Debate #1 ... And the winner is ... Romney?? :(

[Barry]

I hate to say it, but my sense is that Romney came off much better than Obama. If I were a undecided voter, I'd be swayed toward Romney. He looked good, was forceful and aggressive but not overly so, made convincing arguments, and didn't seem scary at all.

Obama, on the other hand seemed strangely off balance. He's wasn't aggressive at all, rather very respectful, bordering on deferential. He barely pushed back at all after the opening tax volley. Several times I thought I heard him say "OK" when Romney started speaking. And generally he was not very persuasive.

Most disappointing.

Here's some comments from Michael Moore that I happened to notice:

Well, what can we say? Obama could not even refer to Romney's "47%". Didn't smack Romney down on any of his flip-flopping or lies. I just don't get it. Looked completely out of it (on his anniversary!). Well, I guess everyone who had started to throw the victory party too early is going to bed sober tonight. Let's hope the fact checking tomorrow will help to undo Romney. Unfortunately, in the past, candidates like Reagan and Bush could just make shit up and a large part of the public just didn't seem to care. So, everybody's got work to do. I don't believe Romney convinced any Obama voters to change their vote. But the base needed to get fired up, and that certainly didn't happen.

What did you think???

[Karen the KAT]

Well Barry,

You saw the real Obama: No pre-viewed, pre-approved questions with teleprompted answers. Real issues, and an opponent that knew Obama better than Obama does, and wouldn't let him lie and play games.

Without a teleprompter and media coddling, Obama is a joke, his favorite word is either: "Uhm-well-uhm", or "Uhm-uhm, uhm-uhm"...

Romney tore him to shreds, as did all the fact-checkers. He exposed Obama's lies about Obama's record (often using Obama's own words), and he refuted Obama's lies about him with proven facts. CNN did the exact same thing afterwards, in more detail.

Romney had his shit together. He laid out Obama's multitude failures and lies, and presented his accomplishments and plans, and made a solid case that like him or not on a personality basis, he did do a very good job as governor in a State that is 86% Democratic by working with them. He turned the State around economically, gave them a working medical care system, top rate public schools, repaired infrastructure, and took care of the women, minorities and poor people there, he understands the needs for a clean environment and good financial regulation, and how to make them that way.

Basically all the things Obama promised, but hasn't done...

And it's not going to get any prettier, no teleprompters at the next two debates either.

Obama is like King Midas in reverse: Everything Obama has touched has turned to shit, and he blames everybody else for it. Last night his lies and magical touch of shit were exposed...

It was most amusing, I can't wait for the next one, even if it is a town hall, because there's no teleprompters and Romney and the fact checkers are going to call him on his constant lies again.

I almost feel sorry for poor Joe Biden, that's going to be a massacre. Maybe Joe will get a doctor's note...

It really doesn't matter if you are of the far Left, the far Right, or somewhere in between the two extremes like myself, any way you slice it, Obama hasn't done what anybody wanted unless you are a Wall Street big-shot, in which case you got richer.

What happened Barry? Romney showed that the emperor has no clothes while 60 million watched, and Obama helped him...

[occihoff]

I just listened on the radio, and I thought Obama did pretty well. Maybe seeing them on tv gave a different impression. But I hope he'll be more aggressive next time. Given the incredible pressure of vying for the presidency on national radio and tv, I'm very impressed with both of their performances!

I hate to say it, but my sense is that Romney came off much better than Obama. If I were a undecided voter, I'd be swayed toward Romney. He looked good, was forceful and aggressive but not overly so, made convincing arguments, and didn't seem scary at all.

Obama, on the other hand seemed strangely off balance. He's wasn't aggressive at all, rather very respectful, bordering on deferential. He barely pushed back at all after the opening tax volley. Several times I thought I heard him say "OK" when Romney started speaking. And generally he was not very persuasive.

Most disappointing.

Here's some comments from Michael Moore that I happened to notice:



What did you think???

[Karen the KAT]

What can Obama be aggressive about????

His record is horrid.

Romney has a record of success.

His plan is more of the same.

Romney has something different that is proven to work.

Romney has the personality of a dead fish no doubt, and I don't agree with a lot of Republican social stances, but at this point I don't care, it's economic triage. Without an economy all the great intentions don't count for shit. It's like on an airplane where they have to remind people: "Put the oxygen mask on yourself first, so you can save your children"...

I'm talking to a friend right now, she's been dragging her divorce out hoping for a magical win, and in the meantime their business has been taken over by the bank. She's finally starting to see that the figure he offered two years ago she thought was so unfair, was in fact a really good deal in comparison to the fact that she MIGHT be able to actually keep her car now, and maybe, just maybe, she can sign over the business to him and not wind up having the bank after her, and that's only if she acts quick.

Well that's our country right now...

[handy]

I agree with Kat that, "Romney showed that the emperor has no clothes while 60 million watched, and Obama helped him... "

Unfortunately, the emperor will continue to be naked, if it's either of the Obamney twins.

I will still write in Ron Paul. Even if I'm in a vanishingly small minority, I will sleep with a clear conscience.

Even if you disagree with some of his stances on some of the smaller issues, I think his primary objective of Stopping the Mass Murder in Our Name is worthwhile. As a society, we need a spontaneous remission of the psychopathic belief that we have the right to murder anyone, anywhere if they disagree with us. This is primary. We CANNOT solve any of the other problems until we stop being willingly complicit murderers.

Unfortunately, this is unlikely.

Here's a fantasy to consider:

Those who self-identify as green, peace and freedom, independent, libertarian or simply "undecided", in total, outnumber both the republicans and the democrats.

There are many republicans who are unhappy with Romney.

There are many democrats who are unhappy with Obama.

There are many citizens who are unhappy with rigged electronic voting machines.

This total, if concentrated, holds the vast majority of citizens.

A write-in that outnumbered the "two party" parties would send a message they couldn't ignore.

A massive write-in would clearly reject the electronic counting as untrustworthy.

And the beauty of it would be a hard, undeniable demonstration of a self-organising system at work, working as it should, in spite of massive intervention and subterfuge by the State.

Given the Web, such a spontaneous remission could easily occur in the remaining 4 weeks.

Workers of the world, Fan Out! What have you got to lose?

Yeah, I know... just a fantasy.

[Karen the KAT]

Yes, the two sides are owned by the same people...

One wants to enslave us with Socialism, where we are owned by the government.

The other wants to enslave us with Capitalism, where we are owned by our creditors.

The reason I have chosen the latter is it is the lesser of two evils, and participation is not mandatory, it's voluntary...

Since I live in California I will be writing in Ron Paul as President and Dennis Kuchinich as VP, as they are the only two Congress members that openly oppose the Fed, and are in agreement with several other issues that positively effect our economy and freedom (or the illusion therefore of...).

The problem is that virtually every politician has already been bought by people that ultimately answer to the Rothschilds. They own almost all the oil, and virtually all the banks, and thus pretty much control the World, which isn't a conspiracy theory, but a fact that is easily ascertainable by several hours of work tracing ownership via public records. They don't take much effort to hide this because there's nothing that can be done about it. Start with Rothschild as a wiki search term and see where it leads you, and you will find it is about everywhere...

So all roads lead to Rome, or in this case, London. Knowing that puts things in a realistic framework one can work with in order to hew out a life for yourself that works and gives you the most amount of control over your future.

It helps you to be less of a victim...

["Mad" Miles]

`
Romnification, "has a record of success"?!

At what? Slicing and dicing companies for profit and shipping jobs to cheaper labor markets?

Aside from Romneycare, his tenure as governor of Massachussetts is reportedly a sketchy and dismal one. He's certainly not popular there.

"The Democratic Party wants to enslave us to Socialism"?

There's no arguing with delusion. I suggest exploring the differences between Democratic Socialism and Corporate Globalizing NeoLiberalism, to get an idea of how absurd the idea is, that the DP has anything to do with Socialism of any kind, whatsoever.

If you google NeoLiberalism, ignore its association with Austrian Economics and Libertarianism. That hasn't been the case for over thirty years. Consider it in the light of the Corporate Agenda takeover of the Democratic Party that started in 1984, or so, with the Democratic Leadership Council.

Not that the Democratic Party had anything to do with any form of Socialism (and there are a myriad of mutually exclusive kinds) before that. If ever.

Those who think The New Deal was Socialist, rather than an effort to stave off the threat of Socialism (Authoritarian Marxist-Leninism in that period) doesn't know history, or the meaning of terms in Political Science/History/Philosophy.

That's OK, so many reactionary right-wing sources of "information" blare away day in day out, spinning lies and half-truths, that those influenced by them, can't be held solely responsible.

The responsibility for education lies in all of us, but some have never really been given the tools to evaluate sources. Such is our society. More's the pity.

`

[Karen the KAT]

Oh Miles, there you go again...

Splitting hairs, making up alternate history, etc, etc, etc...

Listen, if you want to live in your denial world, it's cool, there's plenty of people on the far Left and far Right that you simply can't talk sense to, and it's been my experience that you are one of them...

Another "useful idiot"...

Your responses are just Obama commercials: "Romney tore up companies and destroyed jobs", no, not really, actually he took companies that were going under and were going to put everybody out of work, restructured them, and made them profitable so that they could continue EMPLOYING PEOPLE, because this is how you make money; with employees that are working efficiently. Successful companies can't afford people that aren't working efficiently, they weigh the company down and reduce profit until the company is in the red. Unions don't much allow lay-offs, and in doing so, force companies into the red, and eventually they close and everybody is without a job. Unions enforce MEDIOCRACY by their very nature. They cater to the weakest link, bringing everybody down to that level. They smother innovation and exceptionalism in the name of "fairness", they are the bane of labor, and are the reason our schools, police, and all government agencies sans the military are corrupt, inefficient and full of nepotism. Advancement isn't determined by quality of work, since everybody does the same poor quality, but by certificates, time on the job, and personal relationships (Socialism in action). To get rid of them and give a company back the ability to employ only good employees, one re-structures, usually by closing down the union run company, and either starting over with the same employees minus the unions and the lazy people, or by having a larger, non-union company take them over.

Do people lose jobs, sure, but lots more KEEP their jobs. Those that got fired have an impetus to learn how to become more valuable employees. I'm not going into management restructuring, because that's another subject, and the one to blame isn't the manager doing the restructuring, but the former management that made the company unprofitable. But again, this SAVES jobs for most, at the cost of terminating the less efficient employees.

I can go on about this forever, but if you stop listening to leftist sources and start using objective informational sources (Not that I expect you to because then your arguments are shown to be hallow), you would find that dead fish Romney, has actually saved and created FAR more jobs than he terminated. He has taken good care of women, gays, minorities, the poor and needy, given them a good healthcare system, the nation's best public schools, rebuilt infrastructure, and turned their economy around.

Considering Mass. is 86% Dem, he did a fantastic job of working with the other party, and made people there pretty happy on the whole, so I don't know where you got your information/opinion from, but it's not really true. I'm sure there are people that don't like what he did, but for the most part people did like him and he enjoyed fairly high approval ratings. I have several friends there, all hard core Democrats, and they are all voting a straight Democrat ticket except for Romney, whom they praise.

I don't have time to go into the full history of FDR's Presidency, but to say that he wrote checks that could only be cashed by pushing us into WWII, and setting up the Cold War, would be fairly accurate. All those years of prosperity from 1945 to 1989-91 can be traced to the blank check of the Cold War, and Bush senior and Clinton both deserve credit for saving as much of our economy as they could in the face of the collapse of one of the cornerstones of our modern economy. Why Clinton went overboard in his second term can probably only be explained by believing his own press too much, as he certainly knew he was leaving a mess for the next president with his non-existent "surplus". Oh well, I think all Presidents do this in their second term in their quest for a spot in history.

Just keep in mind that since 1911, our economy and government has been owned by the Fed, and the people that own the Fed don't particularly like communism because it doesn't make them much money, so America going Marxist was never really on the table, but socialism was, and is, and has been partially implemented, just look at all our unionized Government employees, and how horribly inefficient they are.

You Trotskyites all hide behind splitting hairs when it comes to definitions, but yes, the DP is close enough to socialism, that calling it such is fair game. If it walks like a duck...

Tell me Miles, do you really think the DP really cares about people any more than the RP? Do you think Government agencies can take care of people better than private industry, where job security is gauged by job performance? Do you really think that the billionaires and trillionaires (yes, there are a couple) who actually call the shots want a public that is in control of it's own destiny, since that takes control away from them?

Once again, the old adage is always true and always will be: "She or he who has the gold, makes the rules". There's two paths, one of enforced mediocrity, lack of opportunity and government control and mandates, and one of the opposite, where people are responsible for themselves, and each other on a personal basis.

It's worked just fine once we did away with monarchies, and every experiment in socialism has or is falling apart, except for those countries with a VERY strong work ethic, which unfortunately, is not true of about a third of our country. Once you start giving things away to people that don't truly need help, you promote laziness and entitlement...

[rossmen]

i agree that the two sides are owned by the same people... and i thought obama ate romney for lunch, i guess i just prefer a fact full mellow presentation vs corporate single message focus with energy. yes this makes me different than most. the fact checkers checked more for the prez from my gathering...

too bad because beyond their very similar policy choices, i lean toward a more citizen driven world. romney sounds like this, but the biggest money who backs him lies best. i agree in cali our vote makes no difference. a fringe vote is most interesting : )

we will see who wins the game, by choice, temperment or luck, obama is better at rope a dope, and has shifted the most since the first debate. my advice is, if you have any money to invest, play it on demo contributors.

Yes, the two sides are owned by the same people...

One wants to enslave us with Socialism, where we are owned by the government.

The other wants to enslave us with Capitalism, where we are owned by our creditors.

The reason I have chosen the latter is it is the lesser of two evils, and participation is not mandatory, it's voluntary...

Since I live in California I will be writing in Ron Paul as President and Dennis Kuchinich as VP, as they are the only two Congress members that openly oppose the Fed, and are in agreement with several other issues that positively effect our economy and freedom (or the illusion therefore of...).

The problem is that virtually every politician has already been bought by people that ultimately answer to the Rothschilds. They own almost all the oil, and virtually all the banks, and thus pretty much control the World, which isn't a conspiracy theory, but a fact that is easily ascertainable by several hours of work tracing ownership via public records. They don't take much effort to hide this because there's nothing that can be done about it. Start with Rothschild as a wiki search term and see where it leads you, and you will find it is about everywhere...

So all roads lead to Rome, or in this case, London. Knowing that puts things in a realistic framework one can work with in order to hew out a life for yourself that works and gives you the most amount of control over your future.

It helps you to be less of a victim...

["Mad" Miles]

`
Karen TK,

Your projections are myriad, per usual.

I am not DP, I am GP. For 25 years. Wasn't DP before that. Never have been. Voted for some DP outliers, mostly for Independent candidates. Commoner (Independent), Jackson (Outlier), others I can't recall from '74-'87.

I have been repetitively tedious in asserting my total non-involvement and non-support for the DP in my some seven years on this site, and the three previous years on the original yahoogroup. Yet somehow you still think I support The Obamanator. In spite of all of my "contributions" in recent weeks and months. Obviously, you do not pay attention to others.

I have never been a devotee of Marxist-Leninism, in all my 38 years of active adult politics. I first read the original texts in study groups in college (non-curricular) with devotees, and spent intensive periods then and after debating and puncturing their precepts. Something I have occasionally reported here.

The fact that you call me a Trot, while I have said I am a radical democrat (system, not party) is Exhibit A in your political illiteracy indictment

See three paragraphs above. I defy you to find a single utterance of mine endorsing any form of Orthodox, or even Heterodox Marxist-Leninism, here or anywhere. You know that Trotskyism is one version of Scientific Dialectical Materialism, aka M-L? Do you know the names of the other versions? And the differences and similarities between them and other ideological positions on the Left, Center and Right?

I doubt it. You certainly don't demonstrate it. You consistently demonstrate the opposite.

Just because someone knows about, and discusses, political history and philosophy, does not mean they ascribe to everything they know. Does it?

By that logic you're a Pragmatic Liberal Incrementalist Democratic Party Partisan, based on statements you've made in the last 24 hours. Clearly, you're not. And clearly, I'm not, yet somehow you have missed that.

You don't read carefully, you don't remember salient details, you just regurgitate your pet ideological position and project enemy status on to those who point out your bias and lack of background knowledge. That's not thinking, that's the behavior of an ideologue.

I won't identify what species of ideologue, or what your particular characteristics are. Cause the "Conscious Community / Respectful Communication" guidelines here proscribe me from doing so in accurate terms. Also, unnecessary, since it's clear to anyone who has basic knowledge in this area.

As for your grasp of history. Straight out of the Right Wingnut playbook. Point by point. Assertion by assertion. Every single one of your claims about history come out of the Glenn Beck, Ron Paul, Bircher lexicon.

I'm the one making stuff up? Stuck in a ghetto? Right....


`

[Sara S]

I think that President Obama looked and acted just fine: dignified and confident, as he has every reason to be.

[Valley Oak]

Even though Obama's debate performance was not what it should have been I am still going to vote for him again.

My concern is how this will impact the voting turnout. Most people don't realize how close this election is and that the contest is not over until the polls close on Election Day. Many disingenuous 3rd party voters assert, falsely, that the election is a sure win for Obama despite the fact that this is clearly not the case. This is especially true after the first debate where the President had a lackluster showing.

My other concern is voter apathy and getting the vote out on Election Day. If too many Obama supporters don't show up then we will have Romney in the White House. Unfortunately, 3rd party voters DON'T CARE who wins. Third-party voters and abstainers misrepresent the truth by claiming that the two parties are absolutely identical. This is clearly not true and it is obvious to those paying attention, doing the reading, doing their homework on the issues, looking carefully at the last four years, and Romney's platform. There are many substantive differences between Obama and Romney. A Romney government bodes like a nightmare for the American people if we don't move our asses and go vote in November. And we cannot allow the lies and disgruntlement of 3rd party voters to discourage us from re-electing Obama as President.

Please vote to re-elect Obama.

Thank you,

Edward

I think that President Obama looked and acted just fine: dignified and confident, as he has every reason to be.

[Karen the KAT]

Miles, totally don't give a shit what type of Leftist you are. That's just another example of your circular thinking and splitting hairs over fine shades of definition that have nothing to do with the subject at hand. It's a way of trying to distract from your assumptions and opinions that you believe are facts. We were debating the debate. If you want to get into a discussion of the political identity of Miles, go for it, but start a new thread.

Furthermore it's totally arrogant of you to assume that anybody keep up with your posts on a day to day basis, and know how you stand and identify politically. It's really not my job. I often don't read or post here for months on end. I don't have any interest in keeping up on your life, I was just debating the debates, and you took it personal, not me. That's just fine, nobody can stop you from acting like a petulant child when you can't effectively debate the subject at hand, you can take it as sideways as you want, go ahead and go there. By yourself...

You start out with "Your projections are myriad, per usual.", exactly what is this supposed to mean, "my projections", I didn't project anything on you except you're an extreme Leftist. I'll leave it to you to come up with the exact color and tone of Leftist you are, I really don't care to get into your discussion about it. In my experience with you, you are all over the far Leftist map, and so at times, the terms Trotskyite seems to fit just fine. You don't seem to understand that just because I don't care to discuss the fine points of your political identity, doesn't mean I don't have a good understanding of political terminology, I just don't care. Primarily because they all fall into one of three general categories: Left, Center and Right, and secondly, because they are subject to the interpretation of the moment. The difference between Communists of the 1930's compared to modern Communists are legion as far a s fine details, but at heart, they are actually quite alike. Leninists, Trots, Greens, Democrats etc, are all basically Leftists at heart, wanting more regulation, more government, less personal accountability, and more freedom to think their way, just don't think anything that opposes it, because that's bad. It's like the militant LGBT types I know: "Celebrate diversity or else". Well gosh, isn't NOT celebrating diversity also being diverse? Oopsy -daisy...

Surprisingly (or not), I find actually a bit more hate and prejudice on the far Left than I do on the far Right, and they both seem to twist the facts and believe their spin about equally. Talk to an extremist, and watch them defend their "facts" with like minded sources. So many opinions around being touted as facts. "Well so-and-so says", really, what does Wikipedia say? (which though flawed, is a decent starting point for reality, because it's sources and references are generally cited).

I don't own a TV, (have to watch the debates at a friend's) and I don't follow the MSM, because they all have a definite slant, whether CNN, MSNBC, FOX, CBS etc. Even the WSJ has left truly objective reporting behind, although they are probably the least slanted of the major "news" organizations.

What I do know is you are anything but a centrist, and thus from my perspective you are as much part of the problem as are the people on the far Right.

Sorry, gotta go, I've gotta work and I've already wasted enough time on your rage.

Maybe later I will put together a list of my stances on popular issues and you can politically label me for your entertainment.

Personally my identity as a person comes from within, not from the ideology of some splinter political group.

Try and have a happy day Miles...

[Karen the KAT]

So Edward, how does a Romney win bode poorly for America? Mass. actually has all the things obama has promised but not given us, thanks to Romney, who is so moderate and centrist that he's lacking the support of the far right, but more than making up for it in the middle. Exactly what has obama given us that Romney hasnt already done, and done better? Women, gays, minorities and the poor and unemployed were all better off under Romney, he gave them the best public schools in the Nation, a healthcare plan that actually works, turned their economy around, instituted environmental reforms, reforms to make governmental agencies more effective, reforms to financial and business regulations, and in doing so he enjoyed an average approval rating of over 55% in a state that is 86% democratic. Tell me, what besides disproven obama ads and statements, is there not to like about that? Conversely Obama has failed the vast majority of us both socially and economically. He has drastically increased the deficit, ignored the Constitution, not passed a single budget, ignored Congress, been utterly opaque, etc. etc. There's really nothing to like about him except he talks smooth with a teleprompted script. Without a teleprompter he's a bumbling, lying fool. Romney and the MSM factcheckers have torn his every statement to shreds.
Come on people; think for yourselves, stop buying into being told what you want to hear.
If you want what obama promises, vote for Romney, because even Obama had to admit that their goals are essentially the same thing and he has based most of his plans and programs on Romney's successes, but not been successfull in implementing them himself.
I just dont get the logic that says: "i want _____, my guy promised it and didnt deliver, and the other guy did, but I'm still going to vote for my guy anyway". Obama is far more controlled by big business than Romney is, just look at his cabinet and appointees: The very same people all the major economists agree were the cause of the mess in the first place...
Obama has a unique ability to take other people's good ideas, claim them as his, and then modify them so they dont work. He has the magical touch that turns gold into dogshit.
As Barry said: (paraphrased) "Romney looked reasonable, knowledgable and not scary". Well put aside all the lies, and yes, he is just that.
It was quite entertaining to see Obama say over and over: "well we both agree on the same goals", and "well i got those ideas from you governor", and Romney was saying: "thanks, but you implemented it wrong, whereas I did it right".
If yoy want what Obama promises, vote for the guy who's already succeeded in those goals, Obama's "professor"; Romney..,

["Mad" Miles]

`
"Many disingenuous 3rd party voters assert, falsely, that the election is a sure win for Obama despite the fact that this is clearly not the case. This is especially true after the first debate where the President had a lackluster showing."

Edward,

I'll take that as at least partially referring to me. It is false. I am completely genuine, sincere and rational. You are the one making broad assertions that are not true.

Aside from the personal insult, you just evade and contradict the facts that I have provided about how The Obamanator is polling.

You clearly don't stay up to date with the news, or you couldn't make the claim that his standing has been substantially affected by Romnification crushing him in the debate. It's affected his standing, yes, but not to the point that it's time to call the race even. Not even close.

Here's the info that shows that you are just asserting, without a factual foundation for your claims:

https://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...ey/#more-35607

Don't focus on the recent dip for The Obamanator, yes Romnification has had a good three days. But that's a few trees, not the forest. Overall, it still looks very good for The Obamanator.

His popularity is the highest in recent years. 54% last I heard.

https://www.businessinsider.com/obam...romney-2012-10

You're a big fan of the aggregate, Edward. Even when it's irrelevant to the specific situation.

Remember folks, there is no chance The Obamanator will not take ALL of the Electoral College votes in California and the other Blue States! None!!

So, unless you're voting in a heavily urban swing district in one of the seven to nine swing states, you have the luxury of voting for whoever you want.

If millions of you voted third party, for Jill Stein? I'd be ecstatic, but it's not going to happen. So it's not worth worrying about.

Unless you're Edward, of course. Grasping at imaginary straws is his forte.

No incumbent has lost reelection, with popularity numbers that The Obamanator now has. If he dips below 50%, then it's time to look at the tea leaves a little closer. But even then it would be too soon to panic.

To say his reelection is in doubt, or at risk, is a gross over-exaggeration of the available info and reality as any neutral observer can see.

Alarmism, cheerleading, they're part of the Game Chatter. To be expected. But basing your expectations on the cries of the Chicken Littles on any side of the equation, is like basing your life on the exhortations of fanatical preachers. Exiting, dramatic, but ultimately empty, stressful and futile.

Nothing is certain. But some things are trustworthy. The utterances of partisans in the midst of a fight, are not trustworthy. The evaluations of experts whose job it is to be evenhanded, comprehensive and nuanced? They're not clairvoyant, but then, they don't claim to be. They are worth paying attention to. Far more than those who have an ax to grind.


Katy The Kat,

I do not need to reply. Ignoring and dismissing my detailed response and just reasserting your erroneous claims. Well, it is what it is.


`

[Karen the KAT]

Miles, you talk in circles and go sideways every time we debate. The debate was about the debate, not about you political identity. Nobody gives a shit about your personal perception of your political identity, except you. This is evidently how you define yourself to the World: "Look at me, I'm not a regular Leftist, I'm a special type of Leftist", Wow, pretty much of nothing...

Again you can't win on the issues, so you make up new ones. Your distraction are entertaining since you can't win them either. You quote only partisan sources and yet expect this to be taken as the word of God, because you agree with it

You insult everybody you don't agree with. You call people names, and tell them they are stupid because they don't agree with your OPINIONS. By doing that you lose the debate before you have even started...

You still haven't addressed what I have said about Obama's debate performance with anything but your OPINION. That would be fine if you noted it as such, but you instead act as if it is fact, simply because you said so.

Get a grip dude....

["Mad" Miles]

`
Since I keep pushing for people to read this guys site, especially the Scaredy Cat Obamabo.... uh, I mean Pragmatic Liberal Incrementalist Partisans, I thought people might be interested in some reasons why:

https://www.slate.com/articles/busin...d_.single.html

And just in case others aren't the News Junkie that I am:

https://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...st_debate.html

For those worried that Romnification is getting the preponderance of the Big Bucks:

https://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...st_debate.html


`

[Sara S]

I suggest that you watch this short video:

https://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...-Why-Obama-Now

So Edward, how does a Romney win bode poorly for America? Mass. actually has all the things obama has promised but not given us, thanks to Romney, who is so moderate and centrist that he's lacking the support of the far right, but more than making up for it in the middle. Exactly what has obama given us that Romney hasnt already done, and done better? Women, gays, minorities and the poor and unemployed were all better off under Romney, he gave them the best public schools in the Nation, a healthcare plan that actually works, turned their economy around, instituted environmental reforms, reforms to make governmental agencies more effective, reforms to financial and business regulations, and in doing so he enjoyed an average approval rating of over 55% in a state that is 86% democratic. Tell me, what besides disproven obama ads and statements, is there not to like about that? Conversely Obama has failed the vast majority of us both socially and economically. He has drastically increased the deficit, ignored the Constitution, not passed a single budget, ignored Congress, been utterly opaque, etc. etc. There's really nothing to like about him except he talks smooth with a teleprompted script. Without a teleprompter he's a bumbling, lying fool. Romney and the MSM factcheckers have torn his every statement to shreds.
Come on people; think for yourselves, stop buying into being told what you want to hear.
If you want what obama promises, vote for Romney, because even Obama had to admit that their goals are essentially the same thing and he has based most of his plans and programs on Romney's successes, but not been successfull in implementing them himself.
I just dont get the logic that says: "i want _____, my guy promised it and didnt deliver, and the other guy did, but I'm still going to vote for my guy anyway". Obama is far more controlled by big business than Romney is, just look at his cabinet and appointees: The very same people all the major economists agree were the cause of the mess in the first place...
Obama has a unique ability to take other people's good ideas, claim them as his, and then modify them so they dont work. He has the magical touch that turns gold into dogshit.
As Barry said: (paraphrased) "Romney looked reasonable, knowledgable and not scary". Well put aside all the lies, and yes, he is just that.
It was quite entertaining to see Obama say over and over: "well we both agree on the same goals", and "well i got those ideas from you governor", and Romney was saying: "thanks, but you implemented it wrong, whereas I did it right".
If yoy want what Obama promises, vote for the guy who's already succeeded in those goals, Obama's "professor"; Romney..,

[theindependenteye]

Put more Scalias at every level of the Federal court system.
Keep health care in the hands of the Market.
Support Big Oil, Big Coal, Big Climate Change.
Remove all protective regulations: Trust CEOs to police themselves.
Bomb Iran.
Let Wall Street save Social Security.
Roll back the Gay Agenda.
Deport Mexicans.
Ban abortion choice.
Protect the tax rates of billionaires.
Support weapons systems, cut veterans' benefits.
Produce American jobs by adopting Chinese labor standards.
Vote Romney/Ryan in 2012, with an all-Republican Congress.

[Valley Oak]

(I have substantially edited this post, please re-read)

"Put more Scalias at every level of the Federal court system..."

This is exactly what voting for 3rd parties, Ron Paul, or Mitt Romney will bring us to in this country.

Furthermore, regarding the infantile and chronic obsession of certain 3rd party disgruntled, fanatics, NOBODY owns my vote, whether that is the Democratic Party, the Green Party, or anyone else. I have a fundamental, Constitutional right to vote for WHOMEVER I choose and for whatever reasons.

I know perfectly well that that there is a strong likelihood that the "Obamanator" (as some pathologically cynical ingrates like to repeat ad nauseam) will take California in the elections. I will vote for Obama nonetheless because he has EARNED my vote and only Obama deserves my vote, and no one else!

Obama has done his job, he has brought change, and the list of change is long. Obama has saved the US from the precipice of the Great Depression II, brought on by 8 tragic years of Republican, Romneyesque public policy. Romney would bring more of the same, the totally wrong road that only few Americans and the rich can afford.

Among many other achievements, Obama ended the Iraq War II and is in the process of ending that other Republican initiated war in Afghanistan. Obama has refused to defend the grossly bigoted and homophobic federal law, DOMA, and has come out publicly in favor of same-sex marriage, bravely defending the fundamental human rights of a suspect class of American citizens, the LGBT community.

Only the most ingracious, dishonest, and unreasonable extremists are incapable of giving President Obama any positive credit. It is easy to sit back and criticize EVERYTHING that someone does while NEVER acknowledging their good and great deeds. Only Republicans, Libertarians, and 3rd party supporters are capable of behaving with such reprehensible conduct.

Furthermore, the psychologically arrested development fantasy that some group, such as a 3rd party, is going to bring Utopia is another one of the grossest of all possible lies. No political formation of any kind can bring that kind of radical change within a short period of time because the system simply will not allow it. Disgracefully, if not comically, there are still many extremists, fanatics, and juvenile minded individuals out there who still dream of "armed revolution," whether it is right wing or left wing inspired, in order to "bring down" the corrupt system of government.

If we want profound change in this country then We the People have to change the system through Constitutional amendments. We need systemic reform. No political party is capable of bringing that kind of change and the assertion that some 3rd party can do so (while all others have been unable to) is an gargantuan lie; this kind of false assertion discredits not only itself but also its advocates.

Additionally, precisely because the American system of democracy is so broken, obsolete, and undemocratic, the sorely short-sighted belief that another party can do what no other party has been able to accomplish is fundamentally contradictory and even hypocritical. How can a person who asserts that the American political system is essentially flawed ALSO use that same electoral system to change it? This naive attitude clearly implies that some 3rd party is composed of super humans who are able to leap mountainous power structures in a single bound. This is a fantastic lie.

You cannot use the fundamentally flawed electoral system of America's political institutions to bring systemic change. Profound systemic reform must be attained through a popular movement, such as the Progressive Movement was. And that profound systemic reform can only be made permanent through Constitutional amendments.

The kinds of systemic reforms that the United States needs is a multi-party system with Proportional Representation, on the one hand, and the elimination of divided government, on the other.

Additionally, federalism needs to assert itself over the failed and egregiously undemocratic States' Rights debacles. States' Rights violate human rights and are simply another form of local totalitarianism. States' Rights activism has brought us a destructive, bloody civil war, and has been the bulwark of racists and reactionaries (e.g. Ron Paul & Romney) to impose Jim Crow laws, discrimination against African-Americans, women, immigrants, gays, prohibition of abortion, etc, etc, etc. States' Rights propaganda has got to be dispelled. The "democratic right" to take other people's rights away is not democracy at all. The rights of minorities are also a part of what democracy is all about, but State's Rights advocates have always refused to acknowledge this fact. In addition, it is a blatant lie on the part of Libertarians and other radical conservatives that the Constitution gives the states more authority than the federal government. Ron Paul and his followers are modern-day Confederates and they believe that if a state wants to have slavery then the Constitution gives them the right to have that truly barbaric institution. Modern day Confederates, like Ron Paul and his equally reprehensible son, Rand Paul (named after Ayn Rand) honestly believe that if the majority of the people of a state were to vote for bringing back slavery or make abortion illegal, that the US Constitution actually protects this horrid behavior. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Sincerely,

Edward

Put more Scalias at every level of the Federal court system.
Keep health care in the hands of the Market.
Support Big Oil, Big Coal, Big Climate Change.
Remove all protective regulations: Trust CEOs to police themselves.
Bomb Iran.
Let Wall Street save Social Security.
Roll back the Gay Agenda.
Deport Mexicans.
Ban abortion choice.
Protect the tax rates of billionaires.
Support weapons systems, cut veterans' benefits.
Produce American jobs by adopting Chinese labor standards.
Vote Romney/Ryan in 2012, with an all-Republican Congress.

[Valley Oak]

Why Obama now?



Watch and see.

["Mad" Miles]

`
OK! Conrad,

Let's look at your list:

Put more Scalias at every level of the Federal court system.

Keep health care in the hands of the Market.

Support Big Oil, Big Coal, Big Climate Change. - The Obamanator consistently touts, "Clean Coal, Biofuels and a 100 year supply of Natural Gas".

Remove all protective regulations: Trust CEOs to police themselves. Also.

Bomb Iran.

Let Wall Street save Social Security.

Roll back the Gay Agenda. - How would he do that? Repeal the rescission of DADT? Support the DOMA? Since that's a fight in individual states, it's really not a matter of what the President says. DADT is dead. It's not coming back. As for The Obamanators moves on Marriage Equality, he said he supports it, but that it's the states decision. Romnification would be little different, plus, he's going to lose! And how you or I vote has nothing to do with whether he will, or not.

Deport Mexicans.

Ban abortion choice. - Two schools on this. His sister says he'll never do it. Pro-Choicers say he would in a heartbeat. Since it is fought in the states, and opinion and demographics are overwhelmingly Pro-Choice/Abortion Rights, it will be a fight whoever is elected. But it's a fight that is more or less already won.

What is happening, is more post-conflict mopping up to eliminate the final resistance, than full on conflict. That's why the death spasms are so extreme, dramatic. They know they've lost, so they're losing their shit. It has to be done, the mop up, but don't blow it out of proportion.

Access to reproductive healthcare is so rational, the need is so immense, the economic consequences of denying it so devastating, that it will get done. It's in everyone's interests, the-powers-that-be included. Will it be a struggle? Of course. But it's a struggle that the vast majority of Americans wholeheartedly support. Even Romnification knows that. Don't confuse the posturing, with policy goals. On any side of the mainstream show.

Protect the tax rates of billionaires. - Maybe, he'd have to get money to pay off debt and fund the military from somewhere. Expect much elucidation of the lies and bad math in his and Ryan's fiscal "policy proposals" in the next three debates.

Support weapons systems, cut veterans' benefits. - Sure, but on the first one, so does The Obamanator. He's been good on military funding from the point of view of the Military Industrial Complex, which is why he has their support. On Vet's benefits, there's lots of fog, accusations and counter-accusations going on with regard to the current administration. All of it partisan. Both of them are big cheerleaders for Vets and the Military. Their polices are essentially equivalent on those matters.

Produce American jobs by adopting Chinese labor standards. - Really? Only Romnification? And not The Obamanator?


Vote Romney/Ryan in 2012, with an all-Republican Congress. - I know you're being facetious. But even if you weren't, the overwhelming odds are for a Second Term, Democratic Majority Senate and Republican Majority House. The latter with some adjustment, probably slightly towards the Dems, if down ticket races are influenced by The Obamanators popularity.

Just regurgitating the Alarmist Talking Points from the Democratic Party Apparat, all designed to make it a stark choice between the two, is not an accurate portrayal of their differences. Such as they are.

Yes, they're different, but not as different as either side in The Shell Game, want you to believe.

They're both Centrist, Moderates. One pretending to be more Liberal than he really is (we know this because of his actions, not his words.) The other pretending to be farther Right than he really is.

On key issues, the economy, military spending, foreign relations and the maintenance of Empire, they work for the same donors and are doing or would do relatively the same things. Same for the Environment, Economic Development, and a host of other issues.

Here's one more reason not to buy the Democratic Party Apparat Hype.

And, I'm out, again, for now...


`

["Mad" Miles]

`
Edward, Edward, Edward, "There you go again!" (Ronnie Rayguns, in a debate.)

There's no way I'll invest all the time required to debunk every detail of your hyperbole. This is getting repetitive. (Getting?!!)

Just a few corrections. Most of what I could say I've linked to supporting articles, in my previous reply to Conrad. I'll focus on some of your glaring (and popular, I've been reading the same sources you get your stuff from) statements of known non-fact:

"Put more Scalias at every level of the Federal court system..."

This is exactly what voting for 3rd parties, Ron Paul, or Mitt Romney will bring us to in this country.

Red Herring. Not gonna happen, pretending it will is just hyperbole. The Obamanator has a lock, unless he totally blows it, which is unlikely. Wednesday night was a wake-up call for his campaign. Assuredly they are taking great measures to make sure it won't happen again.

Ron Paul Sucks!

Furthermore, regarding the infantile and chronic obsession of certain 3rd party disgruntled, fanatics, NOBODY owns my vote, whether that is the Democratic Party, the Green Party, or anyone else. I have a fundamental, Constitutional right to vote for WHOMEVER I choose and for whatever reasons.

I know perfectly well that that there is a strong likelihood that the "Obamanator" (as some pathologically cynical ingrates like to repeat ad nauseam) will take California in the elections. I will vote for Obama nonetheless because he has EARNED my vote and only Obama deserves my vote, and no one else!

So we all own our vote? Was that in dispute? You're the one slinging the "Vote Swapping" nonsense. Nothing I've said is an order to others about what to do. You're the one who uses that imperative tone.

I dubbed the pres, The Obamanator, after the OBL hit. It's a combination of praise, affectionate sobriquet, gesture to his anti-war critics, of which I am a mediated one, and a joke.

I imagine him wearing a Mexican wrestling mask as he battles Evil as a Luchadoro! The fact it sets some his admirers off is a nice inadvertent litmus test to see who suffers from Irony Impairment. I suggest you see someone for that.

I discuss these matters with many ardent Democrats, very few take umbrage with my nicknames for the two protagonists in our "great contest". I find that those who do, are bearing large chips of resentment on their shoulders. Not my problem.

Obama has saved the US from the precipice of the Great Depression II, brought on by 8 tragic years of Republican, Romneyesque public policy.

I give him credit for that all the time. And take shit from totalizing and reductive critics on the Left and among the Paul-tards for supposedly justifying "Statism" and all that really bad, horrible stuff caused by Capitalism. I am not an extremist, in spite of KTK's delusional interpretations stemming from her poor reading skills and ideological blinders.

I also read Paul Krugman and agree that the stimulus for infrastructure and jobs was too little. He had two years with a Democratic majority House and Senate. So pinning it on the Policy-Blocking Teabaggers is specious. 2/09-10/10? I know he was busy, but the economy was priority #1.

His caution, hurt far more than his reputation. It had a role in the lack of job growth for the last three and a half years. Listening to Geithner et al, is probably why he was so timid about, "bailing out Main Street".

Of course the president, let alone anybody else, doesn't "Run" the economy. He didn't create the crisis, although his party played a central role. He did have the responsibility to respond to it.

I supported the Financial Market bailouts. Because the alternative was a global economic collapse Hell-Scape that would have made The Great Depression look like a nice time for family fun. He didn't go far enough, when he had the chance.

It's that two-edged sword of his wonky, mediating, cautious personality. He talks about bold steps, his steps tell another story.

By the way, none of this is 20/20 hindsight. His friends and supporters were shouting the same things at every turn. It's not like anybody didn't know.

He's guided by NeoLiberal economic views (as well as NeoLiberal geostrategy) and in that light, his every move makes perfect sense. Too bad it's a recipe for Empire and Mass Impoverishment. It's certainly not a way to work for Social Justice.

Among many other achievements, Obama ended the Iraq War II and is in the process of ending that other Republican initiated war in Afghanistan.

Utter Hogwash. The deadline was set by Bush II. Democrats were all over the invasions. The Obamanator made great efforts to extend the Iraq occupation and keep U.S. troops there. The Iraqi government refused to extend legal immunity for U.S. Forces. In spite of Hillary working very hard to make that happen. So The Obamanator was forced to comply with the deadline.

There are tons of "contractors" still in Iraq and massive expenditures of U.S. tax dollars. He took credit for something he tried his utmost to prevent, "ending" The War on/in Iraq. That war continues by other means. His uncritical thinking followers tout it as a win, led by his spinners. His best spinner is himself.

I'm glad we "withdrew". But misrepresenting the history is the sign of the worst sort of ideological bias.

As for The Afghan, one word. Surge.

Wars raging in general? Drones.

I'm a heretic on Libya. It had to be done. The alternatives were far worse.

Only the most ingracious, dishonest, and unreasonable extremists are incapable of giving President Obama any positive credit. .... psychologically arrested development fantasy that some group, such as a 3rd party, is going to bring Utopia .... extremists, fanatics, and juvenile minded individuals out there who still dream of "armed revolution,"....

More broadsides of hyperbolic, misrepresentative, obtuse, demonizing, insulting, B.S. Known Modus Operandi. Does not require a refutation, since it has nothing to do with why people aren't thrilled by our, "Great Leader".

By the way, Spell Check is your friend.

If we want profound change in this country then We the People have to change the system through Constitutional amendments. We need systemic reform.

Agreed. Although, Stuff's Complicated. The question of Reform vs. Revolution is an old and knotty one. Still being discussed, as I suspect it always will be. I've plenty to say about it, but I'll spare everyone.

As for the rest of your diatribe, "asserting facts not in question", or some such thing lawyers say.


How to make substantial political change is a complex topic. One I've already said plenty about to you personally and here on waccobb. I'll leave that aside, except to say -

Attacking those who agree with most of your goals, but have a different take on the situation we all face, and who are making sincere efforts to do what they think is worth doing, in many different ways, on many different "fronts", is not an effective way to organize social movement.

A key part of doing that, creating movement, is coalition building, seeking practical grounds on which to work together, without demanding complete agreement on everything.

Attacking those who are doing things you disagree with, yet things which have no affect whatsoever on how you are seeking your goals (Of course, this is the crux of our dispute. Asked and answered. You're wrong, I'm right!! ;~P) is not conducive to cooperation, or coordination in a coalition. It achieves nothing. Except to polarize, alienate and engender rejection. Pumping up the conflict, what's the goal?

That's not organizing, that's wrecking. Plenty do it. It's an old, old, story. Especially on The Left.

Active Force, being blocked by Reactive Force.


Peace Out, as we used to say, not so many years ago,


`

[Hotspring 44]

(I have substantially edited this post, please re-read)

"Put more Scalias at every level of the Federal court system..."

This is exactly what voting for 3rd parties, Ron Paul, or Mitt Romney will bring us to in this country.

Only if it happens nationwide would it actually affect the electoral vote.
I think you actually (or at least you should actually) know that third parties in this electoral campaign for president 2012 does not have a snowball's chance in hell of getting any electoral votes in the first place.

Furthermore, regarding the infantile and chronic obsession of certain 3rd party disgruntled, fanatics, NOBODY owns my vote, whether that is the Democratic Party, the Green Party, or anyone else. I have a fundamental, Constitutional right to vote for WHOMEVER I choose and for whatever reasons.

Excuse me, but it is also everybody else's “constitutional right” to vote for “WHOMEVER” we choose to, “and for whatever reasons”, I might add. Of course, I know that you already know that.
I think that you are mischaracterizing the fundamental reasons why some of us are voting third-party as being “infantile”, “chronic obsession”; + your implication that anybody who votes for a third-party or; write-in candidate for that matter, of being a “disgruntled,” fanatic is a bit much, and kind of insulting to those who have a different opinions that you have the appearance of labeling onto us something which, in at least in my case, is not what the label says and most likely others too who are going to either write in somebody or vote for a third-party candidate.

Unfortunately, I think that if we start playing the label game, there is all kind of so-called (would be) "fanatics" here on this website, including ones that could be characterized as Democratic fanatics.
Do we really want to go there?... ...I think not, I sure don't.

I know perfectly well that that there is a strong likelihood that the "Obamanator" (as some pathologically cynical ingrates like to repeat ad nauseam) will take California in the elections. I will vote for Obama nonetheless because he has EARNED my vote and only Obama deserves my vote, and no one else!

If Obama had earned my vote, I would vote for him in this election. Obama did not lose my vote because I did not vote for him (or the Republican) in the last election. To put it simply: Obama did not earn my vote.

Obama has done his job, he has brought change, and the list of change is long. Obama has saved the US from the precipice of the Great Depression II, brought on by 8 tragic years of Republican, Romneyesque public policy. Romney would bring more of the same, the totally wrong road that only few Americans and the rich can afford.

Among many other achievements, Obama ended the Iraq War II and is in the process of ending that other Republican initiated war in Afghanistan. Obama has refused to defend the grossly bigoted and homophobic federal law, DOMA, and has come out publicly in favor of same-sex marriage, bravely defending the fundamental human rights of a suspect class of American citizens, the LGBT community.

Only the most ingracious, dishonest, and unreasonable extremists are incapable of giving President Obama any positive credit. It is easy to sit back and criticize EVERYTHING that someone does while NEVER acknowledging their good and great deeds. Only Republicans, Libertarians, and 3rd party supporters are capable of behaving with such reprehensible conduct.

I will not speak for anybody else here, but I agree that there are some, maybe many, "good" things that Obama deserves credit and acknowledgment; for example, some of the things you have mentioned above, and there are probably others, however there are also some changes that could have been made for the better, but instead some of the changes that did occur went for the worse. Of course, as far as the health care situation is concerned, I blame that more on the Democrats as a whole, not just Obama. The Democrats did not even use single-payer as a lever! I know it would not have passed, but they didn't even use it as a lever. I think that was ignorant and gave the other side, who wants to get rid of pretty much all the safety net and privatize it way too much leverage.

I and many others on this board; some of whom I don't agree with very often about a whole variety of things, do for the most part agree on some things that we believe are fundamentally wrong that Obama did and in some cases did not do that he could have done.

Some of those disagreeable things that the Obama administration didn't do include punishing instead of praising whistle-blowers and even the press in some instances.
Then there is the Wall Street and big-bank bailouts, however I think maybe his hands were tied on that one because of the political positions that members in the house had and something clearly had to be done very quickly at the time.... but still...
...He should have fought harder for Main Street and not have bent-over backwards so far siding with Wall Street and the big banks as he apparently did.

Also, Obama, by not initiating something that would prevent the economic havoc that, BTW, we have not gotten out of yet; for example, reinstating the Glass-Steagall act or even so much as coming anywhere near proposing anything like it. Because of what I believe is Obama's lack of initiative in regards to that we are in the same entrapped economic situation we were in around the year 2007, with just about no protections whatsoever against another too big to fail economic breakdown, so the same reasons still exist today that existed when George W. Bush was president that can at any time cause another extreme recession or a depression.

Maybe Obama could not have made the changes that I mentioned, but he didn't even try! So he gets a thumbs-down for not even trying to do that or so much as discussing the matter in deeper detail or at least putting something on the table to bring the discussion up in the first place. Even if the house, which is (now) mostly Republican, refused to bring it up in session, does not mean Obama couldn't have come up with something that would get the ball rolling in that direction at some point in time.

As far as I'm concerned, the Democrats have their earplugs stuck really deep in on that one. And I think the reason those earplugs are in so deep is because Obama did not initiate.
Leadership is about initiating. Where's the leadership on this particular issue? Unfortunately, I do not sense that strong leadership in regards to that specific topic from Obama. To me that's not just disappointing; it is unacceptable.
The only thing more unacceptable would be Romney for president. But lucky me I live in California so I can vote for whoever I want to, because California is not a swing state. If I lived in a swing state I would plug my nose and vote for Obama because the possibility of Romney winning the state in that case would be too high for me to vote for a third-party.

Now, as mentioned before, one of the main reasons some of us on this board would (will or have in the past) vote/ed for third-party candidates is that we want to see a third-party candidate in the debates!

I know some hard-core Democrats don't like that. But that's just tough!

Furthermore, the psychologically arrested development fantasy that some group, such as a 3rd party, is going to bring Utopia is another one of the grossest of all possible lies. No political formation of any kind can bring that kind of radical change within a short period of time because the system simply will not allow it. Disgracefully, if not comically, there are still many extremists, fanatics, and juvenile minded individuals out there who still dream of "armed revolution," whether it is right wing or left wing inspired, in order to "bring down" the corrupt system of government.

Honestly, I do not think anybody on this board is that “psychologically arrested" or “delusional” to the extent you describe above.
Also, I have not heard or read anything anybody said here that in any way wanted to start or were even so much as suggesting to start, join, or otherwise participate in an actual "armed revolution” or anything like that. I don't know if you're just exaggerating about things posted on this board or if I missed something when I have not been reading the board that you picked up on, or if you are generalizing and projecting that onto some of us or someone in particular.

Of course there are some anti-gun fanatics that would say (about) somebody that wants to have protected their second amendment constitutional rights; (some anti-gun "fanatics") who seem to suggest that anyone that want's to maintain the intent of the Second Amendment are somehow revolutionary fanatics because they want to keep their guns and ammo. Whereas I think that Obama does at this point in time, deserve some praise for understanding or at least not messing with what the second amendment right is and not giving too much license to the anti-gun fanatics within the Democratic party.

If we want profound change in this country then We the People have to change the system through Constitutional amendments. We need systemic reform. No political party is capable of bringing that kind of change and the assertion that some 3rd party can do so (while all others have been unable to) is an gargantuan lie; this kind of false assertion discredits not only itself but also its advocates.

I don't think of it quite that way, but I understand what you're saying.
I'm thinking that if and when ever a third-party or write-in candidate gets elected that it would be more of a bellwether for the improved chance for the profound changes progressives want and it most certainly is not or would not be the change by itself alone.

Additionally, precisely because the American system of democracy is so broken, obsolete, and undemocratic, the sorely short-sighted belief that another party can do what no other party has been able to accomplish is fundamentally contradictory and even hypocritical.

Contradictory?... ... It could very well be contradictory.... ... Hypocritical?... ...Possibly. I'm not justifying it, but hypocrisy seems to be the norm in politics; unfortunately.
So maybe it's time for progressives to “occupy” the Democratic Party by joining it... ...Yes that's it; maybe independent, green, peace and freedom, declined to state, etc. progressives should join the Democratic Party and work to move it where it needs to go to enable it so that it can make those changes it’s unable to make now.

I am not so sure, but I think that (registered non-Democrat progressives should join the Democratic Party) may be what you have been implying or suggesting some of us non-Democrat progressives do (?).

How can a person who asserts that the American political system is essentially flawed ALSO use that same electoral system to change it?

That’s a good question, and I have one good answer, but I'm sure it's not the only good answer. The answer is because: some that assert the American political system is essentially flawed do not want to have an “armed revolution” to change it.

This naive attitude clearly implies that some 3rd party is composed of super humans who are able to leap mountainous power structures in a single bound. This is a fantastic lie.

I understand exactly what you're saying, a lot of people that I knew who voted for Obama felt that way about him in 2008. I tried to explain to them that it wouldn't be that way, but they were so enthusiastic it was like they were under the influence of some kind of a happy drug. When they asked me what I thought about him I told them that he is a politician and that they should not be so overly optimistic about what he would actually do.

You cannot use the fundamentally flawed electoral system of America's political institutions to bring systemic change. Profound systemic reform must be attained through a popular movement, such as the Progressive Movement was. And that profound systemic reform can only be made permanent through Constitutional amendments.

I agree.

The kinds of systemic reforms that the United States needs is a multi-party system with Proportional Representation, on the one hand, and the elimination of divided government, on the other.

I don't think we are going to hear that in any of the debates between Obama and Romney. That is precisely why I am going to vote for a 3rd party candidate in 2012.

Additionally, federalism needs to assert itself over the failed and egregiously undemocratic States' Rights debacles. States' Rights violate human rights and are simply another form of local totalitarianism. States' Rights activism has brought us a destructive, bloody civil war, and has been the bulwark of racists and reactionaries (e.g. Ron Paul & Romney) to impose Jim Crow laws, discrimination against African-Americans, women, immigrants, gays, prohibition of abortion, etc, etc, etc. States' Rights propaganda has got to be dispelled. The "democratic right" to take other people's rights away is not democracy at all. The rights of minorities are also a part of what democracy is all about, but State's Rights advocates have always refused to acknowledge this fact. In addition, it is a blatant lie on the part of Libertarians and other radical conservatives that the Constitution gives the states more authority than the federal government. Ron Paul and his followers are modern-day Confederates and they believe that if a state wants to have slavery then the Constitution gives them the right to have that truly barbaric institution. Modern day Confederates, like Ron Paul and his equally reprehensible son, Rand Paul (named after Ayn Rand) honestly believe that if the majority of the people of a state were to vote for bringing back slavery or make abortion illegal, that the US Constitution actually protects this horrid behavior. Nothing could be further from the truth.

That is a very accurate assessment, and I agree with the gist of it.

["Mad" Miles]

`
Point of information.

Non-Corporate Liberals, Progressives, Social Democrats, Labor Advocates, Environmentalists and others, have been working within the Democratic Party since I have been politically active (almost 40 years) and I've known some of them very, very well. My sister and brother-in-law were core activists in the Campaign for Economic Democracy. Carl Davidson, a political Chicago scene acquaintance friend is a founder of and still key activist in Progressive Democrats of America.

For the most part, those efforts have been dismal failures, when it comes to shifting the DP from its Corporate agenda of the last 28 years.

Naysayers like to dismiss the Green Party for failing to get anyone elected to high office since we formed in the eighties. I don't play the blame game, but if I did, it would be easy to point out the history of abject failure to "return" the DP to it's "roots" and its advocacy for its core constituencies, Labor, Women, Minorities and the Environment.

All those interests get lip service, no doubt. Some progressives get elected from ultra-liberal regions. (Look around Waccatoons!) But when you look at what gets decided on the "big ticket" issues, it's pretty hard to reconcile the Happy Talk with the Action.

Why do you think people start organizing Third Parties? Because they are content with the mainstream ones?

The whole, "work in the Democratic Party to make it answerable to everyday people", line? Sorry, it's a crock.

The most recent evidence nailing down that conclusion is Norman Solomon's campaign. If a guy like him can't get the nod to replace Woolsey, in this Congressional District, what chance is there for an activist liberal committed to peace, social justice and environmental protection to get above the state assembly or legislature in most of the rest of the country?

What are the insurgent movements that have gained traction in recent years? They certainly can't be described as Progressive, Liberal or Populist. (Unless you say Faux?)

The largest two, required buckets of corporate cash and media coverage to get off the ground. And still do to keep going.

So, yeah, lets pour ourselves into the local DP Councils and work for the day when the party of FDR and JFK comes back. It's not like anybody has ever tried......!!??

Here's a well researched, relatively succinct, History of the Democratic Party, up until 2004. Should be common knowledge:

https://www.iiipublishing.com/books/demhist.htm


`

[Hotspring 44]

M M, I did go to the trouble of reading that link, and I have to say honestly I'm not that impressed.
There is quite a bit of history there, but it almost sounds like a libertarian point of view to me.
It seemed to me to be a bit opinionated.
Out of all the presidents that were mentioned, JFK wasn't! Whatever is up with that I am not sure why but I think JFK would have been worth at least a mention.

The whole, "work in the Democratic Party to make it answerable to everyday people", line? Sorry, it's a crock.

Considering human nature being what it is, you're probably correct about that.
It seems like its human nature that everybody wants to jump on the bandwagon unless it's already populated by somebody else they don't particularly like. Instead they most likely would prefer to build their own bandwagon. I think that's maybe what third or multiple political parties are really about and how things might change when enough people jump on that bandwagon.

Until then, most people are going to get trickled-down upon.

Anyway, it's getting kind of late, I'm getting kind of tired, and I still need to eat dinner and digest it a little bit before I go to bed so this is all I'm going to write for now.

[badura88]

I agree that Obama's record has been disappointing to say the least, and I agree that the economy is in ailing condition, but my question is what president will honor the fundamentals to our existence? I want a president who will 1. work to preserve and restore the health of our planet and that means push organic gardening and regulating industry to start. 2. put people first, i.e. QUALITY education and health care. 3.restore the rights and liberty of the individual over corporations. Dennis Kuchinich and Ralf Nader are the only two people who I now would qualify for this position. that is who I am writng in.

Yes, the two sides are owned by the same people...

One wants to enslave us with Socialism, where we are owned by the government.

The other wants to enslave us with Capitalism, where we are owned by our creditors.

The reason I have chosen the latter is it is the lesser of two evils, and participation is not mandatory, it's voluntary...

Since I live in California I will be writing in Ron Paul as President and Dennis Kuchinich as VP, as they are the only two Congress members that openly oppose the Fed, and are in agreement with several other issues that positively effect our economy and freedom (or the illusion therefore of...).

The problem is that virtually every politician has already been bought by people that ultimately answer to the Rothschilds. They own almost all the oil, and virtually all the banks, and thus pretty much control the World, which isn't a conspiracy theory, but a fact that is easily ascertainable by several hours of work tracing ownership via public records. They don't take much effort to hide this because there's nothing that can be done about it. Start with Rothschild as a wiki search term and see where it leads you, and you will find it is about everywhere...

So all roads lead to Rome, or in this case, London. Knowing that puts things in a realistic framework one can work with in order to hew out a life for yourself that works and gives you the most amount of control over your future.

It helps you to be less of a victim...

[Peace Voyager]

Put more Scalias at every level of the Federal court system.
Keep health care in the hands of the Market.
Support Big Oil, Big Coal, Big Climate Change.
Remove all protective regulations: Trust CEOs to police themselves.
Bomb Iran.
Let Wall Street save Social Security.
Roll back the Gay Agenda.
Deport Mexicans.
Ban abortion choice.
Protect the tax rates of billionaires.
Support weapons systems, cut veterans' benefits.
Produce American jobs by adopting Chinese labor standards.
Vote Romney/Ryan in 2012, with an all-Republican Congress.

Well put.

Too bad Obama is also a puppet to the masters of most of the above agenda; instead of just working for the 99%.

Too bad the alternative parties have not figured out that the only way they can get anywhere is for most of them to consolidate.

Lucky for Sebastopol voters though; I'm the only candidate willing to break away from the polarization, seeking what unites us rather than what divides; and recovering our core values which have been so diluted.

Colleen Fernald

Sebastopol's Constitutional Candidate
For Peace Through Justice
City Council 2012

www.camapaignforpeace.org

[Peace Voyager]

I did not watch the debate; I'm very grateful I do not have cable. I tried to listen to it on the radio; but Romney's voice, like Bush's, makes me nauseous. But, when the majority of voters play along with the game the 1% have designed so well; America loses.

The parties are the problem, they are both equally co-opted. I'm an anomaly, a Democrat; intent on working to clean up this party, not looking the other way when they are up to no good. (BTW even the Progressive Democrats have been co-opted; I witnessed evidence of how AIPAC has bought them off.)

Did Obama earn your vote when he signed the National Defense Authorization Act; killing due process for Americans; when acts such as posting this can be twisted to fit the "terrorist" profile; and I, and many others here, could be detained and held indefinitely?

Does he deserve your vote by furthering unconstitutional war powers with his "kill list", and first strike drone operations in countries where we have not declared war; where more innocent civilians are harmed than targets, who never even had the right of due process first?

You, and most of America, are falling for the biggest lie on earth; that supporting the lesser of the 2 evils will be enough to fix our mess.

Only 1% of our Federal "representatives" are working for us. I have no faith in them ever being able to end the stranglehold of the multinational interests, especially the military industrial complex.

The only viable way to get what is needed, is to compel 2/3rds of state and local governments to get on the same page to overturn the failed policies which are killing us, and replace them with ones we can thrive with.

This will only happen when you require all candidates and elected officials to uphold their oath of office to support and defend the Constitution. You have more power than you think; so please don't be a slave to the 2 party system.

What would our forefathers do? Our revolution is overdue. We can do it without violence or chaos. The 99% are the majority, and when properly informed, have the power to starve the Beast.

What 3 - 5 key issues can we get on the same page and run with? Let's see how we can get a spotlight on that for this election.

Unless you, and everyone like you tell Obama what your deal breakers are; he will never move to support the will of the majority. Give him some tough love, or we will be debating this while our economy and infrastructure crumble further.

United we stand, divided we fall.

Colleen Fernald

[Peace Voyager]

I agree with most of this; but what Obama did in Lybia - using our forces without following the Constitution or even getting authorization from Congress was wrong. It makes me sick to see find so many people think it's OK to strike first. Plus the way the 99% of media is controlled by the 1%; knowing just what the truth is, and what is CIA, etc. propaganda takes real research most of us do not have the means for.

`
Edward, Edward, Edward, "There you go again!" (Ronnie Rayguns, in a debate.)

There's no way I'll invest all the time required to debunk every detail of your hyperbole. This is getting repetitive. (Getting?!!)

Just a few corrections. Most of what I could say I've linked to supporting articles, in my previous reply to Conrad. I'll focus on some of your glaring (and popular, I've been reading the same sources you get your stuff from) statements of known non-fact:




Red Herring. Not gonna happen, pretending it will is just hyperbole. The Obamanator has a lock, unless he totally blows it, which is unlikely. Wednesday night was a wake-up call for his campaign. Assuredly they are taking great measures to make sure it won't happen again.

Ron Paul Sucks!




So we all own our vote? Was that in dispute? You're the one slinging the "Vote Swapping" nonsense. Nothing I've said is an order to others about what to do. You're the one who uses that imperative tone.

I dubbed the pres, The Obamanator, after the OBL hit. It's a combination of praise, affectionate sobriquet, gesture to his anti-war critics, of which I am a mediated one, and a joke.

I imagine him wearing a Mexican wrestling mask as he battles Evil as a Luchadoro! The fact it sets some his admirers off is a nice inadvertent litmus test to see who suffers from Irony Impairment. I suggest you see someone for that.

I discuss these matters with many ardent Democrats, very few take umbrage with my nicknames for the two protagonists in our "great contest". I find that those who do, are bearing large chips of resentment on their shoulders. Not my problem.




I give him credit for that all the time. And take shit from totalizing and reductive critics on the Left and among the Paul-tards for supposedly justifying "Statism" and all that really bad, horrible stuff caused by Capitalism. I am not an extremist, in spite of KTK's delusional interpretations stemming from her poor reading skills and ideological blinders.

I also read Paul Krugman and agree that the stimulus for infrastructure and jobs was too little. He had two years with a Democratic majority House and Senate. So pinning it on the Policy-Blocking Teabaggers is specious. 2/09-10/10? I know he was busy, but the economy was priority #1.

His caution, hurt far more than his reputation. It had a role in the lack of job growth for the last three and a half years. Listening to Geithner et al, is probably why he was so timid about, "bailing out Main Street".

Of course the president, let alone anybody else, doesn't "Run" the economy. He didn't create the crisis, although his party played a central role. He did have the responsibility to respond to it.

I supported the Financial Market bailouts. Because the alternative was a global economic collapse Hell-Scape that would have made The Great Depression look like a nice time for family fun. He didn't go far enough, when he had the chance.

It's that two-edged sword of his wonky, mediating, cautious personality. He talks about bold steps, his steps tell another story.

By the way, none of this is 20/20 hindsight. His friends and supporters were shouting the same things at every turn. It's not like anybody didn't know.

He's guided by NeoLiberal economic views (as well as NeoLiberal geostrategy) and in that light, his every move makes perfect sense. Too bad it's a recipe for Empire and Mass Impoverishment. It's certainly not a way to work for Social Justice.




Utter Hogwash. The deadline was set by Bush II. Democrats were all over the invasions. The Obamanator made great efforts to extend the Iraq occupation and keep U.S. troops there. The Iraqi government refused to extend legal immunity for U.S. Forces. In spite of Hillary working very hard to make that happen. So The Obamanator was forced to comply with the deadline.

There are tons of "contractors" still in Iraq and massive expenditures of U.S. tax dollars. He took credit for something he tried his utmost to prevent, "ending" The War on/in Iraq. That war continues by other means. His uncritical thinking followers tout it as a win, led by his spinners. His best spinner is himself.

I'm glad we "withdrew". But misrepresenting the history is the sign of the worst sort of ideological bias.

As for The Afghan, one word. Surge.

Wars raging in general? Drones.

I'm a heretic on Libya. It had to be done. The alternatives were far worse.




More broadsides of hyperbolic, misrepresentative, obtuse, demonizing, insulting, B.S. Known Modus Operandi. Does not require a refutation, since it has nothing to do with why people aren't thrilled by our, "Great Leader".

By the way, Spell Check is your friend.




Agreed. Although, Stuff's Complicated. The question of Reform vs. Revolution is an old and knotty one. Still being discussed, as I suspect it always will be. I've plenty to say about it, but I'll spare everyone.

As for the rest of your diatribe, "asserting facts not in question", or some such thing lawyers say.


How to make substantial political change is a complex topic. One I've already said plenty about to you personally and here on waccobb. I'll leave that aside, except to say -

Attacking those who agree with most of your goals, but have a different take on the situation we all face, and who are making sincere efforts to do what they think is worth doing, in many different ways, on many different "fronts", is not an effective way to organize social movement.

A key part of doing that, creating movement, is coalition building, seeking practical grounds on which to work together, without demanding complete agreement on everything.

Attacking those who are doing things you disagree with, yet things which have no affect whatsoever on how you are seeking your goals (Of course, this is the crux of our dispute. Asked and answered. You're wrong, I'm right!! ;~P) is not conducive to cooperation, or coordination in a coalition. It achieves nothing. Except to polarize, alienate and engender rejection. Pumping up the conflict, what's the goal?

That's not organizing, that's wrecking. Plenty do it. It's an old, old, story. Especially on The Left.

Active Force, being blocked by Reactive Force.


Peace Out, as we used to say, not so many years ago,


`