New Testingstan

Not going forward, when the alternative is going backward... Seems like an acceptable trade, if not an ideal one.

You "just" have to continue to push forward, that's all. Because those who want to go backward sure won't stop pushing in that direction.

But there's times I can understand the will of some to get into communities more or less cut from the external world. Just to be left alone from all the ambient stupidity...

Glass Fort MacLeod wrote:Remember, in the us there were some 48 million people who actually thought 'President Romney' was a good idea.

Not necessarily... maybe they just thought President Obama was a worse idea. Don't assume people are stupid.

adr wrote:

Glass Fort MacLeod wrote:Remember, in the us there were some 48 million people who actually thought 'President Romney' was a good idea.

Not necessarily... maybe they just thought President Obama was a worse idea. Don't assume people are stupid.

I don't really assume they're stupid, at least not if I think about it. But that's actually the most horrifying thing I think. Those are probably all people like me except.. they view Romney as the 'Least Worst Option' and they are willing to put up with the current Republican party backing him (including people like in the HPCA thread, Limbaugh, Fox News, etc.) simply so that Obama doesn't win.

And I don't begrduge people voting an alternative party other than the Dems or Republicans, but part of me can't help but think its also contributing to that possible slide towards things getting worse. Its very hard to build things up positive in America (like universal health care), but its very easy to tear things down or destroy (tax cuts, repealing social services, funding the military industrial complex, etc.) and I can't really bring myself to take that step because, quite simply, I feel like I'd be contributing towards America becomign even worse than it actually is. I really do feel symbolic gestures are pretty meaningless, no offense, because I feel horrible for saying that as well.

Oh, and just to point out the absurdity in the US system these are the presidential candidates and parties that showed up on election ballots (aobut eight of those showed up on the one I had) - and most of these people I hadn't even heard of before outside of SDN. How fucked up si that?

Really? Romney provided no details on anything other then "I'm not Obama" a large helping of racism and discrimination. So yes, you are stupid for believing he would be better, if those are the reasons why they thought he would be better. At the very least they are blinded by ideology or can't be bothered to investigate.

All of those are negative traits for society as a whole.

Now if people want to celebrate Obama's victory, then go ahead. It at least leaves thing static. And to be honest, its cool to see a minority as President. I never thought it would happen in my life time.

I was mildly curious to see what would happen if Romney won and the Democrats controlled the Senate. From what I heard when he was Mass Gov he actually managed to work with the Dem Legislature reasonably well. So would he have gone against campaign rhetoric in the interests of compromise with a D-controlled Senate? And how obstructionist would the House be with a Republican President?

That could be possibly I guess a reason for voting Romney, because I think we all know with Obama the House will basically do what they've been doing the last two years. With Romney who knows if it would have been different - or if he'd be all into cockblocking the Senate too.

Of course we'll never know.

Jesus Christ I put in a shitload of typos. Hope I managed to get them all now.

Romney was just as aloof and hateful when he was in Massachusetts.

All I know of that is his now infamous meeting with LGBT couples, which made him look like a massive asshole.

What I tend to remember Romney for is that he was basically the Republican's Last Choice for a Candidate. I think they even gave Bachmann more of a chance before they turned to Mitt, which tells you something. But there was Santorum, Herman Cain, Newt, and all the others who got put into the spotlight but failed for various reasons.. until theere was Mitt. and possibly Ron Paul.

I remember Huntsman was an option but I dont think the Republicans ever seriously got behind him. In fact I think the Republicans would have preferred someone like Perry or Santorum.

it's kind of a bummer because from what i know of huntsman if he ran i'd vote for him over obama

Aaron wrote:Really? Romney provided no details on anything other then "I'm not Obama" a large helping of racism and discrimination. So yes, you are stupid for believing he would be better, if those are the reasons why they thought he would be better. At the very least they are blinded by ideology or can't be bothered to investigate.

All of those are negative traits for society as a whole.

Now if people want to celebrate Obama's victory, then go ahead. It at least leaves thing static. And to be honest, its cool to see a minority as President. I never thought it would happen in my life time.

I think ADR's point was that the people on the opposite side aren't mustache twirling villains or 'evil' in any way, even if the activities they may defend or promote could be considered horrible (like discrimination against women, gays, non-Christians, etc.) They're human like you or me, and their thought processes run along lines similar to ours and are equally fallible, and thus can be persuaded (or believe) that someone is as genuinely bad as portrayed.

Fact is that the American public is very easily swayed and prone to propoganda from both sides while at the same time being told how clever and independent minded we are by the same information outlets (media, etc.) feeding us that information we rely on to make our decisions. Couple that with decades of American cultural arrogance and.. well.. *shrugs*

I think the media circus this cycle of elections became should adeuqately prove that point (esp after the 'presidential' debates, which were pure drama and eye candy.)

Losonti Tokash wrote:it's kind of a bummer because from what i know of huntsman if he ran i'd vote for him over obama

If he could avoid the pressure from the REpublican party itself and all the factions involved? I could see that being possible too. But the same could have been said of Mitt Romney too. depsite the propoganda he didn't really come across as being nearly as horrible as, say, Bachmann. When we speak to how bad A Romney presidency woudl be I think we speak more of how Mitt might have been compelled to act by those Republican interests backing him.

Edit: Case in point, look how Chris Christie was reviled for not sticking to the Party Line even though he was technically doing one of those things conservatives are always big on - exercising states rights.

Glass Fort MacLeod wrote:

Aaron wrote:Really? Romney provided no details on anything other then "I'm not Obama" a large helping of racism and discrimination. So yes, you are stupid for believing he would be better, if those are the reasons why they thought he would be better. At the very least they are blinded by ideology or can't be bothered to investigate.

All of those are negative traits for society as a whole.

Now if people want to celebrate Obama's victory, then go ahead. It at least leaves thing static. And to be honest, its cool to see a minority as President. I never thought it would happen in my life time.

I think ADR's point was that the people on the opposite side aren't mustache twirling villains or 'evil' in any way, even if the activities they may defend or promote could be considered horrible (like discrimination against women, gays, non-Christians, etc.) They're human like you or me, and their thought processes run along lines similar to ours and are equally fallible, and thus can be persuaded (or believe) that someone is as genuinely bad as portrayed.

Fact is that the American public is very easily swayed and prone to propoganda from both sides while at the same time being told how clever and independent minded we are by the same information outlets (media, etc.) feeding us that information we rely on to make our decisions. Couple that with decades of American cultural arrogance and.. well.. *shrugs*

I think the media circus this cycle of elections became should adeuqately prove that point (esp after the 'presidential' debates, which were pure drama and eye candy.)

Lol, he probably should have said that then.

look when the response to "should we allow poor people to die of treatable diseases just because they can't pay for it" is "yes" i don't know what the fuck

That's not a market-friendly solution.

Aaron wrote:Lol, he probably should have said that then.

I could be wrong

Aaron wrote:All I know of that is his now infamous meeting with LGBT couples, which made him look like a massive asshole.

During the election he lost by one of the widest margins in history.

As governor he tried to stay as far away from local officials as possible. Everyone had to go through his secretaries and make appointments.

Aaron wrote: Romney provided no details on anything other then "I'm not Obama" a large helping of racism and discrimination.

No campaign is based on details. Governor Romney was selling himself based on one word: "change". (Sound familiar?)

He'd talk about how middle class people have been hurting these last four years and how we need a new approach. This is a completely reasonable thing to say.

President Obama, obviously, represents the same approach. If you want something different, he's out. Since this is a two man race as far as most people know (not because they are stupid, but because the system is rigged that way), the only choice for change is the opponent: Mr. Romney.


Now, a lot of people didn't like what Romney was selling. But, they knew they disliked Obama more. I saw several Republicans on the facebook saying "Romney isn't great, but a vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Barack Obama. Can you afford another four years of this?"



It isn't about stupidity. It's about hope for change for some, or fear of change for others. Combine that with the false choice put on us by the ruling class, and you the results we just saw.

You give humanity more credit then it deserves.

I was watching the various US networks coverage yesterday and had to laugh at the constant assertion that 'this shows he hasn't got a mandate'. Does it matter? He crushed his opponent last time and the GOP's reaction was to give him absolutely nothing.

http://m.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/11/r ... s-crumbles

now don't do this again GOP

Wow, "emergency rape" huh?

I don't even know where to go with that. It conjures an image of a guy with a light strapped to his head making siren noises.

Almost certainly means the classic alley rape though.

From that link: Rape is just another method of conception.

And from the guy that could have been VP. Clearly they need to double down and get more conservative the next go around.

Losonti Tokash wrote:look when the response to "should we allow poor people to die of treatable diseases just because they can't pay for it" is "yes" i don't know what the fuck

This. This, so many times over. This is why I can, with a straight face, say that Americans are at least 40-some odd% stupid.

http://whitepeoplemourningromney.tumblr.com/


poor crackers

The thing that I keep noticing is how in many of the cases the margins of victory were so narrow, much in the same way Bachmann won by a narrow margin (but she still won, which is disturbing in and of itself.)

Again that tells you something about the American mindset, even if you take into account that they're just as human as the rest of us and prone to fears and hopes and such.