Vanilla Forums has been nominated for a second time in the CMS Critic "Critic's Choice" awards, and we need your vote! Read more here, and then do the thing (please).
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!

The Obama Administration: Re-Elected! 332-206 (Probably)

11718202223102

Posts

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    You have to do something though. Anarchy doesn't work as long as there is some form of representation.

    True. I'm not condoning anarchy, btw. I'm talking about getting directly involved in the political process itself.
    These people want to get to the 100% my ideals without going through 1-99% Compromise is a thing that exists and if they are all or nothing, they will end up with less.

    It's not a compromise when they're agenda is the first being thrown under the bus or ignored entirely from discussions at the political level when the "leaders" not only are politically closer to the opposition, it's no secret they despise said voting blocs. Making the Democratic party into a sane Republican party helps no-one except Republicans.

    Republicans and America.

    Republicans and the Democratic leadership. They're hardly attempting to expand the left's influence politically.
    Scenario: The GOP continues to eat itself alive, No True Scotsmanning itself into a sad parody of its already sad parody of an existence. The Democrats are now far too big, so they split into a Conservative and Liberal wing (the Tories in the UK basically being our Democrats after all). All this has happened before and will happen again.

    I'd like to see this happen.
    And there's a reason the left is thrown out first, they're the first ones to jump ship the minute things don't go their way.

    I don't think it's a coincidence this occurs when the conservative wing control the party. It's in their best interests to keep the liberal/progressive wing weak. Less competition that way. Also a big factor in why the Democratic party has less political leverage on the left is to make the conservative wing happy, along with a few power hungry assholes like Lieberman (before he retired). There is very little compromise from their side over serious issues. Had the liberal faction been able to trust them more and they'd been interested in actually being allies rather then being ashamed they belong to the same party as the liberals the left wouldn't be so apathetic or telling them to get lost. Or do they really want the left to go to war with them to take over the party from the inside? Under that scenario tensions between the factions will only grow more strained.
    OWS has crossed the line from useful to hot air, imo, because the organization now is just saying "we're not interested in getting people into office". I'd like that to not be the case, but that's where we are today. It's time for OWS to grow up and put up or shut up. We've already got the Republicans trying to suppress votes, we don't need voters to do it to themselves, yeah?

    Agreed.

    Harry Dresden on
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    edited April 2012
    And there's a reason the left is thrown out first, they're the first ones to jump ship the minute things don't go their way.

    I don't think it's a coincidence this occurs when the conservative wing control the party. It's in their best interests to keep the liberal/progressive wing weak. Less competition that way. Also a big factor in why the Democratic party has less political leverage on the left is to make the conservative wing happy, along with a few power hungry assholes like Lieberman (before he retired). There is very little compromise from their side over serious issues. Had the liberal faction been able to trust them more and they'd been interested in actually being allies rather then being ashamed they belong to the same party as the liberals the left wouldn't be so apathetic or telling them to get lost. Or do they really want the left to go to war with them to take over the party from the inside? Under that scenario tensions between the factions will only grow more strained.


    I agree with that analysis. The left needs to take a cue from the Tea Party in this regard, and start gaining a hold on local and state offices and then move up into the national level.

    AManFromEarth on
    Lh96QHG.png
  • MillMill Registered User regular
    Yeah, one of my biggest pet peeves with OWS is that they don't vote and are actively discouraging it. For all the bellyaching about how their votes don't seem to matter, the conservatives seem to disagree because they wouldn't be spending so much time, effort and money on making sure that select groups, that would be sympathetic to OWS can't vote. I won't even touch on the massive amount of bullshit that is the "well both parties are the same" argument.

    Even if one can't support either the Republican or Democratic candidates, writing Mickey Mouse has more power than not voting at all. The lone Mickey Mouse vote still says, "Hey fuckers, I don't like either one of you and I have time and energy to show up to the polls and make that statement." If one wanted to be savvy and take advantage of the fact that politicians do start caring about catching votes that go third party or other, you start getting your people who don't vote for an actually candidate to select a unifying theme. So for OWS, anyone who votes but doesn't vote for an actually party would write OWS in. If say 3% of the vote goes to OWS and the winner of the election only wins by 1%, both sides start giving a shit about the OWS vote.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    And there's a reason the left is thrown out first, they're the first ones to jump ship the minute things don't go their way.

    I don't think it's a coincidence this occurs when the conservative wing control the party. It's in their best interests to keep the liberal/progressive wing weak. Less competition that way. Also a big factor in why the Democratic party has less political leverage on the left is to make the conservative wing happy, along with a few power hungry assholes like Lieberman (before he retired). There is very little compromise from their side over serious issues. Had the liberal faction been able to trust them more and they'd been interested in actually being allies rather then being ashamed they belong to the same party as the liberals the left wouldn't be so apathetic or telling them to get lost. Or do they really want the left to go to war with them to take over the party from the inside? Under that scenario tensions between the factions will only grow more strained.


    I agree with that analysis. The left needs to take a cue from the Tea Party in this regard, and start gaining a hold on local and state offices and then move up into the national level.

    :^:

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Mill wrote: »
    Yeah, one of my biggest pet peeves with OWS is that they don't vote and are actively discouraging it. For all the bellyaching about how their votes don't seem to matter, the conservatives seem to disagree because they wouldn't be spending so much time, effort and money on making sure that select groups, that would be sympathetic to OWS can't vote. I won't even touch on the massive amount of bullshit that is the "well both parties are the same" argument.

    Even if one can't support either the Republican or Democratic candidates, writing Mickey Mouse has more power than not voting at all. The lone Mickey Mouse vote still says, "Hey fuckers, I don't like either one of you and I have time and energy to show up to the polls and make that statement." If one wanted to be savvy and take advantage of the fact that politicians do start caring about catching votes that go third party or other, you start getting your people who don't vote for an actually candidate to select a unifying theme. So for OWS, anyone who votes but doesn't vote for an actually party would write OWS in. If say 3% of the vote goes to OWS and the winner of the election only wins by 1%, both sides start giving a shit about the OWS vote.

    Politics sure moved towards Nader's positions in 2001, right?

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • MillMill Registered User regular
    Mill wrote: »
    Yeah, one of my biggest pet peeves with OWS is that they don't vote and are actively discouraging it. For all the bellyaching about how their votes don't seem to matter, the conservatives seem to disagree because they wouldn't be spending so much time, effort and money on making sure that select groups, that would be sympathetic to OWS can't vote. I won't even touch on the massive amount of bullshit that is the "well both parties are the same" argument.

    Even if one can't support either the Republican or Democratic candidates, writing Mickey Mouse has more power than not voting at all. The lone Mickey Mouse vote still says, "Hey fuckers, I don't like either one of you and I have time and energy to show up to the polls and make that statement." If one wanted to be savvy and take advantage of the fact that politicians do start caring about catching votes that go third party or other, you start getting your people who don't vote for an actually candidate to select a unifying theme. So for OWS, anyone who votes but doesn't vote for an actually party would write OWS in. If say 3% of the vote goes to OWS and the winner of the election only wins by 1%, both sides start giving a shit about the OWS vote.

    Politics sure moved towards Nader's positions in 2001, right?

    Well they haven't been consistent is part of the problem. No politician is going to give a damn about the guy who votes third party/other during the one election he bothers to show up for because you can't count on him. I'm merely pointing out that showing up and voting is going to have a greater impact, even if it's a throw away vote, than not voting at all.

    That said, I thought I made it pretty clear that I thought the whole "both major parties are the same thing" was a bunch of BS and that one probably should really be voting for the major party that isn't regressive. At this point, I'd argue the GOP is batshit crazy enough that we can ill afford having them gain anymore power. I've suggested in one of the political threads on these forums that the liberals need to take part in our participatory democracy and vote in all elections they can take part in. Since third parties don't seem to work, they should try to get the guys they want in the primaries and even if they don't get who they want in those elections, they should still turn out for the actual elections. Otherwise they risk sending the message that they can't be counted on and/or that any attempt to cater to them will always result in losing the election, which happens when their guy loses the primary and they fail to show up for the real election, meaning the the winner of the primary should have stayed more to the route instead of going to the left for their votes.

    Also AMFE has pointed out in the past that if a third party wants to succeed they need to go for the local elections first and build up a stronghold. This is something that I have also agreed with as well.

  • KruiteKruite Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    You are supposed to find someone within your community or organization that is like minded and qualified to be your representative and you do everything within your power to get him/her on the ballet and in office.
    '

    EDIT: Was supposed to be a response to HarryDresdon from previous page but didn't show up.

    Kruite on
  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    Mill wrote: »
    Yeah, one of my biggest pet peeves with OWS is that they don't vote and are actively discouraging it. For all the bellyaching about how their votes don't seem to matter, the conservatives seem to disagree because they wouldn't be spending so much time, effort and money on making sure that select groups, that would be sympathetic to OWS can't vote. I won't even touch on the massive amount of bullshit that is the "well both parties are the same" argument.

    Even if one can't support either the Republican or Democratic candidates, writing Mickey Mouse has more power than not voting at all. The lone Mickey Mouse vote still says, "Hey fuckers, I don't like either one of you and I have time and energy to show up to the polls and make that statement." If one wanted to be savvy and take advantage of the fact that politicians do start caring about catching votes that go third party or other, you start getting your people who don't vote for an actually candidate to select a unifying theme. So for OWS, anyone who votes but doesn't vote for an actually party would write OWS in. If say 3% of the vote goes to OWS and the winner of the election only wins by 1%, both sides start giving a shit about the OWS vote.

    Politics sure moved towards Nader's positions in 2001, right?

    Most of the Nader voters changed their tune after getting an object lesson in the spoiler effect, and anyway the odds of anything meaningfully moving towards the Green Party post 9/11 were exactly zero.

    sig.png
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Mill wrote: »
    Yeah, one of my biggest pet peeves with OWS is that they don't vote and are actively discouraging it. For all the bellyaching about how their votes don't seem to matter, the conservatives seem to disagree because they wouldn't be spending so much time, effort and money on making sure that select groups, that would be sympathetic to OWS can't vote. I won't even touch on the massive amount of bullshit that is the "well both parties are the same" argument.

    Even if one can't support either the Republican or Democratic candidates, writing Mickey Mouse has more power than not voting at all. The lone Mickey Mouse vote still says, "Hey fuckers, I don't like either one of you and I have time and energy to show up to the polls and make that statement." If one wanted to be savvy and take advantage of the fact that politicians do start caring about catching votes that go third party or other, you start getting your people who don't vote for an actually candidate to select a unifying theme. So for OWS, anyone who votes but doesn't vote for an actually party would write OWS in. If say 3% of the vote goes to OWS and the winner of the election only wins by 1%, both sides start giving a shit about the OWS vote.

    Politics sure moved towards Nader's positions in 2001, right?

    Most of the Nader voters changed their tune after getting an object lesson in the spoiler effect, and anyway the odds of anything meaningfully moving towards the Green Party post 9/11 were exactly zero.

    There was never a chance, is my point. Our system prevents it. You change the parties via the primary process and in local elections.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • SticksSticks Registered User regular
    Mill wrote: »
    Yeah, one of my biggest pet peeves with OWS is that they don't vote and are actively discouraging it. For all the bellyaching about how their votes don't seem to matter, the conservatives seem to disagree because they wouldn't be spending so much time, effort and money on making sure that select groups, that would be sympathetic to OWS can't vote. I won't even touch on the massive amount of bullshit that is the "well both parties are the same" argument.

    Even if one can't support either the Republican or Democratic candidates, writing Mickey Mouse has more power than not voting at all. The lone Mickey Mouse vote still says, "Hey fuckers, I don't like either one of you and I have time and energy to show up to the polls and make that statement." If one wanted to be savvy and take advantage of the fact that politicians do start caring about catching votes that go third party or other, you start getting your people who don't vote for an actually candidate to select a unifying theme. So for OWS, anyone who votes but doesn't vote for an actually party would write OWS in. If say 3% of the vote goes to OWS and the winner of the election only wins by 1%, both sides start giving a shit about the OWS vote.

    Politics sure moved towards Nader's positions in 2001, right?

    Most of the Nader voters changed their tune after getting an object lesson in the spoiler effect, and anyway the odds of anything meaningfully moving towards the Green Party post 9/11 were exactly zero.

    There was never a chance, is my point. Our system prevents it. You change the parties via the primary process and in local elections.

    This. Abstention and write in votes will not change the system, just like voting once every four years won't change the system. You have to get out to vote every year, and you have to give a shit about local politics. These are things most Americans simply aren't willing to do.

  • BagginsesBagginses __BANNED USERS regular
    You know, while beggars can't be choosers, I'm not sure I'd even want the vote of the kind of idiot who voes for Nader were I a politician.

  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Bagginses wrote: »
    You know, while beggars can't be choosers, I'm not sure I'd even want the vote of the kind of idiot who voes for Nader were I a politician.

    Which is true of every two party system.

    The best way to make sure no one cares about/caters to your ideas is to form a single issue third party.

    Because once you form your third party single issue voting group, the two major parties realise they will never get your vote (since your issue is the only issue your third party cares about, your third party will probably do a better job at that issue than either major party would be able to), so why should they care about your issue?

    Burtletoy on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Campaign season means the return of awesome Obama photos.

    obama-white-house-easter.jpg

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    He's reading children's books with devils in it! High Fantasy is the tool of Satan!

    Cantido on
    steam_sig.png
  • Magus`Magus` Registered User regular
    GOP headline: Obama makes fun of asians.

  • templewulftemplewulf Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Magus` wrote: »
    GOP headline: Obama makes fun of asians.

    Obama caught in possession of propaganda by radical Leftist Sendak.

    templewulf on
    Friend me: Twitter | Google+
    Invite me: XBox Live | PS3 | Steam
    Link to me: Number Sorter | Achievement Generator
  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    Ooh, interesting dog. Never seen a coat like that before.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    I don't like the way Bo is staring at me in that picture.

    I also hate that I know the name of the President's dog.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • Magus`Magus` Registered User regular
    I don't like the way Bo is staring at me in that picture.

    I also hate that I know the name of the President's dog.

    You don't have to be a bitch about it.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    I don't like the way Bo is staring at me in that picture.

    I also hate that I know the name of the President's dog.

    Everyone knows. The media really over did that. Must have been a slow news day month.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Magus` wrote: »
    I don't like the way Bo is staring at me in that picture.

    I also hate that I know the name of the President's dog.

    You don't have to be a bitch about it.

    Don't I, Magus? Don't I?

    It's just, hate is probably too strong a word, but that was a ridiculous story when it happened. Like, do British people know the names of Liz's corgies?

    I mean I guess we all know the name of Prince Charles' horse, but still.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • SicariiSicarii The Roose is Loose Registered User regular
    I don't know any of these things. You need a new hobby AMFE

    gotsig.jpg
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    He's a great dog, I'm sure. I just don't like the way his soulless eyes leer at me out of that photo.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Sicarii wrote: »
    I don't know any of these things. You need a new hobby AMFE

    Camilla

    Lh96QHG.png
  • SicariiSicarii The Roose is Loose Registered User regular
    Sicarii wrote: »
    I don't know any of these things. You need a new hobby AMFE

    Camilla

    This is some kind of British thing isn't it.

    gotsig.jpg
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Sicarii wrote: »
    Sicarii wrote: »
    I don't know any of these things. You need a new hobby AMFE

    Camilla

    This is some kind of British thing isn't it.

    220px-Camilla_Parker_Bowles_before_wedding_of_Prince_William.jpg

    Lh96QHG.png
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Sicarii wrote: »
    Sicarii wrote: »
    I don't know any of these things. You need a new hobby AMFE

    Camilla

    This is some kind of British thing isn't it.

    No, it's some kind of misogynist thing.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • Magus`Magus` Registered User regular
    Magus` wrote: »
    I don't like the way Bo is staring at me in that picture.

    I also hate that I know the name of the President's dog.

    You don't have to be a bitch about it.

    Don't I, Magus? Don't I?

    It's just, hate is probably too strong a word, but that was a ridiculous story when it happened. Like, do British people know the names of Liz's corgies?

    I mean I guess we all know the name of Prince Charles' horse, but still.

    You overlooked my pun. I'm sad.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Magus` wrote: »
    Magus` wrote: »
    I don't like the way Bo is staring at me in that picture.

    I also hate that I know the name of the President's dog.

    You don't have to be a bitch about it.

    Don't I, Magus? Don't I?

    It's just, hate is probably too strong a word, but that was a ridiculous story when it happened. Like, do British people know the names of Liz's corgies?

    I mean I guess we all know the name of Prince Charles' horse, but still.

    You overlooked my pun. I'm sad.

    I know, I got it like five minutes after I responded.

    If it helps it gave me a wry smile.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Sicarii wrote: »
    Sicarii wrote: »
    I don't know any of these things. You need a new hobby AMFE

    Camilla

    This is some kind of British thing isn't it.

    No, it's some kind of misogynist thing.

    I think it's more just regular looks based bullying rather than misogyny.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • dojangodojango Registered User
    jdarksun wrote: »
    I don't like the way Bo is staring at me in that picture.

    I also hate that I know the name of the President's dog.
    Bo is awesome. You can tell a lot about a man/family by how they select and great their pets.

    you mean you can tell a lot about a leader's PR machine by how they choose and display their pets.

  • SicariiSicarii The Roose is Loose Registered User regular
    Sicarii wrote: »
    Sicarii wrote: »
    I don't know any of these things. You need a new hobby AMFE

    Camilla

    This is some kind of British thing isn't it.

    No, it's some kind of misogynist thing.

    I think it's more just regular looks based bullying rather than misogyny.

    You don't hear men described as horsefaced that often though.

    gotsig.jpg
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    dojango wrote: »
    jdarksun wrote: »
    I don't like the way Bo is staring at me in that picture.

    I also hate that I know the name of the President's dog.
    Bo is awesome. You can tell a lot about a man/family by how they select and great their pets.

    you mean you can tell a lot about a leader's PR machine by how they choose and display their pets.

    Not having the dog strapped to a car roof for long distance trips is certainly a point for Obama over Romney.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Sicarii wrote: »
    Sicarii wrote: »
    Sicarii wrote: »
    I don't know any of these things. You need a new hobby AMFE

    Camilla

    This is some kind of British thing isn't it.

    No, it's some kind of misogynist thing.

    I think it's more just regular looks based bullying rather than misogyny.

    You don't hear men described as horsefaced that often though.

    You don't? Maybe my bullying crowd is just more modern than yours.

    I certainly didn't mean to insult her for being a woman, and I don't have any personal feelings one way or the other about either of them.

    Just a dude looking for a cheap joke.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • ShadowenShadowen Snores in the morning Registered User regular
    Sicarii wrote: »
    Sicarii wrote: »
    Sicarii wrote: »
    I don't know any of these things. You need a new hobby AMFE

    Camilla

    This is some kind of British thing isn't it.

    No, it's some kind of misogynist thing.

    I think it's more just regular looks based bullying rather than misogyny.

    You don't hear men described as horsefaced that often though.

    You don't? Maybe my bullying crowd is just more modern than yours.

    Indeed. Somewhat vaguely on thread topic, remember Kerry?

  • moocowmoocow Registered User regular
    Now Kerry had a face you could put a bridle on.

    imttnk.png
  • BagginsesBagginses __BANNED USERS regular
    Shadowen wrote: »
    Sicarii wrote: »
    Sicarii wrote: »
    Sicarii wrote: »
    I don't know any of these things. You need a new hobby AMFE

    Camilla

    This is some kind of British thing isn't it.

    No, it's some kind of misogynist thing.

    I think it's more just regular looks based bullying rather than misogyny.

    You don't hear men described as horsefaced that often though.

    You don't? Maybe my bullying crowd is just more modern than yours.

    Indeed. Somewhat vaguely on thread topic, remember Kerry?

    I always heard "Lurch." It seems like men are much more likely to be compared to weasels and cattle while women are horses and mice.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Bagginses wrote: »
    Shadowen wrote: »
    Sicarii wrote: »
    Sicarii wrote: »
    Sicarii wrote: »
    I don't know any of these things. You need a new hobby AMFE

    Camilla

    This is some kind of British thing isn't it.

    No, it's some kind of misogynist thing.

    I think it's more just regular looks based bullying rather than misogyny.

    You don't hear men described as horsefaced that often though.

    You don't? Maybe my bullying crowd is just more modern than yours.

    Indeed. Somewhat vaguely on thread topic, remember Kerry?

    I always heard "Lurch." It seems like men are much more likely to be compared to weasels and cattle while women are horses and mice.

    idk, I remember making plenty of Mr Ed jokes in 2004.

    Lh96QHG.png
This discussion has been closed.