whywontgodhealamputees.com

Main Discussion Zone => Religion & Society => Topic started by: Boots on March 19, 2012, 11:09:05 AM

Title: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: Boots on March 19, 2012, 11:09:05 AM
I can't decide whether I want him to win the nomination.  If he doensn't win, that gives me a slight tinge of hope for the future in that enough people see The Crazy and are scared enough to not vote for it.

If he DOES win, it'll be him vs. Obama, and The Crazy will be made public in the debates/general election.  Will enough people be alarmed at The Crazy to treat it as it should be (shunned), or will they embrace The Crazy and send us 5 steps closer to theocracy??

Anyone have any thoughts on this?
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: Samuelxcs on March 19, 2012, 11:13:25 AM
If it will be better than Obama being president I would certainly vote for it. People just need to give The Crazy a chance.
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: Nick on March 19, 2012, 11:13:59 AM
I can't believe he has made it this far.  It's just nuts.  I'd like to see him as the Rep nom but sh*t if he actually won what a nightmare.  Romney is not much better but at least he can put 2 and 2 together (unless his magic underwear is too tight).
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: ParkingPlaces on March 19, 2012, 11:30:03 AM
In 2000, I worried about George II, and rightly so. Santorum scares me even more. I'd rather we loose to Romney than to that guy.

Please don't bring Gingrich into the discussion. I just ate a late breakfast. My tummy can handle just so much.
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: Nick on March 19, 2012, 01:44:56 PM
Santorum's campaign sign should read...Santorum 1012 AD
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: Death over Life on March 19, 2012, 02:11:01 PM
For me, if we want to talk about debate wise, I honestly think Paul vs. Obama would be the best scenario for great debating. Obama vs. Romney will be easy on Obama, and Obama vs. Santorum would be easy as well.

Now, before anybody else bashes me for being a Paul supporter, I'm talking about debates, not the nomination for who wins Presidency.
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: flapdoodle64 on March 19, 2012, 02:23:46 PM
The Republican field this year is composed mostly of gross, obscene and obviously insane candidates, with the exception of Romney, who appears somewhat reality-based.  And yet Romney displays absolutely pathetic debating and interview skills...he doesn't possess the kind of style or charisma the American people desire. 

I have to wonder if The Fix is in for Obama.  Because it looks as  if the Republican Party does not even want a Republican president.

Obama is the perfect president for the Republican Party, in that he governs exactly as a Republican president would, thus giving the Republican Congress everything they want, and yet the rank-and-file still believe Obama to be a liberal, a socialist, a peace-monger, and a secret Muslim.  Thus, the rank and file will keep their campaign contributions coming in to protect their guns, fetuses and Bibles. 
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: kaziglu bey on March 19, 2012, 02:58:03 PM
I can't decide whether I want him to win the nomination.  If he doensn't win, that gives me a slight tinge of hope for the future in that enough people see The Crazy and are scared enough to not vote for it.
What scares me even more that if he is nominated, it means he could be the next president. I agree however that having enough people who are crazy enough to vote for him is also quite alarming..

Quote
If he DOES win, it'll be him vs. Obama, and The Crazy will be made public in the debates/general election. 
It's already been made quite apparent in public that he is insane. I think more and more people are realizing that.
Quote
Will enough people be alarmed at The Crazy to treat it as it should be (shunned), or will they embrace The Crazy and send us 5 steps closer to theocracy??

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

I doubt he will end up getting the nomination. Romney's strong showing so far is a clear indication to me that at least most republican voters possess enough cerebral cortex to realize that Romney, in spite of being a joke for many reasons, is the least dangerous of the Republican candidates. If Romney ever launches any Nukes, it will be because he did something stupid, like thinking that he was just entering the password to his Facebook account. Can you imagine someone as actively delusional as Santorum with the nuclear codes? It would be really scary. More scary than George II.

I think that Obama is likely to easily defeat whichever candidate is chosen for the GOP ticket, precisely because, in spite of his own faults, he does not have those of the Republican candidates. He is measured in his actions, willing to compromise, cool tempered, open minded, tolerant, compassionate, and well spoken amongst many types of audiences. I almost feel bad for Romney, in that he's like a drunk stumbling blindly through a maze in the darkness, and happens to stumble in the proper direction at each turn, emerges successfully, and then thinks that he must have some apparent skill in blindly and drunkenly navigating a maze, and because there are people cheering him on the whole time.

But seriously, Romney vs President Obama in a debate would really be sad to watch. It would be like a terrier puppy vs. a ravenous wolverine.
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: Nick on March 19, 2012, 03:03:23 PM
All good points but my fear is that the Dem base won't show up like they did in 2008.  Reps have worked hard to make sure voting is hard (IDs, college kids not eligible, etc.)  Big money is also in the game this year.  Put all that together and bad things could happen.  Look at the dem no show vote in 2010.
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: flapdoodle64 on March 19, 2012, 03:11:01 PM
In a way, we're better off with a Repub pres than a Dem.

Because when Bush was president and leading the US in unwinnable wars, driving the economy off a cliff, and torturing thousands, the liberals at least talked about it and agreed all those things were terrible.  There was some resistance, weak though it was, to all those horrible things.

But now that we have a guy who speaks intelligably and who Sean Hannity hates as a president, Obama can do everything that Bush did and more, and liberals won't say a peep and dont' even have the nads to try to mount a primary challenge. 

Repubs are more overt and obvious in their nastiness.  Dems do the same thing, but hide behind liberal platitudes and excuses. 

Liberals and the Left had a common foe under Bush.  But Obama has splintered the opposition.  For some reason, Obama can do everything Bush would have done, yet liberals are able to pretend it's better when a Democrat does it.  I absolutely do not understand why liberals think things are better under Obama, yet they do.

Another Republican president might allow the majority to see the presidency for what it truly is...a position subserviant to the Pentagon and the Plutocracy. 
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: relativetruth on March 19, 2012, 03:22:39 PM

Liberals and the Left had a common foe under Bush.  But Obama has splintered the opposition.  For some reason, Obama can do everything Bush would have done, yet liberals are able to pretend it's better when a Democrat does it.  I absolutely do not understand why liberals think things are better under Obama, yet they do.

Another Republican president might allow the majority to see the presidency for what it truly is...a position subserviant to the Pentagon and the Plutocracy.

Can you give an example where Obama did something that either Bush senior or jnr would have done?
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: flapdoodle64 on March 19, 2012, 03:34:12 PM
Can you give an example where Obama did something that either Bush senior or jnr would have done?
1. Preclude single payer health care even before the debate begins. 
2. Escalate the war against the Afghans.
3. Summarily execute OBL w/o no trial, no independent autopsy.
4. Summarily execute a US citizen (Sept. 2011). 
5. Hold a prisoner of conscience in solitary confinement and naked.  Hold the same prisoner incommunicado (Brad Manning).
6. Drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen.
7. Re-Appoint Robt. Gates as SOD upon taking office.  I guess because the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were going so fucking well!
8. Turn the economy over to the same guys who gave us the 2008 meltdown.
9. Bomb Libya.
10. Keep Gitmo open.
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: Frank on March 19, 2012, 03:36:29 PM
This is what I like about you Americans. You have almost no trust in your electoral system. I'm amazed you manage to govern yourselves at all.
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: ParkingPlaces on March 19, 2012, 03:52:05 PM
This is what I like about you Americans. You have almost no trust in your electoral system. I'm amazed you manage to govern yourselves at all.

Sadly, we don't. It's just an illusion, perpetrated by the voting machine companies, who didn't want to go out of business just because we weren't a democracy any more.
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: relativetruth on March 19, 2012, 04:10:44 PM
Can you give an example where Obama did something that either Bush senior or jnr would have done?
1. Preclude single payer health care even before the debate begins.
No - because they would not even have proposed any health care reforms at all
Quote

2. Escalate the war against the Afghans. after
No - because they would still be in IRAQ.
Quote
3. Summarily execute OBL w/o no trial, no independent autopsy.
No - Because Bush jnr had the chance but decided he could not be bothered and went after Saddam instead.
Quote
4. Summarily execute a US citizen (Sept. 2011). 
5. Hold a prisoner of conscience in solitary confinement and naked.  Hold the same prisoner incommunicado (Brad Manning).
No Comment
Quote
6. Drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen.
No - They probably would have sent in human troops
Quote

7. Re-Appoint Robt. Gates as SOD upon taking office.  I guess because the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were going so fucking well!
8. Turn the economy over to the same guys who gave us the 2008 meltdown.
9. Bomb Libya.
10. Keep Gitmo open.
What would you have done?

What would McCain/Palin have done?

How long do you think it would take USA/the world to recover from four years of Romney or Santorum?

I am British and it is frustrating that I cannot even influence this in the slightest!!
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: kaziglu bey on March 19, 2012, 04:14:41 PM
Santorum's campaign sign should read...Santorum 1012 AD

Requesting permission to steal this.
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: Nick on March 19, 2012, 04:15:48 PM
Granted ;D
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: kaziglu bey on March 19, 2012, 04:17:22 PM
Yay! Thanks Nick!
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: atheola on March 19, 2012, 04:19:33 PM
I'm not going to defend all of Obama's downfalls, but I will say that very shortly after he was elected the electorate took a hard swing right and took a big chunk of the center along then came 2010 when the rubes ran the table.
The lies came out on full force so Obama made a calculated risk of moving to the right so he wouldn't lose the entire center. The more right he moved the further right the entire GOP and tea party moved. He's effectively painted the right into a corner of batshit crazy with nowhere to go but the funny farm where life is beautiful all the time and they'll be happy to see those nice young men in their clean white coats....
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: jaimehlers on March 19, 2012, 04:28:18 PM
1. Preclude single payer health care even before the debate begins.
This is only true in the sense that Bush or his father would have gone much further than simply not including single-payer health care.

Quote from: flapdoodle64
2. Escalate the war against the Afghans.
Which, I will remind you, we were stuck with.  It's all well and good to criticize, but sometimes you only have bad options.

Quote from: flapdoodle64
3. Summarily execute OBL w/o no trial, no independent autopsy.

Quote from: flapdoodle64
4. Summarily execute a US citizen (Sept. 2011).
Source?  I'm quite serious here, I have heard nothing of this.

Quote from: flapdoodle64
5. Hold a prisoner of conscience in solitary confinement and naked.  Hold the same prisoner incommunicado (Brad Manning).
Someone who passes hundreds of thousands of pieces of classified information to an international organization is not a "prisoner of conscience".  If this had been to Iran or North Korea, we would call him a spy and possibly a traitor.  I would like to see a source on the "held naked" part.  I agree that solitary confinement when he hadn't officially been tried was an overreaction.  To be blunt, though, given the situation, I don't really blame them for the overreaction, and they did correct it once people started complaining seriously about it.

Quote from: flapdoodle64
6. Drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen.
I believe Clinton did this as well.

Quote from: flapdoodle64
7. Re-Appoint Robt. Gates as SOD upon taking office.  I guess because the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were going so fucking well!
I do not consider this to be much of a problem.  Gates inherited most of those problems and to his credit, worked to turn them around.  And before you start criticizing too harshly, note that he did say in no uncertain terms that it would be incredibly stupid to start another Middle East land war and strongly recommended against any action besides air strikes in Libya.

Quote from: flapdoodle64
8. Turn the economy over to the same guys who gave us the 2008 meltdown.
Source?  Again, this is not something I know about.

Quote from: flapdoodle64
9. Bomb Libya.
Again, something Clinton did.

Quote from: flapdoodle64
10. Keep Gitmo open.
This was a stupid move on Obama's part.  He promised to shut it down; he should have abided by that promise.
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: flapdoodle64 on March 19, 2012, 04:29:20 PM

What would you have done?

What would McCain/Palin have done?

How long do you think it would take USA/the world to recover from four years of Romney or Santorum?

I am British and it is frustrating that I cannot even influence this in the slightest!!

Regarding Obama's summary execution of OBL:

1. We don't even know for sure it was OBL because there was no independent ID of body and no autopsy.  We don't know for sure what OBL's role in 9/11 was because there was no trial.  And if whacking OBL solved anything, why is the USA still in Afghanistan?  Whacking OBL was a meaningless cowboy stunt, exactly the type of crap we criticized Chimpy McFlightsuit for. 

2.  There are lots of people that could have been appointed SOD besides Gates, a guy who was losing 2 wars.  Historically, keeping an SOD from a rival party and a previous admin is unheard of in the USA, this is the first an SOD has carried over in such a manner.  Symbolically, Obama tied his administration to gross malfeasance and heinous war crimes by appointing Gates. It was an obscene act on Obama's part.

3. McCain/Palin would have governed very similar to Obama, perhaps not as violently however, since people percieve Repubs as being more bloodthirsty. 

4. You think the Obama admin is helping the world? How's the economy in Europe? You guys are tied to a drowning man, the USA. 

In the USA this year, we have Dems and their mouthpieces invoking the image of insane Republican boogie men, as though imagining Godzilla as president will make me feel good about having King Kong instead. 

When you vote for an neo-con sellout like Obama simply because you are afraid of what his rival in the other party will do, this is not a choice...this is simply extortion, and I won't play it anymore.  Ok with me if others want to play, but I'm simply pointing out that there is another way of looking at this. 

Religionists do the same thing.  They have an insane, negligent, sadistic, insecure, vane and murderous god they have to promote...so they whistle up a devil, who's allegedly even worse, and hope we will fall into the thinking error of false dichotomy. 
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: atheola on March 19, 2012, 04:43:07 PM
So don't play.. It's one less eenie meenie mimey moe to do. You're never going to find a president that does everything you want. The job includes legal murder in most cases and if you think Mrs Paul's would hesitate to order slaughter you're nuttier than I thought.
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: Nick on March 19, 2012, 04:50:37 PM
Actually, I do not feel that I am settling
 on one evil over another.  I think Obama has done a remarkable job considering what he had put on his plate from day 1 in office.  He has given the US a world view unlike any other president and 4 more years with an improving economy will set him up as one of our better presidents.
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: flapdoodle64 on March 19, 2012, 05:14:01 PM
Lot of straw men on this thread. 

Who said I support Paul?
Hell no, I think that's a Trojan Horse of the most obvious kind. I said nothing about Paul. My point is simply that Obama has done everything a Bush would have done.  Obama is Bush's 3rd term.

Someone also whistled up Clinton.  Clinton? So just because Clinton did something it's right? Clinton was not a good president...he's resonsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi kids and he signed NAFTA. Saying that Clinton bombed Libya does not justify the bullshit bombing of Libya. 

I'm just trying to challenge the concept that voting for Obama is the only alternative for thinking person.  It isn't. 

A repub pres will only offer cosmetic differences and may be net gain in that resistance to a repub might be greater than to Dem pres.

Obama is certainly no friend of liberals.  He's thrown us under the bus at every turn. 

Regarding the 2008 financial crisis, the name is Timothy Geithner:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Geithner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Geithner)

Obama appointed this crook to the Fed.

Look, I'm sorry for puncturing your illusions gang, but Obama is no better than Bush.  IMO, in a way, he's worse...because I tend to think Bush was stupid, a useful idiot for the guys like Geither and Cheney...whereas I think Obama is cynical, that he knows the deal, and is just mouthing the platitudes he thinks we'll buy.  Obama is a smart guy, and he knows better.  Bush was a devout theist.
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: atheola on March 19, 2012, 06:46:06 PM
So what do you suggest liberals do? Not vote and hope santorum or mittens don't doom us all to depression, theocracy and never ending stupidity?
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: flapdoodle64 on March 19, 2012, 06:58:28 PM
If a mass of formerly democratic voters refuses to vote for Obama it will undermine the legitimacy of his win.  Obama had huge masses turning out in 2008. 

If a mass of former democratic volunteers refuse to canvas and phone bank, if they refuse to dontate money, it is more likely to send a message to the Dmocratic party than simply holding one's nose and pretending that Obama hasn't thrown us under the bus.

My god, to think I donated money and pounded the pavement for Obama in 2008!  All so that he could lock Bradley Manning up naked in solitary and whack US citizens w/o due process!  It makes me burn with anguish!  If the Democratic Party does these things, there is no point in a Democratic Party anymore! 

Santorum or Romney won't be much worse than Obama.  Obama was certainly no better than Bush, and possibly worse, due to the fact that so-called liberals haven't the stones to confront Obama's fascist bullshit. 

In fact, maybe it would be better if everything were out in the open anyway.  SCOTUS certainly isn't backing us, look at 'Citizens United.'  Let's drop the veneer, let's show the world how we really are.
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: ungod on March 19, 2012, 06:59:59 PM
Quote
Of all the great and necessary freedoms listed in the First Amendment, freedom to exercise religion (not just to believe, but to live out that belief) is the most important; before freedom of speech, before freedom of the press, before freedom of assembly, before freedom to petition the government for redress of grievances, before all others.
- Santorum

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/24/campaigning-against-the-modern-world/ (http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/24/campaigning-against-the-modern-world/)

Same source -

Quote
I once wrote that Santorum has one of the finest minds of the 13th century
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: atheola on March 19, 2012, 08:46:26 PM
Flappy..why don't you REALLY tell us how you feel about Obama? C'mon..you know you have a soft spot somewhere in there..
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: Frank on March 20, 2012, 03:00:50 PM


Santorum or Romney won't be much worse than Obama.

Tell that to women. Are you insane?

You wouldn't have to worry about 4 years of Santorum. By the end of the second year we would all be radioactive ash.
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: flapdoodle64 on March 20, 2012, 03:01:51 PM
I know you're being witty, Atheoloa, but for the last 12 years in the USA the hard thing to stomach has been the willingness and zeal with which my fellow Americans make excuses and rationalizations for a fascist totalitarian banana-republic police-state plutocratic federal govt. 

During the Bush years it amazed me, and yet in the flowering of the blogosphere, with the Huffpo and Daily Kos, etc., I could read the well-reasoned opinions of people arguing against the fascist totalitarian banana-republic police-state plutocratic federal govt. that had been created by the Bushies, I found some hope.  Hah, I said, let's get a Dem in the white house and some Dems in Congress, and watch as we roll back this fascist totalitarian banana-republic police-state plutocratic federal govt!   

But then Obama was elected, and he scuttled a real national health insurance by a byzantine set of fake reforms that wouldn't take effect until his second term.  And then he didn't close Gitmo, and he appointed Geithner to the Fed, and reappointed Bush's SOD, and escalated Afghanistan, escalated the indefinite detentions, and started summary executions. 

And of course I was mad at Obama, but then, he's a politician and sometimes they do disgusting things.  But then the liberals who railed againt Bush for this kind of fascist totalitarian banana-republic police-state plutocratic federal govt. stuff have made the most bizarre and frightening excuses and rationalizations for a Democrat doing it.

So, although the behavior of Bush and Obama has of course been offensive, the hardest thing has been to see Americans excuse and rationalize a fascist totalitarian banana-republic police-state plutocratic federal govt. along strict party lines. 

And to make it clear, I am not a Ron Paul troll. 

And there are Congress-people I will vote for, as well as some local officials.  There are still many among them I can support. 

But I won't for Obama just because I am afraid of the Republicans and the Talibaptists that sponsor them.  The people who vote republican, they are just voting that way because they are afraid BHO is a secret Muslim who will make their daughters all have abortions and wear burkahs.  My opinion is that we need to stop falling for this con game. 

Both parties are conning us.  And the media are making billions off the advertising revenue.  But in the grand spectacle, the issues of substance, such as the transfer of manufacturing out of the USA, the transfer of wealth the plutocracy, the expansion of empire, and the expansion of the police state...none of these issues are on the table for discussion. 

The presidential election has become a sort of parody of Roman gladiatorial games, or perhaps pro-wrestling.  Sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: atheola on March 20, 2012, 03:12:56 PM
Well..come up with a workaround game plan to change it. The only solution I see is for the 99% to get 99% of the money and since we NEVER elect a 99%er 99% of us are screwed unless of course 99% of us get access to 99% of the weapons and take it by force, but then we'd turn right around and elect 1% to represent us..
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: flapdoodle64 on March 20, 2012, 03:23:38 PM
Well..come up with a workaround game plan to change it. The only solution I see is for the 99% to get 99% of the money and since we NEVER elect a 99%er 99% of us are screwed unless of course 99% of us get access to 99% of the weapons and take it by force, but then we'd turn right around and elect 1% to represent us..

No, I don't have to come up with a workaround.  Discussion of politics does not require that every participant have a solution.   That would be like if criticism of the Catholic Chruch required that I choose another church to support.  False dichotomy thinking. Several of my old poli-sci profs didn't have any solutions yet they discussed politics for a living.   

If you and I were having this discussion in 1976 USSR, it would have been absurd to think we could fight that leviathan, except, perhaps, through subversion.  But in those circumstances, if I were arguing that we had to vote for Brezhnev because the alternative would be worse, you would think me a fool, because everybody knew it was just a psuedo democracy.  Citizens in the USA who worry whether Romney or Obama will president in 2013 are just as deluded as citizens in any pseudodemocracy.  Romney or Obama is irrelevant...the people they work for will still be pulling the strings. 

I am agnostic as to whether the USA will pull out of its imperial death-spiral.  Certainly I wish it would, I have nieces and nephews that will inherit this world. 

On the ground, in the real world today, the Occupy people have a more realistic approach than rank and file Dems and Repubs.  I don't know what the solution is, but IMO resistance (non-violent) is more meaningful than voting for bad candidates and hoping they will change their ways.
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: atheola on March 20, 2012, 04:06:49 PM
Well, we can agree on principle our system has been subverted by some really rotten people and they just happen to have all the money and are defacto owners of the public airwaves and get to write all the rules so now what? We're not going to stop electing the uber rich anytime soon. The occupy crowd may have gotten the ball rolling, but the powers that be are going out of their way to minimise them and to paint them as dangerous subversives and to be fair some within them probably are dangerous and some are there to subvert them as well.
The uber rich are going to defend what they believe is theirs even if it means killing anyone in their way..
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: Quesi on March 20, 2012, 04:18:30 PM


Quote from: flapdoodle64
4. Summarily execute a US citizen (Sept. 2011).
Source?  I'm quite serious here, I have heard nothing of this.


Three US citizens that I know of.  Two adult acquaintances, with apparent strong ties to al Qaeda.  The third was a 16 year old high school student, born in Denver. 

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/u-s-drone-strike-kills-16-year-old-american-citizen/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-airstrike-that-killed-american-teen-in-yemen-raises-legal-ethical-questions/2011/10/20/gIQAdvUY7L_story.html

It got surprisingly little press.  Most people don't know about it.

Flapdoodle, I hated to read your list, because there is so much truth in it.  Yeah Jaimehlers,  you are right as well.  Clinton did a lot of the same stuff too.  He was bombing Iraq well into his second term.  And I voted for him twice too. 

I will vote for Obama again because there is no alternative.  He inherited wars and a financial collapse and a uncompromising Congress and his election gave birth to the Tea Party and a new surge of racism and hatred in this country.  I don't know why anyone would have wanted to win that election, but he did.   He tried to compromise to many times, with a Congress that was committed to not letting him win an inch.  He was surprisingly "tough on terrorism" in ways that I would not have endorsed, had I been asked. 

I feel that the political pendulum is swinging more towards the left again, and I will hope that Obama will use his second term to create the kinds of changes that we all imagined the night of his inauguration. 

A lot of people have died under his watch.  Bad guys?  Some, I'm sure.  Executed without trials.  A lot of people die under every president's watch.  I had higher expectations for Obama. 
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: flapdoodle64 on March 20, 2012, 04:37:25 PM
I feel that the political pendulum is swinging more towards the left again, and I will hope that Obama will use his second term to create the kinds of changes that we all imagined the night of his inauguration. 

A lot of people have died under his watch.  Bad guys?  Some, I'm sure.  Executed without trials.  A lot of people die under every president's watch.  I had higher expectations for Obama.

I think more Americans are to the left of Obama and the media, but I think politicians are still driving us hard right.  Dems and Repubs.  IMO, because they work for the same corportations. 

I love your line about bad(?) guys executed w/o trial.  Because in totalitarian regimes, everyone the state wants to kill, the state claims is a bad guy.  And w/o a trial, all the state has to do is have some CIA flack stand up on TV and claim the guy is Al Quaida.  With no trial, no one questions the claims or demands evidence.  Osama Bin Laden, who supposedly committed the biggest mass murder on US soil in our lifetime, never got a trial.  The claims of our intelligence community were never tested, never scutinized.  This means the families of OBL's victims will never know for 100% if OBL really did it, or if the Navy Seals were simply rubbing out an old CIA contract employee from the 1980's who might know too much. 

The govt. wants to whack you, all they have to do is claim you are Al Quaida. Bam!

In the Nuremburg, they didn't just declare all the defendants guilty, shoot them in the head, and dump them in the ocean.  They had trial and due process. 

When MOSSAD found Adolf Eichmann, they didn't just whack him and throw him to the fishes, they brought him to Israel and held a trial. 

Sending a bunch of armed goons into a guy's house at night, shooting him on the spot, then feeding him to the fishes...this is mafia style execution, this is not the behavior of a democratic republic.

So this precedent the US has set with OBL and the alleged Al Quaida guys whacked last fall...this is a huge milepost on the road to an overtly totalitarian police state.
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: atheola on March 20, 2012, 04:50:35 PM
The left hates the dirty little secret that the left can be every bit as violent as the right and many Democratic voters are in denial that what lead to the D's strangle grip on congress's collapse was the very bill hold so dear, the civil rights legislation signed into law by Lyndon Johnson. Prior to then the Dixicrats kept democrats in power, but racism reared it's ugly head and the rubes capitalized on it and have been ever since in a lot of cynical, insidious ways using "wedge" issues and flat out lies...etc...  :-\
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: nogodsforme on March 20, 2012, 04:53:01 PM
I agree with flapdoodle (I can't believe I just typed that phrase...) that Pres. Obama is governing in a far more conservative manner than the general public's perception of him. His domestic policies are more right-wing than Ford and Nixon's were. And having an openly conservative right-wing enemy in the White House would galvanize the opposition in a more direct way.

I am disappointed in the loss of desperately-needed single payer health care, the continued militarization of the world at our hands as the #1 global arms dealer, the knee-jerk support for Israel and the pandering to the Christian religious establishment. He has increased the amount of drilling for oil and gas beyond any previous president, damaging the global environment. He has continued to support the Patriot Act, and has deported far more immigrants than his predecessors.

I don't know if he is truly as conservative as his policies. He has been seriously constrained in what he has been able to do by the lack of a congress that functions, and the lies broadcast 24-7 on hate tv and radio. But, given that whatever he does is attacked by the right as radical, liberal, commie, Muslim, nazi, and facist anyway, he could have actually pushed for some really wide-ranging domestic and foreign policies. The rhetoric and backlash would have been exactly the same, and we might have some positive progressive changes in place.

However, to his credit, Pres. Obama has championed the rights of gay people more than any previous president--they are almost real human beings now! He understands that science is real, not just a devilish liberal plot. He appoints judges who are not crazy ideologues. He has turned the economy back from the brink of utter disaster and saved the auto industry from meltdown.[1]

Just by being a calm, steady, intelligent, thoughtful presence on the world stage, he has slowed the decline of the image of the US as a bunch of ignorant, narrowminded, bloodthirsty yahoos, waving crosses, guns and flags.

When Mr. Obama makes a speech, I don't have to cringe in anticipation of him mangling foreign names or garbling complex ideas. He understands how other people see the US; he knows that there are other countries, to paraphrase Eddie Izzard. Republicans see the world as 1)raw materials for large corporations, 2)cheap labor for large corporations, and 3)terrorists interrupting the peaceful rape of the planet by large corporations.

Thanks to Reagan and the two Bushes, the qualifying bar has been sliding lower and lower for a Republican president: if s/he has clothes on in public, says s/he prays and is not currently drooling or unconscious, s/he's in. How else would nimnuls like Rick Perry, Herman Cain and Sarah Palin been under consideration as anything but Daily Show punch lines?

We on the other side should set our sights at President Obama is as the lowest we should go, and aim to raise the bar much higher. After Mr. Obama wins the 2012 election... :D

 1. And saved all the spin-off jobs.
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: Quesi on March 20, 2012, 04:56:26 PM
Yeah, Nogodsforme.  I'm not pleased about agreeing with Flapdoodle either.  But on many levels I do.  Single payer healthcare, and just about everything on the list.

But something to remember is that the grandfather of the 16 year old kid from Denver lost two teenage grandsons that day.  One was a US citizen, and the other wasn't.  I want to be outraged about the US assassination of a US teenager, but his life was no more valuable than the life of his cousin. 

And we need to remember that.  When we drop bombs, even smart bombs, people who have not been tried for a crime die.  And the survivors, and those who loved them, get angry.  And then, sometimes, a long while afterwards, they try and come after the bombers.  Which is what happened a little over a decade ago here in NYC and in DC and in PA.  So a decade later, to get revenge for someones acts of revenge, we kill these these kids.  And so many other human beings whose lives we will never know about and whose names we will never pronounce.  And some day, their nephews may come back and take revenge on us. 

It is not a really fruitful system.   
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: atheola on March 20, 2012, 05:01:58 PM
One thing we seem to forget is that spies whack spies all the time no matter which party is the flavor of the year. I'm not completely convinced binLaden was even real or if he was ever killed in the first place. For as far as I know he's being put up in a $10,000 a night Watergate motel room healing from plastic surgery performed by doctor X.. Who the f*** really knows?  :-\
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: nogodsforme on March 20, 2012, 05:05:49 PM
Ohhh, no. Not the bin Laden plastic surgery conspiracy theory! Maybe they made him look just like Benjamin Netanyahu. :o

Quesi, I was not amazed that I agreed with flapdoodle. I was amazed that I typed the word "flapdoodle" in a serious sentence. :?

I am about as anti-war as you can get. I am against the death penalty, even with a trial, so you can imagine how I feel about "targeted assassinations" ie government-sanctioned lynching. If it is wrong when China does it, when Israel does it, when the Soviets and South Africa did it, it is wrong when the US does it. Of course this violence will come back to haunt us, as it should. :(
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: flapdoodle64 on March 20, 2012, 05:09:27 PM
When we drop bombs, even smart bombs, people who have not been tried for a crime die.  And the survivors, and those who loved them, get angry.  And then, sometimes, a long while afterwards, they try and come after the bombers.  Which is what happened a little over a decade ago here in NYC and in DC and in PA.  So a decade later, to get revenge for someones acts of revenge, we kill these these kids.  And so many other human beings whose lives we will never know about and whose names we will never pronounce.  And some day, their nephews may come back and take revenge on us. 

It is not a really fruitful system.   

Word. 

But Obama's militarism and violence, whether it is his genuine inclination or if he is acting under duress, is the most disturbing thing about his presidency. 

And now Obama is drawing a line in the sand with Iran.  I hate this.  Hopefully it's just a bluff like Chimpy McFlightsuit did a few years back, but then again, it might be real. 

Supposedly Obama is a different president than W, but he works the same way.  A layer of liberal rhetoric, but still the same murderous cowboy macho bullshit. 
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: atheola on March 20, 2012, 05:35:10 PM
No..not a conspiracy nutcase although we DO have conspiracy in our language for damned good reason.   :P
We've been feed a steady diet of millitarism for a long, long time. Many would like us to believe it's written into our DNA, but we know this to not  be true. However, we do go to war ever few decades and being the big kid on the block whose parents have been alcoholics since birth is it any wonder we want everyone's marbles and a president willing to lead the charge?  It's as if NOBODY can become president without having first whacked someone from the rival gang and our corporate media perpetuates the myth.
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: nogodsforme on March 20, 2012, 06:25:23 PM
I don't know why we can't figure out that the world is not an American movie with clearly defined, easily identifiable good guys and bad guys. The bad guys are all led by one big bad guy, and if the good guys can find some hero to just whack him, everything will be kumbayah.

But in real life, as in the more nuanced movies, you are then stuck trying to figure out how to get rid of the guy who whacked the bad guy for you. Plus, the dead bad guy's friends and family have just become angrier, even badder bad guys.

That, in a nutshell, has been the story of the US foreign policy during the past 100 years. &)
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: atheola on March 20, 2012, 06:33:11 PM
Don't forget, Charlton Heston DID tame the dinosaurs so we could have Creationville!  ;D
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: jaimehlers on March 20, 2012, 06:40:26 PM
Unlike many of you, I was not originally a Democrat, but a Republican.  So was my dad (he actually switched party affiliations before me, but he was a lifelong Republican before then).  Yet we are both Democrats now, because the Republican party has moved that far to the right.  And yes, the Democratic party has also shifted to the right.  The point is that I have a good idea of just how bad things are likely to get if the Republican party stays in its present form, which they will if their stonewalling these past two years pays off.

The thing is, I don't see passive resistance (not voting for Obama, not stumping for Democrats, etc) working.  It won't delegitimize his presidency in the way flapdoodle is apparently hoping.  The most it might do is disassociate the people who don't so vote from it, but to be frank, I don't see that as any kind of a solution.  It will not be any different than times before when you had a similar situation, and to be blunt, it might actually make things worse.  We're in the position of a car that's swerving back and forth, going further and further out of control with each swerve, and we're in the process of a swerve back to the right.  We don't need to swerve even further.

Honestly, what we need are people who are willing to make a truly liberal party.  Not people who are upset and decide to withhold their vote, but people who go out and work to make a party that actually represents them.
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: flapdoodle64 on March 20, 2012, 07:01:57 PM
Yet our fear of the Republican Taliban causes us to accept horrible things from the Democrats.  Things we wouldn't have dreamed of in 1992.  Such as I have discussed in previous posts.  Just as the Republican fears of Muslims and Abortions have caused them to accept horrible things from their party. 

When we accept horrible acts as the price to paid in service of a supposed greater good, this is usually problematic. 'The ends justifies the means.'

As a nation, the USA justifies aggressive miltarism and disregard for civilian deaths because we claim that Islamicists are more brutal.

The party I favor justifies atrocities on the justification that the other party is worse.

Over time, our nation and our parties get used to tolerating worse and worse actions. 

Every election for the last 20 years, I voted for the lessor of 2 evils.  The problem is, the evils keep getting worse.  The presidents just keep getting worse.

If enough of us refused to vote for Obama, and if enough of us withheld our financial support and refused to canvas...if enough of us refused to put the sticker on our car, and told the Obama canvassers to fuck off, the Democratic party might start to notice.  It might not change the outcome of this election, but if the Democratic party starts to loose money, there might be a positive effect in the long haul. 

Whereas, if we just circle wagons, hold our noses and support Obama, the cycle of worsening choices will continue. 

And suppose the Democratic party keels over dead? Then the Republican party would stand alone, and they could no longer pretend that the Democrats were mucking things up.  Better yet, we could no longer pretend the democracy described in Jr. High civics class really exists, and we could discuss the reality of our situation openly. 
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: jaimehlers on March 20, 2012, 09:46:26 PM
flapdoodle, are you even listening?  You're saying the country is headed in the wrong direction.  So your "solution" is to basically go sulk in the corner and let the situation get worse, potentially much worse, in the hope that when it gets really bad, people will work to change it.  That's what your passive resistance scheme amounts to, whether you admit it or not, and it's a really bad plan.  You said earlier you thought the Occupy movement had a good approach.  Well, they didn't sit around and withhold their support from the Democrats, they made their views known and worked to try to make change happen.  And what are you doing?  Shaking your finger at people, trying to get them to sit on their hands and do nothing in the hope that it'll get the Democrats to pay attention.

I am emphatically not saying that you should hold your nose and vote for Obama anyway.  I am saying that if you don't like the way things are going, you have to work to change them.  And that doesn't mean just complain because you don't like the current situation.  That doesn't mean suggest passive resistance in the vain hope that it'll get you noticed eventually.  Because those are worse, in both the short and long run, than even holding your nose for Obama would be.  The less people who participate in the system, including third parties, the more weight the remainder have, and the quicker things spiral downwards.

Sitting on your hands and complaining won't keep you from being a part of the problem.
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: flapdoodle64 on March 20, 2012, 11:29:18 PM
I never said that's the only thing worth doing.

I am saying that witholding a vote for Obama, witholding money and time from the campaign, is more meaningful than voting for him.  And if the masses of liberals who have held their noses yet still contributed to the Dems withdrew their support, that is more meaningful than voting for Obama and hoping he will do something right.  Liberals just keep staying with the Dems like an abused spouse, hoping things will get better. 

I never said that's all I am doing either.  I do stuff with the Occupy movement, trust me.

But this is a thread about the Dems and the Repubs.  And IMO, liberals of conscience should consider the option of not voting for Obama this year. 

A punishing loss to the knuckle draggers might shake up the party.  As it is, voting for Obama is basically rewarding him for throwing single-payer health insurance under the bus, appointing Geithner to the Fed, stretching out the Iraq war to the last possible moment, expanding and extending Afghanistan, no jobs program, and all the other brutal assaults on the Constitution and human rights already mentioned. 

You are afraid of what the Repubs will do if they have a president?  Have you noticed the last 3 years, the Repubs get their way on every issue anyway.  Obama and the Dems pretend they can't win, and they throw down the towel before giving any fight.  The Dems basically hide behind the Republicans ...using the Repubs to do the dirty work, while the Dems act sanctimonioius.
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: Samothec on March 21, 2012, 12:27:28 AM
You can tell we're in a deep mess when The Onion prints an article that is fiction yet true.

"Voters Slowly Realizing Santorum Believes Every Deranged Word That Comes Out Of His Mouth"
http://www.theonion.com/articles/voters-slowly-realizing-santorum-believes-every-de,27518/
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: atheola on March 21, 2012, 01:11:27 AM
The party is NOT going to do as all the left pacifist want simply because one small minority of the party sits idle doing nothing. Hope all you like, but until progressives gain major and I mean MASSIVE funding it'll remain marginalized and as tough as that is to swallow it's a fact of modern global politics
Like it or not this is global i scope and not just sitting idle because sitting idle gets you left in histories dust bin. That was true in 1940 and it's true today.
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: flapdoodle64 on March 21, 2012, 11:06:49 AM
The party is NOT going to do as all the left pacifist want simply because one small minority of the party sits idle doing nothing. Hope all you like, but until progressives gain major and I mean MASSIVE funding it'll remain marginalized and as tough as that is to swallow it's a fact of modern global politics
Like it or not this is global i scope and not just sitting idle because sitting idle gets you left in histories dust bin. That was true in 1940 and it's true today.

An individual vote for Obama is almost meaningless, so an individual refusal is also worth almost nothing as well. 

Obama got a huge turnout in 2008, and huge numbers of people volunteered and donated money.  Yet with all the grassroots support, Obama threw us under the bus at every turn. 

If half of the new voters refused to vote, and if half of those supporters denied the Dems  their money and energies, it might send the party a message.  And if Obama lost the election, then the party might start to question the wisdom of emulating the Repubs, as the Dems have done the last 20 years.

As an individual, I have the power to vote for Obama, Romney, Socialist, Green or Write-In.  And I have the power to express ideas to others.  And I have the ability to join with movements such as Occupy. 

Many people will vote for Obama simply because they are afraid that the Republicans will continue to abuse women.  Certainly they will, given the chance. 

But under Obama's watch, several states have enacted laws the require doctors to physically abuse women with the electronic equivalent of a billy club rammed into their reproductive organs.  Why has Obama not directed the Dept. of Justice to start a Civil Rights Investigation on these states?  Why hasn't he gone on national TV and shown the public the device which the Texas legislature uses to mechanically rape women who seek abortions?

Obama and the Dems profit from fear of Republicans in the same cynical way that Republicans profit from the American fear of Muslims. 

As an individual, I have a choice.  I won't vote for Obama...I won't contribute to any false aura of legitimacy around this presidency anymore.  And my energies will go elsewhere, to Occupy, perhaps the Greens or Socialists or Wobblies, but not the Democratic Party.  The point is, a vote for Obama would be giving in to extortion, and I won't play that game anymore.

If Obama loses the election, certainly things will get worse.  But he won the last election, and the Repubs have gotten everything they wanted anyway...things have still gotten worse.   

Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: atheola on March 21, 2012, 11:36:03 AM
Suit yourself. You've read arguments the other way and your mind is set the only way to affect changes is to let Mittens win and endure 4-8 years of magic underwear.. That's your choice, not mine.
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: ParkingPlaces on March 21, 2012, 11:50:35 AM
I am cynical enough to assume that once Obama got into the oval office, he had a meeting with those who actually have power, and they told him what he could and could not do. Every one who gets into that office will have the same meeting, whether they are green, libertarians, tea baggers or what.

We have the best government money can buy, and that means voting is mostly for show. But if you can keep a few folks who are otherwise decent in office, it feels a little better. Shrub made everything worse. Obama only about half of everything. I consider that an improvement, And since republicans that are also decent human beings are of no interest to that party in their presidential bid, I will do like I usually do in elections, and vote for the least putrid candidate.

Whether it is magic underwear via Mitten or universally required chastity belts for all unmarried women via Santorum, methinks they are getting to frickin' personal, and I'd rather spend the next four years gazing longingly at Michelle's strong arms than endure weak republican minds and ethics.
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: jaimehlers on March 21, 2012, 11:52:58 AM
That's your decision, flapdoodle.  And if you're directing your energies elsewhere, I've no problem with that.  But I still do have a problem with your argument that people should withhold their votes and energy from Obama - without suggesting a place for that energy to go instead - with the idea that it'll somehow cause the Democrats to take notice, or if the Democrats lose this election, cause them to change their strategy.  Because it won't do either.

Yes, you mentioned several things that you, personally, can do instead of voting for Obama, but the point is that you're not even trying to give alternatives for other people who might be dissatisfied except "stay home, don't vote, don't give money to Democrats" instead of "hold your nose and vote for Obama anyway".  The point is that while the latter is bad, the former is worse.  If Obama is as bad as you say (though I don't agree), he's not going to pay attention to a loss of votes, and while a loss to Republicans might serve as a wake-up call, it would do too much damage to be worth it in my opinion.

If the Democrats are as broken as you say they are, then there needs to be a new political organization to replace them on the left, not a futile attempt to get the Democrats to move back to the left.  There's even a great precedent - the founding of the Republican party, which was actually the party of the left for a long time.  And I would be tickled pink by the mantle of Lincoln being yanked away from the ones who've been using it as a toilet seat cover for the past couple decades.
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: nogodsforme on March 21, 2012, 03:08:34 PM
How does refusing to support the Democrats lead to a result that is different from supporting the Republicans? If I don't want a president who is willing to create a theocracy I have to try to keep such people out of office, not stay home and let them take over. Can you say "Supreme Court full of Clarence Thomases"? Can you say "Constitutional Convention to change the bill of rights"?
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: flapdoodle64 on March 21, 2012, 04:04:30 PM
Every vote for Obama cast out of fear of Republicans will be considered by the Obama administration and the DNC as an endorsement of their policies. 

I've said it before and I'll say it again: IMO, the Obama administration has been no different than a Republican administration.  And I won't vote for a Republican President, even if he calls himself a Democrat. 

I used to think that the Nader voters in 2000 were the ones to blame for the insane War Of Terror that began after 9/11.  But now, seeing how a supposedly Democratic President can govern to the right of Bush, I suspect that Gore would have sent us to war in Afghanistan and perhaps even Iraq, the same as old Chimpy.  Gore would have spoken in clear English, and would probably have used different justifications...he'd probably have claimed we were going to war for 'humanitarian' purposes.  But the result would have been the same. 

But truly, if we are to governed by a neo-con warmonger plutocrat puppet, I'd rather it be a Republican because then we can join together in our opposition to the president.  Obama governs as a Republican, but splits potential oppostion between old-school Democrats and genuine progressives, thus causing confusion and discension. 

But whatever, I'm just challenging paradigms.  The last 20 years I was locked into the hold-your-nose and vote Democrat thing, so I know that line of thinking and how frightening it is to venture outside of it. 
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: Graybeard on March 21, 2012, 04:51:46 PM
I don’t like to intrude upon private grief but at the dream ticket – McCain-Palin - election campaign, I suspected that GOP didn’t want to win as, financially, the US was up Shit Creek and no paddle. They threw the two in to the ring and hoped that Obama would win. The GOP had no intention of being the ruling party and having to save the US from the mess that their man Bush had left.

The idea was that Obama wins, but has to take unpopular measures and, because of the finances, he would have difficulty with his agenda. It would therefore be difficult for the Demoncrats to hold their level of support. All the time GOP would keep shouting what a mess he was making.

After 4  years, Obama, given what he had to work with, has not made a bad job. The GOP now hope that their inspired Tea-Party and Romney (I’ll post a picture of my arse if Santorum wins) will ride to victory and be able to run the US on the back of the hard work put in by Obama.

Obama deserves another term – he deserves to be able to reap a bit of what he has sown.

The alternative is that Santorum does get in, comedians have a field day and you see my arse.
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: flapdoodle64 on March 21, 2012, 05:13:32 PM
I don’t like to intrude upon private grief but at the dream ticket – McCain-Palin - election campaign, I suspected that GOP didn’t want to win as, financially, the US was up Shit Creek and no paddle. They threw the two in to the ring and hoped that Obama would win. The GOP had no intention of being the ruling party and having to save the US from the mess that their man Bush had left.


I sometimes suspect that the GOP wants to throw the race again this year, since all their candidates are grossly inept, obviously absurd, or both. 

Right now with Obama, the party gets whatever it wants anyway, from a legislative and policy standpoint. 

And with a brown-skinned guy with a funny name in the Whitehouse, the GOP has a great fundraising device.  The knuckledraggers have to be sending those dollars in. 

Whereas if they actually won the Whitehouse, it would be harder to blame the mess on a Democrat.

And as long as Obama is in the whitehouse, liberal opposition to the GOP is splintered and confused. 

Obama is the best of all possible worlds for the GOP. 
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: jaimehlers on March 21, 2012, 08:24:14 PM
flapdoodle, are you just going to rant about how Obama is a Republican in Democrat's clothing and about how Democrats should not vote for him or contribute money to him?  Because every single post, that's basically what you've done, and to be honest, I'd rather talk about ways to constructively solve the situation than listen to someone complain repeatedly, who's best solution is to have Democrats sit on their hands and not do anything this year.  And if you aren't interested in that, then maybe you should go complain somewhere else.
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: Timo on March 21, 2012, 10:51:39 PM
Flapdoodle,

You know, I get the disappointment that people on the left felt about Obama with respect to civil liberties.  I really do.  Even though I wouldn't call Bradly Manning a "prisoner of conscious,"and I'm really not upset about the fact that he's being imprisoned for what he's done, I do find a lot of what I've heard about his treatment to be troubling.  And on a personal level, I'm disappointed that we're still maintaining a prison in Cuba[1], still failing to respect the right to privacy, still in Afghanistan, etc.  All that.  But honestly, I get a little frustrated when I hear people on the left complaining about the president selling them out for doing things that he's been saying he was going to do from the begining of the campaign.  Nah, it's not even the complaining that bothers me.  It's the shock that's expressed.

He campaigned on surging in Afghanistan.  And after he was sworn in, he did that.  He specifically said that he would give the order to kill Bin Laden, even if he were in Pakistan and the Pakistani government was not on board.  I can even remember when exactly I first heard him say that.  And he did that too.  So why are we supposed to be surprised by this?  Foreign policy is the one area where the American president has the most leeway and, on this front, he did exactly what he said he was going to do.  I knew this when I voted for him.  You should have too.

On health care, since the 2008 campaign, he has been advocating something along the lines of what the Heritage Foundation was proposing in the mid nineties.  That's what he proposed as president.  With that in mind, I really wonder why I'm supposed to be disappointed with Obama for not being an advocate for single payer.  I mean, you can find videos of Obama supporting a single payer system in principle.  But they also tend to include him giving the caveat that he doesn't think that such a system is feasible right now in this country since we have an employer-based system.  And as far as I know, he hasn't publically supported single payer since he ran for the US Senate back in 2004.  Don't get me wrong, I would have loved for Obama to come out in favor of something like Medicare for all, but I wasn't surprised or disapointed that he didn't.  I knew when I voted for him that he wasn't going to do this.  You should have too.  He didn't throw you under the bus.  You weren't paying attention.

In any case, even assuming that an Obama administration and a Romney or a Santorum administration would be equally disasterous for civil liberties or foreign policy more broadly, I think there's too much at stake to sit this one out.  Personally, I'm well to the president's left, but I have been and will continue to be a strong supporter of his re-election campaign if for no other reason than a few Supreme Court appointments will likely be made in the next five years and that will potentially affect the balance of the Court for decades.  And really, with this in mind, with what the Republicans are doing in the states in mind, with what their presidential candidates are saying and what the House is doing and Republican members of the Senate are proposing, I just don't think that your position is a tenable position for a liberal to take.  I'm just not willing to empower these people on the off chance that it teaches the Democratic establishment a lesson.

I mean yo, you speak a lot about false dichotomies but it seems to me that you're guilty of one yourself.  Why is it that you think that a liberal has to endorse all of the positions of Barack Obama to vote for him?  I'm opposed to our drug war, to our drone war, to our support for Israel's burgeoning apartheid state, to out of control military spending, etc.  None of that precludes me from voting from Obama.  Obama is bad on these issues.  In some cases (the drone war) he's worse than Republicans.  In some cases he's slightly better (the drug war, military spending.)  But overall, Obama is the best we can hope for in 2012.  Because on issue after issue, on women's rights, gay rights, science, economics, etc, he's better than the Republicans.

And really, how is denying Obama a vote going to do anything but push the country further to the right?
 1. To be sure, the more I think about it, I'm not sure how Obama is supposed to actually fix this
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: jaimehlers on March 21, 2012, 11:35:31 PM
As a small addendum to Timo's post, I think it's necessary to point out that as long as we have a winner-take-all system, we're going to have this kind of situation.  Where we have a candidate that we really don't like, and a candidate that we sort of don't like but can live with.  The only way around it is to get rid of the winner-take-all system, which will in turn make third parties more viable.  When electoral votes are distributed so you don't even need a majority of the votes in the state in order to win them all, then third parties are only viewed as spoilers for the "real" contenders.  Thus we end up with situations like Florida in 2000, where the whole nationwide election turned on a mere handful of votes in one county.  And guess who got used as the scapegoat?  The Green Party candidate, because the votes he got might have made the difference without the contested votes.

That, I think, is probably the first and most necessary step towards fixing this mess we've inherited.
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: Timo on March 22, 2012, 04:37:56 AM
Yeah, I think maintaining a two party system means we have to forge messy coalitions out of necessity.  It also means that minority views, views that might be widespread but not concentrated in any particular part of the country are going to be marginialized.  If you are of the far left, the far right, a libertarian, etc, there really isn't much of a chance of electing a representative that shares most of your views under our current system.  Instead, we're stuck with this ritual of choosing the party that's better on the issues you care about (but even then, not necessarily good).  I mean as much as I want to grab people like flapdoodle by the shoulders and shake them until they agree that they need to vote for Obama[1] in the fall, I completely get why people are upset with this whole thing.

Every now and then I get into these epic arguments with a good friend of mine about politics.  He always argues that the whole system is rotten to its core and that no real change can take place until this addressed.  I don't necessarily disagree with that.  Where we tend to disagree is on the question of what should be done in the mean time.
 1. in flapdoodle's case, he can stay home.  He lives in Oregon.
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: flapdoodle64 on March 22, 2012, 10:45:07 AM
flapdoodle, are you just going to rant about how Obama is a Republican in Democrat's clothing and about how Democrats should not vote for him or contribute money to him?  Because every single post, that's basically what you've done, and to be honest, I'd rather talk about ways to constructively solve the situation than listen to someone complain repeatedly, who's best solution is to have Democrats sit on their hands and not do anything this year.  And if you aren't interested in that, then maybe you should go complain somewhere else.

When you say that a Republican president would be a disaster, you consider it expressing an opinion.  When I say the Obama Administration already IS a Republican Administration and already IS a disaster, you say I am 'complaining.'  You are using labels to try to dismiss my points. That's not a legit technique of constructive discussion. 

But you are right in that repition has set in on this thread, so I shall leave after this post.  You guys say you will keep voting for the lessor of 2 evils, even though we've all been doing that the last 20 years, with the net effect being that the evils keep getting worse and worse.  Our so-called Democratic president is governing to the right of Reagan and makes Nixon look Dennis Kucinich. 

I say that we ought to try a massive expirement and everyone who feels dissonance with Obama ought to just not vote for him, instead of holding his nose and voting for a Dem out of pure fear of the Republican boogie man.

What attracts me to the idea of refusing to vote for another pseudo-Democrat is that I've never tried that option before.  Most of us haven't. 

What repels me about the option of sucking it up, holding my nose and voting for Obama is that I did that with Clintion I & II, and did it with Obama I, and am disgusted at the results.

When the Reagan and the Bushes were effing up the country, I could at least take solice in the fact that I didn't vote for them. 

Oh, one more thing about Pvt. Bradley Manning: he turned over documents to a journalist for free because he believed the public should know the truth.  He didn't expect any reward of money or power.  That makes him a prisoner of conscience, even if you disagree with what he did.  I am quite certain that posters on this thread would be appalled if a Republican president had imposed this kind of Stalinist treatment upon a whistle-blower. 

Aldrich Aimes, however, sold information to the Russians for money because Aimes' wife had expensive habits.  Ames was a traitor.  Do you guys see the difference?

Ames, BTW, was never stripped naked for 8 hours a day and wasn't held in solitary confinement for 6 months.  Nor was he held incommunicado.

And Reagan,  vile as he was, didn't permit US forces to torture prisoners and perform summary executions on US citizens.

The political system of the USA is FUBAR.  I don't know if there is a solution or not.  But IMO, throwing sand in the machinery is better than just pretending things are better than they are.  Any form of non-violent resistance is better than the old platitudes about working within the sytem.   Voting for Obama is, IMO, a symbolic form of acquiesance.
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: nogodsforme on March 22, 2012, 12:23:55 PM
We in the US already have the lowest voter turnout of all industrialized countries. The right wing corporate people like it that way, because the people least likely to vote are the young, the poor and the brown. Right-wingers are putting even more barriers in the way of voting with laws banning people without specific forms of ID. The 1% doesn't want us to vote. They want us dissaffected and angry, thinking that voting does not matter because all politicians are the same. The last thing we need to do is self-disenfranchise by giving progressive-leaning people even more reasons to not vote.

We need more people involved in politics, not less. And voting is the most basic , least costly way to get people involved. Sometimes you just have to hold the line and try not to lose too much ground. Choosing political leaders is not like picking a roommate or a spouse. You don't have to love them, agree with them on everything important, or god forbid, want to have a beer with them.  How about this criteria: not being a lunatic? That may be the best bumper sticker for this year's election:

Vote for Obama. He's not a lunatic.
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: jaimehlers on March 22, 2012, 01:37:29 PM
When you say that a Republican president would be a disaster, you consider it expressing an opinion.  When I say the Obama Administration already IS a Republican Administration and already IS a disaster, you say I am 'complaining.'  You are using labels to try to dismiss my points. That's not a legit technique of constructive discussion.
Disingenuous.  The problem is not that you have those opinions of Obama.  The problem is that you're expressing them every chance you get, however many times it's been in this thread alone, and who knows how many times elsewhere, yet your only "solution" is to tell Democrats not to vote, not to volunteer, not to donate money, in the hopes that either the Democrats will notice the lack of support and shift back to the left, or that Republicans will win in order to galvanize the left.  And you've basically refused to discuss anything except those things throughout the thread - in other words, you've refused to discuss anything constructively but what you want.  And when I get tired of it and ask you if you're just going to complain, you tell me that I'm not being constructive?

Quote from: flapdoodle64
But you are right in that repition has set in on this thread, so I shall leave after this post.  You guys say you will keep voting for the lessor of 2 evils, even though we've all been doing that the last 20 years, with the net effect being that the evils keep getting worse and worse.  Our so-called Democratic president is governing to the right of Reagan and makes Nixon look Dennis Kucinich.
I've stated repeatedly that I want to see more parties so that you can have the interests of multiple groups represented.  And Timo's very cogent post pointed out that Obama said he was going to govern this way.  There have been lots of other posts which didn't boil down to "shut up and vote Democrat because they're the lesser of two evils".  Maybe if you actually bothered to read our posts instead of simply assuming that we were saying that, we could start discussing something constructively.  Instead, I've seen nothing but negativity from you, and declarations that Democrats should just stay home so they might get galvanized next election after letting the Republicans win.  As nogodsforme rightly pointed out, we already have a stupidly low voter turnout.  Do you really think making that turnout even lower is going to do anything but play into the hands of the people who already have far too much influence on the political process and want more?

Quote from: flapdoodle64
I say that we ought to try a massive expirement and everyone who feels dissonance with Obama ought to just not vote for him, instead of holding his nose and voting for a Dem out of pure fear of the Republican boogie man.

What attracts me to the idea of refusing to vote for another pseudo-Democrat is that I've never tried that option before.  Most of us haven't.
The only reason I can think of that you think this idea will actually do anything is because you think the sudden vacuum of political pressure from the left will pull the Democrats sharply left.  What will actually happen is that the forces drawing the Democrats to the right will have even more sway, exactly as if one side in a tug-of-war suddenly dropped the rope.  In other words, it'll be even worse in four years than it is now, and the liberals who just quit will end up being that much further behind when they get around to an effective solution.

Quote from: flapdoodle64
What repels me about the option of sucking it up, holding my nose and voting for Obama is that I did that with Clintion I & II, and did it with Obama I, and am disgusted at the results.
Fine.  Nothing wrong with feeling that way, and I'm not suggesting that you vote for Obama again if you really can't stomach it.  But you need something more than just telling people not to vote en masse if you want to do something about the rightward slide the country is in.  If liberals are providing the only counter-pressure against this rightward slide, then having them just quit won't even come close to stopping it.

Quote from: flapdoodle64
When the Reagan and the Bushes were effing up the country, I could at least take solice in the fact that I didn't vote for them.
Good for you.  Doesn't mean anything, though.  You still live in the country, you still have to deal with the crap they left behind whether or not you voted for them.

Quote from: flapdoodle64
Oh, one more thing about Pvt. Bradley Manning: he turned over documents to a journalist for free because he believed the public should know the truth.  He didn't expect any reward of money or power.  That makes him a prisoner of conscience, even if you disagree with what he did.  I am quite certain that posters on this thread would be appalled if a Republican president had imposed this kind of Stalinist treatment upon a whistle-blower.
A prisoner of conscience is someone who is jailed because of conscientiously-held beliefs[1].  And yes, there are other reasons on that list, but none of them really apply here.  I suppose you would argue that he released the diplomatic cables because of conscientiously-held beliefs, but he did betray his security clearance and his oath as a soldier; furthermore, he was in a war zone and was releasing classified information about that war zone, regardless of how much damage it might do to people there.  In other words, he was betraying his fellow soldiers.

Quote from: flapdoodle64
Aldrich Aimes, however, sold information to the Russians for money because Aimes' wife had expensive habits.  Ames was a traitor.  Do you guys see the difference?
As if someone has to be paid to commit treason.

Quote from: flapdoodle64
Ames, BTW, was never stripped naked for 8 hours a day and wasn't held in solitary confinement for 6 months.  Nor was he held incommunicado.
I don't deny that the way Manning was treated was excessive.  But it wasn't the kind of sadistic treatment that you're suggesting.  For example, he was "stripped naked" because of a joke he made to the effect that he could still hurt himself with the waistband of his boxer shorts or his flip-flops.  When you're on a prevention of injury watch, one step below a suicide watch, that's not a particularly smart "joke" to make.

Quote from: flapdoodle64
And Reagan,  vile as he was, didn't permit US forces to torture prisoners and perform summary executions on US citizens.
We also weren't in the middle of the mess we're in.  If we had the kind of terrorist problems then that we have now, then it's pretty likely that we'd have seen stuff like this happening then too.

Quote from: flapdoodle64
The political system of the USA is FUBAR.  I don't know if there is a solution or not.  But IMO, throwing sand in the machinery is better than just pretending things are better than they are.  Any form of non-violent resistance is better than the old platitudes about working within the sytem.   Voting for Obama is, IMO, a symbolic form of acquiesance.
I've already suggested some things that would at least start fixing things.  Yet you think throwing sand in the machinery is the only thing to do?  Just what do you think will happen if the machinery finally breaks?  It'll make what's happening right now look like a day at the park, because if things break that badly, we'll probably have a civil war, or else collapse into a dictatorship of some kind.  It's all well and good to talk about non-violent resistance, but what you're suggesting is basically giving up and staying home.  That's not a viable solution.  You can't just say "stay home and don't vote", you have to give them something else to vote for.  And the path to achieving that is to make it possible to have more than two viable parties, which means not having a winner-take-all system.
 1. http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/prisoners-and-people-at-risk/prisoners-of-conscience (http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/prisoners-and-people-at-risk/prisoners-of-conscience)
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: Timo on March 22, 2012, 02:00:00 PM
Man, flapdoodle, you can believe whatever you want.  My problem with what you're saying isn't so much that I disagree with it.  Honestly, my problem with what you're saying is that it's kind of stupid.

All I can think when I read something like that is, this is why we can't have nice things.  When conservatives are upset with the perceived liberalism of their representatives, they organize against them and challenge them in primaries.  When liberals are upset, we sleep in the park, we disengage.  And in doing so we cede more and more ground to the folks on the right and the center.
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: nogodsforme on March 22, 2012, 02:20:50 PM
^^^^Exactly. Then we look around and the fundies have taken over everything from dogcatcher to school boards to state legislatures. They have been manuevering themselves into positions of power and influence while we were out camping in front of the bank...

It reminds me of how the racist Boers took over from the more liberal British in South Africa. They got into every walk of life, at every level, with one unifying idea: apartheid. It took twenty years of patiently laying the groundwork in the churches, schools, local city and neighborhood councils.

They organized the Hitler Youth-- I mean the Afrikaner Youth groups. Kids grew up learning what their role would be in the new society they were going to create. Then, in 1948 they were able to take the national election. And they already had all the apparatus in place to implement apartheid.

The Nazis did the same, as does Al Qaida. Bottom up, make lists of interested people, stay in touch, encourage and support people at every level. Now ironically, the Israeli government does similar stuff, with mandatory national service, indoctrination in the schools, etc.

If it can be done so well by these narrow-minded nationalist groups, why can't we progressives get our a$$es in gear? Is it because we are not authoritarian enough and don't listen to anyone?  Can't we suck it up long enough for, as Timo said, to have nice things like single payer health care?
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: jaimehlers on March 22, 2012, 03:15:50 PM
The problem is that those groups have narrow goals, too, so it's easy for them to unite together.  But more liberal or progressive groups tend to have more disparate goals, so they tend not to cooperate very well together.  What flapdoodle said makes sense in one single respect - having a powerful enemy tends to cause those differences to become less important compared to stopping the other side.  The problem is, it takes so long to get to that common ground that it's a hugely difficult uphill battle at that point.  What needs to happen is that liberals need to learn how to unite without that common enemy.
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: flapdoodle64 on March 22, 2012, 03:28:39 PM
I said I wouldn't post anymore on this thread, so I'm sorry, this really is the last visit from me, but a friend of mine sent me this column which speaks to the issue very eloquently:

http://www.rall.com/rallblog/2011/05/23/syndicated-column-the-evil-of-two-lessers (http://www.rall.com/rallblog/2011/05/23/syndicated-column-the-evil-of-two-lessers)

Although I will add one point of my own: Most of the posters on this thread think that the Republicans are so bad, that they have 'no choice' but to vote for Obama, despite Obama's awful record.  If you have 'no choice,' then this isn't really democracy and Obama isn't really democratically elected.  And considering Obama's policies regarding detention of political prisoners and Muslims, and his unprecendented assassination of American citizens without due process, this makes perfect sense. 
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: jaimehlers on March 22, 2012, 03:49:59 PM
*facepalm*

You agree completely with that, flapdoodle?  Then why continue to blow off my posts about how we need to make third parties viable rather than "spoilers"?  Why act like not voting is the only way to change things?  Damned if you vote one way, damned if you vote the other, damned if you don't vote.  Yet all you've suggested is, "don't vote".  Guess what?  You're still at fault when you sit on your hands and don't vote, because you're not doing anything to change things, you're just pretending that you can't do anything.

I don't agree with the columnist's conclusions.  I don't think we're stuck with this until we have a civil war.  Moreover, we had better hope that we don't need a civil war to change things, because that's way too chancy.  We won't be dealing with a nice and tidy North v South, because there are no "red states" and there are no "blue states".  Even in states like Nebraska and Oklahoma, considered the reddest of the red states, there's still plenty of liberals; even in states like California and Massachussets, there's still plenty of conservatives.  If we end up having a civil war, it'll be fought everywhere, and there's no guarantee that either side can win it.

When you have a machine that's starting to fall apart, you don't wait until it's collapsed entirely before you rebuild it.
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: atheola on March 22, 2012, 10:58:12 PM
Flaps, look..the only analogy I can think of is we're speeding down a mountain at 150 mph and the engine is overheating and the only solution you have is...TO JUMP OUT! SAVE YOURSELF because if the engine is having problems the breaks are probably shot and rats have chewed through the seatbelts aand the airbags!
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: flapdoodle64 on March 23, 2012, 10:47:36 AM
*facepalm*

You agree completely with that, flapdoodle?  Then why continue to blow off my posts about how we need to make third parties viable rather than "spoilers"?  Why act like not voting is the only way to change things? 

You can call me flap, that's what they do on most boards.

No, I don't agree 100% with the columnist.  I just put that out there to show that many people are contemplate what would have been unthinkable in 2004 and 2008.

You have missed out on the fact that at least once in this thread, I have said that if there is a Green or Socialist or write-in for Pres, that's how I will vote.  If there is no Green, Socialist, Write-In Candidate , etc. on the ballot I will either not vote or I will write in the name of my best friend.

I never said 'not voting' is the only option.


I simply said 'Hell No I Won't Vote For Obama No Matter How Freaking Sick the GOP Candidate Is.'

I also said I'd sooner stick a pin in my eye than vote for Ron Paul. 

(Those aren't the exact words I used, I am paraphrasing for stylistic effect.)

My point throughout this is to challenge the liberal meme that voting for Obama is our only rational choice, which is a prevalent idea out here in liberal-land, and an idea to which I once subscribed.  There is an idea that we must suck it up and vote for someone who has betrayed our principals just because the Repub candidates are all so sick.  My point is that a vote for Obama is pretty much a vote for the GOP since under Obama the GOP plan for America has continued full-steam.   

I, for reasons previously stated, think that the following things are more rational than voting for Obama:

1. Vote Green, Socialist, Other 3rd Party (but not Libertarian!) or Write In
2. Not Voting on the presidential but voting for other offices
3. Spend Election Day getting arrested for painting the words 'baby killers' on an Army recruiting office
4.  Leading a march of homeless people to block a major throughway in your city
5. Staying home and watching a rerun of 'Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea' on Hulu

Also, I am not in favor of violent revolution but believe that taking the money out of politics will require changes equivalent to some kind of revolution...the money people have the power, and every time someone attempts to reform it legislatively, the money just finds another way to travel.   

What form would this change take?  I don't know. 

But my main point is the try to weaken the intellectual hold upon our imaginations that the 2-party system currently possesses.

We can distract ourselves by pointing the obvious cartoonish absurdities and blatant bigotries of the GOP field, but when we do this, we avoid the 800-pound gorilla in the room:

How the hell did we liberals end up supporting a president who allows torture, indefinite detention, gulags, endless war, transfer of wealth to the super-rich, and summary executions of US citizens w/o due process?

This is similar to the American passion for going after bad guys in other nations while ignoring crimes and problems in our nation...such as police depts. in Florida that have open season to hunt black males. 

Now, look, I keep promising to quit this thread, and now I will. 
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: Timo on March 24, 2012, 07:41:24 PM
Although I will add one point of my own: Most of the posters on this thread think that the Republicans are so bad, that they have 'no choice' but to vote for Obama, despite Obama's awful record.  If you have 'no choice,' then this isn't really democracy and Obama isn't really democratically elected.

2 things.

1.  You have a choice.  This is a democracy....er democratic republic.
2.  When we say you have no choice, we mean that you have no choice as a liberal.  And we say this because there are actual things at stake in this election that you should care about, as a liberal.  There are, for example, 4 Supreme Court justices that are in their 70s.  Odds are, at least one of them, and probably more, will retire in the term of the next president.  As a liberal, you should care about who is going to replace them. 

My point throughout this is to challenge the liberal meme that voting for Obama is our only rational choice, which is a prevalent idea out here in liberal-land, and an idea to which I once subscribed.  There is an idea that we must suck it up and vote for someone who has betrayed our principals just because the Repub candidates are all so sick.  My point is that a vote for Obama is pretty much a vote for the GOP since under Obama the GOP plan for America has continued full-steam.

This idea is prevelent because it's correct.  Ask yourself, what percentage of the population would self identify as liberal, progressive or leftist?  Or maybe, what percentage of the population would agree with you, issue by issue on everything.  Then ask yourself, is that percentage enough to win a majority in the Electoral College?

I think you'd have to answer no.  There just aren't enough of us out there to make someone you'd find to be sufficiently liberal electable on the national level.  So what do we do with this information?  You seem to have convinced yourself that retreating to some symbolic bullshit about legitimization will be helpful in changing this.  I believe, and I think most liberals believe, that Obama is the only game in town in the fall.  Maybe you're right though.  Maybe lower turn out on the Democratic side will convince them that they need to energize their base in order to win.  Maybe.  But in the mean time we will have elected a Republican.  And in doing so, we will elect a person that gets to make actual policy and administrative decisions that will be at odds with our goals and who might get to make as many as 4 Supreme Court nominations.

And again, the idea that a vote for Obama is a vote for the GOP is kind of idiotic if you look at what's actually going on in our politics.  It's true that there is a lot of overlap between the GOP and the Democrats in all the wrong places.  But there are also fundamental disagreements to the party that should be important to you if you care about the lives of women, of people of color, of the poor and of religious minorities.

Also, I am not in favor of violent revolution but believe that taking the money out of politics will require changes equivalent to some kind of revolution...the money people have the power, and every time someone attempts to reform it legislatively, the money just finds another way to travel.   

What form would this change take?  I don't know. 

But my main point is the try to weaken the intellectual hold upon our imaginations that the 2-party system currently possesses.

I really don't even disagree with this.  Our system is broken in some pretty fundamental ways.  But it's not broken in a way that can or will be fixed by November.

Again, if we vote for Obama that doesn't mean we have to co-sign every position that he will take, nor does it prevent us from working to change those things that are wrong with his administration, his policies or the political system more broadly.  More to the point, if you care about this issue, you should care about who's going to nominate the next Supreme Court justices.  (Quick hint: it won't be anyone from the Green party or the Socialist party.)

However bad you think Obama is on the issue of money in politics, the Citizens United decision made things worse.  And guess what, that was a 5-4 decision, with all the liberals dissenting.  Electing a Republican would ensure that we will have more conservatives on the court and thus ensure that there will be more decisions like Citizens United.

We can distract ourselves by pointing the obvious cartoonish absurdities and blatant bigotries of the GOP field, but when we do this, we avoid the 800-pound gorilla in the room:

How the hell did we liberals end up supporting a president who allows torture, indefinite detention, gulags, endless war, transfer of wealth to the super-rich, and summary executions of US citizens w/o due process?

No matter who we elected in 2008, even including all the folks in the primary, we would probably have wound up electing somone that would allow torture, indefinite detention, etc.  Part of this is just the way our military and intelligence services do business.  Even before Bush decided we should torture our prisoners in house, we were handing over prisoners in our custody to countries that would do it for us.  With respect to indefinite detention, my guess is that this is something that's going to be a part of how we do things until there's an intervention from the judicial branch.  After 9/11, Bush modeled our response as a war effort rather than a law enforcement effort.  This means that people were taken off the "battle field" and held as if this were a case where we could release them after the end of hostilities.  As a result of all of this, there are people in detention camps that our government is sure are dangerous but can't be tried because the evidence against them is tainted by the fact that they were tortured.  Indefinite detention was thus baked into the cake.

I mean, how would you have handled it?  I know you're not planning on responding to this topic but I want you to at least think about it.  How would you fix this?  I don't think the issue here is as simple as "Obama sold us out."

As far as endless wars, man the wars are ending.  We're officially out of Iraq (though, of course we still maintain a significant troop pressence) and if all goes according to plan, we'll be out of Afghanistan in Obama's second term.  But I would say that this is a case where there really isn't much difference between the parties.  Republicans called the president weak for leaving Iraq, but there was a status of forces agreement that we had agreed to before he ever took office.

This is similar to the American passion for going after bad guys in other nations while ignoring crimes and problems in our nation...such as police depts. in Florida that have open season to hunt black males.

Before I really get into this case specifically and how it relates to Obama, let me just say that it's always been open season on hunting or otherwise harming black males in this country.  When this country was asserting its independence, most of us were in shackles.  When those shackles were broken, white folks made it their project to invent new ways to keep us in bondage, economically exploit us and threaten us with violence.  When I was growing up, in the 90s, we were made to be afraid of law enforcement and of venturing into the wrong neighborhood.  We all got what's now being called the talk in the wake of Treyvon Martin's murder.  Someone took the time to explain to us, as we were entering puberty that we, by virtue of the fact of our skin color were threatening to some people.  And it was something that we couldn't help but notice as we went about our lives.  Even if we played football in the PAL league, we could expect those same officers see us as just another suspicious character in the span of a few years.  A few weeks before Treyvon's murder, I personally gave the talk to one of my friend's sons.

But this is actually part of the reason that we need to elect Obama in November.  His administration is actually doing something about all this.  And if Romney or FSM forbid Rick Santorum are anything like George W Bush in their appointments, we can expect that this will not be the case in their hypothetical administrations.  You can read more about that here:

http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/03/tom-perez-justice-department-trayvon-martin

Long story short, the Obama administration is actually doing things about racist police departments, racist voting laws and racist groups in a way that the Bush administration just wasn't interested in doing and a Romney administration probably will not be interested in doing.

I don't know what your background is, but as a black person, I tend to think that this sort of thing is important.  In fact, I'd say it's more important than the fact that you feel icky about voting for Obama.

So no, the differences between Obama and the GOP field are not "distractions."  They reflect actual policy disagreements that will adversely affect actual people if the Republicans are able to come back into power.  And I tend to find that these differences are enough to compel me to vote for Obama even if he doesn't agree with me on every issue, even if I have profound disagreements in certain areas, even if I know that he will disapoint me.

So yeah man, as I said, I know that you don't plan on responding to any more posts here and so I don't expect a response, but I'm really just tired of this kind of bullshit your pushing.  I'm really tired of it.

Liberals need to grow the fuck up.
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: flapdoodle64 on March 26, 2012, 02:51:37 PM

So yeah man, as I said, I know that you don't plan on responding to any more posts here and so I don't expect a response, but I'm really just tired of this kind of bullshit your pushing.  I'm really tired of it.

Liberals need to grow the fuck up.

I woudn't bother replying, but when you threw down the intimidating language, I kind of feel obligated. 

Yeah, I should support Obama because a macho man like you throws down the tough talk.  Yeah, I should flush my moral principals down the toilet because you said I should grow up.

The Democratic Party is now the party of 'sit down and shut up.'  Nice.

Per the Constitution, Obama is the Commander in Chief.  And while our military and spies did nasty things prior to Bush, the codification of torture and indefinite detention occurred via executive order.  The War on Terror continues at the president's pleasure.  'Extraordinary Rendition' continues at the president's pleasure. Obama has the power to order withdrawal from Afghanistan, and to end the drone strikes on Pakistan, Yemen, etc.  Obama ordered US citizens murdered.  He ordered the summary execution of OBL, and ordered OBL fed to the fishes without even a trial in absentia. 

Obama has continued and expanded the worst carryovers from the Bush adminstration...transfer of wealth overseas and to the plutocracy, Unending Imperial War, Torture, Gulags, Survellience, and mafia-style executions of alleged terrorists w/o judicial oversight. 

Who suffers disproportionally because Obama wouldn't bother with a jobs program?  Who suffers because Obama is drone-bombing their countries?  Which ethnic and socio-economic groups are disproportionally represented in the armed forces?

Obama is slaughtering civilians of all colors in his cynical continuance of Bush's wars and policies.  US Troops of all colors are killed and maimed because Obama continues the Afghanistan misadventure. 

Every day that Obama continues the Afghanistan war, billions are squandered that could have been put to use for the people of the US, but are instead pissed down the drain for the benefit of Halliburton and Blackwater. 

The Republicans actually have an extremely sweet deal with Obama in office.  He gives the Republicans everything they want, and yet because he is Democrat they can claim that everything wrong in the country is because we have a 'liberal' in the white house.  Also, because Obama has brown skin and a foriegn sounding name, the Repubs can scare the racist knuckle-draggers to cough up millions for the party. 

For liberals and progressives, the opposite is true.  Some progressives, like me, think that because Obama has thrown our interests under the bus at every turn, we should withdraw our support and begin to build coallitions aimed with a real potential to help the nation.  Others feel we should suck it up and support Obama and hope he actually does something for us in the 2nd term. 

Whereas with Bush, he was so obviously vile and odious, various factions of liberals and progressives were coming together and giving him a little opposition.  At least when Bush tortured people and shredded the constitution, there was some public outcry from the Democrats.  But when one of their own employs the tactics of brutality and totalitarianism, the Democrats rationalize it and justify it, just like the Republicans did in 2004. 

So if Romney is elected, at least I can have the satisfaction of my liberal friends being honest about it.  And maybe Romney might get a little resistance from so-called liberals, instead of the free pass that Obama gets. 

But whatever.  I am making the case the voting for Obama is not the only choice a liberal or progressive has.  If being a democrat means you have to support the tactics of brutality and shred the constitution, what is the point of being a democrat?

Obama and the Repubs both profit from the obscene racism in the USA.  Republicans profit in the obvious way.  But thanks to the obvious and disgusting racism of the Republican candidates, the issues of war, torture and wealth transfer are all pushed to the background, and no one challenges Obama on these structural issues. Whenever a conservative or Republican makes one other their idiotic racist blunders, sympathy for Obama is instantly generated amongst liberals and progressives.  Meanwhile, the racist narrative of Obama's wars against brown people in poor countries is never challenged. 

As long as I have the ability to vote Green, Socialist or Write-In, there is no way in hell I could vote for Obama.  Bush was an idiotic lunatic, but Obama is more dangerous because he's smart and cynical. 

So Timo, thanks for expressing the Democratic view so well.  Sit down, shut up, and vote for Obama.

I opposed the brutality, authoritarianism, wealth transfer and other monstrous things before they bore the Democratic Party Seal of Approval, and I will continue to oppose them.  The swath of death cut across the globe by the US juggernaut is, IMO, a great evil.  When you say that I 'feel icky' about that, and all the other brutalities committed under Obama's watch, you are trivializing the lives of millions of people. 
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: atheola on March 26, 2012, 03:04:39 PM
I hear Obama plans on torturing, raping then killing your grandma...mostly because she's old, but there's that sadistic thing too.. I hear it'll be on MSNBC! ;)
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: flapdoodle64 on March 26, 2012, 03:07:23 PM
I hear Obama plans on torturing, raping then killing your grandma...mostly because she's old, but there's that sadistic thing too.. I hear it'll be on MSNBC! ;)

Beautiful.  I remember when Abu Ghraib made the news, Rush Limbaugh explained that what our soliders were doing to the prisoners was no worse than a college frat initiation.  I remember how liberals pounced on him for that. 

Now liberals are minimizing torture. 

That's progress!
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: nogodsforme on March 26, 2012, 03:31:44 PM
Okay, flapdoodle, you can be the honorary (dis)loyal opposition. We hear you and you are correct. Nobody should vote for Obama because he really is the evil slathering[1] alien nazi terrorist commie muslim monkey boy that Rush Limbaugh says he is. 

The Obamanator has completely ruined the US beyond saving, and by extension, has destroyed the rest of the universe. I look outside my filthy, cracked window and see nothing but the smoking, stinking remains of what used to be a green and pristine democracy where everything was perfect and we all danced holding hands in the sunshine singing hippie songs.   :D

Obama should never have been born, if indeed he was actually born and not just some Manchurian Kenyan negro zombie clone secretly planted in that stupid beeyatch in Hawaii by our reptilian overlords. No votes for the villianous alien black zombie in the nice suit. Punish the bad, bad, black zombie! That will make everything better. Ahhh, it will be just like the good old days of Nixon, Reagan, Bush and Bush. When it was morning in America. :D

Now you go play with your friends in the green party and rainbow brite party and the socialist worker party and let us grown-ups worry about the real world. And we will keep on organizing to get out the Democratic vote in 2012. &)
 1. "Where da white women?"
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: Timo on March 26, 2012, 04:11:33 PM
So Timo, thanks for expressing the Democratic view so well.  Sit down, shut up, and vote for Obama.

You missed my point completely.  I think you and anyone that's actually a liberal should vote for Obama, given the alternative. 

I think that I'm about as disappointed as you are with the degree of continuity between the Bush and Obama administration on surveillance and counter terrorism.  You really don't need to keep running through the laundry list, fam.  You had me at rendition.  So there's that.

My point is that these are not things that are probably not going to even be debated in the 2012 election.  And these are things that aren't going to change if liberals stay home or vote Green or Socialist in November.  There are, however, plenty of other things that you should care about, as a liberal.  In the wake of the Treyvon Martin case, for example, I really think that it's important to have a Justice Department that's interested in pursuing civil rights cases.  I mean, are these kinds of things really that unimportant to you that you would dismiss them because they don't fit with this bullshit "third term of Bush" narrative you're trying to establish?

So no, don't sit down.  Don't shut up.  I just think you should vote for Obama.  And after that we can still march.  We can still organize.  We can even occupy.[1]  Do whatever you like. 

And nah, I'm not trying to sound macho.  I'm just trying to convey how utterly frustrated I am with talking to people like you.
 1. Or you can.  I don't fucks with Occupy like that.
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: jaimehlers on March 26, 2012, 05:19:53 PM
Here's the thing.  I don't think flapdoodle is being entirely unreasonable here.  Because of the way the electoral system is set up, with winner take all rules for the most part, there are really only three choices:  Vote for Party A, vote for Party B, vote for some other party/don't vote.  So what is someone who can't stand either party supposed to do?  Swallow their disgust and vote for the party they hate the least, or protest the system they see as broken?  I don't agree with his rhetoric, but I do see his point.

It's all well and good to say that he should vote for Obama because there are things that Obama would do which would be positive in his eyes.  But what if those positives are outweighed by negatives that are far worse in his eyes?  I know that politics is about compromise, but when you have a choice between a very bad deal and a slightly less bad deal, that's not a compromise.  That's not how other people, including myself, see it, but it is how he sees it, and how he sees it is the most important thing to him.

That being said, flapdoodle himself must understand that his viewpoint isn't shared by most people.  So instead of suggesting solutions that are based on the current paradigm, he should engage with the people here.  Everyone should stop talking about who people should vote for in November and get the issues themselves hashed out, so that we all have the most complete picture that we can get.  That also means being willing to listen to what other people say on those issues, even if it's not something they agree with.  I mean, everyone who's been talking lately is a Democrat, I think, so we can give each other the respect to listen, to not get upset, to talk about it calmly and rationally.

But we aren't going to accomplish anything as long as we're talking about electing/not electing Obama.  I hope we can all agree to table that at least until after we've hashed out some other things first.
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: Poseidon on March 26, 2012, 05:48:54 PM
While I am at odds with Flap, I give him credit for presenting his reasons for disliking Obama. Even though some of the reasons were a little shakey. Most of the Obama haters out there don't even know why they dislike him.  Refer to the now famous woman who said "keep your government hands off my medicare". She was not very bright which seems to be a characteristic of the right wingers.

When Obama is criticized for not getting enough done, the accusers ignore the fact that the House has openly, vocally and invariably dedicated itself to the destruction of the Obama presidency. The general welfare of the nation has been abandoned for the imagined benefit of the red party.  The attitude of NO! is not in the best interest of the nation or its' citizens. 


Stupidity must be a virtue; whole governments, industries, and entire economies depend on it.
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: nogodsforme on March 26, 2012, 09:07:07 PM
Changing the electoral system so we don't have the winner-take-all setup is a positive idea. But that is a long-term project, one that we should all be working on, along with getting more people involved in the process and getting more progressive candidates elected.

See? I don't have to be snarky.  :angel:
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: Timo on March 26, 2012, 09:37:49 PM
Swallow their disgust and vote for the party they hate the least, or protest the system they see as broken?  I don't agree with his rhetoric, but I do see his point.

There are two real problems with thi sort of argument though:

1. We already have pretty low voter turn-out in this country.  In a year where there is a presidential election, we can expect turnout to be somewhere in the 50s.  During the mid terms, we can expect to see a little under 40 percent of voting age adults actually get out and vote.  It seems that there are already plenty of people staying home without the system taking notice.  I see no reason to think that things will change if more liberals join their ranks.  Hell, a lot of them already have.  Young people, for example, skew to the left of the general population and are fairly unreliable when it comes to actually showing up on election day.  I also don't really see what voting for a third party would accomplish, other than directing the ire of the left to that party if Obama lost in a close race, as was the case with Gore in 2000.

2. His argument that a lack of enthusiasm among liberals will somehow translate into a concerted effort on the part of the Democratic establishment makes little sense if we look at the way the parties actually operate.  In 2006 and 2008, Democratic gains were due, in large part, to the unpopularity of the Bush administration.  What a lot of liberals seem to want to forget is that the other piece of that puzzle was an effort on the part of the party, spearheaded by Rahm Emmanuel, to recruit more centrist Democrats that could win in conservative districts.  In other words, the Democrats came back into power partly by moving rightward.  I see no reason to think that they would not do the same thing if they lose in 2012, especially if the way in which the parties govern is as indistinguishable as flap is suggesting.  Compare this to what the right has done over the last few decades or so.  They've paid close attention to state and local races and primaries.  They've immersed themselves in the Republican party and shifted it far to the right..

But what if those positives are outweighed by negatives that are far worse in his eyes?  I know that politics is about compromise, but when you have a choice between a very bad deal and a slightly less bad deal, that's not a compromise.

It's a raw deal.  But so what?  Staying home won't make it less of a raw deal.  Voting Green won't make it less of a raw deal.  It might make him feel better about himself but it's not going to have a positive impact on the issues he claims to care about as a liberal.  And personally, I'd have to question how deep his concerns for a lot of issues goes when he writes things like this:

Some progressives, like me, think that because Obama has thrown our interests under the bus at every turn, we should withdraw our support and begin to build coallitions aimed with a real potential to help the nation.  Others feel we should suck it up and support Obama and hope he actually does something for us in the 2nd term.

The claim that "Obama has thrown our interests under the bus at every turn" makes sense if we restrict our thinking to our counterterrorism regime and, to some extent, our foreign policy more broadly.  But it falls apart if we start to think about other issues like union rights, access to health care and especially family planning services, enforcing civil rights laws, maintaining the social safety net, etc.  And it really falls apart when you consider that the next president will be making a number of judicial appointmens and, most significantly, some Supreme Court appointments that will affect the balance of the Court for decades to come.

I just don't see how you can actually care about these things and espouse the views that flap does.  I mean, he complains about the fact that he's been mistaken for a Ron Paul supporter, but given his singular focus on our military and intelligence services, I'm not surprised.  There's more to being a liberal than opposing things like the PATRIOT Act.

Also:

Changing the electoral system so we don't have the winner-take-all setup is a positive idea. But that is a long-term project, one that we should all be working on, along with getting more people involved in the process and getting more progressive candidates elected.

See? I don't have to be snarky.  :angel:

Indeed.
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: changeling on March 28, 2012, 07:43:02 AM
^^^
Quote
  We already have pretty low voter turn-out in this country.  In a year where there is a presidential election, we can expect turnout to be somewhere in the 50s.  During the mid terms, we can expect to see a little under 40 percent of voting age adults actually get out and vote.

I think a big reason for that may be the growing feeling of futility of
having to vote for the lesser of two evils.
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: Timo on March 28, 2012, 12:19:36 PM
^^^
Quote
  We already have pretty low voter turn-out in this country.  In a year where there is a presidential election, we can expect turnout to be somewhere in the 50s.  During the mid terms, we can expect to see a little under 40 percent of voting age adults actually get out and vote.

I think a big reason for that may be the growing feeling of futility of
having to vote for the lesser of two evils.

I agree.  But that's irrelevent.  I don't think the question we're all trying to get at is whether or not our system is good or functional.  I don't think that anyone that's posted in this thread would agree with that.  Rather, the question is how do we actually work to change the system.  And personally, I just don't think that sitting out of this or any election is an effective way to nudge our system in any direction given how many people are already apathetic or disaffected.
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: nogodsforme on March 28, 2012, 03:17:21 PM
What we need is a lot more apathy.  :?
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: changeling on March 28, 2012, 03:44:59 PM
^^^
Quote
  We already have pretty low voter turn-out in this country.  In a year where there is a presidential election, we can expect turnout to be somewhere in the 50s.  During the mid terms, we can expect to see a little under 40 percent of voting age adults actually get out and vote.

I think a big reason for that may be the growing feeling of futility of
having to vote for the lesser of two evils.

I agree.  But that's irrelevent.  I don't think the question we're all trying to get at is whether or not our system is good or functional.  I don't think that anyone that's posted in this thread would agree with that.  Rather, the question is how do we actually work to change the system.  And personally, I just don't think that sitting out of this or any election is an effective way to nudge our system in any direction given how many people are already apathetic or disaffected.

How can the reason be irrelevent if you are looking for a change?
You must first learn the reason for the apathy before you can attempt
to turn it around.
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: Timo on March 28, 2012, 04:01:03 PM
Not really.

In the near term, I'm not particularly concerned with apathetic people in general as much I'm concerned with apathetic and/or disengaged liberals.  And in the case of disengaged liberals, I think the problem is ignorance, hard headedness, a lack of priorities, and an unwarranted amount of confidence in symbolic exercises.  I think that flapdoodle is a good example of each of these things.  That's my opinion.  Flap would obviously disagree and would probably accuse me of being complicit in the murder of Aghan women and children. 

There are all sorts of reasons that other, more middle of the road people might be disengaged.  But I'm not particularly concerned with them right now.  Our discussion has been revolving around liberals and the sorts of actions that liberals should take to advance our goals.
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: jaimehlers on March 29, 2012, 11:12:28 AM
Or people who might not be liberals, but agree in principle with many of the things that liberals want.
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: nogodsforme on March 29, 2012, 11:57:07 AM
^^^^I think that is a big part of the problem.

When people are presented with the separate parts of Obamacare (the Affordable Care Act), they are overwhelmingly in favor. Everyone who thinks about it likes keeping kids on their insurance until age 26, not being denied insurance due to pre-existing conditions, no lifetime cap on benefits, no co-pays on basic prevention and screening tests, lowered drug prices for seniors on Medicare .

Obamacare is a rather modest set of new government regulations on the private insurance industry; people/employers still pay for the health insurance; nothing is given out for free.  No government official will be able to deny you chemotherapy, the way health insurance companies can do now for pretty much any reason or no reason. Obamacare is not a "government takeover of your health care". It is not European-style universal health care or single payer like Medicare for all.

But if you ask people, do you approve of Obama's health care plan? The same people say no, because it is a liberal socialist plot to take away our freedom to choose our health care and install death panels to kill grandma.

If someone has an ideological objection to any regulation of the health insurance industry or thinks that the current system is fine as is, that would be one thing. But to object to something just because it is proposed by a Democratic president is pure ignorance.

Especially since Obamacare is the exact same limited govt. intervention health plan Republicans devised 20 years ago in response to the supposedly socialist govt takeover under Hillarycare....and, of course the same plan Romney implemented in MA. How come the liberal media is not telling people this? &)
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: Boots on March 29, 2012, 02:29:49 PM
How come the liberal media is not telling people this? &)

It's . . . it's almost like the liberal media is behaving as if it isn't a liberal media!  Just like the world behaves as if there's no god!!!

weird.
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: Timo on March 29, 2012, 10:28:44 PM
Especially since Obamacare is the exact same limited govt. intervention health plan Republicans devised 20 years ago in response to the supposedly socialist govt takeover under Hillarycare....and, of course the same plan Romney implemented in MA. How come the liberal media is not telling people this? &)

Quote from: Jack Donaghy
There's no such thing. The New York Times is owned by NYT Incorporated which is owned by Altheon Ballistic Dynamics which is owned by the Murdoch family who are owned... by Halliburton.

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_kVJ6t9MPt34/TN8VqwXCRcI/AAAAAAAAAX8/ANQfhBV8mi4/s1600/jack-donaghy.jpg)
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: flapdoodle64 on March 30, 2012, 12:58:27 PM
https://www.facebook.com/editprofile.php?sk=picture#!/photo.php?fbid=10150662478512858&set=a.126704502857.104795.500182857&type=1&theater (https://www.facebook.com/editprofile.php?sk=picture#!/photo.php?fbid=10150662478512858&set=a.126704502857.104795.500182857&type=1&theater)
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: Nick on March 30, 2012, 01:20:48 PM
Next time I get asked to support a supper to raise funds for some family's medical needs or called to help some charity working with children's medical stuff like St. Jude's...I am going to say fuck no.  Its every dog for himself now.  You work and take care of your own needs.  Did you support Obamacare?  They will say no 9.99 times out of 10 where I live.  "You could have been covered and would not have to BEG".  So get the fuck off
my property.

I know...I've become a cold mean atheist.  That's what the Repubs want.  If you can't beat them...join them.
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: Timo on March 30, 2012, 02:30:01 PM
https://www.facebook.com/editprofile.php?sk=picture#!/photo.php?fbid=10150662478512858&set=a.126704502857.104795.500182857&type=1&theater (https://www.facebook.com/editprofile.php?sk=picture#!/photo.php?fbid=10150662478512858&set=a.126704502857.104795.500182857&type=1&theater)

I take it all back.  You're right.  There's nothing at stake in this election.  And I'm apparently a black klansman or something?  So yeah...great point, dude.
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: Quartinium on April 09, 2012, 12:03:19 PM
My biggest concern over the republican stooges (aside from Paul, I could 'live' with Paul) is that they're so ridiculous that the people think to themselves, "No one's gonna vote for that guy, surely Obama will win." And then they don't go out and vote and only the right wing die hards do and we end up with a 'lunatic' for a president.

2nd major concern? President's do not run the country, the congress does. (Yeah, I know how the government works.)
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: Nick on April 09, 2012, 01:44:45 PM
Yeah, besides not voting there is the attempt to restrict voting, big time money to influence voting, and just a hand full of states that will make the difference with the electrol college numbers.  I am having a hard time seeing Romney in the White House but then I thought that about Bush 2 also...that worked out well. :o
Title: Re: Santorum: I can't decide
Post by: Timo on April 09, 2012, 08:11:13 PM
2nd major concern? President's do not run the country, the congress does. (Yeah, I know how the government works.)

Not really.  You know how the government was designed to work.  We haven't had a weak executive in quite some time.

The modern president has almost no effective constraints with respect to foreign affairs and especially with respect to defense.  In addition, the president is the head of the executive branch, which gives them all sorts of leeway in determining how laws are actually implemented.  And while it's technically the legislative branch that's supposed to do the legislating, it's the president that will set most of their agenda.

On a side note, at this point, we know that unless there's some kind of funny business at the convention or it's revealed that Mitt is, as was suspected, a robot or something like that, he's going to be the nominee.  And if his primary campaign is any indication of his strategy going forward, he's going to pepper this country with so many negative ads  that I doubt liberals and left-leaning voters will stay home thinking that they have it wrapped up.


Peace