Politics Stinks

[handy]

This guy seems to have some handle on it...


https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/politics-stinks/

Politics Stinks

Doug Mataconis (https://belowthebeltway.com) · Tuesday, September 25, 2012 · 1 Comment (https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/politics-stinks/#comments)

https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/us-politics-republicans-democrats1.jpg (https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/politics-stinks/us-politics-republicans-democrats-42/)
Cato’s Gene Healy is pretty much sick of politics, (https://washingtonexaminer.com/down-with-politics/article/2508882#.UGINIY2PUsG) which is a problem since he writes about politics for a living:I have a confession to make: Even though it’s my job to write about politics, I didn’t watch a single second of the Republican or Democratic conventions — not even a YouTube clip of Clint Eastwood talking to the chair.

I’ve long found electoral politics seedy and dispiriting, but that sensibility has lately become a debilitating affliction: like being a sportswriter struck by the unhelpful epiphany that it’s silly for a grown man to write about other grown men playing a game for kids.
These days, when I tune in to ABC’s “This Week” looking for a column topic, I can’t even make it past the first commercial break. Like Peter says to the management consultant in “Office Space,” “The thing is, Bob, it’s not that I’m lazy; it’s that I just don’t care.”
(…)
Many conservatives are convinced that Barack Obama, who holds the policy positions of your median Prius driver, is bent on destroying the American way of life. Many liberals have convinced themselves that Mitt Romney, the very model of all-American Mormon niceness, is a vicious plutocratic thug who loved to beat up gay kids in high school.

Psychologist Jonathan Haidt, author of “The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion,” wrote a blog post recently called “Discovering That the Other Side Is Not Really So Loathsome,” riffing off an essay by Michael Rubens, a former “Daily Show” producer. It was Rubens’ job to interview Rush Limbaugh fans and gun-toting Tea Partiers so Jon Stewart’s audience could point and laugh. “[I]magine how irksome it was,” Rubens writes, to discover that these folks “generally weren’t loathsome persons after all. In fact, to my great consternation and disappointment, I often liked them.”

I had to laugh when I saw the very first comment on Haidt’s post. “I do not buy this,” wrote “Bert Gold, Ph.D.”: “[N]o credit for civility to Republicans. … [T]hey humiliated a sitting President and plotted to do so from the night of his inauguration. Despicable is not a strong enough word.”

Healy’s opinions aren’t very far from my own. There was a time when following politics was if not fun at least interesting and seemed to be infused with a sense that there was something important going on. Now, it just seems as though we’re either arguing over the same dumb things when the reality is that the two sides of the political debate in this country don’t really disagree with each other as much as they like to pretend. If we’re not doing that, we’re wasting time arguing over stupid things like something silly Mitt Romney said in a stump speech or the fact that Barack Obama ate dog when he was six years old and living in Indonesia. Our “journalists” spend more time talking about whose leading in the latest poll and process issues than they do about the things that voters say repeatedly are their top concerns. And, in both political parties, special interests needle their way into the debate and push their own agendas which have little to do with either the concerns of the voters or the best interests of the nation.

More importantly, the fact that our country has become more polarized between left and right means that politics has found its way into more areas of our life. Now, there are political consequences to what television shows and movies you watch, which actors and musicians you are a fan of, and even whether or not you like chicken sandwiches. People who are strongly political on one side of the aisle or the other tend to think the absolutely worst about those that disagree with them even though, if they actually met one of those people, they’d likely find them to be perfectly decent human beings who just happen to have different political opinions. Most importantly, we are now in a world where it’s not enough to merely oppose a politician of the opposite party, one must demonize them and turn them into the worst example of a human being that you can think of. Remember how much flack Mitt Romney took from Republicans during the primary when he said that he thought that President Obama was a decent man who just happened to be in over his head?

As I’ve written here at OTB several times in the past, the reasons for all of this seem rather clear. Cable “news” networks, talk radio, and the Internet have created a never-ending newscycle that at the same time encourages hyperpartisanship. People are more likely today to get their news from sources that are in line with their ideological biases than they were in the past, thus creating a self-perpetuating Confirmation Bias that just tends to make people more convinced that their views are correct and the other guys are not just wrong, but evil and/or stupid. Add to these the fact that, through things like Gerrymandering and the relative loss of power of party organizations, the political system itself is changing and there is plenty of ripe territory for hyperpartisanship. Thanks to this, and most especially in the Republican Party, dissent from what the base deems to be orthodoxy leads politicians and pundits to be denounced and ostracized, both powerful tools that keep people who make their living in politics “in line” with the party.

Aaron Ross Powell and Trevor Burrus explored the issue recently in a post entitled “Politics Makes Us Worse”: (https://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/politics-makes-us-worse)[INDENT]Politics takes a continuum of possibilities and turns it into a small group of discrete outcomes, often just two. Either this guy gets elected, or that guy does. Either a give policy becomes law or it doesn’t. As a result, political choices matter greatly to those most affected. An electoral loss is the loss of a possibility. These black and white choices mean politics will often manufacture problems that previously didn’t exist, such as the “problem” of whether we—as a community, as a nation—will teach children creation or evolution.

Oddly, many believe that political decisionmaking is an egalitarian way of allowing all voices to be heard. Nearly everyone can vote, after all, and because no one has more than one vote, the outcome seems fair.

But outcomes in politics are hardly ever fair. Once decisions are given over to the political process, the only citizens who can affect the outcome are those with sufficient political power. The most disenfranchised minorities become those whose opinions are too rare to register on the political radar. In an election with thousands of voters, a politician is wise to ignore the grievances of 100 people whose rights are trampled given how unlikely those 100 are to determine the outcome.

The black-and-white aspect of politics also encourages people to think in black-and-white terms. Not only do political parties emerge, but their supporters become akin to sports fans, feuding families, or students at rival high schools. Nuances of differences in opinions are traded for stark dichotomies that are largely fabrications. Thus, we get the “no regulation, hate the environment, hate poor people” party and the “socialist, nanny-state, hate the rich” party—and the discussions rarely go deeper than this.

Politics like this is no better than arguments between rival sports fans, and often worse because politics is more morally charged. Most Americans find themselves committed to either the red team (Republicans) or the blue (Democrats) and those on the other team are not merely rivals, but represent much that is evil in the world. Politics often forces its participants into pointless internecine conflict, as they struggle with the other guy not over legitimate differences in policy opinion but in an apocalyptic battle between virtue and vice.

Of course, politics has been this way from time immemorial and, indeed, there have been times in our history when the political culture has been as bad as it is today, if not worse. Additionally, it’s generally been the case that politics has become more vitriolic and partisan in times when the stakes are high or people are unsure about the future. It happened in 1800 and 1828 when the future course of the nation was a stake, in the late 1850s when the very survival of a [I]United States of America was in doubt, it happened in the late 1800s when we were making the transition from an agrarian to an industrial nation, and it happened to some degree in the midst of the Great Depression. So, perhaps, what we’re going through now is only temporary and that things will return to something resembling normal after we’ve finally resolved these political debates we keep having and done something to set the nation right.

I can’t say I’m optimistic about things changing anytime soon, though. For one thing, there are too many vested interests out there now who profit both monetarily and otherwise from a divided, hyperpartisan electorate. There are the cable “news” people at Fox and MSNBC who make millions of dollars pitching a message that plays into, and reinforces, this world view. There are the the talk radio hosts who do the same thing. There are the pundits like Ann Coulter who have made their living by saying things that are ridiculously partisan, outrageous, and offensive. There are, of course, the politicians who gain political power by appealing to the very hyperpartisanship that these forces have helped created. And, then, there are the special interests — the bankers, the corportists who profit off of government favors, the defense lobby, the public sector unions — who profit from the hyperpartisanship because it distracts the public attention away from the issues that really matter. Call it the Political-Media-Corporate Complex, if you will, but whatever you call it, it represents the group of interests that are really profiting while we all fight about stupid things that don’t really matter.

So yes, politics stinks and it’s likely to keep stinking for the foreseeable future. I’d like to say that we can afford to ignore it, but we really can’t because if we don’t do something to change the status quo, we’re all going pay the price.

[Valley Oak]

Politics stinks when your guys are losing the elections and your opponents are winning most of the contests.

The purpose of government is to decided who wins and who loses. When Republicans win, only the wealthy minority benefits. When Democrats win, the majority of Americans benefit.

Edward



This guy seems to have some handle on it...

https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/politics-stinks/

Politics Stinks...

...So yes, politics stinks and it’s likely to keep stinking for the foreseeable future. I’d like to say that we can afford to ignore it, but we really can’t because if we don’t do something to change the status quo, we’re all going pay the price.

[handy]

Politics stinks when your guys are losing the elections and your opponents are winning most of the contests.

Aw, gee, Edward, I'm surprised. I've come to expect more than snide one liners from you. Oh, well...
Besides, I have no "guys" in this election, and see no likely improvement in things from either of the "opponents".


The purpose of government is to decided who wins and who loses.

Actually, I'd argue that the purpose is (or should be) to move toward general improvement for all, but I'll agree that win/lose is what it has been reduced to.


When Republicans win, only the wealthy minority benefits. When Democrats win, the majority of Americans benefit.

Edward

Perhaps you could offer some proof of this. I've not seen it. It seems to me that no matter which party is "in power", the rich (both Democrat and Republican) get richer, the wars get bigger, poverty becomes more widespread, and the debts continue to grow. Maybe I'm missing something here...

Right now it seems to me that regardless of who wins, they will be faced with further economic failure no matter what they claim.

So who ya gonna vote for, Thelma or Louise?

Best regards,

P.S. This might pique your interest:

https://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_how_the_internet_will_one_day_transform_government.html

Enjoy.

[Valley Oak]

I honestly did not intend to be snide. I expressed my statement in an informational way. I'm sorry I came across with any negativity. I like your posts; they contribute to the atmosphere of debate. I probably should have written more instead of a "one liner."

Since you have no preferred candidates in this contest then my statement does not apply to you and I need to be more careful about making over generalizations that put 100% of the population into one single grouping or definition.

Regarding the purpose of government, I agree that it has been reduced to win/lose. And I also agree that government should be to move toward a general improvement for all. My statement was a cynical one directed against the system and its long held tradition but not against you personally.

Regarding proof of my statements, just study history and Romney's 47% remarks exposed recently in the mass media, Republican Party presidential candidates since 1908, FDR's New Deal, LBJ's Great Society programs etc, etc. There is abundant proof, as a matter of fact, there is an avalanche of proof. The majority of America's wealthy and corporations have staunchly and steadily supported the Republican Party since the 1912 election. The 1912 presidential election is when Theodore Roosevelt lost that Republican Party's nomination through a "coup," even though he got the majority of his party's votes. That's when the rich, the conservative's, and the reactionaries took permanent control of the Republican Party and it stopped being Lincoln's party (Lincoln was the 1st Republican president and one of America's truly great presidents). T. Roosevelt founded the Progressive Party to run against W. Wilson (Dem.) but lost.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_roosevelt#Republican_Party_schism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1912

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Party_%28United_States,_1912%29

I am voting again for Obama. Obama has done an outstanding job as President of the United States defending the LGBT community against discrimination from conservatives, christians, and Republicans. The Republican Party fought for and passed many bigoted laws that maintain second class citizenship for gays and lesbians.

(And the notion that 'Libertarian Republican' crackpot, Ron Paul, could do a better job than Obama is as funny as falling on your head from tall trees for entertainment.)

Edward



Aw, gee, Edward, I'm surprised. I've come to expect more than snide one liners from you. Oh, well...
Besides, I have no "guys" in this election, and see no likely improvement in things from either of the "opponents".



Actually, I'd argue that the purpose is (or should be) to move toward general improvement for all, but I'll agree that win/lose is what it has been reduced to.



Perhaps you could offer some proof of this. I've not seen it. It seems to me that no matter which party is "in power", the rich (both Democrat and Republican) get richer, the wars get bigger, poverty becomes more widespread, and the debts continue to grow. Maybe I'm missing something here...

Right now it seems to me that regardless of who wins, they will be faced with further economic failure no matter what they claim.

So who ya gonna vote for, Thelma or Louise?

Best regards,

[handy]

Regarding proof of my statements, just study history and Romney's 47% remarks exposed recently in the mass media, Republican Party presidential candidates since 1908, FDR's New Deal, LBJ's Great Society programs etc, etc. There is abundant proof, as a matter of fact, there is an avalanche of proof. The majority of America's wealthy and corporations have staunchly and steadily supported the Republican Party since the 1912 election. The 1912 presidential election is when Theodore Roosevelt lost that Republican Party's nomination through a "coup," even though he got the majority of his party's votes. That's when the rich, the conservative's, and the reactionaries took permanent control of the Republican Party and it stopped being Lincoln's party (Lincoln was the 1st Republican president and one of America's truly great presidents). T. Roosevelt founded the Progressive Party to run against W. Wilson (Dem.) but lost.

We'll have to agree to disagree on much of this. I think that much of the directed history we were given in public school was not only wrong, but purposefully so.

The War to Prevent Secession was one of the first major blows to states' rights and weakening of the Constitution. It was not a Civil war. A Civil war is two factions fighting over the "right" to be the government. Lincoln's goal was for the federal government to have power over the states, rather than to be a limited agreement between them. Lincoln had no interest in ending slavery; only in limiting its spread into the new territories. Slavery was ended by other countries during the same era without war. Lincoln silenced and destroyed newspapers and jailed and killed dissidents and opponents. He was responsible for the death of over 650,000 Americans. I fail to see any "greatness" in him.

Woodrow Wilson permitted the creation of the Federal Reserve and regretted it on his deathbed.

Roosevelt's New Deal, by constantly meddling in the free market and giving power to the banksters, prolonged the depression until it took a war to get past it.

Ahh, LBJ. That bastard was in office while I was in VietNam, and just about every GI I knew hated him. His Great Society gave us the "War on Poverty", and we can see how well that worked.

Why is it that every president we are taught is great seems to have a high body count behind him?


(And the notion that 'Libertarian Republican' crackpot, Ron Paul, could do a better job than Obama is as funny as falling on your head from tall trees for entertainment.)

The libertarian doctor, knowing that third parties have been effectively sidelined, tried to reform a major party from the inside. It failed, but it has spawned an awareness that is still growing and may yet affect future elections.

Yeah, the ideas that we should stop murdering people, use our troops to actually defend this country instead of invading and occupying others, and should actually try and get our debts under control are all hilariously crackpot crazy. /sarc

The biggest donor to both of the Obamney twins is Goldman-Sachs. Both of them are utterly bought, clutched, bent and broken to the yoke of the bankster-insurance-pharmaceutical-military-industrial complex. The regulatory bureaucracy (regardless of party) has been captured by the complex of welfare queen corporations who depend upon the government to steal your money and give it to them.

I still think the Obamney twins are a choice between Thelma and Louise.

[Valley Oak]

So, did you have a dog in this fight? Was that dog's name Ron Paul? Did you vote for him during the Republican primaries? If that is the case then your guy lost and you are unhappy and politics stinks. If I was in your shoes, I would feel the same way. I did in 2000 and again in 2004 and believe me, I felt deeply frustrated and bitter. It is not a pleasant experience at all, let me tell you.

If Ron Paul had not only won the primaries but was also leading Obama by a substantial margin in all of the polls, would you still feel that politics stinks? Or would you at least feel a small spark of hope? (No pun intended with the word, 'hope.')

Truth be told, my guy is winning and although I know that politics still stinks (real bad), I am admittedly far more upbeat about these elections than in 2000 and 2004. And I feel less sympathy in these elections for the Green Party than I did in the previous two contests. Back in 2000, even though I voted for Gore, I was literally furious with Democrats for their scathing reproach and criticisms against the Greens, basically blaming them for Gore losing the 2000 elections. And whenever a Democrat these days blames the Greens for the 2000 fiasco, I "jump their shit" for it.

In any case, going back to my original post in this thread, politics stinks bad enough already, but when my guy (or gal), loses, the stench is absolutely unbearable and totally depressing, and the feeling doesn't go away. When my candidate wins, I can withstand the onerous odor of the body politic much more easily by simply pinching my nose, drinking an espresso, or smoking a funny cigarette. (Actually, I don't smoke cigarettes of any kind but I hope you catch my meaning.)

Regarding a statement you made in one of your replies to my posts, I know, and I think most Americans also realize, that the economy does not have an easy solution. The economy did not have an easy solution when Obama took office in 2008 and I honestly believe that NO ONE could have solved the grave state of the American in just four (4) years, whether it was McCain, or Paul, or Trump, or Hillary, or anyone else who might have become president.

The damage to the American economy under baby Bush during 8 eight years was so great that it will take many years to fix it and anyone who claims that he or she has all the answers and that they could make healthy again the US economy in 8 or less years time, well, that 'candidate' is simply not telling the truth. And this includes a candidate who honestly believes that a 4 to 8 year solution is possible (and they probably don't believe it themselves).

Better luck in the next elections. I will be voting Democrat again in 2016.

Edward



We'll have to agree to disagree on much of this. I think that much of the directed history we were given in public school was not only wrong, but purposefully so.

The War to Prevent Secession was one of the first major blows to states' rights and weakening of the Constitution. It was not a Civil war. A Civil war is two factions fighting over the "right" to be the government. Lincoln's goal was for the federal government to have power over the states, rather than to be a limited agreement between them. Lincoln had no interest in ending slavery; only in limiting its spread into the new territories. Slavery was ended by other countries during the same era without war. Lincoln silenced and destroyed newspapers and jailed and killed dissidents and opponents. He was responsible for the death of over 650,000 Americans. I fail to see any "greatness" in him.

Woodrow Wilson permitted the creation of the Federal Reserve and regretted it on his deathbed.

Roosevelt's New Deal, by constantly meddling in the free market and giving power to the banksters, prolonged the depression until it took a war to get past it.

Ahh, LBJ. That bastard was in office while I was in VietNam, and just about every GI I knew hated him. His Great Society gave us the "War on Poverty", and we can see how well that worked.

Why is it that every president we are taught is great seems to have a high body count behind him?



The libertarian doctor, knowing that third parties have been effectively sidelined, tried to reform a major party from the inside. It failed, but it has spawned an awareness that is still growing and may yet affect future elections.

Yeah, the ideas that we should stop murdering people, use our troops to actually defend this country instead of invading and occupying others, and should actually try and get our debts under control are all hilariously crackpot crazy. /sarc

The biggest donor to both of the Obamney twins is Goldman-Sachs. Both of them are utterly bought, clutched, bent and broken to the yoke of the bankster-insurance-pharmaceutical-military-industrial complex. The regulatory bureaucracy (regardless of party) has been captured by the complex of welfare queen corporations who depend upon the government to steal your money and give it to them.

I still think the Obamney twins are a choice between Thelma and Louise.

["Mad" Miles]

`
https://www.counterpunch.org/2012/09/28/letter-to-the-dismal-center/ (https://www.counterpunch.org/2012/09/28/letter-to-the-dismal-center/)


`

[Valley Oak]

The same could be said of the Civil Rights Movement back in the 50s and 60s, particularly for Afro-Americans. This dilemma is the consequence of a two-party system. If you want something better then change the system, not the party or person in power (i.e. Obama).

Because if we let Romney move into the White House, the LGBT community would begin to slide backwards and start losing some of those hard-earned rights. If the newly gained social and political status of the LGBT community, and its momentum, is to be consolidated and made permanent, then Obama MUST win these elections. And using the false argument that Democrats are just as bad in ALL areas of public policy and, therefore, allow Romney to become president would not only be pathetic but would also be spreading a gross lie. Not only would LGBT rights slip under "Romnification," but the interests of most Americans would face another Bush-like decline of the Republic. And that we cannot have.

Too many lives are at stake for Obama not to win, not only here in the US but abroad as well because US foreign policy affects hundreds of millions of people around the world (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc). Our rights and freedoms are at stake, our posterity, and the vision of this nation are at great risk right now. The vision of our country 4 years from now or 40 years from now should not be another Great Depression. A cynical vote for a 3rd party in these elections under the misleading propaganda that it doesn't matter who wins is seriously irresponsible, dangerous, and untrue.

Vote Obama 2012!

Edward



`
https://www.counterpunch.org/2012/09/28/letter-to-the-dismal-center/ (https://www.counterpunch.org/2012/09/28/letter-to-the-dismal-center/)


`

["Mad" Miles]

`
"A cynical vote for a 3rd party in these elections under the misleading propaganda that it doesn't matter who wins is seriously irresponsible, dangerous, and untrue."

This is a total misrepresentation of the arguments made for, and the reasons for, voting for Jill Stein. It is a far more cynical statement than any of the reasons people who have carefully considered the full picture, weighed all the evidence and arguments, and have decided that given the known circumstances, it is best to vote for her.

It's also insulting, an ad hominum attack, which basically resorts to characterizing others without any supporting evidence.

Politics is a passionate pursuit. Name calling is inevitable. But I have avoided such language as best I can while still arguing facts and reasons. There is plenty of demonization out there from all sides about their opposing sides, I don't need to create my own.

Here, in the quote above, are your misrepresentations of reality. All false claims:

Cynical - Not true. And calling reasoned, critical, well-considered conclusions "cynical" is a gross lie.

Misleading Propaganda - Prove it. Cite specific examples. Engage with the information. Otherwise calling arguments that you have never addressed, "misleading propaganda", is the most misleading propaganda here.

It doesn't matter who wins - Nobody here has argued for that conclusion. Nor claimed it. Except for Pragmatic Liberal Incrementalist Democratic Party Partisans. It's part of their/your standard defense. Show us an example where we who criticize the Duopoly have, here. Otherwise this is another lie. Yes, some who attack the duopoly do say that, but that's not what has been said here, or in the other discussions of this topic on waccobb.net, in recent days.

seriously irresponsible, dangerous, and untrue - more name calling. What is all three, is to justify the endorsement of the status quo, as some kind of progress and improvement in the broad conditions produced by The System.

The Obamanator is going to be reelected. Running around hysterically as if that was in doubt, well, it's either the consequence of delusion and fear, or a truly cynical ploy to rally the troops and guarantee a foregone conclusion. Either way, it's a deception. Either self-deception, or a transparent effort to deceive others.

If your broadside below was a response to the linked article, it's a blatant misreading, or mis-characterization, of the contents therein.

Projection, and selective interpretation of arguments you don't like, does not make for analytic accuracy or sound argument. Not that those matter in political partisan attacks.


`

[Valley Oak]

My apologies if I have come across as "playing unfairly."

My generalizations are without a specific identity, and certainly not the identity of the Green Party, Jill Stein, yourself, or other Greens, but of the many people I have spoken to throughout my 51 years that have made and continue to express the attitudes that I have criticized in my posts.

Also, when I am speaking of voting for Obama in these elections I am not speaking exclusively of California; I am speaking about the US as a whole. And I still believe in rallying the troops for Obama's re-election nationwide. I get the feeling as if you have prohibited everyone in this list from supporting Obama at a national level and we only have your permission to speak in strategic terms limited to California boundaries only.

When I refer to a cynical vote for a 3rd party this does not mean the Green Party. By the way, the GP is not the only 3rd party out there so please stop making assumptions and being so defensive. Again, I speak nationwide and of all 3rd parties in aggregate form AND of those individuals who act cynically when voting for a candidate other than Obama. Again, I'm not speaking of Jill Stein or of the arguments made by Greens.

Regarding your conceptualization of "carefully considered the full picture, weighed all the evidence and arguments, and have decided that given the known circumstances, it is best to vote for her," under what set of circumstances are you saying this??? Because if you are speaking at a nationwide level, you couldn't be more mistaken. If you are speaking of strategic voting in a safe state like California, then I agree with you.

My criticism of cynical attitudes that assert, falsely, that there is no difference whatsoever between Romney and Obama---that is what I'm railing against, and will continue to do so. If you had read my post carefully, because many times you have not in the past, you will see that I make reference to the fact that the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are NOT exactly the same in ALL AREAS OF PUBLIC POLICY. The cynical lie that Obama and Romney are tweedle dee and tweedle dum is not something I am going to tolerate anymore, whether it is a Libertarian voter, a Tea Party voter, a Peace & Freedom voter, someone who doesn't even more their ass to vote at all, or anyone else.

Yes, it is true that the Democrats have done many of the same terrible things as Republicans but to take that truth and distort it with the gross lie that they are EXACTLY THE SAME is simply not true. These are the points that I am stomping mad about and you keep missing the point.

Obama has fought and conquered the American reactionaries, the religious fanatics and helped to give Gays and Lesbians their rights (and the fight is far from over). This is an undeniable fact.

Furthermore, Romney has stated repeatedly throughout his campaign that marriage is between one man and one woman. THERE IS A CLEAR DIFFERENCE NOT ONLY BETWEEN OBAMA AND ROMNEY BUT ALSO BETWEEN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.

So try responding to that for a change and please stop accusing me of attacking the GP or Jill Stein. I have voted many times in the past for the Green Party and I like Jill Stein and what she stands for. But I am voting for Obama because he has earned my vote.

Thank you,

Edward



`
"A cynical vote for a 3rd party in these elections under the misleading propaganda that it doesn't matter who wins is seriously irresponsible, dangerous, and untrue."

This is a total misrepresentation of the arguments made for, and the reasons for, voting for Jill Stein. It is a far more cynical statement than any of the reasons people who have carefully considered the full picture, weighed all the evidence and arguments, and have decided that given the known circumstances, it is best to vote for her.

It's also insulting, an ad hominum attack, which basically resorts to characterizing others without any supporting evidence.

Politics is a passionate pursuit. Name calling is inevitable. But I have avoided such language as best I can while still arguing facts and reasons. There is plenty of demonization out there from all sides about their opposing sides, I don't need to create my own.

Here, in the quote above, are your misrepresentations of reality. All false claims:

Cynical - Not true. And calling reasoned, critical, well-considered conclusions "cynical" is a gross lie.

Misleading Propaganda - Prove it. Cite specific examples. Engage with the information. Otherwise calling arguments that you have never addressed, "misleading propaganda", is the most misleading propaganda here.

It doesn't matter who wins - Nobody here has argued for that conclusion. Nor claimed it. Except for Pragmatic Liberal Incrementalist Democratic Party Partisans. It's part of their/your standard defense. Show us an example where we who criticize the Duopoly have, here. Otherwise this is another lie. Yes, some who attack the duopoly do say that, but that's not what has been said here, or in the other discussions of this topic on waccobb.net, in recent days.

seriously irresponsible, dangerous, and untrue - more name calling. What is all three, is to justify the endorsement of the status quo, as some kind of progress and improvement in the broad conditions produced by The System.

The Obamanator is going to be reelected. Running around hysterically as if that was in doubt, well, it's either the consequence of delusion and fear, or a truly cynical ploy to rally the troops and guarantee a foregone conclusion. Either way, it's a deception. Either self-deception, or a transparent effort to deceive others.

If your broadside below was a response to the linked article, it's a blatant misreading, or mis-characterization, of the contents therein.

Projection, and selective interpretation of arguments you don't like, does not make for analytic accuracy or sound argument. Not that those matter in political partisan attacks.


`

["Mad" Miles]

`
Some more facts. Not hyperbole and reducing complexity to binary opposition:

https://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/09/28/dean_chambes_unskewed_poll_tweaked_fox_news_survey_has_obama_beating_romney_.html


`

[Valley Oak]

I like Gallup. I believe this entity to be honest, rigorous, and reliable. I like this article that I arrived at through your link:
https://pollingmatters.gallup.com/2012/09/the-recurring-and-misleading-focus-on.html

I also like this article, also on Gallup's website, on religiosity and how it impacts the presidential race:
https://pollingmatters.gallup.com/2012/09/religiosity-continues-to-power.html

And finally, an unexpected bit of good news that makes me happy was this article, again in Gallup's website, showing that more Americans finally are realizing that it is far better to have the same party in the White House and in both houses of Congress:
https://www.gallup.com/poll/157739/americans-preference-shifts-toward-one-party-government.aspx

Thank you for the link!

Edward



`
Some more facts. Not hyperbole and reducing complexity to binary opposition:

https://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/09/28/dean_chambes_unskewed_poll_tweaked_fox_news_survey_has_obama_beating_romney_.html


`

[handy]

So, did you have a dog in this fight? Was that dog's name Ron Paul? Did you vote for him during the Republican primaries? If that is the case then your guy lost and you are unhappy and politics stinks. If I was in your shoes, I would feel the same way. I did in 2000 and again in 2004 and believe me, I felt deeply frustrated and bitter. It is not a pleasant experience at all, let me tell you.

Of course, I do; and yes, it is Ron Paul. I don't feel bitter. I feel disappointed in the American public that STILL supports mass murderers simply because they're members of the favored party (pick one).


If Ron Paul had not only won the primaries but was also leading Obama by a substantial margin in all of the polls, would you still feel that politics stinks? Or would you at least feel a small spark of hope? (No pun intended with the word, 'hope.')

I've always been an optimist, but over the past 30 years or so, I'm no longer sure my optimism is justified. Ron Paul was a teacher. When the other candidates were saying "Vote for me", he was saying read the Constitution, pay attention to the Federal Reserve, think about the way we treat others around the world.
I had "hope" that more people would wake up.


Truth be told, my guy is winning and although I know that politics still stinks (real bad), I am admittedly far more upbeat about these elections than in 2000 and 2004. And I feel less sympathy in these elections for the Green Party than I did in the previous two contests. Back in 2000, even though I voted for Gore, I was literally furious with Democrats for their scathing reproach and criticisms against the Greens, basically blaming them for Gore losing the 2000 elections. And whenever a Democrat these days blames the Greens for the 2000 fiasco, I "jump their shit" for it.

"Your " mass murderer is "winning". Of course, that's a great reason to be upbeat.
Dems sideline greens, Reps sideline libertarians. Nothing new there


In any case, going back to my original post in this thread, politics stinks bad enough already, but when my guy (or gal), loses, the stench is absolutely unbearable and totally depressing, and the feeling doesn't go away. When my candidate wins, I can withstand the onerous odor of the body politic much more easily by simply pinching my nose, drinking an espresso, or smoking a funny cigarette. (Actually, I don't smoke cigarettes of any kind but I hope you catch my meaning.)

You make it sound like you're quick to anger and easily depressed.


Regarding a statement you made in one of your replies to my posts, I know, and I think most Americans also realize, that the economy does not have an easy solution. The economy did not have an easy solution when Obama took office in 2008 and I honestly believe that NO ONE could have solved the grave state of the American in just four (4) years, whether it was McCain, or Paul, or Trump, or Hillary, or anyone else who might have become president.

NO ONE currently running has any interest in solving economic problems. The system is doing precisely what it is designed to do.


The damage to the American economy under baby Bush during 8 eight years was so great that it will take many years to fix it and anyone who claims that he or she has all the answers and that they could make healthy again the US economy in 8 or less years time, well, that 'candidate' is simply not telling the truth. And this includes a candidate who honestly believes that a 4 to 8 year solution is possible (and they probably don't believe it themselves).

It has been going downhill since long before Bush the lesser.


Better luck in the next elections. I will be voting Democrat again in 2016.

Edward

I'm sure thousands of DEAD Americans, Iraqis, Afghanis, Syrians and Libyans will be ever so grateful.

[Valley Oak]

Well, Handy, it sounds like you and Miles, Paul, Stein, and a few other Greens, Libertarians, Tea Partiers, Peace & Freedomers, American Independenters, Marxist-Leninists, National Socialists, etc, should get together at a bar somewhere and drown your sorrows.

The majority of Americans have better judgement in these elections and Obama will win because of it. And as a result, so will the United States of America, its great people, and our posterity.

Obama 2012!

Edward



Of course, I do; and yes, it is Ron Paul. I don't feel bitter. I feel disappointed in the American public that STILL supports mass murderers simply because they're members of the favored party (pick one).



I've always been an optimist, but over the past 30 years or so, I'm no longer sure my optimism is justified. Ron Paul was a teacher. When the other candidates were saying "Vote for me", he was saying read the Constitution, pay attention to the Federal Reserve, think about the way we treat others around the world.
I had "hope" that more people would wake up.



"Your " mass murderer is "winning". Of course, that's a great reason to be upbeat.
Dems sideline greens, Reps sideline libertarians. Nothing new there



You make it sound like you're quick to anger and easily depressed.



NO ONE currently running has any interest in solving economic problems. The system is doing precisely what it is designed to do.



It has been going downhill since long before Bush the lesser.



I'm sure thousands of DEAD Americans, Iraqis, Afghanis, Syrians and Libyans will be ever so grateful.

["Mad" Miles]

`
"The majority of Americans have better judgement in these elections and Obama will win because of it."

So the structural limits of American electoral law and the consequences of the same, are due to "better judgement"? When the, "Winner Take All", system was put in place generations ago? More hyperbole and painting with a broad brush. You're either trolling or obtuse. Possibly both.

And telling me I should drown my "sorrows" with Nazis, is straight up insult and derogation. Cut it out Edward, you're not helping your own position. And I will not accept dismissive insults that lump me in with advocates of mass murder and racial purification and superiority. I also have major problems with most Marxist-Leninists, so throw your feces grenades elsewhere. I know it's hard for you not to toss them. Your pattern here has long been established. You just can't resist. I suggest you try, harder.

As a matter of accuracy, all signs lead to the conclusion that the Teabaggers will retain their House majority, while the Senate will retain a Democratic Party majority, but not as large as the current one. So lumping the reactionaries, djinned up with Koch Bros. money, in with "Third Party" identities, well, it again demonstrates your penchant for hyperbole not supported by evidence. Just blatant tendentiousness within the conventional narrative. The facts also demonstrate the power of The Corporate Dollah, across "partisan" lines. An inconvenient truth for those who wish to maintain clear lines of division between the two "competing" wings of the duopoly.

With regard to the matter at hand, you're cheerleading for the status quo, and claiming, without any real substantiating argument, just assertion, that since it's all we'll get, it's the best there is.

Here's a quote on the matter that, while simplistic, hits the mark. I only came across it a couple of weeks ago:

"Pragmatism is not pragmatic when it abandons the Idealism it is supposed to be implementing."

I could list one outrageous and destructive action by The Obamanator and his administration after another. Things that were not forced upon him by an obstructionist Teabagger Congressional majority. Things that directly contradict and undercut the "Happy Talk" that he is so good at and that his fans cling to for signs of hope. But I don't need to, that litany has been well documented day in, day out, for over three years.

Those who choose to ignore all that, or justify it and make excuses for it, well... True Believers, whatever their twist, are not amenable to reason, especially any reason that contradicts their preferred narratives.

Of all the choices of who to vote for, Jill Stein represents the best values and goals. And a vote for her, is not a vote for Romnification, not in the 41-42 Safe States. That's fact, not speculation. Deny it, ignore it, avoid it, all you want, for your partisan purposes, but nothing will change it.

All signs show The Obamanator prevailing. So voters who want to send a message that we have to do better than what the duopoly limits us to, have a choice.

I give you credit for now admitting that the overwhelming odds are for reelection. The running round with hair on fire cries of, "A vote for anyone but The Obamanator is a vote for Romnification!!!!", isn't even a viable tactic to distract the undecided from the salient details. Not any more..

If nothing else, it's nice to not be faced with that nonsense. It won't last, diehard Obamanatorists won't easily abandon their favorite canard. No matter what the evidence says.

Handy, we disagree about the nature and role of markets, nothing new there, and neither of us is going to convince the other to change their mind, but The Green Party has ideas for improving the economy, at a structural level, so it's not true that only the Libertarians have such proposals.

Of course, the ideas are very different, otherwise there would be no need for the separate organizations.

Fetishizing a myth, The Free Market, well it all comes down to how you read history. I suppose if the only idea one gives credence to as structural economic change, is based on that myth, it makes sense to claim that only those who uphold it, have proposals for structural change. That's the thing about tautologies.


`

[handy]

`
"The majority of Americans have better judgement in these elections and Obama will win because of it."

So the structural limits of American electoral law and the consequences of the same, are due to "better judgement"? When the, "Winner Take All", system was put in place generations ago? More hyperbole and painting with a broad brush. You're either trolling or obtuse. Possibly both.

And telling me I should drown my "sorrows" with Nazis, is straight up insult and derogation. Cut it out Edward, you're not helping your own position. And I will not accept dismissive insults that lump me in with advocates of mass murder and racial purification and superiority. I also have major problems with most Marxist-Leninists, so throw your feces grenades elsewhere. I know it's hard for you not to toss them. Your pattern here has long been established. You just can't resist. I suggest you try, harder.

As a matter of accuracy, all signs lead to the conclusion that the Teabaggers will retain their House majority, while the Senate will retain a Democratic Party majority, but not as large as the current one. So lumping the reactionaries, djinned up with Koch Bros. money, in with "Third Party" identities, well, it again demonstrates your penchant for hyperbole not supported by evidence. Just blatant tendentiousness within the conventional narrative. The facts also demonstrate the power of The Corporate Dollah, across "partisan" lines. An inconvenient truth for those who wish to maintain clear lines of division between the two "competing" wings of the duopoly.

With regard to the matter at hand, you're cheerleading for the status quo, and claiming, without any real substantiating argument, just assertion, that since it's all we'll get, it's the best there is.

Here's a quote on the matter that, while simplistic, hits the mark. I only came across it a couple of weeks ago:

"Pragmatism is not pragmatic when it abandons the Idealism it is supposed to be implementing."

I could list one outrageous and destructive action by The Obamanator and his administration after another. Things that were not forced upon him by an obstructionist Teabagger Congressional majority. Things that directly contradict and undercut the "Happy Talk" that he is so good at and that his fans cling to for signs of hope. But I don't need to, that litany has been well documented day in, day out, for over three years.

Those who choose to ignore all that, or justify it and make excuses for it, well... True Believers, whatever their twist, are not amenable to reason, especially any reason that contradicts their preferred narratives.

Of all the choices of who to vote for, Jill Stein represents the best values and goals. And a vote for her, is not a vote for Romnification, not in the 41-42 Safe States. That's fact, not speculation. Deny it, ignore it, avoid it, all you want, for your partisan purposes, but nothing will change it.

All signs show The Obamanator prevailing. So voters who want to send a message that we have to do better than what the duopoly limits us to, have a choice.

I give you credit for now admitting that the overwhelming odds are for reelection. The running round with hair on fire cries of, "A vote for anyone but The Obamanator is a vote for Romnification!!!!", isn't even a viable tactic to distract the undecided from the salient details. Not any more..

If nothing else, it's nice to not be faced with that nonsense. It won't last, diehard Obamanatorists won't easily abandon their favorite canard. No matter what the evidence says.

Thanks, Miles. I couldn't have said it better myself. Well, maybe, but as slow a typist as I am, it would have taken me a lot longer. :wink:


Handy, we disagree about the nature and role of markets, nothing new there, and neither of us is going to convince the other to change their mind, but The Green Party has ideas for improving the economy, at a structural level, so it's not true that only the Libertarians have such proposals.

Of course, the ideas are very different, otherwise there would be no need for the separate organizations.

I've never claimed that Libertarians have a lock on improving the economy, only that libertarian thinkers have presented some ideas worthy of further attention and consideration. For the most part, I admire Ralph Nader. I couldn't vote for him, though, because in my personal perception at the time, too many of the people backing him were as unhinged as those backing Obama now. So far, the ONLY thing I'll give Obama credit for is keeping the psychopath Netanyahu on a short leash. I fear Romney would be more than willing to turn him loose and back him up.

If you can point me to some structural economic changes offered by the Green party, I would be happy to read them and discuss further.


Fetishizing a myth, The Free Market, well it all comes down to how you read history. I suppose if the only idea one gives credence to as structural economic change, is based on that myth, it makes sense to claim that only those who uphold it, have proposals for structural change. That's the thing about tautologies.

Free markets do continue to exist, but the State usually denigrates them as "black" markets, since they can't collect taxes, though they certainly try. Flea markets, yard sales, farmers' markets, CraigsList, even Wacco, and any substance prohibited by the legal system like the War on (some) Drugs are all examples.

I saw a TED talk not too long ago, in which the presenter made the case that on a world around basis, the free (untaxed) market is 80% as large as the US economy. And many of the multinational corporations sell into it as a substantial part of their sales. So it isn't that it doesn't work. We don't hear about it because the banksters and State controlled media don't want us to. We might get (more) ideas...

Best regards, and thanks again for your response to Edward.

["Mad" Miles]

`
https://www.gp.org/committees/platform/2010/economic-justice.php#245108

Don't know why the GP Platform page won't hyperlink, just copy/paste it into your browser.


https://dissidentvoice.org/2012/09/why-i-will-vote-3rd-party-in-november/


I don't watch much video online, but I saw coverage of this interview yesterday and skimmed the transcript. In the wee hours I stumbled across it flipping channels. It reminded me of the importance of hearing inflection and seeing affect with the spoken word.

I didn't care all that much for the novel, The Color Purple. Found it treacly, overblown and simplistic, even though I was moved by the story and fully agreed with her politics. This interview, helped me reassess my take on the novel, and gave me comfort in my political analysis and choices. Enjoy!

https://www.democracynow.org/seo/2012/9/28/alice_walker_on_30th_anniv_of


`