Obama to Putin, on the phone (probably): Dude, don't even think about granting Snowden asylum

boing
21

The sad thing here is on one hand people say “Hey, you better vote!”, then on the other hand “You threw your vote away voting third party!”. Just how many times do we vote in the lesser evil as opposed to people who have the will to change things?

I’ll use Al Gore as an example. People rarely recognize he achieved Rockstar status until after the 2000 election. I was a Tennessee citizen when he was senator. Did he want to take money from public schools and want to put more to prisons? Why yes he did! Is he pro Death Penalty? Why yes he is! Did he use his position to help his wife Tipper’s censorship witch hunt? Why, yes he did!

Would he have been a better President than Bush? Oh, almost certainly. But he’s not the shiny ‘Liberal’ that people think he is any more than Obama is and probably worse than you might imagine. You might have even gotten to enjoy President Lieberman in the wake of his two terms…

1 Like
22

I’ve never had any illusions about Gore’s downsides and if you read my post, you’d see that (look at the “fuck no!” part). But, the reality is our country would be ridiculously better off today if we had voted in the lesser evil all this time instead of two GW Bush terms with a mostly rubber stamp congress in tow. The reason I mention the rubber stamp congress so much is because the American public also massively fucked up on that as well by not voting in lesser evil congresscritters and further enabling MADNESS for about a decade and more.

If you have any more doubts about that, please read my post you responded to in further detail.

You might have even gotten to enjoy President Lieberman in the wake of his two terms

Lieberman only got any later power and attention by whoring himself to the Bush administration through the “war on terror” after 9/11. Once again, please read my post more throughly. With two Gore terms, we’d be much more likely to be leaning more towards an even further left candidate and lesser evil. Without the “war on terror” to latch onto like a blood-sucking leech, Lieberman would have faded into obscurity.

In my opinion, it’s ridiculous to say or even infer we’d be in the same amount of trouble today even if GW Bush never took office. You drastically and wildly underestimate the damage it’s done to America by allowing two GW Bush terms with a rubber stamp congress. What I wrote 10 years ago (if you bothered to read it) only scratched the surface of the overall damage.

You also perhaps missed my first link attached to the word “radically” in my post?

In case you missed it:

Please read though that (thoroughly) and tell me how much allowing greater evil to rule has gone for us so far? Once again, we’ve done decades of damage and repeating the same mistakes and voting in greater evil (either directly or by throwing away votes) will only exacerbate the situation.

How about dissing on consistently voting in lesser evil after we’ve actually TRIED IT?

1 Like
23

You make some valid points, maybe. And I did only use Gore in an example. But here’s the thing. I’m not operating off of speculation as much as you are. You can speculate with moderate success that Gore would have been a better President. One could also by brand name alone assume Obama would be a better President.

But when he became President, when did he summarily start shutting down the previous admin’s programs? What has he done but BEEF UP everything that Bush, Cheney and Co. did? With all this, we got the Greater of Two Evils after them. And that’s not speculation. It’s simply the fact. Obama isn’t a Lesser evil simply because he’s branded Democrat…

24

Obama is a shitty lesser evil for reasons I’ve already explained in detail ad nauseam. Once again, just look at the words and actions of McCain/Romney and the general cluster-fuck that is the Republican party and where we were after two GW Bush terms with a rubber stamp, mostly Republican congress to get an idea of where we’d be right now as a nation.

Obama is evil and is (overall) rotten for this country. Any hopes of him being a second term trojan are mostly dashed at this point. But, once again, this is what you can expect after voting in greater evil consistently for almost a decade. The people that voted in greater evil either directly or indirectly by throwing away their votes or not voting at all have only themselves to blame that we’ve reached this point that someone like Obama is a lesser evil. It’s because we’ve descended into the pits of quasi-governmental corporatist hell.

It may be a bitter pill to swallow, but nothing’s ever going to change until we as a nation admit we have a problem and do something about it. Like I said, we’re talking DECADES of damage to reverse (see my posts above)… To expect to see some drastic reversal after 5 years isn’t coping with the reality of the horrific situation we’re in.

25

The problem is that the damage isn’t being reversed. The best you can possibly argue is that Obama is accelerating the damage a little slower than a Republican would have accelerated the damage. Woo-fuckin’-ho. It is getting worse, faster. He didn’t slow the growth of these programs, he accelerated the growth and expanded them.

If Hillary wins the primaries, fuck the Democrats. Vote third party, and vote in large enough numbers that it HURTS and the Republicans win. I would rather suffer another 4 years of bleeding that results in someone with a spine emerging to lead the Democratic party than continue this shit. I would rather see a Democrat president get a sound ass kicking in the election and lose because a third party took a massive number of votes away, then suffer another 4 or 8 years of the total shit show that is Obama. Give the new Republican president a solid democrat majority to fight with in the senate. Nothing will get done, and the country will be better for it. A scared Democrat congressional majority that brings the government to a halt as to gridlocks with a Republican president as vastly superior than a Democratic congress that rubber stamps a piece of shit Democrat president. Then, when the democrats have to pick another presidential candidate, maybe they will pick someone with a spine and we can all get off this ride.

1 Like
26

Just keep fighting the good fight, Cow. That’s all any of us can do.

1 Like
27

This all sounds so… Philadelphia Eagles vs. the Dallas Cowboys, to me.

1 Like
28

I can really get behind that statement…

29

Even if we elected a good third party candidate within the White House, the Senate and the House, I not expecting a miracle within that 5 years. Even the damage Reagan did took 30+ years to really start showing. What I’m not expecting is the Democrats to be the key to that change.

Right now I see a Democrat that’s President and his administration that’s going through great pains to be secretive and slowly eviscerate our rights. At this point anything that Romney would have done or tried to do is speculative at best and just simply a comforting thought to Obamanites as their rights get tied to the waterboard. "Could be worse! Could be stabbed!

Sooner or later Snowden the man will fall out of the limelight and the information he’s released will fall into it, hopefully at least.

30

lose because a third party took a massive number of votes away

Massive number of votes away? You are living in a pipe dream. Who is this mythical third party that can do this? It’s always been just enough trifling votes to usher in Republicans but never enough to do anything but piss off and annoy people who voted for Democrats.

If anything, it makes the public despise the third party and its candidates. What a way to shoot yourself in the foot. Can you even name a single candidate that stands a chance in hell against the current corporatist structure that’s been REINFORCED and ENTRENCHED by voting in greater evil all these years?

The best you can possibly argue is that Obama is accelerating the damage a little slower than a Republican

A little slower?

Rindan, that’s an absolute crock of shit. Did you look at that GW Bush 24 charts article or any of the other things I showed above? Have you looked at the words and actions of people like McCain/Palin and Romney/Ryan and the Republican party in general? Or are you wearing blinders in this regard?

It seems you have a predetermined mindset that facts and reason can’t sway.

Just look at the dive into the abyss we went into from Clinton to GW Bush to get a clue.

Once again, your strategy of allowing greater evil to rule has FAILED and it has failed miserably beyond epic proportions. We’re in this hellish situation in the first place because of your inane strategy and here you are not learning from history, ignoring facts and promoting doing the same shit all over again.

I hope your cognitive dissonance hits a wall and you shake off your predetermined mindset and understand the reality of the situation. Promoting throwing away votes to usher in more republican rule is pure insanity.

More sources for you to ignore, perhaps?

http://www.alternet.org/election-2012/6-right-wing-zealots-and-crazy-ideas-behind-most-outrageous-republican-platform-ever

http://www.forwardprogressives.com/whosaidit/

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/41513_Insane_New_Republican_Bill_Would_Send_Women_to_Jail_for_Having_Abortions_After_Rape

(And, you should know that’s just the small TIP of the iceberg of their insanity)

Vote third party, and vote in large enough numbers that it HURTS and the Republicans win.

If you still think that’s a smart strategy right now after seeing where that’s gotten us in the past, then we just need to agree to disagree because I have zero respect for your critical thinking skills at this point.

Sometimes more evil is more evil. When people like Romney wipe out any slight gains in health care reform, it actually make people suffer and die. You may look at all of this as some kind of fucking little political game, but there’s very real repercussions for real people and I’ve already backed up reasons why extensively within this thread.

All you do by throwing away your vote on a third party and ushering in more Republicans is guarantee that we’ll never see a third party. With democrats, there’s a crack in the door for third parties and change down the road, with republicans they do everything in their power to NAIL THAT DOOR SHUT.

Like I’ve said…

Why don’t you tell me that consistently voting in lesser evil has failed once we’ve actually tried it?

31

You are discounting a few things. I’ll start with this one.

“Who is this mythical third party that can do this?” You ask. 1992, Ross Perot. He was easily forgotten, but took just over 18% of the popular vote…

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1992

The other thing in regards to 3rd Party there is a hellishly large assumption by most that is going to be a huge disappointment for Progressives; It will emerge from the right side of the aisle. We can say what we want about Republicans, but they can fucking get organized a lot better than the typical Democratic group. And this isn’t something new. Will Rogers claimed “I am not a member of any organized party — I am a Democrat” back in 1935.

And along with the speculation that a 3rd Party will emerge from the right side of the aisle I’ll speculate it will be Moderates. Unlike Dems a lot of Repubs feel their party is being taken away from them by the extreme right fringe. They don’t like that yet they don’t have the stomach to be a Democrat. And considering the Beltway Dems I don’t blame them. Hell, I’m registered Independent but I’m Socially Progressive and Fiscally Conservative. I watch what people are doing, I discuss the ideas and if I see that Moderate Republican Party emerge maybe I’ll go that direction…

32

Why don’t you tell me that consistently voting in lesser evil has failed once we’ve actually tried it?

Other than virtually every time we’ve had an election, of course.

33

Snowden isn’t in the military so presumably any trial would be public. How can they plan to try him without Snowden ‘leaking’ further info? Does the American public even have the will to sentence this man for uncovering criminal activity by our government?
What the heck is this administration thinking going after this guy? It only serves to make them seem more guilty.

34

Other than virtually every time we’ve had an election, of course.

You think GW Bush and all the Republicans and Bluedog Democrats that made up his rubber stamp Congress was the lesser evil?

ಠ_ಠ

35

year=1992

Note that year.

Once again, back in reality… in 2013 after two GW Bush terms with a mostly rubber stamp congress that sent us spiraling backwards… What third party exists NOW? Who are the candidates?

Exactly.

Moderate Republican Party

Ok, that’s fantasy… and it’s becoming more and more obvious some of you aren’t reading my arguments and certainly not comprehending the importance of the content of my links and sources… so, I’ll just stop here and repeat:

Let’s trash on consistently voting in the lesser evil once we’ve actually tried it.

We haven’t. That’s reality. And, that’s why we are where we are today and my sources back me up on this.

36

Sure, if you are capable of conceiving of a different perspective than your own.

I think it’s safe to assume that quite a few voting Republicans felt that Bush the Younger was the least evil, relative to his primary opponents. Likewise, quite a few more radical ones held their noses for him, rather than let the dreaded Democrat win. Had I voted in that election (I was so busy being black-out drunk at the time that I barely managed to make it to work, let alone the polling place), I guess I would have voted for Gore. But only because he was of the less evil political party, from my perspective. That might explain the election of all those Blue Dogs, no?

Your argument only stands up if a majority can agree to your personal definition of the lesser evil. At any given time, at least half of voting Americans may choose not to live in your head. But don’t worry, most of them are still following your rules, regardless. Can’t let the wrong lizard win!

1 Like
37

Your argument only stands up if a majority can agree to your personal definition of the lesser evil.

It’s not my personal definition. I’m basing this off of facts. Most that voted for Nader were clearly on the left (to say the least). If they hadn’t thrown away their votes and gone the realistic, lesser evil route the obvious choice was for Gore (still on the left) instead of Bush (who was clearly on the right).

Also, my arguments stand because of common sense. If you keep voting in lesser evil, you end up with lesser evil. If you keep doing what we’ve been doing as a nation and voting in greater evil, then we end up where we are now… which is fucked.

Like I’ve said, let me know how upset you are after we’ve actually tried consistently voting in lesser evil, because this ain’t it by a long shot.

38

You asked for an example in recent history where a third party candidate made a difference in election outcome and I cited it. 1992 wasn’t that far in the past and Perot’s candidacy was never touted as a spoiler my the media nor citizens of this country.

In regards to the Moderate Republican, “Ok, that’s fantasy” you say. Then you’re being overly myopic and in fact guilty of the same thing many on the extreme right are guilty of; Completely unaware of the variety in points of view and values that aren’t at all extremely right nor left…

39

Alright, I’ll try again. Given a two-party system, and a single round of voting, the candidate who wins will be – by definition – the lesser of two perceived evils. That’s because the choice is theoretically made by the majority of voters, with their various perceptions of the greater evil, only one of which is Cowicide’s. Sometimes, the pendulum of majority perception will be in alignment with Cowicide’s perception. Great! Cowicide’s theory is working; indeed, the desire to pander to majority perceptions of what constitutes the maximum allowable evil could well produce progressively less evil candidates. At other times, the majority perception of relative evil will swing away from Cowicide’s ideal. Oh no! What a crap plan; we’ve elected Paul goddamn Ryan. For a second term. In either case, in the eyes of the winning majority the lesser of two evils has prevailed.

I’m sure it’s not a settled issue, but there is a case to be made that a rigid two-party system generally only moves in one direction. In other words, forcing people to continuously chose the lesser evil typically just expands the outer limits of “acceptable” evil.

40

You asked for an example in recent history where a third party candidate made a difference in election outcome and I cited it. 1992 wasn’t that far in the past

Sigh, you’re headed to the hills of distraction. I didn’t ask for recent history. I’m talking about right now. I was clear on that. You’re just desperately moving the goal posts so you can be “right” and jumping into distractions instead.

(and it’s highly debatable 21 years ago is recent history anyway)

In regards to the Moderate Republican, “Ok, that’s fantasy” you say. Then you’re being overly myopic

If you think being seated in reality is myopic then more power to you. I provided a wealth of sources to back me up (including showing how insane most Republicans are). You… not so much. Just contrived distractions and now even delving into trite semantic arguments (which I’m no fan of whatsoever) on top of the fantasy and pipe dreams.

I think we’ll just need to agree to disagree at this point.