the most important election of your lifetime: 2012 american general election thread

the key phrase is "more than republicans"

I'm not a believer in the system so much as I accept that this is the system that is here now and it doesn't make much sense to disengage with it completely because slowing down the rot and *maybe* making tiny, incremental improvements wherever one can is surely better than washing hands of it completely.

Then again I also feel that nothing can change without the people, and as a country we're not generally the kinds to encourage much in the way of critical thinking or 'education' in general so I would never expect much of anything in the way of drastic shifts to the left. We do, as a society, financially rewards amoral idiots on a regular basis.

xposts

@ croupier: "more likely" in the sense that I'm more likely to lose the lottery than win it, yes. the correct question Morbs is "define help" - in my usual area of focus: Democrats can be counted on to oppose the most egregious, are-you-fucking-kidding-me aspects of anti-choice legislation. This legislation might be met with similar bills that expand access to constitutionally guaranteed reproductive rights: all kinds of little bills you imght introduce, in order to do what the Republicans (smartly) do: keep your position out there, continue reinforcing that it's your position & you think it's righteous, expand the reach of the righteous gains you've won. This is not something I believe the Democratic party will ever do. They play a "let the other guy take your shit, then tell people you need help getting it back" game. This game is played at considerable loss to real people. I'll vote for them anyway, because they will oppose the most egregious harms done by the opposition: but they won't actually, you know, stand up for the cause. A stray one here or there, but not as a party, and varying by district and whether speaking up might cost them votes.

to take one example from personal experience, a lot of ARRA funds went to energy efficiency projects and programs for public agencies (state energy departments, cities, schools, etc.). GOP never would have done that.

xp

if you want a clear demonstration of difference I don't think you really need to look any further than the legislation Pelosi passed as Speaker vs. the shit Boehner has passed as Speaker.

yes but they're not going to stop the apocalypse and therefore, if you really don't have much to worry about except for the apocalypse, there's no difference between the parties

as you know I support the apocalypse

no you don't you vote for democrats

you just talk a lot of shit

the idea that neither party matters when there's an apocalypse is simply not true. one party put forward the "cash for clunkers" initiative, something that will pay dividends after the apocalypse for some

http://content9.flixster.com/photo/66/46/30/6646303_gal.jpg

voting for Democrats is totally apocalypse-friendly!

nah if you really wanted the apocalypse you'd pick the "express lane" party, not the scenic route

I actually have commie friends who do that but I don't have the stomach for it

will there be arts funding post-apocalypse, or still just Kickstarter?

kickstarter actually involves kicking post-apocalypse

here's another example

GOP would just eliminate the EPA altogether, if they had their way.

and O let some major pollutant reg lapse, didn't he?

they did, and that was wrong. however, there is a real, quantitative difference between weak regulations and NO regulations.

EPA needs a massive overhaul because they seem to be a bunch of bought out sumbitches on their own but it's better to have it *something* than nothing at all as Shakey said

they did, and that was wrong. however, there is a real, quantitative difference between weak regulations and NO regulations.

gah yes and it's exactly what you immediately hop down my throat about! one's terrible and the other's just awful!

ok so it's the Daily Show and i know i know but still, from last week: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-june-14-2012/a-simple-plot?xrs=share_copy

one's terrible and the other's just awful!

"So just be glad they're awful"

http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/annie1.jpg

woody's a good icon for the "yes i'll vote democrat and help other people but i don't have to like it" grumpy old man block

at least Alvy had Adlai to support.

I prefer to emphasize his "Impeach (Every President)" button collection

why don't you get william f buckley to kill the spider

ALVY
I ... interestingly had, uh, dated ...
a woman in the Eisenhower Administration
... briefly ... and, uh, it was ironic to
me 'cause, uh . . . tsch . . . 'cause I
was trying to, u-u-uh, do to her what
Eisenhower has been doing to the country
for the last eight years.

the idea that neither party matters when there's an apocalypse is simply not true. one party put forward the "cash for clunkers" initiative, something that will pay dividends after the apocalypse for some

Wasn't sure if you were joking here since Cash For Clunkers ended up not being nearly as effective as folks were hoping.

they say that now, but they'll be singing a different tune once Lord Humongous figures out what his scrap yard is worth once the nuclear winter clears.

O should really hammer away at this imho

if only Romney's time at Bain wasn't politically out of bounds

During the nearly 15 years that Romney was actively involved in running Bain, a private equity firm that he founded, it owned companies that were pioneers in the practice of shipping work from the United States to overseas call centers and factories making computer components, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission

But Romney didn't personally ship the jobs overseas, it was just companies that Bain owned.

I see his campaign would not really respond to the Post's questions. Surprise surprise

black Politico writer suspended for calling Romney "white folks"

thats retarded. you could call him a cracker ass cracker and it wouldnt offend me.. because its true

olitico suspended its White House correspondent late Thursday night for suggesting that Mitt Romney is more comfortable around white people than minorities, a comment that quickly drew the ire of conservatives.

Romney is more comfortable around toasters than people

Alfred OTM that Politico's writing is terrible but just... I can't even

xp

the horrible ethnic slur "white folks"

it evokes such painful associations

no one is actually complaining about this because they think the term "white folks" is offensive, right? this is all because dude flat-out called Romney a racist

xp

I hope that Politico writer has learned his lesson from all this criticism. He took a bad misstep when he called out Romney for only being comfy with other white folks, when the real determiner isn't the whiteness of his soulmates, but their wealth and insular smugness. Romney is def very stiff and uncomfortable around working class white folks.

fuck politico

what the fuck

"Romney is very, very comfortable, it seems, with people who are like him," Joe Williams said during an appearance on MSNBC. "That's one of the reasons why he seems so stiff and awkward in town hall meetings, why he can't relate to people other than that. But when he comes on Fox and Friends, they're like him. They're white folks who are very much relaxed in their own company."

Politico journalists have a clear and inflexible responsibility to cover politics fairly and free of partisan bias. This expectation extends to all of the public platforms in which we and our reporting and analysis appears, including cable TV and social media platforms like Twitter.

Regrettably, an unacceptable number of Joe Williams’s public statements on cable and Twitter have called into question his commitment to this responsibility. His comment about Governor Romney earlier today on MSNBC fell short of our standards for fairness and judgment in an especially unfortunate way.

Joe has acknowledged that his appearance reflected a poor choice of words. This appearance came in the context of other remarks on Twitter that, cumulatively, require us to make clear that our standards are serious, and so are the consequences for disregarding them. This is true for all Politico journalists, including an experienced and well-respected voice like Joe Williams.

Following discussion of this matter with editors, Joe has been suspended while we review the matter.

Harris

VandeHei

i don't know, Dan, it really reads like he got fired for describing white people as white.

remember the rules, everybody

Politico journalists have a clear and inflexible responsibility to cover politics fairly and free of partisan bias

Please fire all of the staff then as they never hide their bias very well

okay maybe it's just me but I wouldn't say that about anyone unless I clearly intended to signal that I think the person I'm talking about is a gigantic racist

which, you know, if Romney is a racist, that would be a fact and not something you should lose your job over for mentioning

i mean, i think you're right, that he was at the very least saying that race plays a major role in the construction of a Republican audience, particularly as mediated by foxnews, which, as you said, is just a fact. but it seems really weird to say he apologized for his "poor choice of words"--what can that mean but the phrase "white folks"? are they not white folks or what?

but it seems really weird to say he apologized for his "poor choice of words"--what can that mean but the phrase "white folks"? are they not white folks or what?

sorry but this is some nro-level obtuseness. 'he was just trying to describe his coloring! nothing else!' obv there's subtext here. (nb i don't think it's subtext that should cost him his job)

okay. i'm not saying that that's actually why conservatives are mad at him. i'm basically saying that politico doesn't have a leg to stand on here.