>> ^Stormsinger:

Pardon me? You think the Republicans should win based on the economy that their platform was primarily responsible for crashing and keeping anemic? No. Not even a faint maybe, but hell no!
For nearly my entire life, the Republican party has preached one set of things (fiscal responsibility and smaller government), and done the exact opposite when in power (record deficits and increased government). The economy does significantly better under a Democratic administration. Everything they say is a lie. Or at least you'll be right more often than not if you assume it to be so.
WHY would anyone who actually looks at facts EVER vote Republican, unless they're rich enough to buy the candidates for their own personal benefit?
>> ^Xaielao:
I think after this election, if Obama wins, the republican party is going to think long and hard about their issues. By all rights they should be winning this thing simply based off the economy. However, the fringe of their party is ever-increasing and the number of growing voting blocks they shun and hate and try to repress is continuing to rise. I think that most won't ever accept that they are a fringe party, and that wing will become a minority party after a few more elections, which they may well lose as their voting block diminishes. I don't expect this to happen in the next four years however, and that their attempt to suppress the voting rights of the poor, minorities, the old and young will continue and become even more severe, as will their ever-growing hate against such groups. It is a vicious cycle that in the end might mean the death of the party. People scoff at this but it has happened before.
I personally put the blame on things like fox news, which has helped create the persistent bubble of misinformation and hate. As long as millions of republicans continue to watch it heavily and believe every word, including republicans holding office, and even the presidential candidate (as this clip so clearly shows).. that spiral will continue.



I of course, agree with you. It is all a grand masquerade that the republican party has dappled itself in fiscal responsibility when they never have backed up such claims. Perhaps I should have stated that. I meant more that with an economy like this, no president has ever won re-election (though it is improving quickly now) and that this should have been a much easier election for republicans based upon that, but that their crazy attitude and policies toward women, minorities, the poor, the old and the young has dwindled their voting block to such a point that they can no longer win a strait up election without doing the things Romney has done. Running to the middle while also denying everything you said during the primary, and the overwhelming voter ID laws, registration purges, laws against registration groups, etc in republican states, though thankfully every last one of them was shut down in the courts. I personally actually support voter ID, but not in the draconian sense the republicans are trying to instate them.

Ah, yeah, I guess that could be what he was implying. If so, I'd have to admit that stupidity has generally ruled in the last 200 years (or 2000, or probably 200000), that much is true.
>> ^VoodooV:

>> ^Stormsinger:
Pardon me? You think the Republicans should win based on the economy that their platform was primarily responsible for crashing and keeping anemic? No. Not even a faint maybe, but hell no!
For nearly my entire life, the Republican party has preached one set of things (fiscal responsibility and smaller government), and done the exact opposite when in power (record deficits and increased government). The economy does significantly better under a Democratic administration. Everything they say is a lie. Or at least you'll be right more often than not if you assume it to be so.
WHY would anyone who actually looks at facts EVER vote Republican, unless they're rich enough to buy the candidates for their own personal benefit?
>> ^Xaielao:
I think after this election, if Obama wins, the republican party is going to think long and hard about their issues. By all rights they should be winning this thing simply based off the economy. However, the fringe of their party is ever-increasing and the number of growing voting blocks they shun and hate and try to repress is continuing to rise. I think that most won't ever accept that they are a fringe party, and that wing will become a minority party after a few more elections, which they may well lose as their voting block diminishes. I don't expect this to happen in the next four years however, and that their attempt to suppress the voting rights of the poor, minorities, the old and young will continue and become even more severe, as will their ever-growing hate against such groups. It is a vicious cycle that in the end might mean the death of the party. People scoff at this but it has happened before.
I personally put the blame on things like fox news, which has helped create the persistent bubble of misinformation and hate. As long as millions of republicans continue to watch it heavily and believe every word, including republicans holding office, and even the presidential candidate (as this clip so clearly shows).. that spiral will continue.


I think what he means, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that historically speaking, in the US, any time there is a significant slump in the economy, regardless of who started it, whether or not the incumbent is fixing things, the incumbent typically loses. a knee jerk reaction if you will.

>> ^Stormsinger:

Pardon me? You think the Republicans should win based on the economy that their platform was primarily responsible for crashing and keeping anemic? No. Not even a faint maybe, but hell no!
For nearly my entire life, the Republican party has preached one set of things (fiscal responsibility and smaller government), and done the exact opposite when in power (record deficits and increased government). The economy does significantly better under a Democratic administration. Everything they say is a lie. Or at least you'll be right more often than not if you assume it to be so.
WHY would anyone who actually looks at facts EVER vote Republican, unless they're rich enough to buy the candidates for their own personal benefit?
>> ^Xaielao:
I think after this election, if Obama wins, the republican party is going to think long and hard about their issues. By all rights they should be winning this thing simply based off the economy. However, the fringe of their party is ever-increasing and the number of growing voting blocks they shun and hate and try to repress is continuing to rise. I think that most won't ever accept that they are a fringe party, and that wing will become a minority party after a few more elections, which they may well lose as their voting block diminishes. I don't expect this to happen in the next four years however, and that their attempt to suppress the voting rights of the poor, minorities, the old and young will continue and become even more severe, as will their ever-growing hate against such groups. It is a vicious cycle that in the end might mean the death of the party. People scoff at this but it has happened before.
I personally put the blame on things like fox news, which has helped create the persistent bubble of misinformation and hate. As long as millions of republicans continue to watch it heavily and believe every word, including republicans holding office, and even the presidential candidate (as this clip so clearly shows).. that spiral will continue.



I think what he means, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that historically speaking, in the US, any time there is a significant slump in the economy, regardless of who started it, whether or not the incumbent is fixing things, the incumbent typically loses. a knee jerk reaction if you will.

I think he's more than slightly better for more than just the poorest. But he's not "good", so much as just less bad. Romney would be utter disaster...although that might be better in the long run. Let everything crash now, and maybe the damage would be less than pushing it off for another couple decades.

I'm definitely up for more Occupys and democracy. But I have a fear that it's too little, too late.
>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Stormsinger:
>> ^RFlagg:
I think way too many liberals think the election is a lock for Obama. I think there is a vary dangerous chance that Mitt will win and with a Republican controlled congress will erase most of the minor progress Obama managed to do and send us far backwards, especially with the Supreme Court by moving it from mildly to the right to the far right for generations to come...

I don't think that it's that so many liberals think Obama has a lock on teh election, as that many many liberals are highly ambivalent about his actions. And it's hard to drum up a lot of enthusiasm for voting for the lesser of two evils.
Then too, there's the fact that in most states, one vote, or a hundred votes, or a thousand votes, won't have the slightest effect. Your vote only matters if the state is closely divided. Kansas, for instance, wouldn't go for Obama if my vote counted for 10,000 votes. Our electoral system is as badly fucked up as our legislative system is...quite possibly not by coincidence.

Some Rats? This is how the system is designed, with the people on the outside not able to effect meaningful change. It doesn't matter whether we have Obama or Romney they're still not going to do what we want them. You could make the argument that Obama is slightly better for the poorest in America going forward but really, that's the best we can do? He won't get my vote with that, fuck him we need more Occupys and more democracy.

Pardon me? You think the Republicans should win based on the economy that their platform was primarily responsible for crashing and keeping anemic? No. Not even a faint maybe, but hell no!

For nearly my entire life, the Republican party has preached one set of things (fiscal responsibility and smaller government), and done the exact opposite when in power (record deficits and increased government). The economy does significantly better under a Democratic administration. Everything they say is a lie. Or at least you'll be right more often than not if you assume it to be so.

WHY would anyone who actually looks at facts EVER vote Republican, unless they're rich enough to buy the candidates for their own personal benefit?
>> ^Xaielao:

I think after this election, if Obama wins, the republican party is going to think long and hard about their issues. By all rights they should be winning this thing simply based off the economy. However, the fringe of their party is ever-increasing and the number of growing voting blocks they shun and hate and try to repress is continuing to rise. I think that most won't ever accept that they are a fringe party, and that wing will become a minority party after a few more elections, which they may well lose as their voting block diminishes. I don't expect this to happen in the next four years however, and that their attempt to suppress the voting rights of the poor, minorities, the old and young will continue and become even more severe, as will their ever-growing hate against such groups. It is a vicious cycle that in the end might mean the death of the party. People scoff at this but it has happened before.
I personally put the blame on things like fox news, which has helped create the persistent bubble of misinformation and hate. As long as millions of republicans continue to watch it heavily and believe every word, including republicans holding office, and even the presidential candidate (as this clip so clearly shows).. that spiral will continue.

Ok I'll bite,

Obama the great said acts of terror will not be tolerated. He did not say that Benghazi attack was an act of terror. The first day Obama Blamed the "video" for the reason for the attack. It took Obama weeks to admit that this was an act of terror. He just kept blaming the video, even to the point of spend $ for airtime in Libya to apologize to its citizen for the video.

The fact that the administration arrested the created the video is appalling. Even worse is that he has yet to be set free.>> ^bareboards2:

Here. let me help.
@quantumushroom, @bobknight33. @TangledThorns

>> ^KnivesOut:
I'm fucking serious, where are all those probie sock-puppets to comment on this video? Bk33? QM? TangledThorns? She's talking about you guys, don't you have a response?

>> ^Stormsinger:

>> ^RFlagg:
I think way too many liberals think the election is a lock for Obama. I think there is a vary dangerous chance that Mitt will win and with a Republican controlled congress will erase most of the minor progress Obama managed to do and send us far backwards, especially with the Supreme Court by moving it from mildly to the right to the far right for generations to come...

I don't think that it's that so many liberals think Obama has a lock on teh election, as that many many liberals are highly ambivalent about his actions. And it's hard to drum up a lot of enthusiasm for voting for the lesser of two evils.
Then too, there's the fact that in most states, one vote, or a hundred votes, or a thousand votes, won't have the slightest effect. Your vote only matters if the state is closely divided. Kansas, for instance, wouldn't go for Obama if my vote counted for 10,000 votes. Our electoral system is as badly fucked up as our legislative system is...quite possibly not by coincidence.


Some Rats? This is how the system is designed, with the people on the outside not able to effect meaningful change. It doesn't matter whether we have Obama or Romney they're still not going to do what we want them. You could make the argument that Obama is slightly better for the poorest in America going forward but really, that's the best we can do? He won't get my vote with that, fuck him we need more Occupys and more democracy.

>> ^volumptuous:

Yogi, you're quite smart but you've really got to drop the "obama hasn't kept any of his promises" schtick. It's so wrong it's embarassing:
here's a list of 200 accomplishments during his first term, with citations. I'm going to follow you around the internet and paste this every time you spout the schtick, until you finally read it.
http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/what-has-obama
-done-since-january-20-2009.html

Obama didn't close Guantanamo, and he has been waging illegal wars with drones killing innocent people. Yeah that's your guy Obama, the promise keeper. Even Noam Chomsky says Obama is worse than Bush in many aspects, yet so called Liberals keep defending him. These people are elected by the rich, for the rich, they are not trying to help you, they are serving the power in this country.

Yogi, you're quite smart but you've really got to drop the "obama hasn't kept any of his promises" schtick. It's so wrong it's embarassing:

here's a list of 200 accomplishments during his first term, with citations. I'm going to follow you around the internet and paste this every time you spout the schtick, until you finally read it.

http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/what-has-obama-done-since-january-20-2009.html
>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Stormsinger:
>> ^RFlagg:
I think way too many liberals think the election is a lock for Obama. I think there is a vary dangerous chance that Mitt will win and with a Republican controlled congress will erase most of the minor progress Obama managed to do and send us far backwards, especially with the Supreme Court by moving it from mildly to the right to the far right for generations to come...

I don't think that it's that so many liberals think Obama has a lock on teh election, as that many many liberals are highly ambivalent about his actions. And it's hard to drum up a lot of enthusiasm for voting for the lesser of two evils.
Then too, there's the fact that in most states, one vote, or a hundred votes, or a thousand votes, won't have the slightest effect. Your vote only matters if the state is closely divided. Kansas, for instance, wouldn't go for Obama if my vote counted for 10,000 votes. Our electoral system is as badly fucked up as our legislative system is...quite possibly not by coincidence.

THIS! We don't care, if you're a progressive you have no illusions about Obama, you shouldn't have before the election, and if you did you definitely don't now. I know it's stupid but I want Romney to win, maybe that'll teach them they can't Fuck Around with promising shit and not delivering.

Here. let me help.
@quantumushroom, @bobknight33. @TangledThorns


>> ^KnivesOut:

I'm fucking serious, where are all those probie sock-puppets to comment on this video? Bk33? QM? TangledThorns? She's talking about you guys, don't you have a response?

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Stormsinger:
>> ^RFlagg:
I think way too many liberals think the election is a lock for Obama. I think there is a vary dangerous chance that Mitt will win and with a Republican controlled congress will erase most of the minor progress Obama managed to do and send us far backwards, especially with the Supreme Court by moving it from mildly to the right to the far right for generations to come...

I don't think that it's that so many liberals think Obama has a lock on teh election, as that many many liberals are highly ambivalent about his actions. And it's hard to drum up a lot of enthusiasm for voting for the lesser of two evils.
Then too, there's the fact that in most states, one vote, or a hundred votes, or a thousand votes, won't have the slightest effect. Your vote only matters if the state is closely divided. Kansas, for instance, wouldn't go for Obama if my vote counted for 10,000 votes. Our electoral system is as badly fucked up as our legislative system is...quite possibly not by coincidence.

THIS! We don't care, if you're a progressive you have no illusions about Obama, you shouldn't have before the election, and if you did you definitely don't now. I know it's stupid but I want Romney to win, maybe that'll teach them they can't Fuck Around with promising shit and not delivering.


Well, not so much. I'm not yet willing to burn down the barn just because it has some rats. Romney would be a disaster...for everyone who makes less than several hundred thousand a year. I rather suspect that a Romney administration would lead to the class warfare turning violent, as he appears to be so utterly one-sided.

Thanks, my lovely.


In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
*news
*lies
*quality (though it seems awfully hot already...)

>> ^Stormsinger:

>> ^RFlagg:
I think way too many liberals think the election is a lock for Obama. I think there is a vary dangerous chance that Mitt will win and with a Republican controlled congress will erase most of the minor progress Obama managed to do and send us far backwards, especially with the Supreme Court by moving it from mildly to the right to the far right for generations to come...

I don't think that it's that so many liberals think Obama has a lock on teh election, as that many many liberals are highly ambivalent about his actions. And it's hard to drum up a lot of enthusiasm for voting for the lesser of two evils.
Then too, there's the fact that in most states, one vote, or a hundred votes, or a thousand votes, won't have the slightest effect. Your vote only matters if the state is closely divided. Kansas, for instance, wouldn't go for Obama if my vote counted for 10,000 votes. Our electoral system is as badly fucked up as our legislative system is...quite possibly not by coincidence.


THIS! We don't care, if you're a progressive you have no illusions about Obama, you shouldn't have before the election, and if you did you definitely don't now. I know it's stupid but I want Romney to win, maybe that'll teach them they can't Fuck Around with promising shit and not delivering.

Imma print your comment and hang it next to my desk for a few days. Well done lad! Very balanced view indeed!

>> ^VoodooV:

yeah, where's the left wing fringe that wants to take away rights from people?
Left wing fringe = vegans, PETA fanatics who want to give equal rights to pets, and ultra hippies who really do want to live in a bona fide commune.
If I were to guess, The right wing thinks the left wing fringe are mustache twirling villians actively conspiring to bring down america from within. (you know, anyone who doesn't wear a US flag lapel pin) Which is fine, but you need to prove that shit instead of just put baseless accusations out.
calling someone a communist/socialist is a meaningless fear-mongering distraction. if you don't have proof, you've got nothing. And proof isn't "I heard it on fox news"
left wing fringe are stupid and fanatical, but they tend not to be violence-prone or take away rights.

>> ^RFlagg:

I think way too many liberals think the election is a lock for Obama. I think there is a vary dangerous chance that Mitt will win and with a Republican controlled congress will erase most of the minor progress Obama managed to do and send us far backwards, especially with the Supreme Court by moving it from mildly to the right to the far right for generations to come...


I don't think that it's that so many liberals think Obama has a lock on teh election, as that many many liberals are highly ambivalent about his actions. And it's hard to drum up a lot of enthusiasm for voting for the lesser of two evils.

Then too, there's the fact that in most states, one vote, or a hundred votes, or a thousand votes, won't have the slightest effect. Your vote only matters if the state is closely divided. Kansas, for instance, wouldn't go for Obama if my vote counted for 10,000 votes. Our electoral system is as badly fucked up as our legislative system is...quite possibly not by coincidence.