL me why these things would be better given to you over anyone else asking for them. The first job of a good salesman is to understand the motivations of your customer.

My motivations are pretty simple. I want to see liberal/progressive legislation enacted. I don't care about the means, I care about the end results. I don't care if the sausage making involves 2 parties, 3 parties or 15 parites. I just want the sausage made.

You need to lay out for me how you're going to make the sausage better than alternatives. You need to spell out for me exactly how you're going to take my vote and my money to enact liberal legislation/better than giving it to President who has the power to nominate progressive Supreme Court Justices, or a Party that has the ability to get hardcore/unapologetic liberals like Tammy Duckworth and Elizabeth Warren into the US Senate. I don't need meaningless platitudes. I don't need guilt trips (I already got one Catholic Mother, don't need another, thanks). I need concrete, pragmatic plans of actions that are going to bring results.

The fact that you not only offer nothing other than meaningless platitudes, but then go out of your way to insult your potential customers, demonstrates that you're a pretty awful salesman. But, hey, you're the righteous one and it's everyone else's fault, right?
 
2012-11-02 10:21:20 AM  

BoxOfBees: Gary Johnson is looking better every day, chaps.


He's got great skin:

i.imgur.com
 
2012-11-02 10:25:25 AM  

log_jammin: yeah. The koch brothers are pumping tons of cash into the Romneys campaign because both sides are the same in every thing but rhetoric. that makes total sense.


How is that different from Soros?

Lionel Mandrake: This is a lazy, bullshiat argument.

It's possible that one can find them equally distasteful, but this "they're the same" crap is ridiculous.


Did you really expect me to expand in great detail on an internet forum? Allow me to slightly expand my statement.

I'm a libertarian, so depending upon the party that's elected, I hope to see certain things change. When it comes to the Democratic party in the White House, I was optimistic that Obama would reject a number of things listed in TFA, keep his promise regarding keeping the feds out of state enforcement of medical marijuana, closing gitmo, ending the wars, etc. If it was the GOP, I'd be optimistic from the economic side. Reducing government, reducing taxes, etc. Of course, they don't deliver either.

Both parties support the expansion of the Fed at the expense of individual liberty. Basically two sides to the same coin. It's intellectually dishonest for people to pretend otherwise. If you continue to buy into the two-party status quo, you'll get what you deserve.

What's more popcorn-worthy to me were the liberals jumping in this thread ready to defend Obama on creating policies that are really quite shocking if you're a liberal. You're no different than neo-cons defending Bush at this point.
 
2012-11-02 10:28:16 AM  

Zagloba: Have to run to work, so can't write it all out, but briefly: a Condorcet winner is defined as the candidate whom a majority of voters prefer to each other candidate in a head-to-head. If there are more than maybe four or five candidates, there's unlikely to be a Condorcet winner at all.


Interesting. I'd like to see the math on that, if you get a chance (or can find a link).

Zagloba: The problem with approval is that it's vulnerable to strategic voting.


I guess I'd have to know what your definition of "strategic voting" is here. To my thinking, no system ever devised by man could be invulnerable to "strategic voting"; even our current first-past-the-post has the "lesser of two evils" phenomenon, a strategic application of votes if I've ever seen one.
 
2012-11-02 10:28:22 AM  

slayer199: What's more popcorn-worthy to me were the liberals jumping in this thread ready to defend Obama on creating policies that are really quite shocking if you're a liberal. You're no different than neo-cons defending Bush at this point.


Yeah, don't vote the same career Democrat/GOP career politician hacks, vote for Bob Barr and Gary Johnson!!!
 
2012-11-02 10:29:12 AM  
I'm desperate for someone who will roll back the war on drugs and the war on terror. I thought Obama would be that guy. I was wrong. At least if Romney makes it worse, there will be opposition to it. With Obama, everyone is so freaking complacent.
 
2012-11-02 10:36:06 AM  

slayer199: log_jammin: yeah. The koch brothers are pumping tons of cash into the Romneys campaign because both sides are the same in every thing but rhetoric. that makes total sense.

How is that different from Soros?

Lionel Mandrake: This is a lazy, bullshiat argument.

It's possible that one can find them equally distasteful, but this "they're the same" crap is ridiculous.

Did you really expect me to expand in great detail on an internet forum? Allow me to slightly expand my statement.

I'm a libertarian, so depending upon the party that's elected, I hope to see certain things change. When it comes to the Democratic party in the White House, I was optimistic that Obama would reject a number of things listed in TFA, keep his promise regarding keeping the feds out of state enforcement of medical marijuana, closing gitmo, ending the wars, etc. If it was the GOP, I'd be optimistic from the economic side. Reducing government, reducing taxes, etc. Of course, they don't deliver either.

Both parties support the expansion of the Fed at the expense of individual liberty. Basically two sides to the same coin. It's intellectually dishonest for people to pretend otherwise. If you continue to buy into the two-party status quo, you'll get what you deserve.

What's more popcorn-worthy to me were the liberals jumping in this thread ready to defend Obama on creating policies that are really quite shocking if you're a liberal. You're no different than neo-cons defending Bush at this point.


It isn't any different which is exactly my point. Left wing billionaire sends cash to Obama, right wing billionaire doesn't send cash to Obama. If Obama/Romney were exactly the same that wouldn't happen.
 
2012-11-02 10:41:45 AM  

The Third Man: So, vote Republican obviously.


How about voting for Gary Johnson? If these issues are a priority, of course.
 
2012-11-02 10:49:04 AM  

andrewagill: the site the dude mentions, wearechange.org, is a Gary Johnson blog. Looks kinda official.


Um, no. Unless you mean they support Gary Johnson. But it looks like they also support Jill Stein.

They started out as a 9/11 Truther, Anti-"NWO" activist organization, but it appears that they've moved from that into more mainstream, albeit, third party politics. Or at least they are opposed to the corporate establishment and favor more independent candidates.
 
2012-11-02 10:57:22 AM  

Deftoons: The Third Man: So, vote Republican obviously.

How about voting for Gary Johnson? If these issues are a priority, of course.


So, vote Other Republican.
 
2012-11-02 11:00:05 AM  

InmanRoshi: Yeah, don't vote the same career Democrat/GOP career politician hacks, vote for Bob Barr and Gary Johnson!!!


Not Bob Barr, yes Gary Johnson.
 
2012-11-02 11:02:06 AM  

HeartBurnKid: So, vote Other Republican.


yes, because anyone that isn't a Democrat MUST be a Republican. 

If everyone else wants to vote for the lesser of two evils, that's fine. But don't go pretending that Obama is the Great Messiah when it comes to civil liberties and admit, he wouldn't be much different from Romney on that front.
 
2012-11-02 11:04:14 AM  

slayer199: HeartBurnKid: So, vote Other Republican.

yes, because anyone that isn't a Democrat MUST be a Republican.


No, but anybody who was elected governor as a Republican, and ran for the Republican nomination for President this year, must be a Republican.
 
2012-11-02 11:08:37 AM  

Magruda: EyeballKid: Magruda: Some of them even think they are helping when they are all just clogs in the machine.

A little Liquid Plumr will take care of that. Or, did you mean "cogs?"

Yes.

log_jammin: you are the very first person to make this argument. fo realz yo.

And you are the first to point that out.

JohnnyC: Maybe try aiming a bit before you pull the trigger?

You fail at basic reading comprehension. My claim is thus, the argument to dissuade 3rd party voting is exactly in line with the wishes of a two party system.


So, JohnnyC and Magruda, tell me just how a 3rd party president would be able to work with, and get cooperation from to get things done, a majority Republican or Democratic congress? I've yet to see any 3rd party running any viable congressional candidates in the various states. Even with a pretty much mixed R&D you'd see bipartisanship up the ying-yang as both sides united to play whack-a-mole on the upstart.

Unless and until a 3rd party comes up from the ranks and builds a political base, not just at the grassroots level but within the political environment (state reps/senators, mayors, city council members, governors, etc.) so they've proven what they can (and do) do for the country, they'll never get anywhere.

So all you're doing by voting for their presidential candidate is shaking your tiny fist at the two-party system. Want to change things? Then get involved with your third party of choice as a volunteer. Get candidates on the ballot in your next local elections, then go hit the streets campaigning for him or her.

People who run for POTUS on a third-party ticket remind me of newly-graduated MBAs who expect to walk right out of college into a CEO position without putting in time as a line manager and learning the company's business.
 
2012-11-02 11:10:40 AM  

I_Hate_Iowa: And Romney supporters wear shirts like this. Stupid people occupy all positions on the political spectrum. However, I will still never support Romney.

[ayannanahmias.files.wordpress.com image 371x350]


Because buttons like these are so much better?

rlv.zcache.com

/wait, I forgot, this is Fark-both sides are bad, so vote Democrat
 
2012-11-02 11:13:10 AM  

JohnnyC: HotIgneous Intruder: A neoliberal is nothing but a neoconservative from Chicago.

Account created: 2011-10-21 10:53:51

OH hey! Fresh out from under your bridge, eh? How about a steaming hot cup of STFU? I'll put some tasty mini-marshmallows in it for ya. We love when new folks show up and say blatantly trollish things that are devoid of meaning or consideration. It's SO COOL!...


Er, it's 2012. :)

/Nice little rant, though.
 
2012-11-02 11:26:20 AM  

InmanRoshi: The fact that you not only offer nothing other than meaningless platitudes, but then go out of your way to insult your potential customers, demonstrates that you're a pretty awful salesman. But, hey, you're the righteous one and it's everyone else's fault, right?


Firstly, i'm not a rep for any 3rd party. Secondly, it's all just an effort to push politics to the left a bit. If more support is given to 3rd parties the other parties will have to adopt some of their platform to compensate or lose voters.

vinniethepoo: So, JohnnyC and Magruda, tell me just how a 3rd party president would be able to work with, and get cooperation from to get things done, a majority Republican or Democratic congress?


If a 3rd party canidate came anywhere near the numbers needed to win the other two parties would be jumping hand over fist to pull voters away from them by adopting their platform. If the electorate switched to X 3rd party then X 3rd party would also fair well in local ellections.
 
2012-11-02 11:43:27 AM  

slayer199: The Third Man: So, vote Republican obviously.

No, vote for neither party. The point is there's little real difference between the 2 other than rhetoric.


I agree. Vote Libertarian, vote New Whig, vote Green. I don't care as long as you don't pick between the socialist party running a corporatist crony and the fascist party running a socialist.
 
2012-11-02 11:49:43 AM  
I lol'd. :-)

Especially when the Obama supporter called Obama a psychopath. Ha!
 
2012-11-02 11:54:15 AM  

Magruda: InmanRoshi: The fact that you not only offer nothing other than meaningless platitudes, but then go out of your way to insult your potential customers, demonstrates that you're a pretty awful salesman. But, hey, you're the righteous one and it's everyone else's fault, right?

Firstly, i'm not a rep for any 3rd party. Secondly, it's all just an effort to push politics to the left a bit. If more support is given to 3rd parties the other parties will have to adopt some of their platform to compensate or lose voters.

vinniethepoo: So, JohnnyC and Magruda, tell me just how a 3rd party president would be able to work with, and get cooperation from to get things done, a majority Republican or Democratic congress?

If a 3rd party canidate came anywhere near the numbers needed to win the other two parties would be jumping hand over fist to pull voters away from them by adopting their platform. If the electorate switched to X 3rd party then X 3rd party would also fair well in local ellections.


That's just what everyone has been saying: a 3rd party presidential candidate will never get enough votes to even come close to winning. Why not? Because that party has no proven track record. The planks of their campaigns are 99% wishful thinking and idealism. Without strong support in Congress, without viable judicial candidates for SCOTUS nominees, without a broad political base in the towns, cities, counties and states, they're never gonna get their guy/gal anywhere close to the Oval Office. So no, neither of the existing parties are going to flock to the Green/Libertarian/Silly Party/whatever banner.

You're saying that once they get into the White House, then somehow all their local and state candidates will somehow become popular and get elected? What's that, trickle-down politics? Sorry, reality isn't like that. You want to get your candidate of choice elected? Want a viable alternative to the Republicrats? You're gonna have years of hard work in front of you. There's no easy way.
 
2012-11-02 11:58:20 AM  

vinniethepoo: Magruda: InmanRoshi: The fact that you not only offer nothing other than meaningless platitudes, but then go out of your way to insult your potential customers, demonstrates that you're a pretty awful salesman. But, hey, you're the righteous one and it's everyone else's fault, right?

Firstly, i'm not a rep for any 3rd party. Secondly, it's all just an effort to push politics to the left a bit. If more support is given to 3rd parties the other parties will have to adopt some of their platform to compensate or lose voters.

vinniethepoo: So, JohnnyC and Magruda, tell me just how a 3rd party president would be able to work with, and get cooperation from to get things done, a majority Republican or Democratic congress?

If a 3rd party canidate came anywhere near the numbers needed to win the other two parties would be jumping hand over fist to pull voters away from them by adopting their platform. If the electorate switched to X 3rd party then X 3rd party would also fair well in local ellections.

That's just what everyone has been saying: a 3rd party presidential candidate will never get enough votes to even come close to winning. Why not? Because that party has no proven track record. The planks of their campaigns are 99% wishful thinking and idealism. Without strong support in Congress, without viable judicial candidates for SCOTUS nominees, without a broad political base in the towns, cities, counties and states, they're never gonna get their guy/gal anywhere close to the Oval Office. So no, neither of the existing parties are going to flock to the Green/Libertarian/Silly Party/whatever banner.

You're saying that once they get into the White House, then somehow all their local and state candidates will somehow become popular and get elected? What's that, trickle-down politics? Sorry, reality isn't like that. You want to get your candidate of choice elected? Want a viable alternative to the Republicrats? You're gonna have years of hard work in front of you. There's ...


I've been pushing from the opposite direction than most. I've been advising that the Libertarian party work upwards. Take local, state, and Congressional seats. The presidency is a long-term goal. That doesn't mean we can't wreck havok with who gets chosen.
 
2012-11-02 12:03:57 PM  

vinniethepoo: You're saying that once they get into the White House, then somehow all their local and state candidates will somehow become popular and get elected?


No, that's not what i'm saying.
 
2012-11-02 12:08:24 PM  

HeartBurnKid: No, but anybody who was elected governor as a Republican, and ran for the Republican nomination for President this year, must be a Republican.


Unlike Bob Barr, Gary Johnson actually was more a Libertarian than a Republican (which is why the GOP establishment rejected him). While he was governor, he advocated for the legalization of marijuana and ending the war on drugs, he shrunk the size of state government, cut taxes, increased education spending, pushed for school vouchers, and had endorsed same-sex marriage. He's a far cry from the typical GOP drone or the nuttiness of RON PAUL.
 
2012-11-02 12:12:11 PM  

Magruda: vinniethepoo: You're saying that once they get into the White House, then somehow all their local and state candidates will somehow become popular and get elected?

No, that's not what i'm saying.


Then please clarify what you mean by, "If the electorate switched to X 3rd party then X 3rd party would also fair well in local ellections."

/it's getting late here and I'm fading a bit- may not be sussing your meaning here.
 
2012-11-02 12:13:48 PM  

slayer199: HeartBurnKid: No, but anybody who was elected governor as a Republican, and ran for the Republican nomination for President this year, must be a Republican.

Unlike Bob Barr, Gary Johnson actually was more a Libertarian than a Republican (which is why the GOP establishment rejected him). While he was governor, he advocated for the legalization of marijuana and ending the war on drugs, he shrunk the size of state government, cut taxes, increased education spending, pushed for school vouchers, and had endorsed same-sex marriage. He's a far cry from the typical GOP drone or the nuttiness of RON PAUL.


Hey, I'm not saying he's a bad guy. I remember quite liking him in the GOP primary debates, because he didn't behave like the typical GOP know-it-all know-nothing and actually acknowledged that some government spending may have benefits (if only implicitly, in his talk of using cost-benefit analysis to determine where to target spending cuts). But if you're going to trumpet how all Republicans are evil and all Democrats are just as evil, it'd help if you didn't rely on Republican leftovers as your standard-bearers.
 
2012-11-02 12:20:59 PM  

vinniethepoo: /it's getting late here and I'm fading a bit- may not be sussing your meaning here.


Obviously. If a 3rd party had a chance of winning the presidency then they would have enough support to also win congressional seats at the same time. I am not making the case that a 3rd party could win this time and that would majically make their local races winnable as well. As one goes up they both go up, not as one hits a threashold the other one gets a spontanious boost.
 
2012-11-02 12:27:34 PM  

slayer199: Did you really expect me to expand in great detail on an internet forum?


You're statement was very clear. And very bullshiat.
 
2012-11-02 12:31:53 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: slayer199: Did you really expect me to expand in great detail on an internet forum?

You're statement was very clear. And very bullshiat.


You are right, there is a stark difference between the two.
 
2012-11-02 12:51:41 PM  

Magruda: vinniethepoo: /it's getting late here and I'm fading a bit- may not be sussing your meaning here.

Obviously. If a 3rd party had a chance of winning the presidency then they would have enough support to also win congressional seats at the same time. I am not making the case that a 3rd party could win this time and that would majically make their local races winnable as well. As one goes up they both go up, not as one hits a threashold the other one gets a spontanious boost.


But since this isn't happening any time soon, it still seems like you're wasting your vote. But I can't say as I blame you for voting your concience or convictions. Still, I hope we don't get saddled with supreme court justices who are extremely right-wing. Those folks serve for life. I remember when some of the current crop got appointed by Reagan and the Bushes. I also remember when we got stuck with the Shrub for Four More Years, thanks in part to people voting for Nader instead of Gore. Seeing as how the Republicans have solidified their base so well (via lies and propoganda, mostly, as well as stirring up hatred of "those others" like Mexicans and gays) I fear for any lost vote that might have gone to Obama.


I'll just be glad when next Wednesday gets here and the election will be over.


/bedtime now.
 
2012-11-02 12:57:48 PM  

HeartBurnKid: Deftoons: The Third Man: So, vote Republican obviously.

How about voting for Gary Johnson? If these issues are a priority, of course.

So, vote Other Republican.


Yes, because Libertarians are just like Republicans.*

*=sarcasm.
 
2012-11-02 01:02:16 PM  

vinniethepoo: But since this isn't happening any time soon, it still seems like you're wasting your vote.


And again i refer back to the Alice Walker quote.
 
2012-11-02 01:09:06 PM  

HeartBurnKid: Hey, I'm not saying he's a bad guy. I remember quite liking him in the GOP primary debates, because he didn't behave like the typical GOP know-it-all know-nothing and actually acknowledged that some government spending may have benefits (if only implicitly, in his talk of using cost-benefit analysis to determine where to target spending cuts). But if you're going to trumpet how all Republicans are evil and all Democrats are just as evil, it'd help if you didn't rely on Republican leftovers as your standard-bearers.


The point I was making is that Johnson has been much more Libertarian and Republican. Unlike Bob Barr and unlike RON PAUL, Johnson has more libertarian cred than either.
 
2012-11-02 01:09:48 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: You're statement was very clear. And very bullshiat.


You keep telling yourself that there's a big difference between the 2 parties.
 
2012-11-02 01:17:24 PM  

vinniethepoo: So, JohnnyC and Magruda, tell me just how a 3rd party president would be able to work with, and get cooperation from to get things done, a majority Republican or Democratic congress? I've yet to see any 3rd party running any viable congressional candidates in the various states. Even with a pretty much mixed R&D you'd see bipartisanship up the ying-yang as both sides united to play whack-a-mole on the upstart.


I guess you didn't notice that I said this:

JohnnyC: No... it continues because 3rd parties are so weak they can barely get elected to low level local governmental positions and haven't proved that they can be trusted with a high level elected position at all...


Along with a bit more in that particular post. Yeah, I did say I encourage any Republican leaning voters to vote for Gary Johnson. I'm 99.5% sure that Obama is going to win. I would like to improve that to 99.9% in the next few days. Encouraging a few Republicans leaning voters go Gary Johnson's way is alright by me. However, voting for a 3rd party candidate for President right now is symbolic.
 
2012-11-02 01:32:53 PM  

slayer199: Lionel Mandrake: You're statement was very clear. And very bullshiat.

You keep telling yourself that there's a big difference between the 2 parties.


No kidding. The denial in this thread reeks like putrid old moldy butter.

militantlibertarian.org
 
2012-11-02 01:45:51 PM  

Deftoons: Yes, because Libertarians are just like Republicans.*

*=sarcasm.


They're tooootally different, which is why all Libertarian candidates for president have been ex-Republicans, and the most prominent Libertarian in American is Republican Ron Paul.

They're as different as "Under Pressure" and "Ice Ice Baby."
 
2012-11-02 02:02:27 PM  

Deftoons: HeartBurnKid: Deftoons: The Third Man: So, vote Republican obviously.

How about voting for Gary Johnson? If these issues are a priority, of course.

So, vote Other Republican.

Yes, because Libertarians are just like Republicans.*

*=sarcasm.


They nominated a Republican, didn't they?
 
2012-11-02 02:04:38 PM  

slayer199: HeartBurnKid: Hey, I'm not saying he's a bad guy. I remember quite liking him in the GOP primary debates, because he didn't behave like the typical GOP know-it-all know-nothing and actually acknowledged that some government spending may have benefits (if only implicitly, in his talk of using cost-benefit analysis to determine where to target spending cuts). But if you're going to trumpet how all Republicans are evil and all Democrats are just as evil, it'd help if you didn't rely on Republican leftovers as your standard-bearers.

The point I was making is that Johnson has been much more Libertarian and Republican. Unlike Bob Barr and unlike RON PAUL, Johnson has more libertarian cred than either.


Yeah, he does. But he's still a Republican, so if you're going to tell me about how the Republicans are rotten to the core, it'd help if you weren't throwing your weight behind one.
 
2012-11-02 02:05:16 PM  
Still campaigning on the 'I'm the same as Obama, just one (minor) difference, you guess what it is!' platform, I see...
 
2012-11-02 02:25:05 PM  

HeartBurnKid: Yeah, he does. But he's still a Republican, so if you're going to tell me about how the Republicans are rotten to the core, it'd help if you weren't throwing your weight behind one.


I'd tend to agree with you if he hadn't followed libertarian philosophies while in office (much more so than Republican philosophies). He did so despite the fact that it pissed off members of GOP. Huge difference between voting records withi a guy that is a libertarian that was a member of the GOP and a guy like Bob Barr who was a Republican that ran as a Libertarian in 2008.

/hated Bob Barr
//wrote-in in Gary Nolan
 
2012-11-02 03:02:07 PM  

Krymson Tyde: So some voters are uneducated? The hell you say!


Or, you know, human beings.

Obama sucks ass on national security. He's very right-wing and willing to do a lot of highly immoral shiat. But you know what he's not doing? Destroying the entire economy of the planet. Or instituting legal precedent for creating laws based on the Bible. Or starting a war with Iran. Or any of the many, many things Romney would be pressured into doing.

We'll put up with Obama not being perfect, because option B is starting to turn into a fascist party. And no, fascism is not a slang term for 'Nazi', it is an actual word with actual meanings, and yes, it is exactly as bad as people say it is.
 
2012-11-02 03:23:50 PM  

a_room_with_a_moose: Triumph: Mrbogey: or don't vote as a lot of dems have apparently decided to do.

If you vote, you have no right to complain.

If you DON'T vote, you have no right to complain.


Know how I can tell you didn't click the link?
 
2012-11-02 03:32:42 PM  
I do not like Romney. I liked Obama when I thought he was a force to reverse the erosion of our bill of rights and an advocate for a reduction of the police state. He has done neither. Pragmatists want to claim that because I am not going to vote out of principle that I am throwing away the opportunity to keep Romney away from making things worse.

The flip side is, Im not voting for either side, as I fully reject the police state, the preemptive unilateral prevention doctrine (drone strikes) and the continuation of a failed economic policy that allows the federal reserve to uphold its "dual mandate" charade.

I have heard some good arguments in this thread, but they all tack towards pragmatism, which smacks of moral relativism, and therefore I will keep my principles intact by not participating. Even voting for Gary Johnson would still be advocating the entire system, which has gone sideways and makes very little sense coming from a standpoint that personal autonomy is and has been compromised.

tl;dr i agree with our dearly departed George Carlin.
 
2012-11-02 03:46:06 PM  

momentous: the preemptive unilateral prevention doctrine (drone strikes)


SOMEONE jerked it to infowars in the last fifteen minutes
 
2012-11-02 04:16:05 PM  

Magruda: . I am not making the case


You're not making any case. You're trolling.
 
2012-11-02 04:20:10 PM  

Magruda: vinniethepoo: But since this isn't happening any time soon, it still seems like you're wasting your vote.

And again i refer back to the Alice Walker quote.


Which is vague bullshiat, like everything else you're saying. You're not even voting third party, you're just conspiracy theory roommate. fark off.
 
2012-11-02 04:31:43 PM  

Hydra: I_Hate_Iowa: And Romney supporters wear shirts like this. Stupid people occupy all positions on the political spectrum. However, I will still never support Romney.

[ayannanahmias.files.wordpress.com image 371x350]

Because buttons like these are so much better?

[rlv.zcache.com image 400x400]

/wait, I forgot, this is Fark-both sides are bad, so vote Democrat


How dare Obama steal Herman Cain's campaign slogans!

i.imgur.com
 
2012-11-02 04:34:20 PM  
Obama made some token efforts and even managed to shift some of those things from the Dubya days, every move was met with ten thousand screaming conservatives whimpering and blubbering about "unreasonable" and "Crazy" Obama just not UNDERSTANDING how dangerous these dangerous, dangerous super-terrorists were.

And these whimpering blubbering assholes grabbed more seats in 2010 as the teabaggers voted for cowards over men in every election they could.

End of story.
 
2012-11-02 04:44:45 PM  

TheBigJerk: Obama made some token efforts and even managed to shift some of those things from the Dubya days, every move was met with ten thousand screaming conservatives whimpering and blubbering about "unreasonable" and "Crazy" Obama just not UNDERSTANDING how dangerous these dangerous, dangerous super-terrorists were.

And these whimpering blubbering assholes grabbed more seats in 2010 as the teabaggers voted for cowards over men in every election they could.

End of story.


I'm going to call total bullshiat.

He had enough of a majority in the House and Senate to get the HCRA passed, but not enough to change the other things he promised? That also doesn't excuse him for going back on his promise using federal resources to go after medical marijuana clinics. Or anything in TFA for that matter.

Keep telling yourself that he's different.
 
2012-11-02 04:46:11 PM  

EyeballKid: They're tooootally different, which is why all Libertarian candidates for president have been ex-Republicans, and the most prominent Libertarian in American is Republican Ron Paul.

They're as different as "Under Pressure" and "Ice Ice Baby."


Ron Paul is NOT a libertarian. He is a Republican that leans libertarian.
 
2012-11-02 04:50:35 PM  

slayer199: EyeballKid: They're tooootally different, which is why all Libertarian candidates for president have been ex-Republicans, and the most prominent Libertarian in American is Republican Ron Paul.

They're as different as "Under Pressure" and "Ice Ice Baby."

Ron Paul is NOT a libertarian. He is a Republican that leans libertarian.


So he's no TRUE Scotsman libertarian?
 
2012-11-02 05:07:24 PM  

kingoomieiii: It's fine to disagree with ObamaRomney on that shiat, but if you think any of it will get better under RomneyObama, you're not paying attention.


So vote Bull Moose
 
2012-11-02 05:17:44 PM  

Triumph: a_room_with_a_moose: Triumph: Mrbogey: or don't vote as a lot of dems have apparently decided to do.

If you vote, you have no right to complain.

If you DON'T vote, you have no right to complain.

Know how I can tell you didn't click the link?


Do you want to know how to tell I don't give a fark?

People that don't participate in the political process should not biatch about the results, link or no link.
 
2012-11-02 05:31:43 PM  

moothemagiccow: You're not even voting third party, you're just conspiracy theory roommate.


How do you know that? I just said i wasn't advocating for one. I am however voting. And what farking conspiracy are you talking about? All you are doing is throwing insults.
 
2012-11-02 05:51:16 PM  
Reason farking blows
 
2012-11-02 06:27:52 PM  

a_room_with_a_moose: People that don't participate in the political process should not biatch about the results,


No, people who participate in a farce, should not biatch about the farce.
 
2012-11-02 06:37:30 PM  

Triumph: a_room_with_a_moose: People that don't participate in the political process should not biatch about the results,

No, people who participate in a farce, should not biatch about the farce.


So don't vote and shut up. Apathy never fixed a thing,

This tired old adage that the two main candidates are exactly the same has no basis in fact.
 
2012-11-02 06:40:10 PM  

Triumph: a_room_with_a_moose: People that don't participate in the political process should not biatch about the results,

No, people who participate in a farce, should not biatch about the farce.


Hate to tell you this, pal, but, simply by virtue of you living here, you're participating.
 
2012-11-02 07:19:13 PM  

Triumph: a_room_with_a_moose: People that don't participate in the political process should not biatch about the results,

No, people who participate in a farce, should not biatch about the farce.


What if the farce is the people who biatch about the farce?
 
2012-11-02 07:26:19 PM  

jigger: andrewagill: the site the dude mentions, wearechange.org, is a Gary Johnson blog. Looks kinda official.

Um, no. Unless you mean they support Gary Johnson. But it looks like they also support Jill Stein.

They started out as a 9/11 Truther, Anti-"NWO" activist organization, but it appears that they've moved from that into more mainstream, albeit, third party politics. Or at least they are opposed to the corporate establishment and favor more independent candidates.


I still stand by the fact that it *LOOKS* kinda official, though clearly based on what you are saying, it is not.
 
2012-11-02 07:35:55 PM  

a_room_with_a_moose: This tired old adage that the two main candidates are exactly the same has no basis in fact.


Crooks with slightly different ideologies. Not quite a Hobson's choice, but close enough. More like Coke and Pepsi.
 
2012-11-02 08:03:02 PM  

Triumph: a_room_with_a_moose: This tired old adage that the two main candidates are exactly the same has no basis in fact.

Crooks with slightly different ideologies. Not quite a Hobson's choice, but close enough. More like Coke and Pepsi.


BSABSVR.
 
2012-11-02 08:20:39 PM  

a_room_with_a_moose: Triumph: a_room_with_a_moose: People that don't participate in the political process should not biatch about the results,

No, people who participate in a farce, should not biatch about the farce.

So don't vote and shut up. Apathy never fixed a thing,

This tired old adage that the two main candidates are exactly the same has no basis in fact.


Take a look at Romney and Obama's larger corporate sponsors (read: Goldman Sachs and other banking firms) and try typing that again without looking like the most gullible voter on the planet.
 
2012-11-02 08:23:08 PM  

EyeballKid: Deftoons: Yes, because Libertarians are just like Republicans.*

*=sarcasm.

They're tooootally different, which is why all Libertarian candidates for president have been ex-Republicans, and the most prominent Libertarian in American is Republican Ron Paul.

They're as different as "Under Pressure" and "Ice Ice Baby."


Yeah because most card-holding Republicans toooootally want to legalize drugs, gay marriage, abortion and end the war on terror, end torture, and abolish the Patriot Act.

Mmmhmmmm.
 
2012-11-02 08:29:01 PM  

Deftoons: Yeah because most card-holding Republicans toooootally want to legalize drugs, gay marriage, abortion and end the war on terror, end torture, and abolish the Patriot Act.


So you're for Gary Johnson? How do you feel about Rocky Anderson?
 
2012-11-02 08:36:44 PM  

Deftoons: Take a look at Romney and Obama's larger corporate sponsors (read: Goldman Sachs and other banking firms) and try typing that again without looking like the most gullible voter on the planet.


They are nothing alike, Romney and Obama. Only an ignoramusdeep thinking rugged individualist would think that because their biggest sponsors are also the groups with the most money, they are by default interchangeable people.
 
2012-11-02 08:42:16 PM  

thamike: Deftoons: Take a look at Romney and Obama's larger corporate sponsors (read: Goldman Sachs and other banking firms) and try typing that again without looking like the most gullible voter on the planet.

They are nothing alike, Romney and Obama. Only an ignoramusdeep thinking rugged individualist would think that because their biggest sponsors are also the groups with the most money, they are by default interchangeable people.


So which one is against the drug war? Which one is against rendition? Which one is against drone strikes? Which one is against to big to fail? which one is against the patriot act? Or do they hold the same position on these very important issues?
 
2012-11-02 11:26:53 PM  

Magruda: Deftoons: Yeah because most card-holding Republicans toooootally want to legalize drugs, gay marriage, abortion and end the war on terror, end torture, and abolish the Patriot Act.

So you're for Gary Johnson? How do you feel about Rocky Anderson?


JILL STEIN!!!
 
2012-11-03 12:37:24 AM  

GAT_00: slayer199: The Third Man: So, vote Republican obviously.

No, vote for neither party. The point is there's little real difference between the 2 other than rhetoric.

I like how you say they are the same and prove it by saying they're different. It's real convincing. Also that trying to save SS is clearly the same as privatizing it, they're definitely the same. The endless stream of Republicans saying both sides are the same continues. Mostly because no Democrat is dumb enough to say something like that.


You can't read, so vote Democrat?
 
2012-11-03 08:46:41 AM  

Magruda: So which one is against the drug war? Which one is against rendition? Which one is against drone strikes? Which one is against to big to fail? which one is against the patriot act? Or do they hold the same position on these very important issues?


They might be important for you to be against, but not for everybody. And no, they don't hold the same position on these "very important" issues. The problem with your question is that we have absolutely no idea what position Romney holds now or will hold later on any of them.

If I were to guess, though, I'd say Romney wants to ramp up the drug war, is too busy planning how to pick a war with Russia to worry about flying robots, thinks nothing is too big to fail yet is entirely in the pocket of Big Shady Business, and knows about as much about the PATRIOT Act as you do and cares much less.
 
2012-11-03 09:58:12 AM  

thamike: Magruda: So which one is against the drug war? Which one is against rendition? Which one is against drone strikes? Which one is against to big to fail? which one is against the patriot act? Or do they hold the same position on these very important issues?

They might be important for you to be against, but not for everybody. And no, they don't hold the same position on these "very important" issues. The problem with your question is that we have absolutely no idea what position Romney holds now or will hold later on any of them.

If I were to guess, though, I'd say Romney wants to ramp up the drug war, is too busy planning how to pick a war with Russia to worry about flying robots, thinks nothing is too big to fail yet is entirely in the pocket of Big Shady Business, and knows about as much about the PATRIOT Act as you do and cares much less.


You didn't watch the last debate did you? S'ok, you can't be expected to follow grownup talk.
 
2012-11-03 10:45:10 AM  

burning_bridge: GoSlash27


You don't know? Really?
If you can't figure it out, then you're precisely the kind of person the video is making a point about.

Here it is: Partisanship skews people's priorities.
It's the reason that the left didn't rise up in protest when Obama expanded the war in Afghanistan, extended the NDAA, expanded Gitmo, and ramped up the policy of drone strikes and extrajudicial killing of American citizens.
Lefties supposedly hate that stuff, but kept their mouths shut because "it's Obama".

And both sides are guilty of it. It's why nobody on the right called out Dubya for ballooning the Federal deficit, or bailing out Wall Street, or engaging in his campaign of "nation building".
It's why none of them point out that Romney's budget is just as imbalanced as Obama's, or that he's planning on another wave of stimulus, or even that he isn't competitive in this race and never has been.

Partisanship can be useful, but when carried to extremes it causes us to turn a blind eye to policies we disapprove of, causes us to fight over differences that aren't actually there, and makes our candidates uniformly shiatty.

*That's* what the point of the exercise was.
 
2012-11-03 11:30:00 AM  

Magruda: You didn't watch the last debate did you? S'ok, you can't be expected to follow grownup talk.


"Grownup talk?"
 
2012-11-03 12:34:50 PM  

thamike: "Grownup talk?"


It's what happens after you are put down for your nap.
 
2012-11-03 12:51:07 PM  

Magruda: thamike: "Grownup talk?"

It's what happens after you are put down for your nap.


I thought "grownup" was a word children used for "adult." Anyway, I'm not sure how what I said put you on the defense like that.
 
2012-11-03 12:59:34 PM  

GoSlash27: You don't know? Really?
If you can't figure it out, then you're precisely the kind of person the video is making a point about.

Here it is: Partisanship skews people's priorities.
It's the reason that the left didn't rise up in protest when Obama expanded the war in Afghanistan, extended the NDAA, expanded Gitmo, and ramped up the policy of drone strikes and extrajudicial killing of American citizens.
Lefties supposedly hate that stuff, but kept their mouths shut because "it's Obama".

And both sides are guilty of it. It's why nobody on the right called out Dubya for ballooning the Federal deficit, or bailing out Wall Street, or engaging in his campaign of "nation building".
It's why none of them point out that Romney's budget is just as imbalanced as Obama's, or that he's planning on another wave of stimulus, or even that he isn't competitive in this race and never has been.

Partisanship can be useful, but when carried to extremes it causes us to turn a blind eye to policies we disapprove of, causes us to fight over differences that aren't actually there, and makes our candidates uniformly shiatty.

*That's* what the point of the exercise was.


Well said.
 
2012-11-03 01:06:32 PM  

thamike: I thought "grownup" was a word children used for "adult."


I was atempting to communicate in terms you would undersand.

thamike: Anyway, I'm not sure how what I said put you on the defense like that.


First off I'm on offense, second

thamike: and knows about as much about the PATRIOT Act as you do and cares much less.


You feigned knowledge on a subject you clearly demostrated that you don't know anything about. The most easy to point out is this:

thamike: is too busy planning how to pick a war with Russia to worry about flying robots,


Romney has a clear stance on drone strikes and if you had watched the debate with any semblance of understanding you'd know that.

That you feel habias corpus, civil liberties, and international law take a backseat to red meat wedge issues again justifies my disdain towards your attempt at intellectual engagement.
 
2012-11-03 01:17:37 PM  

Magruda: First off I'm on offense, second


Being offended isn't the same as being on the offense. You're pissed for some reason.

Magruda: That you feel habias corpus, civil liberties, and international law take a backseat to red meat wedge issues again justifies my disdain towards your attempt at intellectual engagement.


None of those take a backseat to "red meat wedge issues." And histrionics isn't the way to engage me intellectually. Romney has flipped his positions or otherwise made his stance on things purposefully nebulous. At this point, his stance on drone strikes is ephemeral at best, and really doesn't take a front seat in my reason for not wanting him to be in any position of political power ever again. Personally, I'm fine with precision strikes against security threats. Habeas corpus, civil liberties and international law don't factor into those. Yes, the practice is not perfect, and yes I am disappointed when a wedding party gets blown to pieces just because one of Al Qaeda's couriers was in attendance. I don't, however, use the violence to demonize Obama, who is doing his best not to f*ck things up further than they already are. And If you're trying to pull the Al-Awlaki citizen canard, save it, as I have even less interest in the bloviating wall of text you probably save for such occasions.
 
2012-11-03 01:34:05 PM  

thamike: Romney has flipped his positions or otherwise made his stance on things purposefully nebulous. At this point, his stance on drone strikes is ephemeral at best,


He has never wavered on the issue of drone strikes and nothing indicates that he would. He has had about as much change in this topic as he has with his stance on Israel.

thamike: Personally, I'm fine with precision strikes against security threats. Habeas corpus, civil liberties and international law don't factor into those.


The UN rapporteur says they are in breach of the UN charter of which the US is a signator making it US law. CCR, ACLU and Human Rights Watch have all filed suit.

thamike: I don't, however, use the violence to demonize Obama, who is doing his best not to f*ck things up further than they already are. And If you're trying to pull the Al-Awlaki citizen canard, save it, as I have even less interest in the bloviating wall of text you probably save for such occasions.


So basically this is religion for you and none of it will bother you until a Repub is in office at which point you'll pick up your picket signs again... got it.
 
2012-11-03 01:45:17 PM  
You must realize that this is boring, right? You are appealing to someone who just isn't as animated about what you are animated about. I'm no extremist, and I have never picketed anything. I simply think Obama is a good president and I am voting for him again. If this drives you up the wall, it's unfortunate, but I really can't take responsibility for that. "Both sides are equally bad," in my opinion is a lazy cop-out, but I'm really not upset at those who think like that, even if they're voting a third party that has neither interest in, nor a plan for, abandoning drone strikes. Drone strikes and special forces raids are the better alternative to full scale invasion and it seriously damages Al-Qaeda's morale. If you have another workable plan, go for it. Write the president, write your congressman. I'll vote my way, you'll vote yours.
 
2012-11-03 01:48:50 PM  

thamike: If this drives you up the wall, it's unfortunate, but I really can't take responsibility for that.


It does not drive me up the wall, i relegate it to the same catagory i place creationists and flat earthers.
 
2012-11-03 01:51:41 PM  

Magruda: thamike: If this drives you up the wall, it's unfortunate, but I really can't take responsibility for that.

It does not drive me up the wall, i relegate it to the same catagory i place creationists and flat earthers.


Fair enough.
 
Displayed 250 of 250 comments

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