Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Primary 2012: An austere OP for an austere era

19091929395

Posts

  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    Glyph wrote:
    At the end of the day, Obama hasn't come across particularly strong, either as a Democrat or a president in general, and in an attempt to reach out to the middle, he's lost his base. He could win every independent in 2012 and it wouldn't matter. While it's still too early to tell right now, it's looking better for Perry by the day who if nothing else would know how to unite the GOP base and probably bring aboard a sizable number of independents. The left is tired and drained, I can't foresee them hating this guy enough to vote against him the way they did with McCain under the presumption that he was a proxy to Bush. Perry is showing a lot of heartland momentum without the Mormon or Tea Party baggage of Romney and Bachmann, respectively.

    He actually rather reminds me of Bush during the 2000 election.

    And if liberals don't come out to vote for Obama anyway, even if they're not particularly enthused, then the results will be like the 2000 election.

    If memory serves me well, that turned out really fucking well for the country.

    The headquarters for my writing:
    hummusandkimchi.blogspot.com

    http://us.battle.net/d3/en/profile/FriedRice-1814/hero/11834264
  • DerrickDerrick Registered User regular
    sanstodo wrote:
    Glyph wrote:
    At the end of the day, Obama hasn't come across particularly strong, either as a Democrat or a president in general, and in an attempt to reach out to the middle, he's lost his base. He could win every independent in 2012 and it wouldn't matter. While it's still too early to tell right now, it's looking better for Perry by the day who if nothing else would know how to unite the GOP base and probably bring aboard a sizable number of independents. The left is tired and drained, I can't foresee them hating this guy enough to vote against him the way they did with McCain under the presumption that he was a proxy to Bush. Perry is showing a lot of heartland momentum without the Mormon or Tea Party baggage of Romney and Bachmann, respectively.

    He actually rather reminds me of Bush during the 2000 election.

    And if liberals don't come out to vote for Obama anyway, even if they're not particularly enthused, then the results will be like the 2000 election.

    If memory serves me well, that turned out really fucking well for the country.

    I guess he better start getting his shit together, then.



    "The welfare of each of us is dependent fundamentally upon the welfare of all of us."
    Spoiler:
    -Theodore Roosevelt
  • ChanusChanus Registered User regular
    edited August 2011
    The idea of casting some sort of protest vote because Obama "isn't liberal enough" at a time like this is more retarded than the Tea Party platform you'd essentially be voting for.

    Like, really? Are you that stupid?


    Edit: Using the Royal You, here... not directly asking anyone.

    Chanus on
  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    Derrick wrote:
    sanstodo wrote:
    Glyph wrote:
    At the end of the day, Obama hasn't come across particularly strong, either as a Democrat or a president in general, and in an attempt to reach out to the middle, he's lost his base. He could win every independent in 2012 and it wouldn't matter. While it's still too early to tell right now, it's looking better for Perry by the day who if nothing else would know how to unite the GOP base and probably bring aboard a sizable number of independents. The left is tired and drained, I can't foresee them hating this guy enough to vote against him the way they did with McCain under the presumption that he was a proxy to Bush. Perry is showing a lot of heartland momentum without the Mormon or Tea Party baggage of Romney and Bachmann, respectively.

    He actually rather reminds me of Bush during the 2000 election.

    And if liberals don't come out to vote for Obama anyway, even if they're not particularly enthused, then the results will be like the 2000 election.

    If memory serves me well, that turned out really fucking well for the country.

    I guess he better start getting his shit together, then.

    For me, it doesn't matter much. The GOP alternatives as all so unpalatable that I have to vote for him. Even if he's not the president many of us had hoped for, he's much better than the alternatives. At the end of the day, that's what matters.

    The headquarters for my writing:
    hummusandkimchi.blogspot.com

    http://us.battle.net/d3/en/profile/FriedRice-1814/hero/11834264
  • DerrickDerrick Registered User regular
    Chanus wrote:
    The idea of casting some sort of protest vote because Obama "isn't liberal enough" at a time like this is more retarded than the Tea Party platform you'd essentially be voting for.

    Like, really? Are you that stupid?


    Edit: Using the Royal You, here... not directly asking anyone.

    I think it's been pretty well established that "Vote for X because Y is bad!" doesn't work. John Kerry, anyone?

    I think it's obvious that 2008 happened because people were voting for someone. I think the return on that investment has been fairly poor, and many liberals and independents tend to agree.

    Those are the dividends you're likely to see on Election Day. So, I respectfully request that Mr. President step up his game and be the man we all hoped he would be. Otherwise, it's likely to not go well for him, or the country as a whole.

    "The welfare of each of us is dependent fundamentally upon the welfare of all of us."
    Spoiler:
    -Theodore Roosevelt
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic I've Done Worse Registered User regular
    Derrick wrote:
    Chanus wrote:
    The idea of casting some sort of protest vote because Obama "isn't liberal enough" at a time like this is more retarded than the Tea Party platform you'd essentially be voting for.

    Like, really? Are you that stupid?


    Edit: Using the Royal You, here... not directly asking anyone.

    I think it's been pretty well established that "Vote for X because Y is bad!" doesn't work. John Kerry, anyone?

    I think it's obvious that 2008 happened because people were voting for someone. I think the return on that investment has been fairly poor, and many liberals and independents tend to agree.

    Those are the dividends you're likely to see on Election Day. So, I respectfully request that Mr. President step up his game and be the man we all hoped he would be. Otherwise, it's likely to not go well for him, or the country as a whole.

    selfhostage.png

    Trogg wrote: »
    Not as positive as AIDS and cancer, but positive nonetheless.

    PSN: QuipFilter
  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited August 2011
    Derrick wrote:
    Chanus wrote:
    The idea of casting some sort of protest vote because Obama "isn't liberal enough" at a time like this is more retarded than the Tea Party platform you'd essentially be voting for.

    Like, really? Are you that stupid?


    Edit: Using the Royal You, here... not directly asking anyone.

    I think it's been pretty well established that "Vote for X because Y is bad!" doesn't work. John Kerry, anyone?

    I think it's obvious that 2008 happened because people were voting for someone. I think the return on that investment has been fairly poor, and many liberals and independents tend to agree.

    Those are the dividends you're likely to see on Election Day. So, I respectfully request that Mr. President step up his game and be the man we all hoped he would be. Otherwise, it's likely to not go well for him, or the country as a whole.

    Yeah, passing the most important piece of Democratic legislation (the healthcare act) since LBJ certainly was a terrible investment. [/sarcasm]

    Seriously, did you all expect total victory? Especially with a disciplined, radical opposition party?

    I'm certain a lot of conservatives were disappointed with Bush in 2004. They still voted like crazy.

    @DevoutlyApathetic: Yeah, exactly :)

    sanstodo on
    The headquarters for my writing:
    hummusandkimchi.blogspot.com

    http://us.battle.net/d3/en/profile/FriedRice-1814/hero/11834264
  • DerrickDerrick Registered User regular
    sanstodo wrote:
    Derrick wrote:
    Chanus wrote:
    The idea of casting some sort of protest vote because Obama "isn't liberal enough" at a time like this is more retarded than the Tea Party platform you'd essentially be voting for.

    Like, really? Are you that stupid?


    Edit: Using the Royal You, here... not directly asking anyone.

    I think it's been pretty well established that "Vote for X because Y is bad!" doesn't work. John Kerry, anyone?

    I think it's obvious that 2008 happened because people were voting for someone. I think the return on that investment has been fairly poor, and many liberals and independents tend to agree.

    Those are the dividends you're likely to see on Election Day. So, I respectfully request that Mr. President step up his game and be the man we all hoped he would be. Otherwise, it's likely to not go well for him, or the country as a whole.

    Yeah, passing the most important piece of Democratic legislation (the healthcare act) since LBJ certainly was a terrible investment. [/sarcasm]

    Seriously, did you all expect total victory? Especially with a disciplined, radical opposition party?

    I'm certain a lot of conservatives were disappointed with Bush in 2004. They still voted like crazy.

    @DevoutlyApathetic: Yeah, exactly :)

    Reality Check: He didn't veto legislation written by the Heritage Foundation.

    He then goes on to offer Social Security up on the budget chopping block.

    Please don't compare the man to LBJ. It makes my pimp hand quiver.

    "The welfare of each of us is dependent fundamentally upon the welfare of all of us."
    Spoiler:
    -Theodore Roosevelt
  • ZythonZython Registered User regular
    sanstodo wrote:
    Derrick wrote:
    Chanus wrote:
    The idea of casting some sort of protest vote because Obama "isn't liberal enough" at a time like this is more retarded than the Tea Party platform you'd essentially be voting for.

    Like, really? Are you that stupid?


    Edit: Using the Royal You, here... not directly asking anyone.

    I think it's been pretty well established that "Vote for X because Y is bad!" doesn't work. John Kerry, anyone?

    I think it's obvious that 2008 happened because people were voting for someone. I think the return on that investment has been fairly poor, and many liberals and independents tend to agree.

    Those are the dividends you're likely to see on Election Day. So, I respectfully request that Mr. President step up his game and be the man we all hoped he would be. Otherwise, it's likely to not go well for him, or the country as a whole.

    Yeah, passing the most important piece of Democratic legislation (the healthcare act) since LBJ certainly was a terrible investment. [/sarcasm]

    Seriously, did you all expect total victory? Especially with a disciplined, radical opposition party?

    I'm certain a lot of conservatives were disappointed with Bush in 2004. They still voted like crazy.

    @DevoutlyApathetic: Yeah, exactly :)

    Well, while that is true, it's up to Obama to effectively bring those up. If he feels his accomplishments are something to be proud of, then hopefully he'll campaign on them and convince people that their vote in 2008 was worth it. He's got an uphill battle in front of him, and he's playing a different game this time than he was in 2008, so he needs to be able to adjust and handle it.

    3DS Friend Code: 4854-6465-0299 | Wii U: zython
    Steam: pazython
    Lv 90 Tauren Shaman Lv 90 Pandaren Monk
  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited August 2011
    Derrick wrote:
    sanstodo wrote:
    Derrick wrote:
    Chanus wrote:
    The idea of casting some sort of protest vote because Obama "isn't liberal enough" at a time like this is more retarded than the Tea Party platform you'd essentially be voting for.

    Like, really? Are you that stupid?


    Edit: Using the Royal You, here... not directly asking anyone.

    I think it's been pretty well established that "Vote for X because Y is bad!" doesn't work. John Kerry, anyone?

    I think it's obvious that 2008 happened because people were voting for someone. I think the return on that investment has been fairly poor, and many liberals and independents tend to agree.

    Those are the dividends you're likely to see on Election Day. So, I respectfully request that Mr. President step up his game and be the man we all hoped he would be. Otherwise, it's likely to not go well for him, or the country as a whole.

    Yeah, passing the most important piece of Democratic legislation (the healthcare act) since LBJ certainly was a terrible investment. [/sarcasm]

    Seriously, did you all expect total victory? Especially with a disciplined, radical opposition party?

    I'm certain a lot of conservatives were disappointed with Bush in 2004. They still voted like crazy.

    @DevoutlyApathetic: Yeah, exactly :)

    Reality Check: He didn't veto legislation written by the Heritage Foundation.

    He then goes on to offer Social Security up on the budget chopping block.

    Please don't compare the man to LBJ. It makes my pimp hand quiver.

    You mean the debt ceiling bill? Yeah, vetoing that and going into default would be a great move! You're a brilliant political strategist! [/sarcasm]

    He did the responsible thing. I wasn't happy about it, but the cuts are back-loaded and can be undone like a future congress (like if we all come out in 2012 and win elections nationwide). Better than default, certainly.

    What cuts on SS? If it's lower benefits for the wealthy, fine by me. He was pretty circumspect on that, and I figure it was a strategic move by him to show that the Republicans are so unreasonable that they'll reject everything.

    The healthcare bill is the most important Democratic legislation since Medicare and Medicaid. Sorry to break that to you, but Obama achieved what other Democratic presidents couldn't. If that's not enough for you, then have fun in your magical liberal fantasy world (that I'd probably like, but is beside the point).

    Edit: Btw, how often was the filibuster used before the 1960's?

    Answer: About once a decade.

    During the 1960's, cloture ended the Civil Rights filibusters. LBJ had enduring Democratic majorities in Congress, and combined with the rarer filibustering, could pass far more legislation.

    Obama operates in a much different environment.

    sanstodo on
    The headquarters for my writing:
    hummusandkimchi.blogspot.com

    http://us.battle.net/d3/en/profile/FriedRice-1814/hero/11834264
  • DerrickDerrick Registered User regular
    edited August 2011
    sanstodo wrote:
    Derrick wrote:
    sanstodo wrote:
    Derrick wrote:
    Chanus wrote:
    The idea of casting some sort of protest vote because Obama "isn't liberal enough" at a time like this is more retarded than the Tea Party platform you'd essentially be voting for.

    Like, really? Are you that stupid?


    Edit: Using the Royal You, here... not directly asking anyone.

    I think it's been pretty well established that "Vote for X because Y is bad!" doesn't work. John Kerry, anyone?

    I think it's obvious that 2008 happened because people were voting for someone. I think the return on that investment has been fairly poor, and many liberals and independents tend to agree.

    Those are the dividends you're likely to see on Election Day. So, I respectfully request that Mr. President step up his game and be the man we all hoped he would be. Otherwise, it's likely to not go well for him, or the country as a whole.

    Yeah, passing the most important piece of Democratic legislation (the healthcare act) since LBJ certainly was a terrible investment. [/sarcasm]

    Seriously, did you all expect total victory? Especially with a disciplined, radical opposition party?

    I'm certain a lot of conservatives were disappointed with Bush in 2004. They still voted like crazy.

    @DevoutlyApathetic: Yeah, exactly :)

    Reality Check: He didn't veto legislation written by the Heritage Foundation.

    He then goes on to offer Social Security up on the budget chopping block.

    Please don't compare the man to LBJ. It makes my pimp hand quiver.

    You mean the debt ceiling bill? Yeah, vetoing that and going into default would be a great move! You're a brilliant political strategist! [/sarcasm]

    He did the responsible thing. I wasn't happy about it, but the cuts are back-loaded and can be undone like a future congress (like if we all come out in 2012 and win elections nationwide). Better than default, certainly.

    What cuts on SS? If it's lower benefits for the wealthy, fine by me. He was pretty circumspect on that, and I figure it was a strategic move by him to show that the Republicans are so unreasonable that they'll reject everything.

    The healthcare bill is the most important Democratic legislation since Medicare and Medicaid. Sorry to break that to you, but Obama achieved what other Democratic presidents couldn't. If that's not enough for you, then have fun in your magical liberal fantasy world (that I'd probably like, but is beside the point).

    Who said anything about vetoing the bill? I said he offered SS on the chopping block, and he did (the fucking traitor).

    If he had vetoed it, he could have invoked the 14th and we wouldn't be talking about how to cut money during a recession like a group of retarded fucking hyenas. You know, like Clinton blatantly said he would do, and the reason the republican congress never gave Clinton shit about it. The man has a spine.

    You're comparing LBJ's accomplishments to Obama's. Are you fucking serious?
    Johnson was greatly supported by the Democratic Party and, as President, was responsible for designing the "Great Society" legislation that included laws that upheld civil rights, Public Broadcasting, Medicare, Medicaid, environmental protection, aid to education, and his "War on Poverty." He was renowned for his domineering personality and the "Johnson treatment," his coercion of powerful politicians in order to advance legislation.

    That's the opposite of Obama.

    Derrick on
    "The welfare of each of us is dependent fundamentally upon the welfare of all of us."
    Spoiler:
    -Theodore Roosevelt
  • moutpeacemoutpeace Registered User
    edited August 2011
    sanstodo wrote:
    Derrick wrote:
    sanstodo wrote:
    Derrick wrote:
    Chanus wrote:
    The idea of casting some sort of protest vote because Obama "isn't liberal enough" at a time like this is more retarded than the Tea Party platform you'd essentially be voting for.

    Like, really? Are you that stupid?


    Edit: Using the Royal You, here... not directly asking anyone.

    I think it's been pretty well established that "Vote for X because Y is bad!" doesn't work. John Kerry, anyone?

    I think it's obvious that 2008 happened because people were voting for someone. I think the return on that investment has been fairly poor, and many liberals and independents tend to agree.

    Those are the dividends you're likely to see on Election Day. So, I respectfully request that Mr. President step up his game and be the man we all hoped he would be. Otherwise, it's likely to not go well for him, or the country as a whole.

    Yeah, passing the most important piece of Democratic legislation (the healthcare act) since LBJ certainly was a terrible investment. [/sarcasm]

    Seriously, did you all expect total victory? Especially with a disciplined, radical opposition party?

    I'm certain a lot of conservatives were disappointed with Bush in 2004. They still voted like crazy.

    @DevoutlyApathetic: Yeah, exactly :)

    Reality Check: He didn't veto legislation written by the Heritage Foundation.

    He then goes on to offer Social Security up on the budget chopping block.

    Please don't compare the man to LBJ. It makes my pimp hand quiver.

    You mean the debt ceiling bill? Yeah, vetoing that and going into default would be a great move! You're a brilliant political strategist! [/sarcasm]

    He did the responsible thing. I wasn't happy about it, but the cuts are back-loaded and can be undone like a future congress (like if we all come out in 2012 and win elections nationwide). Better than default, certainly.

    What cuts on SS? If it's lower benefits for the wealthy, fine by me. He was pretty circumspect on that, and I figure it was a strategic move by him to show that the Republicans are so unreasonable that they'll reject everything.

    The healthcare bill is the most important Democratic legislation since Medicare and Medicaid. Sorry to break that to you, but Obama achieved what other Democratic presidents couldn't. If that's not enough for you, then have fun in your magical liberal fantasy world (that I'd probably like, but is beside the point).


    The healthcare bill he did pass was crap anyway.

    Unless he does some incredible things in this next year, the reality is going to be this: Obama was a shit president with shit ideas that couldn't get shit done.

    If you do not feel the same way you felt about him in 2008 or would not even donate more than 100 dollars to his campaign today, then you should not vote for him.

    If you keep voting for Presidents you do not like, you will never evolve the democratic party. The party needs to get badly bruised so the politicians can learn.

    This is the frustration I have with other liberals. They just cannot think long term. They live election to election, vote to vote, issue to issue. They do not understand the concept of investing in their party and the importance of maintaining their image, nor delayed gratification. It's a completely cutthroat party where everyone wants everything NOW and every second they don't have it is an OUTRAGE!

    You shouldn't be afraid of a President Perry, because we've had shitty presidents before and we were fine. Obama's whole Presidency has been such a dark time that people actually look back fondly on the Bush years, when the economy was decent and people still had money and jobs. Don't sweat it.

    moutpeace on
  • RingoRingo Registered User regular
    Ah yes, that wonderful Bush Economy that suddenly imploded in January 2009 as soon as Obama took over.

    Never get tired of hearing that one.

    ceres wrote: »
    I'm just going to go ahead and lock this thread before I feel any worse about humanity.
    Edcrab's Exigency RPG now featured at the Exigency Forum
  • ChanusChanus Registered User regular
    moutpeace wrote:
    The healthcare bill he did pass was crap anyway.

    Unless he does some incredible things in this next year, the reality is going to be this: Obama was a shit president with shit ideas that couldn't get shit done.

    If you do not feel the same way you felt about him in 2008 or would not even donate more than 100 dollars to his campaign today, then you should not vote for him.

    If you keep voting for Presidents you do not like, you will never evolve the democratic party. The party needs to get badly bruised so the politicians can learn.

    This is the frustration I have with other liberals. They just cannot think long term. They live election to election, vote to vote, issue to issue. They do not understand the concept of investing in their party and the importance of maintaining their image, nor delayed gratification. It's a completely cutthroat party where everyone wants everything NOW and every second they don't have it is an OUTRAGE!

    You shouldn't be afraid of a President Perry, because we've had shitty presidents before and we were fine. Obama's whole Presidency has been such a dark time that people actually look back fondly on the Bush years, when the economy was decent and people still had money and jobs. Don't sweat it.

    I think there is a time and place for being willing to take a loss in order to achieve a broader victory, and when the enemy is at your door, willing to burn everything down, that's just not the time.

    Which is a lesson the Democrats need to learn as well, but capitulating right now is a really bad idea for everybody left of Lindsey Graham.

    Like... basic human rights for everyone except rich, heterosexual men are at stake right now... it's not the time to sit on your thumbs and cry about not living in a liberal utopia.

  • moutpeacemoutpeace Registered User
    sanstodo wrote:
    Edit: Btw, how often was the filibuster used before the 1960's?

    Answer: About once a decade.

    A long time ago, Republicans wanted to completely remove the filibuster.


    Democrats said no.


    Because Democrats don't think long term.


    Sometimes I wonder which party has the bigger morons.

  • moutpeacemoutpeace Registered User
    edited August 2011
    Chanus wrote:
    I think there is a time and place for being willing to take a loss in order to achieve a broader victory, and when the enemy is at your door, willing to burn everything down, that's just not the time.

    Which is a lesson the Democrats need to learn as well, but capitulating right now is a really bad idea for everybody left of Lindsey Graham.

    Like... basic human rights for everyone except rich, heterosexual men are at stake right now... it's not the time to sit on your thumbs and cry about not living in a liberal utopia.

    No, that's exactly the time.

    The enemy is always going to be at your door.

    There is never going to be a time where basic human rights and heterosexual men aren't at stake. That's just something Democrats don't realize.

    There is no magical time where taking a loss isn't going to hurt.

    moutpeace on
  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    Derrick wrote:
    Who said anything about vetoing the bill? I said he offered SS on the chopping block, and he did (the fucking traitor).

    If he had vetoed it, he could have invoked the 14th and we wouldn't be talking about how to cut money during a recession like a group of retarded fucking hyenas. You know, like Clinton blatantly said he would do, and the reason the republican congress never gave Clinton shit about it. The man has a spine.

    You're comparing LBJ's accomplishments to Obama's. Are you fucking serious?
    Johnson was greatly supported by the Democratic Party and, as President, was responsible for designing the "Great Society" legislation that included laws that upheld civil rights, Public Broadcasting, Medicare, Medicaid, environmental protection, aid to education, and his "War on Poverty." He was renowned for his domineering personality and the "Johnson treatment," his coercion of powerful politicians in order to advance legislation.

    That's the opposite of Obama.

    First, read my edit. If LBJ had to operate in today's political environment, he wouldn't have gotten nearly as much done. And just for reading comprehension, the operative word is "since". We're on the same side, dude. Calmness.

    Second, the debt ceiling deal barely cuts anything in 2012. As mentioned, scheduled cuts can be undone by a future Congress. Was it the deal we wanted? No, but it was preferable to default or to months of impeachment hearings.

    Invoking the 14th amendment is, as one commentator aptly put, a poisoned chalice. Expanding presidential power allows Congress to shirk its Constitutional responsibilities and pin all fault on the president. The problems in our political system are not Obama's fault. They're Congress' fault, specifically Republican lawmakers ("give us what we want or we'll set it all on fire!").

    If we want to fix our political institutions, separation of powers is more important than ever.

    The headquarters for my writing:
    hummusandkimchi.blogspot.com

    http://us.battle.net/d3/en/profile/FriedRice-1814/hero/11834264
  • DerrickDerrick Registered User regular
    Chanus wrote:
    moutpeace wrote:
    The healthcare bill he did pass was crap anyway.

    Unless he does some incredible things in this next year, the reality is going to be this: Obama was a shit president with shit ideas that couldn't get shit done.

    If you do not feel the same way you felt about him in 2008 or would not even donate more than 100 dollars to his campaign today, then you should not vote for him.

    If you keep voting for Presidents you do not like, you will never evolve the democratic party. The party needs to get badly bruised so the politicians can learn.

    This is the frustration I have with other liberals. They just cannot think long term. They live election to election, vote to vote, issue to issue. They do not understand the concept of investing in their party and the importance of maintaining their image, nor delayed gratification. It's a completely cutthroat party where everyone wants everything NOW and every second they don't have it is an OUTRAGE!

    You shouldn't be afraid of a President Perry, because we've had shitty presidents before and we were fine. Obama's whole Presidency has been such a dark time that people actually look back fondly on the Bush years, when the economy was decent and people still had money and jobs. Don't sweat it.

    I think there is a time and place for being willing to take a loss in order to achieve a broader victory, and when the enemy is at your door, willing to burn everything down, that's just not the time.

    Which is a lesson the Democrats need to learn as well, but capitulating right now is a really bad idea for everybody left of Lindsey Graham.

    Like... basic human rights for everyone except rich, heterosexual men are at stake right now... it's not the time to sit on your thumbs and cry about not living in a liberal utopia.

    I love how universal healthcare is a liberal utopia, despite most or all first world countries having it.

    I love how expecting your president to stop sucking republican dick long enough to actually defend legislation democrats have fought long and hard for is somehow expecting a liberal utopia.

    You defeatist apologists are ruining the party.

    (read in Dorothy's voice)
    "Oh no! Now you have to vote for him!"

    No, actually I don't. There will always be a crisis of the moment. That has never, and will never change. The President either starts standing up for my party or he can kiss my ass. And no, hardcore republican circa 1985 is not "close enough."

    "The welfare of each of us is dependent fundamentally upon the welfare of all of us."
    Spoiler:
    -Theodore Roosevelt
  • moutpeacemoutpeace Registered User
    I sure as fuck won't be voting for him, and will actively be encouraging others to think twice before doing so.

  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    Chanus wrote:
    moutpeace wrote:
    The healthcare bill he did pass was crap anyway.

    Unless he does some incredible things in this next year, the reality is going to be this: Obama was a shit president with shit ideas that couldn't get shit done.

    If you do not feel the same way you felt about him in 2008 or would not even donate more than 100 dollars to his campaign today, then you should not vote for him.

    If you keep voting for Presidents you do not like, you will never evolve the democratic party. The party needs to get badly bruised so the politicians can learn.

    This is the frustration I have with other liberals. They just cannot think long term. They live election to election, vote to vote, issue to issue. They do not understand the concept of investing in their party and the importance of maintaining their image, nor delayed gratification. It's a completely cutthroat party where everyone wants everything NOW and every second they don't have it is an OUTRAGE!

    You shouldn't be afraid of a President Perry, because we've had shitty presidents before and we were fine. Obama's whole Presidency has been such a dark time that people actually look back fondly on the Bush years, when the economy was decent and people still had money and jobs. Don't sweat it.

    I think there is a time and place for being willing to take a loss in order to achieve a broader victory, and when the enemy is at your door, willing to burn everything down, that's just not the time.

    Which is a lesson the Democrats need to learn as well, but capitulating right now is a really bad idea for everybody left of Lindsey Graham.

    Like... basic human rights for everyone except rich, heterosexual men are at stake right now... it's not the time to sit on your thumbs and cry about not living in a liberal utopia.

    Beyond that, though, is the cognitive dissonance in moutpeace's argument.

    Assertion 1:
    moutpeace wrote:
    "If you do not feel the same way you felt about him in 2008 or would not even donate more than 100 dollars to his campaign today, then you should not vote for him.

    If you keep voting for Presidents you do not like, you will never evolve the democratic party. The party needs to get badly bruised so the politicians can learn."

    Assertion 2:
    moutpeace wrote:
    "This is the frustration I have with other liberals. They just cannot think long term. They live election to election, vote to vote, issue to issue. They do not understand the concept of investing in their party and the importance of maintaining their image, nor delayed gratification. It's a completely cutthroat party where everyone wants everything NOW and every second they don't have it is an OUTRAGE!"

    If maintenance of the Democratic party's image is so important, then how does an Obama loss in 2012 help? Wouldn't it make the party look incredibly weak and divided, instead of cohesive and proud of its achievements?

    Medicare and Medicaid started out far smaller than they are now. They expanded over time. In light of your second assertion, specifically about delayed gratification, why can't the healthcare bill improve and expand over time?

    The headquarters for my writing:
    hummusandkimchi.blogspot.com

    http://us.battle.net/d3/en/profile/FriedRice-1814/hero/11834264
  • moutpeacemoutpeace Registered User
    edited August 2011
    sanstodo wrote:

    If maintenance of the Democratic party's image is so important, then how does an Obama loss in 2012 help?


    The same way that winning in 2008 apparently didn't help Democrats look stronger.

    How the fuck do you hold a majority in Congress and the Presidency and still struggle to get your shit done?

    moutpeace on
  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    moutpeace wrote:
    sanstodo wrote:

    If maintenance of the Democratic party's image is so important, then how does an Obama loss in 2012 help?


    The same way that winning in 2008 apparently didn't help Democrats look stronger.

    How the fuck do you hold a majority in Congress and the Presidency and still struggle to get your shit done?

    You didn't answer the question. Try again.

    To respond to your second sentence:

    Filibuster and disciplined opposition that doesn't care about governance.

    The headquarters for my writing:
    hummusandkimchi.blogspot.com

    http://us.battle.net/d3/en/profile/FriedRice-1814/hero/11834264
  • moutpeacemoutpeace Registered User
    edited August 2011
    sanstodo wrote:
    moutpeace wrote:
    sanstodo wrote:

    If maintenance of the Democratic party's image is so important, then how does an Obama loss in 2012 help?


    The same way that winning in 2008 apparently didn't help Democrats look stronger.

    How the fuck do you hold a majority in Congress and the Presidency and still struggle to get your shit done?

    You didn't answer the question. Try again.

    To respond to your second sentence:

    Filibuster and disciplined opposition that doesn't care about governance.

    There is no excuse for that question, and there is no answer except incompetence.

    If the Republicans wanted to filibuster, let them filibuster and see what happens.


    I have no faith in the Democratic party's ability to expand healthcare in the future based on what I've seen today.

    moutpeace on
  • DelzhandDelzhand motivated battle programmerRegistered User regular
    edited August 2011
    Letting the country tank so hard to the right that people get absolutely fucked by the GOP in the hopes that they wake up and realize they ought to be liberals doesn't strike me as a particularly sound. It sounds, actually, like the kind of hard-line ideological warfare that is so despicable on the other side of the aisle.

    Delzhand on
    jk0Btsj.png
  • moutpeacemoutpeace Registered User
    Delzhand wrote:
    Letting the country tank so hard to the right that people get absolutely fucked by the GOP in the hopes that they wake up and realize they ought to be liberals doesn't strike me as a particularly sound. It sounds, actually, like the kind of hard-line ideological warfare that is so despicable on the other side of the aisle.

    So what's the alternative? Bend over and get fucked discretely by the GOP?

  • BagginsesBagginses __BANNED USERS regular
    Derrick wrote:
    sanstodo wrote:
    Derrick wrote:
    sanstodo wrote:
    Derrick wrote:
    Chanus wrote:
    The idea of casting some sort of protest vote because Obama "isn't liberal enough" at a time like this is more retarded than the Tea Party platform you'd essentially be voting for.

    Like, really? Are you that stupid?


    Edit: Using the Royal You, here... not directly asking anyone.

    I think it's been pretty well established that "Vote for X because Y is bad!" doesn't work. John Kerry, anyone?

    I think it's obvious that 2008 happened because people were voting for someone. I think the return on that investment has been fairly poor, and many liberals and independents tend to agree.

    Those are the dividends you're likely to see on Election Day. So, I respectfully request that Mr. President step up his game and be the man we all hoped he would be. Otherwise, it's likely to not go well for him, or the country as a whole.

    Yeah, passing the most important piece of Democratic legislation (the healthcare act) since LBJ certainly was a terrible investment. [/sarcasm]

    Seriously, did you all expect total victory? Especially with a disciplined, radical opposition party?

    I'm certain a lot of conservatives were disappointed with Bush in 2004. They still voted like crazy.

    @DevoutlyApathetic: Yeah, exactly :)

    Reality Check: He didn't veto legislation written by the Heritage Foundation.

    He then goes on to offer Social Security up on the budget chopping block.

    Please don't compare the man to LBJ. It makes my pimp hand quiver.

    You mean the debt ceiling bill? Yeah, vetoing that and going into default would be a great move! You're a brilliant political strategist! [/sarcasm]

    He did the responsible thing. I wasn't happy about it, but the cuts are back-loaded and can be undone like a future congress (like if we all come out in 2012 and win elections nationwide). Better than default, certainly.

    What cuts on SS? If it's lower benefits for the wealthy, fine by me. He was pretty circumspect on that, and I figure it was a strategic move by him to show that the Republicans are so unreasonable that they'll reject everything.

    The healthcare bill is the most important Democratic legislation since Medicare and Medicaid. Sorry to break that to you, but Obama achieved what other Democratic presidents couldn't. If that's not enough for you, then have fun in your magical liberal fantasy world (that I'd probably like, but is beside the point).

    Who said anything about vetoing the bill? I said he offered SS on the chopping block, and he did (the fucking traitor).

    If he had vetoed it, he could have invoked the 14th and we wouldn't be talking about how to cut money during a recession like a group of retarded fucking hyenas. You know, like Clinton blatantly said he would do, and the reason the republican congress never gave Clinton shit about it. The man has a spine.

    You're comparing LBJ's accomplishments to Obama's. Are you fucking serious?
    Johnson was greatly supported by the Democratic Party and, as President, was responsible for designing the "Great Society" legislation that included laws that upheld civil rights, Public Broadcasting, Medicare, Medicaid, environmental protection, aid to education, and his "War on Poverty." He was renowned for his domineering personality and the "Johnson treatment," his coercion of powerful politicians in order to advance legislation.

    That's the opposite of Obama.

    And here I was thinking that people voted for Obama because he wouldn't pull blatantly unconstitutional shit. Maybe you should just come out and say that he should have stripped the cuts from the debt ceiling bill with a signing statement.

    And yes, we do dare compare a living politician to your messiah. Stuff your nostalgia up your ass and deal with it.

  • ChanusChanus Registered User regular
    Delzhand wrote:
    Letting the country tank so hard to the right that people get absolutely fucked by the GOP in the hopes that they wake up and realize they ought to be liberals doesn't strike me as a particularly sound. It sounds, actually, like the kind of hard-line ideological warfare that is so despicable on the other side of the aisle.

    This. Precisely.

  • DerrickDerrick Registered User regular
    Bagginses wrote:
    Derrick wrote:
    sanstodo wrote:
    Derrick wrote:
    sanstodo wrote:
    Derrick wrote:
    Chanus wrote:
    The idea of casting some sort of protest vote because Obama "isn't liberal enough" at a time like this is more retarded than the Tea Party platform you'd essentially be voting for.

    Like, really? Are you that stupid?


    Edit: Using the Royal You, here... not directly asking anyone.

    I think it's been pretty well established that "Vote for X because Y is bad!" doesn't work. John Kerry, anyone?

    I think it's obvious that 2008 happened because people were voting for someone. I think the return on that investment has been fairly poor, and many liberals and independents tend to agree.

    Those are the dividends you're likely to see on Election Day. So, I respectfully request that Mr. President step up his game and be the man we all hoped he would be. Otherwise, it's likely to not go well for him, or the country as a whole.

    Yeah, passing the most important piece of Democratic legislation (the healthcare act) since LBJ certainly was a terrible investment. [/sarcasm]

    Seriously, did you all expect total victory? Especially with a disciplined, radical opposition party?

    I'm certain a lot of conservatives were disappointed with Bush in 2004. They still voted like crazy.

    @DevoutlyApathetic: Yeah, exactly :)

    Reality Check: He didn't veto legislation written by the Heritage Foundation.

    He then goes on to offer Social Security up on the budget chopping block.

    Please don't compare the man to LBJ. It makes my pimp hand quiver.

    You mean the debt ceiling bill? Yeah, vetoing that and going into default would be a great move! You're a brilliant political strategist! [/sarcasm]

    He did the responsible thing. I wasn't happy about it, but the cuts are back-loaded and can be undone like a future congress (like if we all come out in 2012 and win elections nationwide). Better than default, certainly.

    What cuts on SS? If it's lower benefits for the wealthy, fine by me. He was pretty circumspect on that, and I figure it was a strategic move by him to show that the Republicans are so unreasonable that they'll reject everything.

    The healthcare bill is the most important Democratic legislation since Medicare and Medicaid. Sorry to break that to you, but Obama achieved what other Democratic presidents couldn't. If that's not enough for you, then have fun in your magical liberal fantasy world (that I'd probably like, but is beside the point).

    Who said anything about vetoing the bill? I said he offered SS on the chopping block, and he did (the fucking traitor).

    If he had vetoed it, he could have invoked the 14th and we wouldn't be talking about how to cut money during a recession like a group of retarded fucking hyenas. You know, like Clinton blatantly said he would do, and the reason the republican congress never gave Clinton shit about it. The man has a spine.

    You're comparing LBJ's accomplishments to Obama's. Are you fucking serious?
    Johnson was greatly supported by the Democratic Party and, as President, was responsible for designing the "Great Society" legislation that included laws that upheld civil rights, Public Broadcasting, Medicare, Medicaid, environmental protection, aid to education, and his "War on Poverty." He was renowned for his domineering personality and the "Johnson treatment," his coercion of powerful politicians in order to advance legislation.

    That's the opposite of Obama.

    And here I was thinking that people voted for Obama because he wouldn't pull blatantly unconstitutional shit. Maybe you should just come out and say that he should have stripped the cuts from the debt ceiling bill with a signing statement.

    And yes, we do dare compare a living politician to your messiah. Stuff your nostalgia up your ass and deal with it.

    It's not unconstitutional. Read the Constitution.

    I welcome the comparison, because it shows Obama as a weak President with no excuses. Compare him to TR while you're at it. FDR as well.

    But don't come back and claim that will throw Obama in a favorable light.

    "The welfare of each of us is dependent fundamentally upon the welfare of all of us."
    Spoiler:
    -Theodore Roosevelt
  • moutpeacemoutpeace Registered User
    I agree with Derrick.

  • ZythonZython Registered User regular
    Chanus wrote:
    moutpeace wrote:
    The healthcare bill he did pass was crap anyway.

    Unless he does some incredible things in this next year, the reality is going to be this: Obama was a shit president with shit ideas that couldn't get shit done.

    If you do not feel the same way you felt about him in 2008 or would not even donate more than 100 dollars to his campaign today, then you should not vote for him.

    If you keep voting for Presidents you do not like, you will never evolve the democratic party. The party needs to get badly bruised so the politicians can learn.

    This is the frustration I have with other liberals. They just cannot think long term. They live election to election, vote to vote, issue to issue. They do not understand the concept of investing in their party and the importance of maintaining their image, nor delayed gratification. It's a completely cutthroat party where everyone wants everything NOW and every second they don't have it is an OUTRAGE!

    You shouldn't be afraid of a President Perry, because we've had shitty presidents before and we were fine. Obama's whole Presidency has been such a dark time that people actually look back fondly on the Bush years, when the economy was decent and people still had money and jobs. Don't sweat it.

    I think there is a time and place for being willing to take a loss in order to achieve a broader victory, and when the enemy is at your door, willing to burn everything down, that's just not the time.

    Which is a lesson the Democrats need to learn as well, but capitulating right now is a really bad idea for everybody left of Lindsey Graham.

    Like... basic human rights for everyone except rich, heterosexual men are at stake right now... it's not the time to sit on your thumbs and cry about not living in a liberal utopia.

    Exactly. Thinking long term is all well and good, but what about the people who stand to lose everything before then. What about people that, should the short run be lost, won't even live to see the long run? Politics isn't a game to be won, people's lives and livelihoods are at stake. I know it's easy to lose sight of that, but we need to look at both the short AND the long term.

    3DS Friend Code: 4854-6465-0299 | Wii U: zython
    Steam: pazython
    Lv 90 Tauren Shaman Lv 90 Pandaren Monk
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    If LBJ was alive today, he wouldn't be able to show his wang to reporters.

  • BagginsesBagginses __BANNED USERS regular
    Derrick wrote:
    Bagginses wrote:
    Derrick wrote:
    sanstodo wrote:
    Derrick wrote:
    sanstodo wrote:
    Derrick wrote:
    Chanus wrote:
    The idea of casting some sort of protest vote because Obama "isn't liberal enough" at a time like this is more retarded than the Tea Party platform you'd essentially be voting for.

    Like, really? Are you that stupid?


    Edit: Using the Royal You, here... not directly asking anyone.

    I think it's been pretty well established that "Vote for X because Y is bad!" doesn't work. John Kerry, anyone?

    I think it's obvious that 2008 happened because people were voting for someone. I think the return on that investment has been fairly poor, and many liberals and independents tend to agree.

    Those are the dividends you're likely to see on Election Day. So, I respectfully request that Mr. President step up his game and be the man we all hoped he would be. Otherwise, it's likely to not go well for him, or the country as a whole.

    Yeah, passing the most important piece of Democratic legislation (the healthcare act) since LBJ certainly was a terrible investment. [/sarcasm]

    Seriously, did you all expect total victory? Especially with a disciplined, radical opposition party?

    I'm certain a lot of conservatives were disappointed with Bush in 2004. They still voted like crazy.

    @DevoutlyApathetic: Yeah, exactly :)

    Reality Check: He didn't veto legislation written by the Heritage Foundation.

    He then goes on to offer Social Security up on the budget chopping block.

    Please don't compare the man to LBJ. It makes my pimp hand quiver.

    You mean the debt ceiling bill? Yeah, vetoing that and going into default would be a great move! You're a brilliant political strategist! [/sarcasm]

    He did the responsible thing. I wasn't happy about it, but the cuts are back-loaded and can be undone like a future congress (like if we all come out in 2012 and win elections nationwide). Better than default, certainly.

    What cuts on SS? If it's lower benefits for the wealthy, fine by me. He was pretty circumspect on that, and I figure it was a strategic move by him to show that the Republicans are so unreasonable that they'll reject everything.

    The healthcare bill is the most important Democratic legislation since Medicare and Medicaid. Sorry to break that to you, but Obama achieved what other Democratic presidents couldn't. If that's not enough for you, then have fun in your magical liberal fantasy world (that I'd probably like, but is beside the point).

    Who said anything about vetoing the bill? I said he offered SS on the chopping block, and he did (the fucking traitor).

    If he had vetoed it, he could have invoked the 14th and we wouldn't be talking about how to cut money during a recession like a group of retarded fucking hyenas. You know, like Clinton blatantly said he would do, and the reason the republican congress never gave Clinton shit about it. The man has a spine.

    You're comparing LBJ's accomplishments to Obama's. Are you fucking serious?
    Johnson was greatly supported by the Democratic Party and, as President, was responsible for designing the "Great Society" legislation that included laws that upheld civil rights, Public Broadcasting, Medicare, Medicaid, environmental protection, aid to education, and his "War on Poverty." He was renowned for his domineering personality and the "Johnson treatment," his coercion of powerful politicians in order to advance legislation.

    That's the opposite of Obama.

    And here I was thinking that people voted for Obama because he wouldn't pull blatantly unconstitutional shit. Maybe you should just come out and say that he should have stripped the cuts from the debt ceiling bill with a signing statement.

    And yes, we do dare compare a living politician to your messiah. Stuff your nostalgia up your ass and deal with it.

    It's not unconstitutional. Read the Constitution.

    I welcome the comparison, because it shows Obama as a weak President with no excuses. Compare him to TR while you're at it. FDR as well.

    But don't come back and claim that will throw Obama in a favorable light.

    I have. The constitution doesn't say what you seem to think it does, as has already been pointed out to you endlessly in the debt ceiling thread. Really, the only was the 14th amendment could be read as saying what you think it means is if it were read by someone of highly questionable literacy.

  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue Registered User regular
    I love the thought that "Obama didn't give me everything I want, therefore I'm going to vote for the party that is certifiably insane. That'll show him good!"

    It's just crazy enough to work!

    metroid_sig.jpg
  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue Registered User regular
    Oh wait no, it's just crazy

    metroid_sig.jpg
  • moutpeacemoutpeace Registered User
    SyphonBlue wrote:
    I love the thought that "Obama didn't give me everything I want, therefore I'm going to vote for the party that is certifiably insane. That'll show him good!"

    It's just crazy enough to work!

    It's more "I'm not going to vote, period."




  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue Registered User regular
    Then you're voting for the other party.

    metroid_sig.jpg
  • moutpeacemoutpeace Registered User
    Zython wrote:
    Exactly. Thinking long term is all well and good, but what about the people who stand to lose everything before then. What about people that, should the short run be lost, won't even live to see the long run? Politics isn't a game to be won, people's lives and livelihoods are at stake. I know it's easy to lose sight of that, but we need to look at both the short AND the long term.

    You're right, lets wait until nobody has anything to lose in the short term, ever.

  • SageinaRageSageinaRage Registered User regular
    moutpeace wrote:
    sanstodo wrote:

    If maintenance of the Democratic party's image is so important, then how does an Obama loss in 2012 help?


    The same way that winning in 2008 apparently didn't help Democrats look stronger.

    How the fuck do you hold a majority in Congress and the Presidency and still struggle to get your shit done?

    Because they have a constituency who is ready to completely undermine their party at the first sign of weakness (ie, you)

  • DelzhandDelzhand motivated battle programmerRegistered User regular
    moutpeace wrote:
    Delzhand wrote:
    Letting the country tank so hard to the right that people get absolutely fucked by the GOP in the hopes that they wake up and realize they ought to be liberals doesn't strike me as a particularly sound. It sounds, actually, like the kind of hard-line ideological warfare that is so despicable on the other side of the aisle.

    So what's the alternative? Bend over and get fucked discretely by the GOP?

    Voting for the party that most closely aligns with your personal beliefs. But you don't want to do that. You don't want to vote for a weaker party that aligns with your beliefs in the hope that, if crushed, they'll emerge stronger in the future. This isn't a scifi movie. There's no reason to believe that will happen.

    jk0Btsj.png
  • moutpeacemoutpeace Registered User
    edited August 2011
    SyphonBlue wrote:
    Then you're voting for the other party.

    No, there are many parties, and I'm not voting for any of them. I'm writing myself in.

    moutpeace on
This discussion has been closed.