Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
@Sledge: Obama isn't a bad president, from our perspective. and won't be getting his/my vote, though Romney is worse. (He mentioned that last one a couple of times.)
@Glenn: Yes, but I'm not going to give my vote to someone I disagree with more than I agree with. That's why neither Romney nor Obama are getting my vote.
@3off4: It's true that he's the lesser of two evils, but not by much.
Also, the political change that is necessary for a third party candidate to become viable won't happen on it's own, and it won't happen without people abandoning the two parties and voting for the third party. It will also never happen if all the people who want to vote for a third party candidate decide that no third party candidate has a chance, so they shouldn't bother. Third party candidates would be viable if everyone voted for who they wanted to. Plenty of Republicans would jump ship for the Libertarian and Constitution Parties while plenty of Democrats would jump ship for the Libertarian and Green Parties. That wouldn't necessarily be enough for them to win, but it would be enough that they would have a chance at winning. However, that has to start somewhere, and, if everyone continues voting for the lesser of two evils, it will never start. That's why I vote third party, both locally and nationally.
![]()
If you acknowledge Romney as worse, why are you enabling him by wasting your vote?
And why have you try to go for third party in the one election where there is the least likely chance of them succeeding? Why not go for a couple House or Senate seats first.
Show them people have a chance by winning a couple seats there instead of going for the massively more difficult job.
edited 6th Nov '12 11:10:32 AM by 3of4
"You can reply to this Message!"The ones in Afghanistan were there as a response to that thing that happened where a couple buildings got attacked and some people, who could have been voters today, ended up dying and therefore became ineligible to vote.
I dunno about the ones in Iraq.
"Never let the truth get in the way of a good story." TwitterHow many swing states does Romney need to win? I heard in some places all of them, but I don't think that's right.
Writing a post-post apocalypse LitRPG on RR. Also fanfic stuff.correct me if I'm wrong, but firemen tend to be government employees who sometimes die doing their civic duty.
"Never let the truth get in the way of a good story." Twitter@cut: Not just a bit on foreign policy. Basically, his entire foreign policy (it's basically neocon foreign policy done by a more intelligent man than Bush), Obamacare (it's a conservative, corporatist law that fixes few of the systemic problems, rather than just the symptoms), his focus on austerity (boo, hiss), his weakness in civil rights issues (he wants to make gay marriage a states issues, which, given the makeup of the states, means that gays don't have the right to marry), his lack of transparency (see Fast and Furious), his crackdown on whistleblowers (technically a subset of the previous, but I'm including it anyway), his support of the death penalty, and many other things I'm too lazy to mention, atm.
@3of4: Romney is worse, but I wouldn't vote for Saruman (after his Face–Heel Turn) because Sauron might get elected instead. Plus, Gary Johnson will probably take about as many votes from Romney as Jill Stein will from Obama.
...Because I vote third party in House and Senate races too? It's not like I have to vote third party in one or the other, you know.
@terl: Fuck yeah, Peace and Freedom Party! I love them!
edited 6th Nov '12 11:26:11 AM by deathpigeon
pigeon: That's entirely because he has to deal with an entire right wing political party that has warped the country's ideology so right-ward, if the Democrats weren't a factor, we'd have a government that looks uncomfortably similar to the 30s and 40s fascists.
Politics is a game, and currently the game in the US is "Stave off the Right-Wing party that has basically had a massive psychotic break from doing actual harm to people. By taking as much ammo and fuel from them as you can.". It's realism and pragmatism.
The BBC suggests panic from Ryan, if this tweet about a leaked email from him is accurate. https://twitter.com/BBCiPannell/status/265891693079969792
Honestly, we're never going to be able to see the full extent of Obama's character. He has to stay a bit centrist, due to how warped America has become. While we as a people are moving towards the center, the businessman and higher-ranking men in America are attempting to pull us back to the right. It's an endless tug-o-war match.
It's a campaign of ignorance and indifference.

No offense but how did soldiers going to Iraq and Afghanistan protect my right to vote?