the most important election of your lifetime: 2012 american general election thread

Obama's enacted more fascism that Rand Paul or Romney. Deal.

thaN

Fascists always have the simpler arguments.

libs have a lot to learn then

Obama's enacted more fascism that Rand Paul or Romney. Deal.

― Pangborn to be Wilde (Dr Morbius), Thursday, June 21, 2012 1:43 AM (7 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Sure he has, but try to follow along here.

libs have a lot to learn then

― a regina spektor is haunting europe (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, June 21, 2012 1:45 AM (12 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Arguments driven by xenophobia, jingoism and selfishness will always be simpler and more visceral than arguments for generosity and compassion.

Reagan, Clinton, and FDR, those ruthless exploiters of jingoism, selfishness, and xenophobia.

uh...? Reagan...

after all don't think the GOP doesn't condescend to them either -- they're just better at reaching them and getting them to vote against their interets. One of the reasons for liberalism's failure is their reluctance to talk to "the masses" in simple language.

― a regina spektor is haunting europe (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, June 20, 2012 7:21 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this pundit received wisdom is total nonsense. 'if only obama had a different speechwriter' - get outta here. on the whole we need people to be better informed about the nuances of policy if we want them to understand how, idk, a low capital gains tax or the individual mandate affects them, 'simple language' doesn't do that. it doesn't in itself win elections either.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/05/21/153024432/sophomoric-members-of-congress-talk-like-10th-graders-analysis-shows

democrats already use 'simple language' and many talk about ~the right issues~ using 'simple language'. it just doesn't really matter.

after all don't think the GOP doesn't condescend to them either -- they're just better at reaching them and getting them to vote against their interets.

No, they get them to prioritize one set of interests over another that you think they would be better off prioritizing.

voila

Arguments driven by xenophobia, jingoism and selfishness will always be simpler and more visceral than arguments for generosity and compassion

I lol'd because if you consider the Democrats the party of generosity and compassion then there's some people whose names I don't know being held at sites whose locations & names are secret who I'd like you to meet, only they're busy being tortured right now

Obama's enacted more fascism that Rand Paul or Romney. Deal.

hahaha the Mind of Morbz

I'm talking about fascism vs. liberalism

xp

yeah this isn't the argument 'why you should vote for democrats' it's the argument 'why it's hard to get people to support gay marriage and health care for all' xp to aero

No, they get them to prioritize one set of interests over another that you think they would be better off prioritizing.

― Julie Derpy (Phil D.), Wednesday, June 20, 2012 10:07 PM (2 minutes ago)

same diff

one of the reasons nothing changes is Dems believing in most of the GOP's platform re union busting, deregulating Wall Street, etc

I lol'd because if you consider the Democrats the party of generosity and compassion then there's some people whose names I don't know being held at sites whose locations & names are secret who I'd like you to meet, only they're busy being tortured right now.

u r right they'd be better off under Republicans who have never and would never etc etc

Alfred otm xpost

can we really stop saying "fascism"? It's a simple request really. Corporatism or even plutocracy are more accurate.

it is what it is

unless the president assassinates one of us tonight

xp

a plutocracy that uses the tools of fascist politics, legalizes torture etc. deserves the label even if the money goes into the coffers of investment banks instead of the government.

fascism is really just a political style, one that's easier for modern American conservatives to pull off.

u r right they'd be better off under Republicans who have never and would never etc etc

the people getting detained w/o charge & tortured in secret prisons can't tell the difference between Republicans and Democrats because under both admins they are in secret prisons getting tortured. those people are kind of best qualified to talk about the differences between the parties.

well I can't see them making this thread any worse...let's invite them

I messaged several of them on Myspace but they never respond

there's some occupy dude on twitter getting RT'd by a HOOS, explaining how he's not gonna vote and he worked for MoveOn, was a field organizer for Obama in '08, etc - in my world of angry ppl the signal on these types comes through louder than I'd guess it does in normal lives, but will disenfranchised people who've come into contact w/Occupy be a meaningful bloc in this election? Has there been a "neither candidate!" movement as strong at any point?

feel like whenever I engage this thread I should remind some of you believers that I'm gonna vote the Democratic ticket. I don't really give a shit, if I believe there's no difference between the two then why not throw my hat in with other Democratic voters who I dig & generally see eye-to-eye with? no harm in it, really, why the hell not. I don't give any money to Democratic candidates any more, and if they hit me up they get a cranky old man speech about how the money I have & would be happy to give to them if they'd get right must now goes to abortion fund. Then I tell them Rainbow was a better band than Montrose and I prefer the Dead w/o Pigpen, man that really gets em goin

there are a lot of people who are fucked under either party, and a lot of people who would be fine under either party. but if you think about it, there are people who would genuinely be worse off under one party than the other.

said it before, but the overwhelming majority of people i know who can't bring themselves to vote for the lesser of two evils - or at the very least, whine about it a lot, myself included - file under "fine under either party".

feel like whenever I engage this thread I should remind some of you believers

who the fuck are the believers in this thread because i don't see 'em

Has there been a "neither candidate!" movement as strong at any point?

have we already forgotten perot

but if you think about it, there are people who would genuinely be worse off under one party than the other.

yeah this is totally true, but that position always seems a tiny bit white-knighty? idk I ought be asleep to be honest

Gubke give it a fuckin rest why don'tcha

xp Perot was 3rd candidate, not no candidate! diff. deal I think.

feel like whenever I engage this thread I should remind some of you believers

When Moses said to G-d, "But they will not believe me," G-d said to him: They are believers, the children of believers, whereas you will ultimately disbelieve. They are believers, as it is written, "And the people believed"; they are the children of believers, as it is written (Genesis 15:6), "and [Abraham] believed in G-d"; and you will ultimately disbelieve, as it it is written (Numbers 20:12): "And G-d said to Moses and Aaron: Because you believed not in Me." (Talmud, Shabbat 97a)

it's kinda trippy that god said to moses: "you will ultimately disbelieve, and the proof is right here in the torah where it says you don't believe." like how was moses supposed to argue with that?

aero you have no problem being a tiny bit white-knighty, who are you kidding

Mordy knows the secrets of my heart

aero you have no problem being a tiny bit white-knighty, who are you kidding

it's true. my steed is greater than thine tho

ride it, jump on it

man I never really considered the hard spiritual shit going down w/Moses (GO DOWN MOSES LOL GET ME), that verse is profound. I guess the word "believe" is pretty key there though: G-d doesn't mean "you don't think I exist," He means "you don't believe I will do what I say I will." which is a p. diff version of "believe" than we usually mean when we're talking about G-d.

until i see some serious "no candidate!" anarchy from that front, i'm still gonna be more impressed with a third-party candidate that got almost 20% of the vote, loon or no

Perot was one of those dudes who if people thought about him literally one second too long you started to feel more sympathetic. When he did his "to the people of America: I'm doing this because I love you" bit it really got me & then I thought "oh, yeah, that's actually the whole point of that bit"

sorry aero didn't mean to step in on your bullshit

would be nice of you to answer the question though

just bc it can't stay the worst forever or everyone dies and life is extinguished.

you are assuming this is not a possibility, when it's a certainty (in the very very long term) and a strong possibility (in a much nearer term, given global climate change).

that was your inspirational message for the day.

i can't see climate change being even considered by either party until the economy gets back in shape. personally, i believe one party's platform has a slightly slightly better chance of doing that.

but no, it's not enough and we're all fucked. just hopefully after i die.

People swear that Obama understands the gravity of climate change and simply decided it wasn't worth the political fight (and obviously the public prioritized the economy then and now.) I don't know though, I really feel like most politicians are either so innately optimistic or so venal that they can't really grasp how desperate the situation is. Deep down I think most of them are thinking "maybe it won't be so bad."

I'd agree with that, and I'd go so far as to say that the only reason Obama even gives lip service to "green initiatives" is because 1.) it pleases his base and 2.) potential new job market

still prefer to it "Climate Change isn't even real we should drill/pollute MORE and de-regulate the pitiful guidelines we already have so companies can maximise profits" ethos though

shit, there i go again. soz

you are assuming this is not a possibility, when it's a certainty (in the very very long term) and a strong possibility (in a much nearer term, given global climate change).

I am assuming it is a possibility, but once life is eradicated there will be no one around to care. Life only matters to the living.

There are a lot of intelligent, well informed liberals in rural USA, dudes. There are Democratss all over this country who share your values.

I 'm pointing this out, because while we're having our big whine-fest, paved with generalizations, there are people working really hard to swing their rural counties from 52% red to 52% blue, and enact changes locally that favor labor, civil rights, and the environment, people who are battling their reactionary neighbors. And there are a lot of Dems (pols, staff, party members) who are busting their asses to enact the laws that we favor, and to push the pols to the left on policy matters.