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  
•       •       •

3079 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Nov 2012 at 2:56 AM (1 year 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 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.
 
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 »






Report