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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.)
 
Displayed 50 of 250 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report