Originally Posted by The Rani

I thought you voted for the dude ... buyers remorse already???

Well, to be fair, I never expected anything from Obama except to be marginally less bad than McCain or Romney. By the time the primaries are over and the donations made, the choice is well-framed and voting third party doesn't accomplish much.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Just in case you were wondering your rating -

1.:-( :-(
2.
3.:-( :-(
4. :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
5.
6.

I think she has a good dose of #5 too. But she's the poster girl for #4 no doubt.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Thanks for all the clues, Deb, you're light-years ahead of your generation

Thanks for that amazing compliment! In the eyes of some of my peers, I've always lived on the island of misfits.

Okay. Instead of playing the blame game, how about defining what you want and doing some grass-roots organizing to get it? And I don't mean just grass-roots organizing to elect Our Party's Candidate for president out of fear of That Other Party's Evil Candidate for president. That's just necessary, it is NOT sufficient.

Organize to elect your Congresscritters, since that's where the action is, and organize to let your congressional candidates know you're serious enough to elect someone else in the next primary if they don't come through, and have enough voters to make good on your threat. I have never heard of it working any other way unless you're rich enough to simply buy them - and make sure they stay bought. (Well, OK, maybe blackmail.)

Originally Posted by The Rani

So basically you got what you expected.
I don't see why you're bitching about it at this point. It's a little late for that.

Oh, I didn't know we weren't allowed to disagree with anyone we've voted for! I suppose we'll never hear you bitching about partisan group-think again?

I agree with Grey Badger: Now's the time to worry about organizing, third parties, future primary candidates, etc... not a few weeks before the election when the ballots are printed and 90% of the electorate already has their minds made up.

Originally Posted by The Rani

So STFU and start organizing then.
Sorry, but I have little patience for people who vote for someone and then scream about the results when their guy wins. You asked for it, you got it. Deal with it.

Aww, you sound angrier than usual! Need a hug?

Originally Posted by The Rani

Ha!
No man, I'm not the one complaining about being screwed over by da man ... da man that I voted for, no less.

Honestly, Indy already recognized that he had been screwed (and by who) before he voted for the guy. At least he posted pretty clearly to that effect, months ago.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Ha!
No man, I'm not the one complaining about being screwed over by da man ... da man that I voted for, no less.
Hug yourself, if you're so inclined.

Well I looked, but I couldn't find anyone on the ballot who agreed with me on 100% of every policy question! My bad, I didn't realize that voting for someone was gonna bind me to kissing their ass for four years.

"da man," in all of his and her incarnations, isn't necessarily a bad person - just incredibly out of touch. Instead of taking authority from our politicians, we have to keep thinking for ourselves. Then, maybe someday, someone will figure out a way to teach them about what is important to those of us outside the beltway. Maybe. Someday. Probably with pitchforks.

And damnit, sometimes we just need to bitch and whine. Medicine in America doesn't work very well for patients or medical professionals, so there's plenty of things for plenty of people to whine about. By that metric, American doctors are the whiniest in the modern world because they're the least happy with the status quo and direction of reforms.

Hell, I'm healthy and I can afford my insurance. I'm not even personally getting screwed over. I could try the Nelson Muntz approach and laugh at the people who really lose out, but I think we have enough of those types already...

Originally Posted by The Rani

Now here we go again. You blame "apologists," then start apologizing for him yourself. wtf

Make no doubt about it, the political situation in America is awful, dangerous, destructive, and often vile.

If that is because people are just inherently bad, we're screwed no matter who wins. If it is a function of enclave extremism in the halls of power (a common theme through history), there's a chance to fix it.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Isn't that even dumber then, to recognize that you have been screwed, then vote for the screwer AGAIN?
I know plenty of folks who did the exact same thing. Complain about the guy ... vote him into office ... then start complaining again.
It makes no sense at all.

It is if the other candidate has promised to screw you over more royally. It's as if there someone arranged a marriage for you and said "Here are your two choices, pick one. Dick Doe will treat you like a slave and then whine to everyone that you don't do anything to earn your keep. Joe Blow will make you vague promises and then weasel out on them. And no, you can NOT opt to stay single."

Originally Posted by The Rani

You asked for it, you got it. Deal with it.

That's right...they asked for it, they got it and they'll find themselves being stuck dealing with it for the next twenty years.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

It is if the other candidate has promised to screw you over more royally. It's as if there someone arranged a marriage for you and said "Here are your two choices, pick one. Dick Doe will treat you like a slave and then whine to everyone that you don't do anything to earn your keep. Joe Blow will make you vague promises and then weasel out on them. And no, you can NOT opt to stay single."

Dick Doe ain't going to focus its efforts on you or make you feel special, support special laws and protections to make you feel secure to gain your love and loyalty. Joe Blow is going to focus on you and make feel special, support the special laws it created to make you feel secure, earn your love/loyalty and then burn you in the end.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Ya know, Eric, you keep saying that you want to discuss issues not personalities, yet you keep posting crap like this.
Seems to me that you can dish it out but you can't take it.

It's not really a personal issue; it's what you think on the issue of health care. It seems you often agree with the libertarian point of view about big government; which is what #5 alludes to, given due allowance for the style playwrite presented a point of view he disagrees with. As for #4, I'm just agreeing with playwrite's assessment, and everyone knows you're the queen of snark. It's fine with me whatever you do.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Okay. Instead of playing the blame game, how about defining what you want and doing some grass-roots organizing to get it? And I don't mean just grass-roots organizing to elect Our Party's Candidate for president out of fear of That Other Party's Evil Candidate for president. That's just necessary, it is NOT sufficient.

Organize to elect your Congresscritters, since that's where the action is, and organize to let your congressional candidates know you're serious enough to elect someone else in the next primary if they don't come through, and have enough voters to make good on your threat. I have never heard of it working any other way unless you're rich enough to simply buy them - and make sure they stay bought. (Well, OK, maybe blackmail.)

Seems a sensible approach to me.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Isn't that even dumber then, to recognize that you have been screwed, then vote for the screwer AGAIN?
I know plenty of folks who did the exact same thing. Complain about the guy ... vote him into office ... then start complaining again.
It makes no sense at all.

It kind of makes sense, if you buy into the well-pushed notion that the job for which a guy is being selected, and the organization of which it is a part, has a purpose other than screwing you over. Once you accept that (counterfactual) point, it actually makes pretty good sense to ask politely, whenever you are permitted by your rulers, for the overseer who is the marginally less cruel of the options you are given.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

It is if the other candidate has promised to screw you over more royally. It's as if there someone arranged a marriage for you and said "Here are your two choices, pick one. Dick Doe will treat you like a slave and then whine to everyone that you don't do anything to earn your keep. Joe Blow will make you vague promises and then weasel out on them. And no, you can NOT opt to stay single."

Crazy laws and dysfunctional systems cease to exist, when we stop cooperating with it/them. This is the only way justice has prevailed throughout history. If we think back over hundreds of years, it was when unjust systems were met with resistance, did oppressive laws change.

Had many brave souls accepted unjust rules and systems; heretics would still be drawn and quartered, African Americans would still be sitting at the back of the bus, and women would never have the right to vote. I could go on about the numerous advancements because of the brave souls who stepped outside the box, but I won't bore you with things you already know.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

It kind of makes sense, if you buy into the well-pushed notion that the job for which a guy is being selected, and the organization of which it is a part, has a purpose other than screwing you over. Once you accept that (counterfactual) point

It's not counterfactual, of course. Maintaining the existence of civilization and avoiding a collapse back to hunter-gatherer is rather an important purpose. That doesn't excuse screwing us over -- well, if the proposed alternative is doing away with the whole system and not replacing it with anything else that has a snowball's chance in hell of working, actually I guess it does.

I'm not prepared yet to accept that that's the only alternative, though. Depressing thought.

Originally Posted by The Rani

In how many states were there only two candidates on the ballot?

If you're talking about the Presidential race, any state which mandates that a 3rd party needs to get X% of the vote in an earlier race in order to get on the ballot, or get Y number of signatures percentage-wise. Including New Mexico.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Crazy laws and dysfunctional systems cease to exist, when we stop cooperating with it/them. This is the only way justice has prevailed throughout history. If we think back over hundreds of years, it was when unjust systems were met with resistance, did oppressive laws change.

Had many brave souls accepted unjust rules and systems; heretics would still be drawn and quartered, African Americans would still be sitting at the back of the bus, and women would never have the right to vote. I could go on about the numerous advancements because of the brave souls who stepped outside the box, but I won't bore you with things you already know.

And the Civil Rights movement was organized down to a gnat's eyelash, especially with the number of GIs and Silents running it. As organized as the NRA is today. They had a very clear definition of what they wanted. And they made it extremely clear that access to the ballot box was very high on their list, which resonated with almost all Americans outside the South and some within the South. AND they were very, very insistent on nonviolent tactics and presenting a very respectable front. Look at those old photos sometimes. Marching in business garb!

Realistically, there were only two candidates who had a chance to win. Well, really, only one. But Romney's chance to win, though not impressive, was a lot better than anyone else's except Obama's.

We've got a system badly skewed by the influence of money but even without that we would still have a two-party system, because with winner-take-all elections instead of proportional representation that's the only thing that makes sense. A candidate that can win is one that appeals to a broad spectrum of the electorate, which means he's a compromise candidate and nobody's ideal.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

And the Civil Rights movement was organized down to a gnat's eyelash, especially with the number of GIs and Silents running it. As organized as the NRA is today. They had a very clear definition of what they wanted. And they made it extremely clear that access to the ballot box was very high on their list, which resonated with almost all Americans outside the South and some within the South. AND they were very, very insistent on nonviolent tactics and presenting a very respectable front. Look at those old photos sometimes. Marching in business garb!

Many activists are involved in organizing nonviolent and respectful resistance, including Occupy. That's not to say that some provacators have infiltrated the movement and tried to sabotage the core principles. They did the same thing with the Civil Rights movement.

The main leaders of Occupy and other peace and justice movements have subscribed to the same educational and respectful tactics of civil disobedience to affect change as did the Civil Rights activists. Highland Folk school was one of the anchors and teaching facilities of peaceful protest of that movement. Rosa Parks attended workshops there before her historic civil disobedience on the bus. If voting was the ultimate way of affecting change, they wouldn't have had to teach them in the skills of non-violent action and disobedience. The facility would have just addressed the literacy issues, taught them to register to vote, and then provided transportation to the polling place.

There's a lot of preparation and risk in challenging unjust laws. While voting may have its place, there has to actions and voices brave enough to challenge unjust laws.

As Emma Goldman said, "If voting alone changed anything, they'd make it illegal."

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Realistically, there were only two candidates who had a chance to win. Well, really, only one. But Romney's chance to win, though not impressive, was a lot better than anyone else's except Obama's.

How many millions of hurting Americans could relate to a billionaire with an elevator for his friggin cars? It's almost as if the Republicans wanted to lose by running such a candidate.

Many of my friends voted for Obama. Not because they believed in him as a president for the people, but out of fear of Romney/Ryan in the White House. Fear is far from a mandate.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Many of my friends voted for Obama. Not because they believed in him as a president for the people, but out of fear of Romney/Ryan in the White House. Fear is far from a mandate.

Actually, as long as we have a single president separately elected it is. The kind of mandate you're talking about -- where a majority of the people actually believes in a candidate wholeheartedly -- is impossible.

To see this, just do a thought-experiment in which all lesser-of-two-evils considerations disappear and everyone votes for the ideal candidate of his or her choice, using write-ins as necessary. Or as close to that ideal as can be found among real-world politicians. (You and I might have both written in Bernie Sanders.)

Without any of the kind of compromise that results in two main candidates, nobody would have won an electoral college majority. A lot of different and highly diverse candidates would have had "mandates" from smallish fractions of the people, but no one would have had majority approval. The election would have gone to the House, and Romney would have been elected president.

Our system is simply not designed to produce "mandates" of the kind you're talking about. It's designed to produce a compromise figure. It did that. Obama is considered ideal by just about nobody, but is considered acceptable, given the available alternatives, by enough people to constitute willingness to follow.

And that, by the way, is also how Romney won the GOP nomination. He was not the first choice of a majority of Republicans, but he was the one they could agree on, sort of, as a compromise.

Originally Posted by The Rani

New Mexico had six choices this year, according to:
http://www.sos.state.nm.us/Voter_Inf...lot.aspx#POTUS

Hmmm... either I went in with my eyes closed, or ...well, you decidedly win. I should have looked into the smaller parties earlier.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Actually, as long as we have a single president separately elected it is. The kind of mandate you're talking about -- where a majority of the people actually believes in a candidate wholeheartedly -- is impossible.

To see this, just do a thought-experiment in which all lesser-of-two-evils considerations disappear and everyone votes for the ideal candidate of his or her choice, using write-ins as necessary. Or as close to that ideal as can be found among real-world politicians. (You and I might have both written in Bernie Sanders.)

Without any of the kind of compromise that results in two main candidates, nobody would have won an electoral college majority. A lot of different and highly diverse candidates would have had "mandates" from smallish fractions of the people, but no one would have had majority approval. The election would have gone to the House, and Romney would have been elected president.

Our system is simply not designed to produce "mandates" of the kind you're talking about. It's designed to produce a compromise figure. It did that. Obama is considered ideal by just about nobody, but is considered acceptable, given the available alternatives, by enough people to constitute willingness to follow.

And that, by the way, is also how Romney won the GOP nomination. He was not the first choice of a majority of Republicans, but he was the one they could agree on, sort of, as a compromise.