The 2012 "Election" thread

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby Luther Blissett » Fri Oct 26, 2012 5:31 pm

This metaphor is so apt that I have a hard time believing a 9-year-old invented it.

Image

The accompanying Slate piece is kind of bad.

Last night's episode of 30 Rock seemed, on its surface, to be pure Obama propaganda, with Jack Donaghy running a PAC for Romney and fundraising, and Liz Lemon attempting to use her position as a sketch comedy writer as a platform to build populist support for Obama. All of the jokes were of course made at the expense of conservatives, but nary a word was spoken about either candidate.

It was clear that they were trying to be somewhat divisive. What the crescendo of this cliffhanger episode came down to was a fundamental difference in the voting populace. They were able to decipher which direction each swing state would go, and it came down to Florida. Both factions, the pro-Romney and pro-Obama camps, were able to narrow it down to determine how the states in southern Florida and central Florida would vote. It comes down to northern Florida, with their weird brand of libertarian, free-spirited Parrotheads. It's not known whether this voting bloc is undecided or casting a mixture of votes for both candidates (or are Johnson voters).

In the end, the division was more about the people on either side of this election, with the Obama voters representing an ideology much more progressive than anything to do with the Obama Administration. It reminded me that during the 2008 race, many progressives believed that Obama was a progressive. Even I thought there was a possibility that he was of the same school of Chicago democratic socialists and labour leaders as Walter Reuther, Michael Harrington, Daraka Larrimore-Hall, etc. My neighborhood is a far-left, diverse, well-entrenched bohemian haven, and the street party celebrating his win on election night was the largest gathering I've ever seen there, with all traffic shut down on the main thoroughfare for dozens of blocks. I think that a vast swath of this country was more prepared for a progressive president than we allow for here. Of course we know that the corporate interests involved in vetting candidates would never allow it, but as far as popular elections are concerned, I think we're ready. This forum was surprised by the Occupy Wall Street movement; it was exactly what of us had discussed and wished would happen — a populist uprising against "the 1%" — our language that predates my membership here, going back all the way to the beginning. In the days leading up to the occupation of Zuccotti, many here were skeptical that more than a few individuals would last through the weekend. We, as a society, are still progressing culturally.

This may not necessarily leave the door open for a third-party candidate, but if it were treated methodically and started at the local and state level, as Jack says, a considerable showing four years out is within grasp of our imagination.
The Rich and the Corporate remain in their hundred-year fever visions of Bolsheviks taking their stuff - JackRiddler
User avatar
Luther Blissett
 
Posts: 4991
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:31 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby 8bitagent » Fri Oct 26, 2012 5:32 pm

Was reading a new article how the supreme court may make it illegal to sell things on ebay, thrift stores or even garage sales...and while Im not going to blame Obama for that if it passes, it is funny how under the last four years more actual freedoms have been ceded than ten years of Bush.

Of course, I have no doubt that under Romney social services would be slashed and all sorts of nightmares would transpire. I just find it interesting how under Democrats, buying freedom seems to be infringed upon
Last edited by 8bitagent on Fri Oct 26, 2012 5:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12244
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby 8bitagent » Fri Oct 26, 2012 5:39 pm

Rory wrote:If you don't vote Obama, you are voting for Romney - just so you know that.


Gee, thanks for clearing that up!

*must vote for Hopemunculus...will be a racist GOP loving coward if I vote third party or don't vote at all*
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12244
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby justdrew » Fri Oct 26, 2012 5:47 pm

well, I already dropped off my ballot, having voted for Obama for the FIRST TIME.

I care about one thing and one thing only, that the republicans lose. That's all that matters right now, everything else has to wait. I can't understand how anyone can not get that. That is a political party devoted to bringing full-on fascist theocratic rule to America, if they are not stopped, everything you've seen so far will pale in comparison to what comes next.

yep, you will be 8bit. Millions of your fellow American's are counting on your vote as much as anyone else. You want to let down the closest thing we have to a liberal progressive ruling coalition because it isn't yet perfect? Because it has no choice but to go with the flow on some things?

We'll never know how things would have been different had republican's not filibustered EVERYTHING for the first two years, and taken back the house in the second two years.
By 1964 there were 1.5 million mobile phone users in the US
User avatar
justdrew
 
Posts: 11966
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: unknown
Blog: View Blog (11)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby JackRiddler » Fri Oct 26, 2012 5:57 pm

Luther Blissett wrote:This metaphor is so apt that I have a hard time believing a 9-year-old invented it.

Image


It took me a minute to remember who that was.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby justdrew » Fri Oct 26, 2012 5:58 pm

I still don't. please help :eeyaa
By 1964 there were 1.5 million mobile phone users in the US
User avatar
justdrew
 
Posts: 11966
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: unknown
Blog: View Blog (11)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby Luther Blissett » Fri Oct 26, 2012 6:05 pm

justdrew wrote:I still don't. please help :eeyaa


She's a character from Harry Potter. The Ministry of Magic installed her as headmistress of Hogwarts and she ruled very puritanically, authoritatively, and despotically. She had the same sickly sweet demeanor as Romney (his stare into the camera makes me feel as if he wants to convey that he loves me), and the parallels don't end there. I don't remember all the details and I believe I've seen each film approximately once, but her presence as headmistress in some way allowed for the return of Voldemort.
The Rich and the Corporate remain in their hundred-year fever visions of Bolsheviks taking their stuff - JackRiddler
User avatar
Luther Blissett
 
Posts: 4991
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:31 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby JackRiddler » Fri Oct 26, 2012 6:12 pm

justdrew wrote:I still don't. please help :eeyaa


The fellow on the left? He's Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate for president in the 2012 election.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby vince » Fri Oct 26, 2012 6:42 pm

justdrew wrote: You want to let down the closest thing we have to a liberal progressive ruling coalition because it isn't yet perfect? Because it has no choice but to go with the flow on some things?

We'll never know how things would have been different had republican's not filibustered EVERYTHING for the first two years, and taken back the house in the second two years.


I've often said, If Obama actually DID what we wanted him to do, 'they' would've killed him!





__________________________________
Enjoy a free sample of Vincent Cannata's "The Enigma Of David's Toe":
http://www.smashwords.com/extreader/rea ... davids-toe

If you like it, tell your friends!
vince
 
Posts: 509
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 11:19 pm
Blog: View Blog (4)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby justdrew » Fri Oct 26, 2012 7:03 pm

Luther Blissett wrote:
justdrew wrote:I still don't. please help :eeyaa


She's a character from Harry Potter. The Ministry of Magic installed her as headmistress of Hogwarts and she ruled very puritanically, authoritatively, and despotically. She had the same sickly sweet demeanor as Romney (his stare into the camera makes me feel as if he wants to convey that he loves me), and the parallels don't end there. I don't remember all the details and I believe I've seen each film approximately once, but her presence as headmistress in some way allowed for the return of Voldemort.


ah yes, I watched them all in one gulp over a long weekend awhile back. it wasn't too bad, but I just needed to know something about it since it's been such a big deal for so many. I remember that char now, good for kids to get to know that type.

JackRiddler wrote:
justdrew wrote:I still don't. please help :eeyaa


The fellow on the left? He's Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate for president in the 2012 election.


so THAT's what it looks like. he kinda looks a little like Steve Martin in that pose
By 1964 there were 1.5 million mobile phone users in the US
User avatar
justdrew
 
Posts: 11966
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: unknown
Blog: View Blog (11)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby justdrew » Fri Oct 26, 2012 7:17 pm

vince wrote:
justdrew wrote: You want to let down the closest thing we have to a liberal progressive ruling coalition because it isn't yet perfect? Because it has no choice but to go with the flow on some things?

We'll never know how things would have been different had republican's not filibustered EVERYTHING for the first two years, and taken back the house in the second two years.


I've often said, If Obama actually DID what we wanted him to do, 'they' would've killed him!


no one's willing to give him the slightest benefit of the doubt, no room up on the high horse for that I guess. They can't think for a second about who he is. They're SURE he's CIA from birth, or whatever. I'm willing to think he's done as much a possible under the circumstances, with a eye toward getting reelected, he should have more latitude in the second term, especially if we don't hand him a congress full of bible-thumpers.

Why am I willing to do that? Because what's the harm? Maybe he's doing everything possible amidst unprecedented limits. I strongly suspect that is the case.

I can't sit here and write a full justification apologetic for everything done. Much of it sucks, but much of it has been good. Stopping that pipeline was a good move for instance.

We're trying to change the course of an iceberg, and it's going to take some time.
By 1964 there were 1.5 million mobile phone users in the US
User avatar
justdrew
 
Posts: 11966
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: unknown
Blog: View Blog (11)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby DrVolin » Fri Oct 26, 2012 8:12 pm

JackRiddler wrote:The ability to organize a third party on the ground in the four years prior to an election (or prior to state elections, where the breakthrough is likelier) would be everything. I think that's more influenced by the main election result (i.e., better conditions under Obama for organizing) than by Jill Stein's vote total.


I really have to question whether the conditions for organizing are better under Obama. At least the conditions for the left. GW's second term, judging by 2008, was an excellent time for the left to organize. Unfortunately, all it got them was an Obama presidency. But I am sure I remember reading on this very forum about the chilling effect Obama's election had on real criticism from the left in liberal circles. The result (at DU among other places) was actually a severe tightening of the screws on any kind of actual progressive discussion. Criticism became impossible because it was criticism of 'our man'.

OWS is at the very least balanced by equal if not greater mobilization and organization on the populist right in the form of the Tea Party, even if the latter was more easily co-opted by dominant interests. But OWS, instead of being co-opted was very effectively demonized as a collection of latter day hippies and socio-economic leaches.

On the other hand, I must also agree with you that voting for a third party now probably doesn't help build third party momentum for future elections. The hsitory of third party politics in the US is one of boom and bust. There is usually an explosive origin (e.g. Bull Moose, Perot) followed by a very rapid collapse, rather than a gradual ramping up to a stable state. The Republican party itself is actually the main (only?) exception to this rule, in that it emerged as a third party in a fairly gradual way and has maintained itself over time. Then again, it emerged during an uprecedented and unreplicated political upheaval, and has been fundamentally transformed at least twice (most recently from North Eastern establishment to southern christian populist).
all these dreams are swept aside
By bloody hands of the hypnotized
Who carry the cross of homicide
And history bears the scars of our civil wars

--Guns and Roses
DrVolin
 
Posts: 1544
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 7:19 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby justdrew » Fri Oct 26, 2012 8:20 pm

why can't we shift from offering criticism to offering solutions?

I mean, it's so much easier to criticize. I think we have a glut of critics and a shortage of plans.
Last edited by justdrew on Fri Oct 26, 2012 8:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
By 1964 there were 1.5 million mobile phone users in the US
User avatar
justdrew
 
Posts: 11966
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: unknown
Blog: View Blog (11)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby DrVolin » Fri Oct 26, 2012 8:25 pm

Project Willow wrote:What evidence do you have for that argument? Neither of you knows who exactly is pulling whose strings and how long those strings are.


True enough. Evidence is a hopeful concept in deep politics and a rare commodity. I base this on my understanding of the past 110 or so years of violent struggle for control of the executive branch. In framework, Obama fits in as a groomed orphaned president, as opposed to the dynastic presidents such as Romney, eventually.

I think the strings are currently being pulled, this way and that, by the successor clans of the Roosevelt Hegemony, the main ones being the Bushes, Kennedies, and Romneys, plus a few minor ones that play supporting roles (Forbes, etc). It seems the Bushes and Romneys have teamed up recently to recapture the executive in the face of a resurgent republican opposition supported by the remnant Kennedy clan.

In this optic, the current election is a replay of the 1932 contest after the 2008 replay of 1928. Both 1928 and 2008 saw the installation of a groomed orphan whose role (not task, necessarily) was to preside over an economic catastrophe. The catastrophe, in both cases sets the conditions in which a dynast can step in and use the crisis to greatly centralize the economy and curtail civil liberties in preparation for a major confrontation with a rival power.

All that, of course, isn't evidence per se. It is, however, explanation, and perhaps even rises to the level of understanding. All I have is a narrative that is consistent with certain observed facts and that makes sense to me in human and historical terms.
all these dreams are swept aside
By bloody hands of the hypnotized
Who carry the cross of homicide
And history bears the scars of our civil wars

--Guns and Roses
DrVolin
 
Posts: 1544
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 7:19 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The 2012 "Election" thread

Postby ninakat » Fri Oct 26, 2012 10:38 pm

compared2what? wrote:Seriously, ninakat, does your memory not extend back further than 2004?


You can cite numbers of deaths all you want, and Bush will be the "winner." What you conveniently omitted from your argument was the policies and escalation of policies that CREATE DEATH AND DESTRUCTION. That's where Obama's worse, by a long shot. And that's what matters in the long run. His legacy is DEATH and MORAL DEPRAVITY. He has continued Bush's policies and increased the likelihood for MORE wars and MORE humanitarian atrocities. But go ahead, spend your time looking at published charts and graphs that make Obama look like he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize, if it makes you feel better. Jesus. :wallhead:

Bottom line: Obama's policies are the same or worse than Bush's, which ultimately leads to death, destruction, poverty, despair out here in the real world which you inhabit as well. You're coming across as a desperate Obamapologist, with statements like this: "So if -you focus exclusively on those metrics, there's some risk that Obama will look like a worse war criminal than Bush. But unless you do absolutely no thinking for yourself and/or exist in a state of near amnesia, it's pretty minimal. Because there's really no comparison." Give it time, honey.

+ + + + +

NSA whistle-blower: Obama “worse than Bush”

SALON: What’s your opinion on the Obama administration’s stated support for whistle-blowers and, more generally, his counterterrorism record?

THOMAS DRAKE: Worse than Bush. I have to say that. I actually voted for Obama. It’s all rhetoric for me now. As Americans we were hoodwinked. He’s expanding the secrecy regime far beyond what the Bush even intended, interestingly enough. I think Bush is probably like, “Whoa.”

+ + + + +

Is Obama Even Worse Than Bush?
by David Swanson

Three rough ways of looking at a president might be as follows. First, in the unimaginable circumstance in which a president encountered a homeless person on the street, would he invite him to live in the White House, or help him find a home, be nice and give him $1, ignore him, shout at him to get a job, kick him in the guts, or help him into a van and take him off to be tortured? I don't care about that way of looking at presidents. Second, do the policies the president pursues lead to massive numbers of people becoming homeless or worse? Third, do the policies the president pursues empower all future presidents to make unfathomable numbers of people suffer horribly? My contention is that Obama has not yet done as much damage as Bush in the second view but has, in a certain sense, done worse in the third view.

. . . So why not impeach Obama? I clamored for the impeachment of Bush. I say Obama is as bad or worse. Why am I such a corrupt hypocrite that I haven't built a movement to impeach Obama? Well, I'll tell you, as I've told people more times than I can count. Obama should be impeached and convicted and removed from office. Obama should be prosecuted for his crimes. So should his subordinates. So should his predecessor, his subordinates, and all corporate co-conspirators. The reason I can't get 20 people into the streets to demand Obama's impeachment (and if I did, they'd want him impeached for being born in Africa to aliens from Planet Socialism) is that nobody in Congress is even pretending to give a damn. We were able to produce a sizeable movement for impeachment when Bush was in office, because a lot of Democrats in Congress, especially in 2005 and 2006, pretended they were on our side. I say "pretended" as a way to indicate not that they didn't agree with us, but that they were not committed to trying very hard.

+ + + + +

Obama Worse Than Bush
Not Even Wrong, April 1, 2011

. . . Obama has been a disaster for the country, moving it farther to the right than it has been at any time since perhaps a period of a few years sometime back in the 19th century. He has pursued policies more or less in line with those of Bush, confusing and neutering moderates and progressives (who don’t dare criticize him). Based on his inspiring speeches, they thought they had elected a community organizer, but are slowly realizing that they’ve been had, with the White House now in the hands of a Bush clone interested not in fighting powerful interests but in playing golf with them. By doing this, he has pushed the Republican opposition so far to the right that they’ve descended into lunacy, and ensured that he should have no trouble winning re-election in 2012.

+ + + + +

'War Criminal' Obama Worse Than Bush, Says Nader

Ralph Nader had some harsh words for President Obama in an interview with Politico, calling the president a "war criminal" because of his foreign policy and military choices. He's even worse than George W. Bush "in the sense that he’s more aggressive, more illegal worldwide," particularly when it comes to the use of drones, Nader says. Another reason Obama is worse than Bush? Because we expected more of him than we did of Bush. "I don’t know whether George W. Bush ever read the Constitution," Nader explains. "This man taught the Constitution, and this is what we got."

+ + + + +

THEN THERE'S THE BLIND ALLEGIANCE THAT GIVES OBAMA A FREE PASS NO MATTER HOW INSANE THE CRIMES:

Image
User avatar
ninakat
 
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:38 pm
Location: "Nothing he's got he really needs."
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 158 guests