balladofwindfishes
Member
It's indirectly supporting the person furthest away from your views. Rather than have a president with some of your beliefs, you either want all or nothing.
Yes, it's dumb.
PolliGaf 2012 |OT5| Big Bird, Binders, Bayonets, Bad News and Benghazi
- Thread starter RustyNails
- Start date
- Status
It's indirectly supporting the person furthest away from your views. Rather than have a president with some of your beliefs, you either want all or nothing.
Yes, it's dumb.
This would be great.
I need to start working on my snack list. Feels like the excitement of an e3 conference
speculawyer
Member
Of course it is their vote and they can do anything they want with it. But if a person in the Wisconsin LGBT community wants to support LGBT rights, voting Stein just is really stupid. No rational person believes Jill Stein may win Wisconsin. Voting for Jill Stein increases Romney's chance of winning. Thus, the person is voting against their own stated interests.
Fortunately, WI isn't a close race and it won't matter.
If they really want Jill Stein, they should go work on getting instant run-off voting or maybe vote-trade with someone in a non swing state.
empty vessel
Member
Ugh, I cannot bear Clinton's conservatism:
http://www.levyinstitute.org/publications/?docid=1273
http://www.economonitor.com/lrwray/2012/04/19/does-chairman-bernanke-know-squat-about-money/
Elsewhere, Wray said Rogoff and Reinhart's book "should win an award as the worst empirical study ever undertaken. Clueless about Crisis should have been the title."
In fact, if people understood macroeconomics in a modern monetary system, recovery could have occurred very quick, or entirely avoided in the first place. (Also, Clinton would have known better than to run surpluses.)
"I certainly think bipartisanship ought to consist of Democrats coming to the Republican point of view." -Richard Mourdock. GOP Senate candidate from Indiana.
This sort of attitude must crash and burn if we as a nation are to recover fully and be competitive in the world economy. As such, I agree with the OP, but for purely political reasons.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Agreed, but I downplayed the whole thing. I figured things would be relatively normal by now.
I did, as well. The damage was far greater than I expected.
Squirrel Killer
Member
It is possible to poison the well further. And seriously, this "drink-their-salty-tears" shit is just petty and unbecoming. (Not that it would be any better of the situation were reversed, except I'd be calling the Republicans out on their lack of decorum.)
So you should sow even more?
RustyNails
Member
Classic case of trees/forest. People should be empowered to vote according to how it best benefits them, not just go to polling booth and write in lizard man who by the way has as much of a chance winning as Jill stein. "It's my vote I'll vote whoever I want" is a childish cry of immature children who just turned 18.
Rocket Scientist
Member
Oh ill have my tv laptop phone and tablet ready, but I want to plaster my walls with A0 maps and stats!
Squirrel Killer
Member
Exactly. Now what's the best way to get rid of the attitude that "bipartisanship" = "coming to my party's point of view?"
The Librarian
Banned
lmao so true.
Gas is down to $2.97/gal here, feels good man
would ya stop with the bolded headline thing that i dont know how to do please?
It is not as if GOP leaders met on Inauguration Day to plot 4 years of cynical obstruction, damn the consequences to the economy and population. Oh wait.
The well is poisoned and before we can start healing it, you have to stop folks from dumping poison into it.
Certainly not by coddling those who believe it. "Nothing causes fear in the survivors more than electoral defeat." - Sen. John Kerry.
I want them all to fear the use of gang-obstruction as a political tactic, because all it does is give our global opponents room to run.
diffusionx
Gold Member
Beating them and rubbing their faces in it.
They only say it because it works. The idea that a guy like Obama or Bob Menendez or whomever is going to go work with Richard Mourdock or Eric Cantor and toss out ideas and then they will all go back to their staffs to evaluate these things in a non-ideological manner is simply dead. It's not 1983 or 1963 anymore.
Thankfully diablos was around to give us the straight dirt in a reasonable, level headed manner.
Throw the people who have been pushing that attitude out of Congress so hard they bounce? I mean, it's really a pragmatic question.
RustyNails
Member
but i only like it when incognito does it
BolognaSoup
Member
This must be the end of that partisan divide Obama was talking about bringing in his victory night speech. Bringing people together. So great to see.
Getting voted out of office.
If the electorate demands they stop acting like that, they will.
People say they want bipartisanship, but they don't vote that way, at least not enough.
A reflection on how the GOP lost their chance to win the senate between the 2010 and 2012 elections can be a good start.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Squirrel Killer is right. While I would certainly enjoy watching Fox after an Obama win, and will love reading the various initial meltdowns, there's no point in being a dick to others because they did the same.
An Obama win will be greeted by a lot of anger and hate on the right, just as a Romney victory would lead to similar symptoms on the left. The goal going forward should be to fix this economy and rebuild NJ/NY. Anything that harms those goals should be cast aside. I'm not saying we should go along to get along...but for once act like adults please. If the other side doesn't play alon, take your case to the American people directly
An Obama win will be greeted by a lot of anger and hate on the right, just as a Romney victory would lead to similar symptoms on the left. The goal going forward should be to fix this economy and rebuild NJ/NY. Anything that harms those goals should be cast aside. I'm not saying we should go along to get along...but for once act like adults please. If the other side doesn't play alon, take your case to the American people directly
Pai Pai Master
Banned
That shit Romney was spewing yesterday pisses me off to no end.
Yes, the "our main goal is to make Obama a one-term president" Republicans were the ones who wanted partisanship and compromise. They literally came out and said they didn't want progress, they wanted to keep Obama from being re-elected. And they're failing at that, too.
If they're going to continue to pull shit like that, then yes. I'm perfectly happy to see them demolished. I want their policies to be proven inadequate and I want their methods of lying and confusing and supressing voters to be noticed and condemned.
Yes, the "our main goal is to make Obama a one-term president" Republicans were the ones who wanted partisanship and compromise. They literally came out and said they didn't want progress, they wanted to keep Obama from being re-elected. And they're failing at that, too.
If they're going to continue to pull shit like that, then yes. I'm perfectly happy to see them demolished. I want their policies to be proven inadequate and I want their methods of lying and confusing and supressing voters to be noticed and condemned.
Today from the Washington Post Editorial Board:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mitt-romneys-election-campaign-insults-voters/2012/11/02/69fcc1fc-2428-11e2-9313-3c7f59038d93_story.html?hpid=z3
I agree.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mitt-romneys-election-campaign-insults-voters/2012/11/02/69fcc1fc-2428-11e2-9313-3c7f59038d93_story.html?hpid=z3
I agree.
There are a lot of us who voted for Obama knowing damn well that his dream of post-partisanship was idealistic hooey.
So count me in with the Tactical Fox; I want them fucking obliterated, to the point where they never consider obstructionism and alternative-reality--ism as valid political strategies ever again. They get one chance where we act like adults toward them, and the first time they bite at us, the civility is over. That's more than we'd get if the shoe was on the other foot.
The Librarian
Banned
Not that it means anything, but Purple Strategies finds Obama leading Romney by one point nationally: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/purple-strategies-poll-obama-47-romney-46-nationally
Fragamemnon
Member
Republican leadership getting their heads out of their asses. The party's fringe wing has way too much pull on their leadership, which in turn leads to the inability of the GOP to negotiate and work with the President in good faith on stuff that actually matters.
This isn't a case of "I want to go out for Thai" and your partner says "I want to go out for Mexican" and you work to find a good place for dinner you can agree on. It's case of "I want to go out for Thai" is met with " I want to dine on lead pipes and wash it down with benzene", where the other side takes a position so extreme compared to your reasonable suggestions that looking for a functional middle ground is extremely difficult.
Preach it brother!
I want a full conservative meltdown on Wendesday. I want them to know that their Reagan god has abandoned them forever.
TacticalFox88
Banned
While you do have a point, can't we just have ONE FUCKING NIGHT where we gloat to these assholes who've since Jan 20, 2009 have tried everything in their power to make Obama a one termer?
They deserve all of the ridicule they'll recieve and then some.
My horror instincts are telling me my state will be among the last to be called. D:
el retorno
Member
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/poll-mourdock-now-down-11-points-in-indiana?ref=fpb
I hope this is true. Obama's reelection, a hold or even a gain in the senate, and a gain in the house would be amazing to shut up the tea party.
I hope this is true. Obama's reelection, a hold or even a gain in the senate, and a gain in the house would be amazing to shut up the tea party.
Get people to realize govt dysfunction hurts them more than compromise does.
diffusionx
Gold Member
Right, this.
If I was writing a book on Obama's first term, I'd start with the thesis that he actually believed in all this post-partisanship stuff. Because he sure did work extra hard to put it into practice, even after the people he was trying to work with said flat-out they had no interest in doing anything that gave Obama even the smallest political win.
And he got killed every. single. time. By both the country at large and his base. Hell now Republicans have the gall to claim that it's Obama's fault that they couldn't work with him.
Sorry but these people can't be reasoned with and they can't be negotiated with, they can only be defeated.
What has harmed that process more for the last 4 years than the implied supermajority requirement and the secret holds employed by the GOP?
I haven't heard Majority Leader Cantor crowing about offsetting spending cuts for the damage caused by Sandy. I wonder why?
el retorno
Member
Get rid of them or take them off science committees. They're factually wrong. Its not a matter of opinion.
The problem with bipartisanship is that the middle ground is almost always leaving things at the status quo. One side wants strong change in one direction, the other wants equally strong change in the other direction, so the bipartisan solution is to do nothing. See the Bush tax cuts for an excellent example of the joys of bipartisanship.
We don't need bipartisanship, we need a functional legislative structure that makes obstructionism more difficult.
We don't need bipartisanship, we need a functional legislative structure that makes obstructionism more difficult.
Pai Pai Master
Banned
You don't. This country can't be progressive if religious beliefs continue to motivate legislative decision-making, especially in the areas of science. You wouldn't compromise with someone who is factually wrong.
I'll never forget back then when Senator Jim Demint of SC (R)said," Obstructing Obama is our goal for the next four years".
metalslimer
Member
Exactly, compromise with the current republican party is worthless. They have taken extremely positions on almost everything important. How do you compromise with a party who signed pledges for no new taxes no matter what?
What exactly is the barrier to saying "fuck arcane Senate and House rules"? The constitution doesn't say jack on a filibuster being in person or not, or killing bills anonymously. All this cruft certainly isn't helping things.
RustyNails
Member
Not everyone votes in terms of a candidates % chance of winning. If you have two candidates that you don't agree with on a variety of issues and it just so happens to have one that you do agree with, what do you do? Do you just shelve your disagreements and vote the lesser of two evils? Or do you vote inline with your beliefs?
People vote with who they tend to agree with for the most part. Obviously the degree of conviction will swing where some people have more conviction and will not vote for a candidate they disagree with, and some are more malleable and will bend to vote for a candidate they disagree with on issues. Even so, it's not dumb to vote for who you believe in one way or the other.
Maybe they don't see the forest for the trees, but it doesn't matter. They may not feel that it is the important part of voting, rather than voting inline with who they feel matches their beliefs more closely.
I don't advocate voting third party, but I refuse to look down on somebody voting for who they think is the best selection for them. It's not childish or immature or even related to age.
I'd love to respond back to you, but I have a meeting to go to.
Gutless legislators, mostly. They fear being hoist by their own petard if the political winds shift.
PhoenixDark
Banned
I said that in the first paragraph. Of course I would enjoy the Fox meltdowns, and I'm most interested in Erick Erickson's reaction. Also, I would watch melt downs on twitter while awaiting the inevitable insider stories that throw Romney under th bus. Make no mistake, I genuinely dislike Romney; not long ago I was indifferent at the prospect of him winning, but his campaign has made me sick.
Now that I got the partisan shit of the way: I want to see the GOP get better, become modern, and stop being so extremist. Hopefully that starts next year, although I doubt it. But I don't want to see more Ed Schultz types on our side: people who don't care about governing and instead treat this like a blood sport. Lets get some shit done together
Rocket Scientist
Member
What exactly do we need to get rid of the filibuster? 60? How high... Er, low is that probability? 60 votes I mean. And if it's 60 and dems don't get 60, is there anyone on the Republican side who could say enough is enough and help get enough votes? (loooool)
Fifty votes and the presidency suffice to eliminate the filibuster by rewriting the rules of the Senate.
el retorno
Member
Bipartisanship isn't always the status quo. The civil rights bill was bipartisan and not the status quo for example.
Pai Pai Master
Banned
I most certainly agree that the country would be better off if the GOP could get better. But that won't happen unless the shameful tactics they've employed have been proven ineffective and it becomes apparent that they can't win an election if they continue that way. And, I think, that requires some serious destructive losses on their end on Tuesday. And people need to be shouting from the rooftops that we won't allow them to continue like they have.
I guarantee you that if they're not held accountable for the shit they've been doing, and the GOP as it is right now does not implode, then it won't change. Instead of "we refuse to work with Obama - look at how little he gets done!" they will simply do the same and replace "Obama" with "Democrats" for 2016.
You'll have to pry it from my cold, dead fingers.welcome back to poligaf besada. now give me my tag back
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked