Vote(d) 2012 ... can't mediate the Ho Ho's

[bhu]

They sound both bad. Actually, i think that's a side effect of trying to please everyone and try to win votes.

Better than that would be:

Non Hawkish foreign policy: Pull troops back, stop foreign intervention, focus on issues actually worrying the population, like airport security, portuary security, border security, and homeland security in general.

That would offend foreign policy hawks on the republican side, immigrants on both sides, and industrialized agriculture who wants access to indentured servants in the form of illegal immigrants.  If you aren't Hawkish you're quickly labeled a Communist by the right, and if you are hawkish the left calls you fascist.  Since most elections are won by winning over a very small percentage of the population in the middle neither side will risk that.

Implement an actual progressive tax system that lowers the pressure on the middle class(IE: the one that pushes every country forward instead of backwards)

The republicans believe the rich do that, and the people who don't want those policies (the wealthy) contribute heavily to both parties to ensure they are never given more than lip service or that their donators have a loophole.

Government welfare programs that actually reward moving up in wealth, instead of encouraging people to stay poor, or f* up the poor.

Would require an overhaul of our entire social paradigm.  The central word to remember when dealing with the American electorate is 'narcissism' .  Despite our social programs leaving many in abject poverty there are still enough criminals using it to their advantage that they want no changes to it.  And the republicans want to wipe out social programs entirely.

Leave the LGBT people alone. Let people get abortions. They'll go to hell for it. (I don't actually believe in hell, but i believe there should be one for people who abort).

Most of the people pushing against LGBT rights and abortion are blind religious fanatics who believe the antichrist will destroy the world if they dont put a stop to him despite their own religious text saying it's their God's will.  If the republicans and democrats ignored those issues, they remove a large reason both their electorates vote for them.  Neither side has any reason to permanently pass/ban either for now because they survive by demonizing the enemy.  They want the fight to keep going.  DOn't think of them as republicans vs democrats.  Thinks of them as Cangaceiros vs Jaguncos (I only did a quick google if I'm off use the Crips vs the Bloods as an example).  They aren't competing political parties, their well organized street gangs in suits who are fighting for popularity and the spoils of war.  Whoever wins the election gets to squander the countries money and resources and pay off their donors.  Really if you want to change the American government you have 3 options. 

Vote everyone out and start over (which won't work because the parties count the votes).

Impeach everyone and start over (which wont work because the parties control the judicial system).

Kill everyone and start over (which isn't possible because the parties can always call on the military).

Elections here are a charade.  Probably have been since they began.

[bhu]

Watching the debate live.  Romney looks like he wants to shit his own bowel in rage.

[veekie]

They sound both bad. Actually, i think that's a side effect of trying to please everyone and try to win votes.

Story of every career politician.

[oslecamo]

Romney's last-ditch strategy! Promise Binders Full of Women to the voters!

Can someone give me a quick 1 paragraph read about the differences between Romney and Obama? What with living outside the US all i get is biased media information, and it's always leaning towards Obama.

By all means check the online wall street jornal online page, where the information is mostly biased towards Romney.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

The debate after chatter went to Obama right away.
But the polls show mostly a party line response.
Undecideds insta-poll went 37/30 with 33 still undecided.
But this is just for the debate itself, not overall.

One of the networks had a new focus group category:
Wal-Mart Women.  They didn't like the behavior of either guy.

It ain't over ... 

[veekie]

Somebody should try this one.

Good to see the politicians stumped by a nonpartisan issue with no clear popular slant.

[altpersona]

i cant wait for nov 7th to get here so we can be done w/ this election season and get started w/ the next.

[Libertad]

i cant wait for nov 7th to get here so we can be done w/ this election season and get started w/ the next.

No matter who gets elected, people will go crazy.  And we'll be talking about them in this sub-forum.

[skydragonknight]

i cant wait for nov 7th to get here so we can be done w/ this election season and get started w/ the next.

...Hillary 2016!

[altpersona]

hillary is done, i believe.

if nothing else, diving under the bus over the bengazi attacks would be hard to get up from.

[SolEiji]

You could always vote me in.  Sol Eiji, Pirate Party 2012.  I'll take Bhu as a Vice or as a General of Kittens.  Because we're gonna have a Department of Kittens.  Its job is to have more videos of cats doing silly things on the internets.  Also, if you vote for me, I promise a cat* in every household.

(*Cat may be a small armed thermonuclear device.)

[sirpercival]

(*Cat may be a small armed thermonuclear device.)

This is already true.

[dman11235]

(*Cat may be a small armed thermonuclear device.)

See: http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/v0.31:Catsplosion#Thermonuclear_Catsplosion

[awaken_D_M_golem]

I see y'all's Cat-plosion Nuke and raise you a Honey BooBoo endorsement.


See: http://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/2012/10/17/honey-boo-boo-endorses-marack-obama/1638513/

[dman11235]

This is more about general politics, rather than the single instance.

See, I completely disagree with this guy's view.  He says that he would vote for Murdock if Murdock didn't say those things.  But Murdock still believes those thing.  So by playing the politician and saying what people want to hear, this guy would be voting for someone he disagrees with.  So really, shouldn't politicians be much more candid?  Otherwise, you'll be voting for someone who you disagree with, and your complaint if you find out will be that you found out, not that they believe it.  To that end: we should hold debates where the candidates get totally drunk, and then ask them the questions.  No reservations, just total open (but exaggerated) statements.  It would also make things more interesting when they start swinging at each other then break down and start crying "I love you man, your my *hic* besht friend.  An I don' shay that to jusht anyone."

[JohnnyMayHymn]

^^+1 a laughable, rediculous idea that would actually work

I can just see the ticker at the bottom of the screen that keeps track of what each candidate drank so far, it could even be a drinking game for viewers at home, I think people would actually watch politics on fri night.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

... To that end: we should hold debates where the candidates get totally drunk, and then ask them the questions.  No reservations, just total open (but exaggerated) statements.  It would also make things more interesting when they start swinging at each other then break down and start crying "I love you man, your my *hic* besht friend.  An I don' shay that to jusht anyone."

HA !!
or Truth Serum like what the FBI/CIA have.

Still, Obama and Romney (or anyone else) can't really say:
With the Filibuster in place and being used ALL the time now,
neither of us will get anything done, unless one of the true
believers "capitulates" ... which used to be called "negotiates".

[PlzBreakMyCampaign]

followed by talking about how dumb everyone else is.

Not everyone.

And yes I purposely made that two words for you.

the person adds nothing to the discussion.

Not all discussions need things added. Enjoy my furtheringz below. Keep in mind in a few pages you or someone else will say I never spend my valuable time making detailed critiques. If you were aware of this, you have successfully trolled me. Congrats.

ultra-hawkish foreign policy (will refuse to leave Afghanistan until every last terrorist is imprisoned or dead).

Like how he didn't self-destruct it so they could reverse engineer our technology? Giving away military secrets is not "ultra-hawkish"...

Of course, even folks like Reagan would be liberal by modern-day conservative standards due to the GOP's move to the Far Right.

Try again. Both have moved to the Left. Remember the Jack Kennedy comment in the VP debate?

They sound both bad.

Smartest thing in the last few pages. Care to explain that welfare part, assuming marginal choices and no belief in long-term class mobility?

If you aren't Hawkish you're quickly labeled a Communist by the right, and if you are hawkish the left calls you fascist.

So Ron Paul is called a Communist by, say, John Boehner? Why are you being hard on the left? Let's be fair here. Rarely do I hear the word fascist used (atleast while Dems had control of both houses of congress and the presidency). Especially considering the SCotUS basically ignored the 'this is not a tax' in order to allow Obamacare as a tax, (Talk about disregarding RAI!) I'm going to count them slightly on the left. But even with the climate I'm still going to say that people on the Left don't blindly throw around that term.

Have you noticed that I dislike hyperbole?

Despite our social programs leaving many in abject poverty there are still enough criminals using it to their advantage that they want no changes to it.  And the republicans want to wipe out social programs entirely.

That first part was surprisingly honest. But the second sentence, I'd say you have to move pretty far to the right to find people willing to remove them entirely. Most all simply think they should be very limited. Or am I just disproportionately around moderate conservatives. I've met/talked with about a thousand in the last few years.

Most of the people pushing against LGBT rights and abortion are blind religious fanatics who believe the antichrist will destroy the world if they dont put a stop to him despite their own religious text saying it's their God's will.

This is not true at all. Have you never met a conservative athiest, agnostic, etc before? Have you ever met a religious rationalist before? What about a nonmillenarian? What about a religious person without an eschatology? Do you know what those things are without looking them up? You don't have to answer that. I only responded with the same zeal as the quote. I do prefer things civil.

Bhu you larger point about elections: they are only as valid as the electorate is informed. Blame the media. Blame the size of x,y,z. Blame our culture for accepting lazy voters. Politicians are what the electorate makes them. I realize this is perhaps more damning to Democracy than your call for violence, but I call it like I see it.

[bhu]

This is not true at all. Have you never met a conservative athiest, agnostic, etc before? Have you ever met a religious rationalist before? What about a nonmillenarian? What about a religious person without an eschatology? Do you even know what those things are without looking them up? You don't have to answer that. I only responded with the same zeal as the quote. I do prefer things civil.

No, I have never met a conservative atheist/agnostic.  Where I live people come in three flavors: militantly conservative/hellfire and brimstone christians who probably have never read the bible they claim to defend, atheists who are slowly descending into liberal fanaticism because of the endless harassment they get from the former, and people in the middle who don't much care and kiss the asses of the other two when they're around so as not to get pulled into the fight.

There are no religious rationalists where I live.  At least none that I've ever met.  Nor have I ever met a non-millenarian, nor anyone besides the local atheists who even know what that term or eschatology means or that it even exists.  I realize I have nothing to back this up but if you want an idea of what religion is like where i am here's a sample of quotes from talking to coworkers over the years:

"Niggers don't have souls.  It's in the bible."
"Where?"
"I ain't read it but mah preacher tells me it's there.  Same as the parts 'bout faggots bein' soulless.  You can kill a faggot, God don't mind none.  Same as killin' your wife, cause women are property instead of people.  Bible says so."


"We can't let Obama be re-elected, the Bible says he's the Antichrist, he'll bring about the end of the world."
"If the Armageddon is foreordained, aren't you opposing the will of God?" 
"Fuck you, you'll burn when the Armageddon comes you just see."
"I thought you were attempting to prevent that?"


"You need to read the Bible."
"I have,  Have you read it by any chance."
"YEAH!"
"Quote me a passage.  Any passage.  Hell, quote me anything."
*silence*
"You know everyone at work knows your illiterate right?"
"FUCK YOU!"


"I saw you talking to Nicole! The Bible says sex before marriage is a sin!"
"How many of your girlfriends did you marry first?"
"FUCK YOU!"
"And by the way since when does talking to a girl mean I'm automatically trying to fuck her?  And how is this any of your business anyway?"
"Because I believe in Jesus!"
"If you believe in Jesus so much why are you screwing women before marriage?"
He swings on me at this point. 

In short out of all of the people I've met in Ohio, I can count on one hand the number of people with a religious belief who have:

a) actually read the religious text or otherwise studied the beliefs their religion is based on
b) don't use their belief as an excuse to ridicule/harass/assault others who don't believe the same
c) are actually capable of quoting the text/whatever their beliefs are based on, and explain it in an intelligent coherent manner that doesn't involve screaming profanities at me or hitting me when I don't ascribe to whatever bullshit they're claiming is reality.

Only one of those people is a christian.  He's a nice enough guy but he really doesn't make up for the endless crap the others produce.

In short my experience with religion is that the majority of it's followers are ignorant, clueless bullies who want to belong to it because it imparts some social advantage, or as a fashion statement because they think it's 'cool', or just because they're afraid to not conform, or just because they like hurting people and they feel their beliefs give them a justification.  Most of them have no idea behind the concepts or ideals of their religion, have never read the Bible/Torah/Koran/insert whatever here, and wildly misquote it in order to sound wise to people who have also never read the bloody thing either.  They go to Church not because they believe in what it stands for, but because they want to be seen.  Or because they believe it's expected of them, and they pay it lip service so people in their life don't complain.  Hell most of them can't pronounce words of more than three syllables but that's likely the result of the shitty local education system than anything else.

If I seem to believe that the bulk of Christians (any religion really) are liars, hypocrites, con men, and psychopathic assholes, it's because almost every Believer I've met in real life has been one.  They don't believe in what they preach because they don't even fully understand what the Bible/other book they claim to defend says, assuming they've ever even held one.  If it makes you feel any better I've not any more sympathy for any of the other religions either.  I'm sure there are more than the 5 or so people I've met who are rational, coherent, and sane that are religious, but you'll pardon me if I don't hold my fucking breath waiting to meet them given the bulk of my experiences with their kind.

[dman11235]

Wow, an actual response.

So Ron Paul is called a Communist by, say, John Boehner? Why are you being hard on the left? Let's be fair here. Rarely do I hear the word fascist used (atleast while Dems had control of both houses of congress and the presidency). Especially considering the SCotUS basically ignored the 'this is not a tax' in order to allow Obamacare as a tax, (Talk about disregarding RAI!) I'm going to count them slightly on the left. But even with the climate I'm still going to say that people on the Left don't blindly throw around that term.

So you're ignoring the fact that they *gasp* changed the bill?  They changed how it would be classified because the SC said "if you change this to a tax, it will be fine".  Although I'm not entirely sure what your problem is here.  Is it that people on the left don't call themselves communists?  Or that they don't say fascist?  If the former, of course.  If the later, are you high or something?  Liberals all over call the Republicans fascist.

That first part was surprisingly honest. But the second sentence, I'd say you have to move pretty far to the right to find people willing to remove them entirely. Most all simply think they should be very limited. Or am I just disproportionately around moderate conservatives. I've met/talked with about a thousand in the last few years.

I question your statistic.  Also, most republican politicians today say they want to get rid of all social programs, then say they want to keep the ones that people who vote for them use.  It's hypocrisy, yes, but that's what they say.  And Libertarians are even more strict about it.

This is not true at all. Have you never met a conservative athiest, agnostic, etc before? Have you ever met a religious rationalist before? What about a nonmillenarian? What about a religious person without an eschatology? Do you know what those things are without looking them up? You don't have to answer that. I only responded with the same zeal as the quote. I do prefer things civil.

Bhu you larger point about elections: they are only as valid as the electorate is informed. Blame the media. Blame the size of x,y,z. Blame our culture for accepting lazy voters. Politicians are what the electorate makes them. I realize this is perhaps more damning to Democracy than your call for violence, but I call it like I see it.

Really?  So all of the Republican politicians calling to ban homosexual marriage are doing so because "that would be best for the country" rather than "the Bible says that would be best for the country"?

You prefer things civil, yet imply that Robby is dumb, insult bhu, and accuse me of trolling?