Springsteen writes: "This presidential election is different than the last one because President Obama has a four year record to run on. Last time around, he carried with him a tremendous amount of hope and expectations. Unfortunately, due to the economic chaos the previous administration left him with, and the extraordinary intensity of the opposition, it turned into a really rough ride.""
Bruce Springsteen campaigning back in November 2008 for Barack Obama. Can his support help the president this time around? (photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
Why I Support the President
18 October 12
ear Friends:
The election is coming up on all of us and we all have strong feelings about it. I've been getting asked a lot about where I stand, so for those who are interested, here goes.
This presidential election is different than the last one because President Obama has a four year record to run on. Last time around, he carried with him a tremendous amount of hope and expectations. Unfortunately, due to the economic chaos the previous administration left him with, and the extraordinary intensity of the opposition, it turned into a really rough ride. But through grit, determination, and focus, the President has been able to do a great many things that many of us deeply support.
Domestically, that record includes working to increase and expand employment for all, protecting our all important social safety net, passing guaranteed health care for most of our citizens, with important new protections for all of the insured, rescuing the auto industry and so many of the American jobs that go with it, protecting and enhancing the rights of women, and bringing us closer to full acceptance of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.
In foreign affairs, that record includes following through on the removal of troops from the misguided and deceptive war in Iraq, and vigorously pursuing our real foreign enemies, especially the killing of Osama Bin Laden.
Right now the opposition's resort to voter suppression in so many states is not receiving as much attention as it deserves. I believe that all of us, of whatever views, should be opposing these anti-voter, anti-citizen efforts.
Right now, for the President to be effective in his next term he needs our increased support and he needs support in the Congress, where some sterling candidates, such as current Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, challenger Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts, and so many others, are fighting to make their constructive voices heard.
Right now, there is an ever increasing division of wealth in this country, with the benefits going more and more to the 1 percent. For me, President Obama is our best choice to begin to reverse this harmful development.
Right now, there is a fight going on to help make this a fairer and more equitable nation. For me, President Obama is our best choice to get us and keep us moving in the right direction.
Right now, we need a President who has a vision that includes all of our citizens, not just some, whether they are our devastated poor, our pressured middle class, and yes, the wealthy too; whether they are male or female, black, white, brown, or yellow, straight or gay, civilian or military.
Right now, there is a choice going on in America, and I'm happy that we live in a country where we all participate in that process. For me, President Obama is our best choice because he has a vision of the United States as a place where we are all in this together. We're still living through very hard times but justice, equality and real freedom are not always a tide rushing in. They are more often a slow march, inch by inch, day after long day. I believe President Obama feels these days in his bones and has the strength to live them with us and to lead us to a country "...where no one crowds you and no one goes it alone."
That's why I plan to be in Ohio and Iowa supporting the re-election of President Obama to lead our country for the next four years.
Bruce Springsteen
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
 15 June 2013
|
 15 June 2013
|
 15 June 2013
|
 16 June 2013
|
 16 June 2013
|
 16 June 2013
|
 17 June 2013
|
 16 June 2013
|
 15 June 2013
|
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
For Republicans, it's easy, they always just for for the cash.
An exquisitely accurate argument with one exception. No one "pushes" the President but corporate lobbyists and Congress.
I have two words for all here who think that their vote has any power at all in a Presidential Election: "Electoral College".
To the Founders, "democracy" was a dirty word, because it *very* accurately describes "51% mob rule", as the Founders called democracy.
We were founded as a republic, not a true democracy. With a bit of old school spin, the Founders called it a "democratic republic".
To prevent "51% mob rule", the Founders invented the "Electoral College", designed to ensure that the President was *not* (and *IS* not) elected by a 51 % democratic mob rule.
The Electoral College was also ingenious in that it *fooled* the masses into thinking that they *were* the ones electing the President, with the result that they were less inclined to "pickup pitchforks" when their man lost.
And this is all without anyone breaking any rules. This is the way the system was *designed* to operate.
Your vote(barring illegal tampering)*does * count in local and (sometimes) State elections, but no one ever expected it to count in Presidential elections.
So all of the posturing and hand-wringing over the Presidential election evident on this site is simply ill-informed tilting at windmills.
FWIW, if we eliminate the Electoral College, the most populpous states (CA, NY, etc.), which tend to vote overwhelmingly for liberal dems, will far overwhelm the less populous states (the large states that swing GOP tend to do vote cons GOP tend to do so only marginally... so they will also be overwhelmed).
Now, since I'm a lib-Dem, and live in NY, I'm OK with that. Are you???
PS You should also note that Dems take ~65% of the votes in CA and NY, and never even campaign here. That swing would probably be significantly larger if they did (if you disagree,consid er that if you were right, why doesn't the GOP campaign there?).
First, I already stated my answer.
Second, which is the question that you want an answer to?
"Is the president elected by people?", or
"Is the president elected by the states?"
NDAA, Michael Taylor heading the FDA, drilling in the arctic and more deep water drilling after BP, BP off the hook and their mess covered up, drone warfare, torture and rendition and exoneration of previous torturers, putting the banksters in his cabinet and not prosecuting one banker for crashing the economy, letting big telecom off the hook for their felony spying, free trade in asia that sends jobs overseas and guts worker rights, war in Afghanistan, a health plan that has no public option, more privatization of public education in favor of vouchers and incessant testing to punish and close schools, torture of Bradley Manning and the unprecedented squashing of whistle blowers. These are all things Romney supports.
Your example of how "you" will vote is precisely the problem. Until "you" decide that, no matter how much "you" like "your" ideas, more than the rest of us, and can afford to be a "maverick" WE will continue to fail; Including YOU.
Will "YOUR" candidate win? Not a chance. Will THEIR candidate win if we each go our own way and pat ourselves on the back for being "better" than the rest? ABSOLUTELY; EVERY SINGLE TIME.
So vote the way you want to but, a vote that doesn't support the "best" choice that CAN win, might as well be a vote for the WORST choice that can ALSO WIN.
Are we who we say we are? Do we really care about moving the country toward a more just and humane society or do we want to just fight the good fight ALONE and LOSE?
Normally I challenge people on these boards to find ways to convince "the other side" that they are wrong. Today I find myself trying to convince our own side that they might make a huge blunder by not being part of something bigger and more important than their own ego.
Please think about that and do the right thing for ALL of us.
What kind of reasoning did you use to come up with your conclusion? You want to deny Romney a victory, but you intend to throw away your vote?!? Voice of reason? Really?
The caps are for emphasis in lieu of italics, because italics are not an option.
Once again, thanks for the insults — go with your strength, in this case, evidently your only strength. You really do sound like a rightwing crank.
No difference between Romney and Obama? Give us all a break from your grandstanding.
i agree with you that both are "corporatist" candidates but that does not mean that there are not real differences between the two wings of the one party. As for other examples of differences: the dems wanted to extend long term unemployment benefits and ensure that women's basic reproductive health care needs must be covered in health insurance plans; the repubs oppose both. These are not "revolutionary" differences for sure but they would make a real difference in the lives of millions (if not tens or even hundreds of millions) of people.
So, i agree with you about Obama but not that there are no "substantial" differences (depending on how of course we define "substantial" but i would argue that to someone facing the loss of unemployment benefits or coverage for reproductive health care needs that these are pretty substantial.
For more, go here:
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/09/01/a-long-list-of-president-obamas-accomplishments-with-citations/
Get real or get Romney. In your case, get your head out of la-la land.
In your world everyone can be an absolutist as though our actions have no negative consequences. In your world, Mommy and Daddy can always bail you out. You can "sell a few stocks" to get through the "rough spots".
The rest of us live on EARTH
On Earth it DOES matter that people have jobs. It DOES matter that we are not in a full-blown depression.
It DOES matter that people are still getting their Social Security checks.
It DOES matter that we are not at war with Iran, even though the President has been pushed hard into one by the very right-wing you don't mind gaining more power.
---------------
None of these things will matter to you of course. You won't be suffering no matter who is elected. Millions of others WILL, but why should YOU care?
FUCK 'EM, RIGHT?!
You're not paying attention to what a Romney/Ryan administration would mean for women, immigrants, the middle class, etc.
again, what about extending long term unemployment benefits that the repubs wanted to cut off or making sure that basic reproductive health care needs for women are covered by all insurance plans. Are these not "important"? I agree with your take on Obama and that neither of the things i've mentioned are "revolutionary" and that yes we need far more substantive and genuine progressive/rad ical/revolution ary changes in this country. But it is simply wrong to say that there are no differences at all because for millions of people who would lose these benefits and coverage the differences are real and they matter.
I have no reason to believe that Bruce Springsteen is dishonest here.
The problem America has is that Obama's advisors told him save the banks - it was a CYA move for Goldman Sachs. Obama comes from a bank mentality and it's hard to put the crooks in jail who supply you with what you crave the most...money. So, 84 million American families are in horrible straits. Pension funds, savings and equity have been wiped out and we are still in a depression...be cause we propped up the banks.
Iceland jailed their banksters and there economic growth exceeds America and the UK. Obama's misperception of only saving his definition of "responsible" homeowners is what is making this election so close.
America wants the bank fraud recognized. They want the bankers to go to jail for the frauds, including the rate LIBOR scam. We don't want tax dollars used to bail out and manipulate the banks' books. Break them up, take them over, take them down - and audit the entire mess until the cows come home. But we can no longer afford to have our President stand in the middle of the road trying to make the bullies "play nice" - that's how you get run over in a close election.
I agree with you that we need to do all we can to prevent a romney victory but it simply not true that all of our problems are due to the retugs...it was a dem. bill clinton that deregulated our financial system (and got rid of glass-steagal); advanced the attack on the US working class through "free trade" agreements such as NAFTA, "ended welfare as we know it" and pushed for the draconian drug laws that are a big part of "the new jim crow" in this country.
So, yes, we need to ensure that Romney doesn't get in but that does not mean that jlstiles or anyone else critiquing Obama is wrong in their critique even if we disagree that those of us in swing states should vote for obama just to keep romney from winning
He has no real sense of human beings (other than those who belong to his Mormon cult.)
Once you are President, you can't just lead the country for your friends; however, I imagine it's even more difficult to lead surrounded by your enemies.
I for one have never said that Obama is "our friend." I have no illusions about who he is or what he has done. But, again, that does not mean there are no differences at all and these differences matter to millions of people in their daily lives. So, it may be easy for those who are not facing the loss of long-term unemployment benefits or losing coverage for basic reproductive health care needs to say that there is "no difference" but it is simply not true. these may not be differences that affect you personally but then elections are not about "me" or at least not fully. They are also about the real consequences for all of our brothers and sisters out there millions of whom would be seriously adversely affected by a Romney victory (even more so if the repubs take back both houses of congress).
More people know the name of Bruce Springsteen than Obama, and he is willing to put that to work for us. I thank him.
Not everyone has as much time as you and I do to make these vain comments.
Some people have to work their asses off FOR A LIVING. The fact that you've chosen to insult these people's intelligence for not getting into it about the details with you, shows just how truly arrogant and aloof your side of the argument is and how little you will be personally impacted by the consequences of your desparate drive to elect Twit Romney.
With you so far Boss ....
>> But through grit, determination, and focus ...
Well, let's not take that too far now. Obama 2012! Somewhat better than the awful alternative. :-(
Greg Palast: "Mitt Romney’s Bailout Bonanza: How He Made Millions from the Rescue of Detroit"
And helped send the jobs he destroyed to China.
October 18, 2012 |
AMY GOODMAN: we turn to a major new exposé on the cover of The Nation magazine called "Mitt Romney’s Bailout Bonanza: How He Made Millions from the Rescue of Detroit." Investigative reporter Greg Palast reveals how Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney made at least $15 million on the auto bailout and that three of Romney’s top donors made more than $4 billion for their hedge funds from the bailout. Greg Palast, welcome back to Democracy Now! So, lay it out for us.
A vanity vote for a 3rd party isn't going to protect my Mom's Social Security and Medicaid from Romney and Ryan's plans to take those things away from her.
A vanity vote for a 3rd party isn't going to prevent my kids from paying the ongoing costs in money and their lives for the upcoming WAR WITH IRAN - the war that the President has, so far, been able to keep repuglicans from starting. McCain wanted it back in 2008. Romney wants it now.
-------------------
-When YOUR elderly parents or grandparents go hungry or without medical care you can talk trash about how dirty you feel voting for their very survival.
-When YOUR children are drafted to fight for the corporate profit of the oil industry against a country bigger and more powerful than Iraq and Afghanistan combined, you can talk trash about how dirty you feel voting for their future.
Until then, spare us the arrogant foul-mouthed lecture on "morality".
And how proud will you be when you have helped deliver all of us into the greedy hands of Twit and Twerp, the RR boys?
OBAMA/BIDEN 2012
The alternative is unbearable.
They are loyal -- to their party,
but utterly disloyal to the country.
If not actually treasonous, they are amoral tools of the corporate robber barons
Can the Bruce Springsteen that we love
be for for four more years of
Kill list
Tarsand pipe line, and
Indefinite detention
Romney is a no go and Obame also,
Please vote for Jill Stein / Green Party
and make this election a statement of
moral and ethical issues.
To prevent a Bork-advised Romney appointment to the
SUpreme Court, To maintain Medicare, to prevent
denial of health insurance to those with pre-existing
conditions. To prtect reproductive choice, medicaid,
unemployment insurance, food stamps. To keep
open even the possibilty of democratic change.....
If we need an honest man in the White House, that surely rules out Mitt Romney.
1. Pres. Obama signed an Executive Order shortly after the inauguration to close Gitmo. What did the Congress do? It made sure that NO funds would be available for the process. But Mr. Obama had a Democratic majority in Congress. Yes, but how many of those "democrats" were Blue Dogs? Too many to be sure!
2. Pres. Obama wanted to try the 9/11 defendants in NY City where the crime took place. What happened? Hypocrites such as Rudy Guiliani, Peter King and a host of others said that it would be too dangerous. Exactly opposite the position that they took BEFORE Mr. Obama was elected!
3. The USA Patriot Act and the NDAA were passed by the Congress with veto-proof majorities. Would it have mattered if the President had indicated that he would veto the legislation?
Am I pleased by the drone attacks? No, however, if the President did not go after these suspected terrorists the right (wrong) wing would lay a charge of being weak on him.
Notice that the mouth breathing trolls on RSN only crawl out of their holes when an article is pro Obama. I don't even bother to read their bile...just auto red thumb the name as they have absolutely nothing of value to contribute.
However, I cannot believe that you think drone attacks are justified because Republicans will vilify Obama if he doesn't use them. He is setting us up for a future in which we will be ducking from the drones sent by other countries in retaliation for the US strikes.
Daniel Ellsberg makes a serious statement, which we can take to heart. This election is not one which can be handed to the repugs. They will implement atrocity worldwide beyond Obama's atrocities. Repugs will continue to implement e-voting after which there is no choice. Time to hold our noses & vote none-the-less in swing-states. With friends like Springsteen & most of US, Canadian, NATO country citizens mad with a George Orwell uninformed 'hate' rabies, making peace isn't going to be easy. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/home/2-mutual-aid
We have much work to do if we want to return the US of A to a country that believes in the values enshrined in the Constitution. However, note that this will entail electing representatives to the House and Senate who will uphold these values, and making sure that any new members of SCOTUS agree with these positions as well. The record of the current SCOTUS and our COngressional respresentative s have not been good on these issues for more than a decade!
http://www.alternet.org/election-2012/greg-palast-mitt-romneys-bailout-bonanza-how-he-made-millions-rescue-detroit?akid=9545.294695.C_hQsX&rd=1&src=newsletter729448&t=3
Like many I am deeply disappointed with Obama's performance, but I did not have great expectations to begin with. They are all politicians and cannot be trusted. I'm sick of the fact that we are always left with a choice between the lesser of evils. However the thought of Romney ruling the world is truly horrifying. One collective option might be that in swing states we vote for Obama, but in those states where progressive and independent votes won't make a difference, vote your conscience, it could help expand a base for alternative 'partys', though I would still refuse to swallow any party line.
Obama has attempted to do what he spoke of in 2008:
-withdraw from Iraq, target the real enemies (I stand with Bill Maher on this), expand and regulate health insurance, and provide a voice for the voiceless.
Of course he has not done enough to please us chronic compainers on the left. But what exactly do some of you expect? We never had the super majority necessary to pass the truly progressive "change" we would all prefer. How exactly do you enact a progressive agenda when even some Democrats (the Southerners) are difficult to rely on.
The Dems in office are realists-unlike many who read RSN. They understand that a disaster in all its Corporatist/Fas cist glory would sweep the nation without them. Its the country we live in. Ignorance reigns and conservatives with their simplistic demonization of anything liberal gives order to white America.
And all of this "lesser of two evils" stuff is nonsense. There is no definitive "good" or "evil". Those are merely absolutes that have nothing to do with every day life and its need for conflict resolution.
I agree. Having said that, allow me to offer a parody. To the tune of Neil Young’s “Ohio”:
The missiles appeared suddenly
We’re bloodied and broken-boned
Some murderers; some unlucky
Killed by Obama’s drones
Gotta face up to it,
Remotely blowing us up
Who's the real terrorist? Who?
What if you knew us?
This ain’t a video game
They'll soon be aiming at you
Na na na na na na na na
Na na na na na na na
Na na na na na na na na
Killed by Obama's drones (How many more?)
Killed by Obama's drones (screams)
Killed by Obama's drones, etc.
Yeah, I know it's not funny. I'm genuinely torn between voting Green and holding my nose and voting for Obama here in the Buckeye State.
1. What do you say to the millions of people who's Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, college grants, and college loans will be threatened by romney's Presidency?
2. What do you say to the millions who will be killed and have their lives destroyed when Twit starts the WAR he wants with IRAN?
If you are too proud to vote for Obama, thereby enabling Twit to seize the White House, in affect you're saying:
"FUCK 'EM".
------------------------------
It's time to get over yourselves.
It's not one man who wages war. There are loads of megalomaniac Yanks who have been on power trip since 1945. Who cares who gets in? Obama would stand by tutting and watch Israel attack Iran then join in, and Romney would do the same but enjoy it openly. The USA is a bullying murderous criminal state. We'll have to wait a few more years in hope that the Chinese become big just enough to bring the Yankie knuckle-dragger s down a peg or six.
Then again, even as a foreign citizen who has no place in this election except from the sidelines and hates Americans, EVEN YOU have a vested interest in seeing President Obama win.
Do you think the President couldn't have started a war with Iran ALREADY if he he had wanted to? Do you think repugs were trying to prevent it? That's a laugh. Regardless of what people want to hear, he HAS drawn the Iraq war (that repugs wanted to continue for 100 years) to a close. His plans to end the Afghan War are serious enough that repugs fear them as well. Repugs see a HUGE difference between the two on foreign policy, even if you don't want us to.
Do you think the rest of the world will be unaffected if Twit gets in and starts WWIII with Iran? That could take this whole planet down several pegs.
PART1
Not true. I find myself empathising with a significant number of the kind of US citizens who subscribe to these pages, and that includes you. Indeed, this is the reason I bother to subscribe. Let me also add that in my view there is a difference between the State of the USA and its citizens, just as I see a difference between the State of Israel and its citizens. Here in the UK, Zionist conspirators level the charge of anti-Semite against anyone who criticises the State of Israel, and the dumb British masses fall for it every time, just like the dumb (present company excepted) US masses think that voting for a President will make any real difference. Clinton may have held back the fascist tide of Bushism, but it was well and truly released in 2000.
I agree, I do have a vested interest in seeing Obama win, but I would argue in the sense that whoever gains control of the USA’s unparalleled military industrial complex will affect the world in which I live one way or another.
CONTINUED IN PART 2...
PART 2
Again, I concur with you that Obama can attack Iran at anytime and that Romney, McCain, et al would love to discharge the first Hellfire from their bunker. But since you mention Iraq, isn’t it the case that Obama has run out of money so the draw-down was inevitable? Anyway, thanks to Uncle Sam and his crony Brit allies, Iraq is now full of mercenaries and paramilitaries killing with impunity so there is no need for normal troops.
No I don’t think the rest of the world will be unaffected if Romney wins. In fact I am pretty certain that Romney will continue the USA’s campaign of global slaughter, murder, assassination, execution, occupation and torture with total impunity. My point is that Romney will do it openly and proudly and brag about it, whereas Obama will do it quietly and agonise about it; just like Blair.
I just hope Bruce keeps up with this same sentiment and anti-nuke activism if there are any attempts at building NEW nukes in the U.S. in the next four years no matter who is President.
A vote for Obama is a vote for acceleration of climate chaos. I'm voting for Rocky Anderson, who has aggressively protected the environment for decades and reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 31% as mayor of Salt Lake City.
Jim Lehrer, Candy Crawley, and the other “journalists” should be ashamed of their role in this travesty.
Where is the truth the rest of us deserve? Where is the story of the usurpation of the “Debates” from the LOWV by Frank Fahrenkopf and Paul Kirk, the RNC and the DNC, in the mid 80’s? Of the contrived dog and pony show carefully, completely, and semi-secretly scripted and orchestrated by the Republocrats? Of their unrelenting measures to exclude the voice of any third party? Of David Cobb, Michael Badnarik, and 2 days ago, Dr. Jill Stein and Cheri Honkala, arrested as third party candidates protesting exclusion from the “Debate”? Of lawsuits by third party candidates Ralph Nader and Gary Johnson, likewise excluded? Of six big corporate donors semi-secretly funding the tax-exempt organization that is the CPD?
Why is the only option for the 99% to hear third party candidates with serious solutions to our critical issues, www.democracynow, afforded almost no attention by the Fourth Estate?
We are approaching a political cliff; at the bottom is Fascism. Our electoral process has been confiscated, along with our power and treasury, by the oligarchs behind the duopoly of Rombama.
www.voterocky.org/solutions
You're saying that it's pointless voting for something you actually believe in since they can't win anyway. But that's only the case if everyone thinks it is. If nobody believes a third party can win and so does not vote for it, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. In face it's akin to saying that one vote won't decide the election anyway, so you might as well stay home. This is true, as long as you're the only one following it. But as soon as many people start following it, it's not true anymore. Luckily there are quite a few (but not enough) people NOT following it when it comes to actually voting.
However, when it comes to voting third party, a groupthink prevails where most progressives just refuse to see the bigger picture.
In addition, although working between elections to strengthen a third party certainly is great, giving that party political capital both locally and nationally by actually voting for it WILL make a DIFFERENCE -- while doubling down on the "two factions of the corporate party" system will NOT. Some differences during the next four years, yes, but in the long run the two parties' power will be entrenched and the US will continue to move to the right, whether R or D the next four years.
Right now, according to electoral-vote. com, if the election were held today Twit would only need 22 more electoral to be President and start the war with Iran by late January.
If you want to make a multi-party system the way to do it is to CHANGE THE SYSTEM. By voting against the Democratic Party (this IS what you're doing), all you're doing is to replace one of the two parties with another one. Which one will it be? There are currently 3 other left-wing parties that I know of vying to be the one to replace the Democratic Party.
If you got your way we STILL wouldn't have a multi-party system. Our electoral process punishes the very idea. We'd have the repug party + a DIFFERENT party representing the left. Since this would be a party to include no moderates, it would generate about 10% of the vote to the repugs 90%.
Of course that's never going to happen. What we CAN do is make about 4 or 5 left-wing parties all compete for the 50% of the electorate that won't vote repug.
Who do you think will win ALWAYS, FROM THEN ON?
CONT.
Now, let's assume we all ACTUALLY WANTED to elect Twit Romney by splitting our vote in 10 or 15 different directions (like you do):
There ARE ALREADY polls being taken EVERY DAY asking people who they plan to vote for in the coming election. How many people currently say they're going to vote for the Green Party, or the Rocky Anderson Party, or the National Potato Awareness Party?
Actually, only about 1-2% of the electorate plans to vote against both major candidates. Sorry, but THEM'S THE FACTS.
What do you plan to accomplish by taking the Presidency away from President Obama? War with Iran (what repugs want but Obama has held off)? Further federal "security" measures to monitor everything you say, do or think (what repugs want but Obama has held off), or further "austerity" measures to take even more money from the poor and what's left of the middle-class to divert it to the extremely rich (what repugs want but Obama has held off)?
----------------
Tell me: IF YOU WERE a republican plant, how would your strategic objective on this site be substantially different from anything you're trying to accomplish?
Will I get a substantive response from you, since I replied to you just 5 hours after your comment was uploaded?
I also explained to you how the "groupthink" is really just a majority of liberals who actually DO see a bigger picture - one you're unwilling to acknowledge.
I don't think you responded to my first point at all, and only partially to my second point. I'll respond to that first. Lets assume, like you do, that a third party got a substantial amount of the votes. This would of course not mean that the Democratis party got no votes, or even less votes than the third party - certainly not on the first election where the third party got a substantial amount of the votes. So then we *would* have three parties. Yes, the Republicans would probably win (but not with 90%, rather with the same percentage as now), but it would majorly change the political landscape. Now the Democrats would actually have to do something to get the progressive vote. With the Democrats more progressive, the Republicans don't have to be as batshit crazy reactionary as they are now. What is actually happening, and has been for some decades, is that the Democrats move continually to the right and the Republicans do to; they have to to differentiate themselves from the Democrats. Voting R or D enforces and continues this process.
cont.
One more thing about your argument that we would still have two parties. That scenario assumes that the Democrats got no or very few votes. If that were to happen, it must mean that those votes went to the third party instead, which would mean that the third party would be as big as the Democrats are now (not 10% as you said). Think about it.
My first point about groupthink you didn't actually respond to. You just said that not following this "groupthink" (according to me) would lead to a Republican victory, and that *that* is the bigger picture. I'd argue that framing this in terms of just this election and the *stated* difference between the two corporate candidates, is as far from the bigger picture as you can get.
cont
If I were a Republican plant..? How the hell am I to respond to that? Seems like a sneaky way of undermining my argument to suggest that. I'll just say that I'm a big fan of Chris Hedges, so I guess you can assume that he's a Republican plant to.
RSS feed for comments to this post