Vote 3d party. Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, Stewart Alexander. Personally, I'd vote Jerry White. It's mathematically useless, but it's still not voting for Obama or Romney.
It's not just mathematically uiseless, it's actually politically dangerous in that if everybody smart enough to be pissed at Obama did it, Romney would win.
Since Romney is utterly fucked and most people are too afraid to vote third party, it's probably OK if you do, but the only point in it is to make yourself feel better.
Wow, wait a second. Did you say no Bipartisanship for taxes or the federal budget....Please explain how that is possible. Most of Obama's tax policies have been right out of the republican play book. You are forgetting that as soon as Obama says he's for it the republicans are against it.
Please show me someplace where Obama has not taken the middle road on tax policy...
Wow, wait a second. Did you say no Bipartisanship for taxes or the federal budget....Please explain how that is possible. Most of Obama's tax policies have been right out of the republican play book. You are forgetting that as soon as Obama says he's for it the republicans are against it.
Please show me someplace where Obama has not taken the middle road on tax policy...
I wanted to argue this, but didn't have the facts handy and didn't feel like doing research this morning...
I would argue the fact that he's met the republicans more then half way in the last few years has slowed the recovery down.
This, and Republican obstructionism. They've basically made it an official plank in their platform to cock block Obama until he fails to be re-elected. What will they do when he wins? Continue to treasonously repress the American economy for spite? They should all be facing a firing squad already for the past 2+ years of deliberate national sabotage.
I wanted to argue this, but didn't have the facts handy and didn't feel like doing research this morning...
you say this a lot.
I feel stakes are always too high to nit pick a candidate. Reproductive rights, gay rights, environmental stewardship, safety nets, health care, and attitudes toward immigration are important issues for me. Obama has done well on these despite opposition, and is more pragmatic (versus Republicans relying heavily on ideology and Libertarians privilege-tinted world view). I'm *happy* to vote for him.
I wanted to argue this, but didn't have the facts handy and didn't feel like doing research this morning...
you say this a lot.
I feel stakes are always too high to nit pick a candidate. Reproductive rights, gay rights, environmental stewardship, safety nets, health care, and attitudes toward immigration are important issues for me. Obama has done well on these despite opposition, and is more pragmatic (versus Republicans relying heavily on ideology and Libertarians privilege-tinted world view). I'm *happy* to vote for him.
I feel this way a lot. Often I know where I stand on an issue or an aspect of an issue, but I don't have adequate recall to make a bulletproof argument without lots of reference material handy. It gets tedious on the 100th iteration. I do most of my arguing on reddit. :-)
I was mostly thanking the other fellow for making points that I would have made if not for the fatigue. :-P
As for nitpicking a candidate, it's not about trashing Obama. It's about recognizing his very significant faults and saying, hey, this shit's not OK let's fix it. Heaven forfend we ever get to the point that criticizing our own guy becomes verboten amongst the legions of true-believers for fear of dissuading potential supporters. That's just adding a few layers of corn to the political shit-sandwich we've got already. America thrives (or used to thrive) on respect and recognition of reasonable and accurate criticism of the political process and its participants. That's not nitpicking, that's democracy.
I wanted to argue this, but didn't have the facts handy and didn't feel like doing research this morning...
Then why are you even bothering? You're no better than the politicians/partisan hacks/etc. you claim to hate. Just because you scream it loudly, it doesn't make it true. Back things up with facts and figures. If you're not willing to put the effort into finding facts and figures to back up your argument, then you're not worth my effort to pay attention to a word you're saying.
All I was saying was that I agreed that Obama is not particularly Left on tax and budget issues, but didn't have the citations handy so didn't originate the argument in this thread. I'm not quite sure how this provokes your ire, but I question whether you've really followed the discussion or you just found a place to put one of the chips on your shoulder.
Essentially, you're an elitist prick who yells at people, but doesn't back up his yelling with substance. :-)
Welcome to the internet, blah, blah, blah, yackity-schmackity, and all that jazz.
Actually I did exactly the opposite. I refrained from offering a counterargument that I wasn't interested in backing up right this moment, and then when someone else made the argument instead of me, I voiced agreement.
Again, questioning whether you're following the discussion here...
As for nitpicking a candidate, it's not about trashing Obama. It's about recognizing his very significant faults and saying, hey, this shit's not OK let's fix it. Heaven forfend we ever get to the point that criticizing our own guy becomes verboten amongst the legions of true-believers for fear of dissuading potential supporters. That's just adding a few layers of corn to the political shit-sandwich we've got already. America thrives (or used to thrive) on respect and recognition of reasonable and accurate criticism of the political process and its participants. That's not nitpicking, that's democracy.
you're odd. I never said don't criticize the messiah. Until $$ != votes, there are really only going to be two choices for president, and one of them is sincerely DO NOT WANT. Congress, on the other hand, is ripe for some multi-party overhaul.
I may read the article when I have some time but the gist after a quick parse seems to be "Be more like the Right and vote and think in lockstep, or at least move in that direction."
Barf.
OK not entirely, but a bit.
Criticizing Obama is not detracting from his good works. But frankly, when his good works are couched in and surrounded by some pretty terrible evils like the NDAA, Gitmo, and other police state shit, it's pretty hard to sit still during a big praise-fest and not bring them up.
Of course nobody who is both sane and good wants Mittens, but "not Mittens" is still not good enough, and that's OK.
I'm saying I'm not going to "critique" with my vote. That's like not communicating in a relationship. If I can agree with large and important portions of a candidate's policy & they have good odds of winning, count me in.
I didn't read the article but feel qualified to comment on it.
I've now read the entire article. My comments regarding the inanity of the article stand. The author, like many people, is unable to compartmentalize and is a victim of "us vs them" mentality just as bad as most right wingers.
Just like good things are good even when placed next to bad things, bad things are bad even when placed next to good things. The logic works both ways, but author wants to hammer on one aspect and ignore the other.
Comments
We're not at rock bottom yet.
Since Romney is utterly fucked and most people are too afraid to vote third party, it's probably OK if you do, but the only point in it is to make yourself feel better.
Please show me someplace where Obama has not taken the middle road on tax policy...
I feel stakes are always too high to nit pick a candidate. Reproductive rights, gay rights, environmental stewardship, safety nets, health care, and attitudes toward immigration are important issues for me. Obama has done well on these despite opposition, and is more pragmatic (versus Republicans relying heavily on ideology and Libertarians privilege-tinted world view). I'm *happy* to vote for him.
I hear the last boss is pretty difficult.
I was mostly thanking the other fellow for making points that I would have made if not for the fatigue. :-P
As for nitpicking a candidate, it's not about trashing Obama. It's about recognizing his very significant faults and saying, hey, this shit's not OK let's fix it. Heaven forfend we ever get to the point that criticizing our own guy becomes verboten amongst the legions of true-believers for fear of dissuading potential supporters. That's just adding a few layers of corn to the political shit-sandwich we've got already. America thrives (or used to thrive) on respect and recognition of reasonable and accurate criticism of the political process and its participants. That's not nitpicking, that's democracy.
Welcome to the internet, blah, blah, blah, yackity-schmackity, and all that jazz.
Again, questioning whether you're following the discussion here...
back on topic guys.
Also, linked for hugeness, I thought this was a pretty funny commentary.
you're odd. I never said don't criticize the messiah. Until $$ != votes, there are really only going to be two choices for president, and one of them is sincerely DO NOT WANT. Congress, on the other hand, is ripe for some multi-party overhaul.
I may read the article when I have some time but the gist after a quick parse seems to be "Be more like the Right and vote and think in lockstep, or at least move in that direction."
Barf.
OK not entirely, but a bit.
Criticizing Obama is not detracting from his good works. But frankly, when his good works are couched in and surrounded by some pretty terrible evils like the NDAA, Gitmo, and other police state shit, it's pretty hard to sit still during a big praise-fest and not bring them up.
Of course nobody who is both sane and good wants Mittens, but "not Mittens" is still not good enough, and that's OK.
I read about 20% of the article. ;-P
EDIT: Ninja'd by Muppet. This joke worked before.
Just like good things are good even when placed next to bad things, bad things are bad even when placed next to good things. The logic works both ways, but author wants to hammer on one aspect and ignore the other.