Humorless Politics Thread

[cutout]

Ladies and Gentlemen, your next president, Mort Rimbley.

[Gilly]

8 years of GWB thanks to 537 votes in Florida and there are still people who think it doesn't matter which of the two possible winners you vote for?

Oh, I think my vote makes a difference on who wins. I just don't think it matters who the winner is. Maybe Obama will get marriage equality passed and with the two justices, it will be upheld, but the justices will also be those who have corporate interests at heart. So, we get a bone thrown to us for another social issue at the expense of the continuation of corporate America and the continued building of a police state. Not a fair trade.

[Gilly]

That's not to take lightly what marriage equality would mean for the country and the people who have been denied equality. There just has to be a better way to get it.

[cavorting with nudists]

I know it's hard to accept, but corporate America really isn't going anywhere anytime soon. In the meantime, women you know are or aren't going to be able to make their own health and family-planning decisions, 35 million people are or aren't going to have even minimal healthcare coverage short of the emergency room, seniors are or aren't going to have Medicare replaced with coupons of steadily diminishing value, same-sex couples are or aren't going to continue as second-class citizens. If you're waiting for an electable candidate who intends to blow up the entire edifice of international capitalism, it will be a long wait, but in the meantime there are real matters of importance to people that hang in the balance.

Voting isn't writing a beautiful poem, it's not an expression of your noble sentiments. Go on, get a little corruption in your veins, compromise the purity of your awesome vision of how things should be. Vote for the lesser of two evils, it won't hurt you and it will actually help some people.

[Gilly]

I don't want somebody to blow it up, I just want a politician who acknowledges that there is a problem and is at least willing to take a stand for us rather than a stand for corporations. Obama acknowledges there is a problem with who has the money, but neither party really seem to get why that is, or they don't care to acknowledge it at the very least. I don't want to hear about corporations given bailouts and then not creating jobs. That's their business. I want to hear why we allowed corporations to take all the jobs that were just fine in the hands of the public less than 20 years ago.  I just want it addressed because I think it's the biggest issue. How can I place a vote for a person who doesn't even address my biggest issue? More importantly, why would I vote for a person who places a corporate "personhood" over my actual personhood? I sound like a 19 year old, taking this stand against the man, but I'm 32 and just sick of the whims of a few taking priority over the needs of the rest. I just can't vote for that with good conscience even though I know that a Romney presidency would be pretty bad.

[wood and iron]

Isn't a constitutional amendment to completely throw out Citizens United something that Obama routinely calls for? I think he did so latest in his Reddit AMA. So to say he stands up for corporate personhood is not entirely true. Not to mention, without corporate personhood, individual citizens would be unable to sue them for bad shit they've done.

[Keith Whitener]

The problem, I think, is jerks.

Also, a lot of corporations try to make it very difficult to sue them. Some methods include: suing you first and draining you of all your money, arbitration clauses in contracts, trying to disallow class action lawsuits. In theory, corporate personhood might make it easier for you to sue a corporation, but the aforementioned jerks don't want that.

Jerks, in my opinion, undermine most political philosophies. Doesn't help that a lot of political philosophers also strike me as jerks.

I get the feeling that part of what's slowing down the economic rebound is that a lot of industries are unwilling or unable to adapt to the needs of the people or to the current economic climate. Examples: the arguably moribund print industry, and oil companies impeding the greening of America (which I bet would create a whole lotta jobs). Regardless, I think that the paying off of America's debts would be slower given that current tax rates are lower than the 90's (right?).

[fonpr]

The problem, I think, is jerks.

Taxes are lower now than in the nineties and way lower than in the fifties and sixties.

Please define "jerks".

Thank you.

[Keith Whitener]

I think jerks are people who lack empathy and compassion for others. They take advantage of existing power structures and use them solely for their own personal gain. Maybe they'll use lax or absent regulations as an excuse to do something that would otherwise be illegal, like misleading potential investors in a manner that leads to the systematic collapse of an entire industry. Maybe I'm not being empathetic enough toward jerks. "hurt people hurt people" Are these wounded birds? Regardless, what I mean is that people figure out ways to abuse the power they have in ways that are usually unforeseen. Hard to keep jerks out of anything, let alone government.

[fonpr]

I think jerks are people who lack empathy and compassion for others. They take advantage of existing power structures and use them solely for their own personal gain. Maybe they'll use lax or absent regulations as an excuse to do something that would otherwise be illegal, like misleading potential investors in a manner that leads to the systematic collapse of an entire industry. Maybe I'm not being empathetic enough toward jerks. "hurt people hurt people" Are these wounded birds? Regardless, what I mean is that people figure out ways to abuse the power they have in ways that are usually unforeseen. Hard to keep jerks out of anything, let alone government.

Jerks = The immoral and unethical.

[JohnG]

Oh God, as an ex-political journalist, the Friends of Tom board is where I come to escape from Daily Kos-style assessments of why holding on to my ideals is monstrous.  It's one thing to debate if someone is who you want to vote for or not. But I'm uncomfortable with this idea of telling individual Americans they're not allowed to choose their own criteria for who they like and don't like. Someone can vote for or against Obama because he's into Jay-Z. Politicians are there to try and get your vote by behaving themselves. Let them worry about it.

Anyway can this BBS software somehow prevent the Humorless Politics Thread from showing up in "View the Most Recent Posts"? I just want a feed of Gary The Squirrel-related content.

[cavorting with nudists]

Hey, Um... fuck you.

Expressing a strong opinion and trying to persuade others is not "telling" anyone they're "not allowed" to do anything.

I have no interest in sports, so I skip the sports-related threads here and keep it to myself.  Suggest you do the same.

[fonpr]

Oh God, as an ex-political journalist, the Friends of Tom board is where I come to escape from Daily Kos-style assessments of why holding on to my ideals is monstrous.  It's one thing to debate if someone is who you want to vote for or not. But I'm uncomfortable with this idea of telling individual Americans they're not allowed to choose their own criteria for who they like and don't like. Someone can vote for or against Obama because he's into Jay-Z. Politicians are there to try and get your vote by behaving themselves. Let them worry about it.

Anyway can this BBS software somehow prevent the Humorless Politics Thread from showing up in "View the Most Recent Posts"? I just want a feed of Gary The Squirrel-related content.

Please define "jerk".



Thank you.

[Gilly]

Yeah, I have no problem with the discourse in here, I knew full well that this thread is 99% staunch Democrats so I knew I'd get some backlash on what I said.

[nec13]

....But please don't throw your vote away, especially if you live a swing state.

Throwing my vote away would be voting for a candidate who will continue corporate personhood, will still spend billions of dollars on wars, will still uphold the Patriot Act, will still be financed by corporations and will still have corporate interests in mind at every step. They will not address the job market for college graduates or those underemployed. They will raid pot dispensaries. Will my vote change marriage equality? Will Bush tax cuts end? Who knows? How is voting for a candidate like this not throwing my vote away?

I empathize with your position, because I feel almost the exact same way. I'll probably cast a decidedly unenthusiastic vote for Obama in November, but only because I feel as if he's the lesser two of evils.  The reality is that both parties have been hijacked by lobbyists and corporate interests and neither party really has the best interest of the American constituency in mind, so it's hard for me to begrudge anyone who wants to exercise their conscience and vote for a third party. As you said, you're probably throwing your vote away, regardless of who you cast a ballot for. It's sad, but that's the way it is.