Call it going John Golf. Mickelson’s a tool, but his wife is ssssmokin’. The rumors about them, if not all that believable, are hilarious anyway.
Hitchens used that phrase to describe Al Gore in 2000.
Merry Christmas to the Boggs and to all of you and your families.
Sounds like Kate C has a bit of an axe to grind. Interesting place for her to plant her (presumably Stars ‘n’ Bars) flag. I like how they’re still charging full price for all that Vulture/Voucher swag. Mencken was an optimist.
Buck, Tagg, it’s all gay….I mean good.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Off topic, but I’m watching Craig Ferguson right now, and Sarah Shahi is just smokin’. Sweet fanny Moses, she’s amazingly hot, I’m pressing my loins up against the flat-screen as I type this, which is pretty tricky when you think about it. In the words of the great poet Brian Griffin, I would wreck that chick.
Sorry about the poor formatting, I assumed it would bullet-point and space properly.
It’s probably hopeless, but I hope we could at *least* agree that the Democrats who voted for Bush didn’t like Gore because he was too *liberal* for them, or too *something.*
Sure, and the (far fewer) registered Democrats who went for Thanksralph! also felt Gore was too “something”. It’s sort of like saying that if your aunt had balls, she’d be your uncle.
Here’s the thing, I’ll go ahead and bullet-point this for you:
How many (registered Democratic) voters are actually projected to bolt for Thanksjill!, or Thanksroseanne! versus how many to jump for Mittford? How many in swing states? Any numbers? Anyone? Bueller? Funny how there never seem to be any actual numbers in these plaints. I wonder why that is.
The continued obsession with the Thanksralphers, as it did back in, um, the year 2000, gives the fine folks who actually run the corporate donor pelf wing of the Democratic Party from examining their own electoral shortcomings and actually doing something about anything. After all, DFHs have no money, so there’s nothing to be gained for money people in a money game to expend energy in persuading people, as opposed to merely jabbering at them like they’re utopian retards.
There are plenty more Democratic voters going GOP than third party. Where is the strident butthurt over that statistically larger phenomenon, the anger at chickens voting directly for Colonel Sanders, as opposed to, say, Der Wienerschnitzel?
It’s been 12 years since Nader. I mean, Jesus H. Christ. You think Saint Bill Clinton didn’t get in without fucking Ross Perot? Shit happens. This inability to move on is endemic to Democratic party politics in particular. As bugshit as the Republitards have gotten, they don’t pick scabs a decade or so down the road. Let it go, you’ll live longer. Or face the other non-Nader factors as to why Gore lost, and fucking well do something about them already, instead of assuming that the solution is to tack further right.
By the way, it’s never hopeless, if you mean arguing with me on a point. I’m always willing to listen and engage. I love to argue this stuff out, as long as everyone’s intellectually honest about things. But you have to be willing as well; for one, it’s not healthy to continue to obsess over a tragically-flawed candidate from over a decade ago, and for another, without some real numbers as to how many people are planning to vote for Jill Stein or Roseanne Barr or whoever, there is no argument — you absolutely need to concentrate your energy on convincing the gibbering Demo retards voting for Rmoney that he’ll cut thier throats. Sparkle-pony japery is just whistling past the graveyard.
If you still think those votes split evenly between Bush and Gore you’re not just delusional, you also have cognitive problems.
True dat. Twelve times as many registered Florida Democrats voted for Bush than for Nader. I know that inconvenient truth won’t slow down the Two Minutes of Hate, even twelve years later, but it does have relevance now.
If this election is thrown (and it doesn’t look like it will be, praise the FSM), it will not be by the several dozen Portlandians and Park Slopeheads voting against Teh Dronz, it will be the hundreds of thousands of butthurt dingbats and crackers who voted Obama in ’08 but jumped to Romney because….well, fuck if I can tell. And fuck if I’ve seen anyone even bother to try to talk any of those perfidious bastards out of their tree, or even flick them any richly deserved shit. Whatever and ever, amen.
But I guess it’s easier to continue obsessing over a statistically insignificant number of purists, than the metric fuckton of assholes who are jumping directly to the other side for a mishmash of incoherent excuses. I suppose Nader can at least take heart in the fact that the intarnetz will burn him in effigy every four years long after he’s dead, rather than address the greater, more systemic problem right in front of them.
Well, like I’ve been saying, I do think that a third-party vote in a swing state is at the very least strategically obtuse. But in the end, I just don’t see enough of them to make any actual difference, and again, it’s a matter of degree and intent.
I may disagree with the logic of an erstwhile Obama voter going Jill Stein, but at least there is some logic (to them). But an Obama voter going Romney/Ryan — and make no mistake, that’s the only reason this thing is neck-and-neck now — is incomprehensible, as is anyone being “undecided” at this point. “Undecided” means they’re either a narcissist or a moron.
Or at least, since there’s probably ten or twenty times as many registered Dems defecting for Vulture/Voucher than for Jill Stein or Roseanne Barr or whoever, that the anger and frustration was more appropriately aimed.
If Obama loses, it won’t be because of 3rd-partiers, it’ll be from the vastly greater numbers of butthurt crackers and dingbats who expected a shinier pony from Obama, and decided to remedy that by going directly for someone who is objectively worse by every conceivable metric.
Fair enough, I didn’t intend for it to come across as a demand, or a quiz or a test. I would just genuinely like to know what other options people have for themselves, aside from this hopeless quadrennial tilt at the Perpetual Corporate Oligarchy Windmill.
Do you want to persuade such people, or do you view it as best to dismiss them as fools, or merely scapegoat them in case something goes wrong?
My preference is to persuade those folks that, while I abhor gutless incrementalism and spineless hypocrisy as much as they do, the fact of the matter is that it is entirely reasonable to assume that a Romney administration would be substantially more antagonistic to their interests than a second Obama administration would be. I don’t think there’s enough of them, swing-state or otherwise, to qualify for scapegoating.
Nor, for that matter, am I entirely convinced that they were going to vote for Obama in the first place. But there is a difference, and one really would be significantly worse than the other, again in no small part due to the extra jesus-freak baggage they’d bring with them.
And as I’ve been saying, I think the far larger number of Democrats/butthurt former Obamanauts going Romney, especially the wimmins doing so, deserve heaps more scorn and ridicule. They are doing what they’re doing for completely ignorant, unprincipled reasons, or, as you put it, they just don’t like Obama anymore. They can go fuck themselves in the neck as far as I’m concerned, they’re an infinitely greater problem.
And don’t get me started on the “undecideds”, who need to kindly fuck off and die already. To quote TBogg’s favoritest group, if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
That’s fine, you seem to have missed the point of my question in that post, though. Do you think your consistent third-party advocacy has some eventual chance of success on some level? If so, great; if not but it’s your conscience, that’s a tacit acknowledgement of a failed system, or at least one gamed against your interests.
So in that second scenario, what other things (outside of politics) can you do individually (or a number of people collectively) to either have some sort of effect on the corrupt system, or at least disempower it slightly?
Sure, that’s fine, we can agree to disagree. Again, I live in a county that will probably go 80% Rmoney (seriously). If I insisted that everyone I talk to IRL agree with me on everything, I’d be SOL with a quickness.
But since I brought up the subject of strategy, and thinking strategically, let me sketch something out real quick (and hopefully some of you other kids out there will join in as well):
Let us postulate, just for the sake of argument, that the American political system is, at the highest levels, pretty much owned and operated by interests of wealth who are openly antagonistic to the interests of the 99%. In other words, Wall Street hates Main Street, looks at them as a milch cow to be siphoned and desiccated, and ensures its ability to do so by renting most of Congress. Still with me?
Okay. So, if we agree that the political system is well and truly fucked, and we agree that the playing field is not remotely level, what is the most strategically and tactically sound option available to us peons? A debauched political system by definition means that protest votes are essentially wasted (hell, it means a healthy chunk of “real” votes are wasted).
In other words, any vote, protest or otherwise, needs to be backed up with significant action of some sort. What, realistically, do you think that action(s) should be?
I’m not a step behind on anything, Chief. I’m giving you a different, perhaps more strategic, vantage point from which to view this. Your contention (or at least broad implication) that Romney’s and Obama’s putative job policies are even similar(qualifying Rmoney’s as “inept” and “inferior”) seems unsupportable to me, but if you want to plant your flag on that one, have at it.
THe jobs problem is a combination of Americans wanting low prices for everything and anything, and productivity gains accruing almost totally to the 1%, adding an accumulation advantage to the already banana-republic levels of income disparity. Short of starting a trade war with China, or getting serious about gov’t infusing infrastructure dollars, neither of them have any chance of making a decent dent in the jobs situation.
Anti-Obama progressives are certainly free to assume that re-electing Obama will just make things worse. But they also have to acknowledge that there are varying degrees of “worse”, and that the Ladyparts ticket is further down that slope. They are qualitatively and quantitatively distinct; there is actually more than a dime’s worth of difference this time around.
No, what happens is things get shoved into the context of “winning” and “electability”, which always convinces both parties (for different reasons, but the end results are very similar) that the way to win is to tack further right.
For the Democrats, this won’t necessarily translate into, say, putting the repeal of Roe v. Wade on their platform. It’ll be subtler, more “practical” considerations, capitulation dressed up as compromise, etc.
Not really, but to be fair, I had several questions.
Fair enough, but bear in mind that the electoral dynamic of this country is such that whichever party loses the presidential election, always tacks further right. So you can either choose between a center-right and a far-right party now, or two far-right parties next time.
Again, if you’re in a safe state, vaya con dios. All I’m saying is that if you are in a swing state, to game this out, and be realistic about how this corrupt, debauched system of ours absorbs protest votes like a fart in a hurricane.
The only way for a fascistic system to be truly disempowered, since by definition it relies on corporate oligarchy, is to divest from said oligarchy. If enough people get out from under debt peonage and vote with their dollars, there’s your difference.
- Load More