Humorless Politics Thread

[cavorting with nudists]

OK, now this is funny.  From the New York Times:

Mr. Romney’s team has concluded that debates are about creating moments and has equipped him with a series of zingers that he has memorized and has been practicing on aides since August.

The comedy stylings of Mitt Romney, coming this Wednesday!

[Kormod]

I'm too lazy to look at the schedule, but I hope none of these are on a Tuesday. Like last time.

[Kormod]

I hope he does "There you go again."

Shit, how long will I have to fill out these CAPTCHA things to get my posts go through? I can never make out the letters.

[cavorting with nudists]

Zingers! I knew Andy Breckman was a Republican, but he hasn't been writing for thus guy, has he?

(The first one is this Wednesday BTW)

[Kormod]

I just checked. None of them are on Tuesday. Hooray!

[Gilly]

There are just as many people on the other side of the fence thinking that Romney sucks but Obama is detestable. Voting against a candidate instead of for one is just a ridiculous way to vote in my opinion because what are we really getting in the end? A government that nobody has any confidence in?

[fonpr]

There are just as many people on the other side of the fence thinking that Romney sucks but Obama is detestable. Voting against a candidate instead of for one is just a ridiculous way to vote in my opinion because what are we really getting in the end? A government that nobody has any confidence in?

Nader got me to vote for him in, 2000, using this logic: Would you rather vote for what you don't want and get it or vote for what you want and not get it?

I'm voting for Obama and bitching about him endlessly.

[cavorting with nudists]

There are just as many people on the other side of the fence thinking that Romney sucks but Obama is detestable.

Which proves what? News Flash: People Disagree.

Voting against a candidate instead of for one is just a ridiculous way to vote in my opinion because what are we really getting in the end? A government that nobody has any confidence in?

1. Did you not say you were involved in a "non-partisan" effort to unseat Michelle Bachmann? Laudable goal in my view, but what is that if not an effort to get people to vote against a candidate?

2. While it is true that not everyone has lots of confidence in the government we have on every issue, it is demonstrable that we do not have a government that nobody has any confidence in. I have substantial confidence that the Obama administration, for all its faults, will avoid many disasters that would be distinctly thinkable were its opponents in the White House. On the other hand, I have no confidence whatever that the Republican-led House will ever do the right thing, but that isn't because they got there because people voted against Democrats rather than for them; it's because they are wretched, evil people.

3. Here in the real world, there are are very few choices any of us ever make that don't come down to some version of the lesser of two evils. What fairy gumdrop land do you live in where that isn't the case?

[cavorting with nudists]

Would you rather vote for what you don't want and get it or vote for what you want and not get it?

I note that you've renounced this, Fredericks, but I will point out anyway that it's a really juvenile way of thinking.

You know who makes everything revolve around getting what they want, and makes it the fucking end of the world when they don't get it all? Infants.

I'd rather make a calculated choice about which vote is likely in the real world to do the most good and avoid the most harm.

[Steve of Bloomington]

There are just as many people on the other side of the fence thinking that Romney sucks but Obama is detestable. Voting against a candidate instead of for one is just a ridiculous way to vote in my opinion because what are we really getting in the end? A government that nobody has any confidence in?

Nader got me to vote for him in, 2000, using this logic: Would you rather vote for what you don't want and get it or vote for what you want and not get it?

I'm voting for Obama and bitching about him endlessly.

That was a bold move. In 2000 it was easy enough for me to vote for Nader: I was in Indiana so my vote wouldn't have made a bit of difference either way. In Florida, though, different story...

[Gilly]

1. Did you not say you were involved in a "non-partisan" effort to unseat Michelle Bachmann? Laudable goal in my view, but what is that if not an effort to get people to vote against a candidate?

2. While it is true that not everyone has lots of confidence in the government we have on every issue, it is demonstrable that we do not have a government that nobody has any confidence in. I have substantial confidence that the Obama administration, for all its faults, will avoid many disasters that would be distinctly thinkable were its opponents in the White House. On the other hand, I have no confidence whatever that the Republican-led House will ever do the right thing, but that isn't because they got there because people voted against Democrats rather than for them; it's because they are wretched, evil people.

3. Here in the real world, there are are very few choices any of us ever make that don't come down to some version of the lesser of two evils. What fairy gumdrop land do you live in where that isn't the case?

It was an effort to vote against a candidate, but it wasn't an effort to get people to vote for the other guy. My contributions to the PAC included making the website less of a demonizing of Bachmann and more about the issues and how we could better inform people of alternative options other just saying Bachmann was evil. Because by saying that, we sounded partisan, that we wanted voters to choose the Democrat. Which gets you nowhere in a conservative district. The best plan for change is to champion the alternatives, but too many politicos get caught up in the us vs. them. But, I've beat that to death, not worth getting into that again.

As for the lesser of two evils, I don't know if I agree with that statement. Yes, there are a lot of hard choices that do come down to that, but very rarely am I narrowed down to two... and if I have two choices that I am not fond of, you better believe I'm looking for alternatives. If the alternatives aren't realistic, yes, I go back to those two choices. But, how long do you keep going to those options that aren't all that great before you take a chance on something outside the box?

[Gilly]

I guess I've also never understood why conceding is the adult thing to do. Most adults do it though.

[cavorting with nudists]

It was an effort to vote against a candidate, but it wasn't an effort to get people to vote for the other guy. My contributions to the PAC included making the website less of a demonizing of Bachmann and more about the issues and how we could better inform people of alternative options other just saying Bachmann was evil. Because by saying that, we sounded partisan, that we wanted voters to choose the Democrat.

Well, I simply don't understand this at all.  Can I see a link to the website?  Because it seems to me that if you're telling people there is a serious, constructive way to unseat Michelle Bachmann that doesn't involve voting for her Democratic opponent, you're misinforming them.

[Kormod]

You guys are spelling her name wrong. Only one "l." SMDH.

[Gilly]

The website doesn't exist anymore, but you need to understand the 6th district of MN to understand the logic. Any other Republican would win in a landslide there, it's one of the most conservative districts in the state. The fact is that while she has a following, most conservatives don't really like her and think she's crazy but would never vote for a Democrat. My goal wasn't to convert conservatives into liberals because that's a pipe dream in the 6th. Unfortunately the independent candidate was a little crazy himself, with a quick temper and seemed to be disinterested in the campaign. Even more unfortunate was that our financial backing desired a smear campaign which is the reason I ended up leaving.