Originally Posted by playwrite

And, of course, the Establishment is 85% of voters.

I see you are totally ignorant about how the 1% messes with people's heads. They have honed this stuff into a science over the last 90 years since Edward Bernays.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Well, he is a Democratic Boomer, and it's the Republican Boomers who stick to their war games plans. Seriously, when they get into the Nursing Home--I mean Communities for the Young at Heart--I mean Individual Living Quarters for the Young at Heart, the Red Boomers can all get together and play a gigantic game of Risk every day, and the Blue Boomers can have arts and crafts time and create protest signs so they can protest the war games.

^^^Not original material, borrowed from a friend.

~Chas'88

Now I feel like playing Risk.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Of course not. No intelligent person agrees with Rand.

Sadly, I have run into a lot of intelligent but emotionally stunted men (and they are all men) who treat her garbage like gospel. I used to post on a site for people on the Autism spectrum called Wrong Planet, I left because of all the teenage Randoids.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

I've come to peace with this a little more... thank math.

Using the basic variables present in our constitutionally-defined electoral process, the system always reverts to a two-party equilibrium. If we smashed up the Republican and Democratic parties in to a thousand pieces, they would create new alliances and networks until they formed two major parties again in some slightly different configuration of beliefs. When the variables are fed in to a computer and the simulations are run, it happens again and again for enough elections that our sun would have already run out of fuel.

Which is a simulation-based verification of what's been pretty obvious to an open-minded observer for quite some time: the system works precisely as it was designed to work. These things are features, not bugs. The fact that the system you live under is designed to breed monsters and put them in power over you and people you care about... this is not something I see 'coming to peace' with as a positive development.

The choice is to

A) Pick a lesser of two evils
B) Go all in on a third party that can get big enough to replace one of the others (this also involves congressional races and destroying one of the established parties)
C) ... run away?

You forgot D) remove this system and replace it with one designed with perhaps a bit different priorities. To the extent that there's a 'right' decision for society-at-large, that's probably it.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Uh, sorry, not buying it. Voters elect our government leaders

From among a list of candidates pre-selected by the ruling class, and consisting of members of the ruling class, and maintained by the ruling class.

they rule.

'They' being the leaders -- of course. Being able to pick which baron you live under doesn't make you a ruler. It just makes you a serf.


---
-edit-
Oh, and we've already been over this before. Magic ponies don't poop gold nuggets. Can't you keep even a simple thing straight?

Originally Posted by Aramea

Originally Posted by The Rani

Drone of silence: the national-security policy that Obama and Romney won’t debate

Sorry Eric, but this is why your scare tactics don't work. It already isn't America anymore.

Yup, both love the drones, not much for debate. No one ever called Obama on his continuation of Bushco tactics. I am glad we took out some big bads, but I am queasy about a drone army.

OK, this is certainly true, but test the alternatives, then look for the cause. The alternatives are simple: keep doing this or do it even more. Now for the cause: this is the most direct result of the end to the Equal TIme Rule, now amplified by the Citizens United ruling.

Show me any path to victory for someone who takes the principled stand. We have become a degraded society, and that will continue until it ends ... whenever that will be. I'm hoping that the less paranoid Millies will opt for honor over fear. Until then, we have this 800 pound vision of security sitting on our chests ... and it's there for the duration.

Originally Posted by The Rani

For those who didn't watch the whole video, all four of the "third party" candidates said that they would have vetoed NDAA.

So would I, knowing that it has no impact on my electability. I'm opposed too. Vote for me.

Originally Posted by Aramea

Still considering writing in Huntsman. Write ins have an interesting past.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Write-in_candidate

Huntsman certainly has a much better handle on foreign affaris than either Obama or Romney. On economics, he's solidly to the right of Romney, and virtually identical in philosophy to Paul Ryan.

You may be sending a mixed message.

Originally Posted by Gianthogweed

It's not a surprise that Obama doesn't get Rand.

Even her devotee, Alan Greenspan, seems to have lost faith. In short, the math doesn't work, no matter how hard you try or how tantilizing it is to be among the worthy.

Originally Posted by Odin

I see you are totally ignorant about how the 1% messes with people's heads. They have honed this stuff into a science over the last 90 years since Edward Bernays.

At this juncture, the 'why' isn't nearly as important as the 'what'. We can all find some reason why we're here, and most will be valid at some level. But right now, the problem is where we are, because we aren't moving very far very fast. It took decades to create the current mindset. It won't succumb to a little logic and reason. It may not succumb to anything less than trying it, seeing it fail, and having to live with the blowback. I'm hoping for better than that, but I'm realistic enough to know it won't be easy or quick.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

... You forgot D) remove this system and replace it with one designed with perhaps a bit different priorities. To the extent that there's a 'right' decision for society-at-large, that's probably it.

Good luck with that. You would have a lot better chance trying option C again.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Good luck with that. You would have a lot better chance trying option C again.

Heh. What ever gave you the impression I was planning to stick my neck out at this juncture for society-at-large?

Nope... until I see some justification for the hope that society-at-large really wants to fix things -- and it does happen; kind of often, really, on the historical scale -- I'm gonna have to be motivated to do what Indy correctly identified as best-at-the-individual-level. My great-grandparents did it; Andi's way-way-back ancestors did it. Really, everyone here but Rags (if I've been following closely enough) owes a debt to people in the not-terribly-distant past for having made call C. It's got a good pedigree, that one

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Huntsman certainly has a much better handle on foreign affaris than either Obama or Romney. On economics, he's solidly to the right of Romney, and virtually identical in philosophy to Paul Ryan.

You may be sending a mixed message.

That may be, but as you point out above, we have limited choices. Huntsman seems the least likely to engage us in additional wars. Recent polling has the Senate staying with the Democrats, so we probably won't get much in the way of Randian economics for the next four years. That, and the chance that Huntsman wins are not even worth discussion. If I lived in a swing state, I would be solidly Obama, since Romney's grip on foreign policy is "off".

You know, the most off-putting thing about Romney is his association with right-wing extremism. I don't think that he is terribly right-wing; I actually don't think he gives a fuck either way. He has Grover Norquist's "functioning digits" to sign bills and executive orders. They intend for him to be a sock puppet. This is why he is all over the map in his rhetoric. How would I feel if I am that close to being President only to realize that I won't have any real power? His performance in the debates are a harbinger of negotiations with Congress and international friends and foes. Expect four years of the familiar gridlock as Romney argues with Democrats in the Senate. All of a sudden Fox News will be pissing and moaning about how terrible an opposition Congress is. Democrats will find religion regarding the filibuster.

The more people that reject the status quo the more likely things will be to change.

If you don't want further concentration of wealth and power in this country, and more damage to our planet, go vote against Rob-me and the Republi-con$. If you want to keep our progress on health care, stopping climate change, improving education opportunity, and recovery in unemployment and housing, vote against Rob-me and the Republi-cons.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Heh. Funny.

Prince

PS: Flux the Status Quo!!

He had this one spot on:

Hide our ignorance as we will, an evening of wine soon reveals it.

Originally Posted by Aramea

I don't think that he is terribly right-wing; I actually don't think he gives a fuck either way.

Take the questionnaires and see. Admittedly you can't really pin Romney down on anything. He is simply a liar and a flip-flopper. However, once in office the political winds from the House will blow him toward the right-wing extremism he has embraced so often, and he will appoint judges that will give ever-more power to corporate wealth and power. If he has any conviction at all, it is that policies should favor people like himself.

Hide our ignorance as we will, an evening of wine soon reveals it.

I wonder what some wine would reveal from the mouth of Romney (and if it was recorded). But I guess Mormons don't drink.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

OK, this is certainly true, but test the alternatives, then look for the cause. The alternatives are simple: keep doing this or do it even more. Now for the cause: this is the most direct result of the end to the Equal Time Rule, now amplified by the Citizens United ruling.

Show me any path to victory for someone who takes the principled stand. We have become a degraded society, and that will continue until it ends ... whenever that will be. I'm hoping that the less paranoid Millies will opt for honor over fear. Until then, we have this 800 pound vision of security sitting on our chests ... and it's there for the duration.

It is certainly a dreary scenario. My crystal ball gives me hope that major change is ahead about 10 years from now, breaking the stalemate of our times. Exactly what things will look like afterward depends on the people though.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Take the questionnaires and see. Admittedly you can't really pin Romney down on anything. He is simply a liar and a flip-flopper. However, once in office the political winds from the House will blow him toward the right-wing extremism he has embraced so often, and he will appoint judges that will give ever-more power to corporate wealth and power. If he has any conviction at all, it is that policies should favor people like himself.



I wonder what some wine would reveal from the mouth of Romney (and if it was recorded). But I guess Mormons don't drink.

That is pretty much what I was getting at. He will ape what the party wants, IMO. I don't think he has much of an agenda of his own or he would run on it.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

You forgot D) remove this system and replace it with one designed with perhaps a bit different priorities. To the extent that there's a 'right' decision for society-at-large, that's probably it.

I agree with you there. Stay tuned to the 2020s.

I agree with playwrite though; it's up to the people what happens, not the ruling class. The people still vote, and anyone can run for local and state office. It is possible for voters to reject candidates with the most money, and party backing means little today. Most voters are independent. It is up to the voters not to be bamboozled by the slogans and the ads. If they are deceived, it is their own fault.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Well, he is a Democratic Boomer, and it's the Republican Boomers who stick to their war games plans. Seriously, when they get into the Nursing Home--I mean Communities for the Young at Heart--I mean Individual Living Quarters for the Young at Heart, the Red Boomers can all get together and play a gigantic game of Risk every day, and the Blue Boomers can have arts and crafts time and create protest signs so they can protest the war games.

^^^Not original material, borrowed from a friend.

~Chas'88

Sounds pretty spot on. Except I as a Blue Boomer also love playing Risk. According to libertarian Xers, after all, we blue boomers love nothing so much as power and control, remember? So you could get some of us Red and Blue Boomers playing Risk together, at least until we start throwing the pieces at each other. Then again, that stage is a ways away for many of us boomers, who are staying young and involved in the real fray for as long as we can.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Sounds pretty spot on. Except I as a Blue Boomer also love playing Risk. According to libertarian Xers, after all, we blue boomers love nothing so much as power and control, remember? So you could get some of us Red and Blue Boomers playing Risk together, at least until we start throwing the pieces at each other. Then again, that stage is a ways away for many of us boomers, who are staying young and involved in the real fray for as long as we can.

I love Risk. In fact, I may suggest a game this weekend since my brother is home. This is one of the few board games, along with Sorry! (a Risk precursor), that my learning-disabled son really "gets". He's ruthless.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Well, he is a Democratic Boomer, and it's the Republican Boomers who stick to their war games plans. Seriously, when they get into the Nursing Home--I mean Communities for the Young at Heart--I mean Individual Living Quarters for the Young at Heart, the Red Boomers can all get together and play a gigantic game of Risk every day, and the Blue Boomers can have arts and crafts time and create protest signs so they can protest the war games.

^^^Not original material, borrowed from a friend.

~Chas'88

When its my time to be put to pasture, I'll play Scrabble with any one, Red or Blue.

Risk is awesome. I think I'd like that more than arts and crafts.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

The abject panic on the left is evident from this thread, so it doesn't require much commentary, except to say that it comes from the top down. Obama's attacks on Romney are becoming desperate. Yesterday he actually called him a "disease". Not the kind of thing you see in the last week of the campaign from somebody who's winning. It's very similar to Bush I's behavior at the end in 1992.

Anyway, yesterday the ABC/WP tracking poll had Romney +1. Today it's Romney +3, identical to Rasmussen and Gallup: Romney 50, Obama 47. How many of those 3% of undecideds are going to vote for Obama? Something very close to none.

*Compare to 2004 and 2008.

One major difference from 92' is that GHW Bush didnt have a sychophantic media doing everything in its power to keep him in power. I do remember distinctly Bush calling Clinton and Gore "Bozo and Ozone man". As a partisan I liked it, I thought that he was finally fighting back. Much as the left loves this namecalling etc now. It, of course, turned off moderates, independents etc, helping Clinton win.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

When its my time to be put to pasture, I'll play Scrabble with any one, Red or Blue.

Risk is awesome. I think I'd like that more than arts and crafts.

I know, right? Why did we get stuck with arts and crafts?

Originally Posted by Weave

One major difference from 92' is that GHW Bush didnt have a sychophantic media doing everything in its power to keep him in power. I do remember distinctly Bush calling Clinton and Gore "Bozo and Ozone man". As a partisan I liked it, I thought that he was finally fighting back. Much as the left loves this namecalling etc now. It, of course, turned off moderates, independents etc, helping Clinton win.

I think it was Ross Perot that funneled votes from Bush I. I doubt it was because of some offhand comment. I certainly didn't hear it at the time. Ross Perot provided an alternative to a lukewarm candidate.