Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
"Obama says he inherited economic problems"
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
TheManWithAUsername
Member Offline
Member Offline
"Supposedly independent?" And in reality what? The downward spiral is the pursuit of cynical Democratic candidates who care for nothing but getting elected and continue to move to the right in the mistaken belief that it will keep working for them. And it will, as long as you keep reinforcing the behavior. How's your approach working for you? In 88, you would have had me vote for Dukakis over Bush I. By 2000, you were voting for the equivalent of Bush I over Bush II. Now you're going to vote for the equivalent of Reagan over, say, Romney. And why does Romney say all this crazy stuff now? Because Obama is just as conservative as Romney used to be, so that's the only way Romney can distinguish himself. They're not pulling you to the right; you're pushing them. As I've said in multiple threads now, tell me at what point the lesser of the evils will be too evil for you to vote for. Republican: "We should burn and eat all the babies." Democrat: "We should only burn all the babies." If you can't say where the line is, you're just a frog in a slowly warming pot. |
Anonymous
um... no, please don't put words in my mouth. i was saying that if it's going to take waaaay longer than 1 or 2 terms to fix the economy, then what difference does it make who we elect? |
Anonymous
Well, you had your independent say in all those elections, and did your candidate get elected? No. So you wasted your vote, and in so doing, gave the election to the right-wing nuts and legitimized all their tactics, including that of splitting the not-right-wing nuts into an Independent and a Democratic bloc. Had more people like you voted Democrat, we very likely wouldn't have ended up in Iraq, there would have been none of those disastrous Bush tax cuts, Glass-Steagall might not have been repealed, and on and on...and we might still not be in a great place, but not in the disastrous one we are in now. Instead, your belief that bleating at the poll for whatever 3rd party entity, however delusional that entity is in its ambitions, sets you apart from the rest of the bleating sheep or somehow makes you special, helped precipitate the disastrous course we are on now. So... just because some lunatic without a prayer shows up and claims he is independent doesn't make him the right choice and doesn't make you an independent thinker either. So in some sense you are even more responsible for this mess than the Republicans. They are drunk on their on Kool-Aid. You have no excuse. |
TheManWithAUsername
Member Offline
Member Offline
OK...I'll try it this way: even if no matter what it's going to take longer than we would like, if there is a significant range in how long it may take, then the leaders we choose and the actions they choose will matter. |
Anonymous
and 7% unemployment, only 2 wars (not 3), a 400 billion annual deficit (not 1.6 trillion-holy smokes), |
TheManWithAUsername
Member Offline
Member Offline
My candidate wouldn't have been elected regardless. Had I voted for the Dem in each case, half the time the Rep would have won, and in the other half, not my true candidate but a conservative Democrat whom I disliked would have won. By your thinking, even if you deeply believed in all of those Dems, you still wasted your vote half the time b/c your candidate lost. If the polls the day before the election showed that the Dem had no shot, would you then vote Republican to avoid wasting your vote?
Ah, no. I've never voted in a swing state. Neither of us has ever voted in a state that came down to one vote. If only I were powerful enough to give the election to the right-wing nuts. As I once heard someone say, if I controlled 50,000 votes in Florida we wouldn't be having this conversation.
How is that tactic evident? The Reps aren't exactly cozying up to the Dems to make them look bad in my eyes. Again, you suggest that I'm an establishment pawn, which is hysterical.
As I said, if I had had 50,000 votes in Florida, I would have had a tough decision in 2000. Until I'm faced with that choice, I'll keep voting for the person I want to be president. BTW, though, if more people had voted for a good candidate, instead of the conservative drone who was next in line, we wouldn't have had Bush.
This is interesting. You've been led by the nose by cynics for so long that you can't believe that I actually vote on principle. Instead, you tell yourself that I must be doing it for appearances. You've been eating the shit the Dems feed you for so long that you have no idea how good it feels to vote for someone you actually want to be president, instead of holding your nose and following the party of Lieberman and Zell Miller.
I haven't always voted for a declared candidate. Again, it's inconceivable to you that someone might vote for someone because he actually thinks that person is the best choice. You've been led that far from democracy. It's sad - I mean that sincerely. It makes me sad to watch, e.g., my mother vote for a candidate who supports almost nothing she does, as she will for Obama next election. I know that that must feel really lousy. You can see it in how pissed people are at Obama now. I'm not disappointed in him, because I never had to convince myself that he was anything other than a conservative.
Perfect. Right from the prophet Obama. Republicans he can talk to, but those people on the left....grrr...they just make him so ANGRY! Obama is the guy who gets abused by his boss all day at the office and goes home to take it out on his family. And you just follow that lead. Please, criticize my independent thinking again. Oh - and I notice you STILL can't tell me where you would draw the line. My burning babies example wasn't far enough out for you? |
Anonymous
If Iraq was Libya I could live with it and so could S&P. And who are you kidding with unemployment? Bush inherited 4%. He handed over 8% unemployment. now it's 9%. OMG what a little fact checking can do. |
Anonymous
so are we in the midst of an 8 yr or 20 yr problem? do you think we are better or worse off than we were before? |
TheManWithAUsername
Member Offline
Member Offline
FYI, I'm not the one who said 8-20. I think the possible range is much bigger than that, but I don't claim to be an economics expert, so I wouldn't speculate it you didn't ask. I think that if all options were on the table - i.e., if I were dictator with access to open-minded economists - we could turn around in just a few years. Tax the hell out of unproductive activity and put the money in a massive jobs program. The only reason there would be that much of a lag is b/c you'd need to plan and administer the projects on which they would work. That's the bottom of the range. The top is unfortunately infinite. That's theoretically true, of course, but I also see it as conceivable that our leadership will wreck this economy and bring the country down to about India's level. For you second question, better or worse than before what? I'll give you some leadership change years and my answer for each. Jan 2001 - Obviously, we're far, far worse off. You'd have to really try to do a better job wrecking this country than the Reps did in the 00s. Nov 2006 - Worse off. Jan 2009 - Worse off, but I'm not very confident in that answer because it's hard (especially given my ignorance) to weigh the effect of programs that haven't played out yet. The indicators are worse, but we have more latent health than we did then. Nov 2010 - Worse off, obviously. The debt is worse, but nothing was "bought" with it, and now we have the rating hit. |
Anonymous
Just to close the circle: Chief Justice Roberts, and Justice Alito. And "I didn't vote in a swing state" doesn't really cut the muster when arguing for voting third-party in general. You're not saying third-party is a viable voting option, all you're saying is that your vote is irrelevant. |
TheManWithAUsername
Member Offline
Member Offline
That's all you got, huh? Just slide on by everything else I said, never dealing with my reasoning, and move on to pouncing on the next leftist you find, blaming him for your party's 30-year failure. I didn't argue for voting third-party. I didn't argue for anything; I reported that I had never voted for a major party in a presidential election, and you jumped all over me, blaming for everything short of global warming. If you weren't so frustrated with the people you support ignoring your interests, maybe you wouldn't feel the need to lash out this way. Moreover, as I clearly said, I haven't always voted for a "third" party - only twice, IIRC. In any case, in the sentence immediately following the one you quote, I point out that none of us has ever decided an election with his vote. When I walk into the booth, yes, my vote is irrelevant. That's a simple, inarguable fact. That's why I feel no need to compromise. I vote by the categorical imperative. I'm not sure what we would call your moral principal. |
Anonymous
Not the PP who mentioned Alito and Roberts, but the one who impugned your "independent" voting in the first place. I'm actually not frustrated wtih the people I support ignoring MY interests. My interests are actually far better served by the Republicans, and I am eternally moved that they keep referring to me as a job creator. But I still don't support them. Regardless of whether you voted in a swing state or not, your avowed support of another candidate, to the extent it adds up to other so-called independents' support and promotes that candidate's visibility, ends up detracting from the support that what we can call the lesser-evil candidate would have received. And it does affect the independents in a swing state who are in a position to affect the outcome of the election. And that is how we end up with 8 years of Bush. If your worthless vote didn't even result in a statement that other kindred spirit could identify with and join in, confirming your membership in a glorious league of independent thinkers, why would you even bother voting? Also, in response to your earlier comment about how far I have been led away from democracy that I should have to compromise my principles, we do not live in a democracy. We live in a republic (and not even a parliamentary one at that) where one's vote is slowly distilled through the magic of endless redistricting and the bizarre institution of the electoral college to finally end up with one paltry choice and one terrifying one, along with some static noise in the background. I will take paltry any day, but the problem is that the static noise has been making a huge difference of late, and the terrifying people know this. Why compromise rather than go with your beautiful categorical imperative? Because in real life, even a paltry choice makes a huge difference for a lot of people who will otherwise lose their livelihood, get victimized, live in tent cities and on and on and on...The categorical imperative just makes you feel good, and perhaps superior, but in real life, Voldemort really does kill Harry Potter. |
TheManWithAUsername
Member Offline
Member Offline
Yeah, I've gotten the impression that there are two heretic hunters here, one of you somewhat more interested in real argument. Usernames would really help, especially in this forum.
Me too. I probably should have said "your wishes" or similar. I didn't mean your personal self-interest.
I don't understand what you mean by this. If you're suggesting that my voting inside the booth has some effect on the behavior of others, that's obviously wrong.
What is it with you and this phrase? First, I don't think I've ever called myself independent unless required to on a registration form. The funny thing about that, of course, is that your parties are the one who have designated me a freak. Yes, I am "independent" of them, obviously. I don't know what you're suggesting I'm dependent of - I'm a slave to my foolish philosophy? Should I start calling your party the Democrat Party, like your abusers do? Should I just call you Dem Poopy Heads?
Look, we all know you guys have a hard-on for Nader, but this is now the third time I'm saying that I only voted for a declared candidate 2 of those 6 times.
This is the heart of it here, the heart of your prejudice. The only effect you credit to my vote is to "detract." Every Rep vote also detracts from Dem support, but you don't suggest that their voting practices are illegitimate or wasteful. Only mine is, because I don't vote for either of the top two candidates, and it should always be two because...well, that's just the way it is. Every vote for a Dem detracts from the support for a truly left-wing candidate. In fact, that's really a more accurate statement because every "so-called independent" who votes for someone other than the Dem actually supports that person, really wants that person in power. In 2012, what portion of Dem voters will be voting for Obama? And you're calling my vote illegitimate?
How did my vote inside the booth in D.C. affect voters in Florida? As I said, if only I were that powerful.
Right. The whole thing was Nader's fault. Not the Supreme Court - they're just a footnote. Not Diebold. And how did Nader impact 2004? Do you think it might have something to do with the fact that your party regularly trots out bland and boring candidates who support almost nothing other than getting themselves elected? Why do you think Obama had such better turnout? - because people thought he was actually going to do something. Did you blame "so-called independents" for 2004, too? Will you blame us for 2012?
Categorical imperative, as I said. Why did issue your worthless individual vote? BTW, do you enjoy your membership in your glorious league? Are you marching arm-in-arm with fellow world-changers like Harry Reid? Did you throw a victory party after the debt ceiling deal?
Drawing the distinction between direct democracy and a republican system isn't clever here. That distinction is irrelevant to this question. If anything, our system creates less incentive to compromise, since one can live in an area certain to go one way or the other. I'm interested in the sad fact that you see it as inherent that your best choice will be paltry. Did you consider Obama paltry when you voted for him? I'm guessing not. Were FDR and Kennedy paltry? Was LBJ, as compared to recent Dems? Would Bobby Kennedy have been paltry? You've resigned yourself to that reality because that's how it's been since the early 70s. It doesn't have to be that way, and here's the thing: you are reinforcing that. You can't deny that, can you? By taking the approach you take, election after election, you're telling the Dems that they can keep moving further away from your ideals, because they need never fear losing your vote. In that circumstance, they'd be fools not to move to the right, especially as that's where the money is.
Of late? What are you talking about? Eleven years ago, then eight years before that. (And IIRC, polls showed that Perot voters would not have made the difference.) Independent leftist voters aren't hurting the Dems; leftist voters who won't get out of bed to vote for your shitty candidates are.
Side note: you persist in attacking me for acting superior, faking independent thought, etc. I'll remind you again that this exchange started with me reporting to another poster my voting history, and you then you attacking me. I don't run around message boards or parties telling Dem voters what suckers they are. Re the "beautiful categorical imperative," I think we just have a fundamental difference in perspective regarding ethics. I make unethical choices all the time, but when I'm taking a carefully considered action like voting, I do it in conformity with my ethics. I don't see ethics and morality as academic exercises; the whole point is for them to affect my actions. As I said, I don't know what we would call your principle. We're STILL left with the questions I've asked you two: 1) At what point will the lesser evil be just too evil? 2) If the polls show the Rep to have a 20-point lead the day before the election, your vote for Obama will be sure to be "wasted." Will you then vote Rep, so that your vote will count? You've carefully avoided these questions repeatedly. The first is substantive - I'm interested in whether and where you'd draw the line. The second is rhetorical, obviously, but you get my point. |
Anonymous
|
00:32 again. ManWithAUserName, I only have a couple of minutes so this will be quick but why are you getting so upset? I actually don't think you and I fundamentally disagree about much of anything other than the fact that I think your vote is needed to really prevent further Rep. inroads rather than to make a statement on principle. I generally actually really enjoy your posts.
To quickly answer your questions: 1/"less evil" is better than "more evil" at the voting booth, to the extent that you know it will make a difference in the outcome. Otherwise might as well not vote. And polls before the election give you a fair idea of whether your vote has any chance of making a difference. 2/No, I can't see myself ever voting for the GOP at this point. I don't fundamentally care about making my vote count, just about the implications. Regarding Obama, I actually never bought any of what I used to refer to as his "glittering rhetoric about change", about how these entities at loggerheads were going "to come together at the table and find solutions" and the rest of that BS. Really? Did he really think insurance companies were going to sacrifice billions in profits just by the sheer force of his personality? But apparently a lot of other people believed that. I can't think of an election in which I've felt any enthusiasm for any candidate (except maybe Kucinich, once in a while). But what else was I going to do? To use your metaphor, the people who would burn and eat the babies have a far greater incentive to do so because they get to eat them. If you have no other choice, you have to hope that those who would just burn the babies could one day say, "uh, why exactly should we do this?" |
Anonymous
|
00:32 and TMWAU, you both sound like intelligent people and I have enjoyed your colloquy, but could I suggest that, since voting is, in many ways an irrational act, you should relax and move on to more productive discussion?
Here are some reasons I say that voting is irrational: 1. I have several times concluded that I was happier when I voted for the loser, because the disappointing performance allowed me to feel I had voted wisely, as opposed to just feeling disappointed when my candidate invariably fell short of my expectations. 2. I have never cast a deciding vote, so in that sense, I had wasted my time. 3. There is actually a mathematical proof (Arrow's Theorem) that there is no satisfactory voting procedure, subject to a small set of reasonable criteria, to choose among three or more candidates -- not that anyone needs mathematical proof that the primary system is chaos. But I always vote, since it is the basis of democracy, which as Churchill said, is the worst form of government, except for all the others. Least of all evils, as 00:32 might say. BTW, my return to signing in and using an ID owes thanks to TMWAU. |